When the Democrats swept into power on a wave of public disgust with the corruption in Congress in November, I was excited to see that there would be real change to the way politics are conducted. My friend Reno was skeptical, and said that the Democrats would resort to the same tricks that the Republicans pulled, that nothing would really change.
"No," I told him, "they're not idiots. They're going to see the exit polls and conclude that corruption was the number one issue that brought voters out to the polls. They have to know that they're in there to clean up the system. Look at the proposals in the 100-hours plan. Things are going to change".
Well, it turns out he was right. Their idea of an end to corruption is to take an emergency spending bill for the war in Iraq, and load it to the fucking hilt with unrelated pork projects in order to bribe enough votes to include a time table to withdraw from the war in '08.
I have a message for the Democrats in Congress:
Listen to me carefully you stupid, stupid, fucking assholes. You did not win the election because anybody believes that you have a vision for what should be done with this country. You did not win this election because America believes in your tax policies, your views on gay marriage, your universal health care, or your plan to get us out of Iraq. The one and only fucking reason you won is that the other party was so wholly fucking corrupt and power-mad and bent on entrenching themselves in power for all of eternity that any other alternative was acceptable. If you fucking incompetent dick-licking ninnies can't get that through your thick fucking heads you don't deserve to be in power for anything beyond the next 2 years, because that's exactly how long you're going to have it when we kick your ass out in '08. You're there to clean up the system, not to play the same stupid fucking game that the two of you have been playing for years, in which the only people to lose are the average Americans.
Don't get me wrong; I hate the other team even more. The Justice department scandal makes me deeply ashamed of this administration. It disgusts me that they can deny that they politicized the Justice department in the same breath that they assert their right to do so, all while attempting to hide behind executive privilege. Too bad the people don't believe them.
I'm starting to believe that nothing short of a grassroots revolution or a meteor from space smashing into Capitol Hill is going to save us from the fucking power games of the Washington elite.
Fuck all of them.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Personality Tests
It may just be my rampant vanity, but I like personality tests. A friend of mine sent me a link to find out which South Park character I'm the most like, and I got Kenny (See the bottom of the page). Whether that means I have a dirty mind, or I'm poor, or I'm just death-prone, I don't know, but I'm glad I didn't end up turning out to be the character he was - Wendy Testaburger. Talk about an emasculating experience.
Also, very excited about God of War II. If I'm to understand Penny Arcade correctly, it's all that and a bag of chips.
Also, very excited about God of War II. If I'm to understand Penny Arcade correctly, it's all that and a bag of chips.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
More Funny, Less Debate
Let's make this post a little less serious than the others of late. I know I have a certain comedy quota to fill. So just a few observations.
Alan Greenspan needs to shut his fucking mouth. Seriously. Everytime they put a mike in front of that guy's face, my stock portfolio tanks. I was doing great - and now some days I go look at it, and everything's down, and I wonder what he let slip now.
This is China's fault, too. Stupid overvalued market. They want to spread their Red Communist propoganda by coloring all the entries in my portfolio Red for starters.
I've adopted a new form of self-torture with an online puzzle game at www.weffriddles.com. This is one of those "find the next link" puzzles. The first few make you think outside the box. Then, they take away the damn box so you have no frame of reference. It's maddening.
What else? Beat Zelda: Twilight Princess. Not especially satisfied with the ending. Apparently, an ending in a Japanese story without either (a) some remarkably ambiguous ending or (b) something tragically sad is an example of Western decadence. I know Hollywood goes too far with tying up the loose ends and pairing off the uncoupled bachelors at the end of movies, but for Pete's sake, give me something to be happy about.
Alan Greenspan needs to shut his fucking mouth. Seriously. Everytime they put a mike in front of that guy's face, my stock portfolio tanks. I was doing great - and now some days I go look at it, and everything's down, and I wonder what he let slip now.
This is China's fault, too. Stupid overvalued market. They want to spread their Red Communist propoganda by coloring all the entries in my portfolio Red for starters.
I've adopted a new form of self-torture with an online puzzle game at www.weffriddles.com. This is one of those "find the next link" puzzles. The first few make you think outside the box. Then, they take away the damn box so you have no frame of reference. It's maddening.
What else? Beat Zelda: Twilight Princess. Not especially satisfied with the ending. Apparently, an ending in a Japanese story without either (a) some remarkably ambiguous ending or (b) something tragically sad is an example of Western decadence. I know Hollywood goes too far with tying up the loose ends and pairing off the uncoupled bachelors at the end of movies, but for Pete's sake, give me something to be happy about.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Why I'm excited about election 2008 (No matter who wins)
To some of you who've been reading my posts, I may come across as a liberal nut job - or, at the very least an extremist. This is perhaps because of the anger behind the language that I use; there is genuine anger there, but my politics are closer to center than I've been letting on - you're getting a lot of negativity from me because I am a former Republican whose disenchantment was thorough and complete.
There are some good candidates appearing in 2008 on both sides of the aisle, and I've found something I like about each of them:
Hillary Clinton seems to be the most controversial of the bunch. More than any other politician I know, there are many people who seem to hate her, even a large number of Democrats or left-leaning people. I think I know more people who hate her than hate Bush, and I think I know why. On the surface, at least, Hillary Clinton seems to be the most disingenuous candidate out there. Even before the scandalous remarks from David Geffen, everyone already new that the Clinton's were shifty. I think that's a large part of what made Bush popular to begin with - Bush, whether he was right or wrong, believed in and stood behind every decision he made. You don't get that sense with either Clinton.
So whether you say that they have no integrity and do what makes them popular, or you argue like me that catering to public opinion is something that you should do to a large extent, if you're running a democracy, you can't deny that they do work in this system. And that's why I would be happy if Hillary Clinton won - she would be an effective politician, and the values that she champions are ones that I believe in.
Barack Obama is on the other end of that spectrum. He is actively campaigning on the fact that he is a Washington outsider, that with him in office, it won't be politics as usual. He's going to go for pretty much the same agenda, but he wants to bridge the divide between the partisan ranks. A vote for Obama is more a vote against the politics of today. Now whether or not you think Obama is genuine or not, Washington will take notice if you elect an outsider into office. Look at how they reacted to the November elections - despite the fact that the margin of victory in all of the key places was tight, it's being heralded as a mandate to end the war. The polls disagree; it was a mandate to end corruption in Congress, and if the Democrats aren't careful and do stupid shit like demanding a bigger plane to fly on and take lavish trips on a lobbyist's dime when they just made that sort of crap illegal, they're going to get their asses booted out of there in the next round. Obama also has another advantage - he had the foresight to predict that the Iraq War was a bad idea, and the courage to say so openly, even when to do so carried the label of being unpatriotic, at least one of which Clinton did not have (I suspect it was the latter). I would be happy if Obama won because it would be a huge step in cleaning up politics.
While I don't really give him any chances of winning, John Edwards is running an interesting campaign on a poverty initiative. He'll openly admit that he's going to raise taxes to get you there, but I respect that. A lot of the biggest problems in this country stem from the fact that society is so greatly stratified - and the gap between rich and poor has widened greatly over the past 10 years. I would be happy if Edwards won because I think he would do a great job at it, but I'm not betting on it.
Across the aisle, the front runner is tough-as-nails Rudy Giuliani, the hero of 9/11. Giuliani is good because he's already demonstrated he's capable of strong leadership, in New York of all places. This really hit home for me when I saw a review of the movie Bringing Out the Dead as a startling look a pre-Giuliani New York. The fact that his name alone is used to describe a change to what was once viewed as America's cesspool is amazing. And Giuliani is very moderate for a Republican - something that's earned him a lot of flack within the party, but is good for the rest of America. I'm not even talking about the validity of his positions here - I'm talking about a return to a centrist mentality from full-blown partisan ship. When asked where exactly it is that he is conservative, his response is that it's all in how he views taxes. I'm paraphrasing here, because I don't want to go dig up the link, but the Republicans view the economy as a private enterprise that the govern regulates, whereas the Democrats view the economy as government run. I'd be happy if Giuliani ran because of his leadership skills, and his sensible positions on social issues.
Then there's John McCain. I've always been an admirer of him, in part because he can push his politics without being condescending or partisan. I think he's veered a little bit off the Straight Talk Express in his effort to court evangelical conservatives, but I think he'd govern with reason, so I forgive him for that. And I applaud him as the cosponsor of the McCain-Fiengold bill aimed at finance reform. But he's been slipping in the polls lately, for his unpopular stance on the Iraq War. Even while the President holds out on the hope that sticking through it will help, McCain has the guts to put forth the unpopular position that we need even more troops, that we really do need to escalate. I'd be happy if McCain won because I have the sneaking suspicion that he's right.
But wait, you say, haven't you advocated this whole time that the war was a colossal mistake? Yes, I did, and I stand behind that. We're there because a bunch of PNAC assholes got the idea that the best way to ensure the strength of the American position was to spread democracy as far and wide as the could - without help, and in the face of the global community. It's not the idea that I think was fucked up - it was the attitude that dismissed any objections from the rest of the world.
But we're there now. And whether we got in on false pretenses or whether or not it was important to oust Saddam then, it is important to stay there now. Bush is right when he says that it is the greatest ideological issue of the 21st century (It is now, you asshole). I think McCain sees that the costs of failure are more far reaching then people are realising. And I'd be happy to see him President because I think he's the one guy out of any of them who may actually stabilize the country.
There are some good candidates appearing in 2008 on both sides of the aisle, and I've found something I like about each of them:
Hillary Clinton seems to be the most controversial of the bunch. More than any other politician I know, there are many people who seem to hate her, even a large number of Democrats or left-leaning people. I think I know more people who hate her than hate Bush, and I think I know why. On the surface, at least, Hillary Clinton seems to be the most disingenuous candidate out there. Even before the scandalous remarks from David Geffen, everyone already new that the Clinton's were shifty. I think that's a large part of what made Bush popular to begin with - Bush, whether he was right or wrong, believed in and stood behind every decision he made. You don't get that sense with either Clinton.
So whether you say that they have no integrity and do what makes them popular, or you argue like me that catering to public opinion is something that you should do to a large extent, if you're running a democracy, you can't deny that they do work in this system. And that's why I would be happy if Hillary Clinton won - she would be an effective politician, and the values that she champions are ones that I believe in.
Barack Obama is on the other end of that spectrum. He is actively campaigning on the fact that he is a Washington outsider, that with him in office, it won't be politics as usual. He's going to go for pretty much the same agenda, but he wants to bridge the divide between the partisan ranks. A vote for Obama is more a vote against the politics of today. Now whether or not you think Obama is genuine or not, Washington will take notice if you elect an outsider into office. Look at how they reacted to the November elections - despite the fact that the margin of victory in all of the key places was tight, it's being heralded as a mandate to end the war. The polls disagree; it was a mandate to end corruption in Congress, and if the Democrats aren't careful and do stupid shit like demanding a bigger plane to fly on and take lavish trips on a lobbyist's dime when they just made that sort of crap illegal, they're going to get their asses booted out of there in the next round. Obama also has another advantage - he had the foresight to predict that the Iraq War was a bad idea, and the courage to say so openly, even when to do so carried the label of being unpatriotic, at least one of which Clinton did not have (I suspect it was the latter). I would be happy if Obama won because it would be a huge step in cleaning up politics.
While I don't really give him any chances of winning, John Edwards is running an interesting campaign on a poverty initiative. He'll openly admit that he's going to raise taxes to get you there, but I respect that. A lot of the biggest problems in this country stem from the fact that society is so greatly stratified - and the gap between rich and poor has widened greatly over the past 10 years. I would be happy if Edwards won because I think he would do a great job at it, but I'm not betting on it.
Across the aisle, the front runner is tough-as-nails Rudy Giuliani, the hero of 9/11. Giuliani is good because he's already demonstrated he's capable of strong leadership, in New York of all places. This really hit home for me when I saw a review of the movie Bringing Out the Dead as a startling look a pre-Giuliani New York. The fact that his name alone is used to describe a change to what was once viewed as America's cesspool is amazing. And Giuliani is very moderate for a Republican - something that's earned him a lot of flack within the party, but is good for the rest of America. I'm not even talking about the validity of his positions here - I'm talking about a return to a centrist mentality from full-blown partisan ship. When asked where exactly it is that he is conservative, his response is that it's all in how he views taxes. I'm paraphrasing here, because I don't want to go dig up the link, but the Republicans view the economy as a private enterprise that the govern regulates, whereas the Democrats view the economy as government run. I'd be happy if Giuliani ran because of his leadership skills, and his sensible positions on social issues.
Then there's John McCain. I've always been an admirer of him, in part because he can push his politics without being condescending or partisan. I think he's veered a little bit off the Straight Talk Express in his effort to court evangelical conservatives, but I think he'd govern with reason, so I forgive him for that. And I applaud him as the cosponsor of the McCain-Fiengold bill aimed at finance reform. But he's been slipping in the polls lately, for his unpopular stance on the Iraq War. Even while the President holds out on the hope that sticking through it will help, McCain has the guts to put forth the unpopular position that we need even more troops, that we really do need to escalate. I'd be happy if McCain won because I have the sneaking suspicion that he's right.
But wait, you say, haven't you advocated this whole time that the war was a colossal mistake? Yes, I did, and I stand behind that. We're there because a bunch of PNAC assholes got the idea that the best way to ensure the strength of the American position was to spread democracy as far and wide as the could - without help, and in the face of the global community. It's not the idea that I think was fucked up - it was the attitude that dismissed any objections from the rest of the world.
But we're there now. And whether we got in on false pretenses or whether or not it was important to oust Saddam then, it is important to stay there now. Bush is right when he says that it is the greatest ideological issue of the 21st century (It is now, you asshole). I think McCain sees that the costs of failure are more far reaching then people are realising. And I'd be happy to see him President because I think he's the one guy out of any of them who may actually stabilize the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
