Saturday, January 31, 2009

Shuster and Ward on the WTC Rebuilding

Chris Ward, executive director of the Port Authority, trying to bullshit David Shuster. Ward says he doesn't know where Shuster got that poll from, but that's only the tip of the iceberg of what Ward doesn't know. He toes the official line that there was "a broad public consensus" to build the Libescheme.

Yet the consensus consisted mainly of politicians, urban planers, and developers who had agreed on a quick fix rebuilding consisting of some random office buildings that were supposedly cheap to build and easy to rent out. Now, as it has turned out that the unprincipled is never practical, that those supposedly cheap and popular new buildings are more expensive to build and less popular than rebuilding the Twin Towers, the bureaucracy tries to cover its ass and claims it had a public mandate to build that crap.

Ward, who's rather new to the job, either believes the spin of his corrupt predecessors, or is just generally ignorant of the rebuilding process he's supposed to manage. In fact, in the Lower Manhattan Development Agency's own poll, the Libescheme and the other official finalist scheme both lost handily to "none of the above," Libeskind finishing last of the three.

Results on Imagine New York (the LMDC's official poll)

Gardens of the World 205 votes 26%

World Cultural Center 260 votes 33%

None of the Above 323 votes 41%

Total votes: 788

On NY1

Results since February 4, 2003

Gardens of the World / Daniel Libeskind 6,853 votes 21%

World Culture / THINK Consortium 4,615 votes 14%

I don't like either of these plans 20,892 votes 64%

Total votes: 32,360


Which of the two finalists' designs do you prefer for the World Trade Center site?

Studio Daniel Libeskind 33,050 votes 32%

THINK Towers 34,867 votes 34%

Neither is Good 35,747 votes 34%

Total votes: 103,664

Renderings of the new Twin Towers.

Learn more about rebuilding the Twin Towers.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Shuster and Victims' Family Members on Rebuilding Twin Towers

Renderings of the new Twin Towers.

Learn more about rebuilding the Twin Towers.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Shuster and Gardner on the New Twin Towers

The new Twin Towers fold most of the space into two larger buildings instead of the four or five smaller ones of the Libescheme. Almost every floor in the Libescheme buildings would be different from almost every other floor in those buildings. In the new Twin Towers, in contrast, all floors will be more or less identical.

Thus, the new Twin Towers can be built from mass-produced parts, while the Libescheme buildings can't. It's obvious that building new Twin Towers is cheaper than sticking to the Libescheme.

And that's just the economics of it. From a more principled point of view, how can one replace a landmark known the world over, a Wonder of the Modern World, with a bunch of random buildings?

Look at it this way: even a town like Dresden, in the boondocks of (East) Germany, recently rebuilt its Frauen Kirche, sixty years after it was destroyed in World War II. And that was merely a local landmark. Plus, in a secular country like Germany, there isn't much use for it anymore.

What does it say if those people rebuild their useless, kitschy baroque church, which was deservedly destroyed in a just war against fascists, and New York fails to rebuild one of the Wonders of the Modern World, which provided profitable office space for productive people and was destroyed in an unjust attack by religious fanatics?

The Port Authority, the bi-state agency developing the WTC, says they intend to stick to the Libescheme as they already paid for the blueprints and what little foundation work they accomplished in all those years. But isn't it irresponsible to throw good money after bad?

The poll that came with yesterday's video is 93% in favor of new Twin Towers. Of course, this poll isn't necessarily representative, but shouldn't the PA poll the people of New York and New Jersey before they make a decision? If you involve a government agency in real estate development in the first place, should it build something inferior and unpopular just to carry out the will of well-connected urban planners, architects, and developers?

Renderings of the new Twin Towers.

Learn more about rebuilding the Twin Towers.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Shuster and Gelinas on the Foundering Libescheme

Renderings of the new Twin Towers.

Learn more about rebuilding the Twin Towers.

Monday, January 26, 2009

How to Lay a Bond Girl

In For Your Eyes Only, Bibi Dahl (Lynn-Holly Johnson) shoots down Julian Glover's character, Aris Kristatos, "I know what you want. But you're too old for me. I'm splitting."

Glover was 46. (But graying and balding, in case you don't remember the movie.)

A few scenes before, she had nearly raped James Bond. Roger Moore was 54.

The moral: Youthful looks conquer all.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Alex Plays Fundie Caption Contest, Chapter Two

Here the photo the wing nuts want a funny caption for.

My entries:


"Revenge of the Nerds."

"Yes, we did."

"I can't believe they did it."

"If I hadn't picked that Palin bimbo, I wouldn't feel like a total idiot now."

"I feel old."

"McAlzheimer and the President."

"Jim West arrests Dr. Loveless."

"White Men Can't Jump."

"Rudolph, the Bow-Tied Reindeer."

"Hey, McCain, let's make a deal. You give me that mad ass funny bowtie, and I'll give Palin some brain cells."

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

And a Levee around Every City

Another good article from Wing Nut Central: "One Man, One Horse, One Acre, One Day — Turning Back the Agricultural Clock."

One of the organic farmers involved plans "to use horses full time and keep his costs down." I encountered this kind of "thinking" occasionally when I was an organic inspector. A few seemingly intelligent organic farmers actually think horses are more cost effective than diesel just because they eliminate a fuel bill. Wait until they start feeding those horses all year long, even when they're not working.

There are 20,000 man-hours of energy in a single barrel of oil, which even at its peak price never exceeded $160 US. Even if oil jumped to $300 a barrel, that works out to just a penny and a half per oil-powered man-hour.

In their single-minded effort to eschew fossil fuels, this CSA used four sailboats to deliver the wheat from the farms at one end of a lake to consumers (sorry, to the "community") at the other end; a 56-hour round trip for less than 225 bushels of wheat. (I guess they're lucky the harvest was a paltry 15 bushels an acre; abysmal even by organic standards.)

Instead of embracing basic, modern, mechanical technology, Canada's first organic grain CSA literally sailed its way into the history books; without doubt one of the most inane examples of modern-day Luddism; it's like they're playing a game of "farm."

Maybe these people don't think their time is worth anything, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most Canadians would rather leave food production and handling in the hands of people who are far more efficient. Even small organic grain farmers know that a standard super-B truck holds over 40 metric tons of wheat, more than 6½ times this CSA's entire harvest. One man, one truck, and only a fraction of a day.

Those bat-shit insane moon bat eco-terrorists indeed don't value their time. And they are so dumb that they don't realize the obvious:

Even if global warming did exist, were manmade, and could be stopped by going back to horse, buggy, sailboat, and cave…

Even if global warming did lead to melting icecaps and rising sea levels, even if global warming did lead to more extreme weather like an increasing frequency and force of storms

The productivity, the economic output, wasted by going back to horse, buggy, sailboat, and cave would buy a steel-framed building in every lot and a levee around every city, with plenty to spare for a decent standard of living. But no, those brain-dead moon bats want to go back to the mass starvation of pre-industrial times.

This kind of thing can hardly be explained by fears of global warming, air pollution, and a dependence on foreign oil. The only possible explanation is open hatred for the human mind, for its inventions, for progress per se. They can eschew the effort of thinking and inventing better agricultural technology and at the same time be perceived as cool by all the other reindeer moon bats.

How would Ayn Rand put it? Anti-reality, anti-reason, anti-man, anti-life. QED.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The Shrub Uprooted

Plus ├ža change, plus c'est pareil. About 250 years after the founding of the Republic, about 150 years after the abolition of slavery, the first black man is sworn in as President.

Yet what is his first task in the White House? Some gardening.

Today the shrub that had overgrown the White House grounds over the past eight years was uprooted and air-freighted back to Texas, where he can either take root or remain tumbleweed. Maybe the new President can help with repotting, too?

Wait a sec… Aren't there laws against weed? And how strictly are they enforced in Texas?

Anyway, hard to believe, Bush is gone and we're still alive. That at least, yes, we did.

As for the new man… Will he be better? We will see.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Donald, Meet the Hatfields and McCoys

And the Trump Bromide division is doing overtime again: "After watching the movie Frost/Nixon I was thinking about Nixon's children. Where are they? Whether you liked Nixon or not, family is family and I find it incredible that no one has surfaced to defend him."

That is perfectly immoral. If person A does something bad, why should person B aid and abet that just because they happen to share some genetic material and/or have lived together/known each other for a long time?

Not "right or wrong, my country," but — maybe an even worse kind of collectivism — "right or wrong, my family." For the result of such tribalism or clanism, look at Somalia.

Thanks a lot, Donald. Now every time I think of you, I'll have in mind an image of some Hatfields and McCoys killing each other over some perceived wrong to their clan. I guess it's all relative in New York, too — at least in some families.

Ever heard, "You cannot choose your family, but you can choose your friends"? To paraphrase Martin Luther King, I have a dream that children will one day live in a world where they will not be judged by their relationship status, but by the content of their character.

PS. Donald, you've been renamed. Now you're called Joe Roberts.

Conservatives Don't Know Their Own

Looks like conservatives are their own worst enemies. They don't need any liberal slant in the media to get perceived as losers: Their lack of marketing savvy is enough.

A conservative blog asks: What are the best conservative movies of the past 25 years?

Answers list the usual suspects from Red Dawn to The Chronicles of Narnia, but with the precision of a Texas sharpshooter, miss the one paramount conservative movie. The movie that shows conservatives not as priggish, retarded fundies, but as outgoing, enterprising go-getters. The movie that put the fun back into fundie. A movie based on real events. In short, the best movie of recent years: Who's Nailin' Paylin?

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Alex Plays Fundie Caption Contest, Chapter One

Here the photo the wing nuts want a funny caption for.

My entries: "Realistan laughs best" and "Is that a tumbleweed or a shrub that's been kicked out of the White House?"

BTW, the email I had to send it to is — I wonder what the Flying Spaghetti Monster thinks of that blasphemy? I think those fundies ought to be grateful that the FSM is such a tolerant deity.


Should I Found The Church of Alexology?

That "become a witch doctor and get another vote" business made me think… When the fundies finally implement that, I should be prepared and have twenty years as a cult church leader under my belt.

So I thought of founding The Church of AlexologySM. Here's the deal: I get ten percent of your income.

In turn, you get one billion hours of free internet access after your death (yes, I lifted that from Dilbert) or The Secret of Eternal LifeSM when I find it (whichever happens first). And ladies, if I think you look good you have the fingerprint of Hank on your face, you get to come in into holy communion with your witch doctor guru pastor (talk about spiritual experiences).

Plus, you can buy an Alex figurine for a mere $99.99 (+ tax) to exorcise all evil spirits from your home with The Awesome Power of CuteSM. (Who said I'm not that cute? Seize the heretic!)

You say you don't want to hole up at home all your life? Lucky thou, thou art saved!

Just buy a lock of my hair for a mere $999.99 (+ tax) (hey, I can get a near infinite number of figurines, but I can only grow so much hair) to wear in a locket around your neck to protect you wherever you go with The Awesome Power of Great HairSM. (Now, that you can't deny. Look at the pic on the right and worship me.)

Of course, you'll also have to be conversant in Scripture. See the first three Books of AlexTM on the right.

I think I'm on to something here. Mwahahaha!

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The Multiple Vote

Sometimes even wing nuts have a good idea: The multiple vote reform proposal recognizes, at least implicitly, that the chief drawback of democracy is that every moron gets an equal vote. Thus, this innovative approach gives multiple votes to productive and responsible individuals.

As a first principle, a multiple vote system in 21st century America should be designed to favor those who have put forth the greatest effort to be economically self-sufficient, and those who contribute most to society. In other words, those who have demonstrated that they understand the importance of making good choices in their lives would be rewarded. Just as a suggestion, a new American voting system might confer additional votes to all those of voting age, as follows:

And that's where the ground drops from under the wing nut.

"One additional vote for those with a college degree and/or active duty military service."

Hmm… An effort at bipartisanship or just plain thoughtlessness? After all, colleges are dominated by liberals. Well, who cares, at least it's one more vote for me.

"One additional vote for those with 20 years or more of demonstrated voluntary civilian service to church, community, state, or nation."

Now the true fundie spirit shines shit stinks through. Rewarding mystics for becoming witch doctors? And what about the latter half? Rewarding each and every bureaucrat and politician, no matter how corrupt?

"One additional vote for individuals who have raised at least one child to age 16 without being divorced."

Hmm… He doesn't mention all those enlightened folks who raise their kids without ever marrying. So it must be OK with him. If never marrying is OK, why then is he against divorce?

He probably can't even imagine that kids are ever born out of wedlock! Looks like that fundie would have to be more enlightened to be unenlightened.

Now for the hard part: What means raising? Shouldn't there be some success test? Or should anybody who shits out a baby and doesn't file for divorce for sixteen years be rewarded with another vote, even if she raises her kid to become a serial killer?

"One additional vote for those without a felony criminal record."

Again, nice in theory. But that would require a justice system that makes a credible effort to discover the truth instead of hunting scapegoats. Remember the West Memphis Three? And it would require a justice system that does not treat things like drug dealing and tax evasion as felonies.

"One additional vote for those who own their principal place of residence, mortgage free."

So why not cut through the red tape and simply introduce plutocracy? The more productive the individual, the higher the income, the more votes. There would be the problem of worthless heirs, but that could be addressed.

Look, for example, at The Donald. I used to admire him, but he's a textbook case of the Wynand syndrome: I still admire his work, but since I started reading his blog and got to know his petty and often borderline-irrational personality, I don't care much for him as a person anymore.

Nevertheless, even an average-to-bad capitalist like The Donald would be a billion times better at running a country than your average Obamabot or Palin disciple. (And I know some. I wish I would not.)

In any event, the multiple vote would be an important first step on the road towards anarcho-capitalism. Unlike anarcho-capitalism, however, state plutocracy does not address the problems inherent in the monopoly government's claim to exclusivity: No competition and an inherent mysticism.

In other words, vigilantes, even if they punish the right criminal justly, would still be persecuted just for not being the government. And government would continue to be a Hegelian juggernaut, instead of just another utility: People would still be ready to murder and to sacrifice their lives for the state, something they would never do for a non-mystical, corporate, private utility.

But I digress. If you want to know more about solving the problem of worthless heirs and minarchy versus anarchy, you'll have to wait for my next book, Mystic Triangle. And now back to our regularly scheduled programming:

Can it ever happen? Probably not… at least not so long as liberals control the White House and/or hold majorities in at least one house of Congress. It is precisely the under-educated, the uninformed, and the indifferent voters, and those who can be convinced that they are in some way "victims" of all the rest of us, who are essential to liberal success at the polls.

And here the wing nut mudslinging, predictably, goes off the scale. Need I mention college liberals again? Need I mention that many, like drug offenders, are indeed victimized by the fascist man?

So if you want to know the politics of friends or relatives who say they never discuss politics or religion, there's an easy way to find out. Just run this idea up the flag pole. If they salute it, they're probably conservatives; if they try to shoot it down, they're probably liberals.

Nice try, buster. I agree with the idea of the multiple vote, but I'm no conservative. You probably never heard the word libertarian?

Monday, January 12, 2009

A Brain Cell in Every Hair?

Apparently, there's a brain cell in the root of every hair on a human head… In other words, The Donald went off the deep end — again. (Hilarity ensues.)

Imagine a multi-billion-dollar real estate tycoon pestering a reporter over some perceived slight… One should think he has bigger fish to fry.

And look at that URL: That BS was published under the "Trump University" imprint. Latest class: Being a Jerk 101, huh? Well, that I can teach you for free.

And look at that poor chick's resume — why the fuck would she want to fuck that up with an appearance on reality TV? Could anyone tell me what in that resume, in The Donald's opinion, is "very unimportant" in comparison with The Holy Show? Or what he smoked?

Better never do business with The Donald, or you'll never see the last of his clingy, insecure self. What was that with the Napoleon complex? Tiny self-confidence = huge ambition.

What The Trump Blog fails to deliver in business tips, it sure replaces in entertainment value. Again, take the time to read the lickspittle comments.

Here's the random winner I picked, "member1847017":

She didn't forget to acknowledge Mr. Trump. She wants evryone to think she got where she is today without any help from anyone.

If she was of good character and good intellegence she would have paid tribute to those who deserve it. One day the lack of courtesy will com back and bite her very hard in the ass. Mr. Trump would not have gotten to where he is if he failed to acknowledge the people that helped him get to where he is today.

If she really cares about The Donald, she'll buy him a toupee. Or at least get him a big brown bag. Or at the very least, a new dead cat.

Maybe I should do a PayPal donation drive? "A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and a toupee on every Donald"?

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Children of the World, Arise!

Smash your wing nut parents… pour that syrup down the sewers — to paraphrase Horst Buchholz in One, Two, Three. The latest email stench bomb by the wing nuts of "Family Security Matters" contained a link to a screed against the yet to be ratified (by the US and Somalia, at least) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Hank knows there's no love lost between me and the UN. The last thing the world needs is another level of government. Nevertheless, it would seem that once in a while even the UN comes up with a good idea.

Now for the dissection of that fundie shit:

The title of that benighted smear job already speaks volumes: "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Would Threaten the American Family". So to those fundie wing nuts, the "family" is more important than the rights of individuals.

"Our Constitution and Supreme Court protect the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit."

There can be no right to treat another person as one sees fit. "Rights" means limits on how you can treat others. A "right" to treat others, including your children, as you see fit is a negation of the concept "rights." It's like a "right" to "own" slaves.

Of course, while children are not yet fully able to think for themselves, they need guardians. Naturally, by the law of causality, parents have the right of first refusal to be the guardians of their children. Nevertheless, if parents fuck up, everybody else, including the government, has a right to help those children against their abusive parents.

Now, what is right for children? What constitutes abuse? That's the hard part, and that's what CRC tries to address. Coming from socialist UN bureaucrats, it's certainly less than perfect. Yet, as the US government has defaulted on its responsibility to stop fundie parents from abusing their children by forcing them to abide by their cult or to carry to term unwanted pregnancies, someone has to step in and help those unfortunates.

"After all, parents act in the best interest of their children,"

What did that guy smoke? That's the dumbest phrase I ever read. That guy in one fell swoop blanks out the existence of child abuse.

"and know better how to raise their child than bureaucrats half a world away."

Apparently, they don't always know that. That's the problem.

"[T]he Constitution states that once treaties are ratified they become 'the supreme Law of the land.' Existing laws are overruled in favor of the treaty, and in the case of the CRC, almost all American laws concerning children and parental rights and the Constitution itself are overturned. The UN would have the final say over what is in the best interests of the child."

It's high time for that to happen. As the US government refuses to rein in fundie parents, it's time to give someone else a shot. That that someone else should be the UN is not pretty, but at the moment the only legal option.

"The UN's own Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.' "

As I said, right of first refusal.

"However, pulling the child out of public school in favor of home schooling without the child's approval violates the CRC."

Well, it should. Home schooling by reasonable parents sure beats socialist public schools, but even the worst public school beats indoctrination by religious fanatics hands down, any day. If the child themselves doesn't want home schooling, who are their fundie parents to force them?

"Christian education curriculum is in violation as well."

And boy, it should be. Yay, UN! (Did I say that out loud? Must… not… like… UN.)

"The treaty also establishes a global curriculum for schools, which could drive home schooling and private schools into extinction."

That would of course be a minus…

"New 'rights' granted to children under the CRC include: freedom of expression, thought, association, privacy, conscience, religion, a right to rest and leisure, and more."

Scare quotes the fundie's. So, according to the fundie, "freedom of expression, thought, association, privacy, conscience, religion," are pseudo-rights just like the pseudo-right to "rest and leisure"? Or does he believe these are rights, but children don't have rights because they are children?

Plus, for children rest and leisure isn't a pseudo-right, as it would be for adults. Unless you want to reintroduce child labor.

And that they call family security. Oh, I see: Fundie parents' security that they can keep their children as slaves.

"Full abortion and contraceptive rights are granted, even against the wishes of the parents."

To a reasonable person, matters of course. To a fundie, abhorrent. Let's enslave our children to use their bodies as incubators, huh?

Look at it this way: Even fundie fathers wouldn't claim a right to rape their daughters, right? (Boy, do I hope I'm right… It's all relative in Dumbfuckistan.) But they do claim the right to force their knocked-up daughters to carry the pregnancy to term.

So what's worse? Having something you don't want in you for a couple minutes (or less, as we're talking about fundies here), or having something you don't want growing in you for nine months?

"Any child under the age of 18 is protected from 'degrading punishment' and 'physical violence,' ranging from spanking to the death penalty for minors — even for murder and rape."

A slight minus. But then the death penalty ought to be restricted to the very worst crimes anyway, like terrorism and mass murder, which are unlikely to be committed by minors. And I won't even address brutes that would want to spank their children.

"National children's health insurance and other welfare programs would be created for the U.S. in order to comply with CRC."

Another minus, but given the obscene level of corporate welfare going on, not bad enough a minus to disqualify CRC.

"The CRC even establishes a framework for the child to seek government review for every parental decision — a Pandora's Box of litigation."

So children should have no right to sue over abuse and grievances… Because that would be too much of a hassle. Wait… Why not abolish everyone's right to sue over anything? Now that would purge the legal system of hassle!

"Children are guaranteed to have access to material of any kind, even material that parents find unacceptable. Protecting your children from pornography would be in violation of their 'freedom of expression' and 'right to privacy.' "

Long overdue. Wait a sec… Protection from seeing naked people. Fundies never cease to amaze.

If our children see naked people fucking, they might become little perverts who one day want to fuck themselves. Let's send them to Iraq, so they get killed before they can do anything ungodly.

"Bringing your children to church against their will would violate their 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion,' as would forbidding your child from joining a cult or gang."

So it makes a difference if you call a cult a church?

"Phyllis Schafly, the Founder of the Eagle Forum, tells … 'Do we really want to give every child the legal right to say anything he wants to his parents at the dinner table?' "

Yes. Like, "You're a couple of fundie morons, and I'm de-parenting you."

" 'To watch television ("access to the media") instead of doing homework?' "

TV is dumb; homework is dumber. I nearly always did my homework, and in retrospect, I learned more from TV, back when I used to watch TV.

" 'To escape household chores because they interfere with his UN right to "rest and leisure"?' "

Yeah, who's the UN to free those little lawn-mowing slaves we just made for that purpose?

" 'To join a cult instead of attending his parents' church?' "

So cults are OK, as long as it's the parents' cult?

" 'I think not.' "

True, she sure doesn't think.

" 'The UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child should be rejected as contrary to American constitutional law and common sense.' "

Common sense is so dumb…

"Ratification of the CRC would destabilize marriage and weaken families, which would in fact provide a more damaging environment for children."

Too bad, they can't grow up to be wholesome homophobic prigs… Poor things.

So the fundies are all keyed up that Obama wants to finally get this treaty ratified and may well succeed with his party's majority in the Senate.

Of course, this "article" bears all the hallmarks of a moral panic and ought to be taken with a salt mine. I doubt any court would interpret that treaty to give children the right to watch porn or to refuse to do their homework. And any moron who claims that the right to association covers joining gangs shouldn't be writing articles in the first place.

But even if only one tenth of the claims in it are true, I can only say: Ratify! Ratify! Ratify!

You know what? I'm starting to like Obama! Just a tiny, little bit, of course. Feels funny, though.

I guess if those fundies keep mailing me their bat-shit insane fascist shit, they'll make me a Democrat yet.

Wing Nuts Don't Know Who Their Friends Are, Either!

Or, for that matter, who their enemies are.

Someone put my email on the mailing list of a wing nut conspiracy by the name of "Family Security Matters," (The irony! Me of all persons and family security!) and now they keep sending me their right-wing junk. Anyways, for the time being I'll keep reading that dirt: "Know thy enemy" — and the comedic potential in those pompous assclowns is unlimited.

Thus, I'll post my dissections of their most insane shit under the "fun with fundies" label.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Anything Goes (Shrub Edition)

Dubya dined with Obama and the other extant looters-in-chief… Such a farewell dinner would not be complete without some serenading:

Times have changed,
And we've often rewound the clock
Since the Puritans got a shock,
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
When today,
Some shock the shrub fought on a whim,
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock did land on him!

(Lyrics continued below.)

Nowadays a glimpse of stocking
Is looked on as something shocking,
For sure everybody knows,
Only fundie prigs wear hose.
The Alex too who once knew better words
Will only use four-letter words
Writing prose,
Anything goes!

If parking the next bimbo you like, (Why not?)
If lines of llello you like, (I like chocolate, dude.)
If old hymns you like, (Like the shrub…)
If bare limbs you like, (Boy, do I!)
If Jim West you like, (So totally platonically!)
Or me undressed you like, (Yeah, baby, yeah!)
Why, nobody will oppose. (Oh, behave!)
When every night the set that's smart is (You talkin' about me, partner?)
Intruding in nudist parties in studios, (Come on in, y'all!)
Anything goes!

When them guys at ExxonMobil (Hank bless them)
Still can hoard enough cash for Jim to "Yes" them
Then I suppose
Anything goes!

Plus, when The Donald still can hoard enough
Money to make a chick come
And take the vows,
Anything goes!

The world has gone mad today,
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
And that gent today
You gave a cent today
Once owned half of Lehman Bros.
When folks who still can ride subway trains
Find out that Alan Greenspan's famed brains
All money blows,
Anything goes!

If Valley girls can with great conviction
Instruct us all in diction,
Then Fluffy shows,
Anything goes!

When you hear those fundie morons lonely
Believe preaching abstinence only
Flies with bros
Anything goes!

Just think of those scores you've got
And those whores you've got
And those blues you've shot
And those clues you've got
And those pains you've got
(If any brains you've got)
Playing Grand Theft till blood flows.
So Mr. W., wasting taxes,
Can broadcast from a shed in Texas
'Cause the shrub knows
Anything goes!

You want more?


If auto execs can swoop down in private jets
And get DC looters to underwrite their bets
'Cause pensions rose
Anything goes!

Bye-bye, shrubby! Have fun at Farewell Ranch in Texas! Beware of those evil pretzels. And if you happen to meet a bottle of bourbon, remember: abstinence only!