Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, recently unveiled what he described as a budget "roadmap," intended to address the budget mess his own party had created during the Bush/Cheney era. Ryan's blueprint immediately became a political hot potato that Republicans liked but were reluctant to hold on to -- the roadmap, after all, would eliminate Social Security and privatize Medicare.
Policy experts have since had a chance to scrutinize Ryan's plan in detail. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained today, the roadmap "calls for radical policy changes that would result in a massive transfer of resources from the broad majority of Americans to the nation's wealthiest individuals."
The Roadmap would give the most affluent households a new round of very large, costly tax cuts by reducing income tax rates on high-income households; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax.
At the same time, the Ryan plan would raise taxes for most middle-income families, privatize a substantial portion of Social Security, eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid, and terminate the Children's Health Insurance Program. The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would erode over time and thus would purchase health insurance that would cover fewer health care services as the years went by.
An analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found that the richest 1% of Americans -- those making more than $633,000 a year -- would find their tax burden cut in half in 2014. The more one makes, the bigger the cut -- millionaires who Republicans have already taken good care of would find their taxes cut even more dramatically, by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
To make up the difference, we'd all have to pay a new consumption tax on goods and services. On the whole, the tax burden would shift dramatically from the wealthy to the middle class.
And best of all, even with new taxes on the middle class, and the massive cuts to Medicare and Social Security, Ryan's roadmap still wouldn't balance the budget for a very long time.
Isn't this just the very epitome of a Con scheme? It doesn't fix our budget woes. It robs from the poor to give to the rich. It rips away the social safety net. Oh, and it raises taxes on the vast majority of the country - but apparently, tax increases are okay as long as it's icky poor people paying the taxes.
Can someone please tell me again why Cons are allowed near the levers of power? Because it rather seems like giving career criminals control of the criminal justice system.
The Oklahoma legislature is currently locked in a dispute over whether to tackle the state’s divorce rate, the third-highest in the nation. Although some Republicans are pushing the legislation, other conservatives are outraged at the “government intrusion” into their private lives:
Republican members proposed three pieces of legislation imposing new regulations on marriage and divorce in Oklahoma. Two of the measures were defeated, but another — requiring counseling for those planning to wed, and therapy sessions for couples considering divorce — is awaiting action.
The issue has produced sharp clashes among conservative colleagues who normally find themselves in agreement. The debates have featured charges of hypocrisy and of betraying Republican principles against government intrusion into private lives. [...]
“How far do I want government to come into my home and your home about private personal matters?” asked Rep. Leslie Osborn, a Republican from Tuttle, in a debate. She referred to state government as a “huge monster.”
Well, lessee. Osborn had no problem with voting yea for that monster of an anti-abortion bill (HB3284) that would've allowed the government to post personal details about women seeking abortions on a website. But apparently reproductive choices aren't "private personal matters" as far as she's concerned. Funny how excited they are over intruding into folks' private lives when they don't believe they'll be the ones intruded upon, and how loud they scream when they might end up suffering the intrusion, innit?
A caller asked right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh yesterday where he would "go for health care" if the Democratic health care reform package passes.
"I'll just tell you this," Limbaugh said. "If this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented -- I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica."
My darlings, I'm torn. On the one hand, ridding this country of Rush Limbaugh would be a great and wonderful thing. On the other hand... I'd feel badly for inflicting him upon Costa Rica.
Now, this is Rush Limbaugh, so you know the dumbfuckery doesn't stop there, right?
Adding details and context to Limbaugh's nonsense is usually a waste of time, but it's probably worth noting that Costa Rica would be an interesting choice for Limbaugh's self-imposed exile. The national health care system in Costa Rica is socialized and generally considered the best in Latin America.
In effect, Limbaugh claims he'll flee the horrors of "socialized medicine" by escaping to a country with.... socialized medicine.
I've been catching up on busywork and research bits this afternoon. Watched (okay, sorta watched) a movie called The Saddest Music in the World. It's absurd in the extreme, but it's got Isabella Rossellini, which almost made it worth it. I've liked her ever since she was in Alias. Hadn't realized she played Nimue in that utterly awful version of Merlin. You know an actress is good when she doesn't look or sound anything like herself depending on the movie.
Still having things to do, and needing a movie for background noise I wouldn't feel compelled to pay attention to, I chose A Valentine's Carol from the free On Demand movies. Well, it had Emma Caulfield, who played Enya in Buffy. And really awful romantic comedies seem to be what the Muse has been in the mood for lately. I think it has something to do with offending her sensibilities and deciding we're going to prove how it's really done. Or something. Maybe the bitch just likes making me suffer. I did suffer. It's one of those films that's about 90 minutes of gawd-awful kitsch. But for some reason, it actually worked in the end. It actually left me giggling and content. It's not a life-changing film, by any means, but for pure dumb chick-flick fun, it's not bad. Call it the Big Mac of the romantic film genre. Sometimes, a Big Mac really does hit the spot.
And it's set in Seattle, so I got to enjoy nice shots of my city. Another point in its favor.
Still. Liked Emma better as a vengeance demon.
In other movie news, I see Avatar didn't win Oscars for best film or screenplay. To which I say: good. If that rewrite of Pocahontas had won either category, I would have been very annoyed.
Now, if you'll excuse me, the Muse seems to be ready to get back to work after an enforced absence due to a certain non-beloved aunt...
I'm watching a very absurd and fucked-up movie. It's perfect for reading very absurd and fucked-up politics.
Once again, two items commend themselves to our attention. The first is a coda to last week's dumbfuckery, in which we learned that an anti-gay legislator in California likes to frequent gay bars. In news that should surprise no one, State Sen. Roy Ashburn has admitted he's gay, and in the meantime come up with the lamest excuse ever for his virulent anti-gay voting record:
Ashburn, a divorced father of four, said that his many votes against gay rights were efforts to represent the conservative views of his constituents.
There's nothing wrong with being a gay man, or having the courage to finally come out of the closet. There's something seriously wrong with being a gay man who hides what he is, constantly attempts to rip the rights of LGBT people away, and then sanctimoniously claims it's all because his constituents want him to.
Lawmakers in Florida are hoping to pass a $75 million incentive package to attract movie studios to film in Florida, but a little noticed provision could deny tax credits to movies that feature gay or other “nontraditional family values.” Florida’s Entertainment Industry Economic Development Act would revise the current incentive program — which already offers a tax credit worth 2% of a movie’s production costs if it is “family friendly” — to specifically exclude movies that depict “nontraditional family values” from receiving the additional credit.
[snip]
[State representative Stephen] Precourt claims that his provision does not specifically target movies with gay characters but “asked if shows with gay characters should get the tax credit, he said, ‘That would not be the kind of thing I’d say that we want to invest public dollars in.’”
Oh, heavens, no. Because, y'know, any family values Stephen Precourt doesn't personally subscribe to are icky family values. Quick, someone ask him if films featuring interracial couples are "traditional" enough to qualify for a tax credit!
America's right wing: standing up for discrimination (even against themselves) and the rights of big corporations to fuck employees over since, well, just about forever.
Steve Benen's updated it. 'Tis an essential reference for those confused by political terms and their usage.
For example:
"Obstructionism," for example, only refers to Democratic minorities opposing Republican proposals.
"Tyranny" is found when an elected Democratic majority passes legislation that Republicans don't like.
"Reconciliation" describes a Senate process that Republicans are allowed to use to overcome Democratic "obstructionism."
And so forth. This handy reference guide will keep you from confusing the old meanings of political terms with the meanings that became current when an African-American Democrat got sworn in as POTUS, and insanity bloomed across the land.
Because we all know that when huge majorities in the House and Senate pass the legislation huge majorities of Americans elected them to pass, that is indeed "jamming it through." Not to be confused with "respecting the will of the American people," which is what happens when minuscule Con minorities manage to block legislation the vast majority of Americans actually wanted before Con lies and fear-mongering reduced support for the self-same legislation to a simple majority.
I do hope this updated lexicon helps my dear readers from saner countries to better comprehend American politics. Sad, innit?
It's been far, far too long since Chaos Lee and I had a long, rambling talk about metal. I know this because I just had to find out all on my onesie about happenings around some of the greatest metal bands out there.
I love Iced Earth, which Chaos introduced me to many years ago. Especially love Matt Barlow, their lead, who's one of the best metal vocalists of all time as far as I'm concerned. But I've been off on a symphonic metal tangent, so I haven't kept up as I should.
So tonight, I'm playing the "If you like..." game with Amazon. Wanted more stuff along the lines of Visions of Atlantis. Found a band called Pyramaze. Nothing like Visions of Atlantis, but some of the most solid metal I've heard in years. And hell, I'm in the mood. So I start listening to them on Playlist. Who should I hear singing a few songs in but... Matt Barlow.
WTF?
A trot through Wikipedia informs me that after September 11th, Matt quit metal to become a cop. The former front man for Judas Priest, Tim Owen, was just then getting kicked out of Judas due to the Return of Rob Halford. And off Tim goes to join Iced Earth whilst Matt joined the police force.
I'd had no damned idea. And I didn't think it'd been that long since Chaos and I had a chit-chat about All Things Metal.
But Matt's now back with Iced Earth (by way of Pyramaze) and Tim's off doing about six thousand different projects, and things have apparently been very interesting whilst I've dawdled on the symphonic side.
I need my Chaos Lee.... I feel so out of touch... argh.
Just finished watching Evita (well, kinda watching - did a lot of working whilst watching it). I has a few observations.
Jonathan Pryce has an outstanding singing voice.
Antonio Banderas may not have the greatest face in the known universe, but for some reason, he is a sexy, sexy man. And same thing goes for his singing.
I actually like Madonna when she's not singing pop.
Speaking of musical sorta movies, has anyone here seen De-Lovely? If so, care to venture an opinion?
Senator Judd Gregg, my darlings, is a supreme nitwit. It's not ordinarily the case that a bit of dumbfuckery so extreme, so outrageous, so bloody motherfucking stupid comes down the pike on a Saturday afternoon that I feel compelled to give up precious writing time in order to unleash the Smack-o-Matic upon a sitting senator. Judd Gregg, I'm afraid, has dropped just such a huge, steaming pile of stupidity right in our laps. And it cannot be ignored.
It was just five years ago that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) was so anxious to let oil companies drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he tried to use the budget reconciliation process to do it. "If you have 51 votes for your position, you win," he said at the time, adding, "Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so."
This week, Gregg not only said there's something wrong with majority rules, he manufactured a bizarre history of the Senate that exists only in his imagination.
[U]nder the Senate rules, anything that comes across the floor of the Senate requires 60 votes to pass. It's called the filibuster. That's the way the Senate was structured. [...]
The Founding Fathers realized when they structured this they wanted checks and balances. They didn't want things rushed through. They saw the parliamentary system. They knew it didn't work... That's why we have the 60-vote situation over here in the Senate to require that things get full consideration.
That guy named Judd Gregg who said, "If you have 51 votes for your position, you win"? Yeah, he's gone missing, and has been replaced with this shameless hack.
It's hard to overstate how truly ridiculous Gregg's analysis is. It simply has no foundation in reality. The Senate wasn't "structured" to require supermajorities on literally every bill, nomination, and resolution -- that's the exact opposite of the truth. This isn't a subjective question open to interpretation; Gregg is just lying.
And when Gregg says the framers of the Constitution "saw the parliamentary system" and rejected it, he's just making things up. Matt Yglesias, who refers to Gregg as "an idiot," explained, "There were no countries operating on a modern parliamentary system when the constitution was written. And why doesn't it work? It seems to work in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Korea, etc."
First, the Constitution explicitly requires supermajorities only in a few special cases: ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments, overriding presidential vetoes, expelling members and for impeachments. With so many lawyers among them, the founders knew and operated under the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" -- the express mention of one thing excludes all others. But one need not leave it at a maxim. In the Federalist Papers, every time Alexander Hamilton or John Jay defends a particular supermajority rule, he does so at length and with an obvious sense of guilt over his departure from majority rule.
Second, Article I, Section 3, expressly says that the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate should cast the deciding vote when senators are "equally divided." The procedural filibuster does an end run around this constitutional requirement, which presumed that on the truly contested bills there would be ties. With supermajority voting, the Senate is never "equally divided" on the big, contested issues of our day, so that it is a rogue senator, and not the vice president, who casts the deciding vote. The procedural filibuster effectively disenfranchises the vice president. [...]
Third, Article I pointedly mandates at least one rule of proceeding, namely, that a majority of senators (and House members, for that matter) will constitute a quorum. Article I, Section 5 states in part that "a majority of each shall constitute a majority to do business." Of course, in requiring a simple majority for a quorum, the founders were concerned about no-shows for a host of reasons -- not least of all because the first legislators had to travel great distances by stagecoach.
But the bigger reason for the rule was to keep a minority from walking out and thereby blocking a majority vote. In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton dismissed a supermajority rule for a quorum thus: "All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority."
It would be illogical for the Constitution to preclude a supermajority rule with respect to a quorum while allowing it on an ad hoc and more convenient basis any time a minority wanted to block a vote. Yet that is essentially what Senate Rule 22 achieves on any bill that used to require a majority vote.
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[4] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[4] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837.
Ye olde cherry on top is dear silly Sen. Gregg trying to claim that a procedural tactic he denigrated when Cons were in the majority is somehow essential to our democracy and has been since the country was founded.
Politicians say dumbfuck things every day. But this has just set a new diamond standard for dumbfuckery. The sad thing is that I'm sure some idiot Con will surpass him next week.
I'm watching Dracula. And you know something? It would've been a far, far better movie without Keanu Reeves. Acting so wooden you could've saved a forest by using it for toilet paper manufacture. An English accent so atrocious they should've dubbed a seven year-old Doctor Who fan from Brooklyn over his voice - it would've been more believable. He's not even that attractive, and I say that as a woman who usually goes for the dark-haired skinny geeks.
The movie's only redemption lies in other outstanding cast members - Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman, Sadie Frost. Even Winona Rider didn't suck.
That's why I watch this travesty. Well, that and because it's good mindless fun. A well-balanced diet must include a serving of premium cheese every once in a while. And, truth be told, I watch it for Sadie Frost in that red dress.
It sure as shit ain't for Keanu. And that leads me to my question: why the fuck do so many directors ruin their movies by casting him? I've never been able to find a satisfactory answer.
Just weeks after Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) refused to renew an executive order that would have protected gay and lesbian state workers from discrimination, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is asking the state’s colleges and universities “to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” Cuccinelli — who has previously argued “homosexual acts are…intrinsically wrong” — wrote a letter to all of the state’s public colleges and universities:
“It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including ’sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly,” he wrote. Colleges that have included such language in their policies — which include all of Virginia’s leading schools — have done so “without proper authority” and should “take appropriate actions to bring their policies in conformance with the law and public policy of Virginia,” Cuccinelli wrote.
But remember, kids, Bob McDonnell's repressive right-wing religious fanatic thesis was written twenty years ago and shouldn't be used to judge how he'll govern. His fast-tracked anti-gay agenda is surely just a big ol' coinkydink.
"We need to preserve traditional values for the future of our children. Children must be raised with morals and principles. As a society, we must provide them with a secured and loving environment that allows them to flourish."
Those are the words of California state Senator Roy Ashburn, a father of four, quoted in a 2005 press release announcing a rally to support "traditional marriage."
Ashburn, of course, is the senator with the anti-gay record who was reportedly a regular at Sacramento gay clubs. He was picked up for a DUI early Wednesday morning, reportedly with an unidentified man in he car.
[snip]
Here's a look at the votes of Ashburn, a Republican of Bakersfield:
In 2006, he voted no on a measure to add material on the contributions of gay Americans who had contributed to the development of California or the United States
In 2008 he voted against expanding anti-discrimination laws to include sexual discrimination.
In 2009 he voted against a resolution to oppose Prop 8, the anti-gay marriage ballot question.
Last September, he voted against recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages.
That same month Ashburn opposed creating Harvey Milk Day, to honor the slain gay rights icon from San Francisco.
Given the larger political climate, Matt Yglesias raises an important observation.
[I]t's striking how differently the country behaves when you see a non-Muslim individual attempt or succeed at killing some people based on quasi-political motivations versus when it's a Muslim who does it. And the important thing, I think, is not merely to make a pure hypocrisy argument but to point out that the country's response to non-Muslim killers ranging from Bedell to the IRS plane crasher to the Holocaust Museum shooter is much, much, much better and smarter.
In the wake of an incident involving a non-Muslim we of course look back and try to see if there's any reasonable preventive steps we could have taken to prevent the murders. But wild overreactions and wholesale reconfigurations of the constitution, of US foreign policy, or of daily life are considered off the table by definition. And rightly so!
Quite right. In response to several of these recent incidents, most notably the man who flew an airplane into an Austin office building, the country generally remained quite calm. There was no panic or collective freak-out. The same with yesterday's shooting. No one is running around trying to blame the White House for the violent acts of random lunatics; no one is demanding officials take radical steps to prevent these kinds of unpredictable acts; and no one is proposing sweeping new legislation to show how "serious" they are about isolated incidents like these.
We're all perfectly mature about the whole thing, and accept as a given that tragedies like this will happen from time to time. Politically, the only oddity comes when some right-wing politicians suggest some empathyfor the madmen.
So, remember, kiddies: if you plan to shoot up a military installation or fly a plane into a federal building, but want to earn the love of the Cons at the same time, change your name to Billy Bob Jones and remember to post an anti-tax, anti-guvmint screed on a few websites first. Then you, too, can be hailed as a proud, brave American by America's right wing, rather than causing America's right wing to demand anyone with a funny name like yours get pulled off the street and thrown into Gitmo on the principle of guilt-by-association.
Stopped looking for music for the Duke. The stuff he likes, I ain't in the mood for. Turned to Kamelot radio on Last.fm, and found a heavy metal band doing covers of some of the least metal songs in the universe. You've never heard "Don't Stop Believin'" until you've heard it done metal. And "I Just Died In Your Arms." "Take On Me." Srlsly, WTF?!
Here's one that wasn't on Playlist, but I just had to track down on YouTube because I knew I wouldn't believe it til I heard it:
It's actually kinda awesome...
For those who like the original:
Searching for music to feed my Muse takes me to some bizarre places sometimes.
I'm listening to Last.fm by way of trying to find stuff that the current villain might listen to. This is not one of those songs. But it made me ROFL a lot, so I figured I'd share. So not work appropriate unless you have a really lax sexual harassment policy.
Chris Rhetts posted a comment that should not remain buried in comments. No, it needs to be out here in the open, for all to see:
I just wanted to say that just a few minutes ago, in a rare, life altering moment of clarity, I FINALLY GOT IT! Republicans are offering us an amazingly delightful alternative to reality and we, poor fools, don't have the sense God gave a piss ant to accept it. What's the matter with us anyway? Consider for a moment that instead of castigating dickheads like Tony Watts and Jim Inhofe - all we have to do is close our eyes, wish really, really hard that they aren't the two-faced douche bags they seem to be, and *poof!* global warming goes away in a cloud of shit. By the way this Chardonnay I'm sucking down by the quart right now is fantastic. You should try some.
You know what? Excellent idea. I just hope it comes in gallons...
I've only read two political blogs today, and I'm already stuffed to the gills with stupid.
I mean, we've got the media now blaring the Con talking points about how "controversial" reconciliation is - when back in 2003, they didn't make a peep. Not. One. Folks, listen to me: if reconciliation is this horrific process that destroys the republic, then the fucking republic was already destroyed. The Cons have used this process seventeen fucking times. The Dems? A grand total of seven. Now, I know numbers can be confusing to our media, so let me just put it like this:
17
vs 7
Please note which is the largest number. That's the number of times the Republicans have used this "controversial" procedure to "force" legislation through by *gasp* *horror* majority vote. And the number of times the media screamed and yelled and had heart palpitations over it? 0.
The double standard in this country is unfuckingbelievable.
In other news, we've got a manufactroversy working its way up to a full screaming tantrum. Apparently, in Con circles, if a man is eminently qualified for a federal judgeship, if he is supported by "Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)," if he would make an outstanding addition to the federal bench, he is merely being used to tempt his brother into voting for health care reform. Because, you see, his brother is a Blue Dog Dem. That's it. That's the sum total of the evidence Cons are running with. That's what's got them all worked into a frenzy.
I would really, really like a sane minority party now, please. And, Minnesota? Would you please be so kind as to do something with Michelle Bachmann come next election day, pleaseI'mbeggingyou? She's not even my rep, and she's making me feel mortal embarrassment.
Moving on, I cannot help but mention Michael Steele's latest troubles. Anyone who was tempted to believe the RNC was still being run by adults can dispense with that notion now. Likewise anyone who believed Cons would actually offer ideas. Their idea, simply, boils down to this: "Hey! Let's scare America into voting for us!"
Well, it's not like they have anything else going for them, now, is it?
One of the reports these opponents hide behind is by “Flag and General Officers for the Military.” It’s a letter signed by 1,000 “distinguished retired military leaders” who all say they oppose DADT repeal: “Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal [of the law] on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness.” On Feb. 2, for example, a “cranky” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, “Well, I hope you’ll pay attention to the views of over a thousand retired and flag general officers” when considering whether to repeal DADT. Frank Gaffney, president of conservative Center for Security Policy, cited the letter in a Washington Times op-ed that same day.
However, a new Servicemembers United report severely undermines the legitimacy of this letter. Some of the problems:
– The average age of the officers is 74. The “oldest living signer is 98, and several signers died in the time since the document was published.” Servicemembers United Executive Director Alex Nicholson added that only “a small fraction of these officers have even served in the military during the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ period, much less in the 21st century military,” so it’s hard to believe that they “know how accepting and tolerant 18- and 21-year-olds are today.
– “At least one signer, Gen. Louis Menetrey, was deceased when the letter was published and didn’t sign the document himself. According to a footnote on the letter, his wife signed the document for him after his death using power of attorney — six years after Alzheimer’s disease robbed him of the ability to communicate.”
– One signatory said that they “no longer want to be a part of the letter, writing to the organization, ‘I do not wish to be on any list regarding this issue.‘”
– Multiple generals said they “never agreed” to sign the letter in the first place, writing “I never agreed. To represent either side of this issue” and “I do not remember being asked about this issue.”
– At least seven officers “were involved in scandals tarnishing their careers.” Gen. Carl Mundy, for instance, gained negative publicity when he told CBS’s 60 Minutes that “minority officers do not shoot as well as the non-minorities.”
In June 2009, a PBS’s Ray Suarez also did a report on the letter, reporting, “The NewsHour contacted a number of four-star officers requesting an interview for this story. However, none agreed to speak to us on camera. One general expressed surprise his name was even on the list, since he says he had never agreed to sign the letter, and at least three officers listed as signatories are dead.”
So. We've got a letter signed by dead people, people who didn't know someone had signed their names to this schlock, old geezers who aren't even in the military anymore and are terminally out of touch with the modern era, people who don't want their names on it, and people one really shouldn't associate with if they want to retain any shred, atom or indeed quark of credibility. Fantastic. That really shores up the position of the "gayz r icky" brigade.
I guess McCain figures if it's good enough for creationists, it's good enough for him. He's taking a page right out of DIsco's playbook, there. We all know how much that was worth:
(By the way, for those who are curious, there are currently over 1100 Steves signed on to Project Steve, the NCSE's brilliant response to all those supposed skeptical scientists. So much for all that controversy over evolution in the scientific community, eh?)
We're also seeing shades of Inhofe's list of scientists who dissent from global warming. Said list is savaged here and here:
“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable” (though not the N.Y. Times‘ Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?
[snip]
Then we have the likes of this from Inhofe’s list:
CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville expressed skepticism that there is a “consensus” about mankind’s role in global warming.
I suppose, then, it's only a matter of time before McCain calls upon some anti-gay actor to testify against repealing DADT, exhorting us to take seriously his wise counsel because he wore a uniform in a two-bit war movie once.
I'd say these fucktards who have to make up fictitious lists of supporters are fucking pathetic, but that would be a grave insult to fucking pathetic people everywhere. They're so far beyond pathetic they can't see it on a clear day. Pathetic, in fact, would be a vast improvement over their current state of abject dumbfuckery.
Now, if you'll excuse me, my poor brain has melted down from a critical overload of burning stupid. Must go have a lie-down...
I've got a well-stocked bar of political snark, science news and views, blazing social commentary, and bonus outtakes from the writing life. Belly up, pour yourself a shot, and enjoy your stay!
