Posts Tagged ‘God-damned Republicans’

As some of you may know, I have a habit of making fun of idiots, both here and in reality. Ordinarily, I make fun of relevant idiots–or, like Stephen Baldwin, at least idiots that have busy schedules. Every once in a while, though, I end up picking a fight with an idiot that apparently has nothing better to do than rise to the implicit challenge that I offer: “Just how fucking stupid are you?”

And, oh my, the writer and readers of the fascinating study in political dumbfuckery that I linked to earlier, Rosetta the Racist, did not disappoint.

[UPDATE:  It’s been pointed out to me that some commenters lack the courage of their convictions, and would prefer to continue to lurk behind their masks of anonymity.  I have obligingly removed their e-mail addresses from this post, which were included due to oversight.]


Here we come to Rosetta the Racist herself.  Rosetta has, in the long and honorable tradition of high-strung fruitcakes flipping out when they’re criticised, written an enthusiastic and vitriolic response to my calling her an idiot.  I can’t imagine why.  Surely, my own credentials don’t merit this kind of attention, do they?  It’s not like I was calling her out in the Times, or anything.  I’m not complaining, mind you–Rosetta’s managed to triple my page views, drastically increase my authority on Technorati, and move Threat Quality Press up a few notches on the list if you do a Google search for “Idiot Republicans.”

[UPDATE:  I am informed that Rosetta is actually a man.  I will continue to refer to her as “she,” because if she has no problem creating the confusion, then I have no problem propagating it.]

Anyway.  To work!


One of the good things about WordPress is that when you sign in, it gives you links to a whole bunch of other blogs that are run through the same service.  It’s promoting interconnectedness, or immanentizing the singularity, or spiming the cube, or whatever Bruce Sterling would call it.

Today, I saw a blog post that caught my eye, and clicked on it.  It said:  I, Rosetta, Am A Proud Racist.

Hmmmm. (more…)

This is a hypothesis that I’m working on, not an explanation, so don’t jump on me just yet.  I haven’t seen An American Carol, which is some new movie by David Zucker that’s meant to be a “right-wing comedy.”  Rotten Tomatoes has the thing ranked at 15%, and the reviews seem to be almost-uniformly negative.

They advertise this piece of crap on the radio twice a day, and it got me thinking–WHY wouldn’t it be funny?  What, exactly, is going on here?

So, I’m constructing a hypothesis, that I may or may not bother to one day prove.


Oh, Mavericks!

Posted: October 6, 2008 in Braak, Politics
Tags: , ,

From The New York Times:

“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.

[Brought to you today by special Threat Quality guest columnist Sarah Crane, who I think is pretty rad. –ed]

Shrill, emasculating, ball-busting, feminazi, lesbian, calculating, ugly, fat, bitch.

For decades, Republicans (and some Democrats and apolitical folks) have used these slurs against Senator Hillary Clinton. During the 2008 primary season, the media treated her as a side-show freak: a woman who came very close to becoming the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.



Posted: September 4, 2008 in Braak, Politics
Tags: , ,

This photo was on, and then they took it down. It is an excellent example of why, when you’re setting up a convention, you need to be REALLY careful with the imagery that you use.

Ladies, gentlemen, I give you…

Sarah Palin.

Sieg fucking heil.

-St. Paul Minnesota

John McCain was found standing over the body of a dead drifter in his hotel room, yesterday. According to the hotel staff that made the discovery, McCain’s hands were covered in blood and it looked, “like he had eaten the man’s face.” An alarming action like this could certainly cause trouble for the Senator’s presidential campaign, so it’s little surprise that his media relations team was quick to respond.


Dear the Republicans:

Congratulations! You’ve nominated a woman as your vice-presidential candidate. That is awesome! Let me be the first to welcome you into the 21st century. Exciting isn’t it? I hope you enjoy your stay here, but I want to let you know that there may be features of this new world, with its internets and its YouTubes and the Google, that will be strange and unfamiliar to you.

You’ve noticed that women can seriously contend for the same jobs as men, so that’s good–but we’ve also given them “rights,” like about how we have to pay them the same as men, and what they can do with their bodies and such, so you might want to think about making that part of your platform, too. There’s a couple other things. For one, brown people can ALSO have jobs other than “houseboy” or “gardener”–this may be discomfiting for you guys at first, so maybe wait a couple years before you try and find an “ethnic” to nominate.

Let’s see. Oh! Science has come to an informal consensus about that whole evolution thing, so we’re not really using Genesis to study biology anymore. You should probably let Sarah Palin know that–she might have just missed the letter we sent around in 2001. I hear they only got e-mail in Alaska last week, so maybe that accounts for it! [ha ha–joke!]

Homosexuality no longer causes AIDS; all different kinds of people can get it, now! So, we’ve generally decided that being gay isn’t really a big deal any more. Did you know that the gays even have their own TV shows? I know, it’s crazy! You could find some on the YouTubes, but that might be a little too much action for one century. Don’t wear yourselves out too soon!

Aaaand, oh, right–Reagan. Here’s the thing: Ronald Reagan is in the past now. I know, I know, you liked him, but he really did his thing in nineteen eighty, which is technically the 20th century. That stuff that McCain says, about how we have to change and embrace the future–I know it’s confusing, sometimes, but there’s a good litmus test now: things that happened in the 20th century are the PAST. That means that switching to Ronald Reagan’s policies would be like going backwards!

I know it can be tough, acclimating yourself to a new century. I sure had trouble with it, when the 21st century hit me–wow, was it almost ten years ago, already? Time sure does fly! Anyway, no one expects you guys to do all of it all at once. You can sort of ease in. Nominate a woman here and there, that’s good. Don’t overdo it, though. I mean, there’s no need to change any of your policies just yet–putting a woman on your ticket must have been hard enough! I’m just saying to think about some of this stuff; maybe in another ten years, or so…?

That might be pushing it. You’ve got a woman on your ticket now, let’s say twenty years before you actually start supporting equal pay and biological autonomy.

In the meantime, welcome to the 21st century, guys! We sure are happy you could join us!


posted by Chris Braak

Hello and welcome to my new feature, “Republicans Write Some Stupid Books, Part One: David Limbaugh’s book, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, Is Stupid, and David Limbaugh Is Probably a Tool.”

This was originally going to be a twelve-part series, addressing this book chapter-by-chapter, but in retrospect I think that no one would want to read that. Instead, I’m going to do Limbaugh’s first chapter this time, a chapter from someone else next time, as I try to prove my essential thesis.

I found this picture of Limbaugh and he’s pretty toolish-looking.

I don’t advise you to buy the book–I don’t think Limbaugh (who already HAS a career as a lawyer) deserves any money for it. In addition, it takes a particular kind of masochist to pay someone to put a nail through his foot or to piss in his eye, and even we Liberals can safely define that behavior as “extra-normal.”

Anyway. I just want to make one final thing clear, and then I’m jumping in. I am in NO WAY qualified to refute this text. David Limbaugh is a lawyer and everything, he’s a syndicated columnist (I’m just reading this stuff from his author’s bio), he’s Rush Limbaugh‘s brother. I have no tools at my disposal except for Google and what I am, for the sake of convenience, going to refer to as “my limitless kung-fu intellect.” I’ve got no fancy lawyer-degrees or a TV show or anything like that.

Now, to the task.

Part 1, the War for Our Public Schools, Chapter 1, Christianity Out, Part 1:
(this is completely Limbaugh’s taxonomy; I don’t know why his book needs such subdivisions)

Chapter 1 is basically about how the Federal Government, in the form of Public Schools, is attempting to wipe out all vestiges of Christianity from the public school arena, but NOT attempting to wipe out the vestiges of other religions or moralities. This, he argues, is hypocritical of them. To support this thesis, Limbaugh gives us a number of incidents in which people were, apparently unfairly, forced to compromise their religious beliefs while employed at or educated at public schools. He hasn’t mentioned anything about all of these people being Liberals or not, so I don’t know what their deal is.

For example, a District Court Judge in Texas ruled that the school prayer at graduation was not allowed to refer to any deity by name. Of course, Limbaugh says it like this: “Kent…decreed that any student uttering the word “Jesus” would be arrested and incarcerated for six months.” He then actually quotes the Judge later on–strangely, the quote picks up after the judge has said his thing about “Don’t even utter the word ‘Jesus.’”

You’ll notice, I’m sure, that there’s immediately a problem with the language here; judges issue rulings, they order, they don’t decree. And saying that “any student that utters the word ‘Jesus’ will be incarcerated for six months,” is a lot different from saying that “The school graduation prayer must not refer to any deity by name.”

But, even if Limbaugh is maybe exaggerating the language that this judge used (the man was a Texan, after all, but still no mention as to whether or not he was a Liberal Texan, which would probably be a fact stranger than the ruling), he goes on to point out that this was not an isolated incident. He cites FIVE other examples from a variety of states in which students were “forbidden” (Limbaugh’s word; I wasn’t actually party to the conversation, so I don’t know if the orders were as ominous as he makes them sound) to discuss Jesus.

Actually, wait. One of these incidents was when Connecticut law enforcement officials threatened to arrest a man for corrupting the morals of a minor if they could prove that he passed out religious tracts to students. Again, I’m quoting Limbaugh almost directly–no threat to arrest a “student” or a “teacher.” Just a man who was, apparently, passing out religious tracts to students at public schools. Frankly, I don’t really care what the guy’s religion is, if a random man is hanging out at my kids’ school and offering to “show them his ‘tract’ “, I’d kind of prefer that he was arrested.

Likewise, these other incidents aren’t actually about demoniacal black-robed judges threatening to arrest students for loving Jesus, either; they’re about teachers who “rebuke” students for talking about Jesus during school. So, I guess there are TWO incidents of judges “bearing down” on religion. Except, one of them was the police bearing down on a creepy guy. So, this judge in Texas was an isolated incident.

You can see how this argument is shaping up to be water-tight.

I know what you’re thinking, because I was thinking the same thing myself. “Shouldn’t religion, which is essentially a person’s private business, not be discussed at school? I mean, it’s not as though these teachers were targeting Christians and then ALLOWING heathen Muslim talk, or anything.”

Limbaugh has us covered though. He tells us not to kid ourselves, “…while the court’s language was nominally directed toward prayers of all religions, in reality it was targeted solely at Christian prayer, because it was the only kind at issue.”

This is what he said, and it is, technically, correct. The judge said, “Hey, don’t you talk about any kind of prayers at school,” and he said it specifically to stop Christians from doing it, because they were the only ones who were. I’m not precisely sure where the hypocrisy comes in–maybe the judge should have sent a special note around to all the Texan Hindus saying, “Hey, I know that we specifically said in our court order not to say anything during the prayer about The Great God Sheba [also banned by the judge; I’m assuming the Great God Sheba is a hilarious conflation of the Hindu deity Shiva and the Queen of Sheba] but we just wanted to say, seriously, don’t say anything about him.”

It’s not enough that the language prohibited Jews from praying as well as Christians, what was necessary was that we IMPORT some Jews, demand that they pray to whatever weird goat-god they worship, and THEN tell them to stop?

[DISCLAIMER: I know the Jews don’t worship Baphomet. I’m not sure that David Limbaugh knows, though.]

Let me put this another way. Say you came into my house, and tried to take my pants. And I decreed that everyone was forbidden to take any article of clothing from my house, but especially, hey, you, with my pants. Am I being harsher on you, the pants-thief, than I am on the fictional shirt-thief, because no one is actually stealing my shirt? Am I some kind of hypocrite for prohibiting the theft of all items of clothing, simply because you’re trying to take my pants?

The alternatives, of course, are that I specifically prohibit you from taking my pants, and say nothing else about the rest of my clothes, but that really would be unfair. What’s so special about my pants, anyway? Why shouldn’t my shirt be verboten? Or, I could also say nothing, and let you get away with my pants. But I think we all know where that’s going.

So, we move on from here–I want to point out that this is where some of the confusion comes in for me. Limbaugh groups the teachers who tell the students not to talk about Jesus in schools with the judge, and makes them separate from the teachers who are being picked on by the administration for being Christian. He talks about these guys in the paragraph later.

I can see what his problem is. Looked at one way, the way he presents it, what you’ve got on the one hand is a bunch of teachers who are picking on students for loving Jesus, and on the other hand, a school administration that is picking on teachers for loving Jesus. Two symbols of authority who say, “Stop saying Jesus all the time!” Absent are any case examples in which either a) teachers prohibited students from talking about Allah or our new friend Sheba, or b) teachers FAILED to prohibit students from talking about Allah, Buddha, Sheba, et al.

This doesn’t really prove anything. To go back to my pants example, if your girlfriend told you that whenever I saw a man stealing pants from my house, I kicked him in the testicles, you could not rightly assume that I was prejudiced against pants-thieves. Your girlfriend didn’t tell you that I wasn’t kicking shirt-thieves, too; maybe I am. You didn’t ask, anyway. Dick.

In any case, we can also look at this issue another way: the fact that some teachers are being picked on by the administration (for posting up their protests of the Gay Pride Parade on the school’s official bulletin board, for instance, a board in which Limbaugh is quick to point out allowed the posting of other “items”–he fails to mention the content of those items; I’m going to go out on a limb and assume they were ACTUAL SCHOOL BUSINESS, and this excepted them from the heinous discrimination) is an indication that some teachers ARE Christian, and are trying to tell people about their Christian values.

This is the other hand: here, you have some teachers who aren’t Christian, or, if they are, don’t think you should talk about it in school. AND you have some teachers who ARE Christian, and DO think you should talk about it in school. Yeah, this anti-Christian behavior is a god-damn epidemic.

I want to point out also that one of the examples, one in which the NEA subjected teachers who requested that their mandatory union dues be paid to a charity instead of the Union’s liberal political causes to an “invasive questionnaire” doesn’t really make much sense. I mean, firstly, NEA here is the “National Education Association.” It’s a union, not actually the government. It’s liberal by definition, so actually just *paying* your dues technically means you’re supporting a liberal cause. I’m not saying unions should be allowed to subject people to invasive questionnaires–frankly, I’m not altogether certain what that means, anyway. Are the questionnaires being inserted rectally? Orally? Surgically? Regardless, I don’t feel that it’s appropriate that anyone have a questionnaire shoved up their ass for any reason.

But the point is, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, something which IS run by the Federal Government, recognized the behavior as being discriminatory and then stopped it. Yes, you read that right. Christianity is in danger of being flushed from our national psyche because a Federal commission successfully protected the rights of teachers to be Christian. Damn you, Big Government!

Chapter 1 goes on, but, frankly, this isn’t a great format for long discursion, and sweet slippery fuck this Limbaugh is long-winded. It’s almost as though he’s trying to add up ten thousand bad examples into one good example—a task that’s either malicious or retarded.

You’ll have to figure that one out for me.