Naiveté Or a Lame Defense?
I'll cut to the chase: this is another article about Ron Paul. The man has become nigh unavoidable these days on the internet (especially on SG). His supporters range from dissatisfied Republicans to Libertarians to more moderate Democrats to stoner Canadians to white supremacists.
In early October, Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for president.
From the recorded broadcast:
Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul, 2008.
Stormfront's founder, Don Black, also contributed $500 to Ron Paul.
According to Federal Election Commission records, on 9/30/07 the Ron Paul presidential campaign received a $500 contribution from a Mr. Don Black, who lists his address as 203 Lakeland Drive and identifies his occupation as self-employed/website manager
David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan, is also a fan of Ron Paul, going as far as calling him "our king".
If this were a chess game, the neocons have just put our king in check. We must come up with a good response immediately to stay in the game.
Paul's campaign and supporters claim that he should not be held accountable for donations from neo-Nazi groups (much like they denied any affiliation with the Liberty Dollar). Likewise, Ron Paul also fails to repudiate other supporters, who have displayed anti-semitism, (posted by Will Williams, southern coordinator for the National Alliance Party), 9/11 conspiracy theories, homophobia, and anti-atheism.
The denial, bordering on uncomfortable complacency, is presented as naiveté. How can Ron Paul be held responsible for the personal views of his supporters? How is he to know exactly who is contributing to his campaign?
Problem is, they may not just be the opinions of his constituency. The New Republic's James Kirchick explains.
Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business.
Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
Well, that doesn't sound too positive. While not all of the newsletters' content could be attributed directly to Ron Paul, the inclusion of the questionable articles is an endorsement of their views by the publisher. Filled with animus towards various social groups (including blacks, gays, and Jews) and anti-government paranoia (including passages alluding to a government cover-up of AIDS), the newsletters are damning indeed.
Choice selections from the newsletters:
On race:
"A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."
This newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."
On gays:
The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
On conspiracy and government:
In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."
The January 1995 issue of the Survival Report--released just three months before the Oklahoma City bombing--cites an anti-government militia's advice to other militias, including, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
When approached with the newsletters, Ron Paul's campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton, responded by saying "that over the years, Paul had granted 'various levels of approval' to what appeared in his publications--ranging from 'no approval' to instances where he 'actually wrote it himself.'"
After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."
In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.
From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.
To think that Ron Paul lacks editorial control over newsletters bearing his own name is ludicrous, and for him to not recognize the vitriol published in his name for over a decade is not naïve, but disgustingly negligent and wholly inappropriate for a politician. For his campaign to attempt to portray him as having "minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf" is irresponsible indeed. Therefore, the question must be asked: is this man really capable of holding the position of President of the United States? The answer, regardless of whether or not he participated in the creation of the questionable articles, is a resounding "NO."
MrCrisp spent too much time researching and writing this article, instead of packing the rest of his belongings and moving into his new apartment. In his opinion, though, sleeping on the floor for one night is worth it.
Uncool Blackwater Gases U.S. Soldiers
The incident in question occurred nearly a year-and-a-half ago, but is just now coming to light.
The helicopter was hovering over a Baghdad checkpoint into the Green Zone, one typically crowded with cars, Iraqi civilians and United States military personnel.
Suddenly, on that May day in 2005, the copter dropped CS gas, a riot-control substance the American military in Iraq can use only under the strictest conditions and with the approval of top military commanders. An armored vehicle on the ground also released the gas, temporarily blinding drivers, passers-by and at least 10 American soldiers operating the checkpoint.
This was decidedly uncool and very, very dangerous, Capt. Kincy Clark of the Army, the senior officer at the scene, wrote later that day. Its not a good thing to cause soldiers who are standing guard against car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers to cover their faces, choke, cough and otherwise degrade our awareness.
The vehicles were part of a Blackwater convoy that apparently felt that riot gas was an appropriate way to deal with a traffic jam.
Officers and noncommissioned officers from the Third Infantry Division who were involved in the episode said there were no signs of violence at the checkpoint. Instead, they said, the Blackwater convoy appeared to be stuck in traffic and may have been trying to use the riot-control agent as a way to clear a path.
While a Blackwater spokesperson has characterized the release of the riot gas as a mere gaffe, in which CS gas canisters were mistaken for smoke canisters (which, admittedly, Blackwater uses routinely to clear traffic - a policy the US military frowns upon), it is not clear how such "mistake" might have been coordinated between both the helicopter and the armored car.
Blackwater also claims that the incident was reported to US Embassy in Baghdad, which conducted a "full investigation."
The troops exposed to the gas also said they reported it to their superiors. But military officials in Washington and Baghdad said they could not confirm that an investigation had been conducted. Officials at the State Department, which contracted with Blackwater to provide diplomatic security, also could not confirm that an investigation had taken place.
No American soldiers were hospitalized as a result of the incident, but its impact on civilians that day is unknown. CS gas is nonlethal, but neither is it particularly healthy. Moreover,
The military . . . tightly controls use of riot control agents in war zones. They are banned by an international convention on chemical weapons endorsed by the United States, although a 1975 presidential order allows their use by the United States military in war zones under limited defensive circumstances and only with the approval of the president or a senior officer designated by the president.
. . .
In 2003, President Bush approved the use of riot control agents by the military in Iraq under the 1975 order, but only for such purposes as controlling rioting prisoners.
. . .
A United States military spokesman in Baghdad refused to describe the current rules of engagement governing the use of riot control agents, but former Army lawyers say their use requires the approval of the militarys most senior commanders.
(Emphasis added)
The State Department's contract with Blackwater did not specifically mention riot gas at the time of incident, an omission which Blackwater evidently took as an "authorization" to deploy the gas at will.
The company initially got a contract to provide security for American officials in Iraq with the Coalition Provisional Authority, an agreement which did not address the use of CS gas. After the authority went out of business, the State Department extended the contract for another year until rebidding it. Blackwater and two other companies DynCorp and Triple Canopy that now provide security are not permitted to use CS gas under their current contracts, the State Department said.
The State Department said that its lawyers did not believe the Blackwater incident violated any treaty agreements.
But Michael Schmitt, a professor of international law at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, disagrees.
I have never seen anything that would make it permissible to use tear gas to get traffic out of the way, Mr. Schmitt said. In my view, its an improper use of a riot control agent.
The Republican Candidates Are Retarded Cavemen
Last week the Republicans held two debates. To say it was like watching aliens would be an understatement. This could be the most idiotic group of men ever to run for the White House. Their understanding of the world is childlike and their solutions even more so. When one of these men is elected (steals) to the presidency, we are completely fucked as a nation. I do not see how we could possibly survive another four years of this ignorant bullshit.
They have no intention of moving away from the great policies of George Bush, because obviously he has done such an awesome job. It is completely baffling that five adults can sit on stage during a debate, in the year 2008, and argue over who backs the president more. Now, I expect stupidity from these fucking morons and I am rarely disturbed by their caveman grunts and screams, but when the topic turned to terrorism and they ganged up on poor Ron Paul, I kind of lost it.
Dont get me wrong; I think Ron Paul is an idiot. Besides his views of foreign policy, he may be the most moronic of them all. Yet, he is very intelligent and thoughtful when it comes to foreign policy.
Ron Paul made the mistake of pointing out that we should take responsibility for our policies that led to 9/11. Seems like a position that any mature, reasoned man would take. If someone attacks me, there is usually a reason. Strange people just dont walk up to me on the street and punch me in the face. That is just not how life works.
Here is Pauls statement that set off the idiots:
They dont attack us because we are free and prosperous
We invade their countries, we occupy their countries, we have bases in their country
not since just 9/11, but we have done that for a long time
it was our
if we dont understand that we cant win this war against terrorism.
Oh, how dare you speak the obvious! This is a Republican debate, thinker! A good-looking retard named Mitt was the first to respond.
Unfortunately Ron, you need a thorough understanding of what radical Jihad is, what the movement is, what its intent is, where it flows from and the fact that it is trying to bring down, not just us, but it is trying to bring down all moderate, Islamic governments, Western governments around the world.
All? I have missed the attacks on Iceland? Also, Switzerland, Finland, blah, blah, you get the point. Its a hollow and bullshit argument. The countries that have been attacked have mostly been those whom helped us with Iraq and Afghanistan. What the terrorists are trying to do is bring down governments that are not moderate, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. You know, the dictatorships that the US props up. Anyone who is using just 1% of his or her brain should know this.
Mitt then goes into a rant in which he says we should thank George Bush for keeping us safe. Just ignore the horrible attacks on our allies, Spain and England, as well as the many Australians targeted and killed in Bali.
Thats when old, lazy Fred Thompson jumps in and brags about his experience and nearly fingers himself because of it. All his experience has apparently taught him that crazy Muslims are bad. Whodda thunk?
Thank God Rudy was there to set everyone straight.
Rons analysis is seriously flawed. The idea that the attack took place because of American foreign policy is precisely the reason I handed back a $10 million dollar check to a Saudi prince, who gave me that money at ground zero for the Twin Towers Fund and then put out a press release saying America should change its foreign policy.
Wow, you gave back $10 million dollars because somebody said we should change our foreign policy, and actually have the nerve to brag about your moronic, heinous decision? For those of you who dont know what the Twin Towers Fund is:
The Twin Towers Fund is providing assistance and support to grieving family members of those personnel from the New York City Fire Department and its Emergency Medical Services Command, the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the New York State Office of Court Administration and other government offices.
Only a great, educated, selfless man would turn down $10 million dollars for families of dead rescue workers because the donator said the US should take a look at its foreign policy. He rejected money for grieving families because of a TRUTHFUL comment. Rudy Giuliani is a viper. Thank God he wasn't done.
It is an existential threat. It has nothing to do with our policy
our foreign policy is irrelevant, totally irrelevant.
That is pretty much the psychotic view of things, yes. He a stain on face of the Earth and someone needs to get a sponge.
It is over? No fucking way. Ron Paul then attempts to explain to the idiots why foreigners, who suffer at the hands of our foreign policy, are upset because we attempt to force our beliefs on them. Romney calmly lets us know why he is retarded again.
Ron, youre reading their propaganda.
(Giuliani cackles)
Rudy cackles! Because its fun! It is fun how crazy Ron Paul is being with his well thought out criticisms of our foreign policy and his belief that there is usually a cause for violent attacks. Calling the truth propaganda is pretty much all we can expect from Republicans these days. Romney then makes a statement that causes me to shit on myself.
It has nothing to do with us, when they kill Madam Bhutto.
Are you fucking kidding me? You want to be our president, you hideous, retarded fuck? You have just made a statement about an assassination, as if it was fact, for which there is no proof. No evidence exists to back up this claim. None. You are a liar and a deviant and very, very dangerous. Also, you are retarded.
Then Fred Thompson jumps back in with some really important questions:
Fred: Whom did we invade before 9/11?
Paul: We were occupying.
Fred: (mocking) Occupying.
Paul: We have air bases in Saudi Arabia.
Fred: (mocking) Air bases.
Jesus. Fucking. Christ. WE DO HAVE AIR BASES. Here is a grown man, running for president of the United States, mocking the truth. MOCKING. The US bases in Saudi Arabia have been the number one recruiting tool for al Qaeda, or at least they were until the war in Iraq. Maybe dipshit should have learned that when he was getting all that experience as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Its okay to read, even if you are an actor.
Are we done yet? Sadly, no. Huckabee then breaks down the problem in a way his Christian minions will understand: Islamofascism. Which, is, uh, something that does not exist. It is not real. There are no Islamofascists. There are radical Muslims and there are fascists, but there is no such thing as an Islamofascist. Huckabee is a retarded moron.
There is nothing about our attacking them that prompts this. They are prompted by the fact that they believe that they must establish a worldwide caliphate that has nothing to do with us, other than the fact that we live and breath and their intention is to destroy us.
Well, thanks for that, Innocent the Third. You dont mind if I call you a fucking tool, right? This is an embarrassing position for any man running for president of the United States to take. It is so completely void of thought and reason that it is shocking.
Last weeks debate was disturbing to watch. It is amazing to witness five men speaking to one man like he is a fool, when he is actually correct. And I dont for a minute believe that any of these clowns actually believe they are speaking the truth. They cannot. Because any man who has achieved the amount of power they have is not a moron. They are only taking this position because they have polled the base and they are catering to their ignorant beliefs, instead of explaining the truth. That is the opposite of a leader. These men are cowards.
Enjoy their brains.
We should greatly fear the day one of these assholes takes over the White House.
Hurts So Good
In the spirit of starting with "I'm not racist, but...", please don't consider this post as being anti-religion, but sometimes you get the feeling that some religious types really resent, not so much being told what to do, but being told what they can and cannot impose upon others. Damn those human rights organizations! (Seriously, how dare they?)
In the West, it tends to be issues like gay marriage and abortion rights that are red flags to a certain kind of religious bull. In Yemen, apparently, it's about the right of men to beat up women.
Yes, indeed. In a ... what's the right word? ... provocatively titled article ("There Must be Violence Against Women"
, published in the Yemen Times, Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy states firmly that in certain situations, "violence against women is a must."
Here are some things we learn from reading Al-Kholidy's thoughts.
First:
the term violence mustnt be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.
Got that? The existence of violence against women doesn't mean that we're witnessing anything involving gender inequality or absence of women's rights. Just so we're clear, 'K?
Next, if a man beats his wife following the stages of dispute resolution in the Qu'ran, then what we may be seeing is a failure to communicate:
If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.
Whoa there. If he beats her, it's because he misunderstands a word? Might it be possible to, well, correct this misapprehension? Just a crazy idea.
Next, assuming we're going to allow a bit of terminological ambiguity to slip past us, we can at least be assured that those men administering the beatings have pure motives.
Personally, I dont think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.
Well, OK then! Consider me reassured!
Further reassurance is just around the corner:
In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits.
Phew! I was a little concerned.
I mean:
Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?
Exactly! If ever a Napoleon-Dynamite "Gosh!" was well-deserved, there's one right there! Where I live, you can't walk the streets without being bowled over by angry women marching from police station to police station, from courthouse to courthouse. It's a public menace.
So, lastly, let us:
avoid the misleading propaganda of such [human rights] organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy societys religious, social and moral norms.
Just remember, as long as there are limits, it's all good, OK?
[Hat Tip: Theocrazy, via Saraah.]
Thank You, Mr. President
I was reading today about the Bush administration's plan to increase logging in Oregon's old growth forests by 700%. For those of you that don't know, old growth forests are forests that have not been logged for at least 200 years. They contain a variety of different tree species of varying ages, including some very large trees that are hundreds, or even thousands of years old.
Here's a handy little diagram of the state of old growth forests over the last few centuries:
You see that tiny little black patch? That's the 1% of old growth forests left, and ol' Dubya is planning a preemptive strike against the weapons of moss production. So I got to thinking, "Holy fuck! Is there anything positive this douchebag has done for our country in his entire time in office?"
It's a hard question to answer isn't it? I can only think of one thing I can thank George W. Bush for -- making me and many other Americans finally care about politics and allowing a discourse of true change in our nation's policy.
I remember the 2000 primary elections; I was attending my freshman year of college, Bush and McCain were battling it out on the Republican side, Al Gore and Bill Bradley on the Democratic side. Despite having daily discussions about it in my US Government class, the most I can remember thinking about was how McCain easily had the hottest wife.
Ultimately the election was "won" by a far right fringe Republican advocating smaller government, strict constitutionalism, and decreased US military involvement in world affairs.
Wait, that...sounds familiar.
Anyway, fast forward to the 2002 midterm elections, which came and went with nary a thought. In fact, the only thing I remember about the 2002 midterms was The Daily Show's School House Rock homage explaining how little importance I should be giving it.
It wasn't until Dubya had a full four years to completely fuck our country up that people finally started to pay attention. Despite comments of being "a uniter, not a divider" the 2004 elections were the most divisive in my lifetime. The ridiculously misleading concept of red states and blue states, terms never used before Bush's first run had now become ubiquitous.
However, it also produced the highest voter turnout since 1968, the tumultuous year that led to the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the height of the war in Viet Nam, and civil rights protests at home. So I guess that's one feather he can put in his cap.
The Republicans scored huge successes in all three branches of government that year, but it would only raise the pendulum higher in one direction to swing it to the other. After two more years in office with stellar results; the bloodiest year in Iraq still to come, dwindling support from The Coalition of the Willing (to Get the Fuck Out), a plunging dollar, threats of recession, and scandal after scandal for the Republicans, the nation finally woke up out of its retarded slumber and rallied for change.
The 2006 midterm elections didn't just have a slightly higher turnout than previous years, but significantly higher, the highest since 1970 and brought about the first major changes in Congress since 1994. It was the first time I personally had voted in a midterm.
Unfortunately not much has happened since then. More people died in Iraq in the year after the midterms than in any year prior. The Speaker of the House rolled over on every important piece of legislation promised, refusing to impeach an adminitration that had committed endless atrocities. The president of the Senate, a Mormon Democrat against abortion, gay marriage, and with mixed views on gun control and Iraq has tabled legislation even his own party was adamant about.
But at least I know about all of these things. And for the first time ever I'm sitting at the edge of my seat watching primary elections, refreshing news sites for the latest information. For the first time ever every Democratic candidate is preaching a system of universal health care, a reasonable energy policy, and sweeping tax reform, not just the fringe ones. For the first time ever the Republican candidate not considered the corporate whore media darling is raising the most money.
I reckon that if Bush had been a mediocre president -- not great but not the catastrophe he's become -- we'd still be settling for the status quo. Our two party system would still be hammering at milquetoast legislation that reached for the lowest common denominator. Before things could get better I guess they had to get worse, and I for one am anxiously awaiting that pendulum to finally swing in the other direction.
So thanks Dubya, we owe you one.
How Ron Paul Supporters Are Like Meerkats
When confronted by a predator, meerkats have been known to exhibit a mobbing behavior. A clan of meerkats will surround the hostile critter, hissing and spitting until the intruder is driven away.
Fox News Channels own Sean Hannity found out first hand that such behavior is not unique to the adorable little mongooses of the Kalahari. Hannity was chased through the snowy streets of New Hampshire by a group of Ron Paul supporters shouting clever slogans such as You suck, Sean! The mob was upset about Pauls exclusion from Foxs Jan. 6 Republican Candidate Forum and in a demonstration of their commitment to liberty, chased Hannity into a nearby hotel.
Ron Paul was a tremendous loser in the Iowa caucuses. Nine out of ten people voting in Republican caucuses rejected Paul, despite the fact that he has his very own campaign blimp. However, Pauls supporters were quick to point out that Rudy 9-11 Giuliani, who does not have a campaign blimp, was an even bigger loser in Iowa, but was allowed to participate in the debate.
Speeding Boats Nearly Trigger World War III
"Five boats, suspected to be from the Islamic Republic of Iran Revolutionary Guard Navy, maneuvered aggressively in close proximity of the [guided missile destroyer USS] Hopper," a Navy news release says.
"Following standard procedure, Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats and conducted evasive maneuvering."
The Iranians typically operate close to U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz, but in this incident the Iranian boats maneuvered aggressively, even passing between U.S. ships in the formation, a Navy official said Monday.
According to Pentagon officials, the boats radioed threats ahead of them:
The U.S. Navy also received a radio transmission that officials believe came from the Iranian boats. The transmission said, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," the U.S. military officials told CNN.
American seamen took battle stations and were reportedly on the verge of firing upon the boats ("the Pentagon will neither confirm nor deny . . ." when the Iranians veered off. The ranking American naval commander in the region also told the BBC that the Iranians "dropped floating 'box-like objects'" in the water at some point before their departure.
On the one hand, I have to admit that I'm embarrassed as a citizen to see three American ships of the line scared shitless by a handful of speedboats dropping boxes ("mysterious boxes!") into the water, but it also must be conceded that, in the aftermath of the Cole Incident, the American vessels were actually facing a credible potential threat.
Yet that fact in and of itself serves only to underscore just how far out of our depth we really are in this "War on Terror." The warships involved were a guided missile cruiser, a guided missile destroyer, and a frigate. These are seriously powerful and expensive machines, crewed by highly trained and professional personnel, deployed halfway across the world at great cost to American taxpayer - and vulnerable, as this incident shows, to a much smaller number of fanatically dedicated men putatively equipped with inexpensive explosives, delivered in commercially-available vehicles. Future historians, no doubt, will mark the invention of the AK-47 as the death-knell of the capacity of conventional military forces to project political power, and the development of the IED as the final nail in the coffin of conventional warfare. That said, I must confess to some dismay that our leadership and military establishment have yet to actually recognize this fact - even some three decades after the dénouement in Vietnam, two after the spectacular failure of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and despite the encouragement of "dirty little wars" by both superpowers against their rivals throughout the Cold War - and yet I suppose the directors of the military-industrial complex cannot be blamed for blinding themselves to their own obsolescence. Selah.
Meanwhile, the Iranians are treating the entire incident as a tempest in a teapot.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the Iranian action "provocative and dangerous".
Iran played down the event, describing it as an "ordinary occurrence".
"This... happens for the two sides every once in a while and, after the identification of the two sides, the issue is resolved," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said.
Official media also reported the US statement about Iran's allegedly threatening behaviour with scepticism, implying that Washington was exaggerating the incident.
While Washington's nose remains out of joint:
Although Tehran dismissed the incident as routine, Ms Rice told the BBC's Arabic service in an interview there was nothing normal about it.
"At least I hope that's not what the Iranians consider to be normal behaviour, because it was provocative, and that kind of provocation is dangerous and I would sincerely hope that the Iranians would refrain from any such activity."
It may yet signify a raising of tensions, but honestly I doubt that even Bush is (still) arrogant enough to think he could win a confrontation with Iran at this juncture - the Neocon clique has been severely chastised by reality (with its well-known liberal bias) these past two years. Even so, had the incident resulted in actual gunfire being exchanged, we all might have woken up in a very different world on Monday.
November 6, 2008
John McCain was elected as the 56th president of the United States when Barack Obama conceded the election late last night. McCain defeated Obama by a small margin of about 5%. The race was close in almost every state, but in the end it came down to Ohio and Florida and those state's 47 electoral votes. McCain ended the race with 294 electoral votes, 62 more than Obamas 232 electoral votes.
In his concession speech, Barack Obama said, "America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure hope."
McCain echoed Obama's desire for unity, and called out to the 50 million Americans who voted for his opponent, saying, "I will need your support and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can to deserve your trust." McCain also expressed optimism for America's future over the next four years. "Because we have done the hard work, we are entering a season of hope," the President said.
Eight months ago, no one could have imagined such an astonishing victory, as Obama steamrolled his fellow Democrats with victories in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The Republicans were in disarray after Huckabee won Iowa, followed by McCain winning New Hampshire, Romney taking Nevada and Huckabee topping South Carolina. Business minded and security concerned Republicans then rallied around McCain, who was seen as the only viable candidate to wrestle independent voters away from Barack Obama. McCain eventually won the Republican nomination in late May after consecutive victories in West Virginia, Nebraska, Oregon and Kentucky.
Worried Republicans then focused their attention on Obama, who had spent months collecting money and attracting voters turned off by the bitter GOP primaries. Republicans quickly framed the general election battle around two issues: Foreign policy and experience. McCains experience as a Navy pilot and 22 years as a Senator were a direct contrast with Obama, who had only two years experience as a Senator and had never served in the military. The Republican machine hammered away at Obama, whose lack of experience was a concern for voters, especially older Americans. McCains catch phrase began to resonate with independents.
There's a big difference between having experience and judgment and not having it.
McCain was also greatly aided by the success of the surge in Iraq. The fear of an Iraqi religious war died down over the summer as Bush's policy of engaging Sheiks instead of the government produced results. Obamas claim that Bush was paying off the Sunnis with arms fell on deaf ears as Americans saw the number of casualties plummet. In the end, the Democratic candidates assertion that he managed to get it right on Iraq in 2002" was undermined by the success of the war.
Still, Obama held the lead through August with his charismatic personality and Politics of Hope. Younger voters were drawn to Obama in unprecedented numbers, even greater than Bobby Kennedy, with whom Obama is often compared. Meanwhile, older voters supported McCain in large numbers, which became a running joke before McCain stump speeches.
Should we take a nap first?
Concern about Obamas lack of experience heightened in late August, when President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan was overthrown in a bloody coup by hard line General Nadeem Taj of the ISI and Turkey opened a front against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Oil increased to $130 a barrel, bringing more hardship on Americans already suffering through a recession brought on by the housing crisis.
Unsure of the future, independents began to leave Obama. Many, like Matt Pearson, a waiter from Cleveland, Ohio, began looking for security over change.
"He could use a little more experience," he says. "A lot of the people I know say they really like him, but just don't think it's his time yet."
What could have been a tightly contested race, quickly turned to an easy victory for McCain on October 2nd, when 438 were killed in simultaneous subway attacks in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The subway attacks shifted the tone of the campaign. Americans began to support to McCain in large numbers as he promised justice against the Iranian government. Obamas calls for a reasoned response were met with deaf ears.
Democrats had hoped that a large turnout of young voters would give them an advantage, but the large numbers were unable to overcome the soccer mom vote that went to McCain. Voters between the ages of 18 and 24 made up about 17% percent of the vote in 2004, 10% higher than in 2000. Voters between the ages of 18 and 29 made up about 24% of the vote, 7% more than in 2000. But the security minded soccer mom vote increased by 21%. Nationally, the turnout for all voters was the highest since 1968, at nearly 64%.
Obamas young followers are saddened, yet understanding. Members of the Young Democrats were disappointed with the result of the election and said they planned to wear black on Thursday in support of Obama. The national president of the college group Christopher Samet said,
"I'm a little surprised, but I just hope America can move on, support our leader, and unite through this difficult time."
McCain took a modest tone in his victory speech on Wednesday,
"America has spoken, and I'm humbled by the trust and the confidence of my fellow citizens. With that trust comes a duty to serve all Americans. And I will do my best to fulfill that duty every day as your president."
His first test will be the war in Iraq, where large scale fighting suddenly broke out this morning between Sunni and Shiite factions after months of truce.
Asshole Fuckface Roundup #27
Not many know the name of the very first Asshole Fuckface: Fritz Haber. Fritz was an inventor, scientist and actually won a Nobel Prize for his work in chemistry. But most importantly, he is known as the "father of chemical warfare" for his work creating poison gases that killed millions during WWI and WWII. After watching his gases do their work on a WWI battlefield, Habers wife blew her brains out with his service revolver on their front lawn. He went right back to the battlefield the next day. And when Hitler took over Germany, Haber did the honorable thing and attempted to renounce Judaism and become a Christian, only to be told he couldnt because his mommy was a Jew. He fled and died in 1934, too early to witness his gases kill off his Jewish relatives. He was posthumously declared the first Asshole Fuckface. Asshole Fuckfaces are not always easy to find and I have been cursed with the task. Each week I pour over the news to find the worst human beings alive and present them for you to judge and hate. So, put on your plastic moo-moos, this is going to be ugly.
First up, you know what pisses me off about men wrongfully convicted of rape? They are freeloaders.
Meet Warren Blackwell. He spent three years in an English prison after being wrongfully convicted of rape.
Warren Blackwell, 38, spent three years in jail as a convicted sex attacker until his 'victim' was unmasked as a fantasist.
Hey, Britain, easy on the weird words. Unless there is a dragon or a wizard around, lets not use the word fantasist. Thanks.
Turns out the woman who accused him of the attack had a habit of falsely accusing men, then changing her name and moving on. She took down seven innocent dudes and is clearly a deranged Asshole Fuckface. Warren's crime never actually took place. So, Warren was released from prison after three years in 2005. But the exciting thing about his story is that there are two Asshole Fuckfaces, the second being the government of Britain.
Warren was awarded £252,500 for the wrongful imprisonment. But now the government has slapped him with a bill for £12,500 for his "board and lodging. You know, the place where he lived while he was wrongfully convicted for a crime he did not commit. And its the perfect amount, punitive yet not worth fighting.
I tried to fight against it but my solicitor says the only hope of overturning the decision would be to go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. I would probably use up all the compensation money on legal fees if I did that.
It seems this is not the first time the English have totally fucked over the wrongfully convicted.
The practice of charging "bed and breakfast" was challenged in 2007 by the Bridgewater Three, the men wrongly convicted of murdering newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater in 1978, but the principle was upheld by the House of Lords.
Keep on Asshole Fuckfacing, England!
Next up, FEAR!, FEAR!, FEAR!
Rudy Giuliani is in the Asshole Fuckface Hall of Fame, but that doesnt mean we cant still call his shit out. Rudy finished 6th in the Iowa caucus, mostly because he is a lying, adulterous, arrogant douchebag. And yet, he is not down. Not Rudy. Hes flying high and did someone mention 9/11?
He flatlined in Iowa and he's struggling in New Hampshire, but Rudy Giuliani shook off the early-state blues Thursday as only he can.
"None of this worries me - Sept. 11, there were times I was worried," Giuliani said.
Thanks, stretch. By the way, on September 11th I was not actually worried as much as completely freaked out and horrified. To describe yourself as simply worried is to describe a psychopath. But I was only watching the horrible deaths of thousands of New Yorkers as they died in a building in which I used to work. I guess you had your guy in control hat on. Keep doing whatever you can do to remind people that you were around on 9/11, taking control of a situation you made worse with your inept planning.
Oh, and Rudy unveiled a new ad this week. Did someone mention fear?
Holy shit! Somebody kill someone to save us! Now!
Next up: If you let old, conservative, white men talk about black people, you will always end up with an Asshole Fuckface. That is just simple math.
On Thursday, Bill Bennett was asked to come down to CNN and give his expert political commentary during the Iowa Caucus. And, why wouldnt you want a racist to dispense his thoughts while a black man is one of the main candidates? I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, wins this for the Democrats.
I have been watching him. I watched him on 'Meet the Press,' I've watched him on [Anderson Cooper's] show, watched him on all the CNN shows -- he never brings race into it. He never plays the race card.
Talk about the black community -- he has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson, you don't have to act like Al Sharpton. You can talk about the issues. Great dignity. And this is a breakthrough. And good for the people of Iowa.
Hey, the racist found a palatable Negro! That makes me feel great. And thanks for not using the word uppity, Bill.
He knows black people.
And our last Asshole Fuckface is the first official scab of the writers strike.
Id like to introduce you to John Ridley. Hes one of those rare, conservative black men who are fawned over and celebrated by the right wing for their rare brilliance. Hes like an albino penguin. Who wouldnt take a picture of and gawk at that? Guys like the above-mentioned Bill Bennett love the John Ridleys of the world because they Can talk about the issues with great dignity. Ridley has been making the rounds on radio shows as a conservative pundit and the strike has greatly helped his incredible lack of celebrity.
Ridley has a resume that includes the movies Three Kings and U-Turn. Three Kings is an awesome movie, mostly because Ridley didnt write it. He wrote the original script and it was re-written by David O'Russell, who is actually a quality writer. Ive auditioned for a couple of Ridleys pilots and was amazed at how shitty they were. It wasnt until later that I learned his entire reputation is built upon the writing of another scribe. Ridley is the epitome of the Hollywood writer: Largely lacking talent but making a fortune due to an undeserved reputation and/or luck.
Since the strike began Ridley has gained a reputation as a dissenter. Dissent is fine, most writers dont care and many actually encourage it because opposing views can only make our cause stronger in the long run. But this week, John Ridley decided to go fi-core. Fi-core is a legal term for scab.
A union writer who goes "fi-core" loses his ability to vote in WGA board elections or industry-related events (Emmys, etc.). A fi-core member still has health care paid for by the union and the union still protects him from being taken advantage of contractually.
And they can work during a strike. It is another great outcome of Reagans union busting policies. So, Asshole Fuckface Ridley has decided to become a scab. With that decision he will be lauded by the right for his courage and invited on more right wing shows. You are watching the emergence of a black Dennis Miller, except Ridley was never a very good stand up comedian or writer. I met him once, a long time ago, and found him to be an angry and bitter individual. Going fi-core is very in character.
Congrats to each of this week's Asshole Fuckfaces. You will receive a leather FearTheReaper bib!
Fuck Barack Obama
Volume 11 of the FTR series in which he puts the word "fuck" in front of a presidential candidate's name.
The Iowa primaries begin today and I have yet to give Barack Obama the lashing he deserves. Obama is a slick political operative who wants to desperately portray himself as anything but part of the Washington machine. But once you pull way the curtains, you see the same bullshit backing Obama that he supposedly fights against every day. He is, quite simply, full of shit.
The best place to start with Obama is his constant false battle against lobbyists. Obama would have you believe he does not take money from lobbyists but that is a complete lie. He does. What he is doing is splitting hairs. Turns out Barack only refuses to take money from those who are registered as lobbyists of the federal government. What an incredible load of shit and a huge liability for the general election, when he will have to explain in a debate why state lobbyists, wealthy donors and wives of lobbyists are not lobbyists. Did I say wives? Fuck yes, I did.
Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obamas campaign, called to ask if the lobbyists wife would be interested in making a political contribution.
I was quite taken aback, he said. He was very direct in saying that youre a lobbyist and we dont want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network.
Sounds like exactly the type of ethical government Im looking for at this time. Obama is building a campaign on something that is going to destroy him in a general election. Right now he is the media golden boy, rarely having to experience the negative press of Clinton. When it comes his way, he will have given reporters a massive amount of spin and bullshit to throw back in his face. But, that is what happens when you lie.
Obama is also using the same tactics as Scientology. If you want to be part of that wonderful religion, you can give them money. But you can also work instead of giving money and that is exactly what the lobbyists are doing for Obama.
Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities, said of the network of lobbyists supporting Obama: I would imagine that its as large as the Clinton list.
He said that while lobbyists cannot give money to Obama, they can give policy and campaign support. Indeed, K Street denizens have rare policy and national campaign expertise.
Clean as a whistle, that Barack. The K Street crowd knows Obama wont take money, so they are doing other favors for him. I fail to see the difference. While telling supporters that he wont take money from lobbyists, his campaign is contacting lobbyists to tap into their networks of business clients and acquaintances.
The gains Obama is making among Washingtons Democratic establishment are hard to see because Obamas K Street supporters have kept a low profile. As a result, Obamas K Street network is a stealthy operation.
Here are just a few of the heavy hitters working for Barack
Former Sen. Tom Daschle, a consultant for Alston & Bird
Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC
Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon
Jimmy Williams, VP of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America
Thomas Walls, VP of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting
Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young
Oh, yeah, but those are just guys helping him. They are not giving him money.
Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader, who endorsed Obama and contributed to his campaign, is a consultant -- not a registered lobbyist -- working with Alston & Bird, a business firm that earned nearly $7.1 million from lobbying in 2006. Obama has received tens of thousands of dollars from other partners in the same firm.
Hes not taking money from lobbyists; hes just taking money from lobbyists.
A couple of weeks ago, Obama started attacking 527s. 527s are independent groups that can support candidates but are barred from coordinating with the campaign. They often run their own ads for candidates. Now Obama doesnt like them either.
They are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of special interests that have too much influence in Washington.
He was taking a swipe at John Edwards, who is getting help from two 527s that represent unions. I guess we can assume Barack now wont take money from the unions when he is nominated. Or, if he does, the Republicans can use his own words against him. Another brilliant move from Mr. Clean. And someone should tell Obama that one of the two unions backing Edwards is the Service Employees International Union. It seems Obama got a little help from the SEIU when he was campaigning here in California. But he didnt take money, so its cool.
He had breakfast at the modest home of Pauline Beck, a union home-care worker, and followed her on early morning rounds helping an elderly amputee, John Thornton, in Oakland. Times photographer Francine Orr was there as the Illinois Democrat swept, mopped, dusted, made coffee, did some laundry and dishes for Thornton, and listened to details of their lives.
Presumably, he did not ask them for donations. But the home visit was sponsored by the Service Employees International Union, which just may have a political interest in the presidential campaign.
Just another day of work for our favorite non-special interests politician. After he was done accepting the help of the SEIU, he took a trip up to Sacramento, where we Californians keep our State Capitol. While he was there, state Democrat heavy hitter Steve Westley threw him a federal lobbyist free lunch for state lobbyists.
Hosts for today's Obama fundraiser included former controller and failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly, who sent letters to the capital lobby corps inviting them to an intimate fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama.
The cost: $1,000 for the lunch, $2,300 for lunch and reception.
Sweet. And dont forget that Obama does not take money from lobbyists . Or the "stranglehold that lobbyists and special interests have on our democracy. Because Obama only takes money from state lobbyists. And there is no way Obama will get the shit kicked out of him in a general election for being a lying scumbag.
And please ignore the fact that Obama has three political aides working on his campaign while they received payments for being
lobbyists.
Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obamas payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.
And he has even more ways around his bullshit lobbyist rule.
Obama accepted $55,019 from employees who work at lobbying firms but are not registered federal lobbyists. And the campaign accepts money from companies that are not classified as lobbying firms but have lobbying divisions.
And lets not forget about his little wifey rule, which seems to not be an isolated incident.
Spouses of lobbyists also can give donations. One example: Ben Barnes, a federally registered lobbyist, has given contributions to Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, but not to Obama or John Edwards.
However, Barnes' wife, Melanie Barnes, has given to Obama and Edwards on the same dates and in the same amounts as her husband's contributions to the other candidates. She lists her occupation as homemaker.
So, next time an Obama supporter tells you he doesnt take money from lobbyists, tell them to fuck off because they are full of shit. Obama is no different than any other politician out there, or is he worse? Just three years ago he let a corrupt businessman buy him a backyard. Yes, I said a backyard.
Apparently there's nothing illegal about the deal, made while Rezko was widely know to be the target of a federal corruption investigation, According to Chicago Tribune reports, Obama bought his house in June 2005 for some $300,000 less than the asking price. The same day, Rezko's wife bought the adjoining lot, paying the full $625,000 asking price. One question raised was whether Rezko's wife subsidized Obama's purchase of the $1-milllion-plus home, while providing a next door private preserve that can't be reached from a public street.
Obama later issued an apology for allowing a businessman who was being investigated for corruption to buy him a backyard. I mean, its a mistake any of us clean, non-corrupt guys could make, right?
It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.
"To believe. Nice non-apology apology, asshole.
Obama also likes to whip out his Iraq card whenever possible. Turns out he was the only one out of the three major Democratic candidates who did not vote for the war, mostly because he was not in the Senate at the time. But that does not stop Barack from proudly spelling out that he would have made the correct decision on Iraq and Clinton always makes the wrong ones. Just dont pay attention to the fact that Obama has always voted exactly the same way as Hillary. Someone actually made a nice comparison for us on their Iraq votes.
Of the total of 69 votes we compiled -- some significant, some not -- it turns out that the two differed on only one.
Clinton and Obama have voted the opposite way on only one vote on our list: The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.
So, that is how Barack made himself stand out from the pack on Iraq during his time in the Senate, by voting exactly the same. Except that one time, when he voted the way Bush wanted him to and Hillary didnt. If Barack had been in the Senate, one could actually make the claim that he wouldnt have even shown up for the vote. Because that is what he did for the very important Lieberman-Kyl amendment.
The bill was extremely fucked up because it classified the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organization. That leaves a pretty big loophole for Bush to attack Iran. Hillary voted for the bill and Obama continues to bring it up, even though he did not show up to vote. His position cowardly and pathetic. You know the guy who never votes but complains about Bush? His name is Obama.
But even worse than that, Obama actually co-sponsored a similar bill earlier in the year, which would have also labeled the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
(14) the United States should designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism throughout the Middle East and plays an important role in the Iranian economy, as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of specially designated global terrorists, and place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters;
But now Hillarys vote is bad and his co-sponsorship of the same bill is forgotten. Somebody smells like a political opportunist and an asshole. Actions speak louder than words, Barack. But then again, what else would one expect from a slick politician?
The more you look into Obama, the more you will see a slick political operative who condemns the game that he uses to his benefit.
During his 2004 U.S. Senate primary bid, Obama sent a newsletter to constituents at taxpayer expense that touted his accomplishments. It went out just days before the effective date of a ban on such practices close to election time -- part of a reform package he had championed.
Nice work, Mr. Clean. You are truly bringing the politics of hope.
Obama would also like us to believe he is some great liberal hope, while he takes positions and campaigns further to the right than Hillary. And it is a track he has been laying for years. One only needs to look at his days back in the Illinois State Legislature.
This is how Obama voted in 1997 when he was new to the Illinois legislature and got a chance to take a stand against bills to impose a similar statewide ban on what critics call partial-birth abortion:
"Present," the political equivalent of taking a pass.
The state Senate voted 14 times on various abortion restrictions during his tenure. Half the time, Obama voted "present."
Im sure that is what his constituents in the incredibly liberal Hyde Park district were hoping he would do. But Obama will say or do anything to get ahead. That is probably why he has been using Right wing talking points to attack Edwards and Clinton. If either of those two win, expect a shitload of Even Barack Obama said... questions for the Democrats. He is undermining his own party in a fantastic way.
Obama adopts and repeats ugly right-wing framing of liberal positions so often that I am amazed he is a Democrat. Many liberals were horrified to hear the political opportunist pick up the issue of Social Security during the past couple of months. That is straight out of the Republican handbook and an issue that is far from pressing. Or at least that is what a guy named Barack Obama said in his book, The Audacity of Hope.
(Page 183): As vital as it may be to raise the wages of American workers and improve their retirement security, perhaps our most pressing task is to fix our broken health-care system. Unlike Social Security, the two main government-funded health-care programsMedicare and Medicaidreally are broken; without any changes by 2050, these two entitlements, along with Social Security, could grow to consume as large a share of our national economy as the entire federal budget does today.
But when the opportunist needs something to use against Clinton, why not pick up one of the right wings favorite straw men? The reason we do not hear about Social Security being a problem anymore is because privatization of Social Security is a dead issue. It will not happen, so Republicans have moved on. It was never really in peril as they claimed; they just wanted to turn it over to the stock market.
Social Security does not face an urgent crisis. It will be solvent through 2041 even under the dismal 1.8 percent economic growth rate assumed by the Social Security actuaries under the most-cited "intermediate" projection for the program. According to that scenario, Social Security will have a deficit equal to 2 percent of payroll (or .7 percent of gross national product) over the full 75-year period that the actuaries attempt to forecast.
Thank God an idiot Democrat named Obama is around to pick it back up. The right wing, of course immediately started to use it as an issue again.
But that is Obama. Whatever it takes to get ahead, even if it does your supposed side harm. In the past couple of months he has claimed John Kerry was divisive (Really? Ever heard of Karl Rove?), that Al Gore alienated half the country, started attacking Edwards for being a trial lawyer, began using religion as a political tool,
Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks prepared for delivery to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty...
Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."
and attacking Hillarys health care mandates. Please let me know which one of these is not a right wing talking point. What Obama is doing is attempting to run a cautious centrist campaign and in doing so pushing away his base. Its idiotic and it feels really, really familiar.
And it is a strange way to demonstrate the Politics of Hope. Im no fan of Hillarys mandates, but not because of the insane position Obama has taken in ads.
Flooding the radio with ads claiming "Clinton would force people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it.
Smell that anyone? That is fear. That is the Politics of Hope using the Karl Rove playbook, instead of pointing out why his plan kicks ass. Unfortunately, his health care plan does not kick ass because it defines centrist caution. It is just enough to the right of the other candidates to be completely useless. And when the most important liberal columnist in the country called Obama on his weak plan, Obama distorted Krugmans own words , in another example of bullshit right wing tactics.
...But then Obama started attacking his rivals from the right, denouncing their proposals using exactly the same false claims that conservatives will use to try to derail reform in the future.
And now, having been caught out on the facts, the Obama people respond with a personal attack, lifting quotes out of context to pretend that I never had problems with the plan. Something is very wrong here.
Yeah, something is very wrong. The guy liberals believe is their champion is looking like a prick. Obama recently hired Robert Gibbs as his communications director. You are probably saying, Who gives a shit? Well, Howard Dean probably does. See, Gibbs was one of three people who created this ad.
Mmmm, yummy, Politics of Hope. Even Karl Rove would blush at that one. As this campaign heats up expect some pretty amazingly awful shit from Obamas communications director.
But, hey, at least Gibbs is not as bad as Obamas spokesman, David Axelrod, who tried to lay some blame for Bhuttos assassination at Hillary Clintons feet in a bizarre statement.
David Axelrod said Ms. Clinton "was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in the event today."
Really? Obama, of course, defended the comments.
This is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it.
He in no way was suggesting Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for this situation.
Got that? Not directly, just indirectly, which is totally cool. But, its not like Obama has ever had his shit together when it comes to Pakistan.
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
Right on, George Bush. Oh, wait, I dont even think George Bush would do that because it is fucking crazy. (That is not actually a good reason, Bush just hasnt done it) Either way, this is one of those liberal positions I just find perplexing. But maybe I just dont understand the progressive movement like I thought I did. For instance, I didnt know they were against gays.
A couple of months ago Obama sponsored a three date Gospel tour in South Carolina. He invited a popular gospel singer who believes gays can be changed by religious intervention.Oddly, that did not go over well with the majority of gay members of the Democratic Party. Maybe it didnt go over well because it was something a Republican would do. Wait, it was something the Republicans did do.
Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who has detailed his struggle with gay tendencies and vowed to battle "the curse of homosexuality," said yesterday he'll perform as scheduled at the Republican National Convention on Thursday, despite controversy over his view that sexuality can be changed by religious intervention.
Sweet. Obama dismissed the controversy and calls for McClurkin to be removed from the concert. Turns out everybody has the right to speak.
I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division.
But he can totally sing at the concert I sponsored. I suppose if Edwards sponsored a spoken word concert and had David Duke, the Grand Wizard of the KKK and Prussian Blue sing, it would be cool. No harm, right? Just some people he disagreed with saying some stuff at a concert he put on.
Before the concert, Obama made sure to appear in a video to tell the audience that these were some of his favorite artists. Nice touch. This was a pretty despicable move for a progressive running for president. Actually, I would say it is quite simply not something a liberal would do. It is something a Republican would do, however. It is a clear attempt to appeal to southern Black voters, many of whom are supporting Clinton. It is no different than Reagans famous wink to Southern racists in 1980.
I believe in states rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can at the community level and the private level.
Obama says he supports gay rights but in the south, he gives an entirely different message with his actions. But what else would one expect from the Politics of Hope?
Barack Obama is a political opportunist who will do whatever it takes to get elected. His entire campaign is built on lies and distortions to such an extent that they will be used brutally against him if he wins the Democratic nomination. Hopefully that does not happen.
Two Days Until The Primary Madness Begins
Well, we are officially in the shit. The Iowa Caucus will be held on Thursday. A bunch of Midwesterners will be allowed, for no apparent reason, to have a huge impact on the Republican and Democratic choices for president again. And the rest of the country will have to deal with their ignorant choice for months.
The polls are looking as expected. Huckabee and Romney are neck and neck on the Republican side, while Edwards, Clinton and Obama are pretty much in a dead heat for the Democrats. Giuliani is toast and has been since the news of his extra-marital affair bill paid for by taxpayers story broke.
The attacks have picked up. Mike Huckabee pulled one of the most bizarre and idiotic moves of the campaign yesterday, when he called a press conference to show a negative ad that he wasnt going to air. Let me just repeat that. He asked reporters to come down to view something he didnt want people to see. Heres a tip, Huck, you dont have to keep flogging yourself for Jesus. He doesnt give a shit.
Heres the Huck in his moment of glory.
The reporters obviously didnt understand why he was showing them something he was not going to show people. Retarded.
Meanwhile, Romney is going positive. And cheesy!
Thanks for turning around the Olympics! That was a big deal for me. Oh, and also, thanks for boiling down what I care about.
Together we can grow our economy, stop illegal immigration, defend life and preserve the values that make America the hope of the earth.
Iraq, cough, cough.
On the Democratic side, Edwards and Obama began attacking each other a bit more.
In one of his standard riffs, Obama asserts that his career choices -- community organizer, civil rights lawyer, elected official -- underscores his commitment to public service and to bringing about political and social change. He always mentions the lucrative job offers he turned down, but today he added a new line.
"That's why I didn't become a trial lawyer," Obama told the Newton audience -- a clear dig at Edwards, who made millions in the courtroom.
Oooooo, hes a trial lawyer. Hey, Obama, youre a politician. Thats actually worse.
Edwards gave Obama a little slap back.
He related his familiar campaign mantra of battling interest groups inside the beltway, he implied that Obama just wasn't up to the task.
"I hear people say you can sit at a table with these people, negotiate with them, and they will volunteer their power away," Edwards said. "That is a complete fantasy. You can't nice these people to death."
Obama often says he has ability to bring people together while forging compromises, making the idea a major cornerstone of his campaign's 'change' theme.
Ooooo, he's nice. Slam! Actually, thats a politician's way of calling someone a pussy. Although, I cant really agree with that assessment, because the Obama camp made one of the worst mistakes of the campaign last week, when they attempted to lay some of the blame of Bhuttos assassination on Clinton.
AXELROD: Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this.
I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.
Uh, what? Maybe wait until the body is in the ground, champ. Meanwhile, Baracks commercials make him out to be the voice of hope.
Jesus, I almost cried.
Hillary has decided to do the one thing that can really, really help her:
Shut the fuck up. That is what one does when they are an unlikable person.
But what is striking about the final days of one of the most fascinating campaigns any of us have witnessed here in Iowa is how Clinton has avoided becoming the focus of attention. The national front-runner has become, if not invisible, virtually ignored -- and that seems just the way she wants it.
Shhh, be very, very quiet. And dont answer questions from the commoners.
This afternoon in Fort Madison, Clinton took no questions. After her speech, she signed autographs for about 15 minutes then had to hit the snow-covered roads for her Muscatine stop.
Sunday night in Iowa Falls, after her 40-minute monologue ended shortly before 10 p.m, Clinton immediately began to pose for photographs and listen to caucusgoers concerns one on one.
Iowa Falls resident Alene Rickels, 51, when asked her thoughts about the event, told a reporter: Her speech was really good, but it wouldve been interesting to see how she reacted to questions.
I really thought she would take questions, said Rickels, a middle school teacher. Its late in the day, so Im assuming that thats the reason. I dont know what she did the rest of the day.
Clinton took no questions from audiences at any of her stops earlier Sunday, in Vinton, Traer and Cedar Falls.
That message control raised eyebrows for other caucusgoers.
You go, girl! Maybe you can get a shrub to hide behind, too. Could you imagine Bill Clinton not answering questions on the campaign trail? But Clinton did release a new ad. Its great, because it makes me want to punch someone in the neck.
Hey, thanks for fucking over people who made prudent financial decisions and helping the assholes who took shitty loans, you fucking asshole. I appreciate you reminding me why I will never vote for you.
So, there you have it. Its a five-man race and one of them has a vagina.
Ron Paul: Just Another Religious Lunatic
Ah, yes, I just called the golden boy a religious lunatic. That is the term I apply to people in this day and age who do not believe in evolution and are against abortion. I can actually understand how someone can be against abortion and I dont label those people lunatics but when it comes to not believing in evolution, youre a nutter.
Well, there he was in all his glory, proudly declaring that he does not believe in the theory of evolution. But ignore all that because he wants to stop the Iraq War and bring out troops home. He wants to kill the IRS and let you roll around in your money. That sounds exciting, doesnt it? Oh, and lets not forget about the evil Federal Reserve. Hes going to do away with that all by himself, without the aid of Congress. Good luck.
Focus on all of those things. Do not pay attention to the fact that he DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. Or what he considers to be the greatest
moral issue of our time.
As an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been concerned with the rights of unborn people. I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time.
Strange, I dont hear his cult yammering on about his abortion stance. Maybe they are so awed by his brilliance that they are ashamed to talk about it, so I will do so for them.
Ron Paul actually has the courage to compare the horrors of Nazis with abortion.
Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.
This might be the point where you liberals who support Paul should stand up and explain your asinine decision. The one thing anti-abortion activists all have in common is their sneaky attempts to undermine Roe vs. Wade. Whether using drunk driving cases in which a fetus was killed, or attempting to pass Human Life Amendments at the state level, or trying to pass laws that allow pharmacists to decline giving out the morning after pill, they rarely come at the issue head on. Ron Paul is no exception.
Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.
Uh huh. And Ron Paul uses his state rights bullshit to push his religious lunacy on the public. What he is and all he has ever been is another religious fanatic who is attempting to force us to live his way of life. A man doesnt write two books on stopping abortion if it is not one of the driving forces of his life. Check out 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue.
As of late, he has tempered his rhetoric a bit because he doesnt want to drive away his college minions. But earlier this year, Paul was spewing his anti-abortion glory.
This is a practical, direct approach to ending Federal court tyranny, which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
Well, if someone read me that sentence and asked who wrote it I would have said Huckabee or Pat Robertson. But it is none other the next hero of our country, Ron Paul.
Quite a few liberals are getting swept up in this lunatics anti-war talk without knowing much of his religious politics. But his stance against the Iraq War is not liberal, it is classic conservatism in the form of old fashioned isolationism. He just stands out because the Republicans have murdered classic conservatives. When it comes to the abortion issue, the only difference between Paul and his fellow religious nuts like Huckabee is the path to banning abortion. Huckabee wants a federal law making abortion illegal, Paul wants to do it one community at a time. Either way, hes a nutter who believes that human beings are created at conception and doesnt believe in that crazy theory of evolution.
Anyone Who Believes Al Qaeda Killed Bhutto Is An Asshole
Seriously. A complete and total asshole, and a self-centered one at that. How many minutes after the death of Benazir Bhutto did it take for the idiots among us to point the finger at Al Qaeda? It is such a pathetic and ignorant claim that I am amazed how many now consider it truth. But who else would kill the former Prime Minister of Pakistan than Americas enemy? I think at this point we can be certain that anyone who is killed anywhere in the world was murdered by Al Qaeda.
US experts are popping out of the woodwork to explain to us that Al Qaeda is the only group that could possibly benefit from such an act. Many Americans will soak it up because the alternative would be to do a little reading on their own. And we are nothing more than a nation of spoon fed retards.
Look at this article in Newsweek, just one day after the assassination.
'Almost Certainly Al Qaeda'
Bruce Riedel, a former defense and intelligence official who helped make South Asia policy in the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, says he believes Benazir Bhutto's assassination "was almost certainly the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's Pakistani allies." He says, "Their objective is to destabilize the Pakistani state, to break up the secular political parties, to break up the army so that Pakistan becomes a politically failing state in which the Islamists in time can come to power much as they have in other failing states."
Yes, in fucking deedy. That is why Al Qaeda denied involvement, as they always do when they kill people. Who else could it possibly be? They are, after all, Americas enemy and she was running for election in a DEMOCRACY. Cant you see it? It is so obvious! No one else would ever gain from her death. Except these people:
Active and retired military, renegade intelligence and secret service elements, radical Islamic political parties, extremist Sunni movements, indigenous terrorist organizations and Afghan and Pakistani "Taliban" movements and the leader of the opposition party, Nawaz Sharif. Oh, and the president himself. Every single one of these organizations are more powerful than Al Qaeda in Pakistan and gain from her death.
And then there are some interesting facts coming out.
Police officers had frisked the 3,000 to 4,000 people attending Thursday's rally when they entered the park, but as the speakers from Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party droned on, the police abandoned many of their posts.
Huh. Did Al Qaeda get the police to abandon their posts? Because if they did, then they have a mighty impressive organization.
The government, of course, was quick to produce a damning phone call recording that implicates a leader of the Taliban.
"We have intelligence intercepts indicating that al Qaida leader Baitullah Mehsud is behind her assassination," Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said.
Taliban, Al Qaeda, whats the diff? And dont pay attention to the henchman who was on the other side of that phone call. His name was Maulvi Sahib, which isnt even a real name.
The last part is just an honorific and the first refers to someone who leads Friday prayers.
Oh, and Maulvi Sahib never calls Mehsud by name. Mehsud is only referred to as Emir. Also, the call was not made to Mehsuds house, it was made to Anwar Shads house, where Mehsud is supposedly staying right now. Maybe I should also mention that Anwar Shah is an incredibly common name. And finally, like any good assassination organization, they had to remind each other during the phone call that they did it.
They were our men there.
Uh huh. Yeah, that is some damning evidence. Soak it up America.
And thats not all! The Pakistani government has refused the help of many country's law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI. Oh, but youre saying, Why should they? They are capable. Clearly, that is why they
hosed down the evidence of the crime one hour after the assassination.
The scene of the attack also was watered down with a high-pressure hose within an hour, washing away evidence.
That is something a government definitely does if they want to prove that Al Qaeda was responsible. Also, dont pay any attention to Musharrafs repeatedly ignoring Bhuttos requests for more security.
Washington lawyer Mark A. Siegel, Bhutto's U.S. spokesman, released an e-mail that he said Bhutto had written Oct. 26, eight days after the earlier attempt on her life, complaining that Musharraf had denied her needed security measures.
Its really looking like Al Qaeda, isnt it? Especially when you throw in an illegal burial without an autopsy.
According to a leading lawyer, Athar Minallah, an autopsy is mandatory under Pakistan's criminal law in a case of this nature.
"It is absurd, because without autopsy it is not possible to investigate. Is the state not interested in reaching the perpetrators of this heinous crime or there was a cover-up?" Minallah said.
And let us not ignore the ridiculous explanation of her death from Musharrafs government, which completely contradicts what many witnesses and reporters saw.
Benazir Bhutto died from a fractured skull caused by hitting her head on part of her car's sunroof as a bomb ripped through a crowd of her supporters, a spokesman for Pakistan's Interior Ministry said Friday.
Really? You guys dont think those two bullets that hit her head and neck had anything to do with her death?
Shots rang out and Pakistan's former prime minister and the leader of the Pakistan People's Party slumped back into the vehicle, blood pouring from her head. Three to five shots were fired, with at least one shot hitting her in the neck, witnesses said.
And dont pay any attention to the people who were with her when she died.
Babar Awan, a senior official of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, said of the sunroof theory: "That is a false claim." He said he'd seen her body after the attack and there were at least two bullet marks, one in the neck and one on the top of the head: "It was a targeted, planned killing. The firing was from more than one side."
Please ignore the initial statements from the government and doctors confirming the eyewitness claims. Statements that did not occur in the heat of the moment, but rather hours and a day after her death.
On Thursday, hours after Bhutto's death, the Pakistani Interior Ministry said she died from a gunshot wound to the neck, with the gunman firing as Bhutto stood through the open sunroof of her vehicle while leaving a rally in Rawalpindi.
Please don't ignore the later, changing statements.
But on Friday, the Interior Ministry said Bhutto was killed by shrapnel from the explosion.
Then, hours later, the ministry said she died from a skull fracture suffered when she either fell or ducked into the car as a result of the shots or the explosion and crashed her head into a sunroof latch.
Okey dokey. The doctors were the ones who said Bhutto had died from gunshots, then they went away and the government took over. All statements since have come from government sources, you know, the people who killed her. By the way, Al Qaeda is known for using bombs.
However, Al Qaeda has rarely, if ever, used gunmen in assassination attempts.
Bhuttos fellow party members think the Al Qaeda claim is a load of shit.
"Those who want to create this impression that the attack was carried out by al Qaeda and the Taliban actually do not want to real faces behind the incident to be exposed," Farhadullah Babar, a party spokesman, told the BBC's Urdu service. "They are spreading such rumors to divert attention."
PPP members have also contended that Bhutto died from a gunshot to the neck.
But, dont worry, weve got our man on the job.
Musharraf, a critical ally in the Bush administration's war on terrorism, has vowed to root out violent Islamic extremists from the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan and during an address to the nation on Thursday night said Bhutto's assassination "was the action of the same terrorists against whom we are at war."
Oh, Im sure it was the same terrorists, because Im completely retarded. Anyone who believes this is the work of Al Qaeda is a fucking moron. The presidents foe was just killed when a bullet entered her neck. Not to hard to figure this one out, considering he is a military man. But, maybe we should give him another $10 billion in untraceable cash payments, considering hes fighting Al Qaeda for us. Because, as we all know, the Bush administration makes one great call after another in that area of the world.
Bhutto returned to Pakistan from exile in October partly at the urging of the Bush administration, which saw a renewed role for her as the best hope for returning the country to democracy and stability.
Maybe when you pressure someone to return, you should make sure they are safe from the dictator you have been supporting. Just a tip.
A Horrible Dick Trap
The police in Columbus, Ohio have taken to using topless women as bait to trap perverts. Although, I have to say, if topless women are bait, then come and get me because I fucking love them. Please put bait everywhere. Although, I enjoy bottomless women even more.
Robin Garrison, an off-duty 42-year-old firefighter, was walking in Berliner Park in Columbus, Ohio, in May when he saw a woman sunbathing topless under a tree.
He approached her and they started talking and getting comfortable, the woman smiling and resting her foot on his shoulder at one point.
Eventually, she asked to see Garrison's penis; he unzipped his pants and complied.
Thats when the cops moved in and arrested Garrison. He was charged with public indecency and the police had a video to prove it. A video they were making of a half naked woman sitting in a park. Just some guys, sitting in a van, making a video of a topless woman in a park. Totally cool. Thank God they were able to catch some perverts. Luckily for them, Miss Topless was a woman who flirted with guys, made suggestive contact and then said, Hey, can I see your cock?"
Now, one could say, Sure, lets go back to my house and you can not just see my cock, but use it like a horsey. But when caught up in the heat of the moment, one could also remove ones cock from ones pants and let it taste sweet, sweet sunlight. I have taken my cock out in a public place for a woman and I am very thankful cops were not filming the event. I am also very thankful I took my cock out because magic events followed.
But why the hell were they there?
Cops were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park.
Hmmm, my little going after gay men alarm just went off. I noticed that sentence is lacking the and women part regarding sex. I guess they just got lucky with the naked lady.
At Garrison's trial, his attorney argued that it was a case of entrapment. "Columbus police utilized this topless woman to snare this man. He sees her day after day. He's not some seedy pervert."
Did not matter, Garrison was convicted. He has to stay away from naked lady park, pay a $250 fine, is on probation for a year and cannot cum for six months. Okay, maybe I made up that last part.
Garrison has not been fired from the fire department and hopefully it wont happen. He is on desk duty, awaiting the results of an internal investigation about his exposed cock.
Police claim the naked lady sting operation is an effective way of lowering crime rates and stopping criminals before they do something really, really bad. I have some other possible stings. How about a young boy lying on a giant, soft bed, dressed in a Speedo? Just set the bed up in the park and see what happens. Or maybe two women could get under a blanket and eat each other out? In between moans, they could say, Man, I just wish there was a cock around here. I bet that would bring some of these criminals out of the woodwork. Also, a woman could dress up in a French Maid outfit and bend over a log, exposing her supple ass. Then when men walk by, she could say, Oh, help, Ive lost a ring in my vagina. Could you use your cock to find it?
Any of these methods are available to law enforcement to catch perverts. Good luck, fellas.
No Asshole Fuckface Roundup this week kids. Jesus wouldn't allow it on his birthday.
What If I Want My Kid To Be A One Armed, Blind Midget?
It turns out deaf parents are the creepiest parents on the planet. I know, it seems like a weird thing to write, but Ive got some proof to back me up. The chief executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People in the UK thinks that deaf parents should be able to screen their unborn children so they can pick a deaf child over one that can hear.
Jackie Ballard, a former Liberal Democrat MP, says that although the vast majority of deaf parents would want a child who has normal hearing, a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled, to fit in better with the family lifestyle.
Isnt that nice? Wouldnt want to fuck up the family lifestyle with a hearing asshole running around the house, saying stuff like
.well, just saying stuff. And apparently Ballard is not alone in his creepy views.
Ballards stance is likely to be welcomed by other deaf organizations, including the British Deaf Association (BDA), which is campaigning to amend government legislation to allow the creation of babies with disabilities.
Currently a bill is making its way through the House of Lords that would make it illegal for parents undergoing embryo screening to pick an abnormal embryo if there is also a healthy embryo. But apparently people want to be able to choose abnormal embryos. Seems weve already done it here in America.
In America a deaf couple deliberately created a baby with hearing difficulties by choosing a sperm donor with generations of deafness in his family.
Ah, how good of you. I would just like to create a law that any parent who makes this choice must tell the child about their decision when it is 14-years-old. Those are usually the glory years for kids with disabilities.
Some crazy bastards called doctors are opposed to creating babies with disabilities.
Doctors are opposed to creating deaf babies. Professor Gedis Grudzinskas, medical director of the Bridge Centre, a clinic in London that screens embryos, said: This would be an abuse of medical technology. Deafness is not the normal state, it is a disability. To deliberately create a deaf embryo would be contrary to the ethos of our society.
Fuck off, hearer! I want babies who cant hear, see, speak, smell, taste, shit, urinate, breathe and wink. Its called freedom, motherfucker!
There are a number of deaf forums where there are discussions about this. There are small minorities of activists who say that there is a cultural identity in being born deaf and that we should not destroy that cultural identity by preventing children from being born deaf.
Damn right. Theyve got sort of a club going and if there are no more deaf kids, then who will run the club?
Democratic Healthcare Plans = Horseshit
Those of you who think the Democratic presidential candidates will solve the healthcare crisis in any way are horribly wrong. The current plans of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama will actually make the situation worse. The three candidate's plans are similar in that they do not provide universal health care, but rather universal health insurance. One hint that they are bad plans is that the insurance companies are all for them.
The Republicans would like the free market to take over and fix the problem because we all know that business, when allowed to run free, always benefits the common man. That is why unions formed, because the common man was treated so well.
But enough about those corporate whores, lets talk about the other corporate whores. The Clinton and Edwards proposals both contain a mandate, which would force healthy individuals to buy insurance in order to put more money into the system to cover the sick. How great does that sound?
Mandates force patients to sign up for expensive, wasteful, for-profit insurance products without guaranteeing care or protecting them from cost increases.
Edwards' plan is completely retarded. He wants to go with mandated insurance with an option between public and private care. That way, private insurance companies can bounce the really sick and keep the healthy, so public insurance can pick up the tab for high-risk patients. The idea that we can regulate or hope private insurance companies will do the right thing is about as smart as the free market plan. Wait, it is the free market plan, except worse.
Hillary's plan is retardeder than Edwards'. It is exactly the same as Nixons proposed plan on 1974. Wait? Did I just write that? Yes, I did.
Even before Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton unveiled her new healthcare plan, Republicans attacked it as socialized medicine. They neglected to mention, however, that her plan bears a striking resemblance to changes that were proposed in 1974 -- by the late President Richard M. Nixon.
But hey, Nixon would have been considered a liberal by today's standards. Hillary's plan is also exactly like Mitt Romney's plan. And it is like John Edwards plan, except she decided to leave out any sort of enforcement mechanism for mandated insurance. That would make it, uh, not mandated. Although, Edwards' creepy enforcement ideas makes Hillary's non-enforcement look pretty good.
Edwards plan will collect back premiums by using collection agencies and garnishing wages. So he will make you buy health insurance, then send collection agencies after you when you dont. I wonder how much money collection agencies have given to his campaign?
Families who lose coverage will be expected to enroll in another plan or be assigned one. For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment.
Sorry, but the whole thing sounds creepy to me, as well as a regulation nightmare.
Obama makes sure he falls to the right of Clinton and Edwards on just about every issue and healthcare is no different. He has been spending his days bagging on universal healthcare, much like the Republicans. Not surprisingly, his universal health insurance plan is more half-assed than his opponents plans.
Obamas plan only mandates insurance for kids. But under his plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance and then sign up for it later when they became sick. How awesome is that? This would result in higher premiums for everyone else.
Still, Id take no mandates over mandates. Obamas is the only plan that doesnt bend over completely for the insurance companies, but it falls very short of taking care of the problem.
All three plans fall way short and will lead to a massive payday for insurance companies. You know, the very companies whose bullshit policies have led us to this very point. Any plan that does not address the simple point that for profit health care does not work will only make the problem worse.
Individual mandates are a step backward
Insurance companies support individual mandate plans because they guarantee them more customers, revenues, and influence over medical decision-making. Whats not for them to like?
Right now Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate with a decent plan: Universal single-payer, not-for-profit health care system. Until the profit is taken out of health care expect more of the same.
Christmas Is Fucked, Santa Shot Down Over Brazil
First of all, Merry Christmas. Even to you Jewish peeps, whom, I was told by Mel Gibson, killed Christ. (Not cool.) Anyway, Jesus is now irrelevant and this is Santas day. Or it was until he attempted to fly over Brazil.
Earlier this week, Santa Claus we shot down over Rio de Janeiro. No, I am not kidding.
Drug traffickers in a Rio slum opened fire on a helicopter carrying a Santa to a children's party, apparently mistaking it for a police helicopter.
Rio de Janeiro has quite a few slums that are controlled by gangs. Check out the movie City of God if you want to know what happened to Santa. Police dont even venture into the slums too often, and when they do, they go with full force, using helicopters and armored vehicles. They do not fly over in a bright red outfit. Ever!
Santa was not injured, but the helicopter was damaged and had to return to the base. Bullet holes were later found in the fuselage. He took a car to the kids party.
Merry Christmas, porn lovers.
Seriously Though, Can We Impeach Now?
The CIAs destruction of torture tapes is going to be the big news of 2008. We learned a week ago that the CIA destroyed taped harsh interrogations of detainees. How harsh? I dont know. I would probably know more if they had not actually been destroyed. But what I do know is that there are only two reasons to destroy the tapes:
1) A prisoner said something that we dont want people to hear. (For example, 9/11 was financed by the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia.)
2) The interrogation was illegal and our government is protecting itself from being prosecuted for war crimes.
The right wing would like us to believe that the tapes were destroyed to protect the identity of the agents, which is complete and total horseshit. If that were the case then almost every document in the CIAs possession would need to be destroyed.
The exciting thing about this very, very bad scandal is that it keeps blowing up. First the Justice Department warned a federal judge to back off looking into whether or not the destroying the tapes violated a court order. Then the Justice Department told Congress to back off, as if Congress does not have an obligation to look into these sorts of things. Take a look at The Constitution kids, its called oversight.
Now comes the best news yet, though it is not surprising. It seems the destruction of the tapes information chain goes all the way to the White House. Four White House lawyers, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, Dick Cheneys current Chief of Staff, David S. Addington and John B. Bellinger III, were a part of the discussions on whether or not the tapes should be destroyed. Guess what they decided?
One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been vigorous sentiment among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes. The former official did not specify which White House officials took this position, but he said that some believed in 2005 that any disclosure of the tapes could have been particularly damaging after revelations a year earlier of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Some other officials assert that no one at the White House advocated destroying the tapes. Those officials acknowledged, however, that no White House lawyer gave a direct order to preserve the tapes or advised that destroying them would be illegal.
Not illegal? Seriously? Did they give a little wink, wink, nudge, nudge when they didnt give a direct order to preserve or when they didn't say destroying them would be illegal? Sadly for them, a strong case can be made that the destruction was illegal.
The government was prohibited from destroying any evidence that could be relevant to mistreatment or abuse at the Navy base in Cuba. But the two victims on the tapes were tortured overseas in secret CIA prisons. How awesome of a loophole is that?
One prisoners attorney is not pleased.
"We have a smoking gun, as it were, with respect to the government's destruction of potentially relevant evidence," Remes said.
On Friday, the federal judge overseeing the case was hesitant to investigate why the tapes were destroyed because the Justice Department is conducting an investigation. You know, the same Justice Department who could be implicated in the destruction of the tapes. Dizzy yet?
How many different ways is the Bush administration going to be able to hide their criminal activity? We know the White House cannot be trusted to investigate itself and we certainly can no longer trust the Justice Department. It is time for an independent prosecutor, you know, those guys that spent eight years inside Clintons asshole.
The ACLU has asked a federal judge to hold the CIA in contempt for destroying the tapes because the group believes by destroying the tapes, the CIA violated court orders in a Freedom of Information Act case regarding interrogation. I dont know what lunatic would hold the CIA in contempt and I wish them good luck with that.
Now that makes two different courts that had valid reasons to look into the destruction of the tapes. But that is not all.
The C.I.A. never provided the tapes to federal prosecutors or to the Sept. 11 commission, and some lawmakers have suggested that their destruction may have amounted to obstruction of justice.
It just keeps going and going. Some members of our government did not think the tapes should have been destroyed.
John D. Negroponte, who was director of national intelligence at the time the tapes were destroyed, sent a memorandum in the summer of 2005 to Mr. Goss, the C.I.A. director, advising him against destroying the tapes.
Yeah, probably because our country wouldnt have given a shit if they just kept the tapes or even showed them on Fox News. But once you go into the obstruction of justice world, peoples ears prick up and they become interested.
As far as our president goes, he is using a method that was made famous by Ronald Reagan.
Ms. Perino stopped short of denying any White House involvement, saying only that Mr. Bush has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday when Mr. Hayden briefed him.
Get that? Could that statement be any more carefully crafted? She could have easily said that, Bush didnt know anything about the tapes destruction. But she went with the He doesnt remember anything route, which is highly dubious considering four lawyers in the White House were involved. The White House is being careful because at some point the press may uncover evidence that Bush was told and now he can say, I dont remember that. Hi, Ronald Reagan.
This is what the White House is saying: The president does not know anything, yet his own staff and legal team worked for years determining whether or not to destroy the tapes.
One of the principles of law, especially when you are involved in a potentially illegal action, is to keep a client informed and involved in the process.
Good luck with that, George. Another big, big problem for Bush is that his new mantra may come back to bite him in his anus.
The United States does not torture.
How many times has he made that public statement? If anyone with a soul saw these tapes, they would quickly conclude the president of the United States is a lying motherfucker. And let us not forget that the Department of Justice under Bush was created to protect him from the rule of law, instead of enforcing the rule of law.
This story is just getting started and it is actually a big one. Sit back and enjoy.
Why Are The Studios Insane?
Anyone with the slightest amount of brain matter who looks at the Writers Guild strike must wonder what in the fuck the studios are doing. Financial experts are dumbfounded. Anyone who witnessed the collapse of the music industry is feeling an odd sense of déjà vu as the studio's arrogance drives viewers and talent away. But maybe this is not about the writers at all. Maybe this is a game being played between the giant media companies and we writers are mere pawns.
It is becoming apparent that some studios are attempting to weaken others in hopes of gobbling them up. Lets take a look at the players:
Warner Brothers is in the best position of all. They can handle a long, long strike and it appears their CEO is pushing for exactly that. The companys television network, The CW, is a fucking joke and does not bring in profits. If this season tanks, or the next one, who cares? As the networks slip further and further into irrelevancy with the shift to the Internet, The CW is sure to die a miserable death and that would leave Warner Brothers without a network. Which is why this game is more about Warner gobbling up CBS than giving the writers what they want.
.
CBS is the #1 network and mostly consists of scripted TV. More than any other network, CBS stands to be royally fucked by the strike. The longer the strike drags on, the network will find itself in worse and worse shape and its stock prices will drop. CBS does not want this to happen but their partner in crime, Warner, very much does. Kinda stupid to join yourself at the hip with your enemy, isnt it? That is why you shouldnt let Les Moonves run your studio. He is a moron.
Sony is in the film business. They have a few TV shows. I recently worked on one of them and I can tell you it is shocking that those idiots can get anything onto TV. They are top to bottom a collection of complete morons. Sony expected to be more insulated from the strike, but we took them by surprise and walked out before they were ready, on the day our contract ended. The result is that Sony did not stock up on scripts and did not get polishes on the ones they had already purchased. They are now canceling film shoots, like Angels and Demons, and it will begin hurting their bottom line soon. Sony is said to believe not settling with the writers is Crazy.
Paramount is in the exact same position as Sony. They also think the strike is crazy and are getting more vocal about the studios position.
Fox is giddy as a schoolgirl who just got her first fingering. They have American Idol in the pipeline and that show is a juggernaut. Even in the best of times other networks cannot compete with this monster. Fox is also an enormous company with very deep pockets. They make most of their money from other businesses and plan on keeping this strike going for as long as possible in order to crush their network opponents. Plus, Rupert has been busting unions for years. Make no mistake about it; Fox and Warner Brothers are using this strike to crush their AMPTP partners. They would actually love to see other networks crash and burn.
GE owns NBC/Universal. GE sort of owns the world, so they are not doing too badly. But GE is also not playing the game. While other CEOs are running around telling everyone the strike is not hurting business and they are making no revenue from the internet, the GE CEO is telling stockholders that the strike is already affecting the bottom line. He clearly has no patience for whatever bullshit game the other studios are playing and is all about the making money, as a CEO should be. To GE the strike makes no sense. NBC has already given money back to advertisers, which is a first in the history of television. At the same time, the head of NBC, Jeffrey Zucker has been moving away from scripted series for a while now. His dream is to create a network of all reality and game shows. He is giddy and sees the strike as a great opportunity to ruin an entire network. Congrats to you, idiot. Cant wait for "Housewives vs. Monkeys on Battle Island.
Disney/ABC will not fare well from the strike, either. The networks new reality show, Duel, is a massive failure. ABC also has many scripted shows and is even rushing LOST back, even though it could permanently kill the show. It was determined last year that LOST should be run consecutively because the show dropped a large number of viewers in 2006 after a long break. The shows producers/writers have begged the network not to air the completed 8 episodes, but ABC will, which is an indication of their desperation for profits. Fox, on the other had, has decided to hold 24 because the network can afford to. Disney is also in trouble with film scripts, having not stockpiled enough. Word on the street is that Disney is not thrilled with the hard line the studios have taken in negotiations.
UA and MGM are totally bummed. The amount the WGA is asking for would only amount to $500,000 each. They are going to lose much more than that as the strike rolls on. They could easily die in this mess.
So, you may ask, why are they sticking together? Good question. Nobody knows. These massive media monsters are competitors and have very different interests. It isnt like the last strike, when Hollywood was owned by Hollywood and joining up made sense. It does not now. Some think the CEOs are afraid to break away from the pack alone. Leaving the retard herd can be scary, I guess.
I believe the real story is that the companies that will be hurt are falling for the Warner Brothers and Fox game. They are under the spell of their big brothers and they will lose because of it. All of these companies stocks will be downgraded in the New Year. Their business financial health is at stake.
This strike has already cost each of the companies far more than what we're asking for spread out over the term of the contract. If you assume that they're rational actors (and they are), you can only come to the conclusion that the strike itself is not really what they're concerned with. They are battling each other, but some of them dont even realize it yet. When they do, they will break off and quickly make deals with the WGA in an attempt to recoup their losses.
Asshole Fuckface Roundup #26
Saturday, the day God set aside for Asshole Fuckface revelations. There is much confusion about the origins of the Asshole Fuckface Roundup, so I would like to clear it up. The first Asshole Fuckface was a Spaniard named Tomas de Torquemada. Pope Sixtus IV made him Grand Inquisitor and he dug his job. He burned around 2,000 people to death and killed many others with various tortures. Tommy was also one of the men behind the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492, which was weird because his grammy was a Jew. Go figure. As Tommy lay on his deathbed, his body riddled with Gods gift of syphilis, he giggled and said, I am such an Asshole Fuckface, yeah? Then he released his bowels and died. True story. My ancestors on a tiny green island in the north carved the first roundup that week on the sides of potatoes and handed them out to the masses to read and eat. Today, I scour the news looking for the worst of the worst and deliver them unto you on the interwebs. So, put on your flight suits and helmets, this is going to be ugly.
First up, some Asshole Fuckfaces dont know that tigers are kept in cages for a reason.
Meet Jayaprakash Bexbaruah, a father of two who decided to take his kids to the zoo this week. They went to their local zoo in northeastern India and Jaya brought his camera to record the days events.
At the tiger cage, Jaya started taking pictures but he just wasnt getting that magical shot. So, he climbed over the fence that separates the people from the cage holding the large predators to get a closer shot. But that was still not good enough. I guess those damn bars were fucking up his pictures, so Jaya his held his camera through the bars to take a shot.
Turns out tigers are not idiots. As soon as the piece of meat attached to a camera came through the cage, they pounced and latched onto his arm. People tried to knock the tigers back with sticks and branches but those kinds of things dont work on TIGERS. The tigers then took off Jayas arm and had a delightful lunch. Jaya died in an ambulance from a loss of blood.
Here is a delightful picture for those of you with strong stomachs.
Yeah, you probably shouldnt have clicked on that link.
Now, some may ask, Why is Jaya an Asshole Fuckface? He made a terrible mistake and paid the ultimate price. No, he did not. His kids actually did, by seeing their father killed by tigers. That is the kind of traumatic event that can turn people into psychopaths. Or freaks. I know it doesnt make for well-adjusted people.
Next up, how about a lighter story about some home bred political
Asshole Fuckfacery?
The Bush administration never gets tired of telling the state of California to go fuck itself. And this week was no different. In 2004, California proposed new auto emission standards that would force a 30% cut in greenhouse gas emissions. The cutbacks were supposed to begin with 2009 models. The changes would have forced automakers to produce cars and light trucks that get 43 miles to the gallon. Bush said no.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.
Remember the idea that Republicans and conservatives are for states' rights? That is a load of shit, they only back states' rights when it serves their purposes. In this case, the EPA claimed that:
California had failed to make a compelling case that it needed authority to write its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to help curb global warming.
Well, it is actually impossible to make a compelling case against an administration that is at war with science and reason.
The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules, he said. I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.
Right, that's what you want to do with abortion, not the environment. Has this set up not been working well for all these years? And does the fact that 17 states have stricter air quality standards than the government tell you anything?
The decision, technically known as a Clean Air Act waiver, was the first time California was refused permission to impose its own pollution rules; the federal government had previously granted the state more than 50 waivers.
Schwarzenegger said the 17 states would take the EPA to federal court. But as of now, federal law will only require a 35-mpg standard. Considering that Toyota made a car that got 57 mpg in 1987, I'd say these Asshole Fuckfaces have been slacking off.
Next, you can always look to Hollywood to find Asshole Fuckfaces and this week is no different.
Id like to introduce you to the Motion Picture Association of America, a non-profit, studio created group of Asshole Fuckfaces who create our voluntary ratings system. They are known for making arbitrary, bullshit decisions that greatly affect the amount of money a movie can make. Sometimes they make decisions for political reasons.
The MPAA has rejected the one-sheet for Alex Gibney's documentary Taxi to the Dark Side, which traces the pattern of torture practice from Afghanistan's Bagram prison to Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay.
A one-sheet is an advertisement. This advertisement was apparently not suitable for children. Did I mention is an image taken from a documentary?
The image in question is a news photo of two U.S. soldiers walking away from the camera with a hooded detainee between them.
Now, let us go back in time and remember the billboard for the movie Captivity. This one was okay with the MPAA way back in March.
See the tube going into the tortured woman in a mask? That's okay. A real picture of the back of a guy in a hood is bad.
The MPAA claimed the hood was the reason kids would be freaked out. Kids never see or understand hoods, I guess. Oh, and by the way, the MPAA also rejected a one-sheet for the 2006 film, The Road to Guantanamo, because it pictured a hooded prisoner hanging from his handcuffed wrists. That one, also, not appropriate for children. Feel free to now look at the billboard of Captivity. The studios are a bunch of Asshole Fuckfaces. This is just one of the many reasons.
Next, sometimes an Asshole Fuckface will try to get a little action at an inappropriate time.
Sadly, we do not yet know the name of this Asshole Fuckface, but we do know what he does for a living: Hes a bus driver. A school bus driver. A school bus driver who loves fucking.
Apparently our 30-year-old Asshole Fuckface was driving the school bus on Wednesday morning, when he saw a prostitute on the side of the road. So, he pulled the bus up alongside her and made an inquiry about sex. The prostitute was, unfortunately, a cop.
The man drove up to a decoy officer working in the area of Telegraph and Grand River at about 7 a.m. and inquired about having sex with the officer, whom he thought was a prostitute.
The man then left the scene and said hed be back in a few minutes. At the time, the man had one child on the school bus. A few minutes later, he returned with three additional children on the bus and offered to pay the officer to have sexual intercourse with her and gave the officer a piece of paper with his name and phone number.
Its not like dude was just going to screw in front of the kids. Hes got class. He told officer Fake McWhore that he would go drop the kids off (ages five -nine), then come back for some action. Way to go Asshole Fuckface bus driver. Oh, did I mention that the kids were special needs kids?
Hey, wouldnt an awesome study on the obvious by some Asshole Fuckfaces really make your day?
Thank God the American Cancer Society came through with this fantastic study on care received by insured cancer patients vs. care received by uninsured patients. Youre never going to believe how this one turns out!
Uninsured cancer patients are nearly twice as likely to die within five years as those with private coverage, according to the first national study of its kind and one that sheds light on troubling health care obstacles.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Wait, I have to sit down. This completely upends my world. You mean to actually tell me that people without health insurance who are diagnosed with a deadly condition are more likely to die than people with health insurance? I am stunned.
I just did some studies of my own. It turns out people who eat cat shit are more likely to get sick than people who dont eat cat shit. Weird, right? Also, people who slam bricks against their head are more likely to get head injuries than people who dont slam bricks against their head. Crazy, huh? And this last one I worked on for a year: It turns out that Americans who go to Iraq are more likely to die in Iraq than Americans who dont go to Iraq. I am blowing my own fucking mind.
Those dealing with cancer and inadequate insurance weren't surprised by the findings.
No shit.
Nice work, Asshole Fuckfaces. Hopefully you spent a lot of money and time on the research.
And finally, Id like to give a big Asshole Fuckface Roundup congratulation to Les Moonves. If you dont know Les, hes the media mogul who runs CBS Corp. Hes been failing at his job for quite a while now and in Hollywood that means you get a raise. Check out his new deal:
-- A base salary of $3.5 million. That's down from the $5.6 million he was paid in 2006, which was the highest of 542 U.S. CEOs running companies with market caps of at least $3 billion. His new base keeps him No. 1 until 2007 pay figures come out.
-- A target bonus of $10.5 million, three times his salary. That's what Moonves gets essentially for showing up.
-- An option covering 5 million shares, with a present value at grant that I calculate to be $35 million.
-- An annual grant of free shares worth $7.6 million on each of four grant dates during his contract.
--A make-whole provision so Moonves doesn't face the higher income tax that New York State and New York City levy compared with California.
So, whats it all worth? It appears he will be making $57 million a year. That is $9,800 an hour. If he is fired, Les will receive three years salary and bonuses. How is CBS stock doing? Not so good.
That compensation doesn't seem appropriate if you consider that CBS's performance has been on a steady decline since he became CEO on Jan. 1, 2006.
CBS delivered a total return only twice that beat that of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index. Moreover, its returns in the 17 most recent periods all fell below those of the S&P 500 Index. As the time windows narrowed toward this Oct. 15, the negative gap between CBS and the index became progressively larger.
Basically, he is fucking up and getting rewarded for it. Writers are currently asking CBS for only $4.6 million per year. Television and films are shut down. Los Angeles is losing 20 million dollars a day. Thousands of people are out of work. The head of CBS gets a bump and the company refuses to negotiate with writers. Nicely done, you just made it into the Asshole Fuckface Hall of Fame.
Congrats to all of the weeks winners! You will each receive a FearTheReaper cat bed.
