Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Today's excuse for being late is that I had the day off, and put it to great good use hiking Ravenna Park, the Washington Park Arboretum, and capping everything off with Star Trek (yes, finally). Pictures to follow, because I know some of you enjoy those.

Without further explanation as to my whereabouts (not Argentina), the burning stupid.

And I think we have to begin this Happy Hour with one of the most dramatically stupid things I've ever seen the GOP crybabies in Congress do:

GOP leaders have a new complaint about President Obama: He’s not reaching out to them nearly as much as he did earlier this year, when he road-tested his pledge of post-partisanship, only to get uniformly rebuffed on his first big legislative initiative.

Here’s GOP Rep. Eric Cantor, giving voice to the new GOP gripe:

GOP leaders complain that the phone calls and White House invitations have slacked off — perhaps because Obama’s early efforts to woo Republicans yielded few votes.

“I think that in the beginning they seemed a lot more willing to go in and engage with us,” said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor.

[snip (OMFG, are these fucktards serious?)]

Of course, Democrats respond that Obama’s initial outreach efforts weren’t exactly reciprocated. House Republicans unanimously opposed his stimulus and his budget, and almost all of them opposed the big war spending bill. Many refused to condemn Rush Limbaugh for saying he hopes Obama fails.

And they wonder why they don't get to hang out with the cool kids. That's some seriously unmitigated gall, that is. I mean, this is the group that's responded to Obama's every attempt at outreach by stamping and crying because they can't get their way instead of trying to come up with constructive compromise solutions. Why the fuck would Obama waste precious time on a bunch of whiners, whackos, and wankers? Those same shitheads left the country in a shambles - he's got too much work to do, and stroking their outsized egos isn't on the fucking agenda. Nor should it be.

At least there'll be one fewer Con wanker to whine at Obama about how he just doesn't love them anymore. The Minnesota Supremes handed down a unanimous ass-kicking, Norm Coleman finally saw the neon writing on the wall, and conceded he's a big fat loser. Al Franken is our newest Senator. Congratulations, Al!

Pay no attention to the fat fuck with ass abcesses:

Right on cue, Rush Limbaugh attacks Al Franken's victory in Minnesota.

LIMBAUGH: Look at this. From Iran's press television, the state-run media in Iran: Ahmadinejad gains votes in recount, just like in our country! It had -- just like in our country. Norm Coleman wins in Minnesota in a recount, and they keep having recounts, and Al Franken wins. So they had the recount in Iran, and shazzam! Ahmadinejad gained votes!

Hmmm, what to say, what to say. Are we all living in Iran now?

Judging from the sheer number of nearly-nekkid female sunbathers I saw on my hike today, no. Our parallels with Iran are only in Limbaugh's fetid little imagination.

Speaking of Iran, funny how all the neocon warmongers who get woodies over the idea of using their election difficulties as an excuse to invade, and thus became total warriors for "democracy", suddenly loooove them some coups:

As post-election developments in Iran spiraled into violence, many on the right were outraged -- or, at least they pretended to be -- that President Obama didn't thump his chest more. The administration, conservatives said, should take a firm stand in support of democracy and liberal principles.

In the wake of the coup in Honduras, it seemed the administration was taking steps that even these conservatives would like. The president spoke up personally yesterday to criticize Zelaya's ouster. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on for the "full restoration" of democracy in the country.

So, the right is finally pleased, right? Wrong. The same people who loved democratic principles in the Middle East two weeks ago aren't especially concerned about the overthrow of a democratically elected president in central American this week.

On the June 29 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck said of Zelaya's ouster: "They installed their own man, drawing a quick rebuke from Cuba, Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, and our president." Beck added: "Wow, good company we're keeping ourselves with." Similarly, on the June 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, in arguing that Obama was "sending the wrong message to our allies and our foes," Beck stated: "I'm telling you, the policies that we have seem to always embrace our enemies and slap our friends across the face. It just doesn't make sense to me."

Apparently, if Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega take a stand against a coup in a foreign country, far-right media personalities believe the United States should necessarily take the other side and support the coup, because, well, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega are "bad."

This attitude was endorsed, not only by Glenn Beck, but also by Wall Street Journal editorial board member Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Drudge, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer.

[snip]

Now, I realize that developments in Honduras are not cut and dried, at least when it comes to identifying "good" guys and "bad." Zelaya was poised to work outside the law to stay in power, and his opponents worked outside the law to remove him from office.

But the analysis we're getting from the lines of Kristol and Krauthammer aren't focused on the merits of the situation. They're not even addressing the up-until-recently-popular principle of defending democracy at all costs. Instead, they're offering a child-like approach to foreign affairs (if Chavez opposes a coup, coup = good).

Can we expect anything but "a child-like approach to foreign affairs" from that bunch of assclowns? No? Didn't think so.

In other assclownery, Glenn Beck proves beyond all doubt he don't know much about history:

While appearing on Fox & Friends this morning, Glenn Beck managed to make a trio of mistakes when he attacked the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill passed by the House last week. The Fox News pundit falsely asserted the legislation’s effect on our oil dependency would be “none.” Beck then pointed out, incorrectly, that the U.S. purchased Alaska in the “1950s” and that we did so because of our interest in its “resources,” a subtle way of advocating for more drilling in Alaska:

CARLSON: But nowhere in that bill is anything about reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

BECK: None. […]

You know Donald Trump, I want to talk to this guy. When he was on the show just a few minutes ago I was thinking how can you not be laughing at us? How can the world not be laughing at us? We have all these resources. Why did we buy Alaska in the 1950s? We bought Alaska for the resources. And now we say no!

He's only off by almost a hundred years on when we bought Alaska:

For clarification, Alaska was purchased in 1867 for $7.2 million and soon became known as “Seward’s Folly,” named for Secretary of State William H. Seward, because at the time it was widely regarded as foolish to spend so much money on remote tundra. (Perhaps Beck was thinking of Alaska becoming the 49th state in 1959.) The resources the U.S. was after in 1867 weren’t oil, but fish, furs, and the prospect of closer proximity to Russia from the North American continent.

For a dumbshit who claims he loves America, he sure as shit doesn't know much about it. Another case in point:

OK, pop some popcorn and pull up a chair. Glenn Beck is calling out the dogs … on Republicans.

He ran a special segment last night urging his audience descend en masse upon the “Cap and Traitors” – Republican House members who actually voted for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill last Friday – all eight of them. With him to seal the deal was the Washington Examiner's Kevin Mooney, who besides being in need of a new suit was also in need of a logic text:

Beck: Now, there are eight Republicans who voted for cap and trade. ... Look at this map that we put up. It looks like all of the votes -- there it is -- it looks like all of these votes -- and we're going to have some showers -- uh -- all of the votes really came, half of the votes, more than half -- from those areas. The West Coast and from the liberal Northeast.

Mooney: Well, Glenn, you're put your finger on it. Uh, the votes, whether they're Democrat or Republican, in favor of this bill, out of the coastal areas, the elite areas of this country, they're areas of the country where the energy prices are already high. Democrats and Republicans voted against this bill in other parts of the country where they already are using other fossil fuels and have lower energy prices.

Beck: Isn't it interesting that those are the areas that are collapsing the fastest?

Mooney and Beck, not to put too fine a point on it, are full of crap. Just by way of example, look at my own home state of Washington, whose delegation voted strongly for the bill, and is included on their list of "coastal states" whose energy prices are supposedly too high. In reality -- somewhere far distant from these guys' residence on Planet Wingnuttia -- Washington's energy prices are among some of the lowest in the nation (for instance, our electricity costs are far below the national average, since we get so much of it from hydroelectric sources. Likewise for Oregon, another "elite coastal" state. Meanwhile, some of the nation's highest electricity costs can also be found in Florida and Texas -- some of the "non-elite" states on Beck's graphic.

Is says a lot about Faux News that they give a man as consistently wrong as this a platform from which to spew.

Joining Glenn Beck in the heavy competition for Dumbfuck of the Month, Michele Bachmann opened her mouth again. The usual ignorant blather fell out:

On Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday, Bachmann continued to attack the Census, repeatedly insisting that people should go to her website to “see the Census form for themselves.” Listing off a few questions from the American Community Survey (a long-form survey sent out to one in 40 households each year) that she considers invasive, Bachmann claimed that it doesn’t ask “are you an American citizen”:

BACHMANN: Twenty-eight pages. Sean, you know the one question they don’t ask? They ask, “are you an American citizen?” They don’t ask if you’re here on a visa or when it expires. We have no real idea how many illegal aliens are in our country. But wouldn’t you think, here they are asking every personal question about our lives, they could at least ask if we’re an American citizen? They don’t bother to ask for that. That’s why I think people need to read this census for themselves. If you go to my website, michelebachmann, you can read it.

[snip]

In fact, the American Community Survey does ask about U.S. citizenship and it has since 1890...

[snip]

Additionally, though Bachmann repeatedly directed Hannity’s listeners to her website, michelebachmnann.com, in order to view the Census questions, the questions aren’t actually available on her website.

I can't believe people actually voted for this fucktard. Maybe they did it because she keeps them amused.

While we're on the subject of politicians who should be unemployed, let's check in with Mark Sanford, who's just admitted that his dear mistress Maria is his "soul mate," but he'll "try to fall back in love with" his wife. Oh, and he met with her a bunch more times than he'd previously admitted. Oh, and he's "let his guard down" with several other women aside from Maria and his wife, up to and including compromising physical contact, but he hastens to assure us he "didn't cross the sex line." Oh, and the reason this adulterous, duty-shirking piece of shit won't resign is because - wait for it - God wants him to be governor!

In a written message to supporters Monday, Mark Sanford asserted that God’s plan for him includes finishing his term as South Carolina governor.

Sanford is facing calls for his resignation after disappearing to Argentina then returning last week to admit an affair.

“Immediately after all this unfolded last week I had thought I would resign – as I believe in the military model of leadership and when trust of any form is broken one lays down the sword,” Sanford wrote in the message, which he posted on his personal website http://www.governorsanford.com and Facebook page, and broadcast via Twitter.

“A long list of close friends have suggested otherwise – that for God to really work in my life I shouldn’t be getting off so lightly. While it would be personally easier to exit stage left, their point has been that my larger sin was the sin of pride.”

You really have to read his whole letter. It's precious, particularly the part where he decides that the reason he got such so much guff over his dramatically awful governing wasn't because his position on things like rejecting stimulus money damaged South Carolina so bad, but because his "spirit wasn't right in the presentation of those ideas to people..."

Yeah. That's it.

And, rounding out our trifecta of people who should lose their public positions of power posthaste, I give you John Eichelberger:

During a June 19 radio debate, Pennsylvania State Sen. John Eichelberger (R) repeatedly asserted that same-sex marriage is wrong, “dysfunctional,” and would lead to “polygamy, marrying younger people.” (Eichelberger is “sponsoring a Constitutional amendment to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman.”) But perhaps his most shocking comments came when fellow lawmaker Sen. Daylin Leach (D) asked him how gay men and women should be treated:

Leach: Should our only policy towards [same-sex] couples be one of punishment, to somehow prove that they’ve done something wrong?

Eichelberger: They’re not being punished. We’re allowing them to exist, and do what every American can do. We’re just not rewarding them with any special designation.

[snip]

LGBT activists were incensed by Eichelberger’s comments, calling on him to apologize for his “insensitive remarks.” Yesterday, gay and straight protesters briefly met with Eichelberger, “after [he tried] ducking them twice.” They presented him with 5,000 signed petitions asking him to apologize. Eichelberger refused to do so:

EICHELBERGER: You know, the public process is very important in this country. That’s what my bill does. It allows the public to make a decision, which I think is a healthy thing. So I appreciate your support of at least that concept.

SPEAKER: So are you going to apologize to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people in Pennsylvania — and all the people in Pennsylvania for those comments about allowing to exist and calling them dysfunctional.

EICHELBERGER: No, I think you know my answer to that. Thank you very much.

Fuck you, too, John. I hope voters in PA do the right thing and vote with their middle fingers come next election. A man who can't even issue a simple apology for implying that a group of people should be exterminated deserves a chance to take his bigotry into the private sector.

I swear, my darlings, wingnuttia gets nuttier every damned day...