which is pretty much israel's attitude. this guy on al jazeera literally just says, well sure they're suffering, but so what? we've had to put up with bombs that haven't killed anyone in over 6 months, so they should've been starved and frozen and dehydrated to the point that they need medical attention that gaza doesn't have medical supplies for. hey arabs, suck on that!
here's the deal. i'm about 80% sure that israel is going to demand that hamas be removed (or step down) from power. that's probably the goal. hamas getting elected to power in the last elections was the spark for this latest round of battleship. remember the world's reaction? aid money dried up, and israel decided to not hand over tax and customs money that even rightfully belonged to palestine, on the grounds that there's no way the dirty arabs would actually spend it on government. even though that was hamas' strong suit and the reason palestinians picked them in the elections. so mahmoud abbas tried to negotiate a compromise. but hamas felt it had been screwed, and maybe it had, and it wanted what it had won in the election, even if the rest of the world had no intention of letting them have it. so hamas took gaza and fatah took the west bank and the bush administration tried, at least for the cameras, to look like it would reward the good dog. but if you lock someone in a closet and tell them they're not getting food or water or a light bulb until they decide to give the closet to someone else, that shit out of luck soul will start figuring out how to get out of the closet to teach you some fucking manners.
but israel is going to insist on the removal of hamas from power, and total control of palestine for a party that lost the last round of elections. all because the poor saps actually thought a democratic election would be respected. what were they thinking? that palestinian elections were for palestine's benefit? only tikkun thinks that. israel has reserved for itself the right (based on what, i don't know- certainly not international law), to decide that palestinians picked wrong, according to israel's interests. israel is not even going to pretend, in that white man's burden way, to be acting in palestinians' interests when it decides who their leaders will be. which i could respect, if israel didn't act like it has the right to decide who will eat and drink water and get heating fuel and medical supplies based on how they voted. because when you do things that cause deaths to civilian populations because of their political choices, there's a word for that.
this bears saying, maybe even on american television once in a while: there is a group of people in that region, maybe even more than one, that is on its knees at the edge of an existential cliff. but it's not the israelis. and i'd appreciate it if marty peretz could get that thru his george bush cocksucking head. i am actually finally old enough to say that i've seen this before, whether it was late 2000's intifada, or the 2006 war in lebanon. the aerial bombardment and ground troops thing doesn't work. neither, for that matter do katyushas or qassams. but i think (assume) both parties know that by now. i think they're doing this because deep down, the governments (internationally recognized and otherwise) of that region know what the long term solution is, but it involves decisions that can be called political suicide. in the case of yitzahk rabin, it was putting an "assassinate me" sign on his back. you think arafat and abbas didn't learn something from that? you really think anyone from any country is going to take that kind of risk now? then you deserve the stupidity of the talking heads.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
the new low
what dicks. really? you're looking out for tax payers and saving america's auto industry? because it seems to this mere mortal that you're screwing these people (not necessarily in this order):
1- the taxpayers
2- the people who make america's cars
3- the auto industry in general
first of all, maybe the uaw could have caved. but i really don't want to live in a country where a union can be put over a barrel and sodomized with an open umbrella. and how the uaw can now suddenly just agree to shit without a member vote is way past me. it might just be that, instead, the republicans just don't fucking know how unions work.
but here's why these fucktards are screwing us, them, and the cars. they're screwing the taxpayers because a $14 billion loan is alot fucking better than the billions of dollars we'll have to pay in umemployment, food stamps, and medicaid. remember- it's not just the autoworkers. it's everyone who sells the autoworkers shit. it's their grocery stores, their hardware stores, their mortgage institutions, everyfuckingbody. that's alot more unemployed people at a time when anyone with working neurons in the u.s. government wants to desperately keep the jobs that george bush hasn't yet flushed down a toilet with his blow.
the human scumbuckets are also screwing the autoworkers. i love how these anti-centralized economy dickwads are now setting wage caps. call me crazy, but we haven't done that for private sector employees since nixon's price setting. these southern dixies have decided that this is truly the best moment to make belonging to a union useless. it relieves the pressure on the manufacturers in their states (mostly foreign car companies, mind you) to raise wages. manufacturers, i might add, that these mule-raping cross burners were more than happy to woo to their jurisdictions with so much cash (in the form of tax benefits, mostly) it was like toyota was a stripper and richard shelby was howard stern.
and the auto industry. now, as someone who doesn't own a car- which is a truly stupid thing to do in new york fucking city, i tolerate the auto industry because i've been able to drive a toyota prius once. and i drove around on business for three fucking days and went through maybe a 1/4 tank of gas. i liked that (btw, don't go for the full tank option when you have a hybrid- just get the option to only refill what you burned- and ALWAYS get the loss/damage waiver. that's another story). i don't understand our national desire to fucking drive everywhere, or to live in neighborhoods where that's the only option. that's always struck me as a sign of a true dumbass. but u.s. automakers do employ a shitload of people who i'd like to keep on their payrolls instead of on the dole. dealerships also employ a shitload of people. as well as the people who supply u.s. cars' parts. as well as everyone who does something for autoworkers that make union wages. and general clark may be right- maybe we should keep people manufacturing at u.s. owned plants- plants we may need during wartime. i don't know if our use of auto plants to make ww2 war shit can be redone for today's war shit. what i do know is that before the gm plant in janesville, wisconsin, closed, the people who worked there were proud of what they did. they were proud to own gm cars. in fact, old-time janesville residents made a point of owning gm cars. they were proud to work for a u.s. automaker. not because they hated japanese people, but because they were proud of what america could do. with the exception of homes, i don't know of any other manufactured product that people are so proud to make.
the u.s. auto industry doesn't have to die just because some senate republicans would like to help the foreign manufacturers currently working in their home states (until some other state lures them away). the auto industry had just secured some useful concessions from the uaw, freeing itself from future retiree burdens. what we need to do is remind the u.s. auto industry that if they're so near and dear to our hearts that we won't let them fail, then they need to feel the same for us. we need cars that emit less co2. we need cars that stop making smog. we need smaller cars. we need more buses. like the auto industry, we too are too big to fail. and it's u.s. automakers that would receive the help necessary to make the cars americans really need. i love hondas, but the u.s. government has no business giving honda money. that's for japan to do.
okay, maybe i'm being a little idealistic. maybe i have this idea in my head that u.s. automakers would be more interested in serving the general public than in manufacturing some highly profitable machine and creating consumer demand for it by convincing americans that they need tons of space and gadgets they'll never use. i know. but they're u.s. automakers- they fall under our jurisdiction. if we're going to be reminded that we need to help them out sporadically, we can remind them that they're supposed to act in america's interest, at least until the checks clear.
1- the taxpayers
2- the people who make america's cars
3- the auto industry in general
first of all, maybe the uaw could have caved. but i really don't want to live in a country where a union can be put over a barrel and sodomized with an open umbrella. and how the uaw can now suddenly just agree to shit without a member vote is way past me. it might just be that, instead, the republicans just don't fucking know how unions work.
but here's why these fucktards are screwing us, them, and the cars. they're screwing the taxpayers because a $14 billion loan is alot fucking better than the billions of dollars we'll have to pay in umemployment, food stamps, and medicaid. remember- it's not just the autoworkers. it's everyone who sells the autoworkers shit. it's their grocery stores, their hardware stores, their mortgage institutions, everyfuckingbody. that's alot more unemployed people at a time when anyone with working neurons in the u.s. government wants to desperately keep the jobs that george bush hasn't yet flushed down a toilet with his blow.
the human scumbuckets are also screwing the autoworkers. i love how these anti-centralized economy dickwads are now setting wage caps. call me crazy, but we haven't done that for private sector employees since nixon's price setting. these southern dixies have decided that this is truly the best moment to make belonging to a union useless. it relieves the pressure on the manufacturers in their states (mostly foreign car companies, mind you) to raise wages. manufacturers, i might add, that these mule-raping cross burners were more than happy to woo to their jurisdictions with so much cash (in the form of tax benefits, mostly) it was like toyota was a stripper and richard shelby was howard stern.
and the auto industry. now, as someone who doesn't own a car- which is a truly stupid thing to do in new york fucking city, i tolerate the auto industry because i've been able to drive a toyota prius once. and i drove around on business for three fucking days and went through maybe a 1/4 tank of gas. i liked that (btw, don't go for the full tank option when you have a hybrid- just get the option to only refill what you burned- and ALWAYS get the loss/damage waiver. that's another story). i don't understand our national desire to fucking drive everywhere, or to live in neighborhoods where that's the only option. that's always struck me as a sign of a true dumbass. but u.s. automakers do employ a shitload of people who i'd like to keep on their payrolls instead of on the dole. dealerships also employ a shitload of people. as well as the people who supply u.s. cars' parts. as well as everyone who does something for autoworkers that make union wages. and general clark may be right- maybe we should keep people manufacturing at u.s. owned plants- plants we may need during wartime. i don't know if our use of auto plants to make ww2 war shit can be redone for today's war shit. what i do know is that before the gm plant in janesville, wisconsin, closed, the people who worked there were proud of what they did. they were proud to own gm cars. in fact, old-time janesville residents made a point of owning gm cars. they were proud to work for a u.s. automaker. not because they hated japanese people, but because they were proud of what america could do. with the exception of homes, i don't know of any other manufactured product that people are so proud to make.
the u.s. auto industry doesn't have to die just because some senate republicans would like to help the foreign manufacturers currently working in their home states (until some other state lures them away). the auto industry had just secured some useful concessions from the uaw, freeing itself from future retiree burdens. what we need to do is remind the u.s. auto industry that if they're so near and dear to our hearts that we won't let them fail, then they need to feel the same for us. we need cars that emit less co2. we need cars that stop making smog. we need smaller cars. we need more buses. like the auto industry, we too are too big to fail. and it's u.s. automakers that would receive the help necessary to make the cars americans really need. i love hondas, but the u.s. government has no business giving honda money. that's for japan to do.
okay, maybe i'm being a little idealistic. maybe i have this idea in my head that u.s. automakers would be more interested in serving the general public than in manufacturing some highly profitable machine and creating consumer demand for it by convincing americans that they need tons of space and gadgets they'll never use. i know. but they're u.s. automakers- they fall under our jurisdiction. if we're going to be reminded that we need to help them out sporadically, we can remind them that they're supposed to act in america's interest, at least until the checks clear.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
so they're collateral damage, right?
if you are related to these people, just go read something else. this will justifiably piss you off. but it needs to be said. so just keep browsing.
well, turns out we do body counts after all. they just have to be american bodies. will the military treat these people like the afghanis they killed in august? will we hear that this family was from the animal liberation front? will we hear that the number three is an inflated number, because the san diego locals aren't entirely reliable (or able to count)? will their deaths be tragic, but necessary for our freedoms?
no. the military will compensate the families, and maybe even spank the motherfucker who decided "fuck this shit" before ejecting to leave his plane to crash into civilians. the military will fall all over itself redressing this shit. first of all, because san diego is a major major military town. don't believe me? fuckin' go there. second, san diego is not a war zone, so alot of "journalists" will have access to the locals. third, and maybe most important, the locals speak the same language as the "journalists", and the viewers, and will most likely be the same skin color and religion as the "journalists" and the viewers. don't think that matters? then wtf rock have you been living under? the big one in australia? fuckin' figures.
this will be a goddamned tragedy that the military swears it will take all steps to prevent from ever, ever, happening again. everyone will go on about how sorry the pilot was that he might have hurt someone, and how this really cuts him up, and he can't sleep at night, and fucking so on. there will be no denials of a single goddamn detail, or a single goddamned denial of how fucked up it is that a military plane's pilot can just abandon an f-18 without first making sure it won't hit someone else. there will be no comparison to when the military purposely fires on civilian areas, killing dozens, and claiming it's all okay 'cause they got a few taliban, who had some nerve hiding somewhere difficult to just bomb without killing others. the military will not claim that fighting terrorists trumps your ability to live out the day in your own home. nope.
since no one, no one, else will call these deaths the proper u.s. military name for them, i will: they're collateral damage. freebies. gimmes. people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time (without even knowing it) and paid for it with their lives. people who had the nerve to think they were safe and deserved to be. people who thought staying out of trouble meant it wouldn't crash into the house. if only we really applied this definition, we might rethink how often we use it.
well, turns out we do body counts after all. they just have to be american bodies. will the military treat these people like the afghanis they killed in august? will we hear that this family was from the animal liberation front? will we hear that the number three is an inflated number, because the san diego locals aren't entirely reliable (or able to count)? will their deaths be tragic, but necessary for our freedoms?
no. the military will compensate the families, and maybe even spank the motherfucker who decided "fuck this shit" before ejecting to leave his plane to crash into civilians. the military will fall all over itself redressing this shit. first of all, because san diego is a major major military town. don't believe me? fuckin' go there. second, san diego is not a war zone, so alot of "journalists" will have access to the locals. third, and maybe most important, the locals speak the same language as the "journalists", and the viewers, and will most likely be the same skin color and religion as the "journalists" and the viewers. don't think that matters? then wtf rock have you been living under? the big one in australia? fuckin' figures.
this will be a goddamned tragedy that the military swears it will take all steps to prevent from ever, ever, happening again. everyone will go on about how sorry the pilot was that he might have hurt someone, and how this really cuts him up, and he can't sleep at night, and fucking so on. there will be no denials of a single goddamn detail, or a single goddamned denial of how fucked up it is that a military plane's pilot can just abandon an f-18 without first making sure it won't hit someone else. there will be no comparison to when the military purposely fires on civilian areas, killing dozens, and claiming it's all okay 'cause they got a few taliban, who had some nerve hiding somewhere difficult to just bomb without killing others. the military will not claim that fighting terrorists trumps your ability to live out the day in your own home. nope.
since no one, no one, else will call these deaths the proper u.s. military name for them, i will: they're collateral damage. freebies. gimmes. people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time (without even knowing it) and paid for it with their lives. people who had the nerve to think they were safe and deserved to be. people who thought staying out of trouble meant it wouldn't crash into the house. if only we really applied this definition, we might rethink how often we use it.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
yes, actually, you do hate gays
dear conservatives,
please stop telling me you don't hate gays. please also stop telling me you're just trying to protect marriage. you are the people who run ex-gay ministries to pray the gay the away. you are the ones who don't want gays near your children. one of you even blamed gays (and anybody else with a sex life for that matter) for wall street's meltdown. you hate gays. you hate them bad. and you haven't managed to protect marriage from a goddamned thing. you even let this guy get married. you let this guy get divorced. twice. this guy you love has been married and divorced three fucking times. you still love him. you still listen to him. you don't really give a shit about marriage. especially not if you'd like these two to wed. here's something that marriage actually needs to be protected from. get to it. although, if you really wanted marriage to truly be biblical, you'd actually have to support the FLDS. the actual marriage laws set forth by the old testament, jesus, and paul, are almost never adhered to today. in fact, what we here in 21st century america call marriage bears almost no resemblance to any marriage that happened in biblical times. if you're a widow, your dead husband's brother is neither required nor expected to marry you. in fact, it's considered a little odd. women aren't men's property in marriage any more. we don't even have to change our last names if we don't want to. nobody has to be a virgin to marry (tried to think of a dirty joke here, but couldn't. sorry). you don't even need a religious ceremony. so you conservatives will just have to fucking stop with the defending biblical marriage horseshit. america abandoned biblical marriage ages ago, and is better for it.
personally, i'd prefer it if these two people could wed. they have a child already, they've been together for 15 years already, and both women seem mature and experienced enough to make that kind of long term decision. but this marriage is apparently some evil that cannot be loosed on america, or we'll lose the invisible sky daddy's protection. or he won't crack a smile at us anymore. i know three gay men at work, all of them with long-term partners, one of them raising a kid with a partner. they could handle marriage. they already do handle marriage. they do the work of maintaining a relationship, raising a kid, and maintaining property together. people who do these things are entitled to state recognition for it. straight people get state recognition for much less, or much worse. hell, even this was a legal marriage.
just who the fuck are gays and lesbians a threat to, anyway? straights are starting to enjoy anal sex as much as the village people ever did (men & women as bottoms, by the by. don't open the link at work.). they're not a real threat, since i live in a city where millions of gays and lesbians are fucking right now and it in no way affects me. they're an abstract threat, for a couple of reasons. first of all, gays & lesbians threaten traditionally held gender roles. if men can be homemakers and women can be breadwinners, that kind of ruins the women-are-meant-to-be-the-ones-without-a-career argument. it also ruins the argument that women are meant to be the soft, giving nurturers, while men exist to enforce boundaries, support the family, and teach kids about strength, or some such shit. and conservatives cling to their gender roles. they think gender roles are both biblical and biological, 'cause the bible is such a great fucking authority on biology.
but this is the current culture war, and conservatives have lost so many already. i think conservatives feel they're owed a culture war victory, even if it's fleeting. conservatives lost on slavery, married women's rights, women's suffrage, the right to unionize, anti-semitism, racial equality, women's equality, real religious freedom (not the fake kind for christians only), and hollywood. sorry, conservatives. we liberals have been on the right side of history just a few too many times. and yes, sometimes we're a little smug about it. i'll grant you that. maybe you could stop pretending that you can keep whatever group you currently hate the most in second-class status forever (well, actually i don't know- do you hate gays more than arabs? or liberals? or illegal aliens? please let me know). whenever you do that, you're practically begging to be the bad guy in any future historical movie. especially since you lost hollywood.
conservatives will say they oppose gay marriage being "imposed" by the courts. last i checked, the courts can't "impose" marriage on anyone, for any reason. only consenting adults or older teenagers with their parents' permission can get married. so who's getting gay marriage "imposed" on them? what bullshit. courts can't even force churches, synagogues, or any religious institution to perform a single marriage. catholic churches don't re-marry divorced people. no one "imposes" this on the catholic church, not even the courts. conservatives have no problems with courts deciding people can't sue corporations for faulty medical devices, or interpreting the time limit on sex discrimination claims. conservatives have no problem with those impositions. conservatives have no problem with courts striking down marijuana reform or assisted suicide. conservatives were over-fucking-joyed when the supreme court decided that washington d.c. cannot ban handgun ownership. that's some fucking judicial activism against democratically enacted laws. so conservatives, dears, you don't really have a problem with courts "imposing" things. you just have a problem with a court allowing something you don't like. please, try being honest. that way, we could have a real discussion.
conservatives also tell us that gay marriage is radical. actually, gays are trying to be just like straights. it's not radical to want to get married just like straights can. it's not radical to want a life-long relationship with another adult who you love and loves you in return, and it's not radical that the state recognize that relationship. note to conservatives: the state's been doing that for a long time, just not for my gay co-workers, or mary cheney. that high horse is lame- you might want to get off it. it would be radical is gays wanted to outlaw marriage for everyone. that would be radical. wanting to be just like the vast majority is not radical. it's conformist. i've provided links to online dictionary definitions, in case you're interested.
so conservatives, i'm tired of your excuses for opposing same-sex marriage. i'm tired of them because they're dishonest. they're so dishonest my intelligence as a homo sapien is insulted. i'm tired of them because even a cursory knowledge of the recent california supreme court decision, history, actual gays or lesbians, and even the bible is enough to swat these rantings down. try getting a real reason to oppose same-sex marriage. or at least move on to different lies.
sincerely,
culuriel
p.s.- oh, and by the way, mary cheney, your kid is a political issue. when you actively campaign for a political party that has done everything it can to legalize discrimination against you, refuses to include you in hate crimes law, insists you pose a greater threat to america than terrorism does, you better believe your fucking lesbian family is a political issue. your political party thinks that equality under the law and toleration are the "gay" agenda. i always thought it was the "human" agenda, but that's probably why i'm a liberal and you campaign for people who would hate you if you weren't dick's kid (trust me, they would).
please stop telling me you don't hate gays. please also stop telling me you're just trying to protect marriage. you are the people who run ex-gay ministries to pray the gay the away. you are the ones who don't want gays near your children. one of you even blamed gays (and anybody else with a sex life for that matter) for wall street's meltdown. you hate gays. you hate them bad. and you haven't managed to protect marriage from a goddamned thing. you even let this guy get married. you let this guy get divorced. twice. this guy you love has been married and divorced three fucking times. you still love him. you still listen to him. you don't really give a shit about marriage. especially not if you'd like these two to wed. here's something that marriage actually needs to be protected from. get to it. although, if you really wanted marriage to truly be biblical, you'd actually have to support the FLDS. the actual marriage laws set forth by the old testament, jesus, and paul, are almost never adhered to today. in fact, what we here in 21st century america call marriage bears almost no resemblance to any marriage that happened in biblical times. if you're a widow, your dead husband's brother is neither required nor expected to marry you. in fact, it's considered a little odd. women aren't men's property in marriage any more. we don't even have to change our last names if we don't want to. nobody has to be a virgin to marry (tried to think of a dirty joke here, but couldn't. sorry). you don't even need a religious ceremony. so you conservatives will just have to fucking stop with the defending biblical marriage horseshit. america abandoned biblical marriage ages ago, and is better for it.
personally, i'd prefer it if these two people could wed. they have a child already, they've been together for 15 years already, and both women seem mature and experienced enough to make that kind of long term decision. but this marriage is apparently some evil that cannot be loosed on america, or we'll lose the invisible sky daddy's protection. or he won't crack a smile at us anymore. i know three gay men at work, all of them with long-term partners, one of them raising a kid with a partner. they could handle marriage. they already do handle marriage. they do the work of maintaining a relationship, raising a kid, and maintaining property together. people who do these things are entitled to state recognition for it. straight people get state recognition for much less, or much worse. hell, even this was a legal marriage.
just who the fuck are gays and lesbians a threat to, anyway? straights are starting to enjoy anal sex as much as the village people ever did (men & women as bottoms, by the by. don't open the link at work.). they're not a real threat, since i live in a city where millions of gays and lesbians are fucking right now and it in no way affects me. they're an abstract threat, for a couple of reasons. first of all, gays & lesbians threaten traditionally held gender roles. if men can be homemakers and women can be breadwinners, that kind of ruins the women-are-meant-to-be-the-ones-without-a-career argument. it also ruins the argument that women are meant to be the soft, giving nurturers, while men exist to enforce boundaries, support the family, and teach kids about strength, or some such shit. and conservatives cling to their gender roles. they think gender roles are both biblical and biological, 'cause the bible is such a great fucking authority on biology.
but this is the current culture war, and conservatives have lost so many already. i think conservatives feel they're owed a culture war victory, even if it's fleeting. conservatives lost on slavery, married women's rights, women's suffrage, the right to unionize, anti-semitism, racial equality, women's equality, real religious freedom (not the fake kind for christians only), and hollywood. sorry, conservatives. we liberals have been on the right side of history just a few too many times. and yes, sometimes we're a little smug about it. i'll grant you that. maybe you could stop pretending that you can keep whatever group you currently hate the most in second-class status forever (well, actually i don't know- do you hate gays more than arabs? or liberals? or illegal aliens? please let me know). whenever you do that, you're practically begging to be the bad guy in any future historical movie. especially since you lost hollywood.
conservatives will say they oppose gay marriage being "imposed" by the courts. last i checked, the courts can't "impose" marriage on anyone, for any reason. only consenting adults or older teenagers with their parents' permission can get married. so who's getting gay marriage "imposed" on them? what bullshit. courts can't even force churches, synagogues, or any religious institution to perform a single marriage. catholic churches don't re-marry divorced people. no one "imposes" this on the catholic church, not even the courts. conservatives have no problems with courts deciding people can't sue corporations for faulty medical devices, or interpreting the time limit on sex discrimination claims. conservatives have no problem with those impositions. conservatives have no problem with courts striking down marijuana reform or assisted suicide. conservatives were over-fucking-joyed when the supreme court decided that washington d.c. cannot ban handgun ownership. that's some fucking judicial activism against democratically enacted laws. so conservatives, dears, you don't really have a problem with courts "imposing" things. you just have a problem with a court allowing something you don't like. please, try being honest. that way, we could have a real discussion.
conservatives also tell us that gay marriage is radical. actually, gays are trying to be just like straights. it's not radical to want to get married just like straights can. it's not radical to want a life-long relationship with another adult who you love and loves you in return, and it's not radical that the state recognize that relationship. note to conservatives: the state's been doing that for a long time, just not for my gay co-workers, or mary cheney. that high horse is lame- you might want to get off it. it would be radical is gays wanted to outlaw marriage for everyone. that would be radical. wanting to be just like the vast majority is not radical. it's conformist. i've provided links to online dictionary definitions, in case you're interested.
so conservatives, i'm tired of your excuses for opposing same-sex marriage. i'm tired of them because they're dishonest. they're so dishonest my intelligence as a homo sapien is insulted. i'm tired of them because even a cursory knowledge of the recent california supreme court decision, history, actual gays or lesbians, and even the bible is enough to swat these rantings down. try getting a real reason to oppose same-sex marriage. or at least move on to different lies.
sincerely,
culuriel
p.s.- oh, and by the way, mary cheney, your kid is a political issue. when you actively campaign for a political party that has done everything it can to legalize discrimination against you, refuses to include you in hate crimes law, insists you pose a greater threat to america than terrorism does, you better believe your fucking lesbian family is a political issue. your political party thinks that equality under the law and toleration are the "gay" agenda. i always thought it was the "human" agenda, but that's probably why i'm a liberal and you campaign for people who would hate you if you weren't dick's kid (trust me, they would).
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
this is why we have castration
recently, an islamic militia in somalia stoned a 13 year-old girl to death. the militia members forced her into a pit in an athletic arena, buried her upto her neck, and stoned her. at least once, nurses dug her out to pronounce her still alive, so she could be reburied and the stoning could resume.
this girl's brutal murder goes beyond anything i've heard of in just plain barbaric cruelty, and i live in a country with more than its fair share of serial killers. no other record of human depravity has stayed with me like this has. it's the young age of the victim, her poverty, her powerlessness, her vulnerability versus these powerful, armed, grown, intolerant, hateful men. she never had a chance.
the motive is pretty clear, at least to a woman's libber like myself: the girl had reported to this militia, which is a substitute for any actual government in the area, that several militia members had raped her. the militia killed her, in a brutal way, to silence her and intimidate every single female still living. don't report rape, the militia has told every woman under their "jurisdiction".
i think of this poor girl, named Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, slowly, painfully, degradingly dying by people throwing rocks at her. i think of how much blood, bone, and brain matter must have been splattered all over before she died. i think what kind of mindless piece of shit can actually submit a child to such a thing, a child who had already been horribly wronged. it is actually quite plain- it is themselves these militia members really hate, and violence against women and girls is a convenient substitute for taking out their self-loathing on themselves.
misogynist literature is full of references to women tempting men, bringing their downfall, emasculating men, etc. men are especially repulsed by the "power" women have over them sexually. men hate that they can be attracted to women who they hate, or who don't want them. men hate how difficult it is to control their sexual urges. men feel less than human in lust- they constantly refer to sexual attraction as throwing off their civilized, "human" selves and feeling like beasts. men have always resented women for this feeling, because men have always blamed women for the feeling. that it originates in them is irrelevant. that a man can learn self-control is irrelevant. it is woman's fault he feels lust, and less than human. it is woman's fault that he can lust after a woman who doesn't want him. and woman must pay. that 13 year-old girl who died a bloody, painful, horrible death represented to these miltia men everything they hate about themselves. she was somebody to blame, so her rapists could deny being animals not only to the public, but also to themselves. in the end, based on the press this is getting, they have only fooled themselves, and only until the next girl comes along.
so here's a little poetic justice, because this particular group of dickheads is muslim. how ironic and yet perfectly fitting is it that we call men who treat women and girls this way pigs?
this girl's brutal murder goes beyond anything i've heard of in just plain barbaric cruelty, and i live in a country with more than its fair share of serial killers. no other record of human depravity has stayed with me like this has. it's the young age of the victim, her poverty, her powerlessness, her vulnerability versus these powerful, armed, grown, intolerant, hateful men. she never had a chance.
the motive is pretty clear, at least to a woman's libber like myself: the girl had reported to this militia, which is a substitute for any actual government in the area, that several militia members had raped her. the militia killed her, in a brutal way, to silence her and intimidate every single female still living. don't report rape, the militia has told every woman under their "jurisdiction".
i think of this poor girl, named Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, slowly, painfully, degradingly dying by people throwing rocks at her. i think of how much blood, bone, and brain matter must have been splattered all over before she died. i think what kind of mindless piece of shit can actually submit a child to such a thing, a child who had already been horribly wronged. it is actually quite plain- it is themselves these militia members really hate, and violence against women and girls is a convenient substitute for taking out their self-loathing on themselves.
misogynist literature is full of references to women tempting men, bringing their downfall, emasculating men, etc. men are especially repulsed by the "power" women have over them sexually. men hate that they can be attracted to women who they hate, or who don't want them. men hate how difficult it is to control their sexual urges. men feel less than human in lust- they constantly refer to sexual attraction as throwing off their civilized, "human" selves and feeling like beasts. men have always resented women for this feeling, because men have always blamed women for the feeling. that it originates in them is irrelevant. that a man can learn self-control is irrelevant. it is woman's fault he feels lust, and less than human. it is woman's fault that he can lust after a woman who doesn't want him. and woman must pay. that 13 year-old girl who died a bloody, painful, horrible death represented to these miltia men everything they hate about themselves. she was somebody to blame, so her rapists could deny being animals not only to the public, but also to themselves. in the end, based on the press this is getting, they have only fooled themselves, and only until the next girl comes along.
so here's a little poetic justice, because this particular group of dickheads is muslim. how ironic and yet perfectly fitting is it that we call men who treat women and girls this way pigs?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
the mirror
dear republicans,
just cling to your guns and religion, because that seems to be all you got today. but while you're doing that, why don't you also slosh this around in the almost empty tank known as your brains.
you can't keep going on dismissing and dissing the people of america's cities. about 20% of the country's population lives in cities. you are eventually going to have to deal with that. so here's a fucking clue: you might want to stop calling us elites, terrorist sympathizers, and anti-american baby-killers. that makes us kind of want to not even acknowledge your party's existence, let alone vote for you.
and you're going to need to confront the fact that we're a pro-choice nation. even fucking south dakota is. you can't even get parental notification passed in california, even when you've brought out the gay haters. your party literally wants to outlaw abortion even in cases or rape or incest. don't you think that affects how many women would want to vote for you?
you may want to stop blaming illegals for our country's economic problems, and scare the whiteys into thinking mexico is taking over. apparently, over 10 million voters are hispanic. who'd've thought they might not like a party that demonizes them with conspiracy theories?
and obviously, you will have to stop acting like people don't want to spread the wealth. in the end, that stupid line cost you. people want the wealth spread- that's what you promised free market capitalism would do, remember? when your precious free market didn't do this, you tried to turn it into a negative. asshats.
have fun avoiding looking in the mirror at all costs. i look forward to whipping your asses in 2010 too.
just cling to your guns and religion, because that seems to be all you got today. but while you're doing that, why don't you also slosh this around in the almost empty tank known as your brains.
you can't keep going on dismissing and dissing the people of america's cities. about 20% of the country's population lives in cities. you are eventually going to have to deal with that. so here's a fucking clue: you might want to stop calling us elites, terrorist sympathizers, and anti-american baby-killers. that makes us kind of want to not even acknowledge your party's existence, let alone vote for you.
and you're going to need to confront the fact that we're a pro-choice nation. even fucking south dakota is. you can't even get parental notification passed in california, even when you've brought out the gay haters. your party literally wants to outlaw abortion even in cases or rape or incest. don't you think that affects how many women would want to vote for you?
you may want to stop blaming illegals for our country's economic problems, and scare the whiteys into thinking mexico is taking over. apparently, over 10 million voters are hispanic. who'd've thought they might not like a party that demonizes them with conspiracy theories?
and obviously, you will have to stop acting like people don't want to spread the wealth. in the end, that stupid line cost you. people want the wealth spread- that's what you promised free market capitalism would do, remember? when your precious free market didn't do this, you tried to turn it into a negative. asshats.
have fun avoiding looking in the mirror at all costs. i look forward to whipping your asses in 2010 too.
giddiness
christ that guy looks and acts like a president from the very first night. i love the reference to MLK's last speech- "I promise you, we as a people will get there". it's a new bright fucking day in fucking america. and there was even oprah.
oh to watch all those blue states pop up- hahahahahahaha! oh, sweet sweet payback. oh, to know that fox noise is in pain, bitter pain. i hope kristol is curled up in his closet in the fetal position, sobbing.
and it's not just obama. it's the house, it's the senate, it's a governor's mansion. it's lizzy dole going home to north carolina. it's joe lieberman wondering what the fuck he's gonna do now. it's the sad reality that the only demographic the republican party can reliably get is white, christian, straight males and male-servers. it's pro-choice victory. it's medical marijuana. it's dying as you choose, not some retarded bastard's decision who can't tell the difference between someone dying in agony and someone otherwise healthy in a wheelchair.
yes, there are some dark spots. we don't know if the senate will add a professional comedian to the amateurs already there, and norm coleman will have to stay the fuck home. i'm pretty sure prop 8 will succeed. i expected this shit from goddamned alabama- not california. but you know what- long term, i'm encouraged on gay marriage. we've gone from 1968, when gays risked death, even in liberal cities, by coming out, to 2008, when almost a majority wants full equality in marriage rights. we'll get there. obama promised.
oh to watch all those blue states pop up- hahahahahahaha! oh, sweet sweet payback. oh, to know that fox noise is in pain, bitter pain. i hope kristol is curled up in his closet in the fetal position, sobbing.
and it's not just obama. it's the house, it's the senate, it's a governor's mansion. it's lizzy dole going home to north carolina. it's joe lieberman wondering what the fuck he's gonna do now. it's the sad reality that the only demographic the republican party can reliably get is white, christian, straight males and male-servers. it's pro-choice victory. it's medical marijuana. it's dying as you choose, not some retarded bastard's decision who can't tell the difference between someone dying in agony and someone otherwise healthy in a wheelchair.
yes, there are some dark spots. we don't know if the senate will add a professional comedian to the amateurs already there, and norm coleman will have to stay the fuck home. i'm pretty sure prop 8 will succeed. i expected this shit from goddamned alabama- not california. but you know what- long term, i'm encouraged on gay marriage. we've gone from 1968, when gays risked death, even in liberal cities, by coming out, to 2008, when almost a majority wants full equality in marriage rights. we'll get there. obama promised.
Friday, October 31, 2008
real patriotism
wow, has it been a month? i'll confess, i've been lazy. L-A-Z-Y. but now i think i'll sit down and get something off my chest (36C, if you must know).
flyover country needs to stop acting like they're the real americans, and everybody else is just a poser. i'm sick and tired of some asshat waving a poster of obama in a turban acting like he's standing up for america. if conservatives and the regions they dominate want to be relevant to the 21st century, it would certainly help if they joined it.
why do these fuckers think they're more patriotic? because they display flags, recite "under god" in the pledge, and put their hands on their hearts when they sing the national anthem. seriously. and they stick yellow ribbon magnets on the backs of their suv's. it's about being white, christian, male or subservient to males, and straight. meanwhile, red states all over the country literally feed off of blue states' federal income taxes. cities hold about 20% of americans; cities are usually the hosts of protest rallies, not rural areas. while rural, small-town america has been holding onto their illusions about what an american is, the rest of the country has moved on. while small-town america held on to patriotism being how many songs you can sing, pledges you can recite, and flags you can fly, the rest of us realized something.
patriotism is when you care enough about your fellow americans to make a fucking sacrifice for them. patriotism is when you care enough about your fellow americans to help them in bad times. patriotism is when you put off a cellphone upgrade so the kids in your country can have school lunches. patriotism is when you tell your government when it's wrong, and you hold your ground. patriotism is when you say "so what if he is a muslim? this is america." patriotism is when you pay for a highway project. it's when you pay back your student loans. it's when you observe elections and help people use their right to vote.
fuck these outward symbols that small-town america clings to. the flag is not a woobie. osama bin laden could put the flag on his cave entrance, stick a yellow ribbon on his machine gun, and sing "god bless america" till he's blue in the face, doesn't mean he loves america. it's window-dressing.
you see, for conservative, small-town america, window-dressing patriotism is all they've got left. they hate paying taxes, hate public schools, hate courts (or judges), hate equal protection, hate government in general. the only segment of government they seem to like is the idea of the military (since they hate paying the taxes the military and vets need, i think this is accurate). flags and songs and magnets are all they have left. they hate the institutions that we share, and which urban americans have come to value as we diversify and densify.
our institutions keep the peace; they are open to us all, and help us hold together. in an age when it's just not feasible (or constitutional) to force social cohesion through conformity in religion, language, sexuality and lifestyle, these institutions are vital. it's vital that we have schools everyone is entitled to send their kids to, and which any adult can get involved in. it's vital that we have parks, where people can come together to relax and people watch. it's vital that we have transit affordable to all that links metropolitan areas together. it's vital that we take pride in our firefighters, paramedics, police officers, and teachers. patriotism is when you support these things, not just with lip service but with money and effort. when you pay taxes, you put your money where your patriotic mouth is. something that small-town america calls "socialism". if it's socialist to actually support your country instead of just saying you do, then call me comrade.
flyover country needs to stop acting like they're the real americans, and everybody else is just a poser. i'm sick and tired of some asshat waving a poster of obama in a turban acting like he's standing up for america. if conservatives and the regions they dominate want to be relevant to the 21st century, it would certainly help if they joined it.
why do these fuckers think they're more patriotic? because they display flags, recite "under god" in the pledge, and put their hands on their hearts when they sing the national anthem. seriously. and they stick yellow ribbon magnets on the backs of their suv's. it's about being white, christian, male or subservient to males, and straight. meanwhile, red states all over the country literally feed off of blue states' federal income taxes. cities hold about 20% of americans; cities are usually the hosts of protest rallies, not rural areas. while rural, small-town america has been holding onto their illusions about what an american is, the rest of the country has moved on. while small-town america held on to patriotism being how many songs you can sing, pledges you can recite, and flags you can fly, the rest of us realized something.
patriotism is when you care enough about your fellow americans to make a fucking sacrifice for them. patriotism is when you care enough about your fellow americans to help them in bad times. patriotism is when you put off a cellphone upgrade so the kids in your country can have school lunches. patriotism is when you tell your government when it's wrong, and you hold your ground. patriotism is when you say "so what if he is a muslim? this is america." patriotism is when you pay for a highway project. it's when you pay back your student loans. it's when you observe elections and help people use their right to vote.
fuck these outward symbols that small-town america clings to. the flag is not a woobie. osama bin laden could put the flag on his cave entrance, stick a yellow ribbon on his machine gun, and sing "god bless america" till he's blue in the face, doesn't mean he loves america. it's window-dressing.
you see, for conservative, small-town america, window-dressing patriotism is all they've got left. they hate paying taxes, hate public schools, hate courts (or judges), hate equal protection, hate government in general. the only segment of government they seem to like is the idea of the military (since they hate paying the taxes the military and vets need, i think this is accurate). flags and songs and magnets are all they have left. they hate the institutions that we share, and which urban americans have come to value as we diversify and densify.
our institutions keep the peace; they are open to us all, and help us hold together. in an age when it's just not feasible (or constitutional) to force social cohesion through conformity in religion, language, sexuality and lifestyle, these institutions are vital. it's vital that we have schools everyone is entitled to send their kids to, and which any adult can get involved in. it's vital that we have parks, where people can come together to relax and people watch. it's vital that we have transit affordable to all that links metropolitan areas together. it's vital that we take pride in our firefighters, paramedics, police officers, and teachers. patriotism is when you support these things, not just with lip service but with money and effort. when you pay taxes, you put your money where your patriotic mouth is. something that small-town america calls "socialism". if it's socialist to actually support your country instead of just saying you do, then call me comrade.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
i guess beggars CAN be choosers
as i'm writing this, congress is nearing a deal on wall street's bailout. i don't really know what it will be yet, and i have no clue whether president shit-for-brains will even sign it, and (not if) what signing statements he'll tack on.
but here is what we do know: what data is in indicates that it wasn't the community reinvestment act,(read the pdf from the link- it's only 12 pages and very informative) or clinton's efforts to enforce it. multiple studies (michael barr's report especially has some great info) have shown that a little over half of all subprime mortgages came from banks that had no obligations under the CRA, another quarter came from banks only partially covered by the CRA. only about one quarter of subprime mortgages are even made from financial institutions fully under the CRA to loan back to communities they take deposits from (which is the key requirement of the CRA). on top of that, banks reported low costs to even comply with the law, and that banks didn't consider CRA loans "overly risky" (see michael barr's report). to enforce this law, the federal government posts information on lending to low-income communities for the public, and reviews the percentage of credit to poor areas of banks trying to merge (clinton and reno's change in 1995). if there's a period of low-merger activity, the law just doesn't get as much enforcement.
the data coming in looks bad for lenders. consider what michael barr's report goes on to say- that borrowers, especially non-white borrowers, were "steered" to subprime mortgages, even when they could have qualified for a regular mortgage. flipping, packing, and huge fees that were very profitable made these loans a nightmare for borrowers. lenders sold existing borrowers refinancing loans they didn't need, and maybe even falsely reported the conditions of these loans to underwriters. the problems were so bad, state attorneys general started getting interested. however, the bush administration literally blocked them using the OCC, and a banking law from 1863, with some additonal regs thrown in. the attorneys general of all 50 states objected to and unsucessfully fought this. on top of that, 2005 changes in the CRA (which administration would that be) actually made predatory lending easier, as it changed what could be used as collateral to offer/price a mortgage. even jon stewart can see the bullshit. ("you have a casino!")
so spare me blaming this on blacks, hispanics, or poor people. lenders found easy targets with little financial knowledge, sold them loans they didn't need, suspected greatly they couldn't pay them back, priced them so the borrower would have trouble paying them back, then maybe fudged a few facts to a bunch of other people so they would buy the mortgages, then pocketed the profits. these initial mortgage buyers, including fannie mae and freddie mac, then resold these mortgages with mortgages that haven't failed to other investors, and pocketed their own profits. but this caught up with investors as the income from foreclosed mortgages dried up. by then, a few people had profited greatly, while borrowers lost their homes, small-time investors (read: me and you) lost their retirement savings, and now taxpayers just lost a shitload of government money that could have gone to schools, roads, hospitals, and mass transit. this was (is) the greedy preying upon the ignorant.
others have noted that we socialize loss and not profit in this country. i'll let them expound on this. for now, i'm just going to ask a question- WHY THE FUCK DO WE PUT UP THIS?!?!?!?!?!? where did we put our fucking pitchforks? and torches? where are the tar and feathers? we can complain, and blog, and email jack cafferty all we like, IT HASN'T MADE JACKSHIT BETTER. so here's my answer to my question: we put up with this, ultimately, because to demand change would make us reflect a little on the mistakes in thinking that led to this catastrofuck. we would have to wonder to ourselves why we let wall street police its own when history has shown it can't and won't. we would have to wonder to ourselves why we let living wages fall and be replaced with poverty wages and easy debt. we would have to wonder whether $700 billion could be better spent on things people could actually use, like trains, bridges (to more than 50 people), and schools. we would have to wonder why we actually fall for trickle down economics and free market myths every 20 years or so. and i don't think we'd like the answers to those questions.
but here is what we do know: what data is in indicates that it wasn't the community reinvestment act,(read the pdf from the link- it's only 12 pages and very informative) or clinton's efforts to enforce it. multiple studies (michael barr's report especially has some great info) have shown that a little over half of all subprime mortgages came from banks that had no obligations under the CRA, another quarter came from banks only partially covered by the CRA. only about one quarter of subprime mortgages are even made from financial institutions fully under the CRA to loan back to communities they take deposits from (which is the key requirement of the CRA). on top of that, banks reported low costs to even comply with the law, and that banks didn't consider CRA loans "overly risky" (see michael barr's report). to enforce this law, the federal government posts information on lending to low-income communities for the public, and reviews the percentage of credit to poor areas of banks trying to merge (clinton and reno's change in 1995). if there's a period of low-merger activity, the law just doesn't get as much enforcement.
the data coming in looks bad for lenders. consider what michael barr's report goes on to say- that borrowers, especially non-white borrowers, were "steered" to subprime mortgages, even when they could have qualified for a regular mortgage. flipping, packing, and huge fees that were very profitable made these loans a nightmare for borrowers. lenders sold existing borrowers refinancing loans they didn't need, and maybe even falsely reported the conditions of these loans to underwriters. the problems were so bad, state attorneys general started getting interested. however, the bush administration literally blocked them using the OCC, and a banking law from 1863, with some additonal regs thrown in. the attorneys general of all 50 states objected to and unsucessfully fought this. on top of that, 2005 changes in the CRA (which administration would that be) actually made predatory lending easier, as it changed what could be used as collateral to offer/price a mortgage. even jon stewart can see the bullshit. ("you have a casino!")
so spare me blaming this on blacks, hispanics, or poor people. lenders found easy targets with little financial knowledge, sold them loans they didn't need, suspected greatly they couldn't pay them back, priced them so the borrower would have trouble paying them back, then maybe fudged a few facts to a bunch of other people so they would buy the mortgages, then pocketed the profits. these initial mortgage buyers, including fannie mae and freddie mac, then resold these mortgages with mortgages that haven't failed to other investors, and pocketed their own profits. but this caught up with investors as the income from foreclosed mortgages dried up. by then, a few people had profited greatly, while borrowers lost their homes, small-time investors (read: me and you) lost their retirement savings, and now taxpayers just lost a shitload of government money that could have gone to schools, roads, hospitals, and mass transit. this was (is) the greedy preying upon the ignorant.
others have noted that we socialize loss and not profit in this country. i'll let them expound on this. for now, i'm just going to ask a question- WHY THE FUCK DO WE PUT UP THIS?!?!?!?!?!? where did we put our fucking pitchforks? and torches? where are the tar and feathers? we can complain, and blog, and email jack cafferty all we like, IT HASN'T MADE JACKSHIT BETTER. so here's my answer to my question: we put up with this, ultimately, because to demand change would make us reflect a little on the mistakes in thinking that led to this catastrofuck. we would have to wonder to ourselves why we let wall street police its own when history has shown it can't and won't. we would have to wonder to ourselves why we let living wages fall and be replaced with poverty wages and easy debt. we would have to wonder whether $700 billion could be better spent on things people could actually use, like trains, bridges (to more than 50 people), and schools. we would have to wonder why we actually fall for trickle down economics and free market myths every 20 years or so. and i don't think we'd like the answers to those questions.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
the lowness of sarah palin
here's how much sarah palin holds her own fellow women in utter contempt. here's how much sarah palin wants to screw (and not the good way) american women. here's how much sarah palin finds rape victims revolting and dirty.
there's been a few things over the last few weeks that demonstrate sarah palin's disdain for all things that smack of actually helping women or improving their lives. she allegedly thought she'd make her sister's divorce easier by trying to get her ex-brother in law fired. she decided that a group that helps pregnant single women could make do with less for their expansion. she only recently decided that equal pay for equal work is right. and, of course, her hallmark: she thinks that even women who have been raped should be forced to continue their pregnancies and give birth to their rapists' children. how nice. how sweet.
what's the difference between fred phelps and sarah palin? fucking lipstick. maybe if fred puts some on, people will like him as much as they do her.
there's been a few things over the last few weeks that demonstrate sarah palin's disdain for all things that smack of actually helping women or improving their lives. she allegedly thought she'd make her sister's divorce easier by trying to get her ex-brother in law fired. she decided that a group that helps pregnant single women could make do with less for their expansion. she only recently decided that equal pay for equal work is right. and, of course, her hallmark: she thinks that even women who have been raped should be forced to continue their pregnancies and give birth to their rapists' children. how nice. how sweet.
what's the difference between fred phelps and sarah palin? fucking lipstick. maybe if fred puts some on, people will like him as much as they do her.
holy shit, small town america has gone full retard
well, small town america, it turns out you really are motherfucking retards. . dan hoyle, a reporter for salon.com, has filed two reports that solidify my disrepect for the "heartland", and everything it represents.
dear small town america,
let me try to explain something to you. the presidency is not a male version of miss teen usa. it's not a congeniality, superficial talent, bikini contest pageant. it's a campaign to determine who is savvy, who has the right temperment, and even (dare i suggest it?!?!?) the BRAINS, to handle a job that requires all three. hmm, let me see if i can further make this easier for you. i can't right the do-re-mi song, but maybe i can come close. the presidency- you know, of the fucking united states of america- is a job that requires actual brains. you actually do have to know some things (like who the different world leaders are, and the countries that they lead), and you definitely need to know a little something about a piece of paper called the constitution. i am, truly, sorry that you yourselves don't know enough either about the constitution, policy, or even what religion obama is. i'm truly sorry our media sucks enough that you actually still think saddam's weapons are out there, somewhere (would someone please make a video of the asshats who promote this set to the song from an american tail? fucking pretty please?) i am truly sorry that opportunities for living wages and education have passed you by. i know that the loss of opportunities in your communities is not entirely your fault. i know how discouraging it is that you feel less and less relevant to the country overall everyday.
but, have you ever considered that your relevance to the country might be tied to how knowledgable you are? let me see.... yes, i know the manufacturing jobs left, the darkies got to the lunch counter, and you've basically lost every big cultural fight, from women's rights to open homosexuality. i know what a blow to your sense of moral superiority those losses must still be. but don't you think that wallowing in ignorance and insisting your leaders do the same is the wrong way to strike back? have you ever considered that your refusal to keep up with the rest of class left you all alone in the classroom, when everyone else moved on to the next grade? do you actually think that urban americans, with their educations both in knowledge and critical thinking, should respect that you insist on believing things with no evidence, or with amazingly debunked evidence? do you think that, possibly, your jackassed insistence to see a presidential campaign as a search for a BFF might color how urban americans see you? do you really think that urban americans should respect your demand that the president "relate to you"? it's a presidential campaign, not a fucking "sex in the city" marathon. try to keep that in mind when you "evaluate" candidates. and happy moosehunting.
dear small town america,
let me try to explain something to you. the presidency is not a male version of miss teen usa. it's not a congeniality, superficial talent, bikini contest pageant. it's a campaign to determine who is savvy, who has the right temperment, and even (dare i suggest it?!?!?) the BRAINS, to handle a job that requires all three. hmm, let me see if i can further make this easier for you. i can't right the do-re-mi song, but maybe i can come close. the presidency- you know, of the fucking united states of america- is a job that requires actual brains. you actually do have to know some things (like who the different world leaders are, and the countries that they lead), and you definitely need to know a little something about a piece of paper called the constitution. i am, truly, sorry that you yourselves don't know enough either about the constitution, policy, or even what religion obama is. i'm truly sorry our media sucks enough that you actually still think saddam's weapons are out there, somewhere (would someone please make a video of the asshats who promote this set to the song from an american tail? fucking pretty please?) i am truly sorry that opportunities for living wages and education have passed you by. i know that the loss of opportunities in your communities is not entirely your fault. i know how discouraging it is that you feel less and less relevant to the country overall everyday.
but, have you ever considered that your relevance to the country might be tied to how knowledgable you are? let me see.... yes, i know the manufacturing jobs left, the darkies got to the lunch counter, and you've basically lost every big cultural fight, from women's rights to open homosexuality. i know what a blow to your sense of moral superiority those losses must still be. but don't you think that wallowing in ignorance and insisting your leaders do the same is the wrong way to strike back? have you ever considered that your refusal to keep up with the rest of class left you all alone in the classroom, when everyone else moved on to the next grade? do you actually think that urban americans, with their educations both in knowledge and critical thinking, should respect that you insist on believing things with no evidence, or with amazingly debunked evidence? do you think that, possibly, your jackassed insistence to see a presidential campaign as a search for a BFF might color how urban americans see you? do you really think that urban americans should respect your demand that the president "relate to you"? it's a presidential campaign, not a fucking "sex in the city" marathon. try to keep that in mind when you "evaluate" candidates. and happy moosehunting.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
john-boy: stay the fuck away from ground zero!!!!!
dear fuck-face,
since you obviously think the attack on the u.s. is nothing more than a political propaganda device, why don't you spend the day watching and rewatching that fucking video with rudy giuliani and dick cheney in one of dick's underground bunkers, maybe even the one dick actually spent 9/11 in. stay the fuck away from the place where those poor people died! you don't deserve to be there. you're not worthy to suck the cocks or eat the pussies of those who died there, or those who helped others that day.
or better yet, why don't you use your super-duper senator powers to actually do something to capture the fucker who brought this on us? remember that guy? the one who keeps making the videos?!?!? when you see another one of those, don't you hang your head in shame? do you think you could, just once? you're in the political party that keeps yammering that iraq is some "central front" in the war against a feeling, can't you at least pretend to care about finding that camel-fucker?!?!? i guess that war against a feeling keeps you busy and occupies all your time, especially after feeding people video of 9/11 to keep that feeling alive and well. i presume it's so you can keep pretending to fight it.
sincerest wishes of you shitting your pants in public,
culuriel
since you obviously think the attack on the u.s. is nothing more than a political propaganda device, why don't you spend the day watching and rewatching that fucking video with rudy giuliani and dick cheney in one of dick's underground bunkers, maybe even the one dick actually spent 9/11 in. stay the fuck away from the place where those poor people died! you don't deserve to be there. you're not worthy to suck the cocks or eat the pussies of those who died there, or those who helped others that day.
or better yet, why don't you use your super-duper senator powers to actually do something to capture the fucker who brought this on us? remember that guy? the one who keeps making the videos?!?!? when you see another one of those, don't you hang your head in shame? do you think you could, just once? you're in the political party that keeps yammering that iraq is some "central front" in the war against a feeling, can't you at least pretend to care about finding that camel-fucker?!?!? i guess that war against a feeling keeps you busy and occupies all your time, especially after feeding people video of 9/11 to keep that feeling alive and well. i presume it's so you can keep pretending to fight it.
sincerest wishes of you shitting your pants in public,
culuriel
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
back-alley abortionists for palin!
what? you thought we'd be for mccain? come on. he's been through skin cancer, and he's 71. he's croakin'. soon.
and that's fine with us! we've been out in the cold for 35 fucking years. you see, republicans know what happened when those fucking liberals won roe v. wade. those motherfuckers put an entire industry out of business. just like those liberals. and what a good, republican business back-alley abortions are!
what- you don't believe me? back-alley abortions, like drug smuggling, is the ultimate republican-style business. first, illegal businesses don't pay taxes. my clients, all good republicans, each and every one of them, didn't pay a dime of taxes on the cash payments that desperate women paid them. the liberals screwed them. starting in 1973, abortionists had to report these payments to the government as income! and pay taxes on them! second, back-alley abortionists solved our reliance on insurance companies, without government poking its nose into a problem it should stay the fuck out of. you didn't report a back-alley abortion to your insurance company. before 1973, you had to pull yourself up by the stirrups and use your own money before my clients shoved something up your pussy. so, back-alley abortions are a great lesson in self-reliance, especially when it comes time to get to the emergency room. third reason, don't get me started on all the stupid rules of professional practice and public health regulations my clients are now unfairly and ridiculously burdened with! painkillers!? my clients just used gags. complications were the "patient's" responsibility, my clients just did abortions. consent forms? hippocratic oath? socialist burdens imposed on hardworking americans.
fourth, and most important, is the sheen of respectability we give any society that employs my clients. back-alley abortionists give everybody the ability to condemn abortion- hell, people don't even talk about abortion when it's illegal, they don't even have to admit tolerating my clients. but they do, because back-alley abortionists give people who hate abortion the satisfaction of knowing that getting rid of junior is dangerous, and can be punished in ways the law can't. those dirty whores deserve us! those sluts who were happy to spread ther legs for their own pleasure- let 'em suffer and bleed for not taking the consequences. back-alley abortionists put the fear back into abortion, and well they should- women who don't pop out every kid they conceive are fucking with god's plan, depriving another woman of a kid to adopt, committing genocide, making a choice for men (when we all know it should be the other way around)! why, the fate of women who go to my clients should actually be much worse than what it is!
so governor palin, i hope you are just as flattered and humbled at my clients' endorsement of you for (vice) president as you were when you accepted the nomination. you are, after all, going to bring us back, and we look forward to the happier, more prosperous, more moral days coming under you. to god's will!
and that's fine with us! we've been out in the cold for 35 fucking years. you see, republicans know what happened when those fucking liberals won roe v. wade. those motherfuckers put an entire industry out of business. just like those liberals. and what a good, republican business back-alley abortions are!
what- you don't believe me? back-alley abortions, like drug smuggling, is the ultimate republican-style business. first, illegal businesses don't pay taxes. my clients, all good republicans, each and every one of them, didn't pay a dime of taxes on the cash payments that desperate women paid them. the liberals screwed them. starting in 1973, abortionists had to report these payments to the government as income! and pay taxes on them! second, back-alley abortionists solved our reliance on insurance companies, without government poking its nose into a problem it should stay the fuck out of. you didn't report a back-alley abortion to your insurance company. before 1973, you had to pull yourself up by the stirrups and use your own money before my clients shoved something up your pussy. so, back-alley abortions are a great lesson in self-reliance, especially when it comes time to get to the emergency room. third reason, don't get me started on all the stupid rules of professional practice and public health regulations my clients are now unfairly and ridiculously burdened with! painkillers!? my clients just used gags. complications were the "patient's" responsibility, my clients just did abortions. consent forms? hippocratic oath? socialist burdens imposed on hardworking americans.
fourth, and most important, is the sheen of respectability we give any society that employs my clients. back-alley abortionists give everybody the ability to condemn abortion- hell, people don't even talk about abortion when it's illegal, they don't even have to admit tolerating my clients. but they do, because back-alley abortionists give people who hate abortion the satisfaction of knowing that getting rid of junior is dangerous, and can be punished in ways the law can't. those dirty whores deserve us! those sluts who were happy to spread ther legs for their own pleasure- let 'em suffer and bleed for not taking the consequences. back-alley abortionists put the fear back into abortion, and well they should- women who don't pop out every kid they conceive are fucking with god's plan, depriving another woman of a kid to adopt, committing genocide, making a choice for men (when we all know it should be the other way around)! why, the fate of women who go to my clients should actually be much worse than what it is!
so governor palin, i hope you are just as flattered and humbled at my clients' endorsement of you for (vice) president as you were when you accepted the nomination. you are, after all, going to bring us back, and we look forward to the happier, more prosperous, more moral days coming under you. to god's will!
Saturday, September 6, 2008
bribery and ass-kissing aren't appeasement if they're done by petraeus
i've said it before (sort of), and i'll say it again: re-boosting our troop levels to 160,000 in 2007 and thinking it would reduce the violence, when we had about 160,000 troops in iraq to begin with and that didn't stop the violence then, is not what reduced violence in iraq. are people aware that we've been literally bribing the sunni insurgents to stop attacks, and sucking up to moqtada al-sadr to keep up his truce? that's why the attacks went down. for fuck's sake, it was the occupation of iraq that sunni and shia insurgents were attacking u.s. troops and each other over. and what's more, there are few mixed areas for sunni and shia to fight each other in anymore. and on top of that, where's the goddamned political progress of teary-eyed, hug inducing reconciliation between sunni and shia? is baghdad suddenly getting along better with the kurds?
republicans are dislocating their shoulders patting themselves on the back for getting violence levels down to what they were in 2005, 2004. excuse me, but those years sucked too. maybe they sucked a little less for those of us whose suffering was from watching it on tv. or maybe they sucked a little less because the shitty deceptions of the bush administration to justify this exercise in shittiness hadn't yet sunk in. i don't know.
however, unless you've been living in a cave, the iraqi government finally did what its people have been demanding and told the u.s that it's time to get its troops out. turns out, those permanent military bases the bush administration wanted ain't gonna happen. turns out, the iraqis don't really like the idea. who'dve thunk it? if these bases were for what i think they were (staging grounds for future wars against middle eastern countries), then i can hardly blame the iraqis for saying "FUCK NO!" and if the bush administration is threatening iraq with the loss of $20 billion dollars in its money for not signing the SOFA, then iraqis should kick someone in the nuts. there's a phrase for that tactic- it's called a protection racket.
and here's the kicker. here's what gets me pissed about iraq. let's say that we actually leave things there right as rain. let's say the sunnis and shias and kurds find some other group they can all hate together so they stop fighting each other. let's say that women can realistically leave their homes for jobs, socializing and educations. let's say the oil is flowing and gas is back down to $2 per gallon. WE STILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO AGHGANISTAN AND DEFEAT THE TALIBAN! remember that war?!?!? no?!?!? here's a hint: it's the one john mccain thinks just needs some tweaking. maybe we could even, dare i suggest it, capture bin laden?
in other words, we've lost more than 4,000 members of the u.s. armed forces, over 150 other armed forces from our "coalition" "partners", and anywhere from 86,000 to 1,000,000 iraqi civilians- but "winning" here means we're right back where we started. in 2003. with no bin laden, more opium, and a taliban/al quaeda force that still hasn't gone away. except that now, iraq's leadership won't be a neutralizing force against iran- because of the shia/shia thing, and because of iran's new relationship with iraq. and remember, iran is still in the axis of evil. (i think- i haven't heard that phrase in a few years. it may have died the quiet death "stay the course" did. finally.) we don't want iraq to suddenly start thinking that maybe they should side with iran over us (even though they're supposedly a sovereign nation). at least, not until iran is a trading partner, and they've given us the good trade agreements first. or at least some oil.
republicans are dislocating their shoulders patting themselves on the back for getting violence levels down to what they were in 2005, 2004. excuse me, but those years sucked too. maybe they sucked a little less for those of us whose suffering was from watching it on tv. or maybe they sucked a little less because the shitty deceptions of the bush administration to justify this exercise in shittiness hadn't yet sunk in. i don't know.
however, unless you've been living in a cave, the iraqi government finally did what its people have been demanding and told the u.s that it's time to get its troops out. turns out, those permanent military bases the bush administration wanted ain't gonna happen. turns out, the iraqis don't really like the idea. who'dve thunk it? if these bases were for what i think they were (staging grounds for future wars against middle eastern countries), then i can hardly blame the iraqis for saying "FUCK NO!" and if the bush administration is threatening iraq with the loss of $20 billion dollars in its money for not signing the SOFA, then iraqis should kick someone in the nuts. there's a phrase for that tactic- it's called a protection racket.
and here's the kicker. here's what gets me pissed about iraq. let's say that we actually leave things there right as rain. let's say the sunnis and shias and kurds find some other group they can all hate together so they stop fighting each other. let's say that women can realistically leave their homes for jobs, socializing and educations. let's say the oil is flowing and gas is back down to $2 per gallon. WE STILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO AGHGANISTAN AND DEFEAT THE TALIBAN! remember that war?!?!? no?!?!? here's a hint: it's the one john mccain thinks just needs some tweaking. maybe we could even, dare i suggest it, capture bin laden?
in other words, we've lost more than 4,000 members of the u.s. armed forces, over 150 other armed forces from our "coalition" "partners", and anywhere from 86,000 to 1,000,000 iraqi civilians- but "winning" here means we're right back where we started. in 2003. with no bin laden, more opium, and a taliban/al quaeda force that still hasn't gone away. except that now, iraq's leadership won't be a neutralizing force against iran- because of the shia/shia thing, and because of iran's new relationship with iraq. and remember, iran is still in the axis of evil. (i think- i haven't heard that phrase in a few years. it may have died the quiet death "stay the course" did. finally.) we don't want iraq to suddenly start thinking that maybe they should side with iran over us (even though they're supposedly a sovereign nation). at least, not until iran is a trading partner, and they've given us the good trade agreements first. or at least some oil.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
mccain's newest trophy (work) wife
so, olympia snowe, susan collins, christine todd whitman, condoleeza rice, and kay bailey hutchinson can apparently go fuck themselves. mccain really prefers the younger women, and not just for fucking.
all of the above women, though either slightly or way conservative, would all have been better picks. were the people advising mccain on a running mate on strike? in comas? palin will not deliver union votes, despite her husband's union status- the republican party has been at war with unions for decades now. palin and her husband can't possibly be so goddamned clueless they don't know this- they probably just don't care. palin will not deliver puma votes- those bitches ain't holding out for hillary because they want palin's grubby mooseburger-covered hands in their uteri. palin will not deliver the youth vote- obama has that almost completely locked up with the fact that he's proposed actually doing things differently, instead of just insisting that the same old shit is really new radical fertilizer. palin actually annihilates mccain's whole experience argument- we're supposed to believe that someone who's political career was on the city council and mayor's seat of a town of 8,500 people, and governor of a state of 700,000 for less than two years is qualified because she had the legal power to call the national guard for help? and if she's taking credit for stopping ted steven's bridge to nowhere, can she at least share the credit with jack cafferty?
palin brings mccain one thing (well, two, if mccain is looking for eye candy). palin brings mccain some red meat. the right-wing base of the republican party was never very enthusiastic about mccain, and even rumors of a pro-choice vp caused these nutjobs to throw back their heads and howl at the moon. palin ends all that. palin reassures the fuckers at operation rescue that mccain won't actually expect them to stop telling women getting abortions that they're murderers. palin reassures big oil that no one will stop their profits. she reassures the nra that nobody will do anything about illegal guns, or limit in any way the firepower that people can purchase. she may even give new hope to anti-tax fuckheads, since palin's a governor of a state with no income tax, in which residents actually get cash from oil revenues every year. of course she'll have no problem cutting taxes- alaska does very well without personal income taxes. of course, alaska receives more federal earmarks than any other state. but don't worry, governor palin assured everyone in late march that next year, alaska won't ask for so much. so see, she must be a reformer!
and here's the best thing about palin- for all her hardcore right-wing nutjob opinions, she looks normal. she doesn't have a national reputation for hardcore right-wing nuttery, and very few people outside of alaska know anything about the firing of her ex-brother-in-law. so she can actually impersonate a thinking human being. we'll see how good her acting is.
all of the above women, though either slightly or way conservative, would all have been better picks. were the people advising mccain on a running mate on strike? in comas? palin will not deliver union votes, despite her husband's union status- the republican party has been at war with unions for decades now. palin and her husband can't possibly be so goddamned clueless they don't know this- they probably just don't care. palin will not deliver puma votes- those bitches ain't holding out for hillary because they want palin's grubby mooseburger-covered hands in their uteri. palin will not deliver the youth vote- obama has that almost completely locked up with the fact that he's proposed actually doing things differently, instead of just insisting that the same old shit is really new radical fertilizer. palin actually annihilates mccain's whole experience argument- we're supposed to believe that someone who's political career was on the city council and mayor's seat of a town of 8,500 people, and governor of a state of 700,000 for less than two years is qualified because she had the legal power to call the national guard for help? and if she's taking credit for stopping ted steven's bridge to nowhere, can she at least share the credit with jack cafferty?
palin brings mccain one thing (well, two, if mccain is looking for eye candy). palin brings mccain some red meat. the right-wing base of the republican party was never very enthusiastic about mccain, and even rumors of a pro-choice vp caused these nutjobs to throw back their heads and howl at the moon. palin ends all that. palin reassures the fuckers at operation rescue that mccain won't actually expect them to stop telling women getting abortions that they're murderers. palin reassures big oil that no one will stop their profits. she reassures the nra that nobody will do anything about illegal guns, or limit in any way the firepower that people can purchase. she may even give new hope to anti-tax fuckheads, since palin's a governor of a state with no income tax, in which residents actually get cash from oil revenues every year. of course she'll have no problem cutting taxes- alaska does very well without personal income taxes. of course, alaska receives more federal earmarks than any other state. but don't worry, governor palin assured everyone in late march that next year, alaska won't ask for so much. so see, she must be a reformer!
and here's the best thing about palin- for all her hardcore right-wing nutjob opinions, she looks normal. she doesn't have a national reputation for hardcore right-wing nuttery, and very few people outside of alaska know anything about the firing of her ex-brother-in-law. so she can actually impersonate a thinking human being. we'll see how good her acting is.
Monday, August 25, 2008
my prediction for the democratic national convention
number of times speakers will tell everyone how important "faith" is to them: 6,789,032
number of times the constitutional ban on religious tests for office is mentioned: 0
number of times the constitutional ban on religious tests for office is mentioned: 0
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
elitism is whatever fox noise says it is
cokie roberts is a blessing in disguise. she really does make an asshat of herself, and on national television to boot. she also serves a deeper purpose, even if she doesn't know it: she makes me feel good to be a liberal. i'm so grateful to myself and the people who have influenced me that she and i aren't on the same political side. why the fuck myrtle beach instead of hawaii? who cares if he vacations in a place that seems "foreign and exotic"?!? that's what vacations are fucking for- going someplace really different from home. there was a time when vacations were supposed to teach you about how people could live differently, and learning this was considered good for you. not anymore. unless your vacation reinforces the sameness of your existence, you're.... what? elitist? unless you go where everyone else goes, and do what everyone else does, you're what? elitist?
"elitist" used to have an actual definition, until the republicans decided that the federal government actually deciding federal policy needed a word that would give it a negative connotation. "elitist" used to mean someone who not only thought he/she was in charge of everyone else, but that this was perfectly natural, and that it was all based on nature, so no one else could be in charge. elitism is not, and never was, the idea that studying biology and chemistry might make you more qualified to determine what acceptable levels of pollution on human health are. elitism is also not the idea that taxpayer-funded experts might be a little more biased towards public health than, say, experts funded by companies that pollute. the idea that taxpayers might want their guys/gals working on pollution policy instead of the corporations' guys/gals isn't elitism- it's applying the concept of dancin' with them what brung ya.
the republicans have milked the word elitism like it's a monsanto cow. you could be an elitist if you eat arugula, or even know what a whole foods store is (hint- the answer is cleverly hidden somewhere in the name). really? obama is talking above people's heads because he mentions whole foods? my mother living in a suburban wasteland either goes there or to wild oats, which republicans probably also can't identify. which leads me, at last, to a point. i think republicans are just flinging the term out at random these days. to say that mentioning arugula prices in a state where arugula is actually grown is elitist bespeaks a level of numbnuttery that rivals anything brittany spears has done- ever. okay, i exaggerate, but i am going to keep complaining. the way the republicans are defining elitism to include ever more things, it will eventually include anyone who doesn't eat with their fingers.
and while i'm at it, telling the truth isn't elitism (sorry, hillary, i love you, but you're wrong). i don't trust people with fixations on both guns and religion for a good reason- something's wrong with someone who insisits some invisible sky daddy created the world in six days, and that the government must let him buy something that can spit out the maximum bullets. most of the people who blasted obama the most for stereotyping rural and small-town people would never trust a muslim who loves his koran and his m-16. not every politician is going to act as if small-town america is the real america, and that everyone on the coasts should want to be just like them. and it might do our political system some fucking good if the "heartland" heard the truth about themselves, and maybe took a good hard look in a goddamned mirror. small-town americans have certainly never been shy about calling coastal city dwellers whatever they'd like.
we here on the coasts are the people who had the education, support, and (dare i say it?) initiative to get our asses here. the cities are centers of intense competition- whatever you do for a living, you better do it well, or move back to bumfuck, missouri. the cities are also the centers of intense culture. i can identify, even if i can't read, dozens of languages from each other. i've discovered fine art and performance artists i never would have even heard of back in the "heartland". i see documentaries most americans never get to see about topics the "heartland" could either give a fuck about, or is outright hostile to. i am exposed to people who have amazing life stories. it's certainly possible to live where i live and keep a closed mind- but you have to work at it. the coasts are for people who are not satisfied with conversations about gas prices and property taxes, and thank the people who first established the coastal cities and the people who have stuck with developing them. the coasts are for people who want to think both deeply and broadly. and small-town america doesn't like the fact that some people actually prefer the cities and the people in them to their apple pie/little league perfection. instead of telling yourselves that coastal city people are elitists who want to run your life, knock up your daughter, and steal your house, you could try listening to them. i know small-town america doesn't believe this, but the people of the coastal cities are just as american as they are.
"elitist" used to have an actual definition, until the republicans decided that the federal government actually deciding federal policy needed a word that would give it a negative connotation. "elitist" used to mean someone who not only thought he/she was in charge of everyone else, but that this was perfectly natural, and that it was all based on nature, so no one else could be in charge. elitism is not, and never was, the idea that studying biology and chemistry might make you more qualified to determine what acceptable levels of pollution on human health are. elitism is also not the idea that taxpayer-funded experts might be a little more biased towards public health than, say, experts funded by companies that pollute. the idea that taxpayers might want their guys/gals working on pollution policy instead of the corporations' guys/gals isn't elitism- it's applying the concept of dancin' with them what brung ya.
the republicans have milked the word elitism like it's a monsanto cow. you could be an elitist if you eat arugula, or even know what a whole foods store is (hint- the answer is cleverly hidden somewhere in the name). really? obama is talking above people's heads because he mentions whole foods? my mother living in a suburban wasteland either goes there or to wild oats, which republicans probably also can't identify. which leads me, at last, to a point. i think republicans are just flinging the term out at random these days. to say that mentioning arugula prices in a state where arugula is actually grown is elitist bespeaks a level of numbnuttery that rivals anything brittany spears has done- ever. okay, i exaggerate, but i am going to keep complaining. the way the republicans are defining elitism to include ever more things, it will eventually include anyone who doesn't eat with their fingers.
and while i'm at it, telling the truth isn't elitism (sorry, hillary, i love you, but you're wrong). i don't trust people with fixations on both guns and religion for a good reason- something's wrong with someone who insisits some invisible sky daddy created the world in six days, and that the government must let him buy something that can spit out the maximum bullets. most of the people who blasted obama the most for stereotyping rural and small-town people would never trust a muslim who loves his koran and his m-16. not every politician is going to act as if small-town america is the real america, and that everyone on the coasts should want to be just like them. and it might do our political system some fucking good if the "heartland" heard the truth about themselves, and maybe took a good hard look in a goddamned mirror. small-town americans have certainly never been shy about calling coastal city dwellers whatever they'd like.
we here on the coasts are the people who had the education, support, and (dare i say it?) initiative to get our asses here. the cities are centers of intense competition- whatever you do for a living, you better do it well, or move back to bumfuck, missouri. the cities are also the centers of intense culture. i can identify, even if i can't read, dozens of languages from each other. i've discovered fine art and performance artists i never would have even heard of back in the "heartland". i see documentaries most americans never get to see about topics the "heartland" could either give a fuck about, or is outright hostile to. i am exposed to people who have amazing life stories. it's certainly possible to live where i live and keep a closed mind- but you have to work at it. the coasts are for people who are not satisfied with conversations about gas prices and property taxes, and thank the people who first established the coastal cities and the people who have stuck with developing them. the coasts are for people who want to think both deeply and broadly. and small-town america doesn't like the fact that some people actually prefer the cities and the people in them to their apple pie/little league perfection. instead of telling yourselves that coastal city people are elitists who want to run your life, knock up your daughter, and steal your house, you could try listening to them. i know small-town america doesn't believe this, but the people of the coastal cities are just as american as they are.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
even tim shriver has to admit mccain is a retard
so mccain has actually decided that the fact that people really really really love/admire/actually want to listen to/can stand the sight of obama is bad. i happen to think he's loved because obama knows things, like, the difference between sunni and shia, and how much the price of milk has gone up. mccain thinks its obama's soft dreamy eyes. he likes to go on an on that obama's "not ready to lead". unfortunately for mccain, to lead, you need followers. you need a shitload of people to listen to you and do the grassroots work to bring about political change. mccain's only follower is joe lieberman. and joey l ain't doin' no grassroots work. i don't think that guy even cuts grass.
and on top of mccain's obvious pettiness, he fucks the viewer over! his ad claims he voted to raise taxes on people making $42,000 per year. by $15 per year. for single filers only. oh, that dirty socialist. does mccain understand that tax money goes, when it's not paying interest on the debt, or down the shithole that is iraq, to stuff that also stimulates the economy? like roadwork, or public employees' salaries, or building federal offices? on top of that, the federal government has rules for contractors for fair market wages, so funding a road project might actually stimulate the economy in a way that a new wal-mart just won't . but don't expect a conservative, even a fake maverick, to understand or admit that.
and with that said- what the fuck is obama's problem?!?!?!? why the fuck is he being nice to these world-class dickheads?!?!?!? it's not like obama has some great working relationship with mccain. it's not like mccain is his pastor of 20-odd years. mccain is a shitstain who flew off the handle at him in 2006 because obama thought that a task force on lobbyist reform would take too long, and is now using every opportunity to belittle and outright insult him. mccain's ads always have a whiff of mccain's disdain for obama- you can tell mccain thinks obama has some nerve challenging him. if obama even smiles and enjoys himself for two seconds, mccain acts as if obama has gotten too big for his britches. sorry johnboy, but obama is not a step-n-fetch-it. he's not going to humble himself before your sorry ass. oh, obama will be nice to you, and continue to call you an honorable man, blah blah blah. but why should the guy who beat hillary fucking clinton in a primary she was favored to win act like he doesn't belong on the world stage, and he'll only take the job if mccain suddenly decides he doesn't want it?
i'll tell you why obama doesn't bring out a few sucker punches. he has class. remember, when we used to complement someone by saying they had class? it meant you were a decent human being, even when you didn't have to be. it meant you were never so desperate you resorted to the shittiness that is now john mccain's entire campaign. we don't tell people they have class anymore. i don't know, maybe having class is now one of those elitist, liberal things, and conservatives allow themselves to wallow in an orgy of materialism and pettiness. now, don't get me wrong, i admire class. and i think obama's got it. i thought he had alot more of it before he caved on fisa, but he's got it. but obama needs to channel that class. he needs to have enough class to go before the american people and literally point out every shitty thing mccain's ads have said and implied, and why they're shitty. he needs to look a camera in the eye and say "john mccain has no class, and i feel sorry for him." but obama won't. he'll act like he's got to at least pretend to respect john mccain, because it's some new kind of politics he wants to introduce. i say no new kinds of politics until you've shown you can master the one we have now.
and on top of mccain's obvious pettiness, he fucks the viewer over! his ad claims he voted to raise taxes on people making $42,000 per year. by $15 per year. for single filers only. oh, that dirty socialist. does mccain understand that tax money goes, when it's not paying interest on the debt, or down the shithole that is iraq, to stuff that also stimulates the economy? like roadwork, or public employees' salaries, or building federal offices? on top of that, the federal government has rules for contractors for fair market wages, so funding a road project might actually stimulate the economy in a way that a new wal-mart just won't . but don't expect a conservative, even a fake maverick, to understand or admit that.
and with that said- what the fuck is obama's problem?!?!?!? why the fuck is he being nice to these world-class dickheads?!?!?!? it's not like obama has some great working relationship with mccain. it's not like mccain is his pastor of 20-odd years. mccain is a shitstain who flew off the handle at him in 2006 because obama thought that a task force on lobbyist reform would take too long, and is now using every opportunity to belittle and outright insult him. mccain's ads always have a whiff of mccain's disdain for obama- you can tell mccain thinks obama has some nerve challenging him. if obama even smiles and enjoys himself for two seconds, mccain acts as if obama has gotten too big for his britches. sorry johnboy, but obama is not a step-n-fetch-it. he's not going to humble himself before your sorry ass. oh, obama will be nice to you, and continue to call you an honorable man, blah blah blah. but why should the guy who beat hillary fucking clinton in a primary she was favored to win act like he doesn't belong on the world stage, and he'll only take the job if mccain suddenly decides he doesn't want it?
i'll tell you why obama doesn't bring out a few sucker punches. he has class. remember, when we used to complement someone by saying they had class? it meant you were a decent human being, even when you didn't have to be. it meant you were never so desperate you resorted to the shittiness that is now john mccain's entire campaign. we don't tell people they have class anymore. i don't know, maybe having class is now one of those elitist, liberal things, and conservatives allow themselves to wallow in an orgy of materialism and pettiness. now, don't get me wrong, i admire class. and i think obama's got it. i thought he had alot more of it before he caved on fisa, but he's got it. but obama needs to channel that class. he needs to have enough class to go before the american people and literally point out every shitty thing mccain's ads have said and implied, and why they're shitty. he needs to look a camera in the eye and say "john mccain has no class, and i feel sorry for him." but obama won't. he'll act like he's got to at least pretend to respect john mccain, because it's some new kind of politics he wants to introduce. i say no new kinds of politics until you've shown you can master the one we have now.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
russian guys want me to hate them
are russian guys really ugly? are they all fucking fatties? do they always stink real bad? can they not crack the occasionally funny joke? do they lack flirtation skills altogether? you tell me. because, apparently, in russia, it's necessary for men to harass women employees to get laid. seriously, a judge literally just told the entire world that russian men cannot possibly get a willing female sex partner: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2470310/Sexual-harrassment-okay-as-it-ensures-humans-breed,-Russian-judge-rules.html
that whole, meet a woman, attract her attention for your looks or wit or both, gain her trust, please her in bed thing is just beyond russian men. they can't do it. they have to make sex a condition of employment or good grades to get laid. they either can't be bothered to actually persuade women to fuck them, or they don't have what it takes to persuade women to fuck them. either way, they suck ass.
yeah, i know, sexual harassment is really about the power. so since i really think this judge is full of shit, i'll get down to it. russian guys like having the power to treat women like shit. why else this decision? but before american guys, or any other nationality where women get some legal protection from this bullshit, get on their high horses, remember something. american women only got legal protection from sexual harassers by winning court decisions, most notably faragher v. boca raton and burlington industries v. ellerth. men didn't simply decide to start behaving better. they had to, or their bosses had to make them, or the company would have to pay.
but the deeper questions are, why do we have to keep explaining what sucks about sexual harassment? and why do men keep doing it even after we tell them how much it sucks ass? do we really have to keep explaining how worrying about what some guy will touch next interferes with our jobs? or do men know, and do it for that reason? or do men just not care whether we can do our jobs? i think it's the latter. they just don't give a fuck. sexual harassment is a little like rape- it's never seen as a man's problem, even though men are the vast vast majority of the perpetrators. it's seen as a woman's problem, because she's the one who has the problem with it. why should i respect men who won't do anything to solve the problem?
so if russian guys don't want me interrogating them for this continuously, or continuing to mock their abilities to get willing sex, they're just going to have to change. i'm not saying switch to writing love poetry overnight. in fact, how 'bout never on the love poetry? all i'm asking is that russian guys mull over the radical notion that they might have better chances of getting laid, and well, and with repeat business, if they actually figured out how to attract women and persuade them to have willing sex. yeah, i know, i may be asking too much.
that whole, meet a woman, attract her attention for your looks or wit or both, gain her trust, please her in bed thing is just beyond russian men. they can't do it. they have to make sex a condition of employment or good grades to get laid. they either can't be bothered to actually persuade women to fuck them, or they don't have what it takes to persuade women to fuck them. either way, they suck ass.
yeah, i know, sexual harassment is really about the power. so since i really think this judge is full of shit, i'll get down to it. russian guys like having the power to treat women like shit. why else this decision? but before american guys, or any other nationality where women get some legal protection from this bullshit, get on their high horses, remember something. american women only got legal protection from sexual harassers by winning court decisions, most notably faragher v. boca raton and burlington industries v. ellerth. men didn't simply decide to start behaving better. they had to, or their bosses had to make them, or the company would have to pay.
but the deeper questions are, why do we have to keep explaining what sucks about sexual harassment? and why do men keep doing it even after we tell them how much it sucks ass? do we really have to keep explaining how worrying about what some guy will touch next interferes with our jobs? or do men know, and do it for that reason? or do men just not care whether we can do our jobs? i think it's the latter. they just don't give a fuck. sexual harassment is a little like rape- it's never seen as a man's problem, even though men are the vast vast majority of the perpetrators. it's seen as a woman's problem, because she's the one who has the problem with it. why should i respect men who won't do anything to solve the problem?
so if russian guys don't want me interrogating them for this continuously, or continuing to mock their abilities to get willing sex, they're just going to have to change. i'm not saying switch to writing love poetry overnight. in fact, how 'bout never on the love poetry? all i'm asking is that russian guys mull over the radical notion that they might have better chances of getting laid, and well, and with repeat business, if they actually figured out how to attract women and persuade them to have willing sex. yeah, i know, i may be asking too much.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
i wish these guys weren't such assholes
i hate it when someone tells me how cheap something they bought at wal-mart was. does anyone know why the stuff at wal-mart is so cheap? who hasn't read enough news articles on what wal-mart does to its employees? or the poverty of the people making the stuff? or do people know, and just shrug their shoulders and think, "better them than me"?
wal-mart has recently had sit-downs with department heads and store managers to push their anti-union and anti-Democratic Party message. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.html wal-mart is particularly pee-in-their-pants-scared of the Employee Free Choice Act, passed in the House but stuck in the Senate and threatened with George Bush's veto, which would enable a union to be organized if and when more than 50% of a commercial entity's workers sign a card to join the union. oh the horror. wal-mart, and a few allies, are worried that if organizing a union is that easy, they won't be able to talk workers out of joining. wal-mart's current sit-down warns its viewers that if you're in a union, you'll have to- gasp - pay dues! and go on strike! and most importantly, that if labor costs go up, there could be fewer jobs! see the link.
really, there are going to be fewer jobs? i haven't been to a wal-mart for almost a decade, but something tells me that wal-mart doesn't overstaff their stores. the reality is that this is typical union-busting bullshit- that the only way wal-mart (or any business) can run a profitable store is to pay its employees crap. why do we always assume that it's the lot of the worker to be grateful for the pittance she gets? i say that if owners can combine their stakes to maximize their profits, than workers can combine their voices to do the same. after all, wages are the worker's profit. if a corporation can maximize its profits, why can't its employees?
it's this kind of myopic bullshit from wal-mart that makes me wonder if the executives who shovel this down their employees' throats have ever asked themselves why people organize unions in the first place. hint: it's not because they're bored. it's because they're dissatisfied with working for a living but not making a living. well, not dissatisfied- pissed off. they're pissed when the boss breaks the law. they're pissed at getting fired for taking care of loved ones. they're pissed about a buttload of horseshit and unions are how they fight back. so wal-mart can just suck it up.
wal-mart has recently had sit-downs with department heads and store managers to push their anti-union and anti-Democratic Party message. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.html wal-mart is particularly pee-in-their-pants-scared of the Employee Free Choice Act, passed in the House but stuck in the Senate and threatened with George Bush's veto, which would enable a union to be organized if and when more than 50% of a commercial entity's workers sign a card to join the union. oh the horror. wal-mart, and a few allies, are worried that if organizing a union is that easy, they won't be able to talk workers out of joining. wal-mart's current sit-down warns its viewers that if you're in a union, you'll have to- gasp - pay dues! and go on strike! and most importantly, that if labor costs go up, there could be fewer jobs! see the link.
really, there are going to be fewer jobs? i haven't been to a wal-mart for almost a decade, but something tells me that wal-mart doesn't overstaff their stores. the reality is that this is typical union-busting bullshit- that the only way wal-mart (or any business) can run a profitable store is to pay its employees crap. why do we always assume that it's the lot of the worker to be grateful for the pittance she gets? i say that if owners can combine their stakes to maximize their profits, than workers can combine their voices to do the same. after all, wages are the worker's profit. if a corporation can maximize its profits, why can't its employees?
it's this kind of myopic bullshit from wal-mart that makes me wonder if the executives who shovel this down their employees' throats have ever asked themselves why people organize unions in the first place. hint: it's not because they're bored. it's because they're dissatisfied with working for a living but not making a living. well, not dissatisfied- pissed off. they're pissed when the boss breaks the law. they're pissed at getting fired for taking care of loved ones. they're pissed about a buttload of horseshit and unions are how they fight back. so wal-mart can just suck it up.
what is wtf?
if you don't know what wtf? means, please go back to your wall street journal. this blog is not for you. this blog will be about whatever's pissing me off, whether in politics, the arts, or culture. i get pissed off regularly, and when i'm pissed, i go on a bit.
so what pisses me off? what can you expect? here's a partial list (when i say partial, i mean it's the tip of the iceberg):
-people who wear clothes that are obviously a size too small
-just about everything on and about fox news
-people who ask why i'm still not married
-creationism (young earth & otherwise)
i hope this helps. now i'm going to sit back and wait until something pisses me off. it won't be long.
so what pisses me off? what can you expect? here's a partial list (when i say partial, i mean it's the tip of the iceberg):
-people who wear clothes that are obviously a size too small
-just about everything on and about fox news
-people who ask why i'm still not married
-creationism (young earth & otherwise)
i hope this helps. now i'm going to sit back and wait until something pisses me off. it won't be long.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)