USA vs England: Once again raising the question, "How is a tie exciting?"
Dan: (on-air) We'll bring you the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, and because we've got soccer highlights, the sheer pointlessness of a zero-zero tie.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
USA vs England: Once again raising the question, "How is a tie exciting?"
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Ok....I know that you guys don't hear from me much on here. I've been following along with the summations about BP. I cannot fathom the following statement. Poor BP.
"I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) during a hearing on Thursday morning with BP's CEO Tony Hayward." I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown -- in this case a $20 billion shakedown -- with the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the American people, participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, which has no legal standing, which I think sets a terrible precedent for our nation's future."
Way to go Republican party ---> Full story available at Huffington Post
Posted by The_Jolly at 1:38 PM
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Yes. That is Mrs. Landingham.
So, I owe Hillary Clinton an apology.
Now, it needs to be said, that during the Democratic primary Hillary Clinton was a gigantic fucking bitch. Her supporters were racists and sexists, she suggested that she needed to stay in the race in case Obama was shot, she was a god damned cunt about Florida and Michigan, she claimed that pledge delegates were not pledged, and her daughter refused to answer a question from a 4th grader, just to name a few things. So, I, and many others, gave her a lot of flack during the primary. And, let's say, 97% of it was deserved. Because throughout the primary Hillary Clinton really was a horrendous fucking bitch who felt she was entitled to the nomination and couldn't believe that some uppity fucking nigger was forcing her to campaign.
I mean, let's be honest; that's what was going on.
But then there's that 3%. And that 3% is this:
Now I could stand up here and say, let’s get everybody together, let’s get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing. And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect. Maybe I've just lived a little long...but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be.
I apparently never made a blog post about it, which really surprises me. But I remember bitching about it, and I remember thinking ill of Clinton for it. The "it" was her constant degradation of Obama's optimism, her unabashed realism which met Obama's "Yes We Can" with "No We Can't". Obama presented himself as an agent of change, an outsider who could wipe away political entrenchment in Washington and usher in a new era of possibilities and advancement. And every god damned time Obama gave a speech, Clinton was never far behind with her implications that Obama was naive, that he was inexperienced, that he was well-spoken, but not well-equipped. Clinton half-assedly portrayed Obama as a potential orator in chief rather than a commander in chief.
And the thing is? She was right.
I don't know if you watched President Obama's Oval Office Speech on the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. I can't watch it right now because I don't have television and the internet hates me. But I did read a transcript. And while the speech contained hope, while the speech cast our eyes towards the horizon of a better tomorrow, while the speech explained shit everyone with a basic functional level of sentience already knew, the thing the speech lacked was a feeling of confidence, a feeling of command, a feeling that President Obama not only knows what the fuck he is doing but that he is fucking doing something. President Obama said he will fix the mess. But, President Obama did not say HOW. And I'm not an expert on cleaning up oil spills, but I'm pretty sure the "how" is the important part.
I'm not saying that in the counter-factual reality in which Hillary Clinton is president she is doing a better job. But this speech is an indication of the shit she was talking about in the primary: President Obama can present great oratory, but he can't fucking DO anything. It's the Healthcare clusterfuck all over again. President Obama can give speeches, but when we get right down to it he can't fix the fucking problem.
To go off on a tangent, President George W. Bush broke a metric fuckass ton of laws in order to do stupid bullshit which made sense to absolutely no one. And he's fucking fine; no consequences shall follow him. Vice President Cheney shot an old man in the face yet the old man, who was shot, apologized to Cheney. But I'm supposed to believe that Obama can't shoot Tony Hayward, force BP to stop being dicks to journalists, or act like he has a fucking pair of balls? Come on! If this has happened on George W. Bush's watch, and he gave even the slightest shit about the environment? He would have shoved thousands of illegally detained islamo-fascists into that fucking pipe by now. George W. Bush would have called the Prime Minister of Britain and told him to get British Petroleum in order, and probably would have mispronounced "petroleum" while doing so.
Would it have helped anything? No.
Would it have fixed anything? No.
But I would have at least felt relieved to know that my President was not a god damned pussy!
In his speech, President Obama felt compelled to point out that Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, won a Nobel Peace Prize. Ok, well, great; can we shove it in the fucking hole to stop the oil? No? Ok, well then shut the fuck up about it. I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock if every god damned member of your fucking cabinet is a Nobel Prize Winning Ph. D. who volunteers at homeless shelters and spends its weekends hugging baby seals; IT'S NOT FUCKING HELPING!
"My Secretary of Energy has a Nobel Peace Prize."
Whoopty-fuck-a-doo-shit; any other irrelevant bits of information you want to share that won't plug the god damned hole and bring those pelicans back to life? I mean for fuck's sake, Chu won his Nobel Prize for research in cooling and trapping atoms with laser light.
I'll repeat that.
Dr. Steven Chu, Obama's Secretary of Energy, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his research in cooling and trapping atoms with lasers. Ok, well, WHAT THE FUCK-ASS SHIT-COCKING HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH AN OIL SPILL??!?! You're not going to shoot lasers at an oil spill. This isn't an episode of M.A.S.K. where lasers just "fix things" for no discernable reason.
We're all going to fucking die because anywhere from 30,000 to "fuck-if-we know" thousand barrels of oil are torrentially gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, BP has decided that "fire" is their new solution to the problem, and BP's ships are being hit by lightning hurled by the almighty Zeus, blessings and peace be upon him.
But it's all going to be fine, because President Obama's Secretary of Energy knows how to cool atoms with lasers. Woo.
I wasn't ever going to vote for Hillary Clinton. She was a tremendous bitch during the primary, and she deserved about 97% of the shit she received. But you know what? She was right about President Obama. He can give some right perty speeches, but he can't fucking do anything. She ineffectively implied this, she tried to shove a bit of realism into the election, but we were all so hopped up on Hope and Change that we had no patience for any reminder that we live in a world wherein words, cool as they may be, have very little impact on the physical laws and constraints of our reality.
So, I apologize, Hillary Clinton. I apologize for calling you a horrendous hope-shattering bitch. But I only apologize for that 3%. I'm sticking with the other 97% of the time when I called you a bitch.
Because, well, I mean, you really are a bitch.
Let's be honest.
I CANS COOL ATOMS WITH LASERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fucking Christ, man. Nothing to do with oil spills.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Some people enter graduate level philosophy programs in order to grow, to intellectually explore new ideas, new concepts, and new ways of being. Others enter graduate level philosophy programs in order to gain both knowledge and practice at rationally defending their own pre-conceived notions, preserved and protected since their infancy.
Michael Pakaluk, Ph.D., Harvard University took a third path: He neither grew as a person nor learned how to rationally argue. Instead, he went to Harvard, received his Ph. D., and then wrote Children in the custody of same-sex couples in parochial schools. Because, well, Michael Pakaluk, Ph.D., Harvard University, is a homophobic, ignorant bigot. I say "homophobic" because, well, he really fucking hates faggots. I say "ignorant" because, well, he never learned how to use a dictionary. And I say "fuckheaded" because he is a fucking fuckhead.
Let us begin.
The question arises of whether children in the custody of (one cannot say, “children of”) same-sex couples should be admitted to Catholic parochial schools.
Alright, Michael "shithead" Pakaluk, let's teach you how words work. The word "of" has 17 definitions. The second definition is "used to indicate derivation, origin, or source", which we assume is the "of" which cannot be applied to the children OF same-sex couples because, as Michael learned at Harvard, a same-sex couple is composed of either two people with "boy parts" and two people with "girl parts". Since a child can only originate in a couple with both boy parts and girl parts, a same-sex couple cannot "make" a baby. And since "of" only means "produced by"...
Oh, wait, no; "of" means 17 fucking things, one of which is "used to indicate possession, connection, or association". Well fuck my ass and call me Jesus Christ, the son of God, there IS a definition of "of" applicable to the children of same-sex couples; the "of" of possession! Well, that solves that problem. I guess children can be of a same-sex couple, you fucking moron.
Seriously, how the fuck did you get a Ph. D in philosophy from Harvard and never learn what "of" means?
My own son in the first grade in a Boston Archdiocesan parochial school had a classmate who was being raised by his father and another man.
Let's think about this one for a moment. Apparently, the terms "father" and "mother" mean only "biological father" and "biological mother". So, a child adopted by a heterosexual couple cannot refer to its adoptive parents as "father" and "mother"? Well, if you say so, Michael...
The first involves the inevitability of scandal. It was inevitable that either the teacher, or some parent, would deal with the two men in such a way as implicitly to teach my son, or other children in the class, that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships.
So, for Michael Pakaluk, "scandal" results from not being hateful bigots towards persons who maintain different value systems.
Someone might object that, no, what the teacher or parents would teach is to “love the sinner while hating the sin.” I say in reply that this objector is presupposing that the young children involved have already been taught to recognize and “hate” the sin, which is what is at issue. Also, I reject the idea that an appropriate task for a 6-year-old might be learning how to “love the sinner but hate the sin” in a matter involving both immediate familial affections and sexual disorder.
So, what you are saying is that Catholics need to start teaching their children to hate sooner, that children need learn how to quickly and carefully discern objects of hate? Well, if you are having trouble with teaching hate I assume the Klan would be more than willing to help out. Or maybe you could have a Pope Pius XII day where we teach children that it's best to not condemn the wholesale slaughter of millions of Jews, because "fuck the jews".
Also, it's really nice how he snuck that "sexual disorder" line right into the assholes of our minds after lubing us up with his stupid.
All of this is not even to touch upon the question of whether teachers and parents will distort how they talk about parents and family life, out of a misguided sense of “love.”
Wow. "misguided sense of 'love'"? So, tolerance, acceptance, and support are not loving acts? Alright, well then I would be quite interested to know how you show your "love" for your wife.
My bet is that Michael Pakaluk shows his "love" for his wife in very short, unfulfilling bursts.
I saw this beginning to happen in my son’s school: not wishing to offend, teacher and parents would refer to the two men as the “parents” of that boy, even though only one was the father.
Jesus cock-shitting Christ, Michael; buy a god damned dictionary.
1. a father or a mother.
2. an ancestor, precursor, or progenitor.
3. a source, origin, or cause.
4. a protector or guardian.
5. Biology . any organism that produces or generates another.
6. Physics . the first nuclide in a radioactive series.
"Parent" means "Protector or Guardian", Michael. Protector or Guardian. Words, Michael. Dictionaries, Michael. Come on, shithead, you went to Harvard; you ought to know how to use a fucking dictionary.
A mother or father may volunteer to read to the class or chaperone for a class trip. If the homosexual parent does so, what guarantee would I have that he would not be an advocate for his lifestyle, implicitly if not explicitly?
Wait. So, if heterosexual parents volunteer to chaperone a class trip to the local ball pit, and watch their children sink into a mass of balls, roll in the balls, stroke the balls, bury their faces in the balls, that is an implicit or explicit advocacy for heterosexuality?
And further, your worry is that if a homosexual reads to Catholic children it may turn the children gay? Well, it's a good thing that there are not homosexual Catholic priests. Because, I mean, if a homosexual Catholic Priest ever read to children then they could teach children homosexuality. But it's a good thing that no Catholic priests are homosexuals...
The same-sex couple was interestingly activist in hosting pizza parties, sponsoring tables at fundraisers, and volunteering when parental help was needed.
What a couple of selfish fucking faggots, right Michael? Offering their time and effort to help raise their children? God, what assholes.
When I complained to the principal, she claimed that the school would never divulge such information, as it was “confidential” and a matter of “privacy.”
What a bitch! I totally agree with Michael that homosexuals ought to identify themselves in some way. Perhaps they could wear stars on their clothing with the word "homosexual" in the middle. Yeah, badges ought to do it. And then we could form these "camps", where we could "concentrate" the homosexuals.
Man, I can't believe no one else ever thought of doing that.
The third reason is that it seemed a real danger that the boy being raised by the same-sex couple would bring to school something obscene or pornographic.
Yes, Michael Pakaluk, homosexual parents give their children pornography. Over the cribs of their adopted children homosexual couples hang mobiles of dongs, wangs, and testicles. The first books read to homosexual children are not Dr. Seuss, but rather excerpts from the Dr. Fuck-Cock's Jizz-testicle Orgynarium series. And I believe we have a clip here:
"See Spot Run. Run, Spot, Run! Lube, Spot, Lube! Bend over, Spot, Bend Over. Take that hot, throbbing cock in your asshole, Spot! Fuck, Spot, fuck! Work it, Spot, Work it. Lube, Spot, Lube! Oh god, Spot, Oh god. Yeah, Take it, Spot, Take it. You're a bitch, Spot. Oh yeah, all the way, Spot. Oh take that fucking cock, Spot, take that fucking rock-hard cock in your tight little fucking asshole. Oh, yes, Spot, yes, oh goooooooooooodd, Spot. Take it in the face, Spot, turn your fucking face towards that fucking dick, Spot, you little fucking whore, Spot.
Lick it up, Spot.
Lick it up."
When I raised these and similar concerns with the pastor, he replied that the school’s mission was to serve the child of the same-sex couple. I said that I believed that the Church indeed had such a mission, but that this mission conflicted with the mission to educate my son well.
Michael Pakaluk raises a good point: How will his children learn to be hateful, intolerant bigots within a school system which teaches tolerance, compassion, and love? Again, I suggest consulting the Klan for help.
Someone might wonder where the line should be drawn if children raised by same-sex couples are excluded from parochial schools. What about children raised by divorced, contracepting, or cohabiting couples?
Well--what would be the problem in requiring that if parents wish to enroll their children in a Catholic school, they must agree to abide by basic principles of morality?
First of all, I did not know that "contracepting" was a word. Second of all, I did not know that contraception was immoral. Third of all, if we are going to required that children enrolled in Catholic school be subject to the moral code of the Bible then, well, Leviticus. Let me know when you get to 25:44-46.
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Yeah, I always find it best to take my morality from books which condone slavery, too.
It should be said that all of my practical concerns involve young children, who should be innocent of sexual matters and whose familial affections are still being formed. Nothing I have said would count against admitting children raised by same-sex couples into high school, and probably not middle school.
OOOH, ok. So once kids get to high school they can be exposed to the cock-sucking faggot spawn of dick-sucking homorents? Well then I guess you aren't a close-minded, unread, uninformed, delusional, self-aggrandizing homophobe after all.
Michael Pakaluk is Professor of Philosophy at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences in Arlington, VA, where he teaches courses on ethics and the philosophy of marriage and the family. He formerly taught at Clark University, in Worcester, and has been a Visiting Scholar at Harvard University.
It also ought to be mentioned that Pakaluk's work focuses upon Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, a book he has apparently never read:
If activities are, as we said, what gives life its character, no happy man can become miserable; for he will never do the acts that are hateful and mean. For the man who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all the chances life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances, as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given him; and so with all other craftsmen.- Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1.
It's alright, Michael Pakaluck, the Nichomachean Ethics is really long. So I can understand that your work would focus upon it but you'd never read halfway through Book 1. Maybe one day you'll get around to reading that thing about which you have written multiple books.
Harvard University: We gave Michael Pakaluk a Ph. D.