Monday, August 07, 2006
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Sex Subsidies
So I was talking to my sister-in-law and explaining to her that she should have wild sex and not worry about getting pregnant or anything. She thought I was crazy, but I explained to her how the Democrats have set up a Welfare State, whereby they’ll completely take care of her and her future kids, and that they’ll totally subsidize her decision to have wild sex while not worrying about getting pregnant or married. She still said I was crazy. So I showed her this quote from the American Partisan, in an article by James Antle III titled Welfare State Begets Family Breakdown:
As Frum and others have demonstrated, means-tested welfare programs provide benefits to single mothers and their children and thus directly subsidize the decision to have children outside of marriage. Even popular programs tailored to the middle class, like Social Security and Medicare, absolve family members of their responsibility to one another and enable people to achieve a level of economic security in retirement outside the context of their families.
And it changed everything. She’s a convert and immediately went out to start having all kinds of crazy-ass wild sex with every mammal she can get her hands on. She’s not so interested in the welfare programs, per se; but the Social Security and Medicare benefits are totally “out the roof” in terms of absolving her from her responsibility to her other family members. She was worried that she’d have to take care of her aging father. But now she’s screwing like crazy, knowing that the Democrats have taken care of everything. Needless to say, she is psyched.
Unfortunately, she left before I read this quote, which clearly shows the err of her ways:
Ultimately, just as you cannot simultaneously insure that people who work always are economically better off than people who do not while maintaining an adequate economic existence for those who do not work, you cannot simultaneously promote marriage and the traditional family while subsidizing lifestyle choices outside of those contexts.
And true enough, now that my sister-in-law is having all this crazy sex, she’s actually better off economically than people who work for a living. And not just economically. Her sex life is better too. And this topsy-turvy situation has clearly unbalanced the nature order of things. I guess she hadn’t seen this paradox coming, but that’s really to be expected from a crazy-ass bitch who’d rather take a handout from the government than to allow her future children to starve to death for the sake of preserving capitalism.
Perhaps some day she’ll understand that. But it’s unlikely as long as political correctness prevents people from saying that if many people believe that the government should take care of kids when the parents won’t, then we won’t need parents anymore. And if the bureaucrats are allowed to help the people who need help, then they’ll surely intrude on the ones who don’t; which means that it’s better to let people starve them to allow bureaucrats to feed them.
That’s actually a generous paraphrase of the last paragraph of the article I’m quoting, but I’ve been taught by the Democrats that work is for losers, so I’m just going to allow James Antle III to subsidize my work while I start screwing like crazy. Not that I like screwing or anything. I’m just trying to destroy the American family unit because I hate my life and want America to fail. Because that’s how I base all my decisions: On whether or not the government will subsidize it and how likely it will be to destroy the American family unit. Death to the parents!
As Frum and others have demonstrated, means-tested welfare programs provide benefits to single mothers and their children and thus directly subsidize the decision to have children outside of marriage. Even popular programs tailored to the middle class, like Social Security and Medicare, absolve family members of their responsibility to one another and enable people to achieve a level of economic security in retirement outside the context of their families.
And it changed everything. She’s a convert and immediately went out to start having all kinds of crazy-ass wild sex with every mammal she can get her hands on. She’s not so interested in the welfare programs, per se; but the Social Security and Medicare benefits are totally “out the roof” in terms of absolving her from her responsibility to her other family members. She was worried that she’d have to take care of her aging father. But now she’s screwing like crazy, knowing that the Democrats have taken care of everything. Needless to say, she is psyched.
Unfortunately, she left before I read this quote, which clearly shows the err of her ways:
Ultimately, just as you cannot simultaneously insure that people who work always are economically better off than people who do not while maintaining an adequate economic existence for those who do not work, you cannot simultaneously promote marriage and the traditional family while subsidizing lifestyle choices outside of those contexts.
And true enough, now that my sister-in-law is having all this crazy sex, she’s actually better off economically than people who work for a living. And not just economically. Her sex life is better too. And this topsy-turvy situation has clearly unbalanced the nature order of things. I guess she hadn’t seen this paradox coming, but that’s really to be expected from a crazy-ass bitch who’d rather take a handout from the government than to allow her future children to starve to death for the sake of preserving capitalism.
Perhaps some day she’ll understand that. But it’s unlikely as long as political correctness prevents people from saying that if many people believe that the government should take care of kids when the parents won’t, then we won’t need parents anymore. And if the bureaucrats are allowed to help the people who need help, then they’ll surely intrude on the ones who don’t; which means that it’s better to let people starve them to allow bureaucrats to feed them.
That’s actually a generous paraphrase of the last paragraph of the article I’m quoting, but I’ve been taught by the Democrats that work is for losers, so I’m just going to allow James Antle III to subsidize my work while I start screwing like crazy. Not that I like screwing or anything. I’m just trying to destroy the American family unit because I hate my life and want America to fail. Because that’s how I base all my decisions: On whether or not the government will subsidize it and how likely it will be to destroy the American family unit. Death to the parents!
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Resplendent Joe
William F. Buckley, via a shameful video of Lieberman’s GOP admirers:
“As a human being, Joe Lieberman is a resplendent example of the species.”
Resplendent?! I always thought that was a pseudo-pretend word used when you’re being jokingly ornamental and somewhat ironic. And my god, has Buckley actually seen Lieberman? No offense intended for any of you wimpy milquetoast types, but I could make a better man than Joe Lieberman out of my left nut; and I’d still have enough material left over for a few George Bushes.
(For the record: No, my testicle materials could not be used to make such prissy doofuses as Bush or Lieberman. No matter how many times you split them, you’d only end up with more perfect replicas of myself; and the originals would quickly grow back to be even more resplendent than before; if that’s possible.)
P.S. Yes, I do believe that Buckley may have been going for the whole irony thing, and that this quote might just be evidence of Buckley’s extraterrestrial origins. I just thought that was too obvious to bother mentioning. But this would explain how he can roll in his grave while still being alive. You see, William F. Buckley does not exist in time. He simply is. That is the essence of the conservative movement. They are past, present, and future, rolled into one heaping mound of self-righteous indignation; eternally perplexed by our diehard insistence on living in the present.
P.P.S. To be perfectly honest, I had absolutely nothing against Joe Lieberman until I got marching orders from Kos to assault him as I would my mother’s killer. I don’t know much about politics, but I do what I’m told.
“As a human being, Joe Lieberman is a resplendent example of the species.”
Resplendent?! I always thought that was a pseudo-pretend word used when you’re being jokingly ornamental and somewhat ironic. And my god, has Buckley actually seen Lieberman? No offense intended for any of you wimpy milquetoast types, but I could make a better man than Joe Lieberman out of my left nut; and I’d still have enough material left over for a few George Bushes.
(For the record: No, my testicle materials could not be used to make such prissy doofuses as Bush or Lieberman. No matter how many times you split them, you’d only end up with more perfect replicas of myself; and the originals would quickly grow back to be even more resplendent than before; if that’s possible.)
P.S. Yes, I do believe that Buckley may have been going for the whole irony thing, and that this quote might just be evidence of Buckley’s extraterrestrial origins. I just thought that was too obvious to bother mentioning. But this would explain how he can roll in his grave while still being alive. You see, William F. Buckley does not exist in time. He simply is. That is the essence of the conservative movement. They are past, present, and future, rolled into one heaping mound of self-righteous indignation; eternally perplexed by our diehard insistence on living in the present.
P.P.S. To be perfectly honest, I had absolutely nothing against Joe Lieberman until I got marching orders from Kos to assault him as I would my mother’s killer. I don’t know much about politics, but I do what I’m told.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Holy Joe Super-Secret GOP Spy??
I’m not trying to suggest that I have hardcore solid evidence that Lieberman purposefully cost Al Gore the election in 2000, but there’s more muckamuck in the works that very well could spell that out shortly before the primary. Have more soon!!
Thursday, August 03, 2006
I've Been Outed
In order to beat my blackmailers to the punch, I have a confession. My true name is not Doctor Biobrain. I, in fact, have a middle name. It starts with S and ends with n and is probably not the one you’re thinking of. That’s all I can say for now.
Rage Against the Bubble People
Michelle Malkin, via Crooks & Liars:
Because the manufactured outrage that Qana is not really about the deaths at Qana; it is something about much larger. It is about the jihad du jour that these — that members of the religion of perpetual outrage are always ginning up. I mean, if it’s not Qana, it’s something else.
She goes on to repeat the theory that outrage over Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are equally manufactured. What is up with the wingnuts’ insistence that all this outrage is fake? I don’t get it. Of these three events, not one of them needs manufactured outrage. The outrage is real and is caused directly by the people who did these things. And sure, perhaps people are taking advantage of this real outrage, but it’s absurd to pretend as if the outrage isn’t real.
Outrage over Terri Schiavo needed to be ginned-up. As does outrage over gay marriage and the “Death Tax”. But outrage over torture and unnecessary death most certainly does not need to be manufactured. It’s all natural and everyone feels it. Malkin acts as if she’s given a list of phony-baloney events that nobody could be outraged about, but could only list one (beauty pageants) which might approach the necessity of fake outrage. So why do they say such things?
The reason is simple: These are people who really do manufacture outrage, and simply assume that everyone else is doing the same. This isn’t a case of projection. This is a display of propagandic small-minds who can’t fathom that other people aren’t as obsessed with deception as themselves. And they must assume that other people are doing this, as that’s the only way that they can justify this behavior in themselves.
And there is no outrage from their enemies which they will acknowledge as legitimate. Murder. Torture. Degradation of human dignity. Nothing is legitimate. But this isn’t because they’re callous people, but because it’s all about propaganda to them. For them, the whole world is a fake game where people will truck-in frozen dead children for marketing purposes, and can only pretend to be upset at torture. They just can’t fathom that other people are real. That we have real feelings and thoughts and that we hurt too. And that we can be legitimately outraged. It’s all a game to them. Everything is pretend. Everything is a matter of marketing.
But I don’t see this as coincidence, that Republicans are so prone to propaganda. I see this as being the only way that you can be a Republican or conservative. By ignoring reality and pretending as if the only real thing is how fake everything is. They insist on living in a bubble world where the only important things are the things that directly affect them. But once we acknowledge that other people’s feelings are real and that our decisions can cause real pain to real people; we can no longer be conservative.
Being conservative means never having to look outside of yourself. And so they’ll continue to mock other people’s feelings, while consistently faking their own. And they’re so fake that they can’t imagine that anyone else is any different.
Because the manufactured outrage that Qana is not really about the deaths at Qana; it is something about much larger. It is about the jihad du jour that these — that members of the religion of perpetual outrage are always ginning up. I mean, if it’s not Qana, it’s something else.
She goes on to repeat the theory that outrage over Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are equally manufactured. What is up with the wingnuts’ insistence that all this outrage is fake? I don’t get it. Of these three events, not one of them needs manufactured outrage. The outrage is real and is caused directly by the people who did these things. And sure, perhaps people are taking advantage of this real outrage, but it’s absurd to pretend as if the outrage isn’t real.
Outrage over Terri Schiavo needed to be ginned-up. As does outrage over gay marriage and the “Death Tax”. But outrage over torture and unnecessary death most certainly does not need to be manufactured. It’s all natural and everyone feels it. Malkin acts as if she’s given a list of phony-baloney events that nobody could be outraged about, but could only list one (beauty pageants) which might approach the necessity of fake outrage. So why do they say such things?
The reason is simple: These are people who really do manufacture outrage, and simply assume that everyone else is doing the same. This isn’t a case of projection. This is a display of propagandic small-minds who can’t fathom that other people aren’t as obsessed with deception as themselves. And they must assume that other people are doing this, as that’s the only way that they can justify this behavior in themselves.
And there is no outrage from their enemies which they will acknowledge as legitimate. Murder. Torture. Degradation of human dignity. Nothing is legitimate. But this isn’t because they’re callous people, but because it’s all about propaganda to them. For them, the whole world is a fake game where people will truck-in frozen dead children for marketing purposes, and can only pretend to be upset at torture. They just can’t fathom that other people are real. That we have real feelings and thoughts and that we hurt too. And that we can be legitimately outraged. It’s all a game to them. Everything is pretend. Everything is a matter of marketing.
But I don’t see this as coincidence, that Republicans are so prone to propaganda. I see this as being the only way that you can be a Republican or conservative. By ignoring reality and pretending as if the only real thing is how fake everything is. They insist on living in a bubble world where the only important things are the things that directly affect them. But once we acknowledge that other people’s feelings are real and that our decisions can cause real pain to real people; we can no longer be conservative.
Being conservative means never having to look outside of yourself. And so they’ll continue to mock other people’s feelings, while consistently faking their own. And they’re so fake that they can’t imagine that anyone else is any different.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Somebody's Clueless
Mean Jean Schmidt, via Ann Driscoll at Wulsin for Congress:
Our foreign policy for the last half century has been described by the word appeasement. It means that we were willing to support a dictator's oppression of his people as long as he did what we needed. We simply ignored the screams of his victims in exchange for regular trade or some such thing.
First off, that is most certainly not what appeasement means. We didn’t allow dictator oppression because we were afraid of making trouble. We allowed it because we just didn’t give a damn. We didn’t need their business; we wanted it. And too often, we supported dictators because “the people” didn’t like us.
Somehow, modern Republicans have gotten the idea that democracy means pro-American; but their predecessors who helped shape that foreign policy certainly did not. They knew that communism and anti-Americanism were often popular ideas in many parts of the world, and dictators were clearly our preferred choice in these cases. Sure, we’d like to have a democracy for everyone; but as we’re finding in Iraq, sometimes, a strongman is better. Just as long as he’s our strongman. But even now, dopes like Schmidt seem to have forgotten this and insist that democracy is a friend to Republicans. William F. Buckley must be rolling in his grave.
And that brings us to our next point. Exactly who was it that helped “appease” these dictators? Republicans. This is their deal. And who opposed that kind of thing? Who was upset at dictators keeping down popular movements? Who were the true supporters of democracy? Liberals, that’s who. While Republicans were happy as long as the country in question would continue doing business with us and allowed us to exploit their resources; liberals were vigilantly against such practices and believed them to be immoral. And we still think that. We’re still against sweatshops. We’re still against oppressive regimes. That’s obvious to anyone paying attention.
And for all the talk that Mean Jean gives about ignoring the screams of victims, it’s her party that is to blame for this. And now we see a simultaneous blast of them attacking us for “supporting America’s enemies,” as well as implying that we’re to blame for the dictators oppressing those enemies. I suspect that Jean just hasn’t linked these two ideas together yet.
And so while Congresswoman Jean Schmidt goes on to write that it’s our unused omnipotence that has angered so much of the world; it’s obvious from her own essay that the real culprit is greed. And I’m fairly positive that Republicans don’t have a particularly good policy against that one.
Our foreign policy for the last half century has been described by the word appeasement. It means that we were willing to support a dictator's oppression of his people as long as he did what we needed. We simply ignored the screams of his victims in exchange for regular trade or some such thing.
First off, that is most certainly not what appeasement means. We didn’t allow dictator oppression because we were afraid of making trouble. We allowed it because we just didn’t give a damn. We didn’t need their business; we wanted it. And too often, we supported dictators because “the people” didn’t like us.
Somehow, modern Republicans have gotten the idea that democracy means pro-American; but their predecessors who helped shape that foreign policy certainly did not. They knew that communism and anti-Americanism were often popular ideas in many parts of the world, and dictators were clearly our preferred choice in these cases. Sure, we’d like to have a democracy for everyone; but as we’re finding in Iraq, sometimes, a strongman is better. Just as long as he’s our strongman. But even now, dopes like Schmidt seem to have forgotten this and insist that democracy is a friend to Republicans. William F. Buckley must be rolling in his grave.
And that brings us to our next point. Exactly who was it that helped “appease” these dictators? Republicans. This is their deal. And who opposed that kind of thing? Who was upset at dictators keeping down popular movements? Who were the true supporters of democracy? Liberals, that’s who. While Republicans were happy as long as the country in question would continue doing business with us and allowed us to exploit their resources; liberals were vigilantly against such practices and believed them to be immoral. And we still think that. We’re still against sweatshops. We’re still against oppressive regimes. That’s obvious to anyone paying attention.
And for all the talk that Mean Jean gives about ignoring the screams of victims, it’s her party that is to blame for this. And now we see a simultaneous blast of them attacking us for “supporting America’s enemies,” as well as implying that we’re to blame for the dictators oppressing those enemies. I suspect that Jean just hasn’t linked these two ideas together yet.
And so while Congresswoman Jean Schmidt goes on to write that it’s our unused omnipotence that has angered so much of the world; it’s obvious from her own essay that the real culprit is greed. And I’m fairly positive that Republicans don’t have a particularly good policy against that one.
Prisoner Abuse
Jesus christ, what the hell is wrong with these people? They’re so desperate to avoid being wrong that they don’t care if they avoid reality. Referring to a recent Pentagon report on prisoner abuse against guards at Gitmo (via BelgraviaDispatch and TPM):
The Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group that fought to force the Pentagon to release the reports under the Freedom of Information Act, said it hopes the information brings balance to the Guantanamo debate.
"Lawyers for the detainees have done a great job painting their clients as innocent victims of U.S. abuse when the fact is that these detainees, as a group, are barbaric and extremely dangerous," Landmark President Mark Levin said. "They are using their terrorist training on the battlefield to abuse our guards and manipulate our Congress and our court system."
Apparently to conservatives, it really does work like that. If they can show that some prisoners are abusing guards, then the guards must not be abusing them. More specifically, these guys aren’t victims of abuse because they fling poop at guards and scratch them under their masks. And we all know that abused prisoners never do that sort of thing.
As the article says:
While serious assaults requiring medical attention are rare, the detainees' attacks can be unnerving, according to the guards who currently endure them.
Hmm, let’s see. The article says “unnerving” while Levin says “extremely dangerous”. And as I mentioned, most of the attacks seem to be of the throwing poop variety. I wonder which one of these is overstating things a little bit.
And is it possible that Levin could have any semblance of an explanation on how this use of their “terrorist training” is helping to manipulate Congress and the courts? If anything, these attacks would seem to undermine their cause, not support it. But what do I know? I’m the type of guy who would rather be a prison guard than a prisoner. But perhaps that’s just because I haven’t received the terrorist training required to fling poop and scratch people.
The Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group that fought to force the Pentagon to release the reports under the Freedom of Information Act, said it hopes the information brings balance to the Guantanamo debate.
"Lawyers for the detainees have done a great job painting their clients as innocent victims of U.S. abuse when the fact is that these detainees, as a group, are barbaric and extremely dangerous," Landmark President Mark Levin said. "They are using their terrorist training on the battlefield to abuse our guards and manipulate our Congress and our court system."
Apparently to conservatives, it really does work like that. If they can show that some prisoners are abusing guards, then the guards must not be abusing them. More specifically, these guys aren’t victims of abuse because they fling poop at guards and scratch them under their masks. And we all know that abused prisoners never do that sort of thing.
As the article says:
While serious assaults requiring medical attention are rare, the detainees' attacks can be unnerving, according to the guards who currently endure them.
Hmm, let’s see. The article says “unnerving” while Levin says “extremely dangerous”. And as I mentioned, most of the attacks seem to be of the throwing poop variety. I wonder which one of these is overstating things a little bit.
And is it possible that Levin could have any semblance of an explanation on how this use of their “terrorist training” is helping to manipulate Congress and the courts? If anything, these attacks would seem to undermine their cause, not support it. But what do I know? I’m the type of guy who would rather be a prison guard than a prisoner. But perhaps that’s just because I haven’t received the terrorist training required to fling poop and scratch people.
Sucks to be Conservative
Trolling for something decent to post about, I saw this article at Yahoo titled Army Guard units said not combat ready, and decided to take a gander at the messageboard to see what conservatives might be saying to defend themselves. It’s not pretty.
First off, I didn’t really see too many conservatives at all. And while that shouldn’t be surprising, it is. Sure, this is a crappy story for them, but those are usually the ones they like the best. They just put forth a dazzling display of braindead inaccuracies along with an onslaught of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton insults, and the real story gets left behind.
But not this time. No. They don’t have much to say and are too ashamed to bother saying it. Sure, there was the standard Clinton blamer, but even they were few and far between.
Military Expertise
Even their treason material was falling flat. Here we have rcbims who asks in his headline: Advertising readiness levels? Why?
I quote:
I was active duty over twenty years ago, during the Reagan administration. It was virtually unheard of for Pentagon officials to "advertise" readiness levels to the entire nation.
Is this what happened, or do we have crazy reporters out to bring down their own country?
SINCE these levels have been disclosed publicly, I tend NOT to believe them. Officials know better. In fact, this "report" makes me think we are quite ready.
If I were a foreign nation, I wouldn't test the U.S. at this time....;)
That’s right. Because he was with the military twenty years ago and doesn’t remember them advertising readiness levels, then the reporter must be a crazy traitor. No two ways about it. That’s deductive reasoning, my friend. That’s how the pros do it.
Not only that, but it looks like someone’s been studying their Sun Tzu. Because the military would never reveal our strengths, this must be reverse psychology on the part of the Pentagon; so therefore this must be the absolute worst time for our enemies to want to test us. Of course. Forget about the fact that, due to commitments elsewhere (Iraq!), this is surely the best time for anyone to attack us; and everyone knows it. But that can’t possibly be the case, because the Pentagon would never admit to that.
So instead, we are to imagine that the Pentagon is encouraging our enemies to attack us, by saying that we’re ill-prepared for it. That makes so much more sense. You know, because all those other countries are right on the verge of attacking us, and all they need is one positive news story to put their plans into action. And so the Pentagon must be using that strategy to get them to attack us, so that we can wipe them all out. Of course!
Explanatory Overkill
Oh, don’t get me wrong. That crazy reporter covered her tracks well. They always do.
Not only does the article explain all this, saying:
Once a taboo subject for the military, often buried deep in classified documents, readiness levels — generally ranked from C-1 (the best) to C-4 (the worst) are now being used as weapons themselves to force money out of Congress and the administration.
And while Army officials still won't specify how many units are at which levels, they are being more open about the overall declining state of readiness.
But she also acts as if this was an issue somehow exploited by Bush in the 2000 campaign, writing:
The issue gained political momentum when then-candidate George Bush, during his nominating convention, said the Clinton administration let the U.S. military might erode.
But this is obviously a ploy to throw us off her track. In fact, because my dad was active duty in Vietnam, I know that it’s virtually unheard of that a reporter could possibly have two pieces of evidence to cover their tracks. And as the final topper, we have that “then-candidate George Bush” dig in there, to confuse us. George Bush is President George Bush, not a candidate. The reporter has to know that, but is just yanking our chain to further her charade.
This is obviously journalistic overkill by a Islamofascist reporter who is trying to convince foreign nations to attack us, so that they can swoop in at the last minute and claim victory. A cunning plan to be sure, but fortunately, we have retired military personnel like rcbims using their experience to uncover these wicked plots. Yea rcbims! You’ve saved the day!
First off, I didn’t really see too many conservatives at all. And while that shouldn’t be surprising, it is. Sure, this is a crappy story for them, but those are usually the ones they like the best. They just put forth a dazzling display of braindead inaccuracies along with an onslaught of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton insults, and the real story gets left behind.
But not this time. No. They don’t have much to say and are too ashamed to bother saying it. Sure, there was the standard Clinton blamer, but even they were few and far between.
Military Expertise
Even their treason material was falling flat. Here we have rcbims who asks in his headline: Advertising readiness levels? Why?
I quote:
I was active duty over twenty years ago, during the Reagan administration. It was virtually unheard of for Pentagon officials to "advertise" readiness levels to the entire nation.
Is this what happened, or do we have crazy reporters out to bring down their own country?
SINCE these levels have been disclosed publicly, I tend NOT to believe them. Officials know better. In fact, this "report" makes me think we are quite ready.
If I were a foreign nation, I wouldn't test the U.S. at this time....;)
That’s right. Because he was with the military twenty years ago and doesn’t remember them advertising readiness levels, then the reporter must be a crazy traitor. No two ways about it. That’s deductive reasoning, my friend. That’s how the pros do it.
Not only that, but it looks like someone’s been studying their Sun Tzu. Because the military would never reveal our strengths, this must be reverse psychology on the part of the Pentagon; so therefore this must be the absolute worst time for our enemies to want to test us. Of course. Forget about the fact that, due to commitments elsewhere (Iraq!), this is surely the best time for anyone to attack us; and everyone knows it. But that can’t possibly be the case, because the Pentagon would never admit to that.
So instead, we are to imagine that the Pentagon is encouraging our enemies to attack us, by saying that we’re ill-prepared for it. That makes so much more sense. You know, because all those other countries are right on the verge of attacking us, and all they need is one positive news story to put their plans into action. And so the Pentagon must be using that strategy to get them to attack us, so that we can wipe them all out. Of course!
Explanatory Overkill
Oh, don’t get me wrong. That crazy reporter covered her tracks well. They always do.
Not only does the article explain all this, saying:
Once a taboo subject for the military, often buried deep in classified documents, readiness levels — generally ranked from C-1 (the best) to C-4 (the worst) are now being used as weapons themselves to force money out of Congress and the administration.
And while Army officials still won't specify how many units are at which levels, they are being more open about the overall declining state of readiness.
But she also acts as if this was an issue somehow exploited by Bush in the 2000 campaign, writing:
The issue gained political momentum when then-candidate George Bush, during his nominating convention, said the Clinton administration let the U.S. military might erode.
But this is obviously a ploy to throw us off her track. In fact, because my dad was active duty in Vietnam, I know that it’s virtually unheard of that a reporter could possibly have two pieces of evidence to cover their tracks. And as the final topper, we have that “then-candidate George Bush” dig in there, to confuse us. George Bush is President George Bush, not a candidate. The reporter has to know that, but is just yanking our chain to further her charade.
This is obviously journalistic overkill by a Islamofascist reporter who is trying to convince foreign nations to attack us, so that they can swoop in at the last minute and claim victory. A cunning plan to be sure, but fortunately, we have retired military personnel like rcbims using their experience to uncover these wicked plots. Yea rcbims! You’ve saved the day!
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Winning for Bush
E.J. Dionne, via Digby:
A Lieberman loss next week could also create distracting problems for Democrats. Lieberman has said he would run as an independent if he lost the primary. This would divert national attention from the Democrats' central goal of making this fall's elections a referendum on Bush and the Republican Congress.
What in the hell is wrong with these people? Uh, duh. A Lieberman loss is part of the referendum on Bush and the Republican Congress. That’s the big reason he’s going down. Iraq was just a symptom of it, but the big problem is that he’s so chummy with Bush and the other dangerous nutjobs on the right. And so if Lieberman is taken down, then it’s a complete blast against them. And that includes the idea of Lieberman losing as an independent, because it shows that Bush is such a lead weight that his friends have to create their own party to lose in.
And the GOP leadership knows that, which is why they keep pimping the opposite message to the Beltway pundits. Which gets us back to the question: What the hell is wrong with these people? Dionne’s column is largely about this being a referendum on Bush, so why the hell does he puss-out at the end and make it seem as if everything changes with the Lieberman independent run? And falling for the typical gimmick of blaming Lamont for Lieberman’s potential tantrum?
Because the real truth is that it’s too late for Joe. Much too late. June would have been a fine-time to be a Johnny Come Lately to the anit-Bush crowd; but you don’t do it after you win the primary. And so if Lieberman’s primary challenge is a referendum on Bush and everything else that Dionne says, then a Lieberman win is a win for Bush.
A Lieberman loss next week could also create distracting problems for Democrats. Lieberman has said he would run as an independent if he lost the primary. This would divert national attention from the Democrats' central goal of making this fall's elections a referendum on Bush and the Republican Congress.
What in the hell is wrong with these people? Uh, duh. A Lieberman loss is part of the referendum on Bush and the Republican Congress. That’s the big reason he’s going down. Iraq was just a symptom of it, but the big problem is that he’s so chummy with Bush and the other dangerous nutjobs on the right. And so if Lieberman is taken down, then it’s a complete blast against them. And that includes the idea of Lieberman losing as an independent, because it shows that Bush is such a lead weight that his friends have to create their own party to lose in.
And the GOP leadership knows that, which is why they keep pimping the opposite message to the Beltway pundits. Which gets us back to the question: What the hell is wrong with these people? Dionne’s column is largely about this being a referendum on Bush, so why the hell does he puss-out at the end and make it seem as if everything changes with the Lieberman independent run? And falling for the typical gimmick of blaming Lamont for Lieberman’s potential tantrum?
Because the real truth is that it’s too late for Joe. Much too late. June would have been a fine-time to be a Johnny Come Lately to the anit-Bush crowd; but you don’t do it after you win the primary. And so if Lieberman’s primary challenge is a referendum on Bush and everything else that Dionne says, then a Lieberman win is a win for Bush.
What the Fuck is the Matter with these People?
Sorry for the light posting recently, but I’m having a hard time seeing where my biobrain is needed these days. Everything I want to write just kind of boils down to: What the fuck is the matter with these people? From Israel’s dumb attack on the “Hezbos” to Bush’s insistence on being remembered as the dumbest president ever, everything just keeps coming back to that one phrase. And that’s hardly enough to be making regular postings on.
Of course, I’ve got a turdload of unfinished posts that I keep thinking about finishing, so maybe I’ll just start working on all of them. So if you start seeing postings that don’t seem particularly topical, that’s the reason why. I’m not dead. I just fail to see how I’m necessary right now.
Of course, I’ve got a turdload of unfinished posts that I keep thinking about finishing, so maybe I’ll just start working on all of them. So if you start seeing postings that don’t seem particularly topical, that’s the reason why. I’m not dead. I just fail to see how I’m necessary right now.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Free Elvis Sightings!
I was researching copyright laws, as is my wont, and I stumbled upon this question in the FAQ at the U.S. Copyright Office:
How do I protect my sighting of Elvis?
Could that one really be asked frequently? I mean, really? Or is this some kind of a joke? For the record, the answer is no. You can copyright your pictures of the sighting, but you cannot copyright the sighting itself. Damn.
How do I protect my sighting of Elvis?
Could that one really be asked frequently? I mean, really? Or is this some kind of a joke? For the record, the answer is no. You can copyright your pictures of the sighting, but you cannot copyright the sighting itself. Damn.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Marketers will Inherit the Earth
Why don’t movie studios give us the movies that their marketing departments want to sell? I mean, how often have you seen some movie that looks just great on the previews, but when you see the movie, you realize that it was a completely different kind of movie than what had been advertised. Like if you saw a David Spade movie and expected to be entertained. And the movie you saw wasn’t nearly as good as the movie that you thought you were going to see. That happens all the time. So why don’t they just get with the marketing department before the movie is made, and give us the movies that we want to see? How hard is that? The marketing people clearly know what people want, so why do so many movies really really suck? That makes no sense.
And for that matter, why can’t they do that with politicians too? Was it really too impossible for them to make Bush into the brilliant war president they insisted he was, or was that exactly what they were trying to avoid? I saw a clip of him on The Daily Show tonight, and he really looked like crap. Like even he has realized that he’s just a big incompetent phony. I honestly feel sorry for the guy. Is it his fault that his marketing department was so damn good? I don’t see how. If anything, he’s been working to undermine his presidentialness from the get-go. You can’t say he wasn’t trying. But ironically, he was much too incompetent to overcome the marketing juggernaut that was intent upon hiding that very incompetence.
And if things continue, it’s likely that the marketers will eventually gain control of both the movie and political system, and will start giving us what we really want. But then again, it’s quite possible that they’re only good at commercials.
And for that matter, why can’t they do that with politicians too? Was it really too impossible for them to make Bush into the brilliant war president they insisted he was, or was that exactly what they were trying to avoid? I saw a clip of him on The Daily Show tonight, and he really looked like crap. Like even he has realized that he’s just a big incompetent phony. I honestly feel sorry for the guy. Is it his fault that his marketing department was so damn good? I don’t see how. If anything, he’s been working to undermine his presidentialness from the get-go. You can’t say he wasn’t trying. But ironically, he was much too incompetent to overcome the marketing juggernaut that was intent upon hiding that very incompetence.
And if things continue, it’s likely that the marketers will eventually gain control of both the movie and political system, and will start giving us what we really want. But then again, it’s quite possible that they’re only good at commercials.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Problems with Honesty
One big problem with government is that it’s much much easier to be a crooked politician than an honest one. It’s easy to accept money to have lobbyists make your agenda. It’s easy to come to conclusions based upon how it factors into your pocketbook. And the hardest part for them is deciding whether or not to accept the money personally (which is riskier) or being magnanimous enough to let their re-election campaign keep it.
But honest politicians don’t have that option. They have to earn their money the hard way, and make decisions on their own. It’s easy to wait for a political machine to bribe you to vote with them, and it’s hard to campaign against a political machine. There are few job perks for an honest politician and plenty of penalties. Something needs to change about that.
But honest politicians don’t have that option. They have to earn their money the hard way, and make decisions on their own. It’s easy to wait for a political machine to bribe you to vote with them, and it’s hard to campaign against a political machine. There are few job perks for an honest politician and plenty of penalties. Something needs to change about that.
What's Your Tribe?
Sorry to do this to you people, but apparently, I’m a Republican, so all y’all are going to have to leave. Via Carpetbagger, I just took the Applebees America’s What’s Your Tribe Quiz, and scored a 10 out of 12 in regards to being in the Red State tribe. And while that doesn’t match the formerly liberal Carpetbagger’s score of 11, it still means I’m going to have to toss-out the homoerotic terror porn and Ted Kennedy blow-up dolls; and all because I prefer Audi over Saab, Dr. Pepper over Pepsi, and the Discovery Channel over Court TV. Who’d have guessed?
Frankly, none of those are my top preferences, but who the hell am I to second-guess the geniuses who can determine our political leanings based upon twelve inane questions? If it was up to me, I’d have just asked people what side they lean to and take their word for it. Such a fool.
Henceforth, I’ll be paraphrasing Little Green Footballs for awhile and slamming my head into walls, just until I get my rightwing bearings. And who knows, maybe you can take the quiz and find out that you belong at the new blog too. All hail the emperor, and don’t forget to screw someone over.
Frankly, none of those are my top preferences, but who the hell am I to second-guess the geniuses who can determine our political leanings based upon twelve inane questions? If it was up to me, I’d have just asked people what side they lean to and take their word for it. Such a fool.
Henceforth, I’ll be paraphrasing Little Green Footballs for awhile and slamming my head into walls, just until I get my rightwing bearings. And who knows, maybe you can take the quiz and find out that you belong at the new blog too. All hail the emperor, and don’t forget to screw someone over.
Make Those Fuckers Pay
I fail to understand how anyone could consider a woman who kills her own children to be sane. Perhaps these people are so close to the border of crazytown that they consider these actions to be normal, but I do not.
And these are generally the same people who insist that we should try minors as adults, whenever the crime is heinous enough. As if crazy and violent kids should be held to a higher standard than the normal ones.
But I guess some people consider “Justice” to just be about making fuckers pay.
And these are generally the same people who insist that we should try minors as adults, whenever the crime is heinous enough. As if crazy and violent kids should be held to a higher standard than the normal ones.
But I guess some people consider “Justice” to just be about making fuckers pay.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Offensive Diplomacy
From the AP:
Meanwhile, Israeli military officials said the offensive could last several more weeks.
…
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said diplomatic efforts were under way, but that a cease-fire would be impossible unless Israel's three captured soldiers were returned unharmed and Lebanese troops were deployed along the countries' border with a guarantee that the Hezbollah militia would be disarmed.
Are we still supposed to be pretending that this is about captured soldiers? Really?? Because this seems more like a cheap excuse for continuing their offensive for several more weeks. Especially as it seems kind of odd to kill many many civilians in an attempt to rescue three soldiers. I just didn’t think it was supposed to work like that.
And frankly, I’ve never quite understood how it’s supposed to be a legitimate negotiating technique when you continue to insist that your enemy has to disarm and stop attacking before you stop attacking. That makes sense after it’s become apparent that your enemy is willing to surrender. But otherwise, it just seems like a cheap tactic to justify a continued assault by people more concerned with the appearance of diplomacy than with actual diplomacy.
That was always one of their demands against the Palestinians, which they knew would be rejected; and it looks like they’re going this route again now. Because the general rule is that if your negotiating position insists upon something that you know your opponent will never cede, then you’re really not negotiating.
And whether the Palestinians are trying to destroy Israel or merely trying to protect themselves, it would be foolish for them to give-in to this demand; which is probably one reason why Israel insisted upon it. If the Palestinians submitted, then they’d lose their entire negotiating position. But if they refused, then Israel could claim that its efforts at diplomacy failed and they were forced to act. And even if the Palestinians submitted, it would only take the actions of a small group of extremists to end the cease-fire and Israel would have made significant gains in the meantime. And it’s absurd to suggest that Israel hasn’t made the mental calculations that appear obvious to me.
And the same goes for this current disaster. I honestly don’t see why anyone thinks this is a valid tactic. I suspect that most Arabs don’t. Nor do I think that Israel does either. And yet people continue to describe this as an “overreaction” on Israel’s part, rather than a planned offensive that was merely waiting for a pretense.
Meanwhile, Israeli military officials said the offensive could last several more weeks.
…
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said diplomatic efforts were under way, but that a cease-fire would be impossible unless Israel's three captured soldiers were returned unharmed and Lebanese troops were deployed along the countries' border with a guarantee that the Hezbollah militia would be disarmed.
Are we still supposed to be pretending that this is about captured soldiers? Really?? Because this seems more like a cheap excuse for continuing their offensive for several more weeks. Especially as it seems kind of odd to kill many many civilians in an attempt to rescue three soldiers. I just didn’t think it was supposed to work like that.
And frankly, I’ve never quite understood how it’s supposed to be a legitimate negotiating technique when you continue to insist that your enemy has to disarm and stop attacking before you stop attacking. That makes sense after it’s become apparent that your enemy is willing to surrender. But otherwise, it just seems like a cheap tactic to justify a continued assault by people more concerned with the appearance of diplomacy than with actual diplomacy.
That was always one of their demands against the Palestinians, which they knew would be rejected; and it looks like they’re going this route again now. Because the general rule is that if your negotiating position insists upon something that you know your opponent will never cede, then you’re really not negotiating.
And whether the Palestinians are trying to destroy Israel or merely trying to protect themselves, it would be foolish for them to give-in to this demand; which is probably one reason why Israel insisted upon it. If the Palestinians submitted, then they’d lose their entire negotiating position. But if they refused, then Israel could claim that its efforts at diplomacy failed and they were forced to act. And even if the Palestinians submitted, it would only take the actions of a small group of extremists to end the cease-fire and Israel would have made significant gains in the meantime. And it’s absurd to suggest that Israel hasn’t made the mental calculations that appear obvious to me.
And the same goes for this current disaster. I honestly don’t see why anyone thinks this is a valid tactic. I suspect that most Arabs don’t. Nor do I think that Israel does either. And yet people continue to describe this as an “overreaction” on Israel’s part, rather than a planned offensive that was merely waiting for a pretense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
