Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Sentient smirk Dana Milbank wishes you shrill broads would tone it down a little, please. Your baseless ranting’s distracting him from the important work of being an above-it-all dipshit.

read the whole post »

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/18/12 at 08:21 PM
Permalink

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Selected excerpts from David Brooks’s most recent New York Times column, with commentary by David Brooks’s penis

It’s best to get to the events an hour early and treat the waiting crowd like a cocktail party.

And they call me a weenie.

read the whole post »

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/17/12 at 08:58 PM
Permalink

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Looks like Lee “The Real Cyberbullying Victim” Siegel, beloved by sockpuppets of Lee Siegel everywhere, has decided to be our son of a bitch this cycle. NOBODY DISAGREE WITH HIM IN COMMENTS, dude turns on a dime.

I’m not sure how I feel about the Kool Kidz Kharacter Assassin Klub training their Bic blowguns on the Republican for once. I guess it’s a nice change of pace, but I’d like to think we can beat the Romplicant without the beltway hierarchy enforcers softening him up with their usual multi-pronged assault of note-passing and furtive whispers. Plus I worry about sustainability—this bunch tends toward knee-jerk contrarianism, and after a few more months of tittering behind See-Creepio’s back about how totes uncool he is, I can easily see Maureen Dowd developing a crush on him purely for backlash’s sake, and then we’d be right back in Obambiville.

Thank God Perry flamed out. Alpha-jock fauxthenticity rolls off that guy in waves; 2012 would’ve been a steady stream of editorials that boil down to “Do you like me? Check Y/N”

sent from my iHatethesepeople

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/15/12 at 10:39 AM
Permalink

Saturday, January 14, 2012

The Washington Post Opinions section doesn’t insult your intelligence so much as challenge your intelligence to a duel and then shoot your intelligence in the back three paces shy of the number agreed upon in advance. Dana “I’ll Stop Simpering when You Pry the Smug Look from My Cold Dead Face” Milbank:

To see Romney, in his Gap jeans, laughing awkwardly at his own jokes and making patently disingenuous claims, brings back all those bad memories of 2000: “Love Story.” Inventing the Internet. Earth tones. Three-button suits. The alpha male in cowboy boots. The iced-tea defense. The Buddhist temple. The sighing during the debate.

OH MY GOD HE’S STILL BITCHING ABOUT WHAT A LOSER GORE IS. I knew Milbank was an asshole, but I didn’t realize this level of petty spite was even possible. And I’m drawing a blank on half those memes, should I know what the hell the “iced-tea defense” is? Or is that the sort of detail you’d forget if you had better things to do than sit around stewing for 11+ years about how totally lame it was that your boss made you ride the same bus with that gaywad? This guy’s “reporter’s notebook” must be a Trapper Keeper.

read the whole post »

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/14/12 at 08:48 PM
Permalink

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Gosh, whoever thought pissing on bodies would piss everybody off?

I’ve got plenty to say about this but can’t at the moment, so while I’m waiting for everyone else to leave the room, I’ll pass to Jon Soltz:

There are no words to express my disgust at the video making the rounds today, of U.S. Marines apparently urinating on the dead bodies of the Taliban. As an Iraq War veteran who works with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans every day, I can truthfully say that the Marines in the video have undermined everything that I and those who served with me tried to do.

Steady stream of invective after the jump.

read the whole post »

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/12/12 at 08:48 PM
Permalink

Hey everybody, Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Margaret Thatcher has a column at the Washington Post now.

The left blogosphere, straining to gain the grateful acknowledgment of the White House, remind one of school boys who have just learned a naughty word. They chatter among themselves, whispering it back and forth, each time convinced they are more clever than the previous utterance. In this case the naughty word is “profit.” Ooh, the Bain prospectus uses “profit.”Did you hear Mitt Romney laugh when he said the business was all about “profit”! But like many an errant school boy, they neither understand what they are saying nor are the first to discover the word.

It’s all for you, libtard!

Oh, it’s actually Jennifer Rubin, my mistake. Didn’t see the little banner up top there. I wonder why the caricaturist drew her with an orange rind in her mouth.

I guess conservative pundits’re still going the “preposterously stilted” stylistic route, huh? Using “one” as a pronoun sans irony and so forth? Uh, okay. I mean, I imagine there are more coveted demographics than “foppish dandy 25-54,” but hey, don’t let me tell you who to pander to. To whom one must pander?

Anyway, Jen, since you’ve got your finger on the pulse of the electorate—truly, if there’s one issue that unites us as a nation it’s our lack of patience for errant schoolboys—what would you say is the current state of Americans’ gettingitness?

They get it, even if the media elite doesn’t.

Lefty bloggers are the media elite, see, I know because a paid Washington Post op-ed contributor told me. So hey, fortysomething civics nerd with a fifth-floor walk-up and some nervous energy left over once you’ve cleared your docket of freelance copyediting assignments, next time you’re in the Hamptons hobnobbing with the glitterati, knock it off with the chattering and straining to gain grateful acknowledgment and shit. Such displays remind one of AC/DC’s lead guitarist.

giggity giggity goo

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/12/12 at 12:04 PM
Permalink

Saturday, January 07, 2012

Start your day off with a brisk bout of GAH, courtesy of My First Newspaper:

Faith also reminded Patriots such as Henry that the American people needed virtue to channel their freedom into moral purposes.

Fun fact: USA Today doesn’t have an editorial board, their op-eds are written with the use of Super Cloying Mad Libs Volume 2. “Freedom also reminded virtuosos such as Henry that the American people needed patriotism to channel their morals into faithful purposes,” “Patriotism also reminded moralists such as Henry that the American people needed faith to channel their freedom into virtual purposes,” etc.

Anyway, get the hell up and enjoy the Indian summer before God takes it back like some kind of giving-a-gift-and-then-taking-it-back type person.

George Michael and to a lesser degree Fred Durst speak for me

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/07/12 at 10:47 AM
Permalink

Monday, December 19, 2011

Menachem Begins!

I’m not sure what annoys me most about this piece. Is it the musta-pulled-something stretch it took to straightfacedly compare the positions of, on one side, Paul Krugman, Sherrod Brown, and Pete Stark, and on the other, some Tea Party jagoff?

Or maybe it’s this:

In contrast, Mitt Romney, who knows something about health care legislation, welcomed the Ryan-Wyden proposal, which is not too far removed from a Medicare reform plan the former Massachusetts Governor had put forward earlier, as “an enormous achievement.”

Why yes, of course the voice of bipartisan reason, the healing center, the maypole we can dance around nonidealogically just happens to be the once and probably future leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination. Christ, I haven’t seen false equivalence pay off like that since the mirror scene in Evil Dead II.

read the whole post »

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/19/11 at 08:01 PM
Permalink

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

above: anti-elitist champion of common man prepares to smash system

Hey, you guys ever hear of Lynn Forester de Rothschild? No? Yeah, didn’t think so. Anyway, she’s got a piece up on the Huffington Post. It’s well worth your time, assuming you don’t have a finite amount of it on earth.

The words of Irish poet William Butler Yeats in his poem, The Second Coming, have an eerie resonance for American politics today. “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold… The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand.”

Oh yeah, The Second Coming, love that one. It’s funny, I remember when I was in high school, that was the poem that proved poetry could be cool; problem is, it’s also the poem that every jackass thinks has an “eerie resonance” for whatever’s on their mind, young me especially. It wasn’t until I saw Ed Harris’s character quoting it in that “Stephen King’s The Stand” miniseries that I realized it’s the go-to poem for dumb people who wanna play at being dark and edgy (again, young me especially), kinda like how everyone reads that Robert Frost poem and identifies with the iconoclastic protagonist. I mean seriously, guys, does it seem likely that all of you took the path less taken? Because if we’re giving weight to self-reportage that’s the well-trod one at this point. I shudder to think how many people put that down as their yearbook quote just a few months before going off to pursue a business degree.

Anyway.

In an environment of unprecedented political gridlock in Washington and broad-based dissatisfaction with the leading candidates of both parties, 2012 may finally be the year when an independent candidate becomes president of the United States. For the first time in our nation’s history, popular dissatisfaction with both parties is reinforced by the existence of serious bipartisan organizations that will facilitate the effort of a non-aligned national figure to become president. Because of these two factors, the opportunity to mobilize what Tom Friedman calls “the radical center” has never been greater. Indeed, “some revelation is at hand”.

I’m all for nontraditional interpretation, but I gotta say, Lynn, you might be the first person in history to read that line as “good news, everyone!”

read the whole post »

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/06/11 at 09:32 PM
Permalink

Wednesday, August 03, 2011

According to Jonathan Chait.

The biggest single difference is that the Clinton administration simply refused on principle to get jacked up on the debt ceiling:
 

Still, even though Clinton enjoyed political and economic advantages that Obama does not, his no-compromises strategy had some clear advantages. Unlike Obama, he refused to let the threat of default set the national agenda. Because he would not enter into negotiations over the debt ceiling, the issue barely roused the public consciousness. On November 9, 1995, a senior administration official told the Washington Post, “Our position is it does not matter what they put on this legislation, we are not going to accept anything but clean bills because we will not be blackmailed over default. Get it? No extortion. No blackmail. What you hear are their screams of complaint as they realize we are not, not, not budging on this.”

Kind of hard to imagine somebody from this administration talking like that.

At least he concedes that the Republicans of 1994 were not the Teathuglicans of 2011.  Although I think he’s underestimating the situation a great deal when he says “they weren’t that much less destructive and crazy.”  You think?  Even Republican presidential candidates (every one except Huntsman) this time were saying that the debt ceiling absolutely should not be raised. 

Anyway, everyone’s entitled to their opinion.  Now I’m just waiting to hear how Clinton was so much more effective at getting health care reform passed, kept children from being thrown off of Medicaid rolls and SCHIP and never agreed to pass DADT or DOMA.  Oh.  Wait.

Posted by marindenver on 08/03/11 at 01:31 PM
Permalink

Thursday, May 12, 2011

They really do have no shame.  Well, at least ConocoPhillips doesn’t.  From the company’s May 11 news release:

05-11-2011
ConocoPhillips Highlights Solid Results and Raises Concerns Over Un-American Tax Proposals at Annual Meeting of Shareholders

This hyperbolic bloviating is in response to proposals in both houses of Congress to eliminate some tax breaks (some could call them “loopholes”) for large integrated oil companies.  The estimated $21 to $31 billion in increased revenues would be used for deficit reduction. 

However our Congress-peeps obviously forgot that tax breaks for big oil are not a privilege, they are a RIGHT!  And one that it would be un-American to consider repealing because George and the rest of the exalted founders intended it to be that way!  Well, at least that’s the impression you get from this absurd reaction.  The fact is the tax code is a fluctuating document, deductions are bestowed on us and what Congress giveth, Congress hath the right to taketh away.

Sen. Chuck Schumer tried to make this point on ConcoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva (snicker - he said “Mulva” /Seinfeld  ;-) ) but Mulva dug his heels in and refused to take back the “u” word.  Well, there’s lots of other brands of gas out there to buy, folks.  Maybe some boycott action would impress the Mulva with the responsibility of massively profitable corporations (just read the rest of that May 11 presser) to pay their fair share of taxes.  If you’re tax wonky I’ve summarized the proposed changes below the fold.

read the whole post »

Posted by marindenver on 05/12/11 at 08:00 PM
Permalink

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

Or as Paul Krugman puts it, with Paul Ryan’s multiple unicorns.

“This is not a budget, this is a cause” declared Ryan when rollling out his plan.  Ah, and what a cause, indeed.  Destroy Medicare and Medicaid.  Bring tax cuts to the rich and tax increases to the middle class!  Roll back Wall Street reform.  Enact a VAT!  Arguably the cause celebre of the entire Republican party.  And, according to Ryan, we can do all that and majikally reduce the deficit.  And the pundits are agog calling it bold, daring and brilliant.  Finally someone with the guts to tackle our deficit problems head on and propose a workable solution.

So certainly the CBO agrees with the analysis and conclusions?  Ummmm, not so much as it turns out.  In fact the budget was based on projections provided by the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation.  And whose estimates cannot even be duplicated by the developer of the model they used.

Things like, oh, projecting that unemployment will be at 2.8% in about 10 years and that the large tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses would generate billions more in tax revenues (just like the revenues and jobs created by the Bush tax cuts!  YAY!).  $150 billion a year in new economic growth from all those tax cuts too!  Or, in other words, a joke.  The downer of a CBO thinks his plan will actually increase the deficit (imagine!) and impose significant hardships on seniors (my, my!).

So rolling back to Ryan’s quote above, yes, he’s exactly right.  This is a cause, not a credible plan.  He believes in the majikal tax cutting, Medicare killing budget ponies and therefore they must be there.  Mustn’t they?

Posted by marindenver on 04/06/11 at 06:01 PM
Permalink

Friday, January 28, 2011

Jobs, schmobs, American public.  The Republicans have a much more important agenda and now that they’ve (in their minds) repealed health care reform it’s time to move to the next highest priority on their list.  Redefining rape for purposes of federal abortion funding !

And, no, they’re not making it more liberal.  No, INDEEDY!  Citing the high priority of this issue, the Rethugs have introduced the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” with 173 sponsors.  Mainly, duh, Republicans. 

But we already have laws preventing federal funds from being used for abortions, you say.  With exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother, of course.  Silly reader!  We have laws preventing federal funds from being used for abortions with exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother but U R DEFINING RAPE AND INCEST RONG!!!

Contrary to what you thought you believed dear readers, rape is not rape unless it’s forcible rape!  And incest is not incest unless u r under 18!  All others need not apply.  Note especially that statutory rape is not really, truly rape (unless, of course, it’s your uncle doing you).  Neither, for that matter is date rape, rape of a drunk or drugged person or, best of all, rape of women with “limited mental capacity”.  He didn’t rough you up and break your nose?  Sorry, sister slut!  Carry that baby to term.

The proposed law has other odious provisions such as not allowing for non-sanctioned abortions-due-to-rape to be paid for from HSA’s!  Or deducted on your tax return!  Yay!  We’re well on our way back to the days of keepin’ em barefoot and pregnant with this here Republican Congress, thanks to, well, you know who y’are.

Posted by marindenver on 01/28/11 at 08:55 PM
Permalink

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

One of the biggest questions I had in the aftermath of the tragic shootings in Arizona was how a mentally ill person whose demeanor was so alarming that he freaked out his classmates at Pima Community College before being expelled and was rejected for enlistment in the army managed to purchase an assault weapon with an extended magazine with apparent ease (there is a report that he actually had to try a second WalMart to get the ammunition).

Yesterday I raised the question of why the conversation was so focused on the state of the political discourse (an important topic to be sure) while the issue of “how the hell did this guy get a gun!!” seemed to be overlooked.  The response seemed to be that the gun control argument has been lost in this country so what’s the point of talking about it.  Considering the lock the NRA seems to have on the souls of Congresspeeps I began to wonder if that was true.

Now there are a couple of reasons to think maybe there is a ray or two of hope out there!  Politico reports that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY, plans to bring up a bill to ban the manufacture and sale of the high capacity ammunition magazines that allowed Loughner to fire so many bullets in such a short period of time.  Good enough.  However the success of this bill brought by a Democrat in the now Republican controlled House is questionable.

But more promising is the report that Rep. Peter King, not only a Republican, but a leading Republican, plans to introduce a bill to make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official.  This guy is chair of the Homeland Security Committee and should have some clout in this kind of situation.

It could be better - it’s not introducing a bill to completely ban the sale of automatic weapons (although I hear that may be in the works too) - but it’s a start and to have a powerful Republican jamming his foot in the door that the NRA has tried to slam shut is reason for some optimism.

I definitely think it’s worth a call to your CongressCritters to urge them to support both bills and any others like it that come up.  The NRA should not be dictating the conversation about gun control in this country when little girls become collateral damage to their agenda.

Posted by marindenver on 01/11/11 at 08:32 PM
Permalink

Monday, January 10, 2011

We can argue until we’re all blue in the face about whether this weekend’s shooting tragedy in Arizona was at least partly caused by inappropriately violent political rhetoric or was simply the demented act of a dangerously mentally ill person.  And we may never know the answer.

But one thing is undeniable - the ability of Jared Loughner to legally obtain a semi-automatic gun had a lot to do with it.  As Gail Collins points out in the NYT, if Loughner had gone to that Safeway with a regular pistol he likely would still have shot Gabrielle Giffords but most likely would not have claimed so many other victims. 

Is this what the Famous Founders had in mind when drafting the Second Amendment?  Something tells me not so much.  But try and argue that with a Second Amendment purist.  When the question of whether we need tighter gun control laws was put to Rep. Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, on Meet the Press Sunday, he came back with the lame “guns don’t kill people, bad people kill people” excuse.

In the same conversation, Representative Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, found himself deflecting the suggestion that perhaps the shooting indicated a need for tighter gun control laws. “That’s the same basic Glock 9 millimeter that most, that many police agencies use,” Mr. Franks said. “So it’s not that the gun was evil but in the hands of an evil person. Maybe a police officer with the same gun could have prevented a lot of people from dying.”

So, uh, Rep. Franks, how did this “evil person” obtain this “non-evil” gun?  Well, considering he lives in a state with some of the most lax gun control laws in the country* I think it’s a fair assumption that he just went out and bought it! And stuck it in his jeans or something and then pulled it out and killed and maimed a whole lot of innocent people with it.

And why is it legal for people, evil or non-evil, to buy these certified mass killing machines?  Because when the federal law forbidding their sale expired in 2004 Congress completely caved to the NRA lobby and didn’t re-authorize it.

Isn’t it time for our legally elected members of Congress to man up (as we say these days), stare the NRA lobby straight in the eyes and say “enough is enough”?  Because if they don’t I truly despair at the thought of the tragedies yet to come.

read the whole post »

Posted by marindenver on 01/10/11 at 05:23 PM
Permalink