Oh simple choice, eye bleach or brain bleach. Thanks doc for helping me get down to my approprate pre holiday weight so that closer to the holiday the turkey is not the only thing stuffed. That is if I can ever get the thought of todays post out of my mind
Number one gets my vote, mainly because it only shows one face I can't stand to look at instead of two. Having never previously heard of "rectal feeding", and despite the fact that Dick Chaney and other are defending it as a valid medical proceedure, I did some research and found this article which seems to debunk that: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-report-rectal-feeding-detainees It may have helped save the life of President Garfield after he was shot, but for at least half a century IV feeding has been the safer and much more preferred method of getting nutrients into the systems of people who refuse to or simply can't eat. Therefore, I would have to believe that it's use in Gitmo was borderline sadism at best.
@Readers- The whole subject of rectal feedings reminds me of an old joke...
In Buckingham Palace, a new serving girl was hired and told that she would have a very special responsibility. "The Queen Mother is too old and frail to eat solid food," she was told, "and so her only nourishment is tea administered through a tube which you will insert in her rectum."
The serving girl was honored to have the assignment but also very nervous about the procedure. So later that morning, it was with the greatest of care that she carried a silver tray with a tea pot, funnel, and tubing to the Queen Mother's bedroom.
There, the Queen Mother - tiny and frail - was sleeping on her side, her withered bum exposed to the world. The serving girl quickly and expertly inserted the tube, placed a funnel in the other end, and began pouring tea.
Suddenly, the Queen Mother let out a tremendous scream which echoed throughout the entire palace.
"Too hot?!" the serving girl asked. "Too sweet," replied the Queen Mother.
I would also like to raise the point that, despite many claiming the CIA torture methods are justifiable in light of the events of 9-11, we have laws against such treatment of prisioners, not to mention being against the Geneva Convention. I still am unconvinced as to who the real masterminds were on that day and have to wonder why we blame one group for it on the one hand and fund that same group on the other hand. Regardless of that, by resorting to such crude and disgusting methods, does that not lower us to their level and destroy our credibility and moral high ground? Remember: two wrongs do not make a right (but three lefts do).
Ahmed claimed he was no longer eating, But calories is what he was needing. A big toe they ram, Up his ass with toe jam, And hence came the term 'rectal feeting.' ----------------------------- My vote is for #2...definitely. I wonder if they slipped a little pork drippings in before they played hide-the-turkey baster.
I just don't know which is most appropriate, but I CAN tell you which causes me to "sing-song" "turd in the punch bowl...", but that's the only clue I'm gonna give you!
Stilt, my daughter (she's 14) loved your Feliz Navidad video from last week. She made me play it over and over. I also thought it was hilarious. Great dance moves.
An aside, newly entered into the "No Islam to see here" file:
From Today's Wall Street Journal: Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the siege—at the Lindt Chocolate Café in Martin Place in the heart of the city’s business district—was politically motivated, but he avoided pointing blame at any group. The gunman early on draped an Islamic flag in the window, sparking concerns a terrorist attack was under way.
“We don’t yet know the motivation of the perpetrator,” Prime Minister Abbott said from Canberra. “We don’t know whether this is politically motivated, though obviously there are some indications that it could be.”
Ya think?
The black flag placed in the cafe window was inscribed with the shahadah, a profession of Muslim faith, which is spoken in mosques daily. That flag has been used previously by al Qaeda and by Jabhat al Nusra in Syria.
If I were a public figure that got a speeding ticket, there'd be headlines reading "Tea Party Advocate John the Econ gets Speeding Ticket. Radical affiliations suspect". But take over a cafe and through out a black flag with the shahadah and everyone goes mum over your affiliations. Could be "political", but we wouldn't want to go out on a ledge and suggest that.
The upside to this is that even the densest of citizen knows better anymore. The more the left clings to this "see no evil" denial, the more impotent they become.
OK, I'll just HAVE to resort to my normal sense of humor after reflecting on the "sphincteral reference" of this post... "RECTUM... damn near KILLED 'um!" But, seriously, folks... if there isn't SOME kind of anal allusion when depicting this group, you're just NOT paying attention!
There's not exactly a Spanish word/phrase for it, but if there was, it'd be something that depicts R. Lee Ermey planting his combat boot where the sun doesn't shine.
@tude dog- Sorry to have offended by taking the "low road," humor-wise. That's going to happen here from time to time because, well, that's the kind of guy I am - and that's how frustrated I get with the players on the political scene.
For what it's worth, I didn't pull these cartoons entirely out of my - uh - back pocket. They were inspired (surely the wrong word) by articles talking about Nancy Pelosi and other Dem leaders being fully briefed (on a contemporaneous basis) about the enhanced interrogation techniques now being decried as torture.
Rest assured that I'll try to seek a higher plane when getting to the bottom of the next political story.
BTW @Stilton, was given no choice but to sign up at HealthCare.gov today. First hiccup was convincing the site that I was who I said I was. Had to call a nice gentleman at a credit bureau who despised ObamaCare as much as I, and where we had a fascinating chat about all the fraud he sees; waves of people calling transparently pretending to be other people. Amazing.
@John the Econ- I feel your pain. Not only has real choice been taken out of the health insurance system, innumerable opportunities for fraud and system failure have been introduced.
Over on Facebook, one reader took me to task over having gotten an Obamacare policy, equating it with a lottery in which I'm hoping to win other people's money. I don't think he was quite clear on the idea of how "risk pools" used to work. He also proudly proclaimed that he had no insurance at all. I say more power to him - as long as he keeps his ass out of the emergency room when he gets sick.
As you and I have discussed before, the system is really in trouble when it drags in people like you and me against our will.
@Stilton, as you well know I don't hold anything against you. I've been arguing since the very beginning that this was where ObamaCare was going.
Where I now live, there was absolutely no other option. It's as though I was told "If you want insurance at all, you will go through the exchange."
The interesting part was how they sell the subsidy up-front, even to the degree of hiding the actual cost of your policy from you. This was the lack of transparency that Gruber was talking about. So of course it's easy to find people who rave about ObamaCare, because if you make anything less than upper-middle-class money, you're getting shown incredibly cheap rates. (I actually played with this a bit, and was equally fascinated and disgusted) The system goes out of its way to encourage you to take the up-front subsidy, which I consider dangerous, because if your situation changes much during the upcoming year, you could be stuck with a substantial bill to the IRS. This is not uncommon for people who are self-employed. For this reason, I encourage people to eschew the up-front subsidy, and instead opt for the tax refund in 2016. This is especially true if you are in a state without their own exchange, and the Supreme Court nukes the subsidy for non-exchange states. That could be a very unpleasant surprise for many people come Spring 2016.
That a reader would chastise you for getting an ObamaCare policy, and then boast that he has no insurance at all is astounding. It's morons like this that helped make my previous policy unaffordable. It's just another example of the magnitude that the educational establishment in this country has failed us.
BTW, over the years I've know many people/families that went without insurance. IMHO, they're the ones who "won the lottery". They owned better cars than I did and took far better vacations. They were all one serious illness or accident away from financial ruin, but fortunately most made it. I was never willing to take that risk, and paid a fortune in doing so.
But from your moron reader's point-of-view, I'm sure he thinks you're playing the lottery. He probably has no accumulated assets to protect, so if he gets seriously ill he knows the worst-case scenario is that his costs will be nominal and it will be you and I covering his health care bill.
@John the Econ- I hear you loud and clear. Yes, the Obamacare purveyors really push the subsidies hard, and sell the idea that you're getting cheaper insurance when in reality it's just someone else being stuck with a good part of the bill.
The guy who bragged of having no insurance probably has no assets to protect, nor family members that he cares about. And I highly doubt that when he suffers a medical crisis (car wreck, anyone?) he will decline emergency room care until he sees a bill and is sure he can pay it.
And boy do I relate to what you're saying about people who don't buy insurance and spend the money on personal luxuries. When I think of the tens of thousands of dollars that I've put into insurance with no payback, and think about what that money could have done in a simple stock index fund... (sigh)
How soon we forget...the days following 9/11...the fear, the anger, the grief...I do not hold ANY interrogator at fault for ANYTHING they may have done during this time; it is absolutely nothing new in our history! The CIA must obey strict guidelines when they 'interrogate' a person!
Now, the stink bomb has been thrown by people on their way out, some never to return, and they could not care less about what happens to this nation as a result of their 'torture' report! Another obamanation if you ask me...it all comes from the top!
Dear GOP: Enough with the "dynasties". It makes it difficult to rally against a Clinton dynasty when you're going to be shooting for Bush #3. You know, after this week's "cromnibus" spectacle where you basically threw the conservative base that showed up to purge the Obamabot Democrats under the bus, I can't think of any better way to pave the way for an even further-left candidate, like Frauduhantas Warren from walking in to the White House for another decade of decay. What's the deal? Haven't convinced enough people that the rotten GOP core is totally owned by big government cronies?
Here's one true conservative who will be throwing his vote away on some alternative candidate. Won't do it again.
@PRY- I think the urgency following 9/11 would excuse a lot, but I remain unconvinced that we stepped over the line (or if we did, only by a little).
I do not buy the idea that "anything goes" if we're afraid of terror, but that wasn't what happened. The Dems never even spoke to the people who created and administered the enhanced interrogation program. The report is worthless, and the Dems who could (and should) speak up - like Nancy Pelosi - are reprehensible for standing with the lynch mob.
@John the Econ- Yet again I feel your pain. Jeb Bush is probably a swell fellow and good American, but the name "Bush" is political poison to the knee-jerk lofo voters. As you say, a Bush nomination would be an open door for some lunatic like Elizabeth Warren to take office.
Mind you, I'd still cast a vote for him over the Dem candidate - but I'd be sobbing at the polling place like someone had just shot my dog.
Sorry @Stilton, won't do it. The GOP has been pushing big government squishies on us for since Goldwater failed. Reagan was a fluke. Quite frankly, there isn't much difference anymore between the establishment GOP and what the Democrats have to offer. Jeb Bush will be Bush's 5th term. No thanks.
For the lower:
ReplyDelete"Ms. Pelosi - do you believe that rectal feedings can transmit Ebola?"
"No, someone always cleans the tube afterward."
I think they're tied, however the second would improve withthe reference of cleaning the tube afterward....eeeeh!
ReplyDeleteBWAAHAHAAHAAHAahaAaaaa!
ReplyDelete*cough*
Oh simple choice, eye bleach or brain bleach.
ReplyDeleteThanks doc for helping me get down to my approprate pre holiday weight so that closer to the holiday the turkey is not the only thing stuffed.
That is if I can ever get the thought of todays post out of my mind
Number 2 slightly over 1. Obama and straw makes it "Oh so clear"
ReplyDeleteYes, that and the enthusiasm in his eyes.
DeleteWhile they're both good (in an icky sort of way), I vote for the second 'toon, as it takes a jab at SanFran Nan & Barry both!
ReplyDeleteNot even a contest, number 2 is the winner......grin
ReplyDeleteNumber one gets my vote, mainly because it only shows one face I can't stand to look at instead of two.
ReplyDeleteHaving never previously heard of "rectal feeding", and despite the fact that Dick Chaney and other are defending it as a valid medical proceedure, I did some research and found this article which seems to debunk that:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-report-rectal-feeding-detainees
It may have helped save the life of President Garfield after he was shot, but for at least half a century IV feeding has been the safer and much more preferred method of getting nutrients into the systems of people who refuse to or simply can't eat. Therefore, I would have to believe that it's use in Gitmo was borderline sadism at best.
Gaaaa!!!!
ReplyDeleteThose cartoons are disgusting! So are the captions.
I like the sight gag one although I'd rather not look at either one of those faces.
ReplyDeleteI vote for #2, the subtle inference is perfect for the transparent administration.
ReplyDelete@Readers- The whole subject of rectal feedings reminds me of an old joke...
ReplyDeleteIn Buckingham Palace, a new serving girl was hired and told that she would have a very special responsibility. "The Queen Mother is too old and frail to eat solid food," she was told, "and so her only nourishment is tea administered through a tube which you will insert in her rectum."
The serving girl was honored to have the assignment but also very nervous about the procedure. So later that morning, it was with the greatest of care that she carried a silver tray with a tea pot, funnel, and tubing to the Queen Mother's bedroom.
There, the Queen Mother - tiny and frail - was sleeping on her side, her withered bum exposed to the world. The serving girl quickly and expertly inserted the tube, placed a funnel in the other end, and began pouring tea.
Suddenly, the Queen Mother let out a tremendous scream which echoed throughout the entire palace.
"Too hot?!" the serving girl asked.
"Too sweet," replied the Queen Mother.
I would also like to raise the point that, despite many claiming the CIA torture methods are justifiable in light of the events of 9-11, we have laws against such treatment of prisioners, not to mention being against the Geneva Convention. I still am unconvinced as to who the real masterminds were on that day and have to wonder why we blame one group for it on the one hand and fund that same group on the other hand. Regardless of that, by resorting to such crude and disgusting methods, does that not lower us to their level and destroy our credibility and moral high ground? Remember: two wrongs do not make a right (but three lefts do).
ReplyDeleteGitmo-limerick:
ReplyDeleteAhmed claimed he was no longer eating,
But calories is what he was needing.
A big toe they ram,
Up his ass with toe jam,
And hence came the term 'rectal feeting.'
-----------------------------
My vote is for #2...definitely. I wonder if they slipped a little pork drippings in before they played hide-the-turkey baster.
I just don't know which is most appropriate, but I CAN tell you which causes me to "sing-song" "turd in the punch bowl...", but that's the only clue I'm gonna give you!
ReplyDeleteThe sight gag ...
ReplyDeleteAnd a Merry Christmas to all - and a Happy Chanukah too! And a swell New Year ...
Defintely #2.
ReplyDeleteStilt, my daughter (she's 14) loved your Feliz Navidad video from last week. She made me play it over and over. I also thought it was hilarious. Great dance moves.
Number two wins the contest of jokes about number two...
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm guessing you don't have many readers from the UK.
#2 by four straw lengths!!!
ReplyDeleteOK OK... I'll vote now that my brain's had time to heal from the thorough scrubbing with Comet and a belt sander.
ReplyDeleteNumber one... because it finally lays to rest that decades old debate about Nan's underpants: briefs or whitey tighteys.
Then again, cartoon two DOES show all three of her boobs.
And I'll give the joke two and a half rimshots followed by a hearty groan.
that's like asking if you want your toes cut off one by one , or maybe your fingers first .... then your toes. thanx, but I don't like EITHER choice!
ReplyDeleteUgh. See you guys on Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteAn aside, newly entered into the "No Islam to see here" file:
From Today's Wall Street Journal: Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the siege—at the Lindt Chocolate Café in Martin Place in the heart of the city’s business district—was politically motivated, but he avoided pointing blame at any group. The gunman early on draped an Islamic flag in the window, sparking concerns a terrorist attack was under way.
“We don’t yet know the motivation of the perpetrator,” Prime Minister Abbott said from Canberra. “We don’t know whether this is politically motivated, though obviously there are some indications that it could be.”
Ya think?
The black flag placed in the cafe window was inscribed with the shahadah, a profession of Muslim faith, which is spoken in mosques daily. That flag has been used previously by al Qaeda and by Jabhat al Nusra in Syria.
If I were a public figure that got a speeding ticket, there'd be headlines reading "Tea Party Advocate John the Econ gets Speeding Ticket. Radical affiliations suspect". But take over a cafe and through out a black flag with the shahadah and everyone goes mum over your affiliations. Could be "political", but we wouldn't want to go out on a ledge and suggest that.
The upside to this is that even the densest of citizen knows better anymore. The more the left clings to this "see no evil" denial, the more impotent they become.
OK, I'll just HAVE to resort to my normal sense of humor after reflecting on the "sphincteral reference" of this post... "RECTUM... damn near KILLED 'um!"
ReplyDeleteBut, seriously, folks... if there isn't SOME kind of anal allusion when depicting this group, you're just NOT paying attention!
@Japeaux: "rectal feeting" is that Spanish???
ReplyDelete@Grumpy
ReplyDeleteThere's not exactly a Spanish word/phrase for it, but if there was, it'd be something that depicts R. Lee Ermey planting his combat boot where the sun doesn't shine.
Congratulation at your latest dive into the concept of the lowest common denominator.
ReplyDeleteTo me that was just a too bit RAW.
@tude dog- Sorry to have offended by taking the "low road," humor-wise. That's going to happen here from time to time because, well, that's the kind of guy I am - and that's how frustrated I get with the players on the political scene.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I didn't pull these cartoons entirely out of my - uh - back pocket. They were inspired (surely the wrong word) by articles talking about Nancy Pelosi and other Dem leaders being fully briefed (on a contemporaneous basis) about the enhanced interrogation techniques now being decried as torture.
Rest assured that I'll try to seek a higher plane when getting to the bottom of the next political story.
(Heh, heh - I said bottom)
BTW @Stilton, was given no choice but to sign up at HealthCare.gov today. First hiccup was convincing the site that I was who I said I was. Had to call a nice gentleman at a credit bureau who despised ObamaCare as much as I, and where we had a fascinating chat about all the fraud he sees; waves of people calling transparently pretending to be other people. Amazing.
ReplyDelete@John the Econ- I feel your pain. Not only has real choice been taken out of the health insurance system, innumerable opportunities for fraud and system failure have been introduced.
ReplyDeleteOver on Facebook, one reader took me to task over having gotten an Obamacare policy, equating it with a lottery in which I'm hoping to win other people's money. I don't think he was quite clear on the idea of how "risk pools" used to work. He also proudly proclaimed that he had no insurance at all. I say more power to him - as long as he keeps his ass out of the emergency room when he gets sick.
As you and I have discussed before, the system is really in trouble when it drags in people like you and me against our will.
It would have to be #2.
ReplyDelete@Stilton, as you well know I don't hold anything against you. I've been arguing since the very beginning that this was where ObamaCare was going.
ReplyDeleteWhere I now live, there was absolutely no other option. It's as though I was told "If you want insurance at all, you will go through the exchange."
The interesting part was how they sell the subsidy up-front, even to the degree of hiding the actual cost of your policy from you. This was the lack of transparency that Gruber was talking about. So of course it's easy to find people who rave about ObamaCare, because if you make anything less than upper-middle-class money, you're getting shown incredibly cheap rates. (I actually played with this a bit, and was equally fascinated and disgusted) The system goes out of its way to encourage you to take the up-front subsidy, which I consider dangerous, because if your situation changes much during the upcoming year, you could be stuck with a substantial bill to the IRS. This is not uncommon for people who are self-employed. For this reason, I encourage people to eschew the up-front subsidy, and instead opt for the tax refund in 2016. This is especially true if you are in a state without their own exchange, and the Supreme Court nukes the subsidy for non-exchange states. That could be a very unpleasant surprise for many people come Spring 2016.
That a reader would chastise you for getting an ObamaCare policy, and then boast that he has no insurance at all is astounding. It's morons like this that helped make my previous policy unaffordable. It's just another example of the magnitude that the educational establishment in this country has failed us.
BTW, over the years I've know many people/families that went without insurance. IMHO, they're the ones who "won the lottery". They owned better cars than I did and took far better vacations. They were all one serious illness or accident away from financial ruin, but fortunately most made it. I was never willing to take that risk, and paid a fortune in doing so.
But from your moron reader's point-of-view, I'm sure he thinks you're playing the lottery. He probably has no accumulated assets to protect, so if he gets seriously ill he knows the worst-case scenario is that his costs will be nominal and it will be you and I covering his health care bill.
@John the Econ- I hear you loud and clear. Yes, the Obamacare purveyors really push the subsidies hard, and sell the idea that you're getting cheaper insurance when in reality it's just someone else being stuck with a good part of the bill.
ReplyDeleteThe guy who bragged of having no insurance probably has no assets to protect, nor family members that he cares about. And I highly doubt that when he suffers a medical crisis (car wreck, anyone?) he will decline emergency room care until he sees a bill and is sure he can pay it.
And boy do I relate to what you're saying about people who don't buy insurance and spend the money on personal luxuries. When I think of the tens of thousands of dollars that I've put into insurance with no payback, and think about what that money could have done in a simple stock index fund... (sigh)
How soon we forget...the days following 9/11...the fear, the anger, the grief...I do not hold ANY interrogator at fault for ANYTHING they may have done during this time; it is absolutely nothing new in our history! The CIA must obey strict guidelines when they 'interrogate' a person!
ReplyDeleteNow, the stink bomb has been thrown by people on their way out, some never to return, and they could not care less about what happens to this nation as a result of their 'torture' report! Another obamanation if you ask me...it all comes from the top!
God help us.
I liked em both, Stilt, sorry! Go with 2!
Totally unrelated but topical topic:
ReplyDeleteJeb Bush? Seriously?
Dear GOP: Enough with the "dynasties". It makes it difficult to rally against a Clinton dynasty when you're going to be shooting for Bush #3. You know, after this week's "cromnibus" spectacle where you basically threw the conservative base that showed up to purge the Obamabot Democrats under the bus, I can't think of any better way to pave the way for an even further-left candidate, like Frauduhantas Warren from walking in to the White House for another decade of decay. What's the deal? Haven't convinced enough people that the rotten GOP core is totally owned by big government cronies?
Here's one true conservative who will be throwing his vote away on some alternative candidate. Won't do it again.
@PRY- I think the urgency following 9/11 would excuse a lot, but I remain unconvinced that we stepped over the line (or if we did, only by a little).
ReplyDeleteI do not buy the idea that "anything goes" if we're afraid of terror, but that wasn't what happened. The Dems never even spoke to the people who created and administered the enhanced interrogation program. The report is worthless, and the Dems who could (and should) speak up - like Nancy Pelosi - are reprehensible for standing with the lynch mob.
@John the Econ- Yet again I feel your pain. Jeb Bush is probably a swell fellow and good American, but the name "Bush" is political poison to the knee-jerk lofo voters. As you say, a Bush nomination would be an open door for some lunatic like Elizabeth Warren to take office.
Mind you, I'd still cast a vote for him over the Dem candidate - but I'd be sobbing at the polling place like someone had just shot my dog.
Sorry @Stilton, won't do it. The GOP has been pushing big government squishies on us for since Goldwater failed. Reagan was a fluke. Quite frankly, there isn't much difference anymore between the establishment GOP and what the Democrats have to offer. Jeb Bush will be Bush's 5th term. No thanks.
ReplyDeleteNumber 2. LOL city.
ReplyDelete