7/27/2011
In Brief: Pamela Geller Loses Her Fucking Mind (Even More):
Oh, dear, sweet Pam Geller, she of the botox face and yenta voice, an attention whore that makes other whores wonder if they should just quit, she who has spouted hatred in myriad creative ways, ways that'd make Goebbels' ghost go, "Scheisse, vish ve had thought of zat." Yes, now that some deranged Muslim hater in Norway has committed crimes as an attack on multiculturalism and cited Geller, among others, as his inspiration, Pamsy has lost her fucking mind so much that her hatemongering during the Park 51 stupidity seems like a gentle breeze of delusion.
For nothing makes someone with a persecution complex go nutsier than being actually deserving of persecution. Now that the media is questioning, finally, at least a bit, just what the effect is of nonstop lies and hatred from "extreme" right-wing websites (although, apparently, the only thing that distinguishes "extreme" from "mainstream" conservatism is just how many bullets are used), Geller is in full on cornered rat mode. Check some of this shit out:
In bringing up a bombing in Mumbai to compare media coverage, she says that Anders Brevik was "a psychopath (alone and belonging to no one, no group, just the twisted sickness of a legend in his own broken mind)." Her point? That the media never covers terror attacks committed by Muslims. Which would be true if it wasn't absolutely false.
You know what? The Rude Pundit ain't gonna waste any more space quoting Geller. You can read it for herself. Nearly every entry is a screechy defense of her brand of hatred. He'd call her "a cunt," but even that doesn't seem strong enough for the sub-Coulter nature of her writing.
Tell you what: we'll talk when someone shoots up a Young Republicans rally and says it's because he read a bunch of Michael Moore or Van Jones (who are not even remotely analogous to Geller, but, hey, that's because we on the American left generally don't call for the mass murder of millions of people).
Oh, dear, sweet Pam Geller, she of the botox face and yenta voice, an attention whore that makes other whores wonder if they should just quit, she who has spouted hatred in myriad creative ways, ways that'd make Goebbels' ghost go, "Scheisse, vish ve had thought of zat." Yes, now that some deranged Muslim hater in Norway has committed crimes as an attack on multiculturalism and cited Geller, among others, as his inspiration, Pamsy has lost her fucking mind so much that her hatemongering during the Park 51 stupidity seems like a gentle breeze of delusion.
For nothing makes someone with a persecution complex go nutsier than being actually deserving of persecution. Now that the media is questioning, finally, at least a bit, just what the effect is of nonstop lies and hatred from "extreme" right-wing websites (although, apparently, the only thing that distinguishes "extreme" from "mainstream" conservatism is just how many bullets are used), Geller is in full on cornered rat mode. Check some of this shit out:
In bringing up a bombing in Mumbai to compare media coverage, she says that Anders Brevik was "a psychopath (alone and belonging to no one, no group, just the twisted sickness of a legend in his own broken mind)." Her point? That the media never covers terror attacks committed by Muslims. Which would be true if it wasn't absolutely false.
You know what? The Rude Pundit ain't gonna waste any more space quoting Geller. You can read it for herself. Nearly every entry is a screechy defense of her brand of hatred. He'd call her "a cunt," but even that doesn't seem strong enough for the sub-Coulter nature of her writing.
Tell you what: we'll talk when someone shoots up a Young Republicans rally and says it's because he read a bunch of Michael Moore or Van Jones (who are not even remotely analogous to Geller, but, hey, that's because we on the American left generally don't call for the mass murder of millions of people).
7/26/2011
The View From Across Oceans on Our Debt Ceiling Idiocy:
Hey, gang, at the end of what will be known as our waning salad days, let's check out what editorials from around the world are saying about our fucktarded debt ceiling debate (also known as "That Time the GOP Destroyed the World's Economy and Unleashed the Inevitable Zombie Apocalypse") to see if we can learn anything by viewing ourselves through the eyes of others (here's a hint: we're pretty goddamned dumb):
From South Africa's Business Day, July 18:
"Deficit reduction will have to be achieved through a combination of higher taxes and reduced spending. The golden ratio between the two - the level of taxation and spending that both avoids stalling economic growth and minimises the effect on the poor - depends on the prevailing economic circumstances. The Republicans argue that spending cuts should account for 85% of the required savings, and tax increases just 15%, to achieve optimal deficit reduction. But this is significantly out of kilter with international best practice. In Britain, a ratio of 3:1 has been applied and has met with significant resistance. Even the austerity programmes imposed by the international community on Ireland and Greece do not come close to an 85%-15% split."The Republicans have themselves never imposed such harsh deficit reduction measures when in power. In fact, they have tended more towards higher taxes than towards spending cuts. Under Ronald Reagan, tax increases accounted for more than 75% of deficit reduction measures."
From the South China Morning Post, July 18: "The main stumbling block to raising the debt ceiling above US$14.29 trillion is in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where the tea party faction is demanding savage budget cuts and no new revenue, even from closing loopholes in tax law that was always intended to raise it. It has extended a bitter feud with the Democrats over government spending into rejection of every compromise entertained by other factions, including Obama's offer to slash the deficit by US$4 trillion over 10 years and trim 'untouchables' like Medicare and Medicaid."
From a Beijing newspaper (translated by the BBC), July 16, a genuine threat: "Analysts believe that Obama and Congress will 'definitely' reach an agreement [on raising the US debt ceiling] in the end, but they have dared to use their sovereign credit as a ball to kick around and dared to turn China, Japan, Germany and many other countries that have bought US Treasury bonds into hostages... As long as the 'relative decline' of the US economy is real, the decline of the US' dollar-centred financial hegemony will be unavoidable. This process ought to be gradual, and no-one wants it to come overnight. But it should not be averted."
The Irish Times on July 18, regarding "Cut, Cap, and Balance":
"The measure, which has no hope of passing in Congress, is populist political grandstanding by Republicans in the hope of regaining the initiative ahead of the presidentials. But the public is not impressed. Polls consistently show a majority favour higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations to help reduce debt."
The Irish Times also made the contrast between the two American parties pretty damn stark:
"The difference between Democrats and Republicans, however intractable, remains remarkably simple. The latter, driven by hard-line Tea Party ideologues, insist that any deal on cutting the US deficit, a precondition for agreeing to raising the debt ceiling, can not include tax increases, and specifically not those on the wealthy proposed by President Obama. And the president will not countenance deep reductions in healthcare for the elderly."
That's about as clear as it gets: Republicans want to save money for the wealthy, Democrats want old people to have health care.
German magazine Der Spiegel goes through the opinions of commentators across Deutschland's political spectrum. Predictably, it goes from "What the fuck?" to "No, really, what the fuck?" And everyone knows who to blame.
For instance, Bild says, "The Republicans have turned a dispute over a technicality into a religious war, which no longer has any relation to a reasonable dispute between the elected government and the opposition."
Right-wing paper Die Welt says, "The influence of the Tea Party movement...cannot be overestimated...The movement sees traditional politics as corrupt and regards Washington as a den of iniquity..They see the other side as their enemy. Negotiations with the Democrats, whether it's about appointing a judge or the insolvency of the United States, are only successful if the enemy is defeated. Compromise, they feel, is a sign of weakness and cowardice."
Meanwhile, the leftish Süddeutsche Zeitung says much the same: "It's actually unimaginable. On August 2, the US could, for the first time in its history, become insolvent because the Republican majority in the House of Representatives refuses to raise the ceiling on the national debt."
See that? Left, right, and center in Germany know: This is about Republicans playing games, not Democrats clinging to sacred cows.
The other thing you get from reading around the world is a far, far more stark view of what happens upon default. "Armageddon" is vague and drama queeny. But, for instance, a column in The Times of India warns, "There is no company in the US that would be unaffected by a government default - and no bank or other financial institution that could provide a secure haven for savings. There would be a massive run into cash, on an order not seen since the Great Depression, with long lines of people at ATMs and teller windows withdrawing as much as possible. Private credit, moreover, would disappear from the US economic system, confronting the Federal Reserve with an unpleasant choice. Either it could step in and provide an enormous amount of credit directly to households and firms (much like Gosbank, the Soviet Union's central bank), or it could stand by idly while GDP falls 20-30 % - the magnitude of decline that we have seen in modern economies when credit suddenly dries up. With the private sector in free fall, consumption and investment would decline sharply."
So, yeah, you probably want to stock up on gas for your chainsaws and ammo for the rifles. Because Republicans are hastening our horrible demise, and unless Obama is willing to step up and have an old-fashioned gunfight at the Supreme Court corral, it's zombie hordes by Christmas.
Hey, gang, at the end of what will be known as our waning salad days, let's check out what editorials from around the world are saying about our fucktarded debt ceiling debate (also known as "That Time the GOP Destroyed the World's Economy and Unleashed the Inevitable Zombie Apocalypse") to see if we can learn anything by viewing ourselves through the eyes of others (here's a hint: we're pretty goddamned dumb):
From South Africa's Business Day, July 18:
"Deficit reduction will have to be achieved through a combination of higher taxes and reduced spending. The golden ratio between the two - the level of taxation and spending that both avoids stalling economic growth and minimises the effect on the poor - depends on the prevailing economic circumstances. The Republicans argue that spending cuts should account for 85% of the required savings, and tax increases just 15%, to achieve optimal deficit reduction. But this is significantly out of kilter with international best practice. In Britain, a ratio of 3:1 has been applied and has met with significant resistance. Even the austerity programmes imposed by the international community on Ireland and Greece do not come close to an 85%-15% split."The Republicans have themselves never imposed such harsh deficit reduction measures when in power. In fact, they have tended more towards higher taxes than towards spending cuts. Under Ronald Reagan, tax increases accounted for more than 75% of deficit reduction measures."
From the South China Morning Post, July 18: "The main stumbling block to raising the debt ceiling above US$14.29 trillion is in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where the tea party faction is demanding savage budget cuts and no new revenue, even from closing loopholes in tax law that was always intended to raise it. It has extended a bitter feud with the Democrats over government spending into rejection of every compromise entertained by other factions, including Obama's offer to slash the deficit by US$4 trillion over 10 years and trim 'untouchables' like Medicare and Medicaid."
From a Beijing newspaper (translated by the BBC), July 16, a genuine threat: "Analysts believe that Obama and Congress will 'definitely' reach an agreement [on raising the US debt ceiling] in the end, but they have dared to use their sovereign credit as a ball to kick around and dared to turn China, Japan, Germany and many other countries that have bought US Treasury bonds into hostages... As long as the 'relative decline' of the US economy is real, the decline of the US' dollar-centred financial hegemony will be unavoidable. This process ought to be gradual, and no-one wants it to come overnight. But it should not be averted."
The Irish Times on July 18, regarding "Cut, Cap, and Balance":
"The measure, which has no hope of passing in Congress, is populist political grandstanding by Republicans in the hope of regaining the initiative ahead of the presidentials. But the public is not impressed. Polls consistently show a majority favour higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations to help reduce debt."
The Irish Times also made the contrast between the two American parties pretty damn stark:
"The difference between Democrats and Republicans, however intractable, remains remarkably simple. The latter, driven by hard-line Tea Party ideologues, insist that any deal on cutting the US deficit, a precondition for agreeing to raising the debt ceiling, can not include tax increases, and specifically not those on the wealthy proposed by President Obama. And the president will not countenance deep reductions in healthcare for the elderly."
That's about as clear as it gets: Republicans want to save money for the wealthy, Democrats want old people to have health care.
German magazine Der Spiegel goes through the opinions of commentators across Deutschland's political spectrum. Predictably, it goes from "What the fuck?" to "No, really, what the fuck?" And everyone knows who to blame.
For instance, Bild says, "The Republicans have turned a dispute over a technicality into a religious war, which no longer has any relation to a reasonable dispute between the elected government and the opposition."
Right-wing paper Die Welt says, "The influence of the Tea Party movement...cannot be overestimated...The movement sees traditional politics as corrupt and regards Washington as a den of iniquity..They see the other side as their enemy. Negotiations with the Democrats, whether it's about appointing a judge or the insolvency of the United States, are only successful if the enemy is defeated. Compromise, they feel, is a sign of weakness and cowardice."
Meanwhile, the leftish Süddeutsche Zeitung says much the same: "It's actually unimaginable. On August 2, the US could, for the first time in its history, become insolvent because the Republican majority in the House of Representatives refuses to raise the ceiling on the national debt."
See that? Left, right, and center in Germany know: This is about Republicans playing games, not Democrats clinging to sacred cows.
The other thing you get from reading around the world is a far, far more stark view of what happens upon default. "Armageddon" is vague and drama queeny. But, for instance, a column in The Times of India warns, "There is no company in the US that would be unaffected by a government default - and no bank or other financial institution that could provide a secure haven for savings. There would be a massive run into cash, on an order not seen since the Great Depression, with long lines of people at ATMs and teller windows withdrawing as much as possible. Private credit, moreover, would disappear from the US economic system, confronting the Federal Reserve with an unpleasant choice. Either it could step in and provide an enormous amount of credit directly to households and firms (much like Gosbank, the Soviet Union's central bank), or it could stand by idly while GDP falls 20-30 % - the magnitude of decline that we have seen in modern economies when credit suddenly dries up. With the private sector in free fall, consumption and investment would decline sharply."
So, yeah, you probably want to stock up on gas for your chainsaws and ammo for the rifles. Because Republicans are hastening our horrible demise, and unless Obama is willing to step up and have an old-fashioned gunfight at the Supreme Court corral, it's zombie hordes by Christmas.
7/25/2011
Scenes from Our Unshared Sacrifices, Part 2 (Ceci n'est pas une tax):
So the Rude Pundit walked to his car one morning, which he knew was in a no-parking zone, but, since he lives in an impressively sketchy neighborhood, sometimes the cops don't give a damn until about 8 a.m. Still, and all, it's a gamble. And he knew the fee for losing the bet, around 40 bucks; however, it's better than driving around at 2 in the morning, hoping someone leaves a legal space. The Rude Pundit accepts that he's done wrong and pays the price. This one morning he went out and saw the ticket that said he had lost this time. He picked it up and glanced at the cost: $52. Bastards had jacked up the fine by about 25%. "Yeah," the Rude Pundit thought, "let's talk some more about who's paying for shit."
'Cause shit's gotta get paid for. You want cops? You want your potholes filled? You want your fires put out? Even if you subcontract the fuck out of all those jobs, until only mercenaries from Xe are blowing away local purse snatchers with AKs, shit's gotta get paid for. And if your state or your city says that there ain't no way they're gonna raise taxes on anyone or any entity, no matter how stuffed to the gills with cash they are, well, they're gonna come up with ways to get money. 'Cause shit's gotta get paid for.
So, for instance, in Glendale, California, which has an $18 million budget gap, the price for to get a license for your pet just went from $5.50-$27.50 to $15.50-$65. And it now costs $80 for a permit to take pictures at the local sports complex. It used to be free. By the way, the justification for the hikes is that fees haven't gone up in years. Or, in other words, they're at historic lows.
In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett has cut state programs and refused to tax natural gas drillers. So $1.1 billion was cut from education programs. At the same time, he's got a panel endorsing a plan to jack up drivers' license fees from $29.50 to $69.50 and vehicle registration from $36 to $98. It doubles the length of time between renewals, but since the fee is more than doubled, it's not a wash. This is to fill a $3.5 billion transportation funding hole. But, hey, at least it ain't a tax hike. You want roads, don't you, Pennsylvanians?
The list goes on. State park fees, traffic fines, birth certificate fees. And, as ever, it hits those who can afford it least. All to keep alive the chimera of "no new taxes," when, in effect, it's the same damn thing. It's a driving tax. It's a pet tax. It always was. It always will be.
Somebody's gonna get fucked. The only question is who. It's just easier to fuck the people who are already prone.
(Note: Hey, here's an idea: raise taxes on these little fuckers. Oh, and mayors actually have a good idea on how to fill some budget gaps that don't involve dicking people over.)
So the Rude Pundit walked to his car one morning, which he knew was in a no-parking zone, but, since he lives in an impressively sketchy neighborhood, sometimes the cops don't give a damn until about 8 a.m. Still, and all, it's a gamble. And he knew the fee for losing the bet, around 40 bucks; however, it's better than driving around at 2 in the morning, hoping someone leaves a legal space. The Rude Pundit accepts that he's done wrong and pays the price. This one morning he went out and saw the ticket that said he had lost this time. He picked it up and glanced at the cost: $52. Bastards had jacked up the fine by about 25%. "Yeah," the Rude Pundit thought, "let's talk some more about who's paying for shit."
'Cause shit's gotta get paid for. You want cops? You want your potholes filled? You want your fires put out? Even if you subcontract the fuck out of all those jobs, until only mercenaries from Xe are blowing away local purse snatchers with AKs, shit's gotta get paid for. And if your state or your city says that there ain't no way they're gonna raise taxes on anyone or any entity, no matter how stuffed to the gills with cash they are, well, they're gonna come up with ways to get money. 'Cause shit's gotta get paid for.
So, for instance, in Glendale, California, which has an $18 million budget gap, the price for to get a license for your pet just went from $5.50-$27.50 to $15.50-$65. And it now costs $80 for a permit to take pictures at the local sports complex. It used to be free. By the way, the justification for the hikes is that fees haven't gone up in years. Or, in other words, they're at historic lows.
In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett has cut state programs and refused to tax natural gas drillers. So $1.1 billion was cut from education programs. At the same time, he's got a panel endorsing a plan to jack up drivers' license fees from $29.50 to $69.50 and vehicle registration from $36 to $98. It doubles the length of time between renewals, but since the fee is more than doubled, it's not a wash. This is to fill a $3.5 billion transportation funding hole. But, hey, at least it ain't a tax hike. You want roads, don't you, Pennsylvanians?
The list goes on. State park fees, traffic fines, birth certificate fees. And, as ever, it hits those who can afford it least. All to keep alive the chimera of "no new taxes," when, in effect, it's the same damn thing. It's a driving tax. It's a pet tax. It always was. It always will be.
Somebody's gonna get fucked. The only question is who. It's just easier to fuck the people who are already prone.
(Note: Hey, here's an idea: raise taxes on these little fuckers. Oh, and mayors actually have a good idea on how to fill some budget gaps that don't involve dicking people over.)
7/22/2011
Nearing the Ends of DOMA and DADT:
Let's end another week of hastening our descent into the dustbin of empires on a positive note.
If you watch the video of Sen. Al Franken questioning Focus on the Family Senior Vice President Tom Minnery during a hearing on repealing the odious Defense of Marriage Act, you can pinpoint the moment that Minnery's soul is crushed. Franken called out the Christian conservative leader on a study that said children with two parents are better off health-wise than children with one. Minnery claimed this meant parents of different sexes, which is not what the study itself said (and which the study's author confirmed). There he was, Minnery, caught in either a lie (and lies make baby Jesus cry, so that can't end well) or willful ignorance. And he winced, as his soul imploded, right when the rat realized that he had been cornered and boxed up.
Of course, a rat being just a rat who needs to raise cash from other rats, Minnery later said that he would have told Franken that the study he was citing never mentioned the sex of the couples, so it was natural to assume same sex ones were just left out. Ooh, that sucks, doesn't it? When you leave an argument and think, "Oh, fuck, that's what I should have said." No second chances, man. Just convenient press releases later where one can rattle off all the coulda, shoulda, woulda one wants.
And with President Obama evolving to the point of supporting Dianne Feinstein's kill-DOMA bill, the inevitable is becoming more inevitabler.
Meanwhile, over at the Pentagon, things are about to get even more openly festive. Apparently, today, the Defense Department is going to certify that gay and lesbian Americans are allowed to die for their country without lying about who they are. If you'll remember, the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal was contingent on the Pentagon doing a study that said, "Umm, most everyone doesn't give a shit. And those that do are intolerant redneck assholes or closeted gays." So, with that done, let the cornhole in the foxhole begin.
Let's end another week of hastening our descent into the dustbin of empires on a positive note.
If you watch the video of Sen. Al Franken questioning Focus on the Family Senior Vice President Tom Minnery during a hearing on repealing the odious Defense of Marriage Act, you can pinpoint the moment that Minnery's soul is crushed. Franken called out the Christian conservative leader on a study that said children with two parents are better off health-wise than children with one. Minnery claimed this meant parents of different sexes, which is not what the study itself said (and which the study's author confirmed). There he was, Minnery, caught in either a lie (and lies make baby Jesus cry, so that can't end well) or willful ignorance. And he winced, as his soul imploded, right when the rat realized that he had been cornered and boxed up.
Of course, a rat being just a rat who needs to raise cash from other rats, Minnery later said that he would have told Franken that the study he was citing never mentioned the sex of the couples, so it was natural to assume same sex ones were just left out. Ooh, that sucks, doesn't it? When you leave an argument and think, "Oh, fuck, that's what I should have said." No second chances, man. Just convenient press releases later where one can rattle off all the coulda, shoulda, woulda one wants.
And with President Obama evolving to the point of supporting Dianne Feinstein's kill-DOMA bill, the inevitable is becoming more inevitabler.
Meanwhile, over at the Pentagon, things are about to get even more openly festive. Apparently, today, the Defense Department is going to certify that gay and lesbian Americans are allowed to die for their country without lying about who they are. If you'll remember, the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal was contingent on the Pentagon doing a study that said, "Umm, most everyone doesn't give a shit. And those that do are intolerant redneck assholes or closeted gays." So, with that done, let the cornhole in the foxhole begin.
7/21/2011
Cartoons That Make the Rude Pundit Want to Choke an Aussie with Koala Kebabs and Kegs of Carlton:
That's a political cartoon from today's Times of London, a newspaper owned by News International, which is owned by News Corp, which is "run" by Rupert Murdoch (if by "run," you mean, "Go fuck yaselves, ya bloody galahs"). It is expressing a disgust and frustration with the amount of coverage given to the phone-hacking/police bribery/corporate influence scandal engulfing Great Britain. One could say that, sure, starving Africans are more important than the corrupt political, judicial, and media institutions of the United Kingdom. And one could certainly do so by using a caricature of the horrors afflicting the people of Somalia and other countries.
One could respond with outrage, with a knee-jerk accusation of racism, which the Murdoch brand indulges in with egregious regularity. One could say that, of course, the Times would want to deflect the story, much like the New York Post has buried the story, much like others in the Murdoch empire have rushed to defend the man who looks like a child-eating beast out of Pan's Labyrinth.
Instead, the Rude Pundit would respond with "I've had a bellyful of white assholes using images of hungry black people to manipulate public opinion, as if implying that those black people are being ignored when, in fact, the British government, with the approval of those very members of Parliament who are on the attack over the phone-hacking scandal, has tripled the amount of aid it has sent to Somalia just this year, even if much more needs to be done, while the white assholes at Murdoch's media outlets say that the money is going to pirates and terrorists and should be cut off, so probably cartoonists like Peter Brookes should go fuck themselves with their smug little poison pencils until they stab their prostates with the tip." Or, in other words, it's possible to take care of two things at once. The scandal can bring down Murdoch and the Prime Minister while the British government tries to help the starving.
Or, in otherer words, despite Murdoch's media's best efforts to make everyone believe the opposite, it ain't a black or white world.
That's a political cartoon from today's Times of London, a newspaper owned by News International, which is owned by News Corp, which is "run" by Rupert Murdoch (if by "run," you mean, "Go fuck yaselves, ya bloody galahs"). It is expressing a disgust and frustration with the amount of coverage given to the phone-hacking/police bribery/corporate influence scandal engulfing Great Britain. One could say that, sure, starving Africans are more important than the corrupt political, judicial, and media institutions of the United Kingdom. And one could certainly do so by using a caricature of the horrors afflicting the people of Somalia and other countries.
One could respond with outrage, with a knee-jerk accusation of racism, which the Murdoch brand indulges in with egregious regularity. One could say that, of course, the Times would want to deflect the story, much like the New York Post has buried the story, much like others in the Murdoch empire have rushed to defend the man who looks like a child-eating beast out of Pan's Labyrinth.
Instead, the Rude Pundit would respond with "I've had a bellyful of white assholes using images of hungry black people to manipulate public opinion, as if implying that those black people are being ignored when, in fact, the British government, with the approval of those very members of Parliament who are on the attack over the phone-hacking scandal, has tripled the amount of aid it has sent to Somalia just this year, even if much more needs to be done, while the white assholes at Murdoch's media outlets say that the money is going to pirates and terrorists and should be cut off, so probably cartoonists like Peter Brookes should go fuck themselves with their smug little poison pencils until they stab their prostates with the tip." Or, in other words, it's possible to take care of two things at once. The scandal can bring down Murdoch and the Prime Minister while the British government tries to help the starving.
Or, in otherer words, despite Murdoch's media's best efforts to make everyone believe the opposite, it ain't a black or white world.
7/20/2011
The Rude Pundit on Monday's Stephanie Miller Show:
Is Obama fucking it all up or playing multidimensional chess? The Rude Pundit and guest host John Fugelsang take different sides of the question.
Hack yourself into a subscription for the Rude Pundit's free podcast.
Is Obama fucking it all up or playing multidimensional chess? The Rude Pundit and guest host John Fugelsang take different sides of the question.
Hack yourself into a subscription for the Rude Pundit's free podcast.
A Haiku For a Hectic Time Down Here in Red State America:
Rude nephew being
Born. Might post later today.
Murdochs suck pig balls.
Rude nephew being
Born. Might post later today.
Murdochs suck pig balls.
7/19/2011
A New Tax Pledge (Involving Grover Norquist's Balls):
Let us say, and why not, that the Rude Pundit created an organization, one of yer fancy 501c3's or some such shit, the kind of organization that could get lots of free-flowin' cash from his buddies and their corporations. And let us say, and, indeed, why not, since we are in the realm of theory, that our organization was called "Americans for Taxual Healing" or one of those idiotic names that obfuscates what we're really about. Let's say that we came up with a pledge, one that we wanted all members of Congress to sign, one that would liberate them, but one that demanded something from them.
The pledge could go something like this:
"I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the ____ district of the state of ______ and to the American people that I will: ONE, kick Grover Norquist in the balls whenever he is within kicking range; and TWO, freely vote my conscience on tax raises and cuts, dependent on the reality of economic circumstance, unshackled from bullshit pledges (except this one)."
Then, in this fantasy world we're concocting, whenever Grover Norquist walked up to a member of Congress to lobby them on his mad "never-ever, no-how, no-matter-what, you-better-not raise taxes" pledge, that member of Congress could say, "Sorry, Grover. Signed another pledge first," and kick him in the balls. As Norquist rolled around on the ground, holding his groin, he might at first wonder "Why? Why?" but then he would have to admit, "A pledge is a pledge." Yeah, that's putting the "action" into a PAC.
A self-aggrandizing dick with a dwarf's voice, Norquist told Chris Matthews on My Balls Are Hard last night, "What the pledge does is, it allows a candidate who wants to run for office to make a credible commitment to the American people that he or she won't raise taxes. Without the pledge, which is the same wording in all 50 states over the last quarter-century, a promise not to raise taxes is like any other political promise and means nothing." You got that? The word of politicians is worthless unless they sign one group's conservative loyalty oath. And if you're one of the over 250 House and Senate members who have done so, then Norquist believes that he owns your ass.
The qualities of the pledge to Americans for Taxual Healing are many. First of all, there's the sweet, sweet release that one can get when one feels one's foot connect with the soft sack between Grover Norquist's legs. There's the hilarious slow motion look of horror on Norquist's face as he thinks, "Not again" and "Oh, my balls." Then there's the extra skip in one's step as one heads onto the floor to vote in whatever way one wants.
And then ATH can hold each signer to the pledge. If we hear that Grover Norquist was able to freely come within, say, three feet of a Congress member's foot and walked away with his balls un-kicked, well, we'll run a primary candidate against that Congress member, someone willing to follow through with an assault on Norquist's nuts. Our goal is to make Norquist's testicles feel a sharp pain whenever he gets near the Capitol and thus drive him away.
Obviously, signing another pledge is the only way to get our leaders to do what we want. It's not like they have free will and can act of their own accord in loyalty to the Constitution and not Grover Norquist.
Let us say, and why not, that the Rude Pundit created an organization, one of yer fancy 501c3's or some such shit, the kind of organization that could get lots of free-flowin' cash from his buddies and their corporations. And let us say, and, indeed, why not, since we are in the realm of theory, that our organization was called "Americans for Taxual Healing" or one of those idiotic names that obfuscates what we're really about. Let's say that we came up with a pledge, one that we wanted all members of Congress to sign, one that would liberate them, but one that demanded something from them.
The pledge could go something like this:
"I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the ____ district of the state of ______ and to the American people that I will: ONE, kick Grover Norquist in the balls whenever he is within kicking range; and TWO, freely vote my conscience on tax raises and cuts, dependent on the reality of economic circumstance, unshackled from bullshit pledges (except this one)."
Then, in this fantasy world we're concocting, whenever Grover Norquist walked up to a member of Congress to lobby them on his mad "never-ever, no-how, no-matter-what, you-better-not raise taxes" pledge, that member of Congress could say, "Sorry, Grover. Signed another pledge first," and kick him in the balls. As Norquist rolled around on the ground, holding his groin, he might at first wonder "Why? Why?" but then he would have to admit, "A pledge is a pledge." Yeah, that's putting the "action" into a PAC.
A self-aggrandizing dick with a dwarf's voice, Norquist told Chris Matthews on My Balls Are Hard last night, "What the pledge does is, it allows a candidate who wants to run for office to make a credible commitment to the American people that he or she won't raise taxes. Without the pledge, which is the same wording in all 50 states over the last quarter-century, a promise not to raise taxes is like any other political promise and means nothing." You got that? The word of politicians is worthless unless they sign one group's conservative loyalty oath. And if you're one of the over 250 House and Senate members who have done so, then Norquist believes that he owns your ass.
The qualities of the pledge to Americans for Taxual Healing are many. First of all, there's the sweet, sweet release that one can get when one feels one's foot connect with the soft sack between Grover Norquist's legs. There's the hilarious slow motion look of horror on Norquist's face as he thinks, "Not again" and "Oh, my balls." Then there's the extra skip in one's step as one heads onto the floor to vote in whatever way one wants.
And then ATH can hold each signer to the pledge. If we hear that Grover Norquist was able to freely come within, say, three feet of a Congress member's foot and walked away with his balls un-kicked, well, we'll run a primary candidate against that Congress member, someone willing to follow through with an assault on Norquist's nuts. Our goal is to make Norquist's testicles feel a sharp pain whenever he gets near the Capitol and thus drive him away.
Obviously, signing another pledge is the only way to get our leaders to do what we want. It's not like they have free will and can act of their own accord in loyalty to the Constitution and not Grover Norquist.
