Feel better soon, Amy.

Parking uprising in LA.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/12/los_angeles_parking_tickets_protest.php

Looks like crime in LA has fallen SO MUCH that the police are bored OR a cash cow is born. MOOOOH

"When Adam Bialik, a bartender, stepped off the curb on his way to work at the Ritz-Carlton a few blinks after the crossing signal began its red “Don’t Walk” countdown, he was met by a waiting police officer on the other side of the street and issued a ticket for $197."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/us/in-a-car-culture-clash-its-los-angeles-police-vs-pedestrians.html?_r=0

Malum Prohibitum (That's high-falutin' for "because I said so, that's why".) is the construct by which the status of serfs as chattel children is expressed.

As usual, the best job available to the lowborn is man-at-arms. Machiavelli would nod approvingly on learning that intelligence is a disqualification in some jurisdictions.

The ticket is $197 for the same reason a street cleaning ticket $25 or $30 when I got here: scumbag politicians need to pay for all the bullshit crony programs they vote in.

I met Beeber (the guy behind the end of the red light cams in LA) and his wife at two parties recently. I'm betting there's a reason video about him because one of these parties was at reason's HQ.

Yep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W_aXo4UOlo

The first paragraph of an from a pissed off vet to Paul Ryan:

Please note that this request by you for a cash donation from me is extremely unfortunate and very ill-timed. You see sir, I am one of the military retirees your “bipartisan” budget just impacted. You and every Republican (both in the House and Senate that voted to pass this travesty betrayed and broke trust with me and everyone like me. You may not know us by name, but we’re the people, Congressman, who answered our Nation’s call, some of us at a very early age to willingly serve YOU and others LIKE YOU so you could safely attend college and pursue your personal ambitions without fear of harm.

The full letter is toward the bottom.

I'll deny it if you quote me, but some disco cheese was kinda flavorful.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Get a clue; I hated that shit.

I swear, Crid, if you play any of that shit during our tryst, I'll walk out. Buck nekkid, I won't care.

Just because I love the cacophonic wails of the Palinites. "Stop harassing Sarah Palin! Waaaaaah! You're so obsessed with her! The Palins live in your head! Leave her aloooooooone!"

Sarah Palin wants a leadership role in defending Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson. But the poor dear evidently thought it too much trouble to actually read the article. So, despite the assertion that Phil Robertson was "quoting the gospel" (he wasn't), she doesn't even know what he said.

Shame. It would have been hilarious to read about Sarah Palin defending slavery and claiming blacks were happy with it. But, alas, she had to go ahead and admit she doesn't even know what Phil Robertson said. Well, I guess that gets her off the hook for being pro-slavery. Bummer.

Apparently, running for Vice-President while being clueless just isn't that big of an offense to some people.

"But, but, but...Joe Biden..."

Isn't nearly as clueless as the Tea Party sacred cow.

Still there.

the thing about Palin... she would fall offa the map if people would shut up about her. people obviously care about what she thinks one way or the other, because they won't let it go.

The duck dynasty thing too. some old tv show guy speaks his mind (the HORROR!)

so he has opinions about stuff. the only relevance he has to the greater world is that people won't SHUT UP ABOUT IT. You think an old guy is gonna change his opinion, just because it's not PC? DO YOU?

An individual is under no obligation to think a certain way, which is good, cuz we all go our own.

If he is a tv guy that sounds like 'shit my dad says...' the tv channel that puts him on, should prolly not be surprised if he says precisely those things.

the whole kerfuffle makes me laugh. interestingly the group that doesn't care much are the fornicators that he mentions... maybe because they have no victim status?

I agree that the whole "Duck Dynasty" thing is a non-issue. He spoke his mind, and A&E chose to terminate their association with him for his opinions. Both Robertson and A&E have to right to act as they did. Case closed.

Palin would (and should) fall off the map, but for one thing: she ran for Vice-President and was the on the only ticket that had a realistic chance of defeating Obama. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who has such an alacrity with the open-mouth-insert-foot maneuver. What I find hilarious is not that she's defending Robertson without reading what he actually said -- she'd hardly be the first politician to do that -- but that she doesn't have the sense to be embarrassed by the admission.

Anyone with the brains to recognize she's been caught defending statements that she didn't bother to familiarize themselves with would probably be rather sheepish when they made the admission. Not our beloved Sarah. She's all, I haven't read the statements, but I know he was quoting the gospel and I support him.

Who could resist such a delectable buffoon.

> I'll walk out.

What are you talking about? Those old lavishly orchestrated funk instrumentals meant nothing to me... Nothing at all, and I resent the implication that they did.

Listen, I don't know which of you fuckers posted that comment with that link to that video and then signed my name to it from this IP, but that shit has to stop right now.

Crid is evidently suffering from DID.

"So, despite the assertion that Phil Robertson was "quoting the gospel" (he wasn't), she doesn't even know what he said."

Once again Patrick begging for attention without stating facts, just his opinion.

...despite the assertion that Phil Robertson was "quoting the gospel" (he wasn't)....

I Googled it - since I don't remember the Bible ever actually using the specific term "homosexual" - to see what exactly Phil was quoting, or misquoting.

Robertson being an elder in his church, it seemed to me that he should be fairly fluent with the Bible and odd that he would misquote it.

A CNN blog on religion says Phil was pretty close to quoting Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/20/does-phil-robertson-get-the-bible-wrong/?hpt=hp_c2

Excerpt:

Here's what Robertson says: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

Robertson, 67, then paraphrases a Bible passage from the New Testament: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”

That's a pretty close citation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is a letter from Paul, often called the father of Christianity theology, to a fledging Christian community in Corinth, Greece.

Here's what Paul's passage says, as rendered in the New International Version, by far the most popular translation among evangelicals and conservative Christians such as Robertson:

"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Later, the article goes on to explain:

So what does Paul's "vice list" say about homosexuality? That's the tricky part.

The first word Paul uses is "malakoi," which means "soft" in Greek, according to Allen. By analogy, the word came to mean "effeminate," which is how the King James Version of the Bible translates it.

"In the ancient world, it would refer to a boy in a relationship with an older man," Allen said. "It was pederasty, not homosexuality as we think of it today."

The other relevant word on Paul's "vice list" is "arsenokotai," which means "male sex." It refers to the other half in the man-boy relationship, common in Greece at the time, Allen said, the older male having sex with the "soft one."

"It isn't anything to do with what we would see today in an intimate, mutual relationship between gay adults," said Allen, who is co-authoring an upcoming book on homosexuality and heterosexuality in the church.

Even so, scholars such as Allen acknowledge there are no Bible passages that support same-sex relationships, and at least seven that appear to condemn gay sex.

"There's no way around the fact that those passages take a negative view of homosexuality, and nowhere in the Bible is a positive view offered," Allen said. "So conservatives and liberals continue to debate."

So, according to this, Phil was pretty much in line with many evangelical churches' thinking on homosexuality and pretty close to accurate on his Bible quote (assuming he uses the New Independent Version) - despite the controversy over differing interpretations of the original text.

Phil didn't call for homosexuals to be thrown off cliffs (like they are in fundamentalist Muslim countries) or made outlaws. He just said that they won't get to share Heaven with him, or at least the Heaven he and other evangelicals presume they will be occupying. Perhaps that would be okay with most homosexuals as I don't think duck hunting, camouflage clothing, and big trucks are high on the list of things currently viewed as "heavenly" in the gay community.

Meanwhile, the US continues spending its way to insolvency and Obamacare has been "adjusted" by yet another presidential fiat.

According to Phil, "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers ... nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

What does God have against politicians?

If that was Palin's intent, Conan, then my only objection is her choice of words. There is a distinction between a paraphrase and a quote.

Quotes go in quotation marks and they're verbatim, not paraphrases. And as you point out, even the claim that he was giving an accurate paraphrase is questionable.

And by the way, Conan, if you're referring to the King James Version, then, no, it didn't use the word "homosexual." In fact, the word didn't exist.

Later translations do use the word. But as you point out, the word arsenokoites means "male bed."

A southern Baptist minister (although I don't know his source) once told me that the term "effeminate" as Paul understood it, meant those men who were basically lazy and indolent, laying on couches all day, being pampered and spoiled.

Thank you Conan the Grammarian. Sadly little Patrick will not understand, nor agree with, what you wrote; it doesn't fit his narrative. He'll still insist she is a clueless Tea Party sacred cow and that he just cannot resist attacking such a delectable buffoon. Patrick you are just a sorry little pissant.

Well, little Patrick, what about what Conan said - he did the research for you?

Now the second issue that little Patrick has yet to respond to, "Shame. It would have been hilarious to read about Sarah Palin defending slavery and claiming blacks were happy with it." When did Phil say blacks were happy with slavery? Pray tell little man. When did Sarah say blacks were happy with slavery? Patrick, you are a lying little coward who easily stoops to calling out "racist" whenever he talks about those he fears. Oh, but you think Sarah and Phil are the dumb ones. Yeah, right.

...old lavishly orchestrated funk instrumentals meant nothing to me...

Try this, then...

Dave B snuffles and sobs: "Now the second issue that little Patrick has yet to respond to, "Shame. It would have been hilarious to read about Sarah Palin defending slavery and claiming blacks were happy with it." When did Phil say blacks were happy with slavery? Pray tell little man. When did Sarah say blacks were happy with slavery? Patrick, you are a lying little coward who easily stoops to calling out "racist" whenever he talks about those he fears. Oh, but you think Sarah and Phil are the dumb ones. Yeah, right."

My apologies, child. I meant to say that Phil was happy with the Jim Crow era, which he did

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

Don't you just love that clever little equivalency he made between blacks and "white trash." At least he admits he's trash. I agree. This whole social hierarchy thing. Blacks equal white trash. And middle class and upper class whites must, according to Phil, be better than blacks.

And to say nothing of that wonderful conclusion he arrived at. Because he never saw a black person being mistreated, that means no black during the Jim Crow era was ever mistreated. The whole civil rights thing? Who needed it? Why the blacks just couldn't have been happier! Those atrocities that inspired the movement? All lies. Because no black was ever mistreated by a white.

And yes, child. If Sarah Palin did support Phil Robertson's comments, and claim he was quoting the Gospel, when in fact, she hadn't even read those comments, then she is quite dumb.

And if Phil Robertson thinks that blacks are only the equals of white trash, and that blacks were just never mistreated because he personally never saw it (or at least claims he never saw it), then he's quite dumb, too.

Deal with it.

Eh. More of a Liz guy.

"Anyone with the brains to recognize she's been caught defending statements that she didn't bother to familiarize themselves with would probably be rather sheepish when they made the admission."

Says pissant Patrick. I say, anyone with the brains to recognize he's (Patrick) been caught defending statements that he didn't bother to familiarize himself with would probably be rather sheepish when it is pointed out that he has no facts, just his own prejudice. A&E folds, they were wrong. Race baiters Jackson and Sharpton lose, they saw their own racism in Phil's words. Gay baiters GLAAD loses, Phil was quoting the gospel as understood by many believers. Patrick sees his prejudices in other peoples words but, unlike the major players, he is too much of a pissant to admit it.

"I meant to say that Phil was happy with the Jim Crow era"

Phil did not say that Patrick. You don't even understand what you post.

"Blacks equal white trash."

Said by Patrick, not Phil. But Patrick, the pissant, ascribes to Phil. What a dick.

"And middle class and upper class whites must, according to Phil, be better than blacks."

Actually, pissant, according to you, not Phil. Phil does not say that you do.

"that means no black during the Jim Crow era was ever mistreated."

According to Patrick, not Phil. In Patrick's little prejudice mind it must be what Phil said. Well, according to Patrick, Phil didn't say it, but that's what he meant. Yeah, sure Patrick.

"Because no black was ever mistreated by a white."

Says Patrick. Pissant Patrick is trying to ascribe that statement to Phil, but he cannot say Phil said it. Such a prejudice little mind you have Patrick.

"Just because I love the cacophonic wails of the Palinites. "Stop harassing Sarah Palin! Waaaaaah! You're so obsessed with her! The Palins live in your head! Leave her aloooooooone!"

You really are a sick fuck. You say things about Phil and Sarah that aren't true and whine when I, or others, call you on it. Oh yeah, little Patrick, deal with it. I'll continue to call you on your lies.

And as you point out, even the claim that he was giving an accurate paraphrase is questionable.

Actually, the article says his paraphrase was very close to accurate (especially using the NIV Bible, which the author presumes Phil's church uses). According to the article, use a different interpretation of the original text and it could be considered dead on. The difficulty lies in translating Paul's original Greek and in the passage of a couple thousand years.

Whether you agree with Paul or Phil or even care about this whole flapdoodle is another matter.

But honestly, Angel, my favorite Bros piece came a few years later, when half the guys were lost to us. This piano solo made some ugly times in high school a lot more tolerable. Nowadays Leavell makes good money as the Stones' musical director, a well-earned sinecure.

Wonderful playing... Much like George Duke around that same time.

Dave B, thank you so much! I was expecting a meltdown, but you surpassed my wildest hopes. Totally hilarious! I can't remember a time when I was more entertained on this blog.

Bristol "Child Out of Wedlock" Palin has also jumped in on the act.

“I like gays,” she said in July 2012. “I’m not a homophobic and I’m so sick of people saying that. Just because I’m for traditional marriage doesn’t really mean I’m scared or anything of anyone else, and I don’t hate anybody.”

Says the mother who's never been married; she's for traditional marriage. That's like Lizzie Borden saying she's for respecting your parents.

I would have continued, but I have more links and I'd rather not bother Amy to retrieve my posts, especially when she's not feeling well.

Sarah Palin defended Robertson's comments, and then admits she didn't read them. That's not a lie, Dave B.

Deal with it.

From the article I linked:

Sarah Palin almost immediately went on the record to defend “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson’s comments about homosexuality, but then admitted days later during an appearance on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” that she had not yet even bothered to read the GQ interview that ignited the controversy.

“I haven’t read the article,” Palin told Susteren on Monday (see video above) when asked if she was bothered by Robertson’s “graphic” description of homosexuality. “I don’t know exactly how he said it, but what he was doing was in response to a question about a lifestyle that he disagrees with.”

She defended comments that she didn't bother to familiarize herself with, Dave B, and she doesn't even have the sense to be embarrassed by that. Deal with it.

Conan, you're a little more generous than I would be with Phil's mangling of the scripture. "Male prostitutes" he said? Evidently, female whores are just fine with God. Palin claimed he was quoting the Gospel. A quote is verbatim, period. Anything else is, at best, a paraphrase.

Evidently, female whores are just fine with God.

They are, several prophets and prominent men used them. Apparently marrying your sister or cousin didnt make for an exciting sex life