A bit edgy, but that evil part of me just cracked up the instant I saw this.
This would be hilarious if it weren’t so delusional. In celebration of the 4,000th dead American soldier in Bush’s failed war, “Colorado Right” is publishing a mock news dispatch. Strangely, they justify opposition to this five year (and still going) war of choice.
In “Grim Iraqi Milestone” Colorado Right and “IMAO” (Imagining My Ass Off) seem assume the number of people Saddam Hussein would have killed would today be 200,000. I’m assuming a little more coherence than is actually present in the piece. (The parody can’t even keep it’s made up figures straight – on one day the number would have been 200,000 and “the 2000,000th non death” would have occured? Missing a comma in that 2 million?)
Of course the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the civil war GWB’s policy unleashed has been estimated at anywhere from 300,000 to 900,000 people. Humanitarian? What’s that? (From the type of nativist who derides foreigners, no less, we have an appologist dismissing American death to promote a mathematically flawed idea of “less” Iraqi death.)
The article goes on to describe the physical state of Saddam’s two suns in pornographic detail. It’s not enough to say they’re dead – this guy clearly takes pleasure in thinking about exactly how dead they are. To some people, many of them conservative, war is nothing more than an excuse to see anyone killed.
to violently eject a quadriplegic man from his wheel chair. Just to see whether he needed it!
There’s a thread going on over at Webmaster-Talk about gun control. Being a moderator, I have to tone my posts appropriately. I asked about the historical context that gave birth to the Bill of Rights and particularly the 2nd Amendment, along with the economics of the illegal firearms market. However, with my own blog, I can actually share my opinion.
Gun control means removing the safety from your firearm. The last thing you want is to have to think before killing somebody. When I see a person in the hallway by the kitchen in the middle of the night, by the time I ask myself “is that my wife or an intruder?” I could have already been robbed for my laptop.
Screening criminals is an affront to privacy. I smoke marijuana every day, but that shouldn’t prevent me from having a gun. (Heck, I managed to type another person’s name into the from field commenting on a blog.) It’s nobody’s damn business that I commmit a misdomeanor every day (possession of a controled substance). I have the right to bear arms, damnit!
Of course, it’s not just anybody who should be allowed to have guns. You should have to weigh more than the gun you want, so you can pick it up. That might preclude 4 year olds from having weapons. I don’t really like that idea, but I’m not sure what the solution is. Obviously a child should be able to defend itself from parents who might infringe upon their freedom, like it says in the 2nd Amendment.
Arabs should be allowed to have guns. Anything else would be racism. Just remember you don’t have to actually prove your an American citizen to have rights here – you have to have your feet planted on American soil. This is why illegal immigrants who give birth in this country give birth to a citizen. It’s also why foreign nationals are entitled to a fair trail for their crimes.
Simply put, we should stop worrying about trying to prevent silly things like gun crime and murder, and instead react when it actually happens. It’s the 80/20 rule. We don’t have crack cocain control enshrined in law (like those dirty liberals want) just because coke has the potential to be used as part of a person’s death.
Anti War Liberals Don’t Have a Plan for Change. So say our critics. The great and terrible irony is that pro war hawks don’t have a plan, either, whether it’s for change, victory, exit, or anything that doesn’t include the deaths of thousands more American youths and hundreds of thousands more Iraqi civilians.
Cody Logan, in response, has put forth a plan. It rests on the observation that we realistically have two options in Iraq
- Stay there forever.
We’ve been tied down like Gulliver’s Travels 4 years 10 months now.
We’ve failed to disarm Saddam of his alleged weapons of mass destruction, although now that he’s dead, it’s really beside the point. We have no standard to judge progress against – no way to know when we’ve succeeded. We have no goal to accomplish – no mission. Only a liability and a quagmire.
Conservatipedia is a web site that proves its possible to consistantly produce lower quality drivel than Wikipedia. Like most spam, it’s a Google BlogSpot splog. (Splog = spam blog) What’s unusual about this particular site is that the paranoid delusionals seem to have found their way onto the internet. Consider this quote, whining about Disney’s cartoon, Aladdin
Alababistan is a fictional city in the Middle East. The movie tries to show how “great” the Middle East is and how “happy” Muslims live. They never seemed to showcase masked men running around with AK47’s shooting little girls that are trying to goto school.
Even the patently ignorant would admit the movie takes place before the AK-47 (a Russian weapon) was invented. Here’s another bit of schizophrenia spilling into the blogosphere
The Genie in the Bottle
No it’s not Christina Aguilera, but a metaphor of the Islamic belief of suicide bombing infidels. The Genie in the bottle will grant three wishes to that person that gives it a rub. The idea that there are virgins waiting in heaven after you blow yourself up, is the same false belief of a Genie in a bottle granting a wish. All this movie did was have children running around rubbing bottles and learning how to be suicide bombers.
The site boasts 2 RSS subscribers. It’s “marketed” (ie spammed) by cheating Stumble Upon using Digital Point (banned from Stumble Upon) to recruit fellow spammers. The entire thread is in violation of SU’s terms of service, and has been reported.
Like many Republicans, the owner of this site is a hypocrite. This purveyor of spam actually has the text “Spam will not be tolerated.” on his side bar.
Does terror “exist”? What does it mean to exist? I read a fascinating blog post that pointed out the peculiar fact that 2 doesn’t exist in objective reality, but undeniably exists in the realm of math. The second part can be proven, while the first is a matter of semantics. 2 is a concept – you can give me 2 middle fingers, but they’re a representation of the idea 2. They aren’t 2 in and of themselves, just like Homer Simpson is more than only yellow.
Drugs and terrorism both exist as scattered collections of things, but not as a cohesive whole. You can have a joint, a line, a gram or kilo. You can have a “hit” (of LSD) or a “lid” (a unit of measure, meaning “a bunch” which somehow made sense to potheads until the mid 1970s). You can even have a stash of drugs, which, if used, will eventually run out, feeding the supply and demand cycle, causing somebody somewhere to grow more. Along the same lines, there are terrorists, and even groups of terrorists. But they don’t tend to work together, just like “the communists” included the USSR and China, who hated each other. Benazir Bhutto says Osama bin Laden was killed by a another terrorist competing for power within al Quaeda.
The War on Poverty turned into a police action against the poor. The War on Drugs is widely perceived to have failed. The War on Terror is bound to the same fate – terror is ill defined. Like the mythical beast, cutting off one head causes another to grow in revenge.