WELCOME TO DR. B.'S WORLD

This new white format allows me to post complete pics (the other Blogger formats cut them off, practically in half). Pretend you're reading your newspaper or something.

Dates separate each post, barely, so look for the dates on the left. Print is large & readable. Comment section is unchanged. My Profile info was at the bottom, but I moved it back to the top. Deal with it.

[Disclaimer: Pursuant to the UCC (Uniform Comedy Code), all depictions of events and persons on this site are more real than reality itself, and therefore any resemblance to reality is not really real.]

Unbalanced. Unfair. I report. I decide.

ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE. If you have already abandoned hope, please disregard this notice. In this blog, you'll be exposed to the way I see things. Lots of things. Stuff I think of. Things that happen. Random weirdness. Occasional seriousness. My life. My world. My universe. My reality. By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind....

Dr. B.

Dr. B.

About Me

My photo
You damn kids get off my lawn.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

REPORT: U.S. MAY HAVE BEEN ABUSED DURING FORMATIVE YEARS



WASHINGTON, DC — A team of leading historians and psychiatrists issued a report Monday claiming that the United States was likely the victim of abuse by its founding fathers and motherland when it was a young colony.

"In its adulthood, the U.S. displays all the classic tendencies of a nation that was repeatedly mistreated in its infancy—difficulty forming lasting foreign relationships, viewing everyone as a potential enemy, and employing a pattern of assault and intimidation to assert its power," said Dr. Howard Drexel, the report's lead author. "Because of trust issues stemming from the abuse, America has become withdrawn, has not made an ally in years, and often resents the few nations that are willing to lend support—most countries outgrow this kind of behavior after 230 years."

According to Drexel, nations that act out in selfish, self-destructive ways in statehood were usually granted too much independence at an early age, especially if the motherland had other newly annexed lands to care for.

According to Yale University psychology professor John Bauffman, while some rebellious behavior in a nation's adolescence is common, and sometimes healthy, America's historically stormy relationship with mother country Great Britain points to a deep need for acceptance.

"The U.S. is characteristic of an abused nation in that, even decades after noisily pushing away from Britain, it still maintained close contact with the motherland, took care of it, even giving it financial aid—all the while fearing disapproval even though the parent country is now old, decrepit, and powerless," said Bauffman, a prominent contributor to the fourth edition of the Democratic Symptoms Of Maltreatment handbook, or DSM-IV. "On the other hand, Canada, which was raised in the very same continent by the same mother country, only exercised small-scale resistance, remaining loyal well into its maturity. Though some see Canada as cold and remote, it has, unlike the U.S., managed to lead a peaceful, reasonably healthy existence."

Bauffman pointed to another telltale sign of abuse in the U.S.'s tendency to bully, torture, and persecute less powerful, vulnerable creatures, such as buffalo, passenger pigeons, forests, and Native Americans.

Although the American nation appeared to be on the road to recovery by the early 1990s, watershed events such as the open discussion of sexual issues, a protracted custody battle in the closing months of 2000, and a series of threats and physical attacks from enemy nations triggered centuries of repressed memories and set off a recurring pattern of violent outbursts and emotional volatility.

"America compensated for early mistreatment by taking out this pent-up aggression on other nations—getting involved in aggressive conflicts seemingly just for the thrill of it, starting arguments and wars that can't be won, suspecting that everyone is out to get them," Drexel said. "This nation needs help, but by its very nature, refuses to accept it."

Drexel defended the study's findings amid claims that America's current condition can be attributed to a much wider variety of factors.

"Granted, part of America's problems may stem from the fact that it was burdened with a false sense of responsibility at a young age because of the unrealistic expectations of the country's forefathers, and there is certainly something to be said about America having been part of a broken homeland for a four-year period in the mid-19th century," Drexel said. "Even though the U.S. is over 200 years old, emotionally it's younger than Lithuania."

Added Drexel: "But we must remember that the country also idealized the forefathers in a classic victim–abuser relationship."

The report recommended that the United Nations Security Council once again renew its efforts to organize an international intervention to help the U.S. get the counseling it needs. Prior attempts have failed to move beyond the planning stage, however, with many countries saying they are afraid that the U.S. may lash out.





JEFFERSON'S FIRST DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:

When in the Course of human stuff events, it becomes really really important necessary for one people to dissolve the political thingies bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of grayskull the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's candy God intitle entootle entuttle entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these tooths truths to be self-cleaning evident, that all men are created somewhat equal, that they are very very much endowed almost prohibitively so in Ben's case by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, free beer, a coconut, trampoline shoes, and the trivial pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men and Women, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to call everyone they know a Nazi alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety, Cool Hair, and Happiness. The Biggest Biceps in the Room, Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not ^not not ^not not not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while idiots evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long choo-choo train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Jackassery Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw up on off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Tyranny security.


.

198 comments:

keepingfaith said...

I'd say the Founding Fathers rolled over in their graves on that video, but they've been spinning for years. All that did was kick up the rpms a little.

guitarhero said...

I thought it was hilarious. Then again, I'm young enough to be a Beastie Boys fan.

Wumpie said...

Great (it's about damn time) blog, doc. Figures you'd be the one to psychoanalyze America.

BeltwayBandit said...

Yeah. "Dr. Howard Drexel" and Yale University Professor "John Bauffman" are satirical pseudonyms of Dr. B.'s creation, making the satire seem legit.

adlib said...

If the U.S. was abused during its formative years, I blame Catholic priests.

Lisa said...

It's hardly a secret that the Vatican is basically a pedophile support group, yet Catholics all over the world are still handing them money every week. One can only assume that Catholics are perfectly OK with their priests being a bunch of kidtouchers. After all, if they didn't approve, they'd at least have the decency to stop providing them with financial support.

123dee said...

Well, they're pro-life, you see. And anti-gay. So gay sex with young children logically follows.

Wait, no, it doesn't.

snuffaluffagus said...

Hope everyone had a bang up fourth of July!

ConcernFromCanada said...

4th of July? What's a 4th of July? Is it a small measure of some sort of alcohol?

.
.
.
..
...I keed. I know what it is.
.
.
.
It's when traitorous subjects of the British crown radicalized. Unlike the much more loyal and handsome Canada.


It's a joke people. Don't go all jihadi on me. Hope you had a happy fourth American cousins.

semisarcastic said...

Or as that teacher says in 'Dazed and Confused' (paraphrase): "Remember what you're celebrating: a bunch of rich, slave owning white males who didn't want to pay their taxes."

TXfemmom said...

A lot of things piss me off about American politics and consumer culture.

But when it comes down to it, I wouldn't really want to live anywhere else. Except maybe Canada.

hardcorelib said...

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."

- Oscar Wilde

Paka74 said...

It wouldn't be the Fourth of July without an article wondering exactly how religious the Founding Fathers really were. (Bonus: Painting of Jesus with the Founding Fathers)

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/faith/49829475-142/nation-christian-founders-says.html.csp

3primecubed said...

I love how the article goes on at length about the question of whether the founders were Christians who wanted to form a Christian nation...and doesn't answer it.

jewbag said...

Interesting. A Mormon artist--with no mention or depiction of Joseph Smith anywhere in this painting.

Look folks, I know most of you are Christian and you know that too. But you can stop trying to lick the ass of the Reactionary Evangelical Protestants and their religio-political ideologies. They will never never never accept you and you will the first up against the wall to be shot if they ever get their theocracy.

ranting tommy said...

One of these years can we have an article talking about the internal debates over the Declaration or the Constitution? OR how about the American government under the Articles of Confederation, including the impact of that imperfect government on modern society? How there were great disagreements about certain pieces of each of those documents? How the Constitutional Convention had to be conducted in near total secrecy? Someone who's willing to not call these people the Founding Fathers? You know, to give us SOME ACTUAL HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE?

jimbei said...

Don't be silly. These men were appointed by God to speak with one voice, proclaiming the glorious founding documents of our Holy Empire.

MObamican said...

I always get a big kick out of seeing Jesus portrayed as Caucasian.

Give it another hundred years, and schoolchildren will be taught that Mexicans killed Lincoln and Kennedy, and MLK killed himself.

WhiteGuyBob said...

I am so glad we have Founding Fathers instead of a stupid King.

dianhow said...

Is there a baby dinosaur in the picture as well?

nostradamus said...

The idea that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values is fairly ridiculous. It was founded much more on the ideas of Adam Smith and John Locke than Jesus or Moses. Let's take a glance at the ten commandments for a start:

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work-you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

5. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

The first three are blatantly countermanded by the First Amendment- It, in a very real way, says that Americans are not required to follow the first three commandments.

There is no requirement to obey commandments four and five. In fact, we are for the most part free to trash talk our mother and father as much as we want if we so choose.

Numbers six, eight, and nine (murder, theft, and perjury) have been illegal in pretty much every civilization that has ever existed, and is by no means specifically a Judeo-Christian concept.

Number seven, Adultery, is mentioned nowhere in our founding documents, as far as I am aware.

Number ten, coveting other people's things, is one of the basics of capitalism- you see something someone else has that you like, so you buy it.

Hence, we see that in some places, the ten commandments are blatantly unconstitutional, in some places they are not addressed, and in some places, breaking them is a key tenet of our socioeconomic system. In fact, the only ones that have been a part of our government from the beginning are the three 'commandments' that have been features of every society ever, regardless of faith or lack thereof.

turkeyinthestraw said...

I knew it! That "John Hancock" signature originally was "Jesus H Christ", it was a Triluminati conspiracy that modified the original document to cover up the fact that Jesus was one of the founding fathers. I blame the jews, freemasons and past, present and future members of AFSCME Local 645 for this heinous act.

adlib said...

Nostradamus, I wish to build a shrine in your honor. What kind of sacrifices do you prefer?

bonuspersona said...

Here's the thing.

We're never going to really know to what extent the founding fathers believed, much less how much of that they actually all felt should be represented in the constitution. Jefferson, for his part, rewrote the entire bible and removed all mention of divinity (making it a sort of "how-to guide to not being a douchebag", rather than the "word of god".

Both Jefferson and Franklin believed in the ability of some men to use pure reason to arrive at a proper moral system (wherein one does good because it is in the interest of society, rather than because of fear of punishment or desire of reward), but didn't believe most people could get there.

Or, at least, that's what most scholars I've read have concluded and referenced.

I will agree wholeheartedly that the founding fathers knew their bibles. But, Jefferson also knew his Qu'aran, and his Greek and Roman philosophy and mythology. So did most of them.

But, even that is fallacy. Many world leaders, and scientists, and philosophers (some of whom influenced the founding fathers) believed that a heavy object fell faster than a lighter object. The fact that people conformed to the beliefs and superstitions prevalent at the time does not mean we shouldn't step out of those shadows when we're progressed far enough to say "yeah, see, we don't need preternatural elements in order to explain any part of the natural world".

Shar said...

All I have to say is that these guys were living around the time of the Age of Enlightenment with the likes of Voltaire, Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu, so despite the fact that they may agree as to there being some sort of higher power (Seeing as according to Nicolas Cage all the Founding Fathers were Free Masons who played Spirograph on the Bill of Rights) I don't think these guys were religious nuts the way neocon people make them out to be.

rumplestiltskin said...

The citation from the Treaty of Tripoli seems pretty clear: not more than 10 years after the Constitution was enacted, the USA asserted that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

There could be no question that the United States would be anything other than a Christian nation, given the character of its population.

But from the beginning that Christian nation refused to form a Christian government.

The founders knew how well Christian government had worked for Europe over the previous thousand years.

HAL90000 said...

the Civil War was recent history at that point)

2) they didn't want the head of state/head of religion thing

3) They wouldn't have been able to decide on a single religion if they tried (and "Christian" is not a religion; it's an umbrella term for a group of sects)

4) there were Jews here, and people like Franklin knew and liked them

5) several Colonies already had declarations of religious freedom. After all, that's what most of the Colonists parents or grandparents had come here for: freedom of worship, which they couldn't get under the English or French or Germans.

yermammy said...

Interesting that this article should be presented on a weekend where residents of the State of Utah celebrate the nation's Declaration of Independence on...

Saturday or Monday.

Never on Sunday, the 4th of July.

I hear there were a lot of really upset people on the bicentennial July 4th, 1976 as well, also a Sunday.

rxvettte said...

It's sad. When Europeans first moved to the new world, they were, for the most part, trying to find a place where they could have their own beliefs without the government telling them what they had to think. They were running away from religious persecution.

Now, the idiot religious nuts want a government based around their religion.

Jacob Von Hogflume said...

For your reading pleasure on the anniversary of the birth of our nation: The Declaration of Independence. Happy Independence Day

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

aaronx said...

Thank you for saying "Happy Independence Day" Saying "Happy 4th of July" makes as much sense as saying "Merry 25th of December"

miss mary said...

Hope everybody had a Happy blow stuff up day.

glitch said...

Of all the ideas that became the United States, there's a line here that's at the heart of all the others:

"But when a long train of *ABUSES* and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future security."

Like doc said, the U.S. was abused during its formative years.

Genius, doc !!

revjeff said...

It's not the anniversary of the birth of our nation.

It's the anniversary of our independence. We weren't a nation until September 17, 1787.

cynicallarry said...

well, it's more like the conception. a drunk fumble in the dark that led to a baby.

Aidan said...

I think arguments could be made for a LOT of dates being the "birth" of the nation. My personal preference is for April 19, 1775.

ThomasPatrick said...

I would vote for November 25, 1783, or even January 14, 1784 if you want to get technical about it. Those were the dates that British troops left and when we ratified the Treaty of Paris, respectively. September 17, 1787 is the 'proper' date if you want to call the birth of the nation the day that the currently existing system of government took power.

sixfingers said...

I'm gonna be that guy. July 4th is a holiday date, not the anniversary, of Independence.

"The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."

--John Adams to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776

mainemomma said...

Thank God we got our Independence from those fascist brits and their monarch and their aristocracy..............


only to be taken over and owned by fascist american corporations and their wealthy owners.



whew, that was a close one!

lol

stevier said...

You're right. People make all this fuss about "Liberty" and "Freedom", and then don't care that economic self-sufficiency is becoming more and more difficult.

obamarican said...

Any holiday that celebrates the violent overthrow of government is okay in my book.

abigail said...

For those not in the US, it may help you understand July 4th if you think of it as National Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Day.

cltclt said...

Q: What would you get if you crossed George Washington with cattle feed? A: The Fodder of Our Country!

Andrew S said...

{groan}

cltclt said...

Q: Where did George Washington buy his hatchet? A: At the chopping mall!

Q: What did one flag say to the other flag? A: Nothing. It just waved!

Q: What quacks, has webbed feet, and betrays his country? A: Beneduck Arnold!

Q: What would you get if you crossed a patriot with a small curly-haired dog? A: Yankee Poodle!

Q: Why did the duck say "Bang!"? A: Because he was a firequacker!



Teacher: The Declaration of Independence was written in Philadelphia. True or false?

Student: False! It was written in ink!

kiwiscanfly said...

Q: What dance was very popular in 1776?
A: The Indepen-dance!

Q: What's red, white, blue and green? A: A seasick Uncle Sam!

Q: Why were the early American settlers like ants?
A: Because they lived in colonies!

shanghai slim said...

Did you hear the one about the Liberty Bell?

Yeah, it cracked me up!

CommentoErgoSum said...

Are you guys done?!? {gag}

heavyload6 said...

My contribution to the neighborhood July 5th fireworks show was pressing the panic button on my key chain to set off my car alarm.

USADownUnder said...

Hope you all had a Happy 4th of July! And kudos to the NY man who blew his arm off with fireworks on Friday. Totally ahead of the curve.

lightbrigade said...

Amazing enhanced images of an early draft of the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson referred to the American population as 'subjects' then scratched it out and replaced it with the word 'citizens' (probably where Doc got the inspiration for his hilarious 'first draft' by Jefferson).

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/thomas-jefferson-used-subjects-instead-of-citizens-in-early-declaration-of-independence-070210

nebraskamike said...

He also wanted to write "sacred" instead of "self-evident", and Franklin made him change it.

adlib said...

Hey, you can almost make out the secret code on the back

ikeedikeed said...

If you look really close at the bottom, there's a little piece of reverse script that says "You've been punk'd bitches!" Oliver Wolcott scribbled it in at the last minute. Got quite the laugh, apparently.

semisarcastic said...

He originally refers to African-Americans as "sexy".

maven said...

Once again proving that the "Founding Fathers" is a horribly inaccurate description of a bunch of men with diverse and contrasting political opinions.

magnus_the_rhino said...

You shut your mouth!
They were all fundamentalist Christian pro-war libertarians!

TXTitan2001 said...

As the people of the colonies were by definition subjects of the British Crown, this is kind of like writing the wrong year on your checks in January. It takes some time to change a paradigm.

flash said...

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law infringing on the people's right to rock.

goin broke said...

Move along, subjects, nothing to see here.

petra said...

If you read it backwards, you can make out the hidden satanic messages!

Ravenback47 said...

After I went to the link and read about Jefferson's edit, I went back to doc's blog and re- read his version of Jefferson's edits.

Fucking brilliant!

alaskan99577 said...

Agreed

texas made me retarded said...

co-sign

zakfish88 said...

His blogs are ALWAYS brilliant, and worth waiting for, no matter how often or rarely doc posts them.

longtimeamericalover said...

Very true.

Getting back to the subject, does anyone know about that rare version with the word "suckers" in it?

Big Sis said...

In the fine print it says 'Offer only valid until July 4, 1876. No cash value.'

seenitall said...

Big deal.

All his previous governmental experience was probably from British law books.

I'm guessing he did it because he realized "subjects" sounded like the British system of rule and he changed it to reflect the new state of independence that the early founders wanted to create.

JerrysKid said...

little known fact, but the Declaration of Independence was written in English.

Gretchen30 said...

'What about that rare version with the word "suckers" in it?'

Or "small people".

canarypapers said...

'little known fact, but the Declaration of Independence was written in English.' - JerrysKid

Not true.

It was written in American.

canarypapers said...

'little known fact, but the Declaration of Independence was written in English.' - JerrysKid

Not true.

It was written in American.

Paul Koehler said...

Teabaggers really should skip ahead to the portion of the Declaration that describes immigration. It may dampen their great love of the Founders

awake and sing said...

What part is that?

You're drunk, aren't you?

Paul Koehler said...

Oh, I don't know -- how about the part where the King is called out for doing this:

'He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.'

You can troll off back under your bridge now, awake and singoffkey

mbdmamma said...

I think I am going to copy/paste that into every comment thread I find on immigration from now on. I forgot about that part of the Declaration. Thanks, Paul

trouzourt said...

I find it funny that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the founding fathers actually thought we were created equally.

They thought blacks, and women for that matter, were property. They meant all property-owning white males were created equally.

just sayin'

nostradamus said...

It's as funny as people today being brainwashed into thinking the Founding Fathers all thought alike.

They didn't.

Many of them thought slavery an abomination and said so. Many others were hypocrites on the matter, saying one thing and doing another. And yet others thought slavery was fine. The slavery issue was briefly on the table when the United States was formed, but when it became clear the issue would fracture the union before it was even formed the Founders -- and that's true -- rightly or wrongly, they put off the issue. Many thought this absolutely dreadful and against the spirit of everything they were fighting for.

The point is that saying "the founders thought blacks and women were property" is just as simple, sweeping and inaccurate as saying "the founders thought all men are created equally."

pensiveobserver said...

Nicely put, Oh Wise One.

Jefferson actually tried to insert language condemning George III for slavery but it was taken out at the request of the delegate from South Carolina.

crystalwolf said...

And whats even more amazing is that nearly 100 years later the Union passed a civil rights act. Which was then subsequently struck down by the supreme court.

So it took another 100 years.

legopix said...

Really neat. It's like we're looking at the point that Jefferson realized that they wouldn't form a monarchy on the continent if they succeed in Revolution. Remember, there was a large pro-monarchist movement after the war ended. A lot of people wanted King George Washington.

Dr. B. said...

On my mother's side,I'm descended from a Mayflower settler and an American Indian, so technically I can reenact the first Thanksgiving all by myself.

loonatic112358 said...

That made me LOL. Is that true Doc, or are you just jokin?

Dr. B. said...

True.

Rayke said...

What about on your father's side?

Dr. B. said...

Irish. 100%. Beechinor is one of the oldest names in Ireland, but not well known anywhere else. My father was born there but immigrated with his parents to America. My mother's ancestors were here from the start.

I'm not really sure Jefferson would consider native americans 'citizens'.

The road to citizenship for native people was even longer than for the African Americans and women. All Native Americans did not become citizens until 1924, and it would be even longer (20 more years) before all Native Americans gained the right to vote. By then they were all but extinct.

I know this isn't satirical or even the least bit funny. I just think it's ironic that we celebrated our independence from England this past weekend, but in order to claim America for ourselves, we had to engage in the genocide of its native people.

And after all that, God forbid we let the Mexicans get a foothold now, legally or otherwise. America must always be the America of the Founding Fathers: rich old white men. Right Awake and Sing?

Just sayin'

LibertyHiller said...

I know, doc. Why don't we just call Mexicans 'tourists'? Mexico loves American tourists, right?

I hate stupid people said...

SB1070 is set to take effect July 29 in Arizona. The cops will have a fine time not profiling anyone who isn't lilly white. Before Arizona's new immigration law goes into effect, police officers can watch a training video to learn how to prevent racial profiling. If they want to that is, because it's OPTIONAL!!

http://www.azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/27751999-cc96-5b5b-9f36-0faf7a77f7ba.html

TheIndependent said...

Clever, doc. I wondered why you brought up your ancestry. You cleverly got us from Jefferson's 'citizens' to our fucked up Immigration system's definition of 'citizens'. The 4th of July is over, but July 29th is yet to come, and Arizona is gonna be all over the news.

Before the BP oil spill forced you to blog about it, and nothing else really, your blog was about Arizona. So now you've also cleverly done an end run around BP and got us back to Arizona's racist law and how they hope to enforce it.

(Anyone who needs a refresher on doc's AZ blog, go here:

http://drbsworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/arizona-immigration-law-nabs-illegal.html

PhilipMunger said...

Clever dude, that doc.

Wait.

Arizona police officers can watch a training video to learn how to prevent racial profiling.

If they want to that is, because it's OPTIONAL!?!?!???

I gotta go check out that link. Be right back.

CatladyLinda said...

If he's brown, pin him down!
If he runs, go for guns!
Woot! Woot!

Ogre said...

Republicans:

Willing to sacrifice every last damn personal liberty in the name of keeping them safe from brown people.

Sound about right?

skippydoorknob said...

Wait. I read doc's genius blog and came here to make a comment, but now we're on Arizona? You're gonna make me go back and read all the comments, aren't you. Damn. Be right back.

gluchnurse said...

ALWAYS READ ALL THE COMMENTS BEFORE COMMENTING. IT'S THE LAW.


Now where were we. Oh, yeah.

So is this video available anywhere?

The stuff from the article that 'I Hate Stupid People' posted is pretty damn vague, and you know as well as I do that many police officers are only going to start applying the test (looking at clothes, etc) if the person being stopped is Hispanic.

Aside from that though people need to realize that there are plenty of legal reasons, including tourism as doc commented, for people who don't speak word one of English to BE in the United States.

It's not as if there's some bright line where you're either OMG illegal!!! or a full citizen.

obamamama said...

Sure. NOW they train police not to profile.

redelf said...

I don't think this is going to go well.

ill in illinois said...

"Without a doubt, we are going to be accused of racial profiling, no matter what we do on this," he said.

Best law ever!

ad hoc said...

It's the republican way, create more expense and social turmoil just for spite.

These are the same dumbasses who want to drug test people on welfare (like you can't buy piss cleaner with a welfare check).

JerryFromCalifornia said...

Wait, you say that Phoenix, a sanctuary city, is expressing discomfort in learning how to properly apply a law that pertains to an issue that they choose to ignore?

SHOCKED I SAY!

AZ INDY said...

To be fair, Arizona only did this so people wudden't pay atention to the clusterfuck that is the Arizona budjet.

DJ BA Rock obama said...

Your spelling gave me a migraine. Be right back.

hawkrew said...

Because we all know how much we learn from training videos

adlib said...

Training is key.

Those fire hoses and dogs can be a handful.

cclawyer said...

It took me a few seconds to get that, but when I did I snorted my soda all over my keyboard. You're a funny SOB

keebiejeebie said...

"Always remember: Just because the suspect is a dirty Mexican does NOT ALWAYS mean he's a dirty ILLEGAL Mexican."

Pancake said...

It's voluntary, guys. Come, or don't. Whatever. I don't care. There will be donuts if that's your thing or whatever.

Xfocus said...

Bribing an officer of the law!

obama4life said...

Why don't they just come out and say "Yeah we're going by skin colour." Clothes? Bullshit! It's like they know that most people think it is wrong to discriminate against people due to skin color, but they really really REALLY want to do it anyway.

Kristen said...

The number of civil rights suits brought by legal brown people who do not have "papers" on them will probably be huge as there is no law requiring anyone to have ID on them at all times and it is not likely that a lot of crackers are going to be subject to this so the only cause will be skin color...but they don't plan to profile???

33mhz said...

I predict about a dozen Youtube videos of legal citizens being arrested and detained within 2 weeks of the law taking effect.

Anachronist said...

Do you think that they will detain as many whites without proof of legal presence as they will anyone else? It will be interesting if they do.

JUNIOR said...

I think they will (initially) just as a precaution.

KMH07 said...

It's not legal aliens that are going to get screwed here. It will be American citizens who don't have to carry proof of legal presence.

awake and sing said...

You mean there's no law except the federal one that's been on the books for decades that requires legal aliens to have their green card with them at all times and the newly minted Arizona law that backs up the federal statute?

Ellyllon said...

It's pointless to argue with the right wing trolls like awake & sing on this. Most of them would still defend the law even if it MANDATED racial profiling.

awake and sing said...

Cops already have the right to detain someone who has broken a law until identity can be established. This just lets cops verify against federal data bases when suspicion of residency is there.

Antimatter said...

There is no need to have broken any law here, moron.

TomInJax said...

Exactly! There needs to be reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken before the police can stop, detain, or arrest someone; which has to happen before they can even start inquiring about their immigration status.

awake and sing said...

Isn't reasonable suspicion the same standard required to check people for warrants? Of course we should look into their immigration status as part of that investigation.

ranting tommy said...

It's not that easy. Just look up the truck driver the federal agents detained in Arizona right after the law passed. They took him down to the immigration office, and they couldn't even confirm his legal presence. His wife had to come down with his birth certificate before he was released. Now if the feds can't even confirm legal status without a great deal of hassle, what makes you think Arizona will be able to when they are one step removed from the process. What happens when they detain someone who has no wife to bring their birth certificate? Maybe a single dad with children at home who can't drive. Dad is locked up and there's nobody to take care of the kids.

tolallorti said...

Speaking as a white person living in arizona, this law is retarded for economic reasons. Whether the lawmakers/sheriffs like it or not the illegal immigrants make up almost all of our manual labor.

Some would argue that if they were gone non-illegals would take their place, but this won't happen.

They filled a niche, there weren't very many roving lawn crews before they all immigrated, and if you had a home project you couldn't just stop at a home depot and pick up Joe America to install drywall in your home.

Teens and retards will take back the fast food/retail jobs, sure, but it isn't going to solve unemployment and ultimately there will be less jobs and money circulating in the state.

I'm speaking as somebody who grew up with parents who threatened to outsource my yard jobs to Mexicans if I didn't want to do them.

Arizona is a shithole state and I don't know why I still live here.

In my neighborhood/surrounding area everybody is running either as teahadists or "principled responsible conservatives", so the situation isn't going to get better.
There are waaay to many AZ INDYs here.

Nuke sun city AZ. It's the only way to be sure.

madbonger618 said...

Hey tolallorti, how'd you find us?

tolallorti said...

Shadowed AZ INDY, who trolls all over the internet. On here, he says he's changed, but on other sites he's still the same illiterate racist moron, so don't believe him. Just figured you could use a representative from Arizona on here who isn't rightwing asshole bigot.

proshot22 said...

Cool! Welcome!

Hey, AZ INDY: You can leave now, your cover is blown.

globalcitizen said...

Easy.

"Arrest people for committing crimes, not the color of their skin."

There, saved God knows how many man-hours.

Buffy said...

Dearest Doc
If you write a brilliant, wonderful, fun blog only when Buffy goes out of town, more trips can be arranged.

I loved this blog. At least now we all know there are real psychological reasons why this country if kind of fucked up.
The edited version of the D.O.I. had me crying--great stuff honey.
love, Buffy

Aisling said...

If absence makes the heart grow fonder and makes doc blog more often, I agree Buffy - you need to go out of town more often. LOL Just kidding.

Doc, feel free to blog as often as you like ABOUT ANYTHING. Your political satire is great, although much of it is lost on me since I live in County Cork, Ireland (I can verify for your readers the legitimacy of the Irish Beechinor half of your heritage), but your blog on your colonoscopy was the funniest thing I EVER read ANYWHERE, and your daily jokes on Facebook have me constantly in stitches. (I found your blog from a link on your facebook contact info, ages ago when you were friending every Beechinor on facebook.) Now that you've fessed up to your Irish roots in this comment section, I thought I'd finally post a comment on here. Arizona? From what I can tell, every state in the USA has its own particular brand of loony!

- Your very very distant umpteen times removed cousin,
Aisling Beechinor.

maxx said...

I agree with him? her? Aisling...

Doc has been very honest about himself over the course of his blog, even at the beginning when I was one of only a handful of commenters, it was obvious that he was literate, funny, progressive in his politics, and possessed of a brilliant mind.

I recommend to everyone who hasn't followed doc's musings from the get go, that they start reading from this early blog and work forward to newer blogs. Bookmark it, take your time, and enjoy. Something worthwhile to do when waiting for a new blog from one of my heroes (I mean that!)

http://drbsworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-health-could-be-better.html

fougasseu said...

Went there, and went forward to his blog about his vampire hours, which explains to me why so many blogs are posted at 2 or 3 AM. Going forward to more, be right back.

ProudObamacan said...

Doc's blogs began to turn to political satire around the time of the primaries, when the GOP offered us the joke that keeps on giving, Sarah Palin LOL

Nick said...

I was following AND COMMENTING since the beginning, but really went to town commenting on this one:

http://drbsworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/sunday-day-of-rest.html

turkeyinthestraw said...

The numbers of comments on doc's blogs increased steadily over time, 20, 30, 40 or so, but this one on Nov. 2nd 2008 got 52 comments (and some of you are still with us) A LETTER TO SARAH PALIN FROM GOD:

http://drbsworld.blogspot.com/2008/11/letter-to-sarah-palin-from-god.html

From there the numbers got into the hundreds and then rapidly to the 200 comment cut off.

doubledown33 said...

That was fucking classic! I'm definitely going back and reading the early ones from 2008, 2009, and this year again.

snuffaluffagus said...

This was doc's first blog to score 200 comments (and it's been holding steady there ever since)and it wasn't even satirical/political, just completely fucking hysterical:

October 31, 2009 HALLOWEEN: THE GOOD OLD DAYS
http://drbsworld.blogspot.com/2009/10/halloween-good-old-days.html

WhiteGuyBob said...

OK

Point taken

I'm relatively new here, but I will be reading ALL doc's blogs from the beginning up to now

And I will somehow make the time

Note: some of his pics and videos have stopped working, but his commentary is intact, and brilliant

dlinguist said...

I've been reading and commenting fairly steadily since the beginning, and am all caught up, so excuse me for changing the subject, a little, anyway, back to the Arizona immigration mess.

The Obama administration filed a lawsuit against Arizona for its radical immigration law..finally!!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07immig.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

obama4life said...

The President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Given that this law violates both the 4th and 14th amendments, President Obama is fulfilling the responsibility for which he was elected.

Newsmonger said...

Exactly. If the federal law already exists why did Jan Brewer have to sign what already existed.

mspye said...

Because she's a GOP'er and that's what they do.

awake and sing said...

Yet again ... Obama is choosing to govern "against" the will of the people.

Obama chooses to divide our country.

There will be steep consequences to this Presidency ... and no one to blame but Barack Hussein Obama.

JaneTheAvenger said...

Does the GOP pay you by number of words you troll on blogsites?

Look, just the fact that you choose to (1) defend it as the "will of the people" when it is, in point of fact, ILLEGAL, and (2) use the whole "Hussein" in the President's name to demonize him suggests to me that you are not in this discussion for an honest exchange of views. You are, and always have been a troll. You're not fooling anyone here.

Arizona's 'law' violates the constitution on multiple levels. Letting that stand unchallenged is a seriously bad precedent for making the union work. The President and the Department of Justice are doing their jobs in this matter.

docwang said...

I think it is obvious beyond left and right that there should not be illegal immigration.

(1) We must have much stronger and better guarded Southern border. - most obvious step

(2) We must have strong criminal punishment for illegal employers. - seems obvious too.

(3) Checking documents and deportations. - Arguable for many.
I would favor such measures, though prefer that at the same time there is a reasonable amnesty program in place. The amnesty program should provide a legalization for those illegals who lived here for years (from the time when we lured them in through our intentionally opened border), can provide for their family, know English enough to pass a test etc.

(4) A reasonable amnesty program. Here we have a problem: options what is "reasonable" vary a lot.

So, while there is uncertainty about (3) and especially (4), why not implement most obvious measures: (1) and (2)?

mad cathy said...

President Obama, For Filing Suit Against Arizona's "Show Me Your Papers" Law

Dear Mr. President,

Your administration just filed suit against the state of Arizona for its racially charged SB1070 law, the most anti-immigrant and anti-civil rights law in the country. The law provides local law enforcement the power to question people who simply look “illegal,” a clear violation of civil liberties. The law goes into effect on July 29th.

Thank you for taking this bold action, and for pushing for comprehensive immigration reform. I am behind you 100%, and I pledge to do all I can to make sure this law never goes into effect. I urge you and the Justice Department to keep up the pressure and follow through on your injunction to prevent the law from going into effect on July 29th until this lawsuit and the American people have had their day in federal court. I also urge you to push forward with comprehensive immigration reform, to make sure laws like this don't spread to the rest of the country.

It's crucial nobody's civil rights are ever trampled due to this misguided law or laws like it.

Again, thank you.

nana4g said...

GREAT letter!

awake and sing said...

the 10th amendment says that if the federal government isn't doing it, the states have every right to.

Matt said...

No, it says that anything the Federal Government isn't charged to do is reserved to the states.

Protecting borders IS a job of the Federal Government. They may be doing it badly, but it's still their job.

Please go away.

adlib said...

Maybe we should sell Arizona and Texas back to Mexico to help pay the national debt.

camus343 said...

Sweet little girls give away free lemonade. Conservative columnist decides they represent everything that's wrong with America:

http://www.suntimes.com/business/savage/2464546,CST-NWS-savage05.savagearticle

Gwendolyn said...

I can't imagine the mindset one must have to proudly write about a story where you yelled at kids giving away lemonade from the back seat of a car.

Hey, let's extend this retarded analogy further. Did you pay your brother and his fiance for the ride? It's not your car Terry you fucking leech. Did you? Or are you a mean spirited hypocrite that likes the sound of your own condescending, self-righteous voice?

canto do galo said...

This is clearly how it should be done. Calvin and Hobbes:

http://i.imgur.com/1Fuql.jpg

spaindad said...

haha, forwarded the Calvin and Hobbes link to the author of the article

Trifecta said...

I do believe you can learn everything you need to know about life from Calvin and Hobbes.

mork345 said...

I fucking love Calvin and Hobbes. I'm eternally grateful to my 5th grade homeroom teacher for giving me one of her old C/H books as a gift.

t2tim215 said...

I am ashamed that I did not immediately think of this.

Dr. B. said...

I have the 3 volume hardcover box set of every Calvin and Hobbes. You can slip a disc lifting the set up.

Juno Mary M said...

Oh, I am SOOO jealous!!! :)

Gustavsaves said...

I hope the author of the article really checks out Spaindad's link when she gets it. Maybe by reading the comic she might actually see the flaw in her logic.

ikeedikeed said...

I bill my kids every week for the clothes, shelter, and education. Their debt collects interest and if they don't pay up I repossess their toys.

They keep telling me that Pizza Hut won't hire them because they're only 6. To which I respond "Not my problem, kid. Tough shit."

;)

cynicallarry said...

Now you're someone who understands free market principles, ikeedikeed! Now, be sure to march them off to several prayer meetings each week, and get them signed up for ROTC as soon as possible, too.

We all know there are too many Soviet communist atheists out there who don't charge for lemonade and are ruining America by not wearing flag pins!

glenn1441 said...

This would work perfectly if it weren't for the government interfering with the market. If it weren't for regulations that are ruining our economy, your kids would be able to work at pizza hut at 6 years old. At that young age, they have so much time to acquire all the skills. Until they gain those skills (say when they're 10 or so), they can take all of the tasks at pizza hut that nobody else will do for really low pay; cleaning out ovens, spending a few hours in the walk-in freezers organizing, etc.

123dee said...

And little chimney-sweeps are so CUTE with their soot-faces and hacking cough!

SiberianRat said...

"You chose black lung, son. Tough beans."

navarro said...

Maybe we should eat the poor.

doubledown33 said...

Preposterous!

FAR too gamey.

TXfemmom said...

I know people who really think like this.

Jacques said...

This is a very creative way to use the word 'people'.

And as for 'think'...

guitarhero said...

Why don't you put them out of their misery, by shooting them with a .45 bullet?

Preferably in the gut, it takes longer to die and the pain is extreme...

hip dibbler said...

There are way too many people who think like the heartless person that is Terry Savage.

jdw1981 said...

If we want to carry this analogy even further to its logical conclusion, we must wonder about Ms. Savage's policy of always buying lemonade when she sees a stand, apparently whether she wants some or not.

This distorts the natural balance of supply and demand, artificially inflating the market and causing the stand operators to over-invest and potentially run themselves out of business.

Then again, that would be an excellent lesson for any children who aspire to careers in business.

jodi said...

I'm going to do my best and paraphrase some Ayn Rand up in this bitch. It's not that giving without expecting anything in return is immoral, it's giving to fuckheads that squander that money on useless shit which is immoral.

If those little girls were handing out lemonade because it made people happy and thus made their community a little bit better of a place to live, that is a worthwhile investment, even if they didn't get anything directly out of it. If they handed it out to crazy homeless people who threw their cups at other people, that would be retarded and a waste of time/money, and kinda immoral.

Does that many any sense whatsoever?

oregon_ivy said...

Idiotic as it may be, if you believe that donating something to someone is the right thing to do, there is no immorality or waste to it. At that point it is the perspective of the giver to decide what's worthwhile, not the jackass "reporter" screaming at kids from the back of a car.

MarkFradl said...

This Ayn-Randian bullshit has got to stop. From now on, I don't want any so-called Objectivists to even BREATHE unless they are personally growing enough vegetation to provide themselves each day's worth of oxygen.

reepicheep said...

What if they purchase a carbon offset?

dhokra said...

In that case, they can breathe out. But not in. They need to buy oxygen offsets for that.

twisty said...

Is it OK for us to give them loans during childhood until they're old enough to work? Because they'd still be too young to agree to the terms; or can I interpret a child's turning blue as an statement of consent to my interest rates, repayment schedule, etc?

Victoria said...

What saddens me about this is that she is politicizing something that should have been regarded as a nice little gift. I don't think it is important to try and find the hole in her logic because it seems like the vile that was this column was intrinsically wrong.

Nick said...

If I knew her personally, I'd get her a nice gift for Christmas.

A week later, I'd mail her an invoice.

lightbrigade said...

...an invoice for the gift, the paper, labor, and a little something extra for profit.

adlib said...

Follow it up with an invoice for the cost of the invoice.

nebraskamike said...

I'm going to invoice her just for the time it took to read the article. Why should I give her my time for free?

Tejano said...

Exactly, she's profiting from your readership, therefore you are giving her a service she makes a profit from and by enabling her to make money you are entitled to some money too. Trickle down effect.

Don't forget to charge for: electricity used for modem/router and computer, cost of bandwidth, loss of earnings to your employer due to you reading the article at work, punitive damages for the same, cost of your time, cost of time from you thinking about the article after reading, atrophy of muscles from clicking on the article, use of your eyes and of course your own mark up.

EISENHAUER said...

Also, charge for whatever psychological treatment you need to overcome the rage the article induced.

TomFox said...

Fuck Jesus! He made 100 fish out of 1 and he didn't ask for a dime. His teachings represent everything that's wrong with America!

facingreality said...

In the "Conservative Bible", when Jesus is invited to the Wedding at Cana, he turns water into wine. Later he gives a bill to the Bride's father.

Rubicon said...

In the "Conservative Bible", Jesus turns water into grape juice.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/10/conservative-bible-putting-fresh-grape.html

(I expect the bill would be smaller.)

highandmighty said...

What!?! The Conservative Bible actually EXISTS?!?? I thought facingreality and Rubicon were making shit up.

This isn't so funny as it is depressing right now.

Aunt J-ha said...

I'm reeling. How much of an assmonkey do you have to be when the original bible isn't conservative enough for you?

Aunt J-ha said...

I'm reeling. How much of an assmonkey do you have to be when the original bible isn't conservative enough for you?

lionel trane said...

Then he resurrected Lazarus, an uninsured bum, thus promoting irresponsibility.

Churchilldowns said...

Her article is a subtle racist jab about giving immigrants our benefits... notice she is talking about the "nanny" smiling contently. How does she know it is the nanny and not the little girls' mommy or daddy?

Different race....

the curmudgeon said...

"And that's the Savage truth!"

the curmudgeon said...

"And that's the Savage truth!"

allbluezoo said...

(for those who watch 'Glee') And that's how SUE C'S IT.

enufsaid said...

I'm comforted by the thought that she probably doesn't get invited to many parties.

akatherder said...

She does, but she doesn't go because she's offended by the lack of an entry fee.

freshfunk5 said...

so it's bad to give away what's not yours, but it's fine to sell what's not yours?

Dr Mum said...

I sent her an email:

'You should have charged those little girls for your financial advice.'

whatsthatsound said...

My daughter tried doing the same. Same thing happened.

The supplies et al cost $225. I charged her 30% interest, plus a late fee of $35 every time she couldn't meet the minimum payment of $5.00. By the next week, her wares were spoiled, so she had no choice but to try again, taking out another loan. By the end of the month, she had lost $600 total, owing me a minimum of $14.75. She couldn't make the payment, so she had to take out a credit card to pay me. She then had me pay the credit card its minimum balance.

Long story short, that was 10 years ago. She is now $12,000 in debt and I doubt she'll be going to college. Let that be a lesson in the free market for her!

Ah. Good parenting.

Blog Archive