Bloggers report nut-jobs poll created on Facebook, then offer creepy anti-conservative diatribe

(A comment on a good move that instantaneously turns smelly-bad by authors of a rail-jumping 'Slobbering Blog')

An idiot Facebook user created a poll asking users if our president, Barack Obama, should be violently offed, wasted, done away. Pure madness, right? Happily, some loyal Obama supporters with a blog were aware and activist enough, when they noticed this thing, to not vote in it (I assume they didn't), but instead report it to the Secret Service.

What an adult, awesome thing to do, huh? I thought so too. Then I read their blog.

Say these saviors of all of us from a vile FB weeny, on their blog:

"The hate speech, the threats have gotten completely out of hand. And those who have incited viewers and listeners.. (here I omitted the non-liberal targets of their opinions)... are responsible for a good part of this horrific activity."

Oh, COMPLETELY out of hand! Yes! Horrible! This FB poll by some college dweeb, this is just one tiny little SIGN that the nation is much more dangerous with conservatives saying things of a broad, anti-leftist and/or anti-statist variety! They marched, for goodness sake! And in Washington, DC! Who marches in DC but scary people! (Like Christian fathers, or a million -- or so -- black men, or ... members of the military.)

These Thomas Paines of blogging go on, with great knowing: "No, it is not 'grassroots', not even close. It is a sick, terrifying, dangerous movement toward violence and the worst kind of civil unrest."

You know, that worst kind of civil unrest: the organized, overwhelmingly tame, and nonpolluting kind. Why, what else could that be but the WORST? Else the accusations and paranoia of these bloggers would be ... completely illogical, utter silliness! (Note: the impish exception is not the rule; the rule is the rule. Look into it.)

These modern Samuel Adamses go on: "The same "party leaders" who get their rocks off by pretending to be macho and exerting their windbaggy, wrongheaded power will one day come to realize that killing is real, not just a word on a Facebook poll."

Huh! So what these people are saying is, life ISN'T video game! I've learned something here! I wonder if those guys who created that Bush assassination film (YouTube clip only) realized this? No way. They would never have made that movie if they understood death is REAL. I think these bloggers must be the first in years to appreciate the difference between irate stooges' antics and reality, in fact. They seem so sure if it, at least.

And finally, these entirely rational American heroes state, of the obvious leaders of all these millions of dangerous anti-tax, anti-big government activists (all actually racists longing for the days of separate water coolers and when only white blues musicians got paid fairly, it's sooo obvious): "Time to tame them. And time to demand that they tame their deranged, diseased herd of blind followers."

Oh, most definitely. Taming them and their millions of deranged, diseased followers!!!!!!

I am sooo glad the Internet has rational people like these bloggers around to help us all keep our rational, aluminum-foil-laced cowboy hat-covered noggins.

Here's the full post by these brainiacs, which effectively gets interesting at "Okay, that's it, I've had it."

- jR AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sen. Dodd's reelection bid embraces his, umm, success with banking

From the Political Hah! Dept.:

Chris Dodd’s Comeback Slogan: ‘Banking on Change’ - BrianFaughnan’s blog - RedState

So what’s Chris Dodd’s plan to save his lucrative government gig? Remind people of his spot on the Banking Committee [link to RollCall article]:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), facing increasingly difficult odds in 2010, is spending the two-week recess barnstorming his home state to try to improve his political standing…

The appearances are part of a series dubbed “Banking for Change,” meant to highlight Dodd’s work on consumer protection issues as chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

Seriously? [link to Dodd's site]

If Dodd manages to win this time around, having proven what a terribly self-interested boob he is -- and it appears that Conn. voters are even less cerebral than Mass. and West Va. voters (Ted, John Kerry, Barney, etc.) -- it shows just how much work that sincere, dignified conservatives and general non-cretins will have to get through to try to recover some sway in D.C. That is, to clarify, there is a lot of work to come for people who believe in simple things:

• smaller government,
• a balanced budget,
• power to the actual people (not their elected king by proxy),
• peace through strength,
• America still is (stuck or blessed as) the leader of the free world and should act like it,
• despising mistreatment of people here but giving passes for mistreatment of "groups" elsewhere is absurd
• liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness don't equate with living in a welfare state
• we have the biggest guns, and we don't prefer to use them, but we damn well will
  

So, cut to the chase: Get the pitchforks, effigies, tar, feathers, and torches ready. Just like the good old, pre-Revolutionary War, days.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

JustOneMinute blog: Frank cares less for frankness than winning

Oh, to hell with division of government!

Ironic that a leader of the legislature assaults a leader of the judiciary for NOT legislating from the bench. But then, there is very little about Barney "Rubble" Frank proclamations that aren't somehow ironic, more often than not. If he has any challenge, he is embittered by it, all too often.

I recall that this is the man who famously claimed (but, thanks to lack of perspective in media, given a reprieve for it) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaders and procedures were not at all in need of revision as recently as August 2008. Uhh, wrong!

JustOneMinute: The Ongoing Corruption Of Language

I don't find support for Frank's assertion that Scalia believes homosexuality "deserves" to be treated with disapproval; I find a stern reminder that the public deserves courts that wait until legislatures legislate before creating new rights.

Oh, well - Frank is not interested in a frank exchange of views. His goal is to shut down debate by branding everyone on the other side as a homophobe.

Barney Frank is an extreme example of one of the two types of office holders: there are, quite broadly, public servants and power seekers. They are all some mix of the two, right?

If someone listened to Frank's crude provocations and insisted that he was far more a public servant than the other, they must find professional wrestling a subtle form of entertainment.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

(Photo: credited to AP)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Abortion 'pride' is encouraged by professional student

Opposing Views: OPINION: It's Time for an Abortion Pride Movement - Jacob Appel

Everybody is proud these days. While “pride” as a collective concept may have originated with the Gay Rights movement of the 1970s, now marchers in the St. Patrick’s Day parade are as likely to sport pins boasting “Proud to be Irish” and my Jewish friends are as proud to be Jewish as my Muslim friends are proud to be Muslim—although I always wonder if they wouldn’t be equally proud if they had been born into the opposite faiths.

...

The anti-abortion movement already has its own pride movement. If one reads about reproductive issues in the conservative media—which I often do—one is bombarded with tales of mothers who have sacrificed personal and professional opportunities to bring fetuses to term.

Because, you know, sex as the right of every horny kid and adult on the planet, with no consequences deserved for the realities of the act, is paramount. There is no reason for facing the consequences of being a loose-legged bimbo, being an oppressively horny and emotionally selfish boyfriend, getting sloppy about birth control, or no reason for taking responsibility for being otherwise stupid. That is not the easiest option, after all. Getting rid of the problem is the solution. No matter what that means. Reminds me of liberal concepts for everything. Insincerity, and personal rights -- those to the level of a vicious selfishness -- above logic, responsibility and everything else.

Oh, I see! Judging from the volumes of degrees Mr. Appel has, this author is a professional student. That must be a nice life.

Out here in the real world we see people ruined by decisions that they think will make the "pain" go away, only to be haunted by it their wholes lives. Pride, indeed.

I guess studying ethics and having a sense of them are two vastly different things, in looking at this guy's thinking. Abortion pride and bestiality acceptable, I've seen all I need to. This guy takes mindless, academic openness to a new high. Or, low.

Somehow, many supporters of abortion rights have been lulled into accepting the rhetoric that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That may be good language for winning elections, but it does a profound disservice to the millions of women who have abortions in this nation each year. Abortions should be safe and legal. That goes without saying. But rare? Abortions should be as frequent or as infrequent as are unwanted pregnancies.

Furthering being the creepiest "ethicist" I have ever read, he goes to the extraordinary level of proclaiming -- without actually saying it, but effectively admitting -- his deep desire for a utopian world where guilt does not exist. I assume this author figures the whole world thinks as he does, that a baby out of the womb is a baby out of mind:

I dream of the day when women are not afraid to walk the streets with pins reading, “I had an abortion and it was the right decision,” and when station wagons bear bumper-stickers announcing, “Thank me for having an abortion when I wasn’t ready to be a parent.” I admire those individuals who work to ensure a women’s right to choose. But choice is a merely a foundation. Ultimately, women—if they so desire—should feel comfortable expressing public pride in their brave and wise choices.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

El Salvador's self-proclaimed Obama, a Marxist, wins top spot

A former CNN correspondent has won the presidency of El Salvador. The new leader campaigned, in his own words, as the Obama for El Salvador, to the chagrin of U.S. State Dept. He is considered a far leftist Marxist and was running on the ticket of a former guerrilla organization.

El Salvador Former Rebels Win Their First Presidential Election - Bloomberg.com

El Salvador’s former rebel party won its first presidential election, ending two decades of rule for one of the staunchest U.S. allies in Central America.

Mauricio Funes, the candidate of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, said he would usher in a new type of leadership for Central America’s smallest country.

“Thank you for choosing hope over fear,” Funes said in San Salvador late yesterday in a speech carried on CNN Espanol. “This is a victory for all of El Salvador.”

Rodrigo Avila of the National Republican Alliance conceded defeat after results from yesterday’s election showed he trailed Funes. It is the first presidential loss in two decades for the ruling party, which squared off against the Marxist rebel group in a 12-year civil war that ended in 1992 and has remained close to successive U.S. administrations.

Funes, 49, a former television journalist, said he is willing to work with U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders. He campaigned on a slogan of “hope is born,” saying he represents the same type of change as Obama.

...

The former rebel FMLN emerged as El Salvador’s second-largest political party after signing peace accords in 1992, ending a civil war with a U.S.-backed military government that left about 75,000 people dead.

...

Funes never took up arms for the FMLN. His vice-presidential candidate, Salvador Sanchez Ceren, is a former rebel commander.

...

The former rebels made their greatest electoral gains at the beginning of this year, picking up 35 of 84 congressional seats, three more than they held before. Arena candidates won 32 legislative spots, down from 34 in 2004 elections.

The conservative party for which Avila was candidate had been in charge for two decades.

There is a troubling facet of this election campaign, and this win, for Obama, and perhaps it is also a welcome parallel for Obama's political foes to exploit into the future. Seeing as El Salvador is a very small country, it might get no traction, in any way, here in the U.S. However, supposed Democratic Party and liberal philosophy wonks, such as the blow-hard too-dumb-to-know-he's-an-angry-socialist Sean Penn, and TV/radio host and socialist apologist and Castro fan Tavis Smiley, are likely rejoicing this win.

The leftist was patterning his campaign and self-identification with not some Marxist or socialist leader such as Castro, Chavez or even a French or Swedish leader, but with Barack Obama. While Obama claims to be no leftist nor interested in harming private sector determination of the economy in favor of government-controlled economics, he has some extremists identifying with him. This El Sal. guy proclaimed his blatant Marxism to be the Obama tactics for that country.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

If I had a dime for every time a socialist said this over the years...

If you think this is bad, wait till next year, says Russian scholar.

Russian scholar says US will collapse --next year (AP via Breitbart)

It wasn't clear how persuasive the 20-minute lecture was. One instructor asked Panarin whether his predictions more accurately describe Russia, which is undergoing its worst economic crisis in a decade as well as a demographic collapse that has led some scholars to predict the country's demise.

Panarin dismissed that idea: "The collapse of Russia will not occur."

But Alexei Malashenko, a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center who did not attend the lecture, sided with the skeptical instructor, saying Russia is the country that is on the verge of disintegration.

"I can't imagine at all how the United States could ever fall apart," Malashenko told the AP.

It's pretty sad when, by contrast to the topic at hand, a contrary view after a Russian speech on the collapse of the U.S. gives me more confidence than my president!


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

So-called progressives' cry against AM radio: anti-free market rules are pro-free speech

The recent assault on talk radio by progressives (so-called) has also produced comments that moderate reporting, or non-biased to non-media people, is boring. That's just one of the little offshoots of this odd agenda being taken up right now.

I have a serious problem with this. This is the worst of what liberalism, or progressivism, or whatever you call it, has to offer. It shows the broader goal they look toward: to run things without a care of free markets or consumer and market guided business. It's called overregulating. They are for it. I am against underregulating, but this is no better. Nooo better!

The playground rules of equal time at bat is now being pushed for radio. Have you ever listened to AirAmerica? I once listened to a ten-minute assault on Barbara Bush, back in January 2009, calling her mean and vicious and alleging all sorts of profane things about her. I think they actually referred to her as fat at one point. I mean, it was foul and just mean. Why? How appealing is it that these "radio personalities" go after the MOTHER of the current president! Little wonder this stuff dies in the free market! Crude, and more ironically juvenile than Pee Wee's Playhouse (or, for that matter, more juvenile than Glenn Beck's radio show some days, when he does the cynical, half-funny "America's favorite game show" segments)!

Since the free market does not exist for these pro-overregulation clowns, there's ongoing debate of 'conservative' radio vs. fairness doctrine for radio. Not papers & TV, but just radio! Would force far left liberal - oh wait, 'progressive' - radio on radio stations. For what? Their future economic success?!!

They call it a 'system' of companies. Bull. Air America not a company, then? It ignores the biz law of what sells ads, which certainly TRUMPS any 'BALANCE' LAW. Ask any struggling paper just how much ads determine their life or death! Or, any radio station! This smacks of collectivism, where the media would be controlled by the all-knowing, all-controlling hand of government. Period.

I would welcome more successful liberal radio, because the so-called progressives are being so oddly anti-business, anti-free market, and inferring communist ideals in their hassling of radio stations and their owners that it smacks of outright shameless envy and jealousy. They will apparently stop only short of cutting power sources to radio stations with this assault on AM radio. (I should avoid mentioning that some areas, such as Nashville, Tenn., have excellent FM talk stations.)

Think Progress » Dear Rush Limbaugh, Why Are You Hell-Bent On Protecting A Radio Market That Limits Free Speech?
(First of all, HAAA! What a headline! Can you guess where that's going? Duh!)

ThinkProgress asked the authors of the original report to respond to Limbaugh. Two co-authors, CAP’s John Halpin and Free Press’s Josh Silver, gave us this response:

Dear Rush Limbaugh:

We have a straightforward question, which we hope you will answer in a straightforward way: When a handful of major media companies control who and what is allowed to be broadcast on the commercial dial, how is that not regulation of radio content? When these same companies then push out one-sided, right-wing information 90 percent of the time, how does that uphold freedom of expression?

Those of us at CAP, Free Press and other public interest organizations do not want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and we definitely do not want to limit free speech. We want more of it. You and other conservatives seem more interested in protecting a system that does the exact opposite.

If Limbaugh wants a debate, let’s have it.

Go ahead and call him, debate it! Please! There's only a few of you who could manage to handle it! But debate? Good luck with that. Rhetoric as what comes from ThinkProgess will not play for success on this issue. I think it would bore his listeners if he waited until these closeted big govt freaks had the nerve to call him and offer something remotely close to a civil, topical argument about this subject.

In the piece they at once call these "commercial stations", yet bluntly claim that they "push" an agenda? How is it that they are making any money, then? Somebody must be advertising on the stations! So all the advertisers are conservatives, too, and there's some secret handshake of advertisers and listeners who support those businesses?

Their presumption falls on its face, it seems, and they surely must know it. How can dashing free market ideals for their version of a "free" (wink) media possibly pass muster under authentic public debate? These pro-controlled airwaves (oh, but ONLY radio!) people are tossing rocks, and keeping their distance, they are not offering a debate.

Liberals have most of TV in their back pockets. Viewership of news on TV is lowering, for them. MSNBC is the laughed-at geek among all TV news entities, and steeply liberal. It is rising generally, we learned recently from viewership reports, but MSNBC is comparably rising far less than FOX News. Fox News is of course another media outlet despised by liberals. This one is disliked for simply not being liberal rather than for its being rampantly conservative -- but don't try to tell any of them that, they're too busy calling it racist, fascist and owned by "the Man". These same liberals pan PBS and NPR for being too moderate, too. Shame. I like both of those, and appreciate their reporting. Funny, I thought reporting was meant to be objective as possible, but plenty of progressives -- and a few blow-hard counterparts on the far right -- call objectivity boring. So much for news reporting and "boring" old journalism!

Liberals lay claim to the majority of large newspapers in the nation, and seem to be doing just fine with not forcing "balance" on those media. So, what gives? Not debate, that's for sure! Can you imagine if conservative talk radio hosts started insisting that such action be taken to level the playing field on television, or in major newspapers, what would happen? Can you imagine if someone allegedly legitimate tried -- seriously, not as a joke -- to petition HBO to have a counterbalance to the Bill Maher show?

How is it that AM radio, which is for some the mocked poster child for old technology, gets so much attention from these folks for abuse of free markets? Isn't this a bit like hilariously odd, like a liberal faction of our government demanding that we invade the Phillipines?

Perhaps they are doing this since they simply want to win the ubiquitous debate, not actually have one. You know, like Chavez holds elections, and supporters take control of gov't buildings while the election happens to show their support. They'll debate it, but only on their terms. "I'll debate you any time! Just submit the questions three days ahead of time, please!"

I really wish I could resist reacting to any particularly stupid fringe ideas for control, at either edge, but I cannot help it when they are conceptually bizarre and insincere as this is. Who'd have thought that AM radio was the chief threat to the First Amendment!


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

(rev. Feb. 24, 2009)

Bad policy, bad ethics, broken ideals, and the downfall of America's markets

Yet more clear reasons why Obama and the Democrats (if we can still call them that, and not Obamacrats) won an election based on the broadest of false claims, that the economics of laissez faire, of hands-off and low taxes, got us into this. It was not capitalism and free markets that hurt us, it was failure by gov't, be it Clinton, GW Bush, or many years of Congressional leaders, that got us into this mess. And yes, CRA and poverty mortgages got us into this!

This problem of the failing economy was PARTLY the fault of Republicans in Congress, since they make the LAWS, but not sure when GW Bush instisted banking regulations be all but forgotten. In fact, it seems the GOP leaders were basically assuaged -- or illicitly looked the other way -- and played along with crazy, fast-times-will-never-slow policies, in the case of the sour mortgages that turned into sour credit default swaps, which turned into a ruined U.S. economy.

In my thoughts, in reading about this economic crisis and how we got here, I am reacting against big government types, and socialists, and liberals, all who to some extent or another seem to be convincing people that the GOP did this to us. Ironic, then, that it was liberal mortgage ideas that got us here, right alongside a lack of regulations (which, indeed, is a small gov't thus GOP attitude) but not by way of GW Bush, but through Clinton-era Congressional diddling through the ever-expanding nonsense of CRA and ill-thought mortgage regulations.

Here's some hard work to that end, linked below, but diced into some small pieces, following:

Feds Re-Impose Loan Standards They Helped Undermine | RealClearMarkets

There is a great irony that Washington will now lead the way in imposing new, stricter standards, including a tougher income-to-payment ratio, because it was Washington, prodded by affordable housing advocates, which pushed mortgage lenders to dilute their traditional underwriting values in the first place. Federal regulators attacked those established standards as being “unintentionally biased” against low and moderate income borrowers and used a variety of laws and regulatory bodies to push often resistant lenders into programs based on these lower standards. The government and those who backed its actions assured lenders these lower standards were safer than they thought, even though there was little research to support that contention. Now that a huge chunk of the market based on these debased standards has melted down, the government is going full circle.

And those who were most easily "prodded by affordable housing advocates" are now running things, so this is quite quite ironic.

...a Freddie Mac program called Affordable Gold, which purchased loans from banks under looser underwriting standards, including loans which allowed a borrower to make a down payment with funds contributed from a third party like a government assistance program or a nonprofit, showed sharply higher default rates, up to four times higher than traditional underwriting standards.

...politicians in both parties made expanding the number of home owners in America a high priority, and the only way to keep doing that was to lend to people with increasingly riskier credit.

Got bad credit? No problem! Not only will you get a loan, but it will be with a low interest rate, too! We'll bend over backwards for our risky customers since Big Brother asked us to. After all, everyone deserves to lose a home at least once in their lifetime!

In a recent Forbes article Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute and Edward Pinto, former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae, point out that by 2001, 18 percent of Fannie Mae’s portfolio consisted of loans to people with credit scores below 680—the traditional definition of a loan to someone with riskier credit, who is also someone more likely to default.

Of course, with two huge federal agencies willing to purchase such loans, mortgage makers couldn’t churn them out fast enough, and private investors also began snapping up the loans in competition with Fannie and Freddie.

As if that is not insulting enough, and ironic that this all came to a head during GW Bush's time in office, when he was too busy waging war on Teararists to notice the economy was failing in a big way, there's this little nugget to chew on:

[Relevant experts] say federal programs were not the problem because many of the worst loans portfolios were created by non-bank lenders which are not even subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. But that’s an argument that ignores the much broader role that government played in watering down standards, including using pressure to force players across the industry to participate.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development under President Clinton, for instance, threatened to introduce legislation to make non-bank lenders, that is, mortgage finance companies, subject to CRA if these firms didn’t sign on to affordable lending goals.

So where were these blowhard, blame Bush, extended-stay Congress members during all of this, for two double-term presidents?!! Those sillies over in Congress -- can't do anything without the White House, it seems!

Who were some of the big fans of this fun mortgage idea? Countrywide hopped right into the cesspool first!

One of the first ... to take up the pledge was Countrywide, which pledged to introduce low-down payment loans with high income-to-payment ratios for low-income borrowers. Countrywide and its co-founder, Angelo Mozilo, ultimately became infamous as one of the first major mortgage lenders to melt down under the weight of its bad lending, but before it was notorious Countrywide was celebrated for its low-income efforts.

Today, the Obama administration acknowledges through its bailout program that those standards were unsafe. It’s a backhanded acknowledgement. ... I suppose that’s about as far as we can expect government to go in admitting the mess it helped to make.

I guess I don't get a bailout, since I was not getting any loans out. Oh well. I hope I can get a JOB at some point that isn't in CONSTRUCTION. Which I have zero experience in.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

NewsBusters: gotcha on the liberal media's 'have it both ways' ways.

Liberal TV News strikes again. (Did you expect anything else?)

The people who have been appointed, by some odd accident, to run American news media, at times really make it seem as if we ought to just close down TV altogether. Hit reboot, try again.

Granted, it seems that NBC and anything with those three letters in it, and TIME magazine and its buddies (including CNN), have really got a stranglehold on have-it-both ways, biased coverage, but this piece only proves one thing: the news media bias can't tell it's nose from its ass. Here's just a few snippets, but read the whole thing so you see the expert media blunderers and the author's contrariness in their whole glory.

NBC Exec: Obama's Skin Color Gives Him More Legitimacy Than Any American Leader In History | NewsBusters.org

The number two man at NBC News believes Barack Obama's skin color gives him more legitimacy around the world than possibly any American leader in history.

Imagine that. Because Obama is black, before he even steps into the White House and accomplishes one darned thing he already has more legitimacy around the world than possibly every American president that came before him.

Another quote out of the NewsBusters piece:

MATTHEWS: One reason for the rage from the east, and I’m no expert. All these years that have led to the terrorism, the undercurrent of rage against the west, us, is the sense that we have disrespected them, their culture, we have looked down on them. In fact, we have defeated them technologically in some cases. But there’s that sense that they feel they're reacting to the hatred of the west. By electing somebody with this name, are we going to diffuse some of that? I think that would be very hopeful if we could.

Imagine that. Throughout the campaign we were told by liberal media members that any reference to Obama's middle-name was racist. Now that he's about to be president, his middle-name is an asset that can be freely discussed.

Those who thought the Obama-loving media would become more impartial once he was elected were clearly kidding themselves.

Sucks, huh? The liberal B.S. continues, and will be in force, for at least four years. No matter what Obama does, in fact, the liberal B.S. will go on. They will go against him at some point, and that is when I think I will celebrate. Because they have acted shamefully. They have veiled their own interests as they do their deeds, unlike conservative or liberal radio guys. They are dishonest. And for that, I heap loads of disrespect on them.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Seriously: Obama invites the crisis of satire? FastCompany.com

Can We Laugh at Obama? | Culture Nuggets | Fast Company

After witnessing two years of emotional wrangling and finger-pointing, most of us are relieved to put the election season behind us. But as the nation transitions from the erratic, divisive Bush-era into the historically momentous presidency of Obama the [rhetorician], some journalists are declaring crisis mode on a flourishing art form: the political satire. Bush-impersonations have gone past the point of cliché, but no comedian is yet to figure out how to nail the uniquely relatable stateliness of Barack Obama. And most importantly, would audiences even respond if satirists like [Jon] Stewart mocked the messiah-like figure of so many Americans?

I think I may start to do stand-up then. And I won't even be zealous about it, just exaggerated, absurd and mocking. Who knows? I might actually get my own radio program, because God knows it is the only medium even remotely friendly to Obama-panning humor. Can't say that of print or TV.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Actor John Cusack joins MoveOn.org comedy tour...

... what do you mean? MoveOn.org isn't a comedy troupe?!

Wow, then those rhyming insults against generals and spastic cartoons of John McCain are not jokes? Oooo, creepy.

How perfect an ally for an actor who wants to be identified with an unabashed propagandist and fabricator such as Obama. (Please see related post regarding Obama's totally inaccurate references to the Kennedys, and Selma march, in his parents' lives.) Well, that's not ironic at all.

Newsmax.com - Actor John Cusack Takes On McCain for MoveOn.org

"I'm not going to pretend this thing in Iraq was some kind of free market utopia to spread the gospel of democracy through the Middle East," John Cusack told the AP from London, where he's at work on another project.

John Cusack will not pretend! You got it?!

We wouldn't want Cusack to pretend. His using big words like "utopia" is too much. Famous people should never have to pretend for any reason, least of all for politics or money. Although, he is a professional pretender! It makes it doubly ironic, then, that he is against pretending, huh?  

Powered by ScribeFire.