So Glenn Beck is planning a rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech. Most MLK fans find it disgusting, but I find it humorous. I've met a few Beck fans who still believe the anti-MLK propaganda [MLK is a "communist" after all! You would think Beck would be crapping all over his memory rather than celebrating him!], so they are about as mystified by it as we are!
Let's have some fun with it! Here are some MLK quotes that have been Glenn Beck-ified. Please help me come up with more:
I have a dream that one day all men will judge me not by the color of my character but by the contents of my pocketbook.
Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. And it scares me! Because I've been to the mountaintop and I've looked down upon the promised land and it's a lie! Go back! Go back! There's nothing there but socialism!
The arc of the universe is almost over and it's bending toward Communism!
Life's most urgent question is: what are you doing to prepare yourself for what's coming?
Got any more ideas? I told a friend about this idea and he said that it's not particularly funny since it's right in line with Beck's style to distort an MLK quote to suite his own ideas. Well, if Beck uses one of these, it will be even more funny because it will serve as more proof of Poe's law....
Memes mobilizing in resistance to the ongoing assault on science, education, and rational thought in general
Showing posts with label humor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label humor. Show all posts
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Getting to the Heart of the Tea Party
The whole controversy over Rand Paul's coolness towards the Civil Right Act is a distraction from the legitimate grievances of the Tea Party. Of course, I'm talking about the most massive unconstitutional usurpation of state's rights by the federal government leading to the greatest re-distribution of wealth in our nation's history. I'm talking about the civil war and the abolition of slavery! A tall president from Illinois, aligned with emerging money interests, an urban middle class, and intellectual elites are again perpetrating atrocities against traditional values! And again, it's seen as an act of war. I just hope we find a better solution this time - not to say that we won't whup their asses again if we have to.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Obama Concedes, Draws Criticism from Conservatives
In a press conference this weekend, Obama admitted that the conservatives have been right all along on pretty much every issue, touching off more sharp criticism from conservative commentators for not going far enough.
When pressed for specifics, the president began to waver, saying that "they've been right and we've been wrong on pretty much all the issues of our time." This was taken as a slap in the face to those on the right hoping for a more broad admission to being wrong about every historical issue as well.
"On health care," the president continued, "they've been right to focus on business profitability and philosophical threats from early twentieth century political movements rather than public health data and the impacts of public health policy. On foreign policy, they've been right to focus more on immediate and generous aggression and the scaling back of civil liberties rather than on careful application of diplomacy and force that takes into account historical baggage and cultural differences and aims at well-defined objectives. Even on my status as an American. I have to admit that the official record of my birth with the state of Hawaii is a fraud...." This last point prompted outrage from numerous groups on the far right, demanding that he stop lying and admit that those documents don't actually exist.
In the final question of the conference, when asked if he would admit once and for all that "everything President Obama says is a lie," he drew a hard line and refused, saying "I wish I could, but I think it would invoke a logical paradox.... I'll have my press secretary work on it. I think we can deliver that message without as much ambiguity or absurdity if we do it in just the right way." As one outraged blogger exclaimed about this assertion "Liberal elitist bullshit! Who cares about some pair of ducks? What does that even mean? Obviously, he's not an American. He doesn't even talk like one!"
When pressed for specifics, the president began to waver, saying that "they've been right and we've been wrong on pretty much all the issues of our time." This was taken as a slap in the face to those on the right hoping for a more broad admission to being wrong about every historical issue as well.
"On health care," the president continued, "they've been right to focus on business profitability and philosophical threats from early twentieth century political movements rather than public health data and the impacts of public health policy. On foreign policy, they've been right to focus more on immediate and generous aggression and the scaling back of civil liberties rather than on careful application of diplomacy and force that takes into account historical baggage and cultural differences and aims at well-defined objectives. Even on my status as an American. I have to admit that the official record of my birth with the state of Hawaii is a fraud...." This last point prompted outrage from numerous groups on the far right, demanding that he stop lying and admit that those documents don't actually exist.
In the final question of the conference, when asked if he would admit once and for all that "everything President Obama says is a lie," he drew a hard line and refused, saying "I wish I could, but I think it would invoke a logical paradox.... I'll have my press secretary work on it. I think we can deliver that message without as much ambiguity or absurdity if we do it in just the right way." As one outraged blogger exclaimed about this assertion "Liberal elitist bullshit! Who cares about some pair of ducks? What does that even mean? Obviously, he's not an American. He doesn't even talk like one!"
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
More Proof that Obama Hates America!
According to one source, at a recent luncheon for war veterans, just before he was to go on stage to deliver a speech, Obama farted! The more carefully you watch, the more clear it becomes how much Obama hates America! Of course the few remaining Obama supporters are frantically trying to defend him with some of the most absurd arguments you will ever hear. One Obama supporter summed up the sentiment, saying "farts happen -- this whole conversation is dumb". Of course they happen, but he obviously carefully timed the fart to say to those patiently waiting war heroes "this is what I think of you and your sacrifice."
Video and audio from the event, however, give no hint that he farted, and another source who was near him at the time says he did not see, hear, or smell Obama's fart. This all seems a little too suspicious. By all accounts, cole slaw and a three bean salad were a large portion of the lunch. Did Obama not even eat the food served at the event? Does he have a cure for flatulence that he won't tell us about? Maybe he's not even an American! Those are the least nefarious explanations I can think of -- it's almost certainly something much worse! Clearly, he's hiding something!
Obviously, whether or not he farted is completely beside the point, but it helps to illustrate how much Obama hates America. He cannot be trusted! We must remain vigilant!
Video and audio from the event, however, give no hint that he farted, and another source who was near him at the time says he did not see, hear, or smell Obama's fart. This all seems a little too suspicious. By all accounts, cole slaw and a three bean salad were a large portion of the lunch. Did Obama not even eat the food served at the event? Does he have a cure for flatulence that he won't tell us about? Maybe he's not even an American! Those are the least nefarious explanations I can think of -- it's almost certainly something much worse! Clearly, he's hiding something!
Obviously, whether or not he farted is completely beside the point, but it helps to illustrate how much Obama hates America. He cannot be trusted! We must remain vigilant!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Lieberman the Antisemite
Does anyone else see the dollar signs in Joe Lieberman's eyes? Almost as soon as talk fires up about the health reform bill reaching the floor of the Senate -- almost as soon as Olympia Snowe steps down from her position as "the swing vote" by announcing that she will vote with her party on the procedural question of whether to allow an up-or-down vote on a bill....
...Almost as soon as this power vacuum appears along with the millions of dollars in health insurance and pharmaceutical industry money that are sure to go to the occupant of that spot... Lieberman pops up like a Nazi propaganda cartoon caricature of the greedy Jew who can't resist the smell of money! "Me me me me! I'm the swing vote. I'll sell out the Democrats again for a little more money and power!"
Does anyone else find this offensive to Jews? I am a Jew, and I find this offensive.
...Almost as soon as this power vacuum appears along with the millions of dollars in health insurance and pharmaceutical industry money that are sure to go to the occupant of that spot... Lieberman pops up like a Nazi propaganda cartoon caricature of the greedy Jew who can't resist the smell of money! "Me me me me! I'm the swing vote. I'll sell out the Democrats again for a little more money and power!"
Does anyone else find this offensive to Jews? I am a Jew, and I find this offensive.
Friday, September 4, 2009
More Rights to Demand
The political right across the country is rising up to say "NO" to reliable and affordable health insurance. While they may not be able to completely stop it within the framework allowed by the Constitution, they have found a few ways to limit the encroachment. In Georgia and Arizona, for example, we find proposals to guarantee the right of individuals to purchase health services, so that regardless of what a government insurance plan might cover, individuals will always have the right, if they choose, to pay for it out of their own pocket instead. While, I don't disagree with such measures, I think it's time for those of us who want reform to get in on this strategy, too!
It's time to regulate the practice of insurance companies harvesting organs without explicit consent due to a lapse in coverage. Insurance companies never have the right to harvest your organs without your explicit consent unless they submit an appeal to the FDA that the specific contractual provision being invoked represents an "innovation" and thus regulation preventing it stifles innovation and restricts their individual freedom as a corporation.
Also, I think it's time to put some regulations in place to prevent drug manufacturing and marketing companies from testing experimental drugs on children without first informing their parents. This could slow advances and reduce the profitability of a large portion of our economy, but I think we can all agree that it's the right thing to do. At the very least, we should require that parents be informed within a year of the completion of such experiments so that they may better decide how to deal with its residual impacts.
Finally, we should demand a law that forbids the GOP from releasing genetically enhanced infectious diseases into the general population without first informing a board of physicians and epidemiologists at the CDC. Some might go so far as to require a vote before allowing such a practice, but that might stifle the freedom of the GOP to do and say whatever they want to get their way.
As we can see there are a lot of proposals on both sides of the table. These are tough questions that I hope we can tackle. I also hope we can give both sides fair consideration. Perhaps we should start by laying them all out and discussing the pros and cons. We might also consider compromises. On proposals to guarantee the rights of individuals to pay for services [rights that we find in places such as the UK and Canada where their highly socialized systems are somewhat tempered and augmented by the free market], we might consider adding a measure to inform the individuals of the choices they actually have and/or measures to limit businesses from collecting such payments for services from both the patient and the government provided insurance without informing the patient. On the proposal to limit the GOP's release of engineered diseases, I don't know if we can find a compromise on such an important check of GOP power, but we might offer other concessions they would need, such as unlimited public restroom gay sex with strangers.
It's time to regulate the practice of insurance companies harvesting organs without explicit consent due to a lapse in coverage. Insurance companies never have the right to harvest your organs without your explicit consent unless they submit an appeal to the FDA that the specific contractual provision being invoked represents an "innovation" and thus regulation preventing it stifles innovation and restricts their individual freedom as a corporation.
Also, I think it's time to put some regulations in place to prevent drug manufacturing and marketing companies from testing experimental drugs on children without first informing their parents. This could slow advances and reduce the profitability of a large portion of our economy, but I think we can all agree that it's the right thing to do. At the very least, we should require that parents be informed within a year of the completion of such experiments so that they may better decide how to deal with its residual impacts.
Finally, we should demand a law that forbids the GOP from releasing genetically enhanced infectious diseases into the general population without first informing a board of physicians and epidemiologists at the CDC. Some might go so far as to require a vote before allowing such a practice, but that might stifle the freedom of the GOP to do and say whatever they want to get their way.
As we can see there are a lot of proposals on both sides of the table. These are tough questions that I hope we can tackle. I also hope we can give both sides fair consideration. Perhaps we should start by laying them all out and discussing the pros and cons. We might also consider compromises. On proposals to guarantee the rights of individuals to pay for services [rights that we find in places such as the UK and Canada where their highly socialized systems are somewhat tempered and augmented by the free market], we might consider adding a measure to inform the individuals of the choices they actually have and/or measures to limit businesses from collecting such payments for services from both the patient and the government provided insurance without informing the patient. On the proposal to limit the GOP's release of engineered diseases, I don't know if we can find a compromise on such an important check of GOP power, but we might offer other concessions they would need, such as unlimited public restroom gay sex with strangers.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Slippery Slope
Slippery slope arguments put us on a slippery slope to equating any social contract with totalitarianism. Hitler used slippery slope arguments too, you know!
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Can you diagram this sentence?
Do you remember how to diagram sentences? Help me diagram this one:
I ask because I think it describes my overriding political philosophy more closely than any other pithy political slogan in history and yet people who claim to idealize the political movement where it originated are so opposed to everything I believe. What gives?
Maybe I would make it "no imposition without representation" but that "imposition" would certainly include taxation, so I don't think that's the disconnect. Also, I see the whole sentence as vital to it's meaning... the imposition, the representation, and the logical construct "no X without Y." It would not mean the same thing to say "no X and we demand Y" or just "we demand Y" or "No X.... " or "I'm a retard with a gun who doesn't know anything about history or political philosophy, but I am angry and easily propagandized by xenophobic sentiment."
Maybe it's just my interpretation, but I was thinking a sentence diagram might help to clarify the distinction.
No taxation without representation.
I ask because I think it describes my overriding political philosophy more closely than any other pithy political slogan in history and yet people who claim to idealize the political movement where it originated are so opposed to everything I believe. What gives?
Maybe I would make it "no imposition without representation" but that "imposition" would certainly include taxation, so I don't think that's the disconnect. Also, I see the whole sentence as vital to it's meaning... the imposition, the representation, and the logical construct "no X without Y." It would not mean the same thing to say "no X and we demand Y" or just "we demand Y" or "No X.... " or "I'm a retard with a gun who doesn't know anything about history or political philosophy, but I am angry and easily propagandized by xenophobic sentiment."
Maybe it's just my interpretation, but I was thinking a sentence diagram might help to clarify the distinction.
Monday, August 24, 2009
The Healthcare Debate In a Nutshell
Progressive: Look at this data. We can have a better healthcare system!
Reactionary: So it's going to cost more?
Progressive: No. Less.
Reactionary: So less quality healthcare?
Progressive: No. More. Did you look at the data?
Reactionary: That's socialism! They are going to take away our freedom!
Progressive: Okay, we'll make it optional. But did you look at the data?
Reactionary: That's not your choice to make! It's my choice! You are not allowed to give me a choice because it was already my choice to begin with.
Progressive: Uhm...... Okay.
Reactionary: No! It's not okay! This ... means ... WAR!
Really?
Reactionary: So it's going to cost more?
Progressive: No. Less.
Reactionary: So less quality healthcare?
Progressive: No. More. Did you look at the data?
Reactionary: That's socialism! They are going to take away our freedom!
Progressive: Okay, we'll make it optional. But did you look at the data?
Reactionary: That's not your choice to make! It's my choice! You are not allowed to give me a choice because it was already my choice to begin with.
Progressive: Uhm...... Okay.
Reactionary: No! It's not okay! This ... means ... WAR!
Really?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Personalized License Plate Appeal
Special Places Review Committee
Motor Vehicle Division
PO Box 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85001
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing this appeal to protest my recent personalized plate denial for "1CE9", a tribute to the great American author and World War II veteran, Kurt Vonnegut, who tragically died this year.
By itself, the ice-nine reference may appear to be a political statement considered offensive because of Kurt Vonnegut’s anti-war political stance or because ice-nine acts as an unstoppable doomsday device that threatens to destroy all life on earth and teaches us to be wary of the power of new science and technology.
I would like to assure you, however, that this is not the case. While I did wish to honor Vonnegut, I had no specific political intentions. Furthermore, and more importantly, the message was intended specifically to match the vehicle, shown below. A reference to ice-nine implies a combination of evil, danger, coldness, and advanced technology. While that message may be offensive by itself, when combined with the vehicle and a little sense of humor, it becomes a message of exaggerated hubris and literally coolness. It matched perfectly. [After all, what is cooler than ice9 except for maybe this bike?]
Sincerely...
Tune in next time for my appeals to the rejections of "CATCH22", "RM101", and "F451". I guess they don't like anti-fascist literary references either.
Motor Vehicle Division
PO Box 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85001
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing this appeal to protest my recent personalized plate denial for "1CE9", a tribute to the great American author and World War II veteran, Kurt Vonnegut, who tragically died this year.
By itself, the ice-nine reference may appear to be a political statement considered offensive because of Kurt Vonnegut’s anti-war political stance or because ice-nine acts as an unstoppable doomsday device that threatens to destroy all life on earth and teaches us to be wary of the power of new science and technology.
I would like to assure you, however, that this is not the case. While I did wish to honor Vonnegut, I had no specific political intentions. Furthermore, and more importantly, the message was intended specifically to match the vehicle, shown below. A reference to ice-nine implies a combination of evil, danger, coldness, and advanced technology. While that message may be offensive by itself, when combined with the vehicle and a little sense of humor, it becomes a message of exaggerated hubris and literally coolness. It matched perfectly. [After all, what is cooler than ice9 except for maybe this bike?]
Sincerely...
Tune in next time for my appeals to the rejections of "CATCH22", "RM101", and "F451". I guess they don't like anti-fascist literary references either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)