I can't get enough of these White House press briefings. They're so good. It's like a complete list of everything Bush did wrong that day, with spokesman who alternates between being stumbling around not knowing where he is and blatantly contradicting himself thrown in for comic relief.

Consider this:

Q Scott, accepting the fact that you're going to lay blame for the current high gasoline prices on the Democrats for not passing your energy bill three years ago, what levels do prices have to reach before the President determines that they are having a detrimental effect on the economy? Are we there yet, or does he believe that there's still room for prices to rise?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President believes, like Americans do, the gas prices are too high. That's why we need a comprehensive energy plan, to address this problem that continues to come up every year. I think we've gone through this every year from this podium during this administration.

Remember that in 2001, the President put forward a comprehensive energy plan to address the real problem, which is our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This plan would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy; it would increase domestic exploration and production; it would expand conservation; and it would increase energy efficiency. It was a comprehensive plan. It would also modernize our electricity grid. And this was an important plan.

The President urged Congress to act in 2001. He urged Congress to act in 2002. In 2003, he urged Congress to act again. Then we were faced with a blackout last summer, and he again urged Congress to act, so that we don't keep going through this problem year after year.

Q So he says that gas prices are too high. But does he believe that they're high enough now that they are having a detrimental effect on the economy?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, the economy is growing stronger because of the action that this administration has taken to get the economy out of recession and moving forward. So the economy is growing stronger. But the President, as part of his six-point plan to create an even more robust environment for job creation has called on Congress to pass a comprehensive energy plan. That's what we need to do. We want to continue to create as robust an environment as possible for job creation.

Q The Democrats are out there today saying that the high gasoline prices, high oil prices are having an effect on everything from the airlines -- which have to spend an extra $180 million a day for every penny the price of fuel goes up; consumers are feeling the pinch, as well. Does the President accept the Democrats' argument that high gas prices are having a detrimental effect on the economy?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think the American people deserve more than cheap political rhetoric. The American people deserve leadership and action. This President has led and acted. This President, when he came into office, worked to develop a comprehensive energy plan that would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. He has led and acted, and he has called on Congress to act.

Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have held up moving forward on a comprehensive energy plan. They have obstructed the process. So we continue to find ourselves in the same situation year after year. The reason we are in this situation is because [OF THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR NEVER ENDING SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM] The reason we are in this situation is because there has been years of inaction. This President has acted. This President has put forward a plan. And this President has called on Congress to act, and that's what Congress needs to do, so that we don't continue to go through this issue year after year.

(emphasis and stupid, obvious edit mine)

Also note that the reporter asked Mr. McClellan a yes or no question, and he talked for a day without saying yes or no. Good job, Mr. McClellan.

Children don't just need two parents; they also need a mother and father.

This is why the government bans divorce and not remarrying instantly if your spouse dies.

When your entire argument is based on one sentence, you'd better make sure it isn't stupid.

This is really quite genius. See, first, something happens that proves - if you are incredibly dumb - that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program that he refused to dismantle and we knew where it was, which is why we found it by accident when it went off and had almost no effect on anything.

Next, someone speaking for the Bush administration quietly mumbles something about how it doesn't prove anything about Saddam Hussein's WMD program because we can't prove it originated in Iraq, plus it was probably the most laughable weapon ever and really not worth invading a country over.

Then, Newsmax immediately links to a nearly identical story with the link text "WMD Confirmed: Sarin Bomb Explodes." I assume this is going to be even bigger than that time terrorists defeated Spain.

A few days later, the Bush administration has not said "shut up you dicks" to Newsmax.

A few months later, support for the war in Iraq is way higher, and even more people think Iraq had a direct role in the 9-11 attack.

So, I haven't updated in weeks. See, I wanted as many people as possible to see the Immigrant X post, so I decided to leave it up for a few days. Then I forgot about everything and did nothing productive for a week. But now I'm going to be good now until I lose interest again.

So, here's what I would do if I were Bush.

First, find one of those good targets that Iraq is famous for having, and just bomb the fuck out of it. Make sure there are terrorists in it.

Next, declare victory again. Don't involve the phrase "mission accomplished" or any banners, or people will get suspicious.

Finally, invade Vietnam.

Yeah, you heard me. They're communist AND Asian, and between this and the surprising lack of any moral objection I've heard of to The Vietnam War: The Video Game plus any of the generic "we could have won in Vietnam if it weren't for those damn terrorists* at home" talk that I hear constantly, you know it would go over well with enough people to keep the approval ratings up.

It worked in Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, you can still get news from Afghanistan, and you can kind of predict the sort of thing they have to say. Hey, we're still here, we're just totally fucked over. Thanks for leaving before you accomplished anything. Love, Afghanistan.

It doesn't say that right this second, but scroll down.

Democrats Outdo Bush in Abetting Illegal Aliens!!!!!

Ok, aside from the obvious slant on what is supposed to be a news article*, this seems really stupid. Now, most people who support the sort of thinking in this article actually aren't any more racist than I am**, no matter what anyone tells you. I hate accusing people of being racist because it's hard to prove, but in this case I don't have to! I just have to accuse them of not knowing how to count.

The standard non-racist argument against illegal immigration is that illegal immigrants pay significantly fewer taxes than the average citizen, while using significantly more money in social services. While I could be a dick who hates logical argument and say "that's also a good argument for putting poor people in camps, you asshole," and win the argument in most people's eyes, I'm not going to. Instead, let's look at one person who comes to the country illegally to get a job, which is usually why people come here illegally, in two different scenarios.

Now:
Step 1: Immigrant X sneaks around the border patrol somehow.
Step 2: Immigrant X gets a shitty job and ends up getting way less than minimum wage, because Immigrant X's employer can threaten to get Immigrant X deported.
Step 3: Immigrant X has very little money, and AS A RESULT PAYS VERY FEW TAXES AND USES A LOT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

Ok, I think most of you know where I'm going with this by now, but for those of you who don't, here is the second scenario:
Step 1: Immigrant X sneaks around the border patrol somehow, gets the same shitty job but gets minimum wage and some security due to being legitimately in the country, and as a result has more money, pays more taxes, and uses fewer social services, and everybody fucking wins except for possibly Immigrant X's employer, but who gives a shit because they were breaking the law to screw people over.
Step 2: Immigrant X goes to Rupert Murdoch's house and takes a giant dump on the windshield of his car.
Step 3: Immigrant X is applauded by everyone and makes thousands of new friends.

Also, if you name your band Immigrant X and have a show near me, I'll go to it.

*"At a news conference, Jackson Lee, D-Houston, proposed her own bill for comprehensive immigration reform while criticizing President Bush's plan that would allow those who have a job to apply for a three-year temporary visa."
OH NO!! PARTISAN POLITICS OF DIVIDING AND NOT UNITING!!!

**Nobody told me it was racist to say "fuck the Jews" until after I said it, so it's ok.

I read my first few posts and compared them to my last few posts, and this led me to a pretty good conclusion.

I'm better when I'm making fun of newsmax and not pretending there's a point.

I have a couple of things I'd like to announce.

First, I'm really liberal. I support gay marriage, legalizing marijuana and prostitution, and lots of other ultra-liberal type issues that I can't be bothered to list.

Second, the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was a horrible tragedy. In fact, any time even one innocent person is killed, it is a horrible tragedy, which is why I want to condemn all terrorism. All terrorism sucks. This includes the sort of terrorism carried out by Muslim fanatics, even if they're from the Middle East.

In conclusion, suck it, Ann Coulter. I just won. Also, since you haven't denounced any Nazis lately, I hereby proclaim that you hate Jews, you sick fuck.

My friend asked my why I read Newsmax yesterday. I couldn't answer because my roommate's all-nighter on some mystery assignment had kept me from sleeping for more than two hours at most, and it was nearly midnight. But now I had what I assume is a good amount of sleep, and it's the middle of the afternoon.

The best way to answer this question that I can think of is an analogy between two rather bad metal bands that desperately want to be taken seriously, Rhapsody and Iron Maiden. Now, Iron Maiden really wants you to believe that they're an actual band. Unfortunately, all of their songs are about demons and ghosts and going insane as a result of said demons and ghosts, and equally stupid shit. No amount of basing songs off Samuel Taylor Coleridge poems, or changing time signatures in the middle of the song, or being famous, will make Iron Maiden a real band. Rhapsody, in contrast, has songs that are equally stupid, but does them unapologetically. In their music videos, they carry swords and fight lens flares. Rhapsody's songs have harpsichord solos mixed in with the guitar solos. They have a choir, an orchestra, and Christopher Lee. You cannot take them seriously, and as a result, they are far more enjoyable than Iron Maiden.

Now, let's compare Iron Maiden and Rhapsody to, say, CNN and Newsmax. The analogy seems pretty obvious. CNN might have a slant and it might not, but if it does, it makes a solid attempt to hide that slant. It's fairly obvious just by whatever deck of cards newsmax is trying to sell you this week* what sort of politics they support. Not only that, but they're totally unappologetic about it. In fact, they wish all journalism was replaced with their crap.

Now, to support bush, you must fall into one of two categories. One category is those who are so uninformed that they don't know where they are. The other category actively believes in "support the troops" type slogans more than they believe in the utter lack of proof of any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or the utter lack of WMDs found in Iraq, or the utter lack of any other proof that Iraq was a danger to us. You know, people who read get all of their news from hideously designed sites covered in ads of questionable taste with names starting with N. To the first category, I say "read a fucking paper you dick." To the second, I read newsmax and bitch, and hope in vain that a few people in Ohio or one of those states will read it and think "everything I know is a lie," tell their friends, and Bush will lose the election.

This is probably the least plausible plan to get Bush out of office that I have heard so far, which is why I continue to read actual news.

*The Deck of Reagan, thus proving my point.