There's a chant that is well known in professional wrestling today. It started in many of the underground matches and came into the common lexicon with Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) in the mid 1990's. The chant is simple but direct in its message, "You fucked up". The chant typically rose through a crowed anytime a wrestler botched a move, or when the choreographed dance of the match was unintentionally broken. Lose your footing while attempting to climb to the top rope? You fucked up. Throw a punch that didn't actually land, but your opponent still "sold" it? You fucked up. Try to suplex your opponent but you slip and he flips over anyway? You fucked up.
It's a bit of a crude delivery system but the message is clear nonetheless, "You made a mistake, we saw it, we recognize it and don't even try to play it off" and you know what? It works! Never after matches to wrestlers say that a mistake is intentional. They don't try to play it off or correct it post match. They know what happens, the fans know what happened and most importantly they know that the fans know. It's a very no frills way to instant feed back (the wrestlers web2.0 if you will).
This is a tactic that could very well benefit Cambridge Police and President Obama. First, with the police and their handeling of Henry Louis Gates Jr. You arrest someone in their own house after you get called about them breaking into their own house? You fucked up. Hands down, that's it. No excuses. No explanations. You fucked up. Not to mention Gates was released and all charges were dropped 24 hours later. Pretend this is any other office on earth. You turn in a report to your boss and 24 hours later your boss explains, "This report is unusable and I'm throwing it away". Would you say you did you're job? No, you fucked up. And for police to play it off like this isn't a mistake in any way is foolish and stubborn and shows them to be more apt to demonstrate a gang like mentality than serve their public.
Now, to President Obama. You get up in a national press conference and use an adverb like, "stupidly" to describe a police action? You fucked up. It doesn't matter if I agree. It doesn't even matter if you're found to be correct. You are elected to be a representative of the people, all people, and when you get up there and single out a specific population (one with a very powerful union and lobby mind you) and describe anything they do as stupid, you better be prepared to feel some national outrage. Even if you feel they acted "stupidly" you're the president elected to lead them and no one wants to be called out by the commander and chief on national TV.
So in the grand scheme of things you have simple fuck up that escalated because both parties refused to acknowledge that the crowd has caught on and is fully aware of what's going on. Both believe they can somehow convince the audience that they're right and everything is going to plan if they just stay the course and refuse to acknowledge what everyone already knows, "you fucked up".
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
There certainly is a double standard.
One of the many stories reporting on this
In case you've been living under a rock and haven't heard, the lovely Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, recently took her family on down to New York city. This is a special occasion because not only does it allow the Palin the opportunity to crawl outside of her hate cave and bask in the sun, it also allows for her to get some much needed media attention. See, Palin isn't a "real" political figure. She's not someone like Nancy Pelosi where the media constantly ask her opinion on issues occurring in congress or just in general (I don't mean to imply that Pelosi is a "better" representative, simply that the media and people and general seek her out for comment). No, Palin is very much a political figure in the Anne Coulter model, where she's basically off the news and off peoples radar unless she's saying something that is A) Inflammatory B) Hateful C) Mindblowingly stupid D) All of the above. Only during these times of fervor does anyone even know she exists, and Palin wasn't about to pass up the opportunity to make New York one of those times.
But how? How do you manage to make news out of nothing? For you or I it may seem impossible but not for someone with handlers as talented as Mrs. Palin. A comment made by David Letterman of "David Letterman's increasingly unfunny show" was the key. During his standard monologue Letterman talked about the trip and the family attending a Yankee's game noting, "There was one awkward moment during the seventh inning stretch. Her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez". Any rational human being would figure he must be talking about Bristol Palin, Sarah's 18 year old daughter, gangster partier and unwed mother. But not Sarah Palin! Oh no, she saw right through that obvious joke about her knocked up and unwed daughter and clearly found Letterman's intended target, her 14 year old daughter Willow!
Again, you or I may sit back and go, "why on earth would you assume Letterman was talking about her 14 year old daughter and not her 18 year old daughter who's already been pregnant?" Well, because making something inflammatory is one of Palin's four ways of getting news and boy, she was in rare form about it. Palin claimed that Letterman's comments caused everything from teen image problems (I'm sure a ton of teens have gone, "I'm too fat, if I don't lose weight A-Rod is gonna knock me up!") to statutory rape. Palin says Letterman should be ashamed and that this is an example of the double standard set by media.
Palin wants to claim when Obama said, "leave my family out of this" everyone bowed to his will, but they surely couldn't do that to the republican's. Yeah, the evil media knocked your daughter up, drug her baby's dad (and then fiance) to the Republican National Convention, then made him not marry her and then made Bristol come out and say abstinence may not work (side note: DUH!). What exactly would the media have done if they went after the Obama family? His kids aren't even both teenagers yet. You'd look like a hell of a crack reporter hanging out by an elementary school, seeing how many milks a kid drank.
While we're on the topic of the "double standard" let's talk about Palin's comment that, "It would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman". This could be read several ways, however, when Palin was on the Today Show and that comment was read, she delivered what can only be called "The Palin Smirk". I'm sure you've seen it. It's not her "smile for the camera" face. It's the "I just said something that my writers told me was really witty and I feel so smart" face. Here's a couple of examples (1) (2) (3). Those aren't the best but pretty much watch anytime she's on TV it'll happen at least once and it's usually after something that's A) insulting B) Super Folksy C)Really awkward out of her mouth D) All of those. Anyhow, that little smirk made the intention perfectly clear and that was, "I just made a joke about David Letterman trying to rape my daughter, tee-he". Not only does this CONTINUE her misunderstanding of the original joke, but it also makes her just as bad (if not worse) than she claims David Letterman is. So, it's wrong for someone to make a joke about your 18 year old, daughter who has a kid but it's okay for you to insinuate that a 62 year old married man with a son, is a statutory rapist?
Double standard ineed.
In case you've been living under a rock and haven't heard, the lovely Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, recently took her family on down to New York city. This is a special occasion because not only does it allow the Palin the opportunity to crawl outside of her hate cave and bask in the sun, it also allows for her to get some much needed media attention. See, Palin isn't a "real" political figure. She's not someone like Nancy Pelosi where the media constantly ask her opinion on issues occurring in congress or just in general (I don't mean to imply that Pelosi is a "better" representative, simply that the media and people and general seek her out for comment). No, Palin is very much a political figure in the Anne Coulter model, where she's basically off the news and off peoples radar unless she's saying something that is A) Inflammatory B) Hateful C) Mindblowingly stupid D) All of the above. Only during these times of fervor does anyone even know she exists, and Palin wasn't about to pass up the opportunity to make New York one of those times.
But how? How do you manage to make news out of nothing? For you or I it may seem impossible but not for someone with handlers as talented as Mrs. Palin. A comment made by David Letterman of "David Letterman's increasingly unfunny show" was the key. During his standard monologue Letterman talked about the trip and the family attending a Yankee's game noting, "There was one awkward moment during the seventh inning stretch. Her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez". Any rational human being would figure he must be talking about Bristol Palin, Sarah's 18 year old daughter, gangster partier and unwed mother. But not Sarah Palin! Oh no, she saw right through that obvious joke about her knocked up and unwed daughter and clearly found Letterman's intended target, her 14 year old daughter Willow!
Again, you or I may sit back and go, "why on earth would you assume Letterman was talking about her 14 year old daughter and not her 18 year old daughter who's already been pregnant?" Well, because making something inflammatory is one of Palin's four ways of getting news and boy, she was in rare form about it. Palin claimed that Letterman's comments caused everything from teen image problems (I'm sure a ton of teens have gone, "I'm too fat, if I don't lose weight A-Rod is gonna knock me up!") to statutory rape. Palin says Letterman should be ashamed and that this is an example of the double standard set by media.
Palin wants to claim when Obama said, "leave my family out of this" everyone bowed to his will, but they surely couldn't do that to the republican's. Yeah, the evil media knocked your daughter up, drug her baby's dad (and then fiance) to the Republican National Convention, then made him not marry her and then made Bristol come out and say abstinence may not work (side note: DUH!). What exactly would the media have done if they went after the Obama family? His kids aren't even both teenagers yet. You'd look like a hell of a crack reporter hanging out by an elementary school, seeing how many milks a kid drank.
While we're on the topic of the "double standard" let's talk about Palin's comment that, "It would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman". This could be read several ways, however, when Palin was on the Today Show and that comment was read, she delivered what can only be called "The Palin Smirk". I'm sure you've seen it. It's not her "smile for the camera" face. It's the "I just said something that my writers told me was really witty and I feel so smart" face. Here's a couple of examples (1) (2) (3). Those aren't the best but pretty much watch anytime she's on TV it'll happen at least once and it's usually after something that's A) insulting B) Super Folksy C)Really awkward out of her mouth D) All of those. Anyhow, that little smirk made the intention perfectly clear and that was, "I just made a joke about David Letterman trying to rape my daughter, tee-he". Not only does this CONTINUE her misunderstanding of the original joke, but it also makes her just as bad (if not worse) than she claims David Letterman is. So, it's wrong for someone to make a joke about your 18 year old, daughter who has a kid but it's okay for you to insinuate that a 62 year old married man with a son, is a statutory rapist?
Double standard ineed.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Newt should know better....
Some original content
So, if you haven't heard by now, at some point, at some time Supreme Court Justice nominee (and god willing appointee [omg, I'm biased!]) Sonia Sotomayor said something along the lines of, "I feel my experience as a Latino Woman, can lead to me being a better judge than a white male". I'm sure she had no idea the shit storm that would ensue after that.
Everyone with an ounce of pull in that old, bitter, republican corpse jumped to life and screamed that this woman must be racist. Well...Everyone who didn't have an elected position. Newt Gingrich (former speaker of the House and all around douche) offered this insight, "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism". Yes Newt, let's imagine. Let's imagine a world where for years and years the decisions impacting peoples everyday lives were left to white males. A situation where white males decided on racial discrimination, immigration, abortion and a number of other issues they've never dealt with first hand. Oh wait, that's a majority of America's Supreme Court for the entirety of its existence.
Old, white males are the ones who seem to believe they know the most about abortion, gay rights, even immigration. Until recently, old, white, men were also our only presidents. White guys had/have a monopoly on our laws, our elections and our judicial process. By refusing anyone else the right to take place in that process you're basically saying, "a white guy knows best". Maybe, Newt and Rush and all those other dicks are too scared to say it but by bringing up such a petty quote by Sotomayor highlights that you got nothing else to cling to but your petty racist ideals. For decades the practice has been "whitey knows best" now someone even proposes the theory that someone might know better than a white male and they're called a racist.
But then again, maybe I'm misreading it. I mean, if whitey knows best, they don't come any more white, male or scared to death of minorities than Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh...They must be like the all knowing gods of their world.
So, if you haven't heard by now, at some point, at some time Supreme Court Justice nominee (and god willing appointee [omg, I'm biased!]) Sonia Sotomayor said something along the lines of, "I feel my experience as a Latino Woman, can lead to me being a better judge than a white male". I'm sure she had no idea the shit storm that would ensue after that.
Everyone with an ounce of pull in that old, bitter, republican corpse jumped to life and screamed that this woman must be racist. Well...Everyone who didn't have an elected position. Newt Gingrich (former speaker of the House and all around douche) offered this insight, "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism". Yes Newt, let's imagine. Let's imagine a world where for years and years the decisions impacting peoples everyday lives were left to white males. A situation where white males decided on racial discrimination, immigration, abortion and a number of other issues they've never dealt with first hand. Oh wait, that's a majority of America's Supreme Court for the entirety of its existence.
Old, white males are the ones who seem to believe they know the most about abortion, gay rights, even immigration. Until recently, old, white, men were also our only presidents. White guys had/have a monopoly on our laws, our elections and our judicial process. By refusing anyone else the right to take place in that process you're basically saying, "a white guy knows best". Maybe, Newt and Rush and all those other dicks are too scared to say it but by bringing up such a petty quote by Sotomayor highlights that you got nothing else to cling to but your petty racist ideals. For decades the practice has been "whitey knows best" now someone even proposes the theory that someone might know better than a white male and they're called a racist.
But then again, maybe I'm misreading it. I mean, if whitey knows best, they don't come any more white, male or scared to death of minorities than Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh...They must be like the all knowing gods of their world.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
It may be separate, but it's equal...right?
The original release
In a move that should surprise nobody, the California Supreme Court pulled what can only go down in history as "the ultimate bitch move". The court managed to fail both supporters of proposition 8 and rational, logical people who don't feed on hate. The court decided to uphold Prop. 8 (basically saying that a good 52% of the California population are smart enough to make laws) and allow the gay marriages that took place before the passing of Prop. 8 to stand (basically saying, "it's cool to be gay, as long as you act swiftly").
But saying, "gay marriage isn't okay, but it is," is really only the beginning of this cop out. In the offical release regarding the decision the court noted , "that the scope of Proposition 8 is narrow, limited solely to restricting the use of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples, while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples described in its earlier opinion in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757." Hey Brown, listen, this is just education we're talking about. It's one aspect of your life, it's not the whole thing. Besides you got this whole separate, but equal school over here that you can go to.
Apparently, the California Supreme Court feels that it's okay to discriminate against a minority group, as long as a majority of the population feels the same way. However, both sides swear this is not the end of their war and promise to meet their ultimate goal of either eliminating segregation or "killing all them thar queers". In the meantime, thank god that we have a bevy of 50/50 successful straight marriages to fall back on.
In a move that should surprise nobody, the California Supreme Court pulled what can only go down in history as "the ultimate bitch move". The court managed to fail both supporters of proposition 8 and rational, logical people who don't feed on hate. The court decided to uphold Prop. 8 (basically saying that a good 52% of the California population are smart enough to make laws) and allow the gay marriages that took place before the passing of Prop. 8 to stand (basically saying, "it's cool to be gay, as long as you act swiftly").
But saying, "gay marriage isn't okay, but it is," is really only the beginning of this cop out. In the offical release regarding the decision the court noted , "that the scope of Proposition 8 is narrow, limited solely to restricting the use of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples, while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples described in its earlier opinion in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757." Hey Brown, listen, this is just education we're talking about. It's one aspect of your life, it's not the whole thing. Besides you got this whole separate, but equal school over here that you can go to.
Apparently, the California Supreme Court feels that it's okay to discriminate against a minority group, as long as a majority of the population feels the same way. However, both sides swear this is not the end of their war and promise to meet their ultimate goal of either eliminating segregation or "killing all them thar queers". In the meantime, thank god that we have a bevy of 50/50 successful straight marriages to fall back on.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
If I get shot in a park, I'm blaming this fucker.
Bit of the original story
When was the last time you've been in a national park and thought, "man, my credit card rate is insane AND I wish I could carry a loaded Desert Eagle in my waistband..right now!" Unless you bank at that backwater shit shed featured in Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine, probably never. However, that's exactly what Senator Tom Coburn must have been thinking when he championed tying a bill that allows the carrying of a loaded and concealed weapon inside of U.S. National parks to the amazingly popular credit card reform measure.
Just so you're clear, one piece panders to gun lobbyist (one of the oldest and scariest lobbies) and one panders to many American's who have had their rates unfairly raised by credit card companies. One, "forbids rate increases on existing balances unless consumers are at least 60 days late paying their bill or the initial rate was a promotional rate that has expired, and requires 45 days' notice to raise rates". The other, allows you to take your Glock into Jellystone incase anyone fucks with your pick'a'nic basket.
While they were voted on separately in the senate both were bound together when they were put before President Obama, who has already said he'll sign the credit card bill with the attached gun measure. While this is a huge disappointment for a candidate who ran on gun reform, it's also an understandable political move. If he refused to sign the bill because of the gun provision, Obama would be stalling an action that many Americans are looking for. Even people who support gun control would probably press the issue, simply because the credit card bill is so central right now.
Of course, all this leaves those of us with good credit and a fear of getting shot by a hillbilly river rafter, out in the cold.
When was the last time you've been in a national park and thought, "man, my credit card rate is insane AND I wish I could carry a loaded Desert Eagle in my waistband..right now!" Unless you bank at that backwater shit shed featured in Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine, probably never. However, that's exactly what Senator Tom Coburn must have been thinking when he championed tying a bill that allows the carrying of a loaded and concealed weapon inside of U.S. National parks to the amazingly popular credit card reform measure.
Just so you're clear, one piece panders to gun lobbyist (one of the oldest and scariest lobbies) and one panders to many American's who have had their rates unfairly raised by credit card companies. One, "forbids rate increases on existing balances unless consumers are at least 60 days late paying their bill or the initial rate was a promotional rate that has expired, and requires 45 days' notice to raise rates". The other, allows you to take your Glock into Jellystone incase anyone fucks with your pick'a'nic basket.
While they were voted on separately in the senate both were bound together when they were put before President Obama, who has already said he'll sign the credit card bill with the attached gun measure. While this is a huge disappointment for a candidate who ran on gun reform, it's also an understandable political move. If he refused to sign the bill because of the gun provision, Obama would be stalling an action that many Americans are looking for. Even people who support gun control would probably press the issue, simply because the credit card bill is so central right now.
Of course, all this leaves those of us with good credit and a fear of getting shot by a hillbilly river rafter, out in the cold.
At least there wasn't any swearing.
The original story
Apparently, it's a great time to live in the US. In a time of great economic prosperity, a surplus of funding for our public schools and health care so comprehensive every single citizen of the United States is covered for life, the Republican part has little more to pass petty, partisan resolutions regarding their opposing parties moniker. There is so little to actually do, that it seems like a good idea to actively peruse a resolution changing the name of the Democratic Party to the "Democrat Socialist Party".
That's right people. In a party that has stalled out on momentum and is currently residing on the sloth and short sightedness of it's far right base, it seems like a good idea to waste valuable time and energy trying to implement a scare tacit on the dominant party's name. Imagine the outrage that would have spurred up if even 4 years ago it was suggest we change the name to "The Republican Fascist Party" (even though imprisoning people for undetermined lengths for undefined crimes, warrant less wiretapping and baseless wars bordering on genocide are more in keeping with fascism than feeding and clothing your population are with socialism). Is this the "change" Michael Steele dared bolster and gloat about? Is this the Republican Party that's going to redefine politics and motivate America?
We're in the grips of one of the worst economic recessions in history with unemployment over 11% in some areas and all you can do is get together and go, "Those Democrats are stinky ol' socialists. We should change their name to the Democratic Socialist Party"? While you're at it, make sure to push Nancy Pelosi off the swings and throw James Clyburn's sandwich in the tanbark.
P.S. Oh, in the same meeting they decided to honor someone who helped start Reganomics and help spread the broad deregulation that got us in this economic shit sandwich. Way to go!
Apparently, it's a great time to live in the US. In a time of great economic prosperity, a surplus of funding for our public schools and health care so comprehensive every single citizen of the United States is covered for life, the Republican part has little more to pass petty, partisan resolutions regarding their opposing parties moniker. There is so little to actually do, that it seems like a good idea to actively peruse a resolution changing the name of the Democratic Party to the "Democrat Socialist Party".
That's right people. In a party that has stalled out on momentum and is currently residing on the sloth and short sightedness of it's far right base, it seems like a good idea to waste valuable time and energy trying to implement a scare tacit on the dominant party's name. Imagine the outrage that would have spurred up if even 4 years ago it was suggest we change the name to "The Republican Fascist Party" (even though imprisoning people for undetermined lengths for undefined crimes, warrant less wiretapping and baseless wars bordering on genocide are more in keeping with fascism than feeding and clothing your population are with socialism). Is this the "change" Michael Steele dared bolster and gloat about? Is this the Republican Party that's going to redefine politics and motivate America?
We're in the grips of one of the worst economic recessions in history with unemployment over 11% in some areas and all you can do is get together and go, "Those Democrats are stinky ol' socialists. We should change their name to the Democratic Socialist Party"? While you're at it, make sure to push Nancy Pelosi off the swings and throw James Clyburn's sandwich in the tanbark.
P.S. Oh, in the same meeting they decided to honor someone who helped start Reganomics and help spread the broad deregulation that got us in this economic shit sandwich. Way to go!
Monday, May 18, 2009
Obama's sweeping abortion reform
After facing many hostile pro-lifer's at his recent commencement speech for Notre Dame, President Obama has seen the light. In what Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is calling, "the most sweeping reform since Roe v. Wade", President Obama has devised a plan this is sure to "meet the moral demands of all those who respect the rights of America's unborn". Gibbs explained, "After seeing the passion and compassion demonstrated by the protesters, the President realized how much this issue meant to them and thus, decided to make a law that would meet all of their demands, in a way that would directly impact their constituency".
That's why the President is swiftly passing an executive order making it illegal for white males to obtain abortions. "We believe that if they feel so strongly about this issue, the government has no place to stand in their way, " Gibbs explained, "and hopefully this will put all those elderly, white men at ease".
However, the White House isn't foolhardy enough to forget about female pro-lifers, such as right wing support Ann Coulter. This has lead to the push of a future initiative that would also ban abortions for all women who are well past the age of menopause. Gibbs touched on the matter noting, "Hey, if a woman who physically can't get pregnant doesn't want to have the option of an abortion, why should we force it down' her throat?"
There is currently no word yet on plans to limit abortions for people who are unable to get pregnant due to sex changes or for people who are too unattractive to conceive.
That's why the President is swiftly passing an executive order making it illegal for white males to obtain abortions. "We believe that if they feel so strongly about this issue, the government has no place to stand in their way, " Gibbs explained, "and hopefully this will put all those elderly, white men at ease".
However, the White House isn't foolhardy enough to forget about female pro-lifers, such as right wing support Ann Coulter. This has lead to the push of a future initiative that would also ban abortions for all women who are well past the age of menopause. Gibbs touched on the matter noting, "Hey, if a woman who physically can't get pregnant doesn't want to have the option of an abortion, why should we force it down' her throat?"
There is currently no word yet on plans to limit abortions for people who are unable to get pregnant due to sex changes or for people who are too unattractive to conceive.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Well as long as it's really important...
So, unless you live in a world devoid of pop-culture (in which case I envy you) you've heard about Miss California, Carrie Prejean. During the Miss USA or Miss America or Miss Future Bang Box for Donald Trump (I don't recall which) Prejean was asked by judge, and tabloid blogger, Perez Hilton what she thought about gay marriage. This inspired a 10 minute long series of long winded explanations that basically stated, "I'm not for it". It's a fair question. This woman is supposed to be "Miss America" and represent our country and a lot of folks in our country are gay and probably don't want to be represented by someone who thinks they're less than human.
Understandably, she didn't win (who the fuck do you think watches beatuy pagents? Single dudes hanging out in bars? No, it's old bitter women who just pick appart the contestants and old queens, who do the same thing). That's the story, right? NO! It was just getting started. Christains claim she was chastized for having moral views, and the media (some say the liberal media) seemed to go on an all out witch hunt for this woman. Pictures of her in questionable outfits were posted, her family history revealed and Republican masturbator fodder Ann Coulter posted this letter, which in more than one place comes off as a little...well, gay.
In all of this people seem to be forgetting that this is over a god damn beauty pageant entry. She isn't deciding public policy, she's not going to teach your children and now she's not even going to represent America as the Donald Trump approved beauty queen. Everyone needs to get over this. To her supporters, she was going for a title that basically only means anything to dead inside middle America housewives, which is why she got as far as she did with the "no gay marriage" thing as she did (it's also why I'd imagine a good amount of politicians feel the same way, a small group of stupid but dedicated voters goes a long way, look at the NRA). To her critics, she didn't win. And even if she did, would we be any worse for the wear? Leave this girl alone, criticizing her only draws a more dedicated base of nuts, remember the unknown Alaskan Governor of '08?
Understandably, she didn't win (who the fuck do you think watches beatuy pagents? Single dudes hanging out in bars? No, it's old bitter women who just pick appart the contestants and old queens, who do the same thing). That's the story, right? NO! It was just getting started. Christains claim she was chastized for having moral views, and the media (some say the liberal media) seemed to go on an all out witch hunt for this woman. Pictures of her in questionable outfits were posted, her family history revealed and Republican masturbator fodder Ann Coulter posted this letter, which in more than one place comes off as a little...well, gay.
In all of this people seem to be forgetting that this is over a god damn beauty pageant entry. She isn't deciding public policy, she's not going to teach your children and now she's not even going to represent America as the Donald Trump approved beauty queen. Everyone needs to get over this. To her supporters, she was going for a title that basically only means anything to dead inside middle America housewives, which is why she got as far as she did with the "no gay marriage" thing as she did (it's also why I'd imagine a good amount of politicians feel the same way, a small group of stupid but dedicated voters goes a long way, look at the NRA). To her critics, she didn't win. And even if she did, would we be any worse for the wear? Leave this girl alone, criticizing her only draws a more dedicated base of nuts, remember the unknown Alaskan Governor of '08?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Your idea is lame...Here's nothing better.
The original story.
Democrats took today to push a partisan budget through the Senate Budget Committee. The budget went through with a 13 to 10 vote directly along party lines. The Republicans continued to say that the budget increases spending and government too much but have thus far failed to offer an alternative. So, let's get this straight, "your ideas are poopy and I don't like them", "What would you propose?", "Not your poopy ideas". Thanks Republicans! We appreciate that you have really attempted to cross party lines and reach out by offering exactly ZERO FUCKING IDEAS. It's really easy to criticize something that's going to cost billions of dollar regardless (it's a national fucking budget), when you're only alternative is a zero dollar a year budget!
But wait, republicans promised to have an alternative by next week! Great, show up a fucking day late and dollar short and then wonder why you couldn't get a pony ride at the carnival. This isn't a surprise. You've been criticizing Obama's budget since before he took office. I'll even go so far to admit I'm not a huge fan of the original Obama budget. The reworked version has some pro's but it isn't perfect. Republicans should have come armed to the teeth with suggestions and oppositional proposals. Not because it would have changed the democrat led committee, but because that way when they talk to the press they can say, "This is what's wrong, here's what we'd do". As it is, your criticizing what may be a bad idea, with no idea. And coming in a week late just looks like you got called on your bullshit and had to take time to come up with an idea you should have had weeks ago. Remember that kid in class, who would never have an assignment done on time? When it came around to the term paper (which was assigned weeks ago) he would have some glorious excuse about why he didn't have it. That's the republicans right now and they deserve what that kid deserved, an "F" and a firm talking to about how that shit doesn't hack it in real life.
Democrats took today to push a partisan budget through the Senate Budget Committee. The budget went through with a 13 to 10 vote directly along party lines. The Republicans continued to say that the budget increases spending and government too much but have thus far failed to offer an alternative. So, let's get this straight, "your ideas are poopy and I don't like them", "What would you propose?", "Not your poopy ideas". Thanks Republicans! We appreciate that you have really attempted to cross party lines and reach out by offering exactly ZERO FUCKING IDEAS. It's really easy to criticize something that's going to cost billions of dollar regardless (it's a national fucking budget), when you're only alternative is a zero dollar a year budget!
But wait, republicans promised to have an alternative by next week! Great, show up a fucking day late and dollar short and then wonder why you couldn't get a pony ride at the carnival. This isn't a surprise. You've been criticizing Obama's budget since before he took office. I'll even go so far to admit I'm not a huge fan of the original Obama budget. The reworked version has some pro's but it isn't perfect. Republicans should have come armed to the teeth with suggestions and oppositional proposals. Not because it would have changed the democrat led committee, but because that way when they talk to the press they can say, "This is what's wrong, here's what we'd do". As it is, your criticizing what may be a bad idea, with no idea. And coming in a week late just looks like you got called on your bullshit and had to take time to come up with an idea you should have had weeks ago. Remember that kid in class, who would never have an assignment done on time? When it came around to the term paper (which was assigned weeks ago) he would have some glorious excuse about why he didn't have it. That's the republicans right now and they deserve what that kid deserved, an "F" and a firm talking to about how that shit doesn't hack it in real life.
Friday, March 20, 2009
I'll tell you what resembles the Special Olympics...
So apparently, President Obama has gone from doing too much for America, to being too distracted from the issues, all in about a two day period. Last week Republicans said Obama was taking on too much with his hope to withdraw troops, close Guantanamo Bay, pass a budget, reform health care and fix the economy. People said he should focus on the economy and not worry about the rest now.
Oh what a difference a week makes! Now, the president is being criticized for being out of Washington and not focusing enough on all of the issues (including the $165million joke bonuses at AIG). Critics say that visiting California was a way to avoid handling the issues and that appearing on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno was a waste of time when America needed it's leader most. Meanwhile, Obama is doing a time honored tradition among presidents with high approval, he's appealing to the people. He knows the Republicans don't like him and will likely never work with him on their own accord, so he's going to the people to get support for his budget and policies. He's hoping this measure will work, and once the people support him, politicians will too, or risk losing their constituency. It doesn't make President Obama's policies any more correct, but it does mean he's working and if you miss that you're missing the whole reason he crushed McCain in the 2008 Election. Appealing to the people is a technique that was long forgotten in the Bush administration but it has worked and Obama is betting it will again.
The other side of this is the criticism being drawn up about Obama's comparison that his bowling is like the Special Olympics. This is the most ridiculous non-issue I've ever seen. Anyone from the right who would like to criticize should just remember when their Candidate called a reporter a "major league asshole" on mic. It was a stupid gaffe on Obama's part, for sure. His a the most public figure in the history of an incredibly public office, he should know better than to make a comment like that on a major television show. But what he did was a joke at his own expense. he didn't say, "how 'bout them fucking retards eh? They sure are funny with their wheelchairs and retarded brains. Why don't we all just kill them like the do in Texas". The truth is 99% of people wouldn't flinch if their friends said that in closed company. Most would laugh. But when you need something, anything, to cling to, just to hate one person you can manufacture rage about anything. Even if your party supported the execution of a mentally disabled person...the very people you know feel outrage for.
Oh what a difference a week makes! Now, the president is being criticized for being out of Washington and not focusing enough on all of the issues (including the $165million joke bonuses at AIG). Critics say that visiting California was a way to avoid handling the issues and that appearing on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno was a waste of time when America needed it's leader most. Meanwhile, Obama is doing a time honored tradition among presidents with high approval, he's appealing to the people. He knows the Republicans don't like him and will likely never work with him on their own accord, so he's going to the people to get support for his budget and policies. He's hoping this measure will work, and once the people support him, politicians will too, or risk losing their constituency. It doesn't make President Obama's policies any more correct, but it does mean he's working and if you miss that you're missing the whole reason he crushed McCain in the 2008 Election. Appealing to the people is a technique that was long forgotten in the Bush administration but it has worked and Obama is betting it will again.
The other side of this is the criticism being drawn up about Obama's comparison that his bowling is like the Special Olympics. This is the most ridiculous non-issue I've ever seen. Anyone from the right who would like to criticize should just remember when their Candidate called a reporter a "major league asshole" on mic. It was a stupid gaffe on Obama's part, for sure. His a the most public figure in the history of an incredibly public office, he should know better than to make a comment like that on a major television show. But what he did was a joke at his own expense. he didn't say, "how 'bout them fucking retards eh? They sure are funny with their wheelchairs and retarded brains. Why don't we all just kill them like the do in Texas". The truth is 99% of people wouldn't flinch if their friends said that in closed company. Most would laugh. But when you need something, anything, to cling to, just to hate one person you can manufacture rage about anything. Even if your party supported the execution of a mentally disabled person...the very people you know feel outrage for.
Can you feel the rAIG?
In case you haven't missed it, the entirety of America is in an uproar over AIG paying some $165million dollars in bonuses to some of its employees. Apparently, people threw a hissy about this because AIG had just received billions of dollars in government bailout and now they're paying bonuses to "the very unit that had nearly destroyed the company" (or so sayth the New York Times).
How angry was America? So angry that the President Obama said he was furious over it. So angry that Republican Connie Mack has asked that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner resign over the issue. So angry that AIG CEO, Edward Liddy, had to sit at a hearing on Capitol Hill to explain the bonuses and his company. So angry that the House of Representatives passed a measure taxing 90% of all bonuses issued by companies receiving TARP funds. So angry that the New York Attorney General has subpoenaed the names and information of those receiving the bonus. (despite the fact that many of these people [ and their families] have been threatened with violence).
So angry, that for the last week all government has come to a screeching halt to deal with $165 million dollars. That sounds like an enormous amount of money to your average individual and it's easy to understand how your everyday person can balk at the sound of AIG giving away that much money to people from the department who caused the crash. But, if you're in Washington and you're dealing with a $400 billion (not million) dollar budget and a multi-trillion (with a "T") dollar deficit why are you wasting all your time with $165 million dollars?
These bonuses represent about 1/1,000 of the money given for bailouts. That's 0.1%. We have clogged up our tv's, newspapers and websites expressing outrage at 1/10 of a precent of the bail out money. This money won't make the difference in the economy, it won't mean the difference between success and failure at AIG and it isn't going to kill any taxpayer. So why have we put all levels of government, and news in a gridlock for what is, essentially, less money that Bill Gates spends on toilet paper? Here's an idea, in the 2008 election Republican candidate John McCain lost a lot of ground by appearing to not get the common man. His wife wore thousand dollar outfits and McCain couldn't even recall how many houses he had. So now, everyone is striving to connect to the common man. And what does the common man hate? "These wall street fat cats, taking million dollar bonuses, when they're companies should be belly up". So who's mad about it? Republicans! But the Democrats can't be one upped. So they're not just mad, they're furious! Never one to give up a fight republicans want accountability and want the Treasury Secretary to resign and want the names and addresses of the bonus recipients....AND WE'LL TAX THE FUCKERS!
And on and on and on it goes. Who's the most outraged? Who cares? This is such a small matter that it shouldn't have even popped up on anyone's radar and now it's officially brought our government to a grinding halt for an entire week. This is 1/1,000 of the overall bailout and is being paid not for performance but retention, while the employees of this department in AIG "wind down" the books and essentailly put themselves out of work. It's hard to keep people who know they'll be unemployeed so that's why they're getting bonuses. Oh, also, these aren't the people who caused the crash, they're all long gone (at least that's what Liddy claims). But for some reason this has become the bee in everyone's ass, and in the process we've seen that both political parties can act like completely irrational douchebags when they want to appeal to the American public. Really good to know that's what they think we're all like.
How angry was America? So angry that the President Obama said he was furious over it. So angry that Republican Connie Mack has asked that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner resign over the issue. So angry that AIG CEO, Edward Liddy, had to sit at a hearing on Capitol Hill to explain the bonuses and his company. So angry that the House of Representatives passed a measure taxing 90% of all bonuses issued by companies receiving TARP funds. So angry that the New York Attorney General has subpoenaed the names and information of those receiving the bonus. (despite the fact that many of these people [ and their families] have been threatened with violence).
So angry, that for the last week all government has come to a screeching halt to deal with $165 million dollars. That sounds like an enormous amount of money to your average individual and it's easy to understand how your everyday person can balk at the sound of AIG giving away that much money to people from the department who caused the crash. But, if you're in Washington and you're dealing with a $400 billion (not million) dollar budget and a multi-trillion (with a "T") dollar deficit why are you wasting all your time with $165 million dollars?
These bonuses represent about 1/1,000 of the money given for bailouts. That's 0.1%. We have clogged up our tv's, newspapers and websites expressing outrage at 1/10 of a precent of the bail out money. This money won't make the difference in the economy, it won't mean the difference between success and failure at AIG and it isn't going to kill any taxpayer. So why have we put all levels of government, and news in a gridlock for what is, essentially, less money that Bill Gates spends on toilet paper? Here's an idea, in the 2008 election Republican candidate John McCain lost a lot of ground by appearing to not get the common man. His wife wore thousand dollar outfits and McCain couldn't even recall how many houses he had. So now, everyone is striving to connect to the common man. And what does the common man hate? "These wall street fat cats, taking million dollar bonuses, when they're companies should be belly up". So who's mad about it? Republicans! But the Democrats can't be one upped. So they're not just mad, they're furious! Never one to give up a fight republicans want accountability and want the Treasury Secretary to resign and want the names and addresses of the bonus recipients....AND WE'LL TAX THE FUCKERS!
And on and on and on it goes. Who's the most outraged? Who cares? This is such a small matter that it shouldn't have even popped up on anyone's radar and now it's officially brought our government to a grinding halt for an entire week. This is 1/1,000 of the overall bailout and is being paid not for performance but retention, while the employees of this department in AIG "wind down" the books and essentailly put themselves out of work. It's hard to keep people who know they'll be unemployeed so that's why they're getting bonuses. Oh, also, these aren't the people who caused the crash, they're all long gone (at least that's what Liddy claims). But for some reason this has become the bee in everyone's ass, and in the process we've seen that both political parties can act like completely irrational douchebags when they want to appeal to the American public. Really good to know that's what they think we're all like.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
WTF Fox News?!
It's a rarity that I agree with Fox News but this story probably has more that I agree with than anything they've done in the last 4 years. It's about the Omnibus (you know that $400 billion spending bill that is in addition to the $800billion stimulus plan) and how the Republican supporters are actually the ones with the most earmarks. They even went so far as to note that the Senator with the most earmarks (by number) is Republican Senator Arlen Specter.
There is still a fair bit of their "fair and unbalanced" viewpoint however. Fox mentions that McCain tried to veto the earmarks but negates to note that 9 republicans and 2 independent senators voted against him. They also mention that there are $5 billion dollars in earmarks but fail to note that that's less than 2% of the total Omnibus. They also paint the cross over republicans poorly (they're not applauding them for bipartisan lawmaking or anything).
Still I love to see Republicans bicker and in terms of actually being fair and balanced, I'd say this gets a B- (which is better than 99% of their work).
There is still a fair bit of their "fair and unbalanced" viewpoint however. Fox mentions that McCain tried to veto the earmarks but negates to note that 9 republicans and 2 independent senators voted against him. They also mention that there are $5 billion dollars in earmarks but fail to note that that's less than 2% of the total Omnibus. They also paint the cross over republicans poorly (they're not applauding them for bipartisan lawmaking or anything).
Still I love to see Republicans bicker and in terms of actually being fair and balanced, I'd say this gets a B- (which is better than 99% of their work).
Friday, March 6, 2009
Would you like a little soft shoe with that?
This is admittedly too late. This story broke and will likely end soon but here's a take on it. As we've all heard/seen/been told there was a brief and pointless scuffle between the chair of the RNC, Michael Steele, and comedian/jokebag/drug addict, Rush Limbaugh. Google that shit...I'll wait.
Anyhow, long story short, Limbaugh called the Republican party spineless and said he doesn't understand why no one will say they want Obama's stimulus plan to fail (if you're curious, Rush doesn't just hope it fails, he prays to his silly, green, drug induced god that it does). Someone asked Steele about this. Steele said rush is an entertainer and some other bullshit. Rush came back all bitter and angry (as his old white ass does) and Steele tucked his dick between his legs and prostrated himself in front of Limbaugh so fast you swear that he was the living, breathing son of god.
I don't support Steele. I've said his plans and false swagger are foolish and embarassing. All that being said, I felt deeply embarrassed watching a full grown man act like a scolded child when he offered up his apology. Steele covered his tracks with some line about, "I'm sorry this incident has taken attention away from Democrat spending and earmarks" but it was clear that he was really sorry about offending the fat, white deity known as Limbaugh.
So here are two things that need to be done to make the best of this situation:
1) Democrats, stop fucking talking about this. If the news talks to you about it, say, "It's an incident between two individuals and with the stimulus package in action and our attempts to pass the Omnibus in congress, we have more important things to talk about". Sure, it's fun to watch Republicans bicker amongst themselves (especially because you could see it just under the surface when they all stood arm and arm behind the Alaskan Senator who couldn't tell you what a vice president does), but focusing on it will backfire. There are so many better things to focus on. Right now, you've just intercepted the ball and are running it in for a touch down. The republican defense has tripped up and is falling behind. DO NOT take this as an opportunity to look back and mock the defense, because they will come up and sack the shit out of you and take the ball. It happened during the Clinton presidency and lead to 6 years of Republican control of the House, Senate and Executive branch. It can happen again. Use this as a chance to put distance between you. The better you do, the worse they'll look and the better chance you have of keeping ahead.
2) For Michael Steele, you want to prove you're a leader and that you're hip and urban? Now's your chance. Take you initial comments and bank on them. Limbaugh is an entertainer. Is he elected? Does he make policies? Does he run a campaign? NO! He's a political voice who makes his living entertaining the masses. That doesn't make him a bad guy, or even make his opinion invalid but it does allow for a certain amount of leeway and Limbaugh knows it. He's made racially motivated remarks that, while perhaps not intentionally or overtly racist, would have forced most public officials to resign or at least lose reelection.
Limbaugh is a smart guy and is more likely to play ball with the current Republican party than risk losing more voters in a silly public debacle. So stand your ground Steele, explain that you meant what you said, but didn't mean for it to be offense. Limbaugh makes his money entertaining and knows that he can say outrageous things and not have to answer to a constituency. It's not insulting, it's true.
What Steele won't say (though he should) is why Republican's won't say they want the Obama Stimulus to fail. Here's a guess, love it or hate it the stimulus passed and America is now $800billion into it. It's our best (and currently only) hope for dragging our ass out of this horrible economic disaster that Republicans helped create. If it fails, America fails. If we don't pull ourselves out of this recession it's only going to get worse for Republicans and Democrats alike. More job loss, more unemployment, less health care, more poverty. Why in the name of God would you want that for America?
Everyone knows Limbaugh dislikes Obama and his policies but this is the one that was voted on and selected by Congress and the White House. Bipartisan or not this was what was selected and to hope it fails is hoping the Titanic crashes and everyone on it dies because you think that luxury cruise ships are a silly idea.
Guess what? Millions are impacted by this economic recession. People have lost their homes, their jobs, their lives. For you (or anyone else) to say you hope any plan to improve their plight fails (especially for bullshit political motives), is spitting in the face of those millions of Americans. It's saying, "Hey, I know it sucks for you right now BUT, if it gets worse, maybe we can get this current President out of office". Not everyone goes to bed on a pile of money and oxycotton, Rush. For you to wish more ill on the average American so you can do little more than say, "I was right", is selfish, pretty, short sighted and bad politics. That's why no one (republican or otherwise) is rushing to say it.
P.S. I forgot to mention, this post is too late, because there have already been Republicans calling on Steele to resign amidst his public folly. Guess we know who runs the Republican party.
Anyhow, long story short, Limbaugh called the Republican party spineless and said he doesn't understand why no one will say they want Obama's stimulus plan to fail (if you're curious, Rush doesn't just hope it fails, he prays to his silly, green, drug induced god that it does). Someone asked Steele about this. Steele said rush is an entertainer and some other bullshit. Rush came back all bitter and angry (as his old white ass does) and Steele tucked his dick between his legs and prostrated himself in front of Limbaugh so fast you swear that he was the living, breathing son of god.
I don't support Steele. I've said his plans and false swagger are foolish and embarassing. All that being said, I felt deeply embarrassed watching a full grown man act like a scolded child when he offered up his apology. Steele covered his tracks with some line about, "I'm sorry this incident has taken attention away from Democrat spending and earmarks" but it was clear that he was really sorry about offending the fat, white deity known as Limbaugh.
So here are two things that need to be done to make the best of this situation:
1) Democrats, stop fucking talking about this. If the news talks to you about it, say, "It's an incident between two individuals and with the stimulus package in action and our attempts to pass the Omnibus in congress, we have more important things to talk about". Sure, it's fun to watch Republicans bicker amongst themselves (especially because you could see it just under the surface when they all stood arm and arm behind the Alaskan Senator who couldn't tell you what a vice president does), but focusing on it will backfire. There are so many better things to focus on. Right now, you've just intercepted the ball and are running it in for a touch down. The republican defense has tripped up and is falling behind. DO NOT take this as an opportunity to look back and mock the defense, because they will come up and sack the shit out of you and take the ball. It happened during the Clinton presidency and lead to 6 years of Republican control of the House, Senate and Executive branch. It can happen again. Use this as a chance to put distance between you. The better you do, the worse they'll look and the better chance you have of keeping ahead.
2) For Michael Steele, you want to prove you're a leader and that you're hip and urban? Now's your chance. Take you initial comments and bank on them. Limbaugh is an entertainer. Is he elected? Does he make policies? Does he run a campaign? NO! He's a political voice who makes his living entertaining the masses. That doesn't make him a bad guy, or even make his opinion invalid but it does allow for a certain amount of leeway and Limbaugh knows it. He's made racially motivated remarks that, while perhaps not intentionally or overtly racist, would have forced most public officials to resign or at least lose reelection.
Limbaugh is a smart guy and is more likely to play ball with the current Republican party than risk losing more voters in a silly public debacle. So stand your ground Steele, explain that you meant what you said, but didn't mean for it to be offense. Limbaugh makes his money entertaining and knows that he can say outrageous things and not have to answer to a constituency. It's not insulting, it's true.
What Steele won't say (though he should) is why Republican's won't say they want the Obama Stimulus to fail. Here's a guess, love it or hate it the stimulus passed and America is now $800billion into it. It's our best (and currently only) hope for dragging our ass out of this horrible economic disaster that Republicans helped create. If it fails, America fails. If we don't pull ourselves out of this recession it's only going to get worse for Republicans and Democrats alike. More job loss, more unemployment, less health care, more poverty. Why in the name of God would you want that for America?
Everyone knows Limbaugh dislikes Obama and his policies but this is the one that was voted on and selected by Congress and the White House. Bipartisan or not this was what was selected and to hope it fails is hoping the Titanic crashes and everyone on it dies because you think that luxury cruise ships are a silly idea.
Guess what? Millions are impacted by this economic recession. People have lost their homes, their jobs, their lives. For you (or anyone else) to say you hope any plan to improve their plight fails (especially for bullshit political motives), is spitting in the face of those millions of Americans. It's saying, "Hey, I know it sucks for you right now BUT, if it gets worse, maybe we can get this current President out of office". Not everyone goes to bed on a pile of money and oxycotton, Rush. For you to wish more ill on the average American so you can do little more than say, "I was right", is selfish, pretty, short sighted and bad politics. That's why no one (republican or otherwise) is rushing to say it.
P.S. I forgot to mention, this post is too late, because there have already been Republicans calling on Steele to resign amidst his public folly. Guess we know who runs the Republican party.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Economic Crisis=Legalizing Marijuana?
Original Story (sort of...I waited so long that most California stories are out of date, thanks Chicago)
Apparently, the extreme economic meltdown in Califronia (you know, general de...er...Recession paired with 8 months of no state budget and a huge deficit) has inspired some "out of the box" thinking by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano. Ammiano is apparently suggesting the legalization and regulation of marijuana for California. Ammiano claims puting a $50 per ounce tax on the drug would bring in around $1.3biillion a year.
This isn't the first time somehting like this has been mentioned or considered, but it's the first time it's getting some actual movement. With the state being balls deep and upside down in debt and Republicans not wanting to raise taxes but offering no alternative to close the state budget gap, $1.3billion in pot sounds pretty good. Of course there are a ton of better reasons to do this.
Mexico experiences much more violence in marijuana related sales than America. Drug lords in Mexico have made millions off of marijuana and are more than willing to kill for it. Lagalized weed would sell for roughly half the current street price (due to the ability to mass produce it, ship it and avoid the overhead of police avoidence) and would basically kill the demand for illegal marijuana. This would put these guys out of a job and effectively lower a ton of crime in Mexico. Too often American politicians talk about being "tough on drugs" and "cracking down" and it's easy to sweep the Mexican statistics under the rug because they're no US citizens but they do occur and they are very real.
There's no doubt that marijuana has harmful side effects (though many are quite similar to any recreational smoking) but no more than alcohol or tabaco. Perhaps the legalization of marijuana will save Californias economy, at the very least it should save us the millions of dollars a year that are put into law enforcment of marijuana laws.
Apparently, the extreme economic meltdown in Califronia (you know, general de...er...Recession paired with 8 months of no state budget and a huge deficit) has inspired some "out of the box" thinking by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano. Ammiano is apparently suggesting the legalization and regulation of marijuana for California. Ammiano claims puting a $50 per ounce tax on the drug would bring in around $1.3biillion a year.
This isn't the first time somehting like this has been mentioned or considered, but it's the first time it's getting some actual movement. With the state being balls deep and upside down in debt and Republicans not wanting to raise taxes but offering no alternative to close the state budget gap, $1.3billion in pot sounds pretty good. Of course there are a ton of better reasons to do this.
Mexico experiences much more violence in marijuana related sales than America. Drug lords in Mexico have made millions off of marijuana and are more than willing to kill for it. Lagalized weed would sell for roughly half the current street price (due to the ability to mass produce it, ship it and avoid the overhead of police avoidence) and would basically kill the demand for illegal marijuana. This would put these guys out of a job and effectively lower a ton of crime in Mexico. Too often American politicians talk about being "tough on drugs" and "cracking down" and it's easy to sweep the Mexican statistics under the rug because they're no US citizens but they do occur and they are very real.
There's no doubt that marijuana has harmful side effects (though many are quite similar to any recreational smoking) but no more than alcohol or tabaco. Perhaps the legalization of marijuana will save Californias economy, at the very least it should save us the millions of dollars a year that are put into law enforcment of marijuana laws.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tea Party? FUCK YEAH!
The original story.
Apparently tons of people don't actually remember the point of the Boston Tea Party or it's historical context. This was demonstrated on Friday, February 27 when hundreds of people gathered around America to dump tea into local water spots to dump tea to protest the Obama's recently signed stimulus bill. Some how a president taking action to save his countries failing economy is now on par with a king taxing his people with no reason or justification.
I don't mind a little political protest, especially for something like the stimulus package, which is bound to polarize people. But chants of "Give me liberty or give me death" are not only overtly melodramatic but down right insulting to those who actually risked life and limb for American independence. I think putting your life on the line in oposition to being ruled by a king thousands of miles away, should never be aquated with a "house husband" from Georgia. Allow me to take a moment to expand on that. A FUCKING HOUSE HUSBAND?! We're in the midst of one of the worst ecconomic ressesions this countries ever seen and the person fighting the stimulus package is a house husband? Someone who contributes no taxable income and exists in a single income relationship. Yeah, I'd be pissed too if I was forced to get a job and quit living off of my wifes paycheck.
It's also worth noting that these were hundreds of people accross America. A couple of dozen at each location, not thousands. But the point remains that this sort of ignorant grand standing is exactly what slows actual political discourse. Instead of actually discussing what your issue is with the stimulous package you envoke the imagery of the Boston Tea Part and scream, "The socialist government is going to enslave us and murder our children!" All that does is ralley ignorance and make those who disagree with you think you're both stupid and wrong.
Let's all do eachother a favor, have some open discourse. One side will come with their reasons for the stimulus and you can come with your reasons against it. Be sure to bring a counter offer too. If you're going to be opposed to something, you need to have a better idea, because doing nothing is what we have been doing...and that works so well. Sound good? Great, meet you there. You can bring the tea.
Apparently tons of people don't actually remember the point of the Boston Tea Party or it's historical context. This was demonstrated on Friday, February 27 when hundreds of people gathered around America to dump tea into local water spots to dump tea to protest the Obama's recently signed stimulus bill. Some how a president taking action to save his countries failing economy is now on par with a king taxing his people with no reason or justification.
I don't mind a little political protest, especially for something like the stimulus package, which is bound to polarize people. But chants of "Give me liberty or give me death" are not only overtly melodramatic but down right insulting to those who actually risked life and limb for American independence. I think putting your life on the line in oposition to being ruled by a king thousands of miles away, should never be aquated with a "house husband" from Georgia. Allow me to take a moment to expand on that. A FUCKING HOUSE HUSBAND?! We're in the midst of one of the worst ecconomic ressesions this countries ever seen and the person fighting the stimulus package is a house husband? Someone who contributes no taxable income and exists in a single income relationship. Yeah, I'd be pissed too if I was forced to get a job and quit living off of my wifes paycheck.
It's also worth noting that these were hundreds of people accross America. A couple of dozen at each location, not thousands. But the point remains that this sort of ignorant grand standing is exactly what slows actual political discourse. Instead of actually discussing what your issue is with the stimulous package you envoke the imagery of the Boston Tea Part and scream, "The socialist government is going to enslave us and murder our children!" All that does is ralley ignorance and make those who disagree with you think you're both stupid and wrong.
Let's all do eachother a favor, have some open discourse. One side will come with their reasons for the stimulus and you can come with your reasons against it. Be sure to bring a counter offer too. If you're going to be opposed to something, you need to have a better idea, because doing nothing is what we have been doing...and that works so well. Sound good? Great, meet you there. You can bring the tea.
Friday, February 27, 2009
The RNC Decides to update it's image
Original CNN Story
According to CNN.com, RNC chairman, Michael Steele, has decided it's time to revamp the grand ol' party's grand ol' image. Apparently the new image will have "messengers to really capture that region — young, Hispanic, black, a cross section…" and will be more urban.
Why would they do such a thing? Especially when the GOP is known for three things 1) being rich, 2)Being white and 3)Being rich and white. Maybe because around 65% precent of Blacks and Hispanics voted for Obama in 2008. Rember though, blacks and hispanics only make up about 23% of the total constituancy. 74% are made of of good old white folk. And how many of those white folk voted for McCain? 55%! That means 40% of all voters (and 90% of all of McCain's voters) were white people.
So here's the plan, we spice up our image. Throw in a "fo' shizzel" here, a "Bling bling" there and have some loud mouth, black guy head up our convention and the negros and Mexicans will come running faster than if we were handing out watermelon and refried beans. They won't think for a minute to alctually investigate our party or our policies. They won't worry that we've supported the "tax the shit out of the lower and middle class, while paying off the rich" economic policy for years. Or we support some of the most archaic and inhuman imigration policies. All we need to do is act like complete dickbags and the minorities will be on us like they are on drugs and welfare.
We get it Steele. You put a walking corpse up against a black guy in 2008 and lost miserably. Do you think you lost because Obama was younger, hipper and (let's face it) blacker than McCain? Or do you think it might have had something to do with McCain being out of touch, bitter and prone to making the lizard face? Your party doesn't need an image overhaul, it needs a policy overhaul. Believe it or not African Americans and Hispanic Americans can read and I'm betting more than a couple will read between the lines of your bullshit new campaign.
According to CNN.com, RNC chairman, Michael Steele, has decided it's time to revamp the grand ol' party's grand ol' image. Apparently the new image will have "messengers to really capture that region — young, Hispanic, black, a cross section…" and will be more urban.
Why would they do such a thing? Especially when the GOP is known for three things 1) being rich, 2)Being white and 3)Being rich and white. Maybe because around 65% precent of Blacks and Hispanics voted for Obama in 2008. Rember though, blacks and hispanics only make up about 23% of the total constituancy. 74% are made of of good old white folk. And how many of those white folk voted for McCain? 55%! That means 40% of all voters (and 90% of all of McCain's voters) were white people.
So here's the plan, we spice up our image. Throw in a "fo' shizzel" here, a "Bling bling" there and have some loud mouth, black guy head up our convention and the negros and Mexicans will come running faster than if we were handing out watermelon and refried beans. They won't think for a minute to alctually investigate our party or our policies. They won't worry that we've supported the "tax the shit out of the lower and middle class, while paying off the rich" economic policy for years. Or we support some of the most archaic and inhuman imigration policies. All we need to do is act like complete dickbags and the minorities will be on us like they are on drugs and welfare.
We get it Steele. You put a walking corpse up against a black guy in 2008 and lost miserably. Do you think you lost because Obama was younger, hipper and (let's face it) blacker than McCain? Or do you think it might have had something to do with McCain being out of touch, bitter and prone to making the lizard face? Your party doesn't need an image overhaul, it needs a policy overhaul. Believe it or not African Americans and Hispanic Americans can read and I'm betting more than a couple will read between the lines of your bullshit new campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)