skip to main |
skip to sidebar
One more time now (emphasis added):
The complex structure of a real estate transaction in Kendall County last December left [Republican] House Speaker Dennis Hastert with a seven-figure profit and in prime position to reap further benefits as the exurban region west of Chicago continues its prairie-fire growth boosted by a Hastert-backed federally funded proposed highway.
Instead of cash, Hastert (R-Ill.) took most of his share of the proceeds in land, some of it less than 2 miles from the parcels he and two partners in a land trust sold for nearly $5 million to a developer who plans to build more than 1,500 homes and commercial space on the property near Little Rock and Galena roads in Plano.
Hastert received five-eighths of the proceeds of the sale, which worked out to a profit of more than $1.5 million for him on property that he and his partners accumulated in a little more than three years.
I guess it's a good thing boxing tickets weren't involved. God only knows the reaction we would have seen from Special Ed.
Shorter Le Blog de Polyscopique: "With enough practice and self-control, you too can use the phrases "Conservative Party" and "promises" in the same sentence with a straight face."
Shorter Mark C.: "With enough practice and self-control, you too can be a Blogging Tory and whine about "those who do not serve" with a straight face."
Shorter Celestial Junk: "In a perfect world, we'll keep getting their votes without having to, you know, actually touch them or anything."
Shorter Upper Canada Catholic: "And how about this one? A faggot and a nigger walk into a bar ..."
Oh, this should be good, since anyone who spends more than a few minutes investigating can figure out that, while conservatives perpetually wail on about the left-wing, liberal welfare state, those same conservatives are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to sucking off the public tit.
As just one example, those on the (American) right are habitually incensed by the notion of affirmative action for getting lower-class or minority students into college, claiming that college admission should, naturally, be based solely and exclusively on talent and ability. Of course, these are the same whiny pussies who have no problem using the concept of legacy admission to find a college seat for their own lazy, worthless progeny.
Oh, yes, this should be a good read.
P.S. While you can download the entire 119-page book for free, you can also go for the gusto and bite the big one and spring for the $6.91 (US) to buy an actual copy. Or buy several, and give them away to members of the Blogging Tories.
At least those who can read.
Let me know what's happening. But, for God's sake, do it quietly.
Despite the fact that this will cost me at least half my readership (as they wonder why they've been wasting their time here), let me recommend this guy.
It's enough to make us mere mortals want to give up blogging. Fuck. I hate people like that.
As I'm sure you all remember, the citizens of Wankerville had all sorts of fun accusing U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of a humongous breach of ethics for accepting (in their fevered imaginations, anyway) boxing tickets worth thousands -- I say, thousands -- of dollars! If memory serves, the Blogging Tories certainly had a field day with this, didn't they?
So I can only imagine the BTs outrage over this recent development:
The Pictures of Corruption: How Hastert Used Tax Dollars to Turn a $1.5 Million Profit
Here’s a graphic timeline explaining how House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) used a federal earmark to turn a $1.5 million profit ...
I mean, if the BTs were angry over Reid's boxing tickets, one can only imagine how livid they'll be over this. They're going to be really, really, really pissed, right? Right?
Otherwise, that would make them a bunch of worthless, kiss-ass, hypocritical pussies. And, God knows, we can't have that, can we?
Come on, all you BTs ... show me the outrage. You know you want to.
Shorter Upper Canada Catholic: "As a Catholic, I'm appalled by the thought of men sodomizing other men."
Shorter Dr. Roy: "This time, the National Post is going to get it right. Yes, sir, this time. Count on it."
Shorter Bill Strong: "Learning stuff is for liberals."
Uh oh. Apparently, the concern for dead American troops has fallen down the list, somewhere between keeping gays from getting married and banning sex with box turtles (emphasis gleefully added):
Q Tony, American deaths in Iraq have reached 2,500. Is there any response or reaction from the President on that?
MR. SNOW: It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something.
I'm guessing, then, that 2,500 is just "a number" in the same way that the 3,000 killed on 9/11 is just "a number" and that the next time someone tells me that everything changed in the wake of 9/11, I have the legal right to drag them out to the parking lot and club them like a baby seal.
God, I love intellectual discourse.
It appears that the proponents of Intelligent Design who don't understand basic science don't understand basic arithmetic either.
By the way, let's not forget that Dembski was Ann Coulter's source for all things scientific for her most recent, loathsome piece of dreck "Godless." Lord, but how those two deserve one another.
I almost hate to do this because Jonathan has been moderately civil in terms of discourse but, really, there's no other way to describe it than that he's one of the most hypocritical twits in Wankerdom.
It's not enough that, after being slapped around regarding his idiotically gullible posts on global warming, he hasn't backed off even a little after the thorough thrashing he's received here. No retraction, no correction, no apology. No, it's better than that.
Here, Strong puts some amazing spin on the story that obviously-corrupt Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson has been turfed from his seat on the ethics committee. So what makes Strong such a dumbass about this?
First, his post headline reads simply, "Jefferson Loses Seat." Yes, and he lost it because his fellow Democrats kicked him out. It's not like he just showed up one day and his seat was mysteriously missing or anything. And how does Strong spin this?
First, he writes (emphasis added), "Dems have finally voted to remove Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson of his seat on the ethics committee." "Finally?" As if this has been dragging on and on and on whereas this whole process was actually quite quick as politics goes. But that's not the most idiotic part of Strong's silliness.
Strong continues:
Now make no mistake, Dems are not doing this because they believe this is the right thing to do morally. For the left, there really is no right and wrong, no black and white, its all shades of grey. They are doing this now for political reasons only, otherwise they would have nothing to say in November regarding ethics in Congress.
And now you see how it works. If the Dems had opted to leave Jefferson on the ethics committee, Strong would undoubtedly have howled about how they were protecting corruption. But since they chose to get rid of him, they're just doing it for political expediency. Those poor Dems. They just can't catch a break in Jonathan's world, can they? Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Of course, while the Dems are stripping their own ethically-challenged members of their committee seats, the GOP is holding fundraisers to cover their legal expenses. I'm guessing that, in Jonathan's bubble, that would just show the depth of their compassion. Or something.
P.S. I love the fact that Jonathan writes:
For the left, there really is no right and wrong, no black and white, its all shades of grey.
Remember, this is the same guy who tut-tutted back here:
Sir,
Its easy to name call and label people liars, however I believe your cause would be better served by providing the actual evidence for global warming instead of believing in it blindly like someone in a cult.
Then again, liberalism shares many resemblances of a cult.
So it's a little gauche and tasteless to name call, unless it's to accuse an entire demographic of resembling a cult and of being morally bankrupt. I hope we've cleared that up for you.
Tim Lambert is really becoming the go-to guy on debunking the right-wing stupidity regarding global warming. So, any chance that any of those wanks might reconsider their position? Maybe dig a little deeper to read the actual research? Perhaps be just a touch more skeptical when it comes to the sweeping dismissal of climate change from the scientific dumbasses over there in Wankerville?
I guess not. Apparently, once an ignorant buffoon, always an ignorant buffoon.
Giving the wingnut right years of accumulated evidence for global warming, and having them brush it off as "just a theory" or suggest it "needs more study:" Sadly predictable.
Giving those same people a single, unsourced, questionable document and having them embrace it wholeheartedly and accept its absolute authenticity without even a scintilla of doubt: Priceless.
And as much as I hate to take up arms against an until-now reasonable and well-behaved commenter, I have to take serious exception to a good deal of what commenter "scout" wrote back here in the first comment, althought I'll limit myself to just one of the more egregious and maddening points made there:
science: there's merit but it's not the be all end all it proclaims. what is 'true' today will not be viewed as 'true' in 100 years, just like much of what science held as 'true' 100 years ago is not 'true' today.
In a word, bullshit. Now, one can read, for instance, this refutation of that particular bit of nonsense and, while I agree with Skeptico's explanation, I don't believe it makes the point forcefully enough.
Quite simply, our level of scientific knowledge is directly proportional to our ability to measure and observe everything around us. Early, primitive man (that would be Neandertal, Cro-Magnon and Rob Anders) was convinced that the earth was flat and that the stars were holes in the sky and that disease was caused by evil spirits, or what have you. And all of that was perfectly understandable at the time since there was no way to disprove any of that. Early man simply had no advanced way to observe and measure the world around him.
As time went on, and we developed microscopes and telescopes and more advanced measuring and observing devices, we got to see things we had never been able to see before, and that made all the difference, and that's what drove the acquisition of scientific knowledge.
In fact, the idea of better and better devices fits in nicely with the common idiotic accusation that, hey, Newton was wrong about celestial mechanics and his rules were replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity. Well, sure, you can sit there and claim Newton was "wrong," if your goal is to be a pedantic dumbass. Newton was "right" to the best of his ability to be able to measure and observe, since the differences there only kick in once one starts talking about relativistic speeds. So Newton wasn't "wrong" so much as he was "incomplete," and his work was not corrected so much as it was refined and extended by Einstein based on more powerful measuring devices. See how that works?
This is how science operates -- we don't know something until we finally develop the tools that can observe and measure it, at which point we start to discover things we could never have seen or tested before. And because of this, it's highly unlikely that, all of a sudden, we're going to discover that what we believed for decades or centuries is suddenly completely wrong.
Does anyone seriously believe it's possible that one day we'll wake up and go, "Oh, wait, those bright lights up there in the night sky really are just holes in a firmament after all." Or that we'll suddenly decide that this whole "germ" theory is just silly and that it really is evil spirits? I don't think so. Just as it's hideously unlikely that the scientific community will, some day, suddenly exclaim, "Wait! This whole evolution thing is completely bogus! It really does make more sense to imagine a young earth and worldwide flood to explain everything around us." Yeah, that'll happen. When pigs freaking fly.
If you want to argue that science sometimes gets ahead of itself and has to be corrected down the line, fine, make that argument. And back it up with some actual examples. But don't come wandering in here, blathering about, hey, science was wrong before and it can be wrong again. That's a worthless argument, made only by people who, as Skeptico points out, have no actual case.
Every once in a while, I just get the urge so, without further ado, here's our old friend Jinx/Jason, complaining about being unfairly characterized:
Every left-wing troll I've encountered in a nutshell
"NEOCON!!! YOU'RE A DIRTY, STUPID FUNDY NEOCON!!! YOU MINDLESSLY REPEAT O'REILLY/LIMBAUGH/COULTER TALKING POINTS!!!"
And how does Jinx fight back against such defamation? Why, by regurgitating stupid, fundy, neo-con talking points.
Slapping around Jinx McHue -- degree of difficulty: 0.03.
AFTERSNARK: For those of you who are relative newcomers to this blog, Jason/"Jinx McHue" is an annoying, insufferably smug evangelical Christian who has a bad habit of expounding on subjects of which he knows less than nothing (including, sad to say, Christianity itself).
Some time back, based on his astoundingly-uninformed comments regarding the Bible, I asked him a simple question, and made it clear that any and all comments he left here would be deleted until he answered that question clearly and unambiguously.
The question: "Do you believe, word for word, in the literal accuracy of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments?" To this day, Jinx has refused to answer. That's pretty embarrassing for someone who presents himself as being such a super-Christian.
It is, however, par for the course for Jinx.
Oh, look ... more evidence for biological evolution:
Scientists have uncovered remarkably preserved fossils – including feathers and webbed feet – of the oldest known relatives of modern birds, which also shores up the theory that birds evolved from aquatic environments.
Little is known about birds from the age of dinosaurs, since fossils that date back to the early Cretaceous Period – some 105 to 115 million years ago – have rarely been found. So the discovery reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science is particularly exciting for those trying to fill gaps in the avian family tree.
Cue spectacularly ignorant right-wing attack poodles, yammering on about "fact" versus "theory" and getting all of it gloriously wrong.
BONUS TRACK: And while evolutionary scientists do actual science, creationists do pretty much what they've always done.
OHMIGOD DOUBLE PLUS GOOD SUPER BONUS SNARK: Based on PZ's (inappropriate, in my opinion) sweeping condemnation when he writes:
Lying, stealing, and misrepresentation are common creationist values, I guess—Allah must endorse theft.
we have none other than our old friend Jinx McHue/Jason, weighing in with the comment, "Whee!!! Broad brushes are fun!"
Keep in mind, this whining about broad brushes comes from someone whose home page reads, "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. --Ecc. 10:2"
Yes, Jinx is just the person to be lecturing the rest of us about unfair generalization, isn't he?
This is what happens when you forget the difference between being a hawk and being a chickenhawk.
Shorter Spirit of Man: "Let me explain how bad Islam is in Iran, from the perspective of someone who isn't there."
Shorter Celestial Junk: "As a staunch, right-wing neo-con, let me be contemptuously dismissive of other people's dogma."
Shorter Strong Conservative: "Oh, look! Another corner!"
Shorter Dr. Roy: "Or you could just watch Fox News for yourself, then you wouldn't have to read me."
Shorter Cantor the Conservative: "And in non-Britney-related news ..."
As a follow-up to my earlier piece, you might as well kick back, make yourself comfortable and go read. And not just because Tim's nice enough to give me a link at the bottom. That has nothing to do with it. No sir.
(By the way, note carefully how Tim, an Australian, knows enough about all of this to identify a "Canadian anti-Kyoto astroturf group." Suddenly, I feel so embarrassed. But nowhere near as embarrassed as the Blogging Tories should feel. If they had any shame, that is.)
RETRACTIONS, ANYONE? And don't forget, kids, about those BTs that got absolute little woodies over that initial Canada Free Press article trashing Gore. There was The Strong Conservative, who opined that "some actual scientists with knowledge of the theory of global warming are speaking out, and quite critically."
Then there's the laughably-misnamed Technical Bard, who got all uppity about Gore's "scaremongering." And let us not overlook everyone's favourite whackjob and pathological liar Bill Strong, who described the worthlessly dishonest CFP article as a "must read."
I'm guessing that those of us who were hounded into exile about the whole Karl Rove indictment story shouldn't expect any sort of similar sheepish recriminations from the Right 'cuz, you know, that's just not the way they work. But you knew that.
I CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP. In the first comment below, ticked-off commenter and target "The Strong Conservative" whines:
Sir, Its easy to name call and label people liars, ...
And the title of his blog article to which I linked? "Gore's Convenient Lie."
Sometimes, this job is just way too easy.
Over at Science Blogs, Ed Brayton has this piece, in which the school in question doesn't have a prayer of winning. As Ed points out, entirely correctly:
Under Lamb's Chapel and Good News Club, a school that makes their facilities available to community groups cannot refuse to rent to religious groups, nor can they charge them more than any other group.
But step back and appreciate for just a second what is happening here -- a Southern Baptist Church demanding nothing more than the right to be treated equally under the law.
I'll leave you to tease out the irony for yourself.
First, you need to read this. Then immediately follow it up with this. Were there ever two sorry excuses for human beings that deserved each other more?
No, for God's sake, don't answer that! What part of "rhetorical" didn't you catch?
BONUS TRACK: Buried in that first piece is the convenient smackdown:
Actually, the very idea of 101st Keyboarders putting, so to speak, their money where their mouth is, is liable to make them terrified to the point of incontinence.
It just doesn't get more timely, does it?
