Dick Cheney is a bad man, a liar and criminal.

If it weren’t for Dick Cheney, New Leader would be delivering on all those audacious and hopeful campaign promises that got so many votes for him, instead of betraying them.

Instead, Dick Cheney is making New Leader tell lies, hide crimes, and kill women and children in Afghanistan. I am quite impressed with New Leader’s start, and I hate the bad things Dick Cheney is making him do.

Dick Cheney is a bad man.

Also? Rush Limbaugh is a stupid fat fuck, and I suspect he makes New Leader do bad things as well.

come antisocial behaviors.

Yeah.

That simple.

And predictable.

Recently as featured articles on The Huffington Post:

Obama Administration Sticks With Bush Climate Ruling

Afghan Civilian Deaths: Clinton Expresses Deep Regret

Karzai Blasts U.S. Airstrikes

Banks Watered Down Stress Tests

Some US Troops To Stay In Iraq Past Deadline

Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist

Timothy Geithner’s Bailout Dollar Recycling May Be Illegal

Obama Budget Bans Federal Funding For Needle Exchange, Breaking Campaign Pledge

I do understand that Salon writers keep busy on other stories (e.g. Ms. Traister on the Edwards marriage, Ms. Walsh’s and Mr. Koppelman’s ongoing series on the Enemies and Detractors of New Leader) that are no doubt of importance, yet there seem to be deficits in, or perhaps lack of attention to, certain areas.

Colbert was truly funny and more, subversively using the platform to strike at the pathology of American empire and at the incestuous collaboration of political parties and their media sycophants that the event represents.

From accounts, participants at last night’s event celebrated that pathology, with New Leader joining fellow media celebrities and image-makers to bask in the glow of mutual validation, praising and yukking it up with the very press so instrumental in inciting this nation to commit war crimes and waste a million lives in Iraq, beaming broadly while their hopeful and united class continues the killings necessary to protect their interests against suspected enemies worldwide.

Funny stuff.

Is it genius, or just bad writing...

to conjure a pro-motherhood article like this that bounces so often between the sensible and the non-sensical (and therefore ironic) that it fails to make a comprehensible point?

That is the point – that like sex, aggression, marriage, group identity, altruism, conformity – our ambivalence, tensions and confusion around being pulled in seemingly irreconcilable directions around our biological drives for survival and replacement versus personal needs for growth, integration and autonomy (not to mention the “. . . cheap, shallow lures of lively conversation and laughter and fun and hot sex . . .”) seem to present to us no way out, no transcendence.

Mr. Trivia gets it. Heather pleasingly accepts and revels in the existential discomfort. Enjoy:

“ . . . a great chasm opens up inside me, and my heart breaks right in half. It literally splits in two.” Ha! Sweet fracking Jeebus, ya killin me!

Say, Silenced: I predict that scalng back on the weed will improve reading comprehension, paranoid ideations, and irritability.

Heather, I just really luv ya.

No, really.

Please contact me using the link at sig. Really.

Please.

I think the religiosity is a super SMART way for President to counterbalance unfortunate happenings in the world, like women and children getting bombed. It’s like making amends and just goes to show how morally strong Our Nation is!

Because like most regular, ordinary people, we enjoy watching young women and men being mentally and emotionally manipulated and subsequently abused by people with enough money to purchase their own private, living, breathing fantasies.

I had no idea there was a series like this on, providing a metaphor for our culture’s normalized model of parenting and education.

“evidence-based . . . models” implemented by “faith-based efforts”

In other news, the administration has decided to contract with evangelical churches to take over biology instruction in U.S. public schools.

If the “president’s position on sex education” were, in fact, principled, evidence-based, and aimed at the best interests of it recipients, how do we explain any support at all for abstinence-based programs, let alone 25% of the funds?