web statisticsRealtime Web Statistics

The Meme That Mean Built

I was watching Clint Eastwood’s train wreck last night, as it was happening and I had the same reaction that everyone else had; What the fuck? He looked like a crazy person. And as the cameras panned the crowd, I could see that some of them were running through the same what-the-fuck cycle I was running through.

And when I woke up this morning, and saw the #eastwooded memes, I laughed (a lot). But I also felt bad because he’s old, and maybe not as sharp as he once was. But the memes kept on coming, and I kept on laughing and feeling a little bad for him.

I’ve watched the speech two more times throughout the day, and a couple of things that didn’t occur to me last night (probably because I was dazed and confused) finally dawned on me. The first thing that I thought of is, why did he even agree to do the speech? He was eviscerated by the right for doing the “It’s half time in America” commercial for Chrysler. His party of patriots went thermonuclear on his ass, for having the gaul to be proud that an American company came back from the brink of disaster. His party is so fucking blinded by their own meanness, that they can’t even take pride in America anymore. Why the fuck would you want to have anything to do with these people anymore? And how do you not assess the situation exactly as I just did? So then I thought that maybe he truly believes that Mitt Romney is the right person to lead this country, despite their disagreement on the Chrysler situation. Remember, Romney wouldn’t have done anything to save them. But if that’s the case, why didn’t Eastwood just say that? Why didn’t he talk about being proud of Chrysler for coming back, while disagreeing (in hindsight, of course) with Mitt Romney about the handling of that one issue. He could have then gone on to talk about the issues in which he agrees with Romney and, I don’t know, maybe talked about why the views they share are better for the country.

That would have been a great speech. It would have been great for Eastwood, in repairing the ill will that republicans had for him, and it would have been great for Romney. But Clint decided to go mean. He decided that saying mean things about (or in his mind, to) Barack Obama. And if you watch the speech, he sounded lucid enough until he got mean. Once he got mean, he sounded like an addled brain old man.

I honestly believe that meanness has a corrosive effect on the soul. And that corrosive effect is what’s wrong with the republican party. That meanness is what makes them incapable of taking pride in goddamned anything about America anymore. They couldn’t take pride in the fact that we, before any European country much older than us, raced through enough racial issues that we elected a black president. I’m not saying that they should have embraced Obama. But they should have taken pride in that American accomplishment. I’ve never heard a republican espouse pride in America for that. They didn’t allow themselves to be proud of America when Osama Bin Laden was finally killed by an American bullet. And they refused to be proud when an American car company came back from nearly total oblivion to thrive.

Meanness is the thing that is corroding the republican party. Their whole convention was centered around being mean to the other guy, rather than praising their guy. Why? Because even they know they have nothing praiseworthy left anymore. Meanness causes blindness. Republicans should have figured out that they needed to completely revamp the party platform after the 2008 ass kicking. But they didn’t, because they’re blinded by meanness. They walked away from that election, thinking they lost because their nominee wasn’t conservative enough. Never mind the fact that there’s nothing conservative left about the republican party. They’ve lost conservatism because of their mean blindness. And I’m sad to say that the ass kicking that Romney is going to get in November, won’t lead them to reassess either. They’re just going to repeat the 2008 mantra of not having a conservative enough candidate.

I don’t feel bad for Clint Eastwood anymore. He’s just fucking mean, and he’s getting what he deserves. Part of me thinks that the GOP was still pissed at him when they booked him to speak. Think about it, the executive producer for the convention got that fucking empty chair for him. They knew what he was going to do. And no sane person could possibly think that was going to go over well. Maybe they wanted him to go out there and look like a jackass, as payback for “half time in America”. Maybe he got outmeaned.

Share

Ann Romney Fail

I think that everybody understands that Ann Romney’s mission last night was to humanize Mitt. After she was done, I asked my Facebook fans if they felt she had accomplished that goal. Most of my admittedly biased fans didn’t think she did. Pundits seem to have mixed opinions, mostly guided by their party affiliation.

I thought she failed. I initially thought she failed based on stylistic mistakes. There was no subtlety in the speech itself. She seemed to me to be the unpopular geek in high school, begging you to like her by doing your homework for you. She used the word “love” fourteen fucking times, which just made the whole thing weird. I was irritated when she proclaimed, “I love you women!”. As opposed to “you people” who have all the tax returns you need from Mitt? The stuff about how she and Mitt met and fell in love was fine. She should have said more along those lines.

But the more I thought about her speech, the more I realized that the issues with it weren’t stylistic. The main issue was the fundamental premise of the speech. Here’s the part where she really fucked up:

I am the granddaughter of a Welsh coal miner who was determined that his kids get out of the mines. My dad got his first job when he was six years old, in a little village in Wales called Nantyffyllon, cleaning bottles at the Colliers Arms.

When he was 15, dad came to America. In our country, he saw hope and an opportunity to escape from poverty. He moved to a small town in the great state of Michigan. There, he started a business — one he built himself, by the way.

He raised a family. And he became mayor of our town.

My dad would often remind my brothers and me how fortunate we were to grow up in a place like America. He wanted us to have every opportunity that came with life in this country — and so he pushed us to be our best and give our all.

Inside the houses that lined the streets of our town, there were a lot of good fathers teaching their sons and daughters those same values. I didn’t know it at the time, but one of those dads was my future father-in-law, George Romney.

Mitt’s dad never graduated from college. Instead, he became a carpenter.

He worked hard, and he became the head of a car company, and then the governor of Michigan.

When Mitt and I met and fell in love, we were determined not to let anything stand in the way of our life together. I was an Episcopalian. He was a Mormon.

We were very young. Both still in college. There were many reasons to delay marriage, and you know? We just didn’t care. We got married and moved into a basement apartment. We walked to class together, shared the housekeeping, and ate a lot of pasta and tuna fish. Our desk was a door propped up on sawhorses. Our dining room table was a fold down ironing board in the kitchen. Those were very special days.

First of all, no one believes that you two were ever poor. And trying to make yourselves something that everyone knows you’re not just enforces the idea that you’re panderers. That was the most disingenuous and disgusting part of the speech. It was disgusting because of the  premise upon which that pandering was done.

Their assumption is that Americans don’t like them because they’re rich. They’re dead wrong, and they’re insulting Americans by believing that about us. They really think that we’re a nation of envious assholes. Never mind the fact that no one ever hated Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Conrad Hilton, and hundreds of others for being rich.

Let me set the Romney’s straight; we don’t hate you for being rich. We hate you because it’s clear that you won’t do anything to help Americans that aren’t rich. We don’t hate you for what you are. We hate you for what we know you won’t do for the middle class. We hate that you’ve lived a life devoid of any empathy, or any attempt at understanding how average Americans live. We hate you for thinking that Americans should just borrow some money from from their parents to get an education, or start a business. We hate you for thinking that we’re assholes for not thinking of that obvious solution. We hate you for being on this earth for over sixty years, and not bothering to understand that this isn’t possible for the vast majority of Americans.

And now, Mitt and Ann we hate you for the disdain you have for us.

Share

RNC Coverage August 28, 2012

Let’s hope this works!

22.32

Can Ann say “love” any more? The agenda of this speech is about as subtle as a freight train.

Share

22.31

Oh Ann, we know – you and Mitt are very warm and fuzzy.

Share

21.35

Fun fact about Ted Cruz; he thinks the government is going to put us all in hobbit homes. Google it if you don’t believe me.

Share

21.27

And there’s the welfare lie again.

Share

21.26

Santorum is anti-gaying it up. Who could have seen that coming? I guess the subtlety is a little surprising.

Share

21.22

“In 1923 there were no guarantees of government benefits”. Yes, and 1923 was a great year for most Americans!

Share

21.19

Is anyone else noticing the sudden influx of brown people in the ads and on stage tonight?

Share

21.16

I spoke too soon. Santorum is next. This will be worth watching!

Share

21.08

It’s going to be over an hour of boring. I’ll be back for Chris Christie around 10:30 EST.

Share

21.07

RT @Wolfrum: When fascism comes to America it will think it built it.

Share

21.02

Is Scott Walker actually implying that he cares about the working man?

Share

20.57

Here’s Bob McDonnell giving Obama some credit for Virginia’s economy;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/03/bob-mcdonnell-obama-virginia-economy_n_1566093.html

Share

20.55

Brace yourselves, Scott Walker is next. Wow, I can type while vomiting.

Share

20.53

RT @Marnus3: Funny to hear Bob McDonnell talk about small govt with an ultrasound wand in his hand.

Share

20.52

Republican governors cut shortfalls (by taking stimulus checks!)

Share

20.47

Honestly, if they’re going to make this whole thing about the economy, they’re screwed. Most Americans still attribute the crappy economy mostly to W.

Share

20.46

Governor ultrasound!

Share

20.43

I can’t help but notice that this year, the GOP is using a word they never uttered in 2004 or 2008. Anyone want to guess which word I’m referring to? Comment on my Facebook page.

Share

20.40

And by the way, you can’t take credit for lowering the unemployment rate in your state, while asserting that government can’t do anything.

Share

20.39

How are these governors touting low unemployment rates in their states, while asserting that the federal government didn’t have anything to do with it? Don’t make me post pictures of y’all handing out giant stimulus checks!

Share

20.34

Biden lied about being a golfer? Talk about reaching!

Share

20.30

How long is it going to be, before The Black Eyed peas slap a cease and desist on Kasich?

Share

20.19

To be clear Kelly, Obama has created 4.5 million jobs, versus Bush 2.0’s ZERO jobs, and Bush 1.0’s 2.2 million jobs.

Share

20.17

Kelly Ayotte stopped saying that might be remotely true, when she finished the story about snow plowing.

Share

20.00

But let me say, the crowd in the stadium even look bored!

Share

19.59

This is boring. I’ll be back when John Kasich comes on. Hopefully, that should be in the next 20 minutes or so.

Share

19.53

YAY! They found an artist who will let them use his music. Has anyone ever heard of Lane Turner?

Share

19.51

And she went right for the “he’s the other” by saying that Obama doesn’t share the American dream.

Share

19.49

Is this bitch seriously talking about democrats racking up debt? Hello! Reagan? Bush 2.0?

Share

19.47

The government didn’t build it? I assume she’s not referring to the building she’s standing in!

Share

19.45

Shocker! They nominated Mitt Romney!

Share

Share

Come On And Lie To Me

Lie to me
But do it with sincerity

No, this is not turning into a blog about new wave music of the 80s. But these Depeche Mode lyrics are what keep running through my head when I think about the Scott Walker recall election next month.

Why? Because Wisconsinites aren’t voting on what most people think they’re voting on. Most people believe that they are voting on the issue of either preserving or decimating unions’ rights to collectively bargain. Those people would be wrong, and your opinion on that issue should not factor in to how you vote. The core issue here has nothing to do with unions or collective bargaining.

The core issue in this recall election is whether or not you’re good with politicians flat out fucking lying to you, while they’re trying to get your vote. Scott Walker did not run on a union busting platform. In fact, he said very little about busting unions when he was running for governor. Don’t believe me? Go to archive.org and check out caches of Scott Walker’s official site. G’head, go back and check his messaging back to freaking 1999 if you’re so inclined. You won’t find the union busting agenda that he ultimately executed on.

Still don’t believe me? Watch this campaign speech and see if you can spot the pledge to bust unions;

YouTube Preview Image

Still don’t believe me? Perhaps some campaign commercials that don’t include the words “collective bargaining” will convince you; 

YouTube Preview Image How about this one;

YouTube Preview Image

He ran on jobs, just like every other politician did in 2010. His solutions include the standard republican rhetoric about jobs through lower taxes, less regulation, blah, blah, blah. Spending reform, blah, blah, blah. He seemed a little confused on the issue of improving health care in Wisconsin. He did advocate for the standard, “free market solutions…blah blah blah” republican rhetoric, but he also seemed to be advocating for more government regulation and more medicare; 

Government’s role should be to provide a system of checks and balances and a safety net for those who need it, while encouraging competition and transparency to make the system less complicated and more manageable for consumers.

 

We must also ensure that there is one standard of care for everyone – regardless of age, income level, or location – and that people have the option of taking their healthcare plan with them when they change jobs or move.

Huh? I’m confused.

But I don’t want to talk about his policies. I want to talk about making the horrible, horrible fucking mistake of upholding an election that was won on a lie. It doesn’t matter how you feel about unions, and it shouldn’t matter which party you’re affiliated with. The only thing that matters is that Scott Walker took lying to a whole new, dizzying level (even for a politician) in order to get elected. The question before you in this election is; Are you going to condone being lied to?

You should ponder that question long and hard before casting your ballot, republicans. I don’t believe that you are any more okay with this than I am. I do, however believe that you’re prone to falling for the narrative that this election is about your opinion on unions and their ability to collectively bargain. And I do believe that you, like most people, are more forgiving when your party lies to you.

But here’s the deal; if you vote for Scott Walker, you’re ensuring that the lies coming from our politicians mouths will grow exponentially. You’re ensuring that they will lie more, with ever growing impunity because you encouraged them. You will reassure politicians that you can be counted to tow the party line, regardless of the bullshit that your party spews out.

This is not a partisan issue. I would be writing the same blog if a democrat pulled a bait and switch in mammoth proportions the way Scott Walker has. This whole fucking blog is about taking off the partisan blinders.

Politicians depend on our partisan divisions to distract us so that they can screw all of us. Republicans don’t selectively fuck over only democratic voters in their districts, anymore than democrats selectively fuck over republican constituents. We all get fucked equally. And we let it happen to us by falling for the false narrative that we’re fundamentally divided.

This is not an issue upon which we should be divided. When a politician tells giant fucking lies to get elected, they should expect to get recalled. Period. No unions, no republican vs democrat. You lie, you get the fuck out of office. That is what this recall election is about.

Don’t let them shit all over your ability to elect candidates based on the issues they’re running on.

Share

Stand Your Ground

Everybody is talking about the the murder of Trayvon Martin. I for one, am overjoyed that the public is paying attention. But as with most things, there’s an aspect of the way this story is being reported that is escalating my already overactive bitchiness.

The reporting on this story suggests that George Zimmerman wasn’t arrested because of the heinous “stand your ground” law that was passed in Florida in 2005. That’s just flatly not true. George Zimmerman wasn’t arrested because the police department in charge of the investigation, didn’t care to investigate. Whether their incompetence was racially motivated or not, is something that will eventually come out (I hope).

Here’s the deal with “stand your ground”. It applies to situations where a person is confronted with mortal danger from another person. Normally, when you’re confronted with a mortal threat, it is your duty to do everything you can before using mortal force yourself. This includes running away. The “stand your ground” law removes that obligation to flee, but it doesn’t remove the requirement that you be confronted with mortal danger. In other words, if someone is waving a butcher knife in your face, and you happen to be armed with a gun, you can shoot them without first trying to get away. It does not give you the right to shoot someone who is waving a bag of fucking skittles in your face. Skittles are not a mortal threat so this law doesn’t apply to such a situation. At this stage in this story, “stand your ground” does not apply.

I bring up that it doesn’t apply yet because I’m concerned that focusing on it now will have two potentially adverse affects on the eventual outcome if this situation. The first thing I’m concerned with, is that talking about the law deflects from the inaction on the part of the police force. We need to stay focused on their actions and the motivations behind those actions. If their actions were a product of inherent racism, we need to make sure to expose that. Secondly, I’m worried that going after “stand your ground” now leaves advocates for it’s repeal open to criticism from the NRA and the politicians they’ve bought. The criticism will be framed by accusing liberals of wanting to repeal a law that we never wanted in the first place. As I said, this law doesn’t play into this story yet. The time will inevitably come to scrutinize this law, but it’s too soon.

“Stand your ground” was cited by the Sanford police department as being the reason why for why they just accepted Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. They’re lying to deflect. We need to keep advocating for an investigation of the police force instead of focusing in on the law. If you’re running around talking to your friends about how this law led to Trayvon Martin’s death, you would be wrong. And you would be wrong in a way that allows for proponents of this law to accuse you of pushing this agenda.

Don’t worry, you will have the chance to shine a light on this law. That opportunity will come if the police stick to their initial excuse of using this law not to do their job, or when the defense will invariably use this law as part of their strategy. I’m not sure the police will stick to their story. The backers of these laws (yes, they’re trying to pass them all across the country) must by now, see that letting the police use it as their excuse jeopardizes their precious neanderthal law. I don’t believe they will allow that to happen. But I do believe that Zimmerman’s defense attorney will use it.

My point here is that you should stick to the facts when discussing this case. Making false claims about how this law played into what happened opens you up for legitimate criticism. We can win this debate by focusing in on the facts at hand. We risk losing it when we distort the facts.

Share

The Emperor Has No Clothes

Everyone that is familiar with Occupy Wall Street seems to have an opinion on what they need to do next. Not surprisingly, I have a few thoughts myself. But let me back up for a minute and reflect on my observations of what #ows has done so far.

Everyone agrees that #ows has succeeded in changing our national conversation. Before #ows, we had to endure daily conversations and maneuvering over debt reduction. An issue that exactly no one in America gives a shit about. We didn’t give a shit about the debt when George W Bush was exploding it, and we don’t give a shit about it now. Occupy moved the conversation back to what we do give a shit about; jobs. Actually, the conversation went far beyond jobs. Until #ows came along, I would have been downright orgasmic if we were merely talking about jobs. No, #ows took it s step further and got America talking about income inequality and the growing chasm between the rich and the middle class, let alone the poor.

That accomplishment alone was nothing short of a fucking miracle. But that wasn’t all they did. They inspired millions of people all  around the world to take to the streets and join them. How they did this is the key to my thoughts on the future of the movement. I was having a conversation with a fairly brilliant friend of mine (you know who you are) last week, who pointed out that #ows are the 3 year old in the room, pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. They didn’t craft a list of demands, make the movement even remotely political, or appoint a leader. They remained purposefully ambiguous. This, in my opinion was fucking genius. If you’re reading this blog you most definitely can’t relate to this, but most people hate politics. They hate the lies and the liars, don’t understand policy, or simply don’t have the time to invest in figuring out what’s going on. I believe that by remaining apolitical, they’ve succeeded in appealing to a much broader segment of the public than they otherwise would have. Let me pause for a moment to acknowledge the fact that I’ve made a complete reversal on this point. I originally believed that it was essential that they coalesce around a single message. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Advocating for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood, for example, would have severely limited the appeal of the movement. It would have limited the appeal to people that understand the issue, and understand how big of a factor that issue plays in the corruption of our government. It would have limited the appeal to liberals and independents, since republicans are reflexively pro-corporation. This (among many others) was the big mistake the teabaggers made, even before they were co-opted and Koched up. They were anti-Obama, which meant that right off the bat, 50% of Americans were opposed to whatever they were up to. It would have limited the appeal, and put the protestors in the position of having to educate people on the issue. No, it was much smarter to camp out and merely point out the fact that the emperor has no clothes, because most Americans can plainly see it.

Camping out was also a really important component of their strategy. It showed their commitment, but it also highlighted how dire the situation is. It drew far more attention than daily protests would have, and it served to recruit more people into the movement than marches would have.

Now that the encampments are being violently torn down all across the country, everyone has some advice to offer the movement. Let me throw in another observation here, I am not among those that believe that these occupiers don’t have a fucking clue what they’re doing. Not because I’m a sunny optimist, but because of what I’ve observed so far.

They have outsmarted my billionaire mayor at every single fucking turn. Emperor Bloomberg tried to break up the camps early on, with a unilateral decision that didn’t include a discussion with the corporation that sort of owns the park. It turned out that the owners of the park weren’t opposed to the occupiers. Oopsie, Mikey. You should have checked on that first, rather than assuming that you’re the king of New York City. When tearing down the camp didn’t work, he and his lapdog Commissioner Kelly decided that they would create the most hostile environment they could. That spectacularly backfired when daily video of NYPD brutality spread around the world like wildfire. Then they tried mass arrests which led most Americans to ask, “how could 700 people have acted in a way that merits being arrested, in a single day? Are the NYPD trying to muzzle free speech?”. When that caused worldwide outrage, they decided to try and destroy the movement from within by sending the city’s homeless, drunk, drug addled, and mentally unstable down to live with the protestors. While that created a cultural clash in the camp, the protestors managed to overcome that too, forcing Bloomberg to up the ante. His next move was to have the camps’ generators seized on the eve of a big (and rather ugly) storm, claiming that they were a fire hazard. What did the protestors do? They brought in some bicycle powered generators.

The final move by Bloomberg was to violently tear down the camp once and for all, claiming that conditions were “unsafe” and that there was violence and drug abuse happening in the camp.  This is something we’d been hearing from mayors all across the country. It was an angle that actually got some traction among supporters of the movement. I watched the “unsafe” mantra ripple among my social networking circles. This was the angle that I found most insulting to my intelligence. Let me get this straight; there are rapists and drug dealers in the camp that are making it dangerous for everyone else, so you have to shut it down? Are you fucking kidding me? Your inability to keep the peace means that the movement needs to be dismantled? I believe that the job of law enforcement is the same within the occupy camps, as it in society at large. Their job is to identify, arrest, and make a case against criminal elements in society. This job isn’t any different within the #ows camp. Claiming that they can’t do that job without decimating free speech is total fucking bullshit. 50% of all drivers on the road in most major cities are legally drunk between the hours of 10pm and 3am on weekends. We could virtually eliminate all drunk driving deaths in America by imposing a curfew barring anyone from being on the road from 10pm to 6am on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. Does that seem like a reasonable solution to anyone? Why would anyone buy into this bullshit excuse on the police’s part for why the protests need to be shut down? Whats their goddamned incentive to keep make sure the occupations are safe?

Anyway, back to Occupy’s response to Bloomberg’s latest move. Five hours after the raid began, attorneys for the movement slapped an injunction on Bloomberg preventing him from blocking the occupiers’ access to the park.

This group has their shit together. Anybody who doesn’t realize that, just isn’t paying attention.

Moving forward, I don’t believe the encampments are crucial to the movement any longer. I feel as if it’s time to spread out among the community and broaden the base. Most people that are of the opinion that Occupy needs a clear message now, I believe, overestimate its current reach. We live in a bubble, and I don’t think that there are as many of us as most people think there are. I think that the focus needs to be on raising awareness. They need to organize marches all across the city.

I believe that espousing an agenda is the most effective way to limit Occupy’s reach. They need to keep pointing at the naked emperor. No matter which agenda they adopt, they immediately reduce their pool of potential recruits by 50%. I’m not convinced that they’re anywhere near the point of needing to create a solution. We need to get the percentage of Americans that are involved in the movement up into the double digits before even thinking about putting forth a policy paper.

I don’t believe that they should appoint a leader. Doing so would just give the opposition a target to focus in on. So far, the attacks on the occupiers have been blatantly lame attempts at deriding them. Putting forward a single person will only serve to focus those attacks and muddy the conversation.

All of that said, I believe that the occupiers have a plan for the future. I don’t believe they intended to stay camped out forever because that just wouldn’t be consistent with what I’ve seen from them so far. They needed to have their camps violently torn down. They needed for the world to see the militarization of America’s police forces all across the country. Most people wouldn’t have believed it if they hadn’t seen it. Some still don’t. I don’t believe that they were caught off guard by these raids, and I don’t believe they need my, or anyone else’s advice because I haven’t seen them fuck up yet.

I mostly offer up my advice because I wouldn’t be living up to my pseudonym if I didn’t. But I have faith in the movement that helped to give me hope. Not the bullshitty Obama, corporate owned, kind of hope. But actual hope. The kind of hope that comes with Americans coming together, rather than screaming at each other across partisan divides.

Share

Cheney In Wonderland

I’ve been trying to write a post about Dick Cheney’s autobiography for weeks now. I highlighted every single demonstrably wrong thing that he said in the book, with the intention of debunking it all one by one. I even went as far as to read the awful George Tenet book that I couldn’t get through when it originally came out. I looked up statements from Colin Powell, Condi, and even George W Bush refuting Cheney’s claims. I was armed and ready to fire away at the book. But when I started writing that post, I realized that this approach was both pointless, and a waste.

It was pointless because any diligent follower of politics already knows the facts about Iraq, Bin Laden, and Katrina. It would have been a waste of a post because I would have to completely skip over the things that really struck me about Cheney in this book.

So I’m going to write a post about my impressions and observations of Dick Cheney, as a result of reading his book because I think it will make for more interesting reading.

The first thing that struck me about the book is that the prologue, the fucking prologue is the day of 9/11. Seriously, Dick? First of all, he obviously has no idea what purpose a prologue is supposed to serve. Secondly, the worst goddamned day in American history is the thing he’s salivating to talk about first?

I can’t understate how much Cheney gives the impression that he was running the show on that day. In his version of the story, he was literally calling all the shots because of “communication issues” on the president’s end. Don’t get me wrong, I tend to believe this account because I remember Bush’s famous “My Pet Goat” seven minutes. There was nothing in that performance that told me he was prepared to deal with a kid with a skinned knee, let alone a major attack on America. I just find it fascinating that Cheney chose to say what he did. Most people, after having served a president, have the decorum to never ever malign or damage that president’s reputation or authority in any way. Not Cheney. He’s classless and feels no loyalty or respect for Bush (you’ll see more evidence of this later). He has no qualms sharing an account that makes the president look like a hapless rube while Cheney “has everything under control”.

At one point during that attack on that day, Cheney actually gave the order to shoot down flight 93 after it had gone off course. I don’t have a problem with the order being given under those circumstances. I have a problem with the fucking vice president giving that order, because the guy who was never legitimately elected to be president in the first place can’t (unsurprisingly) handle the job. He claims that he had approval from the president to give that order, but that statement isn’t at all consistent with the lack of communication between the two of them throughout the day.

So there are a few things that struck me about Cheney’s upbringing. They mostly struck me as odd, given the political ideology he advocated for later in life. He talks about his father who, while struggling to make ends meet while getting through college, decides to take a civil service exam and subsequently takes a government job instead of finishing college. He then takes another, higher paying government job. At one point in the book, he writes (about his father)


He was also proud of the pension that came with federal employment – a pride that I didn’t really understand until as an adult I had learned about the economic catastrophes that his parents and grandparents had experienced and that had shadowed his own youth. I’ve often reflected on how different was the utterly stable environment he provided for his family and wondered if because of that I have been able to take risks, to change directions, and to leave one career path for another with hardly a second thought.So let me get this straight, Dick: the government came in on a white horse and saved your family in a much more overt way than it helps the average American and yet, you join the party whose aim is to destroy government because it’s never helped anyone?

At this point in the book, I’m realizing that naming him Dick was nothing short of prophetic.

Another interesting event: in 1959 Dick was awarded a full scholarship (which included room and board) to Yale. He ended up getting kicked out for getting shitty grades. What kind of asshole pisses off the gift of a free ivy league education? And my first question about the grant is, was it a federally funded grant?

When he got back to Wyoming from Yale, he took a union job where, “I was earning $3.10 an hour, which was good pay in those days, and picking up a lot of overtime and time and a half.” It’s nice to see you enjoying the benefits of union membership, Dick.

At some point, he decides to go back to school and enrolls at the University of Wyoming because they had to take him regardless of his shitty academic record, because he had graduated from a Wyoming high school. Let me work through all of this; so Dick went to a socialist, state funded school because the government had a mandate that they had to take him? This fucking asshole has been the beneficiary of government handouts and regulations his whole miserable life. But his sucking off the government teat didn’t end there. While he was in school, he earned some extra money by reading to a veteran who had lost his sight. Dick’s $1.75 an hour was paid for by the granddaddy of all socialist medicine; the veteran’s administration.

I honestly can’t comprehend how someone can have so much disdain for government when they have directly benefitted from its existence in so many ways. But not learning lessons from life is an ongoing theme in Dick’s life.

At one point, he and Lynne are engaged so he starts saving money for their honeymoon. He gets a bad case of food poisoning and has to go to the hospital. He didn’t have any insurance, so he had to spend all of the money he had saved on medical bills. Here’s another example of Dick’s imperviousness to learning from facts and life experience. There are three kinds of people in the world; the kind that can empathize with people, even though they’ve never been in their shoes; the kind that can empathize with people only if they’ve been in their shoes; and then there’s Dick, the kind that have been in your shoes, but still want you to go fuck yourself because they’re wearing much more expensive shoes now. Look Dick, you didn’t have insurance because you couldn’t afford it. How about you learn something from that experience and apply that to your political ideology?

Another part that I found fascinating was when he talked about his draft dodging. The dodging wasn’t interesting, the way he ignored it was. Here’s everything he said about it, in its entirety:

Shortly after I began work on my PhD, I had turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft. In the days when I had been, I had received deferments as a student and father. Earlier, when I was doing line work, I had been classified 1-A, but draft numbers were low and I wasn’t called. If I had been, I would have been happy to serve.

I find it fascinating that there’s no emotion or explanation here at all. He doesn’t explain the deferments, doesn’t talk about how the possibility of drafted made him feel, nothing. Just says that he deferred (he left out that it was 5 times), and then contradicts his actions by saying that he would have been happy to serve. Okay Dick, that sounds plausible. And again, this is a guy who was terrified of dying in a battle. One would think that those days of worrying about getting drafted would have occurred to him when his administration started a war and an occupation. But no, not Dick! He’s got some kind of fucking Kevlar vest that deflects wisdom and learning.

Another interesting part – he’s talking about Nixon’s chances of getting reelected in 1972. He writes:

Richard Nixon’s reelection was far from a sure thing. It looked very much as though the war in Vietnam, which he had said when he was campaigning in 1968 he knew how to end, would be an issue in 1972. Meanwhile, the hefty bills for Lyndon Johnson’s determination to fight the war in Vietnam and fund his great society had come due.

There were two components I found interesting there. First, he had already had experience getting a president who kept pushing for an unpopular war reelected. But the second part is more important. His lack of self awareness in talking about Johnson’s “hefty bills” being due is unfuckingbelievable. This asshole went on to serve in an administration that never bothered to pay for a fucking thing they passed is whining about cleaning up after someone else’s financial mess? Seriously Dick?

A particularly galling part of the book is when he talks about the speech President Ford gave, announcing that America was done with Vietnam. He writes:

I remember distinctly that when he spoke those words, some people in the audience wanted to cry and some wanted to cheer, but there was an unmistakable sense of relief for all of us that transcended one’s view of the war. Indeed, even for me, and I had supported the effort, hearing the president say those words was welcome in a way it’s hard to describe. We had lost more than fifty-eight thousand young Americans in the war, and Vietnam had divided us as a nation for so long. The war in Southeast Asia had ended in an awful way, but at least it ended. It was over.

I was fucking livid, reading that paragraph and thinking about what he had pushed to do with Iraq. Either the emotion he speaks of here is complete bullshit, designed to make him appear to be less of a robot, or he learned jack shit from that experience. Are you picking up a pattern yet?

This post is already very long, so I’m going to get to the rest of the book in part 2, which is disturbing and twisted in a completely different way than part 1.

Share

Snatching Defeat From The Hands Of Victory

That should be the tagline for the democratic party. How can I say that a week after democrats successfully recalled two state senators in Wisconsin, and a day after they successfully defended two Wisconsin senate seats? I can say it because they’re poised to fuck up the rest of the work that needs to be done in Wisconsin.

Here’s the deal; Scott Walker, whose approval rating is abysmal is eligible to be recalled in January. Sounds like a great position for democrats, right? Not so fast. National democratic strategists (I use that term loosely and with with much disdain) are now thinking about rolling the Walker recall vote into the 2012 election. Why would they let this asshole keep screwing working people in Wisconsin for another year and a half? Because it’s not about the people. It’s about the politics. And to rub salt in the wound, it’s about bad politics.

These brilliant “strategists” think that they have a better chance of recalling Walker if they ride the Obama wave in 2012. Yup, you read that correctly; The Obama Wave. I don’t know what the fuck they’re doing, but I’m looking at the polls. The only waving being done here is by Obama, waving at his approval rating as it fades into the distance. He has plummeted into the high 30s. That’s right, the guy that defeated the pirates and killed Bin Laden is within 10 points of Bush when he left office. Now, depending on who you talk to, the low approval ratings are either because 70% of us are among the unreasonable “professional left” or, Obama is just the most ineffective president in recent history. But that’s a topic for another post, or several previous posts, as the case may be. My point is that they’re factoring in a mythical movement that isn’t validated by one single piece of empirical evidence. There’s no Obama wave. There is Obama frustration and Obama apathy. There is a decided lack of “wave”.

I believe that the Walker recall has a better chance if it’s a stand alone election. The polls clearly show that Wisconsinites want him to get the fuck out now. I don’t know why you would dick around for another year, hanging your hopes on an advantage that doesn’t exist.

On top of the sheer stupidity, waiting for 2012 clearly sends a message by democrats; We don’t give a shit about Wisconsin or it’s citizens. We just want to win.

This is exactly why most people don’t pay attention to politics and why they don’t vote. All of the options fucking BLOW, and the politicians are getting worse and worse at pretending they don’t suck.

But don’t despair, there is a glimmer of hope. Wisconsinites can buck the national democratic party and get the recall signatures on their own. They can snatch victory from the hands that want to snatch defeat from the hands of victory. Wait, I’m all confused now. Well, you get my point. Wisconsinites have the opportunity to set an example by ignoring the democrats’ nonsense and the republicans’ tyranny. If they take it upon themselves to rectify the situation, independent of either party, they have the chance to give us all hope that we can buck this two shitty party system that we have.

Both parties are being allowed to be shitty by us. It’s time that we start getting active in a meaningful way. I’m talking to you, Wisconsin! Go get em!


Share

Here Comes The Austerity

I’ll keep this one short and sweet. Remember how I told you that we would know if we were going to get fucked on the debt ceiling deal, as soon as we found out who was going to be in the “super congress”? Yeah, we’re totally fucked. I knew we were fucked when Harry Reid announced that Max Baucus was going to be appointed to the committee. If past is prologue, he’s going to lead the charge to fold to any middle class decimating cut the republicans come up with.

Announcements from Mitch McConnell and Boehner today confirmed that. We got five back benchers plus Jon Kyl. No Paul Ryan, no Eric Cantor, no republican with political asperations beyond their current position. Why? Because being on the commission that guts the middle class isn’t exactly an inspirational resume item.

We’re fucked.

Our only hope is that Jon Kyle doesn’t intend for these cuts to be a factual statement.  

Share

Satan’s Amuse Bouche

For the non-elitists reading this blog, an amuse bouche is a small, single bite of food served before the appetizer. Emanuel Cleaver was being a sunny optimist when he described the debt ceiling deal as Satan’s sandwich. In my opinion, that deal was just the amuse bouche for what will surely end up being a seven course meal.

We’ll have a fairly good idea of just how screwed we are in about three weeks, when we find out who the members appointed to the super congress (good god, that makes me laugh every time I say it) will be.

But I’m going to go ahead and predict that it’s going to be pretty bad. As I said in a previous post, there isn’t a snow balls chance in hell that a Bernie Sanders or an Al Franken will be chosen to be superior. No, we’re most certainly going to get a stable of blue dog democrats and whackadoo far right wingers on this committee.

I expect to see cuts to medicare and medicaid. I expect to see cuts to pell grants, food safety, the EPA, and a whole slew of other programs that hit the middle class and the poor.

But it won’t be all bad. There will be one single revenue raiser in this plan. My guess is that they’re going to give US corporations a tax holiday to enable them to repatriate all of that money that they have sitting in offshore accounts. They’ll give them a comical 5% rate to entice them to bring the money back in, and they’ll call that a revenue raising measure. Oh, I take back what I said, it is all bad.

In 2005, the Bush administration allowed US corporations to bring their money back into the country for a comical 5.25% federal tax rate. 800 companies took advantage of this and brought 312 billion back into the US. Did they reinvest that money back into their companies and create jobs in the US? Fuck no. You won’t be surprised to hear that they spent 92% of the money on buying back stock (in order to jack up the stock price), paying shareholders, and paying executives big ass bonuses. In their defense, those big ass bonuses were well deserved. After all, those executives had just successfully played American tax payers for rubes. How did this all work out for job seekers? Brace yourself; they got fucked. Here’s a little chart that shows you what the biggest “repatriators” did in the year following their heist of the US treasury;

 

Corporation Amount Repatriated Layoffs In 2005-2006
Pfizer $37 billion 10,000
Merck $15.9 billion 7,000
Hewlett-Packard $14.5 billion 14,500
Honeywell $2.7 billion 2,000
Ford $900 million 30,000
Colgate-Palmolive $800 million 4,000

 

So why would our representatives do this again? They’ll do it so that they can call it a win. Obama loves calling mediocre (or shitty) legislation “historic”. Remember the crappy financial reform bill? That was historic. Remember the health reform bill that does nothing to actually bring down the cost of health insurance? HISTORIC! He’s going to make this shitty deal, and then claim victory for raising revenue. Republicans will claim the win because they cut taxes, again.

So who actually wins in this deal, republicans or democrats? If you picked either of those choices, you’re just not understanding politics in America. You’re still being sucked into the theater that is designed to make you support something that is against your own self interest. The “teams” aren’t republican versus democrat. The teams are working people versus the idle rich.

I took great care in including the word “idle” in that last sentence because I have absolutely nothing against rich people. I hope to be one myself someday. No, my issue is with people born into wealth, that give far less back to their country than they take. My issue is with the CEO that makes 320 times the salary of the average worker in his or her company. No CEO is worth that. Not even if they orally pleasure ever single worker in their company on a daily basis. I have no issues with Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. They created something that the whole world wants to buy, and they create real jobs for people all around the world.

The divide is between those that give to the country and those that take. It’s the idle rich versus everyone else. Make no mistake, the winners in this deal or any deal are going to be the idle rich. The rest of us are going to be the big losers. Let me repeat; if you think it’s going to turn out any other way, you’re just not understanding politics in America.

I’ve been listening to Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller go on and on about how brilliantly Obama played the teapublicans on the debt limit deal. Their hypothesis is that by including a trigger that includes deep cuts to defense spending, they’re going to get the defense lobbyists fighting for cuts anywhere else. They believe that this deal turns all of the lobbyists for every major welfare industry in America against each other. They believe that Obama will definitely let the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire.

Every single assumption that Randi and Stephanie make is based on pure fantasy. First of all, these deep cuts to defense are a joke. How do I know that? Because nobody can tell me where the cuts are. No one has been able to say that we’re going to stop making this useless fighter jet, or giving cost+ contracts out to defense contractors. These cuts are hypothetical and intangible, which tells me they’re a mirage. Secondly, Obama is going to stand firm and let the tax cuts expire? Are you fucking kidding me? He’s never, not one time stood firm on anything. You believe he’s going to stand up to the one thing that republicans have repeatedly said is a non-starter? And you believe this based on what? I’m not a pessimist. I believe that past action is the best predictor of future behavior. I’m not foolish enough to expect the president to break his consistent record of folding like a cheap suit. No, this sunny optimistic view doesn’t make any sense at all.

So let’s all put on our eatin’ clothes (you know, the loose dresses and elastic waistband pants) because we’re about to feast on Satan’s all you can eat buffet.

 

Share
No Notify!