Saturday, November 30, 2013

Marik Plays Bloodlines Part Ten

LittleKuriboh finally uploaded a new episode after a year-long hiatus!

Friday, November 29, 2013

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Intellectual Rap Lyrics: We Be Steady Mobbin

This is a new, more satirical series for my blog that I'm hoping will catch on. I'm also thinking about making it a YouTube video series as well. Basically, I take a rap song and translate the lyrics into something more appropriate for people with an education. First up is Lil Wayne's "We Be Steady Mobbin'"

Verse One
Sir, copulate with these unruly black men
I'm going to let everything live but these unruly black men
Take the bayonet off my AK and cut these unruly black men

And have sexual intercourse with these disagreeable women
I believe I care about everything but these disreputable women
I don't care so I say "so what" to these unlikable women
And I put Young Money on a significantly higher platform than these repugnant women

If it isn't broken, please do not break it
And if he isn't shaken than I will shake him

I hope I don't appear to be weak
Because when a wolf cry's wolf,
You can still see that wolf's teeth,
Repulsive man who engages in indecent relations with his own mother

I have a futurist handgun
If you act disagreeably I'll shoot you three times
I'm in your face like a certain French luxury cosmetics company
You black people are more vulnerable than Roseanne's son
You cannot reach me on my Samsung phone
Because I'm too busy having sexual relations with the world
And sticking my tongue out to the Universe

I am a mentally unstable man in an indecent affair with my mother
The crazy about it is that I was born like this
I'm on 36th Street getting high off of all these bricks of cocaine
Author's Note: That line was really hard to do as I have no idea what he's supposed to be saying in the actual lyrics
I've got a big house with 10 bathrooms and I could defecate all day

We don't want any trouble
You're a thug, but what is a thug compared to a kingpin
Kane Beatz produced this song so I'll give him a really vague shout out
I goof off and murder a black guy and leave parts of his brain matter on the street
I make a girl climax
I bring her to my bedroom and I make her climax
And we are devoting our lives to cheap hedonistic thrills
Oh my friend, my hobby is spending large amounts of money

Verse Two:
How are things going, I'm a gangster named after an Italian fashion brand
Ask my fellow rapper Tity Boy who likes to shoot up the city (?)
Excuse me, but I wear lots of diamonds so I only wear designer brands
"Gucci Mane keeps defecating on me; why is he purchasing jewelry"
I'm pulling the trigger in East Atlanta
I put bandanna's on my car antenna
We do not talk to strangers
We just cut off the fingers of these black men
I have a significant amount of guns and I an dangerous; also I deal drugs
I will shoot you with my AK-47 anywhere above your ankles
My gun is the size of Nia Long; my clip is as long as a Pringles can
I have Desert Eagle, so for some reason you should think I'm a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles
I also have a sniper rifle and I'm going to kill you with it; Toni Braxton song reference
Copulate with that black man, kill that black man, resurrect him and than kill him again

Verse Three:
Money is the motive
Be unwise with the money and things will get ugly
I've reloaded; you better pull the trigger if you point your gun at me
I'll buy a pound of marijuana and somehow put it all in one joint
I can generate my own light with my swagger
I have an anorexic girlfriend who doesn't even eat rice
But would you believe that she's a lesbian?
She asked me for jug so I hit her three times
I am the man around this person who engages in indecent relations with his mother
I generate so much heat that your skin will darken around this person who sleeps with his mother
This musical genre; I have my hands around this person in an illegal relationship with his mother
I said, "game" but I am not playing around this person who Freud would have a field day with
I am the best to ever do it, uncouth female
You're the best at not doing anything
If you're the fecal matter than I am the underground waste disposal system
Mess with me and your people will be reading eulogies
I promise you cannot start trouble with me
But I can engage in carnal relations with your girlfriend and make her climax
Then she'll be my prostitute, my hit girl, and my robbery partner
And it will be your money that we steal
Then I'll kill that unseemly trollop and send her body back to your derrière.

We don't want any trouble
You're a thug, but what is a thug compared to a kingpin
Kane Beatz produced this song so I'll give him a really vague shout out
I goof off and murder a black guy and leave parts of his brain matter on the street
I make a girl climax
I bring her to my bedroom and I make her climax
And we are devoting our lives to cheap hedonistic thrills
Oh my friend, my hobby is spending large amounts of money

Take a clip of bullets down your throat
Don't spit out the bullets, eat them
I'm the rap music genre equivalent of a follower of Karl Marx
Life is a gamble and it's all about my poker chips
Do you want a form of this medicinally?
I will make the most of this
F is for "ferocious" (which is a vague pun on one of my many nicknames)
Assassinate all your business partners
The top is appropriate
This is just where I belong
Keep a dense phallic region for girlfriend to shake on



Monday, November 25, 2013

"He's Not Conservative Enough"

Rand Paul has taken a shot at Chris Christie, blasting him for not being conservative enough. This is a line of argument I've seen a lot of in recent years, especially during last year's Republican Primary. One candidate will slam another candidate for not being conservative enough. It's like being moderate and not driven by rigid ideology is a bad thing.

I've seen the Democrats slam each other for supporting things that Republicans have supported, like the War in Iraq. But I've never seen them accusing each other of not being liberal enough.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

The Origin of Potatoes and French Fries

As part of an assignment in my Environmental Geography class, I have researched the history of potatoes and french fries. They go back a long way. Here's what I've written:

      As well all know, French fries are made from potatoes. However, the French fry has a long history. Wild potatoes in bitter and inedible and must be processed. Farmers have domesticated potatoes since long before the French fry was invented. The domestication of potatoes began in the Andean altiplano about 7,000 years ago. The Andean tribes cultivated them for several millennia. When the Spanish arrived in South America in the 16th Century, potatoes were among the many goods that they acquired. Through the Columbian Exchange, potatoes were sent from the New World to Old World and introduced to the Europeans for the first time. Initially, the strange new spud failed to catch on in Europe. Superstition abounded about the alien plant that grew underground and was never mentioned in any of the Scriptures. In 1588, however, the potato was introduced to Ireland, where it adapted to the climate and became a popular crop. Gradually, suspicion towards the spud faded. During the late 18th Century, several European nations began domesticating and growing potatoes and it became a staple crop in France and Germany. During the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century, the potato became a major source of economic development in Britain. The Irish were dependent on the crop and were severely affected by a famine that ravaged the crops in the 1840s.

During this time, the potato was brought to United States. It was first used as a trading good by Christian missionaries to pacify the Native American tribes. In 1836, one preacher named Henry Spalding gave it to the tribes in an effort to teach them to practice agriculture rather than relying on hunting and gathering. It didn’t become a major foodstuff until after the Civil War. In 1872, Luther Burbank developed a potato in Idaho that was more resistant to disease. The “Russet Burbank potato” was a widespread crop in Idaho by 1900 and a thriving food market developed around it.

      During the 19th Century, methods of cooking the potato became popular across Europe. There is some debate over whether the French or the Belgians where the first to fry potatoes. Nonetheless, it became a big hit in Europe. During World War I, American soldiers serving in Europe got a taste of the fried potato. It was so popular with them that they brought some of them back home when the war was over. This is how fried potatoes became popular in the United States.  

The French fry wasn’t invented in America, but it first became popular here. Much of its popularity is result of the boom in fast-food. After World War II, McDonalds and other fast-food restaurants became a major part of our national cuisine. The McDonalds French fry is perhaps the most iconic. When McDonalds first opened in 1955, the fries were hand-cut from fresh potatoes. As the restaurant company boomed in the 1960s, however, this became too costly. In 1966, McDonalds CEO Ray Kroc made a deal with JR Simplot, whose company had been developing technology to freeze potatoes. Simplot opened a factory dedicated to producing frozen fries. The method of producing the frozen fries and then quickly cooking them in oil caught on rapidly. Through the effects of globalization, McDonalds spread throughout the world. The popularity of the French fry has caused a huge demand for the Russet Burbank potatoes, which are easy to freeze and fry. This variety of potato, however, is not easy to grow. Potato farmers around the world often cannot grow other varieties of potatoes due to the fast-food companies requiring that they produce the Russet Burbank potato. Species diversity has declined dramatically as a result. 

JFK: The Conservative?

Or so a bizarre new meme among the right is going around the internet now. Well, it's not really new. Right-wingers have tried to point to Kennedy's advocating of tax cuts on the wealthy and corporations as "proof" that he was fiscal conservative for a few years now. Kennedy's policy has been given the Heritage Foundation seal of approval. However, when Kennedy was advocating tax cuts in 1962, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. It was common sense that that was too high. Kennedy cut it down to 70%. The economy boomed in the 1960s, so obviously this is proof that the tax cut worked, right? Well, Reagan massive slashed the tax rate in the '80s, and the economic growth, while solid, was not as robust as that of the 1960s. And George W. Bush, of course, had has own tax cuts as part of his economic policy. Economic growth was significantly lower than predicted by Bush's economists. If you're using Kennedy's cutting of taxes as evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth, than you're not looking at the whole package, you're just looking at the data you want to see.

There was also a period during the Bush years when neo-cons loved to point out Kennedy's support of a strong national defense and defense spending. And it's true that Kennedy was very much for a strong national defense in his foreign policy. He is what my History teacher called a "Cold War Liberal" in that regard. Supported the usual progressive domestic policy but had hawkish foreign policy views. Sort of like Hilary Clinton.

Regardless, I still find it bizarre to see wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh and writers for Townhall and National Review praising a President who advocated a 65% marginal tax rate on the wealthiest bracket (it was put at 70% due to a compromise) as a conservative while calling Obama a socialist for advocating the Clinton era 39.6% marginal tax rate. That's not even getting into the other parts of JFK's decidedly non-conservative domestic policy. Kennedy expanded collective bargaining rights to public-sector unions--something today's right-wingers get apoplectic over--and passed an economic stimulus that increased the minimum wage, extended unemployment benefits, extended aid to the children of unemployed workers, and broadly expanded federal funding to education. Kennedy's program also proposed several billion dollars in urban renewal and providing affordable housing to middle and low-income families. Kennedy also signed an Equal Pay Act in 1963 aimed at reducing gender discrimination in wages. Funny, I don't recall Rush Limbaugh or anyone on Fox News being too thrilled about these kinds of programs. A quote from Kennedy during the 1960 Presidential debates pretty much summarizes the default Democratic Party domestic position for the last several decades:

 "I don't believe in big government, but I believe in effective governmental action. There is a national responsibility. A cotton farmer in Georgia or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand; but working together in effective governmental programs he can"
What self-defined "small-government" conservative is saying something like that? That quote isn't much different than what you'll find in much of Obama's speeches--just replace "cotton farmer in Georgia" with "struggling family in Detroit." Most Democratic politicians since the New Deal have said something like that in their speeches.

The most hilarious thing about the right-wing trying to claim Kennedy as their own (with the always reliable and astute Glenn Beck claiming that he would't even be accepted by the Republican Party because he'd be a Tea Party radical) is that Kennedy supported something that makes the big shots on the right--Limbaugh, Beck, Breitbart, especially Michelle Malkin--go into seven levels of batshit cuckoo. Kennedy supported immigration reform. Specifically, he supported a liberalization of the immigration laws that existed in the country during most of his life. Kennedy advocated the removal of the racial quota requirements that had a part of immigration policy since 1924. He was killed before the law he advocated eventually became the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. This was quite a major change in immigration policy that most conservatives were strongly opposed to.

If one wants to argue that Kennedy is a conservative, you'd have to compare to him to someone more progressive. Kennedy was undoubtedly more moderate than many liberals think he was, but for rank-and-file right-wingers like Limbaugh and Beck to claim him as one of their own is beyond idiotic.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

George Zimmerman's back on the News

He was arrested for allegedly threatening his girlfriend with a shotgun.

According to the arrest report, after Scheibe told Zimmerman to pack his things, he "cocked the shotgun" before putting the two guns in one case. She told deputies he then became upset as she carried his belongings out and he took out the shotgun. Scheibe said she was going to call police, and Zimmerman pointed the weapon at her for a minute and "asked her if she really wanted to do that."
Zimmerman then smashed a glass-top coffee table with the gun butt and ordered Sheibe out, she told deputies. He pushed her out and locked the door.
If only she had some Skittles to defend herself.

The Weird World of John C. Wright

John C. Wright isn't well known in the mainstream media, but he has a cult following online. I found out about him the same way I found out about Dave Blount--via Fundies Say The Darndest Things, where the posts from the craziest people on the internet are all compiled and archived for the amusement of the sane community. John C. Wright publishes a journal online--he's published this for several years if the archives of FSTDT is anything to go by--that reads like Wingnut Mad Libs (hat tip to Ed Brayton.) Gays, socialism, "immoral sexual practices" among women, the Illuminati. All the classic ingredients of your typical Tin Foil Hat conspiracy nut on the Internet. Mr. Wright seems to be bothered by feminism is particular. While most anti-feminists--at the ones that frequently whine on online public forums--are just men who feel threatened by "unfeminine" women who don't stay in the kitchen, Mr. Wright is different. For, you see, he knows the true force behind feminism. And he knows that it is very serious and that civilization is in dire turmoil if the evil feminist hordes are allowed to continue their witchcraft. No, seriously. He actually believes that feminists gain power by putting weak-willed men under their spell.

Even by Mr. Wright's standards, though, this screed is batshit crazy. I'll just post some choice quotes from it and try to figure out what the logical structure of his argument is.

I had recently come to realize that the feminist movement is not feminist at all. It is masculinist.
That's how he starts out. Yes. The feminist movement is not feminist. It's actually pro-male! But then wouldn't that be a good thing for the ASMOTT (Antisocial Males on the Internet) community? Not so! For this masculinist feminism is VERY SINISTER INDEED.

By this I mean, the purpose of Fourth Wave feminism (if you wish to judge not by what they say, but by what they do, and to know the fruits, so to speak, by their fruits)
 I hate it when women speak with their fruits. Don't you hate it when women do that?

is not to make women legally and culturally equal to men, but to make them be men: that is, to abolish the female from life and thought altogether.

 So…like the twist ending to Sleepaway Camp?

No clearer homage could be paid to the concept that males are superior to females than the tacit acknowledgement that the only path to equality was imitation. What the feminists are doing is about as insulting and degrading to women as if the Civil Rights movement of Martin Luther King, rather than abolishing Jim Crow laws, kept those laws in place, and instead urged all Negros to have their skin dyed white.


I cannot think of a deadlier insult, or a more outrageous.
 You couldn't have thought of a stupider one, either.

For many a year my admittedly limited brain refused to accept that this was what the feminists were actually seeking, because, of course, as we all know, women are the superior sex. (They are not the superior gender. Gender is a part of speech. Only people who hate sex and hate women would demean them by referring to them as a “gender”. A “gender” is something artificial you put on. To call a woman’s sex her gender would be like referring to the Black Man’s race not as a race but as a “costume”.

I decided to bold a particular part of that paragraph because I think he's subconsciously realizing how stupid he sounds right now.

What are the distinctive marks of womanhood, the thing that makes women women instead of dickless men with breasts? Even the man from Mars can tell that: women bear children rather than father children. This has immediate and inescapable social and political implications: by nature, women must be more careful in the choice of mate than the man, for she will carry the child nine months. Hence, sexual purity is and must be more important to and for woman than men.

I think you deserve an award for making that many non-sequiturs in one paragraph.

If these are the distinctive marks of womenhood, how do we find the feminists disposed to them?
Instead of embracing and glorifying them, the feminists regard all signs of femininity with the horror a Jewess escaping from a concentration camp would regard the Yellow Star — her dogma is that all signs of femininity are signs of degradation.

…do I even have to make fun of this?

The Fourth Wave feminists  draw this warped logic to a warped conclusion: motherhood is a sign of inequality, but so is virginity, and so is being a bride, and so is natural sex, therefore the only truly liberated woman is someone neither a wife nor virgin, matron nor maiden. Logically this means the only truly liberated woman is a harlot, or someone raising her child by herself, or crying over her children she has slain, unborn, and never held in her arms. This is the least free imaginable position for a woman to be in: picture a White House intern on her knees in front of a man who has such contempt for her that he will not wed her, in a society whose contempt for her is such that it does not demand he do so. She services him, and he kicks her away when he no longer is amused by her. Her sister feminists then turn on her and side with the man. That is freedom? That is equality?
And what do they get in return? Women now have the high privilege that, when the conversation turns to rape, it is asserted with all earnestness that women can “rape” men. The meaning of this word and others is broadened to Orwellian jabberwocky, so that women can feel that peculiar type of so called self-esteem that is bestowed by the insincere courtesy of strangers, and rejoice in their nominal equality with men: we are all rapists now.

So, in an effort to break the evil hypnotic spell the feminists have cast over the human race, let us here and now announce a Fifth Wave of feminism, a true feminism, which glorifies womankind and reduces we mere males back into our deservedly lowly position as breadwinners and heads of households, whose mission in life is to cough up money enough to support a wife and kids, and have the wife at home so that hired daycare strangers are not raising them.
 I have a term for this movement as well. It's called, "suburbia."

Fifth Wave feminism demands that reactionary feminists and enemies of mankind stop insulting and demeaning women, womanhood, and womankind. Women are heroines, not heroes, mothers, not caregivers, and in the professions and the arts, woman are businesswomen, authoresses, poetesses, and aviatrixes, and anything else her bold heart and feminine spirit can conceive, and will no longer allow the feminine nature to be robbed from their accomplishments, or the feminine endings to be robbed from their names:
The era of the Amazons, who try to be like men by cutting off their breasts and dressing (spiritually and actually) in male trousers is over and dead! From now on, it is women who shall wear the skirts in life!

Wait, I'm confused now. What point is trying to make here?

Fifth Wave feminism demands that men return to their ancient and servile status as suitors, chaste lovers, bridegrooms. With one voice, the sisterhood of all true feminists everywhere cries out: “WE WILL BE COURTED, DAMN IT! No more of this casual sex that exploits the woman and leaves the man looking smug. No more hook ups. No more cheap dates.

A reminder. This guy is not a satirist. He is being  completely serious here.

“You will hold the damn door for me, take off your damn hat, buy me flowers, and pay for the meal and the show. No kissing until the second date. If I let you hold my hand (and I will be wearing gloves) count your lucky stars. If you do not have a hat, go out and buy one.
“And cut your hair! You are not GOOD ENOUGH to have long hair: that privilege is reserved to the gentler and therefore the nobler sex.”

Fifth Wave feminism holds that gay marriage is impermissible, on the grounds that marrying males is a privilege too rarefied for males. You are not good enough to be women, so stop acting like it. (Of course, since no-fault divorce laws gutted the meaning of marriage long ago, this issue is moot.)
Then why are you bringing it up!?
Fifth Wave feminism likewise holds that unnatural sexual acts, hereafter to be known by the euphemism, “The Sin of Clinton,” are degrading and insulting to women, on the grounds that the female womb is desecrated and insulted if a male thrusts his male member into any other orifice aside from the life-giving womb: to equate the sacred mystery of femininity with the mere physical sensation of penis gratification is the same as to demean women to the status of sexual toys: it is a mortal insult.
Okay, there is  no way he isn't at least slightly self-aware about how ridiculous this sounds? The "Sin of Clinton?" Really?

But more importantly than any real world implication of Fifth Wave Feminism, we ask, nay, we demand that the English language be changed to pay special homage and adoration of womanhood, so that certain words be set aside to refer to women. Any use of sneaky so-called gender-neutral terms we denounce as an insult to womanhood and as a covert or overt attempt to rob womankind of her most glorious triumph and highest honor: namely, that all woman shall proudly say, “We are not males!”
Isn't this similar to what a lot of second-wave feminists tried to do?

 Especially note that when using Latinate words, such as “aviator” to refer to an aviatrix, or “alums” to refer to an alumni, you will sound stupid if you try to neuter women of their sex and rob feminine words of their gender. 

John C. Wright ends his observations with a very well thought-out and intellectually stimulating sentiment:

And you are not robbing the English language of words like “heroine” and “enchantress” except you take the pen from my cold, dead hands, you harpy freaks. Fie on you, and a curse on your breed! 

Tragically, his genius goes unnoticed.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Douchebag of the Week: Alec Baldwin

Alec Baldwin is the first winner of my douchebag of the week award for this violent outburst of bigotry and homophobia towards a British photographer.

"George Stark you lying little bitch. I am gonna fuck you up…I want all my followers and beyond to straighten out this fucking little bitch…I'm gonna find you, George Stark, you toxic little queue, and I'm gonna fuck…you…up."

See what he did at the end there? He put ellipses in between the words. Because he sounds so much more intimidating that way, doesn't he?

Being a good actor and a funny comedian is no guarantee that you are a good person, as Mr. Baldwin has classily shown us here.

I feel sorry for sane gun-rights advocates

There's being passionate and than there's being crazy

And, oh boy, is this particular group being crazy. Whenever I see stuff like this, I actually feel sorry for the sane and responsible gun owners that have to deal with noisy gun nuts like these throwing themselves into the debate, getting the attention of the media, and becoming the face of the gun rights movement. This group is called Open Carry Texas, and its leader is named Kory Watkins. The Daily Beast has the details here.

I'll get to the tactics later, but first I have to comment on this passage right here. It includes a quote from Watkins that perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with gun right's absolutists:

A self-described “Liberty Republican,” Watkins is running for the state’s 6th Congressional District seat and thinks there should be no regulation of firearms whatsoever, calling gun permits “an infringement on my rights.” “I don’t want to ask government for permission and I don’t want to have to pay a tax to do something I’m already allowed to do,” he says.

This is an argument I've seen plenty of times. And it never makes any more sense no matter how many times I see it get made. How are gun permits an "infringement of your rights?" Permits and licenses are requirements in order to gain access to many other things, not just guns. You need a license in order to be able to drive. Are people without driver's licenses have their right's infringed when they get in trouble with the law for driving? Of course not. Those people did not take the time to learn how to drive and they are not allowed to drive legally because it's not safe for them or to anyone else on the road. 

Like cars, guns are things that are potentially very dangerous and you should know how to use them before you're allowed to own one. I imagine it's not too difficult to learn how to use a gun so getting a permit really isn't going to be a long and difficult task. 

Some of the tactics used by some members of the open carry community are so stupid and counter-productive it makes me wonder if they're actually deep cover gun control advocates. In Wisconsin, someone named Charles Brantrom decided that it would be a good idea to hook up with a friend and walk through the middle of Appleton with an assault rifle strapped to their backs. And, here's the funny part, Branstrom is utterly shocked that people might actually be uncomfortable with this! Some passerby were concerned and called the police. Branstrom and his friend weren't arrested or even fined, but they were questioned. 

The officer asked Branstrom why he was carrying that assault rifle. The answer was, predictably, "for protection." Fair enough, I suppose. I don't really see why anyone would need an assault rifle "for protection" when a handgun would do the trick just fine. But if this guy thinks he does, I won't harp on him for that. However, I will harp on him for his answer to the next question. He was asked if he thinks that openly carrying an assault rifle to a market might cause problems. His response? "Yeah, I guess some people don't like guns."

Of course! It's obvious, isn't it. Some people don't like guns! And not liking guns is the only possible reason for people to think someone walking into a market with an assault rifle might cause trouble. They just don't like guns. Let's apply this mentality to another scenario. Say someone walks into a market fully naked. Obviously the people who called the police only had a problem because they don't like nudity, right? Someone walks into a bank with a live grenade and people call the cops? Those people obviously did not like explosives! 

You see where I'm going with this? Mr. Branstrom and others like him don't seem to realize why people would have a problem with them strutting into a bustling public location with an assault rifle. They don't feel safe. Markets are not places people normally bring guns. So if someone walks in with an assault rifle, is it really surprising that they might be afraid? 

This story gets better, though. Branstrom was stopped a few weeks earlier. This stop was video taped and posted on YouTube. Branstrom was carrying his assault rifle in a school zone. Wow. Seriously. If you don't understand why that's a problem--if you don't understand why people have an issue with that and might call the cops--than I don't know what so say to you. I mean, what the fuck was this guy thinking? "Gee, I think'll stroll by a school carrying a powerful military-grade weapon. What could possibly go wrong?" Anyone who likes their second amendment rights should be embarrassed by this dipshit. 

The cop's response was great: 

Do you realize what you’re doing could cost us, me, my second amendment rights? Because this is so egregious to the general public that it’s going to cause them to make decisions legally that are going to restrain us.

For all the complaints that gun right's absolutists have about the infringement of their rights to bear arms, you'd be hard pressed to find a group of people who are more helpful to gun control advocates. 

Dave Blount is one repugnant cretin

Dave Blount thinks that all Arabs are terrorists

This kind of shit is what would get most people laughed at for being so fucking stupid. I'm not laughing, however, for Blount manages to mix racism in with both hypocrisy and paranoia, and even manages to make an incredibly stupid attempt at a "joke." 

You need a strong stomach to be a kid these days. The push to instill political correctness through comic books has created a female Muslim superhero

Um, no, you don't need a strong stomach to be a kid. Because kids aren't naturally repulsed automatically by things like nationality and religion. Their reaction would be one of curiosity by default. Whether or not they like it or hate it is determined by the environment in which they are raised.

New York’s incoming communist mayor has proclaimed, “I will ban all surveillance and profiling of Muslims.” The WTC is all forgotten now. 

So banning racial profiling and warrentless surveillance is "communist?" Actually, both of those things are unconstitutional, and should be banned. Funny, you and people like you claim to love the Constitution, but you have no problem with it being violated when those violations affect people you don't approve of. How's that for hypocritical?

Give it another few years and the moonbats who create comic books will have Kamala Khan striking heroic blows against capitalism and Islamophobia by using her superpowers to steer airliners into office towers.

It's funny because all Muslims are terrorists. 

Most of the comments are the usual bigotry, hatred, and ignorance that you'd expect from a site like this, but there is one that's actually funny:

So she does not wear a bullet proof Burqa? Whats her super power education?

Actually, I'm willing to bet that her super power is the ability to use proper punctuation.

Edit: Kamala Khan is actually Pakistani, and not Arab. Thanks to my anonymous commenter for correcting me!

The Blatant Racism of

Moonbattery: Stormfront Lite

There are several far-right hate blogs on the internet. Some--like Free Republic--are well known. There is another blog that isn't as well known but is far worse than Free Republic. That site is known as Moonbattery.

It's name comes from a slang term for far-left activists: Moonbats. There is a similar term for the far-right: Wingnut. The people who post on Moonbatterty are weapons-grade wingnuts. 

While most wingnuts generally post angry rants and poorly researched tirades against liberals for being Marxists or terrorist-sympathizers, Moonbattery is different in that it does not limit its virulent hatred and bigotry. The blog is also a racist blog. Most racist blogs in this day and age will try to be subtle about it: VDARE, for example, has an unmistakably racist narrative but hides it behind pseudo-intellectual wordplay. Moonbattery goes all out with its racism. The blog posts of its creator, Dave Blount, are often indistinguishable from those of Stormfront, an explicitly white supremacist blog. 

Take this screed found on Fundies Say The Darndest Things: 

New York City and Virginia aren’t the only places to be pushed off the deep end by demographically supported left-wing ideology. It happened to South Africa when the country committed suicide at the insistence of the sanctimonious “international community” by turning control over to a mob of savages. The formerly civilized nation’s descent is gaining velocity.

Equality will not be achieved until everyone is forced down to the lowest level. 

South Africa is already a hell for the whites who once raised it up out of the Stone Age. Much of the white population has escaped due to endemic racial violence and systematic racial discrimination. But so long as there are any left at all, whites will be blamed for Africans continuing to live like Africans

This is pure racism, plain and simple. Dave Blount has posted numerous vile, disgusting racist drivel towards blacks, arabs, and seems to have an almost psychotic hatred of liberalism. What he views as liberal is also extremely warped. In the demented, sick, deranged mind of Dave Blount, Chris Christie is a far-left Marxist aided by the "shadowy machine" of George Soros. 

He's not, from I can tell, a Poe. In fact, Dave Blount has posted on John Hawkins's Right Wing News, so he's legitimately this insane.

The comments section of Moonbattery is littered with some of the vilest, most contemptible hateful filth you can think of. Advocates of violence against gays and liberals, proponents of genocide against arabs, and just general wallowing in one's own ignorance and bigotry. I'm almost ashamed to be form the same country as these worthless, intellectual bankrupt, shitbrained cretins.