TV WATCHING ROTS BRAINS - NOW MORE THAN EVER

A commenter on Dovbear's blog wrote: "Should I get my news from the New York Times? Why don't you look at today's headline.... actually writing that the big snow blizzards and record cold temperatures come from ....."Global Warming?" They must think that we are all retarded!"

[Comment string under this post:http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2010/02/sarah-palin-is-f-ing-retard-steven.html ]

He signs himself as 'TV Watcher'.



TV WATCHING... WATCHING... WATCHING........

I am tempted to ask if the damn thing moved or did anything remarkable while he observed it.
But I suspect that, like a watched skirt, it never boiled.

Anyhooooooooo....


Tayere TeyVeyGicker,

You could do a lot worse than read your news on line. Not only the NYT (one of the best newspapers in the world, despite your sneering malappreciation) but also the on-line BBC (yes, I know - accused of being anti-Israel, but still more and better coverage of most of the world than anybody else), Ha'aretz (don't say it!), Arutz Sheva (again, don't say it, jes' shaddap!), several European newspapers (assuming you are illiterate in more than just English), the Indian newspapers (more than just curry), and the Khaleej Times on-line (based in the Arabian Gulf, written by English speakers for English speakers).

If, on the other hand, you insist on getting your news from the television, you are misinformed and will probably have both high-blood pressure and indigestion. The format is more sensationalist, the coverage is more superficial and less equitable, the selection is limited, and the newswriters and newsreaders often staggeringly ignorant, not to say stupid, moronic, retarded.
The words 'dunce' and 'evil bastard' come to mind - and that is not just for FOX.

Excepting Jon Stewart, of course.

If you knew anything at all about global warming, you would understand that more extreme weather patterns are inherent in climactic destabilization. And that global warming is NOT some Bilderberger or Illuminati plot, but accepted as a valid scientific theory.... and fercrapsakes DON'T start waffling about 'scientific theories' like several of the ignorami who troll around the J-bloggosphere have so often already done - gravity is a theory, but I would challenge you to deny it's effect; likewise, thermodynamics, astrophysics, and bio-chemistry are rife with 'theory', but again, reject the theories and you prove yourself a fool.


---------------------------------------------------------------

ALASKAN WHATSERBUCKET

What is it about Sarah Palin that gets the rabid rightwing so lubricious? And why do they feel this need to defend the poor dumb beast by automatically and instinctively going into attack-Obama-mode?

Is it a gut thing? Too much deep-fried lard?

[Please eschew the pork products, especially the reactionary spam. Yes, I know it has a hechsher, but that is NO reason to swallow it uncritically. And in such large quantities too! What would your doctor say? How about the sane members of your family? ]

One would think that after eight years of Texas bollocks they would realize that if we're going to play 'your politician is worse than my politician', they're gonna lose.

Especially if their favourite political centerfold is a tea-party retard.