Satan Also Against a Flat Tax.

Sometimes I wonder if I have it in me to update this site with enough humor and wit to keep y'all coming back. It is a real challenge with a full time job and Ginny out of town for two weeks. Thank God for my homeboys in Utah; they always come through in the clutch. I could spend a month on a post and not come up with something this funny.

Thanks guys, I couldn't do this without you.

The Douche Bag Responds

I received an email from the one and only Dinesh D'souza in response to yesterday's post.


I admit it, Dinesh: you got me. My post wasn't exactly logical. I sacrificed cogent reasoning and took analytical short cuts in my quest for humor. Hell, that wasn't really even the ontological argument. But here's the thing, Dinesh: It was funny. And the strange thing is, your stuff is also chock full of logical errors, poor reasoning and deliberately dishonest arguments. I can only assume that you, like me, aren't really serious. The problem is, Dinesh -- and I hate to be the one to break this to you – you’re not funny.

But take heart, friend. Maybe there's an opening at the Half Hour News Hour for you. I'm almost positive that being funny is a not a requirement for employment there.

Dinesh D’Souza: Ontological Douche Bag.

Never one to pass up the chance to exploit a national tragedy for his own twisted agenda, Dinesh D’Souza’s latest diatribe lambastes atheists for being unable to find meaning in the Virginia Tech shootings. He says atheists simply can’t explain that level of ghastly horror. Well, I’m going to take him up on his challenge by examining a source of awfulness a little closer to home: The douche bag that is Dinesh D’Souza.

Impossible you say, there is no way to find meaning in D’Souza’s contemptible shtick. Damn it, this is an important experiment, just hear me out.

You see, I have a theory that Dinesh’s mind bogglingly repulsive behavior is actually part of a heroic plan to sacrifice his own human decency to prove the existence of God through his version of the ontological argument.

As far as I can tell the argument goes something like this:

Premise 1. I can imagine the most perfectly reprehensible vindictive douche bag there is.

Premise 2. Dinesh D’Souza actually is the most perfectly reprehensible vindictive douche bag that it is possible to imagine.

Premise 3. Only a perfect creator could create such a perfect douche bag.

Premise 4. Dinesh D’Souza exists.

Conclusion: God must therefore exist because of the utter perfection of Dinesh D’Souza’s douche baggery.

Sadly, the ontological argument actually doesn’t prove anything other than the contents of one’s own mind, so the only thing D’Souza ends up proving is that, in his mind, God is as big a douche bag as he is.