when the status quo frustrates.

I just couldn’t resist.

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Clearly my spur-of-the-moment decision to expand the tons-o’-fun “My Friends” drinking game to also get to chug some wine every time McCain said “General Petraeus” as the debate entered the foreign policy phase was not as terrific an idea as it seemed to be. I fell down the stairs on my way to my computer, never a good sign, and now, everything on the internet seems completely hysterical.

Most of it I am sternly convincing myself that only really drunk people probably find funny so I should NOT I repeat NOT post it up here and clog up the front page…but omGawd, I can’t help myself, these are just…really awesome. :)

(Via Pam at Pandagon.)

Weighing in Verbosely on the First Presidential Debate

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

Well, I just watched the debates myself. Via YouTube. The easiest YouTube to find was via Fox News’s feed, which was annoying because they so often did closeups or split-screens of the candidates and never did wider shots– so I couldn’t judge for myself if it was true, that McCain was supposedly never able to look at Obama in the eye. But even regardless of that, McCain came across shifty; Obama, self-assured. Which just means, if Obama was saying evil things too, then they were doubly dangerous, because he was able to present them as though they were reasonable.

Now, as anyone who reads my posts knows, I’m critical of Obama/Biden. More than McCain/Palin, actually– everybody with half a brain already knows how evil the Republicans are; I just want people to assess more rigorously just exactly how much of a lesser evil the Democrats really are– if indeed, they are a lesser evil at all. Anyway, if you’re an Obama fan, I urge you to look at my analysis and tell me where you think I’m being unfair. Maybe I’ll see the light. If I did, I can tell you I’d be much happier in general right now.

Let’s just review some of the things Obama said in the debate. (All emphasis mine, of course.)

We’ve spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001. We took our eye off the ball… So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.

Wait– Iraq’s a clusterfuck… and so the lesson to be learned is that we should never hesitate to use military force??? Maybe we’d have a better chance of using our military wisely next time if we hesitated just a little bit more.

Now here’s Obama praising Bush and McCain’s Glorious Thrusting Surge:

Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families. They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

Actually, this is not even nearly so bad as when Obama went on Fox News recently to declare that the surge had “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams”.

Or,  as Juan Cole put it in his recent assessment, “The level of violence at this moment in Iraq is similar to what prevailed on average during one of the 20th century’s worst ethnic civil wars! It is still higher than the casualty rates in Sri Lanka and Kashmir, two of the worst ongoing conflicts in the world.”

But nice of Obama to internalize Bush/McCain talking points so well. I’m sure he’s run the numbers and it’ll win him more votes, so that’s all that matters, right?

(more…)

Weighing in Briefly on the First Presidential Debate

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

Best part of the whole debate:

When Jim Lehrer asked the candidates, “Much has been said about the lessons of Vietnam. What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?” McCain babbled about how awesomely we began there, how (for causes not even remotely articulated) we had a wee bit of a strategic stumble (managing also not to specify that said stumble stretched from about a month after we got there in 2003 til the end of last year) and finished up by announcing that we have won the Iraq War. (News to me.) Obama, who went second, then gently stepped in to say that, yeah, the actual lesson of the Iraq War that pretty much everybody (except McCain) has learned was, we should never have gone in there in the first place. Har.

Worst part of the whole debate:

Jim Lehrer’s first question: “Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?”

(Candidates each speak for several minutes, demonstrating remarkable ability to discuss their tax and spending platforms without once touching on the financial recovery plan.)

Jim Lehrer’s next question: “All right, let’s go back to my question. How do you all stand on the recovery plan? And talk to each other about it. We’ve got five minutes. We can negotiate a deal right here.”

(Candidates further demonstrate ability to say nothing to the point and also refuse, even when point-blank instructed by Lehrer, to speak to each other.)

Jim Lehrer’s next try: “All right, let’s go to the next lead question, which is essentially following up on this same subject. And you get two minutes to begin with, Senator McCain. And using your word “fundamental,” are there fundamental differences between your approach and Senator Obama’s approach to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?”

(Candidates argue about the differences between their tax and spending platforms. Neither apparently has any idea that we are even having a financial crisis.)

Jim, who has the patience of a saint and is my new hero: “All right. All right, speaking of things that both of you want, another lead question, and it has to do with the rescue — the financial rescue thing that we started — started asking about. And what — and the first answer is to you, Senator Obama. As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it’s going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?”

(Candidates go on as if they never even heard the question.)

Jim Lehrer: “What I’m trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all — one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the — in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I’m trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific — small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency.”

(Candidates suggest that maybe we’ll stop spending money on something or other, described respectively as “things that aren’t vital” (McCain) and “things we can cut out with a scalpel rather than hatchet” (Obama). I go to the internet and start looking up emigration requirements to Australia.)

Jim Lehrer: “Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you — are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already — I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major effect?”

Apparently not.

Can’t wait for the veep debate!

OH MY god, he did NOT actually say that–

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

He did, he did!

McCain Health-Care Article Fuels New Clash Over Economy

The article, which appeared under McCain’s name, was published in Contingencies magazine, which is produced under the auspices of the American Association of Actuaries. In it, McCain touted his plans for increasing competition in health care as one way to expand coverage and reduce costs.

McCain wrote, “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is all.

Go… Obama… (retch)

Saturday, August 23rd, 2008

An evolution in my opinions.

(more…)

McCain: Obama is the Antichrist

Monday, August 4th, 2008

Not satisfied with claiming that Obama is communist, Muslim, gay (or at least meterosexual), and has black children, the McCain campaign is now claiming that he’s the fucking Antichrist.

I don’t even know where to begin. For one thing, it’s a completely incoherent ad, though it gets points for invoking Charlton Heston. But beyond that, its dog whistles are so shrill that only a premillennial dispensationalist or someone with a perverse fascination with premillennial dispensationalism would get what the hell they’re on about.

An ad like this in Canada would probably result in speculation that the candidate was senile. Just saying.

Hat tip: rojonoir.

“Where is that marvelous ape?”

Sunday, July 27th, 2008

So in case you haven’t heard already, a couple of weeks ago Rum, Romanism and Rebellion unearthed this joke that McCain told at a meeting of the National League of Cities and Towns in 1986:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”

After some uppity women at NOW made a fuss, then-McCain press aide Torie Clarke issued a weak non-denial, saying he “doesn’t recollect telling that joke”, and– despite independent verification of the story by several socially prominent witnesses– claimed it was all just the nefarious work of Democratic senate challenger Richard Kimball.

So, besides the fact that, at the ripe young age of 59, McCain thought extreme sexual violence was funny… and was happy to spread the old lie that all any woman really needs is a good raping in order to release her hidden libido… and had a penchant for jokes with dubious racial overtones… what are we to take from this incident?

For one thing, it’s more ammunition for the argument that McCain isn’t just pandering to the He-Man Woman Hater’s Club for votes; he’s a card-carrying member.

But for the in-depth analysis, let’s turn to trusted logotherapist, nail technician, and advice columnist Herr Doktor Blume.

(more…)

Trust Me When I Tell You Which Guy You Want To Run Your Country.

Thursday, July 3rd, 2008

If you are not familiar with craps, it is a game played with dice, and the important thing to know about it is that you cannot win at it unless you figure out some way to control how you throw the dice…ie, you cheat. You CANNOT win by playing by the rules. It is a mathematical impossibility.

You can, however, win at poker, to the point where some people actually play it as a full-time job.

Craps requires that you throw dice, can count up to twelve and add single-digit numbers in your head up to a total of twelve. You don’t need to know anything else; you can if you wish control your rate of loss by learning the odds of the various bet types and rolls, but as you’re going to lose repeatedly no matter what, it doesn’t really matter if you do or not.

Poker requires that you learn how many cards are in a standard playing deck, what suits those cards are, what the non-numerical cards mean and how they are ranked, what the different poker hands are and how they are ranked, just to play a single hand. If you want to win, you must then learn the statistical probabilities of each hand, modified by how many players are in the game; what the various positions at the table mean in terms of increasing or decreasing your odds, and how to calculate the odds of your hand winning versus how much of your bet it requires to win the entire table of bets. This is more math than most people exercise during their adult lives already.

So, think about the kind of person who would get hooked on craps–a mindless low-skill game where you are guaranteed to lose–versus the kind of person who would get hooked on poker–a psychologically and mathematically complex game where if you’re willing to work at it you’re guaranteed to win.

Or:

“Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John’s life,” says John Weaver, McCain’s former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. “Taking a chance, playing against the odds.”

Or:

[Obama] always had his head in the game. The stakes were low enough — $1 ante and $3 top raise — to afford a long shot. Not Obama. He studied the cards as closely as he would an eleventh-hour amendment to a bill. The odds were religion to him. Only rarely did he bluff. “He had a pretty good idea about what his chances were,” says Denny Jacobs, a former state senator from East Moline.

And:

McCain’s campaign, like his life, has been marked by its embrace of living dangerously and by clear runs of fortune and disappointment. Obama, meanwhile, has succeeded, no less remarkably, by diligently executing a premeditated strategy.

Thanks, Time Magazine!

Think “delicate international situation.” Think “perilous economic balance.” Think–

Let’s go Obaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaama ’08!

“Why does Senator Obama believe it is so important to repeat that idea OVER and OVER again?”

Sunday, June 15th, 2008

Same reason I do.


Vote Obama ’08!

Via Pandagon.

The French are coming! The French are coming!

Wednesday, April 9th, 2008



They’re coming for your ass. And they brought a red.

As we draw nearer to the general election, I expect we’ll see more of our media members and family members come *back* around to defending our occupation of Iraq. Why? Because they’ll seek to rationalize their irrational support of John McCain, the national icon of our colonialism. “The surge is working!” “We’re going to give these people freedom if you give us enough time!” And so forth.

Despite eons of historical evidence to the contrary, plenty of Americans remain convinced that foreign invaders can somehow force a country’s people to accept the form of government favored by the occupiers, especially if it’s got cool bells and whistles. ‘Cause, like, who wouldn’t want elections and stuff? Somehow the idea of “freedom” being forced upon a people seems perfectly logical to the war-backers.

So the next time somebody at your dinner table defends the delivery of freedom through invasion, pose them this theoretical scenario:

Suppose [THEORETICALLY] the French suddenly got militaristic, showed up on our shores with tens of millions of soldiers, and occupied the US. After the invasion, the French declared that they were here to give us true democracy. The notion of a Republic was born of the technological limitations of the olden days that prevented easy dissemination of information and collection of votes, but with the Series of Tubes, the power of real democracy has arrived. So the French decided to invade and give us all true democratic powers — and they’ll even give a citizen free wine and cheese every time s/he chooses to vote on legislation and so forth. Wouldn’t that be AWESOME?

Now, you probably won’t have made it through the first sentence before your local invasion apologist tries to call the French pussies or something, but see if you can get them to play along. The next thing they’ll likely argue is that we’d nuke them if they even thought about invasion. If you can get them to pretend that we didn’t have nukes, or that our Big Red Button was in the shop at the moment (Or that Bush pressed his car’s keychain panic button by mistake), the apologist will probably fall back on the sheer impossibility of conquering our territory, or that we’d battle to the death before allowing some damn Frenchie to take our soil, etc.

The point is, they’ll fight you tooth and nail on the idea that we could be invaded. The whole idea seems impossible to them, but more importantly, it’s wholly reprehensible. The apologist cannot ever conceive of any of us allowing it to happen. I doubt you’ll ever even get to discuss whether it’s worth being invaded to receive an upgrade in governance structures (plus free cheese!). And since you can all predict where this is going, you can see how easily you can use this example to turn the tables on the apologist. They feel the same way about invasion as anybody else — it doesn’t matter what else the invaders brought with them, or how much better the foreigners swear they’re going to make it for everyone. Nobody likes an invasion and most peoples will fight to the death for hundreds of years to rid themselves of one. No. Matter. What. The. Invaders. Promise.

Even Brie.

Why not just call McCain the new Jesus?

Saturday, February 9th, 2008

Un-be-fucking-lieeeeeeevable. I’m really sorry it’s all gloom and doom from me when I find the time to post these days, but I am fed up with the defeatist language of the Democrats. It alternately depresses me to the point of inaction and sends me into a frothing tizzy accompanied by incoherent thoughts.

Allow me to do my best to sum up my feelings: THE DEMOCRATS ARE FUCKING IDIOTS. Every day, I become a tiny bit more convinced that the game is rigged and they’re trying to lose, because nothing else explains the astronomical levels of incompetency that pervade every campaign and every candidate and every organization.

The most recent example: Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to beat a fellow Democrat, basically showered her sum-bitch Republican opponent with gold, frankincense, and mer. [I had to include the frankincense and mer or that would've been a golden shower. And what she said was the opposite of peeing on him. Unfortunately. /digress.]

Listen to this:

“If our nominee is running against someone with the legendary background of John McCain — Democrats need to think about this,” Clinton said. “Because we’re picking a nominee we expect to win. We cannot take four more years of more of the same.”

The LEGENDARY BACKGROUND? I realize the man was a PoW and all that, but come the fuck on. Why not just call him bulletproof? Why not just cut off any attempts to assail his character now and forever? If Hillary runs against McCain, this quote will be thrown in our faces the entire time. “Even tax and spend liberal demon Hillary Clinton thinks John McCain is ‘legendary.’ Vote McCain! Paid for by the Committee of Shitbirds to Elect John McCain.”

It gets worse. Well, maybe not worse, but it stays pretty damn bad.

“When I think about running against Senator McCain, if I’m so fortunate to be the Democratic nominee — you’ll never have to worry about being knocked out of the ring,” Clinton said to cheers. “I think I can go toe to toe with John McCain every single day.”

Oooooh boy! We MIGHT have someone who THINKS they can maaaaaybe go toe-to-toe with the Republican! Aren’t we full of bravado! Gosh, what a novel idea, expressing that perhaps you’re the equal of the person you’ll need to defeat to become President and just maybe shove the country back on the train tracks.

I can’t believe the Democrats are fighting amongst themselves to point out who best measures up to the awesomeness of the Republican candidate. This is political suicide. And worst of all, it’s a goddamn lie. John McCain’s a tough guy who went through some rough shit. He also sold his soul to get this nomination. And his voting record is disgusting.

Until someone in the party calls these hypocritical bastards by the names they deserve to be called, Democrats will never win. You’d think someone would’ve figured that out by now.

In case you hadn’t heard, Democrat = terrorist

Thursday, February 7th, 2008

“Obama’s middle name is HUSSEIN. Like Saddam Hussein. Get it? That’s proof right there he’s part of the global jihadist movement.”

Believe it or not, I actually overheard a college-educated individual utter that statement while on a recent trip. Chalk up this brand of ignorant paranoia as reason #11043 the Democrats face a bigger uphill battle than most liberals I know would like to believe. And it doesn’t just come from the mouths of random citizens — it spews out of obnoxious governors who somehow became viable presidential candidates despite a disturbingly high creep factor.

Stepping aside for the unstoppable McCain Train, Mitt Romney claimed he was doing it to cockblock evildoers:

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,” Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

This not-so-subtle peek into the Right’s central frame in the upcoming general election should surprise no one; it’s merely an extension of Cheney’s gambit in 2004. To be fair, though, his “the danger is that we’ll get hit again” quote pales in comparison to Romney’s sentiment that a Clinton or Obama win is literally a “surrender to terror.” Apparently, Rodham is the new Hussein — or at least equally significant in the cunning freemasonesque code-ology of, um, global jihadists. Now, you don’t even need a scaaaary fer’in name to be terrorist friendly, you just need to be a Dem!

Alas, the Democrats have to continue their internal battle while the Republicans close ranks and go on the offensive. And the media’s eating it up. Did you ever in a million years think it would be this easy for any tax-and-spend(-and-fight) conservative — much less the country’s biggest supporter of the Iraq war — to gain such strong momentum so early?

That’s what happens when one side calls for togetherness while the other side calls them terrorists. And if we have to wait until the summer before Democrats play catch-up in the language battle with Republicans, this election won’t even be close.

Gonna be a loooong and grumpy year for ol’ punkass marc.