Tuesday, June 21, 2011

We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming...

To bring you this. An amazing exercise for voracious readers. It's over tomorrow but give yourself a two day deadline and try it.

Some books and their inhabitants are more like good friends than anything else. They may or may not change your life, but they are there for you when you really need them.

The Complete Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; Douglas Adams, first read 1979, last 2010.

Follow two confused earthlings as they travel across space with two unconventional alien men, a suicidal robot, and a ship with its own mind and meet with bizarre misadventures.

Clever and acerbic British comedy, I laughed uproariously more over these books than any others I've ever encountered.

The Vampire Chronicles; Anne Rice. First read 1982, last 2010. Parts 1-3.

Peel back the layers of the onion and find treasure every step of the way with this historical trilogy that actually improves on the original mythos.

One of the rare stories that is work to read but more than worth it, travel thousands of years and miles in the intimate company of sublime characters.

Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood; Rebecca Wells. First read 2000, last 2011.

Explore the deep hearts of the women of the bayou as you return to War Era America and its modern-day survivors.

A small sisterhood of four live through surprising and sometimes tragic lives, never stopping to count the cost of authentic friendship.

Salem's Lot; Stephen King, '90s foreword. First read 1978, last 2011.

A twist on Bram Stoker finds the suave count making a comeback in a rural American town, as you intimately experience the death of a small town's inhabitants through the eyes of a small band of unlikely but intrepid heros.

King takes you into the story personally, causes genuine fear, and gives you characters and imagery you will always want to visit.

The books I haven't read yet.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Everyone Hates Gwyneth

Gwyneth-loathing is a current craze. She publishes a stupid column she calls "Goop" and makes incredibly unaware statements in the belief she's being helpful. Yes, I'm gonna shred her. This stuff is funny.

Just one piece to rip - there's more but I don't want to lose that. Back atcha later.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

All Right, Shredding Meghan

Anthony Weiner Twittered Me!

Screams Meghan McCain from her last column title at The Daily Beast. Wait a minute, what?? Anthony Weiner + Tweet + young woman = SCANDAL! And Meghan was involved? Holy shit, we're in luck, an inside scoop! Or not.

Anthony Weiner TWEETED ME!A few days after Anthony Weiner tried to send a 21-year-old college student a picture of his wiener he also Tweeted me, but it’s not what you think.

Bitch, you don't know my life!

First of all, I didn't think ANYTHING. Why should we? If he'd said a word to you you'd have been screaming it from the rooftops before this scandal ever broke. And honey, you're not all that - men aren't lining up, ok? I'm sure the porn actresses and hookers were much more interesting.

I remember seeing Congressman Weiner’s Twitter account before his scandal and I was impressed by his use of the hashtag.

Oh he'll use your hashtag. Well, not yours. And yes, I'd expect you to be impressed by that. Look! It's a SHINY!!! I can make FLAME appear with this little device in my pocket - ooooohhh.

On May 29, Weiner publicly thanked me for “my kind words in The New York Times and for [my] support of gay marriage.”

Put the quote in the wrong place.

His Tweet has since been retweeted to me a lot this week, with a lot of bad puns and poorly constructed jokes attached. I had started following him back on Twitter.

The dick jokes? Well, if one doesn't want those, one doesn't send a picture of his erect naked dick to strangers. His name just makes it funnier, even if it's not the right spelling.

Although, let it be said, I did not receive any direct messages from the congressman.

Raise your hand if you ever though Meghan got direct (we're not even talking private there, just anything addressed to her at all) messages from Weiner? See, even pervs like Weiner know you're a rat-trap.

This week, my favorite form of social media has been blasted in every news outlet with Weiner’s infamous Twitpic seen around the world.

Ok, then, raise your hand if you're surprised that Meghan's favorite media comes in 140 characters or less? Anyone? Bueller?

Also, she links to the "crotch shot" instead of the REAL dick shot. Anyone surprised she hasn't seen the real picture seen round the world?

TRIGGER WARNING - PENIS SHOT. Oh, you're supposed to do that before you show it? Huh. Learn something every day.

Twitter is the most impulsive form of social media, but it’s still the most celebrated among politicians and pundits within the beltway, which is curious, since it can destroy any sense of privacy. Some of the most popular users include the president himself with 8.5 million followers (he trails Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber), Al Gore with 2.2 million followers and Newt Gingrich with 1.3 million followers. My dad uses Twitter to talk about pork barrel spending going on in Congress, among other things, and my mom brings awareness to her charities and posts pictures of her two Yorkshire terriers Lucy and Desi.

Blah blah - your dad has learned a lot since the campaign. I thought his hands were too bad for typing? Oh, that's what you meant about being written by press secretaries.

Your mom should know better - if you're going to name dogs Lucy and Desi, they should be cocker spaniels! Jeez.

On the positive side, I find that if I like a pundit or media personality and start following them on Twitter, I tend to like them more and become a bigger fan of theirs. If I follow someone and I don’t like their Twitter feed, I unfollow them and often have a changed opinion of the person.

Yes, change your political views and affiliations in 140 characters or less! I think that's called "shallow". Which we already knew you were.

By the way, I no longer follow Congressman Weiner on Twitter at the request of my mother. She said it made her uncomfortable.

Well, I'm sure he's devastated. And I'm sure he's very concerned about what he's going to twat at us from rehab.

But she makes a good twit.

Classic Shred - But Don't Expect Many of These

In other words, I'm about to shred an attention whore, and since it sort of goes against my religion (Anti-Raffianite, Ecclesians Chapter 39) to draw attention to attention whores, I doubt I'll be doing many shreds of THIS particular moron. And say what you want about current leaders not being stupid, but evil, but THIS isn't a leader, and she IS stupid.

So what leftard tard-tard attention whore am I talking about? Meghan McCain, of course. Just reading through her titles at Daily Beast is like watching someone scream repeatedly "Look at me! Look at ME!" and her behavior prior to interviews is worse, and the content of the articles cloying, almost unbearable. So I will shred one, just one, "Look at ME!" and get it out of my system.

Oh God, now I see the other one. They're all horrible! And Michael Ian Black? What the fuck? Did someone surgically remove your sense of humor or did it come out in your last enema? SERIOUSLY, dude, MEGHAN? Ok, make that two articles and I'll do them later. It's too late to start and I'm bumming. Nighty night.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Feminist Phobia/Leftard Idiocy

A friend of mine just stated that she no longer believes the hard left is hypocritical, but that instead they are operating on abject fear and dread, which makes them DO hypocritical things (like suddenly turning to Ann Coulter for comfort because Sarah Palin/the Tea Party is so scary that Coulter looks good.)

Well obviously I would agree. And I went underground to bring you back burnt feminist offerings that prove it.

Allow me to note for a mutual friend that while Palin may not have discussed Senator McCarthy yet, as Coulter has done, you WILL note please that Palin IS McCarthy - Palin/McCarthy Google Search. So you see, this is one reason some of us support her :) But the burnt offerings; let's cut to the chase. The question was out of all the "dipfucks" running for president, which Republican would be the worst, and why? I think the answers show us what we all already knew, eh?

I can't choose. Anytime I think of any of them, I just get so angry that I can barely articulate the causes of my rage and fear. I feel like they are dragging us towards The Handmaid's Tale and there's very little I can do to stop it.

You poor thing. For those who don't know, The Handmaid's Tale is a leftist's wet dream of terror (which they love to bask in.) The conservative faction has assumed full power, and half the women are infertile. Those who are fertile are consigned to slavery, in which they are passed around to the rich infertile conservatives (because all the infertile women are married to rich conservative men) so that they can bear children for the baby-hungry wives and perpetuate the human race. The whole thing is full of dystopian in-your-face, fist-to-the-junk self-assertiveness - it's a movie that absolutely insists upon itself. And the left is certain that that is the direction in which we are quite literally moving. Heh.

Otherwise, Sarah Palin. I have a passionate hate for her. I think mostly what I find upsetting is that she's a woman who is in the spotlight and she could have the power for so much good. But instead of calling attention to important issues, or really doing anything to help others, she just spews garbage and ignorance every chance she gets. I know she's not a feminist, but if she were... can't you just imagine how awesome it would be? Yeah, I think I hate her the most because she's a woman who doesn't want to further the cause of women.

She's a woman who doesn't support the same causes as me and thus is using her power for evil. Never mind that the power comes from the fact that she is NOT promoting the evil of the left and of radical feminism - however she got there, she should now embrace socialist feminist politics and a radical abortion agenda to slake the blood thirst of the ravenous left.

Since they are all angling to try and make the Shrub look like a hippy, can't I just pick "All of the Above"? Really, since apparently the primaries are going to come down to who can keep a straight face the longest while pitching the Ryan "War on the Middle Class" Plan and whatever new absurdity/abomination the TEA Party proposes, does it really matter who gets the nomination?

Yeah, Gingrich and Romney sure are radical fucking Teabaggers! Damn them and their fascist, wingnut ideas! Like socialized health care and undermining the conservative agenda...oh, wait.

If I imagine any of them in the Situation Room, I start looking at websites on how easy it is to move to St. Kitts.

We ain't falling for THAT again. You leftards swore up and down you'd move to France if Bush won the election, and the only one who did was Johnny Depp - and even he likes the shooting range (much to the chagrin of his European wife.) No, you're not going anywhere and we know it; you'll stay and whine and hold your breath and stomp your feet like always.

I can't answer his question because they are all shades of just fucking awful to me.

But tell us how you really feel.

I have long been training my dog to poop in dipfucks' shoes. The candidate with the smallest shoe size will both create the most difficult target and result in the least satisfying pile of steamy fecal goodness.

In terms of the nation, I think they'll all turn it into shit pretty much equally. I have to distinguish where I can.

Well that's different. So as you talk about literally filling shoes with shit, it's the other people who are turning everything to shit. I'd say I see what you did there, except it was dumb. No soup for you!

While I agree with everyone who has commented that the field of R candidates or potential candidates if a clusterf*ck of gigantic proportions should any of them get into the office what I've been reading lately about Herman Cain scares the living ceiling cat out of me.

He scares Barry too! Speaking of which, so does Allen West -

Jokingly, I'd have to go with Obama, because he's sneaky enough to call himself a Democrat while doing absolutely nothing progressive.

Wait a minute, you caught that? He's TRYING to fool the conservatives. Y U No support his strategy? Y U give away his secret plans? (Let him think it's a secret as long as possible, so shhhh!)

Sarah Palin.

Because James Franco.

Um. Ok.

Palin because she's not even serious about the idea of governing, and the thought of her making policy that affects people's lives when all she really wants to do is get attention makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

Oooh that smell. The smell of fear.

Rick Perry...As a Texan, and an Austinite, I can tell you that man scares the ever living crap out of me. If he enters the race, he WILL win the nomination. He's charismatic, is a Tea Party darling, a vicious theocratic misogynistic homophobe, and just an all around mean awful garbage pile of bullshit.


Are Ron and Rand Paul running? Then them. They'd dismantle every last government agency and privatize it, and the only thing they'd regulate is abortions and birth control.

That's for Mr. McCarthy. Dismantle every government agency, eh? Well I know who my backup guys are, then. I hope that's true.

The one that actually wins. 'Cause that's the one that's going to do the damage - the others will just get to have fun yipping-chasing-rabbits-dreams about it.

I thought your messiah was unbeatable. Hope! Change! After all, he's got the ACORN voter fraud in his favor, so what are you worried about? Vote early and often! Keep spare cigarettes to buy the bum-American vote!

I'd have to say Palin or Bachmann. I think they'd all be awful, but especially those two because they're women. The amount of sexist shit that would be thrown at them on an hourly basis would make me want to move anywhere else. And I'd have to spend loads of time defending them from the sexist shit, even though I don't like them.

The noble version of feminism.

Bachmann gets my hatred for her comments about the IRS allowing breast pumps to be purchased with tax free savings accounts as the government "buying" breastfeeding mothers' pumps and "the definition of a nanny state." WHUT?

Oh, shit. I'm never going there again. A hard leftard just said something I agree with. Of course, I'm FOR slashing taxes radically and she isn't, so we don't REALLY agree, but still.

1. For a passing moment, I wondered if any actual registered Republicans ever commented here and if they would get huffy over the question.

2. They scare the ever loving shit out of this female, liberal pastor, especially the subtle ones.

1. Fat chance bwahaha!

2. As Fred Reed once said to Andrea Dworkin about her rape obsession/terror - "There, there, Andrea...nights just don't get dark enough." But ding ding ding! The terror-mobile again - told ya!

Santorum...He's of a similarly theocratic bent, although I think he's less dangerous than Huckabee because he's less adept at seeming like a reasonable, likable guy. Like MinervaB, I think Huckabee's manner allows him to sneak his horrible ideas past people, so I think he could actually get a lot of votes outside of the Christianist hard core, and that frightens me.

As a hard core "Christianist" (WTF does that mean?) nothing to worry about there- Huckabee doesn't fool me.

She continues -

I don't think Santorum poses that kind of a threat, but the comment about torture you featured as Quote of the Day a few days back took my breath away with its evil.

Ding ding ding! Fear!

Oh my gods. Never mind moving to a different country, seeing all the options there makes me want to move to a different planet (possibly Venus, Jupiter, or Neptune - yeah, I might not be able to breathe, but at least I'd have a good reason for winding up dead, rather than "what's this button do?"; "For Jesus!!!1!!"; or "I'm boooored.").

(PS: for those who aren't aware, I'm Australian. I don't live in the US. I don't want to live in the US. You have my profoundest sympathies, and I'd like to remind you all that our borders remain open to those who arrive by any non-maritime method.)

As a public service, I insist that you post this information conspicuously and repeatedly at EVERY leftist American site. The rest of us will levy one last tax to pay their airfare - first class, even! And you all can figure out how to financially support them all after that.

Gov. Goodhair scares me because he has actual charisma, especially for folks with conservative leanings. The fact that he's actually a self-serving, hypocritical, pandering douchebag doesn't seem to register with the true believers, which gives him an actual chance to win. That would make me very afraid.

Don't know who governor goodhair is, but FEAR!

Governor Goodhair, especially after reading about his 'all good christians hate everyone' rally in Houston in August. I mean, I would have said him anyways, but today added a new reason...as if I needed a new reason, lolsob.

Have you heard about Australia's open borders? Here's a hanky for the trip.

*makes note to renew passport in case sudden flight to Australia becomes necessary*

See, they WANT to go - let's do them a favor.

I have to go with Palin. We'd be at war with half the world by the time she quit, and her VP replacement would probably be worse.

We would? That's funny, because I seem to remember seeing her with the Afghani president, and he found her disarming and charming. In fact, Sarkozy and all the other leaders she met with seemed quite taken with her as well. How's that Obama apology tour working out for you?

I gotta say Huckabee. I can't even put my finger on why--he just makes me break into a cold sweat more than anyone else. I just feel like he's pure evil.

I think that's the fear of God. The unhealthy kind.

I had to wave "hi" because I'm a female, liberal minister.

Yeah, we know, somebody's gotta do all the gay weddings.

I can't. I just can't. I guess maybe Romney is the least horrifying, but just about all of the others really do give me visions of The Handmaid's Tale.

They've had visions of the Handmaid's Tale since it was written in 1985. It applies to every single less-than-hard-left semi-conservative, RINO and libertarian that has ever existed. FEAR!

And he's just as disingenuous as his slick persona implies, too. He doesn't care about the Tea Party, but he'll sure as shit use them.

Yes, and we're too stupid to know the difference LOL. Talk about being used - you guys get used like a rubber every day by your leadership - that workin' out well for ya' or you got hepatitis yet?

I'm with all those who want to move to another country. All the candidates, proposed and supposed, scare the heck out of me.

Ding ding ding!

And without further ado, since I mentioned Fred Reed and his hilarious "Feminist Tarantulas" (A Rural Male Reflects on Feminist Incivility, While Calculating Windage) piece, here's some linky love for one of the original anti-establishment libertarian internet presences - Fredoneverything

Monday, June 6, 2011

Too Funny - Democraps

You know what this reminds me of?

This: (do watch it; it's hilarious) -

Of course, Wasserman picked a GREAT time to pull this horseshit (It's ok, he's a democrat!) considering that someone ELSE has now come to the fore with tons of communications from Weiner, risque pictures, dirty talks, so on and so forth - and he can't claim he was hacked THIS time. Haha! Gotta love it.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Michelle's Plan - Lie Your Ass Off

Michelle's plan for thinning out our youth in addition to starving them and inviting heart trouble, diabetes and cancer? LIE TO THEM.

You'll note that she mentions poor urban black communities but the ad takes place in a white family's house, in an upper middle class neighborhood.

As I Hate the Media posited, one can imagine Barry pulling this same stunt on Michelle to reduce her wide load, asking her to fetch his wallet and sending her to the Oval Office, up and down the stairs, etc.

Good find, I Hate the Media.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Pro-Abortionist Has Lost It!

One of our "totes" favorite bloggers seems to have finally really flipped her lid. I don't think she's going to get what she wants; Obama doesn't operate on principles; he operates on raw power. And profit. (After all, since becoming president instead of community organizer, he's become obscenely rich with book deals and so forth - in the tens of millions. But money is power too. "Wevs".)

She sez: "It is long past time for a national prime-time address by our ostensibly pro-choice Democratic president about the Republican all-out assault on reproductive rights across this country."

Well I've seen some Republicans - the real conservative conservatives (but not someone like, say, Sarah Palin) who have signed certain bills in their own states that somewhat limit abortion rights; haven't seen anyone attack "reproductive rights", though. For one thing, abortion is still legal in all 50 states and for another, no one is even trying to limit contraception. Which is, after all, where your "reproductive rights" should start, one would think.

"More than half the population is directly affected by the GOP's erosion of abortion rights. Needless to say, even people who cannot personally give birth are affected by the whims of the anti-choice brigade, too. This is a national issue.

Is it. It might be better for ALL of us if it were once again a state issue - after all, if you're so afraid that someone's going to overturn Roe v. Wade (yeah, right)...but no, that would only put it back in the states' hands too. Are women more than half the population? If so, guess what? MORE than half of women are pro-life; in fact best estimates are somewhere near 60 percent or more. So you might not want to stress THAT too hard.

"If anti-choice legislation in all 50 states as well as the federal Congress doesn't warrant a Democratic president's attention, doesn't move him to address this full-tilt attack on every American's ability to control hir reproduction"

Oh, fuck me - again with the HIR bullshit? I TOLD YOU it makes you sound like an ASSHOLE. There's nothing cute or clever about it! Jeez, get the net, precious!

"Anti-choice" legislation in ALL 50 STATES as well as the federal congress? WOW. When did all THIS happen? Oh. It didn't. You're hysterical.

"which we consider one of the most fundamental rights of the modern world"

We do?

"doesn't cause within his gut a burning need to passionately defend every Uterine-American's"

UTERINE-AMERICAN'S?? Holy hell, that's worse than "hir" and "zhe"! She's gone round the BEND, man. By the way, where did you EVER get the idea that the guy was passionate about ANYTHING? He's good with a teleprompter and all (barring that, he kind of sucks with notecards, but "wevs". Burning passion? Not so much.)

"access to basic medical care"

Abortion is basic medical care? How the hell did we do without it for so freaking long? I mean, you'd think the early abortionists were Jonas Salks here!

"including what is frequently a life-saving procedure"

You know, I'm not pro-life regarding the legal aspects of the abhorrent procedure (though I am personally) but I CALL BULLSHIT. In SOME, INFREQUENT cases, it can be a life-saving procedure, and abortion was legal in ALL FIFTY STATES as regarded the life of the mother ANYWAY - even the Catholic church doesn't try to deny abortions, for example, in the case of ectopic pregnancy. (It can not result in a living baby and it will result in a dead mother.) NO ONE is trying to deny actual life-saving procedures; that is just your bullshit cover for the fact that it's what, less than ONE PERCENT of all abortions that are performed for the actual LIFE OF THE MOTHER? That leaves only the other NINETY NINE PERCENT that aren't. Pig. Don't hide what you want, ADMIT IT.

"I can't imagine what will."

Oh wait a minute, I think I know what you're talking about. You're talking about Indiana defunding Planned Parenthood abortions via government funds, right? Guess what? Nationwide there were something like 200 abortions funded by the government last year. Don't know how many (15?) were in Indiana. And fuck you - we don't have to pay for it; that's not an erosion of rights; no one owes you shit. If people are too poor to come up with $150 then start handing out the rubbers - they're cheap and they prevent the problem. They're already legal in the case of "lifesaving" procedures, and no one's threatening THOSE, so you're just FULL of shit, aren't you? Basic medical care? Make donations yourself to pay for birth control. Start fund drives for THAT basic medical care and your excuse disappears.

"Speak up, Mr. President.


Hehe. Yeah, he'll get right on that. I'm sure he's checking in to your blog as we speak to see what you think about what he needs to do, and he's just burning with passion in his gut to satisfy your demands.

You keep telling yourself that. He's more likely to check in HERE and see what I think than you. He's already got you fools on his side.

Maybe Hillary will pick up the ball on it for you. Except she doesn't give a shit either. Good luck.

Oh, WHY? Government Nannies on the Prowl Some More!

Cheer-us-up Recipe at the end!

New USDA Icon - Thanks MooCHELLE!

The first asshole and the USDA have just unveiled the new icon that is replacing the food pyramid - of course this time we didn't even know it was coming. Last time it took some time and effort to develop the pyramid. And some consultation with commodities markets like the corn growing/selling industry, the grain growing/selling industry, etc. THEY WERE DEAD WRONG THEN AND THEY'RE EVEN WRONGER NOW!

The FACT of the matter is that the USDA screwed us over by conducting a massive human experiment of monumental proportions and the results have been disastrous ALREADY. Now they're making it worse. See, back in the 50s or so, Ancel Keyes conducted research on 22 countries, comparing their rates of heart disease compared to their average consumption of fat and cholesterol. He ended with a graph that mapped the results of 6 (SIX) countries, in which the line climbed like a rocket, showing that the more fat and cholesterol a country consumed, the worse their rates of heart disease/heart attacks/mortality. This resulted in his lipid hypothesis, which told the government that 1. Eating fat and cholesterol resulted in high serum cholesterol and 2. High serum cholesterol caused heart disease/heart attacks. Of course, something was wrong, and the other researchers saw it immediately. See, he deliberately ignored/threw out the other 16 countries, some of which had far higher cholesterol consumption but much LOWER rates of heart disease, and others that had much LOWER cholesterol consumption but HIGHER rates of heart disease. In fact, viewed all together, his results were ALL OVER THE MAP. But that didn't make for a splashy graphic that gets you noticed. So, as I said, he simply ignored the results that didn't fit his idea and made his phony graph. Yes, he falsified his results.

Well George McGovern was horrified, and gathered all the scientists and doctors together to brainstorm on what must be done. The doctors pointed to a shitload of studies that proved that there was in fact NO known correlation between cholesterol consumption and high cholesterol, much less cholesterol and heart disease. McGovern finally told them all to shut up because as a senator he didn't have TIME to waste waiting for results of studies; he had to take action and quick. Yes, I know, makes sense, right? Researchers who disagreed started to have their funding yanked. No funding = no livelihood = no job, no house, no life.

The head of the USDA got in on the action and made up the pamphlets explaining that they had determined that people should eat no more than the equivalent of about one egg per day in terms of cholesterol. Suddenly, we were told that it wasn't, as we had always known (as any grandma would have told you) grains and potatoes and sugar that made you fat; it was fat! And not only did it make you fat, it would KILL YOU! Well the researchers tried to resist the USDA and explain to her that there was actually no known proof of any such thing, and that perhaps they ought to find out if there WAS any evidence before coming out with pamphlets to be distributed to the whole country and to serve as the basis of education for children. She did what any conscientious politician would do, yanked the researchers' funding and positions, shopped for a scientist who agreed with the Lipid Hypothesis, and cited him instead. Suddenly, ALL the researchers who were trying to point out that there was no proof of this hypothesis at all were getting their grants yanked and losing their funding - it was adapt or die. Some adapted, some faded away. For the first time in history humans were being told authoritatively that they must eat a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet and consume more grains. Grain producers naturally got in on the act and started coming out with their own confirmations of this bogus theory; gradually they started to mass produce oils (corn oil, vegetable oil, etc.) that had NEVER before been in our diets, being high-tech products that involve chemically altering the grains in question.

Over the years the Center For Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a hardcore vegetarian group, started creating one scare after another, and they weren't shy about it. Anything containing natural or meat-based fats were labeled the enemy, and anything vegetarian was touted as the only possible answer. The news unquestioningly reported their "studies" one after the other, McDonald's eventually switched from the natural beef tallow (which contains a very benign form of cholesterol) to vegetable oils that degrade in our bodies very rapidly and produce dangerous forms of cholesterol. (We were generally told in the end that there was LDL - the bad guys - and HDL, the good guys. In fact it turns out there are two forms of LDL; one of which is benign and beneficial, and one of which is dangerous. Vegetable oils and high starch foods lead to the production of the malignant form of LDL whereas animal fats help us produce the beneficial form. Starches also lead to the immediate production of insulin because our body converts them into sugars very quickly - even if you consume no sugar, if you eat a lot of Grape Nuts and whole wheat bread, you're eating pure sugar...and quickly. The glycemic index tells you how dangerous your insulin production will be after eating them. This leads to INFLAMMATION, which calls out the beneficial LDLs to HEAL the inflammation...but instead of being promptly removed, the now monstrous bad LDLs actually ATTACK the beneficial ones, and you end up with artery disease, heart disease, plaque, and FAT - lots and lots of very greedy fat cells who won't give up the fat that every cell in your body needs...especially your BRAIN.)

Drug companies got in on the act and started producing STATINS. Statins all say right on the product information that they have NOT BEEN PROVEN TO REDUCE THE RISK OF HEART DISEASE - they merely reduce serum cholesterol. And Statins are considered so important that they do NOT have to prove to the FDA that they are effective; they merely have to prove that they DO reduce serum cholesterol. So even though they have no known beneficial effect and MANY known extremely ill effects (osteoporosis, liver damage, depression, etc.) they are now touted as a cure-all for a population with ever-increasing levels of bad cholesterol. Which is a result of the diet changes we have all been largely forced to submit to. (Example - it's really easy to find tons of corn oil, and the food pyramid says EAT it, and McDonald's can't even fry their fries in the beef fat anymore and neither can movie popcorn use real butter or coconut oil - but just try to find LARD. In our stores you can find a tiny display, hidden away on a remote shelf, containing maybe 3 or 4 pounds. Fortunately butter and bacon are still available, if you can get past the soy-bacon, the margarine, the fake butter, and the turkey bacon.) The drug company studies are almost all done by USDA-grant-receiving organizations and researchers. The diet drug and diet industry research is also conducted via USDA grants. Nice little racket. Or big one.

So cut to the present - we suddenly have a population that is having MORE heart problems, that is having extremely increased levels of diabetes (that glycemic index/insulin thing again) and is getting fatter. Oh, not the way you see people getting fat on every news article - the endless parade of "headless fatties" that all weigh nigh on 350 and look like blobs, but in general just more fat and more people who are really fat. Oh we're living longer, and there are paradoxes, like how fat people are much more likely to survive heart attacks, but no one hears about that. But wait a minute, with all this health-consciousness and all this endless PUSHING to eat these "healthy" vegetable oils or cut fat out entirely, eat lean meats and more grains, WHY is the population fatter and having more heart disease and diabetes? Is no one listening? Yes, they're listening. And much of it they have no choice about. It's in fact the DIET ITSELF that is bad, not the people or their bodies. (Interestingly, since one of the effects of a low-fat diet is severe depression, because of what it does to your brain, during that period some 20 years ago when EVERYTHING was extremely low-fat diet books and recommendations...alongside those book displays were endless books on depression and drugs for depression, and avoiding suicide. Pritikin himself got leukemia and killed himself. So we make ourselves depressed and pop pills to combat it. We starve our children's brains and feed them Ritalin. Good fucking idea.)

SO this finally brings me to the new "food guide" and the article I linked above. Remember, this replaces the old "pyramid" guide, because WE WERE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND IT. This one is nice and dumbed-down, and even less healthy, if that's possible. (It is.) Even more scary, the intention is to use this one to CREATE PUBLIC POLICY - what the hell are they planning to DO? Ban stores from carrying bacon or marbled rib-eye??? Ban whole milk? They're CERTAINLY banning schools from serving anything not on the list (which means no fat and no sweets) and even worse, many schools, in complying with this, are BANNING CHILDREN FROM BRINGING LUNCH FROM HOME ANYMORE. So the kids are FORCED into buying (or getting subsidized) low-fat, many times vegetarian, bullshit lunches. Next it'll be the breakfasts many schools serve - no more eating breakfast at home! Gotta buy low-fat shit. No eggs, no bacon - Special K and skim milk with no sugar. Yeah I know you doubt me. But this is the biggest government nanny we've EVER had in modern times. She's determined to FORCE it.

Moochelle said, "When mom or dad comes home from a long day of work, we’re already asked to be a chef, we're already asked to be a referee, a cleaning crew, you name it, we're on it, so the last thing we need to do is be the nutritionist in our family as well. Parents don't have the time to measure out exactly three ounces of chicken. Or how to look up how much rice or broccoli is in a serving. That has confounded me as a parent for a very long time. I still don’t know how much protein comes in x ounces. We're all bombarded with so many dietary messages that it's hard to find time to sort through this information. We do have time to take a look at our kids' plates. We do it all the time. We're the ones fixing the plates. As long as they’re eating proper portions, as long as half of their meal is fruits and vegetables alongside their lean proteins and whole grains and low-fat dairy, then we’re good. It’s as simple as that."

See, you're TOO STUPID TO FEED YOUR CHILDREN. Only a nutritionist can do THAT! (Nevermind that mothers have always been the nutritionists of the family.) And to hell with cornish hens (everybody gets their own!) - it's THREE OUNCES of fucking chicken. As though THAT'S enough for a growing child!?!? Since WHEN? That's not enough for a two year old! (Even by USDA standards.) And of course SHE'S been confounded, right? I've seen the pictures of her and her family chowing down on fried chicken and french fries like hogs from a trough. Barry eating huge fluffy waffles doused in syrup with bacon on the side and home fries. See, it's good for you, but not for her. And NOW, in addition to these ludicrous amounts and proportions, she's determined the meat must be lean and the dairy must be LOW-FAT, never mind your stupid kids' BRAIN DEVELOPMENT - Ritalin will help them concentrate. They're gonna grow up stupid like you anyway. You can just forget about butter or cheese on your vegetables too. Just what I want, a big pile of dry rice and steamed broccoli with no butter or cheese, with a couple bites of dry chicken (with no skin) and a freaking apple. And low-fat milk. I'll take butter on my broccoli, a human-sized portion of meat, and you can just put my damned apple in a pie crust where it belongs. And whole milk with Hershey syrup. Screw you, harpie; you're gonna starve the kids all day and think I'm gonna KEEP starving them?

You know how children are SUPPOSED to eat? You're not SUPPOSED to put them on diets. They're supposed to eat until they aren't HUNGRY anymore. If your kid is leaving the table hungry and unsatisfied, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. And eating until you're comfortably satisfied is the perfect rule of thumb for adults as well (if you haven't screwed up their metabolism by putting them on diets as kids, it won't make them fat or sick). No, I'm not talking about until you have to undo your belt and your abdomen is distended - comfortable satiety. It's not a bad idea to encourage them to eat slow if you can; it does take time for the signals to go from stomach to brain. I eat slowly. Thus I always know when I've had enough. Sure sometimes I eat a tad more if it's really good, and other times I do something else and stop eating sooner. The point is to get nutrition to your cells, you freaking heifer.

The article concludes, "But the icon may still be a small step in the right direction. Arguably, the best thing that could happen in terms of publicizing the federal dietary advice towards less meats (the subtle message in "protein"), no sugary drinks, and more vegetables will be controversy. These are policies worth implementing more broadly. Now, let's hope any ensuing public debate translates into real policy changes."

Less actual meat - CSPI, the hardcore vegetarians, have come full circle. Now vegetarianism is being pushed on us by the first bitch as well.

And WHAT does he mean, "These are policies worth implementing more broadly." HOW THE HELL DO YOU IMPLEMENT POLICY ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE SERVE FOR DINNER IN THEIR HOMES? And WHAT "REAL" POLICY CHANGES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Assholes. LEAVE US ALONE. Presumably Michael Moore will be exempt from the upcoming dietary laws. As will Al Gore.

All right - while you're still allowed to eat, let's get that recipe. Because writing this took energy, and I heated myself up a gorgeous enchilada in order to enjoy it. A CHICKEN enchilada heh. You can halve this if you're on your own - otherwise it'll last you longer than you want to eat it for and you'll end up giving half away.

Chicken Enchiladas for Happy Hungry People

1 1/2 - 2 lbs skinless chicken breast, sliced very thin.
butter to fry in
chipotle powder if you like and/or ancho
Mexican seasoning of your choice - strong is better - we used El Paso Fajita mix Packet

2 family sized cans Cream of Chicken soup or 3 regular size
pint sour cream
4 cans whole chili peppers, chopped (if you love peppers, add some home roasted fresh poblanos, skinned.)

8 or 9 large flour tortillas
1 box spanish rice (we used goyas; but if you have a favorite mexican rice or prefer beans, do that.)

1/2 lb pepper jack cheese or munster, grated
1/2 lb cheddar, grated (whatever cheeses you really like but something melty and stretchy)

Season the chicken with the powders and a little salt, melt the butter and fry it until it's cooked. If you use the fajita mix packet, add it, add a little water, and continue cooking for 4 - 6 minutes until it thickens up a bit. It smells really nice. Make sure the rice is cooking.

Mix up 1 1/2 of the large soup cans of cream of chicken with about 3/4 of the pint of sour cream and some chipotle or ancho powder. You can use a little cayenne if that floats your boat. Mix in the peppers and some of the juice - I could have used another can's worth of the juice, as it was very thick.

Heat your oven to about 375 degrees.

Lay out your tortillas and get yourself a large, deep baking pan. Eyeball your chicken to see how much each will get and adjust accordingly. Spread some of the leftover soup along the bottom of the pan so it won't stick. Lay out the chicken in a line along the middle of the tortilla; leave a little room at the ends. Put a generous spoonful of the soup mixture along the line of chicken. (You're going to need a good amount of soup mixture after this, so don't go nuts.) Spread another generous spoonful of the spanish or mexican rice (or beans) along the top of this.

Fold up one end a little, and wrap the whole thing as tightly as you can. Lay each one seam-down in the pan as you go, pushing them together.

Now's probably the time for your poblanos if you have them. I'd just spread them at will over the top of each or maybe inside when you're making them, slice in half or quarters as you think best.

Take the rest of your soup mix and spread it generously over the ENTIRE top of the filled tortillas, end to end, so you can't see any naked tortilla. Now take your cheese and pile it on the same way, so it covers every bit of the enchiladas.

Stick the whole thing in the oven, and bake for 25 - 30 minutes or until it's all melted and bubbly, and the soup has sunk into the tortillas nicely. (It's the nice texture that gives it character.)

Hack at it with a sharp spatula and remove one as best you can - likely you'll only need one at a time. Great leftover/nuked or rewarmed in the oven too.

Now see if that doesn't put a smile on your face.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

More Gender-Bending Loons

Looks like our barking moonbat parents of the three boys in the poofy pink dresses have a lot of company in our government academies of lower learning. Don't believe me?


Marcotte is Still a Nasty, Lying Bitch

She is firing pearls of wisdom at us, and by that I mean idiocy, lies, and shitheadery. But what else is new?

I have a piece at the Guardian's CIF about this whole Anthony Weiner business, and why, even though this is primarily about attacking Weiner because he's a fighter, this fits into a larger pattern of right wing abuse of sexy young women for the high crime of being intellectually independent instead of just doing and believing what right wing ideologues instruct them to do and believe.

Wait a minute, the guy is a left-wing DEMOCRAT so what the fuck is she talking about? Now I admit it's very hard to find out that the guy is a left-wing Dem because news articles notoriously force you to "name that party" when it's a leftie in the dock. It's either not mentioned or listed so far down in the article that you're bored by the time you would reach it. (Republicans or, worse, Tea Party members, on the other hand, are trumpeted in the headline as such if they are suspected of wrongdoing.)

I learned that when I ran a bunch of hate mail I was getting in the wake of the Edwards fiasco. What I felt, in doing that, was that this was an intellectual exercise in learning to have perspective. I was being villainized as some horrible person because I made a few on-target and totally accurate jokes about Catholic dogma, but in fact the people who are the true nasty assholes are the right wing ideologues who sprung erections at the thought of having an excuse to unleash invective on a strange young woman whose main crime was uppitiness.

Talk about rewriting history! This asshole was encouraged to get off the Edwards campaign because she was busily writing anti-Catholic/anti-Christian hate screeds - again, NOT a surprise because she's ALWAYS been a hate-monger, and particularly against Christianity, but come ON, Marcotte, do you actually think this bullshit is going to fool anyone who was paying attention? Let's see her funny, accurate joke about Christianity/Catholicism that led to her getting "hate mail" and being so unfairly victimized. Warning - it's REALLY nasty.

"What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

And people got mad over THAT? What a bunch of hate-filled wingnuts! I mean, damn, it was hilarious and true; what the hell could anyone get offended about THERE?

But you know, during the Edwards "fiasco" Iowahawk took this bullshitter on and produced a *very funny* AND *accurate* portrayal of how Marcotte really acts on a daily basis and just why there isn't a candidate in the world with two synapses firing who'd want to claim her as their ally. So since he's already done it, and done it better than I ever could, let's hear from Iowahawk on our dear friend Marcotte, shall we?

I particularly love how he's got her language down pat - if you think I swear, you should see her. I can't hold a candle to her in the f-bomb department! (Nor on the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, but whatever.)


And we all know when she (constantly) screams "Christo-fascist Repugnican baby-making rape machines" there's just nothing offensive in THAT. Poor misunderstood bitch.

But he wasn't quite done with our Fair Blogger - here's one more funny for the road.


Based on "Fascist Pygmalion" - and still totally accurate. A friend of mine used to say feminism was almost impossible to parody because anything you could say in jest had already been said in earnestness. But Marcotte parody writes itself...and Iowahawk managed to pull it off. Still, you can't really say he's exaggerating (he isn't). He just makes it funny.

In other news our other "totes" favorite blogger (God, I wish she's STOP saying "totes" and "wevs" - it doesn't make you sound smart or hip, honey; it makes you sound like an asshole) needs a whaaambulance for this news -

"Obviously the best way to stop all those welfare hand-outs making people rich across the country is to punish the people who need a social safety net the most:

Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.

"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."

Shaming is not an incentive. It's a disincentive, and it's a totally ineffective one, at that."

So...illicit drug abusers "need" a "safety net" the most? Well, I guess that's true since in general they can't get themselves into a job or success situation, but that's hardly a good reason to give them "free" money (which of course isn't free at all.) And it's not really an incentive issue - the fact is drug abusers simply wouldn't get the aid (though if they have children they can appoint someone else to get benefits for them.) Shame is hardly the point.