Crap Throwing Monkey

Like I said...!@#$ing retard.

What !@#$ing retard owns 30+ hamsters as pets???

FoxSnooze was all over this story during lunch like stink on a skunk. Asking penetrating questions like "Don't the Amish need better security at their schools?" (yeah, I'm sure they're going to run out and install metal detectors and security guards at each and every of their one-room schoolhouses now) and "What did the Amish think of how they were portrayed in the movie "Witness"?" (uhhh...the Amish don't go to movies) and "Is this a copycat crime inspired by our coverage of the Colorado shooting?" (nor do they watch TV, idiot). The best, though, had to be "As you can see, it's a lovely, beautiful day out for a shooting..."

Online poker. Mark Foley. Gary Condit. Keep online gaming. Ban !@#$ing Congress.

So far, most of his stats are in the lower half or lower third of the league. But then, that includes sacks, interceptions, and fumbles. So while he's not having spectacular days chucking the ball, he is protecting the ball better than half the league. And I can live with that; it works for Roethlesberger and the Steelers.

Most of his yards were after the catch, though...really, he didn't look any better than he did at Miami...

Wasn't "kzoomike" once synonymous with "ignorant" here? Personally...I don't think the Bills have a snowball's chance in hell against the Bears in Chicago. The Bills are average this season (which is a big step up from the previous five...but still...) Chicago's freakin' scary...they have that "Yeah, we're going to the Superbowl, try and stop us bitches" look that the Bills had in '90, the 'Skins in 91, Dallas in '92...

But he will practice Thursday.

If I call you an idiot, will you move the post to the consumer forum and delete it?

TV has more liberals than conservatives, I think. It's less uneven since FoxSnooze started, but it's still uneven. But my point still stands: liberal outlets will reinforce their unintentional liberal bias by preferentially hiring liberals. Conservative outlets will do the same with conservatives (you'll never see an honest liberal counterpoint on Fox. Never.) When everyone has the same inherent bias, it's extraordinarily easy to say "There's no bias...everyone I know thinks just the same as me." Which is how you get editorial bull sh-- like the NYT or FoxSnooze. So the media has the same failings as "human nature"...but you trust the media more than you would most people? News flash: most people couldn't get their facts of yesterday's breakfast correct, never mind the intricacies of the administration's North Korea and Iran WMD policies. No, typically they sensationalize. Tomorrow's the Monday after a relatively slow news weekend; I guarantee that tomorrow's NYT will have some sensationalized (defined as: a soft news intended less to inform than to inflame) story on the front page (probably centered on the page, but below the fold. Even odds the front page picture accompanies the story). I'd put money on it if the wife would let me. But that's exactly what I'm talking about!!! The soldiers in question were from transport companies, driving unarmored vehicles not meant for combat. It's not a deficiency in equipment when unarmored vehicles don't have armor. The story - which was the precise one I was thinking about when I mentioned the "issue" - is written to mislead the reader into thinking something that's patently incorrect by omitting necessary information: namely, that unarmored vehicles are, in fact, unarmored by definition. So suddenly, the normal course of events becomes a "scandal". And whose fault would that be? Any elected official is supposed to represent the interests of the electorate. The media doesn't even have that much of a call to responsibility. Which is something the administration has so much as told the media: "You weren't elected, you don't represent the American people, we do." And from everything I've heard from everyone who works in this administration (I'm a government contractor, so it's more than a few people), the administration actually does act with the best interests of the electorate in mind. It's just that: 1) their definition of "the electorate" seems to exclude anyone outside their religious base, and 2) they're morons, so their idea of the public's best interest is totally whacked anyway.

I'm sure the administration would like nothing more than to completely ignore the media. I'm also sure they realize that if they did, the media would make up even more sh-- than they already do. And they do make up sh--. Routinely. Though it's not because of a "liberal bias" (the media does have a liberal bias...but it's an unconscious one, because jobs in the media attract liberals, so there's no real counterpoint acting as a check within the industry.) It's because there's a fundamental sales aspect to their jobs, which ultimately leads them to sensationalize everything. Thus, they end up reporting half a story (the sensational half - the Superdome in NO, for example, rather than the massive effort to move relief over a shattered infrastructure), or no story at all (the most recent news in the Abramoff scandal - that Abramoff sent hundreds of emails to the White House, but the WH didn't respond to any of them), or just making stories up so they have something to sensationalize (e.g. "Unarmored vehicles in Iraq don't have armor. How dare they not equip unarmored vehicles with armor! And non-combat troops aren't equipped for combat!") That's the administration's salient point in dealing with the media: the media represents their own interests, and not the interests of the American public. (Ever notice how many "scandals" break close to book publishing dates for reporters? Woodward has a new one coming out soon; expect to hear the "Rumsfeld should resign" crowd to get louder...and before an election, too. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, and has nothing to do with sales and marketing. ) And they're right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Interferes with my Ramadan fasting and bomb-making.

Actually, as I've said before, this administration's policy is not to talk to the media...at least, not as an equal partner in the governing of the country, as the media's usually assumed they are (i.e. the "Fourth Estate"). That's a policy I support in principle, though not as practiced.

Bull. You LOVE saying "I told you so". Probably because you get to so infrequently.

They've still got a ways to go before they reach Fox News' "Our headlines don't match reality" editorial standard. And for hell's sake, they're comparing the Washington Times to the NYT. That's like saying "My sh-- smells better than yours." It's still sh--.

Try living in DC. It's almost time for our quarterly machine-gunning of the Capitol building again... And yes, it matters. Try discerning a true threat from a non-threat in a perceived high-risk environment. Like DC. Or airports.

If you were bringing a bag of stuff in on the tour, on which you had written "Bush is an idiot", you might actually establish a similar context. And get detained for questioning.

Does the word "context" mean anything to you?

I, for one, would like to thank Mike Mularkey for finally bringing immense football joy into my life...

Nah. My dry heaves are keeping it going...

Good thing the Vikings wide-outs couldn't catch a cold...

Halfback option pass. You'd think Travis Henry would have taught him... It is funny, though, when Mularkey happens to another team.

14 for 108.

Hey, there's plenty to feel good about this game without crediting him for lobotomizing the opposing defense. I still can't get over how !@#$ing stupid that offsides was. A high school player would get reamed for that.

You can feel good when he raises people from the dead, like Tedy Bruschi.