Not Everyone Left

This morning, I received a rather disingenuous email from President Barry. It read as follows:

Mary --

Early this morning, the last of our troops left Iraq.

As we honor and reflect on the sacrifices that millions of men and women made for this war, I wanted to make sure you heard the news.

Bringing this war to a responsible end was a cause that sparked many Americans to get involved in the political process for the first time. Today's outcome is a reminder that we all have a stake in our country's future, and a say in the direction we choose.

Thank you.

Barack

Yeah, um, let's talk about for just a second, shall we? Do you know where the largest United State Embassy is in the world? Yeah, it's in Baghdad. Why is this not mentioned more? What do you think we're doing by building our largest embassy right there in the middle of Iraq? No, really. What do you think? Because I can't figure it out. Regardless, our presence in Iraq is now permanent due to that embassy. Yes, I realize that the embassy is not a military base. My point here is that I'm tired of this withdrawal of troops from Iraq being portrayed as the US being completely absent from Iraq because that's simply not true. And it doesn't sound as good. I imagine that it might raise some questions that people don't want to answer during an election year as well.

And about the troops. Sure, the troops have "exited" Iraq. But everything that I read about this "exit" makes it sound as if there are NO Americans left Iraq who are working for the US government. According to CNN, "The United States will still maintain a presence in Iraq: hundreds of nonmilitary personnel, including 1,700 diplomats, law enforcement officers, and economic, agricultural and other experts, according to the State Department. In addition, 5,000 security contractors will protect Americans and another 4,500 contractors will serve in other roles." Wait a minute. 5,000 security contractors? What sort of security and for whom? I thought that we were "out of Iraq". Oh, that's right. For some reason, the White House and the State Department don't consider non-military personnel to be worthy of mentioning. Hmmm...I wonder who those security contractors operate under? Someone has to be giving them directions, right? Am I supposed to believe that it is someone other than our government? Because I'm really not going to do that. They can call it whatever they want to call it, but to keep saying over and over that the US is "out of Iraq" is really borderline lying. Really borderline.

So there you have it. At least 10,000 contractors and embassy related personnel are still in Iraq. The world's biggest embassy is in Baghdad. But President Barry and the State Department are going around touting the departure of the US from Iraq. And for some reason, the media is buying right into that hype and continuing to report it that way. That's because the media sucks. Sucks bad.

Sphere: Related Content

Grilling The Weiner

Let me ask you something. How many pictures of your wang are out there? If you're woman and therefore, wangless, perhaps you can take a moment to inventory how many pictures of your lower regions are floating around out there. I have done the same. Now, I don't know about you, but my total was zero. Thus, if you were to ask me this question, I would have an immediate answer. (I should take this opportunity to mention that figuring out that there are zero pictures like that of me out there (or ANYWHERE) took me less than two seconds.) I would have that answer so rapidly because it shouldn't be something that one has to think about for longer than the two seconds that I allotted myself. Apparently, Anthony Weiner does not fall into the same category as I (and, hopefully you) do.

When I first heard about this story, I didn't think that it could possibly be real. A

guy named Weiner is being accused of sending a picture of his weiner via Twitter?! It's like a dream come true for me! But that is what allegedly happened. (And between you and me, it totally happened. I just have to throw in "allegedly" because that's what you do when you know something totally happened.) According to Yahoo! News, "...a lewd photo was sent from the congressman's Twitter account to a 21-year old female college student via the social networking site--and it was visible for all the public to see." Yeah, that's a problem. Not as much of a problem as his reaction to what happened, but definitely a problem.

He sure didn't take it all that seriously at first. I'd be rather alarmed if someone was sending pictures of my wang across Twitter (and just not because I don't have a wang) and it wasn't me doing it. But no, he just said, "Look, this is a prank and not a terribly creative one...I was hacked. It happens to people. You move on." Huh. You're not even just mildly curious as to who is sending pictures under the assumption that the sender is you? Even if you're a congressman that doesn't bother you? You just want to move on? Just like that, eh? Yeah, that's usually a sign that someone doesn't want to talk about something. Here's a tip: Things like this? Try and be really upset about them. It's more believable than acting like you don't care if people send lewd pictures and make them from you. That's not believable AT ALL.

And the more that he "answered questions" about this, the more not believable it became. For instance, when Luke Russert asked him in an interview "That's not a picture of you?", his reply was not really what I would have expected from someone with NO knowledge of these sorts of shenanigans. He said, "You know, I can't say with certitude. My system was hacked. Pictures can be manipulated. Pictures can be dropped in and inserted." OK, now he's just saying words. (And for the record, it's an "account" not a "system". But I digress.) That doesn't make any sense. If pictures can be manipulated and you DON'T have any pictures of your grundle out there, then you should be able to say "NO, it's not my weiner." But more than once that is not what happened with this guy.

In a different interview, this time the the monotone voiced Wolf Blitzer, he danced around the question again. Wolf made the astute observation that "...he should be able to recognize his own underwear." Yes! Yes, he should! But again, Mr. Weiner (God, I love typing that!) replied in a way that is unimaginable to me when he said "...It certainly doesn't look familiar to me but I don't want to say with certitude to you something that I don't know to be the certain truth." How can you NOT say with certain truth that those pictures were not of you if you don't take pictures like that of yourself?! I could say for certain if a picture like that was of me. It would absolutely not be for the sole reason that there ARE NO pictures like that of me! I don't need to think about it.

Seriously, what about this exchange: Wolf continued to grill the

Weiner (I needed a BBQ-ing pun in there somewhere) directly if he had ever taken a picture like the one in question of himself. The response was less than convincing when he said "I can tell you this. There are... I have photographs. I don't know what photographs are out there in the world of me. I don't know what things have been manipulated and doctored. And we're going to try to find out what happened." Let me save you the time! I know what happened! You send a picture of your junk over Twitter to some college chick in Washington! Mystery solved!

I noticed that he didn't elaborate a whole lot on "I have photographs." Really? Of your erect manhood inside of your underwear? Why do you have those photographs? Just because your name is weiner doesn't mean that it has to be all about the weiner. Who does that? What a moron. No one wants to see a picture of your penis. They're not that great. They're kinda funny looking and I have no idea how you guys walk around with one of those things down there. But again, I digress. There are better ways to deny that you've done something extremely inadvisable than to do everything BUT deny it. Does he think we're idiots? Or is he just an idiot? Considering that it seems fairly obvious that he did send a picture of his slightly covered genitals, I'm going to go with the latter.

Sphere: Related Content

But It's The Truth

It was probably only a matter of time before we began to hear from the relatives of the chick that slept with Arnold Schwarzenegger and bore his illegitimate miniature bodybuilder offspring with a seemingly inherited giant head. Yesterday, we got to hear from the daughter of ex-Schwarzenegger maid Mildred Baena. That would be a one Jackie Roso. Let's see what drivel she spewed so that people could pretend that they're interested.

She apparently told "Entertainment Tonight" in regard to her mother that "She's like a superwoman, pretty much...She's always been there for us, for me and my brothers. And that's why me and my brothers will always be there for her, no matter what." Yeah, I'd say that she's a superwoman. Anyone who could keep the secret that they're sleeping with their boss (who happens to be the governor of California) WHILE still working in the family home is somewhat of a superwoman. Somewhat of a superwhore as well, but I'm OK with the superwoman moniker.

The best part though, was this: "It doesn't matter what any newspaper says... I know my mom, and her friends and her family, we all know her. The Mildred that they put out there...it's just like...gossip, rumors." Well, I don't know what exactly she's referring to, but pretty much all I've heard is not really as much gossip and rumors as it is the truth. And those "rumors" didn't so much come from the media as much as they actually came from Arnold himself when he admitted to being a lying and cheating scumbag and fathering your child. It's hard to imagine any reason for him to say those things unless they were true. So it's really not so much gossip and rumors as much as it is your mom is a homewrecker.

I'm not quite sure why this chick feels the need to say anything considering that her mom hasn't spoken up yet at all. She also, apparently, hasn't spoken to her mom since all of this came out. She might want to wait just a little bit longer next time she decides to speak out about things that are totally true. Just a thought.

Sphere: Related Content

Worst Defense Ever

The Casey Anthony trial has finally started. In case you're not familiar, Casey Anthony is a 25-year old scumbag (I'm being subjective here, but it's likely to turn out to be a factual subjectiveness) who claimed that her 2-year old daughter was abducted by a babysitter in 2008. Yet she didn't call the police. In fact, she never called the police. (There was also never a babysitter.) She admitted to her mother that her kid was gone and then her mother called the police about a month later. Then about a bazillion people spent about five months looking for the little girl, only to find her dead. Shocking, I know. Casey Anthony has been appropriately charged with multiple atrocities like capital murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and misleading law enforcement. Naturally, she does what scumbags of her type tend to do and has pleaded not guilty this entire time. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty. And fortunately, since this is all in Florida, they actually execute people down there. So if the jury can do its job effectively, this chick is going to get what is coming to her.

Opening statements roll around yesterday and her camp offered up a rather surprising and excruciatingly lame excuse for all of these shenanigans which resulted in one dead toddler. See, the defense said that the little girl drowned. And instead of calling 911, Casey just panicked. Oh, and they're also claiming that her dad was there and helped her dispose of the body. Wow. Way to go. Try and bring down your dad in the process. OK, then.

What kind of an excuse is that, anyway? I guess it's the excuse of someone who is extremely desperate. It's lame as hell, though. Are they aware that the standard is "reasonable doubt", with the key word being "reasonable"? Idiotic, mouth-breathing, paste eating doubt is not a standard. And that's what you would be upholding if you were to actually believe that load of crap. But I guess if you're a defense attorney and your client is so obviously guilty that you know that it's a lost cause, I guess you just say whatever you can .

That's probably the reason for her defense attorney saying, "We're not here to talk about how inappropriate Casey acted." Hmm. You know, you can say that, but in reality, it is exactly why you are there. All of the inappropriate murdering of your own child (allegedly) is exactly what you should be talking about. CBS News also reports that their case "...will have a lot to do with the meter reader who found Caylee Anthony's remains". Oh, good. I'm sure that he'll enjoy that. I'm sure that he'll enjoy being made out to be something other than just the guy that found the body of a toddler. As if that wasn't bad enough, now he gets to listen to some defense attorney make up stuff (allegedly) in order to try and save his seemingly obviously guilty client. Nice.

Apparently, the proceedings are being televised. I'll be tuning in every now and then to see how this goes. Especially when the defense has their turn. That should be entertaining. I'll definitely tune in for the verdict. Watching that chick find out that she's guilty and no one bought her unlikely tale of events will be very enjoyable for me. You go, Florida. This might be the one thing that I can count on you for.

Sphere: Related Content

Those Aren't Cuts!

Remember that budget deal that all of those weasels in Congress waited until the very last freaking minute to agree upon? Yeah, that's the one. And remember how they were all smiles afterward and acted like they had accomplished something monumental? (I know that whenever they do nothing they think it's monumental, but this time they were really pleased with their own act.) And then after it was all said and done we were told that they managed to cut about $38 billion dollars? Remember? Of course you do! It was only a couple of days ago for cryin' out loud. It turns out that the $38 billion dollars that they claim to be cutting isn't anywhere close to what they actually cut. No, in fact, the amount that they actually cut is so ridiculous that it seems damn near pointless to cut it at all. It really is a "Why bother?" scenario.

This new but not surprising information comes to us from the fine folks over there at The Washington Post. They learned from the Congressional Budget Office that "A federal budget compromise that was hailed as historic for proposing to cut about $38 billion would reduce federal spending by only $352 million this fiscal year, less than 1 percent of the bill’s advertised amount". Now look, I'm not one to be someone to claim "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket." But, come on! $352 million?! Less than one freaking percent?! How did this happen? I'll tell you how this happened. It happened in part because "...$13 billion to $18 billion of the cuts involve money that existed only on paper and was unlikely to be tapped in the next decade." Oh, good! They're trying to fix our impending fiscal doom with accounting tricks. Next up? Fun house mirrors! And they act so freaking proud of themselves.

Here's the best part. Even though those $352 million in cuts will happen, for some reason, no one felt like factoring in "emergency" money for military action. You know. Like if we end up in Libya or something like that. (Yeah, like that's really going to happen. Wait. Didn't we....? Yeah. We did. Hmm. Disregard that statement.) Now, I don't know why they wouldn't factor those things in. If I'm doing a household budget and I have emergency money that I have spent or am spending, I'm going to have to factor in that it's going to get used. There's no way around that. You can call it whatever you want, but you still have to count it. But I'm guessing that the reason that they didn't want to count it when they were forming the budget out of snake oil is because if they did then "...the overall spending for this fiscal year may actually increase, by more than $3 billion." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Their little accounting tricks don't end there. "A Washington Post analysis of the 459-page budget revealed at least 98 cases in which Congress took back unused IOUs and called it a cut." HOW is that a cut? Don't answer that. There's more. "When the Capitol Visitor Center was under construction, lawmakers allotted $621 million to pay for it. The project wound up costing less than $600 million. In the compromise budget, lawmakers took back $15 million of the unused budget authority." Well, I should hope that they took it back! They didn't USE IT!

I'm making myself crazy here. This is insane. Instead of saving any money at all, Congress has very well (and probably very likely) passed a budget that is going to be costing the country MORE money. And people wonder why folks get so up in arms about spending! It's because it is out of control. President Barry said the other day that the greatest threat to our national security was our debt. And if he truly believes that and he ends up signing this budget, then we are so scroomed that there's not even any point. If both sides of Congress are going to flat out lie to us, it's over. And both sides, by saying that this budget cuts $38 billion dollars, are lying to us. Thus, it's over. We're scroomed. Goodbye, sweet America.

Sphere: Related Content

Not Intended To Be Factual

Here's a new one. Man, I always hate it when I say that. Only because it means that something more ridiculous than previously thought has occurred. It's almost never really good. And I'd guess that probably only about half of the time it's amusing. And this instance follows those guidelines. Not really good and kind of amusing. But only amusing in the way that is so ridiculous that you don't know what else to think.

Let's take a look at some of the profound statements of a one Senator Jon Kyl (R-eally? Arizona.) Senator Kyl is the Senate Minority Whip. I don't know what that is and I don't think that I care. If I had to make an assumption, I'd probably guess it has something to do with Miracle Whip, but I don't know what. Regardless, Senator Kyl had the floor on Friday during the whole budget showdown/will the government shut down debacle of 2011. He said that abortion was “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” And for the record, really only about three percent of Planned Parenthood's work has to do with abortion. There's a big difference between almost all and almost none. But that's OK. It wasn't supposed to be factual. Wait. What?

Correct. It wasn't meant to be factual. What was it meant to be? According to the thinking folks over at Think Progress, "...CNN anchor TJ Holmes relayed a statement from Kyl’s office walking back the comment". How do you walk something like that back? It's so far out of the gate, isn't it going to be impossible to walk back? Not if you're a moron, apparently, Kyl's office explained that "his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions." But....but...he said....what...whatis going on here?!

His remark was not intended to be a factual statement? Why in the hell not?! Isn't that what you're supposed to be doing when you're making an argument for your side? Give your basis in facts?! No? When did that change? Oh, that's right. IT DIDN'T. You can't just say something that is totally false and then pull a Pee Wee Herman on everyone and say, "I meant to do that!" That's not how this works!

I certainly hope that this doesn't become some sort of trend. I hope that all of these clueless politicians don't just start blowing alleged facts out of their arse and then blow over it when they're confronted on their falsehoods by saying that it wasn't supposed to be the truth and that it was supposed to illustrate a point. Oh, believe me. Senator Kyl made a point all right. He made the point that he's clearly not fit for the office that he holds. He made the point that he'll say whatever he needs to in order to sway people whichever way he wants to. He made the point that he isn't about the truth, he's just about what he wants. I can't get behind that. We're just doomed. Doomed, I tell you.

Sphere: Related Content

Julian Assange's Double Talk

Up until now, I've kept myself out of this whole WikiLeaks thing. Mainly because I don't like saying WikiLeaks. I think it sounds ridiculous. But I do have an opinion on this whole thing and I also have a point to make. Shocking, I know. But bear with me.

So, this Julian Assange character likes to obtain classified or secret documents from various governments or institutions and then publish said information online. His most recent target has been the United States. It's not really all that clear to me what his goal is, as he is an Australian and doesn't seem to have any direct dealings with the United States. He is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that has a lot to do with it. I also think that he's delusional if he thinks that he's going to be able to put a stop to these wars with his reckless release of information. Extremely delusional.

Just the other day, The Australian ran a piece by Mr. Assange entitled "Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths". It is within this piece that Mr. Assange rambles on about how people need to know the truth. In some ways, he is correct. The people of a country should not be lied to by their government. That doesn't mean that the people need to know every bit of information that goes on behind the scenes. It's not something that is unique to America. Every country has information that is classified. I don't get what he doesn't understand about that.

But it's in this piece that Mr. Assange proclaims his "innocence". According to him, it's not like these releases of classified information are hurting anyone. He's just putting the truth out there. In fact, he states "WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed." Not so fast WikiWeenie.

Back in August, Mr. Assange was the subject of a piece by a one Carole Cadwalladr over at The Guardian. In that piece, Mr. Assange talks about "...the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election"." Really? According to him, yes. Really. The document of which he speaks "...exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country." Huh. Anything else? Glad you asked! He then claimed "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak." Ohhhh. So close!

Look, I don't know what document he's talking about and I'm not interested in looking into it. But I absolutely believe him that people lost their lives because of his leak. He knows what he's doing and it isn't to promote "open government". If anything, other than being a pain in the ass, he's promoting anarchy. And while I'm really unhappy with the way that this guy has chosen to go about things, I'm even more unhappy with the fact that classified documents were so easily accessible in the United States that it was possible for a lowly Private First Class to download them all onto CDs and hand them over to Assange. I do agree with him that he's the "messenger", but give me a break, that doesn't mean that he's blameless in all of this.

Sphere: Related Content

The Lie Of The Year Winner Is....

Apparently, there's a new award that's being awarded (duh) this year. Just be thankful that it won't involve Lady Gaga or Mister GooGoo or anyone like that. No, this is an award that seems to have been dreamed up by the fact-y folks over there at PolitiFact.com. The award is Lie of the Year and according to an article written by a one Johanna Neuman over there in a blog at the LA Times, there was online polling and one lie came out far ahead of the rest (as determined by those who voted in the online poll which PolitiFact just made up, that is correct). Let's see if this sounds familiar, shall we?

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." Sound familiar? Of course it does. And it was uttered by none other than the one, the only (thank God), former half term Governor from the state of Alaska, Sarah Palin.

Now, I'm not so sure if that's really more of a statement about Sarah Palin or if that's more of a statement about everyone who believed it. Actually, it's probably a statement about both, now that I think about it. And thinking about it would have really behooved some of those who believed it and ran with it before trying to determine if there was any sort of validity to it what so ever (which there wasn't, by the way). But there's no time for thinking when there's a ruckus to start up! Pitchforks! Torches! Everyone with me?! No? What? Good.

But when I compare that statement to the others that were in the running, I find it interesting that it was the Sarah Palin statement that "won". It makes me wonder if that's a reflection of how many people out there are really not buying into the whole charade that Sarah Palin is supposed to be the unnamed savior of this country. (She's not, by the way. She seems like a nice lady and she has a lot of great ideas and does a lot of things is a swell manner, but I don't think I want her as the President of this country. It takes more than being nice to...oh. Wait a minute. Isn't that kind of how President Barry got elected? Yeah, never mind. She'd win. Carry on.) I'm hoping that this "award" will grow some legs and be reported somewhere besides blogs. (Because we all know how blogger can be. Sheesh!)

So who were the runners-up, you ask? Well, I asked! In no particular order, other than the fact that they're all lies told by liars, we have "Glenn Beck's claim that Obama science advisor John Holdren favored forced abortions." Hmmm. Forced abortions, eh? Gotta tell ya, I've met some folks in my time who have reproduced and...well....it's never going to happen and it's a pretty horrible concept, but having met some of the folks that I have, it's not a completely unwarranted thought. (Oh, lay off! You're thinking the same thing! What about that dumbass neighbor of yours with the kid that got your brand new screwdriver stuck in nose? Sometimes the gene pool is just so shallow, it almost makes more sense to just drain it than it does to keep skimming the bottom and hoping for something good to come up.)

Another of the also rans was "Orange County dentist Orly Taitz's claim that Obama was born in Kenya, which helped spark the birther movement." Tell me something. How did this one not win?! That is the most ridiculous thing that anyone has ever come up with and it didn't win?! It's more outrageous than the death panel claim, if you're asking me! It actually scares me that this one did not win because I'm worried that it really grew legs to the point where it couldn't have won (you know, due to all of the people who are still questioning it). Wake up, folks! He's not a Kenyan! And he's not a Muslim! (I always like to throw that last part in there whenever I get the chance. And since it wasn't one of the runners-up in this story, I like to think that I've really been doing some good by always harping on that FACT.)

Finally we have "Vice President Joe Biden's claim that swine flu spread because “when one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft.” :::: sigh :::: Are we the land of the wacky Vice President now? It used to be just the wacky Presidential sibling and/or child. Billy Carter. Roger Clinton. Patty Reagan. Granted, we had Dan Quayle there for a while. But he wasn't as much wacky as he was just a doughhead, really. Biden misspeaks and says cuckoo bird things almost as much as GW did. (Almost as much. No one can top GW in terms hilarity for what came out of his mouth. Every day that man gave people around the globe new material to work with. I kinda miss that. Don't get me wrong, I don't miss GW. I just miss having instantaneous blog fodder whenever he opened his mouth.)

I'm pretty sure that the Biden quote shouldn't have won for Lie of the Year, mainly because I don't think that he was lying. I think that's what he actually thought. I think that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and that nutjob dentist chick all know that they're not being honest. Glenn Beck especially. That guy has taken what he does (heighten panic through inducing fear) to an art form. (I don't watch his show very often, but I have to ask this: Does he cry on every episode? Every time I catch his act, his eyes are all red and his face is all damp.)

But the Biden misspeaks at least give us the damage control patrol done by Robert Gibbs, the Press Secretary. I don't know who that guy thinks he's kidding some of the time, but the answer is no one. Gibbsey is an interesting act, but he can't put quite the spin that he wants to on certain things. His response/explanation to what Veep-y Joe said was "I think that what the Vice President meant to say was again, the same thing that many members have said in the last few days and that is if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting symptoms, flu-like symptoms, coughing, sneezing, uh, runny nose, uh, that you should take precautions, that you should, uh, limit your travel, and I think, uh, what he said and what he meant to say." When pressed by the extremely awesome Jake Tapper of ABC News, Gibbsey replied, "Jake, I understand what he said and I'm telling you what he meant to say." That was met with a fair amount of laughter from the press corp there that day. And how could they not have laughed? That's hilarious.

But back to the Lie of the Year...Former half term Governor Palin has responded to her "winning" the dubious distinction by taking to scribing on her Facebook page. (My God, people! Get off of Facebook! Knock it off! I am so sick of hearing the word Facebook! Stop it!) She wrote, in part, "Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor."

Um, Nancy Pelosi doesn't work at PolitiFact.com. I mean, she didn't the last time I checked. No, last time I checked she was ridiculously close to being successor to the position of President of the United States, a scenario which scares the holy S out of me. But here's the thing, Mrs. Palin. You can't use a metaphor unless it is clear that is what you are doing. You can't use a metaphor and totally act like you haven't used a metaphor. You can't use a metaphor and then continue to drive that same metaphor into the ground without clarifying what it is that you were trying to say. You can't just take the one thing that (softheaded) people are really afraid of and then throw it out there in pretty simple terms (so that their soft, soft craniums can absorb it more easily) and not expect it to be taken literally. You just can't. But you did. And that's why you're winning the Lie of the Year award from PolitiFact.com.

And actually, that "taken aback" attitude that you seem to have over your dubious honors might just earn you one of the runners-up award as well! Congratulations!

Sphere: Related Content

Levi Johnston - King of the Morons

Can I possibly stand to do another post about what a brickhead Levi Johnston is? Can I? I don't know. I'm gonna, so let's find out if I make it to the end, shall we? God, he's a moron.

I take that back. He is King of the Morons. In the Land of the Morons, he is the revered, he is the adored, he is their leader, he is their King. Thus, with that sort of moronism involved, I was not surprised to learn, according to the headline over across the pond at The Guardian " "We're going to court"; Sarah Palin to face legal battle over grandson". Shocking, I know.

Now, before we delve into the "legal battle" part, let's recap some of the choice things that Levi Johnston, completely unprovoked, has had to say about Sarah Palin. In the Vanity Fair article we have Levi claiming:

"The Palin house was much different from what many people expect of a normal family...There wasn’t much parenting in that house. Sarah doesn’t cook, Todd doesn’t cook—the kids would do it all themselves: cook, clean, do the laundry, and get ready for school."

"Sarah told me she had a great idea: we would keep it a secret—nobody would know that Bristol was pregnant. She told me that once Bristol had the baby she and Todd would adopt him."

"She started talking about how nice it would be to quit and write a book or do a show and make “triple the money.” It was, to her, “not as hard.” She would blatantly say, “I want to just take this money and quit being governor.” "

On the Tyra Banks Show, Levi claimed "...he believed the governor knew he was having sex with Bristol prior to her becoming pregnant at age 17."

And finally, in an interview with Maggie Gonzalez of CBS, he claimed that "Sarah Palin would come home from work and ask, “Where’s my retarded baby?” Um, what?

Look, I find it hard to believe that any mother would say that about their kid. Levi is claiming that she said it all the time. Why things like that don't diminish whatever credibility anyone thinks he has is beyond me. I might only doubt (but barely doubt) that she ever said it, but I can say with great assuredness she never said it "all the time". That's just S***. Here's where it gets entertaining.

Levi is claiming that he is not being allowed access to his son, Tripp. Shocking, I know. I'm not so sure that I'd be letting the sort of guy who is more interested in flying all over the country spreading lies about the grandmother of his child see the child either. Since there doesn't seem to be a legal document in place authorizing specific visits, I guess it would have to boil down to the decision of the mother as to what would be best for said child. Keeping said child away from said jackass seems like a pretty good place to start if you're asking me.

Back to the story in The Guardian where they report "Johnston said there had been times when he had been allowed to see Tripp about once a week, but there had also been periods when he had had virtually no access. He said: "They started letting me see him and everything was fine. But everything got bad again. So I said screw them." Aaahhh. And another piece of the puzzle falls into place. Anything else there, Levi? How do you feel about it going to court?

"It's going to be a tough battle. Basically, it's down to who has the better lawyer. I can just imagine all the cameras that are going to be there – it's going to be crazy." Um, what?

All of the cameras? That's what you're thinking about?! What in the hell is wrong with you? Oh, that's right. You're an idiot.

But wait! Unfortunately, there's more! Media outlets, please take note of this! "Johnston admitted to the Guardian that comments he made to Vanity Fair and other outlets....were partly made in retaliation. "If they had let me see my kid, I wouldn't have done any of that." "

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

IF they had let you see your kid. Do you really think that the kind of father who goes around telling public lies (likely for profit) about his child's grandmother, the mother of the mother of his child (whew! That's a mouthful!) is the kind of person that they would want to see their child? I can't say that it is! But take note media outlets! Please take note!! He didn't say any of it because it was TRUE. He said it because he was RETALLIATING! He LIED. And YOU folks who paid him for his lies and gave him camera time for his lies only ENCOURAGED his lying! He's a LIAR. Please stop putting him on your TV shows.

Seriously though, if I haven't convinced you of what a complete and utter a-hole Levi Johnston is by now, allow me to just ice this s*** cake and put a cherry on top. Here we go. Again (and still) from the article in The Guardian (linked above) "Asked whether he worried that his outspoken remarks about Tripp's grandmother might be harmful to the child, he replied: "I don't know. I hope not, but what else are you going to do?" Um, what now?

What else are you going to do? What in the hell do you mean "what else are you going to do"? You're the one doing it! You're the one making potentially harmful remarks! You're the one out there lying in retalliation for something! I'll tell you "what else are you going to do". You're going to shut the F up is what you're going to do!

"What else are you going to do?" So, basically, you need a weapon and you've chosen the child and if it messes up the kid later on in life, so be it, you needed a weapon. He does realize that when he goes to court, Sarah Palin won't be there, right? He does realize that when he goes to court, it's likely that Bristol won't be there either, right? If I were him, I'd hope to God that when he goes to court that Todd isn't there. Todd seems like the type of guy who really might take the sort of advice given by Pat Buchanan on MSNBC's Morning Joe back in July when he told Mika Brzezinski "Well, first, with regard to Levi, I think First Dude up there in Alaska, Todd Palin, ought to take Levi down to the creek and hold his head underwater until the thrashing stops.“ Well said, Pat. Well. Said.

Sphere: Related Content