Messiah Simplex

Monday, March 19, 2007

THE FAGGOT FILES

A couple of weeks ago, during a conservative gathering, the notorious Ann Coulter called Democratic No-Chance-In-Hell-Of-Being-President-EVER Candidate John Edwards a "faggot". After she made the comment, the conservative audience, in typical homophobic fashion, laughed and applauded. Being a "Reagan Republican", I also dig Ann Coulter...mostly. I dig it when she points out inconsistencies by the Dems, I dig it when she calls bullshit when it needs to be called. But I don't dig it when she sounds like a 13 year old homophobic boy, calling everyone gay.

This is the same woman who made allegations that both Bill and Hillary Clinton are probably gay. Bill Clinton??? The best she could come up with was that he may be gay? He's as un-gay as a man ever was. If Bill Clinton could get away with it, he'd strap on a pussy feedbag and wear it everywhere he went (an invention I'm currently rushing to patent, by the way). The man digs chicks. A lot. He digs chicks so much he doesn't even care what they look like. Obviously.

The problem here is that Coulter is under the impression that it's an insult to call someone gay. Are there still people who really think this way? Seriously? Clearly there are, since she received an ovation after her Edwards comment. I'm embarrassed to be a republican lately. Ann Coulter is to the right what Michael Moore is to the wrong. Just a loud, obnoxious relative who sometimes makes a salient point but mostly just won't shut the fuck up. But Coulter is kinda hot in a way that Michael Moore just can't pull off, which is why the homophobic, middle aged conservative males still listen to her. I still can't figure out why liberals listen to Michael Moore. Maybe the baseball caps have some sort of hypnotic powers. Who knows? Am I rambling? Sorry.

Ok, John Edwards is prissy. Hes's plastic, but he's not gay. And even if he was gay, it would still be a moronic thing to use as an insult. Gay, straight, bi, poly, omni, tranny....whatever.....none of it matters. What matters is that John Edwards will NEVER come close to being President. And why? Because he looks like a Ken doll. That's why he won't even be Vice-President. Remember what happened last time we let a Ken doll be VP? P.O.T.A.T.O.E. Can I get an Amen? That's what I thought.

Here are 2 pics. Can you tell which one is the real John Edwards?





Spooky? You bet your socialized medicine wanting ass. John Edwards is a slime-ball attorney with an over inflated sense of self. That's why he thinks he can be President. He's dishonest and duplicitous. He served as director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, which sounds nice. At the same time, he was serving as a consultant for Fortress Investment Group, an asset management firm that exists to help incredibly wealthy people keep their money away from the folks Edwards was pretending to help in the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.

John Edwards isn't a faggot. He's a lawyer.

And a Ken doll.

Love You,

Gull

(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Any Way The Wind Blows

Here are some quotes from some democratic heavies on Saddam, Iraq and the ever popular "Bush Invention"....Weapons of Mass Destruction. I love liberals! Whichever way the wind is blowing......



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others


"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998


"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998


"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002


"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002


"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003


"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998


"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002


"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002


"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002


"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002


"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002


"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002


"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998


"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


Keep talking, ladies and gents. You are so so very entertaining. It's like watching a fucking tennis match.

Save the whales,

Gull

(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, January 26, 2007

“I Love New Orleans” is the new “How Are You”

Ok, I'll say it...
I DON'T love New Orleans.

Gasp! Did he just say what I think he said??? Did he just say he doesn't love New Orleans? You're not allowed to say that! Not after Katrina! Ever since Katrina, we're all supposed to pretend we love New Orleans, regardless of our pre-Katrina feelings for the place! Didn't he get the memo?

Bite me. I got the memo, and then I wiped my New Orleans disliking ass with it. Know why? Because I didn't much care for New Orleans before Katrina hit....kinda thought it was nasty and a bit too dirty for my taste. I seriously doubt that being devestated by a hurricane made it BETTER. Therefore, I still don't love New Orleans. Anyone who suddenly developed a love for the place after Katrina is certainly welcome to spew their proclamations of affection. Sleep well as you rest your easily led head on a pillow of bullshit, my platitude belching friends. I will have no part of it. I didn't care much for New Orleans then....don't care much for it now. I won't be joining you as you jump aboard the tragedy train.

I hadn't really given this issue much thought until earlier this week, when I saw Barack Obama on Good Morning America. It was the morning after the State of The Union Address, and they were getting Obama's thoughts on the speech. After allowing Obama to repeat all of the predictable party-approved phrases he could fit into 3 minutes, they brought the interview to a close by asking Barack for his take on the Superbowl, and the fact that his home team, the Bears would be going instead of the New Orleans Saints. Obama, who, for those of you living in caves, is a Senator from Illinois, expressed his pleasure at the Bears going to the Superbowl. But he couldn't leave it at that. He had to throw in a comment about how much he "loves the city of New Orleans". How absolutely fucking trite.

Here's what I need. I need Obama to back up his statement with some hard evidence. I want him to produce proof that he spent time in New Orleans before Katrina. If he can't, he needs to shut the hell up. If someone can provide me with some sort of credible account of Obama having any sort of connection to New Orleans that doesn't involve him jumping on the bandwagon after the hurricane.....I'll......I'll.....vote Democrat in 2008. (God, my fingers feel dirty after typing that last part). But the thing is, I feel pretty safe in this wager because no one will be able to provide any evidence suggesting that Obama legitimately loves New Orleans. As is the case with most of the people running around now claiming to love New Orleans. Here's a pretty basic ruler by which to measure someone's sincerity in this particular area.

Ever been there? If so, did you ever go back? If you can't answer these questions in the affermative, then you DON'T LOVE NEW ORLEANS. If you went to Mardi Gras once and got really drunk and don't remember the names of anything but bars.....you don't love New Orleans. You know who you are. I don't need to tell you you're a hypocrite. You already know it.

Now go and make sure your "Support Our Troops" magnet is positioned properly on your car and count how many LOCAL homeless people you drive past today, as you feel good about yourself for donating to some Katrina Fund.

"I Love New Orleans" is the new "How Are You"....people go around saying it without really meaning it. Makes me a little sick.

Have a nice day,

Gull

(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, January 08, 2007

What do Bono, Brangelina and Pamela Anderson have in common?

My girlfriend and I argued recently about the validity of activism by celebrities. She is of the opinion that folks like Bono deserve to have their political views heard, and should be taken seriously. I don't agree. Where do you stand? Do you think our youth should be getting their politics from celebrities? Know who I think is really talented? Prince. Know who he feels about the war in Iraq? Me neither. And that's the way I like it. Pamela Anderson wants to protect animals? How about protecting the innocent people of this country against things like that ill-advised tv show she had, "Stacked"??? Am I really supposed to take these people seriously?

As for Bono, I really don't even know where to start. Should I begin with the fact that he's almost 50 years old and still goes by a nickname? The man's name is Paul, for Christ's sake. Can't he take off the sunglasses and go by Paul when he's trying to be taken seriously? "Hi, I'm Bono. This is my associate, The Edge. May we see the Prime Minister, please?" Yeah, the Prime Minister will see you in a moment. Right now he's in a meeting with Meat Loaf.

But I can take Paul's "middle-aged guy still trying to old onto his youth" thing. That's just surface stuff. My criticism of Mr Hewson goes deeper than that. His hypocrisy is what makes me cringe when I see him blathering on about all the money that's needed to fund his initiatives. Some folks are under the impression that Paul Hewson is a heavy cash contributor to the causes for which he speaks. Let's look at that, shall we?

Bono has been quite vocal in his urging of governments to send more money in overseas aide. He has loudly criticized Ireland's Prime Minister Bertie Ahern for not increasing the amount of money sent, particularly to Africa. Here's the part Bono isn't quite so willing to talk about: in 2006, his native Ireland announced that there would be restructuring of the tax laws. One major change is that songwriters, artists and writers would now have to pay taxes on royalties. You see, gentle reader, Paul Hewson and his band, who own a publishing company together, had been enjoying years of tax free royalty income. The new Irish tax law would have had their incorporated publishing company paying a 12.5% tax. I say WOULD HAVE because when faced with the news that the free ride was over and they would have to start contributing to the coffers, Bono and his bandmates did what any good philanthropist does. They moved their publishing company to The Netherlands, where taxes are half what they are in Ireland. Tell the government how to spend tax money, yet avoid paying into the system. Hmmmmmm.

Bono is also very vocal in The United States in regard to how our country should be run, and how our tax dollars should be spent. Surely, he contributes to our tax kitty. Well, you be the judge. Paul Hewson is one of the directors of Elevation Partners, a Private Equity Firm based in California. The money held by this firm is $1.9 billion. Here's a project for you. Look into the structure of Private Equity Firms, and find out why it's the best way for massively wealthy people to shield their money.

Avoids paying taxes on his huge income in his home country, avoids paying taxes on business he's transacting here.......yet feels as though he has the right to say ANYTHING about how the money collected through taxes should be spent.

Hey Bono......Rattle THIS and hum.

Gull

(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Confessions of a Slapaholic

As I venture through life, trying like the dickens to spread sunshine and love wherever I go, I far too frequently encounter people who need to be slapped in the mouth with the back of my hand.

Of course, I generally don't surrender to the temptation. Usually what happens is I walk away from the situation muttering expletives and vowing to never allow myself to engage that person again. Sometimes though, I come in contact with people that I like to call "ITIs". The ITI (Impossible To Ignore) is the type of individual who says or does something so ignorant, so mindless, so diabolical....that they simply cannot be ignored. Something MUST be done when an ITI is encountered.

There are varying degrees of ITIs, with the appropriate responses also working on a sliding scale. For instance, if a morbidly obese woman is hitting her kid in a WalMart, the response would be different than if a booze-soaked guy was in line in front of you at the gas station buying and scratching off scores of lottery tickets. The lottery ticket guy needs to be hit in the back of the head with a shovel. The WalMart woman just requires a dirty look. So you see, how one responds to an ITI is tricky business. If I was to hit the WalMart woman in the head with a shovel, I might end up having to drive her repugnant kid home or something. And lets be honest: some kids need to be hit. In my day, our parents would beat us with chairs, table legs, the dog.....whatever was handy. And my generation is the last to have any sense of right and wrong. Don't get me started.

The most heinous of the ITIs.....the ones who require the most extreme reaction, are the ones who insist on opening their mouths when they really truly shouldn't. The ones who ignore the language, yet insist on communicating with me. Hear this now and know that it is true: If you tell me that you "COULD CARE LESS" about something, you are a fucking retard.

I say to Joe that our mutual friend Tim just got a new job.
Joe says: "I could care less about Tim's new job."
Joe at this point needs to be punched in the neck.

Can someone please explain to me why so many people say they "could care less" when what they really mean is that they COULDN'T care less??? The point of uttering this phrase is to communicate your lack of interest in something. Therefore, you COULDN'T care less about the thing in question. To say that you COULD care less is to say that you actually do care about the thing in question. Just thinking about this makes me want to take a flamethrower to someone. I want to kill Joe, and he doens't even exist! I'm actually shaking with rage right now. I need a moment.

Okay, I'm back. The other major transgressors in the language assault are the ones who say they are "Shopaholics", "Chocaholics", "Workaholics"........you know the ones. We all know someone who uses these words. These are the ones who shall for evermore be on the receiving end of a backhanded slap from yours truly (I also hate people who say"yours truly"). If you really like to shop, you are not a "Shopaholic". You are not addicted to shopahol. You do not eat to much chocahol, therefore you cannot possibly be a "Chocaholic". As for the "Workaholic" thing........well, you get it. Alcoholics are called that because they are addicted to alcohol. The "ic" suffix is attached to a word to indicate that something or someone is connected with a particular thing. The particular thing in question in the case of an alcoholic is alcohol. The "ahol" part is not part of the suffix, it's part of the fucking root word! Now I'm in a rage again.

Be warned. If I hear anyone using any of these words, I will slap them across the mouth with the back of my hand. Why? Because I'm a goddamned Slapaholic.

And don't forget to come and see me perform my warm, fuzzy brand of comedy at Northern Lights Theatre at Potawatomi Casino in Milwaukee on Saturday, December 16th. 2 shows, 8 & 10PM.

Love & Unicorns,

Gull

(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink