ginandtacos.com

Picture this: a grown woman is driving around the Chicago suburbs and encounters three little girls with a lemonade stand. Upon learning that they are giving away the lemonade for free, the aforementioned grown woman goes after them like she just found the fucking Taliban making VX in a garage in Palatine. At the end of this psychotic episode, she writes about it with the intention of publishing it because she is proud of what she just did.

Did you picture all of that? Good. Now do it. Do it and you too can be a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times. You can be the next Terry Savage. It is not often that I read a simple opinion column and conclude that the author is quite lucky to have avoided ending up in police custody as a result of it. This ("There is No 'Free' Lemonade") is one such occasion. In fact it is the only such occasion I can recall aside from Doug Giles' ill-advised 2001 column "A List of Problems I Have Solved By Raping Things."

I ask if you are ready only rhetorically today, because having read this column I know for a fact that you are not.

This column is a true story — every word of it.

Well there goes the insanity defense or the ol' "It was satire / artistic license!" argument.

And I think it very appropriate to consider around the Fourth of July, Independence Day spirit.

Please keep this line in mind as she explains what she did. This is what she likes to do in celebration of major holidays. Check back in November for her column about beheading a vagrant in the Thanksgiving spirit.

Last week, I was in a car with my brother and his fiancee, driving through their upscale neighborhood on a hot summer day. At the corner, we all noticed three little girls sitting at a homemade lemonade stand.

Why, this just sounds like a Norman Rockwell painting. How sweet. How all-American. How totally not a reason to lose your shit and go after three little girls like you are a starving dog and they are wearing dresses made of honey baked ham.

We follow the same rules in our family, and one of them is: Always stop to buy lemonade from kids who are entrepreneurial enough to open up a little business.

Aside from wondering why your family feels the need to have such an esoteric rule, I find it regrettable that the Savage clan does not have rules about the basic tenets of human interaction. They might have come in handy here.

My brother immediately pulled over to the side of the road and asked about the choices. The three young girls — under the watchful eye of a nanny, sitting on the grass with them — explained that they had regular lemonade, raspberry lemonade, and small chocolate candy bars.

I see nothing out of the ordinary here. Then again, I am not Terry Savage.

Then my brother asked how much each item cost. "Oh, no," they replied in unison, "they're all free!"

OH SHIT. OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT.

RUN.

I know you still can't see how this could be a precursor to a rage-filled outburst for any normal person but RUN. THERE ISN'T TIME. I WILL EXPLAIN LATER.

I sat in the back seat in shock. Free? My brother questioned them again: "But you have to charge something? What should I pay for a lemonade? I'm really thirsty!"

Note that 99.999 percent of…well, actually, everyone on the goddamn planet except for Terry Savage and Brother Savage…would have said "Aw, how cute! Thank you so much!" and enjoyed a cold Dixie cup of Country Time Imitation Lemonade Substitute at this point. That, I daresay, would be a normal response.

His fiancee smiled and commented, "Isn't that cute. They have the spirit of giving."

Well, one person in the car was relatively normal.

That really set me off, as my regular readers can imagine.

OK, from this point forward this reads like a police report.

No, Terry, we can't imagine. Even your most devoted readers cannot figure out why you are about to start yelling at three little girls for offering you free lemonade. Your motives are as comprehensible as a Japanese game show.

"No!" I exclaimed from the back seat. "That's not the spirit of giving. You can only really give when you give something you own. They're giving away their parents' things — the lemonade, cups, candy. It's not theirs to give."

Well, presumably this stuff became theirs to own when THEIR PARENTS FUCKING GAVE IT TO THEM. Wait a minute. Why am I debating you on the minutiae of your "argument" when the real question here is broader: What in the hell is wrong with you?

I bet the fiancee was profoundly thankful for this lecture. And she certainly did not turn the car ride home from their visit with you into a "If we have to see her more than once a year, we're getting divorced. In fact I have the divorce paperwork prepared. It needs only a signature." conversation for your brother.

I pushed the button to roll down the window and stuck my head out to set them straight.

Oh good.

Adults should always pick fights with kids in furtherance of "setting them straight." It's not only smart, it's socially acceptable and indicative of a healthy personality.

"You must charge something for the lemonade," I explained. "That's the whole point of a lemonade stand. You figure out your costs — how much the lemonade costs, and the cups — and then you charge a little more than what it costs you, so you can make money. Then you can buy more stuff, and make more lemonade, and sell it and make more money."

"You must charge something for the lemonade," I explained…TO A GROUP OF SEVEN YEAR-OLD STRANGERS. Kids, if you're reading this, take Mr. Ed's advice on something: if an adult stranger ever says any of this to you, one member of your group should run to ask an adult to call the police and the remaining two should attempt to make a lot of noise and stand together to create the impression that they are a large animal.

True, that is actually how one should respond to brown bear attacks. But it will also work on Terry Savage. Trust me. And don't get between her and her cubs.

I was confident I had explained it clearly. Until my brother, breaking the tension, ordered a raspberry lemonade. As they handed it to him, he again asked: "So how much is it?" And the girls once again replied: "It's free!" And the nanny looked on contentedly.

I would like to hear this story from the girls' perspective. Or perhaps the nanny's. This part would be something like "So after this bitch started lecturing us on classical economics, they asked us how much it cost. We wanted to see if we could make their heads explode, so we told them it was still free. The driver man swore at us and the old lady in the backseat pulled a stiletto knife out of her purse. Then they saw Officer Harry's car at the end of the block and they ran away."

No wonder America is getting it all wrong when it comes to government, and taxes, and policy. We all act as if the "lemonade" or benefits we're "giving away" is free. And so the voters demand more — more subsidies for mortgages, more bailouts, more loan modification and longer periods of unemployment benefits.

Wait. Did you have some lemonade or not? I need closure on this anecdote, not a segue into the worst metaphor in recorded history. "Some nice kids tried to give me lemonade for free, and I decided that the lemonade represents everything that is wrong with society. Because I am psychotic. I pick corn from my own crap and glue it back on the cob. Then I eat it again. And again."

They're all very nice. But these things aren't free.

You know what was nice as well as free? THE DAMN LEMONADE.

The government only gets the money to pay these benefits by raising taxes, meaning taxpayers pay for the "free lemonade." Or by printing money — which is essentially a tax on savings, since printing more money devalues the wealth we hold in dollars.

She is now explaining that when we give the government some of our earnings, we often demand benefits in return for giving them said money.

Slow down, T-Bone. We're not all economists here. Is there any scientific effort to study and explain this bizarre behavior? Personally I am surprised that people want the government to provide things other than the Joint Strike Fighter in exchange for keeping a quarter of our paychecks.

If we can't teach our kids the basics of running a lemonade stand, how can we ever teach Congress the basics of economics?

Reach further, Terry! Reach higher! Reach! This lemonade transaction (or was it a non-transaction? I NEED TO KNOW.) represents everything that is wrong with America. It also explains why Congress doesn't understand "the basics of economics (but I bet Terry does!) The lemonade also represents AIDS in the developing world, the problem with the music industry today, and 19th Century institutionalized racism.

The other day I was shopping and I saw that wax paper was on sale. Of course my first thought was, "This is why we won the space race."

Or maybe it's the other way around: The kids are learning from the society around them. No one has ever taught them there's no free lunch — and all they see is "free," not the result of hard work, and saving, and scrimping.

I think it is valid to conclude that "no one" has ever given American students the hackneyed wisdom that "there's no free lunch."

Maybe the lesson the parents hoped to teach was that sometimes, especially when you are a person of considerable wealth, it is nice to do things for your fellow man without expecting to be paid. That it's OK to give someone 1 cent worth of powdered lemonade just to be friendly. That parents don't want their kids to grow up to be asocial assholes like Terry Savage.

If that's what America's children think

"And based on my random, double-blind study of these three girls, it is fair to conclude that they do,"

– that there's a free lunch waiting — then our country has larger problems ahead. The Declaration of Independence promised "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It didn't promise anything free.

Right. It promised us a government that would allocate the resources we grant to it in ways that are to our benefit. Who ever said we expected the government to do all this stuff for us "for free"? We work. We contribute. Oh wait, I forgot how the Metaphor of the Lemonade explains how we all want things for free. Good point.

Something to think about this July 4th holiday weekend.

Or, you know, fireworks and barbecues.

And that's the Savage Truth!

This is the most embarrassingly bad catchphrase I have ever seen. I recommend something like:

- I Am Completely Fucking Insane!^tm
- I Can't Be Trusted with Your Children!^tm
- Fluids! My Precious Fluids!^tm

Despite the fact that I've trademarked that, Terry, you are free to use it. You've more than earned the right. What's that? No, it doesn't cost you anything. You can use it for free. I don't care. No. I don't want anything for it.

Oh jesus. She's advancing on me with that murderous glare again. You all slip out the back while I distract her. This may take a while.

Hey, I spend a lot of time in the classroom, so when I see a column entitled "Our Kids Deserve Balance in the Classroom" I perk up like an chemically stimulated prairie dog. All along I have been under the impression that Your Kids deserved to be given accurate information and taught how to process it. How wrong was I. It turns out that what kids really deserve is "balance"! You know, two sides to every story. Teach the Controversy.^tm But I doubt that Steve Mroczkiewicz – scholar at the Independent Women's Foundation project Balanced Education for Everyone – would raise such an issue lightly; he's a goddamn expert on Balance. Move over, Flying Wallendas. Let's discover how Unbalanced our schools are with the ultimate goal of Balancing them like the scales of justice.

This FJM is made possible through a generous grant from the Steve, Shut The Fuck Up Foundation. SSTFUF: A Better Tomorrow is Possible if Steve Shuts His Piehole Today.^tm

We as parents have a lot on our minds these days. Too many of us are out of work and struggling to pay the bills. While trying to pay our mortgage and prepare for retirement, we are also trying to save to help our kids go to college. Of course, we are also concerned about the quality of our children's schools, though few have the time to follow closely what goes on in those classrooms each day.

OK, Steve isn't a professional writer. This much will be abundantly clear. Regardless, there's something inherently dangerous about opening anything other than a letter to the Penthouse Forums with this many industrial strength platitudes. And don't worry, parents who lack the time to follow what goes on in the classroom each day – Steve's on it.

As a father of six—five of whom still attend Attica, Indiana public schools

Remember this. It's going to be relevant in a minute.

I know first-hand the difficulty of keeping up with all the responsibilities that parents face. Yet I also know how important it is to remain engaged in our children's schools to make sure that they get the education they need and deserve.

This passage was nominated for the 2010 Award for Redundancy Award of 2010.

It has been more than a month since Earth Day, and most of our children are finishing their studies for the year. One area that I would encourage all parents to pay extra attention to is what's happening at your school regarding climate change education. Ideally, it is supposed to encourage students to consider the importance of preserving our natural resources. Unfortunately, too often it's used as a platform to push a misleading, ideological brand of environmentalism.

Ideally…according to whom? This sounds an awful lot like a segue into the classic "My kids are not being told that my beliefs are correct, so it's time to change what they're taught" argument.

I’m a Ph.D. scientist

And yet you can't figure out how condoms work, according to the earlier admission.

I’m a Ph.D. scientist and work as a Field Research Scientist for a global crop protection company, so I have a special interest in how my kids are taught the subject.

Great. You have a biology Ph.D., proving that you have mastered titration and whatnot (I don't know if titration is relevant to what biologists do, but it's one of the most phonetically pleasing hard science-y words I know). This makes you an expert on many things, including global warming. I also have a Ph.D., Steve, so when I get done writing this I'm going to draw up architectural blueprints for a skyscraper and invent a new state of matter.

To me, teaching science properly means presenting all sides of scientific theories and helping kids develop their own critical thinking skills.

Teaching Science Properly by Steve Mroczkiewicz is apparently the least useful book ever written. It receives serious competition for that honor only from The Encyclopedia of Phrenology, Modern British Dentistry: A Practical Guide, and On Diplomacy by Ariel Sharon.

Steve, teaching science properly means presenting the "sides of scientific theories" that are either correct or have evidence to support them. Not "all" sides. We can, you know, skip the ones that are wrong or utterly devoid of merit. When we teach the shape of the planet, we generally do not give Round and Flat equal time.

Regrettably, it seems that too many in our public education system see their role differently.

Strangely and regrettably, most teachers don't see the value in teaching unsupported crackpot theories or industry-funded denialist claims. Baffling.

I first became concerned about how my children's school was teaching global warming last year when a group of teachers orchestrated a school-wide showing of An Inconvenient Truth during class in celebration of Earth Day.

They showed a multi-multi-award winning documentary by the former Vice President in a public school? My god. What country do we live in?

I was alarmed that parents weren't even able to pull their kids from this assignment (fortunately, with some work, I eventually got that policy changed).

Ooh, goodie. We're playing "I was alarmed by…" I love this game. OK Steve, I was alarmed by the suggestion that parents – parents who might be, and often are, dumber than a bag of hammers – should be able to decide what their kids are and are not exposed to.

OK, your turn.

The problem isn't just that the school shows An Inconvenient Truth, a movie found by a judge to be riddled with serious scientific errors and which grossly exaggerates the potential damage of man-made global warming. It also fails to provide any counterweight to this environmentalist propaganda.

Aww, I thought we were playing. Anyway, Steve, no judge accused the film of scientific errors or "gross" exaggerations. A British judge in a civil trial agreed with an attorney's claim that the film exaggerates the potential damage of human-induced climate change – which is a pretty strange argument, by the way, given that both the judge's and the filmmaker's exercises are inherently speculative. But like any documentary, I won't argue that the film in question is strongly argued and probably includes some exaggerations by zealous True Believers. Documentaries are never "fair."

Schools do have options. For more than a year now, I've been trying to get another film, Not Evil, Just Wrong, shown in our school to provide some balance.

Awesome. Schools have options, like showing a straight-to-video piece of shit (funded by a wealthy Irish nutcase) that repackages every tired global warming denialism argument of the past 30 years. Do you understand how bad a movie has to be before it can't secure a theatrical release? For christ's sake, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed opened on 1000 screens and it was so bad that most people who paid to see it shot themselves.

Maybe part of the problem is that the film begins with the tale of how hysterical environmentalists got DDT banned and caused 40 million people to die of mosquito-borne illnesses – ah, the perils of scientific Chicken Little-ism – which is a great point except that DDT is still used to kill mosquitoes and always has been. And it's uphill from there!

Not Evil, Just Wrong thoroughly reviews the flawed science of global warming, specifically addressing the many errors and gross exaggerations in An Inconvenient Truth. Our children deserve to hear this information so they don't believe that there's only one truth about this important issue.

Read that again. "…so they don't believe that there's only one truth about this important issue." Our goal, of course, is to have them believe that there are many, equally valid "truths" about important issues! Why, that just sounds great. What a great world we would live in if everyone thought that opposing sides of objective issues were equally valid.

Unfortunately, getting balance into my children's school has been an uphill battle. I’ve spoken to teachers, the principal, the superintendent and the school board. I’ve loaned copies of the film so teachers could see it and make an informed decision.

Are you getting the sense that Steve is "That Guy" in his school district? The one who harasses the administrators to an extent that verges on stalking and who rises at every board meeting to deliver the same harangue about Communist water fluoridation or free energy suppression or Noah's Ark or whatever his idiotic pet issue happens to be? I bet he's quite popular in his community.

Yet only two teachers in the whole school bothered to view the film, and none of them would show it.

Shocking.

I made my case publicly during the open session of a school board meeting.

I bet you did, Cubby.

The only result was that a group of teachers publicly complained to the board for giving me a hearing.

Well that could mean a few things. You've been at this for a full year, so let's assume they understand your argument. Either they are closed-minded, ideologically narrow bigots hell-bent on suppressing your Truth, or your argument is entirely without merit and no amount of explanation is sufficient to make you understand that.

Most recently, the superintendent declared Not Evil, Just Wrong isn’t suitable because it lacks the endorsement of the National Earth Day Foundation. You can see what I’m up against.

I more clearly see what the school district is up against, but yeah, I feel for you. Going up against reality and facts is hard.

This isn’t just ignorance of the science behind climate change, this is an ideological position. I will continue to fight for our students to be taught rather than indoctrinated.

Steve, your point of view as expressed here makes clear that you loathe indoctrination. You just have the very reasonable and open-minded view that your children should only be taught what you want them to be taught irrespective of its accuracy.

I haven't been able to change the curriculum so far, but I have succeeded in raising awareness of the problem. I would urge other parent to do the same.

"No one is listening to me. It's lonely here at the helm of the USS Batshit. I need 30 stout men for a voyage to where there be dragons."

Ask questions about how global warming is being presented in your school. Find out if movies like An Inconvenient Truth are being used on Earth Day or as pillars of the science curriculum. Make sure that your kids are hearing the other side of the story.

(The one with no evidence to support it.)

We should encourage our schools and teachers to address this imbalance during the summer break.

Once again Steve shows his keen understanding of reality by stressing that the best time to get the attention of educators is during the summer.

I realize many of us are busy, but our children's education starts at home. You shouldn't trust that your local school is providing the balanced education your children deserve.

"Just homeschool your kids already. That's the only way to keep them Pure of influences other than the voices in Mom and Dad's head. Isn't it about time you took dictatorial control of every piece of information that reaches your child? How else can we ensure that they will grow up creationist, heavily armed, and utterly unable to function socially?"

Thanks Steve, whoever the hell you are, for taking the idea of scientific inquiry out behind an abandoned warehouse and fingering it. I can think of no one I'd rather have in control of the future of our educational system. Being lectured on objectivity and balance by Steve Mroczkiewicz is like having Bible study with the Pope himself.

This is where I usually do a quasi-witty intro. Today, I've got nothing for you. This is honestly the worst opinion column I have ever read. It reads less like an opinion column than the final Facebook post of a lone wolf militiaman before he sets out in his weapon-laden 1988 Ford Econoline van to kill as many Latinos as he can find. It's part suicide note, part ransom note, part plea for psychological help, and part woefully failed attempt at humor. Doug Giles, who previously took an FJMing with a column that I naively thought represented the nadir of the English language in print, is still giving this writing thing a try for some reason. After you read this masterpiece of satire ("Mexico's Calderon Condemns the Country that Keeps His Haggard Land Afloat") you will join me in wishing that Doug would take up a career more suited to his skills and personality, such as working in a prison, being held for observation and psychiatric care, or wrapping his lips around the barrel of a gun and trying desperately to think of a reason not to pull the trigger.

This is…not good. I warned you.

Y’know, there’s nothing like being chastised by the president of a parasitical border nation whose trespassing citizens are wreaking havoc on our soil.

"Y'know"? Some 14 year old girls called, Doug, and they want their Livejournal post back. They called me because Doug Giles is not allowed to receive phone calls from minors pursuant to the provisions of Suzie's Law and an out-of-court settlement in the matter of Girl Scouts of America v. Doug Giles in a Clown Suit.

Mexico’s Presidente Felipe Calderon carping about our country’s laws on our turf this past week in D.C. is like a fat tick complaining about the dog he’s sucking the life out of. Hey Felipe, haven’t you ever heard the maxim “beggars can’t be choosers”? Evidently not.

Mexico is sucking the life out of the U.S.? Do you understand how illegal immigration works, Doug? They come here and do shit work for peanuts to subsidize the price you pay for produce. I do not think you have properly conceptualized the tick-dog relationship. If the ticks risked their lives to reach your dog so they could clean the caked dung out of the fur around his butt for $1 an hour, that would be a good analogy. As it stands, it isn't.

One must hand it to Calderón for having the cojones to condemn the country that’s keeping his gaunt nation buoyant. I wouldn’t have had the courage … or stupidity, or indecency … to do that.

Oh, don't sell yourself short, cubby. You're plenty stupid. Plenty.

Matter of fact, if I were president—or better yet, King of Douglandia

If this little hypothetical makes you cringe, you may want to get a drink before tackling the rest of this column. Doug thinks this is really, really clever and he's going to clutch it to his chest and break into a dead sprint like his ass is on fire and the nearest water is at the end of the column.

and Douglandia happened to have milked, oh … let’s say … $21 billion last year from the prosperous border country to our north

Curious about this oddly specific figure, I did more research than Doug Giles has done cumulatively in his life – which is to say I googled "Illegal immigrants $21 billion." It turns out that this is the amount that they sent out of the country as remittances in 2009. So "milked" is a strange choice of words given that A) they earned the money, mostly by B) doing horrible shit-work for which American businesses actively recruit illegals they can pay in change and Jarritos. As far as I'm concerned – and this is where Doug and I differ – someone who works 10 hour shifts cleaning slaughterhouses for $4/hr can do whatever the hell they want with the money. Mail it to Mexico, blow it at a casino, put it in the bank, set it on fire…once you've cleaned the rendering tank at a ConAgra slaughterhouse you make the call.

all the while my residents were:
- Creating chaos in our generous neighbor’s land by the exportation of tons of drugs to their kiddos,

Mexican illegal immigrants make your kids smoke pot. If there were no illegal immigrants, American kids would not have drugs and hence would not do drugs.

- Kidnapping and killing their citizens

This is just an epidemic. And again, without illegals this would not happen.

- Trashing their ranches and national parks,
- Disrespecting their laws and flag,

Is "disrespecting" a law the same as violating it?

Nothing is quite as sad as watching an adult deliver any variant of the "Flag-burning should be illegal!" argument. It indicates a failure at some stage of one's emotional development, the one that teaches you that symbols only mean what we decide they mean. In practice, it doesn't bother me much when people, legal or illegal, "disrespect" the fifty cent made-in-China piece of plastic bearing the pattern of the American flag. People who venerate an object are modern descendants of the barbarians who made offerings to please the sun.

- And spawning political turmoil in our over-gracious buddy’s government

Yes Doug, it is Mexico's fault that you're bursting a blood vessel in your neck over this issue and flying into a pant-shitting rage over the shocking idea that the people who pick your tomatoes for a buck an hour might not be in this country legally.

I wouldn’t dare open my stupid mouth

Oh, I doubt that. Wait for it…

and complain about the Constitution and the cops of the nation my civilians happen to be violating if I were invited to be speak in said nation.

Swish. Nothing but net. Giles 1, things that doubt Giles 0.

Yep, if my crew caused all this crap in another country and I were asked to address the land that folks from Douglandia were pillaging, my speech would be very short and very sweet:

Can you pretend that you've been invited to speak in Edlandia and work that short/sweet magic here? Because every word of this is like rolling a giant boulder up a steep hill. I pray for a merciful death in lieu of reading another sentence. This is like watching Uncle Larry get ripped to the tits on peppermint schnapps at Thanksgiving and deliver one of his patented monologues about the coloreds or the vaccine-autism link or the Jews or free energy suppression or the children he stabbed in Vietnam.

It would mirror Borat’s sentiments toward the USA, and I would say, “Hello. My name is Doug from Douglandia. I like your country. It’s very nice. Please forgive what my gypsies have done to your land and people. I will discipline them upon my return like I did my sister when she tried to sell her sexy bits.”

Giles: "Ha ha! I saw a movie once." And what are the odds that TownHall readers (average age: 97) have seen anything released after Serpico?

After that gratitude-laden speech I would pass out patriotic Frisbees celebrating their land to all in attendance and offer free airfare passes on Douglandia Airlines to our few quasi-decent resort destinations to all the pusillanimous politicians who were aiding and abetting the raping of their nation by my criminal constituents.

Reading your column, Doug, I can't figure out why Mexico's president did not react this way or offer anything but obsequious gratitude to the American people. Why, he should have been giving Obama a reacharound as he addressed the crowd. Free trips to Cancun, everyone! Why? Because Mexico needs to repay us for that demeaning work that our businesses pay its people to do!

Yep, after my broke joke nation had received billions of dollars I sure as heck wouldn’t be complaining about the land I was milking (at least not to their faces).

"Broke joke." Hey, that rhymes! Radical, dude. Gag me with a spoon.

Are you ready? It gets a little unhinged at this point. Yes, even compared to what he has already said.

Matter of fact, on second thought, I would have gone the biblical extra mile with the violated country after my brief lecture. Indeed, after my gracious speech and the distribution of parting gifts, I would have pulled out my Butt-Smacker magnum-sized lip balm and commenced to literally kiss the backsides of everyone in attendance in gratitude for not building a wall between our nations so huge it could be seen from Pluto.

Read that again. I've got nothing. Literally nothing. This reads like he is shouting it to a police negotiator over a bullhorn right before he starts executing hostages. And just to be clear, he is literally suggesting that Mexicans should be kissing our asses. I wonder why they don't like you, Doug.

Upon my return to my dog-eared land-of-no-opportunity, I would immediately dispatch squadrons of maids and trash picker-uppers to go and clean up all the mess my people had made trashing the countryside when they “migrated” to the great northern feeding grounds.

YES, DOUG. IF ONLY MEXICO WOULD SEND SOME MAIDS AND "TRASH PICKER-UPPERS" TO THE UNITED STATES. IF THERE'S ONE THING MEXICO HASN'T SENT HERE, IT'S MAIDS AND PEOPLE TO PICK UP OUR TRASH. Does this guy know what an illegal immigrant is? Does he know which people are the Mexican ones?

In addition, I would immediately capture and incarcerate those criminal miscreants who had made it to the Land of Plenty and acted untoward to such a benevolent place, as their bellicose behavior could possibly cause the faucet to shut off on the multi-billion dollar chunk of change we were getting from our benefactors.

Doug Giles is a shining example of our benevolence – as if I needed to point that out. And I wouldn't worry about that faucet shutting off. The only thing that will stop the flow is to pay Americans minimum wage to do the work immigrants do. And we know that is about as likely to happen as Doug Giles reading a book that has more words than pictures.

Yes, that’s what I would have done if I were Calderon, but then again, my mother raised me right.

Aside from his obvious and crippling anger issues and assorted other mental problems, does anyone else get the impression that Dougie wrote this column in about 10 minutes? The last three or four paragraphs scream "past deadline" like nothing I've seen since the last time I degraded myself by reading Andrew Breitbart.

I know Intellectual Chernobyl doesn't have much in the way of journalistic standards, but even with that in mind I am shocked that they ran this. It quite literally reads like a transcript of an unstable person coming unhinged and screaming at passing cars. Even Teabaggers who agree with Doug about his substantive message here (which I believe is "MEXICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANS! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!") aren't going to read this incoherent dreck. The author they do read, Glenn Beck, is the Tiger Woods of hate speech. In comparison Doug Giles is like a suburban golf fanatic who bends his clubs in half and punches out a caddy after failing on his 15th attempt to get out of the sand trap.

With age comes experience, and with experience comes the ability to recognize the exceptional when it flutters through one's life. I see a lot of FJM-worthy material, columns with pedestrian names like "Why Liberals are Stupid" or "Tea Parties: a New American Revolution?" These pieces are fun to dissect but they lack greatness. They are run-of-the-mill conservative boilerplate. This is why alarm bells start ringing when I see something entitled "Discrimination is Necessary: Subjecting kids to weirdos undermines standards of decency" by the editorial board of the Washington Times. This promises to unfasten its fly and piss excellence all over America. Prepare for a golden shower of wisdom and logic. While enjoying the moist, salty waves of truth you should ponder the mystery of why the Times is bankrupt, fired most of its staff in December, and is searching for a buyer. You know, the same Washington Times founded and owned by the Moonies and so far to the right that even most Republicans can't take it seriously. On the plus side, since the paper can no longer afford proper maintenance for its office the remaining staffers must contend with meter-long black snakes in the building as they pretend to work and search desperately for new jobs. So that sounds exciting.

Grab an umbrella, kids, because the Moonie Times is about to go all Pacman Jones on us and make it rain.

First-graders should not be forced into the classrooms of teachers undergoing sex changes.

Whoa. I didn't hear about this. Media: fail.

Religious broadcasters and faith-based summer camps should not be forced to hire cross-dressers.

This neither. Why wasn't this all over the news? Certainly it derails the Levin-Sanders Pre-Op Tranny and Transvestite Fairness in Summer Camp Employment Act currently occupying most of the Senate's time.

Women should not be forced to share bathrooms with people with male body parts who say they want to be females.

Huh. This is getting weird. This all sounds quite controversial. Should be on the news. And for the record, while I understand the logic of separate bathrooms based on one's genitals, how in the hell does anyone know what the person in the next stall is using to urinate? I mean, someone could walk into a women's restroom in a dress, close a stall door, and pull out a penis – or a nice novel, or an otter pelt, or a gold-plated kazoo, or the Shroud of Turin – and you'd be none the wiser. And it really wouldn't make any difference, would it?

Yet those are some of the likely results if Congress passes H.R. 3017, the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which is due for a vote this week by the House Education and Labor Committee.

OK, now I see why I haven't heard about any of this: because you just made it up. It's your fevered, juvenile imagination playing the slippery slope game and trying to shock whatever remaining shut-ins and Teabaggers are still reading this rag. And while we're here, what does "so-called" mean in this context? Am I reading the so-called Washington Times? It's the name of the damn bill, not a proposed new state of matter. It's not the shadowy leader of an underground gang of supercriminals. It's not a tip on the whereabouts of Judge Crater.

ENDA purports to "prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."

Does it "purport" to prohibit those things or does it prohibit those things? I'm really enjoying this alleged column by the purported editors of the so-called Washington Times.

Clever politically correct wording aside, this is a direct attack on common sense.

I don't think you people know that adjectives have actual meanings. They are not simply things inserted in sentences to make them sound prettier. How is this "clever"? Speaking of bathrooms, I have read better things scrawled on the walls of a few in my life. Like the bar in Bloomington that briefly had "FUCK BILLY OCEAN" on its bathroom wall three-foot-high letters. That was way better than this.

On some matters, it is good to be discriminating.

Choice of newspapers? Yes, then you should be discriminating. Equal application of basic rights? Not so much.

It is right to discriminate between honesty and dishonesty, between politeness and impoliteness, between right and wrong. And it assuredly is right to be discriminating in choosing who teaches our children. ENDA would make it impossible for a non-church-based charter school, for instance, to remove from the classroom a "she-male" who insists on exposing her pupils to her unnatural transformation.

Slow down there, Professor Science! I can't keep up with these medical terms like "she-male." I thought the proper term was "Chix with Dixxx."

This is no idle threat.

No one suggested that it was! Who would take lightly the hypothetical prospect of a child at a non-church-based charter school – and who doesn't have a few of those? – whose teacher gets a sex change? That has to include, what, like 50% of America's teachers? Maybe 70% in our non-church-based charter schools.

ENDA would supersede the laws of 38 states that do not have laws treating those with an unusual "gender identity" as a legally protected "class" of citizens.

That "sounds" like the segue into an "interesting" "argument" by these "writers."

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition wrote in the April 20 edition of Roll Call

Well this seems like a good source – the kind of group that should be deciding who gets what legal protections.

about several examples of cross-dressing or sex-changing teachers who claimed protections under state disability laws (in the 12 states that do indeed protect "gender identity") and were able to remain in the classroom despite parents' protests.

Wait, you mean schools don't just bend over and do whatever hysterical and in some cases barely-literate parents demand they do? Well this whole system is just broken.

Perhaps the worst was at California's Foxboro Elementary School, where a music teacher underwent surgery to become a man, but parents originally were not even notified because administrators feared running afoul of medical privacy laws.

You mean their well-grounded fear of violating privacy laws by arbitrarily sending home a letter to let parents know that a teacher had an elective surgery? Shocking.

Even if California wants to be so foolish, the residents of the 38 states without such absurd legal strictures shouldn't be forced to do the same. States have a sovereign right to set standards governing behavioral – as opposed to immutable – personal characteristics.

Wooo! Chalk up another noble cause for the States' Rights argument.

ENDA does provide supposed exemptions for churches and church-based schools to refuse to employ sex-changers and cross-dressers. But the exemption is far less than meets the eye.

Look out, St. Michael's Summer Camp for Pale Young Boys! This means you, Camp Hope for Unwed Teenage Mothers! The trannies are a' comin'!

Even religious organizations, under the standards cited, are prohibited from making employment decisions based on the worker's sex. ENDA opponents rightly cite last year's 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals note in Prowel v. Wise Business Forms that "the line between sexual orientation discrimination and discrimination 'because of sex' can be difficult to draw."

Note that this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the previous statement about alleged holes in supposed "exemptions" for purported churches.

In short, courts easily could decide that even parochial schools must hire she-males to teach their kindergartners.

Flawless. Just flawless logic. "Here is an exemption that disproves the weak-ass point we've been making. Here is basically an unrelated case from a low-level Federal court. In conclusion, the exemption is clearly meaningless." It's like Clarence Darrow rose from the grave, which is ironic given that we are reading the modern-day William Jennings Bryan.

Similar problems abound in this bill, which treats a conscious decision to choose a new or different sexual identity as if it were an inherent, unavoidable condition. But it's not. It's actually a psychological disorder, officially listed as such by the current American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Well, gender identity disorders are listed. Sex change operations aren't, which makes sense given that they are a treatment for said disorders. If you believe something is a psychological disorder (which is debatable, but let's run with it) it wouldn't make a lot of sense to oppose someone taking steps to address it.

Our children and our co-workers should not be forced by law to be held hostage to such disorders, nor should employers be forced to have psychologically troubled persons as the public face of their businesses.

I'd actually take my chances with a trans person than one of the thousands of teachers in America – right now – who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Or one of those teachers who bang 13 year old boys. Yeah, I'd definitely go with the post-op over that.

It seems like there are two larger problems here. One, parents want the state to step in and save them from having to explain things to their children. Yes, this could be very difficult for young kids to grasp. Maybe it would be beneficial for teachers to have these procedures done over the summer or on a medical leave before starting fresh with a new class in the fall. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the underlying argument here – 6 year-olds might not be able to process this. That they should be legally protected from it because it is "wrong" or whatever is an argument undeserving of my sympathy or that of anyone else.

Second, the Moonie Times is clearly in its death throes and pursuing a fairly logical strategy in response to its desperate situation: running as far to the right as humanly possible and hoping to carve out a niche as THE newspaper for people who hand-load their own ammo and homeschool their 11 kids. There's an inherent flaw in this plan to corner the Teabagger/neo-Bircherite audience: they don't read newspapers. Not even a newspaper that spits back what they want to here in the simplest English will find enough subscribers among this demographic to remain solvent. Reverend Moon is rapidly discovering that there is a very small market for a newspaper aimed at people who reflexively hate reading.

When you want the bottom line on health care reform, to whom do you turn? If you're anything like me, you make a beeline for the website of Concerned Women for America to hear world renowned public policy expert Janice Shaw Crouse discuss…what's that? Her claim to fame is a book called The Strength of a Godly Woman and having taught a summer school course at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Dallas? I know that is supposed to make me less apt to consider her an expert on health care, but I'm an open minded person who prefers to read her ideas and let the argument speak for itself – especially when the speaker has been feted numerous times by organizations such as the Abstinence Clearinghouse and the Center for Decency. You know, someone who really knows the ins and outs of health care, Congress, and public policy in general. As usual, Intellectual Chernobyl is on the ball, bringing us "What You Get With Free Health Care." I'll tell you what you get with Janice Shaw Crouse columns – you get enough awesome to kill an adult brontosaurus. Be careful…

Most of the arguments supporting the health care reform bill just passed by the Democrats in Congress were myths. These myths were exposed as early as 2008 in a book by Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute.

Sally Pipes? THE Sally Pipes? Of THE Pacific Research Institute? Well holy shit. Let me offer a partial list of people and organizations who are more credible on health care related issues:

American Medical Association
Kaiser Family Foundation
The Brookings Institute
Catholic Charities
AARP
American Hospital Association
American Miniature Mule and Donkey Association
Cloud Appreciation Society
The starting lineup of the 1994 Hartford Whalers
The Marshall Tucker Band
That Japanese guy who eats all the hot dogs
Jim Varney
Former KC Royals slugger Steve "Bye Bye" Balboni
Shining Path
Todd Bridges
Carlos the Jackal
AeroForceOne – the Official Aerosmith Fan Club
John Hinckley
The average wino or local Council of Winos

Her funny little book skewers everything we’ve heard via the ObamaCare demagoguery. Others, since then, have been equally devastating to the arguments used to ram through ObamaCare.

"I'd cite some examples or perhaps offer links, but I am intellectually dishonest and not sure how to hyperlink something."

In fact, the so-called miracles sold by today’s health care hucksters are about as real as those sold by the shysters of old.

And who doesn't remember the shysters of old? I sure do. There was Hymie, Knuckles, Snacks O'Brady, Toothpick, Frankie the Wop, Legs, Reacharound… Man, those were shysters. That was back when shystering meant something. Today with free agency and the YouTubes, kids just get into shystering for the money and exposure. Pickles McGillicuddy is rolling over in his pressed-board coffin. He was a gamer. He knew what it meant to shyster.

However, most Americans see through the political spin, and they are not buying the snake oil. Vision is much clearer outside the Beltway.

Outside the Beltway? Why, that's where Real Americans live!

Further, as John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” This week, four different polls (Quinnnipiac, Bloomberg, CNN and CBS) show the same result: less than 40 percent of Americans approve of the health care bill that the President just signed.

Hmm. Might want to update that, shooter.

Numerous states are concerned about the way ObamaCare infringes on individual rights.

Yeah, those lawsuits are definitely going to work. I hear the Montana Freemen also have grave concerns about their individual rights being curtailed. If someone expresses an opinion, it automatically becomes valid.

In addition, there are significant constitutional questions about requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Many state attorneys general are noting that ObamaCare is the first time Americans would be forced to buy a good or service.

Wait, the title of the piece includes the phrase "Free Health Care." Did you write that before or after you started complaining about how everyone has to buy it? Also, there is little precedent for Congressional authority to make these kinds of individual economic decisions. Medicare, Social Security, taxes, etc…all voluntary.

All of that didn’t matter to those determined to see their utopian ideology enacted into legislation. Congressional Democrats, disregarding the will of the people and dressing their action in high-sounding rhetoric, rammed through Congress their unpopular and disastrous plan for “transforming” America into a Cuban, British, Canadian or French image.

Ooh! I know this one! "What are four countries with a higher life expectancy than the United States, Alex?"

One of the prime arguments used to sell ObamaCare was that it would reverse the financial crisis and save the country a gazillion dollars — with benefits beginning in its first year. Sadly, somebody’s arm got twisted to produce Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures — nicely timed for the House vote — to supposedly back up the Democrats’ arguments.

This stands in stark contrast to their earlier estimates of the cost of the Iraq War and the economic growth that would follow the Bush tax cuts. Jesus Christ were those accurate. So accurate that they are currently being used to calibrate the Large Hadron Collider.

Nobody seemed to understand that the CBO figures were just estimates.

Wait, you mean they can't see ten years into the future? My faith in the prescience of the Congressional Budget Office is forever damaged.

They add, “Given the central role of medical technology in cost growth, reducing or slowing spending over the long term would probably require decreasing the pace of adopting new treatments and procedures or limiting the breadth of their application.” How’s that for dispelling the claims that quality will remain high, rationing won’t happen, and technology will continue to expand while costs go down?

Well, it doesn't have anything to do with the first two red herrings. As for the third, I'm not sure if there's any fat that can be cut from the current research & development landscape. I mean, with the continuous need for newer and better big dick pills, hair growth treatments, varicose vein removal techniques, and drugs to treat the scourge of insufficient eyelashes, innovation can barely keep up with our problems as is.

(boring, repetitive paragraph excised for space)

Everybody wants affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care; there are proposals on the table for changes that would make significant improvements in those aspects of U.S. health care.

Oh man. This is going to be awesome. I wonder what such proposals would entail? Single payer? Tighter regulations?

Those proposals would unleash free market competition, improve quality, and lower costs for health care in the same way that it has done for other national industries and businesses.

Deregulation improves all industries, like airlines, banks, cable television…the prices went down, and holy balls did the quality improve!

A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that American health care is very efficient, with only six percent of the premiums going to administrative costs and fully 86 percent covering the actual costs of care.

Wow! A full 86% of our premiums go to the bloated costs of care. At least among people who have insurance. But the system is still pretty damn efficient for the rest of us. There is no doubt that the health care industry is extremely efficient in processing the uninsured.

But cost control is not the purpose of ObamaCare.

What was your first clue? Mine was when they said that the purpose was to insure everyone, with the cost reductions purely secondary.

ObamaCare is all about redistributing wealth and putting a vast segment of the economy under bureaucratic control.

Some estimates of health care spending run as high as 20 percent of the U.S. economy by 2016.

Well if someone made these estimates, surely they're credible! I estimate that health care spending will be -5% of the economy by 2016. I estimate that Janice Shaw Crouse's body is 46% partially hydrogenated corn oil. I estimate that 12% of the people who started reading her column attempted suicide before reaching the end.

Under ObamaCare, Uncle Sam becomes Santa Claus. But sooner or later, the bills come in and all those “gifts” turn out to be pretty expensive after all.

Wow, that's some metaphor you've got there. When Barack Obama becomes the Chupacabra, those goats aren't going to look so happy after all!

Right now, the U.S. has the “world’s best cancer survival rates” — Sally Pipes reported

Michael Richards
Omar Bongo
Norman Schwarzkopf
Afroman
The surviving members of the Warren Commission
The Harlem Globetrotters
Falco
Dog the Bounty Hunter
Captain Phil Harris (R.I.P.)
Art Bell
Bizarre from D-12
Alger Hiss
The Kraken
Ron Popeil
The original cast of Small Wonder

that Americans “have a better survival rate for 13 of the 16 most common cancers” — a fact most appreciated by those victims and their families who benefit from the expensive drugs that result from years-long research and clinical trials.

Since there's clearly no way for drug companies to make money under the new system I guess they'll stop doing clinical trials. But cancer survival rates are nice. How about we compare those to rates of developing cancer in the first goddamn place. Uh oh. America's health care system ain't quite #1 there.

Most Americans are personally satisfied with their own private health insurance coverage

Yes, most Americans who have private health insurance coverage are "personally satisfied" with it relative to the alternative of not having health insurance. Brilliant. Tell us more, Professor Kickass.

and appreciate the medical advances that save lives and provide miracle cures.

Is this based on any kind of data or is JSC just making things up here? This does not look like any poll question I've ever seen. "Do you appreciate medical advances that save lives?" "Do you support miracle cures?" "Do you like happiness?"

Others, too, depend upon American health care. Tens of thousands of foreigners come to the United States for treatments not available or rationed in their home countries.

Take that, Burkina Faso! In your face, Guatemala! Suck on this, Vietnam! Our health care system is better than yours! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Most Americans are also aware and appreciate the fact that government-funded programs already provide for those Americans who are truly poor.

Uh…

Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment to those without insurance.

Yes, this is a good example of a government-funded program to provide for the truly poor. Except they receive an enormous bill and collection agencies will hound them until they die in an effort to liquidate their assets to settle the debt. And it's not like the rest of us pay for every service rendered to an uninsured person. No, that money comes from Santa.

Medicare, Medicaid, and other special programs for children, veterans, and specific population groups provide care for those with special needs.

"These things that conservatives have spent decades trying to dismantle do much to provide for the young, the old, and the indigent. But now we are huge proponents of these things that we suddenly realize are quite popular. Yes, Mitch McConnell tried several times to pass the Fuck All the Old People, Kids, and Indigent bill. We regret that unfortunate incident and look forward to many years of scaring old people about Democrats taking away their Medicare."

Nobody claims that these government-run programs provide the quality of care that those with private insurance enjoy. In fact, the false promise of something for nothing — the utopian scheme of everybody having top-quality health care coverage and it not costing anybody any more than they are currently paying — is the biggest myth of all.

I'm confused. Are we all being Forced to buy insurance or is health care now free? JSC is recklessly flopping back and forth between the two. It is as though the area between these two very different concepts is lined with a dessert buffet.

Sally Pipes quoted P.J. O’Rourke, “If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it’s free.”

Wow, three Sally Pipes references in one column. This brings the total number of references in print to Sally Pipes and her think-tank that she runs out of the utility closet of a Sizzler in Barstow, CA to…three. But we all learned a valuable lesson here: the government is wrong to force you to buy something, because once everyone is forced to buy something then it will be free. And then we're really fucked.

Well said, Janice. Well said.

Intellectual Chernobyl represents the full spectrum of right-wing crazy: the vacuous stupidity of Marybeth Hicks or Jackie Gingrich; the blood-curdling rage of fat white guys like Doug Giles and John Hawkins; the insane, untethered "I smear shit all over myself and why do the editors keep taking 'spick' and 'towelhead' out of my columns?" ranting of Michelle Malkin and Star Parker; the fake non-partisanship of John Stossel and Michael Medved; and the grandfatherly crankiness of Dennis Prager. That DP comes off as one of the more reasonable voices on IC is less a compliment than an indictment of his surroundings. But it's true. He's a hybrid of Andy Rooney and Morty Seinfeld, as likely to complain about Congress as to complain about how the kids listen to their damn boom-boom music instead of Chopin. DP was in pure Andy Rooney form when watching Super Bowl commercials this year, apparently, and a cranky old man does not need to try very hard to find something to bitch about during that extravaganza of offensive masquerading as clever. That's how we end up with "The Doritos Ad was Not Funny", which also happens to bear the most abstract title for a creative work since Snakes on a Plane. I hope you're ready for 1000 words of recollections about The Good Ol' Days and the occasional anecdote about Paul Harvey, because here we go.

By far, the most popular ad shown during the latest Super Bowl was the Doritos "House Rules" ad. Tens of millions of Americans saw it as hilarious.

Is there some evidence for this? It is not only the most popular but "by far." Something tells me this is based on a double-blind survey of Dennis Prager's wife – who I am forced to assume is named Lorraine – and his collection of ointments from the 1950s. The ad was pretty popular, but why leave it at that when you can make shit up?

That is unfortunate. Anyone aware of the manifold social pathologies the ad depicted did not find much to laugh about. Here is the ad:

I will note two things. First, I actually agree with DP. The ad was insulting. Second, when he says "Here is the ad" there is no link to the ad. I am not sure he understands YouTube. I am not even sure he has a solid handle on VHS or microfiche yet. But here is the ad.

A man knocks on a door. A pretty woman answers it. He hands her flowers and she thanks him. He has presumably come to take her out on a date. She introduces her young son to the man and excuses herself. She walks back to her room. The camera focuses on her shapely legs, quite visible given that she is wearing a miniskirt. The man stares, indeed leers, at her legs and makes a facial gesture suggesting, shall we say, sexual interest. The boy, who appears to be about 5 years old, sees this and drops his toy. The man sits on the couch and helps himself to a Dorito. The boy walks up to the man, smacks him hard across the face and says, "Keep your hands off my mama. Keep your hands off my Doritos."

Is is nice of DP to summarize this for his aged audience. But it certainly could be called offensive, what with the Diff'rent Strokes-style negro slang dialect, single mother who appears to be about 14, and leering rapist-to-be male.

Here are the major elements of dysfunction this ad depicts.

Good. Here we go.

First, a child smacking an adult across the face is not funny.

What the fuck.

Seriously? Is this, like, a problem? This is an issue? An epidemic of child-on-adult slappage is America's most pressing social problem. It narrowly edges out our 15% unemployment rate and the alarming shortage of Barnaby Jones re-runs in Dennis Prager's mind.

It is, in fact, one of the last things society should tolerate.

THE LAST 5 THINGS SOCIETY SHOULD TOLERATE, by Dennis Prager

5. Man-on-dog
4. Sass, backtalk, and/or guff
3. Murder
2. Females appearing unveiled in public without a male chaperone
1. Children slapping adults

I will deal with the widespread defense of the child's action — "he was only protecting his mother" — later. In real life, a child who hits an adult needs to be disciplined.

O…K. I am very hesitant to agree, but…I agree.

If a child did that to me, I would grab his offending arm and apply enough force to make it clear that he will never do that again.

Well, we were just barreling down Cranky Boulevard and we took a sudden right on Creepy. What does "apply force" mean? Are you cranking his arm behind his back cop-style? Squeezing it until something comes out the end like a tube of Crest?

After I mentioned this on my radio show, some psychotherapists sent me e-mails disagreeing with these views. They noted, for example, that "violence breeds violence."

I bet DP knows better than those fancy-pants with their degrees and books and infrequent application of force to young arms.

Some cliches are true; I find this one meaningless. The truth is the opposite: Immoral violence breeds violence; moral violence (such as just wars, police work and appropriate parental discipline) reduces violence.

Like that just war in Iraq! That reduced the ever-living shit out of violence in Baghdad. Police use of force also has a lengthy track record of reducing violence, as evidenced by our increasing incidence of the former and plummeting rate of the latter.

So to summarize: you should use force against kids because it will work out as well as law enforcement and the Iraq War.

I am well aware that vast numbers of Americans (and Europeans) believe that engaging in any physical discipline of a child is wrong. I, too, held this belief for most of my life, and I never hit or spanked either of my sons.

The remainder of this column is dedicated to making you very, very skeptical of this claim. Or imagining what kind of tortuous, proprietary definition of "violence" he concocts to exclude the heavy sack beatings to which he routinely subjected his children. I bet his kids are real well-balanced.

I have changed my mind because of all the fine people who have called my show or written to me about how they were spanked and now believe that they are better adults because of it.

OK. Not only is this completely retarded and piss-poor evidence under the best of circumstances, DP's argument is "I believed something until lots of people told me not to so I changed my mind."

It is a given that I do not defend physical — or any other form of — abuse against a child. Of all the world's evils, child abuse may rank as the greatest. But a properly administered spanking is not abuse.

Dennis, this is far, far from a given. And you are about to prove it.

The New York Times recently published an article titled "For Some Parents, Shouting Is the New Spanking," in which it noted that many parents now regularly scream at their children in part because they cannot spank them. I am not at all certain that being screamed at by a parent is an improvement over spanking.

And scientists at the University of Logic have determined that being neither screamed at nor spanked is an improvement over either.

The Doritos kid deserved a physical response from this man — as in pressure on the offending arm.

Still don't know what this means, still kinda creeped out by it.

With regard to the argument that this man was not the boy's parent — and the terrible fact that there is far too much hitting and abuse of children by stepfathers and boyfriends — I do not believe that only parents may physically respond to a child.

Awesome. I mean, I don't see how this could go wrong. Let's give anyone who can legally buy cigarettes carte blanche to "apply force" to children and I'm sure that everything will work out great. Reeeeeeal great.

Teachers, for example, should be permitted to do so

SWEET! This was done when the Baby Boomers were in school and look at how completely not emotionally screwed up or violent they turned out!

I was physically dealt with by a number of teachers, and in every case, I deserved it.

Saying "I deserved it" is the most convincing possible evidence that someone is not abused. Let's see if that holds up in court. Or, you know, reality.

I also did so as a camp counselor — to great effect.

*falls off chair*

*rubs eyes*

Um…

Anybody? Anybody mildly troubled yet? Or does sending Billy and Suzie off to Lake Winnepasaki for 12 weeks of campfires, wallet-making, and Dennis Prager's "Great Effect" sound like a good idea? Something tells me this also involved the application of a lot of pressure.

And so should the man whom the child in the ad smacked. In an ideal world, all adults raise all children in some way.

Hit back. That is a fantastic life lesson. Hit back or you are failing the children.

(The remainder of the column covers the racist stereotypes, which I both agree with and am mildly surprised that DP would catch. Although he probably threw it in to deflect criticism from his remarkable creepiness.)

So, to summarize: children slapping adults is an problem of pandemic proportions. Any and every adult is deputized to apply some kind of physical retribution to children. There is no risk that adults will start to lose whatever inhibitions they may have against hitting kids. Dennis Prager did not hit his kids, as he told us to make us think he is father of the century, but he slapped around, "applied force" to, and, who are we kidding, probably sodomized a bunch of summer campers.

I'm glad we had this talk. Stop waving that rake at the kids on your lawn, Dennis. Wouldn't it be better to apply a different and perhaps more emphatic punishment?

Most of the "columnists" featured at Intellectual Chernobyl are in fact syndicated, and in that sense the website is nothing more than a crap aggregator. You can get Michelle Malkin's boilerplate from dozens of identically bad websites, for example. But not Jillian Bandes. Jillian Bandes is TownHall's own. They sign her paychecks. Her job – as if I need to point this out – is to churn out some seriously top-shelf product that a hungry public can find nowhere else. She showcased her powerful prescience this weekend with "Palin Stays One Step Ahead of the Political Class." If you think it's about Palin's move to Fox News, you're wrong. It's actually about how Sarah Palin is about to announce her candidacy for 2012, and the column ran the day Palin announced that she would chase the money like the tacky hillbilly she is. Let's just call her Jillian Kreskin from now on. Was she just trying to will Palin into running, thus fulfilling all of Jillian Bandes' 3 AM fantasies, or did she consciously set out to write a column that we'd enjoy reading approximately as much as an open book pelvis fracture? I'll let you be the judge.

One of the biggest questions for conservatives right now is whether Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012.

Perhaps the lack of anything better to talk about is a bad sign. Or perhaps – try to stay with me here – nobody really gives a shit what a semi-literate hack who governed Alaska for almost two whole years is going to do. My guesses would have been "Launch talk show", "Enter competitive eating contest", or "Join cast of Hee-Haw." But I don't care enough to guess.

Recent moves by Palin suggest that she will.

Way to read the signs, J-Band!

Palin just announced that she would speak at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in April – the second-most important GOP political gathering behind the Republican National Convention.

Is there a list somewhere? This is highly subjective. I always thought it went Republican National Convention, the Brickyard 400, WWE Summerslam, the Tarrant County Fair, John Kyl's Super Bowl barbecue, Focus on the Family's annual badminton tournament, and then the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.

While it’s not guaranteed that an appearance at the event means an individual will enter the GOP primary, it’s virtually impossible to enter the primary without having appeared.

Well that's solid logic. I'd say she's a virtual lock to run based on her appearance at this conference alongside fellow future Presidential candidates Sonny Perdue, Bobby Jindal, and Rush Limbaugh (health and the availability of sufficient fudge permitting).

“Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's decision to attend — and speak at — the SLRC… transforms that event into the first legitimate cattle-call of the 2012 Republican presidential sweepstakes,” wrote Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post.

So the event wasn't a big deal until Palin got there, but it sure is a big deal that she is attending. Palin + Event = Important Event Attended by Important People.

Palin’s SLRC speech will happen right after a keynote address at the National Tea Party Convention, which has a goal of consolidating the movement’s “multiple organizations.”

Well, that only reinforces the fact that she's making the rounds at top-flight events befitting a presidential candidate. Speaking before throngs of teabaggers reeking of Funyons and sadness is an honor bestowed upon only an elite few. John Ratzenberger. World Nut Daily founder Joe Farah. Dick Armey.

Matthew Continetti, author of The Persecution of Sarah Palin, says that the dual appearances are good news on the heels of Palin’s abrupt exit from the Alaska governorship, and that they could indicate 2012 Presidential aspirations. "Palin began her rehabilitation with her book launch and media tour. Now, with the SRLC appearance, she’s continuing to lay the groundwork for a presidential run," he said.

Read that again.

I think we've heard the objective opinion of an unbiased source of Sarah Palin information. In other news, Matthew Continetti reports that Sarah Palin smells like cupcakes and the recent incident in which she murdered a vagrant with her bare hands just to watch him die is "really good news for the former Governor."

"I happen to think her more important appearance will be at the national Tea Party convention next month – Palin, unlike many prominent Republicans, understands the GOP must capture the Tea Party message, enthusiasm, and supporters if it wants to return to power."

Still quoting the same d-bag, for the record. Maybe it's because he's smart enough to realize that headlining a teabagging convention is a rocket ship straight to the top of the political world.

Continetti's assessment is right in line with a National Journal poll last month, which put Palin dead last as the "GOP political insider" choice for the Republican nomination – that’s coming from party leaders, political professionals and pundits. Ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was their pick.

"In this stupid poll of people who know their asses from a hole in the ground, we see that Republicans who are interested in actually winning an election ranked Queen Sarah dead last. Such is the folly of man. And God wept."

But Palin’s tea party appeal can’t be denied among the GOP rank-and-file.

Oh, sure it can. Just watch.

Fifty-seven percent of Republicans and forty-one percent of all voters currently see Palin as “representative of a new direction for the Republican Party,” and many put her approval ratings on par with Obama’s. Palin does well in indicators of “shared values” and “trustworthiness” among all voters.

Wow, slightly more than half of the minority party! Sounds like general election dynamite to me.

Combine those favorability ratings with her record-breaking book tour,

Which records did her book tour break? Are there even records for book tours? Other than the record for "Most Appearances at the Sam's Club in Fayetteville, Arkansas on a Book Tour from a Major Publishing House" I'm not aware of any independently verified records being set.

and hopes are pie-in-the-ski

Ah, the ol' pie-in-the-ski routine. Oliver Hardy, correct?

for her nomination as the GOP presidential candidate.

Among Jillian Bandes and Palin's apologist/biographers, hopes are high. Ski high.

Her autobiography Going Rogue has sold over a million copies, with record turnout at her book tour events.

You know what else sold a million copies? Twilight. As soon as those fuckers turn 35 we are totally drafting them into running for president.

"This book tour has been an amazing and inspirational experience for me and my family as we crisscrossed the country and met so many wonderful Americans," said Palin, via her Facebook page.

This is it. This is the end of the column. And then Sarah Palin gave up on politics and chased a paycheck. Unless Fox News is the springboard to the presidency, which history doesn't quite support. In a sense we should take it easy on Jillian since she is a victim of unfortunate timing – had she written this three weeks ago we'd hardly have noticed – but on the other hand her complete inability to read Sarah Palin makes her a fair target. The rest of us can smell a small mind from a mile away. Palin's just a rube easily dazzled by dollar signs and the prospect of endless shoe shopping sprees. Politics was never more than a get-rich-quick scheme for her, and it worked. Everyone got what they wanted, excepting of course the cadre of loyal fanatics like Jillian. Like a teenager coming to grips with the fact that his favorite band would sell out in a minute to get on MTV, there will be a few tears shed as the Palinites recognize that their princess was only in it for Rupert Murdoch's money.

The world headquarters of TownHall.com, pictured here, is like Mecca for dipshits. They pray toward it five times daily. And every day their faith is rewarded.

Since it's apparently 2001 and Tom DeLay is still relevant, it's time to debate the estate tax again! Wooooo! Since its big guns are all far, far too busy writing about Islamistical Muslimist Terrorists shooting up military bases and being found innocent in liberal New York courtrooms (seriously, there are like 25 columns about it), TownHall had to hand this important task to some bag of fluid in a cheap suit named Ed Feulner. Ed is up to the challenge though, serving up a steaming cauldron of persuasion called "Time to Bury the 'Death Tax'". See what he did there? Bury the death tax? Oh, you'd best call the babysitter, dear readers, because wordplay like presages something so awesome that a responsible adult could not allow children to see it. Let's roll.

Kevin Hancock simply wants to harvest trees — sustainably — and create jobs in the process. The federal government may put a stop to all that.

That's why I'm calling my Congressman – and I recommend you do the same – and telling him "Vote NO! on the Stop Kevin Hancock from Harvesting Trees and Omnibus Defense Spending Reconciliation Bill!" NO on H.R. 312, YES on Kevin Hancock harvesting trees.

His business, Hancock Lumber, has been in the family for six generations. It owns 30,000 acres of Maine timberland and employs 550 people. But Kevin already knows that when his elderly mother dies, he’ll have to sell off huge swaths of his land to pay the ensuing tax bill.

Wow, his company is that big and they don't have any other source of revenue? Given that…hmm…the tax only applies to estates worth more than $3 million, there should be some cash available. Nah.

It’s an example of the long reach of the death tax

Estate tax. Understandable typo.

the penalty families have to pay when a loved one dies and leaves them significant assets.

Right. The "penalty" that a fraction of a percent of households have to pay when Dad tries to will the kids his $3 million-plus estate, thus essentially giving each of them a couple million dollars in income – unearned income, like winning the Lotto -for that tax year.

Yet, for Hancock and many others, some relief may be in sight. In 2001, lawmakers passed a law that gradually phased out the levy, which has destroyed countless family-owned businesses over the years.

So many that Ed Feulner couldn't possibly take the time to mention an example here. Businesses destroyed by the estate tax, like examples of voter fraud, are so pervasive that it's not possible to identify any specific cases.

The death tax has been stepped down from 55 percent (for those in the top tax bracket) 8 years ago to 45 percent. But that gradual decline was just a prelude for 2010, when the tax will — finally — disappear all together.

The top bracket is for estates worth more than $10 million. Thank god it's expiring next year, one of the hidden "Surprise! Fuck you!" landmines left behind by the Bush administration. Oddly he didn't believe strongly enough in repealing the tax to take the revenue hit on his own watch.

Unfortunately, like the killer in so many slasher movies, the death tax could return to menace family businesses again in 2011. Unless Congress acts, it’s scheduled to return to the obscene 55 percent rate after next year, thus reawakening the nightmare of the American Dream.

Slow down with the pop culture references, Mr. Radical!

Lawmakers are poised to take action soon. But Americans should insist they take the right action. For example, earlier this year the Senate passed a non-binding amendment that would set the death tax at 35 percent starting next year. That’s quite a jump from zero percent, and would be a big step in the wrong direction.

A non-binding amendment? Wow. It's almost like we're dead broke and the Senate is looking at every source of revenue carefully, understanding that we have to make choices that may be unpleasant or involve sacrifices.

The sensible thing would be for lawmakers to leave the current policy in place and allow the death tax to go away completely. With the Senate already facing titanic struggles over health care, global warming and federal spending this year, there’s no point in attempting to upend a policy that’s already set in law.

I just called one of my friends at the University of Arguments and he said this is, without a doubt, the lamest argument in the history of arguments. The law's on the books, so we might as well leave it – so much easier than changing it. Is the Senate composed of 19 year old stoners who can't be bothered to get up for Funyuns and will stare at a 12 hour Dirty Jobs marathon because it's so much easier than finding the remote?

Besides, Americans deserve to see how much better things would be without the death tax, especially since repealing it might help our country — finally — pull out of recession.

See, Ed's really looking out for the little guy here. For you. This isn't about preserving the wealth of the top tenth of one percent of the population. It's about letting you see how much better the world will be when phenomenally wealthy people get to hold on to just a little bit more of the money they earned, especially since they've been earning so much more once they moved your job to Indonesia.

The death tax is a job killer. Heritage Foundation economists found that the…

Yes, let's ask non-partisan experts at the Heritage Foundation! I wonder if they will reach the only conclusion they've ever reached about anything ever. In other news, the National Association of Corn Processors have conducted a study on the deliciousness of corn syrup and discovered that corn syrup is a nutritious, delicious, and essential part of a daily diet without which you will develop AIDS.

By the way, remember the Heritage reference. I have a surprise for you at the end.

found that the federal levy leads to the loss of between 170,000 and 250,000 potential jobs each year. (It’s impossible to be more specific, simply because those jobs were never created in the first place. We certainly could use them now).

"It's really hard to be specific when you're basically bending forward and pulling statistics out of your ass."

How does it kill jobs?

30% are killed in the initial blast; essentially any job within 1000m of the tax is instantly vaporized. Medium-term effects like shortwave ionizing radiation kill another 30 to 40 percent of the jobs, while the final third die an excruciating death over a period of several weeks as radioactive Estate Tax Fallout enters their respiratory systems.

Partly because it encourages wealthy Americans to spend their money today rather than invest it in growing a business.

Spending money does not help the economy. Or create "demand" for "products and services." None of which has ever created a "job."

After all, we’re all going to die.

Hey, this guy's right! We are going to die. That's why I don't waste the precious time I have on this planet worrying about what the Waltons will have to cough up when they die and leave a quarter of a billion dollars to their kids. I'm glad we had this talk.

What’s the point of building a bigger nest egg if Washington is just going to take a third of it, a half of it, or even more?

There is no point to acquiring a couple million dollars if any of it is taxed. No incentive. None. You'd be an idiot to do it.

Because the estate tax discourages investment, it also holds down wage growth. Since businesses have less funding, they’re less able to purchase new tools and equipment. So workers are less productive and suffer slower wage and salary growth.

This paragraph was plagiarized from a high school macroeconomics textbook from 1958. This is really very simple, kids. If Mr. Spacely has to pay an estate tax to will the widget factory to his son, then they can't invest in new assembly line machines to help you make more widgets. Ultimately this will cause him to open a widget factory in Guadalajara. Are you still with me? This is all very simple: do what the plutocrats say or they'll destroy you to preserve their obscene wealth.

The death tax also hammers some Americans more than others

Yes, it hammers those affected by the "death" tax – people with assets worth more than $3 million – and hammers the rest of us not one goddamn bit. Quite a hammering disparity.

since it especially targets landowners.

Isn't about time someone looked out for their interests?

Millions of farmers, ranchers and homeowners have, like the Hancock family, improved their land. Yet when they die, the federal government punishes their heirs.

It "punishes" them for being handed millions in assets they did nothing to earn except be born. I don't know how I sleep in a world with that kind of cruelty.

Death and taxes, they say, are both inevitable. But it’s not inevitable that one must lead to the other.

This is its own paragraph, denoting how proud Ed was of his clever allusion to the death theme.

Americans are set to get a glimpse of life without the death tax next year. After that, Lawmakers should act to make sure this levy goes away. Completely and forever.

Get mad, people. Then get involved. That exemption of the first $3 million in inherited property followed by a progressive tax that tops out around 50% for estates worth $10,000,000 or more may not seem like it's going to ruin your life, but that's beyond naive. Go ahead thinking that it's not going to hurt you. Let your guard down and then before you know it, the estate tax is taking your house, making you fat, and probably trying to have its way with your daughter.

By the way, might it have been worthwhile for Ed Feulner to point out that he's the President of the Heritage Foundation when appealing to their expert judgment in the column? Apparently Ed was too busy calculating the value of the estate Mom and Pop – who owned a North Shore real estate empire in Chicago – were going to leave him to pay any attention in those college ethics classes.

It starts innocently enough. Wingnut columnist living in his mother's basement and cranks out column entitled "Right Wing Women Rock," which we assume is a paean to Awesome, Strong Conservative Princesses like, I don't know, Sarah Palin. Ann Coulter. Etc. You know the drill. This column practically writes itself. But Ian Robinson wrote it anyway.

Could be our slogan: Come for the culture war … stay for the chicks. Right-wing women rock.

That is the worst slogan I have ever seen, including Taco Bell's infamous "Taco Bell: It'll Make You Shit!^tm" ad campaign.

Not for us the sturdy, honest calves of the New Democrat/Green Party female, honed on eco-tourist rainforest hikes. Those legs are often on unfortunate display, extending from a knee-length tweed skirt as hairy as the legs themselves, and end in a pair of Birkenstocks.

Ah, so this isn't about "right wing women" rocking so much as it is an excuse to trot out the tired stereotypes of hairy, acid-dropping left wing floozies. Great.

I have yet to see a pair of Birkenstock women's shoes that didn't look like part of the required uniform for police SWAT teams. Sensible shoes are one thing … quite another to don a pair that look like they're meant for rappelling down the sides of buildings with a Heckler & Koch sniper rifle slung over your shoulder.

Now it's about shoes. I'm fucking confused.

The primary reason our womenfolk are at war with the looming spectre of the nanny state is because you can't buy Jimmy Choos in a socialist paradise. The only sensible footwear you'll find in a right-wing woman's closet are the Nike cross-trainers that go with her gym membership. Everything else has a three-inch heel. Minimum.

It could not be more painfully obvious that Ian Robinson has never spoken to an actual woman without first giving his credit card number, and thus he is basing this entirely on what he imagines a real live woman would be like as he gazes at his Megan McArdle 8×10 and furiously touches himself.

Left-wing drabs recycle. Right-wing women shop — and the government measures how much they shop every month to find out whether we're still in a recession. Basically, the world economy depends on right-wing women buying shoes.

OK. Is this a joke?

You never hear a right-wing woman break out statistics pointing out that only 25% of elected offices in Canada are held by women, and then whining about it.

This may be a cultural difference, because America's "right wing women" have created a very profitable industry based on whining!

No. A right-wing woman wants to get elected, she runs for office. If she wins, great. If she loses … well, there's always more shoe shopping.

No, seriously, is this a fucking joke?

A right-wing woman hits the gym, swings past Sobey's and has dinner on the table by the time you get home … while her left-wing counterpart is still stuck in traffic listening to Sarah McLachlan on her iPod and feeling morally superior about her carrot choices. And when that plate of food is put in front of you by the right-wing hottie you had the good sense to marry, it will be 100% tofu-free. If you're lucky, she just remembered to buy steak and forgot about the carrot entirely.

We are so far into Ian Robinson's lonely night jerk-off fantasies I feel like this should be accessible only to people over 18. Seriously, if you listen very carefully you can actually hear him pounding away on his sad little crank.

Right-wing women have traditional families, so they want to raise them themselves … or at the very least by a nanny they've vetted, rather than abdicating that responsibility to the state. They know that the good life costs money … so they're not sure why the average Canadian is handing — on average! — half their income to smarmy government apparatchiks who spend it mostly on stupid crap.

Haw haw! The gub'mint is stupid! If only we let Ian Robinson's dominatrix fantasy idealized woman run the country! She'd balance the budget and have a steaming hot dinner on the table by 6:00!

Because most of them have careers and work hard, they understand the value of a dollar, allowing you a steak lifestyle on a hamburger income … and they know they can spend their family's money more intelligently than some faceless bureaucrat with a passion for public art or totalitarian city planning.

So what exactly do men do in this world, Ian, other than (presumably) work a little and get like nine BJs per day from their Cato Institute Goddess-Wife?

If they can tell their kid he can't have the newest Xbox upgrade and make it stick … if they can make a husband understand it makes more sense to put money in an RRSP than going to the Super Bowl with the guys every year … if they can pull all that off, then fixing health care shouldn't be too big a stretch.

See? Forget elections, let's just ask mommies.

Well, not all women who have children and families. Just the ones who read, obey, and slavishly adhere to the stereotypes of white male conservative columnists. The good thing, though, is that I don't see this column getting any worse.

And in case you're not convinced, to indicate the utter superiority of the right-wing woman over the left-wing variant … just turn on The View. The left has Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg. We've got Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

Checkmate.

For fuck's sake.

This is wrong on so many levels I know not where to begin. Let's start by stooping to Ian's level. Not that it's even remotely relevant to anything, but Elisabeth Hasselbeck looks like an old catcher's mitt. If you're going to make the idiotic argument that her appearance is somehow relevant – to anything – at least pick someone whose leathery face doesn't bear the scars of a thousand cosmetic surgeries (which I guess all women will be getting to please men in IanWorld!). Second, of what relevance is the comparison of a 30 year old to two 60 year olds on the same show? I mean, if we reeeeally thought about it we could probably find a few examples of liberal celebrities who are just a bit more attractive than any of Fox's puppet/newscaster/martial aid drones – not to mention an aged Whoopi Goldberg. Third, let's summarize Ian Robinson's argument on the superiority of Right Wing Women:

1. They are infinitely more attractive than Ian Robinson's comically stupid and fratboy-like mental image of a "left wing woman," who can barely be tolerated what with all the leg hair, the foul odor, and the inane prattling about carrots.

2. They have more shoes and they are all uncomfortable heels, ergo they are better at…something.

3. Ian Robinson has never met a woman. His employer apparently thinks it is appropriate in light of this fact to allow him to vent his rage at all the "left wing women" who rejected his crude, sexist come-ons over the past few decades.

4. They are frugal to accommodate their prodigious shoe shopping and steak-dinner-providing, thus they should be asked to solve all of the country's problems.

5. Elisabeth Hasselbeck is hotter than 60 year old Whoopi Goldberg, hence Ian rests the living shit out of his case.

Well, makes sense to me! Can I be a Professional Newspaper Writer too?

(pre-posted at the Putz)