Data collected from a recent questionnaire given to freshmen college students suggests the self-esteem of our nation’s young people is rising, while their merits and achievements are steadily declining. Consider the implications: increased self-esteem accompanied by decreased test scores and marketable skills equals…well, just peruse the better part of the Daily Discord contributor list.

Let’s consider a case study of our own Little Johnny, a normal all-American child with an idyllic upbringing. Johnny’s parents taught him that he was a very special child. Under the guidance of social workers, his parents made their whole world revolve around Johnny. He was very well provided for–whatever Johnny wanted, Johnny got.

Good job, Johnny.

Johnny’s psychologist told his parents and teachers that Johnny’s anxiety and anger were triggered by unusually harsh demands being placed on him and by being told “no”, the other “n” word as Johnny’s parents now refer to it. Johnny’s school stopped imposing consequences on Johnny for his aggressive outbursts; instead his teachers now give him stickers, prizes, and toys, whenever Johnny goes an hour without assaulting anyone.

Good job, Johnny.

The school no longer uses the word ‘teacher’ when describing their relationship with Johnny. You see, the word ‘teacher’ implies that this person is hierarchically ‘better’ than Johnny. This phrasing could hurt Johnny’s feelings by making him feel inferior. In order to best bolster Johnny’s self-esteem, whenever we document or discuss our interactions with Johnny we will now be replacing the phrase ‘Johnny refused to follow his teacher’s directions’ with ‘Johnny chose to reconsider his associate’s suggestions.’

Good job, Johnny.

Other refined words and phrases:

Johnny’s school doesn’t believe in failure, or the “f” word as his teachers now refer to it, so Johnny will be graduating high school with honors even though he can’t construct a grammatically correct sentence or add without using a calculator.

Good job, Johnny.

And Johnny’s a great athlete. He sits on his bean bag chair for hours playing football, boxing, baseball, and hockey. He’s destined for greatness. Johnny’s also a Navy Seal, a Ninja, a Supreme Allied Commander, and sometimes even a grand auto thief.

Good job, Johnny.

On Facebook Johnny is the producer, director, and star of his very own personal reality TV show called ‘Everybody Loves Johnny.’ He’s very popular. He has thousands of friends.

Good job, Johnny.

Johnny’s extraordinary talents don’t translate well into the normal workforce. A person of Johnny’s caliber doesn’t perform well when other people tell him what to do. Good thing that Johnny can make more money by not working. Johnny’s caseworker is helping him obtain social service benefits, medical assistance, behavioral health coverage and welfare. Johnny might even find a scholarship for college. I think that Johnny will be very successful.

Good job, Johnny.

Johnny’s story should inspire us all. No longer do we need to be burdened over stressful standards of achievement and personal responsibility. Just like Johnny, we’re entitled to access all the glories of greatness without ever having to leave the comforts of our government subsidized home.

Good job, society.

Arguing with you is fun, Pokey, but occasionally has a banging-your-head-against-the-wall feel to it. We find ourselves in two different camps these days. I used to think I was slightly left and you were slightly right so our arguments were hashing out some important middle ground. Alas, today it seems like there is a universe between us. Bridging that widening gap is possible, we just need to find a way to…oh, wait, I’m being told Congress has blocked funding for any Gaps or any bridges…uh, yeah, we’re screwed.  

Point 1: The government spends tax money on activities that may well conflict with one’s conscience:

This first point is its own debate. I hope to coordinate with you soon about this. Suffice to say, you’re wrong. So for now everyone kindly allocate one point to me and let’s move on.org.

Point 2: The IRS Targeted Republican Groups: (All Pokey quotes snatched from his last post, here)

Pokey: You flippantly justified IRS agents targeting conservative groups by writing, “Its group wanted to shut down the agency that I work for and they were looking for a tax break to do it, ‘Uh, oops what happened to that application?” The same thing probably happened to those emails. This statement of yours, Zano, shows your argument’s flaw and the essential the flaw in your evaluation of the Obama administration.

Zano: Um, no.  I have said all along this is a very real scandal….for the IRS. I am dismissive of this as an Obama scandal, because last time I checked the IRS is not part of the Obama Administration. I have no problem holding these people accountable, or my quote:

“Am I excusing the IRS’s behavior? Certainly not—heads should roll and will,” 5/13

My hypothetical IRS worker self should be fired, but keep in mind most people despise the tea party. The extreme right will find an uphill battle for all of their battles, because they’re starting in an ideological valley, which is more of a pit dug out from under an outhouse.  

[Patrioturd comment flushed by the editor]

I kid out of love. 

I think it will be a tough conviction even for the IRS, because the law is too vague. Again, that’s not to say Congress won’t endlessly try for some convictions—what else do they have to do?—but the law itself allowed for these shenanigans.  This is no small point. It’s probably another unwritten fringe benefit to holding the presidency. Obama tried to tighten that law. On that note, I have a rare retraction. Whereas I predicted Obama would tighten this law, he only proposed to, but republicans blocked it in Congress.

Shock poll: no one shocked by this.

Whereas Fox News is always wrong and doesn’t bother with retractions, I do retractions even when I guess something wrong. Spoof is King!

The GOP doesn’t want to stop this practice; they don’t want to govern. They’re only interested in making political hay from this political horseshit. They are solely motivated to impeach Barack Obama for reasons they can’t quite articulate. Besides, Obama will not be linked to this scandal, because:

A.) There really is no direct or even indirect connection to The White House or:

B.) Obama is smarter than anyone trying to catch him (Meep, meep).

Calling it a scandal before proving any wrongdoing is:

Fox News: Fair Balanced and Unafraid Fairly Unbalanced and Making You Afraid

Pokey: The Tea Party didn’t just want to shut down the IRS, it wanted to shut down the Obama Presidency as a whole. So by your very “reasoning” (quotes added to incite annoyance), you would look the other way (which you are obviously doing). There is real wrongdoing if the Obama Administration gave the signal to its thugs to target his political adversaries.

Zano: Okay, so even if Obama had a *good motive* (asterisk added to give the illusion of grammatical prowess), it doesn’t imply guilt. Again, when we discuss presidential scandals the operative word is “presidential*.

(Hey, I think I’m getting the hang of this!)

So I ask again, why did Bush do this? Why is solid evidence surfacing that this practice has gone on for decades, here? Republicans refuse to discuss anything meaningful, because they are too busy blocking any real reform. Besides, their propaganda business is percolating. I realize covering only the truth would be a tough transition for Fox News, I mean, what would they do with the other 23 hours?  Back in the day, when I covered Bush scandals, I didn’t have to guesstrapolate with Sean Insanity. I don’t remember Keith Olbermann going, “Where was Monica Lewinsky during the Bush years? Hmmm. Our president is a male, so he had the motive….oh, there’s no evidence? Well, just add this to Bush’s scandal list anyway. I’m sure W was blowing some Dick in the Oval Office.”

[Cheney joke omitted by the editor]

Point 3: Let’s Placate the Terrorists:

Pokey: My point was not to complain about Obama’s refusal to call a “terrorist” a “terrorist”. I complained that by blaming the terrorist attack on a video, the administration emboldened our enemies, which we have obviously been doing throughout the Obama Presidency.

Zano: So terrorists weren’t emboldened when they flew planes into our buildings, but they’re emboldened now because of a successful strike against an outpost in Libya during a power vacuum? Okay.

I don’t think a drone landing on a terrorists’ head and then exploding is within the spirit and meaning of the word placate. I assume you prefer the Cheney model for battling terror, aka, attack the wrong country for the purpose of shady contract kickbacks (trickle-drone economics?).

Pokey: The Obama Administration was directed to blame the attack on the video rather than the people who did the attacking. The video was “hateful and offensive” (Susan Rice), “reprehensible and disgusting” (Jay Carney), “disgusting and reprehensible” (Hillary Clinton, who should have used a thesaurus), and “two thumbs down” (Siskel and Ebert). And these are just the responses to your last post, Zano (ba dum bump).

Zano: Okay, there is mounting evidence the person who organized the attacks cited the video as a reason to move up the attack date. But, hey, let’s ignore what the guy who planned the attack said and, instead, focus on republican theories (hint: those who dated the apocalypse as occurring pre-2014, have a better record at prognosticating).

Pokey: The administration should never have mentioned the video as being a fault in the attack. That’s making an excuse. What was the cause of the Benghazi attack? Plain and simple, it was Islamic fascists. I don’t care how they justify their violence.

Zano: The master planner of the embassy attack is in custody. A republican president would have let the guy slip away and then invaded Jordan. You are mistaking couth with weakness. We used to talk all the time about how the Bush/Cheney—and now Netanyahu—model only foments hatred, violence and terror. Obama’s approach is being touted by moderate Muslim and Middle East experts as the way to go.  He is trying to win the long game, not each bullshit news cycle.  This is an incoherent approach to republicans, which is your first clue it’s the best course of action.

Pokey: I have speculated that the Obama Administration has embraced the “reprehensible movie” narrative for its own self-serving reasons. I realize that this is just speculation, but it makes the most sense to me. Leading up to the 2012 elections, President Obama was promoting his “we’ve greatly weakened terrorism throughout the world” theme as a prime selling point for his upcoming election. A terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 didn’t fit his PR campaign so he got everybody on board to blame the attack on the video rather than the terrorists. That’s the point Zano, and you’re refusal to accept this point makes you a “denier.”

Zano: I strongly deny that allegation! You are absolutely right, in that Obama didn’t come out and say how this attack epitomizes his failed foreign policy, because it’s:

A. Ridiculous.

B. No politician ever puts things into the worst possible light, ever (see: politicians).

Remember, Bush won the Iraq War in 2003, which is a bit more of a stretch. Frankly, this is semantics. Look, if only four people died on any given day during the Bush Administration, they would have thrown a party. Obama is simply doing what I suggested years ago, utilizing a different and a more targeted approach, which includes cooperating with other governments and using only limited military interventions as a last resort. Capture or kill our enemies without inciting unnecessary violence and recruitment. Is any of this coming back to you? Ultimately the Middle East will be decided by people who live in the Middle East. Nation building and large military campaigns are a joke, not unlike every other solution the GOP supports…uh, on any given topic.

Okay, I usually try to end with a joke…umm, I got nothing. Wait, here’s one, Pokey’s full feature.

I kid out of love…really.

Here we go again. Everything the republicans predicted about Russian tanks in the Ukraine…uh, tanked. Is the Russian Bear on the Prowl? Is a New Cold War Inevitable? Is Obama’s Weakness to Blame? One easy trick to being a wonk these days is to just stick the word NO after each and every Fox or Drudge headline. It’s kind of a trade secret, so shhh. Shock poll: Foxeteers still shocked by this fact. Predictably, Putin never took another step after his Crimean Vacation. To cut to the Chevy Chase, Angela Merkel just spanked him so he’s now sending eCards to Obama. Aren’t you glad you rely on a spoof news site for your actual news? Discord has exclusive info on this world leader teleconference. Hit full story.

This week German Chancellor Angela Merkel laid the Krauthammer down, so to speak, and helped broker a real and hopefully lasting ceasefire in eastern Ukraine. The Discord has exclusive information on what transpired during this historic phone conversation:

Merkel: Vladimir, darling, it’s time for you to take your little guns and tanks and go home.

Putin: But can’t I play just a little longer?

Merkel: Certainly, as long as you don’t mind a much lower allowance.

Putin: Yes, ma’am.

Obama: Hot dang, you go girlfriend!

Merkel: Barack Hussein Obama, hang up this phone immediately! I thought we already talked about this!

Obama: Yes ma’am.

(click)

This conversation, in turn, caused Putin to send Obama some high-end vodka and a little Thinking of You card this week, full story here.  I want to state again for the record, I’m not trying play the I told you so card, but I am trying to play the I’m sure the WWIII thing would have worked out well for a President McCain or a President Romney card.

Key Point: any 21^st century election of a republican president—with absolutely no ties left to something called reality—would spell disaster for this planet. They would spell it wrong, of course.

So a spoof news blogger has more insight than an entire political party? That should be a kick in the teeth…um, if their base had any. Sorry, gotta have some fun. Thankfully, Medicaid Expansion is fixing some of their teeth, here, so maybe I’ll have my chance yet.

I admit this Ukraine scenario started off weird. Republicans say all kinds of dumb shit, every day, incessantly in fact, but typically nothing pans out. It’s like reverse magic, but the invasion of Crimea and Russia’s threatening posture toward Ukraine was predicted by folks like Romney and Palin. In fact, Palin said she could actually see this all unfold from her house. I don’t think anyone could have foreseen the shaky situation in the Ukraine and the co-occuring mess in Moscow that made all of this possible. Never the less, the GOP predicted something that actually happened, on Earth, in this dimension, which is almost unprecedented in the 21st century.

However, as things started to ramp up my message to the republicans was don’t pop your champagne bottles just yet. Remember, even when it looks like that one in ten shot is coming through for them, never underestimate the ability of the GOP to get it wrong.

Coming from a conservative perspective, here is what fellow Discord contributor Pokey McDooris had to say on the matter:

“Remember when President Obama boldly drew that red line in the sand with Syria over the use of chemical weapons only to have Daddy Vladdy step in and take over for Baby Bama? I would suggest to you that Vladimir Putin encouraged Syria to step passed that red line and to call Obama’s bluff. I would also suggest to you that Vladimir Putin has been encouraging Iran to develop a nuclear bomb.”

—Pokey McDooris

(Hint of the Day: coming from a conservative perspective is synonymous with dead wrong):

Remember, they can’t discern chess from checkers or see the forest for the Kievs. Here’s my only retort for that deductive gem:

Syria Disarms, Despite Republican Opposition The Discord got this one right and…uh…that’s about it.

Here was my rebuttal quote at the time:

“Putin’s options suck, especially if he goes one step further. You see, the world runs on something called money—a fact your side insists upon—so the projected long term benefits for Russia, post this little annexation exercise, looks grim. He can’t occupy the Ukraine, easily, and all the other former Soviet borderlands are already sending Angela Merkel flowers and chocolate. It was a fool move, thus the right’s ability to predict it. Republicans have fool moves down to a…oh wait, they don’t believe in science.”

—Mick Zano, Putin Is Not Playing Chess, Crimea Is More of a Fisher-Price Thing

Post the invasion and annexation of Crimea, republicans were convinced a weak Obama had allowed Russia to creep back into a position of power. Of course, nothing could be further from truth (hint: republicans can never be farther from the truth, which is also covered in my Quandumb Mechanics theory and the Zanoberg Principle.

I said, from the beginning, this was a move made from desperation that would ultimately backfire. Putin was never going to come out of this smelling like roses. He did have an opportunity to crash the global economy, for sure, but that was the extent of this “power move”.

Since then—and at least in part because of the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent sanctions—Russia is on the verge of another recession and Putin is receiving the economic message from the rest of world, loud and clear.

I encourage everyone to just take a moment to really absorb each news cycle. Look at each conservative prediction, on any given topic, and then do something they refuse to do, look at what ultimately happened a few weeks or months later. It’s uncanny. If I end up wrong on a major issue, it’s probably going to come when I ignore my instincts and say to myself, naaah, they have to be wrong again. This is very dangerous and may well be by design, but whose? This has been my fear all along, republicans will cover an important truth in a pile of their usual Foxel matter.

…perhaps, but not today.

I believe 21st century Republicans have invented their own reality. The consequences of this can be minimized if we continue to keep them out of office.  Don’t boycott businesses for someone’s religious beliefs! Don’t come down to their level. What you need to do is vote in the mother-blanking midterms, you mooching, socialist hipsters before I slap that PBR out of your hand.