Holocaust denial = bad. Rape and abuse of children = not so bad.

Israel has cut ties with the Vatican because Pope Benedict XVI decided to reinstate Bishop Richard Williamson. Williamson famously denied the Holocaust in an interview with Swedish Sveriges Television, conducted in November, 2008 and aired in January, 2009.

From Wikipedia’s Williamson page:

  • He has called Jews “enemies of Christ” and urges their conversion to Catholicism. He has also stated that Jews aim at world dominion.
  • He denied the existence of gas chambers and has claimed that not 6 million, but 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps: “I believe there were no gas chambers…I think that two to three hundred thousand Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps…but none of them by gas chambers.” – Richard Williamson

I don’t get Holocaust deniers. I put them in the same category as HIV deniers—those who deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Some of them claim that HIV exists but isn’t the direct cause of AIDS, and some deny that HIV exists all together. Sadly the most recent case of this deadly viewpoint is Christine Maggiore, an HIV-positive woman who gave birth to an HIV-positive daughter. In 2005 her daughter died, at three years old. The coroner ruled the cause of death was AIDS-related pneumonia. Maggiore refused antiretroviral drugs while she was pregnant, and she breast-fed her daughter. In December, 2008, Christine Maggiore also died.

You can’t deny AIDS. Over 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. All evidence—all good, reliable, trustworthy, scientific evidence—reveals the truth about HIV and AIDS.

Just as all evidence reveals the truth about the Holocaust. Holocaust deniers don’t generally deny that the Holocaust happened at all. I’m sure they’d love to do that, but then how to explain the overwhelming evidence? Rather, they admit that something happened to the Jews (and others), but it wasn’t that big of a deal; they deny that it happened on the scale and scope that history reports. Like the aforementioned bishop, they may claim that only a few thousand or few hundred thousand people died, that there was no government mandate to exterminate Jews, and that concentration camps and mass-murder methods were not employed.

Ummm…people, this was not that long ago! This is not ancient history. Nor did it occur before recorded history. There is historical evidence: Written evidence. Physical evidence. Videos, audio recordings, and eyewitness testimony. Government documents. This was about 65 years ago. People are still alive who lived through it. And not just Jews living in Nazi Germany—people who witnessed this atrocity the world over have attested to its veracity. So it’s not a vast Jewish conspiracy, as deniers claim.

And so I ask: How could you possibly deny it?!

Okay, back to the subject at hand: This bishop Richard Williamson denied the Holocaust and the pope decided to give him a second chance. You know, the pope? Joseph Ratzinger? The guy who was a member of Hitler Youth?

Clearly this rant is all over the place—AIDS and Holocaust deniers, the stupid-ass bishop and the pope…. But I’m getting to my main issue.

Do you happen to know how many Catholic priests have molested children?

This is a very difficult statistic to nail down. There are no “true” numbers because the Catholic Church had an actual policy of keeping all of these cases hidden. Rather than removing priests from service and having them stand criminal trial (or at least get psychiatric attention!), they simply moved them to another diocese, to a fresh new batch of children. Generally with rape and child molestation, the majority of cases go unreported. That, coupled with the Vatican’s policy of secrecy, means we may never know exact numbers; statistics range from 2% to 16% to 45% of priests having performed “sexual misconduct.” That’s a huge range, but it’s safe to say, based on surveys, investigations, grand jury reports, books, and films, that for many decades thousands of priests have molested and/or raped tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands?) of children.

(By the way, it’s not just the Catholics.)

The first thought I had when I read about Israel officially severing ties with the Vatican was, “Now? Over this? Why not years ago, over the repeated rape and abuse of children?!?”

I think Holocaust deniers are batshit crazy. And I don’t particularly care if any country, state, or person respects or even acknowledges the Vatican as an authority (or whatever it’s supposed to be). But the state of Israel has decided to put its foot down with the Vatican over an issue, and I am disheartened that the issue they chose is one bishop’s deranged delusions and not the Church’s systemic policy of allowing the rape and abuse of children.

Years ago when the deluge of unequivocal information about the Catholic Church’s abuses came to light, all of society should have denounced the Vatican’s actions. Certainly purportedly good and righteous religious folks and institutions should have taken a stand.

I know everyone has their hot-button issue, and for Israel it is understandably the Holocaust. But the message as I see it is that one crazy bishop’s antisemitic ramblings made the Israeli leadership angry enough to cut ties with the Vatican; however, the sexual abuse of thousands of children didn’t rankle them in the same way.

By the way, here are some more fun facts about Richard Williamson (who will henceforth be known as “crazy uncle Richie”). Oh, he does believe 9/11 was an inside job! ‘Nuff said.

  • He opposes the wearing of trousers or shorts by women, and has urged greater “manliness” in men.
  • He promoted conspiracy theories regarding the Kennedy assassination and the September 11 attacks, claiming that the latter were staged by the US government.
  • He denounced the film The Sound of Music as “soul-rotting slush” and stated that “by glorifying that romance which is essentially self-centered, [the film] puts selfishness in the place of selflessness between husband and wife, and by putting friendliness and fun in the place of authority and rules, it invites disorder between parents and children.”

– Courtesy of Wikipedia’s page on Richard Williamson

Advertisements

EDIT: This is unreal!

EDIT:

Colin Deslage is clearly a pseudonym. In addition to Call It What It Is, I just discovered that he has these other blogs:  The Plenary Vacuum, Musings On Eternity, Struggling to Write, Web Apis Gone Mad, It’s Good to Be Bad, Life Between Poles, The Subprime Primer, Warming the Innards, Mostly Get It Wrong, Positive Transference, Allegory In Braid, Scenes From Life, Paradox of Tolerance, A Simulated Reality, No Snow For Me, Comparing Weather Patters, and probably a hundred more.

So clearly they are all “scraper” sites after all, and they pull posts and articles from other sites automatically. I don’t necessarily understand why, as most of these blogs do not contain ads. But maybe they’re to come. I still want to do something about this! Fellow bloggers? Help me out here; I’m new. Can we report this name to Blogger/Blogspot and have them take down all of his fake blogs? This still stands: http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html)

ORIGINAL POST:

Colin Deslage is, I think, not in his right mind.

I went through all of his posts on his blog, “Call It What It Is.” (I will, Colin—it’s PLAGIARISM!!) Many of them were posted videos, but of the written ones I found that most of them were plagiarized. In fact, I found 35 original blogs or articles that he stole. Of the ones I could not find the plagiarized source for, it could be that he wrote them himself. But more likely I just couldn’t find them. I alerted 32 writers that their work has been plagiarized (one was me, one didn’t have a way to reach them, and one’s blog was no longer live).

There are a few hints that this guy is maybe not right in his head. First of all, he plagiarized everything word for word. He copied misspelled and improperly used words. He copied headlines. He copied photos. In one case he copied a blog about Hawaii by a guy named Frank. The headline was “Frank’s big island travel tips” and it had a photo of Frank in the post! (Colin Deslage has his own name and photo posted on his blog!)

Another tell is that he didn’t try to disguise anything that distinguishes the original blogs. For example, apparently Deslage has a teenaged son who is a youth preacher, but is also an atheist. And his uncle survived the Japanes occupation. And he lives in Australia. And New York. And Philadelphia. And maybe Hawaii. And he knows a lot about diet and weight loss, but also literature, hip hop, complex science, and President Nasheed’s run for parliament in the Maldivian election. And he writes poetry.

He literally copied and pasted articles from web magazines about science, and some about health and weight loss.

So what to make of all this? The kindly writer of the blogs Godless Romantic and PictureThis informed me (the newbie blogger) about “scrapers”—”blogs or sites that use some mechanism to blindly gather material from anywhere and then post it in order to drive up their numbers so that more people will see the ads on their site.” I doubt this is what’s going on here, though, as there are no ads whatsoever on this blog. (EDIT: In fact, this is very evidently what’s going on.)

Published in: on January 29, 2009 at 12:52 pm  Comments (8)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery??

My first plagiarism!!

http://call-it-what-it-is.blogspot.com/2009/01/mythbusting.html

WTF?!?! He didn’t change a single word, and he’s trying to pass it off as his own!

Look, I get that there is a lot of information out there, and a lot of it is going to be the same. Like music.

But dude, seriously? I didn’t invent the notion that these myths are myths. I didn’t do the scientific research myself to bust them. What I did was read about them and learn about them, and then cobble together a blog posting based on my memory and some research scraps. But you…you just literally copied and pasted my blog posting!

That’s like the difference between researching an essay using multiple books and web site resources, and submitting a friend’s essay from last year as is.

I’m putting this post up before I alert the asshole plagiarist asshole Colin Deslage that I know about his plagiarism, so you’ll get a chance to see it and to COMMENT ON IT PLEASE!

Thanks to Zeke, the commenter who let me know about this. Right now I’m going to google the rest of this asshole Colin Deslage’s blog postings and see who else he has plagiarized.

Oh, Iceland

Your last names are difficult for me to pronounce, and I love you! Read this.

Published in: on January 28, 2009 at 3:02 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , ,

Humankind — only two hours old

“…imagine that the earth—four thousand six hundred million years old—[were] a forty-six-year-old woman…. It had taken the whole of the Earth Woman’s life for the earth to become what it was. For the oceans to part. For the mountains to rise. The Earth Woman was eleven years old…when the first single-celled organisms appeared. The first animals, creatures like worms and jellyfish, appeared only when she was forty. She was over forty-five—just eight months ago—when dinosaurs roamed the earth. The whole of human civilization as we know it began only two hours ago in the Earth Woman’s life…. It was an awe-inspiring and humbling thought…that the whole of contemporary history, the World Wars, the War of Dreams, the Man on the Moon, science, literature, philosophy, the pursuit of knowledge—was no more than a blink of the Earth Woman’s eye.”        – Arundhati Roy, from The God of Small Things

I think about this quotation a lot. It truly is humbling. First of all, it puts the earth and our place on it into perspective. I have a feeling that if we as a people don’t stop our destruction of the earth, she’ll just boot us off and start all over again. She’s been here infinitely longer than humanity has been, and will likely be here long after we’re gone.

This quotation also brings me some small bit of comfort when I start thinking about the state of the world, with all its corruption, discord, conflict, intolerance, discrimination, oppression, violence, and war. I remind myself that humankind is just an infant, which is why people act infantile so much of the time. I remind myself of this when I think about the fact that people do not solve problems with grace, diplomacy, tact, compassion, and maturity, but with violence, vengeance, pettiness, pride, and jingoism.

The hatred, intolerance, and violence—will it end when humankind “grows up”? I wish I could live long enough to know the answer to this, but it won’t reveal itself until millions of years hence.

In the meantime, it’s a worthwhile pursuit for humanity to keep striving to be wise and mature beyond its years.

Dear People who ride the elevator in my building:

Yes, I know—I have a bike! Yes, I ride my bike in the winter time! There’s no need, really, to continue saying things like, “You ride your bike in this weather?” or “You ride your bike in the winter?” or “A bit cold for a bike ride, isn’t it?” (as if I’m going for a recreational spin). The fact is, my bike is my transportation. Cold or not, I ride it most places in the winter time. No need to comment. Truly.

I don’t mean to come off a jerkstore; I understand elevator small talk. A bike is as good a thing to comment on as anything else. I myself often comment on cute babies and dogs.

Why, just the other day I was walking up the street behind a man walking his dog. The dog was a cute, scraggly little terrier wearing a coat and it looked so happy, skipping jauntily. I couldn’t help smiling and even laughing a little at the jaunty way the dog was jaunting along (clearly I’m at a loss for adjectives and adverbs). When I caught up to the man I said, “Your dog looks so happy it made me smile just watching him jaunt” (I don’t know if I used the word jaunt; I hope not).

But technically my exchange with this man about his dog was a compliment, not small talk. Small talk would have sounded more like this: “So…you’ve got a dog, huh?”

Compliments about dogs or children, or shoes or jackets, are okay. Small talk about the weather or the fact that you ride a bike, not so much. I understand small talk—you’re in an elevator, you’ve got a minute or so of uncomfortable silence, and you feel the need to say something, anything. I get small talk. I just don’t like it.

They say you should avoid talking about politics and religion with people, but I would rather jump immediately to politics and religion if it meant I would be spared the small talk.

But please, fellow residents of my building, feel free to compliment me on…pretty much anything!

Sincerely,

Me.

“All over the world
strangers talk only about the weather.
All over the world
it’s the same.”  – Tom Waits

Published in: on January 26, 2009 at 9:07 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Mythbusting

There are so many common myths, misconceptions, and urban legends, and one of my favourite things is learning about them. Because they’re so ingrained in society—drilled into our heads from the time we’re children—we don’t know they’re untrue…until we learn they’re untrue.

One very common myth that I learned about years ago is that the suicide rate goes up at Christmas. Some versions of this myth may say the rate doubles, others will cite a percentage. The truth is, suicide rates actually go down over the holidays. In fact, more suicides take place in the early spring than at any other time of the year. No one really knows why, but it probably has to do with people being around people during the holidays. If you think about it, people often get depressed in the winter time before the holidays (the weather, lack of sunlight, social hibernation, and the stress of the holidays). But then the holidays actually arrive and suddenly they’re propelled into a world of food and music, gift-giving, parties, and gatherings. They’re surrounded by people. Maybe they feel better for a while and their suicidal thoughts go on hiatus. When the holidays pass, life returns to normal, and the depression returns. Maybe these people think if they can just fend off their harmful thoughts until the spring, they’ll be okay. Maybe it’s just the winter. But when spring arrives they’re still depressed and suicidal, so, well…. And that’s one theory as to why the suicide rate is highest in the spring.

One of the myths that recently got busted for me is one that I would often espouse. In the winter time, especially in Canada, you’d better wear a toque (woolen hat) because…say it with me now…you lose 80% of your body heat through your head. Or 50%, the number changes. We do lose most of our body heat through our extremities—arms and hands, legs and feet, and heads. But you don’t lose any more body heat through your head than you do your hands. It’s just that most people do not wear hats, so when they do they feel warmer. If you never wore gloves and suddenly put on gloves, you’d feel warmer too. Or shoes. Or pants. Oh, and don’t be fooled by the “heat rises” theory, because that is not an explanation that will bust the mythbuster. Hot air rises above cool air, but heat doesn’t rise inside our bodies to our heads!

Here’s a good one: If you shave, then your hair will grow back faster, thicker, and darker. I remember this one being busted on this awesome Canadian kids show called Street Cents years ago. Shaving just cuts hair—it has no effect on the part of the hair shaft below the skin surface, which is where growth and pigmentation occur. That’s like saying when you get the hair on your head cut, it will grow back thicker. The truth is, your hair will not grow back thicker or darker, but it may appear so because the new hair growth has blunt ends instead of tapered ends.

Speaking of hair, how about the common notion that your hair and fingernails continue to grow after you’re dead? Yep, it’s false. Just like the above, hair and fingernails may appear longer after death simply because the skin around them has retracted. Dehydration causes the skin and soft tissue to shrink, but the hair and nails remain the same length. It’s all an illusion. So, Joss Whedon, you got it wrong when you made Buffy come out of the grave with longer hair than she went in with!

This is my absolute favourite myth to bust: Cracking your knuckles causes arthritis. I don’t have many vices or bad habits, but cracking my knuckles is one I do have that some people find either gross or irritating. I try not to do it around people who are bothered by it, and I mostly do it when I’m cold. (My aunt smacks me when I do it.) Finding it irritating is one thing, but don’t tell me I’m causing arthritis! I read the truth about this myth when I was a kid, in a magazine in my doctor’s office. Here’s how I remember it from that magazine, and I just corroborated it: Your joints are surrounded by a thick lubricating fluid. When you crack your knuckles, the bones of the joint pull apart, which causes a gas bubble to form in the joint. The sound you hear that so many people find irritating is the sound of the adhesive seal in the joint breaking (or you can think of it as the bubble popping). For the record, arthritis is caused by a person’s immune system attacking their joints.

Fun, right? We learned so much today! Now go forth and stop propagating misinformation.

Let the whining, accusations, and recriminations begin

The OscarsThe Academy Awards nominations have been announced. I’m gonna read the nominations and type out my thoughts, category by category. This should be fun. Then I’ll nose around the internet and see what people are saying about snubs. The devastation and horror about snubbing is the most fun part of Oscar nominations. Unless you happen to be the one feeling it….

Actor in a Leading Role seems fair; no real surprises. Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon, Sean Penn for Milk, Brad Pitt for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler were all givens. I’m pleasantly surprised to see the fifth name, Richard Jenkins for The Visitor. However, if you’re going to include wonderful, understated performances, then where’s Dev Patel for Slumdog Millionaire? He did a great job and deserves a nomination, so I’ll call that a snub.

Actor in a Supporting Role will go to Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight), but thanks for coming out Josh Brolin (Milk), Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt), and Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road). And you know what? Ledger deserves it. This is not a posthumous honouring of someone simply because they’re dead. He legitimately gave what many believe is one of the greatest performances ever captured on film. The Dark Knight overall doesn’t deserve a best picture nod (I’m not there yet!), but his performance certainly deserves best actor. Revolutionary Road got a supporting actor nom, but not leading actor for Leonardo DiCaprio. Hmmm…Kate?

Actress in a Leading Role. Kate Winslet did get nominated (yay!), but for The Reader. It should have been Revolutionary Road. Did you see that performance? It may have been overwrought, but it was still gut-destroying. It’s what’s known as a tour de force. Maybe Ricky Gervais was right when his Extras script made Kate Winslet (playing herself) earnestly admit that the only way to get an Oscar is to do a Holocaust movie. Okay, who else? We’ve got Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married), Angelina Jolie (The Changeling), Meryl Streep (Doubt), and Melissa Leo (Frozen River). I haven’t seen Frozen River yet, but I really want to. I think this is a very interesting category. No Sally Hawkins? Maybe she’s in “supporting”—I really don’t know how they decide these things. Given that Kate Winslet has been nominated for the wrong movie (and maybe the wrong category—should it be supporting?), I’d say this one will go to Meryl Streep. Can’t argue with the Streep.

Actress in a Supporting Role. And the nominees are: Amy Adams (Doubt), Penélope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona), Viola Davis (Doubt), Taraju P. Henson (Benjamin Button), and Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler). Where the freakin-ass-hell is Sally Hawkins for Happy Go-Lucky!?!?! Holy crap in a hat! That’s highway robbery. Snubbery McSnubby Snub. (See, isn’t the horrified outrage fun?) Seriously, come on! Happy Go-Lucky is one of the strangest, quirkiest films I’ve seen. It’s hard to describe, which is why it doesn’t sound appealing right now. While I was watching it I was completely irritated by the character, but it is one of the few movies I’ve seen this year that has actually stuck with me (Wall-E and Slumdog are the others). I find myself thinking about that character all the time, and I like her very much now. It was an amazing tightrope performance by Sally Hawkins. She added so many layers, and so much depth and complexity to a seemingly superficial role. She was robbed.

Sigh. Okay, now that I’ve got that over with, on to the actual nominees. I gotta be honest here—I haven’t seen Button or The Wrestler yet. I think Viola Davis was amazing in Doubt, but she really only had one scene. (Not that it’s unheard of to give this award to someone with a tiny bit of screen time.) Amy Adams was also good. Penélope Cruz was the very best thing about Vicky Cristina Barcelona. I loved her performance, but I hope the film doesn’t get a best picture nom. Without Kate Winslet (or Sally Hawkins!!!) in this category, it could really go to anyone.

Animated Feature is a lock for Wall-E, but thanks for playing Bolt and Kung Fu Panda. I liked Kung Fu Panda (“noodles, don’t noodles”), but Wall-E is one of the—if not the—best films of the year! Or many years! I have been heard to say that anyone who didn’t like Wall-E doesn’t have a heart, or has a cold, cold heart. And while I say that in jest, I really don’t understand how anyone could not like this movie. It’s a beautiful, sad, heart-warming, mournful, funny love story. It’s a character movie. People hear “love story” and “character film” and say, “It’s a cartoon!” But trust me. And every film critic on the planet. I so hope that by the time I get down to Best Picture, Wall-E will be listed there. But in my heart of hearts I know it won’t be because it’s here, in “animated.” Sigh again.

Skipping the boring categories…la la la….

Directing. David Fincher for Button (haven’t seen it), Ron Howard for Frost/Nixon (kind of requisite), Gus Van Sant for Milk (nice!), Stephen Daldry for The Reader (What!?! Wrong film again!), and Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire (yaaaay!). I think Sam Mendes should have gotten a nomination for Revolutionary Road. I guess this means it won’t be in Best Picture either. Really, is this a case of who campaigns the best? I don’t think anyone would claim that The Reader is one of the best films of the year. It wasn’t even critically acclaimed—it got 60% on Rotten Tomatoes and 58 on Metacritic. And what about Andrew Stanton for Wall-E? That movie is all about the direction since there’s very little dialogue throughout a good portion of it. At any rate, I hope this one goes to Danny Boyle or Gus Van Sant.

I’m gonna skip Documentary for now because I’ve only seen one of the nominations (Encounters At the End of the World). I love documentaries, though, and will make it a goal to see as many as I can before the awards. Ditto for Foreign Language.

Score should go to Slumdog Millionaire—the only score from any film I saw this year that really made me take notice and excited me. No Bruce Springsteen for best song (“The Wrestler”)? I don’t know, but that seems like a snub. From what I’ve heard it’s a pretty modest and pat Springsteen film song, but surely it has to be better than the Peter Gabriel song from Wall-E?!?

Best Picture! Hmmm. Well, I can’t say I’m surprised, based on the other nominations. Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, and The Reader. Again, I say it should have been Revolutionary Road and not The Reader, but that line’s getting worn. I can imagine some people saying that The Dark Knight is a snub (maybe for director, too), but I think it’s fine to be left out. It was simply a really good action movie (the Academy doesn’t tend to go for action movies), but the film wasn’t amazing. Maybe we’re just so used to action movies sucking that when one is actually good people start chanting Oscar, Oscar! Also, I think Heath Ledger’s definitely Oscar-worthy performance is getting all mixed up with the movie itself. Slumdog Millionaire better win this category. And I will never get over Wall-E not being nominated for best film. Just because it’s animated doesn’t mean it has to be in the “animated” category! Right?

And now the writing categories. For Adapted Screenplay there’s Benjamin Button, Doubt, Frost/Nixon, The Reader, and Slumdog Millionaire. That’s a tough category. I can’t predict a winner. I’d be happy if it went to Doubt or Slumdog. I’d be fine with it going to one of the other three.

Original Screenplay nominees are Frozen River, Happy Go-Lucky, In Bruges, Milk, and Wall-E. FINALLY A NOMINATION FOR HAPPY GO-LUCKY! I don’t know if it’ll win, but I want it to just because Sally Hawkins got so beyond snubbed. But I think Milk could (and also deserves) to win. Wall-E is an amazing, brilliant movie, but I don’t know about “screenplay.” So much of that movie is about the direction and the animation. I think it should have gotten a best director nod. And where is Revolutionary Road? Again, absent.

I’ve just cruised the “comments” section on a bunch of different articles about the nominations, and it seems the biggest outrage, in no particular order, is for Kate Winslet not being nominated for Revolutionary Road (and that film’s general snubbing), The Dark Knight and Wall-E not being nominated for best picture (can’t agree with the first one, but Yes! to the second), and Sally Hawkins not being nominated (Could not agree more. I share the outrage. I’m gonna give her my own award.).

There you go. Another year of snubbingly fun Oscar nominations. I think the awards will be kind of boring this year, unless Slumdog Millionaire pulls off a clean sweep. I think people could really get excited about that.

Please note: I am not a film critic; I am just a pop-culture junkie.

My kitties are awesome

Here they are:

Molly chillin' on a pile of DVDs

Molly, just chillin'.

Mocha, with the blue eyes.

Mocha, with the blue eyes.

Published in: on January 21, 2009 at 9:44 pm  Comments (2)  

More CNN fun

Do you ever just turn on CNN for comic relief? It’s hilarious watching these guys try to fill 24 or 48 hours talking about one thing.

Yesterday the self-proclaimed “best political team in television” equated being Muslim with being a terrorist. This morning some inane talking head said that Michelle Obama looked like “a lovely snowflake” in her ball gown.

A snowflake. Seriously.

Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama

A snowflake

A snowflake

I don’t even know why The Daily Show bothers having a writing staff when they’ve got the 24-hour news channels doing the brunt of the work.

Published in: on January 21, 2009 at 11:08 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,