So along with Jon Stewart's rally happening this Saturday, there will be a smaller group of people planning to march - they being young federal employees fed up with their reputations as loafers and losers.

Organizers call it the "Government Doesn't Suck March," but I prefer to call it "The Tepid Rally to Restore Self-Esteem and Show Off My New Vintage T-shirt," - for it's a reaction to the nearly universal disgust we hold for people who ride desks in government.

And so, these "web-savvy feds," as the Washington Post calls them, feel bad that the rest of us hate them - and think the best way to make people like them, is to attach themselves to a more popular figure: Jon Stewart.

According to Steve Ressler, who's running the thing, the goal of the march is to "remind the world that government employees.... are a lot of cool cats" - and, as the Post points out - they're folks who work hard, listen to good music and watch "The Daily Show."

Cool cats indeed. Awesome, daddyo. Anyway, that one quote tells you everything you need to know about these federal employees - they are just earnest libs desperate for approval from the "other cool cats." And by cats, I think they mean sheep.

And so they'll march on Saturday, to "raise awareness" that their IPODS are jammed with Lady Gaga, and that they get their politics from the mainstream media-approved Stewart.

I expect much fist-bumping.

Look, here's a rule to live by: if you ever have to organize a rally to tell people you're "cool," chances are, you're not. Instead - stay home, and thank God you've got a job, for now.

Because if the public ever needed a reason to shrink government, this has to be it.

And if you disagree with me you're a racist homophobic gagaphobe.

So I've been working on a book proposal, but going nowhere. I start the thing, then I stop. Instead of loafing around- I move into a more deceptive realm: I pretend to do something.

In the old days, this was called "sloth." We used to link sloth with lying around in one's own filth. But that's wrong. I read a bunch on sloth - which, I know, may defeat the purpose of sloth - but, according to Daniel Rosenberg, in a magazine called Cabinet, sloth was originally defined as "unregulated curiosity." That sloppy need ends up as pointless work - which is worse than doing nothing, because you think you're doing something.

You know that guy you know who has a crapload going on - from decoupage to reiki therapy - but he's always broke? If you tell him to focus, he'll tell you he does more in a week than you do in a month. But nothing he does matters - he just created a schedule to make distractions seem important. They're called adult education classes.

In my mind, hyperactivity - whether it's a disorder or just a description of the boastful multitasker - is just sloth reinvented. "I can't focus," everyone says, popping the orange pill. Adderall was not just a cure for a biological ill, but also a weakened will. Willing yourself to attempt a small project -and see it all the way through - is braver than tackling that screenplay and abandoning it at page 12. (it's always page 12).

Worse, the richest people in America have made their cash creating machinery for sloth. Facebook was made to replicate college life - four years of sloth disguised as learning. I learned nothing from college - except how to projectile vomit.

I write this as someone who sits behind a desk doing lots of things. But it's sloth. I will never call it multitasking. You cannot do more than one thing at once, without, in the end accomplishing a few things very badly.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic gut-ophobe.

So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally anti-American?

Let's face it: they didn't fire Juan Williams for expressing an independent opinion, they fired Juan Williams for expressing an independent opinion that didn't jibe with theirs. And it was worse, because he did it on Fox News - two words that bring a pained sneer across the faces of the already contorted NPR listener.

But, hell, everyone can see NPR's duplicity. They never police their lefty employees, and suddenly, Juan Williams is fired? If it wasn't because of his views, what was it then? Was it because he's black? Or because he's black and didn't do what he was told?

Anyway, I'm one of the few to say, keep funding NPR.

Because if we don't, they go away.

And we can't have that. We need them around to remind ourselves what subsidized failure looks like. As long as NPR drones listlessly on, we can point to it and say, "yeah, we're letting them live."

It's like allowing the drunk at the pub to wipe down the tables for pocket change. It's more out of pity, than anything.

Which leads me to that thing with Rachel Maddow. Remember, she accused a man of having advanced knowledge of the Oklahoma bombing. When exposed for her error, she blamed it on an "editing" mistake - and then angrily mocked those who corrected her.

If you want to see the face of the angry and the entitled, that was it. How else can you explain someone assuming her mistakes are above reproach?

But hey - what do you expect from someone who had a heads-up on 9/11?

(I kid, Rachel - we'll fix that in edit)

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, editphobe.

So, NPR canned Juan Williams (yeah, like I wasn't gunna do this story). If you aren't familiar with NPR, simply imagine yourself, on a bus, sitting next to Judd Hirsch.

Anyway, it's all due to comments Juan made on the "The O'Reilly Factor," last Monday. There Bill asked him to respond to "The cold truth [that] jihad, aided ...by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet."

Williams replied, "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot....But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Racist.

He also brought up the Times Square scumbag - who had no problem saying that the war with America is just beginning.

But as Slate points out, that the passage quoted by NPR was a spoonfed clip that dumps out before Williams says his worry reflects the problem of generalizing about groups of people.

I doubt Media Matters will cover that.

But anyway, you could say NPR fired him for being honest. For saying what everyone with a brain is thinking (which eliminates Media Matters).

But I think they fired him for being interesting. That's a huge rule-breaker on NPR - a substance that makes Ambien feel like Adderall.

But as for the firing, it's really just another feather in the hypocritical cap called tolerance. Who wears that cap? Well, those on the left who believe everyone is entitled to their views - unless of course, they aren't their views.

And, of course, this is the same media who avoids anything that might upset Muslims - a group they tell us we shouldn't fear. Yet, they're silent about Mohammed cartoons and fatwas on female cartoonists. That's the real stinker: while Juan explained his nervousness about Islam, he only mentioned what those cowards in the media feels, but denies.

So they canned him.

Which should be a feather in his cap.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic featherphobe.

If there's one word I'm sick of these days, it's "outreach." It's always used in sentences and leaflets that imply the general public isn't doing enough to "reach out" to specific groups - whether they be differentiated by sexual orientation, race, height, back hair, or -in my case - gorgeousness.

But what I really hate most about "outreach?" It allows folks access to places that a schmuck like me can never get into.

Look - I'm a decent guy. No prison record. No weird tattoos. I don't cross-dress (anymore). Yet I've never lunched as a guest at the Pentagon, in the name of "outreach."

But get this: the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list has.

Yep, according to documents obtained by Fox News, Anwar AL-Awlaki - the dude that seems to be involved in every act of terror, was taken to the Pentagon as part of an outreach attempt to the Muslim community - right after 9/11.

A Defense Department employee arranged the meeting, after "being impressed by this imam."

And why not. He was considered a "moderate Muslim," who condemned al qaeda and terror attacks. And of course, the Pentagon was "eager" to have him around, to show we don't hate them all.

And that's the mistake. Awlaki was interviewed at least four times by the FBI right after 9/11, because of his ties to the hijackers. How does that make him a moderate? It doesn't - but - allegedly none of the FBI's info was given to the Pentagon. Awesome.

Anyway, the guy's already been linked to the Ft. Hood shooter, the Christmas day bomber and the Times Square loser Faisal Shahzad. And now, in all likelihood he's hiding out, planning something worse.

Maybe if we invited him to lunch, he'd tell us all about it!

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic terrorphobe!

Tonight:

John Gibson!

Patti Anne Browne!

comedian Jason Kantor

and other stuff

So it's a fracas in France, with protesters throwing stones and smashing windows. Oil workers and garbage men are striking, causing a shortage of fuel, but no shortage of trash.

Let's go to a protester, teacher Lidwine Mure, to explain :

"It's important to come out because France wouldn't be what it is today if the generations that came before us hadn't taken to the streets."

And...what is France today?

It's bankrupt, Lidwine.

And...what's driving this heroic protest? Oppression? Fascism? Threat of war?

no - vacations. Really.

You know how folks in France enjoy not working for really long periods of time? Well, it turns out that, after a while - when you don't work, you can no longer pay for stuff - like the pensions that allow you to loaf around.

The protesters are trying to stop a bill that would raise retirement age from 60 to 62. Yeah - 62 - still pretty much the youngest retirement age anywhere. But workers feel it'll ruin a good time- including the long playful summers, subsidized health care, free berets and mime welfare.

So France is now rediscovering capitalism and fiscal conservatism, for they have seen the future and its name is Greece.

Hence this convulsive reaction by the public - which I'd like to think is simply because they're French.

But I know better. This is what happens when you give something to someone, and then - in order to survive - try to take it away.

We were wrong: Taking candy from a baby is actually a bitch.

And only the truly ballsy can pull that off. Sarkozy - bless him - has more balls than a McDonalds play pit.

But you don't need Dionne Warwick to foresee America's coming tantrum: just look to the land of French bread and hairy armpits.

Thankfully, I also see a Sarkozy marinating in Jersey. We'll be needing him soon.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobic francophobe.

Gregalogue to arrive shortly!

also - catch me on Strategy Room, at 1:45 pm!

So according to Maureen Dowd, we're seeing a rising tide of vicious bullying this political season - the kind you might see in high school, when "teenage tormentors" would "spread rumors that you were pregnant."

Oh how I hated that.

For Dowd, these new "Republican Mean Girls," are angry, aggressive women who are angry and aggressive. And mean.

Why not just call them bitches?

Anyway, to the irony. Here Mo laments the evils of smearing women - right before doing essentially the same thing. In a way, she becomes that cliched head cheerleader who always supports the loutish jock. "You better leave him alone, or I'll say you banged the gym teacher under the grandstands!"

Funny thing is - I did. I always did.

But Dowd's biggest blind spot? She writes this column only a week after Meg Whitman was called a whore -and - after the California NOW chief said "whore" was an apt description.

But none of that made her column.

Odd.

So, how is callng a lady a whore not seen as mean, but Sharon Angle asking Harry Reid to "man up," is? I'd ask for an explanation, but that might be too mean.

It's also just too funny seeing Dowd go after Angle for being aggro - in a debate. It's what you do in a debate, sister.

But maybe Mo thinks Reid can't defend himself, or that a debate is just no place for chicks.

And so women's worst enemy are always women. And the media eggs this girl-on-girl action on - but only in one direction, of course. See Meghan McCain, yet again - being asked her opinion on a Republican lady.

<http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/17/finally-george-will-vs-meghan-mccain-on-the-tea-party-movement/>

Eloquent.

Yep: when you're looking for a chick to bang on a conservative chick, you can always count on double M. She criticizes O'Donnell for being inexperienced -and I, for one, totally back Meg on this. She may be the foremost authority.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobic tyrannophobe.

So, according to someone who "auditioned" for Barack Obama's town hall on MTV, Thursday afternoon, the organizers wanted "light" questions.

I.e. softballs.

This fact came from Nick Seaver, writing at the liberal AMERICAblog, who failed at his casting call because he didn't come up with anything they liked.

I watched the thing, and yeah, it had more softballs than Elena Kagan's closet.

From what I gather, these cherry-picked students, which are supposed to reflect young America - only care about issues that make Obama seem like a caring sensitive dad: anti-bully, gay rights, race issues, and stuff about "political rhetoric" - a jab at Obama haters. Oh yea - don't' forget "environmental justice," whatever that is. Sure, a tea party question popped up, but Obama managed even to nail them, if only a little.

Yep, this thing was more choreographed than the back alley sequence in West Side Story (scene five, 11 pm).

But no hard stuff at all. If you looked up the definition of soft, you'd find a picture of this crowd. They didn't speak truth to power, they gave it a back rub.

Of course, that's because the audience, like Obama, tilts to the left. The overarching message: Obama's awesome, and his opposition are stupid meanies who are stupid and mean.

In a question on worsening race relations, Obama mentions economically troubled folks "organizing itself around a tribal attitude."

Anyway, I think it's totally cool for students to hold these silly opinions. After all, they aren't yet in the real world.

But our President?

Yikes.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobic verbophobe.

So, in a blinding feat of profound wussiness, the Washington Post removed the October 3rd "Non Sequitur" cartoon from its rag. The reason? It mentioned Muhammad. Let me repeat: it was yanked because it "mentioned" � not showed � Muhammad.


There wasn't a picture of him in the strip.


But the Post, and some other papers, still pulled it.


Admirably, Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander asked his Style editor why- and he said, "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." He added that "the point of the joke was not immediately clear."


Yeah. That's why you did it: ambiguity. Weasel.


And here we see another float in the parade of pussies � a callow editor making a cowardly decision based on a fear of upsetting religious fanatics (a fear he cannot even admit to coworkers).


Which leads me to my only point. Why is it that the media keeps reminding us that we shouldn't exaggerate the threat of a small group of radicals � but completely changes tack, when it comes to their own personal safety?


Think about it: if the average Joe expresses fear or anxiety over Islamic fundamentalism, they are called Islamophobes. But if an editor with balls the size of electrons removes a comic in which Muhammad isn't even present � that's not honest-to-Allah Islamophobia?


No, that's just being sensitive.


Look, the media can't have it both ways. They cannot criticize the public for concerns over Islam, and then eradicate anything in their midst that they perceive might elevate their risk for getting stabbed buying a chai latte at Starbucks. If their governing principle in the newsroom is fear, then they should admit it � and get the hell off our backs for feeling the same way.


And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic Islamophobic bathophobe.

So, while the world fixated on "important" matters like trapped miners and political debates, a more monumental event took place: David Arquette and the chick from Friends separated.

Yep. This news sent shock waves through my soul, as I could only wonder if a drill bit existed that could extricate Mr. Arquette from the deep, deep hole his mouth dragged him into.

I speak of his interview with Howard Stern a few days ago. In it, Arquette spilled the beans on his marital troubles. He told the world that his wife initiated the separation, quoting her telling him, "I don't want to be your mother anymore." He then confessed they didn't have sex for five months and that after they split up -he had casual sex with "the girl in the paper." He differentiated sex with her and sex with his wife, in a manner that did him no favors.

You can find what he said, here.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/10/12/david-arquette-courteney-cox-separation-howard-stern-interview/

And so the disarming, goofy actor made the biggest mistake a married man could ever make: he was honest.

You see, people, there all sorts of secret societies: the freemasons, the Hibernians, the illuminati, the modern Woodman of America, and of course, the Order of the Fist - which I belonged to until an accident led to a very awkward afternoon in the ER.

But the most secretive group I know are married people, and even if you tried, you could not find a single book or pamphlet which reveals what married life is like for those involved. Instead, we see the courtship, the giant wedding album, the romantic bliss of a honeymoon � and then we wave bye-bye to the couple forever, leaving them on that mysterious island of matrimony.

But for a brief, idiotic moment, Arquette performed a selfless service, and pulled back the curtain of couplehood for everyone to see �� and by doing so, might have doomed his own marriage.

This pretty much makes up for Scream 2 and Scream 3.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, malaxophobe.