2010-12-31

Top 10 of 2010

It's that time of year again. The retrospective look back at the past twelve months - and of course in the standard Top Ten format.

Unfortunately, I wrote the definitive Top Ten List last year so this time I'm actually going to have a topic. And since I didn't officially Air Any Grievances this holiday season:

Top Ten Disappointments of 2010 (although with my memory and attention span it's more like Top 8 Disappointments from the past four weeks and maybe a couple others)

10. Barack Obama. I know he never claimed to be Liberal Jesus - that he was always a compromise seeker and consensus builder. And he did get some stuff done. Still, for a guy who so thoroughly captured the entire world's attention - who truly seemed like a tranformative figure - he certainly didn't seem to be personally involved in pushing forward his agenda. Well except to tell the dirty fucking hippies to grow up and bend over. There's stuff he's done specifically too that will be getting their own numbers.

9. Accountability for G20 violations. On the part of the police. The LEAFS SUCK police separtment has a special watchdog called the Special Investigations Unit. The SIU looked into allegations of use of excessive force during the G20 protests and found clear evidence of it. Reasonable grounds to proceed with criminally investiagting police officers for violating the law. No charges will be laid and no investigation will proceed. Why? Because the police are unco-operative. Let me be as clear as possible on this. There is "reasonable grounds" to believe that excessive force was used - that a crime was in fact committed - and in the case involving Adam Nobody - with a minimum of five police officers present as witnesses. No investigation is being conducted because the police refuse to answer questions. Fuck.

8. The Healthcare Sellout. This still bothers me. And if you've got a problem with that - if you're thinking the words "perfect the enemy of the good", then Fuck You. Hey, all those imperfect flaws that had to be included but could be fixed later on? It's been a year - are there any plans on how those fixes might happen?

7. Mayor Rob Ford. What a fucking farce. A raftload of candidates more qualified and less batshit bugfuck crazy - all imploded. Even when he was gathering steam and the Anyone But Ford sentiment started crystallizing, what happened? The liberal and progressive candidates moved rightwards to copy Rob. Fucking pathetic.

6. The Tax Cut Sellout. Really? The compromise tax cut plan is the Joe The Plumber plan? Fantastic.

5. The Economy. I don't travel much, but this year I got to spend some time in Oklahoma City. North of the border, we weren't hit nearly as hard by the financial meltdown so I didn't have any understanding of how bad it was until I got to Oklahoma. It's a city that's had it's downtown core completely de-populated and then a small theme park dropped in to replace it. just looking at all those stretches of empty store fronts brought it into focus.

4. The continued acceptance of war crimes in the name of protecting the free world from terrorists. Message for you shitfucks with the solitary confinement, sleep disruption and the whole host of other enhanced interrogation techniques - Private Bradley Manning being the current victim de jour. The inhuman monsters that are a threat to civilization? It ain't the "terrorists".

3. Alison was robbed.

2. Something about your mother. Just kidding, your mom never disappoints.

1. The media. Spineless stenographers? Not even. Stenos at least manually enter the stuff that's dictated at them. Jerkwad douchebag fucking shitstains. But to be fair and balanced, some folks feel that it's only most journalists that are complete wastes of sperm as well as goat-fucking baby murderers - and the rest are worse.

Also, WTF is the criteria to get a regular op-ed spot in the top tier newsrags? It is fucking pathetic the bullshit that gets printed on those op-ed pages. Yeah yeah, yelling at clouds - water is wet - can't fight city hall - talking to a wall - &c. Bullshit op-ed pieces are the heart and soul of newspaper fascism and never will it ever eveer change. Still pisses me off though.

2010-12-29

iSuck It Apple Users.

No, this isn't about how Apple has so comfortably grown into it's gaint multinational pants, the ones with the exploitation stitching and fuck you lines. This is more about how sometimes, it's Windows that gets it right.

UPDATE: iCan't believe iGot the i in the wrong spot in the title. f1XX0r3d.

2010-12-26

Freedom Bombs!

Thanks to ongoing hostilities between Thers and Tintin i have no discovered the rich pile of putrid horrendousness that is the Tea Party Music Video.  And like any good socialist, I am here to spread my suffering.



UPDATE:  It's Tea Party Tiiiiiiii-iiiiiiime!

2010-12-24

Cars Big as Bars, Rivers of Gold

Confession Time.  That guy with the horrible taste in music, listened to Top 40 pop radio all the time - who all of a sudden started bugging you to listen to the new band they just discovered?  As if The Pogues were some sort of hidden treasure.  As if you hadn't been listening to Kirsty MacColl since before A New England.  I was that guy.

Well, I don't apologize.  Sure I must have been annoying as hell, but I don't care - Fairytale of New York is a fucking amazing song.  And sure it's not particularly representative of the work of Shane McGowan - but without Fairytale, I may never have discovered The Sick Bed of C├║chulainn.

Anyways, since it's Christmas Eve babe - I thought I'd piss off you Pogues purists some more with a bastardized cover.  I don't fucking care if it's not "as good" as Shane and Kirsty, I love this version.

2010-12-19

Haislip Update

She's still not the new co-host, but apparently successfully punching a shark in the face has lost some of it's cachet.

Dragan Stevic of Serbia is the new Egyptian hero who killed a large shark which had previously terrorized numerous tourists (injured 4 and killed 1)...explained that Dragan had decided to go to the beach for a swim after a long night of drinking...climbed on the jumping board, told me to hold his beer and simply ran to jump... straight on the shark which was lurking near the beach, probably looking for its next victim. Dragan had nailed it right in the head, killing it instantly... At the moment, the fearless hero is in a hospital recovering from alcohol poisoning.


Wow.  An inspiration to drunks everywhere.

Sunday Audition: Hey Sailor

The United States has made a grave mistake with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  This is not only a serious impediment to the efficacy of the military but also goes against everything the nation stands for.

Much has already been made of the issue of unit cohesion and the very real possibility of front-line marines being distracted at critical moments and having their legs removed.  I mean, how effective can a fighting force be without legs?  Sure the Army will still be able to advance, since it marches on its stomach, but the enemy will be able to stop the most powerful military force in history just by building some stairs.

But more importantly, the repeal of this policy will lead to a lower quality of soldier.  Currently gay soldiers are serving, but are doing so while obeying the order to conceal their sexuality.  Being able to repress your personal private identity and follow orders are very important skills for servicemen to have, and now they won't be required of the homosexual members of the military.

Note that repression of one's sexual identity which, as James Amos points out, can not possibly distract anyone.  In fact, that repression and frustration can only lead to greater aggression from the men and women in the armed services.  Additionally, the constant fear of being outed by others is also not distracting, but rather increases perception and awareness of potential dangers.

An all-closeted squad may be the most effective fighting squad ever.

But more than just a means of projecting violence, the military also represents the nation.  And while the potential de-legging of the troops is the paramount issue, thought nust be paid to exactly what this decision says about the United States of America.

The US was founded upon the principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, not Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a PENIS. [note to self: line for a rainy day - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Your Mom]  There was a Declaration of Independence not a Declaration of Fabulousness.  Tri-corner hats?  Not fashionable.

As everyone knows, there are no atheists in foxholes.  This carries over back at home - it is the Church that is most supportive of the troops.  It is the religious that have the highest regard for military men.  But many religions also view homosexuality as an abomination.  Thus, allowing gays to openly serve is religious persecution.

President Obama needs to veto the repeal of DADT.  It is the wrong decision, not only for the present but for the future as well.  If we start letting proud homosexuals serve in the military, who will be next?  Dolphins? Cats?

2010-12-16

UFC Hitchens-Douthat I: Pope’s My Hero v My Dope’s Chemo.

via McGravitas.

Apologies for the misleading post title, this isn't going to be about locking Doohead and Hitch into the Octagon, it's a SRS BZNS (for me at least) look at the hissyfit.  Also too, I do feel like a dirty shitbag for siding with Christopher Hitchens on this, the bloodthirsty warmongering jackhole, but Ross Doohead is pretty impressive in his ability to be RONG.

So, here's the Doodoohead column wherein Ross rises to gallantly defend the honour of Benny Ratzo, Pope-in-Distress.  And here are the other two in the series.  There's also some pathetically pathetic defense of Tea Party Extremism, and man is it ever pathetic, but I'll leave it to others to tear apart Ross' "I know you are but what am I" argument.  It's the heretical position of demeaning the Catholic Church that really grinds Doohead's gears.

Okay, here's Ross proclaiming Victory:
He starts with a justifiable sense of outrage, and then proceeds to embrace sweepingly manichaean and essentially fictive narratives about evil in high places.
With each underlined bit linking to their respective  "de-bunking" columns.

Sweepingly manichaean.
OMG! Extreme responses are prompted when we're discussing the systemic sexual abuse of children!  Teh Horrars!

Ross' column doesn't do much to debunk Hitch's claims.  Sure Kiesle had already been tried for tying up and molesting the two children, but well about that here's Ross on it:
He pleaded no contest in a California court in 1978, years before the laicization issue reached the Vatican, and was sentenced to three years probation for “lewd conduct.” (The light sentence should serve as a reminder that it wasn’t only Catholic authorities who failed to take stern measures against abusers in that era.)
Really.  Really?  I suppose the fact that Rome was apprised of the situation had nothing to do with the light sentence.  I suppose the fact that the Vatican had no influence on the investigation or proceedings.  I suppose that even without the involvement of the man who now wears the pointiest mitre of all, that Kiesle would have been allowed to plead "no contest" to a misdemeanor for the incident - a charge so minor that it was expunged from his record.

Hitchens has taken offense at the Catholic Church's treatment of Kiesle, someone known to them as a child molester and whom Ratzinger insisted remain ordained, and you have this minor quibble with his presentation which amounts to bupkes.  Because really Ross, had the investigation into Kiesle been started by the cops instead of the Vatican, or if Rome's influence under the guidance of Ratzinger hadn't been applied - do you really believe that what you acknowledge as a ridiculously light sentence would have been levied?  I suppose too that had Kiesle been convicted of a more serious charge of child molestation - it wouldn't have affected his access to minors later on in his life - when the further abuses occurred.  Hitchens' point here isn't that hard to understand - and your nitpicking misses the point completely.

BUT still, since I am a generous Dragon-King, let us throw aside the fact that you are wrong.  Let us consider your erroneus argument under the rules of your own fantasy world.  Hitchens is horribly offended that the Catholic Church did not do more to prevent Kiesle from molesting more children - you think that the blame should also go to other authorities of the day and therefore because of the Law of Conservation of Blame, the Catholic Church isn't in the wrong at all.  I gotta say that this argument is not helping your cause.  Remember that the accusation against the Church is that there is no accountability for wrong-doing, but instead a concerted effort to cover-up and minimize.

Incidentally, your closing 'graf?
For an anti-Catholic polemicist, the sex abuse scandal offers a rich vein of material: Case after case of priestly malfeasance; case after case in which bishops shuffled abusers around rather than removing them from the ministry. It tells you something about Hitchens’ style that he isn’t content with the grimness of the actual record, and feels the need to embellish it with falsehoods.
That the Hitchens' piece you linked does level a number of other accusations - the rape of deaf boys, confidentiality agreements in other rape cases, Cardinal Bernard Law, &c.  Yeah, there definitely is some misrepresentation going on.



Essentially fictive narratives.
Essentially.  That word is doing yeoman's work, it is.  Again, since you are unable to dispute the baasic fact of child molestation by ordained Catholic priests - your second "de-bunking" of Hitchens is more nitpicks:
None of this is true. The letter was not “confidential,” or at least not for long; it was published by the Vatican that same year in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official journal of the Holy See, and it’s been available in English translation since at least 2002.

Your defense is that the letter was not "confidential."  Wow.  Hitchens' is lying because you have issues with his use of "confidential."  And the justification of your objection?
1.  This so-called confidential letter was exposed by the press almost as soon as it was released.
2.  After being publicized in the media, the Church posted it themselves.

Uh, yeah.  You sure got him there.
Ratzinger did not claim that the church had anything remotely like “exclusive jurisdiction” over sex abuse cases. Rather, his letter ... gave the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “exclusive competence” to handle these accusations.

Man, you are totally PWNing Hitchens here.
Nothing in the document forbade bishops, priests, parents or victims from contacting legal authorities or the press
Except the word "exclusive".  Speaking of which, what does the letter tell Catholics to do when confronted with a child molesting priest?
As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith...In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. When the trial in the tribunal is finished in any fashion, all the acts of the case are to be transmitted ex officio as soon as possible to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I certainly don't know how anyone could read that to mean "don't call the cops".  It clear says "The Church Will Take Care Of Their Own" which is totes the same thing.  Right?
...and the letter certainly didn’t threaten excommunication (a word that never appears in the text) for doing so.

Which is then followed by Doohead explaining Crimen Sollicitationis.  Which is odd, since as a good Catholic, Doohead should know that the pontifical secret cited in the letter is covered in the 1974 Instruction of secreta continere, which carries penalties up to and including automatic excommunication and applies to anything the Pope says it does, such as the letter Hitchens is talking about.

Finally, the issue of the statute of limitations.  Well, I guess it isn't fictive, essentially or otherwise, since both Douthat and Hitchens agree on the length of time the Papal Instruction written by Ratzinger holds authority (ten years from the victims 18th birthday).  Ratzinger's letter outlines the Papal Instruction giving a special committee "exclusive competence" over adjudicating sexual abuse of minors and puts all proceedings under secreta continere which carries the threat of excommunication.  If that Papal Instruction deters a member of the Church from reporting said crime to the civil authorities then Hitchens is exactly right.  But Ross doesn't think that the Papal Instruction would do anything of the sort, depite his acknowledgement of the many many times the Church has made efforts to cover-up sex abuse scandals.  Therefore Hitchens is a horrible lying monster.  At least Ross is right in that - Hitchens is a horrible lying monster, just not for the groundless reasons Douthat is all riled up over.

2010-12-09

I Can't Believe They Didn't Go With The Girl Who Successfully Punched A Shark In The Face

Most of y'all probably don't want to bear with me on this post.  It is purely for my own indulgence.


Earlier this week, G4's AOTS announced their new permanent co-host, Candace Bailey.  She'll be replacing Olivia Munn who you may have seen as the new Asian Correspondent on The Daily Show.

Fan reaction has been predictable - G4 is a niche station and AOTS has a cultish following, so it's no surprise that Team Haislip has freaked the fuck out about this.  We're talking nerd-drama on the Han Shot First scale.  And people who care about the killing of Greedo, that's basically the core audience of AOTS, so this is a pretty bad decision.

It's not that Candace Bailey sucks or anything.  Her first few shows were pretty brutal, but she picked up the pace and tone of the program pretty quickly.  The problem is that she's not really a gamer - and the show is done live so good scripting is going to cover her disconnect from the audience only so far.

Olivia wasn't a gamer either and certainly Candace has the potential to be as funneh as the Munn, but Olivia has something that Candace doesn't.  Unmitigated sex appeal.  Olivia Munn is hawt in ways that make people feel funny in their pants, Candace Bailey instead is cute as a button.  It doesn't quite compare.

Actually, the show has been essentially test driving a series of young women for co-hosting duties including a bunch of non-gamers.  And while Candace is the least sexy of the bunch, she was probably the best choice from that group in that she has the ability to do more than just have nice tits.  So G4 could easily have made a worse decision.

The problem is that they didn't pick one of the actual gamers they could have - or at least someone steeped in gamer culture.  Milynn Sarley is the real deal and would have been a great choice.  Then there's Chobot.  Holy fucking shit would that have worked fantastically well.  I suspect that more than half of AOTS' audience has already masturbated to fantasies about Jessica Chobot.  Actually, I suspect that more than half of AOTS' audience is currently masturbating to fantasies about Jessica Chobot.  Either of these two would have been better choices for the gig.  Unless you have the same feelings about masturbation that Christine O'Donnell has.  Incidentally, if you are a gamer who somehow doesn't know who Chobot is, then make sure no one is going to walk into the room you'll be masturbating in and look her up.  Unless you have a thing about being walked in on whilst masturbating - in which case, make sure you get consent from the walker-in person first.

But the real injustice of it all is that they didn't even ask Alison if she wanted a break from living out of a suitcase.  The page announcing the decision is probably the most commented on thing on all of G4 and almost all of the comments are about Alison Haislip.  I mean yeah, you're going to get sour grapes from folks who had their own favourites that they wanted to win - but in this case, everyone's favourite was the same person.

Picking Candace Bailey over Alison Haislip is a huge mistake and grossly unfair.  And not just unfair in the whole Alison Wuz R0BBERED sense, but now Candace is saddled with this metric assload of bad feelings and disappointment.  What a great way to start a new hosting gig!

But the important point is that Alison Was Robbed.  It's fucking bullshit, that's what it is.  They should just can AOTS completely and have Alison on the air from 7 to 8 pm weekdays doing what the fuck ever crosses her mind.  Because seriously, if the G4 demo loves anyone - it's Alison Haislip.

P.S. Alison Haislip RULES!

Update - as MB has pointed out, a post about a whole bevy of young teevees ladies really is screaming for a messload of pics.  Well since we're talking teevees (niche cable channel variety) we can do one better with the moving pictures.

Here's the new host, Candace Bailey:

Here's a girl with Big Tits in a superhero costume, who has been on Gutfeld's Red Eye show on Fox and thus probably knows Patti Ann Browne:

Milynn Sarley is TheGamerChick on YouTube.  Here's a compilation of her AOTS clips:

No vids for Chobot.  She is easy to find on teh weebles, and if I start searching for her I may end up with chafing.  Well, even more chafing.

And something that I'm sure will please all of my lie-beral anti-military terrorist-sympathizing brethren, Alison Haislip totes PWNing teh US Military:

2010-12-07

Open Letter to Matthew Dowd

Matthew Dowd,

In your column from Monday you said
And conversely, I laugh when many progressives celebrate my column and WikiLeaks' release of information because government is some sort of cabal of corporate and authoritarian interests. Don't these same progressives want government more involved in our lives on health care and medical decisions?


I must admit to having had some confusion over this paragraph.  Why would you laugh?  The idea that progressives would like more government involvement (i.e. with health care) seems completely consistent with also wanting greater transparency on government itself.  Progressives wish for government to be more open and accountable.  Progressives want greater risk and threat of secret deliberations and back-room decisions being exposed.  Mistrust of authority as a characteristic of The Left?  That's always been the case.  And is totally in keeping with wanting more government action in general.

Then I realized that you are a fucking idiot.  I had forgotten that moronic shitheads like you think that responsibility should be inveresely proportional to power, despite Peter Parker's Uncle Ben being an old white guy.

Let me try to explain this.  Nobody is Superman, not even the President.  As much as the goal of having a "Government of Laws, Not Men" is a noble aim, that Government of Laws is still staffed by men.  Shit Happens - for example sometimes a bloodthirsty warmongering psychopath manages to get an incurious narcisstic moron elected President and then he goes of to shoot an old man in the face.  Sometimes too, political types try and stuff goverment agencies with ideologues and sycophantic hacks or with the agents of the Big Money that fuels their election campaigns.  Just because a person is elected, that doesn't make them some sort of paragon of virtue.  The President is not a super-hero, he's a politician.  And for Progressives, this is even true of Democratic Presidents.

So, yes.  Progressives understand quite well that things can go wrong.  Sometimes even intentionally wrong.  Where people in authority consciously and actively decide not to follow the rules.  In these cases, us crazy lefties are actually comforted by the idea that there may be a chance that these actions would be revealed.  In fact, the further left you go, the more likely you'll find progressives holding that position regardless of TERRORISM or ISLAMOFASCISTS or COMMIES or BUGABOO OF THE MOMENT!  And, the more that government actors are bound by the threat of the public finding out what is being done in its name - the more Progressives want them to be doing.  Or conversely, dirty fucking hippies want more government programs and support for the environment and arts and the poor and health care and people in all sorts of distress - a position that matches exactly with having a sceptical view of authority.  We want them to do more AND we don't want them to do it wrong.

Although I understand if not doing things wrong is a tough concept for you to grasp, Matthew.

Sincerely,
Dragon-King Wangchuck