At the Daily Choler, Tucker Faye Carlson fiddles with a photo of George Zimmerman until a "laceration" is revealed, along with a glowing white aura surrounding both Zimmerman and a police officer. What Fucker thinks he has proven is that Zimmerman was injured during his attack on Trayvon Martin. What Fucker has actually proven is that Zimmerman and the police officer are ghosts, and thus appropriate sex partners for Matthew Boyle.
From a rightwing clownblog called Twitchy:
Recognize these two people? If you don’t, we’ll help you out. The man on the left is George Zimmerman, the man accused of murdering the boy on the right, Trayvon Martin. The mainstream media won’t show you these two photos because they convey a message that no one else wants to take into consideration.
Correction, 8:56 pm ET March 25, 2012: We made a mistake. The photo on the right is not of the Trayvon Martin who was shot by Zimmerman. We apologize to our readers and to the Martin family.
No link to the slanderers.
It also should come as no surprise that the photograph used to slander Trayvon Martin depicts neither illegal activity nor violent activity. The message the clownblog wants the EMESSEM to convey is a simple one: Black-skinned teenagers deserve to die.
Story via ThinkProgress.
Correction (3/22): When I read the Mediaite post, I read the quoted passage as referring to "I" (meaning the author, Tommy Christopher), and not "I.E." an individual Christopher was referring to. Although reference in Christopher's post could have been changed after my post was written, it is possible, and more likely, that I misread it. Thank you to John Borrego for pointing this out.
When last we saw Tommy Christopher, the clown who plays a liberal at Mediaite, he was exchanging e-mails about Anthony Weiner's dick with non-existent teens. Somehow this activity proved he was a better parent than Markos Molitsas, who wasn't exchanging e-mails about non-existent teens about Anthony Wiener's dick. Now, Tommy's found a way to make the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin all about Tommy:
If I had met up with George Zimmerman (and Zimmerman somehow managed to avoid having that 9mm shoved up his ass), how different would this story be? What if he was shot dead, and instead of holding Skittles, he was holding a couple of joints? No grieving parents, no angelic file photo, no gut-wrenching cries for help.
That's mighty white of Tommy, acknowledging the slim possibility that Zimmerman might "somehow" have avoided being sodomized by Tommy if he'd tried that shit on him. Zimmerman might have managed to murder a healthy and intelligent seventeen year old, but there's no way he could have taken a developmentally disabled, chain smoking lard ass blogger twice his age. Here on earth, it's much easier (but equally pointless) to imagine that Mediaite, if not the world, would be missing one subliterate blogger who defines tragedy as not being the center of attention.
Tommy also previews his material for the cable teevee guest shot which will never come. "To be outraged by the conduct of the Sanford Police, who took Zimmerman's claim of self-defense at face value, without even asking 'From what? Hollow-point Skittles? Full Metal Snapple?'" rim-shot! It's funny because a young man died holding snacks, says Tommy.
P.S. to Tommy: Those photographs of Martin were not "file photos" because Martin was not a public figure or a media whore or a blogging wanna-be media whore. They were family treasures kept by humans who cared for persons other than themselves.
Breitbart's brain interviews Not-Paul David Hewson.
One of these days, James O'Queef and Mattera will have a conversation while each is pretending to be someone else and their video exposes will be posted on Big Coronary simultaneously.
Andy Sully, submitted without comment:
Just to note that the new owner of The New Republic and its current editor are both openly gay men and that's so routine it barely merits a mention. Two decades ago, it was a very different world.
Andy Sully, submitted with a great deal of laughter:
Having Chris Hughes new media experience is a huge plus for the magazine - and, I hope, will sustain its continued excellence into a new century.
A bitter hack writes:
I would go so far as to say that Breitbart had an instinctive honesty -- pretty much the opposite of what Frum charges. I don't know the ins and outs of the Shirley Sherrod mess, in which Breitbart posted a video the end of which had been lopped off before he saw it. But I guarantee you Breitbart posted it because he felt it truthfully made a legit point (and he wasn’t aware what the rest of it would show).
It's telling that Kaus' proof of Dimbart's honesty is something Kaus admits he doesn't know much about. Yet Kaus is willing to "guarantee" Breitbart acted in good faith because ... well, Kaus doesn't say why ... so, using Breitbart/Kaus journalistic standards, we can speculate that Breitbart never stole Kaus' blow when he left it sitting on the nightstand.
It's even more telling that Kaus claims that Breitbart was honest because Breitbart felt he was making "a legit point," even though Breitbart knew he didn't have all the facts and did nothing to enlighten himself.
Those who, unlike Kaus, are interested in the truth about the "Shirley Sherrod mess" should read Ta-Nehisi Coates, who did bother to examine the facts of the matter.
Kaus also names "Wienergate" as Breitbart's "greatest triumph," and cites Breitbart's ass-covering when he thought he'd been fucked over by an anonymous source as an act of honesty. I guess when your biggest accomplishment in life is recalling a story about Arnold Schwarzenegger from your old copy of Oui magazine, you can't help but worship someone who was the recipient of a congressman's dick photos.
Many of our most important public figures have gained their influence and power by inciting and exploiting the ugliest of passions—by manipulating fears and prejudices—by serving up falsehoods as reported truth. In time these figures will one by one die. What are we to say of this cohort, this group, this generation? That their mothers loved them? That their families are bereaved? That their fans admired them and their employees treated generously by them? Public figures are inescapably judged by their public actions. When those public actions are poisonous, the obituary cannot be pleasant reading.Yours certainly will not be, David. At least in one sense.
As usual, TBogg says it best.
The real fun will be watching the parasites destroy each other trying to seize control of the empire. It will be the Game of Thrones played out in Toto Ltd.'s largest factory.
Billionaires Charles and David Koch have filed a lawsuit against the Cato Institute, which Charles Koch founded in 1974, in a fight for control of the influential conservative think tank.
The complaint centers on the the handling of the shares of William A Niskanen, a former chairman of the Cato Institute, following his death October 26, 2011, The lawsuit also name Cato's president Edward Crane and a board member, according to court documents obtained by The Washington Post.
The Cato Institute, which was originally founded as The Charles Koch Foundation, was formed as a corporation with shareholders. It was re-named The Cato Institute in 1976.
Let the frivolous litigation begin! I suspect both sides will seek a change of venue to Montana.
Over at Big Depends, Dana "Golden Showers" Loush is dripping with excitement because a White House press release detailing Vice President Biden's itinerary misspelled Rhode Island. The pee-brained piss merchant has besodden herself with the idea that Dan Quayle has been vindicated at long last. (And Loush's mentally challenged fan boys are lapping up her latest urinary tract.) The idea that Joe Biden doesn't write White House press releases will occur to her, if at all, sometime during the second Obama Administration.
No link to the incontinent wingnut.
Meeegan McArdle has pulled her magnifying glass and bubble pipe out of the toy chest, and is ready to assume the mantle of the World's Greatest Consulting Defective. As Sherlock Holmes didn't say, "Once you elminate the impossible, there is no explanation for Megan McArdle's continued employment."
McArdle has volunteered her services for the Case of the Astroturfer's Fake Astroturf. The details aren't important -- to anyone -- so let's cut to the drawing room, where McArdle has assembled the 20 million most likely suspects:
For me, this leaves the most fascinating question of all: who wrote it? We have a few clues:
(Don't flatter yourself.)
1) They are on the west coast
(Given the nonexistence of e-mail and other means to transmit documents electronically.)
2) They own or have access to an Epson scanner--though God knows, this could be at a Kinkos.
(And they time traveled from 2007, when last there was a Kinko's.)
3) They probably themselves have a somewhat run-on writing style
(....somewhat themselves.)
4) I'm guessing they use the word "high-profile" a fair amount.
(I also suspect they know that "high" and "profile" are two words.)
5) They are bizarrely obsessed with global warming coverage at Forbes, which suggests to me that there is a good chance that they write or comment on the website, or that they have tangled with writers at Forbes (probably Taylor) either in public or private.
(Or maybe "they" were bizarrely obsessed with Forbes' Egg magazine, and its measurement of the amount of piss on the floors of Manhattan nightclub restrooms.)
6) The last paragraph is the biggest departure from the source documents, and is therefore likely to be closest to the author's own style.
(While Meeegan's departure from the plural, "they," to refer to a singular "the author" is closest to her own illiterate style.)
7) I have a strong suspicion that they refrained from commenting on the document dump. That's what I'd do, anyway. A commenter or email correspondent who suddenly disappeared when they normally would have been reveling in this sort of story is a good candidate.
("Or I'd use reverse-reverse psychology, knowing that they would think that I'd think that they wouldn't comment on it....but that's what they'd want me to think, I think. Detecting is hard!)
8) They seem to have it in for Andy Revkin at the New York Times. There's nothing in the other documents to indicate that Heartland thinks Revkin is amenable to being . . . turned? I'm not sure what the right word is (as usual, but the implication in the strategy memo that Heartland believes it could somehow develop a relationship with Revkin seems aimed at discrediting Revkin's work.
(Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....)
Okay, Nancy Drew, thanks for playing Clue Jr.! I think I hear your mother calling.
An intrepid peckerwood reports from CPAC, where the spotted youth have hope for change:
Being the good, intrepid blogger, I ran across the street to a CVS to buy a notepad
Interruption: Wouldn't a good, intrepid blogger have some sort of electronic device with which to record his precious thoughts?
having left mine in my office back in Macon, GA. There in line were a half dozen young men, each with CPAC credentials around their necks and each buying condoms.
(Pretending that this actually happened) And Oly isn't buying their excuse that they were going to waterbomb Occupy D.C.
That is part of life on the college circuit. Young men, regardless of political persuasion or ideology, are intent on having sex, being boys, getting drunk — doing what young men in college often do. All to [sic] often there are also a few young ladies willing to shame their parents if their parents only knew.
True, there is nothing more shameful than giving a handjob to a YAFer. But if they rinse their hands thoroughly, there's no reason the parents should know.
Here comes Swen's summation:
I am not even sure that there is a solution to the problem. But we should not think it is anything but a problem. It is not every young man, but there are many. They risk dragging the whole affair down to some bawdy, rowdy distraction. They risk embarrassing themselves and the conservative movement. They risk the perception premised on their own actions that conservative men of a certain age think that good manners and decorum around women of the same age is unneeded or unwanted.
This is not to say CPAC cannot and should not be fun. This is not to say that CPAC cannot and should not be a party. But it is to say that I hope the college groups bussing in students next year, the out of college set there to network, and CPAC itself encourage behavior we all too often don’t talk about anymore in our society — the behavior of gentlemen. Eat, drink, smoke, be merry, but be chivalrous too.
They're buying the condoms, Thor. How much more chivalry can you expect from these wingnut wankers?
There really is, regardless of your age, no need to play the cad at CPAC to score points with conservative ladies.
Points? You don't buy rubbers hoping to score points.
Conservatives should, first and foremost, want to conserve the basics and good behavior should remain a basic characteristic of the conservative movement. As conservatives, we believe in self-government. With that belief comes the duty of personal responsibility. We should accept that duty as the opportunity to do what is right, not as license to behave like fools.So, even though Sven knows "young men, regardless of political persuasion or ideology, are intent on having sex," and everyone else, having at least 50 i.q. points on Sven, knows it too, these conservalads should just knock it off. Or, more specifically, rub it out, while watching porn on Rupert Murdoch's Spectravision in the semi-privacy of their shared hotel rooms.
In summary, join Erick Erickson's Junior Anti-Sex League today. If Erick's not getting any, neither are you.
Why is Rick Santorum's biggest financial supporter an anthropomorphic ice cream cone with a giant soft serve head?
Update: Link fixed.
Jonah Goldberg fantasizes about the combat he somehow managed to avoid during the last twenty years of his life:
This could get very ugly. There are a lot of guys at CPAC who daydream about the Occupy types picking a fight with them.
The 'Load is linking to a super-secret insider report from a Heritage Foundation mole at Occupy/New Black Panther Party Aitch Cue.
Why a lot of guys at CPAC share their self-defense fantasies with Goldberg is nobody's guess.
The Patrick Henry of the Land of 10,000 Lakes has just begun to figh... oh, look, cocktail weenies:
As I wrote earlier, decision time has come to Minnesota, where I live. Unfortunately, I can’t officially participate in that choice, since we have a caucus system rather than a primary — and one cannot cast an absentee vote in a caucus system. I checked twice with my BPOU officials (a BPOU is a “basic political organization unit,” akin to a precinct) and there is no provision for proxy voting. I will be in Washington DC for CPAC and some company meetings when the caucuses take place on Tuesday evening.
....Last time I caucused for Romney; this time, if I had the opportunity, I would caucus for Rick Santorum.
Ed would vote if the Minnesota G.O.P. would just realize that he's the Sheldon Adelson of the Great White North just give him his own damn portable caucus. But the rest of you Republican peeons should vote for Rick Santorum, like Ed would if he's wasn't so fucking special.
Of course, CPAC doesn't kick off its schedule until Thursday, and Ed's such a tech wizard it's impossible to fathom why he can't conduct his business on the intertubes. Rick Santorum's granddad didn't allow his 27 hour workday down in the coal mines keep him from voting.
Just admit you can't be bothered to vote, Ed. No one will think any less of you.