I am More Non-Partisan Than You Are. Nenner, Nenner.

(Yes, sometimes blogging about politics brings out the child in me. Or is politics all by itself? Anyway . . . )

YES! I do say nice things about Republicans . . . when they say smart things . . . that I agree with . . . particularly when I find one of them pointing out the stupidity or dishonesty of some other Republicans.

Case in point: consider the bravery of both Reps Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), and John Shaddegg (R- Az.) Both have gone on record of criticizing Minority Leader Boehner's cry baby (douche) performance, wrongfully blaming the (according to many on both sides of the aisle, good and proper) defeat of the new and improved Paulson Plan, on Speaker Pelosi's allegedly partisan speech.

Saith Bachmann:

"I want to assure you that was not the case. We are not babies who suck our thumbs. We have very principled reasons for voting no."

Saith Shaddegg:

"It was embarrassing for leadership on both parties to lose the bill so they made a stupid claim."

Link is to Huffpo, but story is sourced to real news origins. And the vid of Shaddegg is right there too.

Honest Republicans


And how about a mid-day Palin sandwich?

First note: Blogger for the NYT writes about reasons for relating to and sympathizing with Palin, and discussing,"Impostor Syndrome." She ends her piece by opining that Palin's nomination is an act of cruelty on her.

Poor Sarah


Gossip as reported on Huffpo that (apologies to mi amor, Shakira) Palin's Lips do Lie. The claim is that her lower lip-line is a tattoo. Hey! They got Pictures and Everything!

These Lips Do Lie

And lastly, my personal fashion report. WTF? Now I was only marginally in the loop last week, so it took until Sunday and yesterday, for me to watch most all of the Couric interviews. That thing she was wearing? It sorta looked like a fabric version of a wet suit. And I saw the joint McCain/Palin interview with Couric last night. Based on the most recent shots of her most recent nervy and clearly anti-fashion choices (I thought they got her a stylist?) I am amending my prior statement about her looking like some extra in that tv show "Mad Men," which is set in 1960.

Not only does she look like she is wearing early 60's knock offs, and usually frumpy, she has now gone for the upgrade.

She not only looks like she is wearing rejects from the Wardrobers' discard pile, from "Mad Men," but she looks like she found a trunk of costumes originally created for female villains for some James Bond movie, filmed back in the days when Sean Connery was still young and skinny.

I am not saying that to be mean or partisan. I mean really? Look at the shit:

I have only four words for her stylist:

Traditional Necklines, Traditional Lapels.

(*sheesh* Is it just me, or is anyone else getting the Joan Crawford/Mommy Dearest vibe here?)

If a Pastor Walked into a Store, Grabbed a Turkey from the Meat Department, and Walked Out of the Store Without Paying . . . .

wouldn't it be accurate, and correct to call that stealing; call him a thief?

So what do you call it when a Pastor endorses political candidates from the pulpit, and thinks their church should still enjoy the benefit of tax exempt status? Well I don't know about you but if that church files the paperwork declaring they are still deserving tax exempt status, after that, then they are stealing, too!

I am making reference to the stunt pulled by some pastors this past weekend where they deliberately endorsed McCain and then ratted themselves to to the IRS to make a point. What point is that? To my mind they are letting the IRS know in advance that they are planning on stealing, when filing the paperwork, next deadline.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5886446&page=1

Here are the facts, kids. I know them because I have some experience with Section 501 of the Tax Code.

First Fact: No one is entitled by default to have tax exempt status.

Second Fact: In order to enjoy tax exempt status you have to file paperwork saying you meet the requirement for tax exemption under the appropriate section of the Tax Code.

Third Fact: If you lie, and file the papers, you are a thief and a fraud.

I just checked Section 501(B)(3) of the tax code. Religious institutions (among others) who, and I quote,"[d]oes not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, " qualify for the exemption. To be extra redundant here, it does not say just because you are a religious institution you are qualified for the exemption. It says you must also keep away from the politics, to qualify for the exemption.

That is crystal clear, ain't it? Then why do so many people seem to be too stupid to get that?

Part of the disconnect is that some people labor under the totally false assumption that churches are automatically tax exempt. That is (as explained above) not true. All the bluster and bullshit being published on this issue is exactly that. But I bet many people do in fact get the plain language and the plain meaning. They just want to have their turkey and not have to pay for it.

It is that simple.

Now I am going to end this with a practical example from a well-known movie,"Stand and Deliver." That was the movie about the former engineer who becomes a math teacher in a very poor, Latino neighborhood in L.A. But none of that has anything to do with my example. What does, however, is the following quote from the movie:


"You got a ticket? You don't have a ticket? Ehey, if you don't got a ticket, you don't get to see the show."

That might not be verbatim, but the idea is clear. These pastors don't want to pay for the ticket, but still want to see the show; crooks, and thieves! Screw them.

Oh and not really in a related way (well maybe it is related?) here is a verbatim quote from that same movie. But instead of tying this only to those thieving crooked, larcenous Republican Pastors, I will dedicate this quote to the Whole Republican Party as an institution:


"You're like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there!"

This is Why the Odds of That Horrid Palin Woman Putting In a Train Wreck of a Debate are HUGE!

I have been listening to analysis and in some cases, partisan hack apologists' excuse making, on how Palin will do, in the debate.

Now before I give my "I have a Theatre Degree, Law Degree, and know something about this shit," mostly objective take, let me take care of a little business, with the pundits. Let me metaphorically spank one of the specific apologists, and try as I might, to kill the bullshit she and others have been, and will continue to spew until the debate (and perhaps after.)

"Let Sarah be Sarah."

WTF? That is what the apologist, Michelle Bernard, said on Hardball tonight (and that is not the first time I heard that stupid shit.) Michelle seems to either not know the real deal here, or does know, but is just acting like a loyal cheerleader (and as she is a lawyer, she does know, but must be deliberately acting like a partisan cheerleader.)

So now I can get to the real deal. No Michelle, the problem is not that she is being mishandled by the preppers. The problem is not that her natural style has been cramped.

Here is the problem. If you take a person who lacks sufficient foundation in complicated subject matters, and try to cram too much data into their head over a short period of time, the best you can expect to produce is a trained parrot. You are not going to have a properly educated, knowledgeable, competent and confident person. You are not going to have a person who has learned and mastered sub-parts of subjects, and who, through the normal learning process, not only has the talking points available to spit out, but further, is able to think and reason within and about the material.

Sarah Palin's problem is not that her style is being cramped, but that she totally lacks the foundation and the education in the subjects. That is why she sounds like a parrot on crack. She does not understand the subject matter. It is that simple. It is not that she is too stupid to learn, but she is trying to learn about 60 credit hours of material in less than a couple weeks.

That is not going to work.

Oh. And the following is more for Michelle than my usual readers. Yo. Michelle. Remember moot court? I did not do all that well -- I did not crash and burn, but I was a more than a little nervous, and really was sorta slow in my answers, and ducked the questions, and ran back to the safety of the prepared speech I had. I did not feel I had such a complete mastery of the material, and it showed.

Now that is not the point (although I see a parallel to That Horrid Palin woman, but shit, I was much better prepared for Moot Court than she was for the Couric interview.)

Here is the real point.

One of my buddies just blew the rest of the class out of the water. He showed up with out any notes at all. He had prepared so well that he did not need any stinking notes. In fact, he did not even have a prepared spiel, but instead just asked the panel if they had any questions on the issues and arguments, as presented in his Memorandum.

Now what is the chance that That Horrid Palin woman will be that prepared? How about half that? Maybe half that again, but even that is a stretch.

It is Official. The Whole (near 'nuff) Republican Party Has Gone Douche!

I was not too much of a fan of even the new and improved Paulson Plan. So on one level, I am not really sorry it did not pass. But the sheer volume, the runny, stinky, freaking unbelievable bullshit the Republicans are spewing, about why the deal went south?

Ok. I finally turned on the tv, and watched on MSNBC while the show host was interviewing one of McCain's henchmen, and the henchman started right out of the gate with that . . . Sen. McCain had put the deal together, but the partisan speech by Pelosi killed the deal??

The host stopped and then asked the henchman . . . well doesn't that mean that the republicans who changed their votes put their feelings ahead of the needs of the nation?

Ya. The Republican Party has now hit an all time low in the field of political bullshit. This is one for the record books. I really should not be surprised, because as far as the history of dumb Republican stunts go? Wait! The mere fact there is a known and long history of Republican stunts speaks volumes about, and badly against the GOP. But this one?

Go to my second to last post here, and run that Douche-off video.

Ya. It's like that!

The Republican party has seemingly chosen to give up being known as a frequently joke of a political party, to being a party of emotionally-stunted attention whores.

That makes them a party of douchebags.

And speaking of Douchebags, McCain sure did a good job . . . taking credit for the deal. He took credit for the deal, earlier in the day.

Let him own it, so say I.

I am NOT Betting My Last Dollar on it. But . . .That Horrid Palin Woman? Will She Make it to Her Debate?

Here are the scenarios.

(a) in a stunning game-changing move, Palin is OFF the ticket. I have seen the essay where the conservative lady writer BEGS that McCain dump that Horrid Palin Woman off the ticket. Just about all the political junkies have. I am big on that idea happening right before the debate (and I have already said that I want to see Incredible Changing Veep gag from the McCain Circus) as that is a two-fer. It gets rid of that Horrid Palin Woman, to start, and is the perfect excuse for her not to show up to the debate, being not on the ticket anymore.

(b) She calls in sick. I would not be surprised if they come up with a totally unbelievable reason to skip/postpone/cancel/ avoid at any cost the debate.

Here is why.

Now did you read what I said about That Horrid Palin Woman being so stupid that when Katie Couric pointed out the hole Palin dug, pointed out the pile of dirt, and handed Palin a shovel (only stopping short of saying, "You really need to put the dirt back . . . NOW!") I called that 'performance' a special kind of stupid.

Something tells me that is her 'tell.' That is her 'tick.' That is just what she does when she is cornered, and knows she does not have the right answer, or even a good one, she babbles like a baby. And that is a habit she does not have enough time to unlearn, as she clearly does not even have enough time to cram all she needs to know about national and international affairs, to not look totally ignorant. Now if she really was up on the issues, it is (or would have been, as of early last week) possible a good acting coach could help her with the really bad nervous habit and embarassing behaviour. But she would have to be one hell of a quick study to learn that much control, in a little over a week's time.

Now yes, I would say, just based on probability as much as I can guess, the debate will go on.

But if I really wanted to play the prediction game, I am going to predict at least three times that that Horrid Palin woman ends up babbling like a baby.

Shit. Let's make it four. I'm feeling very good at my prognostication regarding that Horrid Palin Woman.

Now if You DON'T See the Connection Between This Video, and that Horrid Palin Woman, You are WAY too Partisan!

I will give you a clue, below it, at least.



Referring to my prior posts on the subject of douchyness (a theme I was obsessed about, a year ago and longer), the nature of being a douche, to my mind, is to be an emotionally-stunted attention whore. It is to be the kind of person who instead of raising up the energy level in a room, rather sucks all the energy out of those in it, leaving them feeling like they have been drained by some sort of psychic vampire.

Said another way, douchyness is shallowness; shallow emotions, shallow tastes, shallow intellect, shallow humanity, shallow ideals.

In short (but using a long word, here) douchyness is the extreme of human superficiality.

Oh. I was supposed to tie it in to that Horrid Palin Woman.

I am not going to call her a douche, but when was the last time we had such a shallow person on the national political stage? Is Palin nothing but a fembot version of Dan Quayle?

Is it fair to make a direct link between Quayle's Potato(e) moment, and her witless babbling to Katie Couric, trying to defend her "I live next to Russia," debacle? Is it too mean to say that when you dig a hole during week one on Monday, you have to be a special brand of stupid if you are given the free and open chance to fill that hole in, more than a week later, and blow it? Is it too harsh to call that politician an imbecile, if someone else points to the hole, points to the pile of dirt from that hole, and hands them a shovel, that instead of using the shovel to put the dirt back in to the hole, that politician jumps back in that hole and furiously digs, deeper and deeper?

I don't think so. That Horrid Palin Woman is definitely not the first politician to break that first rule of politics/PR/mass communication -- stop digging. But she did it under circumstances that puts in question whether she is bright enough to dress herself. How much of an imbecile must one be to punt away the free and open chance to totally change the record, and totally rewrite the totally embarrassing line?

Katie Couric clearly gave her the chance to clean up that mess, to say something like . . . .

"What I meant was that there is special kind of awareness that comes from living so close to our former Cold War enemy, and I remember growing up there, and seeing the Military Services engaged in protecting the US National border, which also was Alaska's state border. I am not saying that equals expertise, but it gives me a particularly acute perspective."


But NOOOOOO!

What a loon.

I think Jack Cafferty said it best. Talking about that woman potentially being one 72 year old's heartbeat away from being president, he said if you are not frightened, you should be.

Hey. I can post that vid too.



Oh, and while I am on the topic of public evidence of superficiality, and really weak, really embarrassing public performances, that moment in the Mississippi Debate when McCain did his awkward and witless vamp about how fundamentals of the economy equal the great American Worker?

I am not serious but I am going to say it, if only for joke value.

Could Palin be a bastard child of McCain?

I know it is not likely. I know the same liars are advising both, but jeeze Louise. Forget about being the ruling political partners for America; they should be the leads in the next "Dumb and Dumber," film franchise.

Houston. We Have a Problem. Old Man is Breaking Down. I repeat. Old Man is Breaking Down.

The debate.

Started off sorta equally political.

The we got to the Iraq stuff, and I admit my bias. Anyone who can't say Iraq was a mistake, period, is too delusional to be POTUS. But that is my bias.

But when McCain went off on the meet with Ahmadinejad point? Would not drop the point even after Obama painstaking repeated that is was not a matter of US POTUS - to evil bastard one-on-one negotiation, but rather American Diplomat Corps to evil bastard negotiations?

McClain flamed out. Either his calcified brain did not process the data, or he was so in love with his silly-assed talking point that he would not drop it, no matter reality. Either way, that is the mark of a crazy person.

Now he is puking up that former Soviet Georgia line. McCain is melting down. As Crazy as not ready for Prime Time that Horrid Palin Woman is, she really never had a clue to start. McCain is seemingly missing the few marbles he may have once had.

Crazy old man.

Sick part is the Republican Party has been entertaining the extremist lunatics for the past 25 years. So by Republican standards he might not be that much of a dangerous extremely crazy person. But from the POV of sane people? McCain is a loon. Get the net, and the sedatives.


Oh my God, he is repeating the Iraq disaster mythology. What an idiot.

Live Blogging Today, from the Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Conference.

(How cyber-pretentious of me, but they have a free cyber cafe set up in the Exhibit Hall. So why not?)

Firstly, I just discovered my blog is being linked on Technorati (spelling?) Does that mean anything, like I need to cut down on typos and cussing?

Next thing; the conference. I have only been to one previously, and that was 10 years ago. Now the excitement level is much higher, for obvious reasons, the fact one of the Caucus Members is one of the candidates for the presidency. And furthermore, this has been one buzzing week in (as I call D.C.) The Imperial City.

I just slipped out of an issue session hosted by John Conyers (who was not in the room; sorta typical for this week of important votes and meetings with the economy on the brink, as it were.) This one is an open all day session and the module I just attended was dealing with about drug crimes and sentencing. Nothing too new for me, as I used to do some juve crim work back in my Family Court, Philly days. I know the system is sorta at least accidentally racist, if not more than that. And one of the panel speakers went on a vamp about how the construsts of black and white identity are nosensical, and yet still pervasive. Again, not new data for me.

I will try to catch another module there. Conyers is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and I am still something of a lawyer, all that.

Enough about that for now.

Here is what I wanted to blog about last night but between fighting a bad dial-up line and being sorta tired, I held off.

THAT HORRID PALIN WOMAN? My God! I have only seen the snippets of both the Couric interview, and the questions session at the WTC Site, from yesterday.

I think Keith Olbermann said it perfectly last night.

The woman does not know what she is talking about.

That should be the end of the discussion.

I am still sorta hoping, just for entertainment value, to see her forced out. Well, I do want her as far away from making a decision that could have any effect on my life, no doubt. But beyond that obvious and redundant remark, the McCain Circus should still have a few stunts left in it, and that is the particular one I want to see. After that, then we can have the clown car and the small prancing dogs.

Last remark for the day; this is my idea for the ONLY commercial Sen. Obama should run, for the rest of the campaign:

"Do you want a Drama Queen for President of the United States? If NOT, Vote for Obama.

Yea! Another Politics Free Day. Let's get Old School. with Stevie.

Let's Skip Politics.

Something to warm the heart, instead of inflame (the baser)passions.

Watching Olbermann is one of my Guilty Pleasures

as he clearly is partisan on my side, and I am not a big fan of blurring the distinction between journalist and and pundit.


But Olbermann's delivery and perspicacity is so dead-on sometimes.


His remark re the new "story" about Gov. Palin's firing of the guy who would not fire her (ex?) brother in law?


Olbermann said it like this sorta.


Now she says that he was fired for insubordination . . .

for asking for money from Washington D.C. . . .

to fight RAPE . . .

that she did not want.




Ya, that shit is way fwked up.


That is as stupid as saying, "No Officer Friendly. I was not shoplifting at the 7-11 last night. I was mugging some bitch in the park, at that time. Put the bitch in the hospital, and she is in a coma, so I hear. So no, I did not do that shoplifting shit, no sir."


But of course, she is a lying liar.


Now if you got to lie at least be an accomplished one, not as bad and weak a liar as the garden variety dumbassed junkie thief.


Changing Topic To Something More Wholesome . . . I went to see "Wicked." today.


I love me my witches. I particularly love Elphaba, not that green skin is my usual thing, but as is said in the show, I have learned how to look at things, differently. Never mind that even if Glinda is the popular one, Elphaba is the one with both the more clever mind, and the much bigger heart. Glinda has heart too, but Elphaba is the more lovable character.

I ALMOST feel sorry for Carly.

(Emphasis on ALMOST.)

As of this morning she has been taken off the front lines of the McCain-Palin team, relegated to grunt work, in the background. That is a damn shame. I was getting used to taking shots at her here on the blog. I am sure many other commentators feel similar regrets at her redeployment.

Now of course the irony (if Republicans lived in the sane world where up means up and down means down, and confusing the two is lying) is that she of course is not being redeployed for telling lies. Lies are part and parcel of the official script. She instead got busted for going off the script in a way that made the candidates look nearly as silly as the candidates do themselves, daily.

Can't have that, can we?

Sen. McCain can start off on Monday, repeating the disastrous Herbert Hoover line about the economy being fundamentally sound -- basically confirming the Obama-Biden message about being out of touch. But the fact he makes silly gaffes is something the campaign has to deal with.

McCain can't shut himself up. It doesn't work that way.

And Gov. Palin can repeat the two lies from her acceptance speech. Ok the first one about the plane is more an attempt to spin a technically correct fact into something unwarranted by reality -- a half lie of omission, perhaps is the better way to describe that one. The one about the bridge to nowhere, however is a bald faced lie. However those untruthful statements are part of the script. Gov. Palin's non scripted gaffes to date, however, have not been judged as bad enough to reconsider the ticket. Point is, McCain has sorta painted himself into a corner with the selection of Palin. The fwkup that causes McCain to cut her loose is going to have to be so severe that the alternative is to knowingly, to a mathematical probability, give up all hope of winning the election, if he doesn't.

I am still hoping for that.

Some in the media, and the pundits are speculating that Palin excitement has peaked, will die-down. Perhaps. I still rather see the opposition taken out of contention before the game is over. So I am still hoping there is a fat juicy barrel of scandal waiting to be opened, and hopefully soon. (Maybe it has been found already and is being saved for use at that right moment? A dem can only hope.)

Anyway, I was talking about poor Carly Carly Carly.

Well not so poor, as depending on who you are talking to, she walked away from that shipwreck of her stewardship of HP with anywhere from 20 to 40 million dollars.

But her pride is hurt, I am betting.

Wait. Wasn't it her elitist, corporate-class sense of superiority that got her in this mess?

Ahh . . . . so it is a fitting turn of events. Again. I am only almost sorry.

More Lies, Some of them Repeats.

Carly Carly Carly. She was back on TV today; telling lies, the lying liar.

McCain has consistently recognized how hard the economic downturn has been for average Americans?

It goes down hill from there.

She repeated the bullshit lie about how the SEC (who did not have regulatory authority over the Investment Banks), was asleep at the switch.

They did not even have a switch ya lying liar!


And here is her lying about her (if what I have seen is correct.) She said the shareholders approved of her severance. Ya? Why did some of them sue HP for breaching the actual approved formula?


* * * * * * * * * * * *
Shareholders Sue Hewlett-Packard Over Fiorina Severance Pay
Michael Liedtke
The Associated Press, March 8, 2006

A group of Hewlett-Packard Co. shareholders are suing the company, alleging its board broke its own rules by awarding more than $42 million in cash, stock and other benefits to Carleton "Carly" Fiorina after she was dumped as CEO last year.
The complaint, filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., depicts the payments to Fiorina as a blatant violation of a board policy adopted in 2003 so the company's severance payments would be limited to 2.99 times an executive's combined salary and annual bonus.


http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1141725931292

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Doesn't seem that her specific was ever voted on by the shareholders. Lying liar!

(I would like to tell you the status of the case but I do not have access to the court's docket. I can't swear it is still alive, but there is nothing out there saying it was dismissed.)

Then there is her announcement of the golden parachute reform plan. They (claim they ) want to force corporations to make shareholders approve severance packages. So I got to wonder do they mean some calculus formula put to the shareholders, or make them vote on the actual contracts showing value, per each senior ex?

And then there is the general problem about how the Fed. Government does not usually get involved in corporate governance issues, that is within the states' powers. So how do they think they will make this work at the Fed Level?

Then there is McCain's general and historical Laissez Faire attitude to regulatory matters. Not a supporter, that is the fact, Jack.


Lying liar Carly claimed he had a history of reform in the economic sector. Bullshit.

Ok. That is enough reporting of Republican lies for today, for now.


EDIT TO ADD:

No matter how much and badly Sarah Palin is a lying liar. No matter how much and badly Rick Davis is a lying liar. No matter how much of a lying-assed liar Carly Fiorina is, McCain has now taken the lead in the most outrageous lie race.

Remember how he famously said he did not really know about economics?

I just saw the vid of him on "Morning Joe." And I quote as closely as I can:

"I know how to fix this economy. I have had great experience on these issues as chairman of the Commerce Committee."

The Commerce Committee does not deal with economics, or Finance, or Wall Street Market problems, ya lying liar. That he all of a sudden proclaims himself an economic expert shows he has crossed the Political Ambition -- Personal Integrity boundary line, leaving Personal Integrity in the dust, with out looking back. Lying liar.

Honestly, I believe that he would say he was in favor of strangling kittens in front of grade school children, if he thought it would help him get elected. Shit, I think he would try to do the strangling himself if he though that would help.

What a disreputable sack of excrement-lying liar.

Best Line about the Current Election?

Honestly, this nugget from David Brooks. He drives me crazy sometimes. And other times he seems to hit the six penny nail squarely on the head with a 20 oz. hammer.

The title of his piece today is: "Why Experience Matters."

Here is the brilliant observation:


"Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared."


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?hp

I agree.

I guess I got genuine working class, standard American Roots, but . . .

This is what I drive now (not my actual car, but make and year.)














And this is what I want to drive.

And I will never apologize for my tastes.

Lucky for me, I know a dealer. Unlucky for me, he is way the hell
out in Arizona or some distant South West Location.



Oh and as second choice?

But I confess. I am not a car geek. Sure I would look good in the S Class, or the Jag, but it is only a matter of the most superficial fashion. But I really would look good in either luxury car.

Normally I would Edit To Add, as this is too related to last point, BUT THIS IS HUGE!

McCain actually said

we need more regulation.

He actually went against the GOP Official Talking Points.

Shit on a biscuit.

Either he is pandering and lying, or he has gone off the reservation.

Hey . . . 21 million dollar Golden Parachute Carly Fiorina is coming up next on Hardball. David Gregory is doing the honors. I hope he hits her with what John and Crazy Sara said today about basically declaring war on her and all the other of her ilk.

EDIT TO ADD and DELETE:

Because of the current crisis I decided to brush up on my knowledge base about Investment Banks, particularly (I had an inkling I might have mispoke), and I decided to take down the crack against Carly as the problem is not so much her misidentifying the SEC as primary regulatory authority (they of course regulate the selling of securities and licensing of brokers), but the fact that large areas of their operations are not exactly really being regulated BY ANYONE. As a matter of fact, just this summer the current head of the SEC asked for MORE AUTHORITY to regulate investment banks. And there seems to be a sort of a wishful power struggle between the Federal Reserve and the SEC to get the actual authority to regulate what was and is still now, the unregulated aspects of Investment Banking.

So I was right in calling out Carly as a liar, but I was wrong as for the part that I said was the lie.

For my part I mis-spoke. Yes, the OCC regulates the commercial banks, but does not have much jurisdiction over the pure investment banks, even if they do have jurisdiction over the mixed commercial/investment banks (those are the kinds of banks I have been dealing with on an antitrust lawsuit, for a large part of the last three years. Ironically, if things keep going as they are there the pure investment bank might be a thing of the past. Even Goldman took a bath this last quarter. Shit!)

In any event, as cousin Malcolm said, the chickens are coming home to the roost.

Here is a good article explaining how deep the problem is (and who likely caused it):

http://www.miller-mccune.com/article/690

And how's this for a damning quote:

"Whether the Bush administration really believed the economic lunacy of the Laffer Curve or Grover Norquist’s tax-cutting solution to all problems is a question for historians. What is important is the impact such policies had on the economy. They were summed up for me the day after the 2004 elections by a very drunk and prominent Republican lobbyist who staggered over to my table and proclaimed, “I’m going to get rich. My clients are going to get richer, and then we’ll have a one-term Democratic president because she’ll have to clean up the (mess) we leave behind.”

I have to wonder whether that particular Republican is on McCain's staff? (I had to say it. I really had to!)

Oh and by the way. I want someone to ask Crazy Sarah how much she knows about the theories of deadweight loss, and the Laffer Curve, in an interview sometime soon.

Now watching her fumble for a response should be quite entertaining.

Honestly, let me study up on Laffer. I mostly remember that it is (according to some) one of the lynchpins of voodoo econ theory. Oh ya. Here is my dig at Republican thinking. It is disturbingly humorous that some of the same people who disbelieve in the Scientific (as in supported by evidence, scientific) Theory of Evolution, can believe in that shit. Last time I did my reading on Laffer, I think the best evidence out there in favor of that nonsense was some small support of the theory playing out in the narrow band of taxes called "corporate taxes." But hardly anyone actually pays that anymore, so the theory is as valid as a belief that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the back dinosaur.

What the Hell is Left for them to Steal? Our Donkey?

I am listening to Crazy Sarah (that is how I think of her, more than any other way, but I digress).

Ok. Yes, you would expect them to talk about the economy, particularly with the Lehman Bank filing for B'ruptcy, and Merril selling off to BofA. But the talking points? She was talking about how the regulatory system is antiquated, and how corporate mangers are self dealers, and they plan to go after bad managers who get golden parachutes.

Shit. They stole out right the typical Dem points about how corporations (often) suck and can't be trusted.

What da efwk!

But there was a lot of hot air there, and no specifics. Trust us to reform, even if we both me and John McCain are up to our necks with the same corporate lobbyists who sold the ideas that are partially behind the current market disaster, right here in our campaign staff, never mind exactly who our big dollar contributors are. BTY. Where is that particularly well known as bad corporate executive, Carly Fiorina (who herself got a $21,000,000.00 golden parachute after crashing HP into the reef?) I would love to see some vid of her supporting the New (not really anything close to a) Economic Plan.

Anyway . . .

Oh she is still using her half-lie about putting the jet on ebay (that is how Alaska has dealt with it's 'surplus' dating from before she showed up in Juneau, never mind she used a broker to dump the asset, as a loss, mind you. She never says that part, the damned liar), and the bridge to nowhere lie. That is so close to being totally a lie that I just call it a full lie. That actually is about the most verifable lie told in a national political campaign since Nixon claimed to NOT be Crook.

Lying liars!

Edit to add: I know I am the stubborn and opinionated one, but I DETEST that whole corn pone, rube, corny folksy stuff (unless the person in question is playin' Delta Blues).

I mean, I do get it, that lots of people are falling in love with Crazy Sarah.

I don't go for that shit, myself; not for my choice of national level government officers. I want the person who seems like the smartest, best prepared, most wonky person in the room, to be in charge of the organs of state that affect my security, and economy; not the person who might be an endearing neighbor.

And I will never apologize for it.

I am going to criticize my team.

Not overly harshly and not as harshly as I do the other side as the other side is the ENEMY, right? But I got a couple gripes here.

Firstly, making too much out of the Karl Rove remark this weekend? Jeeze Louise, it is one thing to stick with the theme of they are setting new records with new sleazy lows, points, but don't make too much of someone's criticism of the other team if that person is wailing on your ass, too.


And here is the other point; and this is sorta for today at least inspired by some remarks I read over on Huffpo. The commentator's general point was that Team Obama need to spend less time running against Bush and more time running against McCain Palin.

That sorta triggered some memories for me, like when I said here, we have to destroy their mythology and communicate our message better.

Oh, and I will say I like the fact that Team Obama is pushing back but there is another criticism coming here, and it is again linked to things I have posted here already. Damnit, stop just being responsive. I repeat. Republicans are 'Home,' they are 'In They Own House,' when it comes to Gutter Politics. You can't let them play their own game, and only respond to the shit when they throw it at you. Now we do not have to resort to monkey see monkey do, as if we go that route we end up looking like thugish, bullying, shit-throwing monkeys too, just like the Republicans always look like (again, that is their comfort zone.) But still, if only for the purely tactical reason, we must be playing offense. Don't tell lies; leave that to the Republicans. Don't cheap shot either. But hit them hard for being the lying, shit-throwing monkeys, and I mean hit them on the lies their whole campaign, their mythology is based.

Do not just call them liars for their lying attack ads. Their whole campaign, on balance, is mostly based at best on half lies and partially diluted bullshit. And the other half is basically full lies and the purest form of bullshit. Hit them on that. Hit them above the belt, where it is a fair shot, but hit them hard and hit them good. Remember that bullys are cowards. They really can't take a punch, no matter how mush noise they make.

Even if it did no good last time I tried

(and I was proven right then)

I say it plainly. John McCain is NOT a conservative. Not even close. Bush was not a conservative and I said that plainly last time, but did they listen to me? NOOOOOOOOOO!

LOL.

Now is Caribou Barbie a conservative? At best sorta. Why only sorta?

I mean really? Pre National Candidate Caribou Barbie definitely DID NOT believe in Man Made Global Warming. Now she is open to that being kinda maybe not not true.

Pre National Candidate Caribou Barbie Embraced and loved her cultish church, back in Wassilla, with its warriors for God and all that extremist weirdness. Now she is backing away from that, mangling, after the fact, a perfectly clear and concise quote from Abe Lincoln, to prove she really is not a religious wack job.

Pre National Candidate Caribou Barbie was all for (forgive the pig reference) bringing home the pork, but if elected Vice President (a position for which there is absolutely no authority or power with which to reform any part of the Federal Government but for her own Vice Presidential Staff, actually) she is going to reform the government and fight earmarks/pork.

Wait a minute. There I go again, over analysing stuff.

The office of Vice President of the United States is a position for which there is absolutely no authority or power with which to reform any part of the Federal Government but for the Veep's own staff, actually.

Anyone running for the office of Veep saying they are going to do x, y, or z, particularly, and if x, y, and z are not within the limited constitutional duties of the office, being President of the Senate, and casting tie breaking votes, guess what? That person is a total lying liar.

Now if they say they will help in any way they can the POTUS do x, y, and z. Ok. That is fair. But as long as Senator McCain seems unwilling to describe her portfolio, it seems there is only one thing there as an area of responsibility; help get him elected. If that happens she will be sitting pretty (opps was that sexist?) and she actually should have a lot more time to care for her infant child (whoops was that sexist? I mean really, vice presidents usually have almost the same amt. of free time as the Maytag Repair Man.)


I admit I chopped a line out of there as I should hold back on calling Gov. Palin a liar (on the I will be a reformer in D.C. shit) until I find a vid of her saying "I will reform D.C.," It seems I have heard others say "She will," but I can't call her a liar honestly, based on some other republicans' lies. I am a partisan actively hoping for the failure of her ambitions, but I want to be an honest person. More honest than the people running that campaign, at least!

But still, can someone say what the hell she personally will be reforming? How about even some more clarification from McCain defining what he wants to reform? A little help here???

Edit to Add:
(basically unrelated to the prior discussion)

Now you know that I want the republicans to loose, as I am a democrat, and that means, unsprisingly, I always want the republicans to loose. But what if they win? My prediction. Gov. Palin (ya, I am using the proper form of address for a change just so I can say I DO NOT always crack on her, not always at least) may think she is ready for the big time, but her fam damly? If the Palin family goes to Washington D.C. the are likely going to be needing therapy for the rest of their damn lives. They can't possibly be prepared for the expericence. Not that I am wishing on them a bad time (I don't blame them for their momma), but just think about it. Could you imagine a family of a Governor less prepared for D.C. than the Palins? Be honest.

The son sent to Iraq? Assuming he remins unharmed, he could be the lucky one. Shit. He gets to skip the whole election nonsense. Good for him.

Of COURSE I want to see Palin and McCain's campaign go down in flames and infamy.

I am a loyal Democrat. I think the GOP party platform is unamerican and unconstititional. I think that all Republican politicians are at least indifferent to the possible result of running the Federal Government into the ground, if not are actively trying to make that to happen. Wait. New analogy. They are as happy to see the Federal Government wounded and lame, like a wolf shot from an airplane by some trigger happy rube with a shotgun. (And with in the last 20 minutes I saw a clip of Reagan saying,"Government is the problem." I agree it is the problem when Republicans are in charge.)

But anyway I say that to re emphasize the point that it really ain't personal to me.

It is just (political) business.

So that being said, it is time for me to not only say how I wanna see their campaign go down the toilet, but I am going to guess how it will, if it will.

As much as I think Palin is a plainly crazy person who practices an insane, cult-like form of extremist religion that I consider extremely dangerous, I don't think it is going to be a vid of her speaking in tongues or some sick, weird, insane Pentecostal thing that will be the last nail in the coffin. I think it is going to be something on the level of multiple and believable incidents of racism/ethnic bigotry. Do I have proof? Hell no. This is not an accusation, this is me predicting what I think is going to bubble up, in the next few weeks.

And I will go one step further. I expect something juicy to emerge from her time in Hawaii.

I mean hell. Who goes to Hawaii to college and doesn't finish there?

There is dirt there. I can feel it in my bones.

Well I can HOPE it, at least!

Edit to add:

Singularly DUMBEST thing thing said by a Palin fan, this week.


"The liberals are wanting Palin to be in constant hostile interviews because they don't want her to campaign or prepare for the debate on Oct 2."

My reply?

So the liberals want to keep Palin answering questions from hostile jounalists, to keep her from being prepared for the debate where she will have to answer questions from hostile jounalists, actually?

What a moron. Not Palin, but the Palin fan.

Now I typed this long screed this morning, but instead of that, some brevity.

My favorite magizine is Vanity Fair. My family's favorite magazine is Vanity Fair. Not that we are living the Hampton's life, but we have "cosmopolitian" tastes and interests. Supermarket tabloid celebrity rags are just too much of a not very good thing, but with Vanity Fair you get the pretty pictures of the artsy fartsy set, instead of, as I said, tabloid crap.

And the magazine does some very good issue and political and international reporting. The articles are really good. And one of my favorite features is the PROUST QUESTIONNAIRE.

They ask some interesting, usually somewhat known person basically the same list of questions, and that is all there is to it. This month's questionee is Michael Bloomberg. And his response to one of the questions just not only hit the mark so perfectly, it sorta derailed my morning's topic and pre post. Here goes:

Question: What is it that you most dislike?

Answer: "When decades of scientific discovery take a backseat to political ideology -- something I refer to as political science."

Game/Set/Match to Bloomberg!

I am going to avoid politics, to start, at least. So mark me, Jonathan. It is not that I do not 'get' Durkheim. but I am a Millsiean, because

Durkheim-ism sucks. It sucks diseased water buffalo dingus.

To explain, I have been reading this essay by this fairly smart PhD in Psychology, Jonathan Haidt,who wrote an essay with the core thesis, that is it the Dems who do not understand the Republicans, not the other way around. And he, near the end of his essay, employed the example of the difference between the social theory of John Stuart Mill (as ideal for Dem. social theory) to that of Emile Durkheim (as ideal for Repub. social theory.)
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

If you will allow me to be jokingly crude for a moment (it is a Sociologist's joke; I took 12 credits of Sociology in college, so I am on familiar ground here.)

Durkheim? DURKHEIM?

Eyyy!! I got yur An-o-me theory right here (grab crotch), pal.

Not that I am disparaging Durkheim. It is just that this is my view of it all. I definitely 'get' that some people prefer there to be a binding force, or overlapping binding moral ties in society. I just reject the Republican/Conservative/ Authoritarian
Judeo-Christian model as being worth any bit more to the future of our society's well being, as would the rules for the game of darts. In other words, I reject the claims/belief of divine supremacy. And with out divine supremacy, that cluster of values truly is no no more authorative than the rules for the game of darts.

Let me post a chunk from his essay:


"Drawing on Shweder's ideas, I would say that the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.

When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?"

Before I go into my refutation, let me say that the writer does put up an interesting argument, and does well with his example of living in rural India, and having to adjust to that town's way of life, including what they considered as right, if not moral.

Therein lies the weakness in conservative thinking. Granted I REJECT OUT OF HAND the idea that every thing they think of as being a matter of morality is that, as such. And I also reject that their religious texts/sources/tradition means more to the state of humanity than the instructions on how to open a soda. I do get it, that they believe their social mores, folkways and values are not only superior, but God-Given. And that is why I hold those mores, folkways and values in (perhaps not total but in great) contempt. Wait. That is not the right tack. It is not so much that I hold the mores, et al., in contempt but I hold the preachers, advocates and promoters of such in contempt FOR THEIR ARROGANCE! It is an inexcusable, insufferable level of arrogance to stand up and say my God is right, and my God, say this is what you must (or must not) do.

That is why I hold any flavor of "fundamentalist" in contempt. It is not the desire for the cohesion of social order, that I fault people. It is for how they do it, and the baselessness of their claim of superiority that I fault them.

Now quickly why am I a Millsean, as opposed to a Durkheimean?

Simple. Here is what the author says is at root of Millsean morality:

"Psychologists have done extensive research on the moral mechanisms that are presupposed in a Millian society, and there are two that appear to be partly innate. First, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to suffering and harm, particularly violent harm, and so nearly all cultures have norms or laws to protect individuals and to encourage care for the most vulnerable. Second, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to issues of fairness and reciprocity, which often expand into notions of rights and justice. Philosophical efforts to justify liberal democracies and egalitarian social contracts invariably rely heavily on intuitions about fairness and reciprocity."

My take on that is that represents the basic idea of human and social decency. That is the part we all should be able to agree on, save the psychopaths, and such similar anti social, anti human people.

The problem is that when you try to add just about anything to those two key pillars of decency, you run the risk of bringing in parochial points of view, cultural biases, religious dogma, and political bigotry. That is why I so completely reject right wing thinking. It is not even so much the shit they believe, as much is the shitty and baseless assumption that they hold that they have the answers and the authority to preach if not force their parochial, bigoted biases on anyone.

Simple, ain't it?

She is SO NOT ready for Prime Time, Leave Alone Being a Heartbeat away from being POTUS.

The Gibson interview. He asked her about what McCain himself said about her slim Foreign Policy (knowledge). What does she do? She vamps about "reform," and then talks energy policy.

Total PUNT.

She is not ready; no fucking way.

She flamed out on the Bush Doctrine question, she did not know what it was.

Not ready!

{delete delete delete}

Edit to add:

How can Sarah,Plain and Dull be a reformer, an agent of change, if she doesn't even know the freaking policies that she is supposed to be reforming and changing?

Jump that shark.

Yee heaw!

Edit even further.

I would have been MUCH MEANER and yet still fair on the pit bull. I would have asked her questions ONLY based on the GOP 2008 Platform. Then after asking all the questions I would point out the source of the questions and show how wrong she was on the official programs and policies of the political party she is supposed to be Second in charge of.

Is there anyone who thinks I am wrong in thinking she could be stumped by her own party's own positions on the issues of the year?

Explanation for deletion:

I might have been over the top in calling her a liar for her explanation of the church speech where she talked about praying for the troops and Tasks From God, what not. After listening to the quote several times in a row it seems that her convoluted message there was less an assertion that the Politicians' Plan was God's Plan, but instead was a call for prayer that God had a plan and they (the listeners) should be praying that the Politicians' plan, in sending our people to Iraq was actually (part of) God's plan. (That is way confusing to me, and I get string theory. It still is sort of mangled as far as the syntax, and the meaning being clearly communicated is concerned, even after several replays.)

Lincoln, ever the master of brevity and clarity, said what he said, thusly:

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

So here is my lesser admonishing retort to Sara Plain and Dull, and anyone else with the bad judgment to try to rewrite Lincoln. Don't. Quote him by name, and quote the words exactly as written by Old Abe. You are not smart enough to improve on Lincoln's output, dontchaknow?

Best Behaving Republican of the Week; Worst Behaving Republican of the Week.

Kudos to Mike Huckabee, for refusing to get on the wagon with that 'pig in a poke,' about 'lipstick on a pig.'





Now for worst. Well let me say right now that Rick Davis is default, from now until Nov. 4. That man is one slimy piece of shit. I say that plainly. But beyond him in his default category we have this fellow.

First, I will tell you this lying-assed, hypocritical self hating Republican thug's name: Robert Kagan.

Next, a summary of his resume: Kagan graduated from Yale University in 1980. He later earned a master's degree from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a PhD from American University in Washington, DC.

Career -- Kagan worked at the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs (1985-1988) and was a speechwriter for Secretary of State George P. Shultz (1984-1985). Prior to that, he was foreign policy advisor to New York Representative and future Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp (1983). Kagan is a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Now his current gig: a foreign policy adviser to McCain.

Lastly, why he is the worst of lying-assed hypocritical scum.

"Robert Kagan, a foreign policy adviser to McCain, derided criticisms of Palin as elitist. “I don’t take this elite foreign policy view that only this anointed class knows everything about the world," he said. "I’m not generally impressed that they are better judges of American foreign policy experience than those who have Palin’s experience.” "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13368_Page2.html


Hypocrites and liars who are that slimy and scummy should burst into flames or some such, for telling such bullshit lies, I swear!

Forget about the Pitbull or the Pig. LOOK OUT for that SHARK, Sen. McCain!!!

Ok. Now I have been watching MSNBC (while playing my cheap strat. "Train in Vain." Good stuff!) and ya if you wanna confession, both Matthews and Olbermann swing left, but if what they are telegraphing is true?

The phony pig-gate is backfiring on Team McCain. The media seems (if what I have heard/watched is any reliable indication) to think McCain & Co. have jumped the shark. They think that the suspension of disbelief (disbelieving these people are jokes) is hereby suspended.

Team McCain may have lost its slim claim to credibility. Their stunts may be relegated to the butt end of news reports. Fitting, if you ask me. McCain & Co. have no body to blame but their own slimy selves, and nothing to complain about if that happens.

They should consider themselves lucky that there next clown act is not accompanied with a laugh track.

MY saying this does not in any way mean I think they are done. Republicans are like villains/monsters in horror movies. You can knock them down a dozen times, and they will keep coming at you like some unnatural undead instrument of evil.

So I am not doing the Smurf dance here. I will be happy if team McCain not only has really jumped the shark, but is treated as if . . .

She looks better without those glasses. And without the dorky hair style. But I told ya'll the frumpy stuff is an act!!!

I originally read the 'confession' on Huffpo, quoting an article elsewhere on the web, and I forgot the name of the original source.

DUH! It was the story/interview that Sarah Plain and Dull did for Vogue last year.

Re my assertion she frumps it it up deliberately, her confession, as follows:

"Developing a thick skin when it comes to comments about her looks has been part of the learning process. "I've been taken aback by the nasty criticism about my appearance," she says. "I wish they'd stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots. A reporter once asked me about it during the campaign, and I assured him I was trying to be as frumpy as I could by wearing my hair on top of my head and these schoolmarm glasses, but he said, 'No, that's not what I mean.'"

http://www.style.com/vogue/feature/090108VFEA/?mbid=rss_feature

Anyway, I still hope to find some audio file of her with out the (I call it) bogus Fargo accent. I still think that is every bit as much a put-on as the circa 1960 anti-fashion clothes she admits she picks to maximize the frump.

And speaking about put-ons? Didn't I tell you peeps? I was predicting this since I posted about the McCainiacs disgusting 'playing the race card, card,' slimebowl-arama, but the 'pig in a poke' about the 'lipstick on a pig,' remark?

I TOLD YA ALL THIS WAS COMING! Trust Uncle Abs. Uncle Abs knows!

Just like that old joke by P.J. O'Rouke about how Republicans run for office saying that government doesn't work, get elected, and PROVE IT. Republicans specifically hate the Federal Government, and they want to kill it. Grover Norquist might be one of the few honest Loopy-loopiest of the Right Wing Lunatics, but trust him when he says he want to shrink the Fed. Gvt.to such a small size that it could be drowned in a bathtub. Now that is never going to happen, but the Fed Gvt. can be mismanaged to such an extent that it could very well become cripple, feeble, and mortally wounded. That explains why these Republicans treat every National Election like it is the end of the world.

For them the end of the world, I mean Federal Government, can't come soon enough. So expect them to continue to rack up new slimy 'mediums' and as well, don't be surprised if they can actually hit a new low. Spinning the Senator Obama remark into a sexist attack on Palin was close to a new low. Really close. But (and I got to give props where do) it gladdens my heart that I saw a few rank and file GOPers expressing dismay at that cynical ploy.

There might be hope for the Nation yet. I am not holding my breath. I would be more surprised if large numbers of rank and filers started boycotting the GOP on account of the death match liars version of campaigning that is actually getting worse, than I would if I were to see the following headline (or something close to it):

"Obama puts on pants, one leg at a time, before leaving his house. McCain campaign staffers call that "Shocking," and "Insensitive," and "Outrageous," and "Sexist," and demand an apology."

I personally do not think that the outrage over the 'pig in lipstick' remark is all that more credible than the outrage over my pants example, would merit.

Ya, there is a little bit of daylight between the two, but only a paper thin crack, if you ask me.

Remember What I Said About THEM Lying?

And remember what I said about crazy religious shit?

Ok. The refutation of the charge that Sarah Plain and Dull wants that extremist crazy bullshit fake science of so-called "creationism" taught in schools? The spin on that is that she did not SPECIFICALLY say she wanted that topic taught. However, she said she wanted the kiddies to be able to engage in the debate?

(Now I have been trying not to use the f-word, but here I am gonna. You have been warned.)

Someone tell me. I dare you. 'Splain to me the fucking difference between
(a) teaching an issue in a classroom, and
(b) allowing the debate of that issue and an opposed issue, at the same time, in the same classroom?

Now I did not go to Catholic School but I know the Catholic School Nun's Rule, enforced at dances.

The Nuns insisted on being able to see "daylight" between the bodies of the boy's and the girl's bodies.

Now why do I bring that odd bit of triva up here? Because there is no daylight between:

(a) teaching an issue in a classroom, and
(b) allowing the debate of that issue and an opposed issue, at the same time, in the same classroom.

Fucking liars.

It is disturbingly ironic. If that crazy extremist gets elected and happens to end up as POTUS (because some other freak tard gets some Message from God and Instructions to help her get there faster), I could very well be in postition to say something I could not envision, a mere two weeks ago.

If that crazy person ever becomes POTUS I could find my self thinking and saying, I miss Plastic Turkey Man. At least he was more than less faking that shit.

She is a true nutter and a (intelligent, cunning and dangerous) rube.

I will say it plain and clearly now. I would rather have 4 more years of Bush than her merely being a heatbeat away from control over my country.

I am soo sick and taard of the Rube-X Chick

I am sick of looking at the deliberately frumpy looking rube. Ya I said deliberately. I read some quote from her today where she admitted she is deliberately cultivating that frumpy school marm, 45 years out out date, crappy look. (Makes me wonder if the voice is really her too? If as a child she started sounding like some auntie or gamma, or whether she got flatter and more midwestern sounding as a result of her college days in Idaho. Anyway . . . )

Shame on all them dumbassed Republican women who have been swooning over that circa 1960 look. And that is not the sleek Chanel inspired Jackie O., circa 1960 look. That is the frumpy secretary/vice principal look.

Haw, haw!

Anyway, here are a couple of women folk that I think are way hotter.




Presenting the Lovely Wilson Sisters, AKA Heart, who were justifiably miffed for the misappropriation of their intellectual property.


I know, the Wilson sisters are attired in mid 80's wild thing garb there. Hell, that vid is 22 years old, ya know. Anyway, after the frumpy secretary look, I am missing some good old fashioned wild rock chick styling.

Yar!

Get on with your bad selves, Heart.

She's Cuo-coo For Christ. I do mean Yumpy. Batshit Crazy. Seriously!

The more I learn about Sarah Plain and Dull's church affiliations and own 'faith' the more I am sure there is no freaking way the woman should be allowed any where near the levers of power.

We can start with this article, that explains the basics:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/sarah-palins-churches-and_b_124611.html

(Watch the vid. Yes it is about 10 minutes, but these people are crazy. You must see it for yourself).

Now before anyone jumps on me for picking on people because of their religion, I will say the following. Yes, I believe that every American has the right to believe in what ever crazy shit they like, and as well I have the right to call it crazy shit. I particularly claim and advance my right to do that when their worship appears to feature mass hallucinations, and the people call themselves warriors for God or what ever nutty variant of that idea. I claim the right when I hear people talk about receiving prophesy and/or doing God's work, knowing God's plan. I claim that right when people not only think that, but claim to be an agent of God here on earth and as well claim to know what God has chosen them to do, to help God's plan. (Time out. The most crazy part so far is the part about beliveing that an Omniscient and Omnipotent Being needs help from puny humans. That makes no sense. But it is part of that crazy exceptionalism that I will talk about later.) Lastly, I claim the right to call anyone who belives in magic, crazy.

Those people clearly believe in magic. That shit with the cell phones? Crazy shit. Loopy mad shit, that.

And, a certain level I know I am stepping on the toes of just about every evangelical tradition to some extent, but this goes to the heart of why I think these right wing evangelical extremists are crazy people and why I do not want them near the levers of power. Well there is that whole believing they know God's will part. That makes them crazy per se. But there is another level to it. Both ordinary American Right wing extremists and the evangellys tend to believe not only in their 'belief systems,' but they tend to hold on to a theory and belief in their group "Exceptional ism." They believe that because of what they believe in, that they are some how exceptional people in the world, and every one else is wrong, or less, unless they are converted to the 'right' belief system.

That is crazy shit. It is also a form of bigotry that can serve as the basis for any extreme of abuse and degradation, as human history has shown. But in the specific religious extremist context, it is a scary thing. People that pumped up on their own 'knowing' right from wrong, their own understanding of God's plan can not be reasoned with.

They are by their very natures, extremely if not uniquely unqualified for government. Now I know those kind of people think otherwise, but our government was founded by men who regardless of their religious leanings, believed equally if not more, in the process of reason. They founded our government based on process of reason, and rationality and rule of law.

I am not the least sorry to say, therefore, that the last thing I want is to have some crazed warrior for Jesus, besotted with the delusion she knows God's Plan, and want to, either deep in her heart, or even worse, right there in her mind's eye, to help prepare the world for the Global Dominion of Christ, a heartbeat from the presidency.

That shit will not fly, with me.

I am not trying to clobber her for her being a girl. I am trying to clobber her as she is a candidate for office from the other team.

Sara, Plain and Dull.

Quite by accident, I discovered the easy way of mis typing Sarah Palin's last name works out as Plain.

And that led my mind to the title of the book/movie "Sara Plain and Tall." Glen Close starred in the TV movie version of this tale, as the strong 19th century woman, who chooses to go out west, to marry a widower and help raise his children.

Sarah Palin is no Glen Close.

So I have to take that Plain and Tall, and make it fit the Governor of Alaska: Plain and Dull.

I am not trying to clobber her for her being a girl. I am trying to clobber her as she is a candidate for office from the other team.

More about Republicans Being Incapable of Getting the Obvious. Or, More Stupid Things I Have Learned On Message Boards.

Well, I actually have a couple ideas in my head right now, but they are more facets of the same idea. Here is my first tack. On this message board I rubberneck at? The Republicans are at it again. They, for years, like some infantile lemmings, have been calling people who criticize either Plastic Turkey Man, or his Administration, as having "BDS;" Bush derangement syndrome.

Now with the Ascension of PBIL/Palin, they have come up with yet another infantile way to describe her critics; PMS (Palin Madness Syndrome.) Apparently the older meaning of the acronym, having to do with a uniquely female medical condition, is supposed to be some sort of clever innuendo means of bringing up the 'sexist' trebouchet, that the GOP has cynically and conveniently discovered, over the past week.

Let me point out that in cases where the real PMS is being experienced, it is the female suffering from it. That fact makes the whole thing twice as witless, to my mind.

But now let us get to the real point. This is the point about how SOME Republicans are just too stupid to get the obvious. Now if I were of a mind to engage those peeps on that thread I would had channelled this particular judge I used to appear before, years ago. On the day I am recalling, he chose to dress down a defense attorney who kept going off in the wrong direction during a cross, by beginning his dress down as follows:

"Do you know why we are here? You don't seem to know why we are here. I am going to tell you now, why we are here."

My version for these "Out of Touch," Republicans:

Do you know what game we are playing here? You don't seem to know what game we are playing here. Let me tell you what game we are playing here. The name of the game is Partisan Politics. There are at least two teams in competition. Both teams are trying to clobber each other. Both sides particularly try to clobber the other side's candidates. GET IT YET?


I will confess the following. I, as a yellow dog Dem, am not at all likely to get the Republican style of political humor. I don't think they are funny when they are trying to be funny.

I do think Republicans are at their most funny when they preach and moralize, no matter how dysfunctional their lives and families are. They are most funny when they tell out and out lies, like the one about how PBIL has foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia. I nearly threw a clot on that one. But when Republicans try to make a funny based on their Republican world view? It just comes across as infantile, vulgar, and unfunny.

Speaking of vulgar people, PBIL? No, I am not saying she herself is vulgar, not in the scatological and juvenile way your average cheap-beer-swillin,' Larry the Cable Guy movie-lovin' bubbas are vulgar. But she is apparently very appealing to that demographic. To me she is something of a well-scrubbed rube. Rubes are defined as unsophisticated persons. Need I say more? But hey, I am one of those Big City North East Elitists that she went out of the way to deliberately insult. (And to explain my claim of being Big City Folk, the area in New Jersey I live in is sometimes called the sixth borough of New York City.)

Now I don't take her rube insults personally, but I think that her blue collar snobbery, and the small-minded, small town bigotry that she deliberately proclaimed before the TV cameras in front of a nation-wide audience, gives me and the rest of us Big City Elitists full license to at least call her a rube, and make fun of her dorky look, and small town smallness, and small-mindedness.

Oh, and I have been thinking since day one, that there was something wrong about her voice. Ya, it is flat, but it reminded me of someone, and I mean someone with a grating persona. I finally figured out who it was. It is not even a real person, but the voice of the grade school principal in the South Park strip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DItWHSbCebs

I know. I Risk being branded as a sexist by talking about Pit-Bull-In-Lipstick's (which I am going to shorten to PBIL's) "Fashion Sense."

So in my defense I will recite the family's combined resume in the rag trade. My momma's momma was a show room seamstress, and my momma's father was a tailor. Mom has worked retail rag trade, and at various positions on the business side. Hell, even my dad was once a shop steward in the ILGWU. One sister worked as a costumer for a NY City Theatre company. Even I have done time at clothing warehouses. That is the back drop. I knew hemline theory at age 10. I know how to inspect goods on the rack, turn them inside out, and if the garment is poorly made, I leave it, no matter how nice it looks.

Therefore, I do not make snarky remarks about clothing just to snark. I do because I see something that just ain't working (like cargo shorts. Don't get me started on them. As if fat-assed American males need to make their silhouette any wider? And talking about wider? Women with love handles should NOT wear low cut pants and belly-showing shirts. Cover that nasty looking shit up, damnit!)

Anyway, I went long there in anticipatory defense, because I am going to repeat a joke I heard for the first time, years ago.

"She walked out the door thinking THAT looked good? Poor thing!"

I repeat what I saw in the NY Post the other day. Yes, they had a fluff piece about PBIL's fashion sense, and I agree with the comment about how she needs a stylist.

Plainly!

NY Post

Note Further:

I do not want to seem petty, or obsessing with the trivial things, but if I really were impressed with her I would not NOT vote for her on account of her school marmish tastes, and lack of basic skills with putting an outfit together. I repeat the core of my personal political philosophy; I can never support the Republican Party Platform. Therefore I can not vote for anyone who supports that party's platform. Simple, but that is the core of it (and I confess I skimmed this year's a little. Those freaktards actually use the catch phrases "constitutionalist judges " and "judicial activism" this time. How queer is that?")

But I digressed there. Main reason I am killing time making light of her fashion tastes is on account of the fact that She is practically in hiding. To be fair, she is not totally secluded but she is being handled and controlled so tightly it is likely a new record for American Politics. Something about needing to be made ready? Something about needing to be brought up to speed? Something about fear of her messing up in public?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AV_54517R8


Yes those are all fair concerns, if your candidate is not actually really ready for prime time yet.

I just prefer to keep it simple and call it chickenshit.

Sarah, the chicken shit pit-bull-in-lipstick.

Freakin' weird!