web statisticsRealtime Web Statistics

I Hope The NYPD Temper Tantrum Lasts

So I came across a story in the (I know, I know) NY Post  a few days ago. They took a look at police activity during the course of the week that Pat Lynch’s promised a "slow down" of cops doing their damned jobs. They looked at the week of December 22 through December 29th and compared a few statistics to the same week last year. Here are the things they looked at:

  • Overall arrests – down by 66%
  • Traffic citations down by 94%
  • Summonses for low-level offenses (public drinking, urination, etc) down by 94%
  • Parking violations down by 92%
  • Drug arrests down by 84%

When asked what the fuck they thought they were doing, police officials cited "safety concerns" as the reason for the pseudo strike. Safety concerns? While writing parking tickets? Are you worried about accidentally slipping on a discarded bagel, falling on your pen and slicing open your jugular vein?

Well I say BRAVO! I hope they can keep this up for another 3 months or so. Why? I have a few reasons.

For one thing, I’m not interested in wasting resources on drug arrests. I’d prefer that our cops fight actual crime, rather than clogging up the court system with this nonsense. Each time they arrest someone for something like drugs or selling loosie cigarettes, they get to spend half of a shift booking that wanton criminal. So basically, we end up with a cop on the clock, basically standing there with his dick in his hand for 4 hours. That doesn’t really seem to me like it serves the greater good.

Another good thing to come out of all of this is that these bullshit offenses that are in place to generate revenue, rather than keep our city orderly are largely hurting low income people who end up sitting in jail because they can’t afford to bail out. I say great! I don’t need 3/4 of our jail population being comprised of people who couldn’t raise $100 bail for a public drinking offense.

But my biggest reason for wanting this to continue is that it will debunk the unicorn known as "broken windows policing" that some obnoxious mayors had embraced in the past. The purely unproven theory is that if you crack down on low level criminals, you will deter them from becoming more serious, career criminals. Bullshit. From 2001 – 2010, when New York City was broken-stop-and-frisk-windowing, violent crime dropped by 29%. That sounds awesome, only if you don’t think critically and ask for context. If you do a little research, you’ll find out that during that same period of time, big cities that weren’t harassing people suspected of being low level offenders were experiencing much larger declines in violent crime.

  • Los Angeles  – 59% drop
  • New Orleans – 56% drop
  • Dallas 49% drop
  • Baltimore (yeah, the one from The Wire) 37% drop

One piece of data without context is meaningless but the people that want to manipulate you know that most people will take one data point and run with that in order to create a whole ideology behind it. Three months of this pseudo strike should be enough to debunk the theory of broken windows policing, or at least make it seriously questionable. Violent crime will continue to drop. Why am I so sure? Because it’s been dropping steadily all across the country for 20 years now. Regardless of the policing practices, and independent of reductions or increases in police force size, crime is going down. I have no reason to believe that’s going to change. If I’m right, we will not only debunk this vehicle for acceptable racist practices, but we can start looking at how many cops are too many cops in New York City.

I have to wonder if the revenue they’re generating by writing these pointless tickets and making these petty arrests can’t be offset by shedding some salaries, pensions, and civil suit settlements through a reduction in force. So you keep up the temper tantrum, NYPD. Keep disrespecting the mayor and stay on strike while still cashing your paychecks while you can because this childishness may come back to bite you in the ass. And then perhaps you’ll see your fearless leader, Pat Lynch for the small minded idiot that he really is.     

Share

Obama MUST Get A Blow Job

In order to save America. It’s his patriotic duty. We wouldn’t be suffering through any of this race baiting if our president would just get an extracurricular sex life.

Most liberals believe that Obama is reviled by the right because he’s black. I completely disagree. He’s reviled by the right because he’s a democrat. It seems like we’ve all collectively forgotten the Clinton years. They were a series of one batshit crazy accusation after another being hurled at both Clintons.

Let me refresh your memories:

Whitewater – Where Ken Starr spent 74 million tax payer dollars to find nothing (except Monica)

Vince Foster – Who, despite his suicide note was obviously murdered by the Clintons or their operatives ( I was never clear on which)

Postagegate – When republicans investigated whether Bill Clinton used tax payer funded stamps to respond to children that wrote the white house about Sox, the cat

Chinagate – Bill Clinton was accused of selling military secrets to China (yes, really)

Wag the doggate – Remember “NO WAR FOR MONICA!”? This was when Clinton bombed Afghanistan in an effort to get Bin Laden order to divert our attention from Monica

Buddhist Templegate (I’m not kidding) – When the Clintons and Al Gore used Buddhist monks to launder money to the DNC

I can go on and on until you go blind from staring at your computer monitor, but you get the point. The attacks against the Clinton were absurd and unrelenting.

Is Obama being attacked more than Clinton was? I honestly don’t think so.

More importantly, I don’t believe that the “masterminds” behind the attacks on Obama are necessarily racist. I think they’re profoundly lazy, or wiped out by the creativity they had to display during the Clinton years (seriously, Buddhist monkgate??). Stirring up racial tension is just the easiest and most obvious way for them to get people to hate Obama.

We learned in the Clinton years, that these guys don’t care what they have to say, who they hurt along the way, or how hypocritical they have to be in order to meet their objective of taking power.  Remember how sanctimonious Newt was about his disgust with Clinton over the Lewinsky affair? He was both outraged and pious in 1998, while he was banging his own staffer, while his wife was undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. He actually served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital! But don’t feel too sorry for her, she was his mistress before she became his wife. I encourage you to google Marion Gingrich. What she has to say about Newt is nothing but fun!

No, the treatment Obama is getting isn’t a black thing. It may be a little bit a black thing, but it’s mostly a “getting power back” thing. And they don’t give a shit about what kind of collateral damage they create along the way. All of this anti-Muslim crap that the right wing is creating is purely about getting Obama.

A few Muslims getting killed or hurt along the way is meaningless as long as they can convince Americans that Muslins are bad, and that Obama is a Muslim. They have to make shit up because he hasn’t given them any ammo.

Which brings me to his duty to get a blow job. The insane accusations against Bill Clinton stopped when the right wing finally found Monica. There was no reason to make shit up after our president (hide your children!!!) GOT BLOWN!

If past is prologue, then the right wing will stop their nonsensical attacks when Obama finally gives them something to work with. Which is why I have concluded that Obama must have extramarital sex in order to restore race relations in America.

I don’t think I’m asking too much here. I didn’t get a decent health reform bill, I got DICK for financial reform, all indications show that Obama is about to piss all over social security. I think that a blow job in the name of peace is a perfectly reasonable request.

If you really think about it, a sex scandal would solve two problems simultaneously. He could get caught, and then seek marital counseling from his christian pastor. America could watch Obama walking into a christian church five or six times a week! The Muslim allegations would be laid (so to speak) to rest once and for all and we could all go back to coexisting peacefully.

And look, we don’t even really need for Obama to play along. I say to patriotic women in America, join together in accusing our president of having an affair with you! Seriously, if enough of us come out with these accusations, we’re bound to keep Fox news mired in Obama sex stories for months. This will take the heat off the Muslims.

Sorry Michelle, but you’re going to have to suck it up. America needs another presidential blow job!

Share

Bitchy Dictionary

Every time I have a conversation with a republican, I’m struck by the fact that we don’t appear to be speaking the same language. This makes the conversation much more cumbersome than it needs to be because I find myself in the position of having to combine a history lesson with a lesson on what English words mean. So I’ve concluded that it’s about time to publish a dictionary that may be useful in any political debate, since I can’t be the only person running into this language barrier. I would first like to start with defining what I like to call "Bitchy’s Words". REPUBLICAN – A person that still approves of George W Bush, happily voted for McCain, fell in love with Sarah Palin, and believes everything that John Boehner tells them. These people are batshit crazy. They have no use for facts and they exist in some bizarre alternate reality. They cannot and should not be spoken to under any circumstances. Do NOT bother using this dictionary on them, as they won’t understand the big words. CONSERVATIVE – A person that believes in small government and fiscal responsibility, REALLY believes it. They believe in fiscal responsibility when it comes to matters of spending on social programs OR defense programs. They believe in small government when it applies ALL matters including; reproductive rights, federal taxes, states’ rights, gun rights, and a myriad of other issues. This is a person that hasn’t had a party that they can believe in for nearly 40 years. They used to identify themselves as republicans, but were forced out of the republican party due to ideological differences. Conservatives generally refer to themselves as independents, members of the Ron Paul revolution, and in some instances, tea partiers. These are people that can be reasoned with! You may engage them in productive conversation. Minds may not be changed, but meaningful ideas will be shared. DEMOCRAT – These are people that inexplicably believe that the democratic party is the party that stands up for the people. They are happy with all of their democratic leaders, and are happy to accept incompetence as an excuse for why their democratic representatives haven’t delivered any legislation that actually improves their lives. Unlike republicans, democrats don’t necessarily buy the entire democratic party package, but are easily placated with implausible excuses for why their legislators can’t deliver on promises that are made. PROGRESSIVE – (Sometimes also referred to as socialist or liberal). This is a person is a sunny optimist that believes in 2 basic concepts; good government can be achieved, and we are only as strong as the weakest among us. Progressives generally like to take wholistic approaches to problem solving and aren’t afraid of sweeping change. Progressives believe in creating a society where each citizen has the same opportunities for success. Progressives identify themselves with democrats but are so unsatisfied with the party that they are actively working on changing it, which is why the current Chief of Staff to the President refers to them as "retards". TEA PARTIERS – The original modern day tea partiers were known as libertarians. They were disciples of Ron Paul that would if given a choice, dismantle the government entirely. They are proponents of privatizing everything from the postal service, to the FDA, to fire departments and police forces. Tea partiers have morphed into ignorant racists, easily duped into protesting against their own best interests by Dick Army. You cannot communicate with these people since they don’t even have a clue as to why they’re protesting, or who paid for the bus to get them to the protest. LIBERTARIANS – These are people that have no use for government. They believe in "shrinking government down so that it fits in a bathtub". A true libertarian would allow government to exist only for the purposes of defense. Libertarianism sounds cute in theory but it’s a unicorn, in that there has never been a country governed by this particular tenet. Libertarians generally cling onto their beliefs, despite being unable to come up with an example of a successful libertarian government. I can think of an example; Somalia. Okay, now on to the English dictionary. SOCIALISM – A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. This is closely related to (but not the same as) communism. An example of a socialist program in the US would be the veteran’s administration. This is a government run, government dispensed system of delivering health care to veterans. Everyone involved in dispensing health care through the VA receives a paycheck from the government. This includes doctors, nurses, administrators, etc. FASCISM – A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Fascism is a system of governance in which the lines between government and corporation are nonexistent. Nazi Germany is a great example of fascism because the state, military, and commerce were all under the dictatorial rule of one body. THEOCRASY – A governmental system ruled by religious tenets. The Vatican is an example of a theocrasy. If Al Qaeda had a country, they would be considered a theocrasy. Okay now that we have the words, let’s practice using them properly! Ready? A socialist government takeover of health care could be accomplished by extending the the VA system to all Americans. This would be socialist because physicians, nurses, and administrators would all be receiving paychecks from the government, which would have total control over the dispensation of health care in America. A system in which the government creates a marketplace of private insurance companies that must adhere to specific regulations  in order to participate is NOT socialism because the insurance is not dispensed by the government. Doctors and their practices would not be taken over by the government since they would be paid through a private insurance system. Fascists would NEVER advocate for a socialist program because a socialist program would eliminate corporate entities entirely. Fascists want to CONTROL commerce, not decimate it. An "islamofascist" is a person that can’t exist because an Islamic extremist is driven by theocratic beliefs, thereby making them anathema to fascists, who believe in a corporate takeover of governance. Now that we have a mutually understood vocabulary, I hope that we can all go forth and have more productive political discourse. I hope you all find this helpful!

Share

Bart Stupak Is A Transgender Former Prostitute

I am becoming more and more convinced of this with each passing day.

Before you write me off as someone that is afflicted with Michelle Bachmanesque mental illness, hear me out.

Let me first throw in a caveat; I don’t know for a fact that he’s a transgender former prostitute. But I’m sure that you’ll have your suspicions after you’ve heard the basis for my hypothesis.

First, some background. Bart Stupak is feverishly trying to add legislation to the health reform bill that would effectively ban abortion in America. He claims that he’s just repeating the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. What his amendment actually does is force insurance companies to exclude abortion services from being covered under any plan being offered on the exchange. He wants to force insurance companies to create supplemental abortion coverage that women can buy independent of the insurance plans offered in the exchange.

This is bullshit on so many levels. First off, he’s telling insurance companies to create an exclusion that doesn’t currently exist. I know of no insurance plan currently in existence, that excludes abortion coverage. This is a standard procedure that is essential to reproductive health. So he’s asking the insurance companies to cover even less than they are covering now. Excellent! The solution to our health care crisis is to have insurance companies add more exclusions to their coverage. Let’s think about this for a second. If past is prologue, it’s safe to assume that insurance companies will move to a “supplemental” model for all of their coverage. Anything to save money, right? Why collect only one monthly premium from women (who already pay 48% more for their insurance coverage than men do), when you can collect two? The next issue here is the idea that any woman would purchase this type of supplemental coverage. Does this jackass really believe that women plan abortions well in advance of conception?

Okay, enough background. Let’s move on to my hypothesis. If you’ve been paying any attention to politics, you’ve noticed a pattern with politicians and issues that they’re fervently against. If they’re obsessively anti something, it usually turns out that they’re actively participating in the thing that they’re against. Let me explain by example.

David Vitter (senator – LA) has always claimed to be a christian conservative. He received a 100% score by the  christian coalition.

Being the good christian conservative that he is, David Vitter was caught in a scandal where it was revealed that he had been seeing hookers in at least 2 different states! He was a patron of the DC madam and of the Canal Street madam in Louisiana. Charming, right? Way to hold up those family values!

Then there was Bob Allen. He was in the Florida House of Representatives. Bob Allen had a 92% rating from the Christian Coalition of Florida. In March of 2001 he cosponsored a bill that would have enhanced penalties for “offenses involving unnatural and lascivious acts”. In that same year, he was one of 21 Florida legislators to Governor Bush’s friend-of-the-court brief supporting the state’s ban on gays adopting children.

In July of 2007, Bob Allen was arrested in a public park for solicitation. The person that he solicited was an undercover policeman. Yes, policeMAN. He offered the man $20 for the privilege of giving the man a blow job. I guess you have to give Bob Allen credit for being a giver. I wonder if that helped to increase his rating with the christian coalition? I should move on to my next example, but I just have to finish this story. It’s just too much fun! During his taped interview at the police station, Bob Allen said, “Listen. A public park. I got my name on the damn building. I’m not gonna do that. You know, maybe I said it in the wrong order, but this was a pretty stocky black guy, and there were a lot of other black guys around in the park, and, you know…”

Oh, I see. You’re not gay, you’re just a flaming racist. Well that’s much better. Does the christian coalition frown more heavily upon homosexuals than they do racists?

I can go on and on with many more examples, but I won’t. Are you starting to see where my hypothesis is going?

Bart Stupak’s obsession with abortion leads me to believe that he used to be a woman that had LOTS of abortions. There’s no other possible explanation for this. Seriously if past is prologue, we’re eventually going to find out that I’m right about this.

Still think I’m crazy?

Share