Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Do, or do not. There is no 'try'. - Yoda

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Family Values
by Lee

You really have to feel bad for this poor cocksucker.

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig’s political support eroded by the hour on Wednesday as fellow Republicans in Congress called for him to resign and party leaders pushed him unceremoniously from senior committee posts.

The White House expressed disappointment, too — and nary a word of support for the 62-year-old lawmaker, who pleaded guilty earlier this month to a charge stemming from an undercover police operation in an airport men’s room.

Craig “represents the Republican Party,” said Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the first in a steadily lengthening list of GOP members of Congress to urge a resignation.

Today’s Republican Party. 

Torture? No problem!
Massive social spending? Love it! 
Unwavering support for an incompetent president? Absolutely!
Ruining America’s reputation? We can’t get enough!
Sexual attraction to men? WHAT THE FUCK?  WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?  I BET YOU WANT TO RAPE MY BABY, YOU DISGUSTING PIECE OF SHIT!

Strange.  Just a few days ago Craig was perfectly competent to sit on these committees.  Now, simply because he has dick on his breath, he’s somehow not qualified.  Can you imagine that?  “Well, you’ve been doing my taxes for the last 14 years and you’ve always done an excellent job.  But now that I know you’re sexually attracted to men, I just don’t trust your skill with the numbers.”

Posted by Lee on 08/29/07 at 06:41 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

True Grit
by Lee

Following up on this post from the other day, where John Cross essentially blamed the lack of support in Iraq on the wussiness of the current generation, I came across this, posted yesterday by one of the guestbloggers at Andrew Sullivan’s site.

When I read the email Jamie excerpted in his post on grit, I was somewhat puzzled. I do not think that Americans lack grit and resolve. In particular, I do not think that the fact that many of us now support withdrawing from Iraq shows that we do. I see no evidence that we are not willing to accept real sacrifices for the sake of the war on terror. (How could I? Real sacrifice has never been asked of us.) I see no evidence that we would be unwilling to stick with a war that had been competently prosecuted, and in which there was some real chance of success. (How could I? We are not currently engaged in any such war.) That being so, I do not see how any conclusions at all can be drawn about our grit, or lack of it.

The idea that either the American people or the British do not have enough grit to stick it out in Iraq, or that we suffer from some sort of collective failure of will, has always seemed to me badly mistaken. Grit and resolve would be appropriate only if success were possible, and it is not clear that it is. If success is not possible, then staying the course is not grit; it’s lunacy.

Or, as I wrote more crassly the other day,

You want to see my support for this war to change?  Get me someone in charge who knows how the fuck to fight the goddamned thing.  Do it without shitting all over my civil liberties… And actually fucking accomplish something other than make the problem worse.

It’s not too much to ask, you know.

Posted by Lee on 08/29/07 at 12:56 PM in War on Terror/Axis of Evil  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

The Craig Chronicles
by Lee

You wanna know how not gay Larry Craig is?  He’s been denying it for 25 years.  Here’s video from 1982—yes, 1982—where he denies that he’s a homosexual.

The denial comes in just past the one minute mark.  Jeez, you think this cocksucker would just come out and admit that he looks at another man’s hairy ass and finds love, and that he finds the odor of some guy’s taint mixed with the musk of black leather to be oh-so titillating. 

Posted by Lee on 08/29/07 at 11:33 AM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Special Assistant to Lorne Michaels
by Lee

Now this is mixing church and state.

China has rather brilliantly declared that, from next month, Tibetan Buddhist monks must have official permission to reincarnate, Newsweek reports.

The new legislation lays down strict guidelines for making a reappearance and is, according to a statement from the State Administration for Religious Affairs, “an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation”.The penalty for illicit reincarnation is not noted (100 consecutive life sentences without parole?), but there is method in the Chinese authorities’ madness.

As Newsweek points out, the law will effectively prevent any Buddhist monk living outside Tibet* from seeking reincarnation. Accordingly, it also “effectively gives Chinese authorities the power to choose the next Dalai Lama”.

The exiled 72-year-old Dalai Lama is currently in India pondering his successor. Since he’s refused to reincarnate in Tibet while it’s under Chinese control, there is the provocative possibility of a Chinese-sponsored Dalai Lama going head-to-head with a new young chum for Richard Gere.

Paul Harrison, a Buddhism scholar at Stanford, explained: “It will be a very hot issue. The Dalai Lama has been the prime symbol of unity and national identity in Tibet, and so it’s quite likely the battle for his incarnation will be a lot more important than the others.”

Harison and other Buddhism scholars are agreed the next Dalai Lama’s Dalai Lama will “will likely be from within the 130,000 Tibetan exiles spread throughout India, Europe and North America”, while China is evidently preparing the ground for a Tibetan resident rival.

That’s awesome.  The Chinese want a Dalai Lama who will play suckboy to the Chinese government, and the current Dalai Lama is telling them to go screw themselves.  But a license to reincarnate?  That’s got to be the most amazing use of bureaucracy I’ve ever heard.

(Bonus points if you can name the reference for the title.)

Posted by Lee on 08/29/07 at 11:16 AM in Etcetera  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Ocular Penetration Master Class
by Lee

This site is officially the number one Google search returned for the phrase ocular penetration.  You make me so proud sometimes.

Update: Google is so fucking strange.  All day yesterday I was getting hit after hit after hit for “ocular penetration.” I was consistently the top page returned.  Then today, nothing.  Click the link, I’m not anywhere on the first few pages even.  Very weird.

Posted by Lee on 08/29/07 at 12:36 AM in Fun and Humor  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Slouching Towards Cuba
by Lee

Here’s how freedom dies—one good intention at a time.  Congress is currently about to increase the SCHIP program, which is “supposed to provide health insurance for children whose families make too much money to qualify for medical welfare, i.e., Medicaid, but who can’t afford to pay for private health insurance. Initially, this meant families whose annual incomes were twice the poverty level. This amounts to a $40,000 income for a family of four in 2007.” Okay fine, it helps people get private insurance.  What’s the problem?

If President George W. Bush fails to keep his promise to veto this legislation, SCHIP would be well on the way to becoming another middle class entitlement. That is just what advocates of government-funded health care want. Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ) made this goal explicit when he called the House SCHIP bill “the next step toward universal health care for all Americans.” Expanding SCHIP is what Kathleen Stoll, director of health care policy at the left-leaning lobby group, Families USA, happily identified as sneaky sequentialism. The ambit of private health insurance and health care will shrink as government funding expands.

In fact, this kind of crowding out is already taking place. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report in May that found, “For every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children.” In January, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber and Cornell University economist Kosali Simon published a study that estimated “for every 100 children who are enrolled in public insurance, 60 children lose private insurance.” And why not? From the point of view of parents, the government is giving their kids free health insurance, so they can pocket the money they were otherwise spending on private insurance.

The CBO also noted that a broadening of SCHIP to higher income levels “would probably involve greater crowd-out of private coverage than has occurred to date because such children have greater access to private insurance.” Recall that 90 percent of kids living in families with incomes between 200 and 300 percent of the poverty level are insured and 95 percent of those in families with incomes over 400 percent are. Crowding out of private insurance helps force the country to take “next step” toward universal government-controlled health care. After all, almost 50 percent of medical expenditures are already paid for by government programs. Advocates of universal health insurance hope that as fewer and fewer Americans rely on private health insurance, government-funded health insurance will grow in political acceptance.

Therein lies the problem.  Even in countries with universal coverage, there are almost always options for private insurance.  In Canada they are in the midst of legal disputes over this very issue.  If socialized medicine were able to meet anything other than the bare minimum of service there would be no need for private insurance in the first place.  So the existence of private insurance in nations with socialized insurance is prima facie proof that private medical care is superior to socialized care.

Over the last 40 years or so, ever since LBJ’s “Great Society,” suckling at the welfare teat has gone from a tool in the war against poverty to an “entitlement” that guarantees people stay mired in poverty.  The same will happen with healthcare.  The more acceptable socialized medicine is, the more likely society will begin to view healthcare as the government’s job, something “they” do.  As reliance on socialized medicine increases the quality inevitably decreases. 

And thus we slouch towards Cuba, in the hopes that the 5¢ medicine will be waiting for us at the end of the rainbow.

Posted by Lee on 08/29/07 at 12:27 AM in Health Care  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Quote of the Day
by Lee

From Wonkette, who was liveblogging the Larry Craig press conference.

2:43 MT: CNN’s legal expert guy: “Among the strangest statements ever made by an American politician …. That he claims … to have chosen to plead guilty by mistake … it’s hard for me to believe.”

Not when you’re a conservative Republican and you like the taste of dick it isn’t.  A Democrat could just say “I’m gay” and that would largely be the end of it.  A Republican, especially a champion of Christian morals and virtues like Craig, on the other hand, has to come up with some kind of excuse.  And when you’re stone cold busted like he was, after pleading guilty, what the hell else is he going to say?  Because in the fucking Bizarro World of fundamentalist Christianity, saying that you pleaded guilty by mistake is a far more palatable, believable, and logical explanation than “I like the way it feels when some anonymous guy’s sweaty ball sack slaps against my chin.”

Posted by Lee on 08/28/07 at 03:18 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Beijing
by Lee

Hey, does anyone who reads this blog live in Beijing?  If so, please , I have a couple of questions for you.

Posted by Lee on 08/28/07 at 03:10 PM in Blegging  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Dead Man Endorsing
by Lee

And now, the most appropriate presidential endorsement you will ever see.

Fidel Castro, the Cuban president, has predicted that Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama will team up to win the 2008 US presidential election.

“The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate,” the ailing leader wrote in an editorial column in Granma, the Cuban Communist Party’s newspaper.

It’s a natural endorsement, considering either Clinton or Obama would bring Cuba’s healthcare system to America. 

Posted by Lee on 08/28/07 at 02:48 PM in Election 2008  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

The Problem With Hugh
by Lee

Another never-ending source of fun is Hugh Hewitt, seen here talking about Larry Craig.

I don’t believe him. Read the statement by the arresting officer. He must think the people of Idaho are idiots.  But even if I did believe him, this would make his judgment too flawed to be in the United States Senate in a time of war. He has to go. 

Like that?  Hewitt has gone to the mat to support every single conceivable thing that this president has done, no matter how ridiculous or illogical or counterproductive they may be.  In his mind, Bush’s judgment is flawless.  And even if something looks like a bad decision at the time, the fact that Bush is the one making it makes it acceptable to old Hugh.  Because Bush could never show poor judgment, could he? 

I see how this works.  If you ineptly plan and execute a war which subsequently turns into an utter disaster, if you alienate our allies around the world, if you ruin America’s reputation by instituting policies of torture, if you send too few troops to get the job done, if you refuse to change course until after a solid electoral loss, if you stand by your SecDef despite how incompetent he may be, if you continue to appoint the wrong generals to head operations in Iraq… if you do all these things your judgment in a time of war is solid.

But, if you want to get a quick, anonymous blowjob in an airport bathroom stall, your “judgment [is] too flawed to be in the United States Senate in a time of war.”

Seriously, folks you can’t make this shit up.  Or this shit sandwich.

Posted by Lee on 08/28/07 at 12:15 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Bonus Bytes in Idaho
by Lee

Oh God, this just keeps getting better.  Here’s a page from the Idaho Values Alliance which discusses Larry Craig’s support of an abortion bill.  Then, directly underneath it we find this article in their “Bonus Bytes” section.

One of the tragic characteristics of the homosexual lifestyle is its emphasis on anonymous sex and multiple sexual partners. It is a little-acknowledged secret that many active homosexuals will have more than 1,000 sex partners over the course of a lifetime (the average among heterosexuals is seven – still six more than we were designed for). This sordid fact of homosexual life surfaced yesterday in an AP article yesterday that reports on the number of arrests police have made for indecent exposure and public sex acts in the restrooms at Atlanta’s airport, the busiest in the world. The increased restroom patrols, begun to apprehend luggage thieves, instead uncovered a rash of sex crimes. Airport restrooms have become so popular that men looking for anonymous sexual trysts with other men have advertised their airport availability on Craigslist. One such ad was from a man saying he was stuck at the airport for three hours and was looking for “discreet, quick action.”

I swear to God, Christian fundamentalism is just the gift that keeps on giving.  If you see a guy somewhere with a dick in his mouth, you’ve got a better-than-even chance that he’s a minister or conservative politician.  Or both.

(Hat tip: Reason.)

Posted by Lee on 08/28/07 at 11:03 AM in • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Carlos and the Watch
by Lee

Check out this cocksucker.

U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in Minnesota this month after being arrested by a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of lewd conduct in a men’s restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

God, how I love it when Republicans are busted in gay sex scandals.  Nothing is more entertaining than seeing such rank hypocrisy on display.

Craig was arrested at the airport on June 11, according to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper. According to police reports, Craig kept watching the undercover police officer through a crack in the bathroom stall, Roll Call reported. Craig then entered the next-door stall and placed his luggage against the opening under the stall door.

“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” said the officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia.

The report continued: “At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. ... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area.”

I have no doubt that when the press conference is held, it will sound almost exactly like this skit from Little Britain.


Update: Check it out.  He rating with the morals groups (basically the Christian fundies) was 100% across the board, while his ratings groups with liberal groups were 0%.

Hey, if you can’t trust a Christian cocksucker, what kind of cocksucker can you trust, huh?

Posted by Lee on 08/28/07 at 01:34 AM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, August 27, 2007

Wolsey
by Lee

Earlier I mentioned Thomas Cardinal Wolsey.

Bush views the AG not as the defender of the Constitution but as the president’s personal Wolsey, empowered to bend whatever rules are in place to justify a desired outcome.  If it came down to supporting the Constitution or playing suck boy to President Massa, we all know where his first allegiance lay.

Wolsey was an advisor to Henry VIII.  He was the Karl Rove or the Dick Cheney to Bush’s Henry.  Here is how his rise to power is described in Wikipedia.

Another factor in Wolsey’s rise was that Henry, much as he admired his father’s efficient government, was not particularly interested in the details of governing. Under the tight personal monarchy of Henry VII, Wolsey could not have hoped to obtain so much trust and responsibility. Henry VII oversaw nearly all aspects of government, particularly financial ones in which the king took personal supervision under a method known as ‘household government’. Henry VIII, as a boy, had not expected to become king, had little political and governmental tutoring prior to ascending to the throne, and, acknowledging his own inexperience in the field of economy and domestic affairs, was much contented to have someone like Wolsey handle the fundamentals for him.

In 1509, Henry VIII appointed Wolsey to the post of Almoner, a position that gave him a seat on the council, providing an opportunity to raise his profile and to establish a rapport with Henry. Wolsey earned Henry’s trust through his integrity and talent at getting the job done. He opted to carry out the tasks shunned by others and was always willing to overstep the boundaries of his job as almoner, dabbling in both domestic and foreign policy and making a good impression on the king’s counsellors and the king himself.

Does this sound familiar yet?  It gets better.

The primary counsellors that Henry inherited from his father, Bishop Fox and William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, were cautious and conservative, advising the king to be a careful administrator like his father. Henry soon began re-stocking his council with individuals more sympathetic to his views and inclinations.

I swear, I’m not making this up.  You should read up on Wolsey, if you’re not familiar with him.  He’s an absolutely fascinating part of our history, and you’ll see many, many parallels between him and a number of Bush administration members.

Update: PJ informs me that I accidentally wrote Henry XVIII (18th) instead of VIII (8th).  It’s been corrected above.

Posted by Lee on 08/27/07 at 11:47 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

My Response to John
by Lee

John Cross attempted to post a long screed in the comments to the post below this one, but the comment box ate the comment, so he posted it over at Drumwaster’s.  Here is my response.

I am having a really tough time understanding this...probably because what most people are saying about the POTUS.  Calling Bush ‘President Massa’ is not....not...proof that there is no personal and emotional animosity where he is concerned.

Personal animus?  I’ve often said that I think, on a personal level, Bush seems like he’d be a hell of a guy.  Probably the first sort to help you pull a stump out of the ground, or let you sit on the porch and drink lemonade on a hot summer’s day.  I also think he’s the most dangerous president, in terms of damage to the Constitution, in my lifetime.  And he accomplished this by surrounding himself with lackeys, lickspittles, and yes men, who view patriotism not as fealty to the Constitution of the United States of America but as undying loyalty to the whims of George W. Bush. 

However, it is logical to assume that a doctrinal libertarian would have serious problems with an extension of executive power on the federal level.  Such an extension would put most of the people at Reason.com into tizzy-mode.

However, this is where I break down, because there is a whole mess of history where wartime extensions of executive power have occurred.  In this country.  Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Federalists....name it.  It occurs.  And, after the war is over, powers are generally reduced and the executive retains it’s original scope.

See, this is why I don’t understand the “conservative” movement these days.  A real conservative understands that governments never ever give back powers.  Ever.  Ever ever fucking ever.  IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.  The entire fundamental bedrock on what authentic conservatism is built is a distrust of centralized power.  And the so-called “conservative” movement these days still likes to claim that they distrust government power, all the while saying, “Dude, it’s nothing to worry about.  The president is TOTALLY gonna give back these powers once he doesn’t need them.  Man, we can TOTALLY trust these guys.  And besides, what do you care for?  Unless you got something to hide.  What, you doing something illegal?  No?  Then what’s the problem?”

Posted by Lee on 08/27/07 at 09:06 PM in War on Terror/Axis of Evil  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

America’s Next Top Jack-Booted Thug
by Lee

At Reason, Nick Gillespie asks the scariest question I’ve heard in a long time.

As Gonzo deserts the sinking ship that is the SS Bush Second Term, there’s no question that he sucked as attorney general.

But was he in fact worse than Constitution-shredder and recidivist barbershop quarteter John Ashcroft (whose main qualification for the gig was losing to a dead man in an election)?

Or Constitution-shredder and recidivist child abuser Janet Reno (whose main qualification for the gig was that she never paid a nanny under the table)?

Discuss. And ponder the thought that whatever comes next might actually be worse.

Read the comments at Reason’s page.  Scary doesn’t even begin to describe it.  I tend to agree with this comment.

Gonzales was a clown, little more. His jobs was to take the attention away from all the other gross incompetence, negligence, greed, practice of evil, etc, of the administration. His leaving will make no difference.

He will be replaced by a carbon copy with a slightly different skinbag and ID tag who will promise a New Era of Accountability and the act in the same manner Alberto did, but he won’t have to resign because Bush will be out before it can come to a head.

It got a little too hot to keep Gonzales around, but he did his job well, pushing whatever swill he was told to push, shitting on the bill of rights, wiping his ass with the Geneva Convention, and serving as a lightning rod for criticism for many years. Nothing will change. Nothing.

That’s about the best Gonzo summation I’ve heard in a long time.  Bush views the AG not as the defender of the Constitution but as the president’s personal Wolsey, empowered to bend whatever rules are in place to justify a desired outcome.  If it came down to supporting the Constitution or playing suck boy to President Massa, we all know where his first allegiance lay.

Posted by Lee on 08/27/07 at 07:00 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink
Page 2 of 12 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »