i know, it's a cliche. but it fits so well, and i don't have all day to come up with another title.
so now rush limbaugh cares about women breaking the glass ceiling. it says something, and not complimentary, that republicans care more about whether nancy pelosi knew anything about torture then the fact that the bush administration approved of and practiced it. if waterboarding and slamming people into walls and cuffing people into painful, harmful positions is okey-dokey, then who cares what she knew and when? it only matters if what the cia did was illegal, unamerican and flat out shitty. and it was.
so what should nancy pelosi have done? let's go through her options, or i should say lack of them. house members are required to take an oath not to release classified information that they gain in the course of their house of representatives duties- we've had it since the 104th congress. and peter hoekstra, a republican representative, actually called for more stringent legal secrecy requirements. and apparently, the same administration torturing people hated leaks of classified information from congress. remember, these assholes never regret committing the crime; they are always incensed by the exposure of their crime. so nancy pelosi can't tell anybody anything.
so could she have stopped it? please, girlfriend. don't waste my time. what authority does nancy pelosi have to stop this? it's already illegal through the convention against torture, which ronald reagan signed and the u.s. senate ratified. so the bush administration is willing to do something that anybody with any passing knowledge of the convention against torture must know is illegal. what law was nancy pelosi going to pass that she could expect the bush administration to care about? so let's say she goes to the bush administration, secretly, and tells them it's illegal. well, that's what yoo's & bybee's memoes were for! i'm sure the bush adminstraton loved shoving those across the table for nancy to read, as a sort of "we checked with lawyers that already agreed with us- and they told us we are right! isn't that great?" i suppose nancy could have gotten her own lawyers to write legal opinions pointing out what the law actually is. but how can she get other lawyers to declare illegal techniques she's not supposed to tell those lawyers about? and that is ostensibly what john yoo and jay bybee are supposed to be able to do. i don't know anyone who could say the bush administration would have acted differently if the house minority leader, who they think is a commie terrorist sympathizer anyway, told them to stop (rememer, she became speaker in 2007, and was still bound to secrecy by her oath). if nancy had stalked into the oval office and denounced these techniques, george would have just chuckled at her and dick cheney would have stuffed her in his man-sized safe. let's face facts: the bush administration didn't care if torture: 1- is illegal or 2-is illegal even when john yoo and jay bybee say it's legal or 3- is illegal even if it's nancy pelosi saying it's illegal. if you think differently, what the fuck closet do you live in?
so let's get this straight- nancy pelosi can't tell anyone about the torture without fear of prosecution. since whistleblower protection isn't what it used to be, this is a serious consideration. and she can't do anything, since the bush administration is blithely pretending this is all legal no matter what she thinks anyway. and she's responsible? are republicans trying to torture us too?
and now for the photos. i love how all of a sudden we give a shit about what the muslims will think of what we've done. i wonder if john yoo and jay bybee, in their infinite wisdom, could have seen this coming. i wonder if maybe it ocurred to them that people's outrage over doing these things might indicate it's torture, and since torture's illegal, they've got to rule it out. and i wonder why we get to (outrage people) torture, but muslims can't touch a hair on our heads? perhaps, in the future, yoo and bybee can worry about what exposure of the government's crimes will bring before the government commits the crime. i don't see how you can blame nancy pelosi when it was dick cheney who couldn't be bothered to do that.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
the right wingers' lord's prayer
in belated honor on the national day of prayer, which i will celebrate at about the time i get around to giving up my stuffed bunny.
our father, who art 100% straight,
american be thy birth certificate.
thy supreme court justice come,
limbaugh’s will be done,
in new york as well as san francisco.
let us take this day our service workers’ daily bread,
and forget that we trespassed, but let us bomb others for imagined trespasses.
and lead us not into socialized medicine,
but deliver us from michael moore.
for thine is the legislative, executive and judicial branches for as long as republicans can get the votes,
dittos.
our father, who art 100% straight,
american be thy birth certificate.
thy supreme court justice come,
limbaugh’s will be done,
in new york as well as san francisco.
let us take this day our service workers’ daily bread,
and forget that we trespassed, but let us bomb others for imagined trespasses.
and lead us not into socialized medicine,
but deliver us from michael moore.
for thine is the legislative, executive and judicial branches for as long as republicans can get the votes,
dittos.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
mirror mirror on the wall
wow, does camille paglia suck. queen of the overgeneralization, lover of her own experience to the exclusion of all others', translator of others' rejections into theory. all knowledge, or at least that which isn't pointy-headed elitism, just happens to be whatever camille knows, or at least finds entertaining. how dare liberals object to criticism of themselves- especially when it's based on camy's personal surface impressions. don't liberals know their job is to sit down and shut up and let every superficial remark about barack obama go? no, i won't link to her "column". it's on salon premium anyway, and i'm sorry i even read it. don't make the same mistake i did.
this is the woman who doesn't accept that humans cause global warming because there's no way we could have that much effect on something as enormous and constantly changing as the earth. this is someone who takes getting twitted for liking the rolling stones as some sort of statement about feminism. this is someone who doesn't understand that sometime working-class people grow up to be really liberal, and not just claim to be. this woman somehow also has completely missed the long line of religious liberals, such as nancy pelosi, jim wallis, michael moore, cory booker, blah blah blah. and she liked titanic. really liked it.
camille paglia, like most conservatives, is stuck in the late 60s and 70s, when academia had a few examples of what paglia claims liberalism is now, completely. in one column, she double-handedly (she had help from "letter writers") decided that hating religion was the defining movement of liberalism (well, i do, but i'm in a minority of even liberals); obama was disappointing for diplomatic gaffes (some of them non-existent, none of them actually insulting, and none of them involving vomiting); conservatives veer toward facts and not emotion and play fair (does she even read glenn greenwald's stuff? he's a fellow salon, blogger, so she probably wouldn't have to pay), while liberals just leap on anyone who disagrees with them; and that the lessons of her working class background negate the lessons of any other liberal's (i'm using that term loosely with her) working-class background.
according to camy, sarah palin was real, which apparently washes out the facts that she was also stupid, lacked any connection to reality, and had no professional ethics. in camy-world, liberals can't poke fun at themselves (except john stewart and stephanie miller and cenk ungur and i could go on), the media cleverly covers up a murder in a gay, gay townhouse by putting it on the front page. in the gospel according to camy, you can be a feminist and accuse any woman who has aborted a fetus of murder. and the tripe! i have no idea what "all gods exist- because thinking it makes it so" means, but i know of no other atheist who would say something so silly.
because that is what camy page does- she says something so based on surface, subjective impressions, and has no compunction to do routine fact-checking. instead of doing any research on liberal talk radio and where it's going, it's so much easier and makes her look so much smarter to spew out some weird-ass generalization that stephanie miller and randi rhodes could just shove back in her mouth. it's also alot of time to research how increased corporate ownership and reduced diversity of ownership has pushed liberal talk radio out of markets, even when they were doing well. it would require camy to talk to researchers, who might act as if their experience and data trump whatever erudite concepts are bouncing around camy's head.
it's always more important to camy to look like she's an independent thinker rather than actually dig up some fucking facts and base her opinions on them. it's so great to note that moms homeschooling their kids seem feisty and super-organized, and not trouble oneself to ask what they're actually teaching their kids, and whether it's based on actual research or study materials from bob jones "university". it's more fun to act like an atheist who can't understand why atheists would flock to the only major political party that even gives them a voice, and a marginalized one at that. really, camy, you can't understand why atheists tend to be liberal- could it be the conservative disdain for the establishment clause of the first amendment? why don't you show some independent thinking by claiming it's orgies at the democratic national convention. that at least would entertain.
yeah, camy, their are some major fruitcakes out there, and somehow salon.com hires one once in a while. i'll end by linking to something worth reading. if we lived in a just universe, camy would have died of cancer, and molly ivins would still be with us.
this is the woman who doesn't accept that humans cause global warming because there's no way we could have that much effect on something as enormous and constantly changing as the earth. this is someone who takes getting twitted for liking the rolling stones as some sort of statement about feminism. this is someone who doesn't understand that sometime working-class people grow up to be really liberal, and not just claim to be. this woman somehow also has completely missed the long line of religious liberals, such as nancy pelosi, jim wallis, michael moore, cory booker, blah blah blah. and she liked titanic. really liked it.
camille paglia, like most conservatives, is stuck in the late 60s and 70s, when academia had a few examples of what paglia claims liberalism is now, completely. in one column, she double-handedly (she had help from "letter writers") decided that hating religion was the defining movement of liberalism (well, i do, but i'm in a minority of even liberals); obama was disappointing for diplomatic gaffes (some of them non-existent, none of them actually insulting, and none of them involving vomiting); conservatives veer toward facts and not emotion and play fair (does she even read glenn greenwald's stuff? he's a fellow salon, blogger, so she probably wouldn't have to pay), while liberals just leap on anyone who disagrees with them; and that the lessons of her working class background negate the lessons of any other liberal's (i'm using that term loosely with her) working-class background.
according to camy, sarah palin was real, which apparently washes out the facts that she was also stupid, lacked any connection to reality, and had no professional ethics. in camy-world, liberals can't poke fun at themselves (except john stewart and stephanie miller and cenk ungur and i could go on), the media cleverly covers up a murder in a gay, gay townhouse by putting it on the front page. in the gospel according to camy, you can be a feminist and accuse any woman who has aborted a fetus of murder. and the tripe! i have no idea what "all gods exist- because thinking it makes it so" means, but i know of no other atheist who would say something so silly.
because that is what camy page does- she says something so based on surface, subjective impressions, and has no compunction to do routine fact-checking. instead of doing any research on liberal talk radio and where it's going, it's so much easier and makes her look so much smarter to spew out some weird-ass generalization that stephanie miller and randi rhodes could just shove back in her mouth. it's also alot of time to research how increased corporate ownership and reduced diversity of ownership has pushed liberal talk radio out of markets, even when they were doing well. it would require camy to talk to researchers, who might act as if their experience and data trump whatever erudite concepts are bouncing around camy's head.
it's always more important to camy to look like she's an independent thinker rather than actually dig up some fucking facts and base her opinions on them. it's so great to note that moms homeschooling their kids seem feisty and super-organized, and not trouble oneself to ask what they're actually teaching their kids, and whether it's based on actual research or study materials from bob jones "university". it's more fun to act like an atheist who can't understand why atheists would flock to the only major political party that even gives them a voice, and a marginalized one at that. really, camy, you can't understand why atheists tend to be liberal- could it be the conservative disdain for the establishment clause of the first amendment? why don't you show some independent thinking by claiming it's orgies at the democratic national convention. that at least would entertain.
yeah, camy, their are some major fruitcakes out there, and somehow salon.com hires one once in a while. i'll end by linking to something worth reading. if we lived in a just universe, camy would have died of cancer, and molly ivins would still be with us.
Monday, April 6, 2009
just who the fuck voted for her, anyway?!?!?!?!?!?!
the fact that michelle bachmann needs an extra "n" at the end of her last name should tell you everything you need to know. okay, i exaggerate. this should tell you everything you need to know about michelle bachmann. she is bugfuck, apeshit insane. she uses already discarded pieces of legislation to argue that stalin is in the building. and the discarded pieces? they didn't even call for what she said they did.
here's what the new serve america act does do: it gives federal funding status to a slew of already existing community service programs (or new ones some goddamned do-gooder dreams up), and also awards increased pell grants for anyone who completes these programs that can be used to pay for college or student loans. it also reinforces rules about what programs do and don't qualify. basically, any program that engages in politics, supports a for-profit company or union, or is religious instruction does not qualify. if you're program is receiving funds under this bill, it can't have any of those goals, and the volunteers can't do any of those things while they're supposed to be doing community service. last, it sets rules for school districts that would like funding as a "youth engagement zone": at least 90% of students must be in a service program, and the high school has to have some "service learning" as a part of the mandatory curriculum. did we save the statue of vladimir lenin? i think we're gonna need it.
it does not stipulate that you can't attend church, work for a union, or tell mccain supporters he fathered a black baby. you just have to do those things on your own fucking time. maybe the problem bachmann has with the bill is that the people in her district don't have any of their own time anymore, what with all their foreclosures. or maybe she thinks that if public schools taught kids to give a shit about someone else for a change, they might not demand tax cuts when they're voting age. why is it that actually teaching americans to care about other americans has mixed republican support, but just about full democratic support? doesn't that say something about how different the parties are, ralph?
and here's what michelle rails about the most- the stuff that got yanked! the bill, originally, would have just looked into whether making some form of community service for young adults mandatory would improve the country. the original version also would have required the government "look into" (read: we'll get back to you when jfk's assassination reports are declassified) creating a 4-year, college-level institution for educating people for public sector jobs. the fact that we would even talk about requiring kids to give a shit about something besides the coolness of their own sneakers (i'm sorry, athletic shoes) and what color their ipods should be is a sign that castro's mind-control experiment has finally succeeded.
why is it that every single action by a government that aims to make this a better place to live is some sort of communist plot? whether it's flouride in the water, social security, the minimum wage, and now some additional government support for teaching young people the value of actually giving a shit. why is banning smoking from public places some sort of outrage? i don't see a right to tobacco anywhere in the constitution. i don't see a right to demand every single dollar your boss paid you in dollars that only have value because the government says so in the fucking bill of rights. but then again, i'm one of those pointy-headed intellectuals whose actually bothered to read the damn thing.
here's what the new serve america act does do: it gives federal funding status to a slew of already existing community service programs (or new ones some goddamned do-gooder dreams up), and also awards increased pell grants for anyone who completes these programs that can be used to pay for college or student loans. it also reinforces rules about what programs do and don't qualify. basically, any program that engages in politics, supports a for-profit company or union, or is religious instruction does not qualify. if you're program is receiving funds under this bill, it can't have any of those goals, and the volunteers can't do any of those things while they're supposed to be doing community service. last, it sets rules for school districts that would like funding as a "youth engagement zone": at least 90% of students must be in a service program, and the high school has to have some "service learning" as a part of the mandatory curriculum. did we save the statue of vladimir lenin? i think we're gonna need it.
it does not stipulate that you can't attend church, work for a union, or tell mccain supporters he fathered a black baby. you just have to do those things on your own fucking time. maybe the problem bachmann has with the bill is that the people in her district don't have any of their own time anymore, what with all their foreclosures. or maybe she thinks that if public schools taught kids to give a shit about someone else for a change, they might not demand tax cuts when they're voting age. why is it that actually teaching americans to care about other americans has mixed republican support, but just about full democratic support? doesn't that say something about how different the parties are, ralph?
and here's what michelle rails about the most- the stuff that got yanked! the bill, originally, would have just looked into whether making some form of community service for young adults mandatory would improve the country. the original version also would have required the government "look into" (read: we'll get back to you when jfk's assassination reports are declassified) creating a 4-year, college-level institution for educating people for public sector jobs. the fact that we would even talk about requiring kids to give a shit about something besides the coolness of their own sneakers (i'm sorry, athletic shoes) and what color their ipods should be is a sign that castro's mind-control experiment has finally succeeded.
why is it that every single action by a government that aims to make this a better place to live is some sort of communist plot? whether it's flouride in the water, social security, the minimum wage, and now some additional government support for teaching young people the value of actually giving a shit. why is banning smoking from public places some sort of outrage? i don't see a right to tobacco anywhere in the constitution. i don't see a right to demand every single dollar your boss paid you in dollars that only have value because the government says so in the fucking bill of rights. but then again, i'm one of those pointy-headed intellectuals whose actually bothered to read the damn thing.
Monday, March 16, 2009
shut the fuck up about your fucking bonuses
disclosure: i got laid off on february 27, 2009. i was shocked. the operations manager was very sad, and the partner in charge of my department was sad, and the department director was very sad. i was a good employee, founded our company's sustainability team, trained employees in sustainability, was promoted, was working towards something. everyone was very clear that i had done nothing wrong, didn't deserve to be laid off, but "salaries had to brought in-line with billing". and someone making $75k when it's not all billable hours is going to be pushed out of the lifeboat eventually.
but the horsefuckers who brought AIG down? they're supposed to get bonuses. that means they got to keep their jobs. these people literally brought down the world's largest insurance company and the world's financial systems with it, AND THEY'RE STILL EMPLOYED. and getting bonuses. because their contracts say so.
the UAW had a contract with the car companies, but i seem to remember that being recently renegotiated for the sake of people keeping their jobs. people who built the cars they were told to, and did their jobs. THEY had to renegotiate their contracts to keep their jobs. but the mother-pimpers at AIG? well, renegotiating a contract is out of the question. in fact, to hear larry (you think CHICKS can't do math?) summers tell it, actually forcing these fuckers to renegotiate these contracts that award these asscracks bonuses for failing might bring down the rule of law.
so let me explain this to these fucking pathetic excuses for human scum. the only reason you're still employed is so you can clean up the mess you made. that's it. that's your only use. and when you're done cleaning up the catastrofuck you helped created, your ass is going to be canned. either AIG will say so long, fuckers, or people will show up at your office with pitchforks and torches. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR FUCKING BONUSES. you should be working for free right now, and constantly begging the rest of us (you know, the little people whose 401ks and IRAs you destroyed) for our forgiveness. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR FUCKING BONUSES. the only thing you've earned is a one-way ticket to the Sahara Desert. you didn't even care about the welfare of the company you worked for. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR BONUSES. other people are worried about keeping a roof above their heads since they don't have jobs. other people are moving in with their parents. other people can no longer see a doctor since they don't have jobs and can't afford COBRA. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR BONUSES. going without millions of dollars you didn't earn isn't socialism. it's just desserts.
but the horsefuckers who brought AIG down? they're supposed to get bonuses. that means they got to keep their jobs. these people literally brought down the world's largest insurance company and the world's financial systems with it, AND THEY'RE STILL EMPLOYED. and getting bonuses. because their contracts say so.
the UAW had a contract with the car companies, but i seem to remember that being recently renegotiated for the sake of people keeping their jobs. people who built the cars they were told to, and did their jobs. THEY had to renegotiate their contracts to keep their jobs. but the mother-pimpers at AIG? well, renegotiating a contract is out of the question. in fact, to hear larry (you think CHICKS can't do math?) summers tell it, actually forcing these fuckers to renegotiate these contracts that award these asscracks bonuses for failing might bring down the rule of law.
so let me explain this to these fucking pathetic excuses for human scum. the only reason you're still employed is so you can clean up the mess you made. that's it. that's your only use. and when you're done cleaning up the catastrofuck you helped created, your ass is going to be canned. either AIG will say so long, fuckers, or people will show up at your office with pitchforks and torches. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR FUCKING BONUSES. you should be working for free right now, and constantly begging the rest of us (you know, the little people whose 401ks and IRAs you destroyed) for our forgiveness. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR FUCKING BONUSES. the only thing you've earned is a one-way ticket to the Sahara Desert. you didn't even care about the welfare of the company you worked for. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR BONUSES. other people are worried about keeping a roof above their heads since they don't have jobs. other people are moving in with their parents. other people can no longer see a doctor since they don't have jobs and can't afford COBRA. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR BONUSES. going without millions of dollars you didn't earn isn't socialism. it's just desserts.
Monday, January 19, 2009
please, let the door hit your ass on the way out
doghouse riley has been doing this more than amazing retrospective of the "bush" "administration", and its "governance". i wish i could surpass this. i wish i could express my searing hatred of this "man" and all the shit he has covered this nation in as well as doghouse riley does. hell, i wish i could tell stories about lawn care as well as doghouse does.
and to chris matthews: i'm not disagreeing with you- but i saw all this in 2000, and in 2001 (even on september 12), and in 2002, especially in 2003, and so on. did i have access to information about him that you didn't? is there some reason you decided to become blinded by his manly landing on aircraft carrier, while some of us perceived that this photo op was the whole reason bush decided we should invade iraq? were his jokes on the 2000 campaign plane so fucking hysterical that you felt guilty criticizing him until fucking 2008? when it's too late to even impeach him. finally growing a pair mid-2008 doesn't excuse castrating yourself for 7-1/2 years, asshat.
and to all of you dipshits who voted for this dirty, motherfucking whore to polluters, warmongers, defence contractors, dishonest foreigners, anti-woman zealots, theocrats, cronies, and anybody else who sucks and fucks others over; to all of you who voted for him in 2000 or especially in 2004- are you happy? wtf is wrong with you? how could you look around, even way back in 2004, and think we were doin' okay, or even a heckuva job? did you really need the federal government forcing terri schiavo to keep breathing and destruction in yet another major american city to start giving a shit? question the guy? wonder if maybe brains might just be a minor qualification for the fucking job? shut the fuck up about history judging him- what you really mean is that george w bush will only look like a good president when the people who actually remember him are dead.
and to chris matthews: i'm not disagreeing with you- but i saw all this in 2000, and in 2001 (even on september 12), and in 2002, especially in 2003, and so on. did i have access to information about him that you didn't? is there some reason you decided to become blinded by his manly landing on aircraft carrier, while some of us perceived that this photo op was the whole reason bush decided we should invade iraq? were his jokes on the 2000 campaign plane so fucking hysterical that you felt guilty criticizing him until fucking 2008? when it's too late to even impeach him. finally growing a pair mid-2008 doesn't excuse castrating yourself for 7-1/2 years, asshat.
and to all of you dipshits who voted for this dirty, motherfucking whore to polluters, warmongers, defence contractors, dishonest foreigners, anti-woman zealots, theocrats, cronies, and anybody else who sucks and fucks others over; to all of you who voted for him in 2000 or especially in 2004- are you happy? wtf is wrong with you? how could you look around, even way back in 2004, and think we were doin' okay, or even a heckuva job? did you really need the federal government forcing terri schiavo to keep breathing and destruction in yet another major american city to start giving a shit? question the guy? wonder if maybe brains might just be a minor qualification for the fucking job? shut the fuck up about history judging him- what you really mean is that george w bush will only look like a good president when the people who actually remember him are dead.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
in praise of partisanship
jack, i love you. i really do. but why the fuck do you want our nation's two parties to work together? exactly what have democrats gotten for cooperating with republicans? remember the almost fucking unaminous vote to invade afghanistan? remember no child left behind? remember fucking invading iraq? remember medicare prescription benefits? remember the goddamned patriot act? remember its reauthorization? remember giving amnesty to telecoms that helped bush break the motherfucking fourth amendment? remember yanking habeus corpus with the military commissions act? remember allowing torture with the same goddamned bill? remember continually reauthorizing money to fund the occupation of iraq? remember when pelosi said impeachment was off the table? what HAVEN'T the democrats not handed to republicans on a fucking platter in the desperate, self-loathing quest to get republicans' respect? the only thing the democrats really managed to kill during the last eight years was privatizing social security. oh, and some really fucked up rightwing nutjobs didn't get federal judgeships (didn't bother republicans when they did it to clinton's nominees, i might add). can you name anything else? can you name ANYTHING else that democrats howled and screamed NO! to, and republicans backed down? well?!?!?!?!?
yes, i voted for obama. yes, i hope he can really "reach across" that aisle. but what are republicans going to offer him? what do republicans ever give in return? they don't fully fund education deform, they could give a fuck about congressional oversight of the powers in the patriot act. they give nothing in return but false promises and their repeated contempt. everything democrats gave into during bush's term has turned to shit. so fuck working with republicans. it's time for them to shut up- we tried their ideas, and their ideas are shit. so democrats don't want to deal them anymore. boo fucking hoo. cry me a goddamned river.
yes, i voted for obama. yes, i hope he can really "reach across" that aisle. but what are republicans going to offer him? what do republicans ever give in return? they don't fully fund education deform, they could give a fuck about congressional oversight of the powers in the patriot act. they give nothing in return but false promises and their repeated contempt. everything democrats gave into during bush's term has turned to shit. so fuck working with republicans. it's time for them to shut up- we tried their ideas, and their ideas are shit. so democrats don't want to deal them anymore. boo fucking hoo. cry me a goddamned river.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)