Archive for December, 2006

‘War on Christmas’…huh?

Dec 24, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, Uncategorized, WTF?

In addition to the linked article I’d like to note that there are several people in my workplace that have bemoaned the fact that they are forced to say “Happy Holidays” as opposed to “Merry Christmas”.  I thought this odd since I’ve never heard of this rule before so I asked our director about this supposed company wide edict.  Long story short, well, there is no requirement.  You can say whatever you want.  Nobody gives a damn.  It seems that the ‘War on Christmas’ crowd, according to the director, spreads this fable every holiday season regardless of what they are told.   Oh, how wingers love to play victim, don’t they? 

Bastard Fairies make the baby Jesus cry.

Dec 17, 2006 in Uncategorized

Kudos to Andrew Sullivan for trying to bash new band the Bastard Fairies and introducing me to them.  They’re funderful!  Andrew misses that the girl is an actress, not brainwashed, but it doesn’t really matter anyway.  The tunes are sweet, the lyrics are trenchantly funny, and the lead singer, Yellow Thunder Woman (she’s Sioux), is so freaking (and freakishly) beautiful I could cry (click on pics to witness the glory).

And they’re rock n’roll.  They aren’t here to appease Soccer Mommies and those alarmed by free thought, they aren’t here to introduce a model of philosophy that fits all, or even one that is realistic.  They’re here to exist purely, to give representation to the rebellious id, to create an alternative world away from the godless priests who need to control, control, control.

Best yet, their entire album is available for free download.

Sing along now, “We’re all going to Hell”!


While he looks down his nose…

Dec 14, 2006 in Uncategorized

Looks like another conservative got dinged for breaking the law…..again.

Have you ever regularly read Mallard Fillmore?  If you have, conservative or not, you have to admit that it’s not that funny.   The jokes are completely anachronistic (Clinton the whore chaser, Kennedy the drunk, Libs are weed-adled space-cadets, etc.) and always have the same punchline.


Pinko Iraqis endorse redistribution of wealth.

Dec 11, 2006 in Iraq

We need to pull out of Iraq so we can invade Iraq and overthrow the Communists.

Upon reading that the Iraqis are nearing a deal on oil sharing, where the Shiites and Kurds, who have most of the oil, will generously distribute it among all Iraqis, I had a strange new feeling. Unsure at first how to handle it, I bought a six-pack of beer and watched Beerfest. I was profoundly cleansed of all thought, but only briefly.

The next day I felt the unusual disturbance in my consciousness bubbling up again, entirely different from my daily regrets about things I did and said as a kid, yet still related. Familiarity chipped away at doubt until clarity arrived, big and mean.

I realized, with horror, that I had been wrong about something related to Iraq. It was almost too much to admit, my mind recoiled like a snail back into its shell, but the salt was already applied. The truth began to bubble. After four years of being right about Iraq, my liberal ass had finally gotten something wrong. I was going to have to read more Andrew Sullivan and learn how to offer a mea culpa. I’d have to make concessions before touting my psychic ability to predict correctly every event that rightwingers get wrong. I fucked up.

See, I had understood well before the war that our real problem was a country stitched together by British map-drawers in the 1920’s. Held together by Saddam’s bloody iron fist for several decades, the impulse of the people would be to repel each other (credit this “prediction” to Noam Chomsky, actually). It didn’t necessarily have to happen that way, but with Rumsfeld’s mini-force, it was virtually guaranteed. Any loss of inertia would cause us to lose our grip, and that this happened is unquestionable.

Well, my stance up until recently has been to advocate for either a splitting up of the country into separate nations or extremely independent states, with me leaning towards nations. Aware that Sunnis would fight this most because they have all that oil revenue to lose, my position was, “Fuck them.” The oil isn’t on their land, so their right to it is wispy, much like cotton candy blown apart by a firecracker. Or my hair, if I didn’t shave my head.

But, to my surprise, the Shiites and the Kurds have been willing to make, yet again, more concessions to the endlessly irritating Sunnis. The Sunnis deserve nothing, but they are given a slice of the pie out of hope that it may matter.

And it may not. But I will agree that it is a path well worth pursuing, and I salute the magnamity of this agreement.

So there, Sunnis. There’s your offer of oil, from land you don’t live on. Will that settle your stomachs, finally?

It is a difficult thing to acknowledge a mistaken path, correct it, and walk anew in a different direction. Being right on virtually everything regarding Iraq for four years now has made it an unusual experience correcting myself, but not an impossible one. I knew a political solution was what Iraq needed, not a military one, as any realist has long concluded, but I had not given sufficient thought to the realities of negotiating that settlement.

For one day, I tasted what it must feel like to be a neocon every day. What a foul concoction, and how glad I am to have spit it out.


Random thoughts

Dec 10, 2006 in Christian Right, Religion

I think it’s fair to say that if the founding fathers really based the Constitution on the Bible, what took humanity almost 1800 years to formulate such a solution, and why would it take on the appearance of rejecting favoritism towards any particular religion, especially since accepting Christ as one’s savior in order to get to Heaven is the fundamental building block
of most denominations of Christianity?

Or will that just go down as one of those questions that gets avoided by people who are far more interested in propaganda than theology?

Sure they’re coherent.

Dec 08, 2006 in Christian Right, Clueless Conservatives, Politics

I was listening to Ed Schultz today. Not the greatest intellectual on the left, but he’s one of the greatest characters, and watch out before you claim he’s getting something wrong. He’s notably astute.

Anyway, Ed addressed the familiar rightwinger problem with “states’ rights,” a buzzword that they use when it’s convenient to avoid the U.S. Constitution (banning gay marriage, segregation, slavery, etc.), and totally forget about when it’s time to crack down on people with cancer smoking marijuana.

So Ed says, “They have no philosophy, no core principles.”

Unfortunately, he’s wrong. They may have no coherent philosophy of government that stands up to scrutiny, but they have a philosophy of action that is very consistent: enforcing their “moral” (pseudo-religious) codes on you.

It’s not something you can defend against the Constitution, or even in a logical realm. It’s a philosophy that says, “There’s more of us here than you, so that’s how it is.” And in Texas there’s a lot more fag-haters than there are gays and rational straights, so that’s how it’ll be.

Yet at every chance they hope to lay claim to the entire nation in such a manner, so there are numerous attempts to enact these controls through the federal government whenever possible. If they could pass an amendment banning gay marriage in the federal Constitution, they would, and they’ll keep trying until they can. It makes no difference that it would be a flat contradiction of everything else in that document, it’s about control. That is their philosophy.

So if Oregon says, “we support the right to die,” or California says, “we support the use of medical marijuana (and frankly aren’t too concerned about marijuana itself), that has to be controlled. If they can do it from the Justice Department, they’ll do it there. If they can do it at the City Council level, they’ll do it there. If they can override a panel of two dozen doctors who say Plan-B is safe OTC, they will. The method of government is what they have no philosophy for. It is the ends of government that they have a very consistent set of beliefs about.

Because there is no method for US vs. THEM. There is no rational way of usurping the U.S.A. with the ghost of the Confederacy. All these things are of this world. They think they operate from the spiritual world, a Heavenly kingdom where Jefferson Davis sits at the right-hand side of Jesus; where Israel isn’t God’s country, Dixieland is.

JesusDixieland, call it.

We’ve stemmed the flow of JesusDixieland into the U.S.A. briefly, but I’ve been asking myself lately whether this is a real shift for America, and I can’t say yes. If Iraq had worked out reasonably well (I know, if my aunt had nuts…), and if the Republicans had managed to completely legalize their corruption/be at least slightly sneaky about it, they’d likely have won yet again, and they’d have the White House in 2008. America tolerated far too much from the GOP, and there’s not a lot of evidence that they’re averse to swallowing some of the same medicine again.

The GOP used 9/11 to stomp down hard on Democrats, keep them down, and told the country we could only risk letting them get back up when the country was safe again.

Democrats would be fools to think they wouldn’t do it again, and double-fools to think we’ve seen the worst the GOP would do.  They were only getting started, folks.  We must fight until our knuckles are broken and our teeth are smashed before we let them get unanimous control of this great republic again.

Propagandist in action.

Dec 04, 2006 in Drugs

Whenever short on blogging material, I need only turn to the op-ed pages of The Washington Post.  Not as openly partisan as The Washington Times, the WP traffics in a far subtler form of propaganda, that of the beltway upper-class elite.  Their columnists regularly operate in the “wise old man” vein, handing down useful bits of information to us plebeian retards whenever we deserve some “insight.” 

One reliable technique is to give us mongoloids a friendly nudge. 

If addiction, sickness and community decay are concerns, then it must be said that drug legalization has failed as a social experiment — witness the massive problems of legalized drugs in other places (remember Switzerland’s Needle Park?)…

Yeah, remember Needle Park, idiot?  F’ing Switzerland, boy, don’t you know your local history?  That’s all you need to know about drug legalization to rule it out.  What, don’t recall that one?  Trust me, Kevin A. Sabat (speechwriter for two U.S. drug czars, dipshit!), I know what I’m talking about.

Actually, Switzerland tried a pretty stupid concept, in which they set up a public park where you could go shoot up heroin without being arrested.  All the drugheads hung out in one park and left the rest of the city alone.  Needless to say, it was a mistake.  It weren’t no Amsterdam-style cafe scene, shitkicker.

However since then Switzerland has practiced prescribing heroin to hardcore addicts and giving them private rooms to shoot up in.  They can’t leave with the stuff anywhere but in their bloodstream (if I were Dracula, I know where I’d be hanging out). 

Remember Needle Park?  Yeah, so does Switzerland, arschloch, but they still don’t fill their citizens with non-violent drug users, do they?

Sabat’s “third way” on drug use is no such thing.  He just proposes eliminating the discrepancy between crack cocaine and powdered stuff.  You know, the laws that meant black cocaine users did 10 years for 5 grams while white ones needed 500 grams to get 10 years.  Remember?

This is a joke, and a sad excuse for serious thought on the drug war.  The recommendation made is a no-brainer, easy to accept, but it’s couched in so many assumptions that it serves more as an effort to keep people from getting too many uppity thoughts about the war being waged on the American populace on a daily basis.