Nothing to say, just messing with Google+

For testing purposes, y'all. Here's some Fisherman's Blues:



Squee! And I was going to be all productive this weekend (in a non-internets way), too.

Circle me!

Please stop making me defend these assholes

I'm starting to get that sickening feeling with Michele Bachmann that I did with Sarah Palin in years past, that feeling that no matter how much you despise them, you are going to end up sticking up for them more then you would normally care to. A prime example would be the "are you a flake" controversy over at Fox News this past weekend.

It's pretty disappointing, and here's why.

1. It's gendered.

I know, I know, that's playing right into Bachmann's hands so she can screech about sexism while at the same time fucking over her fellow women for political gain, something which always benefited Palin handsomely. And I'm well aware that like most things of this nature, I can't "prove" that it was thrown at her because of her gender. But I'd just point out that leading GOP candidate Mitt Romney is a well known "flip-flopper" on issues, and hypocrisy is pretty much the Republican norm at this point, yet I can't say I've ever seen anyone else addressed in this sort of manner, and so bluntly.


2. A constructive answer to that question does not exist.

I know pundits like their "gotcha!" questions because it makes them seem so bad-ass and all, but really, what sort of answer can one expect to a question like that? That Bachmann will break down weeping and say "It is true! It is true! Tis a silly flake am I! Oh how you've destroyed me, Chris Wallace!"? Probably not. It only offers the opportunity to express offense (which will play solidly into Bachmann's overall underdog campaign) or to create an clean little list of all the 'awesome' things Bachmann has done in her life which shows how Bachmann is totally a serious candidate. Which is a shame because...


3. The overall point Wallace was getting at was an important one, and now we are just talking about how he insulted the candidate.

For state's rights yet supportive of a federal ban on gay marriage? Against government spending unless it's something that benefits her own district? Decrying cuts to Medicare from "Obamacare" yet supporting the Ryan plan that does away with it completely? Bachmann is playing into conservative myths like most of her ideological peers, and it's about damn time someone pointed it out. And he blows it. Big time. There were so many more pointed questions Wallace could have busted out at that point.

Bachmann is a moron and a hypocrite, but what people tend to miss is that she's been in the political game for a long time, and she's proven that she knows how to survive. She knows how to work these sorts of things to her advantage. The best thing to do with candidates like her is give her enough rope, because it's guaranteed that she will eventually hang herself. Think of what worked with Palin - The narrative works best as "candidate x said something stupid, and is now whining about it", not as "candidate x was called stupid, and is now upset about it". Bachmann would be terrible for this country, and if allow her message to be heard loud and clear, I think the country will eventually pick up on that.

Instead, Bachmann came out of this looking like (a) the "underdog" victim of a cruel media (WHICH IS THE POINT PEOPLE) and (b) professional and serious because of how well she handled the attack (I would not have responded any other way. Unless I punched the fucker). This sort of thing is not helping.

Not that I expected Fox News to help.

U Mad, officer?

I found it interesting that the LulzSec leak of documents from the Arizona Police Department coincided with the FBI's decision to drop the case against Minnesota's most notorious gang, The Metro Gang Strike Force, investigating their 2005-2008 asset forfeiture free-for-all. Not that the two are related in any way, just that despite the negative press online anarchist groups such as LulzSec garner, there seems to be an increasing need for their actions.

The public would like to believe that citizen abuse in law enforcement is minimal, or that the actions of one good cop can take down even the most embedded hierarchy of corruption. We like to believe that in the end, the bad guys will lose, and the good guys will prevail. But as we saw with the Metro Gang Strike Force, which was brought to an end by a "good cop", this isn't necessarily the case. Sure, the Task Force was disbanded after the destruction of public's trust in them made doing their job impossible. But as for the consequences for the members of the Task Force that preyed on the public for years, there are none to be found. The abandonment of the case comes on the heals of the US Justice Department's announcement that no more charges will be filed against the members due to the lack of evidence against them. This would be the same evidence that was destroyed, in the middle of the night at their New Brighton office that just so happened to have it's security surveillance system disabled while the mass shredding of documents took place. All of the officers are presumably free to keep their jobs within law enforcement. Meanwhile, the public has coughed up a cool 3 million so far to pay off the civil lawsuit against the task force for harassment and theft.

Is it any wonder that the citizens are starting to become upset about this sort of thing, or are taking matters into their own hands? As technology allows citizens to document police abuses in real-time, the myth that the benefit of the doubt should always fall on the side of the boys in blue is slowly fading away in the eyes of an increasingly cynical public. Demigod Officer Friendly has been exposed as nothing more then a mere human, prone to the same flaws the rest of the populace is prone to, yet held to a noticeably much lower standard then civilians are for their mistakes and misdeeds.

But he's fighting back.

The Rochester story (in which a woman was charged with "Obstructing Governmental Administration" for standing in her own yard and filming what she believed to be a questionable traffic stop) just took a juvenile turn:

Basking in the viral glory bestowed upon one of its officers this week, the Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon.

The citizens were attending a meeting to discuss the arrest of Emily Good, the 28-year-old woman who was jailed for videotaping cops from her front yard, when they realized cops were outside issuing tickets for having parked more than 12 inches from the curb.

Know your place, citizen. Or we will give you really silly parking tickets.

I think my favorite part of this story is the police officer claiming that her recording is a "threat" to his safety because even though we never hear it on the audio, he claims she was making "anti-police" comments. Because making "anti-police" comments is all it takes to waive your rights away. I do really like that her neighbors stuck up for her (one called 911 when they perceived she was being harassed, because if for nothing else, there at least would be a record of the incident). I don't know if you would of seen the same citizen camaraderie 10 years ago.

At least she got some footage (and was able to pass her phone off to a neighbor), which is more then I can say for the Jim Tucker from The Fight Back, the reporter who last week produced the largest threat America has ever seen by trying to take a single cell phone photograph while covering a public meeting regarding the DC Taxi Commission. Reason Blogger Jim Epstein, who was also arrested when he filmed the harassment and arrest of Tucker, talks about the arrests:

About 30 minutes into the meeting, I witnessed journalist Pete Tucker snap a still photo of the proceedings on his camera phone. A few minutes later, two police officers arrested Tucker. I filmed Tucker's arrest and the audience's subsequent outrage using my cell phone.

A few minutes later, as I was attempting to leave the building, I overheard the female officer who had arrested Tucker promise a woman, who I presumed to be an employee of the Taxi Commission, that she would confiscate my phone. Reason intern Kyle Blaine, overheard her say, "Do you want his phone? I can get his phone."

But at the very least, the two reporters (I'm assuming) received their phones back in one piece. Narces Benoit's cell phone was smashed to bits after he recorded a Miami Police shootout earlier this month, which you never would have known about if he didn't act quickly to hide his SD card inside his mouth.

I could play this game all day (hey, at least Benoit wasn't charged under wiretapping laws that would throw him in prison for 16 years!). Law Enforcement really, really doesn't like it when you film them. Recording the police is now basically illegal in three states (Illinois, Massachusetts, and of course, Maryland), loosely based in wiretapping and eavesdropping laws that require two-party consent for filming. If the law isn't on their side, or if they are ignorant of the laws that are in place, officers are often able to threaten or detain citizens and confiscate their equipment with little to no recourse for violating citizen's rights - in fact, as we've seen in the past (and will more then likely see in the Rochester case) the burden is often on the citizen who, if they cannot be charged with filming the officers, will be charged under various other bullshit charges instead, which will more then likely be dropped or cost the department money when a civil case is eventually filed. But instead of training officers on conflict resolution and the legal rights of citizens in regards to record police, it appears they'd rather train officers on the dangers of OpenWatch instead. And if an increasingly skeptical public cannot obtain justice using those routes, is it any wonder that eventually, they would turn to vigilantism instead?

In reality, the attempt by law enforcement to prevent any sort of civilian documentation of their interactions of the public makes them look fairly suspect on it's own (it's almost as if they know the job tends to attract a certain type of personality that could cause problems down the road). I've often thought that all interactions between police and the public should be documented on film, as it not only protects the public from the police, but also the police against the public (dash cams in patrol cars exist for this very reason). And if there is still a segment of the population that honestly believes that the bad guys always have it coming, with or without due process, at the very least they should support these sorts of safeguards if for nothing more then the fact that corrupt law enforcement is costing the taxpayers millions in civil litigation payouts. If an officer conducts themselves with full accordance to the law (and many do), I see no reason why they wouldn't want the extra protection of filmed interactions, as a quick and false claim of assault has the potential to destroy that officer's career and rob him or her of their pension. This is an easy way to keep both the public and the police safe without violating anyone's civil rights, without any sort of vigilante actions that have the potential to expose classified information, without draining away city budgets through lawsuits. So what's the holdup at this point?

This post is 100% accurate because I say so

Is there anything more gratifying then watching a woman smack Scott Adams around? No. No there is not.

A little back story - Sock Puppet master and Dilbert creator Scott Adams, he of "arguing with women is just like arguing with four year olds and mentally handicapped folks" (because when he writes bullshit, women have the audacity to call him out on it) fame decided to pontificate of the sad sate of American males, and how they want to be all rapey and shit because that's their natural instinct but they can't because society set up the rules to favor women's natural instincts, which I guess comes down to not being rapey because he never really describes what he means by that, which means "society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness", because they can't rape people or cheat on their wives, which is totally the same thing.

Basically what I'm taking from this post is that we should probably just chemically castrate males (his suggestion) because Scott Adams has urges to rape people. I mean, you really have to wonder about folks that argue these things as "natural instincts". To me, it's just screams "Hey, I want to do shitty things, so I'm going to assume everyone else does too BECAUSE OF TEH BIOLOGY so I can convince myself I'm not a shitty person". And no, Scott Adams, we aren't going to castrate every male just because you want to rape people. The men in my life are fine. Leave them alone and get help dude. Seriously.

Now, like pretty much all his femimist-trolling posts, the standard response here is that this is not what Scott Adams meant at all, and if your little ladybrainz would just understand Teh Logic, you would realize that he is telling it like it is, sorry about your hurt feelings and all. Yet note that he never really provides any evidence to his claim that men are all rapists, his argument is instead that rape is merely a product of horniness, men are horny, therefore they all must want to rape, they can't, so they are sad. Leaving aside obvious examples such as the use of rape as a war crime or the use of prison rape as dominance and just looking at the horniness factor - rape is not a product of "I am horny, I want this, I rape". It has an extra step - I am horny, I want this, it is for some reason denied to me, but I am for (insert reason here) entitled to this, I rape". To conflate the two (horniness/desire to rape) is just creepy, full stop. As is his notion that sex (and all gender issues) are zero sum and about "winning" and "losing", that just screams "sex is a way to dominate" to me. I'll take a detour into jackass speculation land and venture a guess that Adams probably really sucks in bed. Unless she's into it, I suppose.

But I'm not going to go too deep into his failed arguments, because Mary Elizabeth Williams covered them quite well, and pretty much the only thing he's arguing here is "But hey, wouldn't these goal posts look so much better if I moved them over here by a few hundred feet? Also too people at the HuffPo agree with me so there and women that disagree with me are crazy". It's an amusing read. It's quite amazing how quickly these fuckers fall apart and cling to their logical fallacies. Scott Adams is under the impression that those less then him can't see this. Scott Adams is wrong. I mean, the strawman is pretty much the most well-known fallacy there is, and he humps it as if his life depended on it - his latest post whining about how mean women are (no, I'm not linking to it, google it) presents a "reading comprehension test" which contains gems like this:

If I say Dutch men are the tallest in the world, which of the following facts have I implied?

1. I'm a racist.
2. Every Dutch man is taller than every other man.
3. I have a low opinion of women because I didn't even mention them.
4. None of the above

Because empirically observable traits such as height and jackass musings about the hard-wiring of men's brains being all rapey from the guy that created Dilbert are equally on par in terms of scientific validity. Yeah. So now you know what we're dealing with.

Adams is one of those guys that builds himself a shield of logic and then cowers behind it. And by that, I don't mean that he uses arguments based in logic, just that he claims his arguments are based in logic, because he's just one of those logical guys, he's a certified genius, so the only way you could possibly disagree with him is if you lack basic common sense. He's already stated that he's logical, you dig? So if you disagree, you are not. QED.

I used to see these guys quite a bit back in my Duty Calls days, they usually take the handle of "Common Sense Mike" or "Rational Thinker" or some other such nonsense*, and they are always amusing as hell because they are usually the one person on the thread that lacks those traits. And I think that's the point. There's really no reason to put that sort of label on yourself, because the quality of your argument is going to be judge based on just that - your argument. Not how awesome, realistic, or intelligent you claim you are. If you make poor arguments, sure, perhaps you do have to attempt to paint yourself as some sort of unbiased observer that's just going off of the hard cold facts. But the same people you are trying to appeal to with that sort of self-labeling are the same people that are actually going to judge you based on the content you provide. If you are awesome, realistic, intelligent, a rational thinker, or someone chock full o'common sense, well, that's going to come out based in the arguments that you make, isn't it? And if not, that label isn't going to convince anyone otherwise.

I actually take these sorts of labels as a warning sign at this point.

*I feel the same way about people that claim political labels such as "Independent" (sorry mom), "Moderate" or "Centrist". A buddy of mine still has my favorite political label on the Facebook - it simple says "Partisan". And I'll trust his viewpoint over most "independents" any day.

They also replaced your coffee with Folgers

lolwut?

U.S. Sen. John McCain is blaming illegal immigrants for starting some of the wildfires that have scorched hundreds of thousands of acres in Arizona.

"There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally," McCain, R-Arizona, said Saturday at a press conference. "The answer to that part of the problem is to get a secure border."The Arizona senator, however, did not say what the evidence is, prompting a swift rebuke from Latino civil rights advocates.

Illegals! Is there anything they can't do?

McCain said that illegal immigrants set such fires either to send signals,

Because when you are sneaking into a country, the best thing to do is use a bonfire to signal to other folks that you are sneaking into a country.

keep warm

Because Arizona is freezing in June, y'all. Freezing.

or distract law enforcement agents.

You'd think this conflicts with the above charge that the fires are being used to signal others, but it doesn't. See, when they are signaling others, the smoke is in Spanish. English is used to distract. Ha ha, stupid gringos.

This dude really needs to retire.

(via)

Unicorns gather in Minneapolis to move forward with "Operation Annoy Obama" plan

So, Netroots Nation 2011 in Minneapolis this past weekend, and I had that 4th of July feeling when you don't go see the fireworks because it's just silly and not worth the hassle but then come ten o'clock you hear them going off and you feel kind of sad in a way even though you know it's silly and kind of a hassle but you still get that urge to run out and maybe you can just see a few but you know you won't make it in time anyway so you just get drunk and eat macaroni instead and the feeling eventually passes.

It's not like I really missed anything other then the opportunity to throw shit at Andy Breitbart ("Right Online 2011" was also in Minneapolis at the same time), because the videos are starting to come out, and from the few I've watched, can I just say I wasn't very impressed with (Angry Mouse) Kaili Joy Gray's interview with White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer like everyone else seems to be?

Not that there weren't good parts, or that I could do any better (I'd be hiding under the table passing him notes, because that's how I roll) but I sensed a chance to really set the whole DFH bashing straight and I feel like it was missed. Like I've said in the past, I feel one of the major problems between this White House and the Netroots is that the actual arguments aren't really being taken seriously and instead subject to strawman arguments - it's "the Left", and we know how they are.

For example, when Gray touches on the tenancy for Democrats to cave on liberal values in response to Republican obstructionism, she brings up the Hyde Amendment in regards to Health Care reform. At which Pfeiffer goes into lecture mode and says simply - it wouldn't pass. Bipartisanship, bitches. It's all about compromise, don't you silly little kids know that? You can't always get what you want.

Well, for one, what's not touched on here is that the major stumbling block was a Democrat in the Senate - Ben Nelson. You know, one of those guys that we had to bite our tongues and support back in the aughts because Howard Dean's liberal utopia is so close, guys, and if you ladyfolks would just shut the fuck up about your rights and shit, everything would just be peachy? That worked out really well for us.

This does highlight a problem within the Democratic Party. You know why Republicans tend to vote in lockstep with each other? Because if they don't, their asses are in trouble, and they know it. And although they do it to excess, which I'm not advocating, I do believe there are certain issues that the party should be united on. And Health Care is a major one, it seems like a no-brainer to me. Instead, Democrats have become the party of "Not Republicans", which allows every single drama queen in congress to steal the spotlight and obstruct their own party's legislation. This is a problem. Any "Democrat" that honestly tried to derail Health Care reform should seriously have their committee memberships reviewed.

But rambling on that aside, the I probably wouldn't of brought up Hyde. What I would bring up is the Public Option. Because that, my friends, is where Democrats really screwed the pooch. And it is a solid example of where the White House is, deliberately or not, strawmanning the arguments surrounding it, and offering up this idiotic "bipartisan" lecture as an excuse. Oh, those whiny leftists, they won't take anything but a plan with a public option in it, they will end up tanking the whole project, they are so unreasonable.

Except that's not really why people are upset about it. I'd argue that although it was a desired outcome in many circles, most liberals never really believed we would have a single-payer system in health care after this legislation was passed. Instead, it's because it was never considered. Never on the table. Didn't exist. And for those of us that are understanding of the need to compromise, this never made sense. The White House gave away what was probably the best bargaining chip we had in the Health Care debate, for nothing.

Perhaps they have good reasons. I suppose, if the Public Option was seriously considered in the Health Care debate, it would have caused the Republicans to don funny hats and run around that summer screaming about socialism.

Oh wait.

And I think that's what the Dirty Fucking Hippies are really upset about. It's not a matter of them stomping their feet and holding their breath until they get what they want. It's that what they want doesn't currently even exist in the debate. They don't currently exist in the debate. And they should - starting negotiations absent solidly liberal input is a bad idea for a number of reasons, the whole "deficit" fetish when the middle class is desperately gasping to stay afloat should provide a solid example as to why.

"The Left" exists for a reason, and Democrats would do well to pay them a bit more heed; they present a starting point for compromise. Real compromise covers everyone, it starts with extremes and settles in the middle. As it stands now, the only debate we have in this country is between the center left and the extreme right.

Want to take a guess as to where the "compromise" is always going to land within this nice little frame we've created?

I know I shouldn't go for the low-hanging fruit like this...

But it's just too easy.

Exhibit A:



Exhibit B:



That is all.

Jesus and John Galt fistfight in Hell

The religious right is starting to catch onto fact that they are being suckered for political gain, and the ensuing slap fight is amusing:

GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values. Many who for years have been the loudest voices invoking the language of faith and moral values are now praising the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand whose teachings stand in direct contradiction to the Bible. Rand advocates a law of selfishness over love and commands her followers to think only of themselves, not others. She said her followers had to choose between Jesus and her teachings.

GOP leaders want to argue that they are defending Christian principles. But, at the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan (author of the GOP budget) is posting facebook videos praising Rand's morality and saying hers is the "kind of thinking that is sorely needed right now." Simply put, Paul Ryan can't have it both ways, and neither can Christians. As conservative evangelical icon Chuck Colson recently stated, Christians can not support Rand's philosophy and Christ's teachings. The choice is simple: Ayn Rand or Jesus Christ. We must choose one and forsake the other.

I was wondering when Rand's militant atheism would become a public relations problem with the social conservatives. Not that this whole "Jesus is love" vs "Fuck you, I got mine" divide wasn't glaringly obvious to anyone that wasn't a hardcore tribal partisan to begin with, but this recent group humping of Ayn Rand's dead corpse is really exaggerating it lately.

Of course, the boilerplate response to this by right wingers is that it's unfair to point out that their purported moral values and their ideology completely contradict each other, because while Jesus was totally about the whole caring for the less fortunate thing and not so much on the protecting massive amounts of wealth that is being hoarded by the few thing, he would never advocate for "forced charity" via taxation for things like social safety nets. We know this because he dined with tax collectors and prostitutes, and while one would assume that he was doing so to save them, he was really only interested in saving the prostitutes and just like to hang out and talk commodity futures with the tax collecters, because shut up, that's why. Bottom line - Jesus never attempted to coerce or force people to be charitable like the government does.

Aside from that whole "accept my teachings or burn in eternal hellfire" thing, I suppose.

Personally, I think being presented with the threat of never-ending fiery-pitchfork torture could coerce a motherfucker into coughing up some quarters for the needy once in a while - for the true believers, it really comes down to a question of eternal hellfire or being "forced" to pay for food for poor kids, right? I mean, sure, you can whine about societal leeches or theft by government, but when compared to damnation? God isn't fucking around, and I just feel like getting on his bad side would pretty much trump any other concerns one would have.

Unless of course, you don't actually believe in that nonsense and are merely using it keep the rubes at the polls to vote you into office, so you can continue giving out handsome payouts to your wealthy business buddies at the expense of everyone else.

In that case, yes, the IRS is probably worse.

(via)

Bachmann: 1 Pawlenty: 0 Minnesota: Zzzzzzz...

Hold on to your hats kiddos, because it is so fucking on: 

 

On Tuesday, ThinkProgress Health reported on Tim Pawlenty's past flirtation with enacting universal coverage by mandating insurance, expanding Medicaid and reforming the health care system. During a November 11, 2006 health care forum, Pawlenty — fresh off a close election victory for his second term — said his administration has been "studying very diligently the Massachusetts model about how that would apply to Minnesota" and pledged to "move in stages" toward "universal coverage." "Everyone should be in a health plan of some sort…but I think as a goal we should start with covering all kids," he said.

 

Yesterday, the other potential presidential candidate from Minnesota — Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) — criticized Pawlenty for his 2006 remarks:

 

"I think it will concern the voters," she told conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham….Bachmann said that it's important to have candidates who have been consistent on issues like healthcare reform, saying she has been consistent in opposing President Obama's healthcare law.

 

A fine example of the climatic Minnesota bitch-slap. Bachmann isn't a hater; she's just concerned about the voters, you see.  

 

It's going to be so awesome watching these two concern-troll each other to death over the summer. No one does passive-aggressiveness better then Minnesotans. No one.   

Fight the real enemy

I have to admit to watching John King's interview with Michele Bachmann on CNN a few nights ago. I was just flipping through channels, and had to stop because I noticed Bachmann didn't look as insane as she normally does (which kind of worried me, I'd like to keep my Bachmann appearing crazy as hell), but Mr. Stacy assures me that it's only because she wasn't smiling as much.

But Bachmann's mental health is not the point of this post. Naturally, since the most astute commentators on the Israel/Palestine situation are always pious christian right-wing republicans, the topic came up. And Bachmann, well versed in her culture war talking points, had plenty to say about Obama's statements on Israel last week:

BACHMANN: We are looking at unprecedented unrest in the Middle East. I completely stand in opposition to what President Obama's remarks were last week regarding Israel, saying that Israel must shrink borders to 1967 borders and to allow a passageway for Palestine -- that would be the wrong thing to do. It would bring greater hostility to the Middle East.

KING: That's not exactly what he said. He did say with mutually agreed to -- mutually negotiated land swaps. Now, it is very rare for any president of the United States, of course, to use the term 1967 borders. However, he did say and clarified it in the AIPAC speech that just as they had a plan in the table late in the Clinton administration, you essentially go back to 1967, but then you negotiate land swaps. Israel says --

BACHMANN: John, you can defend, you can stand here and defend the president's remarks. I will not defend the president's remarks.

KING: I'm not defending. I'm not explaining*.

So now apparently pointing out what a Democratic politician actually said on the record instead of just letting your right-wing guest straight-up lie about it is "defending" his or her remarks, and if you dare question that, you are not to be trusted.(CNN transcript via RealClearPolitics, but I'm pretty sure King said "I'm not defending, I'm explaining". Could be wrong on that though)

Meanwhile, Republicans are still getting the vapors over the fact that Democrats, the "liberal media", and basically pretty much everyone else in the country are interpreting Paul Ryan's budget plan as a plan that does away with Medicare completely in order to give the wealthy more tax breaks, which is totally unfair because all his plan really does is do away with Medicare completely in order to give the wealthy tax breaks, and hey, he's calling those vouchers that won't come close to covering the health care costs for the elderly "Medicare", so obviously, this is a partisan attack. Stop being so mean, liberals.

So now apparently pointing out what an unpopular Republican-proposed policy actually does instead of just letting right-wingers just piss on your leg and call it rain is the worst partisan attack ever.

And of course the cruelest people of all are gay people that go around being all gay and shit, instead of being properly shamed into never showing their faces anywhere but gay clubs (which should be underground and unnoticed, thankyouverymuch).

So now apparently choosing to exist despite strict authoritan rules that Republicans have so nicely laid out for society in order to protect the feelings of bigots is the worst partisan attack ever.

And then there's Caribou Barbie, who still has a major bug up her ass about how the media was so mean to ask her questions and all, enough so that she has to plan a secret bus tour as a big "FUCK YOU" to the press because this one time? Katie Couric asked her what newspapers she reads?

So now apparently asking softball questions that your conservative demigod is too stupid to answer is the worst partisan attack ever.

For a group of folks who are constantly screaming about "PC Culture" and "censorship" because they can't use racial slurs anymore, they sure get some major butthurt over some silly (perceived) slights, don't they?

Too bad for us the media is completely willing to run with it. "A Republican was outraged over some clouds in the sky! More at 11".