Obscenity

Last night, flipping through the channels, I saw "BREAKING NEWS". Immediately, I realized I had made a mistake--the breaking news was on FOX, and what was it? Bush was speaking at the National Correspondents' Dinner. So I shut it the fuck off and watched something else.

Now, it turns out that the puppet master decided to participate in a little shuck and jive, to demonstrate that he could get down with his bad self. Except he dances like someone pulling marionette strings. No, he dances like the animated, soulless corpse that he is. The master who sends troops to die while he prances around the stage.

This is not funny. It it pathetic. Offensive. Almost as good as the moment when Bush did the "skit" where he pretended to look for those pesky WMDs that he had lied about.
I fucking hate this administration.

It never ceases to amaze me how the main stream media hacks continue their march to bloggifying their journalistic practices at the same time they harrass, insult and undermine the work of blogging pioneers.

The title of this Saletan post says it all : Why banging your sister is icky. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine:

A study offers new evidence that natural selection drives the incest taboo. On average, your level of disgust at the notion of sex with a sibling correlates with how long you cohabited with that sibling and watched your mom care for her as a small child. So does your level of altruistic behavior toward the sibling. These experiential factors correlate more strongly with incest aversion than does your belief that the sibling is genetically related to you. The researchers posit a mental "kinship estimator" that converts "maternal perinatal association" into altruism and sexual disgust, driving you to choose a mate outside your family. Old idea: Nature makes you horny for your sister, but faith teaches you it's icky. New idea: Nature tells you it's icky, and faith takes the credit.

Tell that is not something Lorraine or Amanda would have posted on a blog?

I rest my case ... hypocrite.

Here's something I wanted to rant about last week but it got totally side-tracked by the John Edwards bloggers debacle. Especially since it is a perfect follow-up to the hypocrisy surrounding that debacle. A hypocrisy based on how a certain kind of woman uses language.

I was told by a party insider they could not link to this blog because I used the word "panties" in one of my posts.

Yes people. Like 9 year-olds, Democrats are skittish of the word used for a girls' cootie catcher.

Do I have to be a multi-millinaire political socialite or a couple of guys dressed in blog drag for it to be acceptable? What of the DNC linking to the aforementioned blog back in 2004 when it had a media dilettante who's shitck at said blog was to endlessly pepper her posts with sodomy jokes?

Does choosing not to link to this blog have something to do with common decency or is it just out right censorship?