MORE SENSELESS ACTS OF BLOGGERY

As humor magazines go, Mad Magazine was a pioneer in its heyday, but hasn’t quite managed to stay that relevant in the 21st Century – at least not in the same way that Cracked has. Cracked figured out what the Internet wants – random lists about pop culture – and has been delivering it pretty successfully. Whatever Mad is doing, you don't see it circulated around Facebook that much. 

But they still do some things worth passing on. Like the upcoming cover for their latest issue.



See also: 



See what they did there?

And people said Obama jokes aren’t funny.

Now bombing everywhere,

This is dF

ITEM: Conservative groups opposed to the Obamacare law have decided if they can’t repeal it or have the courts strike it down, they can at least ensure that Obamacare fails to work. 

According to Bloomberg, Heritage Action for America (the advocacy arm of the Heritage Foundation) and the Tea Party-aligned group FreedomWorks will push Congress to cut off funding for the insurance exchanges that are key to the entire Obamacare plan, and meanwhile run ads “warning” people that the exchanges don’t work. The rationale: the less people sign up with the exchanges, the more insurance costs will go up under Obamacare:


Ironically, as Wonkette points out, Heritage Action for America knows all this is because the Heritage Foundation helped create the idea of exchange systems for RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Obamacare uses the same principle. And since we know that the exchange system works, the secret to getting rid of Obamacare is, basically, sabotaging the exchange system so that it doesn’t work, after which Republicans will say “See, we TOLD you it would never work the way Obama said!” right before they repeal it.

Which is, obviously, kind of a dick thing to do, considering that the goal is to ensure that the millions of people that might benefit from Obamacare don’t.

But then I guess it’s the logical outcome for a party that has pretty much opposed Obamacare strictly on ideological grounds (GOVT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE, SOCIALISM, ETC) rather than its workability, and have spent an insane amount of time trying to get rid of it – unsuccessfully (although those 37 repeal votes and Supreme Court challenges have paid off in at least one way – 19% of the country actually believes Obamacare has either been repealed or shut down, and another 23% don't know what its status is, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation).

So why not resort to sabotage? And so what if it screws over the millions of Americans that might benefit from Obamacare? They already don’t have health insurance, and they’re also takers who want free Obama stuff, so it’s not like the GOP is going to deprive them of something they actually have. Or don’t have. Or whatever.

Listen all y’all it’s a sabotage,

This is dF

Back around the end of January, I mentioned how America’s sheriffs vowed not to enforce any new gun laws or regs signed by the Obama admin. 

A growing number of state legislatures – which just happen to be controlled by Republicans – feel the same way, and are crafting legislation making it illegal for any fed agentto enforce such federal laws on the grounds that fuck that gawdamn Commie Obama they’re unconstitutional.

Kentucky’s doing it. So is Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Texas and Wyoming, among others.

Well, good luck with that. The laws being proposed are essentially “nullification” laws, which argue that states don’t have to follow federal laws they deem unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees, and has pretty much never upheld any nullification law that’s been passed. 

Between that and the fact that even Antonin Scalia has ruled that yr 2A rights aren't 100% unlimited, I don’t see these laws holding up in court. 

Ironically, the same could possibly be said of whatever gun-control legislation Congress eventually passes (if any). But why bother waiting to find out years from now when you can pass fear-fueled grandstanding state-level legislation today saying “FUCK YOU, OBAMA, YOU CAN’T HAVE OUR GUNS!”

Which is really what this is all about, I suspect. All of these law proposals sound more like politicians posturing and pandering to the paranoid batshit NRA wing of their respective voter bases. It’s kind of like when Idaho state senator John Goedde proposed a law that would require students to read Atlas Shrugged and be tested on it as a prerequisite for graduation, then after the story went viral and everyone laughed at Idaho, he said he wasn’t serious, he just wanted to make a point.

I have a feeling these anti-fed gun laws are something along the same line.

Then again, some Republicans seem convinced that that they know a hell of a lot more about what is constitutional than that stupid liberal left-wing activist Supreme Court. Like Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), who actually said this:

“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional.”

So this could be fun, is what I’m saying.

You have no power here,

This is dF

This is quite possibly the post you've been waiting for.

Some of you may remember that in the wake of Presidente Obama’s first election victory, a number of entrepreneurs worldwide raced to cash in on his name. One of them was a restaurant/bar owner in Barcelona. 

I have proof.





The building that houses it is under renovation, so that banner covers the original storefront signage, which looks like this.





As you can see, the Obama pub sports a British-African themed décor. Which is, to say the least, a little tacky, if not outright controversial. I don’t know if the décor was already in place when the owner came up with the name: I’m assuming it was.

Still, it’s the sort of thing that Orly Taitz or Donald Trump would find funny. Or compile into their Big Box O’ Evidence. Trump would probably buy it and open a chain of them across America if he thought it was worth the grief he’d get for it. Or if he was the least bit interested in the restaurant business.

Anyway, it is what it is, and I specifically took a detour to get a photo of it. Because I live to entertain you people.

Also, I live to annoy the kind of people who get annoyed very easily by Obama’s popularity. Which, of course, I find hilarious.

PRODUCTION NOTE: I didn’t have breakfast there, no. I was tempted, of course. But I didn’t really have time. And according to online reviews, it’s better for drinking than eating.

Up next: the random!

Somewhere in Africa,

This is dF

And really, I wouldn’t have posted anything about it at all if not for the insane genius that is Charles Krauthammer.

I’ve avoided posting about the Fiscal Cliff™ for two key reasons: (1) I know dick about economics, and (2) there’s really nothing to post about unless we go over it. And even then I probably wouldn't have much to say because of Reason 1. That, and I’m going with the assumption that both politicians and the media are making it out to be a far bigger deal than it really is.

In the meantime, we’ve gotten pretty much what I expected – a buttload of frontline partisan posturing while the actual negotiations go on in the back room, none of which helps me formulate any real opinion except that it’s business as usual.

Interestingly, that also includes the Tea Party dingbats making John Boehner look bad. So much for the hopes that some Republicans telling Grover Norquist to take a hike was a sign that the GOP had some sense knocked back into it by Obama’s re-election.

John Scalzi has that ground covered pretty well. But essentially, the upshot is that the GOP is still dysfunctional and hamstrung by the “never compromise, never surrender” mentality of the Tea Party that’s keeping it from making the deal its own leadership wants.

Guess whose fault that is?

Why, Presidente Obama, of course.

I know this because Charles Krauthammer said so.


Now, let’s be fair – it’s fairly normal in politics to blame the Opposition President for everything that’s wrong in America. No one here is in the business of making their opponents look good.

And I’d fully expect Krauthammer to go on Sean Hannity’s show and say that if when America sails off the Fiscal Cliff™, you can blame Obama for that.

But to blame Obama for yr own party not being able to get its shit together? That takes balls (or CHOOT-spa, if you will). It’s like the coach of a football team blaming the coach of the other team for not letting them win the Super Bowl.

Only Krauthammer is more like a cheerleader than a coach. But you see what I’m saying.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to the hoo-ha when the Fiscal Cliff™ kicks in. And there will be hoo-ha.

Falling off the edge of the world,

This is dF

ITEM: Mother Jones has thoughtfully compiled every Obama Conspiracy Theory into a handy chart for easy reference.



It’s an admittedly impressive list, when you see them all in one place.

I’m looking forward to seeing what people are going to add to the list in Obama Term Two.

The most amazing man who ever lived,

This is dF

Emergency opinion from Team Def Chief Political Batshit Scientist, Lucky Bensonhurst

The first of the POTUS debates is over, and everything has gone exactly as I predicted.

Granted, my prediction was along the lines of this: “Romney and Obama will say everything they’ve been saying for the last year, and that regardless of their actual performance, the party faithful from both sides will not only declare their own candidate the winner by a landslide, but also that the Opposition got his ass kicked all the way downtown.”

So I think I nailed it. Except that the second bit is more true for Romney than Obama.

Or so the Internet says. Indeed, the Internet is a-dither over polls declaring Romney the winner of this round – much to the surprise of just about every hardcore liberal in the country who were sure that Obama would hand Mitt his ass back to him. Even William Rivers Pitt is wondering just what the hell happened to El Jefe’s mojo.

Then again, that disappointment is easy to explain – hardcore liberals frequently made the mistake of assuming that Obama is as far to the left as they are. Which is probably why they expected him to speechify his way to victory and/or body-slam Romney’s lying ass Jon Stewart Style and end the election right then and there. Or something.

So what really happened?

Theories abound.

My own theory is that Obama deliberately pulled his punches – possibly because he was trying to make himself look like the reasonable one in this discussion (which would work great against pretty much every other Republican POTUS candidate this season except for the Mormon ones – who knew?), or possibly because Team Obama figured he could jiu-jitsu his way to victory by letting Romney do what he’s done all through campaign – punch himself repeatedly in the nuts and hand Obama all the ammo he needs to take him down.

That didn’t happen, though by many accounts it could have. Maybe Obama is saving all that mojo for the last debate.

Maybe it’s all Jim Lehrer’s fault.

Or damn, Hovis, maybe it really was the altitude.

Either way, for all the dithering over Obama’s performance, I can’t see it helping Romney that much at this stage.

It’s hard to tell, of course – we’re in post-analysis Media Circus mode right now, and pundits will make hay, as they do. But taking a macro view, I don’t see anything from the debate that would cost Obama the support he already has – and he has a lot.

But as I’ve said before, so far the election has been Obama’s to lose, and it’s safe to say that, in terms of political logic, Romney has bought himself a chance to get back in this. Liberals will complain he got it by lying his ass off. Which is true. So what else is new? No one ever became president by being honest – not even Obama.

But here’s a thing: Romney isn't likely to get away with that again. Obama may have held back in Round 1. But there’s two more debates to go, and you can bet Team Obama will be watching the tapes and rethinking their strategy. 

L. Bensonhurst

We’ve got six weeks to go in POTUS 2012®, and as you may have guessed, the campaign hinges on two crucial issues – Mitt Romney’s tax returns and Barack Obama’s secret plan to redistribute America’s economic power to the rest of the world so that we’re all on the same level (which would be somewhere around where Greece is now).

Ha ha. Not really.

It’s mostly about the economy and jobs, although thanks to some hack filmmaker in California, it’s now also about foreign policy to an extent, and whether or not the solution to Muslim unrest is to declare war on Iran. (Because let's face it, if Obama had done that, you wouldn’t see all those riots. I guess. At least I think that’s what Mitt Romney has been trying to say without actually saying it.)

Anyway, now that foreign policy is on the table – which in this case basically means Dealing With Overseas America-Hating Muslims That Hate America That Al Qaeda Can Recruit From the War On Terror™ – it will be interesting to see if that brings another issue on the table: civil liberties.

To recap: the US Govt currently prefers to deal with Al Qaeda by give intelligence and law enforcement agencies all kinds of powers – mass surveillance, indefinite detention, assassination, etc – all of which can be applied even if yr an American citizen entitled to due process under the Constitution (as opposed to Foreign People You Don’t Know). Most of that started under Bush Jr. And it has continued under Presidente Obama. Some of it has even been legalized under Obama, and you can find a whole nice long list of things Obama has endorsed and utilized here.

Bipartisan!

Which is why civil liberties has been a non-issue in this campaign. No one on either side wants to bring it up. Why would they? Obama’s not going to bring it up because it makes him sound like Bush 2. And Republicans aren’t going to bring it up because they support every one of those policies, and they’re not about to give Obama credit for anything, least of all their own ideas. Indeed, the only thing they’d sincerely criticize Obama for in the civil liberties field is that he’s not violating them nearly enough.

“Pussy!”

Mind you, if any of this does come up in the debates, it’s going to make for some uncomfortable moments for Obama supporters.

I should know. I’ve pointed out Obama’s civil liberties record to a few of his admirers who have gone to great lengths to convince wavering liberals that Obama’s record in Term 1 proves he’s accomplished more than they might think. When I suggested they look at the full record – in the interest of having a more fully informed opinion – the response usually went something like this:

“What? Where did you get that from? I don’t think that’s true. It doesn't sound like something Obama would support.”

Well, they would say that. Never mind that it’s a matter of record. Obama’s only got a single-digit advantage, and no one wants to ruin that with inconvenient truths.

That said, I don’t think they have much to fear on that score – it’s not like civil liberties would improve under a Romney/Ryan admin. Indeed, they're likely to get worse. 

And as mentioned earlier, there are other issues on the table where Obama is the more appealing choice for them. And I do think even disenchanted Obama supporters from 2008 are much more likely to stick with him for another term than vote for Romney.

Still, I suppose it’s symptomatic of the Big Fear gripping the Left over the prospect of a Double R victory that they can’t even face some basic, documentable truths about their own candidate.

So is the fact that a lot of people – and by no means just Republicans – either see nothing wrong with the current status quo on civil liberties, or do but figure that’s just the way it has to be now because of all the terrorists out there plotting to kill them.

Roy Batty was right.

Off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush,

This is dF

Apparently.



[By order of phoenixisrisen, with additional motivation from bedsitter23 ]

Granted, all online political tests should be taken with as many grains of salt as required. And I will say it’s an incomplete test. If they’d asked what I thought about things like Gitmo, detention laws, and executive orders to assassinate US citizens, for example, Obama would be somewhat lower on that list – depending, I guess, on how Jill Stein and Gary Johnson feel about them.

Still, at least I found out who the heck Jill Stein is. I saw her name pop up on some Facebook memes. I had no idea who they were talking about. (As you might imagine, indie candidates don't get a lot of media attention in Hong Kong.)

FULL DISCLOSURE: The shareable image of my results doesn’t show this, but I agreed with Virgil Goode of the Constitution even less than I did with Mitt (20%). But both of them were below Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party (61%).

Also, I am in agreement with 62% of America. At least when it comes to politics.

When it comes to music, not so much.

DISCLAIMER: Not an endorsement of any particular candidate. For entertainment purposes only.

I am the decider,

This is dF

Yr new favorite Obama conspiracy theory: Obama is in favor of gay marriage because he is actually gay. Or at least bisexual.

Source: Tea Party activist Jerome Corsi.

He has evidence, you know:


Well, there you go.

It does explain a lot. No straight person could possibly be in favor of gay marriage.

Which would mean that roughly half of America is now gay.

In which case Bryan Fischer’s plans for an underground railroad to kidnap rescue children from gay parents and send them to Nicaragua will need a lot more funding.

FUN FACT: Jerome Corsi also has evidence that Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a forgery. So it’s not like he’s some kook trying to make a name for himself.

Show us the marriage certificate,

This is dF