Wednesday, April 29, 2009

100 Days Down, 1361 To Go (or 2822 cuz he'll need 2 terms to declare world peace)

Barack's actually done a lot in his first 100 days, more than most Presidents. Here's a quick list of all of his hope-giving, change-making accomplishments:

He's blamed everything from the economy to terrorism on George W. Bush and his Republican cohorts. Soon, he'll lay responsibility for swine flu and blue balls on the "previous administration."

He's spent trillions of dollars on God knows what. My street still has potholes. I want my infrastructure!

He's used the phrase "line by line" more times in 100 days than anyone has used it in a lifetime.

He got a puppy.

He made a correct championship pick in the NCAA Tournament.

He used his telekinetic abilities to steady the hands of the Navy sharpshooters who rescued Captain What's His Name from pirates.

He's incited class hatred, joining the likes of V.I. Lenin, and Karl Marx. Up next: open class warfare.

He's openly and aggressively attacked anyone and everyone who has criticized or even questioned his policies.

He's let Nancy Pelosi wear the pants in Washington.

He terrified the Congress and the people into passing his stimulus spending... OR ELSE!

Ignoring the advice of Dr. Ian Malcolm, he didn't let nature take its course and extinguish (or extinctify) corporate dinosaurs like General Motors and Chrysler.

Instead, he's spent billions of our dollars to artificially keep their brain dead bodies alive. He's also brought in some of that class vs. class combat, with union members being compensated dramatically more than bondholders.

He blew the first bit of air into the currency bubble.

He referred to tax-day protesters of his policies as "people waving tea-bags around."

He's helped the economy recover. Well, not recover. He's helped the economy collapse more slowly. Then again, a struggling factory's production stops decreasing once it hits 0, so I don't know how much of an accomplishment this is.

He's changed the federal laws on gay marriage. No, wait...

He's given your grandchildren plenty of hobbies and things to do so they stay busy.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009


Somehow Barack's Administration will be able to pin the blame for H1N1 on George W. Bush.

The media is all over it. The world's ending. Just like the Credit Crunch caused people to look up "Great Depression" on Wikipedia, people are now doing diligent semi-research on the 1918 Influenza Pandemic.

Fun with words: the difference between pandemic and epidemic? Pandemics are bigger, and typically worldwide.

Not-so-fun-fact: Human Influenza kills 30,000 people a year. Just in the US.

Side-argument: Doesn't the fact that the flu virus evolves sort of prove evolution, or at least help support it? I mean, if a flu virus can evolve, why can't you or I? If a flu virus can change, and you can change, EVERYBODY CAN CHANGE!

Remember when you got SARS and had to miss school for a week? Oh wait, you never got SARS did you? Neither did I.

Remember when 100 of your pen pals in China got SARS and only 4 of them died?

Remember the avian flu? How much did it suck when you died from that? You didn't? Oh, neither did I! Gosh, we have so much in common, what's your sign?

Remember in 1918 when the world was engulfed in a cataclysmic war, sanitation throughout Europe was crap, and 3/4 of the world were underdeveloped colonies? Kind of different from 2009, isn't it?

I'm not saying people shouldn't be worried about Swine Flu. It is dangerous to humans because it isn't a human flu. Our bodies aren't used to it. So wash your hands, don't makeout with the poles on subway cars, and don't fuck pigs. Oh, and invest in companies that make surgical masks.

But remember, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is also a disease.

But this end of the world panic is doing more damage than Swine Flu might. The global economy is already contracting, FEAR of a pandemic will make it even worse. No tourism, no travel, no production, et cetera.

Media outlets asking "Is This like 1918?" or "Is This the Next Pandemic" aren't helping things. Yes, there's an extremely virulent form of influenza spreading around the world. And it's coming to your neighborhood. So be smart, not scared. Wash your hands before eating. Wash your hands after handling money or touching an ATM.

But also remember what happened to the Native Americans. They weren't exposed to any diseases for centuries, until they were all-but exterminated by the common cold.

The CDC and the governments of the world are as prepared for this as they can be. The US has the best healthcare in the universe (you get what you pay for). It's very late in the cold & flu season.

And remember, if you have to ask "Is this a pandemic?" Then guess what...


Monday, April 27, 2009

Air Farce One

Taken by NY Times reader Jim Brown
Just an absolutely moronic thing happened this morning in New York. The backup of Air Force One flew a few low level laps around Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty. The plane was escorted by a fighter. It was all part of a photo-op, taking shots of Air Force One flying near Lady Liberty, that kind of thing. Although the FAA and New York City officials knew about the flight, they were instructed NOT to publicize the event.

That's just insanely smart, isn't it. Why not fly a 747 at extremely low altitude around lower Manhattan. And hey, why not take a B-29 bomber and do a flyover of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while you're at it.

Obviously, this was a decision made by morons. Furthermore, how does flying a 747 around reduce carbon footprints, and all that other green stuff?

I'm not blaming Barack, but if something like this had occurred while Bush was President, Michael Moore would have made 2 documentaries about it, MSNBC would have crucified an effigy of Dick Cheney, and a loudmouth member of the House would have tried to impeach Bush.

To me, it's just another indicator of how DUMB the underlings of those in power truly are. Buildings were evacuated, people panicked, the DJIA dipped 40 points in 2 minutes. I'll give credit to the Administration for being quick on their feet in explaining the flyover, but whoever concocted these plans and made the decision to actively avoid telling the public should be skinned.

NY Times

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Don't Like Barack? Then You're a Racist

In response to that conservative Tea Party rally stuff on Tax Day, Janeane Garofalo had these well-formulated, and searingly logic counterpoints:

She must've thought she was so clever when she realized "Tea Party" was similar to "Tea Bag." And I love Keith "Got Canned by SportsCenter" Olbermann giggling in the background. What an impotent joke-in-the-box he is.

I just love the dismissive prejudice demonstrated so perfectly by Garofalo.

1. The President is black
2. Conservatives don't like the President
Conclusion: Conservatives don't like the President because he's black

Because like other (German accent) Wunderliberals, it is unfathomable for any reasonable and/or intelligent person to not love Barack. The only "people" who don't like Barack are a subspecies of lowbrow, racist, ignorant, cousin-fucking simians. They're known as Conservatoids.

I don't care that Barack is black. I care that he's pink and gradually growing red. Red as in the Red Menace.

But that's kind of an exaggeration. Unlike the Tea Partiers, I don't think Barack is a socialist... yet. I do have major concerns when the White House terminates the CEO and board of General Motors, though. That just irks me. And I don't like that the few bucks I pay in taxes go to companies that ruined the economy.

So, Janeane, the issue for most of us conservatives isn't a black/white one, it's a white/red one. Or whatever color capitalism is represented by. Green?

And just for fun, Michael Douglas's kickass speech in Wall Street. I wish Congress talked to the execs of these fucked up government funded failure companies like Gordon Gecko talked here:

In summation, the color on the protesters' minds was green, not black. But try convincing Garafolo or other Wunderliberals.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Tea Party Pooper

Yesterday, a bunch of people who don't like taxes (who likes taxes?) protested in cities across America. They don't like runaway government spending, bailouts, and all the other things their taxes have been or will eventually be paying for.

This clip of CNN reporter Susan Roesgen "being harassed" by a group of protesters speaks volumes about the liberal bias of CNN, the liberal bias of most of the media, and how many elitist liberals view conservatives: as a lower form of life, some kind of missing link between the chimp and human.

That might be the first time I've seen a reporter for a legitimate news outlet start an argument with her subject. And the guy she's interviewing is a total moron, too. "Lincoln's primary thing was that people have the right to liberty." Huwhat?

But anyway, this elitist CNN reporter starts arguing with this clod. When she's done, she goes back to conversing with the anchor. "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network - Fox... since this is not really family viewing..."

Well, I don't remember any "promoting" on Fox. I remember hearing about this grassroots movement, which grew organically. Fox covered it as it was, y'know, NEWS after all.

Then Susan starts yelling at those conservative Neanderthals again.

Maybe the crowd was anti-CNN because CNN has a tendency to belittle conservative views, to ridicule people like Rick Santelli, and to simultaneously glorify liberal causes. But that's preposterous.

Frankly, I think the "Tea-Party" was pretty stupid. Obama's President, he controls the House and Senate, protest with your votes in November 2010. But people have the right to protest. Could you imagine Susan Roesgen confronting anti-war protesters?

I think not.

But you know what, CNN isn't that biased. They're just a dumbed down 24 hour PowerPoint presentation. These days, the media in general is simply fucked up, and quite frankly, utterly useless.

This is 11 minutes long... COME ON!

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Iowa is More Progressive than California?

What gives, California? To quote Eddie Izzard: "You're supposed to be the crazy state."

Day 2 of Liberal Week is about gay marriage, in case you hadn't already gathered.

I've written about this before, but it's been in the news, so why not again? Gay marriage is not a sexually based moral issue, even though it has become one for both its proponents and opponents. It's a Constitutional issue, one that concerns the government's capacity to legislate the individual citizen. THAT'S why gay marriage shouldn't be banned, and should be legal in all 50 states.

What is marriage? It is the familial joining of two parties. In other words, the two parties involved become family. The slippery-slopists out there who think legalizing gay marriage will lead to men marrying their cousins, or two women, or their pigs; need to realize this contractual and legal definition.

When I marry Natalie Portman, she and I will become family. Furthermore, her family will become part of my family (hence terms like mother-in-law, brother-in-law, etc.). Two people already related to each other cannot be married. It would be like marrying your wife twice, it doesn't make sense. You can't add someone to your family if they're already a part of it.

It's also fair that marriage can only be between two people at a time. Sorry insane rebel Mormons living in the Utah desserts, it's true. That whole "forsaking all others" stipulation sort of wrecks legal polygamy. But only LEGAL polygamy. If you want to live with 8 women, sleep with 8 women, and deal with 96 periods a year, be my guest.

My favorite argument against gay marriage is the "sanctity" strategy. Three words to debunk the myth that marriage is sacred:

Anna Nicole Smith

Speaking of Mormons, I actually found a nice little anti-gay-marriage argument on a Mormom site. And by nice, I mean it wasn't filled with virulent hatred for guys who like guys and girls who like girls.

Many gay marriage supporters ask, “Why shouldn’t there be legalized gay marriage?” That’s the wrong question: there isn’t gay marriage now—never has been. Throughout history, even those civilizations which were more accepting of homosexual relationships did not have a gay ‘marriage’ concept—certainly nothing approaching the equivalence of man/woman marriages in their society. The idea of gay 'marriage' is entirely a modern concept.

The right question then, is “Why should there be legalized gay marriage?” It is important to recognize that the burden of proof is entirely on the ‘pro-‘ side, which needs to provide a positive proof of why society needs to officially recognize same-sex relationships, since human civilization has arguably gotten along well enough without it for thousands of years.

It's a good question. Why should we add to the lawbooks? Interestingly enough, the argument can be turned and used to counter the notion that gay marriage should be explicitly banned. But anyway, here's my answer to this argument:

In 1919, women were not legally allowed to vote. Amendment XIX of the US Constitution CHANGED that. BTW, Iowa beat California to the punch in that instance, too. Why was this change necessary? Societies had certainly gotten along nicely without women voting. There was no crisis averted, no blood in the streets, it's just that women could vote.

Ain't reductio ad absurdum a bitch?

I'll go even further. Why should man be allowed to marry man? Why should woman be allowed to marry woman? Because they're fucking human beings! They deserve the same rights that I as a straight human being inherently possess. The same rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, supposedly protected by the government. Rights that aren't given to me or anyone else, but are intrinsically mine.

Some more fun from the same site:

Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue. Saying gays have fewer rights than non-gays is like saying marijuana being illegal is an ‘equal rights' issue because people who like smoking tobacco can do so legally, but people who like smoking marijuana can’t. Smoking tobacco is legal for everyone, and smoking marijuana is illegal for everyone across the board—it doesn’t make a difference if you happen to only prefer one or the other.

This is one of the worst comparisons in the history of things being compared to other things. Marijuana is not tobacco. It'd be more appropriate to compare smoking pipe tobacco to smoking cigarette tobacco. Or even chewing tobacco to smoking tobacco.

If I want nicotene, but I hate smoking, don't I have the right to get my fix from snuff?

You know, I used to smoke tobacco. I smoked a pack a day. Then I stopped. And I haven't smoked for a little over 6 months now. I don't know anyone who's quit being gay. Is there a gay patch, or a gay gum that helps you quit? Because smoking cigarettes is an addiction. Homosexuality is... well, I don't know. I don't really know why I like girls. I don't know why I'm into anything that I'm sexually into. Why does my idea of a dream women have to include her willingness to dress up like Lieutenant Saavik from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?

The word "preference" really bugs me in this arena. I prefer Sam Adams over Coors Light. I don't just prefer women. I'm attracted to them. I want one in my bed right now. And gay men don't just prefer men. It's stronger than that.

In 46 states, gay men and gay women cannot marry people to whom they are sexually attracted. If that's not an infringement of rights, I don't know what the hell is. And you know what, it's an infringement of all our rights. The government has no place in my bedroom. If I want to marry Lt. Saavik, I will. The government can't tell me not to. If I want to marry a 90 year old billionaire, that's my right. And if some guy wants to marry his boyfriend, or some girl wants to marry her girlfriend, that's their fucking right.

The site I quoted from twice

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Who Gives a Shit About Barack's Gift-Giving?

Welcome to Liberal Week on Ambidextrous Wing!

One of the anti-Barack talking points of conservative pundits like Sean Hannity the past few days have been the diplomatic gaffes committed by Barack, and even Michelle Obama at the G20. We all remember when Barack gave British PM Gordon Brown a collection of DVDs. Well, now he's given Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, et cetera; an iPod.

So he gives crappy gifts. Oh, and Michelle Obama gave the Queen a hug, which apparently is a breach of protocol.

Who the fuck cares? Conservative pundits are spending time on this meaningless minutia. This isn't 1372, the Queen isn't going to declare war on us because we gave her a crappy present. She's not going to chop off Michelle Obama's head for hugging her.

If you have an hour-long cable news show, and you find time to criticize the President for his gifts to the British in that hour, then he must not be doing that bad of job. There's so much other BS to criticize Barack on. Gift-giving is #3.6 trillion on that list.

Conservatives are also attacking Barack for bowing to the Saudi King. Ummmmmmmmmmmmm....

Now I don't think Barack did anything amazing at the G20, but who the hell did? Nothing gets done at these big summits. It's just a bunch of photo opps and soap-box standing. But the Special Relationship between the US and the UK has hardly been put into jeopardy by Barack's inability to give good gifts.

After all, it's the thought that counts.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Anarchists Invade London

Royal Bank of Scotland stole my sleeves!

You have got to love when anarchists organize. People against organization coming together and organizing to protest organization.

The G20 is meeting in London, and thousands of protesters are making a scene, clashing with police, vandalizing property, and generally being a nuisance.

The City of London advised many bankers today to not wear suits in order to avoid being a target. In true British "fuck em" style, they wore their suits.

I just love these losers. They blame banks and governments for all the problems in the world. Their solution: no more banks and no more governments. Also known as curing the headache by cutting off the head.

Because before banks, things were great, and everybody lived happily. They were all subsistence farmers and had to pay tribute to their local bully (also called a knight). But they didn't have credit card debts or mortgages.

Then there was that time before governments. When if you wanted something, you simply killed your neighbor for it. Great deal if you're in shape and/or have access to a big club.

Look at me! My shirt's around my neck and I lost my belt! I'm a rebel!

And what affect do these protesters have? By now, all these global summitts are accustomed to them. Barack doesn't care about the protesters. He and the Queen couldn't give a rat's ass.

We represent the Lollipop Guild...

Neither do the President of France or the Chancellor of Germany. they're having a blast:

Facebook material

All the protesters do is make shit hard for working class people who just want to use the subway. The working class folks have to pay the taxes to pay for all the extra security. The working class folks who can't get to work because a thousand losers in masks are being loud. The working class cop who gets attacked just because he's a cop trying to protect people and property.

And why should we be anarchists? It seems like most of the G20 nations are satisfied with the Democratic and capitalistic systems. We're happy to play the game, make some money, buy a house, raise a family, and retire in Arizona. These anarchists and protesters are so unbelievably selfish. They think that they should decide how the world works, and nobody who disagrees with them has the right to live any other way.

Fuck these clowns.

And where are all the Europe-loving liberal bastards who want the US to join the EU? You know, the men and women who bemoan the incivility of the U-S-of-A and tout the merits of those cosmopolitan continentals across the pond? They're probably wearing a black ski mask and throwing bricks at windows, because it's the cool, European thing to do.

It's hot out