Why Michelle Malkin Should Be Caged Like a Rabid Shih Tzu (Teacher Edition):
Mostly, the Rude Pundit had stopped giving a happy monkey fuck what conservative columnist Michelle Malkin has had to say on any given topic because it's boringly predictable and shittily written. But her latest piece attacking Matt Damon's defense of public school teachers at the Save Our Schools rally in DC has a line that's infuriating because you can bet that Malkin thought she was being oh-so-clever.
No, it's not her repetition of right-wing bullshit, like about tenure and salaries and the canard that teachers only work for 180 days a year. Ever heard of prep? Grading? It's 180 days in the classroom, full-time. It'd be like saying the only minutes that count are the ones that Malkin spends tapping the keyboard, not the time spent ordering assistants to do research, reading that research, beating the assistant with a plastic bottle of cheap tequila, weeping apologies to the assistant, forcing the assistant to watch as she masturbates furiously with 10-inch spiked dildo, and ordering the assistant to clean said dildo. It's all part of the process that it takes in order to piss out such driblets of wisdom like this attack on the alleged squishy multiculturalism that conservatives want to squeeze out of schools:
"Out: Reading is fundamental. In: Feeling is fundamental."
And it's that line that's like watching a moose shit on a dead child in the forest. Because, see, "Reading is fundamental" as a phrase exists because of the nonprofit program Reading Is Fundamental. And RIF, which provides books and help with reading to low-income kids, got a great deal of its funding from the federal government. It is a demonstrable good in teaching, you know, those fundamentals, like, well, shit, reading.
In March of this year, the Republican-led House of Representatives cut the funding for RIF from the federal budget. That means over 4 million kids won't get that help with basic skills. Maybe this is feeling too much, but it sure seems like if you really gave a goddamn about kids learning, you might wanna keep around something that's worked for over four decades.
Damon's right: Malkin and conservatives want to narrow down the problems of education in America to selfish teachers sucking the system dry. And then they take pride in gutting the school system and any programs that might educate the poor.
Oh, wait. Now it makes sense.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Learning the Wrong Lesson:
There's one question that the Rude Pundit gets all the time: "What would you have done?" He got it all the time during the Bush administration. Whenever anyone asked him what he would have done to, say, end the Iraq War, he always said, "I wouldn't have gone to war in the first place. I wouldn't have supported Saddam Hussein for decades and supplied him with weapons. I wouldn't have sent in British troops to colonize the joint in the first place."
Usually, the person gets flustered. "No, that's a bullshit answer," he heard on more than one occasion. "What would you do now, now that we're there?"
"But what I would do now is just as much a fantasy as what I would have done before," he would say, before giving in and saying that he'd pull all the troops out and let the U.N. take care of the inevitable civil war that's gonna happen if we leave now or in a hundred years.
So now the WWYHD question has to do with the decisions of President Obama. You didn't like the health care bill? Well, what would you have done? You didn't want the Bush tax cuts extended? Well, what would you have done? You don't like the debt ceiling bill? What would you have done? C'mon, motherfucker, what?
It's fun, you know, to throw out there the fantasy. It's like getting that Facebook friend request from someone you wanted to bang back in high school, and you sit there and think about how you should have asked them out, how you should have let them know how you feel, how you should have nailed the shit out of them. Whee, see? Wasn't that great? Feel better? Did you masturbate to a fantasy of you getting ass fucked by that hot football player who winked at you a couple of times and who's kept his body tight? Wasn't that a great way to spend your time? We all love to wallow in what-never-was-and-cannot-be.
Instead, howzabout a minute or two spent on shit what we know that might have an effect on the future.
The people who advise President Obama on his re-election must be fucking idiots. 'Cause this equation was not difficult. In 2010, discouraged by Obama's failure to call out Republican motherfuckers who were blocking his agenda (and appointments) in a Democratic-controlled Congress, as well as the shitty economy, a good chunk of the people who elected Obama stayed home and allowed the teabagger nutzoids to get in. Democrats were punished in 2010, not by the teabaggers, but by the voters who should have been on a continuing buzz post-Inauguration.
The White House believes the lesson was "Make nice more with the right." The lesson should have been that you don't back down. Fuck the mythical independents. All those bastards want is someone who takes a stand. And what did they get? A cave on the Bush tax cuts right after the election, with a promise that "No, really, really, next time I won't extend the ones on the rich." And a debt ceiling deal that will put the economy in the shitter.
Obama's got another bunch of battles coming before 2012. The Rude Pundit's got little hope that the President and the suckers of Wall Street ass who surround him can grasp the need to do something more than gay rights to get the left back in the fold. The GLBT community needs jobs, too. Yeah, he's gotta show that he can beat the Republicans, not get their approval. But if he believes differently (as he apparently does), then 2012 is a loss no matter what happens.
Later: The answer to the question the Rude Pundit got asked constantly yesterday: "Are you not gonna vote for him?" and "What about the Supreme Court?"
(By the way, the answer to the WWYHDs above there are 1. Started with a national health care plan and negotiated from there; 2. Let the tax cuts expire on everyone; 3. 14th Amendment, motherfuckers, and then said, "Blow me." Do you think a Republican president facing recalcitrant Democrats wouldn't have done it in a heartbeat?)
There's one question that the Rude Pundit gets all the time: "What would you have done?" He got it all the time during the Bush administration. Whenever anyone asked him what he would have done to, say, end the Iraq War, he always said, "I wouldn't have gone to war in the first place. I wouldn't have supported Saddam Hussein for decades and supplied him with weapons. I wouldn't have sent in British troops to colonize the joint in the first place."
Usually, the person gets flustered. "No, that's a bullshit answer," he heard on more than one occasion. "What would you do now, now that we're there?"
"But what I would do now is just as much a fantasy as what I would have done before," he would say, before giving in and saying that he'd pull all the troops out and let the U.N. take care of the inevitable civil war that's gonna happen if we leave now or in a hundred years.
So now the WWYHD question has to do with the decisions of President Obama. You didn't like the health care bill? Well, what would you have done? You didn't want the Bush tax cuts extended? Well, what would you have done? You don't like the debt ceiling bill? What would you have done? C'mon, motherfucker, what?
It's fun, you know, to throw out there the fantasy. It's like getting that Facebook friend request from someone you wanted to bang back in high school, and you sit there and think about how you should have asked them out, how you should have let them know how you feel, how you should have nailed the shit out of them. Whee, see? Wasn't that great? Feel better? Did you masturbate to a fantasy of you getting ass fucked by that hot football player who winked at you a couple of times and who's kept his body tight? Wasn't that a great way to spend your time? We all love to wallow in what-never-was-and-cannot-be.
Instead, howzabout a minute or two spent on shit what we know that might have an effect on the future.
The people who advise President Obama on his re-election must be fucking idiots. 'Cause this equation was not difficult. In 2010, discouraged by Obama's failure to call out Republican motherfuckers who were blocking his agenda (and appointments) in a Democratic-controlled Congress, as well as the shitty economy, a good chunk of the people who elected Obama stayed home and allowed the teabagger nutzoids to get in. Democrats were punished in 2010, not by the teabaggers, but by the voters who should have been on a continuing buzz post-Inauguration.
The White House believes the lesson was "Make nice more with the right." The lesson should have been that you don't back down. Fuck the mythical independents. All those bastards want is someone who takes a stand. And what did they get? A cave on the Bush tax cuts right after the election, with a promise that "No, really, really, next time I won't extend the ones on the rich." And a debt ceiling deal that will put the economy in the shitter.
Obama's got another bunch of battles coming before 2012. The Rude Pundit's got little hope that the President and the suckers of Wall Street ass who surround him can grasp the need to do something more than gay rights to get the left back in the fold. The GLBT community needs jobs, too. Yeah, he's gotta show that he can beat the Republicans, not get their approval. But if he believes differently (as he apparently does), then 2012 is a loss no matter what happens.
Later: The answer to the question the Rude Pundit got asked constantly yesterday: "Are you not gonna vote for him?" and "What about the Supreme Court?"
(By the way, the answer to the WWYHDs above there are 1. Started with a national health care plan and negotiated from there; 2. Let the tax cuts expire on everyone; 3. 14th Amendment, motherfuckers, and then said, "Blow me." Do you think a Republican president facing recalcitrant Democrats wouldn't have done it in a heartbeat?)
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
A "Dear Barack" Letter:
Dear Barack,We've had some good times over the last few years. Hell, 2008 was one of the most hopeful times in my life. Remember all those rallies and adoring crowds? God, it was wild. I didn't think I could keep up with you; you were so intense, so passionate. But once we started living together, things changed.
Sure, sure, you brought me flowers, you told me how much you cared, and you moved me in ways that I never thought I'd be moved. You can still do that to this day. But isn't that the way it is with our lovers? There's always going to be parts of them that we miss. That just shows that you meant something, and that you still do. But I need to do this for the sake of my sanity, my self-esteem.
If you care to know why, let me explain. You started to take me for granted. Almost immediately your eye started to wander. When we'd go out, I'd always think, "I'll be he's looking over there at that table to the right." You told me not to worry about it. You said that I was still your heart and soul.
You made promises you never kept, Barack. And it's not as if you ever apologized for breaking them. You'd say that we would climb mountains together, but you decided that you'd rather go hunting. "In the future, we'll climb mountains, don't worry," you told me. "We can't afford it right now." But somehow, you always found the money for other things. Even the ones you kept were somehow diminished. You said we would build a house. Instead, you got us a trailer. You told me to be happy with a trailer. You took the things I cared about and you said you cared, too. Then you either cast them aside or did the bare minimum to show you cared.
You made promises you never kept, Barack. And it's not as if you ever apologized for breaking them. You'd say that we would climb mountains together, but you decided that you'd rather go hunting. "In the future, we'll climb mountains, don't worry," you told me. "We can't afford it right now." But somehow, you always found the money for other things. Even the ones you kept were somehow diminished. You said we would build a house. Instead, you got us a trailer. You told me to be happy with a trailer. You took the things I cared about and you said you cared, too. Then you either cast them aside or did the bare minimum to show you cared.
Even now, you're still making promises, as if you still believe they can come true. They can't. Not unless you change. Not unless you're willing to fight for us. But I don't think you can. I don't think that's who you are.
I got into this relationship without any illusions about who you were. I never listened when others told me that you were perfect. I never listened when some told me you weren't worth my time. I got together with you because I believed in us. You and me. Somewhere along the way, you stopped caring. Somewhere along the line, you started believing in others more than you believed in me.
I got into this relationship without any illusions about who you were. I never listened when others told me that you were perfect. I never listened when some told me you weren't worth my time. I got together with you because I believed in us. You and me. Somewhere along the way, you stopped caring. Somewhere along the line, you started believing in others more than you believed in me.
I loved you as a smart, principled man. I worked at this relationship. Even when we fought, I still sought out the good in you. Now, finally, after watching you have affair after affair, saying each time that it was just a one-time thing, I have to allow myself to feel bitter and angry and more than a little foolish. And I have to do that by myself.
I'm sure many of my friends will be upset. "What are you going to do now?" they'll say. "You're not going to date Mitt or Michele, are you?" What that implies is that I should settle, that I should compromise myself and my dreams just to keep us together. No one deserves that kind of power. And they never considered a third option between staying with you and being with someone else. They never considered that I could just be alone.
So this is a separation, and I'm sure you'll be dating again quickly. But I need a break. I need to remember why I loved you. I need to miss you. I need to see if I miss you. Sure, sure, you'll say, I'm being a drama queen, that nothing has changed, that I don't live in the real world, that everything you've done has been for me, that I just don't understand what it's like to live with the pressure that you have. No, but I have to live with the results of what you do. And after you're done, in 2013 or 2017, you'll still be a rich moderate conservative and I'll still be a middle-class liberal trying his best to clean up all the messes.
I'm gonna pack up my stuff and head out now. I wish you well, truly, for everyone's sake. But I think if there's anything you can take away from this, it's simple:
It's not me. It's you.
Sincerely,
The Rude Pundit
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Photos That Do Portend the End of Days (Just Not the Christian Way):
Yes, that is what it looks like. It is a lake of blood. Well, more precisely, it's the remnants of the OC Fisher Reservoir in Texas. It is effectively completely dry, except for that puddle. Thousands of dead fish crowded the shrinking water trying to survive and failing. That red color is due to bacteria that flourishes and helps things get even killier. Despoiled nature, not, you know, vengeful sky wizard. It was a 5400 acre lake that was 53 feet at its deepest point. It hasn't been that deep since 1982. This is what it looked like at almost the same spot in 2009, at 2% of capacity:
The drought in Texas is so bad that when Tropical Storm Don hit last week, the air was like a Bounty paper towel commercial. It just got sucked dry and was done. Almost no desperately needed rain.
Some people look at Fisher Reservoir and see it as a sign that Jesus is about to come back to earth. One might imagine that a God who created earth would return just because he's so pissed off with how much we've fucked up his beautiful planet. He might even be pretty biblically angry that people who should know better don't do a damn thing to help it. So maybe God's just gettin' out his smite-sword and is ready to take out some assholes because it's pretty clear he doesn't care what Texans have to say.
See, back in April, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a proclamation declaring April 21-24 "Days of Prayer" for rain. In May, less than two inches of rain fell. In June, less than one. So either the people of Texas are Sodom and Gomorrah-like sinners who can't pray enough to please a god with such low self-esteem. Or God hates Texas and is just fucking with it because it's raining at least a bit more in states around it. Or Rick Perry is just a pathetic fuckbag who would do anything to make himself seem like the evangelicals' candidate for president.
'Cause, see, prayer doesn't do shit other than make the person praying have a moment when they think peace and/or happiness are possible, like masturbation, but less effective. Politicians, though, they can fuck with the world. Rick Perry governs the state that puts the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Last year, when the EPA said it would regulate greenhouse gases, Perry filed suit with the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn the EPA's authority. In his recent book he said that global warming is "all one contrived phony mess."
Apparently, God is showing Perry otherwise because his answer to the prayers of Texans is "No."
(By the way, the photo at top was taken a week ago. Even the blood is probably dried by now.)
Yes, that is what it looks like. It is a lake of blood. Well, more precisely, it's the remnants of the OC Fisher Reservoir in Texas. It is effectively completely dry, except for that puddle. Thousands of dead fish crowded the shrinking water trying to survive and failing. That red color is due to bacteria that flourishes and helps things get even killier. Despoiled nature, not, you know, vengeful sky wizard. It was a 5400 acre lake that was 53 feet at its deepest point. It hasn't been that deep since 1982. This is what it looked like at almost the same spot in 2009, at 2% of capacity:
The drought in Texas is so bad that when Tropical Storm Don hit last week, the air was like a Bounty paper towel commercial. It just got sucked dry and was done. Almost no desperately needed rain.
Some people look at Fisher Reservoir and see it as a sign that Jesus is about to come back to earth. One might imagine that a God who created earth would return just because he's so pissed off with how much we've fucked up his beautiful planet. He might even be pretty biblically angry that people who should know better don't do a damn thing to help it. So maybe God's just gettin' out his smite-sword and is ready to take out some assholes because it's pretty clear he doesn't care what Texans have to say.
See, back in April, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a proclamation declaring April 21-24 "Days of Prayer" for rain. In May, less than two inches of rain fell. In June, less than one. So either the people of Texas are Sodom and Gomorrah-like sinners who can't pray enough to please a god with such low self-esteem. Or God hates Texas and is just fucking with it because it's raining at least a bit more in states around it. Or Rick Perry is just a pathetic fuckbag who would do anything to make himself seem like the evangelicals' candidate for president.
'Cause, see, prayer doesn't do shit other than make the person praying have a moment when they think peace and/or happiness are possible, like masturbation, but less effective. Politicians, though, they can fuck with the world. Rick Perry governs the state that puts the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Last year, when the EPA said it would regulate greenhouse gases, Perry filed suit with the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn the EPA's authority. In his recent book he said that global warming is "all one contrived phony mess."
Apparently, God is showing Perry otherwise because his answer to the prayers of Texans is "No."
(By the way, the photo at top was taken a week ago. Even the blood is probably dried by now.)
Monday, August 01, 2011
Random Observations Regarding the Debt Deal (Which May or May Not Become Law):
1. Refusal to isolate Republicans has become a kind of mania, a self-immolating sickness for President Obama. Every now and then, he'll slip up and blame Republicans for their intransigence. But then that's generally undermined by his saying that Democrats need to give up on their sacred cows (like, you know, Medicare and Social Security, which seem more like life-giving dairy cows). Last night, announcing a deal with Republicans on raising the debt ceiling, Obama said it will "end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America."
That one line is so goddamned aggravating. First off, it wasn't "Washington." Most of the people who run "Washington" wanted a clean debt ceiling vote. It was House Republicans, especially, but not exclusively, the teabaggers. They are the ones who brought the nation to a crisis. It's like saying that you need to burn down your home because you've got mice. No, you get mad at the mice for dropping turds and then you trap those fuckers.
The other thing about that line is that it buys into Republican rhetoric that government is the problem. By not calling out Republicans for their bullshit, Obama is, in fact, being even more Reaganesque: "Hey, we're just a bunch of assholes here. Sorry for stressing you out." Washington is not hurting us. It will when it takes a shitload of money out of the economy and ends stimulus spending. But not right now.
2. Here's what Obama said at his July 15 press conference: "But if you’re trying to get to $2.4 trillion without any revenue, then you are effectively gutting a whole bunch of domestic spending that is going to be too burdensome and is not going to be something that I would support."
At his July 11 press conference, he said, "I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans."
But he is accepting and supporting this deal, which doesn't do a thing to increase revenue. Instead, the White House put out this statement regarding a failure for the proposed Super Congress to reach a deal on future spending cuts and revenue, which would trigger a sequestering of spending: "The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts."
You get that? The White House is saying that Obama has a bottom line or he'll veto it. And that he'll allow the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire. Like he did last time. Oh, wait...
Why the fuck should we believe him? First off, he'd have to get the tax cuts on the wealthy decoupled from the larger tax cuts, which won't happen. (And the Rude Pundit believes that all the tax cuts should expire.) And, mostly, he just fucking spent weeks telling us that he wouldn't accept a deal without revenue increases, and then did the opposite. If you don't wanna get fucked in the ass and the dude you're fucking keeps saying, "Don't worry, I'm not gonna fuck your ass" and then he fucks your ass on three different occasions, are you gonna believe him when he says, "No, really, this time I'm not gonna fuck your ass"? (Note: We're all gonna have sore assholes when this is over.)
3. Advice to the mass circle-jerk of punditry: you can't predict what is going to happen if this passes and that bipartisan committee goes to work. Shit changes, radically, and don't be shocked if Social Security and Medicare are on the table. And, yes, there are people on the right who hate this deal, but that's because they're the fucking insanitoids who got us into this mud pit to begin with.
4. And the Rude Pundit calls "Bullshit" on anyone who says that Obama had his hand forced. He did what he has always done: taken the toughest negotiating tool off the table. He did it when he took a national health care system out of the debate. He did it again here when he said that he wasn't considering the 14th Amendment option. Imagine if that had been hanging over the negotiations: you guys can go fuck yourselves if you don't bargain fairly.
Would it have forced a constitutional crisis? Who knows. We're sure as fuck in a crisis now, having our country run by a small cabal of people who hate the very entity they work for. It's like having a company that makes Magic Sex Machines but you hire someone who hates sex, machines, and magic to help you market it.
5. So let's not forget: these are crazy people. Right now, they're gathering in a cave under the Capitol, smearing themselves with each other's shit and casting chicken bones on the ground to decide how they should vote. But, hell, it's as good a way to run a country as we've got now.
6. One thing the Rude Pundit can't get his mind around is that the wars continue. Aren't they the vestiges of a fallen empire, attempting to remain relevant in a world that wants to move on? That we prefer war to roads and health care and education here is unfathomably depressing.
1. Refusal to isolate Republicans has become a kind of mania, a self-immolating sickness for President Obama. Every now and then, he'll slip up and blame Republicans for their intransigence. But then that's generally undermined by his saying that Democrats need to give up on their sacred cows (like, you know, Medicare and Social Security, which seem more like life-giving dairy cows). Last night, announcing a deal with Republicans on raising the debt ceiling, Obama said it will "end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America."
That one line is so goddamned aggravating. First off, it wasn't "Washington." Most of the people who run "Washington" wanted a clean debt ceiling vote. It was House Republicans, especially, but not exclusively, the teabaggers. They are the ones who brought the nation to a crisis. It's like saying that you need to burn down your home because you've got mice. No, you get mad at the mice for dropping turds and then you trap those fuckers.
The other thing about that line is that it buys into Republican rhetoric that government is the problem. By not calling out Republicans for their bullshit, Obama is, in fact, being even more Reaganesque: "Hey, we're just a bunch of assholes here. Sorry for stressing you out." Washington is not hurting us. It will when it takes a shitload of money out of the economy and ends stimulus spending. But not right now.
2. Here's what Obama said at his July 15 press conference: "But if you’re trying to get to $2.4 trillion without any revenue, then you are effectively gutting a whole bunch of domestic spending that is going to be too burdensome and is not going to be something that I would support."
At his July 11 press conference, he said, "I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans."
But he is accepting and supporting this deal, which doesn't do a thing to increase revenue. Instead, the White House put out this statement regarding a failure for the proposed Super Congress to reach a deal on future spending cuts and revenue, which would trigger a sequestering of spending: "The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts."
You get that? The White House is saying that Obama has a bottom line or he'll veto it. And that he'll allow the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire. Like he did last time. Oh, wait...
Why the fuck should we believe him? First off, he'd have to get the tax cuts on the wealthy decoupled from the larger tax cuts, which won't happen. (And the Rude Pundit believes that all the tax cuts should expire.) And, mostly, he just fucking spent weeks telling us that he wouldn't accept a deal without revenue increases, and then did the opposite. If you don't wanna get fucked in the ass and the dude you're fucking keeps saying, "Don't worry, I'm not gonna fuck your ass" and then he fucks your ass on three different occasions, are you gonna believe him when he says, "No, really, this time I'm not gonna fuck your ass"? (Note: We're all gonna have sore assholes when this is over.)
3. Advice to the mass circle-jerk of punditry: you can't predict what is going to happen if this passes and that bipartisan committee goes to work. Shit changes, radically, and don't be shocked if Social Security and Medicare are on the table. And, yes, there are people on the right who hate this deal, but that's because they're the fucking insanitoids who got us into this mud pit to begin with.
4. And the Rude Pundit calls "Bullshit" on anyone who says that Obama had his hand forced. He did what he has always done: taken the toughest negotiating tool off the table. He did it when he took a national health care system out of the debate. He did it again here when he said that he wasn't considering the 14th Amendment option. Imagine if that had been hanging over the negotiations: you guys can go fuck yourselves if you don't bargain fairly.
Would it have forced a constitutional crisis? Who knows. We're sure as fuck in a crisis now, having our country run by a small cabal of people who hate the very entity they work for. It's like having a company that makes Magic Sex Machines but you hire someone who hates sex, machines, and magic to help you market it.
5. So let's not forget: these are crazy people. Right now, they're gathering in a cave under the Capitol, smearing themselves with each other's shit and casting chicken bones on the ground to decide how they should vote. But, hell, it's as good a way to run a country as we've got now.
6. One thing the Rude Pundit can't get his mind around is that the wars continue. Aren't they the vestiges of a fallen empire, attempting to remain relevant in a world that wants to move on? That we prefer war to roads and health care and education here is unfathomably depressing.
Friday, July 29, 2011
We Lose Because We Don't Just Lie Like the Right Does:
So the Rude Pundit was a-perusin' Ann Coulter's latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "the dissonant squawks of a twitchy, mite-ridden cockatiel quickly losing its plumage") in which she compares the media's reaction to Oslo terrorist Anders Bervik to its treatment of Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, and this line jumped out at him: "Despite reports that Hasan shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' as he gunned down his fellow soldiers at a military medical facility in 2009, only one of seven [New York] Times articles on Hasan so much as mentioned that he was a Muslim." And she claims, "Of course, that story ran one year after Hasan's arrest."
Huh. That doesn't seem right, the Rude Pundit thought, considering how often he had heard and seen Hasan's religion referenced since the November 5, 2009 attack. So, using the magic of the Nexis machine, which Coulter often cites for her "research," as well as the Googling thingamabob, the Rude Pundit quickly found the following:
There was the November 6, 2009 article that says, flat out, that Hasan was Muslim, as in he wondered "if he could get out of the Army before his contract was up, because of the harassment he had received as a Muslim." The article also mentions the mosque he attended. That'd be the day after the shooting, not a year. There was the November 9, 2009 article that ties Hasan to Islamic extremism. That'd be four days after the attack, not a year. There was a January 16, 2010 article by Elizabeth Bumiller which repeatedly references Hasan's religious views (by name) as the reason he went off the deep end. That'd be about three months after the attacks, not a year. You get the idea. The Rude Pundit worked hard and couldn't find an article that did not, in some way, refer to Hasan as Muslim.
In other words, Ann Coulter wrote a complete and utter lie, but it is the lie that is the foundation of her entire column. And you can bet, like many other lies she's spewed out like Sean Hannity's semen under the desk in his office, she will repeat it endlessly and it will probably show up in a book (if it hasn't already).
But the point here is not, as it often is, about Ann Coulter's finely-honed batshittery. No, it's about what we are actually up against in the rhetorical battle over the soul of the nation.
They lie, this awful, destructive right wing. Often. And repeatedly. And they lie with such brazenness and bravado that it's as if lies are steel-toed boots kicking in the teeth of truth. How do you fight that? Because, from experience, the Rude Pundit can tell you that you can say the truth is the greatest fuck you'll ever have and most conservatives would say they'd rather just masturbate.
Another example: the Rude Pundit was driving at night down here in Red State America, and he found Dennis Miller's radio show while scanning through the stations. Miller has never actually been funny, even when he was presumptively a less paranoid libertarian, but at least he sounded smart. Now he's just pompous and dull. A caller starts talking about raising taxes on the wealthy and the caller says something like, "Obama doesn't say that he's not raising taxes on himself, he doesn't say that he doesn't make enough money to pay higher taxes. It's everyone else that has to."
What Miller should have done was to say, "Whoa, whoa, there, Cletard, at every speech and press conference about the debt ceiling, Obama has said that 'people like me' have to pay their fair share. That motherfucker's rich, so he wants to raise taxes on himself." See? It's the truth and it's the exact opposite of what Cletard believed.
No, instead Miller agreed with Cletard and then blathered on about how any money Obama has ever made has been from the government, how we have supported him his whole life, how he always got breaks from people like Rezko, blah, blah, blah, never mentioning that he was a best-selling author, no, just making him seem like another black guy on welfare who wants to steal from rich whitie.
We good liberals look at this nonsense, recoil at the lies, and think, "Well, of course, it's just isolated. Most people don't actually believe that."
But the thing is that many people do. Many people will take Ann Coulter's word on the Times's alleged denial of Hasan's faith. Many people will merely dutifully parrot Miller on how Obama is taxing other wealthy Americans.
This land has abandoned the supremacy of facts, even at a time when almost all facts are quite literally at our fingertips. No, it's too, too difficult to care when you can merely become another paying audience member at the puppet show, not giving a damn if the wooden toys are real or not.
So the Rude Pundit was a-perusin' Ann Coulter's latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "the dissonant squawks of a twitchy, mite-ridden cockatiel quickly losing its plumage") in which she compares the media's reaction to Oslo terrorist Anders Bervik to its treatment of Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, and this line jumped out at him: "Despite reports that Hasan shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' as he gunned down his fellow soldiers at a military medical facility in 2009, only one of seven [New York] Times articles on Hasan so much as mentioned that he was a Muslim." And she claims, "Of course, that story ran one year after Hasan's arrest."
Huh. That doesn't seem right, the Rude Pundit thought, considering how often he had heard and seen Hasan's religion referenced since the November 5, 2009 attack. So, using the magic of the Nexis machine, which Coulter often cites for her "research," as well as the Googling thingamabob, the Rude Pundit quickly found the following:
There was the November 6, 2009 article that says, flat out, that Hasan was Muslim, as in he wondered "if he could get out of the Army before his contract was up, because of the harassment he had received as a Muslim." The article also mentions the mosque he attended. That'd be the day after the shooting, not a year. There was the November 9, 2009 article that ties Hasan to Islamic extremism. That'd be four days after the attack, not a year. There was a January 16, 2010 article by Elizabeth Bumiller which repeatedly references Hasan's religious views (by name) as the reason he went off the deep end. That'd be about three months after the attacks, not a year. You get the idea. The Rude Pundit worked hard and couldn't find an article that did not, in some way, refer to Hasan as Muslim.
In other words, Ann Coulter wrote a complete and utter lie, but it is the lie that is the foundation of her entire column. And you can bet, like many other lies she's spewed out like Sean Hannity's semen under the desk in his office, she will repeat it endlessly and it will probably show up in a book (if it hasn't already).
But the point here is not, as it often is, about Ann Coulter's finely-honed batshittery. No, it's about what we are actually up against in the rhetorical battle over the soul of the nation.
They lie, this awful, destructive right wing. Often. And repeatedly. And they lie with such brazenness and bravado that it's as if lies are steel-toed boots kicking in the teeth of truth. How do you fight that? Because, from experience, the Rude Pundit can tell you that you can say the truth is the greatest fuck you'll ever have and most conservatives would say they'd rather just masturbate.
Another example: the Rude Pundit was driving at night down here in Red State America, and he found Dennis Miller's radio show while scanning through the stations. Miller has never actually been funny, even when he was presumptively a less paranoid libertarian, but at least he sounded smart. Now he's just pompous and dull. A caller starts talking about raising taxes on the wealthy and the caller says something like, "Obama doesn't say that he's not raising taxes on himself, he doesn't say that he doesn't make enough money to pay higher taxes. It's everyone else that has to."
What Miller should have done was to say, "Whoa, whoa, there, Cletard, at every speech and press conference about the debt ceiling, Obama has said that 'people like me' have to pay their fair share. That motherfucker's rich, so he wants to raise taxes on himself." See? It's the truth and it's the exact opposite of what Cletard believed.
No, instead Miller agreed with Cletard and then blathered on about how any money Obama has ever made has been from the government, how we have supported him his whole life, how he always got breaks from people like Rezko, blah, blah, blah, never mentioning that he was a best-selling author, no, just making him seem like another black guy on welfare who wants to steal from rich whitie.
We good liberals look at this nonsense, recoil at the lies, and think, "Well, of course, it's just isolated. Most people don't actually believe that."
But the thing is that many people do. Many people will take Ann Coulter's word on the Times's alleged denial of Hasan's faith. Many people will merely dutifully parrot Miller on how Obama is taxing other wealthy Americans.
This land has abandoned the supremacy of facts, even at a time when almost all facts are quite literally at our fingertips. No, it's too, too difficult to care when you can merely become another paying audience member at the puppet show, not giving a damn if the wooden toys are real or not.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
John McCain Now Should Probably Talk to John McCain in 2010:
America's angriest leprechaun hulked out on the Senate floor yesterday. Yes, John McCain shook his sheleighly and chewed his thin pipe as he tore into the obstructionist new House members, reading from a Wall Street Journal editorial that called them "Tea Party hobbits" and said himself that their hopes for a balanced budget amendment in the next week are "foolish" and "bizarro. And maybe some people who have only been in this body for six or seven months or so really believe that."
One can understand McCain's anger over the way that the ignorant teabaggers have taken over his nice Congress. It's too bad that the Tea Party candidates and the movement had so much support less than a year ago from allegedly mainstream Republicans who desperately wanted to appear ultraconservative, like, well, fuck, you know.
Here's McCain on Fox's Hannity on October 1, 2010: "I think that Tea Party movement in my state and all over this country is not only legitimate, they're going to be a powerful force in American politics for a long time to come. I want - they also want, by the way, for us to eliminate earmarking and they also, I think, want a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution. I think they also want secure borders. But I think they are a major factor and they are every - everyday citizens who have never been involved before."
Here's McCain on Good Morning America on October 19, 2010: "Americans are very angry. They're very, very angry. We all know that. That's reflected in the polls and the intensity of the voters. The Tea Partiers are a manifestation of that. And, obviously, they have struck a chord that is really a remarkable thing."
Here's McCain on Fox's One Sane Show with Shepherd Smith: "Republicans have got to come through and satisfy those -- this -- this outcry, this anger and frustration, that's being expressed. And, by the way, they're not frightened. That's being expressed by the Tea Parties and has galvanized this election...our Tea Partiers will understand that we can only do so much depending on what our majorities are, if we have it in both houses. But if we are having a good-faith effort, every day bringing up a spending cut, a repeal or replacement of the most onerous provisions of Obamacare, if we are carrying out that mandate, then I think that they're going to be happy." That last part, by the way, is adorable in its naivete.
You know, at least Dr. Frankenstein realized that he had created a monster and bore the guilt and responsibility for its destruction. John McCain used his fake maverick street cred to legitimize the Tea Party and give it aid and comfort and to help it run rampant through the village. Now he wants to grab a pitchfork and chase it down and pretend he's just a poor, ordinary townsperson. No, fuck that. McCain doesn't get to play phony maverick again.
He now smells this stinky fart he unleashed on the nation. And that motherfucker sure as hell dealt it.
America's angriest leprechaun hulked out on the Senate floor yesterday. Yes, John McCain shook his sheleighly and chewed his thin pipe as he tore into the obstructionist new House members, reading from a Wall Street Journal editorial that called them "Tea Party hobbits" and said himself that their hopes for a balanced budget amendment in the next week are "foolish" and "bizarro. And maybe some people who have only been in this body for six or seven months or so really believe that."
One can understand McCain's anger over the way that the ignorant teabaggers have taken over his nice Congress. It's too bad that the Tea Party candidates and the movement had so much support less than a year ago from allegedly mainstream Republicans who desperately wanted to appear ultraconservative, like, well, fuck, you know.
Here's McCain on Fox's Hannity on October 1, 2010: "I think that Tea Party movement in my state and all over this country is not only legitimate, they're going to be a powerful force in American politics for a long time to come. I want - they also want, by the way, for us to eliminate earmarking and they also, I think, want a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution. I think they also want secure borders. But I think they are a major factor and they are every - everyday citizens who have never been involved before."
Here's McCain on Good Morning America on October 19, 2010: "Americans are very angry. They're very, very angry. We all know that. That's reflected in the polls and the intensity of the voters. The Tea Partiers are a manifestation of that. And, obviously, they have struck a chord that is really a remarkable thing."
Here's McCain on Fox's One Sane Show with Shepherd Smith: "Republicans have got to come through and satisfy those -- this -- this outcry, this anger and frustration, that's being expressed. And, by the way, they're not frightened. That's being expressed by the Tea Parties and has galvanized this election...our Tea Partiers will understand that we can only do so much depending on what our majorities are, if we have it in both houses. But if we are having a good-faith effort, every day bringing up a spending cut, a repeal or replacement of the most onerous provisions of Obamacare, if we are carrying out that mandate, then I think that they're going to be happy." That last part, by the way, is adorable in its naivete.
You know, at least Dr. Frankenstein realized that he had created a monster and bore the guilt and responsibility for its destruction. John McCain used his fake maverick street cred to legitimize the Tea Party and give it aid and comfort and to help it run rampant through the village. Now he wants to grab a pitchfork and chase it down and pretend he's just a poor, ordinary townsperson. No, fuck that. McCain doesn't get to play phony maverick again.
He now smells this stinky fart he unleashed on the nation. And that motherfucker sure as hell dealt it.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
In Brief: Pamela Geller Loses Her Fucking Mind (Even More):
Oh, dear, sweet Pam Geller, she of the botox face and yenta voice, an attention whore that makes other whores wonder if they should just quit, she who has spouted hatred in myriad creative ways, ways that'd make Goebbels' ghost go, "Scheisse, vish ve had thought of zat." Yes, now that some deranged Muslim hater in Norway has committed crimes as an attack on multiculturalism and cited Geller, among others, as his inspiration, Pamsy has lost her fucking mind so much that her hatemongering during the Park 51 stupidity seems like a gentle breeze of delusion.
For nothing makes someone with a persecution complex go nutsier than being actually deserving of persecution. Now that the media is questioning, finally, at least a bit, just what the effect is of nonstop lies and hatred from "extreme" right-wing websites (although, apparently, the only thing that distinguishes "extreme" from "mainstream" conservatism is just how many bullets are used), Geller is in full on cornered rat mode. Check some of this shit out:
In bringing up a bombing in Mumbai to compare media coverage, she says that Anders Brevik was "a psychopath (alone and belonging to no one, no group, just the twisted sickness of a legend in his own broken mind)." Her point? That the media never covers terror attacks committed by Muslims. Which would be true if it wasn't absolutely false.
You know what? The Rude Pundit ain't gonna waste any more space quoting Geller. You can read it for herself. Nearly every entry is a screechy defense of her brand of hatred. He'd call her "a cunt," but even that doesn't seem strong enough for the sub-Coulter nature of her writing.
Tell you what: we'll talk when someone shoots up a Young Republicans rally and says it's because he read a bunch of Michael Moore or Van Jones (who are not even remotely analogous to Geller, but, hey, that's because we on the American left generally don't call for the mass murder of millions of people).
Oh, dear, sweet Pam Geller, she of the botox face and yenta voice, an attention whore that makes other whores wonder if they should just quit, she who has spouted hatred in myriad creative ways, ways that'd make Goebbels' ghost go, "Scheisse, vish ve had thought of zat." Yes, now that some deranged Muslim hater in Norway has committed crimes as an attack on multiculturalism and cited Geller, among others, as his inspiration, Pamsy has lost her fucking mind so much that her hatemongering during the Park 51 stupidity seems like a gentle breeze of delusion.
For nothing makes someone with a persecution complex go nutsier than being actually deserving of persecution. Now that the media is questioning, finally, at least a bit, just what the effect is of nonstop lies and hatred from "extreme" right-wing websites (although, apparently, the only thing that distinguishes "extreme" from "mainstream" conservatism is just how many bullets are used), Geller is in full on cornered rat mode. Check some of this shit out:
In bringing up a bombing in Mumbai to compare media coverage, she says that Anders Brevik was "a psychopath (alone and belonging to no one, no group, just the twisted sickness of a legend in his own broken mind)." Her point? That the media never covers terror attacks committed by Muslims. Which would be true if it wasn't absolutely false.
You know what? The Rude Pundit ain't gonna waste any more space quoting Geller. You can read it for herself. Nearly every entry is a screechy defense of her brand of hatred. He'd call her "a cunt," but even that doesn't seem strong enough for the sub-Coulter nature of her writing.
Tell you what: we'll talk when someone shoots up a Young Republicans rally and says it's because he read a bunch of Michael Moore or Van Jones (who are not even remotely analogous to Geller, but, hey, that's because we on the American left generally don't call for the mass murder of millions of people).
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The View From Across Oceans on Our Debt Ceiling Idiocy:
Hey, gang, at the end of what will be known as our waning salad days, let's check out what editorials from around the world are saying about our fucktarded debt ceiling debate (also known as "That Time the GOP Destroyed the World's Economy and Unleashed the Inevitable Zombie Apocalypse") to see if we can learn anything by viewing ourselves through the eyes of others (here's a hint: we're pretty goddamned dumb):
From South Africa's Business Day, July 18:
"Deficit reduction will have to be achieved through a combination of higher taxes and reduced spending. The golden ratio between the two - the level of taxation and spending that both avoids stalling economic growth and minimises the effect on the poor - depends on the prevailing economic circumstances. The Republicans argue that spending cuts should account for 85% of the required savings, and tax increases just 15%, to achieve optimal deficit reduction. But this is significantly out of kilter with international best practice. In Britain, a ratio of 3:1 has been applied and has met with significant resistance. Even the austerity programmes imposed by the international community on Ireland and Greece do not come close to an 85%-15% split."The Republicans have themselves never imposed such harsh deficit reduction measures when in power. In fact, they have tended more towards higher taxes than towards spending cuts. Under Ronald Reagan, tax increases accounted for more than 75% of deficit reduction measures."
From the South China Morning Post, July 18: "The main stumbling block to raising the debt ceiling above US$14.29 trillion is in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where the tea party faction is demanding savage budget cuts and no new revenue, even from closing loopholes in tax law that was always intended to raise it. It has extended a bitter feud with the Democrats over government spending into rejection of every compromise entertained by other factions, including Obama's offer to slash the deficit by US$4 trillion over 10 years and trim 'untouchables' like Medicare and Medicaid."
From a Beijing newspaper (translated by the BBC), July 16, a genuine threat: "Analysts believe that Obama and Congress will 'definitely' reach an agreement [on raising the US debt ceiling] in the end, but they have dared to use their sovereign credit as a ball to kick around and dared to turn China, Japan, Germany and many other countries that have bought US Treasury bonds into hostages... As long as the 'relative decline' of the US economy is real, the decline of the US' dollar-centred financial hegemony will be unavoidable. This process ought to be gradual, and no-one wants it to come overnight. But it should not be averted."
The Irish Times on July 18, regarding "Cut, Cap, and Balance":
"The measure, which has no hope of passing in Congress, is populist political grandstanding by Republicans in the hope of regaining the initiative ahead of the presidentials. But the public is not impressed. Polls consistently show a majority favour higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations to help reduce debt."
The Irish Times also made the contrast between the two American parties pretty damn stark:
"The difference between Democrats and Republicans, however intractable, remains remarkably simple. The latter, driven by hard-line Tea Party ideologues, insist that any deal on cutting the US deficit, a precondition for agreeing to raising the debt ceiling, can not include tax increases, and specifically not those on the wealthy proposed by President Obama. And the president will not countenance deep reductions in healthcare for the elderly."
That's about as clear as it gets: Republicans want to save money for the wealthy, Democrats want old people to have health care.
German magazine Der Spiegel goes through the opinions of commentators across Deutschland's political spectrum. Predictably, it goes from "What the fuck?" to "No, really, what the fuck?" And everyone knows who to blame.
For instance, Bild says, "The Republicans have turned a dispute over a technicality into a religious war, which no longer has any relation to a reasonable dispute between the elected government and the opposition."
Right-wing paper Die Welt says, "The influence of the Tea Party movement...cannot be overestimated...The movement sees traditional politics as corrupt and regards Washington as a den of iniquity..They see the other side as their enemy. Negotiations with the Democrats, whether it's about appointing a judge or the insolvency of the United States, are only successful if the enemy is defeated. Compromise, they feel, is a sign of weakness and cowardice."
Meanwhile, the leftish Süddeutsche Zeitung says much the same: "It's actually unimaginable. On August 2, the US could, for the first time in its history, become insolvent because the Republican majority in the House of Representatives refuses to raise the ceiling on the national debt."
See that? Left, right, and center in Germany know: This is about Republicans playing games, not Democrats clinging to sacred cows.
The other thing you get from reading around the world is a far, far more stark view of what happens upon default. "Armageddon" is vague and drama queeny. But, for instance, a column in The Times of India warns, "There is no company in the US that would be unaffected by a government default - and no bank or other financial institution that could provide a secure haven for savings. There would be a massive run into cash, on an order not seen since the Great Depression, with long lines of people at ATMs and teller windows withdrawing as much as possible. Private credit, moreover, would disappear from the US economic system, confronting the Federal Reserve with an unpleasant choice. Either it could step in and provide an enormous amount of credit directly to households and firms (much like Gosbank, the Soviet Union's central bank), or it could stand by idly while GDP falls 20-30 % - the magnitude of decline that we have seen in modern economies when credit suddenly dries up. With the private sector in free fall, consumption and investment would decline sharply."
So, yeah, you probably want to stock up on gas for your chainsaws and ammo for the rifles. Because Republicans are hastening our horrible demise, and unless Obama is willing to step up and have an old-fashioned gunfight at the Supreme Court corral, it's zombie hordes by Christmas.
Hey, gang, at the end of what will be known as our waning salad days, let's check out what editorials from around the world are saying about our fucktarded debt ceiling debate (also known as "That Time the GOP Destroyed the World's Economy and Unleashed the Inevitable Zombie Apocalypse") to see if we can learn anything by viewing ourselves through the eyes of others (here's a hint: we're pretty goddamned dumb):
From South Africa's Business Day, July 18:
"Deficit reduction will have to be achieved through a combination of higher taxes and reduced spending. The golden ratio between the two - the level of taxation and spending that both avoids stalling economic growth and minimises the effect on the poor - depends on the prevailing economic circumstances. The Republicans argue that spending cuts should account for 85% of the required savings, and tax increases just 15%, to achieve optimal deficit reduction. But this is significantly out of kilter with international best practice. In Britain, a ratio of 3:1 has been applied and has met with significant resistance. Even the austerity programmes imposed by the international community on Ireland and Greece do not come close to an 85%-15% split."The Republicans have themselves never imposed such harsh deficit reduction measures when in power. In fact, they have tended more towards higher taxes than towards spending cuts. Under Ronald Reagan, tax increases accounted for more than 75% of deficit reduction measures."
From the South China Morning Post, July 18: "The main stumbling block to raising the debt ceiling above US$14.29 trillion is in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where the tea party faction is demanding savage budget cuts and no new revenue, even from closing loopholes in tax law that was always intended to raise it. It has extended a bitter feud with the Democrats over government spending into rejection of every compromise entertained by other factions, including Obama's offer to slash the deficit by US$4 trillion over 10 years and trim 'untouchables' like Medicare and Medicaid."
From a Beijing newspaper (translated by the BBC), July 16, a genuine threat: "Analysts believe that Obama and Congress will 'definitely' reach an agreement [on raising the US debt ceiling] in the end, but they have dared to use their sovereign credit as a ball to kick around and dared to turn China, Japan, Germany and many other countries that have bought US Treasury bonds into hostages... As long as the 'relative decline' of the US economy is real, the decline of the US' dollar-centred financial hegemony will be unavoidable. This process ought to be gradual, and no-one wants it to come overnight. But it should not be averted."
The Irish Times on July 18, regarding "Cut, Cap, and Balance":
"The measure, which has no hope of passing in Congress, is populist political grandstanding by Republicans in the hope of regaining the initiative ahead of the presidentials. But the public is not impressed. Polls consistently show a majority favour higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations to help reduce debt."
The Irish Times also made the contrast between the two American parties pretty damn stark:
"The difference between Democrats and Republicans, however intractable, remains remarkably simple. The latter, driven by hard-line Tea Party ideologues, insist that any deal on cutting the US deficit, a precondition for agreeing to raising the debt ceiling, can not include tax increases, and specifically not those on the wealthy proposed by President Obama. And the president will not countenance deep reductions in healthcare for the elderly."
That's about as clear as it gets: Republicans want to save money for the wealthy, Democrats want old people to have health care.
German magazine Der Spiegel goes through the opinions of commentators across Deutschland's political spectrum. Predictably, it goes from "What the fuck?" to "No, really, what the fuck?" And everyone knows who to blame.
For instance, Bild says, "The Republicans have turned a dispute over a technicality into a religious war, which no longer has any relation to a reasonable dispute between the elected government and the opposition."
Right-wing paper Die Welt says, "The influence of the Tea Party movement...cannot be overestimated...The movement sees traditional politics as corrupt and regards Washington as a den of iniquity..They see the other side as their enemy. Negotiations with the Democrats, whether it's about appointing a judge or the insolvency of the United States, are only successful if the enemy is defeated. Compromise, they feel, is a sign of weakness and cowardice."
Meanwhile, the leftish Süddeutsche Zeitung says much the same: "It's actually unimaginable. On August 2, the US could, for the first time in its history, become insolvent because the Republican majority in the House of Representatives refuses to raise the ceiling on the national debt."
See that? Left, right, and center in Germany know: This is about Republicans playing games, not Democrats clinging to sacred cows.
The other thing you get from reading around the world is a far, far more stark view of what happens upon default. "Armageddon" is vague and drama queeny. But, for instance, a column in The Times of India warns, "There is no company in the US that would be unaffected by a government default - and no bank or other financial institution that could provide a secure haven for savings. There would be a massive run into cash, on an order not seen since the Great Depression, with long lines of people at ATMs and teller windows withdrawing as much as possible. Private credit, moreover, would disappear from the US economic system, confronting the Federal Reserve with an unpleasant choice. Either it could step in and provide an enormous amount of credit directly to households and firms (much like Gosbank, the Soviet Union's central bank), or it could stand by idly while GDP falls 20-30 % - the magnitude of decline that we have seen in modern economies when credit suddenly dries up. With the private sector in free fall, consumption and investment would decline sharply."
So, yeah, you probably want to stock up on gas for your chainsaws and ammo for the rifles. Because Republicans are hastening our horrible demise, and unless Obama is willing to step up and have an old-fashioned gunfight at the Supreme Court corral, it's zombie hordes by Christmas.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Scenes from Our Unshared Sacrifices, Part 2 (Ceci n'est pas une tax):
So the Rude Pundit walked to his car one morning, which he knew was in a no-parking zone, but, since he lives in an impressively sketchy neighborhood, sometimes the cops don't give a damn until about 8 a.m. Still, and all, it's a gamble. And he knew the fee for losing the bet, around 40 bucks; however, it's better than driving around at 2 in the morning, hoping someone leaves a legal space. The Rude Pundit accepts that he's done wrong and pays the price. This one morning he went out and saw the ticket that said he had lost this time. He picked it up and glanced at the cost: $52. Bastards had jacked up the fine by about 25%. "Yeah," the Rude Pundit thought, "let's talk some more about who's paying for shit."
'Cause shit's gotta get paid for. You want cops? You want your potholes filled? You want your fires put out? Even if you subcontract the fuck out of all those jobs, until only mercenaries from Xe are blowing away local purse snatchers with AKs, shit's gotta get paid for. And if your state or your city says that there ain't no way they're gonna raise taxes on anyone or any entity, no matter how stuffed to the gills with cash they are, well, they're gonna come up with ways to get money. 'Cause shit's gotta get paid for.
So, for instance, in Glendale, California, which has an $18 million budget gap, the price for to get a license for your pet just went from $5.50-$27.50 to $15.50-$65. And it now costs $80 for a permit to take pictures at the local sports complex. It used to be free. By the way, the justification for the hikes is that fees haven't gone up in years. Or, in other words, they're at historic lows.
In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett has cut state programs and refused to tax natural gas drillers. So $1.1 billion was cut from education programs. At the same time, he's got a panel endorsing a plan to jack up drivers' license fees from $29.50 to $69.50 and vehicle registration from $36 to $98. It doubles the length of time between renewals, but since the fee is more than doubled, it's not a wash. This is to fill a $3.5 billion transportation funding hole. But, hey, at least it ain't a tax hike. You want roads, don't you, Pennsylvanians?
The list goes on. State park fees, traffic fines, birth certificate fees. And, as ever, it hits those who can afford it least. All to keep alive the chimera of "no new taxes," when, in effect, it's the same damn thing. It's a driving tax. It's a pet tax. It always was. It always will be.
Somebody's gonna get fucked. The only question is who. It's just easier to fuck the people who are already prone.
(Note: Hey, here's an idea: raise taxes on these little fuckers. Oh, and mayors actually have a good idea on how to fill some budget gaps that don't involve dicking people over.)
So the Rude Pundit walked to his car one morning, which he knew was in a no-parking zone, but, since he lives in an impressively sketchy neighborhood, sometimes the cops don't give a damn until about 8 a.m. Still, and all, it's a gamble. And he knew the fee for losing the bet, around 40 bucks; however, it's better than driving around at 2 in the morning, hoping someone leaves a legal space. The Rude Pundit accepts that he's done wrong and pays the price. This one morning he went out and saw the ticket that said he had lost this time. He picked it up and glanced at the cost: $52. Bastards had jacked up the fine by about 25%. "Yeah," the Rude Pundit thought, "let's talk some more about who's paying for shit."
'Cause shit's gotta get paid for. You want cops? You want your potholes filled? You want your fires put out? Even if you subcontract the fuck out of all those jobs, until only mercenaries from Xe are blowing away local purse snatchers with AKs, shit's gotta get paid for. And if your state or your city says that there ain't no way they're gonna raise taxes on anyone or any entity, no matter how stuffed to the gills with cash they are, well, they're gonna come up with ways to get money. 'Cause shit's gotta get paid for.
So, for instance, in Glendale, California, which has an $18 million budget gap, the price for to get a license for your pet just went from $5.50-$27.50 to $15.50-$65. And it now costs $80 for a permit to take pictures at the local sports complex. It used to be free. By the way, the justification for the hikes is that fees haven't gone up in years. Or, in other words, they're at historic lows.
In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett has cut state programs and refused to tax natural gas drillers. So $1.1 billion was cut from education programs. At the same time, he's got a panel endorsing a plan to jack up drivers' license fees from $29.50 to $69.50 and vehicle registration from $36 to $98. It doubles the length of time between renewals, but since the fee is more than doubled, it's not a wash. This is to fill a $3.5 billion transportation funding hole. But, hey, at least it ain't a tax hike. You want roads, don't you, Pennsylvanians?
The list goes on. State park fees, traffic fines, birth certificate fees. And, as ever, it hits those who can afford it least. All to keep alive the chimera of "no new taxes," when, in effect, it's the same damn thing. It's a driving tax. It's a pet tax. It always was. It always will be.
Somebody's gonna get fucked. The only question is who. It's just easier to fuck the people who are already prone.
(Note: Hey, here's an idea: raise taxes on these little fuckers. Oh, and mayors actually have a good idea on how to fill some budget gaps that don't involve dicking people over.)
Friday, July 22, 2011
Nearing the Ends of DOMA and DADT:
Let's end another week of hastening our descent into the dustbin of empires on a positive note.
If you watch the video of Sen. Al Franken questioning Focus on the Family Senior Vice President Tom Minnery during a hearing on repealing the odious Defense of Marriage Act, you can pinpoint the moment that Minnery's soul is crushed. Franken called out the Christian conservative leader on a study that said children with two parents are better off health-wise than children with one. Minnery claimed this meant parents of different sexes, which is not what the study itself said (and which the study's author confirmed). There he was, Minnery, caught in either a lie (and lies make baby Jesus cry, so that can't end well) or willful ignorance. And he winced, as his soul imploded, right when the rat realized that he had been cornered and boxed up.
Of course, a rat being just a rat who needs to raise cash from other rats, Minnery later said that he would have told Franken that the study he was citing never mentioned the sex of the couples, so it was natural to assume same sex ones were just left out. Ooh, that sucks, doesn't it? When you leave an argument and think, "Oh, fuck, that's what I should have said." No second chances, man. Just convenient press releases later where one can rattle off all the coulda, shoulda, woulda one wants.
And with President Obama evolving to the point of supporting Dianne Feinstein's kill-DOMA bill, the inevitable is becoming more inevitabler.
Meanwhile, over at the Pentagon, things are about to get even more openly festive. Apparently, today, the Defense Department is going to certify that gay and lesbian Americans are allowed to die for their country without lying about who they are. If you'll remember, the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal was contingent on the Pentagon doing a study that said, "Umm, most everyone doesn't give a shit. And those that do are intolerant redneck assholes or closeted gays." So, with that done, let the cornhole in the foxhole begin.
Let's end another week of hastening our descent into the dustbin of empires on a positive note.
If you watch the video of Sen. Al Franken questioning Focus on the Family Senior Vice President Tom Minnery during a hearing on repealing the odious Defense of Marriage Act, you can pinpoint the moment that Minnery's soul is crushed. Franken called out the Christian conservative leader on a study that said children with two parents are better off health-wise than children with one. Minnery claimed this meant parents of different sexes, which is not what the study itself said (and which the study's author confirmed). There he was, Minnery, caught in either a lie (and lies make baby Jesus cry, so that can't end well) or willful ignorance. And he winced, as his soul imploded, right when the rat realized that he had been cornered and boxed up.
Of course, a rat being just a rat who needs to raise cash from other rats, Minnery later said that he would have told Franken that the study he was citing never mentioned the sex of the couples, so it was natural to assume same sex ones were just left out. Ooh, that sucks, doesn't it? When you leave an argument and think, "Oh, fuck, that's what I should have said." No second chances, man. Just convenient press releases later where one can rattle off all the coulda, shoulda, woulda one wants.
And with President Obama evolving to the point of supporting Dianne Feinstein's kill-DOMA bill, the inevitable is becoming more inevitabler.
Meanwhile, over at the Pentagon, things are about to get even more openly festive. Apparently, today, the Defense Department is going to certify that gay and lesbian Americans are allowed to die for their country without lying about who they are. If you'll remember, the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal was contingent on the Pentagon doing a study that said, "Umm, most everyone doesn't give a shit. And those that do are intolerant redneck assholes or closeted gays." So, with that done, let the cornhole in the foxhole begin.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Cartoons That Make the Rude Pundit Want to Choke an Aussie with Koala Kebabs and Kegs of Carlton:
That's a political cartoon from today's Times of London, a newspaper owned by News International, which is owned by News Corp, which is "run" by Rupert Murdoch (if by "run," you mean, "Go fuck yaselves, ya bloody galahs"). It is expressing a disgust and frustration with the amount of coverage given to the phone-hacking/police bribery/corporate influence scandal engulfing Great Britain. One could say that, sure, starving Africans are more important than the corrupt political, judicial, and media institutions of the United Kingdom. And one could certainly do so by using a caricature of the horrors afflicting the people of Somalia and other countries.
One could respond with outrage, with a knee-jerk accusation of racism, which the Murdoch brand indulges in with egregious regularity. One could say that, of course, the Times would want to deflect the story, much like the New York Post has buried the story, much like others in the Murdoch empire have rushed to defend the man who looks like a child-eating beast out of Pan's Labyrinth.
Instead, the Rude Pundit would respond with "I've had a bellyful of white assholes using images of hungry black people to manipulate public opinion, as if implying that those black people are being ignored when, in fact, the British government, with the approval of those very members of Parliament who are on the attack over the phone-hacking scandal, has tripled the amount of aid it has sent to Somalia just this year, even if much more needs to be done, while the white assholes at Murdoch's media outlets say that the money is going to pirates and terrorists and should be cut off, so probably cartoonists like Peter Brookes should go fuck themselves with their smug little poison pencils until they stab their prostates with the tip." Or, in other words, it's possible to take care of two things at once. The scandal can bring down Murdoch and the Prime Minister while the British government tries to help the starving.
Or, in otherer words, despite Murdoch's media's best efforts to make everyone believe the opposite, it ain't a black or white world.
That's a political cartoon from today's Times of London, a newspaper owned by News International, which is owned by News Corp, which is "run" by Rupert Murdoch (if by "run," you mean, "Go fuck yaselves, ya bloody galahs"). It is expressing a disgust and frustration with the amount of coverage given to the phone-hacking/police bribery/corporate influence scandal engulfing Great Britain. One could say that, sure, starving Africans are more important than the corrupt political, judicial, and media institutions of the United Kingdom. And one could certainly do so by using a caricature of the horrors afflicting the people of Somalia and other countries.
One could respond with outrage, with a knee-jerk accusation of racism, which the Murdoch brand indulges in with egregious regularity. One could say that, of course, the Times would want to deflect the story, much like the New York Post has buried the story, much like others in the Murdoch empire have rushed to defend the man who looks like a child-eating beast out of Pan's Labyrinth.
Instead, the Rude Pundit would respond with "I've had a bellyful of white assholes using images of hungry black people to manipulate public opinion, as if implying that those black people are being ignored when, in fact, the British government, with the approval of those very members of Parliament who are on the attack over the phone-hacking scandal, has tripled the amount of aid it has sent to Somalia just this year, even if much more needs to be done, while the white assholes at Murdoch's media outlets say that the money is going to pirates and terrorists and should be cut off, so probably cartoonists like Peter Brookes should go fuck themselves with their smug little poison pencils until they stab their prostates with the tip." Or, in other words, it's possible to take care of two things at once. The scandal can bring down Murdoch and the Prime Minister while the British government tries to help the starving.
Or, in otherer words, despite Murdoch's media's best efforts to make everyone believe the opposite, it ain't a black or white world.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Rude Pundit on Monday's Stephanie Miller Show:
Is Obama fucking it all up or playing multidimensional chess? The Rude Pundit and guest host John Fugelsang take different sides of the question.
Hack yourself into a subscription for the Rude Pundit's free podcast.
Is Obama fucking it all up or playing multidimensional chess? The Rude Pundit and guest host John Fugelsang take different sides of the question.
Hack yourself into a subscription for the Rude Pundit's free podcast.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
A New Tax Pledge (Involving Grover Norquist's Balls):
Let us say, and why not, that the Rude Pundit created an organization, one of yer fancy 501c3's or some such shit, the kind of organization that could get lots of free-flowin' cash from his buddies and their corporations. And let us say, and, indeed, why not, since we are in the realm of theory, that our organization was called "Americans for Taxual Healing" or one of those idiotic names that obfuscates what we're really about. Let's say that we came up with a pledge, one that we wanted all members of Congress to sign, one that would liberate them, but one that demanded something from them.
The pledge could go something like this:
"I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the ____ district of the state of ______ and to the American people that I will: ONE, kick Grover Norquist in the balls whenever he is within kicking range; and TWO, freely vote my conscience on tax raises and cuts, dependent on the reality of economic circumstance, unshackled from bullshit pledges (except this one)."
Then, in this fantasy world we're concocting, whenever Grover Norquist walked up to a member of Congress to lobby them on his mad "never-ever, no-how, no-matter-what, you-better-not raise taxes" pledge, that member of Congress could say, "Sorry, Grover. Signed another pledge first," and kick him in the balls. As Norquist rolled around on the ground, holding his groin, he might at first wonder "Why? Why?" but then he would have to admit, "A pledge is a pledge." Yeah, that's putting the "action" into a PAC.
A self-aggrandizing dick with a dwarf's voice, Norquist told Chris Matthews on My Balls Are Hard last night, "What the pledge does is, it allows a candidate who wants to run for office to make a credible commitment to the American people that he or she won't raise taxes. Without the pledge, which is the same wording in all 50 states over the last quarter-century, a promise not to raise taxes is like any other political promise and means nothing." You got that? The word of politicians is worthless unless they sign one group's conservative loyalty oath. And if you're one of the over 250 House and Senate members who have done so, then Norquist believes that he owns your ass.
The qualities of the pledge to Americans for Taxual Healing are many. First of all, there's the sweet, sweet release that one can get when one feels one's foot connect with the soft sack between Grover Norquist's legs. There's the hilarious slow motion look of horror on Norquist's face as he thinks, "Not again" and "Oh, my balls." Then there's the extra skip in one's step as one heads onto the floor to vote in whatever way one wants.
And then ATH can hold each signer to the pledge. If we hear that Grover Norquist was able to freely come within, say, three feet of a Congress member's foot and walked away with his balls un-kicked, well, we'll run a primary candidate against that Congress member, someone willing to follow through with an assault on Norquist's nuts. Our goal is to make Norquist's testicles feel a sharp pain whenever he gets near the Capitol and thus drive him away.
Obviously, signing another pledge is the only way to get our leaders to do what we want. It's not like they have free will and can act of their own accord in loyalty to the Constitution and not Grover Norquist.
Let us say, and why not, that the Rude Pundit created an organization, one of yer fancy 501c3's or some such shit, the kind of organization that could get lots of free-flowin' cash from his buddies and their corporations. And let us say, and, indeed, why not, since we are in the realm of theory, that our organization was called "Americans for Taxual Healing" or one of those idiotic names that obfuscates what we're really about. Let's say that we came up with a pledge, one that we wanted all members of Congress to sign, one that would liberate them, but one that demanded something from them.
The pledge could go something like this:
"I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the ____ district of the state of ______ and to the American people that I will: ONE, kick Grover Norquist in the balls whenever he is within kicking range; and TWO, freely vote my conscience on tax raises and cuts, dependent on the reality of economic circumstance, unshackled from bullshit pledges (except this one)."
Then, in this fantasy world we're concocting, whenever Grover Norquist walked up to a member of Congress to lobby them on his mad "never-ever, no-how, no-matter-what, you-better-not raise taxes" pledge, that member of Congress could say, "Sorry, Grover. Signed another pledge first," and kick him in the balls. As Norquist rolled around on the ground, holding his groin, he might at first wonder "Why? Why?" but then he would have to admit, "A pledge is a pledge." Yeah, that's putting the "action" into a PAC.
A self-aggrandizing dick with a dwarf's voice, Norquist told Chris Matthews on My Balls Are Hard last night, "What the pledge does is, it allows a candidate who wants to run for office to make a credible commitment to the American people that he or she won't raise taxes. Without the pledge, which is the same wording in all 50 states over the last quarter-century, a promise not to raise taxes is like any other political promise and means nothing." You got that? The word of politicians is worthless unless they sign one group's conservative loyalty oath. And if you're one of the over 250 House and Senate members who have done so, then Norquist believes that he owns your ass.
The qualities of the pledge to Americans for Taxual Healing are many. First of all, there's the sweet, sweet release that one can get when one feels one's foot connect with the soft sack between Grover Norquist's legs. There's the hilarious slow motion look of horror on Norquist's face as he thinks, "Not again" and "Oh, my balls." Then there's the extra skip in one's step as one heads onto the floor to vote in whatever way one wants.
And then ATH can hold each signer to the pledge. If we hear that Grover Norquist was able to freely come within, say, three feet of a Congress member's foot and walked away with his balls un-kicked, well, we'll run a primary candidate against that Congress member, someone willing to follow through with an assault on Norquist's nuts. Our goal is to make Norquist's testicles feel a sharp pain whenever he gets near the Capitol and thus drive him away.
Obviously, signing another pledge is the only way to get our leaders to do what we want. It's not like they have free will and can act of their own accord in loyalty to the Constitution and not Grover Norquist.
Monday, July 18, 2011
A Scene From Our Unshared Sacrifices:
The old lady at the pharmacy counter obviously wore an adult diaper. That tell-tale sharp urine scent half-masked by sweet-smelling chemicals emanated from her, and the Rude Pundit stood right behind her yesterday, waiting to pick up the pills that prevent him from going on a five-state killing spree. She was getting three prescriptions. The total was $6.00. This puzzled the old lady. She had never paid anything before, and even this seemingly small amount was obviously causing her consternation. The cashier checked with the pharmacist, who said that there had been a minor change to her plan, and now she had to pay a little for the scrips, a buck-fifty, three bucks. She apologized and put aside the couple of other things she was going to purchase to pay for the medicine.
The Rude Pundit didn't know if the change had been to Medicare or to a supplemental plan, but, either way, she was being asked to contribute more than she had before, which she did. He also thought of another story, one that he thinks about a great deal these days.
A few years back, the Rude Pundit was at dinner with a really, really, really rich friend - we're talking in the half-billion dollar range - and he reached for the bill when dinner had arrived. The friend put out her hand. The usual kind of argument ensued over who was going to pay. Finally, she said, "Look, I live like a princess. $100 to me is like 50 cents to you. Give me the bill." Now, the Rude Pundit could have been pissed off, he could have insisted as a point of pride on paying his fair share, he could have resented her wealth. Instead, he let it go, realizing that, at the end of the day, he was dining with someone for whom most of his notions of money were absolutely worthless. (By the way, she gives a ton of money to charities and good, liberal causes and works with at-risk kids, so, really, it's hard to get mad at her.)
At his press conference last Friday, President Obama said, "If you’re a senior citizen, and a modification potentially costs you a hundred or two hundred bucks a year more, or even if it’s not affecting current beneficiaries, somebody who’s 40 today 20 years from now is going to end up having to pay a little bit more. The least I can do is to say that people who are making a million dollars or more have to do something as well." It's probably the closest he's come to making an emotional, non-political case for higher taxes. But it still misses the point.
A drug benefit cut for an old lady in a diaper and a closed tax loophole on private jets are not balance. That six bucks cut into that woman's limited income in profound ways. To use the friend's equation in reverse (times ten), $6 is like $3000. And even that's not a big deal to the wealthy because you can bet that the woman is living paycheck to paycheck. The millionaire has shitloads of money that don't even count as taxable income.
Our savage economic inequality in this country is coming to a head. We talk about "spending cuts," as if what we're not really talking about is "making the poor pay more for stuff." We talk as if the services that are cut will be picked up by the aching states and cities. And we talk about nonsense like "shared sacrifice," as if that's the rational position in any of this. When the wealthy actually sacrifice something, we can talk about sharing.
At this point, any Americans earning above, say, to be generous, $500,000 a year who don't believe that they should be paying more in taxes are just goddamned greedy assholes who deserve a real Marxist revolution to take it all away. They have benefited from a country that generously gave them decades of low taxes in the hopes that they would help make this a better place. They fucked it up, and it's time to give back. If your parents supported you through college in order for you to get your MBA and get rich, then you take care of them if they go through hard times. You don't say, "Sorry, Mom, but how can I create jobs if I have to help you avoid losing your house?" Unless you do, in which case, you are a dick and deserve to be put up against the wall in the aforementioned revolution.
Back at the pharmacy, the old woman walked away from the counter, putting back the cheap socks and orange juice she was going to buy, leaving with her prescriptions, her sacrifice far from shared.
The old lady at the pharmacy counter obviously wore an adult diaper. That tell-tale sharp urine scent half-masked by sweet-smelling chemicals emanated from her, and the Rude Pundit stood right behind her yesterday, waiting to pick up the pills that prevent him from going on a five-state killing spree. She was getting three prescriptions. The total was $6.00. This puzzled the old lady. She had never paid anything before, and even this seemingly small amount was obviously causing her consternation. The cashier checked with the pharmacist, who said that there had been a minor change to her plan, and now she had to pay a little for the scrips, a buck-fifty, three bucks. She apologized and put aside the couple of other things she was going to purchase to pay for the medicine.
The Rude Pundit didn't know if the change had been to Medicare or to a supplemental plan, but, either way, she was being asked to contribute more than she had before, which she did. He also thought of another story, one that he thinks about a great deal these days.
A few years back, the Rude Pundit was at dinner with a really, really, really rich friend - we're talking in the half-billion dollar range - and he reached for the bill when dinner had arrived. The friend put out her hand. The usual kind of argument ensued over who was going to pay. Finally, she said, "Look, I live like a princess. $100 to me is like 50 cents to you. Give me the bill." Now, the Rude Pundit could have been pissed off, he could have insisted as a point of pride on paying his fair share, he could have resented her wealth. Instead, he let it go, realizing that, at the end of the day, he was dining with someone for whom most of his notions of money were absolutely worthless. (By the way, she gives a ton of money to charities and good, liberal causes and works with at-risk kids, so, really, it's hard to get mad at her.)
At his press conference last Friday, President Obama said, "If you’re a senior citizen, and a modification potentially costs you a hundred or two hundred bucks a year more, or even if it’s not affecting current beneficiaries, somebody who’s 40 today 20 years from now is going to end up having to pay a little bit more. The least I can do is to say that people who are making a million dollars or more have to do something as well." It's probably the closest he's come to making an emotional, non-political case for higher taxes. But it still misses the point.
A drug benefit cut for an old lady in a diaper and a closed tax loophole on private jets are not balance. That six bucks cut into that woman's limited income in profound ways. To use the friend's equation in reverse (times ten), $6 is like $3000. And even that's not a big deal to the wealthy because you can bet that the woman is living paycheck to paycheck. The millionaire has shitloads of money that don't even count as taxable income.
Our savage economic inequality in this country is coming to a head. We talk about "spending cuts," as if what we're not really talking about is "making the poor pay more for stuff." We talk as if the services that are cut will be picked up by the aching states and cities. And we talk about nonsense like "shared sacrifice," as if that's the rational position in any of this. When the wealthy actually sacrifice something, we can talk about sharing.
At this point, any Americans earning above, say, to be generous, $500,000 a year who don't believe that they should be paying more in taxes are just goddamned greedy assholes who deserve a real Marxist revolution to take it all away. They have benefited from a country that generously gave them decades of low taxes in the hopes that they would help make this a better place. They fucked it up, and it's time to give back. If your parents supported you through college in order for you to get your MBA and get rich, then you take care of them if they go through hard times. You don't say, "Sorry, Mom, but how can I create jobs if I have to help you avoid losing your house?" Unless you do, in which case, you are a dick and deserve to be put up against the wall in the aforementioned revolution.
Back at the pharmacy, the old woman walked away from the counter, putting back the cheap socks and orange juice she was going to buy, leaving with her prescriptions, her sacrifice far from shared.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Live Whiskey-Blogging the President's News Conference 3: Dark of the Moon:
Holy shit, Barack Obama's third press conference in two weeks? The man's gonna make the Rude Pundit even more alcoholicky. Luckily, there's a new bottle of Bulleit on the coffee table, so we're good to go. What's Obama gonna do today? Is he gonna bring out Eric Cantor's head with his eyes impaled with his glasses? (All quotes pretty much guaranteed to be wrong, but right in spirit.)
10:58: He's early. That upturns all those racist assumptions about BPT. And, no, no Cantor head.
10:59: "This should have been taken care of earlier," he says. Like maybe back during the budget negotiations? Wonder if snarkiness would piss him off.
11:00: "We have a chance to do something big...balanced approach...cut defense...stabilize Medicare." Same old, same old.
11:01: Says he wants more revenue, that rich fucks like him can "afford to do a little bit more." Michele Bachmann heard cackling madly from Iowa.
11:02: "It is hard to do a big package." True that.
11:04: He wants the big deal, and he throws out that a majority of Republicans want rich fucks to pay more in taxes.
11:05: Every time Obama says that "everyone needs to set politics aside," Paul Ryan says he's playing politics.
11:06: Yeah, yeah, we get it, you're not afraid to piss off Democrats.
11:07: Jake ("That Ass") Tapper asks for a definite "entitlement reform," which means "cutting Medicare and Social Security."
11:08: Obama says he doesn't want to current old people to get their blood all het up over anything. But he will look at how he can dick over future old people (the rest of us).
11:09: Adds "I won't dick you over as much as the Republicans would."
11:10: Ooh, nice point, actually: If we're gonna ask old people to give more money for medical care, then why is it bad to ask millionaires to pay more in taxes?
11:11: Jesus Christ, who's the greasy-haired, bearded dumpling sitting there? He deserves a drink. Cheers, dude.
11:12: Asked about a "middle road" on a bill. Didn't we veer off the middle of the road weeks ago? Aren't we driving in the right lane and trying to avoid going onto the shoulder?
11:14: Shorter version of his answer: "Those House Republicans are fucking insane. Haven't you been paying attention?"
11:15: Wonder if he'll mention peas again. Peas and band-aids.
11:17: "I think about this like a layer cake," he says, yet he seems to be describing more of a Napoleon.
11:18: Chuckie T asking about "regrets." And Obama throws cold water on the whole rumble at the negotiating table story.
11:19: Obama's puzzled that Republicans vote against something they previously supported when he says he's for it. Umm, that's not really even a Jumble-level puzzle there. Hint: it's because they're cocks.
11:21: Obama: "80% of the American people support a balanced approach." And then says that "members of Congress are dug in" to their ideological positions. But Democrats would support the balanced approach. It's a precious few Democrats and every Republican.
11:23: Balanced budget amendment? Who the fuck needs that? "We need to be willing to take on our bases," Obama says. Again: the problem ain't the Democrats. Stop lumping everyone together.
11:24: We cut taxes without paying for them, he says. Should add, "But, yeah, fuck, I still agreed to renew them." He's got this microphone. He's got this chance to say that Republicans are wrong. But instead, he's saying repeatedly that it's both parties. It's like having a shoplifter and a serial killer in the same room and saying, "Everyone is equally evil."
11:26: Thinks McConnell plan is weak sauce. There's no real point there. Just wanted to use the phrase "weak sauce."
11:27: "Even after being here for two-and-a-half years, I still have hope." Oh, poor Scarlett O'Hara, the Tara you loved is gone. (In context, is that racist? It probably is.)
11:29: Asked about tone of debate. Obama says that he doesn't read the reviews.
11:31: Says "Most of the things that I've proposed for job growth are traditionally bipartisan. But Republicans are cocks. Have you met them? Total cocks."
11:33: The press wants him to slam the GOP. They're aching for it. Obama keeps putting his faith in "the American people." Has he met the American people? Total cocks.
11:34: Question: "Do Republicans actually give a shit what the majority of Americans think?" Answer: "Every decision in Bush's second term."
11:35: Wait, what? He's gonna ream Republicans on his desk? No, he was talking about paper.
11:36: Which progressives in Congress is Obama talking about? Do any of them have the power to stop a plan from going through? Would any liberal Senators do that? Straw Democrats do not need to be created.
11:37: And with his "win the future" bizarro catchphrase, he's out.
Holy shit, Barack Obama's third press conference in two weeks? The man's gonna make the Rude Pundit even more alcoholicky. Luckily, there's a new bottle of Bulleit on the coffee table, so we're good to go. What's Obama gonna do today? Is he gonna bring out Eric Cantor's head with his eyes impaled with his glasses? (All quotes pretty much guaranteed to be wrong, but right in spirit.)
10:58: He's early. That upturns all those racist assumptions about BPT. And, no, no Cantor head.
10:59: "This should have been taken care of earlier," he says. Like maybe back during the budget negotiations? Wonder if snarkiness would piss him off.
11:00: "We have a chance to do something big...balanced approach...cut defense...stabilize Medicare." Same old, same old.
11:01: Says he wants more revenue, that rich fucks like him can "afford to do a little bit more." Michele Bachmann heard cackling madly from Iowa.
11:02: "It is hard to do a big package." True that.
11:04: He wants the big deal, and he throws out that a majority of Republicans want rich fucks to pay more in taxes.
11:05: Every time Obama says that "everyone needs to set politics aside," Paul Ryan says he's playing politics.
11:06: Yeah, yeah, we get it, you're not afraid to piss off Democrats.
11:07: Jake ("That Ass") Tapper asks for a definite "entitlement reform," which means "cutting Medicare and Social Security."
11:08: Obama says he doesn't want to current old people to get their blood all het up over anything. But he will look at how he can dick over future old people (the rest of us).
11:09: Adds "I won't dick you over as much as the Republicans would."
11:10: Ooh, nice point, actually: If we're gonna ask old people to give more money for medical care, then why is it bad to ask millionaires to pay more in taxes?
11:11: Jesus Christ, who's the greasy-haired, bearded dumpling sitting there? He deserves a drink. Cheers, dude.
11:12: Asked about a "middle road" on a bill. Didn't we veer off the middle of the road weeks ago? Aren't we driving in the right lane and trying to avoid going onto the shoulder?
11:14: Shorter version of his answer: "Those House Republicans are fucking insane. Haven't you been paying attention?"
11:15: Wonder if he'll mention peas again. Peas and band-aids.
11:17: "I think about this like a layer cake," he says, yet he seems to be describing more of a Napoleon.
11:18: Chuckie T asking about "regrets." And Obama throws cold water on the whole rumble at the negotiating table story.
11:19: Obama's puzzled that Republicans vote against something they previously supported when he says he's for it. Umm, that's not really even a Jumble-level puzzle there. Hint: it's because they're cocks.
11:21: Obama: "80% of the American people support a balanced approach." And then says that "members of Congress are dug in" to their ideological positions. But Democrats would support the balanced approach. It's a precious few Democrats and every Republican.
11:23: Balanced budget amendment? Who the fuck needs that? "We need to be willing to take on our bases," Obama says. Again: the problem ain't the Democrats. Stop lumping everyone together.
11:24: We cut taxes without paying for them, he says. Should add, "But, yeah, fuck, I still agreed to renew them." He's got this microphone. He's got this chance to say that Republicans are wrong. But instead, he's saying repeatedly that it's both parties. It's like having a shoplifter and a serial killer in the same room and saying, "Everyone is equally evil."
11:26: Thinks McConnell plan is weak sauce. There's no real point there. Just wanted to use the phrase "weak sauce."
11:27: "Even after being here for two-and-a-half years, I still have hope." Oh, poor Scarlett O'Hara, the Tara you loved is gone. (In context, is that racist? It probably is.)
11:29: Asked about tone of debate. Obama says that he doesn't read the reviews.
11:31: Says "Most of the things that I've proposed for job growth are traditionally bipartisan. But Republicans are cocks. Have you met them? Total cocks."
11:33: The press wants him to slam the GOP. They're aching for it. Obama keeps putting his faith in "the American people." Has he met the American people? Total cocks.
11:34: Question: "Do Republicans actually give a shit what the majority of Americans think?" Answer: "Every decision in Bush's second term."
11:35: Wait, what? He's gonna ream Republicans on his desk? No, he was talking about paper.
11:36: Which progressives in Congress is Obama talking about? Do any of them have the power to stop a plan from going through? Would any liberal Senators do that? Straw Democrats do not need to be created.
11:37: And with his "win the future" bizarro catchphrase, he's out.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Republican Intransigence, as Revealed Through Republicans in Conservative Media:
Mad dog Representative Michele Bachmann, out of all the teabaggers in Congress, has a bigger microphone since she's running for president. So, of course, she gets lots of air time when she says that she won't vote to raise the debt ceiling. Or, as she modified her stance, "They'd have to cut an enormous amount, including they would have to defund Obamacare." She said this on Fox "news" (motto: "Dear God, don't let anyone have hacked phones over here").
This follows a pattern for most right-wingers, who do much of their posturing and politicking primarily in conservative media outlets. To wit:
Representative Mike Pence on Fox "news": "House Republicans believe that the pathway forward is to cut spending now more than a dollar for any increase in the debt ceiling; it means putting statutory caps on the books. And I believe that any increase in the debt ceiling should be contingent on sending a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states. So those are the conditions."
Representative Paul Broun on his bill to lower the debt ceiling by $1.3 trillion, in the National Review's The Corner (motto: "The ghost of William F. Buckley keeps trying to kill itself again every time he reads this"): To be realistic, we can’t lower the debt limit today, but if we set a deadline, the beginning of FY 2012, it would force politicians to make those decisions in the months to come." Fiscal year 2012 starts on October 1, 2011.
Representative Todd Akin, writing in Big Government (motto: "Andrew Breitbart is watching you"), brags that he's voted "no" on raising the debt ceiling the last seven times: "I believe that we should also pass a Constitutional amendment to cap the size of the federal government and tie it to a percentage of our gross domestic product (GDP)." Which, of course, means that the government can never pass a stimulus spending plan.
And this list could go on with more (almost exclusively) white dudes who have had enough of all this spendin'.
When President Obama finally told House Majority Leader that "Enough is enough" yesterday, it was partially over Republicans' refusal to deal fairly and realistically with what are proving to be worthless negotiations. It was also that Cantor is just a penis with glasses. Obama refused a short-term deal, but Cantor kept bringing it up, like the noodge that he is. So the President walked away rather than pimp-slap Cantor.
We can only hope that Obama's supposed declaration of "I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this" is true. We can only hope that it's the start of some new path for him, some utter abandonment of the bipartisan snipe hunt he's been on. Perhaps it's too late. Perhaps he's too far into the woods to find his way home.
But stupid optimism is what makes us American. And it's that stupidity that made so many Americans elect this actually dangerous group of people. There is no Forrest Gump-wisdom in the dimwitted. There's only the horrible consequences of their actions.
Mad dog Representative Michele Bachmann, out of all the teabaggers in Congress, has a bigger microphone since she's running for president. So, of course, she gets lots of air time when she says that she won't vote to raise the debt ceiling. Or, as she modified her stance, "They'd have to cut an enormous amount, including they would have to defund Obamacare." She said this on Fox "news" (motto: "Dear God, don't let anyone have hacked phones over here").
This follows a pattern for most right-wingers, who do much of their posturing and politicking primarily in conservative media outlets. To wit:
Representative Mike Pence on Fox "news": "House Republicans believe that the pathway forward is to cut spending now more than a dollar for any increase in the debt ceiling; it means putting statutory caps on the books. And I believe that any increase in the debt ceiling should be contingent on sending a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states. So those are the conditions."
Representative Paul Broun on his bill to lower the debt ceiling by $1.3 trillion, in the National Review's The Corner (motto: "The ghost of William F. Buckley keeps trying to kill itself again every time he reads this"): To be realistic, we can’t lower the debt limit today, but if we set a deadline, the beginning of FY 2012, it would force politicians to make those decisions in the months to come." Fiscal year 2012 starts on October 1, 2011.
Representative Todd Akin, writing in Big Government (motto: "Andrew Breitbart is watching you"), brags that he's voted "no" on raising the debt ceiling the last seven times: "I believe that we should also pass a Constitutional amendment to cap the size of the federal government and tie it to a percentage of our gross domestic product (GDP)." Which, of course, means that the government can never pass a stimulus spending plan.
And this list could go on with more (almost exclusively) white dudes who have had enough of all this spendin'.
When President Obama finally told House Majority Leader that "Enough is enough" yesterday, it was partially over Republicans' refusal to deal fairly and realistically with what are proving to be worthless negotiations. It was also that Cantor is just a penis with glasses. Obama refused a short-term deal, but Cantor kept bringing it up, like the noodge that he is. So the President walked away rather than pimp-slap Cantor.
We can only hope that Obama's supposed declaration of "I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this" is true. We can only hope that it's the start of some new path for him, some utter abandonment of the bipartisan snipe hunt he's been on. Perhaps it's too late. Perhaps he's too far into the woods to find his way home.
But stupid optimism is what makes us American. And it's that stupidity that made so many Americans elect this actually dangerous group of people. There is no Forrest Gump-wisdom in the dimwitted. There's only the horrible consequences of their actions.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Rude Pundit on Monday's Stephanie Miller Show:
Ah, the fat jokes flew when the Rude Pundit and Stephanie Miller talked about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. And the Rude Pundit justifies it with history.
You can beef up with the Rude Pundit's free podcast. Subscribe away.
Oh, and, hey, he's also in this new book, FIX America!, with Al Franken, Joan Walsh, and John Nichols.
Ah, the fat jokes flew when the Rude Pundit and Stephanie Miller talked about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. And the Rude Pundit justifies it with history.
You can beef up with the Rude Pundit's free podcast. Subscribe away.
Oh, and, hey, he's also in this new book, FIX America!, with Al Franken, Joan Walsh, and John Nichols.
The McConnell Debt Ceiling Cave Has a Bear Trap Inside It:
There's myriad ways to look at Mitch McConnell's Deal o' Last Resort that he proffered yesterday. All of them involve the phrase "Fuck it." There's "Fuck it. If Obama loves the debt ceiling so much, he can marry it." And there's "Fuck it. These crazy Tea Party motherfuckers aren't gonna be happy until we're all living in heavily-armed bomb shelters." And there's "Fuck it. I'm sick of negotiating." And on and on, all variations on "Just fuck it."
McConnell announced the plan after taking to the Senate floor to say, "Democrats suck monkey balls." He also said a bunch of nonsense about what he thinks "the American people" want without mentioning that one of the things we want, by a huge majority, is higher taxes on people making far more than most of us.
The McConnell plan goes something like this, according to really pissed-off conservatives: The Republicans in Congress will drop their pants and tell Obama he can fuck their asses if he wants. When he starts to fuck them, some of them will say, "No," but Obama will say, "Your lips say 'No,' but your legislative activities say, 'Yes'" and continue fucking. They'll try one more time to say, "No, really, c'mon, stop," but it won't be enough because everyone knows that this is just a Republican rape fantasy by the black man. The safe word is "override."
In Left World, while some have seen this as a cynical hate fuck of democracy, others have celebrated this as McConnell caving (just as those aforementioned right-wingers have exploded in anger over what they see as McConnell caving). They view it as an admission of failure, an understanding that the public is gonna blame the GOP if Social Security checks don't go out, the success of an epic bluff by the President on cutting entitlements, a demonstration that the rule of the teabaggers must be ended...you get the idea.
They're both right. And they're both wrong. It's possible for the McConnell exit strategy to be all those things and a trap for Democrats in Congress (not so much the President, who will be reelected against any of the numbskulls, lunatics, or bores the other side nominates). The proposal is really about Republicans holding onto the House and possibly gaining the Senate in 2012.
Look at this from the perspective of your average congressional Democrats. The President has the easy part: he just says every five months or so, "Hey, raise that shit." And it gets raised unless Congress stops him. So the Congress debates a "Resolution of Disapproval" for ten hours in each chamber. So, splitting it down the middle, that's ten hours of Democrats being forced to either back the President and say why they want more debt. Or saying that they disagree with the President and either voting to disapprove, and thus voting with Republicans, or explaining why they didn't vote to disapprove. Meanwhile, Republicans get to stay monolithic and clean in their message. And then it gets better on "Hey, raise that shit" parts 2 and 3, when Obama is forced to submit a list of unilateral fantasy cuts that tie Democrats into additional knots. And then, oh, fuck, yeah, that's why this is a big-ass bear trap and not a little badger one, Obama has to veto the resolution and there's another hour of debate.
Right now, GOP campaign ad writers are being fired because their work will be done for them. Just iMovie that shit and put it out on YouTube. Democrats better be ready to chew their legs off.
The Rude Pundit sees this as part and parcel of how McConnell and Boehner have governed. They take themselves out of the battle and merely stand on the sidelines, hurling Molotov cocktails while saying that their pathetic pyromania is leadership.
One other thing: because this doesn't just raise the debt ceiling $2.5 trillion in one fell swoop, it requires a certain amount of trust in the Republicans by the Obama administration. If they dick the President over, then we plunge once again into crisis. Those fuckers aren't worthy of that kind of trust. Why would you let the arsonists guard the gas stove?
There's myriad ways to look at Mitch McConnell's Deal o' Last Resort that he proffered yesterday. All of them involve the phrase "Fuck it." There's "Fuck it. If Obama loves the debt ceiling so much, he can marry it." And there's "Fuck it. These crazy Tea Party motherfuckers aren't gonna be happy until we're all living in heavily-armed bomb shelters." And there's "Fuck it. I'm sick of negotiating." And on and on, all variations on "Just fuck it."
McConnell announced the plan after taking to the Senate floor to say, "Democrats suck monkey balls." He also said a bunch of nonsense about what he thinks "the American people" want without mentioning that one of the things we want, by a huge majority, is higher taxes on people making far more than most of us.
The McConnell plan goes something like this, according to really pissed-off conservatives: The Republicans in Congress will drop their pants and tell Obama he can fuck their asses if he wants. When he starts to fuck them, some of them will say, "No," but Obama will say, "Your lips say 'No,' but your legislative activities say, 'Yes'" and continue fucking. They'll try one more time to say, "No, really, c'mon, stop," but it won't be enough because everyone knows that this is just a Republican rape fantasy by the black man. The safe word is "override."
In Left World, while some have seen this as a cynical hate fuck of democracy, others have celebrated this as McConnell caving (just as those aforementioned right-wingers have exploded in anger over what they see as McConnell caving). They view it as an admission of failure, an understanding that the public is gonna blame the GOP if Social Security checks don't go out, the success of an epic bluff by the President on cutting entitlements, a demonstration that the rule of the teabaggers must be ended...you get the idea.
They're both right. And they're both wrong. It's possible for the McConnell exit strategy to be all those things and a trap for Democrats in Congress (not so much the President, who will be reelected against any of the numbskulls, lunatics, or bores the other side nominates). The proposal is really about Republicans holding onto the House and possibly gaining the Senate in 2012.
Look at this from the perspective of your average congressional Democrats. The President has the easy part: he just says every five months or so, "Hey, raise that shit." And it gets raised unless Congress stops him. So the Congress debates a "Resolution of Disapproval" for ten hours in each chamber. So, splitting it down the middle, that's ten hours of Democrats being forced to either back the President and say why they want more debt. Or saying that they disagree with the President and either voting to disapprove, and thus voting with Republicans, or explaining why they didn't vote to disapprove. Meanwhile, Republicans get to stay monolithic and clean in their message. And then it gets better on "Hey, raise that shit" parts 2 and 3, when Obama is forced to submit a list of unilateral fantasy cuts that tie Democrats into additional knots. And then, oh, fuck, yeah, that's why this is a big-ass bear trap and not a little badger one, Obama has to veto the resolution and there's another hour of debate.
Right now, GOP campaign ad writers are being fired because their work will be done for them. Just iMovie that shit and put it out on YouTube. Democrats better be ready to chew their legs off.
The Rude Pundit sees this as part and parcel of how McConnell and Boehner have governed. They take themselves out of the battle and merely stand on the sidelines, hurling Molotov cocktails while saying that their pathetic pyromania is leadership.
One other thing: because this doesn't just raise the debt ceiling $2.5 trillion in one fell swoop, it requires a certain amount of trust in the Republicans by the Obama administration. If they dick the President over, then we plunge once again into crisis. Those fuckers aren't worthy of that kind of trust. Why would you let the arsonists guard the gas stove?
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)