Archive Listing
May 11, 2010 - May 4, 2010

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

NOT A DAY TO BE MAKING UP JOKES. Over at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg tried to sneak in an April Fools prank about the Obamas' gift to the queen.


Very funny. Only problem is, the Obamas topped him with what they actually gave her, as the Drudge Report gleefully headlined:


I've never been a big follower of her majesty, but even I knew she had an iPod already.

That's pretty much like all the rest of the news today. It could all be a joke. Except that so much of it isn't funny. Still, if it's a laugh or two you want, go here and browse. (A review here, if you need permission.) They're a lot funnier than the faux news on the Comedy Channel, even if they're on too late to watch.

But you won't catch of any of us making a joke today. It could come true before midnight.

Monday, March 30, 2009

SHAMMADAMMA. Don't know about you, but I just got this Republican Party poll. It makes me want to throw up. Or shoot somebody. It came from Our Anointed Party Leader, Michael Steele:


blah blah blah. Sickening enough in and of itself, but wait till you see the questions....


Jesus Christ. Does anybody know what representative government is? Do Republicans know what representative government is? No. Aaaaaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

At a technical level, do Republican pollsters know anything about how to ask questions? It's like looking at leading questions asked by your crazed girlfriend. The first expected answer is "yes." The other expected answer is "no." This brilliant pollster stacks the questions BOTH ways. If you're not on the tippy-top of your Republican toes, you might give the wrong answer... Stay with us now, because the expected answer to "You want us to be conservative but never diss Obama, and everything's going to be okay as long as we don't do or say anything racist, got it?" is, uh, YES. More questions. "Are breasts sexy?" uh, NO. Of course not. We're conservatives. "It doesn't matter that Michelle Obama has these sexually magnetic, tubelike---?" NO! "Does Michelle Obama even have breasts?" uh, no, uh, yes, but they're not actually sexy because they are, uh, feminist, since she's black and female and we're not racist or sexist. Cool. "And are we racist if we like her great big ass?" YES! You have to be like, "uh, we're conservatives and we never even noticed Michelle Obama's gi-hugic big booty ass." Otherwise?  Goin' down, dude. Conservatives are not permitted to notice that Michelle Obama has two appalachian-sized buttocks, count'em, two. A mountain apiece. All we're allowed to notice is an outstanding First Lady figure. Got it?

All right. Getting ourselves under control here. Here's the drill. Answer the survey. I'm offering two approaches, and they're not mutually exclusive. Second, respond to Michael Steele, which you can do here. First, respond here, by which I mean fill in the "Other" blanks with your own specific, personalized indictment of a party that really thinks it will succeed by asking whether and if it should oppose socialism, appeasement, surrender, and the cult of personality represented by Michelle Obama*.

*Yup. I've decided to ignore the homophilia contingent, the ones who dote on Barack's "glistening pectorals." Now I'm closing in on the groupies who are masochistically in love with the First Lady. This-a-booty:


Some of you really want to be punished. By a woman who truly enjoys punishing you. This is your chance to be heard. But please don't let's pretend that Obama is in charge. Or Michael Steele. For once, Camille Paglia is right on the money. Manhood is dead. All that's left is negotiating the terms of peace with Nanny Stalin.

Would Michael Steele look good in garters and fishnets? You tell me. More importantly, how do you feel, as conservatives, wearing garters and fishnets while the dominatrix romps on your ass?

Friday, March 27, 2009

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SOUTH PARK.  You'll have to sit through an infomercial at the beginning, but it does have a certain pertinency (as you'll realize later), and then you can watch the entire episode. You'll also have to disregard a couple of F-bombs, but the rest of it is almost, well, scripturistic. Enjoy.

BESIDES THE OBVIOUS. Yeah, the plots are silly and the murders they solve are usually straight out of Ripley's Believe it or Not, AND the graphics technology in their lab seems more reminiscent of a supercomputer manufacturer than a budget-challenged Manhattan police precinct. BUT...

There are at least three reasons for tuning in, regardless of the show's manifold faults. Third is the recent addition of Emmanuelle Vaugier as a police detective.


Second is the co-starring presence of the Greek bombsell Melina Kanakaredes. Who cares if it's only a remote eventuality that a CSI would interrogate suspects and crawl through crime scenes in a low-cut blouse perpetually on the verge of contaminating the evidence with a sudden spillage of breast tissue? We certainly don't.


First, though, is Mac, the Boss. He's unique among TV show bosses. He fires people. He has ethics. He makes demands on his staff. He chews them out when necessary. He lowers the boom on self-indulgent behavior. And he doesn't always kiss and make up afterwards. What a concept.


Plus, he's played by Gary Sinise. Whom we admire enormously. Because he's an honest-to-God man.

Watching CSI New York keeps Gary Sinise prosperous enough to fund all the good he does for our troops. We don't care how stupid the plots get. We watch. It's our patriotic duty. Yours, too.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

HONEST OBE. What is there to say at the moment? It's all an Escher function, running continuously downhill without most people even noticing, especially the ones who are supposed to be most observant.


But the Escher effect is lost, the sense of motion curiously absent as the MSM continues to cover events as if they were normal political byplay rather than disastrous plunges off cliffs. When in your lifetime has the plummeting of the stock market been treated so, well, casually by the New York Times and the Washington Post? We're all just standing around yakking while the nation descends into ruin.


So, having said so much here already, so far in advance, it seems difficult to leap catlike on individual events as if what follows the tragic climax matters, even though it's only the specification of the now inevitable catastrophe. (See the definition of complex Aristotelian tragedy if you're still at a loss. Scroll to No. 4.) But we have been developing graphics for posts we just can't write. The one up top is a sterling example. So is the one below.


We know it's dumb to talk about ancient constitutional protections, but this archaic graphic popped up too. Forgive us.

And if you know what this one means, let us know and we'll write the post forthwith:


All we can figure is that it has something to do with the peremptory return of the Churchill bust to the U.K. and the insuperable need to punish the rich with tax increases at a time when we need the rich to put their riches into the economy, not under the mattress.

So. It's not like we haven't been trying. If you have thoughts about what the InstaPunk gang should be commenting on, TELL US. We're listening. Not being lazy. Just nonplussed in the wake of so many predictions so soon fulfilled. (Don't believe it? Scroll down to the last two sentences of the second paragraph of this recent post.)

In fact, as a predominantly satirical website, we're feeling a lot like Evelyn Waugh, who when asked how he came up with the great satirical ideas that powered his wicked novels replied, "I don't write satire."

Everybody else thought he did. But it sure doesn't look like Michelle is laughing. Does it?

Back to Archive Index