GOOP

Me impersonating Bill Maher:



I don't hate the Republican party, but I do think they are a party of baby-murdering demon-cyborgs.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there was a party of demon-cyborgs that need stem cells from abortions in order to sustain themselves. What policies would you enact to create a surplus of stem cells?

First off, you'd do away with sex education. Tell the kids that condoms don't work, so don't bother, that they have to wait until they're 29 and married until they can have sex. Then make it hard and expensive to get birth control, oh and constantly insinuate that birth control is for sluts.

Now we've got a huge population of young people who don't think condoms work, so they don't bother using them, they don't know how to use birth control or can't get access to it, and they of course aren't waiting for marriage. Nobody waits for marriage.

Sarah Palin didn't wait until marriage and she married her high school sweetheart. Between high school and marrying her high school sweetheart, she had an affair with a future NBA player and got knocked up. So yeah, let's go to her for abstinence advice. Hows that working out for her kids?

So now we've got tons of unwanted pregnancies. But, if being a single mom isn't so bad, if you get help from the government, you might keep the kid. Oh wait, Republicans are constantly cutting benefits to poor single moms. Free school lunches, bullshit, use your bootstraps kid.

So you've got a nationwide campaign of disinformation where they say condoms don't work, birth control causes breast cancer, just ask conservapedia about that, tell young people who are known for self-control to not have sex for a decade, then you try to make access to contraception as difficult and expensive as possible, even taking it to the supreme court, then you make it really fucking hard to be a poor single mom.

That is clearly the strategy of a party of demon-cyborgs who need to feed on aborted fetuses.

BUT! BUT! You say, Republicans are for closing abortion clinics! They can't be trying to maximize the number of abortions if they're also trying to close abortion clinics.

What happens when you make something illegal? Does making it illegal make it go away? This country banned alcohol and then we stopped drinking forever, don't you guys remember that.

No, what happens is that this industry then goes black market. Instead of Anheuser Busch making money, it's the bootleggers and moonshiners. Instead of pharmaceutical companies making money, Colombian drug cartels make money. Instead of Planned Parenthood doing abortions, the Demon-Cyborgs with their fetus pincers perform abortions and then get to feed on the results.

BUT! BUT! Republicans are against stem cell research!

Yeah, they're against us researching what they're doing with all those stem cells (whisper: they're eating them).

The Republican platform when it comes to sex education, contraceptive access, childcare, and abortion access all come together in one clear strategy to create an enormous and delicious abortion black-market.

Now, I don't actually believe the republicans are demon-cyborgs. I haven't ruled it out either.

But I do believe that they are terrible parents. That's what defines them: Being a particular kind of shit parent.

The purpose of parenting is to help mold a child into a human being that can make decisions for themselves.

But they seem to think they can construct an elaborate set of rules, essentially become computer programmers and create an operating system that makes the decisions for the kids. Anybody who's done much computer programming knows about If-Then functions.

If you aren't married, then no sex. If he tries to put it in my butt, then say exit only. If someone offers you drugs, then just say no.

But you can't account for every possible situation. That's why computers suck at everything. We've got Google driverless cars that never get in accidents, they drive flawlessly because driving is pretty simple. But you know what they'll really suck at? Getaway drivers. You laugh now, but what happens when some murderer is after you and you get in your self-driving car and tell it to get you the fuck out of there, the murderer will just rear end you and the car will pull over so you can exchange insurance information and he can murder you.

That's why computer people are obsessed with AI. They want something that can learn on its own because you can't possibly account for every possible situation.

Republican parents are doing the exact opposite. They have things that learn, that have intelligence, but they're trying to beat the thinking out of them so they will just follow the rigid rules the parents create for them.

Republican parents have decided on their kids behalf, that they are A. Heterosexual, B. Not having sex until marriage, and C. Christian.

Go against any of those and they will flip their fucking shit. They don't want their kids to learn about evolution because they don't believe in it. They've made the decision, now the kid is just supposed to follow orders for their whole lives.

And if you stray, you get punished. If you're gay, you get AIDS, you get disowned, then you go to hell. If you're an atheist, you get disowned and then you go to hell. If you have pre-marital sex, then you get STDs and an unwanted pregancy, then you go to hell.

They see STDs and unwanted pregnancies as god punishing you for being bad. HIV kills gays because god hates gays. Sluts get STDs because they're dirty sluts.

But if you're a good girl, you won't need to worry about STDs or unwanted pregnancy. So you don't need any sex-ed!

Just know sex is super dangerous and then don't have it and you're fine.

It used to be true that sex was dangerous, that STDs and pregnancy were huge risks. But now we have technology. It's the future. The risks aren't the same anymore. You can use condoms and birth control and then spend a decade fucking whoever you want without having an AIDS baby. And then you can settle down and have kids when you find the right person and are ready to.

We can fuck safely now. As long as you know how to do it right.

But shitty Republican parents don't want their kids to know how to do it.

It's not just that they want to keep information from the kids. They actually want there to be STDs.

There's a vaccine for HPV, and so if all girls get it, we can basically wipe out one whole STD for future generations. Republicans are largely against it. Michelle Bachmann said the the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. They want STDs to exist so that if their kids stray from the virginal path they set for them, they'll get spanked with the clap. They don't want abortion to be an option, that way their daughters will be so terrified of getting pregnant that they'll be afraid of having sex until they're ready to be a mom.

If it were the movie Jaws, Republican parents would be saying:

Don't catch the shark, because then my kids might go swimming.

But the shark is what makes it so dangerous.

Yeah but my kids don't know how to swim, and if they try, they might drown.

Well then teach your fucking kids to swim.

No. Swimming before you're 21 is a sin. The shark is god's way of punishing young people for sinning.

So you want the whole world to be actually more dangerous than it needs to be because you can't be bothered to teach your fucking children.

And then they complain constantly about our culture and its liberal values.

If my daughter's friends watch Sex and the City and they think it's okay to be a slut, then they'll be sluts, and then my daughter will be pressured to be like them. It's so hard to be a parent now.

No! It's not hard at all to be a parent now. It's hard to brain-wash your kids when they have Google and they can easily prove your bullshit wrong.

Morals aren't a list of do's and don'ts. Shitty lists don't impart morals. That's how you know religions are bullshit.

The Ten commandments, God's list of do's and don'ts, doesn't include rape or slavery. Those are fine. Hell, you can combine them into sex slavery and Moses will just look at his list and go, yeah, that checks out.

If we actually try to make a list of all things you shouldn't do, it won't work because in 50 years the world will be different. We'd need to constantly be adding amendments like, don't hack into people's phones and steal their nude pictures and then post them on 4chan. 

Making a list just turns us all into language-rapists who are trying to interpret laws and find loopholes. And if you can find a loop-hole then you should be fine. That's how we got the Missouri Compromise, where anal sex before marriage is fine because the hymen stays intact. That's also how it's somehow okay to murder abortion doctors.

You can't list every shitty thing. You can't possibly do it. That's why no list of commandments can ever work. Instead, you need a principle to follow.

And I've got it. This is my principal. My one commandment:

Thou Shalt Try Not To Be Epically Cunty.

You tell me, is sex slavery is a work of epic cuntyness?

Go ahead, find a loop hole in Thou Shalt Try Not To Be Epically Cunty.

“Try?” You're thinking, why is the try in there. What if I try just a little bit, and then give up?

If you aren't really trying, then you're just pretending that you're not a cunt. But actually, you're being cunty.

The try is there because sometimes you should act like a cunt. The ten Commandments fucked this one up too. Thou Shalt Not Kill? But God commands people to kill only about a thousand times in the bible. 

What about Hitler? Are we not supposed to kill Hitler? Of course sometimes you should kill. But you shouldn't just kill someone for no reason.

If someone is being an epic cunt to you, and you bite your tongue and let it slide, and then they epically cunt on you again, and this time you say, hey cunt, quit cunting on me, and then they keep cunting on you, then you've tried enough and you can be a cunt back to them.

That's it. That's all you need to know about morality for the rest of your life.

So what do you do if you're 18 years old and you're waiting until marriage to have sex and you really want to have sex with your 18 year old boyfriend. Should you get married so you can start having sex? According to Republican parents. Yes. Yes you should. Get married, then have all the sex you want, and you'll live happily ever after.

But my one commandment says, for fuck's sake, NO! Being 18 and hormonal and horny as fuck and really badly wanting to fuck somebody is not a good reason to make your teenage courtship into a death-pact. That's a really good way to be already divorced when you're 22.

Confounding horniness and teenage lust with the reasoned, mature desire to spend the next 60 years with someone you will grow to hate and making all your friends and relatives gather together for a ceremony in which your father hands over his deed to your hymen to your boyfriend is pretty cunty.

This is a map of how ignorant your children are. 

You can't just give over a list of do's and don't to your children. They will be making decisions, and so the best you can do is give them the most accurate information you can. Just telling them to wait until marriage and then denying them information on birth control and condoms is clearly a recipe for teenage pregnancy and catching STDs, just look at this map of the prevalance of teenage pregnancy.

The actual sex ed that I got went something like this. We looked at pictures of herpes and syphilis. We watched a Lifetime movie about a girl who had sex one time and got AIDS. Then we got to feel a set of rubber testicles to see what cancer feels like.

I came away from that thinking that unprotected sex is fucking dangerous. I thought if I banged a girl with no condom and she had HIV, that I would of course get the HIV. So I thought one-night stands were like Russian Roulette with HIV bullets. That's fucking scary.

So I spent several years thinking that sex was dangerous as fuck. But do you know what the actual odds are of getting HIV?

If I bang a girl, no condom, she has HIV, what are the odds I get it? 1 in how many? One in five? One in ten?

It's actually 1 in 2,500. That means, if I had 25 one-night-stands, and every single time, I somehow managed to always hook up with an AIDS girls, I have some kind of AIDSDAR, and never used condoms, I would have a 1% chance of getting HIV.

The odds that you get AIDS from blowing an AIDS dick are less than the odds that you will be killed by a police officer.

That's how you know America is a fucked up country. Our police are more dangerous than blowing AIDS dicks. And that's based on a national average. Imagine what the figures look like if you're black. Being black in America is like blowing ten AIDS dicks, just all the time.

My impression of John Oliver.

Language Rape

I like to imagine the world as it would be seen by a Martian, an outsider, who doesn't have our culture and experiences. What would the world look like to that person. For example, laying down and spending a third of our time in some kind of hallucinogenic state seems odd.

From that perspective, I started to wonder...what are lawyers? What do they do? Laws are rules, basically we figure out what shitty things people shouldn't do, then we write down, don't be an asshole and do these things. And the job of a lawyer is to then work with these written rules and figure out what precisely they mean.

But it seems like what they really do is twist language and manipulate it and figure out how to take something and make it mean something else.

Basically, lawyers are language rapists.

A lawyer would say, it's not rape, we're just massaging the language – well it's a very deep massage that the language didn't want and afterward it feels violated. To me that's rape. .

For example: The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Congress has gone on to make all kinds of laws that abridge the freedom of speech, and when challenged in the supreme court, several supreme courts have done a little tap dance and ruled that congress can make laws abridging the freedom of speech if they have a good reason. For example, you can't threaten to kill people, that's illegal, and we all go, yeah I guess that's kind of a good thing. Then they decided to make it illegal to print and sell pornography, oh and communist literature. And the supreme court said, yeah, I mean obviously when the founding father said you “shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” they meant you can make laws abridging freedom of speech when it comes to things you don't like such as titties and Marx.

According to these “lawyers” on the supreme court, the phrase “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” somehow means you can make pornography and political speech you don't like illegal, but you can't limit how much money corporations spend on politics.

This is clearly language rape.

This brings me to my favorite case in the history of law.

A Panera opened in a mall. They had a contract with the mall that stipulated that they could not let in any other sandwich places. Then the mall allows another restaurant to open, and the guy who owns the Panera gets pissed and yells, “hey assholes, you weren't allowed to open another sandwich place.”

Now, does anyone want to guess what this second restaurant was? Subway? Planet Sub? Maybe McDonald’s?

No. It was a Qdoba.

Judging by your reactions, I can tell all of you people are too morally good to be lawyers.

Here's how you know that the job of a lawyer is to basically be a rapist of language. The judge didn't just throw the case out as being fucking stupid. Judges can do that. But this went to trial.

An actual trial, wherein the prosecution made the case that burritos are in fact sandwiches, and the defense had to prove that burritos are not sandwiches.

In a sane world, the mall owner could have showed up to court with burrito, eaten it, and said “wow, that was a delicious burrito, I rest my case,” and that would have been that. But we all know this isn't a sane world, and if he didn't get his own lawyer he wouldn't have known the right things to say and the judge would have made burritos and sandwiches into the same legal entity.

And what about this Panera owner? Here's a guy who runs a sandwich shop who can't tell the difference between a burrito and a sandwich. I think I know why his sandwich shop isn't doing so well. Does this guy think Taco Bell is a bakery? Does he think Waffle Tacos are just open-face breakfast sandwiches? This is a man who owns a sandwich shop, and yet he can't tell the difference between a grilled cheese and a quesadilla.

And here's another absurdity, this trial creates precedent. In essence, the decision in this case determines once-and-for-all-time whether a burrito is a sandwich. This judge by random chance is now the one member of the human race who has the power to decide if a burrito is a sandwich. I think anyone with that much power should be elected to the job. What if that judge hated mexican food, and now he is the one person on the planet tasked with deciding if a burrito is a sandwich.

In the arguments, both sides were quoting dictionaries as to how burritos and sandwiches are defined, and at some point this needs to be made into a dramatic courtroom film. They not only cited dictionaries at each other, but they both called expert witnesses. But expert witnesses are complete bullshit, because both sides will produce experts. We have a sandwich-expert who can't tell the difference between a reuben and an enchilada but he runs a sandwich shop, so trust him, he's an expert.

The US government actually has a definition of a sandwich. They need to have a definition because we have two agencies that inspect food and so they need to decide who inspects what. The Food and Drug Administration is the ones that make you label foods with nutrition facts and they inspect processed foods, soda, and things like that, while the US Department of Agriculture, or USDA, inspects farms and meat plants and the more agricultural side of things.

The USDA says a burrito is a “Mexican style sandwich-like product consisting of a flour tortilla, various fillings, and at least 15 percent meat or 10 percent cooked poultry meat.”

So that settles it right? It's a sandwich-like product. So it's...not a sandwich?

And apparently, according to the USDA there's no such thing as a vegetarian burrito?

Here's where it goes from weird to disgusting. If you package a sandwich and sell it, which agency inspects you, the USDA or the FDA?

If it's closed-face, i.e. it has two pieces of bread, then you are inspected by the FDA. The FDA does inspections daily. If however, you package an open-faced sandwich with just a single piece of bread, then you are inspected by the USDA. And the USDA inspects open-face sandwiches sold in interstate commerce an average of once every 5 years.

So don't ever eat a packaged open-faced sandwich. That's what I've learned out of all of this. Because it's legally distinct from a closed-face sandwich and it turns out that legal distinction might actually kill you.

It's not negligent homicide, it's just an advanced case of inside-out syndrome where the intestines decide to leave the body.

So it's all settled then. A burrito is not a sandwich. Fuck you Panera guy's lawyer, because you just got paid thousands of dollars because you convinced an idiotic sandwich shop owner that burritos are sandwiches and then put us all through this ordeal of language rape.

And here's the worst part. If tomorrow a Qdoba opens up in a mall, and the Qdoba makes a deal that says the mall can't bring in any other burrito places, and then the mall lets a Panera move in, the Qdoba owner could sue, because we have only legally settled that a burrito is not a sandwich. Whether or not a sandwich is a burrito is legally unsettled ground. And I bet you that somewhere there's a lawyer who is trying to date-rape the word burrito so he can make tens of thousands of dollars on a stupid lawsuit. And if the Panera guy shows up with just a sandwich and common sense and no language-rapist on his side, then the judge will rule that sandwiches are burritos.

Then we'll live in a world where a sandwich is legally a burrito, but a burrito is not legally a sandwich.

Here's some more language rape for you. Subway Footlongs. People started measuring them and many weren't a foot long. Some were right at 11 inches. What Subway should have said was, bread rises and expands when you cook it, so it's not always going to come out exactly at precisely 12 inches, but we do our best and you'll find that many come out longer than 12 inches and we're not systematically trying to screw you over.

Instead, what they said was: 'SUBWAY FOOTLONG' is a registered trademark as a descriptive name for the sub sold in Subway® Restaurants and not intended to be a measurement of length.

Not intended to be a measurement? That'd be like if the McDonald's quarter pounder weighed way less than a quarter pound and McDonald's said, “the name just describes how heavy it looks.”

Here's another example of language rape. The 2nd amendment. Hopefully I won't be shot by the time I finish this. 

The 2^nd amendment is a single sentence. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, a lot of people like to forget the first half of the sentence. In fact, in the Lobby of the NRA headquarters, they have the text of the 2^nd amendment on the wall. Or, they have the second half of it. They conveniently leave off the first half that talks about militias, because they couldn't be bothered to put the whole sentence.

I'm no language rape expert, but when you spend the first half of a sentence saying that a militia is good, I think that is relevant to the meaning of the second half of the sentence. That's what punctuation is for. If these are unconnected thoughts, you would use a period.

The modern interpretation of this, by the Republican Supreme Court is, and I quote, “The second amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

What they're saying, these brilliant language-rapists of the highest caliber, is that the 2^nd amendment means “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” and that the first half of the sentence is meaningless and is just there because the founders felt like saying that militias are nice, especially well-regulated ones.

That would be like if I wrote a law that went like this:

“Farting being one of life's simple pleasures and also a necessity for comfort, the right of the people to pass gas shall not be infringed.”

And then the supreme court decided that this meant that companies could release all the toxic pollutant gases they felt like because they have an unlimited right to pass gas.

And when somebody says, isn't that sentence about farting? Antonin Scalia says, “oh no, the founders were just saying that they liked farting, but unconnected to that, and in the same sentence for some reason, they also think unlimited pollution is a fundamental right. They're unconnected thoughts, that's why they're separated by a whole comma.”

If the founders wanted to give us all the right to bear arms unconnected to anything to do with militias, then the second amendment would have said: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But they didn't just say that!

There's an earlier draft that said:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Let's break that down:

A militia, what is a militia, why militias are good, therefore militias should be able to exist, and you can't make Quakers join the militia.

Every bit about this is about militias, not rednecks with AR-15s. And if it's all about the militia, it also says “well regulated militia.”

So it seems to me that the amendment is saying “you have a right to form a militia, as long as it's well regulated.”

A few years ago, the city of D.C. Passed a law that banned handguns and it was challenged and went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court struck it down because the Republicans on the court ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, therefore you can't ban handguns.

If you interpret the second amendment this way, then doesn't that mean you can't make laws banning any kind of arms? Tanks, Napalm? Can I own a tomahawk cruise missile? Can I own an ICBM and a missile silo? You know, for self-defense.

Well. . . Actually, you can own a flamethrower if you want. We have no regulations on flamethrowers. You don't even need to pass a background check. You can buy a flamethrower online.

According to genius language rapist Antonin Scalia:

“Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried, it's 'to keep and bear,' so it doesn’t apply to cannons,”

Okay, so I have to be able to hold it. I've seen Arnold Schwarzanegger hold an 8-barrel Gatling gun. So according to Scalia, what guns you can own depends on how strong you are.

He goes on to say:

Scalia: “but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can take down airplanes, so that'll have to be decided.”

Fox News Person: “How do you decide that if you're a textualist?”

Scalia: “Very carefully. My starting point and ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time.”

So Scalia is saying that it might be unconstitutional to ban heat-seeking shoulder-fired missiles if his gut feeling is that people in the 1780s would have been cool with it.

Which do you think is more likely: that the founding fathers wanted to give everyone the right to own any weapon, no matter how powerful, just as long as they could physically carry it, OR that they wanted to make it so that we had a right to form a well regulated militia?

Which of those two options seems like something that was thought up by complete fucktards?