Absolutely vile.

What else can I say about Booman Tribune? They still keep spewing the canard that any liberal who criticizes the Lightbringer from Chicago must be a racist and a Hillary cultist.

This attitude persists even after Obama's many betrayals -- on the Wilson/Plame case, on FISA, on detention, on torture, on nationalization, on single payer health care, on the prosecution of Bush and Cheney, on Afghanistan and on so much else -- have caused many once-worshipful progs to wake up.

Why do the bots still go after Hillary and her aficionados? The reason is obvious: The Clintonites have no reason for apology and the Obots do. Bill Clinton was the finest President of the 20th century after FDR. Obama is shaping up to be the worst Democratic president since Johnson. Andrew Johnson.

Over on the Confluence, Dakinikat has contributed an excellent piece which touches on both ACORN and Wells Fargo's predatory lending practices. (The latter surprised me. I knew a Wells Fargo manager in the 1980s, and he was quite proud of his company's conservative stance on loans. Times have changed!) The reaction over on Booman?

These idiots will never get it. One of the people saying he's not so smart is someone named dakinikat who roused the rabble there a while back by blaming the mortgage crisis on black people. She blew all kinds of dog whistles in the post itself but forgot ACORN. She recovered quickly though by mentioning them in the comments. They're a gang of not too bright sore losers with a dose of racial resentment thrown in to make them especially awful.

I urge you to go read Dakinkat in the original. Then come back and tell me whether the afore-quoted precis of her words bears any relationship to reality. Dakinkat's amusing response:

I have to tell you, I'm sitting at BJ's in the ninth ward down here, round the corner from my house, and this post is getting so many laughs you can't believe it.

The big question every one wants to ask is if you live in a gated community some where up on the east coast?

Many black people live in the ninth ward of New Orleans. For some strange reason, Dkat's opponent refused to describe the place he calls home. Instead, he continued to insist that she was guilty of "internet race baiting exploits."

Again: Read her words and tell me if you see anything like "race baiting" in there. Obots are sick, sick, sick fucks.

Here's another snippet from the thread:

And I will never forget the stupid, irrational, childish, and even racist attacks on Obama from Clinton supporters.

This is an attempt at false equivalence: "Well, there were problems on both sides." I won't stand for that historical revisionism.

In many previous posts, I have documented the outrageous, non-stop hate-campaigns mounted by the Obot hordes. That mob mentality transformed this former half-hearted Obama supporter into a blogger determined to do whatever he could to prevent the Lightbringer from destroying the Democratic party -- a task which he is gleefully accomplishing at this very moment.

Booman actually went on to suggest that Hillary's alleged racism "put Jesse Helms to shame."

Unbelievable!

Booman has even compiled a list of quotes from Hillary and her supporters -- a list intended to prove that hers was a campaign founded on appeals to bigotry. All of Booman's nonsense was debunked ages ago. That doesn't matter: Taking a page from Atwater and Rove, Booman and his fellow Obots understand that a fib may enter history if repeated incessantly.

Let's deal with Booman's alleged "evidence":

Bill Shaheen:

In his remarks, Shaheen, a local attorney and Democratic powerbroker, said he was worried that Republicans would have a particularly easy time going after Obama's drug use as a teenager because he has been so open about it. He contrasted this with George W. Bush, who Shaheen said wisely ruled out answering questions about his behavior as a younger man during his presidential run in 1999 and 2000.

Obama's candor on the subject, on the other hand, would "open the door" to further questions, Shaheen had said. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" he said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

For some reason, BooMan expects us to consider this quote racist. He's nuts. Just plain bugfuck nuts.

Shaheen raised perfectly justifiable concerns that Obama's admitted drug usage might become a campaign issue. How is that racist?

Bob Kerrey:

"I've watched the blogs try to say that you can't trust [Obama] because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa," the Nebraska Democrat said on the Situation Room with John King. "I feel quite opposite. I think it's a tremendous strength whether he's in the United States Senate or whether he's in the White House."

This is Kerrey's response to the Republicans who were spreading smear stories about Obama's schooling in Indonesia. In the first place, Bob Kerrey was not a player in the Hillary campaign. In the second place, the statement is absolutely accurate. In the third place, any rational person will understand it as a pro-Obama statement.

("Madrassa" is simply the Arabic word for "school." Kerrey seems to have been under the impression that Arabic is spoken in Indonesia -- the sole point on which he can be faulted.)

Another supposedly "damning" quote from the Hillary side:

Geraldine Ferraro:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Absolutely true. My only problem with Ferraro's statement is her disdain for the subjunctive.

In previous posts, I have quoted polls which proved that a black male candidate has a distinct advantage over a female candidate of any race. Ferraro had data on her side; her critics never did.

To repeat an argument I've made before: How many black males have held congressional seats? How many females? How many cities have had black mayors? How many have had female mayors? During the campaign, one could buy a doll of Hillary dressed as a Dominatrix, yet no-one would dare to sell a figurine of Barack dressed as a minstrel.

Of course, when the Republicans picked Sarah Palin, the folks on Kos had no problem saying that she was picked only because she was a woman. Some of them even said that she was irresponsible to pursue politics instead of being a full-time mother.

Obama gained a teflon coating because his followers constantly hurled the "racist" accusation at anyone who said anything against him. That's how he won the nomination and everyone knows it. I am not a racist for daring to speak this truth. The true racists were the ones who provided the teflon.

If Obama were white, the "I barely knew Tony Rezko" lie or the NAFTA lie would have knocked him out of the race. Why is it that Joe Biden's 1988 presidential campaign ended when he was caught out as a plagiarist, yet Obama suffered no political consequences for far worse word-burglaries? New rules were put in place for Obama: Plagiarism suddenly became a minor matter -- "just words."

How the hell did someone like this -- with his onion-skin thin resume, his poor Senate record, his criminal associations, his outrageous history of facial multiplicity and his record of constant lying -- ever become president? How did he get a rep as an Iraq war opponent even though he was too cowardly to speak out against the war during his 2004 Senate campaign, and even though he refused to denounce the invasion during his 2004 DNC speech, and even though he established an Iraq war voting record demonstrably to the right of Hillary's?

I'll tell you how: Obama was protected by a Kossack corps convinced that voting for a black man earned both hipness points and life-long protection from ever being called a racist. Well, I've voted for black candidates on a number of occasions (including Jesse Jackson in '88), and I did so before many of those Kos Kids were born. Those candidates got my vote not for reasons of chic and not for reasons of race, but because I liked them. I will be damned before I vote for any person on the basis of skin color -- which is precisely what scoundrels like Booman and Moulitsas tried to "guilt" me into doing.

Booman is the true racist -- not Geraldine Ferraro.

Let's go back to the list of supposed offenses:

Bill Clinton:

"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88," Clinton said at a rally in Columbia. "Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

Any prog who considers these words racist must be one patty short of a Big Mac.

I well recall how overjoyed I was when Jackson won in'88. Of course, modesty forbade Clinton from mentioning the '92 winner. The 1996 and 2000 winners had the power of incumbency. Clinton's point, of course -- and this same point was made by many pundits (including those at The Nation) back in the 1980s -- is that South Carolina Democratic primaries have a history of going against predictions.

Let's let the Big Dog himself address the racism canard:



Okay, let's get back to Booman's laughable list:

Andrew Cuomo:

"It's not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can't buy your way into it," Cuomo said, according to Albany Times Union reporter Rick Karlin. He then added, "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room."

So what?

I grew up hearing the phrase "shuck and jive" (or just "jive") used all the time, in all sorts of contexts. Nobody told me, when I was a boy, that the term originated in the black experience, and I do not recall it being applied to blacks. I recall it being used of fellow students who made unconvincing excuses for not doing work that they were told to do. (Granted, my experience probably would have been different if I had grown up in the deep south instead of California.)

The phrase long ago entered the lexicon. It sees a very generalized usage. It now it belongs to everyone.

For what it's worth: I also believe that the Clintonites who jumped on the word "periodically" were similarly grasping at straws. (Incidentally, I think that Cuomo's argument was stupid, though not racist.)

Once again, we look at the list:

Hillary Clinton:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Perfectly accurate, at the time.

Like it or not, polls categorize the polled, and every candidate pays attention to how he or she is doing in each demographic. I don't know how one can talk about white voters or black voters or or female voters or rich voters or middle-class voters or working class voters without ever mentioning the words white, black, female, rich, middle-class, working-class or whatever.

Below, we will see examples of Obama supporters doing exactly the same thing. That is, they committed the "sin" of talking about white voters and black voters. Of course, they may do what Hillary may not.

Everyone knows that Obama entered the race with weak support from blacks -- and lots of black writers commented on that fact. Are black pundits allowed to speak of "black voters" while white people are forevermore disallowed from using the phrase "white voters"? Is that fair?

"Hard-working," in context, was just Hillary's attempt to butter up a voting bloc. She was sputtering in her determination to avoid the dreaded term "working class" (even though that's what she meant) because she knew that the working class in America prefers to think of itself as middle class (even though it isn't). She was not implying that black people don't also work hard.

Back to the list:

Ed Koch::

"I believe Obama probably will win [the Democratic nomination], although in politics you never ever can count anybody out," said former New York Mayor Ed Koch. "I think Hillary is doing a magnificent job and is a great candidate and if anybody can pull it out, she can. But my honest opinion is, it probably won't happen. And that he will be the candidate and that he will lose."...

"I am shocked, without knowing the reason that it is happening, that none of the allegations with the respect of Wright, his former pastor, have had any impact on his polling," said Koch. "I'm absolutely surprised because I think that all the things that Wright says -- and nobody believes that Obama supports those statements -- but he didn't have the courage to stand up and object for twenty years. If you are running for president, you can't be like some other poor guy in the pews who is afraid to stand up or even say something privately to the minister. You're the guy who wants to lead the country and you have to have courage to stand up and lead your own pastor. He did not exhibit that. But the fact that the Democratic constituency doesn't seem to care is a shock to me, but I'm certain that the overall constituency voting in November will care and that it will make the difference in the adverse way to his candidacy."

Ed Koch never spoke for anyone except Ed Koch. True, his prediction did not come true -- but so what? I defy anyone to name a political observer who never made a wrong prediction.

Like Koch, I also predicted, incorrectly, that Wright was going to play a huge factor in the general election Republican ad campaign. The fact that Wright went unmentioned led me to suspect that McCain did not really want to win.

(Imagine if the outcry -- the justifiable outcry -- if a follower of Jerry Falwell ran for president! I consider Falwell and Wright to have a rough equivalence of venality.)

At any rate, anyone who interprets the Koch quote as an example of blatant (or even subtle) bigotry is nuttier than the Planters factory. Then again, I suppose that one could read racism into the ingredients list on a can of beef stew, if one is determined to do so.

The Booman's list contains only two more "damning" quotes.

One comes from Representative Rob Andrews, who spoke of hearing ill-defined racial "signals" in a phone call from a Hillary campaign worker before a primary. Booman, scoundrel that he is, does not tell you that the Clinton campaign denied the accusation vociferously and that Andrews never provided specifics or one shard of evidence.

When Andrews made the statement, he had just lost badly to Frank Lautenberg in the Senate primary. He desperately needed party support if he wanted to get into the race to regain his House seat -- something he had promised not to do. In other words, Booman is relying on the word of a proven liar. Obviously, Andrews saw that Obama and his gang of Chicago thugs were the new rulers of the party. I think that Andrews (who has a rather sleazy voting record) told a huge fib in order to get in good with the new bosses.

The final Booman quote comes from Bob Johnson, speaking "as an African-American." He made a bizarre reference to Sidney Poitier. Frankly, I can't claim to understand the point he was trying to make, and I really don't care. Nothing said by Bob Johnson provides evidence of Clinton's supposed "racism."

Booman's evidence amounts to nada. Hillary Clinton never resorted to racism, disguised or blatant, during the primary. She never had any motive to do so. Even if she were a bigot in her heart of hearts (which I am sure she is not), tactical concerns would have told her not to take such a course.

For a long time, she had the black vote sewn up. Why would she alienate that constituency? No Democrat would do so. (For that matter, no Republican in today's political environment would dare to insult black people.)

Black voters abandoned Hillary only after the Obama campaign decided to smear the Clintons. Alas, smears do work -- and no voting bloc is immune. Maybe that's why Obama's campaign tactics have evinced more admiration from Republicans (such as Nancy Reagan) than from Democrats.

At one point, Paul Krugman admitted that nearly all of the outrageous statements made during the primary came from the Obama forces. As a reward for his honesty, many writers on the Daily Kos (an arm of the Obama campaign) smeared Krugman as a conservative and a bigot. That's right: The "progressive" movement embraced Andrew freaking Sullivan while smearing Paul Krugman.

They also spread a false story that Krugman's son worked for Hillary. He has no children.

That's how the Obots operate: They lie. During the campaign, they told lie after lie after lie -- and they never had to pay a political price for doing so.

But lying was hardly the worst of it.

During the campaign I received death threats from Obots -- a couple of which I documented in previous posts. ("Do the species a favor and kill yourself. Better yet, tell me where you live and I'll come do it for you.") I was not the only victim of cyber-terrorism; many other Obama opponents also received threats.

Remember what happened to radio host Steve Corbett and to Representative Emanuel Cleaver II? Remember Donna Brazile's thuggish warning that "there will be blood" if Obama did not receive the nomination? She spoke literally, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Obama never denounced these tactics. He never denounced Donna Brazile.

I do not know of a single instance in which a Hillary supporter lobbed death threats at a pro-Obama writer. All of the threats -- ALL of them -- came from Obots.

What does that fact tell you about the dangers of the mob?

Here are some examples of things said by pro-Obama forces. Compare the following quotes to the alleged "outrages" listed by Booman. (I am culling these examples from previous posts; you can look up the links to the original sources by using the intra-site search engine at the top of the page.)

Obama is black? That’s just not acceptable at the cuntry club.

"Hillary is a liar and a cunt"

She’s a monster who just won’t die. In fact, she really should just die.

The good news is if Clinton wins (steals) the presidency she will likely be assassinated within a week. She is a total lying gas bag hag and deserves to [go to] her maker for what will only be described as a truly karmic moment which will last for all eternity.

Just slit her throat, lock her in a car boot, and drive the car into river in West Virginia. Ain’t gonna let no whore screw with the man

The heinous Hillary hag with a bullseye on her forehead is reason enough to vote for Obama

And a Drive-By Won't Be Out of the Question. What goes around, comes around. The stupid fucking bitch !!

Talk About WHITE TRASH that bitch better keep looking over her shoulder.

if hillary is elected we're gonna be stuck with whomever she picks as a running mate for the remainder of the term after she gets assasinated.

You know, looking at these Obot death threats against Hillary, I suddenly don't feel quite so surprised by the young Americans in Israel who recently called for Obama to be killed. Of course, I still believe that those fools should go to jail. On the other hand, we must admit that they treated Obama pretty much the same way that the Obots treated Hillary. What goes around, comes around...

By the way: Just imagine how Booman would have reacted if any Hillary supporter -- anywhere, on even the smallest blog -- had referred to Obama as "black trash." Why the double standard, Booman?

Hillary Clinton is not interested in what is best for our country; she is interested in what is best for her. She is a self-serving bitch.

Hillary's gonna lose you feminazi cunts.

Hillary is a liar and a cunt

Obama's great innovation in political discourse is his willingness to countenance the use of the word "cunt" in a political campaign. Not once did he denounce the things his supporters said on a daily (hourly) basis, even though he was urged to do so. Some of these quotes even came from his official campaign site. His refusal to decry the ghastly things being done in his name is tantamount to complicity.

They're all crazy cunts,taze them all!!!!!!

Cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt CUNT cunt cunt cunt CUNT cunt cunt cunt CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT . . .

Yo! Cunt!

Imagine the shrieks of protest that would have been heard if any Clinton supporter, on even the lowliest of blogs, had referred to Obama as "nigger." Keith Olbermann would have devoted an entire segment to the topic. But "cunt" is a perfectly acceptable term in the Obot lexicon.

They may speak in any ugly way they want to speak. All others must watch their every phoneme for every hemi-demi-semiquaver of mis-construable connotation.

Bush Clinton crime family must be eradicated.

I thought Vince Foster was on the Clinton Body Count list

Does Hillary want to murder Obama? Probably not with her own two hands but one thing for sure: HILLARY WANTS BARACK OBAMA DEAD

Has Hillary ever denouced the bigots who support her?

Hillary is enabling racism which is why I could not vote for her.

That racist block is the constituency that is keeping her fight alive.

This next one looks particularly hilarious nowadays:

Barack is all about unity -- he talks about it all the time, so there's no question about whether he wants people who foster divisions associated with his campaign. The thing is, Barack doesn't SAY one thing and ACT in a way that doesn't fit what he said.

Now that's a spit-take inducer if ever the English language produced one!

Mr. and Mrs. Clinton went fishing in the waters of the KKK and the Aryan nation's pool of most eligibles.

Those fat old poor white women can go pound salt.

The numbers of hysterical, crazed old females who have emotionally latched on to Hillary is simply a phenomenon that can't be denied. I don't know what is causing this but it's REAL and can't be swept under the rug. There's a BIG bunch of unhinged, old white females, far beyond self-embarrassment, who are acting like screeching Hags for Hill.

Obama does not have a white problem, he has a backwater inbred ignorant racist appalachian hillbilly problem. And we can win without them.

Who cares if older white women stay home?

Gee -- I thought it was racist to speak in demographic terms. Isn't that what Booman wants us to believe? Where's the consistency?

What would be the point of kissing azz for some old hags/bigots?

Hillary supporters, needless Democrats.

We don't need Hillary's supporters! They can go on and vote for McCain!

NO UNITY!!!

Yeah. That Barack -- he sure is a uniter, all right. That's why he won a bare majority in a year that should have seen a landslide Democratic victory. He would have lost if the economic meltdown had hit a month or so later.

On the other hand, perhaps it is indeed fair to say that he has been a uniter. Politically, his administration has united itself with the Bush legacy.

"How about "Arkansas Uber Alles"? Seig Heil to Mrs Clinton!"

The menses makes the ladies crazy and unhinged. That's why we can never have a woman as president. They'd get all PMS-ish and start a nuclear war.

yes, she is the ultimate fag hag, isn't she?...

and her campaign in pennsylvania proved many of the gay men in the midstate (100% of whom support her) are a bunch of racist queens...

Hillary Clinton is a monster, and a bitter hag.

Any woman who votes for her is voting with her vagina, not her brain.

Women only like Hillary because she’s a fellow Vagina-American.

men who support her are castratos in the eunuch chorus

That's enough for now. As everyone knows, I could compile a list literally a hundred times longer, filled with similarly vile sentiments.

Can we compare the disgusting tactics of Obama's supporters to the statements made by Hillary's supporters? Sure -- but only in the sense that you might compare the Nazi war machine to the Gustav Mahler Appreciation Society. You can compare anything to anything else. In this case, the comparison reveals the truly odious nature of the Obama movement.

As long as I live, I will never forget the stench. Permalink

Can anyone explain this to me?
Permalink

The previous post contains a link to this page, which contains what I consider to be reasonable discourse from various rabbis. When I posted the link, I had not yet read down to the final offering, from a Rabbi Friedman of Chabad. These words are all very striking, especially the opening sentence:

I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral.

The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).

The first Israeli prime minister who declares that he will follow the Old Testament will finally bring peace to the Middle East. First, the Arabs will stop using children as shields. Second, they will stop taking hostages knowing that we will not be intimidated. Third, with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war.

Zero tolerance for stone throwing, for rockets, for kidnapping will mean that the state has achieved sovereignty. Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.

Rabbi Friedman later published a semi-retraction, no doubt because someone clued him into the fact that he had posted his monstrous words in a public place, where the goys might read them. But I think that his original statement reflects his truest self -- the toothpaste cannot be re-tubed -- and that his sentiments do indeed represent the feelings of many other Jews. Not all, not most, but many, and a growing percentage.

Increasingly, I see a distinction between the Judaism I knew growing up -- the Judaism which produced Albert Einstein, Gustav Mahler, Sigmund Freud, Stanley Kubrick, Will Eisner, Arthur Miller and many other exemplars of western culture -- and a vicious new Judaism. This new Judaism never has and never will produce an Einstein or a Mahler. This new Judaism despises western culture.

Look again at the opening words of the Rabbi's statement.

Look again at those earlier posts which discuss Israeli writers who use the term "western culture" derisively.

For many years, we've been told that Israel represents an outpost of "the west" in a region inhospitable to American and European cultural values. But is it? What I call "old Judaism" was perhaps the finest thing to be found in the west -- the conscience of the west. What I call "new Judaism" is, as the Rabbi himself admits, not western at all. It is something alien. It is Other. An Israel suffused with the spirit of New Judaism bears much less resemblance to European values than does, say, a cosmopolitan city like Beirut.

Hitler had dissociated himself from traditional Western morality. When Rabbi Friedman says that he does not believe in Western morality, he is saying that he despises what Hitler despised, and that he embraces the vile new "morality" that Hitler sought to impose upon the world.

Friedman: "The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children..."

Change the words "Jewish way" to "German way" and you have here the distillation of Hitlerism.

Rabbi Friedman may now want to suggest a difference between his views and Adolf's, but any attempt to do so at this point amounts to ex post facto sophistry, an attempt to talk his way out of an inescapable damnation. Sorry, Rabbi: You said the words and you cannot un-say them. You are, by your own declaration, not moral.

Compare Friedman's words to these, written by Ludwig von Mises back in 1940 -- and note, once again, the distinction between traditional western morality and a new morality which, unfairly, is here called eastern:

Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini constantly proclaim that they are chosen by destiny to bring salvation to this world. They claim they are the leaders of the creative youth who fight against their outlived elders. They bring from the East the new culture which is to replace the dying Western civilization.

It is a law of nature, they say, that great historic changes cannot take place peacefully or without conflict. It would be petty and stupid, they contend, to overlook the creative quality of their work because of some unpleasantness which the great world revolution must necessarily bring with it. They maintain one should not overlook the glory of the new gospel because of ill-placed pity for Jews and Masons, Poles and Czechs, Finns and Greeks, the decadent English aristocracy and the corrupt French bourgeoisie. Such softness and such blindness for the new standards of morality prove only the decadence of the dying capitalistic pseudo-culture.

Von Mises sounded many of the notes that I am trying to sound. Hitlerism pretended to defend the west even as it betrayed every decent thing to be found in western culture. We see a similar dichotomy between what I have called New Judaism (anti-western) and Old Judaism (pro-western.)

One factor differentiates the evils of the 1940s from the evils afflicting our present society: Religion. Rabbi Friedman believes that

Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.

This sounds like Nietzsche. The only difference is that Nietzsche categorized that "disastrous morality of human invention" as Jewish, while Friedman would use the word "Jewish" to describe his proposed alternative (pseudo-)morality. But that distinction is a matter of mere semantics; otherwise, both men are alike in condemning what Nietzsche called "slave morality." Might makes right, and violence is an absolute good. Anyone who preaches anything else preaches weakness.

Friedman differs from Nietzsche in one major way: The Rabbi claims that his "might makes right" weltanschauung has God's stamp of approval. This appeal to the supernatural distinguishes 21st century barbarity from the varieties predominant in early 20th or the late 19th. Like Friedman, the vile Christian Dominionists and Islamic jihadists argue that their disgusting philosophies have divine sanction.

Well, if we must confront the topic of religion, then let's do it.

"New Jews" (as I have defined the term) like Friedman spurn western morality by dictate of their tribal war god, whose name they are forbidden to utter. Of course, a restriction which Jews may fairly apply to co-religionists does not apply to me. Their god bears the name of yod-heh-vav-heh, which was probably pronounced Yahu. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Think of that name as "Ya-HOOOOO!" -- a war-shout which will be remembered fondly by any kid who grew up reading Sgt. Fury and His Howling Commandos (which was created by a couple of wonderfully talented Jews, I might add).

For the ancient Hebrews, that name served pretty much the same function it held for Sgt. Fury: It was a battle-cry to be uttered while shedding blood.

A close reading of the Bible demonstrates that the Hebrews were not originally monotheists (although some modern rabbis may pretend otherwise) but monolatrists, as defined here. Yahoo (my preferred transliteration) was not originally conceived as a transcendent, mystical entity. He was basically a brutish, ax-wielding killer-god like Ares, only stupider. Over time, Jews redefined Yahoo, spruced him up, made him look presentable in mixed company. The retarded brother of Ares became, at first, a God-in-chief like Zeus. Later still, the name Yahoo was dropped, and the Jews embraced the concept of a God who was an Inconceivable Something, immeasurably greater Zeus.

The Bible stitches together those very old tales of Yahoo and later writings about that transcendent Inconceivable Something. The stitches are pretty obvious when you look for them.

Alas, the old tales of Yahoo the Bloodthirsty Brute remained codified in scripture and sacralized by tradition. See, for example, the book of Joshua: That, more than any other, is Yahoo's book. As long as that disgusting scripture is considered holy, the spirit of the primeval war-god will continue to haunt us all -- Jew, Christian and Moslem.

Every time a warrior smiles as he guts an enemy, he does so at the behest of Yahoo.

Old Jews (again, as I have defined that term) have always seemed to view those gruesome ancient tales of Yahoo as vaguely embarrassing holdovers from a hazy past -- as folklore. Old Jews prefer the impossible task of trying to find words to describe that Inconceivable Something. New Jews don't bother to make the attempt: They worship the old god, the original god, the tribal god, the god of the book of Joshua, the god of gore.

As long-time readers know, my own religious inclinations come from that strange realm between agnosticism and Gnosticism. (Those who would accuse me of anti-Semitism should keep in mind that the inventors of Gnosticism were Alexandrian Jews.) To the Gnostics, Yahoo was the god of evil, and they were not afraid to rewrite or to toss away those ancient writings which still bore his taint. In Gnosticism, the transcendent entity -- that Inconceivable Something Above Everything Else -- was not Yahoo, was nothing like Yahoo. In their legends, Yahoo had pretensions of transcendence, of being The Only One. But he was kidding himself.

To the Gnostics, Yahoo was a pre-moral brat who (unfortunately) possessed great power. Remember the nearly-omnipotent kid played by Billy Mumy in that old Twilight Zone episode? The one who would blink you "into the cornfield" if you thought bad thoughts about him? That is Yahoo. Or at least a version of him.

Yahoo is the vile deity worshiped by people like Rabbi Friedman and Jerry Falwell and Osama Bin Laden. Yahoo is the god of all fundamentalists. Yahoo is the reason why fundamentalists of every stripe -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim -- have set their faces against everything considered decent in the western tradition.

The Gnostics rejected Yahoo, preferring the goddess Sophia. The name means Wisdom. She was once popular among the ancient Hebrews, and you can still spot her spirit floating through various Biblical texts, if you know where to look. Great Jews like Einstein and Mahler never had anything good to say about Yahoo. But they seemed to have great respect for Sophia, even though they did not use that name.

You may know this deity better under another name: Athena. The goddess of Wisdom.

She has also been called a goddess of war. Actually, her metier was not battle (although she always fought in the forefront, when fighting was necessary) but strategy. Planning. She was, more importantly, the goddess of the arts, of craftsmanship and culture, of the olive tree and all that it implies.

Democracy was invented in her city.

According to legend, she planted the first olive tree on the Acropolis. As long as that olive tree survives, democracy will survive. Many tyrants -- including the Nazis -- have tried to uproot that tree, but the secret worshipers of Athena have always managed to replant it, using an offshoot of the original. It's still there; you can go to Greece and see it for yourself.

The temple of the war-god Yahoo, built by the evil Herod, was destroyed long ago. Do not mourn for it. Athena's temple, the Parthenon, still stands on the Acropolis. It has taken quite a beating, but much of it is still there. It provided the architectural and spiritual model for many other fine buildings, including our Supreme Court and the Madeleine Church in Paris. The city of Athena is the shining city on the hill.

I am a disciple of Athena. Although I may not believe in her literal existence, I can -- paradoxically -- feel her presence, at least when I am my best self.

I believe that the Parthenon is the cradle of the west, the birthplace of democracy, the temple of Wisdom. The culture of Athens gave us Phidias, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pericles, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Agatharchos -- the founders of our culture, the forebears of all that is civilized in the western tradition.

The elected leaders of Athens were ceremonially brought into the Parthenon, where the priestess of Athena (it's worth noting that Yahoo had priests, while Athena had priestesses and arrephoroi) told the politicians that they would lose all power if they ever lost respect for the rights of the citizens. I think we should have a ceremony of that sort nowadays.

I believe that all of the many sins of the western world -- the tyrannies, the mass murders, the racism, the enslavements, the long periods of ignorance and darkness -- were brought about not by men who worshiped the Goddess of Wisdom but by those who held her in contempt.

I still believe in her. And unlike the acolytes of the bloody Yahoo, I believe in western morality. Permalink

"Jonathan" at Jewschool threatens violence against Max Blumenthal because Blumenthal dared to produce the video shown in the post below. Meanwhile, many other Jewschool aficionados try to pretend that the violent opinions expressed in this video do not reflect the views widely held in Israel and by Israel's supporters in America. We are told not to worry: These are just a bunch of drunken kids.

Bull. The threat against Blumenthal proves my point -- and completely disproves the reassuring blandishments offered by other Jewschoolers. Something strange and terrible is happening within modern Judaism. I think it is affecting the young more than the old.

Antipathy toward America and "western culture" is on the rise among Israelis and among right-wing Jews who support Israel. I've discussed the subject -- citing numerous examples -- here and here. I quote at length from one pro-Israel site which seems to regard the United States as Israel's worst enemy.

Face it: We live in an era in which Alan Dershowitz (nobody's idea of a drunken frat boy) actually thinks he can get away with calling Desmond Tutu a "racist." Israel is a country where newspapers defend the decision to make women sit in the back of the bus; any critics of that policy are accused of imposing "western secular culture" on Israelis. Children's books in Israel openly promote race hatred.

One can cite many more examples, but the point is made: The "drunken kids" in the video are Israel. The guy calling for Max Blumenthal to be beaten is Zionism.

Israel is no longer a bastion of liberal values and western culture. Perhaps it once was, but those days are past. Modern Israelis sneer at "western secular culture," just as they sneer at their funders in the United States. They openly call for the assassination of the American president. Race hatred has transformed modern Israel into a force that is just as capital-O "Other" -- as un-American -- as is any other nation or movement in the Middle East.

I must quickly admit that many Jews in the United States have not fallen prey to this tendency. The Rabbis here speak, for the most part, in measured and rational terms. They represent the form of Judaism that I once admired. (I do disagree with the good Rabbi from Thousand Oaks who describes Arab culture as "deeply tribal and Oriental." Compared to what? To the folks in Israel who want to relegate women to the back of the bus?) Alas, I do not think that this humanistic form of Judaism is on the rise. In fact, I think that the forces of humanism and reason are being shouted down.

Look once more at those kids in the video (in the post below). They are the future. And perhaps not just the future of Israel or of Judaism -- perhaps they are the future of all of us, of an entire globe driven mad by arrogance, religious fanaticism, bloodlust and stupid macho dreams.

By the way -- some suggest that inebriation excuses the kids who called for the president's murder. I'm reminded of this story about the possibility of parole for Susan Atkins, the woman who murdered Sharon Tate. She (Susan) was high on LSD when she did it. So do we extend the "inebriated kid" excuse to her as well..? Just wondering. Permalink

Good god. Have you seen this video yet? I am stunned. I'm no Obama fan, but this is the ugliest damned shit I've ever seen...



Believe it or not, the above video was censored from Huffington Post on the grounds that it "had no news value" and "did not move the conversation forward."

Most of the kids seen here hold American-Israeli dual citizenship. Some are American Jews doing the indoctrination tour of Israel. I hope that any American citizen who, on camera, has called for harm to befall the president will have to explain his or her words to the Secret Service.

Something very ugly is happening to Israeli and Jewish youth. These hate-filled fundamentalist fanatics are the true face of Zionism. Do not listen to the older folks who will come forward with reassuring blandishments. Don't believe it when they tell you: "These were just kids; they don't represent the way Jews really feel." Bullshit. This is the real thing. This is the way quite a few modern young Jews talk when they think goys aren't listening. Or maybe the sitch is worse than that: Apparently, they have become so arrogant that they feel that they safely cry for a president's murder even while the goys are listening.

Jeez, even Klansmen had enough decency (or sense) to hide their faces behind sheets. These turkeys are brazen.

Damn, I hate feeling defensive about this president, whose nomination I opposed strenuously many months. But as far as I am concerned, these young hoods who refer to our president as a "nigger" -- who make watermelon jokes, who call for Obama's murder, and who deride Obama as a Muslim and a terrorist -- deserve just one response:

Swim, baby, swim!

Sometimes, the proper response to a display of hate is counter-hate, and that's just what I am feeling now. Israelis and American Jews who consider black people inferior and worthy of being killed are themselves inferior and worthy of the same fate they would impose on others.

Don't expect me to apologize for that statement: I never will. People deserve to get what they give. The despicable creatures in this video are so suffused with hate-propaganda and the unearned presumption of racial superiority that they have gone beyond the reach of rational argument.

Israel, in its present racist form, must end. We need a single-state solution now.

The world must wake up. Jewish fundamentalism is just as vile and dangerous as are Islamic and Christian fundamentalism. Permalink

This is not going to become a computer software blog. I'm not qualified to write such a thing. However, the topic of Windows 7 has been very much on my mind recently, if only because I've been wrestling with the OS in beta form.

If you value your sanity, don't play with betas. In fact, you may not want to immerse yourself in any new OS until after the first service pack has come out.

Windows 7 is terrific, when it works. But there are problems.

1. As I noted earlier, the OS does not assign administrator rights to you. W7 thinks that you are an idiot. The program thinks you have no right to see hidden files or to change your hosts file. (On XP, seeing hidden files is easy. But don't even try it on W7. Bad things will happen to you.)

Without admin rights, you cannot install many programs. You cannot even use the root directory of a secondary data disc!

Nor is there any easy way to sign in as administrator -- you must, in essence, play a trick on the system (going in through the C prompt) before you can do so. Ony then can you assume your secret identity as SuperAdmin-Man.

This "admin rights" business gets annoying. REALLY annoying. Believe me.

2. Occasionally, you will see the dreaded pop-up message telling you that you need administrator privileges to proceed -- even if you are already logged on as an administrator. This happened to me when I tried to install a version of DBPoweramp Music Converter.

In fact, that's the very imbroglio which immediately preceded my recent crash. The very next boot, I got the horrifying message that NTLRD was missing. I am still not sure what NTLRD is, but without it, you can't start your OS.

3. Windows 7 has an image backup and restore function, very much like Norton's Ghost. Everyone should have a thing like this -- and everyone will, once Windows 7 is ubiquitous. That's a good thing.

The best policy is to put all of your programs on the C drive and all (ALL) of your data on one or more secondary drives. Once the C drive is perfect and pristine -- all of your programs installed, thoroughly cleaned and free of malware and defragged -- save an image of the whole thing to another (larger) drive. If you develop a problem, you can simply restore that image, placing it right back onto your C drive. Once more, it will be pristine. If need be, you can put that pristine image onto a brand new hard drive. However, you must never, ever place that image onto a friend's C drive (giving said friend free access to expensive high-end imaging programs) because, as Tricky Dick once put it, that would be wrong.

I made an image just as soon as I had my C drive the way I liked it.

With W7, there's no need for a third party image backup solution. It's all right there. And the thing backs up your image while you're still in Windows, which is very nice. With good old Norton Ghost, you had to restart the computer and work in DOS and the whole process took a long time.

But there's one small issue and two big issues afflicting the W7 image backup system.

The small issue is that the damn thing won't let you save an image preciesly where you want it to be saved. The program always heads for the root directory of a secondary drive and says: "There. I'm putting it there. Don't argue with me. It's going there."

The big issue occurs when it comes time to restore.

W7 would not find my image, even though it was right there!

The image was on a secondary hard drive which I use for data. W7 said: "Huh? I see no image here. You're crazy if you think there's an image file in here."

What I had to do was yank the data drive out of the computer -- physically -- and place it in a separate external enclosure, attached to the computer via USB cable. Those things cost 20-40 bucks, and not everyone has one. (I was able to borrow one.) Then and only then did W7 perk up and take notice of the image.

That's the first big issue. The other, even huger problem is this: By default, when you try to restore your system, W7 copies that image not just onto your C drive but onto every drive in your whole damned computer.

I should make clear (to those of you who have never done this sort of thing before) that when you restore from an image file, you will wipe out everything that previously was on your drive. That is, you will wipe out everything that was on the drive you are restoring to. Everything that was on the drive playing catcher, so to speak. VOOM! It's gone.

That's what you want to happen when you are restoring a C drive gone bad. But W7 places that image not just on your C drive but also on your E, F, and G drives. All the alphabet will become C.

This is a recipe for tragedy. I can see it happening: Users who have no previous experience of playing with image files will turn every damned drive in their system into copies of the C drive. All of their data will be gone, gone gone.

A lot of people have three or four or more drives (old and borrowed and retreived from the neighbor's garbage) hooked up, because, you know, all of that downloaded porn takes up a lot of space. Well, if you do the image restore thingie wrong, it's bye-bye porn. Bye-bye family pictures and document files and downloaded music.

As it happens, you can fiddle with the image restore settings to make sure that only your C drive is affected. But a lot of newbie users will not see those settings. The default mode is to put the image on everything. This decision was just plain bug-ass crazy. Why did Microsoft do it that way? Why on earth?

Even if you see the settings, it's hard to feel safe. I physically disconnected every drive except for the C drive and the external drive -- and even then I was, you should pardon the expression, shitting bricks, worried that something might happen to all of the data stored on that external drive.

4. In my case, even the new image did not solve my problem. I still saw the awful words "NTRLD missing," which is Microsoftese for "You're boned." So I used the CD disc that came with the hard drive (don't throw those things away or use 'em as coasters!) and reformatted the drive.

Then, just to be safe, I decided to forego imagery altogether. I re-installed everything. From scratch.

Which puts me where I am right now. The whole process took me away from my blog for a day. I had to forgeo all of my usual activities. I still have not seen the news.

So what's been going on? Has there been a coup? Did the Martians invade? Did a tsunami put the east coast under water? Did Dick Cheney explode the Washington Monument with the power of his mind? Did Barack Obama announce that, yes, there will be martial law, but it will be a kinder and more humane form of martial law than George Bush would have imposed? Did Britney shave her head again? Did Michael Jackson and Britney shave each other? That would be cool...
Permalink

I am back online! However, right after I re-acquired the internet, Windows 7 suddenly developed a serious malfunction. The dreaded message "NTRLD is missing" appeared at start-up, preventing a boot of the system. Even backing up from an image of the drive did not fix that problem. I had to do a complete reformat of the drive and a re-install of the OS.

So now it's a matter of re-installing my programs. Hell, I haven't even checked the news yet today. See you in a few...

Permalink

I'll have more to say on the topic soon -- just as I have said much on the same topic in the past. But right now, I want you to check out myiq2xu's amazing work on the Confluence. He outlines his picks for the "bottom ten" list of nasty events markings Obi's trip to the nomination. Here's the tenth:

10) The “3am ad” fauxrage – Hillary ran an ad questioning Obama’s experience as a leader. Obamanation reacted with allegations of racism and party treason. The 30 second ad showing sleeping children was even compared to the racist movie epic “Birth of a Nation.” Really - I shit you not – in the NYT’s no less.

We cannot allow this history to slip into the past. We cannot allow revisionists to pretend "Well, there were problems on both sides." We cannot allow the many Homer Simpsons within Obotland to mutter "Let's not play the blame game."

The Obots really, really were 100 percent in the wrong. Never forget that fact. Never let them forget that fact. Permalink

Nibbles again... Permalink

Nibbles McGee here... Permalink

Here's your "Holy crap!" moment for the day. It comes to us by way of Dakinkat at the Confluence and Mark Ames at Alternet, who have uncovered some more unsavory facts about Larry Summers, the noted sexist and former Harvard president who functioned as Clinton's Treasurey Secretary and who now directs Obama's National Economic Council. Ames poses the musical question:

Is Larry Summers taking kickbacks from the banks he’s bailing out?

Why did Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley steer millions to a company Larry Summers directed while he administered "stress tests" on them?

And do we now know the reason why those institutions survived the stress test in a better-than-expected fashion? Back to Ames:

Last month, a little-known company where Summers served on the board of directors received a $42 million investment from a group of investors, including three banks that Summers, Obama’s effective “economy czar,” has been doling out billions in bailout money to: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley. The banks invested into the small startup company, Revolution Money, right at the time when Summers was administering the “stress test” to these same banks.

A month after they invested in Summers’ former company, all three banks came out of the stress test much better than anyone expected -- thanks to the fact that the banks themselves were allowed to help decide how bad their problems were (Citigroup “negotiated” down its financial hole from $35 billion to $5.5 billion.)

Don't forget that Summers tried to wrestle Chris Dodd into supporting an attempt to lift pay caps on executive compensation at Citigroup. As Dakinkat notes, the Dow has de-listed Citibank. You may be able to fool the Obama administration, but you cannot fool everyone.

Here's a fun fact: When Summers joined Revolution, it was called GratisCard. As in "Get out of jail free," perhaps?

Preliminary Googling identifies Revolution Money as an attempt to compete with PayPal. You'll want to check out this rather ominous story:

Revolution Money Raises Another $42 Million For Alternative Payment Service Nobody Is Using

Steve Case’s startup Revolution Money announced a series C funding today of $42 million led by Goldman Sachs. Case and other existing investors (Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, former AOL vice chairman Ted Leonsis, former Charles Schwab CEO David Pottruck, and JP Morgan vie chairman David Golden). That is on top of $50 million the company raised is September, 2007.

Hmm. How does a start-up of this sort attract that kind of heavyweight support?

In tandem to its regular credit card, it also operates Revolution MoneyExchange, an online payment processing service that is trying to compete with Paypal. MoneyExchange is basically a loss leader to get people to sign up for the credit card. The problem is that nobody is really using MoneyExhange.

Only 33,000 people in the U.S. even visited the site in February, down from a marketing-fueled high of 742,000 a year before in March, 2008, according to comScore.

For more background on Revolution and Steve Case, go here. The obvious question: How much of that $42 million goes to Summers?

Of course, this is far from the first time that Summers has been accused of being compromised:

We discovered, for instance, that Lawrence Summers, the president’s chief economic adviser, made $5.2 million in 2008 from a hedge fund, D. E. Shaw, for a one-day-a-week job. He also earned $2.7 million in speaking fees from the likes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs...

Some spoilsports raise the conflict-of-interest question about Summers: Can he be a fair broker of the bailout when he so recently received lavish compensation from some of its present and, no doubt, future players? This question can be answered only when every transaction in the new “public-private investment plan” to buy the banks’ toxic assets is made transparent. We need verification that this deal is not, as the economist Joseph Stiglitz has warned, a Rube Goldberg contraption contrived to facilitate “huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets” from taxpayers.

While president of Harvard, Summers did well-recompensed work for another hedge fund called Taconic. He later tried to install a founder of Taconic as the administrator of the TARP funds. It's impossible to escape the conclusion that this guy's relations with the finance industry are incestuous.

Here's my question. The Republicans are going after the Obama administration on every front, and they have mounted a whole bunch of arguments that are more strained than baby food. So why do they never criticize Larry Summers? Permalink

As we learned during the 2008 primaries, anyone who questions the Lightbringer must be a racist. It is my sad duty to report that Robert Samuelson has succumbed to the scourge of bigotry:

Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows. It concludes: "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House."

The study examined 1,261 stories by The Post, The New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, NEWSWEEK magazine and the NewsHour on PBS. Favorable articles (42 percent) were double the unfavorable (20 percent), while the rest were "neutral" or "mixed." Obama's treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the Bush (22 percent of stories favorable) and Clinton (27 percent) presidencies.

Unlike George Bush and Bill Clinton, Obama received favorable coverage in both news columns and opinion pages. The nature of stories also changed. "Roughly twice as much of the coverage of Obama (44 percent) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22 percent) or Clinton (26 percent)," the report said. "Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda."

My question: Is it going to go on and on like this, or will we all wake up one day to discover that someone has flipped a switch, turning all that media love into media hate? If that happens -- when it happens -- who makes the decision to flip that switch? Permalink

My internet service goes off today. It will return on the 3rd or the 4th. In the meantime, I will be visiting libraries -- which is my idea of a nerdly good time. So keep checking for new posts...

By the way: If you are not completely tapped out, I happen to think that Liberal Rapture does good work, worthy of support...

An Additional Rant (and this has nothing to do with politics): I've decided to confess a horrible secret. One of the ways I've made ends meet in recent years is by illustrating children's books -- and I don't work under the name "Joseph Cannon." I won't say which name or which titles, for reasons which should be obvious by the time you finish reading this post.

But I will say this: Too often, the wrong people write books for kids. The best stories for young people are written by childless uncles and aunts -- not not not NOT parents.

Dr. Seuss never had kids. Beatrix Potter did not have kids. L. Frank Baum had not reproduced when he got into the trade of juvenile fiction. I believe that Stan Lee did not yet have kids when he co-created Spider-Man and The Fantastic Four. Seigel and Schuster pretty much were still kids when they invented Superman, as was Bob Kane at the time of Batman's creation. Maurice Sendak was gay. E. Nesbit (Edith Bland) did not have kids. I may be wrong, but I believe that Norton Juster did not have kids when he wrote The Phantom Tollbooth.

Okay, so A.A. Milne and J.K. Rowling were proven breeders when they took up the trade. Every worthwhile general rule has exceptions.

The problem with parents is that they're too damned responsible. Their first instinct is to create didactic literature, designed to teach Important Life Lessons: "Bullies are bad." "Be a good sport." "Brush your teeth every day."

Kids hate that crap. Think back to when you were young: Did not your every instinct rebel against all hint of the didactic? Nobody could fool you: You could always smell an Important Life Lesson from a mile away, and you did anything you could to avoid it.

Yet parents can't help themselves. They want to impose rules and limits. They want to teach right from wrong. They want to sermonize: Be Kind to the Handicapped and Show Respect For Your Elders and Practice Safety First and Eat Your Vegetables.

Kids live in a constricted world, a world of limits and regulations and curfews and censorship and punishments. Naturally, they yearn to break the rules. They long for the transgressive.

That's where Uncles and Aunts come in.

Your Uncle was the babysitter who said "Sure you can stay up past midnight!" You Uncle was the first person to let you discover what beer tastes like. Your Uncle told you really (really really) scary stories just before bedtime. Your Uncle taught you how to pitch pennies and play poker. Your Uncle let you see movies that contained more violence and salty language than did the ones that Mom and Dad let you see.

When an Uncle writes a story for kids, he doesn't want to teach any damned Important Lessons. He wants kids to say Wow! Cool! Maurice Sendak provides an excellent case in point: His most famous story is about a young man who perpetually stays up past his bedtime in order to keep dangerous company.

I have never bred, at least not to my knowledge, and I am sick of illustrating children's books which will never be popular because they were written by breeders.

I'm considering putting together a series called Jimmy and Timmy. These books will be about two brothers aged 8 and 9. Sample titles:

Jimmy and Timmy Drive Mom's Car
Jimmy and Timmy: Fun with Shattered Glass
Jimmy and Timmy Explore the Old Factory
Jimmy and Timmy Find Daddy's Gun
Jimmy and Timmy and the Mustard Gas Canister
The Secret Service Investigates Jimmy and Timmy
Jimmy and Timmy in Gitmo
Jimmy and Timmy Feed Mr. Bear
Jimmy and Timmy Have Fun With Knives
Jimmy and Timmy's Emergency Room Holiday
Jimmy and Timmy Meet Pablo Escobar
Jimmy and Timmy Hang With Hef
Jimmy and Timmy Summon Baal
Jimmy and Timmy Make Nooses
Jimmy and Timmy and the Donner Party
Jimmy and Timmy's Guide to First Aid
Jimmy and Timmy Teach Vampirella the True Meaning of Love
Jimmy and Timmy: When Mr. Turtle Met Mr. Fan
Jimmy and Timmy Hack the Air Traffic Control System
Jimmy and Timmy: Gang Symbols Made Easy
Jimmy and Timmy: Why Kitties and Razors Don't Mix
Jimmy and Timmy and the Big NORAD Oops!
Jimmy and Timmy and the Wonderful Icepick Lobotomy
Jimmy and Timmy Start a War on a False Pretext
Jimmy and Timmy Make Farting Noises During the Second Coming
Jimmy and Timmy Discover Antinomianism and the Freedom from Consequence

As you might guess, I'm supposed to be finishing up a children's book at this very moment. It was written by a very nice lady who is a wonderful parent. I cringe to think about it. Permalink