What are the best and worst band names of all time?
I'm going to have to think about this one for awhile before I give a definitive answer, but immediately coming to mind in the "best" category is My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult, and in the "worst" category is Enough Z'Nuff.
Mr. Shakes' answers at first blush: Manic Street Preachers (best) and Boyz II Men (worst). Ha.
Question of the Day
WTF?
Yeah, they’ve always got pressing matters to attend to after people are dead. The job never manages to get done before terrorists attack or hurricanes hit or mines collapse, but as soon as anyone tries to investigate or hold someone accountable, then they’re far too busy to be distracted with such frivolous time-wasters.
Hooked on Something, Anyway
Question: Music videos should not contain which of the following?
A. Green-screen footage of yourself flying in the air with two angels.
B. Green-screen footage of yourself in a fur coat playing with a fake fish.
C. Green-screen footage of yourself in a safari outfit dancing with African tribesmen.
D. Green-screen footage of yourself riding a motorcycle by standing on the seat with some ass-faced alien dancing in the background.
E. All of the above.
If you answered “E,” then you are correct.
If you answered, “No way—all of those sound awesomely cool!” then you are David Hasselhoff.
The Germans love me!
What is a progressive?
That’s the question Jedmunds is asking over at Pandagon.
Everywhere I look someone’s telling me that the word “progressive” means a million different things to a million different people. So what do you guys think?My answer:
“I’ve always found that the unifying concept of all the progressive sub-groups is the very simple statement: My rights end where yours begin. Environmentalists want all manner of industry to be able to do business except as it effects the health and lives of others. Feminists want men to have every opportunity to succeed in whatever they endeavor to accomplish except as it prohibits women from the same. Minorities want the same. Pro-choicers want everyone to make the best reproductive choices for themselves and therefore fight to ensure all those choices are available. Gay rights activists want straight people to have job protections, the ability to live wherever they want without discrimination, and legally recognized unions, and they would like the same for themselves.
“On the other hand, corporatists want to be able to have unfettered access to anything that strengthens their bottom line, even if that means other people’s (and animals’) health and lives have to suffer as a consequence. Sexists and racists want to retain the unearned dominance that (many) white men have enjoyed, and one of the best ways to do that is to limit opportunities to white women and all people of color who might challenge the status quo. The pro-life movement seeks to ensure that everyone abide by their opinion on abortion; simply choosing not to get an abortion oneself is not good enough. The anti-gay marriage brigade is similarly not happy with the right it has to be married, but wants to 'protect' that right by denying it to others.
“Across the board, you’ll see that progressives share in common the desire to give everyone the best life and equal opportunity. Conservatives view it as a zero-sum game—if you increase women’s rights, you’re taking something away from men; if you grant marriage rights to gays, you’re taking something away from straights. And in some sense, it’s true, but what’s being diminished is undeserved dominance at the expense of others.
“Progressives don’t see undeserved dominance as a right. Hence, my rights end where yours begin. Each of us has all the freedom in the world do whatever the hell we please, as long as it doesn’t encroach upon someone else’s ability to do the same.”
What do you think? How would you define a progressive?
Daou Lays the Smack Down
It’s simple: if your core values and beliefs and positions, no matter how reasonable, how mainstream, how correct, how ethical, are filtered to the public through the lens of a media that has inoculated the public against your message, and if the media is the public’s primary source of information, then NOTHING you say is going to break through and change that dynamic. Which explains, in large measure, the Dems’ sorry electoral failures.Go read the whole thing. Daou says that “the latent power of the netroots is ignored at the political and media establishment's risk.” I wish I were as optimistic. I hope he’s right.
There are a number of reasons why Democrats allow the media problem to fester. First, the “liberal” media mantra has been so pervasive that it is still accepted as fact by many beltway insiders. Republicans have mastered the art of institutional rage against the media, Democrats have not. Second, Democratic strategists haven’t learned how to distinguish between stories and storylines. (The insidious effect of infectious narratives, the power of inoculation techniques, the concept of memetics and the role of the Internet, are alien to the Democratic establishment. And I say that having been in the belly of that establishment during the 2004 election). Third, “blame the media” feels like a cop-out.
But this isn’t about “blaming the media” or excusing other strategic mistakes on the part of Democrats, it’s about understanding what happens when skillfully-crafted pro-GOP storylines are injected into the American bloodstream by the likes of Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews, Paula Zahn, Dana Milbank, Kyra Phillips, Cokie Roberts, Tom Brokaw, Jim VandeHei, Bob Schieffer, Bill Schneider, Tim Russert, Howard Fineman, Norah O'Donnell, Elizabeth Bumiller, Adam Nagourney, Bob Woodward, and their ilk, not to mention rabid partisans like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity…
A disproportionate amount of power is wielded by a handful of opinion-shapers, and when these individuals tell America a story that favors the right and marginalizes the left, the remedies are few.
Progressive bloggers and the millions of online activists whose conversations they shepherd are fighting to close the triangle. Sadly, Democrats will resist, out of fear. And the press will fight back, hard.
Heebie-Jeebies
The Kanab, Utah, City Council has seen fit to pass a non-binding resolution promoting the "natural family," the Salt Lake Tribune reports. The resolution (PDF on this page), big shock, "labels marriage between a man and a woman as 'ordained of God,' sees homes as 'open to a full quiver of children,' and envisions young women 'growing into wives, homemakers and mothers and ... young men growing into husbands, home builders and fathers.'" It was pitched to the council by the Sutherland Institute ("Adding Value to Utah"), a conservative think tank in Salt Lake City that's probably not wild about that city's mayor, and whose founder, Gaylord K. Swim, was actually named Gaylord K. Swim.There’s a lot to make my skin crawl there, but the phrase that seals the deal is “a full quiver of children,” for all the expected reasons having to do with treating women as little more than nonstop breeding machines, but also because I find the idea of children as arrows waiting to be shot out into the world like weapons against things like reproductive choice and gay rights rather disconcerting.
The very helpful QuiverFull.com provides some useful etymology—and while you’re there, be sure to pick up your copy of Birthing Gods Mighty Warriors, “a hard-hitting, scriptually [sic] based expose on the emotional, physical, and spritual [sic] damage caused by the secular idea of birth control.”
We are living in the last days. An anointed generation must come to earth to help prepare the way of the Lord. Many in this generation will be children.So, an anointed generation must come (future tense), and many of them will be children. Does QuiverFull know something about a new-fangled method of human reproduction that spawns full-fledged adults? Is there a covert plan to develop anointed robots? Maybe since they don’t know how to correctly spell “scriptural” or “spiritual,” I should just chalk this up to poor writing, rather than any mysterious scientific breakthroughs.
Oh, the horror!
Martha-Ann, get me the fainting couch. Kanye West is posing as the Jeebus on the cover of Rolling Stone. Cases of the vapors abound. (Hat tip Atrios.)
I might be indisposed for a bit while I spend long hours in a futile search for similar outrage over the following images:
Yeah, but We Don't Need Troops That Badly...
Gee, I can't imagine why we're seeing headlines like this one:
Deployments Stretching Army, Study Finds
WASHINGTON - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.
As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump — missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 — and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.
Of course, the contempt for soldier safety, a war based on lies, a dismissive White House, and the horror of war itself would have nothing to do with that.
"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public. While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.
Illustrating his level of concern about strain on the Army, Krepinevich titled one of his report's chapters, "The Thin Green Line."
He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.
Wow. This is really, really bad news.
Col. Lewis Boone, spokesman for Army Forces Command, which is responsible for providing troops to war commanders, said it would be "a very extreme characterization" to call the Army broken. He said his organization has been able to fulfill every request for troops that it has received from field commanders.
Okay, fine. While I think the word "broken" is kind of a ridiculous word to use, I'm sure that those responsible for providing troops would be doing everything possible to get new recruits, and keep the ones they have, right? Wait a second... what's that story right below this one?
Officers Discharged Under Gay Policy
Ah.
WASHINGTON - Hundreds of officers and health care professionals have been discharged in the past 10 years under the Pentagon's policy on gays, a loss that while relatively small in numbers involves troops who are expensive for the military to educate and train.
The 350 or so affected are a tiny fraction of the 1.4 million members of the uniformed services and about 3.5 percent of the more than 10,000 people discharged under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy since its inception in 1994.
But many were military school graduates or service members who went to medical school at the taxpayers' expense — troops not as easily replaced by a nation at war that is struggling to fill its enlistment quotas.
So once again, we're willing to weaken the military and compromise the safety of Americans and American troops... because we're scared someone might see our willie in the shower.
"You don't just go out on the street tomorrow and pluck someone from the general population who has an Air Force education, someone trained as a physician, someone who bleeds Air Force blue, who is willing to serve, and that you can put in Iraq tomorrow," said Beth Schissel, who graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1989 and went on to medical school.
Schissel was forced out of the military after she acknowledged that she was gay.
Key phrase there: Willing to serve. It just amazes me that, in this day and age, in this colossal blunder of a war, the Military is still willing to reject an incredibly qualified soldier... one that wants to serve, remember... a freakin' physician, fer chrissakes, because she's a lesbian.
These discharges comprise a very small percentage of the total and should be viewed in that context," said Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman. She added that troops discharged under the law can continue to serve their country by becoming a private military contractor or working for other federal agencies.
You know what, Krenke? Blow me sideways. I'm sure you noticed, being in the Pentagon and everything, that we are at war. We can't meet our recruitment efforts, no one wants to fight, and you're rejecting qualified soldiers because of a ridiculous policy. People that are highly qualified, with skills that are desperately needed, and that are (fortunately for you), willing to jump in and get their hands dirty. And possibly get blown in half. I don't care how small the percentage is; that's immaterial. Do you honestly think that if you approached military commanders and offered them a few hundred highly qualified, eager soldiers, that they would reject them because they were a small percentage?
Bullshit. Wake up. Pull your heads out of the sand. Haven't you learned your lesson from your mistake with Arabic translators? And as for whining about "the taxpayer's expense:"
Early last year the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, estimated it cost the Pentagon nearly $200 million to recruit and train replacements for the nearly 9,500 troops that had to leave the military because of the policy. The losses included hundreds of highly skilled troops, including translators, between 1994 through 2003.
Two Hundred Million dollars.
Look, we can't afford this crap. Get over your bigotry, stop knuckling under to the religious right, and get rid of this policy. It's ridiculous, it's archaic, and it's compromising the safety of Americans and our stretched-to-the-breaking-point Military.
When you've got Santorum telling America that putting one of his goddamed bumper stickers on your car is comparable to serving in the military... when he's actually telling people not to serve, you'd better take whatever you can get.
Especially when they're physicians and Arabic translators.
(I've got a cross-post in the Pacific... and everything about it is terriffic...)
Don’t know why, there’s no sun up in the sky; stormy weather…
The White House, citing—altogether now!—the confidentiality of executive branch communications, is refusing to provide documents related to Hurricane Katrina. They have also declined to allow senior White House officials, including chief of staff Andy Card, deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, domestic security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend, and deputy domestic security adviser Ken Rapuano, to testify before either of two Congressional committees investigating the storm response.
It’s a move so outrageous even Joe Lieberman is mad.
"There has been a near total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation that we have a responsibility to do," Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said at Tuesday's hearing of the Senate committee investigating the response. His spokeswoman said he would ask for a subpoena for documents and testimony if the White House did not comply…Whatever. Let’s get real here. A president can get all the confidential advice and have all the confidential conversations he needs, and that confidentiality will be protected as long as no laws are broken and nothing goes wrong. But as soon as something does, especially on the catastrophic level of going-wrongness that was on display during Hurricane Katrina, we need to figure out what went wrong, where it went wrong, how and why it went wrong, so we can fix it, and who’s responsible, so we can hold them accountable for the lives that were lost. Preventing the same thing from happening again trumps confidentiality. Any leader with a shred of integrity would agree. End of story.
"The White House and the administration are cooperating with both the House and Senate," [deputy White House spokesman Trent Duffy] said. "But we have also maintained the president's ability to get advice and have conversations with his top advisers that remain confidential."
A pathetic side note from the same article:
The White House this week also formally notified Representative Richard H. Baker, Republican of Louisiana, that it would not support his legislation creating a federally financed reconstruction program for the state that would bail out homeowners and mortgage lenders. Many Louisiana officials consider the bill crucial to recovery, but administration officials said the state would have to use community development money appropriated by Congress.Nice.
RIP Chris Penn
Actor Chris Penn died at age 40 last night.
Police said they discovered the 40-year-old actor's body around 4 p.m. Lt. Frank Fabrega said there were no obvious signs of foul play…Very sad. Who’s going to play all the best dirty and/or inept cops and psychotic and/or inept gangsters now?
An autopsy will be conducted to determine the cause of death, authorities said.
Chris Penn's credits included "Mulholland Falls," "Rumble Fish," "All the Right Moves," "Footloose" and "Rush Hour." He also played Nice Guy Eddie Cabot in the 1992 Quentin Tarantino crime drama "Reservoir Dogs."
Casey Supports Alito
Oy. When are Democrats actually going to start running Democrats again?
For crying out loud, this is just ludicrous. In the year 2006, it is patently unacceptable for a Democratic Senatorial candidates—particularly in a state (as LeMew points out) which was carried by both Gore and Kerry—to be blithely unconcerned about a SCOTUS nominee who is actively hostile toward women’s rights, ethically challenged, a resolute corporatist, and supportive of the notion of the unitary executive. More LeMew:
I am on the record of being highly skeptical of Robert Casey Jr.'s claims to be a staunch progressive who happens to be extremely reactionary on women's rights, but I was also open-minded. Well, just like Ricky "Five Angels" Santorum he's endorsed the arch-reactionary-on-every-conceivable-issue Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. That's enough; Casey should not be the Democratic nominee. Chuck Pennacchio doesn't support the right-of-Scalia Alito, and he deserves the support of Pennsylvania Democrats.The Democrats’ 2006 slogan is “Together, America Can Do Better” but from everything I’m seeing, a more appropriate slogan would be “Me, too!” With rampant and wanton corruption plaguing Congress, the Dems actually waited until the GOP rolled out its own reform plan before they rolled out theirs, which looked almost exactly the same. Me, too! The Dems chose a gay-baiting warhawk to deliver the rebuttal to Bush’s State of the Union address. Me, too! With a real chance of ousting the odious Santorum, a pro-life, Alito-supporting candidate is given the big establishment props. Me, too!
...it's worth noting as well that Harry Reid--an actually progressive pro-life Democrat--is strongly opposed to Alito, and Russ Feingold will be casting his first vote ever against a Supreme Court nominee. Alito--Scalia or Thomas without even a libertarian streak--will probably the most reactionary Supreme Court justice in over a half-century...
You know, progressive bloggers have taken on the thankless and all-but-futile task of trying to combat a massive conservative message movement, which entails constantly debunking GOP talking points, combating the ungodly conservative shill machine including print and television pundits, columnists, chat hosts, talk radio, radical religious groups, law groups, anti-choice groups, homobigot groups, racist groups, and all manner of extremist rhetoric from a seemingly never-ending stream of its purveyors, and trying to get some traction for progressive ideas again while defending your useless Dem asses against charges that you’re the Party of No Ideas. The least you could do is give us something better than Me, too!. Not just because it would make our unpaid, unsung, and unappreciated efforts that much easier, but because Americans deserve better than that.
Do you not see that, or do you just not fucking care?
Question of the Day
Stolen from PSoTD: Which blogger would you most like to see run for public office—and which office?
I chose to totally punt on the question, and answered that I’d rather see Peter Daou, who has elucidated the keenest understanding of what is missing in the Left's political infrastructure, handed carte blanche to cast out all the current democratic strategists and start rebuilding from the ground up.
But if I’m going to answer my own question, I’d nominate John Howard for president. He’s resolutely and unabashedly progressive, frames his argument on every issue in a totally no-nonsense, straightforward way that seems congenitally elusive for establishment Dems, he knows when to debate, when to fight, and when to treat a counter-argument with the contempt it deserves, and he’s inimitably relatable, likable, and genuinely witty. I could absolutely see him winning over NASCAR dads with good, old-fashioned common sense and integrity. He’s also very smart; all the evidence you need is that he was the first commenter ever at Shakespeare’s Sister (heh heh).
And I’m fairly certain he’s actually old enough to run.
Now you.
Media Tricks
This is certainly a curious argument not impeaching Bush:
Stanford University historian Jack Rakove, a constitutional expert, said breaking the law on domestic spying would qualify as an impeachable offense, but that Congress should be hesitant to pursue it. The Clinton impeachment was a major distraction for the nation, he said. Some have suggested it hurt the U.S. effort against al-Qaida before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.So…don’t impeach a president for a blatant and illegal disregard of Americans’ civil liberties—an action he has repeatedly justified by invoking the specter of 9/11—because impeaching the last president for committing perjury about a consensual sex act led to 9/11. The Clenis made him do it! The logical extrapolation from that rationale is that if the Republican Congress had not gone on a witch hunt, leading the nation (and, presumably, its leaders) to distraction, 9/11 would never have happened.
Ahem.
But here’s the thing—I happen to know who Jack Rakove is. He’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who I respect very much (even though I don’t always agree with him), and I’m fairly certain that he wasn’t one of the “some” who have suggested that any distraction caused by impeachment proceedings against Clinton hurt his administration’s counter-terrorism efforts. In fact, he wrote a piece for Salon in June of last year outlining his objections to impeaching Bush that didn’t mention anything of the sort.
What I think happened is that the last sentence of the above excerpt got tacked on by the writer as part of the ongoing effort to provide “fair and balanced” coverage. Rakove says impeachments are major national distractions we should avoid. “Some” say that they such distractions can lead to terror attacks. But, in the end, it leaves a reader (especially one who has no idea who Rakove is) with the impression that Rakove is not making a general statement about impeachments (which is in keeping with his opinion expressed elsewhere), but a specific statement about Clinton’s impeachment and how it related to 9/11. And in a weird juxtaposition, the attempt to provide balance to crackpot conservatives, who like to blame 9/11 on Clinton, the onus ends up resting more on those who pursued the impeachment—the GOP.
Is it any wonder the American public is clueless? Geez.
Ha—Abramoff Shopping Abramoff Photos
The supposed pictures of Bush and Abramoff that were the focus of some discussion over the weekend are actually being shopped around by Abramoff himself. What a douche.
Related News: Bush consults Alberto Gonzales on the legality of preemptive pardons.
IBM Sued for Not Paying Workers for Overtime
IBM was sued in federal court today by three current and former employees who allege the corporation refused to pay overtime to “tens of thousands of rank-and-file employees.”
"They were forced to work overtime without being paid in a manner that is required by the state and federal laws," attorney James Finberg said.I don’t think this situation is specific to the technology industry. I’ve always worked at small firms, and most people were salaried long before they should have been so the employer could avoid overtime pay. Those who were paid hourly were given the old “we don’t approve overtime pay, so if you work longer than 8 hours, it’s your choice” song-and-dance, knowing full well that most employees would have to work more than 40 hours every week to get through their work loads. Frankly, everyone I know who works at any type of corporate job faces the same thing. Left with the options of not finishing your work to prove a point (and getting shit-canned), suing your employer, or just sucking up and dealing, most people choose the last of those three equally undesirable options. Or go somewhere else, where they find themselves in the same situation.
Lawyers said they are seeking millions of dollars in back pay for employees of the world's biggest technology services provider based in Armonk, N.Y. They are also considering punitive damages.
Experts speculated that the practice of not paying overtime to workers who deserve it was widespread in the technology industry.
"In the last couple of years, there has definitely been an increase in the number of wage-and-hour actions brought on behalf of computer related employees," said Oakland attorney Jeff Ross, who is representing 840 engineers working for applications software maker Siebold Systems Inc. in a pending overtime class action.
Employees allege they were forced to work more than 40 hours a week, and were called in on weekends without getting overtime pay.
This is the big secret behind American productivity going up with fewer workers, especially in small companies. Someone quits, or someone gets fired, and they don’t get replaced. Their work gets divided up among the remaining staff, and the extra cash goes in the coffers. Everyone I know at a corporate job complains about how they’re part of a skeleton crew—and don’t get paid for overtime.
It’s a despicable practice, largely ignored in discussions of workers’ rights, which is, in itself, an issue that barely gets lipservice even from our allegedly liberal Senators and Reps these days.
Wow
Thinkin’ is Hard Work
US President George W. Bush looks over the crowd and collects his thoughts as he is introduced on stage to deliver remarks on the global war on terror at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas. Bush, under fire for ordering unprecedented spying on US citizens, defended the program as limited, legal and critical to thwarting terrorist plots.(AFP/Paul J. Richards)
Collecting his thoughts, eh? No wonder he looks like he’s in excruciating pain.
My favorite bit from that appearance, btw, was when a college sophomore totally stumped him during the unscripted Q&A following his speech.
Q: My name is Tiffany Cooper. I’m a sophomore here at Kansas State and I was just wanting to get your comments about education. Recently 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our futures?For those of you who have managed to resist learning Bushese, let me translate that last paragraph for you: Blah blah babble-dee-babble-dee-boo blah yadda yadda stammer stutter meh uh blah blah blah.
Bush: Education budget was cut — say it again. What was cut?
Q: 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. I’m wanting to know how is that supposed to help our futures?
Bush: At the federal level?
Q: Yes.
Bush: I don’t think we’ve actually — for higher education? Student loans?
Q: Yes, student loans.
Bush: Actually, I think what we did was reform the student loan program. We are not cutting money out of it. In other words, people aren’t going to be cut off the program. We’re just making sure it works better as part of the reconciliation package I think she’s talking about? Yeah — It is a form of the program to make sure it functions better. In other words, we’re not taking people off student loans. We’re saving money in the student loan program because it’s inefficient. So I think the thing to look at is whether or not there will be fewer people getting student loans. I don’t think so.
Secondly, on Pell Grants, we are actually expanding the number of Pell grants through our budget. Great question. The key on education is to make sure that we stay focused on how do we stay competitive into the 21st century, and I plan on doing some talking about math and science and engineering programs so that people who graduate out of college will have the skills necessary to compete in this competitive world. But I think i’m right on this. I will check when I get back to Washington, but thank you for your question.
(Think Progress has the video.)
Prudish Paris
#1: I love that this is news. Even “news,” like with really dramatic air quotes. That it even is considered publishable because people will care just amuses me to no end—until I remember how we’re now a totalitarian dictatorship because people know more about some useless trust fund kid named Paris than some useless trust fund kid named George, and then I start to whimper and my body involuntarily begins to curl itself into the fetal position.
Paris Hilton has refused to pose naked in Playboy - despite having already bared all to the world in her leaked sex tape.#2: I love her reason for turning it down.
The sexy socialite - who unintentionally starred in X-rated home movie 'One Night In Paris' - says Hugh Hefner is desperate for her to feature in his famous magazine.
The 24-year-old beauty claims the magazine mogul has hounded her since she was a teenager.
She said: "They've asked me a million times. Hef has been after me since I was 17, and I got offered a lot of money.
"I'll never do it. Why? Because I'm Paris Hilton."#3: I love that the vague state of what I can only describe as a sort of fugue hovering somewhere between depression and mania brought on by the fact that this is “news” is immediately lifted by the realization that someone, somewhere, will have said something brilliantly bitchy about it. My savior, Michael K:
This has got to be the funniest thing I've ever read. We've all seen Parasite Hilton's coochie, breasts and asshole! I think I've even seen her uterus! But, Parasite has said that she would never pose in Playboy! Why?! That's basically free money! She gets nude anyway, she might as well get paid for it…Ahh, all better now. Except for the whole tyranny stuff, but even the string quartet on the Titanic probably took a smoke break now and then.
We've seen so much of this ho that she could pose inside/out and we still wouldn't be shocked.
