co-bloggers? shank don't need no stinkin' co-bloggers!
Hello. What Shank doesn't know is that Jim (who originally blogged here and is now missing & presumed employed) gave six people rights to post here while he was on vacation -- let's call them The Snooze Crew™ -- and I was one of those six.
He never revoked that right. And now I see Shank has put out a request for co-bloggers, not knowing he already has some!
There's a lesson in there, somewhere.
So. I think I'm gonna post here every now and then, mostly because I think it'll annoy Shank. And maybe Jim, but I'm ready to take that risk. It's possible I'll see my rights revoked Real Soon Now, but until that happens, enjoy this clip from the old Johnny Cash Show:
And just so you know: I don't really want to annoy Jim, because he's a good guy.
Oldie But Goodie
Since I've got absolutely nothing and haven't had anything for about three months, here's something from PJ O'Rourke that's like 30 years old from National Lampoon whereby PJ rips into foreigners. It's titled Foreigners Around the World - A Brief Survey of the Various Foreigners, Their Chief Characteristics, Customs, and Manners.
Here's a taste but read the whole thing. It's brutally funny. I don't know how he got away with this except it was National Lampoon and it was the 70's.
GERMANS
Racial Characteristics:
Piggish-looking, sadomasochistic automatons whose only known forms of relaxation are swilling watery beer from vast tubs and singing the idiotically repetitive verses of their porcine folk tune-both of which amusements probably hark back to a prehuman state. Germans have never been successfully Christianized. Their language lacks any semblance of civilized speech. Their usual diet consists almost wholly of old cabbage and sections of animal intestines filled with blood and gore. Once every two or three decades, they set forth, lemming-like, on pointless military adventures during which great numbers of them are slaughtered-much to the improvement Of the world in general. Their lardy women have long, tangled masses of sticky hair under their arms, and the men shave the sides of their heads.
Good Points:
Kill a lot of French.
Proper Form of Address:
Kraut, Hun, Heiny, spike-head, sausage-breath.
Blogs Worth Reading
Until we get around to posting something worthwhile, which, to be honest, isn't slated to happen until sometime in early '08; I offer up a blog for your review. A close associate of mine has traded in her cushy job, her Arlington high-rise apartment, and all the associated conveniences of young professional big-city livin' for a ten year old Volvo station wagon and a year on the open road.
She sums it all up pretty well:
"Graduated from college. Worked for a year in DC. Have decided to chuck it all (except health care) for a road trip. Cue the Sound of Music opening montage."
Posted by: Keith at September 25, 2007 08:25 AM (jbvVc)
2
dude, where are all the posts? and where are all the people? is this turning into an internet ghost town?
dammit, authors, sack up and get your bitch asses in the kitchen and write me some real-life tales of humor and crackheads.
(btw, totally agree that hollywood is imploding and it makes me giddly with voyeuristic euphoria. and i don't even own a tv)
Posted by: khans at September 27, 2007 11:41 PM (BKcKw)
3
You do to own a TV, you liar. It's one of those flatscreen HD ones too. You just keep it in a box in someone else's attic with all your other worldy possessions.
Jesus, look at you. It only took ten damn days and you're already acting like you're Jack fucking Kerouac.
Posted by: shank at September 28, 2007 07:30 AM (+H1yK)
Dammit!
If I hadn't been so busy lately, I would have posted something like this recently. From Iowahawk:
In the back yard of scientific researchings behind the Great Storage Shed of the People, Iowahawk scientists successfully conducted above-ground nuclear missile test explosions under secure and many malt liquor conditions on early hours of October 10, 2006, at a stirring time when alarm clocks of the neighborhood have yet to clangle.
What really sucks is I can get my hands on all manner of pyrotechnic jubilation just across the border in South Carolina. Hey, I guess they figured if it was going to be legal to fuck your cousin, you might as well be able to purchase high explosives at a roadside stand.
WTF?
Man, it's crowded around here at Chez Snooze. Jim moved the Snooze Crew out of the guest bedrooms and into the bathroom and living room. I'm under the sink, living inside the cabinet like a rat.
Appropriate, eh? Here's a picture of a rat sleeping in better accomodations than what Jim has given us:
Anyway, I'd like to give a warm Snooze Crew welcome to Paul and Shank, except I won't. Paul snores and Shank pisses Jen off sometimes. He *claims* she likes it, but I know better. Good thing he hasn't attacked Susie or it'd really be war.
Also, did anyone else notice Paul is one of the gay James Bonds instead of Sean Connery?
UPDATE: I do believe I owe shank an apology. He has commented:
Ya know, I've always wondered if Paul was a little..feshnickit. I mean, all this metrosexual, drinking martinis and reading books shit. If I didn't know he was a scotch drinker, I'd swear he was an asspirate.
I now realize shank is not prejudiced. He hates everybody.
Posted by: Susie at November 16, 2005 01:24 PM (a0oF7)
3
Ya know, I've always wondered if Paul was a little..feshnickit. I mean, all this metrosexual, drinking martinis and reading books shit. If I didn't know he was a scotch drinker, I'd swear he was an asspirate.
Posted by: shank at November 16, 2005 06:45 PM (jfEhX)
1
mine's already up on my blog. Save the beer for the pig consumption.
I'll bet Frank was yummy....
Posted by: caltechgirl at October 04, 2005 07:13 PM (WfvM0)
2
Jim the sauce recipe's got to stay in the family.
From what I hear you've got a purdy mouth and this is the number one gay blog in MuNuviana...
Posted by: phin at October 04, 2005 10:31 PM (DGPlf)
3
Actually, Phin, ol' bean, it was me. Can you answer me this: East NC or West NC style?
(But, yeah, Jim sure does have a purdy mouth.)
Posted by: Victor at October 05, 2005 07:38 AM (L3qPK)
4
As many times as Jim's stressed to me that reading are do be fundamental I still skip the damned Posted by bit.
It's Eastern North Carolina, Greenville to be exact.
Posted by: phin at October 05, 2005 04:04 PM (Xvpen)
PETA, the quizRachel Ann has a little comment quiz today. My answer ended up way too big for a comment section so I'm posting it here. This way has a side benefit - maybe some of y'all can head over to Rachel's place so she gets more participation.
Here are my answers to her questions:
1.PETA--what is the first image that comes to your mind hearing the name?
Domestic terrorism.
2.How do you react emotionally?
Generally with disgust.
3.Do you agree or disagree with PETA's overall message?
Do they even have an overall message? Some of their specific messages, like handing out buckets of blood and comic books saying "Mommy murders dogs", leave me relatively speechless.
4.Do you agree or disagree with how PETA presents that message?
You could safely classify me as part of the "disagree" group.
5.Are (or were) you a vegetarian?
No. I thoroughly enjoy meat in all of its delicious variety.
6.Do you own any pets?
Um...yeah. The current pet count is 14. 7 of those are of the dog and/or cat variety. The rest are decorative - birds and fish and suchlike.
7.What rights over animals do you think humans should have?
All of them.
8.Is experimentation on animals always wrong? Sometimes wrong? And if permissable when, what types of experiments, and how should they be conducted?
No, experimentation on animals isn't wrong. It is necessary for scientific advances and to promote certain economic factors. That said, I use Aussie hair products partially because they don't do animal testing. I'm happy to support a cosmetics company that goes through the expense of alternative product testing. That is MY choice as a consumer.
9. To what uses can we put animals? (Pets only, aide animals etc.)
Animals should be put to whatever use can be found for them. Pets, farm animals, food source, guide dogs, helper monkeys, medical and biological testing. Whatever works.
10. Including PETA, what animal rights groups (if any) do you support?
I don't support PETA in any way, shape or form. They are reprehensible. Come to think of it, I don't support any animal rights groups. Animals don't have rights. I do support our local animal shelters.
Summary:
All of that above makes me look like I torture bunnies for the fun of it. That is completely untrue. I torture bunnies for the large cash rewards.
Heh. Just kidding, it really is just for the fun of it.
There I go again. Serious now...
Animals are not people. They do not have rights. However, people do have the responsibility to care for an animal when they accept that burden. If you get a pet you have the responsibility to care for that pet. It is the dog's owner who is responsible for making sure that dog doesn't bite a kid. It is also that dog owner's responsibility to feed and shelter the dog. The way that a person (or a company, for that matter) cares for his animals says a world about him.
PETA disgusts me on many levels. They are so over the top with propaganda and bald-faced lies that it amazes me when otherwise intelligent people fall for their bullshit. They openly give money to ELF, a known terroristic organization. They promote illegal action by their members. They encourage assault and sabotage. I do not for the life of me understand how they have escapted federal prosecution on racketeering and domestic terrorism charges.
PETA animal shelters are not no-kill shelters. Isn't that the height of hypocrisy? PETA shelters in Florida kill more animals every year than all other shelters in Florida combined. Instead of finding homes for animals they spend millions of dollars on child propaganda every year. They truly disgust me.
1
Thanks Jim,
as so often happens with me I blog on topics that come up in e-mail lists. This one regards PETA and whether or not they are a good organization.
If and when I get a few more answers I'll let you know my position and why I asked.
Again, thanks Jim for posting this, and I really would enjoy participation from others, either by doing as he did or posting on my blog....
Thanks to all who take part
Posted by: Rachel Ann at September 19, 2005 09:55 AM (DVw8r)
2All of that above makes me look like I torture bunnies for the fun of it. That is completely untrue. I torture bunnies for the large cash rewards.
Heh.
That sad thing is, some of these people believe that is literally true.
Posted by: owlish at September 19, 2005 11:57 AM (bJF7u)
3
OK,I do not agree 100% here.I DO believe animals have rights.They have the right to be treated accordingly and not like a piece of shit.I think considering the fact that animals can not speak for themselves,they should have at least a few basic rights a/k to be treated with respect to their purpose.
PETA can kiss my ass however.
Posted by: The Brat at September 19, 2005 01:07 PM (oqu5j)
4PETA animal shelters are not no-kill shelters. Isn't that the height of hypocrisy?
Did you see the story where PETA employees were taking animals from shelters, killing them and dumping them in a dumpster?
Yeah, that's ethical treatment...
Posted by: Jen at September 19, 2005 05:29 PM (ggrbd)
5
Well put, Jim.
I have all the sympathy in the world for people who love, care for, and raise animals. But I lose patience over the "rights" argument. Simply put, these are ANIMALS. They are not capable of understanding the concept of rights. They are not capable of higher reasoning (come to think of it, some humans fall in that category). They were put on this earth for OUR use.
That being said, they should be treated with dignity and respect and, in the case of experimentation, they should not have to go through anything more uncomfortable than what a human subject should go through.
Posted by: diamond dave at September 19, 2005 05:31 PM (yQsq1)
6
Diamond Dave, you are correct: some people are not capable of higher reasoning. Many humans (young children, the mentally handicapped) cannot understand the concept of rights. Does that mean they don't have rights? Of course not.
I agree that animals "should be treated with dignity and respect". Isn't that another way of saying animals have rights -- not all the rights that humans have, but at least the basic right to be treated with dignity and respect? Just like all those humans who are not capable of higher reasoning.
Posted by: mijnheer at September 19, 2005 06:04 PM (aatIR)
Taking another quiz for Jim
Victor here because Jim is ignoring his blog again. And since he was so thrilled with the results of the last test I took for him, I decided to do another one for him, by using the Very Scientifical method of just clicking on whatever the hell I feel like. Today, we learn which Classic Leading Lady good ol' Jim would make. It's in the extended entry, but I'll give you a hint: Mommie Dearest.
more...
1
I better post something soon. I need to save my boobs for Harvey's birthday.
Posted by: Jim at September 10, 2005 09:10 PM (oqu5j)
2
Hello! To commemorate 9/11, I've decided to visit every single blog on my blogroll today. I appreciate the entertainment and enjoyment you provide, and I wish you peace and happiness.
LJ
Posted by: mooalex at September 11, 2005 08:27 PM (k8QWM)
Death brings validity?This has been bugging me. Not Ilyka's post itself, but rather the topic dissected therein. You see, there are three things I really can't stand: idiots, poseurs, and idiot poseurs. They rankle me. It seriously bothers me that people without a basic rational understanding of logic can pretend to offer arguments.
This fellow Robert Crook, a blogger for Salon, makes the following arguments:
Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war.
Her opinion is valid because her son died there.
Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war.
Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there.
Lets boil that down:
The prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the war in Iraq is the traumatic loss of a son in Iraq.
Given that Mr.Crook has not lost a son in Iraq, his argument invalidates his own opinion of the war in Iraq.
That, my friends, is the mental misfiring of an idiot poseur.
UPDATE:Charmaine's post, where Crook supporters are busy saying "HE DID NOT!"
Well, HE DID TOO:
Tammy [Pruett] can get back to us with what she thinks of Gee Dubya's Gulf War II if one of her immediate family members is killed.
1
What're you doing posting on your blog when I'm posting on your blog?!?!?!?
Posted by: Victor at August 31, 2005 08:56 AM (L3qPK)
2
Down, Victor.
Did you see the comments at Charmaine's? That's where Robert argues that he was not either granting more moral standing to Sheehan; he was only saying that Pruett can't be her logical opposite! Really! That's all he was tryin' to say! Why we all pickin' on Robert? He was only saying they're not opposites!
Oh, and that Bush lied, people died, because Halliburton. I think I caught something about that too.
Posted by: ilyka at August 31, 2005 12:13 PM (FLmL2)
Posted by: Victor at August 31, 2005 12:17 PM (L3qPK)
4
So the whole "She can give her opinion when she loses a son" thing was just topical humor? What a piece of work.
Charmaine is over here.
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 12:21 PM (tyQ8y)
5
First of all, you wingnuts need to know that I'm not affiliated with Salon.com in any real sense. Anyone, even one of you wingnuts, can have a Salon blog if you plop down your yearly fee. Salon is not responsible for/does not endorse what Salon bloggers post.
Secondly:
"Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war. Her opinion is valid because her son died there. Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war. Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there."
I never wrote that nor was that my argument. My argument was that you can't compare a mother who hasn't lost a child in Vietraq to a mother who has. Therefore, the Bush regime's trying to use Tammy Pruett as the anti-Cindy was bullshit because there is no comparison. That was my point, nimrods.
Funny how you wingnuts like to put words in the opposition's mouth and then attack the words that you pulled wholly from your ass.
For the record, I support Tammy Pruett's First Amendment right to say whatever misguided crap she wants to say. She lives in Idaho, so I consider the source.
Thirdly, have you seen the latest polls, my fellow Americans? More than half of Americans (53 percent) support Cindy Sheehan and think that Gulf War II wasn't worth it. And Gee Dubya's approval rating is no higher than 45 percent in any recent national poll. (Of course you know this -- you like to troll my blog.)
Fourthly Bush lied, people died and Halliburton profited -- yes, that's all true. Bush, Cheney, et. al. are traitors and war criminals and should be executed as such. It appears to be your "argument" that something is untrue if you've heard it before. Morons.
Your responses to my blog demonstrate your panic. I'd be panicking if I were you, too.
Posted by: Robert at August 31, 2005 09:33 PM (ARY2A)
6
First of all, you wingnuts need to know that I'm not affiliated with Salon.com in any real sense. Anyone, even one of you wingnuts, can have a Salon blog if you plop down your yearly fee. Salon is not responsible for/does not endorse what Salon bloggers post.
Secondly:
"Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war. Her opinion is valid because her son died there. Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war. Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there."
I never wrote that nor was that my argument. My argument was that you can't compare a mother who hasn't lost a child in Vietraq to a mother who has. Therefore, the Bush regime's trying to use Tammy Pruett as the anti-Cindy was bullshit because there is no comparison. That was my point, nimrods.
Funny how you wingnuts like to put words in the opposition's mouth and then attack the words that you pulled wholly from your ass.
For the record, I support Tammy Pruett's First Amendment right to say whatever misguided crap she wants to say. She lives in Idaho, so I consider the source.
Thirdly, have you seen the latest polls, my fellow Americans? More than half of Americans (53 percent) support Cindy Sheehan and think that Gulf War II wasn't worth it. And Gee Dubya's approval rating is no higher than 45 percent in any recent national poll. (Of course you know this -- you like to troll my blog.)
Fourthly, Bush lied, people died and Halliburton profited -- yes, that's all true. Bush, Cheney, et. al. are traitors and war criminals and should be executed as such. It appears to be your "argument" that something is untrue if you've heard it before. Morons.
Your responses to my blog demonstrate your panic. I'd be panicking if I were you, too.
Posted by: Robert at August 31, 2005 09:33 PM (ARY2A)
7
Thank you for so aptly proving my point, twice.
Sifting through your chaff I have found at least a couple of kernels to address.
Wingnut? Well, no.
You never said Pruett's opinion is invalid because she hasn't lost a son? Well, no:
Tammy [Pruett] can get back to us with what she thinks of Gee Dubya's Gulf War II if one of her immediate family members is killed.
I'm also pretty big on the First Amendment. That's why I support Cindy Sheehan's right to do what she's been doing. That isn't the same thing as either understanding her logic or supporting what she's doing.
Polls also favored Kerry to win the Presidency by a similar margin. Exit polls were slanted even more towards him. With a bit more experience you'll learn not to rely on marginal polls to support arguments.
Bush lied, people died? Prove it.
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 10:19 PM (oqu5j)
8
Pardon me just a minute but--
HAHAHAHAHA!
Criminy, Robert. Do you just sit around Googling instances of "Robert" all day long or WHAT? Because I'm thinking you must wind up looking at pictures of this fellow a lot.
No wonder you're upset. Here, have a cookie.
Posted by: ilyka at August 31, 2005 10:20 PM (FLmL2)
"man rape movies"
Since my post about Deliverance went over so well, I thought I'd try to do a series of posts about the male-rape-by-hillbilly outre of movies. I thought you all might enjoy it, plus it would certainly boost the gayness rating of Jim's blog.
Folks, don't ever google the phrase "man rape movies." Just trust me on this one.
1
The one that has left the deepest scar, pulp fiction. There's just something about the violation plus the gimp ball in the mouth that makes me want to yak.
Thanks for bringing back the memories!
Posted by: phin at August 18, 2005 06:44 PM (DGPlf)
Posted by: songstress7 at August 19, 2005 12:40 AM (ie93s)
4
Stop with the gay! I will never make it onto the gay search engines if Jim's site keeps stealing my hits!
Posted by: Trey Givens at August 19, 2005 08:43 AM (yaMs/)
5
All time worst one: Vulgar. Written and Driected by Kevin Smith. This one came out after Clerks and stared the guy who played Dante. He dresses up like a clown in lingere and gets raped.
Posted by: pylorns at August 19, 2005 11:28 AM (FTYER)
6
I'm with phin - Pulp Fiction definitely left scares...
Posted by: Clancy at August 19, 2005 01:27 PM (JxYJc)
7
I was doing ok until I made the mistake of opening up and reading the comments.
I have to go wash my mind out, now.
8
RP, you might wish to use a steel brush.
Just a thought. :~)
Posted by: Victor at August 19, 2005 02:14 PM (L3qPK)
9
Shawshank Redemption was probably the classiest man-rape movie.
How about movies that could have had a man-rape in there but missed the boat? I bet they could have stuck one into* Usual Suspects or Reservoir Dogs without any problem at all.
* No pun intended.
Posted by: Jim at August 20, 2005 11:08 AM (oqu5j)
Posted by: annika at August 20, 2005 12:40 PM (N7kta)
11
I couldn't help but remember this Kids In The Hall sketch (on topic!):
http://www.kithfan.org/work/transcripts/five/filmbuff.html
(If you're not familiar with the "Kids", well...you've been missing out. *g*)
Posted by: Amber at August 20, 2005 06:16 PM (zQE5D)
12
I'm thinking it's time to bump this off the front page. Everytime I visit and see that title I feel somewhat...unsettled.
Posted by: Paul at August 22, 2005 02:14 PM (vbP6L)
13
I can only imgaine the google hits Jim's getting.
Posted by: shank at August 22, 2005 07:19 PM (jfEhX)
14
Man, if this post is freakin' you out, you shoulda seen the one I decided *not* to post!
Still might...maybe when this one drops off the page...
Posted by: Victor at August 23, 2005 08:48 AM (L3qPK)
Dentist Visit
I'd originally posted this on my blog and since I'm sure Jim's legions of fans are itching for a post, much like heroin addicts waiting for their next boost of smack, I figured I'd share.
I was recently discussing dentist appointments with the guys at work one of them mentioned he'd rather have his nads waxed than go to the dentist. Dentist visits donÂ’t bother me, maybe itÂ’s that my dentist is an attractive lady or that most of her assistants have always been attractive women.
I'd defiantly take a trip to visit them over a nad waxing, especially after catching a couple of stray hairs in my zipper this morning.
Posted by: Jim at August 17, 2005 05:22 AM (oqu5j)
2
Good God nad waxing? That makes me cringe. How was growing the hair back anyway, James? Painful I bet. I can't believe I just asked you how the hair was growing on you balls.
I need help. But, I'm oddly curious.
Posted by: tlopriore@salesconceptsinc.com at August 17, 2005 12:02 PM (KE4Gu)
3
Jim, if you answer a rather attractive blonde instead of me, I'll...uhhh...understand completely.
Posted by: Victor at August 18, 2005 02:32 PM (L3qPK)
Hey, girl. You shore do got a purdy mouth.
Well, usually she does. Right now she's not feeling too happy about it.
In brief, Venomous Kate and her Venomous Hubby pinched the pocketbook to get her teeth fixed. Mere days before she was to receive her new pearly whites she had a bike accident and knocked out about half a score of teeth. She's now the proud owner of 6 grand worth of dental appliances that can't be used because of the new tooth loss and eight grand away from fixing the new mouthal problems.
This is very sad. When Kate smiles the blogosphere is a brighter place. If you'd like to help restore Electric Venom's bite just head on over to the Fang Fund.
Posted by: Jim at August 09, 2005 11:32 AM (tyQ8y)
3
What's funny is I saw that and thought it was too obvious. I came back and decided I had nothing to lose.
Posted by: Victor at August 09, 2005 04:50 PM (l+W8Z)
4
The wise Ms.Q (acatnamedpi.blogspot.com) said, "I am starting to figure out that what the Beatles said applies to blog love: The love you take is equal to the love you make."
So, I wanted to stop by today and just say "Hi" because I enjoy your blog, but don't stop often enough and leave a comment. Also, I wanted to invite you to contribute to my "Bloggers Summer Photo Album." Read more about it at mooalex.blogspot.com. I hope you'll want to share your summer fun with the Moo!
(Yes, this is a "form comment," but I mean every word! I swear!)
Posted by: mooalex at August 12, 2005 10:42 AM (lCwbU)
It's alive! Alive!Protomonkey has fresh content after (mumble mumble) days. Id posted an intriguing story about youthful professionalism and growing up really quickly.
