Pigboy is taking credit for inventing the term, "strategery."
Today, beginning of the third hour, he read an e-mail from an
asking him where the term came from and Captain Oink claimed it as his own.
This is typical Rush.
People with eyes and ears know that term comes from Saturday Night
and the vulgar Pigboy KNOWS that only the people with eyes and ears know that,
but since they don't get out much, they end up thinking Pigboy wrote that.
His sheep are so totally blind and braindead they just sop up whatever they're fed.
They choose to accept his version of the truth, even tho we know and HE knows he's lying.
He's taking $20 mil from the rocks and coyotes he's lying to..
It goes without saying that Hollywood is full of whores, but there's
a special kind
of whore that has always pissed me off - the critic whore.
When a studio releases a real piece of shit, most reviewers call
it a turd,
but the ad weasels know they can pull a few positive reviews out of the big pile.
I go crazy when a dog of a movie like Travolta's "Battleship Earth,"
or whatever it was,
had print reviews in their magazine ads that say, "Non-stop fun and excitement,"
and then, if you have the vision of a teenage hawk, you can see the fine print on that quote
and it turns out the featured film critic works for the Billings Tribune.
Another blurb says, "Best
movie of the year," and it's from the Muskogee
Those reviewers know their names will be in the big lights if they praise a not-for-shit film.
if you have quality,
if you have good writing,
if you have a imaginative, strong hand putting all the pieces together,
you don't have to lie and you don't need to put the whore's credentials in a size two font.
You just quote the big dogs.
"The emsemble acting remains
"Unlike anything else on
TV. What a treat to have it back."
"Impeccably acted, sets
a new standard for a cable series."
"The new Sopranos
is as good as it's ever been.
Ruthlessly emotional, cuttingly funny and frightening."
"Grade 'A.' The Sopranos
is better than ever."
"The best series on TV.
Sopranos is a show we're lucky to have."
Special Two-Hour Season Premier Sunday Night
Quiz on Monday
O'Reilly Among the Snobs
It takes one to know one.
By Michael Kinsley
Remember Michael Del Giorno?
He's K-Drag AM radio's most recognized ditto-monkey.
Well, get ready, because he's going to be Oklahoma's newest US Representative.
Governor Frank Keating is moving to Washington to fill whatever money-scamming post Smirk gives him,
and Saint Largent is going to replace him as governor, even tho he's dumber than Smirk.
So Saint Largent's open seat will be filled by Del Giorno.
He's good looking, he's got that AM radio gift of gab and he hates Bill Clinton.
In Oklahoma, you only have to hate Clinton (or be a football hero) to win.
So get ready, America.
Michael Del Giorno is about to be your problem, too.
Stroke Me. Stroke me
"They said with Clinton gone I'd have
nothing to talk about, but that's not the case.
The reality is, there's so much to talk about that doesn't concern Clinton
I don't hardly know where to start."
-- Pigboy's twice-an-hour promo
So what did he talk about today?
He spent three hours on Bill Clinton's penis.
None Dare Call It Treason
by Vincent Bugliosi
But make no mistake about it, I think my background in the criminal law is sufficient
to inform you that Scalia, Thomas et al. are criminals in the very truest sense of the word.
No technical true crime was committed here by
the five conservative Justices only because no Congress ever
dreamed of enacting a statute making it a crime to steal a presidential election. It is so far-out and unbelievable
that there was no law, then, for these five Justices to have violated by their theft of the election
His essay is longer than a cross-country trip with Laura the Unlaid, but it's damn good.
Did you see Survivor last night?
Yes, they were lying about the croc taking a chomp out of somebody. (They are such whores.)
The "jaw-dropping" incident was a dude falling into the campfire.
Of course, they failed to catch it on film, but we heard the screams.
These were real screams, too, not like some half-ass TV pretend scream.
His hands were burnt so bad, the skin was dripping off like wax.
He looked like a mummy with the wrapping coming off.
First, he sat down, then the pain e-mails started flooding his
brain, so he ran into the river.
Like Richard Pryor, the first instinct for a man on fire is to run, so he ran out of the river
only to lose the cooling effects of the water so he ran back in the river.
Michael Skupin, wishing he was in Philadelphia.
Realizing he couldn't leave the water, and realizing there was
nothing he could do to stop
the pain all he could do was cry out and scream. The medical people were nearby,
but the drama was so ...well, dramatic, the producers held the medics back while
they rolled the cameras and got their riveting footage.
I didn't put a stopwatch on them, but I'll guess there was 2-3
minutes of screaming
before we saw the first medical personnel on the scene. Remember now, this was
edited by CBS, so it could've been twenty minutes - we have no way to know.
If that was me (first, I wouldn't be the dumbass who fell into
the fire) I'd be suing CBS
big-time for not having those medical people closer to the situation. CBS made a big deal
out of how stranded they were, so having medical help nearby is never a bad idea.
I've never been severely burned, but I know those seconds feel like hours when
your hands are burned so badly that your skin says, "fuck it," and leaves.
Oh, well, it made for some great TV, and that's all that counts,
I hope CBS is ordered to pay the dumbass multi-millions.
They should lose the profit from that episode, and more, for waiting that long.
How Dumb Do the Republicans Think
by Molly Ivins
Remember a story from last May about a real hero?
Click Here to read the original story (very short)
Now, the hero is asking for your help.
Do the right thing.
Great Political Quotes
If we don't even have the brains to count votes
in Florida correctly,
why do they think they can build a system to intercept incoming nuclear missles?
-- Jake Johannssen
Subject: Bartcop on Tamara Baker on Joe Conason on Clinton on the Marc Rich pardons
I have to disagree with Tamara Baker's take on Joe Conason's commentary about the Rich Pardon.
Ms. Baker quotes Mr. Conason:
"Yet if he can justify those other questioned
cases, it is difficult to understand why he hasn't done so
already. In the absence of a plausible alternative, and in the shadow of his relatives, blatant misconduct,
many people who otherwise liked or admired the former President have concluded that at least some of
those decisions were bought."
I don't like Joe's second word.
He refuses to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, but doesn't say why.
All that Mr. Conasan said is that it's "difficult
to understand" why Clinton hasn't explained - not that there is
no legitimate explanation. He then goes on to say that "many people who otherwise liked or admired"
Clinton have come to certain conclusions. He didn't say that those conclusions are justified, only
that many are reaching them.
But again, he doesn't say why.
I won't defend Clinton if he's guilty, but I'll assume this is just like the other 500 accusations,
and there's nothing to the horseshitabout him doing this for the money.
Perhaps in weighing Clinton's offering an explanation
and possibly diffusing the matter to a degree (if not for
Congress for the public) against his not doing anything, Mr. Conason disagrees with John Dean's analysis
that it would present separation of powers problem, and believes that the benefit of offering a further
explanation is the better course of action for Clinton - a point on which reasonable people can disagree.
As for the idea that no non-rightwing journalist
should ever "beat on one of their own".. Mr. Conason, Gene
Lyons, and others have criticized the Rich pardon for both its political liabilities as well as the fact that no
matter how you slice it, it will always come back to a money/access issue at some level - even if you
accept the most benign/humanitarian reason.
"Always" is a tough word to use correctly.
Here's that word again but "IF" Clinton really has over $100 million in his hand,
would he sell out his country for $450,000 more?
Besides total whores like Rush and Hannity, even Clinton's enemies say he's not into money.
Sure, he had to raise tons of it to be elected, but to accuse him of doing the absolutely wrong thing
just for an extra $450 K seems out of character for the man.
And although Democrats are justifiably furious
at the overkill-coverage of the pardon story and are adverse
to the idea of "piling on" - we have to remember we are still Democrats, and at our core is the principle that
everyone, rich or poor should be treated equally under the law. Criticism of an act that illustrates the power
of money, particularly in the question of justice, is certainly not something a Democrat ought to fear, if that
criticism is not a result of questionable motives.
I'm not trying to disagree with you on every point, but there are millions
of people in jails,
and the way pardons work is you have to know somebody who has the president's ear.
If you're standing on the principle that pardons are bad, that's one thing.
But pardons always have worked on either being famous or knowing someone.
Unless you're Cap Weinberger, you hire an attorney, like Hugh Rodman, to make your case.
No one can accuse Mr. Conason and Mr. Lyons of questionable motives.
But one can "accuse" them of not being clear.
I have written to both, just now, asking for clarification.
I was polite, so I might get an answer.
They have never practiced the same gratuitous
Clinton-bashing as many "from the left" commentators
who are seeking to appease the right in order to gain readers or ratings. All who have read their work
understand that it is always scrupulously supported with reason and research. They told the story of
The Hunting of the President and took a lot of BS as a result but the information in their book and in
subsequent work went a long way in helping to defeat the rightwing taliban's efforts to remove
Clinton from office. We ought to be just as reluctant to criticize them and other decent non-whore
journalists undeservedly as we would be to do the same to the Clintons.
When people like Jimmy Carter, Gene Lyons and Joe Conason say or write
people like Rush and Hannity can use against Bill Clinton, the Democrats lose power
Rush and Hannity will say, at least a thousand times, that Bill Clinton and the Democrats
are so guilty, that even Carter, Lyons and Conason can't defend what was done.
That's not a good thing.
Editor's Note: JK has one of the best sites on the entire Internet.
Check out Mediawhoresonline.com
The site that set out to bring the media to its knees - but found they were already there.
Confessions of a Former Journalist
Bush Administration Solves
Global Warming Problem
"It Doesn't Exist," Whitman tells world.
Jenna and Her Boyfriend Party
by Jack Douglas Jr. Ft. Worth Star-Telegram
Anderson said William Ashe Bridges, 18, was polite and courteous, but also
"very intoxicated" and "very vocal" in saying that he was Jenna Bush's boyfriend.
"A few minutes later, a black Suburban and some
Secret Service agents showed up,"
Anderson said, adding that jail personnel were told Jenna Bush was in the Suburban.
What can Smirk say to this kid?
"It's time to grow up and be responsible?"
Smirk drank like Foster Brooks until he was 40!
This kid can stay drunk for another twenty years and STILL say
"Sure, I drank a lot, but not as much as jenna's dad."
One other thing:
Chelsea Clinton never had the Secret Service chasing her drunker n shit boyfriends.
Must be part of Smirk's "Honor and Dignity" program.
...and of course, the whore press is completely silent on the
What Smirk wants - the press delivers.
Meanwhile, that killer sub is all but forgotten.
Whatever Smirk wants...
Subject: Re. USAF Veteran
It's always moving, and profoundly respectworthy,
to hear from military
veterans who retain their free will--their critical faculties.
It reminds me of the night before Thanksgiving,
1968, when I was going home for the holiday
(I was in college at the time). I'd been (and still am) a pacifist and "anti"-war activist since 1965,
and was especially active during Summer, 1968.
As a Beatles fan of 20, and knowing I'd likely
be bald when older (don't ask), I had long hair.
At the bus station mid-way to home I was approached by 3-4 "gung ho" "hero" teens
yelling the usual stuff about "Commie" and "coward," and the like. I began walking away.
Next I know I was coming to, being helped onto my bus by a marine in full dress uniform.
My father enlisted the day after Pearl Harbor,
and served through Korea, and a bit beyond that,
so I was from a military family. As for US involvement in Viet Nam, I was never "against the troops"
(a lie often told about the "anti"-war movement) but rather against the policy which put them in Viet Nam.
Subject: You're Sooooooo Right!
At last! Someone who
is saying what I've been preaching (but nobody listens to me.)
I'm just an average retired grandmother in a heavily Republican state (SC), and all the
newspapers in our state are full of rightwing propaganda as well as any news shows
we might watch as you so greatly pointed out.
Is there hope? Do our letters
and e-mails make any difference?
I love this web site and hope it keeps up the good work.
Incidentally, can anyone send
me the mailing and/or e-mail addresses of
all those witches who've written slamming books against the Clintons?
I'd especially love the address of Peggy Noonan.
Please, please, help me out here.
Thank you for your analysis
of the news media.
I'm passing it on to interested friends.
J, I agree.
Of all the snotty bitches, Peggy Noonan is the worst.
Maybe someone will know her address and send it in.
How to be a Moron
by Randy Kish
Read the Previous Issue
It had everything - Conason on Clinton, Lyons on Clinton and lonely BartCop for Clinton.
Copyright © 2001, bartcop.com
Thanks for the fumble, Dude.