God Tells Me Stuff, Too

image

Sometimes, “when the world’s too full of weeping for [me] to understand,” (WB Yeats) I go, like Carole King, “up on the roof” and and make like Sister Boogeywoman, to have a convo with my kinka-licious goddess for all seasons. 

My goddess is an old hippie lesbian who smokes and drinks and loves her children enough to break ribs no matter what awful shit they get up to.  Her belly laugh can, and sometimes does, rock the Casbah and, when I ask real nice, she sends me waves of comic relief.

And, yes! I get to have this awesome goddess because . . . AMERICA!!  ‘nuff said?

At any rate, whatever I said to YumYum (my god’s name) this last session, she has sent me a sidesplitting cosmic extravaganza of mirth in those areas where I needed it most.  And, at the risk of sounding like a stoner evangelista, I’m going to share some.

Starting at the top we have, who else?  one of the funniest men alive, Rick Santorum flirting coyly with an encore run for president [oh please, YumYum, let it be so].  In order to keep himself in the running, as it were, Santorum has to spend some time with Serious Conservative Pundits (SCPs) like Morning Joe Scarborough to recap moments from Rick’s last shamble down the campaign trail and dream up reasons why he might be a more attractive Santorum in 2016.

Evidently, Santorum is under the impression that the only reason he didn’t edge out Romney and trounce Obama was because he dropped out of the race [that’ll do it, Rick].  That doesn’t address the fact that one of the big reasons Santorum dropped out, in April, 2012, was because polls showed him losing the primary in his home state of Pennsylvania where he is fairly well-loathed.

Ironically, it turns out that throughout that period “Obama’s Minions” were terrified that Santorum would prevail against Richie Rich in 2012, as he explains to Scarborough:

“I asked one of the Obama minions who were running the campaign, ‘Hey, why didn’t you guys help me?’ You know, I was up there battling Romney, and all these folks at MSNBC were saying, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if Santorum were the nominee?’” Santorum said.

“‘Why didn’t you help me? Why didn’t you go out and bang me a little bit, hit me as being too conservative? Help me out a little bit?’ And the consensus was, ‘We didn’t want you.’ Because of this,” he said, as he held up his book.

Whereupon, Santorum holds up the obligatory book length presidential campaign application that he has prepared entitled Blue Collar Conservatives [or: Coalition-building Among the Remaining Angry, White, Homophobic, Religious Freakazoid Voters in America].

I’ll bet MSNBC is still saying “Wouldn’t it be great if Santorum were the nominee?”

Our next punchline is courtesy of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who, in an uncharacteristic display of bravery-that-doesn’t-include-bombing-foreign-countries, has apparently decided that being a Republican does not necessarily mean one has to be a blithering idiot.

To wit, Sen. Graham will be the honored guest and deserving recipient of donations at a fundraiser co-hosted by Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund

How’s that for an in-your-face-science-denying-pinheads move?

And as long as we’re talking environment? howboutdatSCOTUS!!?  upholding the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the smog from coal plants that drifts across state lines from 28 Midwestern and Appalachian states to the East Coast.

OK, I know—not that funny.  But wait, the funny parts came after . . .

Utilities complained that:

The decision will force coal plant owners to install costly “scrubber” technology to curb smokestack pollution of smog-forming chemicals. Many owners have said the regulation would be so expensive to carry out that they expected to shut down their oldest and dirtiest coal plants.

Aw jeez, not the oldest, dirtiest coal plants . . . isn’t that a slippery slope that could end up destroying every last bit of our precious Americana?

Of course, our stand-up representatives, with their laserlike focus on jobs, weighed in immediately, too:

“This is just the latest blow to jobs and affordable energy,” Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan and the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Edward Whitfield, Republican of Kentucky, said in a statement. Both are from states that rely heavily on cheap coal-fired electricity.

They added: “The administration’s overreaching regulation will drive up energy costs and threaten jobs and electric reliability. We cannot allow E.P.A.’s aggressive regulatory expansion to go unchecked. We will continue our oversight of the agency and our efforts to protect American families and workers from E.P.A.’s onslaught of costly rules.”

Yes.  Thank you for your relentless oversight, gentlemen.

But, best for last, is that giant of juridical wit, Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion:

“I am confident . . . that E.P.A.’s skilled number-crunchers can adhere to the statute’s quantitative (rather than efficiency) mandate by crafting quantitative solutions. Indeed, those calculations can be performed at the desk, whereas the ‘from each according to its ability’ approach requires the unwieldy field examination of many pollution-producing sources with many sorts of equipment,” he said, paraphrasing Karl Marx.

Ah! the thinking man’s troll.  Take that Obama, you commie miscreant.

Thanks, YumYum, I needed that.

*********** Tasty Little Update ***********

You’d have to be a law professor to have caught it, but among its other chuckles, it turns out that Justice Scalia dropped a double unforced error into his dissenting opinion [mentioned above].  It basically has to do with the poor old dear getting his facts wrong and when I say “his” facts, I mean that literally.

Allow me to let Doug Kendall, the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, explain:

“It is a mind-blowing misstatement of a basic fact of the American Trucking Association ruling which Justice Scalia himself wrote. And it’s not just a stray passage—it’s the basis for an entire section of the dissent,” Kendall said. “It is very unusual to see a passage that so clearly misstates the fundamental facts of a prior ruling, especially one written by the justice himself.”

Adam Serwer, at MSNBC, said that the blunder is particularly galling for the justice in that his dissent was dripping with contempt for the majority’s decision.

As of Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court has corrected Scalia’s opinion. The relevant passage now excludes his erroneous mention of the EPA and replaces the header with a new one that drops an EPA reference.

As of Wednesday afternoon, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg was signing a 5-year re-up on her DC apartment lease.

Posted by Bette Noir on 04/30/14 at 11:15 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '16Nutters

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

That Santorum boy, he ain’t whole.

*Sniff*  You know, with the possibility the Santorum will be running in 2016, and that Rick Perry is paying prayerful intention in that respect as well, and that my man Mitt Romney is maybe thinking of doing it all again (oh…his poor family) if Jeb Bush doesn’t (I ain’t got nothing to say about his family)I really feel misty-eyed about the 2012 GOP band getting back together.  Remember those touring debates? I wanted to collect all the t-shirts but I kept blowing my cash on LSD so I could understand Michele Bachmann. It won’t be the same without Ron Paul on the kazoo, though.

Good times…

Wait a minute - so they demand we use model data instead of empirical point data? Someone call Michael Mann STAT.

Sorry @S. cerevisiae we got this guy, now.  He flipped in 2013.

“This is just the latest blow to jobs and affordable energy,”

Yes, because how could replacing obsolete power plants* create jobs, reduce costs, or enhance energy security?

*Ocotillo is not a coal fired plant so if APS thinks it’s worth replacing what does that say about the coal plants? (Oh, right. Some people are making a lot of money off of them.)

Comment by Weird Dave on 04/30/14 at 05:30 PM

@ Vixen, you sly poet

the Santorum will be running in 2016

‘Tis sad, but we’ll always have Tampa in August and that magical Eastwood moment.

In order to keep himself in the running, as it were, Santorum has to spend some time with Serious Conservative Pundits (SCPs) like Morning Joe Scarborough to recap moments from Rick’s last shamble down the campaign trail and dream up reasons why he might be a more attractive Santorum in 2016.

Now with more froth!

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main