I don't need to follow that with a joke, do I? Is there even a joke to follow that? I want a beer.

(via Daily Kos)

(via BuzzFeed)

The weird thing is, the filmmakers started shooting back when even godless liberal d-bag idiots like me (but more like Matt Tobey) thought him becoming president was laughably impossible…

[Amy] Rice conceived the idea of making a documentary about Obama long before the Illinois Senator announced his decision to run for president. Inspired by his oratorical skills and star appeal at the 2004 Democratic Convention, she set out to film his political career in 2006. Rice approached documentary producer [Alicia] Sams, who joined to co-direct and actor Edward Norton's production company, Class 5, agreed to produce the project. After Norton approached Obama's team with the idea, the senator agreed to grant the filmmakers what turned out to be unprecedented and exclusive access.

"Initially, it wasn't even about a presidential campaign; the idea was simply to examine the political experience of a promising young politician of our generation," says Norton, a two-time Oscar nominee.

You know the old Latin saying, Cui bono?, right? I'm not sure but I think that means, "Are you leaving, Bono?" Well, now we know who had the most to gain from asking Bono if he was leaving.

Think about it.

Strictly speaking, this the whole Roman Polanski fiasco shouldn't be a issue of any political importance — God knows, you'd never catch our government legislating sexual matters — but now that "Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, revealed that he had written to Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, to call for the release of the director," which is ridiculous, I'm taking that as the go-ahead sign for me to be equally ridiculous.

So, Thaddeus Russell, writing for The Daily Beast, just wrote a thought-provoking article that puts us in mind of an age-old question concerning sexuality that's of particular interest lately: At what age is a person emotionally mature enough to get raped by Roman Polanski?

Hmmmm…

Most often my [female undergraduate] students argued that sexual relations between an adult and a child (whom some defined as anyone under 18, some under 16, and others as the "emotionally immature") necessarily involved the manipulation of the weak by the powerful, which was wrong.

But then, I asked, why was it acceptable for adults to cajole and at times physically force children to play sports, wear hipster t-shirts, attend church, wash the dishes, listen to "good" music, obey authority figures, or, as the president of the United States told them directly, to take responsibility for "nothing less than the future of this country"?

That's a kind of interesting point. Why is it that I'm allowed to force my barely pubescent daughter to do her chores and finish her homework, but Roman Polanski's not allowed to force her to take drugs and have anal sex with him? Is American culture still so perversely puritanical that it can't see the inherent hypocrisy in that?

Though, to be fair, Russell is drawing a distinction between "having sex with a child" and "raping a child," because, okay, let's draw that distinction for some reason…

Were Polanski to have consensual sex today with a 13-year-old girl in the modern, democratic, industrialized nations of Japan, South Korea, or Spain, it would be perfectly legal according to those countries' codes. In more than 30 other countries, including Austria, Italy, and Lichtenstein, the age of consent is 14 (in many cases even younger if both partners are close in age).

In France, where Polanski has lived since his conviction and where newspapers and even government officials have defended the director against the "sinister" motivations of American prosecutors, it is 15. Even Americans don't agree on the question. In 27 states, it is legal for an adult of any age to have sex with a 16-year-old, while the rest place the legal age at 17 or 18.

Now, this distinction and his points on the gradation of morality makes perfect sense because it has absolutely nothing to do with the Polanski situation. (It's always best to look at a situation from every possible angle, even when that angle is completely meaningless.)

But I actually don't think that Russell went far enough in looking at the moral complexity of the situation. For example, what if, instead of having drugged and raped a little girl, he had run moonshine with his cousin Luke down in Georgia? How would Americans feel if he had jumped the General Lee across the Atlantic into France, then, huh?

Here's the thing: This all happened a long time ago. The girl he assaulted is now a middle-aged woman and has forgiven him. He's not likely to do anything like this ever again. He now has a wife and two young kids who will be probably end up emotionally damaged by this whole thing. It's all very gray and complex.

But he did it. And then he hid in Europe and got away with it for a long, long time. But now he got caught, which is something that he knew was a possibility all along. He gamed the system for 30 years, but that's over now. And we can't change the rules just because he's a Holocaust survivor or because his wife was murdered by religious idiots or because that one scene in Rosemary's Baby with the weird chanting is so creepy and always gives me chills.

Sucks for him and his family, I'm sure. But I'll bet it also sucks for a 13-year-old girl to get raped by a 45-year-old man. Life is full of unpleasantness, and the passage of time doesn't always insulate you from horrible things you did a long time ago, or so I gather from this one movie I saw once.

That said, I think Hillary Clinton should seriously consider fighting to have Polanski returned to his home in France. No good Democrat should ever pass up such a brilliant opportunity to let a nonsensical non-issue like this fuck up everything for everyone.

* If you don't rebuild, the Jedis win. They hate our way of life.

* This article here says that people's faith in the accuracy in news reporting has hit its lowest point in two decades. But, you know, I don't fucking believe that shit.

* Sen, Robert Byrd just wants to protect young gay men from getting molested by Julius Ceasar. Or something.

* Majority of doctors found to be socialist scum.

* Double-Yoo Tee Eff, ACORN? If you're going to be corrupt, do you have to be moronic about it, too?

The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Instead, why not choke down some fucking shirtless emo vampires? Enjoy.

However, I'll pretty annoyed if Mark Sanford starts elbowing his way into my Zooey Deschanel fantasies now and refusing to leave.

I'd rather him just stay put in my Mark Sanford fantasies. (Must he be in all the fantasies?)

* Keith Olbermann predicts zombies in America's future.

* An open letter to Old People from Young People: "We don't want to kill you."

* Jesus fired from Kentucky Office of Homeland Security.

* What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to keep your Conan the Barbarian sword in the governor's office.

* Ugh! I don't wanna read The Death Book. Can't I just wait for The Death Movie to come out?

Well, put on your sleeping cap and your sleeping cuff links, because mystery solved!

Firas Alkhateeb, a senior history major at the University of Illinois, crafted the picture of Obama with the recognizable clown makeup using Adobe's Photoshop software…

Using a tutorial he'd found online about how to "Jokerize" portraits, he downloaded the October 23 Time Magazine cover of Obama and began digitally painting over it.

Firas Alkhateeb? I don't know, man. That's kind of a terroristy-sounding name. I'm not sure how I feel about the creator of the defining image of the conservative movement having a name that sounds like his family originally came from some other country.

Well, at least we know he hates socialism. So, he can't be all bad. ('Cause all those Middle Eastern countries are socialist, right? "Socialism" means "evil," doesn't it?)

[A] still-anonymous rogue famously found his image, digitally removed the references to Time Magazine, captioned the picture with the word "socialism" and hung printed copies around L.A., making headlines.

"It really doesn't make any sense to me at all," he said. "To accuse him of being a socialist is really… immature. First of all, who said being a socialist is evil?"

Aw, man. This guy is certainly no Joe the Plumber, I'll tell you that.

But, at the very least. We know that he likes mocking the president, so he's gotta be a good conservative. (Maybe we can salvage something here.)

"I think he's definitely doing better than Bush was," Alkhateeb said of Obama. Alkhateeb's views on foreign relations align with the Democrats, he said, while he prefers Republican ideals on domestic issues…

Alkhateeb's assessment of Obama: "In terms of domestic policy, I don't think he's really doing much good for the country right now," he said. "We don't have to 'hero worship' the guy."

If he had to choose a politician to support, Alkhateeb said, it would be Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

Ah, fuck this. Let's check out Fox News. Maybe Glenn Beck is crying again.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced the first 25 film and television productions to qualify for California's production incentive, less than a month after the state started accepting applications for the funds…

The state's five-year, $500 million tax credit program covers 20% of below-the-line expenses for productions of up to $75 million. It can be sweetened to 25% of expenses for indie feature productions of up to $10 million — and for all existing TV shows that relocate to California. The state Legislature approved the production incentive program in February as part of a massive package of $12 billion in tax hikes.

I don't know. This all seems like a bad idea to me. I can't even begin to imagine what good could possibly come from this reckless gambit…

The list has several recognizable feature projects including "Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2" [and] "Naked Gun 4"…

What can I say? I have never been more wrong in my life.

Thank you, Governor Schwarzenegger, for ensuring continued meaning in an otherwise harsh and unfriendly universe.