Ok, so I invented this one myself, but it could work. The word is "storeange".

As in, "Boehner's tan can't possibly be real; you know that orange hue of his comes from the supermarket. Obvious 'storeange'".

Faux Noise is the #1 news channel in America. A large percentage of Americans believe high taxes, unions, "socalist" policies and "greedy public workers" are the problem.

Teabagger protests of two dozen Koch suckers get more media coverage in this country than, say, hundreds of thousands of protestors (at least) on the eve of Operation Endless Iraq War. It's a failure to understand very basic political, social and economic realities. This problem is exacerbated by a childlike trust in (mainly television) media that we develop as children.

Here's an exercise: try engaging random strangers in conversation. Steer the conversation towards the "news" of the day. Afghanistan, Casey Anthony, dog fashion shows, teabagger protests, it doesn't matter. Then, suggest the unthinkable by casually tossing this phrase into the friendly discussion: "You know what though? TV isn't really a very good source for news."

You heathen.

And why do Democrats go along with this blatantly, deliberately destructive meme?

The GOP and their media shills are, as always, afraid of the truth. If Giffords pulls through and speaks out against RW violence and those who incite it, things are going to get really ugly, really fast.

The GOP has painted itself into a corner. If Giffords lays the blame where it belongs, they will no doubt stoop to attacking her (again).

They will say she is "politicizing" her injury and she is an opportunist, trying to capitalize on the deaths of those who were killed. How dare she speak for the deceased. Blah blah blah.

First, she needs to pull through in good health. Call me a cynic, but I know they're wishing her dead.

pressured to govern as a conservative/corporatist. Obama doesn't like conflict or confrontation. He would have a big fight brewing with his corporate DLC inner circle (Emanuel, Geithner, etc.) if he undertook anything resembling a liberal domestic agenda -- the kind that favors average people over corporations and the uber wealthy. The kind that would create jobs, make health care affordable and reliable, return our manufacturing base and raise our atrophied standard of living.

Even so, if the left can make enough noise pressuring him, confronting him at every turn, he would govern responsibly. If Obama thought the best way to avoid confrontation was to give in to the demands of an aggressive, demanding progressive base, he would do so. It will take enormous pressure -- enough to drown out the RW media/Faux/M$M noise machine (and their teabagger dupes).

This is a tall order, but not impossible. We ended slavery, Vietnam, the civil rights movement succeeded. Ironically, Obama's election was a similarly large undertaking and an ostensibly huge and improbable victory for progressivism.

And that is what makes that progressive "victory" so immensely disheartening -- progressives fought, clawed and scratched, building an enormous base that was energized and invigorated, ready to usher in a long overdue progressive new era in American politics. People who cared little about and knew nearly nothing of politics suddenly became involved and aware.

Now, sadly, that once fresh new base feels betrayed and disillusioned. These are the people we need to bring back into the fold, but it won't be easy. They've been burned before.

 
elbow grease do-it-yourself kinda guy. Yessirree! Boy howdy!

Um yeah, John. You're infamous in Washington for your lazy, short, infrequent workdays. Now we know the real reason you put so little effort into actually doing your job! It's because of the massive amount of personal care you devote to yardwork! And all along people have been calling you lazy. Forshame America! Forshame!

And when you're not meticulously manicuring and beautifying every individual blade of grass in that lawn the whole neighborhood secretly envies, you're mountain biking. And you're clearly not mountain biking like some mere mortal! Oh no, John. That wouldn't become you at all. You're riding up and down all those dusty, rugged, rocky trails without a helmet! Otherwise you'd have an uneven "helmet tan" to show for your efforts. Good thing you're so tough that you don't need a helmet in a sport that compels pretty much every other serious participant to wear one.

Now we know why you're so hard-headed, John. You have to be that way to protect yourself from injury on all of those helmet-free, safety-be-damned-I'm-a-man-with-a-tan mountain biking expeditions (on which you're also too manly/important to wear sunscreen).

Finally, we understand the real John Boehner! He doesn't hate the middle class, people of color, women, gays/lesbians, Muslims, Democrats, unions, the poor, condoms, civil liberties and America as our forefathers envisioned. He's just too busy beautifying his lawn and bunny hopping his 24-speed along jagged mountain trails without a helmet.

Or "Cafeteria Muslims, Jews, etc."

I would be very interested to find out what major religion has the highest percentage of actual followers who adhere truly to its rules. I would guess Islam does.

That may be at the root of some of the Islamophobia we're seeing. Cafeteria/egonovist Christians feeling threatened because people are actually following this other religion properly, making egonovist/cafe christians feel jealous and/or inferior either consciously or otherwise.

Teabagger types love to consider devoted Muslims as "nut jobs." If teabagger/cafeteria Christian types were to admire the strict devotion and adherence many Muslims have to their religion, they would simultaneously be forced to acknowledge THEIR OWN LACK OF DEVOTION TO THEIR OWN RELIGION.

It's much easier, less threatening and far less demanding to call people of another faith "nuts" than it is to fully and honestly appraise the disparity between one's own lifestyle and one's stated religious belief system. The religious adherent who accomplishes this honestly must then make the radical changes to bring an entire life and a comprehensive set of religious beliefs into perfect alignment. This is a monstrous undertaking and requires deep soul searching and radical, permanent lifestyle changes.

In our society, deep honesty is admitting that NASCAR is really only interesting for the crashes or that less attractive sex partners can be fun if nobody finds out.

Most Americans, given the choice between brutally honest introspection and requisite massive lifestyle changes or calling Muslims "nuts" won't even consider the first option.

There's been a lot of discussion about the potential negative effects of Corexit. Not only does the dispersant itself appear to be toxic -- it makes the oil itself more toxic to marine life. BP's efforts to hide the proverbial body will only increase the REAL body count. Here are a couple of abstracts that support this: (Skip to the last sentence of each abstract if you want to avoid technical jargon and read the conclusion.)

Biochemical changes in rockfish, Sebastes schlegeli, exposed to dispersed crude oil.
Jung JH, Yim UH, Han GM, Shim WJ.

Oil and POPs Research Group, KORDI, Geoje-shi, 656-834, Republic of Korea.

Abstract
This paper describes the response of the ovoviviparous rockfish, Sebastes schlegeli, to hydrocarbons in the water-accommodated fraction (WAF) of crude oil, in the presence or absence of oil dispersants. Concentrations of cytochrome P-450 1A (CYP1A) and levels of its catalytic activity ethoxyresorufin O-de-ethylase (EROD) in rockfish exposed to WAF at concentrations of 0.1% and 1% were significantly increased by the addition of a dispersant, Corexit 9500 after 48 h exposure. After 72 h exposure, the levels of CYP1A and EROD activity were significantly increased in 0.1% and 0.01% chemically enhanced WAF (CEWAF) (Corexit 9500 and Hiclean II dispersant). Bile samples from fish exposed to WAF alone had low concentrations of hydrocarbon metabolites, exemplified by 1-hydroxypyrene. After 72 h exposure, hydrocarbon metabolites in bile from fish exposed to WAF in the presence of either Corexit 9500 or Hiclean II were significantly higher compared with fish exposed to WAF alone or control fish. These experiments confirm that the use of oil dispersants will increase the exposure of ovoviviparous fish to hydrocarbons in oil.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1941065...



Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2004 Nov;59(3):300-8.

Oil dispersant increases PAH uptake by fish exposed to crude oil.
Ramachandran SD, Hodson PV, Khan CW, Lee K.

School of Environmental Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont., Canada K7L 3N6.

Abstract
The use of oil dispersants is a controversial countermeasure in the effort to minimize the impact of oil spills. The risk of ecological effects will depend on whether oil dispersion increases or decreases the exposure of aquatic species to the toxic components of oil. To evaluate whether fish would be exposed to more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) in dispersed oil relative to equivalent amounts of the water-accommodated fraction (WAF), measurements were made of CYP1A induction in trout exposed to the dispersant (Corexit 9500), WAFs, and the chemically enhanced WAF (dispersant; CEWAF) of three crude oils. The crude oils comprised the higher viscosity Mesa and Terra Nova and the less viscous Scotian Light. Total petroleum hydrocarbon and PAH concentrations in the test media were determined to relate the observed CYP1A induction in trout to dissolved fractions of the crude oil. CYP1A induction was 6- to 1100-fold higher in CEWAF treatments than in WAF treatments, with Terra Nova having the greatest increase, followed by Mesa and Scotian Light. Mesa had the highest induction potential with the lowest EC50 values for both WAF and CEWAF. The dispersant Corexit was not an inducer and it did not appear to affect the permeability of the gill surface to known inducers such as beta-napthoflavone. These experiments suggest that the use of oil dispersants will increase the exposure of fish to hydrocarbons in crude oil.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1538826...

We can't empathize with others. They don't deserve sympathy, we're told. That poor person can't eat? Too bad. He's lazy and doesn't have the work "ethic" that made this country great. That woman is dying of cancer and can't afford the $150,000 medical treatment to save her life? She should have gotten medical insurance. I, of all people, can't be expected to feel badly for her. After all, it's not _my_ fault she didn't have the foresight to get insurance.

What's that, you say? She did have insurance, but the company cancelled her policy when she was diagnosed with cancer? Tough toenails, lady. Maybe you should have been more responsible and read the fine print. What's that? The fine print didn't tell her that her coverage would be revoked if she actually needed it?

It's just not my fault. She should have saved her money for a rainy day. It doesn't matter that she and her husband spent their life savings to care for her elderly father. They should have saved more, worked more. So what if she and her husband had five jobs between them, just to make ends meet. They should have prayed more, gone to church more. If Jesus didn't provide for them, they couldn't have been good Christians.

What's that? They went to church every Sunday, along with their three children? They should never have had children if they couldn't afford it. I don't care if they're Catholic and the Pope told them not to use birth control. They shouldn't have had sex then. Jesus warns us about giving in to pleasures of the flesh. I'm not Catholic anyway; I'm an evangelical and Jesus loves me because I go to the right church, wear the right clothes, listen to the right music, read the right books, say the right things, and I pray, and I'm in church every week, and I _never_ sin.

And what's more, I'm always the first to...hey! What's this lump in my neck? That wasn't there yesterday...

He called the unmitigated catastrophe, "An act of God."

In light of this bold proclamation, there are two possible conclusions one can draw:

Possibility #1) The catastrophe is truly God's doing, and therefore it's clear that The Lord hates British Petroleum and wants to completely and permanently destroy its reputation.

Possibility #2) The catastrophe is not God's doing, and therefore it's clear Republican Governor Rick Perry hates The Lord and wants to completely and permanently destroy His reputation.

So, which is it? Does The Lord hate British Petroleum or does Governor Perry hate The Lord?

 
Network representatives released a statement apologizing for the mistake: "Faux News expresses shock and regret for this unfortunate incident. We will take whatever steps are necessary to repair and restore our channel's reputation for specious disinformation. A full retraction is forthcoming."

The increased prevalence of HIV among gay men could simply preclude homosexuals from donating blood on the battlefield, except in conditions of extreme emergency. This is how I would refute the author's argument that the potential of HIV transmission through emergency battlefield transfusion should be reason to forbid the "homosexualization," as he calls it, of the military.

His transfusion issue is the closest thing he has to a reasonable argument. Second closest is his point that a small percentage of soldiers claim they wouldn't reinlist if the military were "homosexualized." "Second closest" doesn't mean it isn't a stupid argument, though. If we use this sort of survey to tell us how to create our military, we would also need to ask how many soldiers would not reinlist if blacks are not immediately categorically thrown out of the service. After all, conservatives were the dead set against the "Negroization" of the military before the "threat" of military "homosexualization" reared its head.

The author obviously did actually try to make a coherent case against gays in the military, but he clearly failed. His real accomplishment was to demonstrate that no matter how hard one tries, the position aganst gays in the military remains indefensible.