Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Veterans Day
Here's a reprint from last year. I haven't changed my mind one bit and have nothing to add.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
I'm always a bit conflicted on Veteran's Day and Memorial Day. You see, I'm basically a pacifist. I think all war is stupid and I wonder why anyone would glorify it. But I know, I know, sometimes it's necessary. Unfortunately, I think a very small percentage of wars falls into that category. With 20/20 hindsight we can usually see how things could have been headed off. Alas, foresight is not so keen. And of course, the Law of Unintended Consequences often comes into play. One never knows what is truly necessary and what isn't. Even after the fact. But I think we err on the side of war way too often. We forget that, as Jimmy Carter said, "Although war is sometimes a necessary evil, it is always evil."
Here we must make a clear differentiation between those who fight our wars (and who we honor) and those who make the decisions to send them off to do so (who we generally despise).
When I see pictures of fine men and women at Walter Reed that are missing arms, legs, eyes, large pieces of their heads and even larger pieces of their souls I get pretty pissed. These people signed up to defend us. Few actually do. More often than not, they're on the offensive, thousands of miles away from the homeland. This is an increase of tragedy. The loss is utterly unnecessary.
Our leaders should have to look at pictures of these people all day, every day. They should invent a computer program that simulates the minds of PTSD soldiers and make our leaders feel what they feel on a regular basis. Nightmares, daymares, jitteriness, moral numbness and isolation. And fear. Maybe they'd think twice about sending other people's sons and daughters off to kill and die to satisfy their geopolitical wet dreams. I'd even settle for them thinking once about it. War sucks the humanity out of people.
My own views on the necessity of their vocations aside, I have great respect for the people who don the uniform and serve. There is nothing any of us can do that compares to it. It's something I am constitutionally incapable of doing. Even when they are being sent on fool's errands, they are serving us. They are doing their job for the country they love. And it's not exactly a cushy one. Or a well-paying one.
It's almost criminal that I'm getting paid more for sitting in an office building than somebody who's getting shot at every day. Not to mention the warmongers who sent them to do so. And senators and federal executives get lovely parting gifts, including pensions and lucrative careers on the public speaking circuit. Your average soldier? Not much. Part of their college tuition and medical care. That's the very least we can do. Really. I think that anybody who goes through combat should be taken care of for life. LIFE. And their immediate families should be taken care of too. Why do we give a scumbag like Tom DeLay a bigger pension than somebody who went and got his legs blown off and wakes up screaming every night at 3AM? It makes no sense.
There will always be veterans of the military. I've got some in my family. Although they didn't fight, thankfully. But I want for there to be no veterans of war. It won't happen in my lifetime. Most of the soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are half my age. And it won't happen in our children's lifetime. It will probably never happen.
But we should at least work towards making sure that we have fewer and fewer veterans as time goes on. Can we do that, please?
Friday, November 6, 2009
Dumb Letters: You Have No Idea What I'm Going Through!
This person wrote in to the LA Times to decry the horrible horrible liberals infesting today's Republican party. Didn't know about that? Me neither.
Describing people like Dede Scozzafava as a "moderate Republican" is disingenuous. She's a liberal on almost every issue.
The GOP rebellion is led by those rejecting the left's attempt to undermine their party with liberal Democrats who pose as Republicans.
Wait wait wait. It's the left that's undermining your party? The Democratic Party doesn't even count as left-wing. What leftists get anywhere near the Republican Party? Or want to, for that matter?
You may get an occasional person with a gay relative that keeps their mouth shut on gay rights issues. (Doesn't fight for them, by the way. Just doesn't actively fight against them.) But since when are moderates, i.e. persons who occasionally think for themselves on one or two issues, been some kind of disease inflicted on you guys by the left. What are they, spies? They chose their own party, ya big dummy.
And by the way, a "liberal Democrat" is not the same thing as a liberal. It's all relative. Real liberals are as disgusted with their party as you seem to be with yours.
News stories imply these core believers are extremists -- but these are accusations by a media that for decades have been in the pocket of Democrats and supported radical agendas.
Like the Civil Rights Act. And the Environmental Protection Agency. And the Constitution.
Consider the following alternative scenario: How would liberals feel if the Democratic Party had pro-life candidates who supported the war on terror, reduced taxes, voted against bailouts, didn't want government healthcare and saw the United Nations as a threat to American sovereignty?
Okay, this is the part when I lose him. Is this guy serious? That, by the way, is not a rhetorical question. I really don't know. Is this guy dumb enough to not know how many Democrats support one or more of those positions? Or is he making an ironic point? Does he actually understand and feel our pain and this is his clever way of commiserating and therefore bringing us gently into his point?
Pro-life candidates? How about Bob Casey? And Harry Reid, who is only the Senate Majority Leader.
Supported the war on terror? How about...ALL OF THEM. What was the vote on the Patriot Act again? Oh yeah, 98-1. Thank you, Russ Feingold, for spoiling the no-hitter.
Reduced taxes? Um, yeah. This actually happens quite a bit. The Dems just don't ordinarily agree to give a lot of money to people who already have a lot of money. Like the really really rich people who got really really richer under GWB. You may note that Barack Obama promised to, and did, reduce taxes on everyone making under $250K per annum. And a good chunk of them are now screaming in the streets about how high their taxes are and how they can't take it any more. Because Glenn Beck asked them who they believed, him or their lyin' accountant's tables.
Bailouts? That, I believe, was a Republican plan. Plenty of our guys on board though, yes.
Government healthcare? Joe Lieberman ring a bell? Not Democrat enough? Okay. Ben Nelson? Mary Landrieu? Max Baucus? Max Baucus. You know, the head of the freaking committee that deals with it?
And UN as a threat to American sovereignty? Okay, you got me there. This is the one that makes me think he may be serious. I can't think of a single Democrat that has gone on record with that paranoid fantasy.
You were so close, letter writer. You almost had me. But you pushed it.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Lieberman Finds More Knives with Which to Stab His Party
What was that about "everything except the war"? Oh yeah, and health care. Not just "I won't vote for the bill" not with us. More like "I will actively support a filibuster" not with us. Feel better now, guys? See what that gesture has gotten you?
Someone please tell me why this person who lost a Democratic primary, no longer has a D next to his name and campaigned for the candidate with an R next to his name -- who also happened to support every George W. Bush policy and picked an empty-headed spokesmodel as his running mate -- still has positions of leadership within the Democratic party.
What will it take, people? Does he have to actually try to assassinate the president? Kick him out. Kick him way out. He is not one of us. He can stay in the Senate if he wants. He won his seat (sort of) fair and square. But let an actual Democrat take over his leadership positions. I don't care who. He is the bottom of the pile. Please please please. Go blow, Joe.
Monday, October 19, 2009
59-0
Yep, feels like old times. Painful.
We tried to make ourselves feel better by switching to the Patriots game. Hurray! A 10-point lead at the half! The Pats are back! Oh, no.
That's what it used to be like to be a Pats fan too.
So thank you, Patriots, for giving us a good old-fashioned ass-whupping yesterday. 59-0! What was that score again? 59-0.
I just need to type that again. 59-0.
One more time. 59-0.
"Yes!" you say. A shutout! Okay, yeah. A shutout is, like, 10-0. Or 13-0. Usually when you score 59 points, the other team scores 35. But no. The 0 is great but it isn't exactly the number that pops out at you, is it? It's the one that starts with 5 and ends with 9. Okay, have to do it again. 59-0.
The box score at halftime was already absurd. 45-0. (An NFL record, by the way.) Tom Brady with 345 yards and 5 touchdowns. We didn't even want them to come out for the second half. Really, nowhere to go but down. Seriously. I mean, think about what would have happened if the second half wasn't a letdown. If they just equalled the first half, the score would have been 90-0. Brady would have destroyed the single-game passing records with 690 yards and 10 touchdowns. Impossible!
So, all they really had to do was not suck in the second half. Well, they outscored them 14-0, mostly with backup QB Brian Hoyer making sure Brady didn't get cheap-shotted out of the game for no reason.
A letdown? Yeah, but who's complaining?
Oh, and by the way, the Titans two quarterbacks combined to complete 2 of 14 passes for -7 yards. Yes, that's negative. Wow. They completed just as many passes to Patriots players.
Feeling better about this team, we are. Please, Patriots. More of this.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Columbus Day
On this fine day which somehow isn't quite a holiday anymore (which seems to get a lot of the local Eye-talian contingent in a bit of a knicker twist), let's talk about what we've got here in the Apple to commemorate the man.
We've got a big parade. It doesn't really celebrate Columbus per se. It's just another one of our endless stream of ethnic pride parades. You know, the ones that are so gauche and unseemly when they're being participated in by folks of other ethnic persuasions (you know, the ones who got here after your group, whenever that was) but are wholesome and wonderful when your particular group (you know, the ones who came here for the right reasons) is whooping it up, waving at the city council member or athlete that happens to belong to the tribe and, if that's part of your heritage, vomiting.
We've also got some streets. Columbus Avenue is a biggie, although it becomes 9th Avenue as it gets further downtown. Closer to Little Italy, oddly enough.
The top of the line, though, is Columbus Circle. It was a big horrifying mess of a traffic circle for a long time. Until its recent renovation, to navigate it on foot from one side to another was to take your life into your own hands, or at least the hands of a passel of NYC cabbies, and you know how good and caring those hands are. To navigate it now is to be late for wherever it is you're going. With order comes inconvenience, folks.
I recently got bored trying to get from the Whole Foods in the fresh new Time Warner Center to my usual lunchtime perch in Central Park, which requires crossing three separate rights-of-way, and just crossed one street into the center of the circle. There's a mammoth Columbus memorial thing there (umm, duh), which I've seen a milllion times, but never up close until now.
A revelation.
Here's what the inscription on the side reads.

"To the world he gave a world." Yep. I think you know where we're going with this.
We've been revising the book on Columbus for years now. He's gone from a heroic explorer to basically a genocidal creep and lives probably somewhere in between for most people. Where that in-between is depends largely on your political persuasion and possibly whether you belong to a particular one of the above-mentioned ethnic groups. (Guess which one!)
We always hear these people screaming whenever some of their cherished orthodoxies are challenged. It's no wonder they cling to religion and reject science. If you build your world on universal immutable truths, and something you thought you knew turns out to be not quite true, your whole world falls apart. ("Hey, what are all these dead bodies doing in this closet?" "Shh! Never mind that. The history books have already gone to the printers!") Of course, they would never ever try to re-write the history books themselves.
But did we always feel so straightforward about Columbus and his legacy before liberalism run rampant and insufferable political correctness? Here's a picture I snapped of a high relief on the side of the monument showing Columbus and his crew upon arrival in The New World.

It's downright inspiring! They're so full of wonder. So full of awe and appreciation for the golden land they've found and for the deity made flesh that led them there.
But wait, while they're all fawning over the captain, there's one dude with something else on his mind. There he is on the right. What's he pointing at? Must be some gold. Or lots and lots of food. "Um, chief? Chee-eef. CHIEF!"

Aw, crap on a stick. There's Indians here. Somebody call Terminix.
So, it doesn't seem that it was ever as cut and dry as we thought. Even in a monument to the guy, it acknowledges that even though he "discovered" the place there were still kinda some people here already. And not exactly very dangerous ones, from the looks of it. Which group in the above picture do you think is going to keep the land?
Happy Columbus Day!
Friday, October 2, 2009
America Loves Garlic Milkshakes!
Here's what he had to say yesterday about the public option.
“I’m still trying to find the first American to talk to who’s in favor of the public option, other than a member of Congress or the administration. I’ve not talked to one, and I get to a lot of places and I’ve not had anyone come up to me — I know I’m inviting it — and lobby for the public option,” Boehner said.
“This thing (the public option) is about as unpopular as a garlic milkshake...”
He's looking about as hard for that lonesome American as O.J. is looking for Nicole's real killers.
Poll after poll shows between 50% and 75% of Americans supporting a public option.
Maybe Boehner just doesn't get out of his home state of Ohio very much. Well, here's a Quinnipiac poll (you have to scroll down almost all the way) showing 57% support and only 35% against in Ohio.
Well, maybe he only speaks to Republicans in his state. Okay, this is worst-case scenario here. Really stretching it. Even 28% of Republicans in Ohio support a public option. So, giving Boehner the most outrageous benefit of the doubt, even if Boehner never leaves his home state and studiously avoids anyone not in his own party, if he's spoken to more than 3 people, odds are he's run into one who supports this. And yet he just can't seem to find anyone who supports this horrible horrible thing, the poor dear.
We have two options here, and it doesn't take a genius to see this. Either John Boehner is incredibly stupid, or he is incredibly -- what's the word? -- LYING. There is no third option.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Skunks!
Here's a bit from The Rachel Maddow Show about skunks invading New York City. Some of you may recognize the music in the background of the piece. I almost crapped my pants when I heard it.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
After all these years, ASCAP may finally be sending me that first check. Glad it wasn't on Faux News or I never would have known about it.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Meet the Press and Play It for a Sucker
But, if you want to know what the problem with "bipartisanship" is, this is a fine place to start. Representative (and House minority leader) John Boehner and senator Lindsay Graham are, how shall we say it, not exactly dealing in good faith here. And, as someone has pointed out previously, bipartisanship is a two-way street. And the traffic's only going one way right now.
These guys are regulars on shows like this. But if any of these shows had any journalistic standards at all, they'd be laughed off the sound stage on a regular basis. There's spin and there's complete bullshit and Mssrs. Boehner and Graham are way on the stinky side of that equation.
David Gregory occasionally interjects The Tough Question, as he always does to make himself look like a real journalist, but when one of his guests says something patently false, he just lets it go. This is why shitheads like this love these shows. It makes them look like they've run the gantlet, when they've done nothing of the sort. They control the message totally.
Here's the video. Have the Tylenol ready. And the Rolaids, for that matter. What the hell, get the whiskey too.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The transcript is here, if you can't handle looking at the crumbs. And believe me, it's tough.
Some choice moments, refuted (naturally) by Yours Truly.
BOEHNER: And if you look at what the president has been supporting, it’s this big government plan that has some 51 new agencies, boards, commissions, mandates that is going to get in the way of delivering quality care to the American people.
And your evidence for this is...what? How exactly is this going to "get in the way"? Are they going to be in the hospitals telling doctors not to treat patients? Like the insurance companies do now? We'll never know because Gregory doesn't ask.
GRAHAM: The president is selling something that people, quite frankly, are not buying. He’s been on everything but the food channel. Just a few weeks—you know, last week he was addressing the nation.
His problem is when he says the public auction—option won’t affect your healthcare choice, people don’t believe that. ... It’s about the president selling something that people inherently believe sounds too good and doesn’t add up.
People? What people? Here's what a Harris poll said last week.
Based on what you've read, seen or heard, how would you rate the health care plans proposed by each of the following?
President Obama: 53% good, 47% Bad
Democrats in Congress: 46 / 54
Republicans in Congress: 35 / 65
See, Lindsay, you would be one of those "Republicans in Congress" up there. You too, Boehner, FYI.
BOEHNER: Americans today are getting more news about what’s happening in their government than they have ever gotten before, and Americans are genuinely scared to death. Scared to death...
And if this is one of those "news" sources, I can see why. Imagine how scared they are if they watch Fox News, where you guys are the only ones whose "opinions" are considered worthwhile.
BOEHNER: There’s been no bipartisan conversation on Capitol Hill about health care. At some point when these big government plans fail—and they will, the Congress will not pass this—it’s really time for the president to hit the reset button, just stop all of this and let’s sit down and start over in a bipartisan way to build a plan that Americans will support.
You lie! There have been over 160 Republican amendments added to the current bill. Well beyond this, the "public option", which doesn't even seem to be on the table anymore, was a compromise to begin with. If the Democrats had any brains in their heads, they would have started with single-payer (which 60% of doctors support, by the way, those radicals) and the public option might have been a disappointing but fair compromise, not that they deserve one. This is a complete failure of politics.
And you know what, fuck you guys. You didn't give a shit about being "bipartisan" when you were in the majority. Public opinion is not on your side, and yet you speak as if it is not only on your side, but overwhelmingly so. Piss off.
This next one is my favorite.
GRAHAM: [Obama]’s changed his rhetoric because the speech was a disaster. What he’s trying to sell to the American people, they don’t buy. ... So the president’s saying things that people want to hear, but the details don’t add up.
Really? His approval rating went up after the speech and support for a public option, which was always at least in the 50% range before all of the bullshit started spewing, went up again too. To 76%. The speech was only a disaster if you wanted those numbers to go in the other direction. No honest person would ever call it a disaster. And no honest person would ever call Lindsay Graham an honest person. The American people, apparently, are buying it. But you'd never know it from watching "Meet the Press".
Friday, September 18, 2009
Democrat Is a Relative Term

Can you read that? Here's what the bullets say:
- Fighting to restore fiscally responsible local government.
- Working to make state budgets spend only what the voters of Staten Island are willing to pay in taxes. [MAB: what, like nothing?]
- Championing tax relief for our senior citizens.
- Listening to the voices of local businesses and residents who want solutions that do not require increasing their tax burden nor expanding the scope of government.
- Supports legislation that will require at least a two thirds vote of all council members for the passage of any law or resolution that raises taxes.
- Securing property tax rebates for Staten Island homeowners.
- Has fought to cut waste and unnecessary spending in the city budget to hold the line on taxes.
Wait a minute, I thought we were the party of tax-and-spend. So Kenny is totally against all of these horrible taxes? Okay, fine. So let's just not spend anything then. Every one for themself. But geez, Kenny. That two-thirds-to-raise-taxes thing hasn't worked out so well for California. The state is considered by many to be ungovernable.
Hey, what's this? Another flyer.
The bullets again:- Fighting to restore vital services to the seniors of Staten Island.
- Keeping open senior centers which were threatened with closure.
- Saving transportation programs which provide buses for our seniors to travel to medical appointments, shop for groceries, and visit family and friends.
- And then a repeat of some of the same anti-tax bullets from the last flyer.
Do I need to ask the obvious question? Where is this money supposed to come from? The schools, maybe? How about the roads that everyone out there complains about? Or the already woefully inadequate public transportation? Yes, let's keep special programs to get old people to the grocery but forget all of those (black) people who have to take the bus to get to work (and the grocery). And, I don't know, help the economy.
The flip-side of the flyer says "Our seniors have worked hard, fought to keep our country free and the world safe, and taught and supported the next generation. In short, they've done everything right. WE HAVE TO DO RIGHT BY THEM!"
Talk about generalization. All of them did right? Everything right? All of them fought the commies? All of them taught and supported the youngsters? Not that old fucker who lived down the street and called the cops whenever we got near his yard. I'm not giving that bastard a ride anywhere. He can suck it.
We should have just let these knuckleheads secede and find out just how difficult government and budgeting really is. But we needed a place to dump our trash. Now that Fresh Kills is closed, the place has no purpose, other than as a shortcut to Philly. Good riddance, Stupid Island.
Today in Hypocrisy
Apparently, the folks who went to Washington to complain about all of the government spending are upset that the government didn't spend enough to make it easier for them to complain about government spending.
You have to read this from the Wall Street Journal. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) has a bit of a beef with our nation's capital and its woeful lack of amenities for him and his crew of nutjobs and racists. There weren't enough trains! Oh no!
It gets better. The stimulus package had millions for improvements for the Metro. Guess who voted against it? Oh, here it is.
"We shouldn't be giving people free stuff! Hey, where's my stuff?"
