JACKIE GINGRICH GETS THE FJM TREATMENT

(note: primer on the FJM can be found here)

Proving just how far being born of the right person can go in the insular circle-jerk that is the right-wing media, one of Newt Gingrich's spawn has carved out a neat side career as a commentator of last resort. Jackie Gingrich "focuses on current events and political issues from a mom's perspective" in her weekly musings and is a serial filler guest on Fox News: her bio notes that she has appeared on the Mike Huckabee Show, Geraldo At Large, Fox and Friends, and Fox News (i.e., Fox News, Fox News, Fox News, and Fox News). Since there isn't a conservative columnist intelligent or original enough to do anything except piss and moan about the stimulus bill this week, I was like a kid in a candy store. More accurately, I was like an adult who loves dipshits in Crazy Pete's Dipshit Emporium and Go-Kart Track.

online pharmacy buy neurontin with best prices today in the USA

Standing before the sea of detritus, I plunged in a gloved hand and pulled forth the greatest abomination: Gingrich's "The Best-Case Scenario."

Curious to learn about the future? Me too. Let's go.

This week marks the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth. Lincoln, one of our most revered presidents, was born in rural Kentucky and raised in Illinois. He is often held up as an example of how individual effort determines a person’s course in life.

He also is often held up as an example and mascot by the Republican Party. Let's play along and pretend that Lincoln, if alive today, would associate himself with that trainwreck.

While many people in his time might have viewed the education that he embraced as a waste of time, Lincoln spent every possible minute reading books. There are stories of how he would walk for hours to borrow or return a book.

Historians are unable to pinpoint exactly when this became grounds for exclusion from the GOP. But seriously, I'm sure Lincoln, Lindsey Graham, and James Inhofe would have lots to talk about. They could compare critical readings of the poetry of William Knox or Robert Burns, which was the deceased President's favorite pleasure reading. Abraham Lincoln: Private Life also notes his fondness of Poe, a drug addict who banged his 13 year-old cousin. Come to think of it, Poe would have made a decent Republican State Legislator in the deep south today.

Lincoln worked constantly. His law partner, William H. Herndon, noted in “Life of Lincoln” that “his ambition was a little engine that knew no rest.” Sustained individual effort, always working, is a far cry from where we are today.

I hope there's a cloying, oversimplified lesson we can learn from his example.

In his New York Times op-ed column “Failure to Rise,” Paul Krugman writes “America just isn’t rising to the greatest economic challenge in 70 years.” Krugman’s point is that “$800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough.” Krugman wants more government intervention. He calls for more, more, more, from Washington, and concludes with a warning, “There’s still time to turn this around. But Mr. Obama has to be stronger looking forward. Otherwise, the verdict on this crisis might be that no, we can’t.”

I think we started a different column here. Cut-and-paste error, perhaps? In any case, I'm anxious to see how rapidly Mr. Krugman's PhD, 30 years of experience as an economist (including working for Reagan), and Nobel Prize wither under the Down Home, Main Street Wisdom of the Average Mom who just Happens to be related to a wealthy politico.

His approach put responsibility for the economy into the lap of the government. From his perspective, it appears as if the government has total control, and what it does will, in the end, determine what happens.

No, that's not even close to what he's saying. But then again, I never did understand Down Home, Main Street Wisdom! Maybe I need to have some cornbread and banjo music as I read. Something to make my reading environment more…folksy.

If we believed this, all individual effort would stop, we would no longer try to improve ourselves

Wow, we were speeding down Predictable Lane and took a quick right turn on Retarded. Hang on! I know this makes no sense, but hang on.

our nation would suffer from what Dr. Martin Seligman, the Director of the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, calls “learned helplessness.”

Learned Helplessness as a psychological theory doesn't apply here – not even a little – but since Wikipedia doesn't explain it very well I guess this is all we'll get from Jackie.

(David Brooks quote filler omitted) This past week’s conversations have reflected the growing belief among conservatives that the Obama administration’s policies are moving us toward a period of nationalism and government control that at some point will leave us looking like the British did more than three decades ago.

First of all, conservatives came to this conclusion about Obama 12 months ago. In fact, they came to this conclusion 50 years ago and they just update the name. Second of all, "this past week's conversations" lets us know that the best part of Conservative Commentary is about to rear its misshapen head: the Columnist Making Profound Conclusions Based on Some People He/She Talked To.

This past week, I was e-mailed a link to a video clip of Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat from New York.

You know, people who fancy themselves Real Columnists don't admit that their research and ideas come from forwarded chain emails.

“And let me say this to all of the chattering class, that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes porky amendments, the American People really don’t care,” he said during a debate on the stimulus bill.

Well, that sounds about right. I've already been among the chorus of people who have pointed out that if this works, nobody is going to give a flying shit what was in the bill. The 30 Republicans who will be left in the Senate in that event will be appropriately critical, though.

My son Robert, who was standing by the computer and overheard Schumer, corrected him with “The American people DO care.” If a seven-year-old understands that the American people care, well then there is hope.

When pressed for details, Jackie Gingrich's Fucking Seven Year Old stated that his conclusion is based on a multi-year panel study of a broad sample of American adults aged 18-64. Tune in next week for another column based on the wisdom of a second-grader. Enjoy them while you can, though, because this kid is going to be a highly-paid Republican operative within six months given his preternatural understanding of public opinion and politics. This might explain why the upcoming Palin 2012 campaign will take such a curiously strong stance against Megatron.

The best-case scenario is one in which Americans decide that they do care, that they are optimistic, that they can change their lives, try something different and create their own future.

Make your own future, you lazy bastards. The world is just full of opportunity! If you can't find ways to make money in this economy (home demolition expert? suicide hotline counselor? rogue superhero named Forecloser?) then you deserve your lot in life.

This would require they understand how current policies would affect the future

And anyone who fails this requirement becomes a conservative pundit.

and act to stop them

So, to recap: it is imperative to accept Jackie Gingrich's Expert Opinion of what havoc these policies will cause and then stop them. Well, we've tried it the Democrats' way for about 3 weeks. It is time to stop them and give beleaguered conservatism a shot.

My mother told me yesterday that her ladies investment club members grappled with how to respond to the uncertainty.

Don't tell me you didn't see at least one more relative being quoted in this pile-of-shit column. We had the seven year-old, who took a break from playing with Legos to dissertate on public opinion, and now we have her elderly mother, who for no reason whatsoever I am going to assume shits her pants intermittently, explosively, and without prior warning.

The members were trying to determine whether to continue to make monthly contributions to their investment fund or to stop payments until some time in the future, when the crisis has eased. She recommended they continue.

This is fuckin' fascinating, Jackie. its level of fascinatingness exceeded only by its relevance. If Mother said so that's enough for me. When an expert like the woman Newt Gingrich divorced speaks, you listen.

“Right now,” she told them, “someone who has been laid off of work is in their basement inventing the next big thing. I believe in the American people.”

Good luck with that! Rock-solid investment advice, straight from the top.

online pharmacy buy diflucan with best prices today in the USA

My hope is that there are lots of people in their basements inventing, and not on their computers answering offers to help them get their portion of the stimulus package.

Everything good is invented in a basement.
buy elavil online buy elavil no prescription

This is one of the rules governing the universe of Republican Fantasy America from 1951. Norman Rockwell characters everywhere, heading down to the Town Square to have an old-fashioned fountain Coke before heading back to their basement laboratories.

As a side note, people with computers do not invent things.

The cure for the British disease of the 1970’s was Margaret Thatcher. “We want to work with the grain of human nature, helping people to help themselves – and others,” noted the 1979 British Conservative Manifesto.

Well, Maggie's free these days. Maybe we can press her into service again, assuming for a moment that the economic malaise of the 1970s was in any way similar to the current one. I'll give Jackie a pass on the ludicrous assumption that Thatcherism cured anything except Britain's chronically low unemployment rate, which tripled during the Thatcher years.

“This is the way to restore that self reliance and self confidence which are the basis for personal responsibility and national success.”

The 28% of British children who were in poverty (a fivefold increase) when Maggie departed just didn't grasp the idea of personal responsibility, I guess.

If we really want to honor the great presidents of our nation,

I don't! I want to emulate random members of Jackie Gingrich's family.

let’s each of us emulate them by becoming little individual engines that know no rest, working toward personal responsibility and national success.

Good show, Jackie. Good show. Now. After this lecture I'm dying to know; what do you produce, Jackie? What is your contribution to our national success?
buy synthroid online buy synthroid no prescription

Writing ridiculous shit like this? Or are you just using this as cover while you create the Next Big Thing in your elaborate basement Inventorium? Perhaps Jackie is just one more member of that enormous American "business" class who are so good at telling other people what to do that they don't need to do anything themselves.

A NATION OF WHINERS AFTER ALL

It is becoming increasingly common to read the New York Times and wonder in earnest if their "lifestyle" pieces are a recognition of their upper-middle-class clientele, a sincere attempt to cover issues they believe are important, or a quasi-dadaist theater of the absurd. To wit, what exactly runs through the minds of the editors when greenlighting a story like Allen Salkin's "You Try to Live on 500K in This Town?" It explores the impact of the Wall Street pay cap on the bloated plutocracy that piloted banking institutions into the side of a mountain at high speed. And I cannot tell if this story is supposed to inspire sympathy, provoke thought, or simply to act as the guy suspended over the dunk tank at the carnival.

Read that shit and try to imagine the mentality of a "journalist" who would write such a thing without tongue planted firmly in cheek. It is the kind of idea for a story that is easy to concoct, but to act on it requires an almost incomprehensible lack of self-awareness. Could an author, one presumably raised by humans and not by wild bears, begin a serious, non-satirical story like this?

PRIVATE school: $32,000 a year per student. Mortgage: $96,000 a year. Co-op maintenance fee: $96,000 a year. Nanny: $45,000 a year.

We are 1/4" into the column and already the premise is irrevocably fucked. It announces its intent to proceed from the idea that $32,000/yr grade schools and a nanny are somehow necessary, nestled snugly between the gas bill and groceries on the ol' family budget.

To many people in many places, it is a princely sum to live on. But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast.

In other words, their ability to support an extravagant lifestyle behind the subdivision gates is imperiled. If anyone can explain why this matters or why anyone should care there may be some sort of prize involved.

“As hard as it is to believe, bankers who are living on the Upper East Side making $2 or $3 million a year have set up a life for themselves in which they are also at zero at the end of the year with credit cards and mortgage bills that are inescapable.”

It's comforting to know that they use the same amount of foresight with their personal finances as with their banks' investments. Perhaps their jobs should be staffed by people who did not graduate from the MC Hammer School of Personal Financial Planning.

Sure, the solution may seem simple: move to Brooklyn or Hoboken, put the children in public schools and buy a MetroCard.

You're right Allen, that was pretty fucking simple.

But more than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue: a life of private schools, summer houses and charity galas that only a seven-figure income can stretch to cover.

Once again we return to the moral of the story, the fact that $500,000/yr may not be enough to support the lifestyle to which the ultra-wealthy believe they are entitled – perhaps as a deserved award for the excellent job they've done at the bank lately. But after showing us that $500k (or, to put it another way, about ten times the median household income for a family of four) is "only" $269,000 after taxes, Salkin takes a hard right turn at Is He Fucking Serious Street with the following words:

Now move to living expenses.

His living expenses include two $8,000 vacations per year, $75k per year for a chauffeur, $12k per year for a personal trainer, a second home in the Hamptons, and $35,000 annually for ball gowns. OK Allen. OK New York Times. Ball gowns!?!? This is a joke, right? You're just pulling our collective leg to bait an angry reaction from the commoners, right? The ball gown bit was intended to stun readers so they wouldn't notice idiotic things like "spa treatments" and "summer camp" in the subsequent paragraphs, right? It worked. I barely noticed them. The piece ends with this ludicrous burst of pop sociology, unironically quoting the author of Sex and the City:

Does this money buy a chief executive stockholders might prize, a well-to-do man with a certain sureness of stride, something that might be lost if the executive were crowding onto the PATH train every morning at Journal Square, his newspaper splayed against the back of a stranger’s head?

The man would certainly not feel like himself on that train, said Candace Bushnell, the author of “Sex and the City” and other books chronicling New York social mores.

“People inherently understand that if they are going to get ahead in whatever corporate culture they are involved in, they need to take on the appurtenances of what defines that culture,” she said. “So if you are in a culture where spending a lot of money is a sign of success, it’s like the same thing that goes back to high school peer pressure. It’s about fitting in.”

It's ironic that the author chooses to quote Ms. Bushnell since this article inspired the exact same reaction I had the first time I saw an episode of Sex and the City – I went in expecting mindless distraction and emerged from the experience a hardcore Marxist.

I cannot imagine what constructive purpose this piece was intended to serve. Truly this is a second Gilded Age; we are back to the 1890s when the newspapers were filled with "society" coverage intended to entertain the unwashed masses with the daily doings of the Astors and Rockefellers. The bizarre twist is that now we are now supposed to be sympathetic to their "suffering," to pity the fact that they cannot continue to indulge themselves in all manners of ostentatious consumption. The wealthy decided – conveniently enough, right around 1980 – that they had things right back in the 19th Century. Rather than being responsible to the larger society they would simply divorce themselves from it and create a separate one for themselves, no commoners allowed. When that self-segregation is threatened and they face the horrifying prospect of living like one of the people they lay off, extort, and otherwise rear-end on a daily basis, that is supposed to trouble us. Apparently.

I don't know about you but I anticipate no difficulty sleeping on account of this issue.

(h/t Nate B)

DOUG GILES GETS THE FJM TREATMENT

Who in the flying hell is Doug Giles and why is he authoring syndicated columns? According to his semi-literate bio on TownHall (carefully proofread by some second graders) Doug is: "the creator and host of 'The Clash' radio shows, winners of seven Silver Microphone Awards and two Communicator Awards in the last three years. In addition, Doug is a popular columnist, minister and award-winning writer." Having never heard of this modern day Alexander Pope, I cannot attest to the veracity of these claims (or that he is "also an accomplished artist").

I can, however, attest to the fact that he is competing (poorly) in a very, very crowded market for right-wing histrionics in print. After considering Doug a candidate for the FJM a few weeks ago with the surreal "A Theology of Hunting: Why God Loves Hunting & Hunters" he made the decision for me by following up with "Obama’s Evangelicals: The Liberals’ New Useful Idiots." And away we go.

In less than a week after Obama’s swearing in, our nuevo POTUS unfurled his radically liberal abortion and family plans together with his juicy pro-homosexual agenda.

Seriously. I am being serious now. Seriously. Is this a joke? Is "Doug Giles" the pseudonym of a sociology grad student exploring conservative subcultures? A real columnist playing an inside joke on his colleagues?

"Our nuevo POTUS?" "Juicy pro-homosexual agenda?" "Radically liberal abortion…plans?" What in the hell does any of this mean? And clearly I missed these important parts of the new President's opening week. Should have paid more attention to that inaugural address. I tuned out for 30 seconds and missed the juicy pro-homosexual agenda.

Good job, all evangelicals who voted for Obama

Yes, all seven of them. Step forward to be awarded a medal bearing the image of an aborted fetus marrying another aborted fetus of the same sex.

So we're 1.5 sentences into this clusterfuck and it's about A) some non-specific but "juicy" pro-homosexual agenda that the rest of us missed, B) some new and "radically liberal" change in the laws governing abortion that the rest of us missed, and C) some Evangelicals who voted for Obama who quite probably do not exist. OK, black Evangelicals voted for Obama. Black Evangelicals always vote for Democrats. Are you, "Doug Giles," suggesting that the reason for Obama's victory was some substantial portion of white Evangelical Protestants voting for him?

as these aforementioned ditties—from a biblical perspective—are about as sanctified as the Antichrist French kissing a crack whore in Bret Michaels’ hot tub.

"Doug," as the master of the profane and inappropriate analogy, let me give you a few pointers. First, Bret Michaels? Bret Michaels? Pick someone relevant unless obscurity adds to the joke. Second, this makes absolutely no sense at all. Does the Bible forbid French kissing? Show me where. Show me where French kissing is forbidden. Please. You bill yourself as a minister, so this should be easy for you. Surely your knowledge of the divine word is encyclopedic. Third, the hot tub contributes nothing. Sanctification of these events is in no way dependent on whether they are performed in tepid water.

Yep, I wanna give a special shout out to all the “major” ministers who fawned and swooned over Barack and swayed their congregations to vote for him in spite of his anti-scriptural stances on life, marriage and sexuality.

Well, logically if they endorsed him they're pretty happy that he won. Anti-scriptural stances and all. Maybe they fail to recognize "Doug Giles" as the final arbiter of a political figure's compatability with a Christian worldview as defined by "Doug Giles."

Let’s take a look at Obama’s homosexual agenda for our nation:

OK, I need clarification on the use of "homosexual" as an adjective here. Is Obama's overall agenda homosexual (i.e., "OMG that agenda is SO gay") or is this a "homosexual agenda" (i.e., "Here's my black agenda. In a few moments I will speak about my homosexual one")?

I know it's early but I nominate "Obama's homosexual agenda for our nation" as the most nonsensical sentence of 2009.

My colleague and co-belligerent compadre right here on TownHall.com, Matt Barber, pointed out to me during an interview on my show last week that literally within minutes after President Obama took the oath of office Tuesday, the official White House webpage was updated—under the heading of “Civil Rights”—to detail Obama’s wholesale “support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community.” His stated plans include the following:

"Doug," it's common for a Real Professional Writer to note when he or she adds something in an offset quote. See, the open and closed quotes (" ") suggest that you are "quoting" something directly, yet the term "(homosexual activist)" appears nowhere on the stated website.

Your chosen syntax indicates that LGBT means "homosexual activist." What exactly is a homosexual activist? If the term is defined as anyone who believes that gay people should have more rights than "Doug Giles" would like them to have, then I suppose LGBT really does mean homosexual activist. Otherwise, this is problematic.

Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage;

WOW! I had NO IDEA that the President had the power to do that. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with John Yoo's theories of executive power, but even I didn't think it could go this far. Boy is my face red.

Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton—the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut;

I thought the last line of defense against same-sex marriage was not marrying someone of the same sex. Or the Coast Guard Reserve. One of those two.

Also, WOW! The President can repeal laws. I really should not be teaching the Presidency given the Gulf of Mexico-sized gaps in my knowledge of the inherent powers of the office.

Repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy;

Yeah, you really have to be out on a limb to oppose a law as brilliant, effective, and well-conceived as that one. Only the queerest of the queer could oppose it. Truman Capote. The cast of Queer Eye. Austin Scarlett from Project Runway. Those oiled-up guys in thongs who dance in cages. The Grand Marshal of the Key West Pride Parade. Ken Mehlman.

Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross dressers special rights—denied other Americans—based on changeable sexual behaviors;

Granting homosexuals and "cross-dressers" "special rights" to have the people who murdered them because they were homosexuals or cross-dressers charged with an additional felony after they are dead. I find this to be a very questionable definition of a "right" let alone a special one.

All sexual "behavior" is changeable, "Doug." When you define things as behavior then they are, by definition, changeable. Locking someone in solitary confinement, for example, would change all of their behaviors. What you can't change is who people are. Let me give you an example.

You could move in with me, "Doug," and I could put it in your ass every night for the rest of your life. You probably would not like this very much (nor do I look forward to it). But you could force yourself to do it if you allowed yourself to be convinced that it is what you are "supposed to" do. So if your point is that gay people could force themselves do A) do something they don't want to do and B) abstain from doing what they want to do, then I guess I have to agree with you. They could. This would leave only the question of why.

Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law;

That's right, "Doug." Many people believe that an employer should not be able to fire an employee for being gay. Just like your employer can't fire you for being a loud-mouthed asshole who probably beat his children and a terrible writer.

Actually, I think you can get fired for that last one.

Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”

"Doug," I will make a sweeping claim with complete confidence here: your kids, and the kids raised by breeders who tune into your radio show every day, are without a doubt the most "sexually confused" children on the planet. The only question is where exactly they will fall on the continuum between "compulsive, self-loathing masturbator pinballing between sadistic porn websites and his local confessional" and "girl who ends up pregnant at 14 and/or finally moves away from home and ends up banging everything that moves until gonorrhea shuts down the party."

But maybe you're right. Children should all be raised by straight couples, an arrangement in which it has been proven utterly impossible to produce a maladjusted kid.

Barber went on to say, “While millions had hoped for a political ‘messiah,’ it’s rapidly becoming evident that, instead, we’ve stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of ‘change we can believe in’ is, in reality, ‘change we never imagined.’

Was the new President's position on these issues a secret prior to the election? In that case I'd call it pretty darn imaginable. Also, way to keep up the "extreme leftist"/socialist drumbeat. That worked REALLY well during the election, so make sure to stick with it.

“The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Right out of the shoot, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies. The radical homosexual agenda and religious and free speech liberties cannot occupy the same space. It’s a zero-sum game. When 1 – 2 percent of the population is granted special rights based on deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors, to the detriment of everyone else, that’s called tyranny of the minority. People of faith and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats—it’s going to be a bumpy four years,” concluded Barber.

How much of your column consists of recapping or directly quoting this other genius's column? I'm estimating about 40%. Do you actually get paid for this? And yes, I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion. For people like "Doug" it is indeed going to be a bumpy four years.

And that’s just the tip of the pink iceberg, folks.

Naturally occuring pink ice is usually a result of billions of colored algae mixed into the freezing ocean water. So the only thing that's unclear is if the algae are supporters of the radical homosexual agenda or if homosexuals now control algae.

If it’s change you wanted, “Christian,” it’s change you’re about to get, as in more unborn babies are going to get offed, more Brad and Chad, and if things go Obama’s way, chunks of Scripture will officially get tagged as hate speech, your church will have to hire RuPaul or face punishment, and our military will have to make room for Chippendale dancers on the base partly because of you, the Obama evangelical, who voted for such a change.

That is one sentence.

"Doug" is the worst kind of right-wing jackass, the kind who thinks he is funny. Like, legitimately funny. The kind who arm themselves with Mesozoic Era pop culture references (There'll be gay Chippendales everywhere, dancing the Charleston atop flagpoles! How about those new Studebakers? I'd buy one if I weren't so committed to the new War Bond drive!) embedded in idiotic reductio ad absurdum arguments.

Social commentary should be either A) funny or B) true. You accomplish neither, Mr. "Giles." For instance, I don't think RuPaul ("Doug Giles," live from 1994!) is looking for church employment. Nor would any propsed legislation "force your church to hire" him or "face punishment." I think the Chippendales perform mostly for a female audience. And once again, what sort of law would require their presence on military bases? See, "Doug," this just makes absolutely no sense, which in a way makes perfect sense in a rant addressed to "Obama evangelicals" who may or may not exist.

And that is really the essence of being a right-wing columnist – unhinged shrieking about a threat that doesn't exist perpetrated by a ridiculous caricature of the opposition. Every day I inch closer to declaring "Fuck it" to all of my pursuits and becoming one of them. I can't imagine an easier job.

LAWRENCE KUDLOW PRACTICALLY BEGS FOR THE FJM TREATMENT

I think Lawrence Kudlow reads ginandtacos. He reads it daily and fancies himself the recipient of an FJMing. That is the only conceivable reason he could write a column entitled "It's Time for Supply Side Tax Cuts." At this point you probably think I am shitting you. Let me be clear and unequivocal: I am not shitting you. The column is entitled "It's Time for Supply Side Tax Cuts." This would make sense if it was 1983. It's not.

The bailout-nation saga continued this week as the little-three carmakers from Detroit drove to Washington to plead for a $34 billion federal package to save themselves from bankruptcy and insolvency.

I feel like the straight man / host of an infomercial – that person paid to say "There's no way that a single Sham-Wow can soak up all that hot, viscous minestrone!" or "The NuWave oven can't cook all that food in under 30 minutes, can it?" My sole purpose is to set up Kudlow's eventual Hayek-approved tomahawk dunk. So be it.

"Gee Lawrence, is there an alternative to the bailout that keeps money away from those Fat Cats in Washington?"

Hot on their heels was a devastating report of 533,000 lost jobs in November. Actually, it's a loss of 732,000 jobs, including downward revisions from the prior two months. Unemployment moved up to 6.7 percent from 6.5 percent, a number that's going to get worse as the volume of discouraged workers continues to rise.

Don't forget to tack "and when the auto industry goes bankrupt like my fellow conservatives want it to" on the end of the last sentence.

So here's the painful choice for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress: Will the political class risk a Detroit-carmaker bankruptcy that might lead to catastrophic liquidation — including, realistically, a couple million car-related jobs — all while the recession deepens and job losses mount (1.2 million in just the past three months)?

That would be one hell of a risk to take in a democratic nation, but fortunately we do not have regular elections. Thus is the "political class" spared from retribution and should do the "right thing."

Wait, we do have regular elections. So we need to shame the political class into having the "guts" to do the "right thing."


It's a tough choice

That does not sound like a tough choice at all. It is not even remotely tough. This is the categorical antithesis of a tough choice. It is as tough as the entrance exam at Arizona State. This choice scores a seven ("Watery, with no solid pieces; entirely liquid") on the Bristol Stool Scale.

I think what you mean, L-Dawg, is that Congress is forced to choose from two bad options. They are both bad. That does not mean that they are equally bad. Let's say that you have two choices for your upcoming weekend. Option #1 involves your hated in-laws, hours of home movies of their trip to Branson, and backbreaking yard work. Yuck! Option #2 is to spend 48 hours being repeatedly raped by a particularly horny and flatulent Michael Clarke Duncan.

Your call, Larry.

especially for Republicans, most of whom want to vote against bailout nation and stop big-government encroachment on our free-market economy.

If any sentence accurately summarizes the way the Republican Party has governed in the last 30 years, this is it.

That's the right theory.

And that's all it is: a theory. Also, no.

But are the economic risks simply too great to employ it?

Yes. That is why it never gets employed, even when your fiscally conservative heroes are in complete control of all three branches of government.

Various polling surveys say bailout nation, and a federal rescue for autos in particular, is very unpopular. At least 60 percent are polling against a bailout. The TARP bailout of banks is increasingly unpopular.

Stunning. Relevant. Stunningly relevant. Who would have thought that financially struggling Americans, most of whom need to have episodes of Who's the Boss? explained to them during the commercial break, would oppose something called a "bailout" involving billions of dollars being redirected to Fat Cats and other stock characters from the populist narrative?

Meanwhile, the pressure for more bailouts grows daily. The Avis rental-car company wants a bailout from TARP. A company called BlueFire Ethanol wants a bailout. The trade association for equipment-leasing companies wants a bailout. There's no end to it. And if we keep going down this path we'll make a mockery of free-market capitalism.

Slippery slope. Learning to say "no" would be a pretty comprehensive solution. Avis can go out of business because Avis is irrelevant to our economy. The entire auto industry isn't.

Coming back to Detroit, there may be a pragmatic solution, one that takes some of the apocalypse-now threat of major economic decline out of play.

My ass tingles with anticipation.

Senator Bob Corker and others have proposed a federal oversight board that would in effect become a bankruptcy court. Strict conditions would be imposed on the carmakers,

Three sentences after he said that most Republicans want to get government out of the economy, this is his example of a good idea: the Soviet model of centrally planned industry.

especially regarding compensation

Read: "Congressionally sponsored Union-busting." That's what the 59-Democrat Senate is going to do, turn things over to Bob Corker to decide what wages should be paid in an industry employing millions.

the single-biggest reason for Detroit's decades-long decline.

I thought the inability (or purposeful unwillingness) to make a $30,000 car that doesn't need three new transmissions before 50,000 miles had something to do with it.

(uninteresting "pampered workers make too much for Detroit to compete" boilerplate omitted)

There still will be considerable job losses for downsized Detroit carmakers. They'll have to cut a huge chunk of their dealer networks. Domestic brands will have to be sharply reduced. But essentially, as would be the case under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the federal government will provide short-term financing while Detroit goes through its radical restructuring. It looks like bankruptcy lite, and it will completely change the direction of the former Big Three.

And who's going to make the judgment calls on how and where cuts will be made? Bob Corker? Lawrence Kudlow? Or the jackassed auto industry executives who ran their companies down the drain in the first place?

Boy, I sure hope you have a better idea than "Congressionally mandated wages and production decisions," Comrade Kudlow.

It's probably too much to ask, but tough federal action under the aegis of oversight-board enforcement also should relieve the CAFE fuel standards that have plagued U.S. automakers.

Read the following in your best Milhouse from The Simpsons voice: "When are they gonna get to the fireworks factory!???!??!"

Jesus H., Larry. Your headline promised something that this pastiche of right-wing bugaboos which kill our economy (unions, the environment, lazy workers, occasional Rodan attacks) is not delivering.

At the very least, worldwide standards should be substituted for domestic ones. Making expensive small green cars is an unprofitable business.

You know what is profitable? Making grotesque land barges! Like when GM made that great decision in 2005 to halt its passenger car development in order to rush the new GMC Yukon / Suburban / Escalade family of armored fighting vehicles to dealerships. Why, it practically rained money thereafter in Detroit.

Ironically, with oil and retail gasoline prices plunging, it's not unreasonable to expect something of an auto-sales recovery. Gas prices have dropped all the way to $1.75 from over $4. This tax cut will help revive the whole economy, along with auto sales.

GET TO THE FUCKING TAX CUTS, LARRY. I SWEAR TO GOD IF YOU DO NOT SAY SOMETHING ABOUT SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS IN THE NEXT THREE SENTENCES I AM GOING TO EAT AT P.F. CHANG'S EVERY DAY FOR SIX WEEKS AND SHOW UP AT YOUR FRONT DOOR ASKING TO USE THE BATHROOM.

But if Washington can put this car-bailout business behind it, perhaps Congress can move on to the ultimate solution: restoring economic growth.

*sigh*

Thank you. Was that so hard? We know what "restore economic growth" means in Republican.

President-elect Obama has been cagey about the details of his massive $700 billion infrastructure spending plan and whether he'll raise taxes on successful earners.

I think he's been pretty clear about the latter.

But this new New Deal, including Obama's middle-class tax credits, will not create permanent economic growth incentives. What will?

OMG THIS IS SO EXCITING! I WONDER WHAT HE'S GOING TO SAY?!?!?!11!!!?!ONE!!?

A conservative columnist asking a rhetorical question like this – "What, you ask, will prompt runaway economic growth?" – produces the same mixed feeling of dread, recognition, and boredom as when one of the guests in Fawlty Towers turns to Manuel the waiter (you know, the lovable Spainiard who no-speaky-eeenglish so good) and orders a Screwdriver. Everyone knows exactly what's coming and it'd be funny if it weren't so damn obvious.

A genuine supply-side growth agenda to reduce tax rates across-the-board.

Post-1980 Republicans: "THE ANSWER IS TAX CUTS ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT ESPECIALLY CORPORATE TAXES!!!! Now what was the question?"

If the Republican party wants to put bailout nation to rest it should campaign for lower corporate, individual, and investment tax rates.

As opposed to now or the last 30 years.

Good suggestion, Larry. Republicans have never tried this. They certainly don't bring up tax cuts like their asses are afire and saying the phrase "lower taxes" will bring down torrents of soothing water.

It should make clear that the Democrats are the government-spending party while the Republicans are the tax-cutting party.

To whom is this revoltingly oversimplified binary unfamiliar? I just called the Topeka Home for the Retarded and asked for a random tard who proceeded to correctly connect the phrases "Republican Party" and "cutting taxes." Unconvinced, I empaneled a focus group of people with traumatic brain injuries who were also able to connect those phrases.

Everyone already knows this, Larry. The problem is not recognition – the problem is your ridiculous assumption that cutting taxes is always a good thing or that people are always wildly in favor of it.

Like, when I say "Carrot Top" or "Zamfir" the average person automatically thinks "prop comedy" and "Master of the Pan Flute", respectively. The reason Carrot Top and Zamfir, Master of the Pan Flute are unpopular is not that people fail to associate them with the appropriate shtick. The problem is that prop comedy and the pan flute are horrible, horrible things that I wouldn't wish on a Welshman.

We will not bailout our way into prosperity. Nor will we spend our way into prosperity. Somebody has to stand up and yell: It's time to cut tax rates on the supply-side.

I'm sure someone in Congress would do this, taking this heroic stand a la Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, if not for the fact that voters tend to dislike completely retarded thirty year-old ideas that have repeatedly been proven useless. Larry, why must you talk like this has never been tried, like the idea is novel? Unless "income redistribution toward the highest brackets" is the objective, Supply Side tax cuts have been an unqualified failure.

That will reinvigorate growth and infuse new spirit into a demoralized economy.

"Why? Because I say it. I don't have any evidence, but you don't need evidence when you're this fucking right."

Lawrence Kudlow, avid reader of ginandtacos: this was a disappointment of monumental (New Coke) proportions. Sucking us in with an eye-grabbingly stupid headline and then tossing us a few crumbs of discredited economic "wisdom" at the end is….well, Larry, it's just a dick move.

Then again, given how little there is to say in support of your idea, I'd tack it on the end of 10 paragraphs of gibberish too.

MARK STEYN GETS THE FJM TREATMENT

Some things are inevitable. Mr. Steyn getting a turn in the FJM seat is one of them. You may recall his best-selling book about how "our" way of life would soon collapse under the weight of brown people who are fuckin' faster than "we" are. He can always be relied upon to provide the loudest, most hysterical knee-jerk reaction to incidents of terrorism, Islamo-Fascism, or Terrorisislamofascism. To wit: a column with the 1980s PSA-styled title "Mumbai Could Happen Just About Anywhere."

Well, I sure am frightened enough to accept whatever he proposes as the best and perhaps only response! Let's Roll!

When terrorists attack, media analysts go into Sherlock Holmes mode, metaphorically prowling the crime scene for footprints, as if the way to solve the mystery is to add up all the clues.

Mark Steyn is the 2008 recipient of the Fraternal Order of Police Merit Prize for revolutionizing the field of criminal investigation, saving thousands of man-hours of labor with the Steyn Technique: replacing traditional investigative techniques with reactionary leaps to conclusions.

The Mumbai gunmen seized British and American tourists. Therefore, it must be an attack on Westerners!

Nobody said that. There were like 2 Americans killed. But Steyn wrote this column months ago and did a simple ctrl-f to replace the proper nouns.

Not so, said Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. If they'd wanted to do that, they'd have hit the Hilton or the Marriott or some other target-rich chain hotel.

See? When those journalists start adding up clues it throws open the barn door to exactly this kind of far-out, straw-grasping, put-down-the-bong reasoning. I want some of whatever Fareed's drinking!!

OK, how about this group that's claimed responsibility for the attack?
buy zydena online buy zydena no prescription

The Deccan Mujahideen. As a thousand TV anchors asked Wednesday night, "What do we know about them?" Er, well, nothing. Because they didn't exist until they issued the press release.

Good point, Mark. I agree that anyone who jumps to wild conclusions about a totally unknown group would end up looking like an incredible dipshit.

"Deccan" is the name of the vast plateau that covers most of the triangular peninsula that forms the lower half of the Indian subcontinent.

Well thanks a pantload, Carmen Sandiego!

It comes from the Prakrit word "dakkhin," which means "south." Which means nothing at all. "Deccan Mujahedeen" is like calling yourself the "Continental Shelf Liberation Front."

This is just fascinating. When I am on Jeopardy and the category is "Journalistic Filler/Research from Wikipedia" I will owe Mark Steyn a new poodle.

OK. So does that mean this operation was linked to al-Qaida? Well, no. Not if by "linked to" you mean a wholly owned subsidiary coordinating its activities with the corporate head office.

How to Have Your Own Syndicated Column, by Mark Steyn: chastise journalists for leaping to wild conclusions, copy something out of the dictionary ("Webster's defines excellence as the quality or condition of being excellent.") and then whip out your dick and start spraying wildly without regard for direction or wind speed.

It's not an either/or scenario, it's all of the above.

OK, so the question is, "is the operation linked to al Qaida?" and the answer is "all of the above." We are also reminded that "it" is "not an either/or scenario."

That…does not make sense. I'd blame this fact on Steyn's writing skills, but since I did enough peyote to stun a mastadon before I sat down to write it is probably my fault. I'm sure it makes sense to the rest of you.

Yes, the terrorists targeted locally owned hotels. But they singled out Britons and Americans as hostages. Yes, they attacked prestige city landmarks like the Victoria Terminus, one of the most splendid and historic railway stations in the world. But they also attacked an obscure Jewish community center.

They also befouled a vat of Holy Water, spat upon a Zoroastrian cleric, pressed their nuts against a statue of the Buddha, heartlessly taunted Confucious, left a flaming bag of dog shit on the Dalai Lama's doorstep, and briefly paused in a large courtyard to spell out "SUCK IT BENEDICT XVI" for an aerial photograph.

The Islamic imperialist project is a totalitarian ideology: It is at war with Hindus, Jews, Americans, Britons, everything that is other.

Their long-running battle against the League of Women Voters apparently merits not even a mention.

In the 10 months before this atrocity, Muslim terrorists killed more than 200 people in India, and no one paid much attention.

Maybe that's because Tamil separatists have killed about five times that amount in the same timespan. Not to mention that, you know, Indian people have killed about 10,000 people in India in the last 10 months. In a country of 800,000,000 saturated with every manner of factionalism and violence, Mark Steyn is apparently floored that these 200 people did not stop the presses.

They launched a multiple indiscriminate assault on soft targets, and then in the confusion began singling out A-list prey: Not just wealthy Western tourists, but local orthodox Jews, and municipal law enforcement.

al Qaida targeting hierarchy: wealthy Western tourists, the local Jewry, cops, auto rickshaws, gays, and street performers. If no such targets are available, terrorist operatives are to destroy as much ornamental shrubbery as possible before sacrificing themselves.

They attacked a hospital, the place you're supposed to take the victims to, thereby destabilizing the city's emergency-response system.

One thing that shocks most Westerners upon visiting Bombay is that the city of 10 million has only one hospital, fittingly named "THE HOSPITAL." It consists of three dirty cots in a converted goat barn.

And, aside from dozens of corpses, they were rewarded with instant, tangible, economic damage to India: the Bombay Stock Exchange was still closed Friday.

That's amazing. I know from watching our stock market that it never goes down for several days in a row unless something really amazing happens.

What's relevant about the Mumbai model is that it would work in just about any second-tier city in any democratic state: Seize multiple soft targets, and overwhelm the municipal infrastructure to the point where any emergency plan will simply be swamped by the sheer scale of events. Try it in, say, Mayor Nagin's New Orleans.

Sick burn, dude! It can happen anywhere, but especially in New Orleans!

Given the numbers of gunmen, clearly there was a significant local component. On the other hand, whether or not Pakistan's deeply sinister ISI had their fingerprints all over it, it would seem unlikely that there was no external involvement. After all, if you look at every jihad front from the London Tube bombings to the Iraqi insurgency, you'll find local lads and wily outsiders: That's pretty much a given.

Remember, he has absolutely no evidence for any of this. He is literally just making shit up. This does not even approximate journalism. He has gone from admitting that he doesn't know dick about this group to telling us about its membership in like ten sentences.

But we're in danger of missing the forest for the trees. The forest is the ideology.

Thanks for explaining the metaphor, Emerson. Otherwise you might have lost us with your mastery of figurative language.

You're sitting in some distant foreign capital but you're of a mind to pull off a Mumbai-style operation in, say, Amsterdam or Manchester or Toronto. Where would you start? Easy. You know the radical mosques, and the other ideological front organizations. You've already made landfall.

They already walk among us! It's too late! Start hoarding pre-formed pie crusts! Burn down the nearest mosque on your way to Wal-Mart!

It's missing the point to get into debates about whether this is the "Deccan Mujahideen" or the ISI or al-Qaida or Lashkar-e-Taiba. That's a reductive argument. It could be all or none of them. The ideology has been so successfully seeded around the world that nobody needs a memo from corporate HQ to act: There are so many of these subgroups and individuals that they intersect across the planet in a million different ways.

So, like, it would be pretty fucking retarded to fight a traditional land war with this formless ideology, right? All this talk about al Qaida "logistical support" and centralized control were pulled directly out of your favorite President's withered asshole, hmm? Good point, Mark. I concur.

Many of us, including the incoming Obama administration, look at this as a law-enforcement matter.
buy strattera online buy strattera no prescription

Mumbai is a crime scene, so let's surround the perimeter with yellow police tape, send in the forensics squad, and then wait for the D.A. to file charges.

No, we're gonna send in Bones!

It's not a crime scene, it's an act of war from Radical Islam.

online pharmacy antabuse no prescription pharmacy

The only option is to declare war on said ideology. We've declared war on nouns before and it has always worked out well.

There was a photograph that appeared in many of the British papers, taken by a Reuters man and captioned by the news agency as follows: "A suspected gunman …" The photo of the "suspected gunman" showed a man holding a gun. We don't know much about him (attempt at humor omitted) – but one thing we ought to be able to say for certain is that a man pointing a gun is not a "suspected gunman" but a gunman.

I saw that picture on CNN.com too. We did exactly the same amount of research on this subject, Mark. Let us mock Reuters for having an editorial policy. I bet you can use this example as a springboard toward some pretty wild conclusions!

"This kind of silly political correctness infects reporters and news services worldwide," wrote John Hinderaker of Powerline.

His source is Powerline. I swear to God we are *this close* to seeing a column containing the phrase "I checked with my roommate, and…"

One of these days. One of these days. It's coming.

This isn't law enforcement but an ideological assault – and we're fighting the symptoms not the cause. Islamic imperialists want an Islamic society, not just in Palestine and Kashmir but in the Netherlands and Britain, too.

Does anyone notice that every single column this guy has ever written comes to the exact same conclusion? I could recite the last two paragraphs of a Mark Steyn column from memory. I bet you can too, even if you don't realize it. It's like a song you didn't know that you know the words to. You hear some music, it sounds vaguely familiar, and before you know it you're belting out the chorus to a goddamn Candlebox song.

Their chances of getting it will be determined by the ideology's advance among the general Muslim population, and the general Muslim population's demographic advance among everybody else.

Mark is essentially a shrill klaxon who, like the emergency sirens in your town, is tested monthly to remind us that we're not fuckin' prodigiously enough.

So Bush is history, and we have a new president who promises to heal the planet, and yet the jihadists don't seem to have got the Obama message that there are no enemies, just friends we haven't yet held talks without preconditions with.

Yeah, I also heard all that stuff during the Obama campaign, like when he told the nation about his plan to hold a peace summit with suicide-bombing lunatics. I think that's why he carried Delaware.

He also sent Kim Jong-il a Vermont Teddy Bear.

This isn't about repudiating the Bush years, or withdrawing from Iraq, or even liquidating Israel. It's bigger than that. And if you don't have a strategy for beating back the ideology, you'll lose.

You've laid out a compelling case, Mark.

online pharmacy elavil no prescription pharmacy

Fortunately Obama has more experience than anyone on the planet at beating back an insanely angry, fanatical ideology that goes into economic wastelands and uses religion to incite the barely-literate poor to acts of violence and hatred.

Whoops, my apologies. I mean "suspected ideology."

Oh, you card!

This has been another issue of Mark-Libs, America's favorite nativist, xenophobic word game.

I have to jet, folks. I need to hurry up and make some white Christian babies. Any fertile women not currently putting their womb to work for Our Race should contact me immediately.

DAVID BROOKS COMES BACK FOR SECONDS

David Brooks, author of a pitifully predictable column entitled "The Palin Rebound," is a stupid person. I can do no less than prove that to you. I always knew that I would end up violating my one-time-only FJMing rule for Mr. Brooks. I was right.

There are some moments when members of a political movement come together as one, sharing the same thoughts, feeling the same emotions, breathing the same shallow breaths. One of those occasions occurred Thursday night when Republicans around the country crouched nervously behind their sofas, glimpsed out tentatively at their flat screens and gripped their beverages tightly as Sarah Palin walked onto the debate stage at Washington University in St. Louis.

So Palin's goal heading into the debate: make Republicans feel less ashamed of her and less dirty about voting for her. Reassure people who are voting for McCain anyway that she is not the dumbest thing to fall off of a turnip truck since James Inhofe. That sounds really productive.

There she was, resplendent in black, striding out like a power-walker, and greeting Joe Biden like an assertive salesman, first-naming him right off the bat.

She sure looked confident and pretty! And it's nice that she dispensed with the Senator's title, unlike how the media would have shit creamed corn all over itself for days if he "disrespected" her by calling her Sarah.

Just as the midcentury psychologist Abraham Maslow predicted, Republicans watching the debate had a hierarchy of needs. First, they had a need for survival. Was this woman capable of completing an extemporaneous paragraph — a collection of sentences with subjects, verbs, objects and, if possible, an actual meaning?

To David Brooks, that performance was unscripted. Extemporaneous. Natural. In other news, The Blair Witch Project was totally real. The film was, like, found in the woods by some hikers and the police wanted to release it in theaters hoping that someone could help catch the killer.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why in the holy name of tap-dancing, ball-scratching baby Jesus it matters what Republicans think about Sarah Palin's performance.

Sarah Palin putting on a display of oratory that would make Daniel Webster sound like a hobo stroke victim = Republicans will vote for McCain.

Sarah Palin responding to questions by crapping on the podium and then smearing it around with her hands while yelling "GAA! GAA! GOO! GOO!" = Republicans will vote for McCain.

By the end of her opening answers, it was clear she would meet the test. She spoke with that calm, measured poise that marked her convention speech, not the panicked meanderings of her subsequent interviews.

She can read scripts well. Great. We have a whole industry of people who can read teleprompters convincingly. Good Morning America hosts. People on infomercials. Those stage models on The Price is Right. The weekend weather girl at every TV station in America. I can't think of a quality that serves a president better than being unable to string a coherent sentence together without a script and weeks of careful rehearsal.

When nervous, Palin has a tendency to over-enunciate her words like a graduate of the George W. Bush School of Oratory,

So now George W. Bush's oratory, eight-years praised for its "folksiness" and ability to connect to mythical creatures like Joe Six-Pack and the Kraken, is the subject of ridicule? He's an example to be mocked in service of a new candidate praised for her "folksiness" and ability to connect to mythical creatures like Joe Six-Pack and the Kraken?

but Thursday night she spoke like a normal person.

Foreshadowing Comment #1 in re: David Brooks' impression of what a "normal person" is like.

It took her about 15 seconds to define her persona — the straight-talking mom from regular America

What's "irregular America," David? I mean, aside from the multimillion dollar Beltway neighborhood from which you wrote this. That's pretty atypical, of course. Do you get a lot of contact with "regular Americans" or do you just pull stuff out of your ass and assume that the commoners who do your laundry and mow your lawn conform to your imagined archetype?

Also, my sister and her entire social circle are Moms from Regular America (downstate Illinois counts, right?) and I have never heard any of them talk like this. If they did, I would need to spend 45 minutes before each visit freebasing crack off of the intake manifold of my car in order to stand being around them.

and it was immediately clear that the night would be filled with tales of soccer moms, hockey moms, Joe Sixpacks, main-streeters, “you betchas” and “darn rights.”

We agree: it was immediately clear that the evening would be full of those things.

I have called Vegas, and legendary oddsmaker Jimmy "The Pancreas" Mazzone tells me that there is a 3:1 chance that you are about to say this is a good thing. Let me make sure I'm sitting on something that resists stains and odors.

Somewhere in heaven Norman Rockwell is smiling.

And somewhere here on Earth the rest of us were projectile vomiting blood from our eye sockets at the cloying, degrading spectacle of watching an idiot read "folksy" lines written by a six-figure East Coast speechwriter from an Ivy League university.

With a bemused smile and a never-ending flow of words, she laid out her place on the ticket

Look at this construction: a "never-ending flow of words." They didn't make any sense and they didn't have anything to do with the questions, but the words kept coming. Awesome.

This is like praising a pitcher who gets bombed for 10 runs in an inning for his "never-ending flow of pitches." Or praising lenders for that never-ending flow of subprime mortgages.

Also, Republicans make "bemused smiles" whereas Democrats who smile are smug, condescending, child-molesting bastards who leave trails of slime as they move.

Where was this woman during her interview with Katie Couric?

She was sitting in a chair next to Katie Couric, unable to paste together four words without the scripted answers on which her life depends. Didn't you just praise her like three goddamn paragraphs ago for performing well at the convention and the debate? I know you're "special" David, but think real hard – what's the common denominator of those two events? And what's different about an interview? Both questions have the same answer. You can do it, David.

Their primal need for political survival having been satisfied, her supporters then looked for her to shift the momentum. And here we come to the interesting cultural question posed by her performance.

Yes, having satisfied a group whose opinions on the debate are totally irrelevant to the dynamics of the race, let's see if she shifted momentum.

The presidency and the vice presidency once was the preserve of white men in suits. As the historian Ellen Fitzpatrick pointed out on PBS Thursday night, if, in 1984, Geraldine Ferraro had spoken in the relentlessly folksy tones that Palin used, she would have been hounded out of politics as fundamentally unserious.

I agree, David. There is absolutely no way that a Democrat could get away with being this amateurish and vacuous. Excellent point.

But that was before casual Fridays, boxers or briefs and T-shirt-clad Silicon Valley executives. Today, Palin can hit those colloquial notes again and again, and it is not automatically disqualifying.

I'd say it has less to do with Casual Fridays than the Conservative movement's decision to abandon the intellectual high ground and wallow in stupidity for a living. Replace Buckley with Laura Ingraham. Fuck William Safire, bring on Ann Coulter. Get that literate, camera-unfriendly Bob Dole fellow out of here and replace him with a pageant automaton. Create a movement whose culture is so dumbed-down that the idiotic frat-boy ramblings of Jonah Goldberg pass for intellectualism. If you do all of that, Palin's behavior certainly isn't "automatically disqualifying." Good on you though, David, for recognizing how tremendously low your ideology has sunk in just 25 years. It used to take ideas to be a popular conservative; now it takes a loud voice and the willingness to exchange integrity for ratings.

She ran not only against Washington, but the whole East Coast, just to be safe.

That's a good tactic! I don't think any people live on the East Coast.

To many ears, her accent, her colloquialisms and her constant invocations of the accoutrements of everyday life will seem cloying.

At least 50, and probably more like 60, percent of the population. "Many" ears indeed.

But in the casual parts of the country, I suspect, it went down fine.

HALT! THIS IS THE RHETORICAL MONEY SHOT – THICK, WHITE STREAMS OF ELOQUENCE FURIOUSLY BLASTED INTO OUR COLLECTIVE FACE. SHIELD YOUR EYES.

When Mr. Brooks wants to observe regular people, he does so through a powerful telescope from one of his two residences in midtown Manhattan and Georgetown. It is nice that he admits to having absofuckingloutely no idea what anyone outside of the Beltway and the elite media cocktail circuit is like. Very bold of him. Wither, then, the basis for the "suspicion" that this went over well? What basis, other than classist arrogance, underlies this mystical understanding of what us unwashed fly-over rubes are like?

You've nailed it, buddy – we're all fucking morons who bark like trained seals whenever some polished politico representing the elitest of the elite in the Republican Party puts on an act and pretends to be "one of us." Maybe to connect with Asian voters the Governor should put on a giant rice-bowl hat and punctuate her speech with "ME RIKEY!" instead of "youbetcha!"

On matters of substance, her main accomplishment was to completely sever ties to the Bush administration.

Yeah, that was totally believable. We're all convinced. She said that she and McCain are different. That severed the living shit out of those ties.

Palin could not match Biden when it came to policy detail, but she never obviously floundered.

"The Yankees could not match the Red Sox when it came to scoring more runs and winning the game, but they never obviously floundered."

Let's get Sarah a blue ribbon reading "PARTICIPANT" to mark her performance. That is essentially what this sentence means. She got blown away on merit, but she bodily participated in the event. She even avoided (in his opinion) completely humiliating herself. This deserves applause, the kind of applause we reserve for the talent show contestant who botches a magic trick. Way to show up and try, Sarah!

She was surprisingly forceful on the subject of Iran (pronouncing Ahmadinejad better than her running mate)

What's "surprising" about the same "ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!" drum they have been beating for years? And what a shock that they drilled her for a week on how to pronounce it and then she pronounced it right. I can do the same thing with a parrot.

Biden, for his part, was smart, fluid and relentless. He did not hit the change theme hard enough. He did not praise Barack Obama enough. But he was engaging, serious and provided a moving and revealing moment toward the end, when he invoked the tragedy that befell his own family and revealed the passion that has driven him all his life.

So, to recap: Sarah Palin was dressed in black and said all kinds of folksy shit. Biden had a command of facts & details, was more serious, and emotionally connected with viewers. I think it's obvious, based on these statements taken from Brooks' own mouth, who won.

Still, this debate was about Sarah Palin. She held up her end of an energetic debate that gave voters a direct look at two competing philosophies. She established debating parity with Joe Biden.

Palin. Palin clearly won.

For the purposes of future measurement, the following things are equivalent and result in parity:

Group A – stories about soccer, winks that made all of America want to punch her in the fucking throat, a black suit, talking in circles, and repeating McCain's "maverick" slogan 1000 times. Also, speaking in an insulting parody of how incomprehensibly rich political elites think we serfs talk.

Group B – Having facts and details, looking like a serious candidate, answering the questions, and appearing confident and competent.

By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it.

OMG THAT'S GREAT FOR YOU GUYS! HOW EXCITING! SOMEONE REMIND ME HOW, AND IN WHAT UNIVERSE, THIS MATTERS!

Great job, Sarah. If your goal was to use this debate as a way to make the people who are already voting for you less humiliated about doing so, MISSION AFUCKINGCCOMPLISHED! You have built a bridge to somewhere: the Land of Unimportant Things that Are Nice in an Irrelevant Way.

The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night.

"This had no effect on the race, but it sure was pleasing to a small group of die-hard partisans."

It made David Brooks happy, and that was really what this was about. The McCain people went into the evening thinking "Gosh, if we can please right-wing columnists with her performance, this evening will be a stunning, complete, backboard-shattering tomahawk dunk of a victory!"

And she delivered. Kudos, Sarah. What were the odds that die-hard Republicans would watch your performance and find a reason to declare victory? I certainly didn't see it coming. The rise of the sun each morning and the tendency of unrestrained heavier-than-air objects to fall toward Earth also shock me.

A MORAL GUARDIAN GETS THE FJM TREATMENT

Having been raised Catholic and retaining what could be called residual Catholic sympaties, among the many websites I peruse for ranges of opinion include Catholic.org. The site is informational, covers news both Church-related and worldly, and proves exceptionally useful whenever I need to remind myself why I am not Catholic anymore.

Today I bring you someone named Robert Stackpole (I shit you not) sharing with the world his tax-exempt thoughts on politics in "A Plea to Catholic Obama Supporters: Part I." I think that by the end of this exercise you will agree that "Part I" takes on a menacing tone, threatening to subject us to more if we don't repent. Due to its tremendous length, I have redacted and summarized portions of his argument. If you care to read the whole thing to ensure that I have done this rhetorical wizardry justice, I won't stop you.

Let's rolltm.

It is much like the autumn of 1860, when the nation was (as usual) divided on many issues, but one in particular exercised the conscience and stoked the passions of everyone: the intrinsic moral evil known as slavery.

Oh good. No one has ever used the literary device of comparing abortion and slavery before. This will be new for all of us.

(The preceding sentence was written by someone who has been in a coma since 1964 due to a remarkable series of events involving a stepladder, a box of wigs, and two Mormons)

(In previous articles) I reviewed the three most pressing life and death issues of moral concern facing the nation today: abortion, healthcare, and war and peace.

It's a moral issue about life and death? Well way to tack on two qualifiers that both must be present for inclusion in the category. That is like saying "Of all of the arboreal issues of concern to guys named Norman, this new Norman Tree-Planting Initiative legislation is the most important."

However, the abortion issue remains (as Deacon Fournier so aptly phrased it), “the 800 pound gorilla in the room” of this election.

Deacon Fournier did not coin this phrase, nor was it particularly "apt" for him to fall back on such a hacky, predictable metaphor. I want abortion to be like a herd of incontinent stallions or an 800 pound sloth. That would be something to see. I can see 800 pound gorillas at the zoo for $20.

On this matter, Sen. Obama clearly, unequivocally, and unapologetically supports what the church considers an “intrinsic moral evil”

I bet the list is long and doesn't just amount to abortion and euthanasia. At least I hope so, because the list of things considered sinful in Catholicism is about about as exclusive as the list of things that have been in Paris Hilton's vagina.

the continuation (and even expansion) of the legal permission to kill unborn children in their mothers’ wombs.

Boy, it sure sounds bad when you expect the reader to unquestioningly accept your frame of the issue as murder.

In most respects, Sen. McCain opposes this extreme moral evil.

I hope this is the first of many milquetoasty efforts to position John McCain as an abortion opponent.

Think about that phrasing. Try it in other scenarios. "In most respects, your son survived the surgery" or "In most respects, the fire was extinguished" or "In most respects, I didn't kill that guy."

This issue, I said, should be the “tipping point” for Catholic voters in this election. As I wrote back in August: “Those who understand and accept the Church’s Social Teaching, with its recognition of human life as an absolute value and priority, simply cannot support [Obama’s] candidacy in the upcoming presidential election without seriously violating their conscience.”

Huh. Well I thought there was a little more to being a Catholic than having the right position on abortion. You know, I guess it's more convenient if we can just fuck all that "social justice" and "love one another" stuff in the Bible, which my heathen ass still reads cover-to-cover annually. I didn't realize that the entirety of this partisan political organization religion boiled down to opposing abortion.

Sadly, it seems that since that time, Catholic Obama supporters have continued to duck and weave, finding new reasons for marginalizing the issue of abortion in this campaign, and for the dubious contention that an Obama presidency would actually result in a lower abortion rate than an administration run by his relatively Pro-Life opponent.

Maybe Catholic Obama supporters understand that there is more to Catholicism than sending checks to Bill Donahue and being really, really pro-life.

Also, McCain: He's Relatively Pro-Life!tm. That is like being relatively pregnant or sorta crapping.

This article is a final plea (from me anyway) to Catholic Obama supporters please to reconsider your position.

How can anything with "Part I" in the title be a final plea?

It is much like the autumn of 1860, when the nation was (as usual) divided on many issues, but one in particular exercised the conscience and stoked the passions of everyone: the intrinsic moral evil known as slavery.

It's actually nothing like the autumn of 1860, what with the impending Civil War and all the cholera outbreaks and the black people being property.

(I will now redact and summarize a lengthy analogy. Lincoln wasn't all that pro-abolition, but he ended up being THE abolition President. So even though John McCain isn't really all that pro-life, we can conclude with confidence that once we funnel millions of votes toward his desperate campaign he will actually be REALLY pro-life once he's in power and doesn't need us anymore! I am STACKPOLE! Cower beneath my logical abilities! Watch how used car salesmen high-five each other as soon as they see me walk on the lot!)

Can anyone doubt that for those who understand the Church’s Social Teaching (and not many U.S. Catholics did at the time) the morally right thing to do was to choose the lesser of evils and vote for Lincoln?

No, back in 1860 most Catholics relied on the Vatican's position that slavery was either, depending on who you talked to, OK or not that big of a deal. And that indians didn't have souls.

Can anyone doubt that a Douglas victory would have resulted in the continuation and probable extension of the evil institution of slavery on the American continent for at least another generation?

Sure, a few "credible historians" can doubt it. Plenty of readers can doubt it based on nothing more than the complete stupidity of everything you've written up to now, Stacky.

(more "Obama = Douglas, McCain = Lincoln" bullshit)

Would you be convinced? Neither would I, but, as we shall see, it is not unlike the choice facing us now.

So it's not a convincing argument? That's always a good thing to admit. I'm convinced…that your entire analogy is retarded, Stacky Onassis.

Two quotations will help us here. First of all, Patrick J. Buchanan in Human Events set the positions of the candidates in clear contrast for us: “Near the end of a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pa., a woman arose to offer a passionate plea to Barack Obama to “stop these abortions.” Obama’s response was cool, direct, and unequivocal. ‘Look, I’ve got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. …I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.’

First of all, "Johnstown PA Lady" needs to crack a fucking junior high textbook and tell Stackpoleon Bonaparte how in the hell the president has the power to, or is supposed to, "stop these abortions." Is he going to kill Nancy Pelosi with his bare hands, wear her skin, and force the tribe submit to the alpha male? Can the President pass or rescind laws?

Punished with a baby.

I'd say that's a pretty accurate description of guilting or forcing a 15 year-old to have a baby.

Obama sees an unwanted pregnancy as a cruel and punitive sanction for a teenager who has made a mistake, and abortion as the way out.

Obama also sees "stars" when he looks up at the sky and considers ass-raping small children to be cruel and punitive. Astute observation, Lord Stackington of Poleshire.

The contrast with Sarah Palin could not be more stark.

Sarah Palin, a woman who will have absolutely no legal authority to do anything about abortion, taxes, or your neighbor's dog shitting on your lawn. She can affect all three equally. She is also not a candidate for president.

At the birth of her son Trig, who has Down Syndrome,

Please, Stackpolicus, tell us the story about Sarah's PropTard! We've never heard it before! Why, I didn't even realize she had kids!

(skipping story)

Yet we are being asked to believe that a McCain-Palin administration would be less likely than an Obama-Biden administration to safeguard the lives of unborn children.

No, you're being asked to believe what a McCAIN administration will do.

McCain. McCain is the one running for president, the one who doesn't give a flying fuck about abortion no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that his sudden concern for pro-life causes is sincere and that he won't tell you to suck his butthole until gelatto comes out as soon as he's in office and you're no longer needed.

Second, Dr. Jeff Mirus of CatholicCulture.org ably sums up for us the bearing of the Church’s Social Teaching on this matter:

This promises to be an objective look at the candidates which fully takes into account the ways in which the President can influence abortion-related policy.

The Church has also taught that voting for a politician in spite of the fact that he supports abortion is at least remote material cooperation with evil, and so can be justified only when there is a proportionate reason….

The problem, for those who wish to take advantage of this to support pro-abortion candidates, is that there is no issue on the contemporary American political scene that is even remotely proportionate to abortion.

Ah, well that settles it. It's OK to vote for someone who's pro-choice if there's a compelling reason, but there can be no reason more compelling than abortion! Ha ha! That's what we call "circular reasoning," Stackquille O'Neal.

The number of abortions reported in the United States is over one million per year…. By contrast, there are about 17,000 other homicides per year in our country…. When compared with the issues that are widely argued to be somehow proportionate, the lack of proportionality is even more astonishing. Thus, while abortion claims between one and two million lives per year in the Unites States, premature deaths due to inadequate care are estimated at about 34,000 per year

Wow, does the Vatican have all this shit rank-ordered? Can we see the whole list?

the Iraq war has claimed a total of roughly 55,000 American and Iraqi lives since its beginning several years ago;

That's certainly an accurate accounting of the number of Iraq War-related casualties!

Wait, he said 550,000 right? You sure there's not another zero?

Fuck.

and the death penalty claimed the lives of 42 persons in the United States last year, most of whom were presumably at least guilty of a serious crime.

That is the worst fucking assumption that you could make, actually, "Doctor". This is true in Mayberry, Fictional 1950s America, and Right Wing Fantasyland. Let me check and see if we live in any of those.

Nope. We do not.

You can find all these statistics in about five minutes of research on the web.

"Which is all the research I did, because I'm a lazy hack who is talking directly out of his puckered asshole after an all-week PF Chang's binge."

I submit again, that no voter who is guided by reason can even begin to make the argument that there is an issue in the United Sates presidential election that is remotely proportionate to abortion

Let me correct this one: "…no Catholic who is guided by Catholic moral teachings can even begin to….."

There. It's fixed now.

(NB: even those who include in their body count in Iraq all those who have allegedly died indirectly from the conflict due to displacement, poverty and disease –some say that would bring the total to as many as 500,000 — have to acknowledge that, tragic as those deaths are, they number roughly 100,000 per year at most, not 1-2 million per year, which is the annual carnage in the American abortuaries).”

All those who have "allegedly died indirectly". "Some say" that it could be as many as 500,000, with "some" being "people who have actually counted the corpses." This number, of course, includes indirect deaths like "roving ethnic death squads" and "mass executions." You'd really have to be a loon to include those as war-related deaths.

If Dr. Muris is right

I have a high degree of confidence based on this quote that Dr. Muris could not find his dick with both hands and a powerful arc lamp let alone be right about an argument based on such infantile logic. But do tell, what if he's right?

then the conclusion would seem to be inescapable: a Catholic cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate Obama without violating the dictates of a well-formed conscience.

But if the doctor is wrong, then the conclusion isn't so inescapable. So the inevitability of this "conclusion" rests on an argument that reads like it came out of YouTube comments, Stack Attack.

…Kansas Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and Kansas City – St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn addressed whether a Catholic in good conscience could vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy.

In other news, the Catholic hierarchy has determined that John McCain supports no "intrinsically evil policies", a category which includes: Abortion. My non-Bishop take is that quite a few of the violent, war-mongering policies McCain and his crackpot temper support are "intrinsically evil."

(The Pope said) “Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy? Could a voter’s preference for the candidate¹s positions on the pursuit of peace, economic policies benefiting the poor, support for universal health care, a more just immigration policy, etc. overcome a candidate’s support for legalized abortion? In such a case, the Catholic voter must ask and answer the question: What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason."

OK, so, bottom line argument time: George W. Bush = Pro-Life = Not Intrinsically Evil.

If the Catholic Church needs to understand why it's losing members in droves and it retains only a sad parody of the moral standing it once enjoyed, just read this paragraph over and over until it sinks in (Catholics have always been big on repeating things over and over until they are no longer questioned, so this should work). The fact that the Pope is telling his followers that George W. Bush is not an intrinsic evil because, through special VaticanMath, abortion is "worse" than anything Bush has done, is the only example we will ever need of why the church simply isn't relevant anymore.

Kill people, lie, cheat, plunder, violate the law, start wars…..you too can get the Catholic Seal of Not Evil if you oppose legal abortion.

In short, the Catholic Church demands that its followers be single-issue voters. There is no room for dissenting opinions or other issues. Abortion is the sum total of how a Catholic interacts with the political world. Every single thing a True Catholic says about politics is completely fucking irrelevant because the adherence to the faith demands that their voting decision is based on one issue in the end no matter what.

In my next installment, we will look at the arguments commonly brought forward by Catholic Obama supporters to refute this conclusion.

I'm sure you'll give them the kind of fair, even-handed treatment of non-Straw Man opposing arguments that we would expect from you, Stack Pole Down.

Dr. Robert Stackpole is an Associate Professor of Theology at Redeemer Pacific College and the Director of the John Paul II Institute of Divine Mercy

Of course you are, Stack Daddy. Of course you are. I bet the tenure requirements are pretty stiff at RPC and the JP2IDM. I bet that the school that granted you a PhD was accredited too.

Be sure to sign up for Prof. Stackpole's advanced seminar for Spring 09: "Theology 410: Your Ass or a Hole in the Ground?" in which he tries to confront life's greatest unknowable.

ANDREW BRIETBART GETS THE FJM TREATMENT

Andrew Brietbart, the man who took a reasonably well-regarded book about the idiocy of Hollywood celebrity culture and turned it into a career as a phenomenally stupid right-wing pundit, columnist, and stuff-linker for the Drudge Report, has some interesting ideas about how to get more right-leaning product out of Hollywood. Given your understanding of conservative ideology, try to guess his answer! Ready? Let's see if you got it.

While conservatives own an ironclad argument that Hollywood discriminates against our kind, we are certainly not blameless for the predicament.

"Ironclad"? Hollywood is a business. If studios thought they would make money off of "conservative" product they'd step over their mothers to sell it. I thought you right-wingers understood the market. Maybe – just maybe – Hollywood thinks that no one wants to watch the kind of movies that Breitbart's "kind" find interesting. I mean, think of the market for films about how Ollie North is a hero and George W. Bush was right and supply-side tax cuts rule.

Also, kudos for consistent application of right-wing victim-blaming ideology. You're being discriminated against, but it's kinda your fault. You deserve it, you whore. Look at how you were dressed.

The most frequent snipe thrown our way by industry stalwarts and Huffington Post bloggers (when presented with the overwhelming evidence that the entertainment industry tilts dangerously to the left) is to say that we sound whiny. The truth hurts.

Here's a better argument: Box office gross for Fahrenheit 9-11, $220,078,393. Box office gross for Michael Moore Hates America, $0. Box office gross for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, $7,598,071.

Nielsen ratings for the Daily Show: 1.5 million (0.7). Nielsen ratings for Dennis Miller's shitfest: cancelled when they hit zero. Nielsen ratings for The Half-Hour News Hour: impossible to calculate since everyone involved with its production was shot in the face at point-blank range, cremated, and had their ashes fired into the sun aboard a Russian space probe investigating the interaction of solar wind and Mercury's atmosphere.

The victim card – liberalism's reliable ace in the hole – is not a winning ploy for conservatives who want to make inroads in Hollywood. David Geffen certainly owes it to no one to produce work that runs contrary to his point of view. Until artists and entrepreneurs work together to make a stream of successful products openly rebelling against the status quo, then the game isn't even on.

OK, you admit the problem is that what you've been pitching to Hollywood thus far has been complete and utter dreck. Where's the discrimination? You know, the discrimination you were just talking about five sentences ago?

When conservative icon Paul Weyrich wrote in 1999, "we probably have lost the culture war," he was grossly mistaken. We never fought it. What a terrible message Mr. Weyrich sent to young foot soldiers looking for a battle plan at the end of the subject-rich Clinton years. If Bill Clinton couldn't spawn a cultural revolution, then who can?

Yes, those years were subject-rich! What great source material there was for movies about how Clinton couldn't holster his dick. Or how Clinton was a tax-and-spend librul. Or how terrible the economy was under his administration.

online pharmacy ventolin no prescription

Shit, the box-office gold practically writes, films, and advertises itself!

Where are the young playwrights that romanticize freedom over servitude? Where are the brash Gen Y artists mocking baby boomer excesses? Where are the scholarships cultivating fresh talent? Where are the venture capitalists ready to fill the void? Where are the movie stars telling the press gaggle at Cannes that America is still beautiful?

I will answer your questions individually and sequentially.

1. In business school. Find me a young playwright who is conservative. Find me a single one.
2. Yeah, no one has ever made a film about that.
3. What?
4. Hollywood is laden with people who will financially back anything with the merest potential to break even, i.e. exactly what your Young Conservative Artists can't produce. The Adventures of Pluto Nash was greenlit. Starship Troopers 3 is coming out soon. These people are not picky.
5. This is roughly akin to asking "Why don't any actors have the balls to go to Cannes and talk about how tasty McDonald's is?"

While it's mostly true that the conservative experience in Hollywood is long on diagnosis and short on remedy, what sets us apart from our liberal counterparts is that we don't ask for a legislative fix.

Surely there's an affirmative-action program that can put Republicans to work in the entertainment industry at ratios similar to our numbers in the general population.

I swear I did not edit this. These sentences follow one another.

And…if you guessed that the conservative solution would be affirmative action, YOU WIN! Come on down to the ring-toss booth and collect your prize: a 13-foot stuffed Mallard Fillmore and a pink tambourine made from Phyllis Schlafly's surgically-removed excess labial skin!

Conservatives who allegedly embrace free markets need to take responsibility for allowing the left to become the dominant pop cultural force, and for granting homogenized radicals creative control over America's second-largest – and arguably most important – export.

I would like to reiterate that I am not presenting this out of sequence. This is actually how he wrote it – as a perplexing, whiplash-inducing exercise in alternating paragraphs about personal responsibility with pleas for affirmative action.

Today, the conservative movement is alive and well at the American university, though certainly not at the faculty level. The College Republicans, Young America's Foundation and the Leadership Institute, not to mention countless alternative campus newspapers, all exude a rebel spirit that greatly resembles the motivations and enthusiasms of the liberal counterculture of the '60s and '70s.

(chokes, spits up YooHoo)

He's not seriously going to propose that the solution to the lack of right-leaning entertainment media is to dip into the well of creative talent that is the average College Fucking Republicans meeting, is he? Is he?

Yet mistakenly, when they receive their degrees, they are directed to Washington, D.C., and their state capitals, thinking politics is how you win. Or they think the path to victory is becoming the next George Will or Rush Limbaugh.

Sounds like they understand A) how the market works and B) what they do well. Fools.

This has to change. Now!

Send your application packet, a money order for $7 made out to "cash", and two color photos of women urinating to:

Young Conservative Talent Search
c/o Andrew Brietbart
Abandonded Metal Shipping Container 3F
Bagram Air Force Base Sex Offender Detention Unit
Charikar, Afghanistan H3M P4J

There are enough talk-radio and opinion-journalist aspirants in the pipeline to last us through the Sasha Obama administration. AM radio harangues, books, speeches, seminars and campus affirmative-action bake sales may be wildly provocative and endlessly entertaining

The fact that you think this qualifies as "provocative and endlessly entertaining" says everything you need to know about why the situation that is the basis of this column exists.

Today, we have the resources to change things a lot. Perhaps we can wage a different kind of culture war – and not one directed by armchair generals from church pews in Virginia.

Andrew Brietbart, you are a horrendous writer.
canadian pharmacy gaetzpharmacy.com no prescription

Just horrendous. Aside from the hacky reference to "armchair" anything, your War metaphor has "generals" who sit in church pews in Virginia. That does not even make sense. I must also come to the conclusion that, unlike me, you have never been to a College Republicans meeting. No one who has attended a College Republicans meeting would feel that the people in attendance could create televised programming that isn't immediately preceded by "Made possible by a grant from the John M. Olin Foundation."

We need to break out of this mind-set and send our best young minds to Hollywood. There are tons of low-level jobs that lead to greater opportunities for industrious young adults. Our armed forces coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq provide us with a source to replenish the Hollywood creative bloodstream, too.

online pharmacy nolvadex no prescription

Keys to winning culture-product war:

1. 19 year old buzzcuts who finished at the bottom of their high school classes
2. College Republicans

You have just identified the two most creative groups in society. By far.

Soldiers should vie for leading roles – especially with all those Laguna Beach swimming-trunk-laden shows.

I ask Andrew Brietbart, avowed expert in the talent potential of sweaty, shirtless men, why these Marines are more qualified than the tens of thousands of "hot bod" "actors" already staffing the Inland Empire's minimum wage sector.

Wouldn't a Marine who helped turn around the Anbar province make a better grip, runner or mail-room clerk at CAA than Maggie Gyllenhaal's yoga instructor's niece?

OK, this is how it ends. This is the end of the piece.

Andrew, I am going to offer you a free lesson in writing like you are not the world's biggest hack. The "comically obscure friend/relative" reference is only slightly less hacky than concluding with "Talk to the hand!" Spend 10 seconds doing research on Google to find a real example of an obscure – and perhaps even humorous – celebrity friend or relative working in such roles. I bet that wouldn't be too hard. And it would reassure the reader that you are a Pro Writer putting a little effort into your column. Try to convince us that you are not just some dragon-shirted asshole pounding this garbage into your iMac off the top of your head (20 minutes before deadline) like the overgrown fratboy you are.

To that end you might also consider explaining the "affirmative action" idea rather than orphaning the metaphor that was allegedly the main fucking idea of your column.

MY HEART GOES OUT TO YOU, HUMMER OWNERS

The thinly-veneered "lifestyle" journalism that masquerades as news these days has yielded another gem, courtesy the New York Times (At $100 for Tank of Gas, Some Choke on ‘Fill It’") The purpose of this slipshod amalgam of random quotes is unclear. Are we supposed to feel sorry for these dipshits or simply marvel at the fact that some people buy GMC Suburbans without realizing that they will have to put a lot of gas in them? To wit:

Bryan Carisone, a heating and air-conditioning contractor in Raritan, N.J., “absolutely loves” his new GMC Denali XL, an extra-large sport utility vehicle with televisions built into the leather seats. But in June, one week after he bought it, he pulled into a station on a near-empty tank and watched the total climb higher and higher — to $109. “It just about killed me,” Mr. Carisone said.

Apparently the size of the GMC Denali XL's fuel tank and the EPA mileage estimates are both classified information, as obtainable to Mr. Bryan Carisone as the launch codes for Soviet ICBMs. It is unfortunate that he was forced to buy this grotesque land yacht without that information.

It gets better.

For people who love their big vehicles, the pain is acute.

But the Avalanche also has a 31-gallon tank, which would cost $127 to fill at Saturday’s national average price. Even the truck’s most dedicated fans find that galling. David H. Obelcz, who founded the club in 2002 and is still a member of the board, sold his Avalanche because he could not afford gasoline for it.

At what point in one's journalistic career do the trials of being a brainless yuppie qualify as "pain" let alone "acute pain?" Hold on while I cry my fucking eyes out for the Fan Club devoted to the Chevy Avalanche, a vehicle whose turn signals are labeled "port" and "starboard." I hope Mr. Obelcz had the version with the 8.1L V8, which is by far the largest gasoline V8 in a passenger vehicle.

Families that were accustomed to the convenience of sport utility vehicles are having to cut back as well. Colleen Hammond of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, loves packing her three kids and all their soccer gear into her 2000 GMC Yukon XL. But she hates paying $160 to fill the 38.5-gallon tank. Last month, she parked the Yukon in her driveway and borrowed her friend’s Toyota Land Cruiser.

Again with the dramatic language. People who have to decide between food and medicine "cut back." People pissing and moaning about how much their SUV costs to own do not. And for the last time, no one owns an SUV because of "safety" or "convenience." Minivans are far safer, hold more people and cargo, and are more fuel-efficient. People buy SUVs because they think it looks cooler than driving a minivan. Period.

Steve Burtch bought a Dodge Ram truck last year, when gas cost $3.75, because he thought gas prices had peaked and would start coming down.

Steve Burtch, I have taken shits smarter than you.

“It’s a huge inconvenience,” said Dr. Walter Bahr, a chiropractor in Cape Coral, Fla., who drives a Dodge Ram 2500 pickup and pays $130 per tank.

WHAT IN THE HOLY HELL DOES A CHIRPRACTOR NEED A 3/4-TON PICKUP FOR? This is not a rhetorical question. I will give anyone who can answer it one million dollars. Ram 2500 pickups are made for construction work and building contractors – they're work trucks with 10,000-pound towing capacity. Apparently Dr. Bahr needs it to haul his tiny penis around rugged Cape Coral, Florida.

And here's the best part:

By late spring, owners of pickups and sport utility vehicles with 30-gallon tanks, like the Cadillac Escalade ESV and Chevrolet Suburban, started paying $100 or more to fill a near-empty tank. As gas prices continue to rise — the national average stood at about $4.10 a gallon Saturday — membership in the triple-digit club is growing. Now, even not-so-gargantuan Toyota Land Cruisers and GMC Yukons can cost $100 to fill up.

Way to pander to the yuppie readers, New York Times, by noting that high gas prices are also affecting the (implicitly "normal") vehicles that a quarter of your Sunday demographic drive.

The Toyota Land Cruiser is over sixteen feet long and six feet wide. It weighs 5,690 pounds empty. It has a 5.7L 381-hp V8 (larger and more powerful than a Gen-IV Corvette from 1996). It gets 13 mpg in traffic.

The GMC Yukon has a 26-gallon fuel tank at 14 mpg city. It too has a large V8 (5.3L) and weighs over 5,300 pounds.

According to the Times, these are reasonable "not-so-gargantuan" vehicles which should not be expected to require $100 fill-ups. It is unconscionable to think that these entirely justifiable, average vehicles should be so burdening the wallets of the Normal Americans who drive them.

From now on I intend to season all of my food with the sweet, sweet tears of SUV owners.

JONAH GOLDBERG GETS THE FJM TREATMENT

OK. Once. Once and only once am I doing this to Jonah Goldberg. He falls into the Brooks category, i.e. every single thing he's ever written is riddled with enough idiocy to merit dissection but I'm not about to donate my sanity to the process of rebutting him regularly. Jonah's brand of knee-jerk, fratboy libertarianism is very tough to stomach (accordingly I've edited out some repetitive or irrelevant portions of his lengthy column) so we will only do this to ourselves once. Click the "FJM" tag at the end of the post to learn more about the origins of this game.

The piece: "Obama's Real Patriotism Problem" syndicated in USA Today (h/t non-seq). Ready?

Barack Obama has a patriotism problem that even Monday's flag-waving trip to Independence, Mo., can't squelch. And it doesn't have anything to do with his lapel pin.

Great! That lapel pin thing was so stupid. Good on you, Jonah Goldberg, USA Today and its parent corporation Gannett News. Thank you for rising above that kind of irrelevant nonsense, which I'm certain, given the introduction, this piece is about to do.

In part because liberal commentators have such a hard time grasping why patriotism should be an issue at all, and the GOP is so clumsy explaining why it's important, the debate often gets boiled down to symbols.

Maybe the right-wing definition of patriotism is symbolic. That is, there really is no more to it than waving flags around and shouting "America! Woooooooooo!" It appears that Jonah doesn't like people who oversimplify patriotism, boiling it down to blind jingoism and symbols (this sentence is an example of a literary device known as "foreshadowing")

Like so much else about Obama, his position on the lapel flag changes with the needs of the moment. After 9/11, he wore it. During the debates over the Iraq war, he stopped because he saw the flag as a sign of support for President Bush. (He started wearing it again in May.) "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he added in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

"That lapel pin debate is so stupid. Now I'm going to slam Obama for his various positions on what I just defined as an unimportant, irrelevant debate!"

Read that line again: "What I believe will make this country great." Not to sound too much like a Jewish mother, but some might respond, "What? It's not great now?"

Holy crap! We will now try to wrap our heads around the cerebellum-dissolving idea that some Americans might not be blindly enamored of their country's present level of Greatness!!! Greatness researchers at the University of Greatness can give you reams of data about how fucking great America is!!! How could this country not be great? Look at all of our malls! The NFL! Kenny Chesney! Monster Thickburgers! No federal estate taxes!

This sense that America is in need of fixing in order to be a great country points to Obama's real patriotism problem. And it's not Obama's alone.

Hmm, he's not alone. That's going to be a relevant statement if, hypothetically, Goldberg goes on to argue that Obama is out of touch because most Americans are really, really patriotic.
buy synthroid online buy synthroid no prescription

Boy it sure would be embarassing if that happened.

Definitions of patriotism proliferate, but in the American context patriotism must involve not only devotion to American texts (something that distinguishes our patriotism from European nationalism) but also an abiding belief in the inherent and enduring goodness of the American nation. We might need to change this or that policy or law, fix this or that problem, but at the end of the day the patriotic American believes that America is fundamentally good as it is.

(grabs butterknife, repeatedly slashes at both wrists in the appropriate "Up the river, not across the street" fashion)

YOU MADE ME DO THAT, JONAH. I CUT MYSELF BECAUSE YOU LIVE.

As I bleed out, let's enjoy the irony of someone who just wrote a book entitled Liberal Fascism talking about how all citizens "must" share a "devotion to American texts." Let us recite the Articles of Confederation for the glory of the fatherland! He is suggesting that we should love the country like a three year old loves Mommy: Mommy is perfect and Mommy is always right and everything Mommy does is wonderful and Our Mommy is better than yours.

It's the "good as it is" part that has vexed many on the left since at least the Progressive era. Marxists and other revolutionaries obviously don't believe entrepreneurial and religious America is good as it is. But even more mainstream figures have a problem distinguishing patriotic reform from reformation. Many progressives in the 1920s considered the American hinterlands a vast sea of yokels and boobs, incapable of grasping how much they needed what the activists were selling.

Don't you love Jonah's trademarked history-in-two-sentences-as-segue-to-talking-points introductions? I do!

The Nation ran a famous series then called "These United States," in which smug emissaries from East Coast cities chronicled the "backward" attitudes of what today would be called fly-over country. One correspondent proclaimed that in "backwoods" New York (i.e. outside the Big Apple): "Resistance to change is their most sacred principle." If that was their attitude to New York, it shouldn't surprise that they felt even worse about the South. One author explained that Dixie needed nothing less than an invasion of liberal "missionaries" so that the "light of civilization" might finally be glimpsed down there.

That sounds like a great idea to me. Before I completely exsanguinate can we note this as the first good idea Jonah Goldberg has ever presented in print?

These authors simply assumed, writes intellectual historian Christopher Lasch, that " 'breaking with the past' was the precondition of cultural and political advance." Even today, writes Time's Joe Klein, "This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what's wrong with America than what's right."

"Close with sentence quoting contemporary Democrat, even though this thought is completely disconnected from, and in no way supported by, the preceding 5 sentences in the paragraph."

"I am absolutely certain," he proclaimed upon clinching the Democratic nomination, "that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." So wait, America never provided care for the sick or good jobs for the jobless until St.

buy ivermectin online salterlewismd.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/png/ivermectin.html no prescription pharmacy

Barack arrived?

No, it used to. And then it stopped when you fuckwads took over. Obama is unlikely to be canonized for the simple yet powerful act of not being one of you.

That doesn't sound like the country most Americans think of when they wave their flags on the Fourth of July.

Do you know how many undergraduates I have handed D's and F's for making baseless, unsupported, generalized attributions about what "most people" or "many Americans" think? Think about that, Jonah. You are a syndicated columnist and your writing would not merit a passing grade at an undergraduate level. If we're going to play the generalized attributions game, it might be more accurate to replace "most Americans" with "Republicans" or "Old people who sit outside the VFW all day" or "Jonah Goldberg." Who the hell are these people? Seriously, raise your hand if you spent July 4th "waving (your) flag."

Obama went on to say that he will "remake" the country. Well, what if you don't want it remade?

That's fine. There are always people who Stand in the Schoolhouse Door. History remembers them well, mostly because they are always victorious in holding back the evolution of ideas and social progress.

Michelle Obama — who believes America is "downright mean" and is proud of America for the first time because of her husband's success — insists that Barack will make you "work" for change and that he will "demand that you, too, be different." What if you don't want to work for Obama's change? What if you don't want to be "different"?

Then you vote for John McCain and devote one hour per week to watching Jonah Goldberg's excruciating, torturous webcasts. You raise your ignorant kids on Contemporary Christian and Discovery Institute textbooks, send your contributions to James Dobson, and cram your arteries full of Doritos and Hamburger Helper.

Liberals might giggle at what to them sounds like paranoia. But if you aren't already entranced by Obama, Obamania can seem not only vaguely anti-American but also downright otherworldly. Star Wars creator George Lucas recently proclaimed that it's "reasonably obvious" Obama is a Jedi Knight.

And now for a nice, non-sequitur Obama-bashing conclusion. It'll really help to quote metaphorical references out of context and take them literally! George Lucas (suspend disbelief and pretend that anyone gives a flying fuck what George "Creator of Jar-Jar" Lucas thinks) honestly believes Obama is a Jedi, because Jedi are obviously real. He meant this statement literally. The mitichlorians are strong in him! Many Bothans died to bring you this candidate. To be elected he must slay the Rancor.

Even NBC's Chris Matthews has been entranced by Obama's Jedi mind tricks. Obamania, he says, is "bigger than Kennedy. … This is the New Testament."

So wait, you're admitting that he's a Jedi? And Chris Matthews is your example of someone enraptured by Obama? Chris "Ask me what John McCain's cock tastes like and I will reply that it is slightly garlicky with some peaty notes and a hint of hickory" Matthews?

The notion that what America needs is a redeemer figure to "remake" America from scratch isn't necessarily unpatriotic.

buy clomiphene online dentalhacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/png/clomiphene.html no prescription pharmacy

But for lots of Americans who like America the way it is, it's sometimes hard to tell when it isn't.

How many people like America the way it is, Jonah? Since you never leave the sweat-panted comfort of your mother's basement, you rely on this cute little mental image you've concocted of what "Americans" think. Go out and talk to some people, Jonah.
buy symbicort online buy symbicort no prescription

Maybe even leave the big cities whose elitism you constantly criticize. I suspect that the only people who truly like America the way it is – love the war, love the obscene gas prices, love the horseshit economy – are the wealthy who are finding a way to profit from all of it. But in JonahWorldtm everyone spent July 4th painting themselves red, white and blue to match the flags we spent the entire day waving, remembering with every wave what a great, perfect country we have and how, as JonahPatriotstm, we fundamentally think it's just fine as-is.

More and more like Andy Rooney every week.

buy strattera online dentalhacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/png/strattera.html no prescription pharmacy