Monday, December 13, 2010

In Honor of Seventeen Inches of Snow, and the First Blizzard of the Season...

    Winter is icumen in,
    Lhude sing Goddamm,
    Raineth drop and staineth slop,
    And how the wind doth ramm!
    Sing: Goddamm.
    Skiddeth bus and sloppeth us,
    An ague hath my ham.
    Freezeth river, turneth liver,
    Damm you; Sing: Goddamm.
    Goddamm, Goddamm, 'tis why I am, Goddamm,
    So 'gainst the winter's balm.
    Sing goddamm, damm, sing goddamm,
    Sing goddamm, sing goddamm, DAMM.

--"Ancient Music," Ezra Pound

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Neville Chamberlain 2.0?

Yes, I've been gone for a while. I'm back now.

The President has betrayed us. Barack Obama has gone against an explicit campaign promise, his pledge to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He capitulated in the face of Republican opposition, gave them exactly what they wanted, i.e., putting off the decision to end the cuts until 2012 - in the middle of the presidential election - and believes that I should thank him? What's more, Pres. Obama used today's press conference as an opportunity to take the progressive base - the people who got him elected into office in the first place - to task!

As my father would have said, he's lucky I don't break my foot off in his ass.

The president said yesterday that he's a pragmatist, not an idealist:

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again.

[...]People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves, and sanctimonious about how pure our intensions(sp) are and how tough we are. And in the meantime the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out. That can't be the measure of how we think about our public service. That can't be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat.

This country was founded on compromise.

That may have been true in the past, but this country isn't running on compromise anymore! You can't "compromise" with people who only want to see you fail, whose only response to every proposal is "NO!" And the only thing that you should do in that case is to do what you think is right, and to hell with the consequences, and to hell with the naysayers, too. Giving up without a fight isn't doing that. "Compromising" by agreeing to exactly what your enemies want isn't a negotiation, it's a capitulation.

Hell, maybe President Obama thinks that what he did is right. Maybe he really believes that the Republicans "took hostages," and he's only trying to keep people from being hurt. And somehow, that's supposed to make his capitulation acceptable?  Bullshit! You know what you do when hostages are taken? You don't "negotiate," you send the SEALs in to take out the terrorists holding them, dammit!--not bend over and grab your ankles. Obama should have told the Repugs to take their "compromises" and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

Fortunately some Democrats do have conjones:

Vermont Congressman Peter Welch's letter opposing Obama-GOP deal to extend Bush-era tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires has now attracted support from almost three dozen House Democrats, including committee chairs, leaders of major caucuses and key players on economic issues.

[...]The Welch letter remains the key vehicle for quantifying opposition, however.

It lays out a clear argument to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say "no deal," with members declaring:

"We oppose acceding to Republican demands to extend the Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires for two reasons.
"First, it is fiscally irresponsible. Adding $700 billion to our national debt, as this proposal would do, handcuffs our ability to offer a balanced plan to achieve fiscal stability without a punishing effect on our current commitments, including Social Security and Medicare.
"Second, it is grossly unfair. This proposal will hurt, not help, the majority of Americans in the middle class and those working hard to get there. Even as Republicans seek to add $700 billion to our national debt, they oppose extending unemployment benefits to workers and resist COLA increases to seniors.
"Without a doubt, the very same people who support this addition to our debt will oppose raising the debt ceiling to pay for it.
"We support extending tax cuts in full to 98 percent of American taxpayers, as the President initially proposed. He should not back down. Nor should we."

So far, the signers include House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, House Committee on Veterans Affairs chair Bob Filner, Congressional Black Caucus chair Barbara Lee, Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison and Jim McDermott, a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee who has been the Democratic point-man on extension of unemployment benefits.

And some commentators have even more pointed suggestions:

The Rude Pundit:
[...]congressional Democrats should rebel. They should tell Joe Biden today that it ain't gonna happen, that Mitch McConnell can shove it up his ass, that the minority leader needs to explain to America why it's more important to give the wealthy several hundred billion dollars in tax relief rather than extend unemployment, which would cost less then five months of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In fact, Nancy Pelosi should donate some of her spine to the President and tell him to join with them.

This is an utter disaster. I don't know about this president anymore. I've supported him since one January night when I ventured out into the cold and the dark to give him my vote in the primary. I don't recognize this guy in the White House. If Obama is willing to not only turn his back on the people who elected him, but on his own promises, then maybe he should get a primary challenge in 2012.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Presented As A Public Service

The Rude Pundit on Christine O'Donnell:

At a debate yesterday, Delaware Republican and a woman who is you because you apparently have picnicked on a satanic altar, Christine O'Donnell, expressed shock at the idea that the separation of church and state was "in" the First Amendment to the Constitution. As her opponent, Chris Coons, pointed out, it's been pretty damn well-decided that the wall between religion and government derives from the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The kindest reading of O'Donnell's smug, self-satisfied, "gotcha" look is that she was asking about the exact phrase "separation of church and state," which is what her campaign said she meant. She was defended by Rush Limbaugh, who immediately popped a Viagra so he was ready to fuck his wife's ass as she wore the O'Donnell mask on the back of her head. And the right was knee-jerk defending the new cute chick.

The scramble was on in the mainstream media for a way to present O'Donnell's statements without saying the truth. Last night, on Anderson Cooper 360 (motto: "AC doesn't think his sexuality is any of your goddamn business"), Paul Begala and Jeffrey Toobin came preciously close, but still tiptoed around the obvious explanation: Christine O'Donnell is a fucking idiot, so fucking dumb that she has to remind herself to breathe. It's the 800 pound motherfucker just sitting there: she's too fucking stupid to be a Senator.

It ought to be okay to say that. It's actually important information for voters. Brian Williams ought to be able to declare, "By any objective measure, by any stretch of the imagination, Christine O'Donnell isn't qualified to be elected Cart Wrangler of the Month at Wal-Mart. Because she's just a fucking idiot." Now, there's a good chance people will still vote for her because, yeah, there are idiots who do see themselves in O'Donnell.

A real media would have eviscerated this collection of buffoons and bastards. The fact that we are talking about three of them as serious candidates means we are skidding toward the edge of a very steep cliff and that we are a very unserious electorate. The look on the face of Chris Coons in that debate with O'Donnell said it all. It was the look of a man who thought he had come for a debate to help voters decide who is going to be one of the most powerful people in the country. But when he showed up, it was a pie-eating contest.

Sheer poetry, Rude!

Anger Trumps Enthusiasm

I've heard repeatedly over the last few months how the Republican electorate is more "enthusiastic" about voting, how the Tea Party has "energized" the GOP voters, how the generic polls show more support for the Republican candidate that the Democratic one. I've listened to pronouncements of doom for the poor dispirited Democratic voters, how the Democratic base is lagging in enthusiasm and is not likely to make a big showing at the polls, how enthusiasm is such a big determinate in both voter turnout and the chances of winning. I've listened to the talking heads predict a Democratic rout, forecasting that the Democrats sit home in a funk on election day, while legions of crazed, white senior citizen teabaggers mob the polls, and elect nutcases like Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle to the Senate.

I say that that is not necessarily the case. I say unto thee, nay. I say, in fact, HELL NO!

Anger trumps enthusiasm.

I say that after nearly two years of seeing our lawfully and democratically elected president stymied, denied, and assaulted at every turn, after nearly two years of uninterrupted, unceasing, and universal opposition to every idea, project, and proposal that President Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership have proposed, after two years of veiled threats and open insults, after two years of birthers,tenthers, racists, nitwits, homophobes, far-right con artists, and just plain kooks, it's time to get mad.

Don't tell me that we can't win, don't tell me that it can't be done, because all the spirits that have gone on before me drown you out. All the lives, all this time, and we're supposed to slow down, change course...because some of you are afraid?

No. Don't fear the change, and don't waste time trying to change the fear. Let the anger burn, and let them fear our anger, for a change.

Anger purifies.

Anger clarifies.

Anger energizes.

Greed may be good, but anger is better.

Anger gets things done.

Get ANGRY, then vote.

Can't Win For Losing

Nancy Pelosi has been the best Speaker of the House in the last century. So, of course, win or lose, the Dems will try to fuck her over:
The Washington Post (via Balloon Juice):
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's mathematical grip on political power is getting slippery.
With House Democrats already bracing for steep losses in the midterm elections, at least five of Pelosi's colleagues have announced in the past two weeks that they would not support her remaining as speaker, should Democrats retain the majority. More than a dozen others have told local and national media that they would consider backing a different Democrat.

Pelosi refuses to discuss any outcome next month other than Democrats staying in power and her still wielding the speaker's gavel. "Would anybody ever go up to somebody during a game and say, 'What are you going to do if you lose?' We're in a fight. We don't even think about losing. We just have our eye on the ball, which is victory," she said Wednesday in a radio interview on the "Gayle King Show." 
Yeah, let's just throw her under the bus! Who's gottten more done in this session of Congress, who's stayed the course, who's carried Obama's water more than Nancy Pelosi? She's got bigger balls than any of 'em! And a bigger brain, heart, too. Idiots, short-sighted idiots, every last one.

Like John Cole, some days I just hate being a Democrat.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Dammit, Rahm!

Rahm Emmanuel is reportedly planning to leave his job as White House Chief of Staff by the week's end, to begin a run for mayor of Chicago. This sucks. What the hell, Rahm, are you jealous that your brother has been immortalized on HBO's Entourage? You don't leave right before the midterm elections, dammit! This smacks of disloyalty and opportunism, not to mention giving that image of rodents leaving the ship--sinking or not.

Leaving now is a shitty thing to do at this time, Rahm.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Contract On America 2.0

"Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular- but one must take it simply because it is right."
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Been hearing all day about the Repugs latestscheme, the "Pledge to America." Oh, this time around, it's a pledge, is it? But otherwise, they're saying the same sort of nebulous, non-specific, buzz-phrase-laden, out of context lies and bullshit that they did with the original "Contract On America" back in 1994. Who do they think they're kidding?

The Rude Pundit isn't fooled, either:
1. Could everyone just stop talking about the current crises in America as being caused by Barack Obama's agenda? Seriously, the right-wing drama queens act as if they've been living under years of oppression and hunger in a Soviet-era dictatorship instead of 19 months under a politically moderate, legally-elected president. We did live under eight years of Bush, though. Speaking of Americans "yearning to be free" and to self-determine shit, the Pledge says, "Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course." Hey, you know what, Mike Pence and the rest? We did vote to institute a new governing agenda, Obama's. Senate Republicans have prevented its passage. Maybe you could complain if we were, you know, being governed by it. But, fuck it. Why bother to really try Obama's agenda when we can just go back to the one that ass-fucked us in the first place? Kudos, Tea Party.

2. You know how you know your "Pledge" is bullshit? Easy test: scan the entire things for the words "cut" or "reduce." If you're serious about cutting or reducing spending, some specific things ought to come up, no? Sure, man, it's got all kinds of mighty phrases, like "cutting discretionary spending." But other than cutting Congress's budget (and not saying by how much), Republicans can "Pledge" to a vague notion and not say, "Oh, sorry, Nebraska, but that power plant's canceled."

3. You know how you know your "Pledge" to cut spending is bullshit? When you say that you're gonna shovel money into the defense budget like Casey Jones with a shovel and a pile of coal. "Fully Fund Missile Defense" is part of the Republicans' promise to make sure that, while your roads and schools may suck ass, military contractors get to keep sucking milk from the tax teat.
And so on. I really am losing the capacity for surprise this political season. No lie seems too bold, no obfuscation seems too deceitful, no hypocrisy is too brazen. And now with the wingnuts leading in many of the polls, all the crazy is coming out. Rand Paul wants to repeal parts of the Civil Rights Act, Sharon Angle doesn't want autistic kids to have mandated health insurance, and Christine O'Donnell just wants to stop eveyone from having sex, period!--and no one in the GOP even says "Hey waitaminute, dammit--that's going too far!" No, the ignorant wingers stomp their feet and applaud, shaking their signs reading "No Government Health Care, And Leave My Medicare Alone!"

Morons, all of them:

Monday, September 20, 2010

Fun & Games With The TV Machine

Sometimes I do watch other things on TV besides the news. Tonight, for example, I watched the premiere episode of some new show on NBC called "The Event." My man Tony Todd is in it, so I had to give it a look. And so, I wanted to post my conclusion here & now, so later I can say I was right.

The big mystery: aliens or mutants.

You heard it here first!

Even A Broken Clock Is Right Twice A Day

Al D'Amato--the senator formerly known as "Pothole Al" for his unflagging support for his constituents, was a somewhat controversial, irascible, and independent Republican representing New York from 1981 to 1998. Although he was a Republican, he supported the right of gays to openly service in the military, and was a strong supporter of Israel.

I have to give credit to D'Amato, he's an old school Republican, the kind that in the past you could work with. And unlike the current incarnation of the GOP, he still has some honor and integrity. Last Friday,.D'Amato unloaded on a wingnut racist on the little-watched Fox Business News channel, calling him out on his "racist bullshit."

The blowup came during a discussion on Thursday's edition of "Money Rocks"about whether or not to privatize the US Postal Service. Though all of the guests appeared to agree about the issue at hand, several took offense at the comments of GOP strategist Jack Burkman.
Burkman launched the discussion by saying, "most of these guys working in the Post Office should be driving cabs, and I think we should stop importing labor from Nigeria and Ethiopia. That's the skill level."
Have a look, the fun begins at 4:58:

I just love the way that jackass's jaw drops when D'Amato begins to tear into him. And who's that crazy woman wanting to privatize Homeland Security?? Are you kidding me? At any rate--way to go, Al!

Friday, September 17, 2010

Huck the Schmuck

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, evangelist minister, talk show host, confidant of Chuck Norris, and hypocritical Republican weasel, today came out in favor of denying health care insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions.

 "It sounds so good, and it's such a warm message to say we're not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition," Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. "Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no preexisting conditions."
Speaking as a person with a pre-existing condition or two myself, I can only hope & pray that Huck someday finds himself personally....ahh,  "enlightened" about the difficulty of getting health insurance when you're already sick. What was that line about helping the sick and the poor again, Mike? Think you might have heard of the idea somewhere?

Alan Grayson was right, the Republican idea of health care truly  is "don't get sick, or if you do, die quickly."

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Errrrr, Just a Second.....

A November upset in Delaware for the Tea Party? Regarding Christine O'Donnell, the newest Tea Party headcase to win a primary, The Rude Pundit by way of CNN says:
For anyone who wonders if O'Donnell can pull out an upset, let's put her numbers in context:
Number of registered voters in Delaware: 621,746
Number of registered Republicans: 182,796 (29%)
Number of votes O'Donnell received: 30,561
By the Rude Pundit's awesome abilities with a calculator, that means she received: 16.7% of registered Republicans.
Number of registered Democrats: 292,738 (47%)
 Sounds to me like she has the same chance that a tissue-paper dog has at catching an asbestos cat running through hell.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Didn't I Say This Would Happen?

Anti-Muslim hysteria breeds anti-Muslim hatred, which begets anti-Muslim violence. I've said this before. So what's in the news tonight?
And finally, this classy guy:
I've been saying for a long time now that the GOP is sowing the wind; now we're reap the whirlwind. What's it going to take before the Repugs stop lying and playing games--a presidential assassination? Or are they content knowing that they're sowing the seeds for a second American civil war?

I'm beyond disgusted with the constantly nay-saying Republican politicians opposing literally everything the Democrats propose because they have an insatiable lust for power, the Tea Party idiots who don't want health care reform but don't realize that their Medicare is a government-run health care program, the sectarian  fools who pick & choose which biblical verses to obey and which to ignore, while pointing out the flaws in the holy books of other faiths; the mindless loudmouths on the radio & TV who demand constitutional rights without knowing what they are, the loose and dangerous rhetoric we hear of from our modern-day demagogues, and the flag-waving cretins who demand smaller, less intrusive government while insisting that the Feds do a nationwide bed check to ensure that everyone else conforms to their idea of a permissible marriage contract.

I'm sick of the misplaced anger, I'm sick of the ignorant hatred. I'm sick of people who think that describing someone as "intelligent and college-educated" is an insult, and I'm sick of the sheer stupidity. So I'm not going away, I'm not giving up, and I'm certainly not going to stop shouting from my virtual rooftop here.

Nope, not going anywhere. In fact, I'm "reloading."

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

About That Mosque(?) at Ground Zero(?)...

I'm tired of hearing the wingnuts lie about this. I'm tired of hearing liars like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich express such concern about a town, New York City,  that they like even less than they like San Francisco. And I'm damn angry that the Republicans - once again - are willing to burn the Constitution that they pretend to love so much, for reasons of expediency, racism, and an undying lust for power. Haven't these jackasses ever read the First Amendment??

  • It's not going to be just a mosque; it's going to be a community center. A "separately-run mosque" is part of it, but so is "a swimming pool, gym, basketball court, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and a culinary school." It will also offer "a library, reading room and art studios, and childcare services." It'll even have a 9/11 memorial!
  • It's not on Ground Zero; it's several blocks away:

I am happy, though, that Keith Olbermann covered all this last night, much more succinctly than I can with the limited time & space that I have tonight. So, here he is:

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

California's Prop 8 Overturned By Federal Judge


A federal judge in California has ruled that Prop 8 -- the voter initiative that banned gay marriage -- is unconstitutional.

Supporters of Prop 8 (that is, opponents of gay marriage) have already promised to file an appeal. The judge also approved a two-day stay on the ruling, asking lawyers to respond by Friday, when he will decide whether to suspend his ruling pending appeal.

So, for now, same-sex couples in California can't get their marriage licenses quite yet.

The case is expected to eventually get to the Supreme Court.

From Judge Vaughn Walker's decision:
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

More from Walker's decision:

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents' case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.

The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. ... The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate [its] own moral code."
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians," he wrote.
In his findings of fact, Walker pointed out that California "has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate."

And here's the money quote:
"The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained," he wrote.

Also (thanks to pico @ DailyKos):
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right.  To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage.  Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.
 Finally, he comes to what - to me - is the crux of the matter:
Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.

Now, will Scalia, Thomas, or Alito please allow their evil to consume them, so we can straighten out SCOTUS?

Stephen Colbert Is A National Treasure

Conservatives are dumb. (Yeah, I know, that's self-evident.) Laura Ingraham was the latest wingnut to stupidly believe that Stephen Colbert is secretly one of them, another wingnut, and not too bright a one, seeing as how he's a comedian. Didn't any of these fools see what Colbert did th Bush at the White House Press Corps dinner in 2005? Can't they get the sarcasm and double entendre he uses every night on his show? Perhaps it's because conservative humor, as one commentator wrote on, "can be described as enjoying putting people down and hurting them."

Well, surprise, surprise, Colbert is no more a conservative than Keith least, it was a surprise for stupid Laura Ingraham. Watch the follies, and enjoy:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Laura Ingraham
Colbert Report Full Episodes2010 ElectionFox News

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Boycott Target!

I'm done with Target. My SO and I must spend a couple of hundred bucks there a month; the store is very near to us, and the prices are damn good. But after I read this, I'm through with that company:

Target earlier this month donated $150,000 to MN Forward, a pro-business group backing Rep. Tom Emmer, the conservative Republican-endorsed gubernatorial candidate.

That led to a week of bruising reaction from Target employees and gay-rights activists that included a nationwide e-mail campaign and petition claiming 15,000 signatures.

On Tuesday, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel defended the donation, saying it was driven by economic, not social, issues.

He highlighted the company's domestic partner benefits, sponsorship of Twin Cities Pride and support of the Out & Equal Workplace Summit.

"Let me be very clear," Steinhafel wrote in a note to employees at headquarters. "Target's support of the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company."

So Target supports a candidate who:

And oh, yeah: Target CEO Gregg W. Steinhafel personally donated $10,000 to Michelle Bachman's campaign! If that alone isn't reason enough to stop shopping at Target, the donation to MN Forward certainly is.

The Human Rights Campaign and have both started a boycott against Target (and BestBuy), and I'm with them. I will not have my dollars go towards supporting such far-right, hypocritical, anti-middle-class, homophobic, odious, prejudiced, and just plain stupid candidates as Emmer and Bachman. Bye-bye, Target: too bad you lost your sense of community, fairness, and morality in the urge to increase your profits.

I hope Bullseye bites Steinhafel in the ass.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Now You Know

Disillusioned with Obama? Thinking about staying home this November, because the Democrats couldn't clean up eight-to-thirty years of greed, mismanagement, lies, and lust for power in eighteen months? Well, our own Michelle Bachmann (R-Crazytown) finally told the truth about what will happen if the GOP regains power in the midterm elections:

Three Fingers of Politics via DailyKos and Mother Jones:
“Oh, I think that’s all we should do,” Bachmann said. “I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that is going on. And it’s very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership because the American people’s patience is about this big.”

[...]“This is the year – this is it,” Bachmann continued. “All of our chips are on November. If we don’t get it back and then starve the beast – the House, we have the power of the purse – so we can starve ObamaCare. We don’t have to fund any of these programs and that’s exactly what we need to do – defund all of this nonsense and then unwind it.”
Do we really want health care rolled back, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act repealed, secret deals with energy companies setting our energy policy again, Blackwater (or Xe, or whatever name they're trying to hide under this week) in charge of the Border Patrol, John Boner (sorry, that's closer to how his name is actually pronounced in the original German than that crap he says!) as Speaker, and Pres. Obama arrested as an illegal alien and impeached? Are we really that eager to see the federal government in gridlock once again?

Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly sees an even more dire situation, should the GOP win back the House this fall:
To be sure, it was farcical on the Hill in the mid- to late-'90s. Rep. Dan Burton (R) of Indiana and his House committee on administrative oversight launched pointless investigations into every wild-eyed Clinton-related accusation unhinged activists could manufacture.

[...]Over the last six years of Bill Clinton's presidency, Burton's committee unilaterally issued 1,052 subpoenas -- that's not a typo -- to investigate baseless allegations of misconduct. That translates to an average of a politically-inspired subpoena every other day for six consecutive years, including weekends, holidays, and congressional recesses.

A Republican House majority in the next Congress would likely take this even further. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has already made clear that he intends to make Burton look like a meek, submissive toady, leaving "corporate America" alone, so he can attack the White House relentlessly.

For that matter, let's also not forget that some Republicans, including two members of Congress, have raised the specter of presidential impeachment once there's a GOP majority. One of them is Bachmann -- who thinks "all" Republicans should do in the next Congress is launch witch hunts.

As Paul Krugman noted recently, "[W]e'll be having hearings over accusations of corruption on the part of Michelle Obama's hairdresser, janitors at the Treasury, and Larry Summers's doctor's dog."
Is this serious enough to you? We cannot afford to lose a single seat in the Congress this fall.--not one. Look at how "60 is the new 59" became the law of the land in the Senate after Ted Kennedy died. Look at how much opposition Pres. Obama has faced even when his party controlled both chambers of Congress, and then think about how things might go for his presidency - and our lives - if the Repugs control even the House, much less the Senate, after the midterms.

brooklynbadboy at DailyKos has it right:
In a rare moment of honesty, Michelle Bachmann illustrates the real agenda of the GOP. They are going to do all of the things their nutcase base is calling for. They are going to focus on one thing and one thing only: turning the federal government into the soundbyte factory for Fox News.

Breitbart will be brought in for testimony on civil rights. Tancredo will be given a large platform for discussion about changing demographics. Orly Taitz will be brought in to provide perspective on the Constitution. Name your conspiracy. Every single nutcase teabagger fantasy will be placed front and center on the legislative calendar.
Is this what you really want? Is this the kind of country that you'd like to live in? Or do you want to see the promise of Barack Obama's election to the presidency come into full bloom? This country and this planet cannot endure the return to power of the Republican Party. We have to hold on, we have to elect more and better Democrats (Nebraska, are you listening?), and we have to fight in this election even harder than we did two years ago.

There really is no other choice.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Ooooh, Scary Black People!

Rachel Maddow blasted the Fox/Neocon/Tea Party cabal last night, in a twelve-minute tour de force that left the "something for nothing crowd" - as Keith Olbermann (who also had his own "Special Comment" on the subject last night) calls them - a smoking, blasted ruin. Recounting the history of the fear tactics used by wingnuts for the last forty-fifty years, Rachel showed them for the racist, anti-American demons that they are. Here she is:

Make no mistake, these are the real sowers of hatred and racism in our country. These are the tactics they've successfully used for almost fifty years. It's way past time that we stopped being fooled by these bastards.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

That Infamous Clip

Why did anyone believe Andrew Breitbart? About anything?! If he told me it was raining, I'd look out the window first. This is the same guy whose "creative" editing skills killed ACORN. Why does he have any credibility? And why did Sec. Vilsack fire Ms. Sherrod without a full and complete airing of the facts?

If you're not familiar with the Shirley Sherrod story....Until Monday, Sherrod was the rural development director for the US Department of Agriculture in Georgia. Andrew Breitbart released a heavily edited video purporting to show Sherrod saying that 24 years ago she refused to help a farmer because he was white. It turns out that Breitbart twisted Sherrod's words; Sherrod was actually telling a story designed to illustrate why all forms of racism are wrong and describing how she overcame racism in her life. Indeed, she not only helped the farmer, but according to the farmer's wife, Sherrod saved the farm.
Despite the fact that Sherrod did nothing wrong -- in fact, did everything right -- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack fired her after Breitbart's video was released. As you can see in Ben Smith's article, the White House is trying to simultaneously support Vilsack's position and deny responsibility for it. Obviously, Vilsack fired her out of the misguided belief that Breitbart had turned her into a political liability. But not only is that immoral, it's stupid; the backlash against the unjustified dismissal of Shirley Sherrod will dwarf whatever teabagging nonsense Breitbart could have drummed up.
Obama needs to reinstate Shirley Sherrod. Now. He can claim it's Vilsack's decision if he wants, but do it, and do it now.

Monday, July 19, 2010

"Refudiate?" I Got Yer Refudiate Right Here!

So Half-Gov. Sarah Palin thinks that she can: 1) say any mishmash of syllables she wants and expect us to understand what the hell she means, 2) repeat her ignorance and persuade people that she has the requisite intelligence and education to seek and win high political office, and 3) finally address her ignorance and be corrected for her illiteracy, while comparing herself to William Shakespeare, thinking that this is the perfect explanation for her malaprops.

So inventing new words is kosher, but erecting places of worship are verboten, according to the woman who once abandoned her studies at the University of Hawaii because there were "too many Asians" enrolled there? I say, shove your "refudiate" up your ass, Caribou Barbie--you're an ignorant, arrogant, evil woman.

"What If The Tea Party Was Black?"

My SO over at Free-Spirited Ruminations passed this along to me. I totally agree with the argument this video presents:

While Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and the other demons pretend that there's no racist element of the Tea Party, while they use their coded messages to promulgate a message of violence, fear, racism, and hatred, yet there are still those of us who can see what's really going on. And we will not be defeated.

Surprisingly, there is one thing that Glenn Beck and I agree on: I fear for my country.

Yesterday marked the 147th anniversary of the Second Battle of Ft. Wagner. I sincerely hope that we don't have to do it all over again.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

"You Shall Know Them By The Company They Keep": Sharon Angle Outs Fox

Everyone who thinks that Fox "News" is a legitimate news organization, raise your hands!

< crickets >

Bueller? Bueller?

< crickets >

No surprises there; around these parts, Fox (or "FAUX," as I like to call them) has never been seen as anything other than a shill outfit for the GOP. And now, the clueless Sharon Angle has outed them as the Rethug mouthpiece that they are!

Media Matters, via DailyKos:

In a July 14 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV) suggested that she prefers to appear on Fox News over shows like Meet the Press because Fox gives her an opportunity to raise money. From the interview:
David Brody: Not to harp on the point but when you're on Fox News or talking to more conservative outlets but maybe not going on "Meet the Press" or a "This Week", those type of news shows, then the perception and the narrative starts to be like you are avoiding those mainstream media outlets.
Sharron Angle: Well, in that audience will they let me say I need $25 dollars from a million people go to Sharron send money? Will they let me say that? Will I get a bump on my website and you can watch whenever I go on to a show like that we get an immediate bump. You can see the little spinners. People say  'Oh, I heard that. I am going and I'm going to help Sharron out because they realize this is a national effort and that I need people from all around the nation. They may not be able to vote for me but they can certainly help."
On Monday, Angle began an interview with Neil Cavuto by stating, "Well, first of all, Neil, it's great to be on your show to talk about this campaign against Harry Reid who needs $25 million -- and I have been saying I only need a million people to send $25 to" Angle also made fundraising pitches on Hannity and Fox & Friends
So now the question about Fox is like the punchline of the old joke about the traveling salesman and the hooker: "I know what you are, it's how much you cost that I'm trying to find out!"  Man, talk about "creating your own reality" Angle clueless or crazy? Please, Sharon, stay on Faux, and away from all other media outlets--that's the way to certain victory!  *LOL*

"An Accidental Senator?" Look Who's Talking!

Wingnut Central is apparently agog over the idea that felons voted Al Franken into the Senate:

Fox News -- an outlet that has a long-running bad relationship with Franken -- claims: "The final recount vote in the race, determined six months after Election Day, showed Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes -- fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, according to Minnesota Majority's newly released study, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records."
As usual, the local rag sheet dutifully reported Coleman's thoughts on the matter:
Coleman said Wednesday that he is "not looking back." But he also termed Franken an "accidental senator," who benefited from court rulings that overlooked an array of alleged voting irregularities.
"There's always going to be a cloud of doubt that hovers over this election, and this thickens the cloud," Coleman said.
"A cloud of doubt," Normie? Really? I don't think I even have to mention Florida in 2000 to shut these fools up. All I think that needs to be recounted (pun intended) is how Normie got into office in the first place: the untimely death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, scant weeks before the election that put Norm into the Senate.

So, Norm:

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Hooray! DOMA Is Dead!

The odious Defense of Marriage Act (better known as DOMA), a wingnut idea that was passed mainly because Bill Clinton was embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, was struck down today by a judge in the U.S. District Court:

Bay Windows, via Pam's House Blend:
In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Tauro considered whether the federal law’s definition of marriage -- one man and one woman -- violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts’ marriage licenses differently than others. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a gay legal group, asked Tauro to consider whether DOMA violates the right of eight same-sex couples to equal protection of the law. Both cases were argued, separately, in May, and the decision released today is a relatively quick turnaround, given that some judges take almost a year to decide cases.
Oh, happy day! This is a big step towards marriage equality. I've never understood why marriage is perceived as a "straights-only" right. Who is hurt if gays or lesbians marry? How can some other couple's happiness affect mine? Aren't the members of the GLBT community citizens? Dammit, aren't they people?? Isn't this the 21st Century?

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, was more supportive of the logic of the two opinions, and said they worked together to establish a broad right of marriage for same-sex couples.
“The key issue in this case, and in all litigation about marriage equality for gays and lesbians, is, Does the government have a rational basis for treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples?” he said. “Here, the court says there is no rational basis for treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples. Therefore, DOMA is unconstitutional, and conditioning federal funding on compliance with DOMA is unconstitutional.” 
Damn right DOMA is unconstitutional! As Andrew Sullivan wrote today, quoting Ted Olson: "This issue is neither right nor left; it is about human dignity, civil equality and civil rights. And it is way past time the American polity grappled with this, instead of exploiting it for mutual partisan purposes." Yes, it is way past time for this to happen.

Monday, July 5, 2010

How Can They Even Say That? And How Do They Sleep At Night?

Back in my college days, we had an expression for someone who uttered an outrageous and/or offensive comment: "How did you fix your mouth to say some shit like that?"  Fast forward to 2010, and I find myself once again employing that phrase, as the next sentence in this post is one I never, ever thought I'd read or say:

"Homeless women veterans with children."

Let's say that again:




With Children.

What the hell?! How much of one's humanity has to be scrubbed away, how much like a demon (or like Dick Cheney) do you have to be, in order to let a situation like this develop, and do nothing to help? Indeed, how did it come about that we're forced to "say some shit like that," in order to describe a situation that should never, ever be, one that makes my head spin, my blood boil, and my heart ache? How could a situation like this ever come about?

One more time:  




With Children.

Disgusting. Horrific. Revolting. However, for the GOP leadership, it's apparently very easy for them to say that phrase, and then sit and do nothing:

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) asked for unanimous consent to approve a $3.4 billion bill to help homeless women veterans and homeless vets with kids. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell objected on behalf of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who is taking a stand against any measure that adds to the deficit.
"If we don't start paying for new programs and continue on our path to bankruptcy we'll have a homelessness problem beyond imagination," Coburn spokesman John Hart told HuffPost. "The old Washington excuse that it's too hard to cut spending is undermining our troops, our veterans and our future."
Isn't the GOP the party that's always yammering about "honoring our veterans?" Aren't they the self-proclaimed "party of family values?" So how in any ethical, moral, religious, or compassionate sense can anyone claim that reducing the deficit is more important than helping homeless women with children, much less homeless women veterans with children?  How can they say that with a straight face, and how can they sleep at night?

Unfortunately, they sleep just fine.

It's things like this that reveal the true face of conservatism today. Senators Coburn and McConnell aren't unusual. The truth is, they're not in office to help people; Coburn, McConnell, and those like them are there to amass money and power for themselves and their corporate buddies. How any Tea Party dupe, any "dittohead", any Republican can support politicians like this has to be the result of soulless malevolence, rampant greed, or boundless stupidity. Personally, I think it's varying combinations of all three.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

The Fourth of July

A Happy Fourth of July to all who pass by this blog! Today is a holiday that I like to remember for its original intent: the anniversary of the proclamation we know as the Declaration of Independence, and the beginnings of revolution by the Founding Fathers. Very few, in our willfully ignorant, consumerist society, really understand the gravity of what they did, nor the risks they took. In fact, a recent Marist poll revealed that over one-fourth of the population didn't know what country we declared independence from! I find this almost unbelievable, and so does Free-Spirited Ruminations:
Wow! Didn't they ever hear the famous phrase by Paul Revere warning the residents that "The British are coming?" Or ever open a history book? China? MEXICO? Mexico didn't even exist in 1776! Seriously, this level of stupidity is downright scary. Perhaps the fireworks are just pretty colors to this group
Pretty colors, indeed. The Founding Fathers, in contemporary parlance, were revolutionaries and terrorists. That line in the Declaration of Independence about "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor?" That wasn't fancy talkin', as Sarah Palin would say; it was an open declaration (duh!) to the world that they were risking everything they had for the sake of liberty. They risked a dear price for their action and beliefs (though not as awful a price as described in a popular email that shows up around this time every year; always check, kids!) and gambled that they would succeed. Failure meant that they would instead be branded terrorists and found guilty of inciting insurrection.

But  because they won and because we are the beneficiaries of their actions, on this day we call them "the Founding Fathers," are taught about them in school (or so I thought before I saw that poll), and honor and remember this day as the birth of our country. Otherwise, today we would be British subjects, and schoolchildren would learn about the evil George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and their band of traitors; Benedict Arnold would be a hero of the Empire, and slavery would probably have ended without a civil war.

As a progressive and African-American, this day has always tasted bittersweet to me. I revere the words in the Declaration of Independence, especially this paragraph:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But I also recall that the section condemning Britain for the slave trade was deleted, and that today, we still haven't fully endowed some of our citizens with these self-evident rights. As progressives we are mindful of the need to "alter or abolish" our government when it had "become destructive of these ends." as it was from 2001 to 2009. That 's what the election of Barack Obama was all about. We are ever mindful of the rights of the individual, and of the responsibility for the American government to be a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Unfortunately, conservatives - notably the Tea Party types - don't understand what exactly was meant by "alter and abolish." It doesn't mean that when you don't get your way, you start a civil war! It also  doesn't mean that you can run around brandishing deadly weapons in an  irresponsible manner, because your candidate didn't get elected. But neither does it mean that righties are the only ones who should be armed. I came across something on DailyKos today that I think all progressives should read: Angry Mouse's post "Why liberals should love the Second Amendment." Some very cogent points made in favor of the right to bear arms that should be of interest to you.

But I digress. My point is that today is a day to honor revolution, sacrifice, and the willingness to risk much to gain much, not an excuse to shop, overeat, and drink too much. We as progressives should honor and observe that selfsame will to revolution and sacrifice, the will and determination to make government reflect the will and the needs of our citizens. We need to remember that as we fight the wingnuts for the soul of America, we need not employ violence in the pursuit of our beliefs, but neither should we shirk from the necessity of violence in self-defense. We need to remember the spirit of those who have gone before us, on this day and every day, and neither falter nor fail in our task to repair, restore, and renew our country.

The late Steve Gilliard wrote:
It was the liberals who opposed the Nazis while the conservatives were plotting to get their brown shirts or fund Hitler. It was the liberals who warned about Spain and fought there, who joined the RAF to fight the Germans, who brought democracy to Germany and Japan. Let us not forget it was the conservatives who opposed defending America until the Germans sank our ships. They would have done nothing as Britain came under Nazi control. It was they who supported Joe McCarthy and his baseless, drink fueled claims.

Without liberals, there would be no modern America, just a Nazi sattlelite [sic] state. Liberals weak on defense? Liberals created America's defense. The conservatives only need vets at election time.

It is time to stop looking for an accomodation [sic] with the right. They want none for us. They want to win, at any price. So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you? 
Once again and always, it comes down to the willingness to "pledge...our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." 

What am I? I'm a Fighting Liberal. What are you? 

Happy Fourth of July!

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Hit The Road, Jack! (or Stanley)

Pres. Obama today relieved Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the commander American forces in Afghanistan:
He said he had done so not out of personal insult, but because a magazine article featuring contemptuous quotes from the general and his staff about senior administration officials had not met standards of behavior for a commanding general, and threatened to undermine civilian control of the military.
“War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or president,” Mr. Obama said. “As difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe it is the right decision for national security.”
“I welcome debate among my team,” he said, “but I won’t tolerate division.” 
 Buh-bye, ya asshole; take MacArthur's advice, and "just fade away." And I'm also guessing that the family of Pat Tillman will see this as delayed justice for McChrystal's role in the disgraceful cover-up of Tillman's death by friendly fire.

So now, the question is: will the Repugs call him "an angry black man" for firing McChrystal, or a wimp for going along with Gates/Hillary et al? We'll see.

And Another Thing!

Steve Clemons of the Washington Note, appearing tonight on the Rachel Maddow Show and earlier today at the Huffington Post, expressed exactly some of the same concerns and complaints that I have about Gen. McChrystal's insubordination.

From Clemons' post today about the McChrystal controversy at the Huffington Post:
He created a culture of disdain for civilian leadership and showed intolerance for views that differed from his own - even though he was king of the hill as far as the Afghanistan surge. What McChrystal has done is to challenge not the President directly or even the chain of command -- but rather he and his command staff have undermined the very foundation of public trust in the White House's legitimacy and leadership.
And yes, one of the problems I have with McChrystal--aside from his beer-fueled disrespect for not only his civilian and military superiors, but also our allies in Afghanistan--is that McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy is based on the failed military adventures of France, in Morocco, and The United States, in Vietnam. How stupid can you get? Is this strategy really worth $100 billion a year?

Here's Clemons on Maddow:

Again: fire him.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Fire McChrystal

Just finished reading the Rolling Stone article about Gen. Stanley McCrystal, wherein the general shows his lack of respect for Pres. Obama, his civilian and military superiors, and frankly, himself. He also shouldn't have let himself be interviewed with a few drinks under his belt....and especially Bud Lite Lime--yuck! He also seems particularly clumsy with the political and social responsibilities that go with four-star rank.

Rolling Stone:
[...]n private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle.


McChrystal reserves special skepticism for (Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard) Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team.

Pres. Obama, please fire his disrespectful, disloyal ass.

Monday, June 21, 2010

If Corporations Are People, Do They Taste Like Chicken?

Furthermore, can they be tried and executed?

The BP Gulf disaster is the worst environment catastrophe in American history. Millions of barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, coastlines, wetlands, and beaches fouled for what may be years, businesses destroyed, and a massive die-off of sea life in the Gulf. If an individual committed destruction on this scale, they'd surely be arrested, and, with their admission of guilt, tried, convicted, and (depending on the state in which the crimes happened) executed.

So why can't we do the same with BP? Nationalize their American assets, freeze every bank account we can reach here and abroad, arrest BP's executives, and liquidate the company? After all, the Supreme Court says that corporations now have the right of freedom of speech!

Nationalize BP. Arrest CEO Tony Hayward, Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, and any and all managers that had any responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Sell the company's assets on the open market, or take over as the new management. But $20 billion is not enough. Not for a disaster that has the potential to change the face of the Gulf forever.

They shoot murderers, don't they? Nationalize BP.

It's Relative

What is worse: playing golf with your second-in-command during a time of crisis, sailing in a yacht race while your company's oil well fouls thousands of square miles of ocean, or laying a wreath on the graves of hardcore Nazis?

Hint: anything the Democrat and/or the black man does is automatically wrong.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Friday Funnies, Part 3: The Schmuck Of The Week!

OK, so this isn't that funny, except for the reactions. Texas congresscritter Joe Barton (R-Big Oil) apologized to BP executives yesterday, characterizing the Obama administration "of perpetrating a shakedown by pressuring BP to set aside $20 billion to cover expected damages."

TPM, quoting idiot from Texas:
"I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown," Barton said. "I'm only speaking for myself, I'm not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize."
 Notwithstanding the fact that Barton is one of Congress' biggest recipients of Big Oil largess, his comment was particularly tone-deaf in light of the country's anger and frustration at BP, and how the spill is being handled. Of course, the GOP leadership's response was "don't say that shit out loud!" However, in an act typical of GOP hypocrisy, several Rethug members of Congress had already complained about the escrow fund. Also bellyaching were the Wall Street Journal, Erick Erickson of CNN and RedState, Laura Ingraham, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh, to name a disgusting few.

But of course, Barton had to eat his words. "...he (sort of) apologized for apologizing. Then he apologized again, falling on his sword even as party leaders were throwing him under the bus." Barton didn't get the memo: it's ok to criticize Pres. Obama, but for God's sake, don't openly side with the oil companies! "Off with his head!" they cried. So Barton apologized twice, and so far, there are two Republicans who want him to resign his position as the ranking Rethug on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. We'll see how many more jump on the bandwagon by Monday.

Ahh, hell--Jon Stewart did this better than I ever could. I'll let him take it from here:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Day 59 - Judgment Day - The Strife Aquatic
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party

And there you have it: this week's Schmuck Of The Week, the (dis)honorable Joe Barton!

Friday, June 18, 2010

Friday Funnies, Part 2: And Now A Message From Wingnut Central, Vegas Division

Nevada's Republican candidate for Senate, Sharron Angle, is making me forget all about the Chicken Lady, Sue Lowden. So far she's shown herself to be a confirmed nutter, so much so that Republican leadership deemed her "not ready for prime time," and has sequestered her from the press until she can learn how to lie better about her earlier positions I can't imagine why. After all, what's so extreme about wanting to end Social Security, abolish the Departments of Energy and Education and the EPA, outlaw alcohol, stop fluoridation of the water supply, supporting Scientology, and offering support for an armed insurrection against the federal government?

Too bad for her that Las Vegas' KLAS-TV caught her for a few unguarded moments. Take a look:

BTW, what's so "Christian" about cussing out a reporter? They're coming out of the woodwork this year, I swear.

Friday Funnies, Part 1: Attack of the Fanboy Shrink

 Ok, it's Friday, I've been busy, and so much foolishness has gone on this week that it's going to take several posts just to get most of it in. But I thought I'd start off with a truly humorous one, to wit:

The Guardian:
Thanks to the work of French researchers, we now have a detailed diagnosis of the mental health challenges faced by Star Wars' (evidently misunderstood) arch baddie Darth Vader.

In a letter entitled "Is Anakin Skywalker suffering from borderline personality disorder?", soon to be published in the journal Psychiatry Research, Eric Bui, a psychiatrist at Toulouse University Hospital, and his colleagues, will set out why Anakin (later to be known across that galaxy far, far away as Darth Vader) matches six out of the nine borderline personality disorder criteria as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

"I had watched the two prequel movies [Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith], and it was during my residency in psychiatry, while trying to explain borderline personality disorder to medical students, that I thought of Anakin," says Bui, displaying an unnerving lack of awareness that his study subject is, in fact, a fictional character.

"I believe that psychotherapy would have helped Anakin and might have prevented him from turning to the dark side," adds Bui. "Using the dark side of the Force could be considered as similar to drug use: it feels really good when you use it, it alters your consciousness and you know you shouldn't do it."
I wonder if this guy is available to treat Alvin Greene?