The Funny Farm
Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats...
Adventures of a Basic Force For Good in Our TimeTM
A powerful piece of Memorial Day writing comes to us from new links zone resident Blondesense (and, unless we're very much mistaken, relatively new blog contributor the site Jaye Ramsey Sutter). A couple of other updates might have taken place among the many that are needed within the zone. We hope you like what you see...
trackback
The Funny Farm News Burro reports today that the craptasticality of our golf game has been unaffected by our three-year hiatus in picking up the clubs. We did manage to get in 36 holes of futilely swinging at small spherical objects with graphite sticks that have striking surfaces on the ends that swing the most. As always, we got more value per shot than most (when you calculate cost per shot, golf is an incredibly cheap game for us). We also got to see more of the course than many of our fellow floggers, but a little too much of the beach front property for our liking. And we still haven't found a brand of golf ball that isn't unnaturally attracted to trees, water, or sand when we are hitting it.
An incredibly good time was still managed to be had by Your Humble Narrator. The rain gods decided to let us complete our golfing experience without having to deal with any precipitation, and it's been a long time since we saw how nice artificially enhanced nature preserves look when you're lazing on a Sunday afternoon. Praise Koresh that our exceptional crapulence does not cause us to wail and gnash our teeth in frustration – we are still geeked that we managed to get a real, honest-to-goodness par during our first round of the year.
What did you do to amuse yourselfs this weekend?
Wherein we dissect twenty five year old language manglings into semi-coherent explanations for some of the amazing turns of phrase (cough) emanating from this blog:
When we were in high school, we heard the saying "Don't get your panties in a bunch" being bandied about in the corridors of learning. This, in itself, is a North Americanization of the saying "Don't get your knickers in a twist" which somehow got brought into the jargon of the time.
Well, when we heard this saying, we decided to confuse and amuse our fellow hormonally challenged peers by morphing it a bit further. So we started saying "Don't get your bloomers in a snarl" every chance we got (and we got a lot of chances to do so), and were delighted to find that most of the students had no clue what we were talking about, and those in our circle thought it was relatively clever.
We told you that it doesn't take much to make our day...
It's been a while since we have heard the broken, dismantled, unpowered, yet still fully operational irony overload siren go off here at the Funny Farm. Maybe because we have stuffed it into a soundproof booth. And set up some white noise to counter any sound emanating from it. And studiously avoided circumstances that might have set it off even with all of our precautions. Yet somehow the frelling thing still manages to make the fillings in our melon vibrate painfully from time to time.
Like now, for instance, when we saw this heartwarming (cough) story (courtesy of fellow Wild-Eyed Coalition member Esoteric Appeal):
[emphasis and editorial comment courtesy of the Funny Farm News Burro]
Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." (coughcoughlegislatingmoralityfromthebenchcoughcough) The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth. Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple's divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion. Bradford refused to remove the provision after the 9-year-old boy's outraged parents, Thomas E. Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie U. Bristol, protested last fall. (does anyone else find it somewhat odd that both parents object to this ruling?) [-snip-] The parents' Wiccan beliefs came to Bradford's attention in a confidential report prepared by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which provides recommendations to the court on child custody and visitation rights. Jones' son attends a local Catholic school. [-snip-] "This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge's whim," said Jones, who has organized Pagan Pride Day events in Indianapolis. "It is upsetting to our son that he cannot celebrate holidays with us, including Yule, which is winter solstice, and Ostara, which is the spring equinox." The ICLU and Jones assert the judge's order tramples on the parents' constitutional right to expose their son to a religion of their choice. Both say the court failed to explain how exposing the boy to Wicca's beliefs and practices would harm him (we're guessing the court thinks that the rest of us should just take it on faith). [-snip-] Even the U.S. military accommodates Wiccans and educates chaplains about their beliefs, said Lawrence W. Snyder, an associate professor of religious studies at Western Kentucky University. "The federal government has given Wiccans protection under the First Amendment," Snyder said. "Unless this judge has some very specific information about activities involving the child that are harmful, the law is not on his side." At times, divorcing parents might battle in the courts over the religion of their children. But Kenneth J. Falk, the ICLU's legal director, said he knows of no such order issued before by an Indiana court. He said his research also did not turn up such a case nationally. "Religion comes up most frequently when there are disputes between the parents. There are lots of cases where a mom and dad are of different faiths, and they're having a tug of war over the kids," Falk said. "This is different: Their dispute is with the judge. When the government is attempting to tell people they're not allowed to engage in non-mainstream activities, that raises concerns." (coughcoughbecarefulwhatyousayandwhatyoudocoughcough) [-snip-] During the divorce, he told a court official that Wiccans are not devil worshippers. And he said he does not practice a form of Wicca that involves nudity. We're not sure why the gratuitous references to nudity are included in this article, nor why rational adults need to be informed that Wiccans are not devil worshippers. Or even why it is relevant what forms of religion they practice, as long as those religious practices do not involve sacrificing virgins in the light of a blue moon or other illegal activities. Maybe it's just us... [-snip-] |
Praise Koresh that they weren't members of the Church of Reality - we might get a ruling from a supposedly rational judge that it would be dangerous to expose a child to reality. Then again, this ruling was produced in a state where, among other things, oral sex is illegal. There must be quite a few extremely unsatisfied Hoosiers…
On the other hand, here in the Great Lake State, Adultery is illegal, but can only be punished upon a complaint by the affected husband or wife. Furthermore, no prosecution may take place if the offense was committed over a year from when a complaint was made. It is also illegal for a woman to cut her own hair without her husband's permission.
And, let's not even get started on the idiotic laws in place at the federal level. (believe it or not - according to this site, we annexed Midway Island because there is a law that says a US citizen can take possession of any foreign, uninhabited island, as long as it contains bird droppings. Maybe we'll start looking for some uninhabited islands with bird doody on them during our summer vacation this year...
Impotence or blindness? unfortunately, that is the choice that some men will be making, whether they are aware of it or not:
Some Viagra users report blindness-Pfizer WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. health regulators on Friday said they have received more than 40 reports of a type of blindness in men taking impotence drugs, mostly involving Pfizer Inc.'s Viagra. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it has received about 38 reports of the rare condition among users of Viagra, four reports of blindness among users of Eli Lilly and Co.'s Cialis and one report of the condition in men talking Levitra, made by GlaxoSmithKline Plc. [-snip-] |
By a strange coincidence (cough), all of those right-to-enforce our views on others against their will life pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control (because, don'cha know, it could lead to adulterous non-monogamous non-procreating sexual relations between consenting adults - clearly against the laws of nature in the eyes of the religiously insane) have no problem handing out medications that could possibly cause serious problems for those who take them. What's that word again? Hyp-, hypocr-, Publican! Yeah - that's the ticket...
Well, we finally broke down and sent a note to the vidiot yesterday. She was very impressed (as were a lot of us) when we saw a politician with the stones to stand up to the rapacious whores operating the levers of power in the most powerful country on the planet these days. It would have been nice if it was an American politician, but still...
We wanted to let her know that we found a transcript of the entire exchange, and that we were going to make sure that it continues to see the light of day - even though the United State government is refusing to show it to anyone. And we took the liberty of requesting a link to the Funny Farm from her web site.
Hi there!
I'm not even sure how to address you, young lady. But that doesn't really matter. What I wanted to talk to you about: - I have found a transcript of the entire exchange between Galloway and the committee. You can find it here or here: I am going to make sure that this is not going to go away by making sure that I have a copy of it, and can put it up on my site if need be. Even if the media whores try to bury it, it will continue to see the light of day. Thanks for your weekly updates. I am a faithful reader and appreciate all of the things you show us every week. Keep up the good work! (: Tom :) |
And we received a response almost immediately:
thanks.
I'll link to your site. it's funny. However sir, I am no lady. I am biker chick! Hear me roar! |
We're tickled pink to be able to think that one of the reasons she's interested in giving us a link is that she considers our site to be funny. It gives us the impression that we are accomplishing what we set out to do here: infotain our fellow humans, and bring some small measure of amusement to them while we do so.
And now you know how little it takes to make our day.
We'd like to confer our special birthday wishes to the intelligent and vivacious Candy Girl on the occasion of her thirtieth birthday. Congratulations, young lady! Hope today is a good one for you...
We'd also like to play another game which we saw at a couple of our compatriots' blogs:
My Star Wars name: Thoge Dewin How to determine your "Star Wars" name: For your new first name: 1. Take the first 3 letters of your 1st name and add For your new last name: 3. Then take the first 2 letters of your Mom's maiden name and add How to determine your Star Wars honorific name and title: 1. take the last three letters of your last name and reverse them. |
[Editors' Note: minor spelling corrections made to this post after publication]
A few days ago, we wondered if there was a transcript of the entire testimony of a Scotsman on a horse Mr. George*** Galloway before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Through the good graces of Blaugustine and Simply Appaling (who actually did the heavy lifting on this one), we are now able to show you a link to the transcript of the entire hearing that day. Funny how the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs can't seem to find neither Galloway's statement, nor this transcript. Funny how they weren't able to transcribe the one days' testimony that shows how hypocritical and small-minded they are.
Here are some of the highlights which we find to be particularly illuminating regarding the unbridled hypocrisy of Senator Norm Coleman** in trying to blame Mr. Galloway for practices he himself engaged in:
[-snip-] SEN. COLEMAN: Mr. Zureikat was a significant contributor to Mariam's Appeals. Is that correct? GALLOWAY: He was the second biggest contributor. The main contributor was Sheik Zayed, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates, which you've glossed over in your report because it's slightly embarrassing to you. And the third major contributor was the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, which you've equally glossed over because it's embarrassing to you. [-snip-] SEN. COLEMAN: I turn to Exhibit 12. And that purports again to be a stamp of the Ministry of Oil of Iraq and this purports to be showing the details of a contract signed with Middle East ASI company, Mr. George Galloway and Fuwaz Zureikat. So Middle East ASI is Mr. Zureikat's company? GALLOWAY: Middle East ASI is Mr. Zureikat's company. He may well have signed an oil contract. It had nothing to do with me. SEN. COLEMAN: He was chair of Mariam's Appeals in 2000. I take it you knew him well. Did he ever talk with you about his dealings with oil in Iraq? GALLOWAY: He did better than that. He talked to everybody. He talked to every English journalist that came through Baghdad--who he helped at our request to get the interviews and to get to the places that they wanted and needed to go. He was introduced to everyone as a major benefactor of the Mariam Appeal and as a businessman doing extensive business in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. SEN. COLEMAN: I'm asking you specifically, In 2001 were you aware he was doing oil deals with Iraq? GALLOWAY: I was aware that he was doing extensive business with Iraq. I did not know the details of it. It was not my business. SEN. COLEMAN: So this is somebody who was the chairman of committee that you know well and you're not able to say that he was... GALLOWAY: Well, there's a lot of contributors - I've just been checking -- to your political campaigns. SEN. COLEMAN: There's not many at that level, Mr. Galloway - GALLOWAY: I've checked your website. There are lots of contributors to your political campaign funds. I don't suppose you ask any of them how they made the money they give you. SEN. COLEMAN: Certainly not at $600,000 American. But let me ask you again, just so that the record is clear--that it's clear on the record--that you're not contesting then the validity of Document 12, Exhibit 12. You're indicating that Mr. Zureikat could have had dealings with Iraq. You're saying that at that point in time you're not aware that he had oil dealings with Iraq? GALLOWAY: First of all, I've only seen this document today. And I'm telling you that insofar as my name is in a parenthesis the information in it is false. I've no reason to believe that Mr. Zureikat's company didn't do that particular oil deal. But this is your problem in this whole affair. There is nobody arguing that Mr. Zureikat's company did not do oil transactions and many other--much bigger, frankly--business contracts with Iraq. There is nobody contesting that Mr. Zureikat made substantial donations to our campaign against sanctions and war. My point is--you have accused me, personally, of enriching myself, of taking money from Iraq. And that is false and unjust. [-snip-] SEN. LEVIN: here were a lot of things you opposed, but you don't believe should be circumvented in illegal ways. Isn't that-- GALLOWAY: But, please, Senator! You supported the illegal attack on Iraq. Don't talk to me about illegality-- SEN. LEVIN: Sorry about that. I didn't. But that's beside the point. [Crosstalk] That's beside the point. You're wrong in your-- GALLOWAY: Well, I'm collectively talking about the Senate. Not you personally. SEN. LEVIN: Well, that's okay. Let me go back to my question. I don't want to get involved in-- GALLOWAY: Why not? You want to talk about illegality? SEN. LEVIN: No. GALLOWAY: You launched an illegal war, which has killed a 100,000 people. You want me to be troubled? SEN. LEVIN: No, I want you to answer questions which are fairly put and directly in front of you. Now I'll ask you one last--two last questions. If--if--Mr. Zureikat's contribution to Mariam's Appeal came from the sale of oil--or his share of the sale from oil--which he was able to obtain because he paid a kickback in violation of the U.N. program. Would that contribution trouble you? That's my question. [-snip-] |
There's much more dissembling to cover up the fact that the United states is the guiltiest entity in the UN Oil for Food scandal. Sorta like when other Repugnicant house members brought their mistresses in to watch the Clenis impeachment congressional circus.
Speaking of immoral hypocritical Repugnicants, we have heard veiled references to Mr. Coleman's somewhat, um, unorthodox open marriage and his habit of bringing twentysomething tartlets to B&D clubs in Minnesota - from Garrison Keillor no less - that confirm the unsubstantiated rumor we heard last year from a Minnesotan who is involved in the scene. Wouldn't it be interesting to have some video footage of Senator Coleman (R - Whips and Chains) entering and/or exiting said club with a non-wife on his arm? Wethinks that it might help the American public understand the moral imperatives of the junta currently running our country (into the ground).
* - y! sctw!
** - Norm!
What's going down, Mr. Coleman?
My career in white hot flames, Woody...
*** - Ouch! Dyslexia lures. Minor spelling edits (that hopefully themselves do not add even more dyslexic hits to our total) have been corrected in the original 20050603 1730 EDT.
We wholeheartedly agree with the analysis of Liberal Oasis, Talk Left and Avedon Carol (as well as a host of others) in their analysis of the filibuster compromise (cough) - the corpo-weasel Repugnicants beat out the religiously insane Repugnicants here. Democratic Senators are expecting the guys with the big hammer to just lay it down and play all nice, now? When they can renege on the deal if they think Democrats are using the filibuster in ways that they don't approve of? When they get to install three certified neocons wholly owned by corpo-weasels into permanent positions in the courts? Sorry, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense here at the Funny Farm.
Oh yeah - those people over at the Democratic National Committee who have been asking us for some money? Maybe you should get some from the corpo-weasels who own your souls. Nice of you to sell out for less than your Repugnicant masters. Have fun licking those boots clean...
We just learned the other day (via our good friend XOverboard) that Frank Gorshin has died. We couldn't also help noticing that Mr. Gorshin was with his wife of 48 years when he died. And here's the funny thing about that: we had a friend in high school who claimed (and was backed up in her claim by those close to her) that she was being courted by Mr. Married For Forty-Eight Years when she was still in high school (and when he had been happily married for about twenty years by our calculations). Based on the data available to the Funny Farm News Burro at this time, we estimate that this was an example of a seventeen year old girl being courted by a man in his mid forties. Yeah - a few of us thought it was a little odd back then, too*. Although we always heard that he was a wonderful person, and a gentleman. Oh yeah - and that his codpiece was not stuffed.
We welcome any enlightenment of this alleged philandering from our devoted readers.
* - we might be a tad over the age of consent these days (cough), but, trust us, we aren't talking about the times in history when it was fashionable for old farts to seduce young girls. And we don't ever remember a time when it was fashionable when you were already married...
Your Deadly Sins |
| Lust: 60% |
| Wrath: 60% |
| Greed: 40% |
| Pride: 40% |
| Sloth: 40% |
| Envy: 20% |
| Gluttony: 0% |
|
Chance You'll Go to Hell: 37% |
|
You'll die of a yet to be discovered STD. |
Found via T.Rex's Guide To Life
From our good friend TBogg we have been directed to this gem which seems to be some sort of hallowed instructional essay on how a bride should approach sexual relations (because, don'cha know, only Koresh-fearing religiously insane married women are supposed to have sex. It's in the Bible!). Here it is in its' entirety:
INSTRUCTION AND ADVICE FOR THE YOUNG BRIDE On the Conduct and Procedure of the Intimate and Personal Relationships of the Marriage State for the Greater Spiritual Sanctity of this Blessed Sacrament and the Glory of God by Ruth Smythers beloved wife of The Reverend L.D. Smythers Pastor of the Arcadian Methodist Church of the Eastern Regional Conference Published in the year of our Lord 1894 Spiritual Guidance Press New York City INSTRUCTION AND ADVICE FOR THE YOUNG BRIDE To the sensitive young woman who has had the benefits of proper upbringing, the wedding day is, ironically, both the happiest and most terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her life. On the negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrible experience of sex. At this point, dear reader, let me concede one shocking truth. Some young women actually anticipate the wedding night ordeal with curiosity and pleasure! Beware such an attitude! A selfish and sensual husband can easily take advantage of such a bride. One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM, AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust. On the other hand, the bride's terror need not be extreme. While sex is at best revolting and at worse rather painful, it has to be endured, and has been by women since the beginning of time, and is compensated for by the monogamous home and by the children produced through it. It is useless, in most cases, for the bride to prevail upon the groom to forego the sexual initiation. While the ideal husband would be one who would approach his bride only at her request and only for the purpose of begetting offspring, such nobility and unselfishness cannot be expected from the average man. Most men, if not denied, would demand sex almost every day. The wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly during the first months of marriage. As time goes by she should make every effort to reduce this frequency. Feigned illness, sleepiness, and headaches are among the wife's best friends in this matter. Arguments, nagging, scolding, and bickering also prove very effective, if used in the late evening about an hour before the husband would normally commence his seduction. Clever wives are ever on the alert for new and better methods of denying and discouraging the amorous overtures of the husband. A good wife should expect to have reduced sexual contacts to once a week by the end of the first year of marriage and to once a month by the end of the fifth year of marriage. By their tenth anniversary many wives have managed to complete their child bearing and have achieved the ultimate goal of terminating all sexual contacts with the husband. By this time she can depend upon his love for the children and social pressures to hold the husband in the home. Just as she should be ever alert to keep the quantity of sex as low as possible, the wise bride will pay equal attention to limiting the kind and degree of sexual contacts. Most men are by nature rather perverted, and if given half a chance, would engage in quite a variety of the most revolting practices. These practices include among others performing the normal act in abnormal positions; mouthing the female body; and offering their own vile bodies to be mouthed in turn. Nudity, talking about sex, reading stories about sex, viewing photographs and drawings depicting or suggesting sex are the obnoxious habits the male is likely to acquire if permitted. A wise bride will make it the goal never to allow her husband to see her unclothed body, and never allow him to display his unclothed body to her. Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced only in total darkness. Many women have found it useful to have thick cotton nightgowns for themselves and pajamas for their husbands. These should be donned in separate rooms. They need not be removed during the sex act. Thus, a minimum of flesh is exposed. Once the bride has donned her gown and turned off all the lights, she should lie quietly upon the bed and await her groom. When he comes groping into the room she should make no sound to guide him in her direction, lest he take this as a sign of encouragement. She should let him grope in the dark. There is always the hope that he will stumble and incur some slight injury which she can use as an excuse to deny him sexual access. When he finds her, the wife should lie as still as possible. Bodily motion on her part could be interpreted as sexual excitement by the optimistic husband. If he attempts to kiss her on the lips she should turn her head slightly so that the kiss falls harmlessly on her cheek instead. If he attempts to kiss her hand, she should make a fist. If he lifts her gown and attempts to kiss her anyplace else she should quickly pull the gown back in place, spring from the bed, and announce that nature calls her to the toilet. This will generally dampen his desire to kiss in the forbidden territory. If the husband attempts to seduce her with lascivious talk, the wise wife will suddenly remember some trivial non-sexual question to ask him. Once he answers she should keep the conversation going, no matter how frivolous it may seem at the time. Eventually, the husband will learn that if he insists on having sexual contact, he must get on with it without amorous embellishment. The wise wife will allow him to pull the gown up no farther than the waist, and only permit him to open the front of his pajamas to thus make connection. She will be absolutely silent or babble about her housework while he's huffing and puffing away. Above all, she will lie perfectly still and never under any circumstances grunt or groan while the act is in progress. As soon as the husband has completed the act, the wise wife will start nagging him about various minor tasks she wishes him to perform on the morrow. Many men obtain a major portion of their sexual satisfaction from the peaceful exhaustion immediately after the act is over. Thus the wife must insure that there is no peace in this period for him to enjoy. Otherwise, he might be encouraged to soon try for more. One heartening factor for which the wife can be grateful is the fact that the husband's home, school, church, and social environment have been working together all through his life to instill in him a deep sense of guilt in regards to his sexual feelings, so that he comes to the marriage couch apologetically and filled with shame, already half cowed and subdued. The wise wife seizes upon this advantage and relentlessly pursues her goal first to limit, later to annihilate completely her husband's desire for sexual expression." |
This might actually be funny if it hadn't been followed so, um, religiously by so many people for so long. Instilling guilt into your life partner should not be considered a career option. This also might have something to do with one of our cherished sayings:
Marriage is an institution. And we're not ready to be institutionalized just yet.
|
We were reading Maru the Crankpot the other day, and we noticed they were wondering about why the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs doesn't have a transcript of George Galloway's testimony to the committee. We went to the site, and asked ourselves the same question. Then, we tried to ask them ourselves:
FROM: The Funny Farm EMAIL: tomg@funnyfarmonline.org
MESSAGE: I was looking on your web site for documentation on these hearings. I notice that there is no transcript of the testimony of George Galloway. Can you please tell me when you are planning to put a PDF document together for this witness' testimony, and linking to it on your web site? |
Funny thing, though...
Reporting-MTA: dns; senmail1.senate.gov
Received-From-MTA: DNS; localhost
Arrival-Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 hh:mm:ss -0400 (EDT)
Final-Recipient: RFC822; webcenter@govt-aff.senate.gov |
Undaunted, our intrepid news staff tried once again to talk to this Senate Committe. Especially since their web site now says that Mr Galloway did not submit a statement. Really? Even though, also according to the site, PANEL THREE WITNESSES DID NOT TESTIFY TODAY BUT WILL BE RESCHEDULED TO APPEAR AT A LATER DATE? And even though those same witnesses have PDF documents containing their testimony available at the web site?
We submitted this to the senate comments page:
I was looking on your web site for documentation on these hearings. I notice that there is no transcript of the testimony of George Galloway. I also notice that you state that Mr. Galloway did not submit a statement. I have seen a number of sites (most notably the Times of London) that have detailed the statement made by Mr. Galloway to the committee, but I was hoping that you could provide a complete transcript of both his remarks, as well as those of the committee during the time Mr. Galloway was delivering his sworn testimony to the committee. Can you please tell me if you are planning to put a PDF document together for this witness' testimony, and linking to it on your web site? |
Funny thing, though...
Reporting-MTA: dns; senmail1.senate.gov
Received-From-MTA: DNS; localhost
Arrival-Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 hh:mm:ss -0400 (EDT)
Final-Recipient: RFC822; webcenter@govt-aff.senate.gov |
Apparently, some opinions are more equal than others...
We also took the liberty of emailing Mr. Galloway and asking him to provide a statement to the committe which containsed a transcript of his remarks to the committee:
SUBJECT: Your testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Mr. Galloway: First of all, thank you for speaking truth to power. I personally believe your statements, and that you have been unfairly scapegoated in this instance. Don't worry about it - this corrupt cabal is vainly thrashing about trying to cover up all of its' malfeasance, and you happened to be considered a convenient distraction from their latest cock up. Secondly, I have visited the online web site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and by an absolutely stunning turn of events, they seem to be unable to find a transcript of the hearing during the time you were delivering your sworn statement to them. There are a number of transcripts of your harangue of Senator Coleman, as well as a few detailing your conversations with a besotted hack unworthy of the position of journalist, but there is no record that I can find within the online community of the entirety of the utterances at that hearing. I was wondering if you would be interested in enlightening the esteemed politicians in Washington of the nature of your statements. They state that you did not submit a statement to the committee, and I thought you might be interested in making such a submission in the presence of an independent press. I was also wondering if someone in your offices would be able to expend the effort to find the missing transcript, provide it to me, and permit me to publish it online in order to show all what really happened. You could provide it to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, too, I suppose - but I would prefer that you also provide it to an independent agent in order to ensure that it is viewed by all. Any assistance that you can provide me in these manners would be greatly appreciated. Best Regards, (: Tom :) |
Our limited experience, ability, and relative effort produced no source for the complete transcript of the hearing (which is what we asked the senate committee for). There are a lot of links to the opening statement from Mr. Galloway, but we wanted to check out the whole magilla, so to speak. The audio and video over at Crooks and Liars is Mr. Galloway's statement only - not all of the back and forth, or Coleman's lying and inflammatory introduction. Or his snarky wussing out and dismissal of the truth once he was forced to listen to it. That's what we wants to see. We'd prefer it if we could link to it and view it on the governmant's web site, but we're more than willing to post it ourselves if it comes to that.
Updates will be forthcoming as they are warranted.
 |
You scored as Existentialist. Existentialism emphasizes human capability. There is no greater power interfering with life and thus it is up to us to make things happen. Sometimes considered a negative and depressing world view, your optimism towards human accomplishment is immense. Mankind is condemned to be free and must accept the responsibility.
What is Your World View? (corrected...hopefully) created with QuizFarm.com |
[part five three five, sir! of a neverending series that we may just do again]
From a post on the Newsweek pillorying by the wrongwingnutoshpere at the All Spin Zone:
Uncle $cam wrote:
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression 1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen. 2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare you?" gambit. 3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical." 4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike. 5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down. 6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not). 7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful. 8. Dismiss the charges as "old news." 9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets. 10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable. 11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report the leak. 12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why? 13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions. 14. Scantly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting. 15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source. 16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money. 17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not." |
Super Happy Fun Bonus: Great Blog Posts
A post on the junta wrongwingnutoshpere gearing up for the next Civil War over at the Sideshow. Avedon Carol (or should that be Carol Aevdon?) is concerned that she sees the South trying to make sure they don't lose this time. Even without her tinfoil hat on...
[Editors' Note: minor spelling and grammar edits were performed on this post post posting]
Yesterday T. Rex's Guide To Life celebrated its' seventh year of existence on the Web. Anyone know of any older blogs out there besides TPM?
[Part four of a neverending series that we may just do again]
From Norbizness' comments, while talking about spineless Democrats who refuse to call the religiously insane on their religious insanity:
Do you go through as many shirts as David Banner when that Hulk attitude kicks in like that?
|
and
Do some research Norbizness! How on earth can you claim that only Jews and Christians can be president when the current president is a Satanist? Wake up and smell the brimstone! |
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. We finally got to watch some professional ice hockey this year over the weekend by catching The Sports Network (TSN) - Canada's version of ESPN* - at various undisclosed locations in the North American midwest.
But it was still damn fine to enjoy our weekend watching hockey with friends. Plus the Pistons won to even their series yesterday evening and cap off the weekend sports viewing activities on a positive note. We managed to find some enjoyable interaction with some wonderful young ladies along the way, too! Thanks to all and sundry who managed to help us along our way. We hope that others were able to find some small amazements in their lives as well as appreciate them when they amaze.
* - and, no, we don't know how they're connected, even though we'd like to find out one of these days. However, the Funny Farm News Burro has been focused on other priorities, and we can only report with the news staff we have - not the news staff we want to have.
Naughty Hager the Horrible: Amanda at Pandagon (formerly of Mouse Words), Echidne of the Snakes, The Rude Pundit, Amp of Alas, A Blog and No More Mister Nice Blog (for starters) pull the rock up from which self righteous religiously insane hypocrite Doctor (coughcoughquackquackcoughcough) David Hager has been oozing under for the past, oh, time the Repugnicants have controlled Congress or so.
Until any true conservatives out there start actively working to help get these madmen away from the levers of power, we think they should be exposed for the farging iceholes that they continue to demonstrate themselves to be. The more this happens, the more you should be questioning what is being hidden under the slime that covers Pencil Dick and the rest of the junta, and the less you should be tearing apart anyone who dares question them. Because it appears that, unlike your false ClenisTM slander and libel (that of course you refuse to consider to be questionable, much less non-reality-based), many of the accusations about the shining heroes you held up to us are true. We know it's tough, but you gots to go look at that mirror and start healing thyself. Help us get rid of this cancer infecting America.
At least it is interesting to the intrepid staff of the Funny Farm News Burro. Even though this page is now slighty too big to be Gematriculized, we were still right around 69% when we were able to check it last And we remian an Adorable Rodent in the TLB Ecosystem with (wait for it) 69 registered links (not counting the (at least) two more from our favorite bush kangaroo as well as our favorite Christian archetype along with the others so impressed with our awesome blogitude that they will choose to include us on their regular stops).
To the wondrous bush kangaroo of the lower caps on the cementing of his reputation as a Lord of Blogtopia (y!sctw!). It would be nice if he had decided to keep us in his blog links*, but we seem to have fallen by a few waysides since we moved onto Perkel's servers over a year ago. Not to mention any other bloglords of the left who used to link to us (coughcoughJeebus' Generalcoughcough) by name or anything like that...
* - or, [shameless plea] if he decided to put us back on his links list [/shameless plea].
[Part three of a neverending series that we may just do again]
From Hoffmania's comments, while talking about Faux News pretending to care about anything but their own (rapidly sinking) ratings:
Bill O'Reilly has seen his audience dip by a third in the last few months. Maybe people have gotten tired of his "Mr.Cranky Pants" routine.
The entire thinking human race wishes him well. |
Toyota open to hybrid tie-up with GM Wow! Some good news that might convince me to invest in the American auto market again!
GM Denies Report of Toyota Tech Talks Um, yes. Well, not quite so good news. Maybe someone else will be a bit more interested in Toyota's hybrid technology. Maybe some financial bigwig (coughcoughSorosBuffethelpusplease!coughcough) would be willing to help out an American entrepreneur get such a venture off the ground.
And they wonder why we don't trust the media whores any more. We never thought the play both sides strategery was supposed to apply to journalism...
[Part two of a neverending series that we may just do again]
Bartcop, on his Friday, May 6, 2005 page in a piece called educating Shamus:
Bart, you wrote:
> "I've been [pro-military] for a long time, but you're trading your son's lives for Bush lies.
Son, my support for the military pre-dates your first computer. Go ahead and join the spitting brigades outside OKC. No telling what that means...
Would their answers raise the dead? How about we don't turn their dads into murderers? If you're a smart guy with some answers, tell me why we invaded Iraq? Maybe you and Jane Fonda can get with John Kerry and march on Washington. Shamus - let's get something straight: How many thousands need to die to accomplish ...what? It'll be just like the good 'ol days, when the troops were the bad guys and dopers like you were the heroes. Have a nice day, |
We have found a new (to us) toy, thanks to the good graces of Blunted On Reality, via The Liberal Avenger: Make your own meat. Someone has created a way for you (yes, you!) to create your own Red Meat cartoon!
We have even managed to come up with a couple of strips that might have amusement value for others as well as ourselves:
 |
 |
Check out the latest meat here.
Just because this one really frosts our cookies, and our religiously fervent friends and relatives should take a look at the latest example of Faith Gone Wild!:
According to this dKos post, Democratic Baptists are being excommunicated from the East Waynesville Baptist Church unless they repent the sin of not voting for pRezNit God Talks To Me. We echo the sentiments of our peers, in that:
- this is illegal activity for a religious organization that claims tax-exempt status;
- this is highly immoral activity for anyone who truly believes in their particular brand of religious insanity faith;
- this is blatantly offensive activity if you believe in the Constitution, that the rules should be enforced equally for all, and that those who lead congregations do so because they have a greater insight into their faith.
Now, we don't want to tar all flavors of religious activity with the same brush, but didn't we hear about a military recruitment drive being held in a church recently? Wasn't there some sort of mass-mailing being sent to church members by the Republic National Committee (RNC) just before the 2004 presidential election*?
For those of you whose faith is important in your life, we have to ask: Is this really acceptable behavior on the part of a religious leader?
View the video of this blasphemous edict here.
* - the issue here being collusion between religious organizations and the Republics. How did the RNC get mailing lists of congregation members? Is this the sort of activity that religious organizations should be engaged in? And, if we were foolish enough to join a congregation, would our name and address end up in the hands of the RNC?
Read it and weep: Canada manhandles USA to nab top spot. It's not over yet, but today Canada can fart in America's general direction as well as giving them some other nasty tauntings. You don't frighten Canada, silly American ka-niggots!
Police Beat Up Questioner At Ann Coulter Propaganda-Fest (headline concocted by the Funny Farm News Burro).
Here's an article in the Daily Texan Online about the incident. Nice to see our law enforcement agencies taking a pro-active stance on the rule of law. We guess that law enforcement activism is better than judicial activism for the faith-based crowd.
Thanks to Esoteric Appeal for linking to this post so we could read it and show it to you.
Yeah - we do have a bit of extra time on our hands today. why do you ask?
Anyways,... besides both the old site and the new one now being in the top ten when you search for funny farm on Google*, we would like to commend those who found us by searching for farm girls sex, Benedit XVI donkey duck, funny erotic games and farm whores. Plus we are so ecstatic that we are the most popular place on the web to find a funny picture of chupacabra that we can hardly focus on anything else. Here's another funny (odd -not funny ha-ha) picture of Rush Limbaugh without makeup the legendary monster that sucks the blood of goats for sustenance** for your infotainment:
 |
[Apu]Thank you. come again please![/Apu]
* - since there was a frelling movie called The Funny Farm, and there is a daily comic strip and a comedy club with the same name, we are quite happy to be on the first page.
** - come to think of it, that description could very well apply to the vile hate-spewing drug-addled fascist currently inflaming brain-dead Republics all over the globe on a daily basis as well...
[Part two of a neverending series that we may just do again]
From Political Animal's comments, while talking about one of the trolls infesting the comments and filling them with mindless kimchee:
Even the gods fight your stupidty in vain.
|
We would like to thank whomever it was from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that dropped by the other day to check our site out. We firmly believe that you have the cojones to expose these Publican bastiches for the hypocritical corpo-weasel whores that they are. And if you ever need a hand, please feel free to contact us and ask for help. Our first piece of advice to you is free: find somebody on your staff to check out the left blogsphere every day. Independently verify whatever they have to say that refelcts negatively on the Republics, then hammer them with it every chance you get.
Our low low consultation fees should ease your mind and loosen your purse strings as well. Email us here, and let's talk!
[Part one of a neverending series that we may just do again]
From Talk Left's comments, while talking about one of the anti-choice people's usual mangling of the facts:
Is "unborn child" like "proto-woman" or "jumbo shrimp"?
Or is it more like "military intelligence"? |
[Which very easily could be a neverending series if we had a staff of hundreds working round the clock to document most of the occurrences of this phenomenon]
We found a very interesting read this morning (from September 2000!) about anti-choice women getting abortions. According to one of the studies linked to in this post, almost twenty percent of those who get abortions are born again or evangelical Christians, and almost half of those receiving the procedure describe themselves as born again Christian, evangelical Christian, or Catholic. That sounds to us like there be a whole bunch of Hyp-, Hypo-, Republics who be getting themselves some of that unborn baby murdering when they feel the need. Some of them even come back to picket the clinic they just got an abortion from:
"I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers." (Physician, Australia)
|
Read the whole thing (especially you, o my brothers). You'll be glad you did.
Thanks to Emma over at gendergeek, and Amanda Marcotte, writing at Pandagon, for showing us the way to these words.
[Part one of a neverending series that we may just do again]
From The Poor Man, while talking about some of the endless kimchee flowing from wrongwingnuts for the last thrirty years plus:
Some might characterize this view as "ahistorical", "oversimplified", or "deceptive", but I prefer to use the less judgmental term "bull$hit".
|
From Amanda Marcotte, whoi is now part of the awesome writing collective over at Pandagon, we were directed to this quiz:
3% Republican. | "You're a complete liberal, utterly without a trace of Republicanism. Your strength is as the strength of ten because your heart is pure. (You hope.)" |
