web statisticsRealtime Web Statistics

Nine Most Terrifying Words

I’ve always been perplexed with politically active people that don’t believe that good government is possible. If you don’t believe that government is good, why bother to get involved?

I completely get the motivations of politicians that hate government. They want the power that comes with being in the government. It’s a great way to get really fucking rich without creating anything, or employing anyone. But the people that believe them? I find them inexplicable.

Who the fuck hears a candidate say, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help'”, and thinks “that’s who I’m voting for!“? How does that make any fucking sense? He just told you that he’s not going to help you if you elect him!

What kind of person perpetually votes for a party whose mantra is the promise of shrinking the government, despite the fact that no president in the history of that party, has ever made the government even a little bit smaller? Are these people fucking idiots?

The short answer is, yes. The longer answer lies in the inherent pessimism that fuels the belief that government’s only purpose is to fuck you.

See, republicans generally come into power and make things worse than they were before they got in. And once they’ve made things worse, they take the opportunity to leverage that crisis to make themselves (i.e the government) bigger and more powerful.

Bush ignored mounds of evidence (not to mention the emphatic warnings from his predecessor) , outlining the threat that Bin Laden poses to America. The US gets attacked, and the administration used that crisis to pursue the neocon agenda of world domination through invasion and occupation.

Ronald Reagan revived fears of a Soviet takeover of the world, at a time when no one was thinking about the Soviet Union. Iran was holding fifty-two Americans hostage, and we had an oil shortage that created long gas lines. The last thing on any American’s mind was the cold war. But Reagan gave those old fears some CPR and brought them back to life. He then leveraged the fear he resurrected, to get the American people to go along with his wild defense spending that blew up our deficit. He massively cut taxes for top income earners when he first came into office, and then had to raise taxes eleven times to offset the the shortfall that he created. In classic republican tradition, those tax hikes shifted the tax burden on the middle class.

Scott Walker turned a surplus into a deficit ten minutes after being sworn in, by cutting taxes at the top and doling out government contracts to his cronies. A minute after that, he leveraged the budget “crisis” he created to decimate collective bargaining rights for public employees.

I can give dozens of examples, but you get the idea. This is an age old tactic of the republican party. Why does it work on some people? Because if you are pessimistic enough to believe that government can never work for you, fucked up government validates your world view. It makes you right! Never mind the fact that you voted for the government. You were right, and that’s all that matters. Buying into the “nine most terrifying words” theory is purely emotional.

No rational, thinking, logical person would ever accept the idea that a human (any human) will ever relinquish power that they’ve obtained. That’s never happened in recorded history. So buying into the bullshit narrative that someone is trying to get into government so that they can turn around and give up the power that comes with the office. That’s just batshit crazy. So if you’re buying into this bullshit, you’re not doing it with your mind. You’re doing it emotionally.

That goes for you too, democrats. If you believe that a democrat will give up power that his/her predecessor secured for that office, you’re not being rational. I never, not for one second, thought that Obama was going to give up any of the expanded powers that Bush snatched up. To do so would be crazy and stupid, and I was definitely not voting for someone I thought was crazy and stupid. That’s just not how I roll. I will admit that I never saw the Bradley ¬†Manning abuse coming under this president’s watch. I knew that Obama wasn’t going to give up the power to do anything, I just didn’t think that he would use this particular power. Don’t kid yourselves, Obama is completely aware of what’s happening with Manning. In my defense, I’m no less disgusted with Obama when he does it, than I was with Bush when he did it.

Die hards on both sides vote irrationally, but the whole foundation of republicanism is based on irrational voting and perpetuating a pessimistic world view.

We have a republican congress now, whose sole mission is to make things shittier so that they can point to Obama and tell you that government sucks. And Obama is playing into their hands by not standing up to make sure that shitty things don’t get passed.

It’s a vicious cycle, and to some degree, we’re all playing our part.


Irrational Greed

There’s no such thing. I know that you think there is, but there isn’t.

John Kerry docking his boat in another state in order to save $70,000 in taxes. Taxes that incidentally, would ¬†go to pay for initiatives he supports in his own state. I feel fairly comfortable in assuming that he and his wife’s annual capital gains dwarf that $70,000.

Martha Stewart committing the crime of insider trading so that she can make $250,000. Again, I feel very comfortable in assuming that she “earns” more that $250,000 a year in capital gains.

Every single bank executive in America paying themselves record bonuses, while collecting tax payer dollars to save the very institutions that they’re taking those bonuses from. And they did this, all the while knowing how loathsome the world would find them to be.

Charlie Rangel, committing ethics violations that put his re-election at risk (he will get re-elected, by the way), by not reporting rental income from several properties on his income taxes. Charlie, if you can afford to buy multiple properties in two countries, you can afford to pay taxes on the money that those properties generate!

BP not investing $500,000 to make sure they drill in a “safe” way, so that they don’t have to pay out billions of dollars in damages and costs to clean up a huge spill.

Massey energy not investing a few hundred thousand dollars in keeping their mines safe so that their workers don’t die, and they don’t have to pay out millions of dollars in damages.

I can go on and on in listing people taking unnecessary risks to save or obtain money that they don’t need, but you get the point.

Think I’m disproving my own point? Bear with me, I’m about to get there.

The sheer volume of these occurrences committed by people across such a diverse political and social spectrum is proof that greed isn’t irrational. It’s an inherent part of the human condition.

Time and time again, we see people and corporations take unwise and illegal risks to save or earn money that they don’t need. The only conclusion that can be made is that greed isn’t irrational. It’s normal. And the only thing preventing most of us from being excessively greedy, is the lack of opportunity.

Why the hell is Bitchy pontificating human nature on her political blog? Because I’m making the point that libertarians, republicans, conservatives, teabaggers, and Milton Friedmanites are complete idiots.

Trickle down economics is a childish philosophy that completely discounts human nature.

When rich people get tax breaks, they take that money and turn it into more money whether they need it or not. They save it, and they stockpile it. When the poor or middle class get a tax break, they spend that money thereby creating more jobs.

I’m sick and tired of hearing the Friedman philosophy. It’s stupid on its face, and it makes me Bitchy. And when I get bitchy, the only relief I can find lies in calling you for the idiot that you are for perpetuating such an obviously disprovably myth.

Stop advocating for the people that have the means and opportunity to be greedy, and adopt some greed for yourselves. They (like me) think you’re dumbfucks for supporting them anyway.


Pro Lemming?

I have been seeing a lot of talk in left wing media suggesting that we should band together to go after every democrat that ever votes with republicans on anything. Really?

Isn’t the problem with the republican party that they vote in lockstep? Can you be angry at them for doing so while demanding that democrats do the same? Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

I have several issues with this stance beyond the obvious hypocrisy.

Let’s start with the inexplicable blind faith that you would have to have in the democratic party for this ideology to work for you. You would have to believe that democrats are a sage and wise group that never make mistakes in judgment. You would also have to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that democratic representatives are always working to represent your best interest. If you really believe those things, I suggest that you take a hard look at how NAFTA has affected America’s financial interests in the world. Nobody is right all the time, and anyone that believes otherwise is a lemming.

Our founding fathers were quite brilliant when they wrote the constitution. Article one enumerates the powers of congress, which means that they intended for a body of representatives to have more of the power. Article two enumerates the powers of the president. They clearly intended to create a government in which a chorus of opinions come together so that they are forced to form a consensus. When was the last time you wrote out a to-do list and put the most important thing second on that list? They weren’t interested in having one voice rule. They fled from a king, and were obviously determined to prevent that from happening here.

I like the idea of having 535 people with different points of view debating issues and fighting for their position. I inherently believe that the best chance we have of getting a good result is to have a system where the best argument rises to the top. It would be fantastic if these opinions weren’t corporate owned, but that’s a topic for a whole other post. If I had it my way, John Cornyn and Russ Feingold would be in a boxing ring shouting at each other until they reach a compromise on every issue. I believe that the right answer is usually in the middle.

Please liberals, don’t fall into the pro lemming position that you despise. Promoting a sophomoric group think mentality is not the answer here, it’s the problem.


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!