Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Nothing Sexist About This Remark, Is There?




Oh, heavens. A woman forgot to stop and think about how offended John Podhoretz would feel if she spoke in public like she cared about this country. I'm surprised he doesn't have a quick backhand ready for such times as these.

Add this to the pile. Podhoretz is a high-ranking nutcase. Maybe he doesn't write his own headlines. But he sure looks like the kind of fellow who isn't going to put up with lady talk he doesn't agree with.


//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Maryland Restores the Franchise to Felons




I wholeheartedly support this. Restoring voting rights to felons should be a national issue. Taking away the voting rights of convicted felons appears where in the Constitution? Hmm?


//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Friday, January 15, 2016

This is How I See the Road Ahead




I was commenting on Facebook when I realized I should be putting something on my crappy blog that no one reads:

"The argument for Clinton is that she's the Democrat most likely to make progress on progressive priorities because she's the Democrat who best understands both the issues and how unbelievably difficult it actually is to get anything done in a divided political system. Sanders can talk all he wants about political revolutions, but no one seriously doubts that the next Democratic president will face a Republican House, a 5-4 Republican majority on the Supreme Court, and a country that mistrusts government action." 


So, in other words, she's the only adult in the room? 





How is any of that a bad thing? Knowing she's the only person running who sees things as they are as opposed to what she's going to promise to people and then have to lie about later? Hillary has to lie because this is a country made up of toddlers, bullies, and people tired of lame attempts to categorize a broadly diverse electorate.





We are not going to get the House back any time soon. We are going to experience a blinding level of partisan obstructionism if she wins the election. The mere fact that she's running is proof that we don't have a choice this year. We have an obligation to put her in office and to keep hammering away at all attempts to destroy Obama's legacy.





I don't understand Ezra Klein at all. He's against Clinton. But there's nobody else. There is no one running who understands the reality of American politics, circa 2016, better than she does. I mean, full stop. This is what we face--oblivion or an annoying habit of trying to get as much as possible within the confines of a heavily divided political climate. Grow the motherfucking fuck up and just accept the fact that everyone self-identifying as a Republican is living in a batshit crazy fantasy world where they can magically make the government do things it does not do and never has done.



//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Hideous and Cheap




It would appear that the Chinese took down this statue of Mao because it did not do him justice. Someone working as a monolithic statue contractor fleeced these poor businessmen out of their hard-earned cash and put up a monstrosity. The thing was hollow at the base, allowing teenagers the chance to hide underneath and make fart noises. Was all of that scaffolding part of the plan? Goodness.

Very undignified. Next time, chip in for the solid foundation.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Chris Hughes Destroyed Something Awful




Wah, wah, wah:

I have some difficult news today: I have decided to put The New Republic up for sale. I bought this company nearly four years ago to ensure its survival and give it the financial runway to experiment with new business models in a time of immense change in media. After investing a great deal of time, energy, and over $20 million, I have come to the conclusion that it is time for new leadership and vision at The New Republic.


Over the past few years we have made good progress in reinvigorating this institution. Our readership has grown younger and more diverse, largely as a result of our digital strategy. Our journalism has been widely recognized as impactful, impassioned, and more relevant to our nation’s challenges than ever. As a business, we have launched a brand marketing studio called Novel, built a flexible and fast mobile website, and developed our own content management system. We have made it possible for The New Republic to survive and begin to flourish in its second century.


Yet I will be the first to admit that when I took on this challenge nearly four years ago, I underestimated the difficulty of transitioning an old and traditional institution into a digital media company in today’s quickly evolving climate. When I bought The New Republic, it was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and I believed that an institution as old and important as it should survive and evolve in an era where its values were still relevant and needed. This place stands for some of the best and most important elements of liberalism: a belief in the role of government to correct free markets, in the power of representative democracy to hold the elite accountable, and in America’s responsibility to be a force for good in the world. These values have sustained and animated not just me, but this tireless and dedicated team over the past few years.


 As it currently stands, the value of the New Republic is about fifty bucks and dropping. This kid turned a terrible, racist, bigoted magazine into a dumpster fire. The Germans have a word for making something bad into something worse, and it could very well be Müllcontainerfeuer.

Chris Hughes trying to fix something is a Müllcontainerfeuer. Chris Hughes setting $20 million dollars on fire in order to wreck the New Republic is something I can get behind. Kudos to him. A horrible publication had it coming.

Friday, January 8, 2016

Allen West Just Threatened the President of the United States




Read it for yourself:

We the American people have no other recourse than to resort to civil disobedience. We have no representatives in Washington DC who will stand and the Supreme Court has failed us as well.


You have embraced violent protest movements in America such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. We are not lowering ourselves to that despicable progressive socialist “rules for radicals” model.


We, the people, are just telling you “No.” We will now be sending you emails and social media posts as well as calling OUR White House to say one word, “No.”
And if you persist and take the same course of action as Xerxes, we will give you a two-word response, Molon Labe.


This is your final year as president of the United States so let us come to an agreement: you leave us alone and we, the American people, will let you stay and finish your term.

That's a clear threat. It's impossible to miss the implied threat contained in that statement. And while it is typical of the overheated rhetoric around guns and gun control, it's amazing to read such things from a man who served in the United States Congress. This is not just some nut with a website. This is a man collecting a pension from military service and his term in office. He's as far on the teat as you can get and he still says such things? Wow.

I think the Army should call him back to active duty and review these statements. West should be subjected to UCMJ action. And, as if this needs to be said, he is mentally ill if this is what he truly believes. I suspect that, once questioned, West would plead innocence and claim it was all being done in order to raise funds or something along those lines.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Sovereign Citizens




This is actually part of the strategy of the sovereign citizen movement--take everything that the Federal government has in terms of handouts and put nothing back into the "coffers" of the government.

The Bundy family represents the most successful sovereign citizen outfit in America. They should be prosecuted as a syndicate or a crime family because this is part of a systemic effort to avoid taxation and the paying of fees in order to profit from Federally owned resources. To the Bundy's the fact that the Federal government gave them a "loan" is just part of the scam. They spent that money and laughed about it. They will not pay it back, of course. That's for suckers.

You're the sucker because you weren't smart enough to get a loan that you won't pay back for your "kin" or family.

Hypocrites? No, they're not hypocrites. They hate the government and they're not shy about taking money from it in order to "cripple" it because they don't have any shame. They'll take every penny they can get and whatever else. They don't care about fraud and they don't recognize the courts or official looking papers in the mail. They thumb their nose at it because they've already abandoned any pretense of living like regular citizens.

The worst thing a local cop or deputy sheriff will ever run into is not necessarily an armed criminal. It is a sovereign citizen who is armed has no intention of complying with lawful orders. Yes, they're one and the same thing, but anyone who self-identifies themselves as "sovereign" triggers a lot more alarms than a common criminal.

Monday, January 4, 2016

Yeah, Elections Matter




Paul Krugman says what needs to be said:

[...] some widely predicted consequences of Mr. Obama’s re-election — predicted by his opponents — didn’t happen. Gasoline prices didn’t soar. Stocks didn’t plunge. The economy didn’t collapse — in fact, the U.S. economy has now added more than twice as many private-sector jobs under Mr. Obama as it did over the same period of the George W. Bush administration, and the unemployment rate is a full point lower than the rate Mr. Romney promised to achieve by the end of 2016.


In other words, the 2012 election didn’t just allow progressives to achieve some important goals. It also gave them an opportunity to show that achieving these goals is feasible. No, asking the rich to pay somewhat more in taxes while helping the less fortunate won’t destroy the economy.


So now we’re heading for another presidential election. And once again the stakes are high. Whoever the Republicans nominate will be committed to destroying Obamacare and slashing taxes on the wealthy — in fact, the current G.O.P. tax-cut plans make the Bush cuts look puny. Whoever the Democrats nominate will, first and foremost, be committed to defending the achievements of the past seven years.


The bottom line is that presidential elections matter, a lot, even if the people on the ballot aren’t as fiery as you might like. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.


But...but...I didn't get the public option so now I'm not going to vote and that'll make the Democrats sorry they ever pissed me off. And then, something something, I'll get what I want and everything will be the way I want it.

Seriously, though--if you're disappointed in President Obama, I understand why. It's hard to live in a world where you don't get everything you want right now. But, if you're a functioning adult, I don't see how you can be unhappy that we're living in a country where gas is cheap, unemployment is down, and people have health insurance. I seem to remember times when this was just not the case and it sucked for a lot of people. Yes, things still suck. But they don't suck as bad as they could and they suck because people aren't voting for their economic self-interest. If you live in Kansas and Kentucky, I feel for you, but you brought it on yourselves.