Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Bedlam

Naomi Klein has lost her mind.

Reports confirmed my suspicions: Palin, not McCain, is the FrankenBarbie of the Rove-Cheney cabal. The strategy became clear. Time magazine reported that Rove is "dialed in" to the McCain campaign. Rove's protégé Steve Schmidt is now campaign manager. And Politico reported that Rove was heavily involved in McCain's vice presidential selection. Finally a new report shows that there are dozens of Bush and Rove operatives surrounding Sarah Palin and orchestrating her every move.

What's the plan? It is this. McCain doesn't matter. Reputable dermatologists are discussing the fact that in simply actuarial terms, John McCain has a virulent and life-threatening form of skin cancer. It is the elephant in the room, but we must discuss the health of the candidates: doctors put survival rates for someone his age at two to four years. I believe the Rove-Cheney cabal is using Sarah Palin as a stalking horse, an Evita figure, to put a popular, populist face on the coming police state and be the talk show hostess for the end of elections as we know them. If McCain-Palin get in, this will be the last true American election. She will be working for Halliburton, KBR, Rove and Cheney into the foreseeable future -- for a decade perhaps -- a puppet "president" for the same people who have plundered our treasure, are now holding the US economy hostage and who murdered four thousand brave young men and women in a way of choice and lies.

How, you may ask, can I assert this? How can I argue, as I now do, that there is actually a war being ramped up against US citizens and our democracy and that Sarah Palin is the figurehead and muse for that war?

Look at the RNC. This is supposed to be McCain's America. But you see the unmistakable theatre of Rove's S and M imagery -- and you see stages eight, nine and ten of the steps to a dictatorship as I outlined them in The End of America. Preemptive arrest? Abusive arrest? "Newly released footage, which was buried to avoid confiscation, shows riot cops arresting and abusing a giant group of people for nothing."
Dozens of Bush and Rove "operatives." Baker's dozens! Scores! Bushels! Sarah Palin as Eva Peron as Adolph Hitler as Judas Iscariot, in earth tones, in the library, with a lead pipe. Where are you going, Col. Mustard? Come down here and eat chicken with me, beautiful. It's so dark.

Klein, let's face it, was never a particularly bright bulb. No Logo was embarrassingly shallow, a goo-goo tome the Whole-Foods, Ad-Busters set who wish to cast themselves in revolutionary sympathy with the window-smashers of the Seattle battle, who were themselves not much more than skim-milk crypto-rebels. The real face of true insurgent conviction is not a twenty-something getting arrested for throwing a poorly-made Molotov; it is Timothy McVeigh. That's not crass. Getting pepper-sprayed or tasered for destroying public property is one thing; launching an assault on your own tyrannical government and then going stonily to execution quite another. I don't approve of bombing buildings, needless to say, but I also don't claim to be a revolutionary. Say what you will, though, about the world's McVeighs or Mahdi Armies--they are serious. Anyway, Klein should have stuck to reportage, because as she moved into the land of Analysis she showed her limitations even more starkly, and by the time she published The Shock Doctrine she found herself in the deep end of the pool without her swimmies on. It is true that the intellectual loci of both the "Chicago School" of economics and American Neoconservativism were in the same university, but therein ends the similarity. Neoconservativism is a modern take on Wilsonian liberalism; it promotes democratization, direct foreign intervention, "National Greatness," and imperial uplift of mentored races. Neoconsrvativism has no particular economic program. While generally "capitalist," it hews to no particular orthodoxy, and the central tenet of Bush administration economics, to take the most recent example, has been the total absence of tenets. What Klein perceives as the application of Chicago-school economic ideas in Iraq was nothing of the sort; it was good, old-fashioned, imperial plunder, dressed up in standard American political boilerplate about free societies and free markets. The "Bush-Cheney" cabal, Friedmanite disaster capitalists in Klein's goofy estimation, have in the past six months nationalized and socialized huge segments of the American economy. Klein would likely respond that such socialization is really just opportunism in the service of protecting extant concentrations of wealth, and in fact, I agree, but laying that sort of public-private plunder at the feet of an orthodox ideology is, to say the least, a stretch.

Now she appears to believe that John McCain is just a harmless, terminal old coot whose battle-weary face is somehow necessary to push Sarah Palin into the presidency, and that Palin herself represents simply a palatable face for a corporate putsch, or . . . something. Her prose hyperventilates, and she seems to believe that the RNC represents the first time that police have ever arrested a gang of protesters. I too would like to erase Henry Clay Frick and the Pinkertons from the history books, but alas, no. American authoritarianism has roots both deep and broad, and every American leader from Washington to Lincoln to Slick Willy has arrogated to himself powers far beyond the supposed scope of his civil office in times of emergency or, frankly, annoyance. (See again: Seattle, the RNC, the DNC, etc.) Klein:
Sarah "Evita" Palin is Rove and Cheney's cosmetic rebranding of their fascist push: she will help to establish a true and irreversible "fear society" in this once free once proud nation. For God's sake, do not let her; do not let them.
This once free and proud . . . Is she running for office? A chicken little in every pot. Cheney is a slick profiteer and Karl Rove is a mud-slinger of moderate ability (his deificationb by Progressives has got to be one of the most hilariously out-of-proportion elevations of middling ability to Genius I have ever witnessed), but neither of them is Hitler. Alas for all of us, the United States is not about to launch domestic pogroms and invade Russia in the wintertime; Palin and Todd aren't going to blow their brains out in a bunker. Whoever wins, our broke-ass empire will keep chugging along, graying and groaning into Soviet decrepitude, until at last, poof, we sell off the commemorative rubble and find twentysomething hipsters in Shanghai wearing American flags as statements of ironic nostalgia.

Update: Wolf! Damn.

Update II: Oh man, just to make this whole post even more hilariously embarrassing, here is the correct Naomi on that very same site just a very few days before. (Via Micha Ghertner in comments at Distributed Republic) What did we learn here today, kids, what did we learn.

140 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wolf.

Intentionally(?) confusing.

Christopher M. said...

"Skim-milk crypto-rebels"? Is that supposed to actually mean something, or did you forget to check the "English as a nineteenth language" tag?

Solar Hero said...

True as the day Auden wrote it, IOZ.

Christopher M. said...

And I click over to see that Anonymous is correct, and that the linked piece is not written by Naomi Klein at all. Kudos, IOZ. I'm sure that doesn't affect the rest of the post, though, because [insert Big Lebowski reference here].

The prefix "crypto," by the way, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Snotty McShot said...

Yeah, dude. What anonymous said: that's Naomi Wolf, not Klein.

Otherwise, love your work!

John Caruso said...

Her prose hyperventilates...

...and yours masturbates. So it's all about equal, isn't it?

cb said...

Uh-oh. Are you going to change the No Logo and Shock Doctrine polemics as well? Just slot in a similarly scathing blast of "The Beauty Myth" and "End of America" instead and BAM! No one will know!

BLAWG at its finest.

IOZ said...

I appear to have written two posts, one about Naomi Klein's books, the other about Naomi Wolf's post. Well, blog.

I do, however, enjoy the idea that my prose "masturbates." Do you mind if I add that to my header bar, John?

Anonymous said...

Is this your homework, Larry?

Montag said...

it's ok, IOZ. i read it as 'Noam Chomsky' myself.

IOZ said...

Ahaha. "Failin' social studies."

Anonymous said...

Apparently someone's had a grudge against Klein for a while now, and let it all loose at the sight of the word "Naomi".

Best. Clownshoes. Ever.

John Caruso said...

Knock yourself out; the royalties will be quite reasonable, I assure you.

Mr.Fundamental said...

your not dealing with morons here.

the_system said...

Dear Christopher M.,

I tried the blog thing once. I made it to probably half a dozen posts before I realized that I have better things to do than stalk insignificant people whose opinions I find ridiculous.

It's a pity that you don't.

Love,

the_system

P.S. Even though this post is a complete disaster, "skim-milk crypto-rebels" is a lovely turn of phrase.

alexi de sadesky said...

Those fuckin' hipster bitches better not be tryin' to pull off no stars and stripes motif anytime soon. NOT IN MY USA MOTHER FUCKERS! I swear to christ I'll start carrying a side arm and blow away any American Flag disgracing dick handlers and turn their shiteating grin into a new asshole (full of blood... and GUTS!)!!!

IOZ said...

Mea maxima culpa.

Anonymous said...

Dammit IOZ, your blog isn't perfect! Let's hang him!

Anonymous said...

Mr.Fundamental said...
your not dealing with morons here.


Morans is a different story.

Plan B, Larry.

Chris E. said...

Whatever you think of her economic theories, you've got to admit she did a great job starring in King Kong.

mandt said...

Waaaa! And we so loved a good paranoid conspiracy. As for library I do recall the blow by blow, but not the lead pipe.

Montag said...

all else aside, it tickles me to no end, the idea that "reputable dermatologists" say John McCain will definitely die in his first term.

from virulent skin cancer.

IOZ said...

Motag: He is 100% certain to possibly die in his first term.

Everyone: morebetter make-fun-of-me please. I don't fuck up like this very often, but so far only cb has really risen to the opportunity. So far, he wins.

Mr.Fundamental said...

actually it's kind of annoying. I even removed it from the "shared items" category of my google reader.

likes, for real: who is going to take you seriously NOW!? and thus, take me seriously.

asshole.

The Promiscuous Reader said...

Wolf, Klein, who cares ... the thing is that your attack on her position in No Logo was bullshit too.

I'm inclined to agree with the anonymous who said, "Apparently someone's had a grudge against Klein for a while now, and let it all loose at the sight of the word 'Naomi'."

Dennis Perrin said...

Hide your head in shame, IOZ. Unlike the major libloggers, whose posts fairly burst with reason and accuracy, you have shown yourself to be a rank amateur. Imagine, confusing Naomi Watts for Naomi Judd. Pathetic.

IOZ said...

Ha. I'm a Naomi Campbell man myself.

cb is still winning, folks.

Paul said...

You misspelled neoconservativism. "Neoconsrvativism," hahahaha ha ha ha pwn3d dork

IOZ said...

Paul takes the silver.

Thomas Daulton said...

If you put "masturbation" in your header, my company's Internet filter is gonna block you. And if people can't read you during what-would-otherwise-be productive work hours, what's the point of BLAWG?!?!

IOZ said...

Okay, Thomas, baby. For you.

IOZ:prose::Onan:?

lout said...

IOZ says that "Klein, let's face it, was never a particularly bright bulb," and then proceeds with a demonstration, all based on that Naomi Klein is actually Naomi Wolf.

Well done.

Ignoring that, IOZ doesn't seem to have read Shock Doctrine very carefully, if at all.

All in all, an embarrassing performance.

Thomas Daulton said...

IOZ:prose::Onan:God's Will ??

He thwarts it for lewd pleasure and is killed for his arrogance?

jethrosexual said...

Hey, Perrin, is there anything you can't turn into a tirade about "libloggers"? For fuck's sake already.

"Would you like fries with that, sir?"

"Fries?! That reminds me of all those libloggers who think Bill Clinton was such a great president for creating tons of low-wage jobs like flipping fries while dropping depleted uranium on Serbia, which you'll never hear them mention while bitching about Bush's war crimes, by the way, which reminds me of a time I was hanging out with Timothy Leary and Michael Albert when lo and behold, Ed Meese walked by..."

"Security...security..."

Anyway, since you and anon 1:45 are determined to miss the point: it's really fucking funny when an "insufferable" (his own words) and arrogant blogger is in such a hurry to show he's so much smarter than Ms. Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics that he doesn't even notice the name and picture on the column he's reading. It is to laugh!

Anonymous said...

wolf, klein, whatevs. and darwin caused the holocaust

IOZ said...

No, no, no. Not arrogant. Haughty.

The comment's not up there with our current top 2, but I award you the honorary bronze for "jethrosexual."

I gotta fuck up more often. This thread has life.

erin4iraq said...

Well, I for one, will ignore the faux pas because, really, who cares? Blogging is not rocket surgery.

Anyhoo. I found amusement in this gem:

"... my daughters many letters from camp? Vanished. All of them. Not one arrived. Try explaining that to a smart thirteen year old. Try explaining it in a way that still makes her feel secure and comfortable."

Daughter probably knows mom's a paranoid schizophrenic and told her she wrote her every day just to see what conspiracy theory mom would come up with.

Micha Ghertner said...

This isn't 'Nam, IOZ. There are RULES. I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that you could go out and blawg all over the place.

The pretty lefty Jewish girls are not the issue here, IOZ. You are, you human paraquat! You figured 'Oh, here's a loser. A deadbeat, someone the square community won't give a shit about. You're not wrong, IOZ. You're just an asshole.

Mr.Fundamental said...

Micha, dude, you share a blog with someone who, with a straight face and sans sarcasm and/or self-awareness, wrote this:

The argument people are making is that the "entrenched political class" (which I have yet to see a good definition of) partakes in illegitimate gains by externalizing costs upon the little guy. Example: A govt contract for Halliburton (entrenched political class) paid for by the taxpayers (little guy). There's a simple vaccine against this power transfer: buying shares of Halliburton. Any gain the entrenched political class makes results in a proportional gain for the little guy. With an $8 trade, the little guy is instantly a member of the entrenched political class.

STFU.

of course, you should see the stuff The Defeatists write. lol. hell, we might even agree with this passage. but, we're The Defeatists, so. . .

but seriously, STFU.

IOZ said...

Rocket surgery. Fuck me, that's funny shit.

MandT said...

We are in-Kleined to side with IOZ, the Wolf is at the door.

Brian said...

I think you need to just give up, Ioz and pull the post! After all, you are human paraquat. As such, you are not allowed to make mistakes, because mistakes with toxic chemicals KILL.

Not sure what this error-ridden but oh so tasty post has to do with an herbicide, but...

Phillip Allen said...

Yes, IOZ (@ 4:33 pm), life in a brain-eating zombie kind of way. I'm not at all clear what got so many panties in a twist. Ms. Wolf's ultimate failure is two-fold: 1) somehow deciding that US Empire, Inc. SOP is unique to any of the feral factions fighting over the carcass; and 2) that she's remotely important.

Anonymous said...

IOZ says that "Klein, let's face it, was never a particularly bright bulb," and then proceeds with a demonstration, all based on that Naomi Klein is actually Naomi Wolf.

Good times. Good times.

Justin said...

Has anyone ever seen Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolff in the same place at the same time?

Anonymous said...

You know, I've been waiting forever for that article on Hugo Chavez by Naomi Wolf.

Ooops. Campbell, I meant.

Pepito

Anonymous said...

I am enjoying the freude but not so much the schaden. Can we talk about food now?

rowan said...

Fail!

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/fail-owned-kosher-fail.jpg

Anonymous said...

deificationb

Was this written by Fat Albert?

ran said...

who murdered four thousand brave young men and women in a way of choice and lies.

not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. but who's counting? definitely not the Pentagon.

Rojo said...

Damn, I came late to the party. I was prompted to post by this: "I too would like to erase Henry Clay Frick and the Pinkertons from the history books, but alas, no."

Which prompted the memory of visiting my buddy in Pittsburgh and walking his dog through a cemetery one night. I mentioned I had to piss and he said, knowing my radical union sympathies, "Well, Henry Clay Frick is buried right over there." So I went and pissed on his grave (a surprisingly simple slab, much unlike the elaborate tombs of other dead Pittsburgh elites in the same cemetery). It wasn't erasing him from history, but it was quite satisfying, and my fellow Wobblies were pleased when I got home and told them.

And mentioning my erstwhile Wobbly membership brings me to note that I was getting tear-gassed in Seattle as part of that organization's participation in the WTO protests, not that I wanted to be, and I profoundly disagree that experiencing that in that case was fundamentally useless. It didn't usher in what I want, but it through a couple gears in the wheels of what they want.

As always, however, I was amused by IOZ's provocations and I agreed with other significant points, about Klein's blinkers mostly. Don't know much about Wolf myself, but from the reviews of her last book I read, I think she's got some historical blinkers of her own.

Agi said...

Wolf. Klein. Whatever.

alexa-blue said...

:crackers?

almostinfamous said...

i been down this road man. only, i seem to do this whole 'preview before posting' thing now and then, and then i realized that i had put in klein for wolf and deleted the whole thing. true story!

Ian said...

Left wing? I thought Klein was a hard right alcoholic who quite literally spat on homeless people.

TS said...

You're thinking of Joe Klein, Ian.

Christopher M. said...

Hilarious.

IOZ said...

I declare this thread the winner, and this post the Most Important Ever.

Mr.Fundamental said...

this post was total mullet: business up front, but all party in the back.

Anonymous said...

Naomi Klein. Naomi Wolf. What difference does it make, anyway? One chick writer is the same as the next if you are a failed hipster contrarian blogging from his mother's sewing room between telemarketing gigs. And why read actual books when you can skim the Amazon reviews and partially regurgitate Hunter S. Thompson on a blog read by a handful of "booyah" types, inexplicably and shamefully impressed by your smarmy, desperately overwrought typing skills.

IOZ said...

Can typing be overwrought? You're a little late to the party, bubbaloo. Jokes about hipsters and telemarketing are so Radar. Check out cb above for how to make your comment cut.

And no one insults the handful of booyah types who read this blog but me.

Brian said...

boo boo boo yah

(sung to the tune of I am the Walrus "coo coo coo choo" with soap bubble floating above my office cubicle).

Anonymous said...

Sir:

If you did actually read books rather than merely skim the headlines at Huffpo, the "typing" (as opposed to "writing") reference would not be lost on you. I assumed (wrongly, it turns out) that you would at least be familiar with Truman Capote's famous quip about Jack Kerouac: "It's not WRITING, it's TYPING". Then again, it might have been Bess Truman commenting on Jack Black, author of "The Beauty Doctrine".

It's curious that you single out 'No Logo' to further illustrate your condescending attitude towards women. Before you knock off a witless rejoinder to this particular observation, ask yourself what other than your barely concealed misogyny explains this hairy knuckled reaction to a "Naomi" authored post you stumbled upon while non-researching material for your blog? After all, Huffpo is often a goldmine of smug, limousine liberal opinion. Surely, there is a worthier recipient of your contempt than Naomi Wolf, who makes a valid point about "the war on terror" being aimed at domestic dissenters. Ms Wolf's only "crime" as far as I can tell is "blogging while under the influence of estrogen".

Adding insult to your self-inflicted injury, you go on to dismiss the other non-supermodel Naomi's groundbreaking and thoroughly researched book as particularly deserving of your phlegm-filled but otherwise substanceless capsule review, based entirely, it seems, on your disdain for the "gooey" female content allegedly contained within.

I suppose hastily typed, error-riddled commentary on a largely unread blog is a far more rewarding and glamorous enterprise than reporting on the plight of millions of sweatshop workers who stitched together your Cheeto-stained khakis. Or perhaps reporting about the demonstrations that have resulted in egregious abuses of power against the citizenry by brown shirted, taser wielding law enforcement officials doesn't measure up, either, to your high journalistic (sic) standards.

Not surprisingly, you seem more familiar with the contents of Radar Magazine than anything either Naomi has ever written. Perhaps if the blog thingy doesn't work out, you can always solicit subscriptions there, applying your knowledge of all things "hip" to pay your mother room and board.

Booyah!

Walter said...

You're out of your element, Donny.

Mr.Fundamental said...

hey anon at THREE AY EM, don't you have somewhere to be?

since you're so good at attacking inanimate objects.

booyaw!

lout said...

"Klein, let's face it, was never a particularly bright bulb."

--Well, Klein gets paid to speak all around the world, writes books that are read by lots of serious people, and is a talented researcher and writer -- none of which is true of the author of this blog.

Rhetorically, it's probably a dumb idea (because it's so pointless) for cranky irrelevant bloggers to summarily assert that renowned public intellectuals are and always have been "dim bulbs."

Pointing out that the neoconservatives who did Iraq weren't interested in economics, and that Iraq was "good, old fashioned, imperial plunder..." is empty.

Is the blogger saying that Iraq under Paul Bremer really didn't pass a bunch of laws intended to privatize Iraqi industry and resources, allowing them to be sold off to foreign investors (multinational corporations)? You can call it old fashioned plunder, but it's consistent with Chicago School free market doctrine.

The point of historical analysis is to provide explanatory models for historical phenomena, in this case, the perceived continuity leading from American interventions in Chile and elsewhere during the Nixon regime (wherein Friedman was personally involved), through the "neoliberal" use of the World Bank and the IMF in the Asia, South America, Russia and Eastern Europe, through Clinton's "humanitarian" intervention in Bosnia, to Bush's "neoconservative" interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and (via Israel) Lebanon.

Klein's powerful model doesn't depend on the straw-man assertion that each of these phenomena was engineered by "Friedmanite disaster capitalists", as the blogger idiotically implies. As Klein herself explains (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/98338/naomi_klein_strikes_back_at_critics_of_her_'shock_doctrine'_book/?page=2):

"I never said Friedman was a "neo-conservative" and I discuss, at length, how difficult it is to find terms to describe the corporatist project that are acceptable to all readers. On page 17 (all page numbers refer to the Picador paperback) I write:




"In the attempt to relate the history of the ideological crusade that has culminated in the radical privatization of war and disaster, one problem recurs: the ideology is a shape-shifter, forever changing its name and switching identities. Friedman called himself a 'liberal,' but his U.S. followers, who associated liberals with high taxes and hippies, tended to identify as 'conservatives,' 'classical economists,' 'free marketers' and, later, as believers in 'Reaganomics' or 'laissez-faire.' In most of the world, their orthodoxy is known as 'neo-liberalism,' but it is often called 'free trade' or simply 'globalization.' Only since the mid-nineties has the intellectual movement, led by the right-wing think tanks with which Friedman had long associations -- Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute -- called itself 'neo-conservative,' a world view that has harnessed the full force of the U.S. military machine in the service of a corporate agenda."


The significance of the "neo-con" label gaining currency in the mid-nineties is that it was then that the Republicans, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich and backed by the think tanks I mentioned, swept Congress promising a "Contract With America." At this point, the label "neo-conservatives" was not a reference primarily to hawkish foreign policy positions but to harsh economic ones. Back in the mid-nineties, many of the people most associated with the neo-con label today - David Frum and William Kristol and much of the Weekly Standard crowd - were squarely focused on demanding Friedmanite cut-backs and privatizations inside the United States. Frum, for example, first made his name in the U.S. with Dead Right, his 1994 book exhorting the conservative movement to return to its free market economic roots. After Bill Clinton embraced much of this economic agenda, several of the key neo-con warriors narrowed their focus to American dominance on the world stage, a fact that has allowed their keen interests in Friedmanite economic ideas to be largely overlooked."

Anonymous said...

Kudos to 'Lout' for pointing out the absurdities of IOZ's flawed analysis of 'The Shock Doctrine' (or is that 'The Jock Doctrine'? 'The Foxy Doctor is in'?) Well done.

As for the comments left here by Mr Fundament(ally stupid) who points out that my post was written at 3 am: I live in Asia, moron. FYI, that's the small island country that borders Pakistan to the West in the Florida Everglades.) Speaking of different time zones, it must be morning where you are. Shouldn't you be waiting for your short yellow bus to arrive?

Mr.Fundamental said...

BLAWG.

I am very, very seriously, with furrowed brow, and yes it's a mile wide, laughing right now.

at any rate, for those playing along at home, most of Monsieur IOZ's posts are titanium clad and teflon coated arguments of extreme ridiculousness, the most absurd position that one could take, aimed as barbs at the Establishment, lol, that can of course be picked apart - but why would you? not only are they that absurd and dense and very well positioned in lands of Absurdia, but what kind of lame creature would you have to be to come by with a point by point assessment?

now you can either attack him point by point, and shoot down each assumption or whatever, which is really boring, or you can pull the pin that's holding the entire frickin contraption together, and watch it crumple to the floor, with something like this:

Uh-oh. Are you going to change the No Logo and Shock Doctrine polemics as well? Just slot in a similarly scathing blast of "The Beauty Myth" and "End of America" instead and BAM! No one will know!

or this:

You misspelled neoconservativism. "Neoconsrvativism," hahahaha ha ha ha pwn3d dork

most of the rest is just bad form. and to be honest, I really failed with my google reader comment. the assumption I was running with is that there is no possible way for anyone to take blogging, or what a blogger thinks, all that seriously. that my honor or reputation or whatever was infringed by this collossal fuck up, which can only be viewed as the height of absurdity, was the punchline. that I need to explain this is a testament to my recent spell of bad form.

now, who's the moran here?

lout said...

Fundamental seems to be saying that if you point out that a blogger is full of shit, then that makes you not only a "moran," but unhip -- so unhip that you don't even know that nobody takes bloggers seriously, that comments are meant to be clever verbal winks rather than comments, and that the entire thing is immune from all criticism, like masturbating in private.

One can only assume -- given that he's full of shit -- that Fundamental has a unread blog somewhere.

Anonymous said...

One can only assume ... that Fundamental has a unread blog somewhere.

Oh, snap!

Truth be told, the nay-sayers are winning, IOZ. Whatchu gonna do 'bout it?

Mr.Fundamental said...

that's pretty weak, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm only really quibbling over style. I mean, if you're going to blog, make it good, right? I'm not saying Monsieur can't be taken down, I'm just saying: you're not fucking doing it. and even if you are, you're not doing it very well. your comments are pathetic. why not just repost the entire post as a quotation and insert your points in between each line? it would fit with your ho-hum and rather dull persona. why don't you try that shit out over at Protein Wisdom and see how it goes?

otherwise, you're right on, as most blogging is a complete and utter waste of time. (and here you are!) in fact, Monsieur is likely looking for stronger, well better anyway, critics. that's the best you can do? ROAST HIM YOU FOOLS. bring what you got. but I mean, you're playing t-ball level comments wise. even I admit that I am, too. why don't you just write "FAWK YOUSE, MR.FUNDAMENTAL" and get it over with? this is just awkward.

the entire cant of BLOG is futile masturbation. myself? I try not to get too much BLAWG all over my keyboard when I post comments or concoct posts. and trust me, my goal is to be completely and utterly useless. I want useless to be an art. and here you are, killing our buzz with your weak ass game. I suppose there is some over-arching point to your take downs, and a lesson involved, so on and so forth. clearly we must be set straight. but I say: put the bong and the Adbusters down, dude. let the teachable moment go, man. just. let. it. go.

your form is awful. nice try though! well, not really.

lulz.

lout said...

"I'm only really quibbling over style."

Your english isn't remotely good enough to "quibble over style," you illiterate, empty-headed buffoon.

Mr.Fundamental said...

C- (and that's being generous)

seriously, dude, I had two english classes in college. that's it. it's like picking on the guy in the wheelchair with no legs for not having legs. big deal.

seriously why aren't you using your outline? I'm providing you with the motherfucking crib sheet, yo.

Anonymous said...

Mr. fundamental gets very street and "down" when he's feeling threatened, doesn't he? This new-found flippance doesn't suit you, my friend. Stick to the Lebowski; doing so nearly makes it seem like you know what you're talking about.

Mr.Fundamental said...

now I am definitely bored.

Anonymous said...

Then piss off back to your own blog to blog about the sly art of blogging.

Paul said...

calmer than you.

Anonymous said...

lout said:

""Klein, let's face it, was never a particularly bright bulb."

--Well, Klein gets paid to speak all around the world, writes books that are read by lots of serious people, and is a talented researcher and writer -- none of which is true of the author of this blog."

Yeah, lots of utter dipshits get paid to talk to other dipshits and have dipshits like you buy their books. BFD. The fact that you and the other anonymice continue this farce of a prosecution of a blogger you don't like marks you as the biggest loser of this here comments thread, my dude. You wheeled out the "They make money, so therefore are smarter/better than you!" argument. How long have you been on the internet, my friend, an entire week? That gag had whiskers on it when all people had was tin-cans on strings, you pathetic simp.

Anonymous said...

Also, lol x 700 billion @ "writes books that are read by lots of serious people."

OOH, serious people, you say? My goodness, what a pedigree! Are you, lout, among that rarified breed? Please, enlighten us "unserious" types, how does your kind live? How do you love? What do you eat? Please, teach us to be serious people!

Leilla said...

Notice how IOZ's little clusterfuck of brown-nosing "booyah" boys are circling their teeny-tiny red wagons around 'Lout', whose only "crime" it appears, is to be "serious" about the topic at hand. It seems only in the US that "serious" is a pejorative term, aimed at "eggheads" with the skill of an enraged orangutan flinging feces through the bars of his cage. At the risk of inviting the wrath and ridicule of IOZ's flying monkey (shit and shit-for-brains) brigade, I will make the point that "seriousness" is a preferable alternative to the kind of smarmy glibness that's on display here. IOZ has only himself to blame for bringing on this shit storm of monkey poo. His smarmy "dim bulb" comment to impugn an author, whose work he is woefully unfamiliar with is fair game for those who actually read 'The Shock Doctrine' and 'No Logo'. First he shoots himself in the foot (attributing a Naomi Wolf blog post to Naomi Klein) then he misfires again, incorrectly summarizing her arguments in a garbled and overwrought prose style reminiscent of every pale male blogger on the planet who fancies himself the second coming of Norman Mailer (sans the talent, of the course). Instead of begging for someone to put him out of his misery, he makes a further ass of himself, allowing his surrogates to launch witless attacks in his name. When your Monkey Brigade starts trotting out "moran" as means to defend your honor, maybe it's time to stick a fork in your aspiring writing career and declare yourself done.

Mr.Fundamental said...

hehehe.

internet.




blog.



booyah!!

Mr.Fundamental said...

word, motherfucker.

IOZ said...

Norman Mailer had talent?

But seriously, don't stop now!

Leilla said...

Perhaps you aspire to the "genius" level of Tucker Max. If that's the case, you have succeeded admirably. If the political writing thing doesn't work out, you can always maintain an online journal documenting the hilarity that ensues after you finish off a bottle of micro-brewed pale and drunk dial your mother from the extension in her sewing room.

Have a nice rest of the weekend.

IOZ said...

Tucker Max? You know I'm a homo, right?

Also, sewing room? Sexist.

almostinfamous said...

btw, if naomi klein actually lost her mind, she might write something like the BS emanating from the typing of ms wolf.

FTR, i kinda like klein's work. it's way more accessible than our host here, not to mentioned less filled with lebowski-isms. this is apparently a double-edged sword, as the whole comment thread proves.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, accessibility being the thing to look for in a writer. Why challenge yourself with what you read? You know who's real accessible? Dan Brown! Anyone can read and understand The DaVinci Code!

IOZ said...

I totally didn't understand the DaVinci Code. Why was all that shit in English, yo?

Anonymous said...

Leilla, you ignorant slut: Lout's whole point was that, man, you guys ain't SERIOUS, ya dig? IOZ ain't gettin paid for his blathering like Miss Naomi, so who gives a shit what he thinks, eh? Y'all are so utterly self-important that you've taken up this crusade to shame some blogger that you keep saying doesn't matter, and we're the monkeys? Seems to me that is being a "serious" person forces one to be a shrill dipshit like you or lout, then I'll gladly play the part of the jester. I'd much rather be unserious if it means I'm not counted among the ranks of arrogant psueudo-intellectual twats such as yourself. The desperation with which you attempt to dismiss IOZ and his readers is quite telling.

Anonymous said...

Seriously though, do you people just sit around googling Naomi Klein all day, waiting for someone to slag her and her writing so you can descend like the Wicked Witch's flying monkeys en masse? Hmmph, well, at least it's an ethos.

Jingus said...

This thread is hilarious: Blogger mixes up some obscure writer's name, issues several mea culpas, and 80 some comments later you screaming mimis are still raking him over the coals! Unbelievable! Let this be a lesson to you, children, never ever make a mistake on the internet, lest they e-crucify you for it. It figures that Klein fanboys and girls would take this shit to heart though, her writing does inspire that kind of brainless, animalistic devotion to her philosophy, and more importantly, to defending it against the "unserious". No wonder people write you dudes and dudettes off as a bunch of whiny hippies.

rowan said...

I just rewatched I Heart Huckabees, which features a fantastic performance from Naomi Klein as the megastore's spokesmodel, who ends up rejecting feminine beauty standards.

It was just like No Logo, in movie form.

Leilla said...

Anonymous: I guess when "moran" doesn't work, "slut" and "twat" suffice to prove the point that you are a slobbering dittohead posing as a lefty dude. What's wrong? There were no takers on that Craigslist personal ad you placed? Not even after you included a photo of yourself striking fierce poses with namchuks in your bathroom mirror?

For whatever disagreements I may have with IOZ over his careless and rather boneheaded take on Naomi Klein, he surely does not deserve an impotent little troglodyte like you on board as his surrogate.

Anonymous said...

Awwww, so cute. The slut reference is an SNL reference, though I suppose you didn't catch that if you're a Klein fangirl, given that it aired on a *gasp* network!

For the record, my dear, I am a woman, and I am not a lefty, because I'm not an infant who accepts the false dichotomy of left vs. right. The "twat" was me appropriating British slang and not meant in the sense of the slang term for vagina. It's a shame I have no dick so you can't dismiss the substance of my dismissal of you though, eh? Just paint a lovely caricature of some Maxim-reading broham and voila! Instant win!

Is this how you act in real life, love? Overbearing and dismissive of anyone who doesn't accept your worldview slavishly? You must be an absolute gas at parties. "What's that you said? Did you say you LIKE the Rolling Stones? I bet you're a date rapist! HATE CRIME! HATE CRIME!"

PS, it's "nunchuks", not namchucks.

Anonymous said...

"rowan said...

I just rewatched I Heart Huckabees, which features a fantastic performance from Naomi Klein as the megastore's spokesmodel, who ends up rejecting feminine beauty standards.

It was just like No Logo, in movie form."

So intellectually shallow and preachy? Hiiii-yo!!!

Leilla said...

Cool! You're a chick with a dick who watches SNL reruns and knows the correct spelling of namchucks. How awesome for you! And you know BRITISH English! Pip Pip, old chap. Pass me a bag of crisps.

PS: You're a lying cow (That's BRITISH English for a prevaricating heifer).

Anonymous said...

Okay. The story so far:

There's one anonymous who is a right-leaning woman (possibly English or Welsh; a Scot wouldn't USE ALL CAPITALIZED LETTERS TO MAKE A POINT) who USES ALL CAPITALIZED LETTERS TO MAKE A POINT.

There's a second anonymous who hates the first anonymous and who likes Perrin and IOZ and Mr. fundamental.

There's at least a third, if not a fourth anonymous, who sometimes pretends to be the second anonymous, and who doesn't like IOZ so much. This one writes a lot better than the above two, however.

Then there's Mr. fundamental. He's a bit of a priss.

Anonymous said...

And then there's the anonymous who used to call himself The Ghost of Bill Hicks, who, if I remember his short-lived blog, is some Kansas hillbilly who got mad after three posts because no one was reading him and quit. You can usually tell him by the quick temper and stupid profane neologisms.

Anonymous said...

A cyber-stalker, mon dieu!

Jesus man, The Ghost Of Bill Hicks was, what, two, three years ago? And I don't recall having a blog, but I remember so little of my immediate past that I may have to defer to you on that one. Thank you for having such an empty life that you've felt compelled to shadow my online one.

Anonymous said...

To be honest, I'm just trying to push this fucker to 100 comments at this point. C'mon other anon, what other juicy little tidbits about me have you got stored away in that dusty old cupboard you call a mind? Am I a freemason? Perhaps I fuck my cousin? Make with the funny or fuck off, ya daft koont.

Anonymous said...

WE DID IT! WE DID IT EVERYONE! 100 comments, and not a one of them worth reading! Congrats! Hope triumphs again! We have overcome!

Anonymous said...

Ha, I knew that would freak you out, Ghost. Truth be told, I only remember you for hanging around Pandagon way back when, where you used to pimp your aborted blog and get on Ezra's case (which was a point in your favor). I clicked on it exactly once, saw you crying after your third post because you didn't magically have an audience, thought "What a pudwhacker", and that was that.

Then, recently, during one of the runs on Digby's blog by some of us here, I saw you post under your old handle, thought "Hey, it's that pudwhacker again", and realized you must be an IOZ reader now. Suddenly the occasional Tourette's-like outbursts by one of us anons seemed awfully familiar.

So I just threw that out there to see if you were still here, and voila, here you are, all jittery because you think I've been stalking you.

Elementary, my dear pudwhacker.

Anonymous said...

Pudwhacker? Jittery? Don't go taking a victory lap there yet, my fine feathery friend...who, of the two of us, is the one who remembers some ephemeral presence from fuckin PANDAGON, of all blogs, from over 2-3 years ago and then remembered that when someone was killing time during the workday trolling Digby and put it all together like some cut-rate, Aspergers suffering Colombo? Congratulations chief, you are the most pathetic version of Sherlock Holmes imaginable. Someone investigating missing underpants at the laundromat has more dignity than you, and here you are bragging about that shit? Hilarious!

John Caruso said...

Leila: Nice work all around. Thanks for taking the time.

John Caruso said...

Oops--sorry for dropping your other "l" (though two seems like enough for any name).

leilllllla said...

What kind of effing idiot do you have to be to drop an "l" from someone's online name?!

(OK - let's see if we can get it to 200 on that nothing of a controversy)

lout said...

Here are the important facts:

In support of his characterizations of Naomi Klein as "insane" and a "dim bulb," IOZ: (1) provides a quote from Naomi Wolf which he attributes to Klein, presumably based on the fact that chicks named "Naomi" believe the same things; and (2) provides a "critique" of The Shock Doctrine that is so weak, so shallow and literal-minded it might have been cribbed from a review in World Net Daily, or an 8th grader's book report.

Apparently IOZ's readers, as represented by mr. fundamental and a conga-line of similarly pretentious unemployed suckups, are blind to the fact that there is something ridiculous, something patently absurd, about someone whose characterization of Naomi Klein as a "dim bulb" is based on extensive analysis of a quote from the wrong Naomi. For this set of cultural bottom-feeders, to draw attention to this ridiculousness is to commit what for them is surely the most mortal of sins – namely, to be a "serious person," who is actually interested in things like ideas, concepts, political analysis, matters of principle and so on. You know, adult stuff. Like bosses, parents, cops, the guys who sign unemployment checks.

The reason I mentioned the fact that Naomi Klein is a successful author is as evidence that she isn't really a "dim bulb" (a proposition that needs as little proof from me as it is susceptable to refutation by a writer of IOZ's caliber), but to guide the discussion to what I believe is the source of IOZ's rancor. Why was IOZ so eager to shit on Naomi Klein, so eager, in fact, that he couldn't be bothered to read the "Wolf" that appeared after the "Naomi" on the byline of the HuffPo article?

One can imagine the deep breathing, the sweat breaking out on the pointy little forehead as our tragically ignored blogger strives to control the trembling in his stubby little greasy fingers long enough to pound out the misguided invectives that will surely, hopefully, maybe end up a hot topic of discussion in the dark and fetid crawlspace known as the "blogosphere."

We know that IOZ's problem with Naomi Klein doesn't have anything to do with Klein's ideas – because IOZ doesn't know anything or care about about Klein's ideas. Ideas??? That's for "serious people." Yuck! No, the problem is rooted in resentment, for IOZ, just like 99% of other "political bloggers" futilely flaunting their narcissim on the World Wide Web, is nothing if not a failed writer, someone whose adolescent dreams of becoming the next Hunter S. Thompson have gradually shrivelled down into impotent cyber-punches at writers who actually earn a living at it – i.e., real ones, like Naomi Klein.

The position from which IOZ's overwrought verbal eruptions originate is epitomized in his offensively brainless dismissal of the 1999 Seattle protesters:

"The real face of true insurgent conviction is not a twenty-something getting arrested for throwing a poorly-made Molotov; it is Timothy McVeigh…Getting pepper-sprayed or tasered for destroying public property is one thing; launching an assault on your own tyrannical government and then going stonily to execution quite another. I don't approve of bombing buildings, needless to say, but I also don't claim to be a revolutionary."

This is spoken from the position of a hopelessly impotent aesthete, for whom the moral significance of a political event is determined only and always by the amount of noise it makes. One wonders why IOZ uses Tim McVeigh as his favorite imaginary "true insurgent". Why not refer to Osama bin Laden, whose explosions on September 11 made McVeigh's look amateurish, if not downright middle-class?

Although bin Laden would better serve IOZ's comparison, his sense of propriety is much more important than any pretense to logic or conviction – using Tim McVeigh to mock the Seattle protesters is really, like cool, and bloggers will talk about it and stuff, but bin Laden? That would be a little much, not really acceptable, because while we're all hip aesthetes, we know what happened to Stockhausen and that Churchill dude.

The McVeigh comparison comes from the position of someone whose idea of a moral decision is whether to connect with the world via CNN or Fox News.

IOZ's disclaimer, "I don't claim to be a revolutionary" is an understatement on the order of "Willie Mays played outfield."

gezol said...

Say, IOZ, can you see the IP addresses of commenters? Reading this ridiculous thread, I find myself wondering how many distinct anonymi there actually are here. At this point, I would be only mildly surprised if it turned out that they're all the same person.

Oh yeah, I think I'm supposed to make fun of you, aren't I? Um... BOOYEAH! BLAWG! Clearly, sir, you possess a grossly inferior intellect to that of my own for not immediately perceiving my oblique Truman Capote reference, or at least I'm retroactively pretending it was a Truman Capote reference in order to make myself sound smarter!

...I'm not doing this right, am I?

Anonymous said...

"One can imagine the deep breathing, the sweat breaking out on the pointy little forehead as our tragically ignored blogger strives to control the trembling in his stubby little greasy fingers long enough to pound out the misguided invectives that will surely, hopefully, maybe end up a hot topic of discussion in the dark and fetid crawlspace known as the 'blogosphere.'"

Enough with the geeky, antisocial interweb polemics. Perrin did it better in one hyphenated phrase (cheetos-stained) than you did in an entire goofy and over-long sentence. Besides which, I imagine IOZ is well-groomed and not at all bothered by this kerfluffle. His acolytes, on the other hand, probably are acne-scarred mouthbreathers. Let's pick on them some more.

Anonymous said...

"Clearly, sir, you possess a grossly inferior intellect to that of my own for not immediately perceiving my oblique Truman Capote reference, or at least I'm retroactively pretending it was a Truman Capote reference in order to make myself sound smarter!"

Was it Capote who wrote the Lebowski screenplay? Will wonders never cease?

Anonymous said...

Not bragging at all, Ghost, just telling it like it is. I've always had an above-average memory - mainly just useful for trivia, winning spelling bees, and freaking dorks like you out. I don't choose to remember some pudwhacking farmboy with a big mouth who idolized a vastly overrated comedian, it just happens. But really, you can calm down now and stop sputtering; I have zero interest in watching you in real life tip cows or harvest the wheat or anything like that, so don't worry.

Mr.Fundamental said...

you people are fucking horrible. awful, the worst, most pathetic, witless, hapless trolls I have ever read, and I've been places, you know? and I'm called illiterate? read a fucking post or two you idiots. hang around a little while before you shoot your dick off with your mouth.

LOUT! first off, RELAX! you didn't have to go past the initial insult. we get it, it was a hilarious and atrocious fuck up and if you never come back we understand! the point was: that's the best insult you can lob? bitch, please. the post failed on its face because he was attacking the wrong fucking Naomi.

listen, if you read a little further into this blog's posts (see the Anarchy category, or this post), you would see that what is being put forth as an argument (or whatever this is) is that the true face of change IS Osama bin Laden. it certainly will not be located in either popular candidate! please, join in our madness, or leave. whatev, right? change is not coming in the fucking form of a rational or moral polity because any national polity, whatever that is, is nowhere close to being moral or rational! the only replacement for what we've got is more fucking noise. the running accounts are FUCKING BARREN. shut up and fuck with us, because there's nothing else you can do. and make it good. BOOYAW!

gezol, no you are not.

BLAWG.

Anonymous said...

Mr. fundamental, we got it after the third or fourth link to Sartwell, mmkay?

Mr.Fundamental said...





Mr.Fundamental said...

also, the correct idiom is moral calculus, you fucking tart. moral decision? bitch please.

most of us choose not to play these reindeer games. others have less control over themselves.

Anonymous said...

"most of us choose not to play these reindeer games."

Case in point, I suppose.

Paul said...

What I wonder if these anonymice and louts have been lurking here all this time, calmly sitting and clicking through all the slow-in-the-fast-lanes and the Foodie Fridays and the fucking sonnets, patiently lying in wait for M'sieu to make... one... misstep - and then pounced!

I mean either this li'l ol' blog has got a daily return readership like the Daily fucking Kos... or Commissioner Gordon fired up the Tardsignal after this was posted. KnowutImean?

Anonymous said...

Well, assuming your inquiry is not facetious (which is probably an assumption inviting a lot of derisive "BLAWG"-like responses), I've posted the odd comment for about a year or so, having followed a link from this place. Responses to IOZ are usually blindly sycophantic or openly critical, so I don't see why the loyalists are being so touchy at the moment, as their prissy defensiveness just encourages the newbs, who do seem to have a grudge or two. I think it makes for fun reading, but then again, I like to see fundamental boy sweat. As I said elsewhere, IOZ couldn't care less about all this, apart from when you insult his food. Then his ego is bruised, the little dear.

Paul said...

a link from this place...

Not Found
Error 404


BLAWG!

(that last was said with a defensively prissy lisp, hon)

Anonymous said...

You're a clever lad; you'll figure it out.

gezol said...

"gezol, no you are not."

I knew it! I don't understand how I could have failed so miserably at mocking IOZ, though. I mean, in my attempt at it, I just followed the general example of all the various anonymi (assuming it's actually more than one or two people) and angry new arrivals in this thread, and since they've displayed *cough* such amazing skill at this, I don't see how I could have done so poorly... oh, wait.

(In case it wasn't clear, I actually am a fan of IOZ and was mocking the mockers. Yeah, he fucked up pretty badly on this one, but at least he's had a sense of humor about the whole thing, which is lot more than can be said for most of the angry new arrivals here.)


"Well, assuming your inquiry is not facetious (which is probably an assumption inviting a lot of derisive "BLAWG"-like responses), I've posted the odd comment for about a year or so, having followed a link from this place."

At this point, I'm not even sure which anonymous you are, or are supposed to be, but even if you've been here that long, I don't remember seeing a lot of the angry "newbs" here before, and there's enough of them around that one does wonder if this post got linked somewhere hostile to IOZ's perspective. This all reminds me of that business with Jim Henley and Mark Steyn a while back, though not quite that awesomely stupid, to be sure.

Well, whatever. BLAWG!

Agi said...

Comment # 121.

Blawggg!

Anonymous said...

"somewhere hostile to IOZ's perspective"

It's a sweet idea, but he's just not that risible. I think an opportunity presented itself to act, collectively, like a pile of cocks, and said pile did what such piles do. Apart from lout, I think it was, or the double-ell woman, nobody much cares about Klein or Wolf, from what I can tell. Your call.

Anonymous said...

Apart from that, what perspective? Contrarianism does not a perspective make. 'Member: he's not a revolutionary, or whatever. Don't hold him to the same standards he holds himself and others, et cetera, he's just fucking 'round on the internet, et cetera, blog, dude, Donny, world without end.

Leilla said...

"Leilla" did not write the above post attributed to her with the incorrect spelling of her name.

El Frente said...

125 posts of worthless shit from equally worthless human beings! I want to print this fucker out and mail it to the Smithsonian.

leilllllla said...

Come on people, reach deep down... I know we can come up with at least 73 more worthless comments

(and for the sake of whoever is keeping score, leilla did not post this either)

Anonymous said...

Bookmark this post, bitches - this will be our open thread for all time. Whenever there's nothing else to do, check this thread out and see what's going on. Maybe one day we'll get to a thousand comments.

IOZ said...

This is the worst production of Man of La Mancha I've ever seen.

Anonymous said...

That's because it's supposed to be some Pirandello sketch. I guess he got bored and left.

Mr.Fundamental said...

I think this picture best represents the anonymouses attempts at "winning" on the internet.

blog!!!!11!

fish said...

IOZ wears khakis? Now I am disappointed.

Anonymous said...

Sooooooo....anybody wanna fuck?

John Stephen Lewis said...

Geez... It must be really hard writing for an audience that never makes mistooks.

Most publications would have buried the correction on page 15 or deleted the post altogether.

And yes, I came here because on occassion I enjoy his "masturbatory prose."

And now I must live with the knowledge that the term "masturbatory" and my name will be forever linked in the ubergoogle-crypto-hive mind or whatever.

Anonymous said...

Why are you so willfully dense? It's not that it's a big mistake, it's that he went out of his way to be a condescending dickhead about it, which makes it extra funny to see him slip on a banana peel, so to speak.

Jesus. I wonder if IOZ is ashamed to have such fawning sycophantic fanboys.

Jubal said...

Why are you so willfully dense? etc. etc. .... Jesus. I wonder if IOZ is ashamed to have such fawning sycophantic fanboys.

Poor wee puddles. Try a benzo. You'll still be callow whiner, but the twitching may ease up a little.

Anonymous said...

top [url=http://www.001casino.com/]casino[/url] check the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]online casinos[/url] autonomous no consign bonus at the foremost [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]charitable casino games
[/url].

Anonymous said...

We [url=http://www.casinosaction.com]no deposit casino bonus[/url] be subjected to a ample library of utterly freed casino games for you to monkey tricks privilege here in your browser. Whether you want to practice a table round scenario or just try exposed a few new slots once playing seeking legitimate in dough, we procure you covered. These are the claim verbatim at the same time games that you can with at real online casinos and you can with them all in requital for free.

Anonymous said...

I'm extremely impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays.

My web blog :: vipshoppingalert.com
Also see my site > buy toys

Anonymous said...

qzjb1pir2

Here is my blog ... http://www.halogenoventips.co.uk