• Here is today’s obligatory “No Muslim Churches at Ground Zero” thing. It brings up a lot of great points (i.e. 9/11) so make sure you read it in its entirety. [RedState]
  • Governor Paterson vetoed important sippy cup legislation. What else is there to say? New York wants to keep the sippy cup down. [Daily Intel]
  • Matt Yglesias finally explains his postmodern concept of “the pundit’s fallacy” (when Andrew Breitbart convinces the White House that Shirley Sherrod is a huge racist). [Matt Yglesias]
  • There is feverish warblogging going on at the global warming conspiracy hub ScienceBlogs. Nerds. [The Daily Dish]
  • If you were tricked into buying a broken iPhone from Steve Jobs, please help the free market mend its tarnished reputation by downloading this chic Ayn Rand fart app. [Hit & Run]
Donate with CCDonate with CC


  1. Sippy cups don’t kill people. Sippy cups constantly refilled with Sunny D to shut the little brats up for once in their fucking lives kill people.

  2. Reason is sorta like your drunkard uncle Ned. He’s a lot of fun after a couple of beers, but sadly, the guy can’t stop imbibing ’till he’s started insulting everyone at the party then vomited into the swimming pool, and at that point he’s just annoying.

  3. Wait, Reason’s giving away their app for free? That’s a betrayal of the One Holy Market and Ann, It’s prophet.

    I like how “the directors” on RedState use the example of “A League of the South monument in Philadelphia, Mississippi” as an analogy to the mosque that would kind of close to the former World Trade Center. Maybe this means that they admit giving a speech in praise of “state’s rights” in that town is wrong, and designed to appeal to the racists’ votes.

  4. Red State is like your zoophile uncle Bob. Not allowed anywhere near your home after your dad caught him trying to trick your golden lab into licking his peanut butter smothered wang.

  5. I want my country back!!! And by this I mean the country we had from oh say, 1946 to 1962 or thereabouts, when everyone knew their place, and no one rocked the boat.

  6. [re=631071]V572625694[/re]: Hell, the mosque “issue” is so obvious even Richard fucking Cohen is on the right side of this one. When even he’s taking the side against anti-Muslim bigotry, you know the pro-bigotry side has gone too far.

  7. So, apparently word *didn’t* get out that there’s already a mosque 4 blocks away from the WTC site. I was so sure that all we had to do was point that out (This is what we called an “argument against uniqueness” on the debate team in high school.) and the outrage would melt away….

    Seriously, that’s an important fact to keep in mind. It means that people who think a mosque (or mosque-like Muslim building of some sort) 2 blocks from the WTC site is outrageous and terrible because it’s inside a “No Mosque Zone” radiating out from the WTC site, with a radius of 2-3 blocks, but less than 4 blocks, because the other mosque is apparently cool with everyone. (Or does this other, existing mosque just give them the credibility/cover they need to say, “See, we aren’t against all Muslims!”?)

    Also, isn’t there a strip club like across the street from Ground Zero? No one calls that the “Ground Zero Strip Club”.

  8. “RedState supports the Anti-Defamation League in its opposition to the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.” The ADL is right on all counts: in its rejection of bigotry, its affirmation of American religious freedom”

    Soooooo…. RedState supports religious freedom and is against bigotry, but RedState doesn’t want certain people to have religious freedom in in lower Manhattan because RedState holds bigoted views of said people?

    I haz a confuzed.

  9. Apparently, RedState owns NYC now. NYC votes to allow the mosque? too bad, they don’t get to make that choice for themselves. The Sons of Ewick have spoken.

  10. Love the Virgin Heifercan blurb from NYT–The Magazine. Using the very tired rhetorical “it’s beneath me to criticize the hoi polloi, hence my criticisms are actually objective analysis” frame to bag on the unoriginality of bloggers and blogging in general is beyond uber meta.

  11. [re=631085]RoscoePColtraine[/re]: The negroes were much less troublesome in those happy days. You called the Pullman Car porter “George.” And those Mohammedans just rode their camels happily through the barren desert. And the women were happy to do the laundry every Monday and had your dinner on the table when you came home every night.

    These kids today! You can’t tell the boys from the girls, and their music? — it’s just noise.

  12. [re=631085]RoscoePColtraine[/re]: It’s not actually even about liking a specific time period because Negroes were quieter or whatever. It’s about teabaggers remembering that the world was much simpler when they were 8, and not realizing that lol that’s because you were 8, but thinking that it was some social or policy change that made life full of problems.

    Basically, teabaggers = Peter Pan.

  13. [re=631091]PrimlyStable[/re]: It’s very simple. Muslims hate Jews, so it’s OK to hate Muslims, and when you do so, you’re standing up for the religious freedom of Jews!

    (Seriously, lol @ adl.)

  14. [re=631091]PrimlyStable[/re]: It’s very simple; it’s not bigotry, but would be too hurtful to people who watched 9/11 happen on the TV. Why should the New Yorkers who were actually effected by the attacks and have approved of the sort-of-mosque be allowed to force this on the Americans in rural areas of red states who were the most traumatized by 9/11?

  15. [re=631093]comicbookguy[/re]: Over the past decade or so I’ve noticed a direct and proportional relationship between the distance someone lives from Washington and New York (ie the places that were actually attacked on 9/11) and how keen they are to try and exploit it for their own wingnutty reasons. Hence the people of New York – who live alongside countless peace-loving Muslims, appreciate that they’re not all terrorists, and know that actually quite a lot of Muslims died in the attacks – generally support the mosque, while it’s morons from Buttfuck, Mississippi who start furiously masturbating over pictures of weeping eagles at the very thought of evil muslins being allowed near the hallowed ground where thousands of East Coast liberals died.

    NB: this also explains Tony “London is 3,500 miles from New York” Blair’s actions from 2001 to 2007.

  16. Ok, so the ScienceBlogs nutrition blog was funded by PepsiCo, and this upset the fat South Park viewers that are called “skeptics” into realizing that they’ve been living in a petroleum-fueled fantasy because the tomorrow-land wonder world of science is funded by dirty snack companies of today. Is that right?

  17. [re=631090]bhosp[/re]: Also, isn’t there a strip club like across the street from Ground Zero? No one calls that the “Ground Zero Strip Club”.

    Yes, but those are REAL* AMERICAN tits you’re talking about. Not some terristic muslin tits insulting and mocking the memory of those who died.


  18. Pepsigate is a blogging conundrum. SEED runs an invitation only network of blogs called ScienceBlogs, ostensibly to improve the public understanding of science. SEED recent, for scads of bottle caps, allowed Pepsi to start a nutrition blog. That, obviously, created a serious “give me a fucking break” moment with scads of bad jokes about high fructose corn syrup for your total health.

    Wonkette runs ads so that Ken can put a quarter a week under the staff’s pillows. The ads are obvious. What if a less than obvious, Pepsigate-like change was made? For example, what if Intern Riley was really a BP operative, and by publishing Intern Rileys BPified poop, Ken was bringing Wonkette oodles of pounded sterlings and bags and bags of Euros and could now afford to put two quarters each week under each of the staff’s pillows? Would that be an ethical problem?

    Naaa. First, it is questionable that Ken could swing the ban hammer fast enough to stamp-out the posting wildfire were Riley to start going on about how BP was the protector of the environment and all other pinko pagodas. Second, if Ken could swing the ban hammer fast enough to quell the righteous lefties, views & posts would either go in the tank or Wonkette would rise like Phoenix from its own ass heap and and do take down of RedState from the right.

  19. [re=631114]DC Hates Me[/re]: No one really knows (‘cept [re=631121]weejee[/re], I guess) . The whole thing was too boring to pay attention to.

  20. [re=631109]RoscoePColtraine[/re]: Sorry, but those whose love dare not speak it’s name didn’t exist back then. But there were a lot of confirmed bachelors!

  21. With the first few paragraphs devoted to geography, you’d think Red State would have bothered to brush up on their own geography and know that ground zero is west of Broadway, not east, and that Wall Street only runs to Broadway, so it’s not north of Wall Street, either. At least they got the Chambers Street part right.

  22. [re=631121]weejee[/re]: All well and good, but none of that matters because V-Hef is familiar with all forms of expression and hath declared blogging officially over. Now the eggheads will have more time to stroke their slide rules and electron-gyronators or some such instead of fouling the pristine air of public discourse.

  23. If I lived in NY, and had a baby, I’d get it a onesie that says “You Can Have My Sippy Cup When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead, Cute Little Chubby Fingers.”

    Maybe WonketteMart is already on this one.

  24. Where have I heard of this kind of religious intolerance before? Hmmm… GOT IT! Anti-Catholicism in the United States in the 1800s. From WikiPedia….

    The resulting “nativist” movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics. This violence was fed by claims that Catholics were destroying the culture of the United States. The nativist movement found expression in a national political movement called the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s….

  25. [re=631133]BachmannsFosterChild[/re]: In his defense, 9/11 was a big enough deal that most of lower Manhattan below 14th street was “part of Ground Zero”, for the days and weeks afterwards. So his basic geography fail was only dumb because of how obnoxious he was about Yglesias in the sentence immediately preceding that one.

    Oh, and also because by that logic, we should ban all Muslims from all of Manhattan, which is what he was trying to pretend wasn’t what he meant actually.

    But honestly, the biggest gem is the examples of the continued right-wing insistence on using places like Syria and Saudi Arabia China (in this case, an abortive Shinto shrine in Nanjing) as the standard to which America should strive to meet, when it comes to things like human rights and the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities. Seriously, I can’t see a single flaw in the logic there!

  26. If, while I’m sitting in my office typing this, some asshole flies a plane into the building where I work and kills me, I am not magically made into a hero worthy of monuments or a fuss about mosques (or any other building dedicated to the stupid idea that anything capable of creating the Universe gives two shits about humans). I am dead and, by definition, incapable of caring at that point.

    Now, if you want a monument to those persons who entered the building to rescue people who, moments before, were typing a comment on, that’s a great idea. Nothing I was doing at the time of the crime is worthy of adding my name to theirs. Nothing.

    Similarly, if I’m flying to Europe and a design fuck up causes the plane I’m in to explode, I am not a hero worthy of a monument on the point of land nearest to the spot of said fuck up.

    Spend the money and expend the effort on those still living. Monuments should be for those who do more than show up and become casualties.

  27. [re=631071]V572625694[/re]: Well, Red State does have a point there. And if they wear their backwards baseball caps just right, no one need see it.

  28. It’s amazing that the strict Constitutionalists of RedState et al. don’t seem to grasp the concept of the First Amendment. And the same people that are quick to claim they are not racist by saying “We never claimed that all Muslims are terrorists.” don’t seem to have an issue with implying it when it comes to the idea of a Mosque being constructed anywhere on Manhattan, which appears to become part of “Ground Zero”. And why call it “Ground Zero”? That implies a nuclear attack. Isn’t calling it “The World Trade Center Site” good enough?
    Not if you want to continue The Bushyt Holy Crusade Against Islam.

  29. What if I live in NY and want a conveniently located community center? You know, like everyone who actually lives there and approved it? Is RedState going to build a Weeping Eagle Community Center with the same public facilities? Come on guys, use your rock salt money and put up the coin for a community center in Manhattan. Since it’s your neighborhood now (because 9/11). It’s only right.

  30. [re=631156]just pixels[/re]: …and then the IRA proved the “nativist” right. Them damn Irish Catholics are a bunch of terrorists. Ban Catholic Churches in New York, I say. And who is more Irish than Denis Leary? No one! And doesn’t he play a New York City firefighter onTV? I think the conclusion is obvious. If New York City firefighters are allow near Ground Zero then we will all be reminded of 9/11 and the terrorist win.

  31. It looks to me like there about 10 Christian churches within a mile of the site of the former Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, OK – Ground Zero for that domestic terrorist attack.

    Since it was carried out by a fundamentalist Christian, why did we permit these churches to be there? Whiskey Tango Foxtwat?

    Of course, Timothy McVeigh was also a US Military Veteran, so I guess we’re not suppposed to allow any Vets to visit that site, either. Also.

Comments are closed.

Previous articleFarewell Interns: You Will Be Missed?
Next articleSharron Angle Doesn’t Understand Why the Press Isn’t Her BFF