Archive for the 'Hypocrites' Category

Oct 29 2014

Going too far……..

The S.O. and I had a marvelous time in Austria-and for what it is worth, October is a great time to visit. The mountains are still glorious, there is a little early snow, but for us at least-the weather was nice and we did a lot of hiking. A good extra long weekend for all. Too bad I had to come back and read about this.

SEOUL, South Korea — U.S. Forces Korea has banned servicemembers from buying drinks for workers in “juicy bars,” which have long been suspected of involvement in prostitution and human trafficking.

While the military has maintained a zero-tolerance policy toward prostitution, buying drinks in exchange for female company was not strictly prohibited by USFK. That changed with a new policy letter released to troops on Oct. 15.

“Paying for companionship directly supports human trafficking and is a precursor to prostitution,” USFK commander Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti wrote in announcing the change. “This practice encourages the objectification of women, reinforces sexist attitudes, and is demeaning to all human beings.”

Oh really? What part of, "this is beyond your authority you pompous, moralistic, hypocritical, piece of shit", do you not seem to understand?

On the plus side, SATO travel is expected to be experiencing a record uptick in travel bookings to Thailand and the Philippines, while at the same time, the Army is training more SAVI counselors to deal with expected upsurge in sexual harassment, fraternization and fighting on base that is expected to ensue.

But hey, it makes the feminists happy, so what else really matters?

Give……..me……….a……….fucking…….break.

So, paying a girl for companionship is a sin, eh? I take it that applies also to stateside bars where you buy girls drinks in the hopes of taking her home later.  So, how exactly are they going to enforce this? If a GI is drinking with a girl in the bar are there going to be people looking over his shoulder to see how much he paid and how much change he gets back? Some GIs run a tab on their credit card. Will there be someone inspecting his receipt when he pays up?

I will reiterate a key point I have made time and time again over the years. The law of unintended consequences can be brutal. And this rule will be full of unintended consequences. I expect the bar owners will come up with some alternative business practices, they always do-like buying your drinks at the door and receiving a "receipt good for "X" number of drinks. Or better yet, having you buy songs on the juke box instead-and then get drinks as a "bonus".

This is a continuation of a really disturbing trend among the flag leadership of America's military today. Namely, that they think they can legislate morality with the stroke of a pen-even when the conduct is perfectly legal. ( Even if it is not necessarily advisable). This, quite simply and bluntly, is none of the General's fucking business.

There have to be limits. The idea that one gives up all legal and common sense rights, just because some prick does not want to piss off a bunch of feminist lackeys is astounding. Especially in a world were a guy can suck off another guy in the barracks with impunity, but a straight Airman or Soldier cannot buy a girl a drink or 4 and let her stroke his thigh while she pretends to like him? Jesus H. Christ! One may be concerned about it, sure. But the idea that you have to regulate every thing a guy does off duty is just fucking ridiculous.

And illegal.

As one wag pointed out, "This practice encourages the objectification of women, reinforces sexist attitudes, and is demeaning to all human beings.”-"Is he talking about buying drinks for the juicys or the annual visits by NFL cheerleaders? "

Its a good point. So too is the rather pertinent question of, are you going to ban women buying men drinks in bars? Or stateside going to a Chippendales bars?

The military is not a "moral profession".  I'm sorry, but that is the truth. Regulations should make sense and avoid creating incentives to break them. This stupid rule does not pass that test. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 responses so far

Jul 10 2014

Recent Reading

On the trip over to Normandy-I had forgotten to charge my I-Pad. So I grabbed a book from the shelf to read on the train. Boy am I glad I did. It was an honor to re-immerse myself in this book.

5144kYGkXLL

Schlesinger, a life long liberal, was also an outstanding historian. And a superb writer. He never struck a mismatched key. For the writing alone-this book is worth a read, but more importantly, it is a stirring defense of humanity in government, and the willingness to adopt a creed other than that which inhabits the current GOP: " I got mine, fuck you!"

One of the most interesting things about reading the letters of Arthur Schlesinger is the quality of the discussion between him and those like Joseph and Stewart Alsop and many others. They held differing view points-but because they had the shared experience of a demanding education, and having to actually earn their way onto a writing staff-and live under an editor, the quality of what they produced was far superior to what the intellectual children, who presume to even think they have a right to sit at the grown ups table, produce now. The Krauthamers, Chunky Bobo, the plagiarist Malkin, all the members of the Liars Club-cretins like William Jacobsen, John Hinderaker, Mark Steyn, 3/4 of the blogosphere ( especially the mil-blogs)-what they produce is trash when held up in comparison to the quality of the writing that went forth from the great writers of the 50's and 60's. Near the end of his life Schlesinger saw this decline of intellectual rigor-and rightly chastised it, particularly those who fell for the shame that was what he called "Gingrichism" in the mid 90's. Altogether great history-a story the above listed children can not even begin to appreciate.

This is worth the money to buy.

No responses yet

Jun 30 2014

An open letter to Mr. David Green

For those who don't know, Mr. David Green, he is the worthless, religious zealot who runs Hobby Lobby. Today, in a decision that highlights just how political and out of touch with the law the Supreme Court has become-and how dysfunctional the American government has become-he was given a free hand to fuck over his employees.

 

Dear Mr. Green,

 

     First, I suppose, we should get the pleasantries over with:

 DROP DEAD!

 

The Supreme Court, in one of its worst decisions in a long time, just handed you a victory that you do not deserve-and is in no way fitting of your supposed reputation as a Christian. Need I remind you of Christ's warning to your kind?

"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."


You believe, at least according to the statements of your Facebook page, that you are somehow being oppressed. I sure would like to know how. How is it you are being prevented-by the simple exercise of your corporate responsibilty to provide health insurance to your employees, some of whom might actually want or need , a good old fashioned, balls deep, at whatever time of the month they want, fucking? Without a condom if they so choose? How exactly is that keeping you from making the $3.3 billion in revenues last year that your worthless excuse for a corporation made?  Or better yet-how do you reconcile your supposedly devout beliefs with the  more than $73M invested in mutual funds, some of which invest in manufacturers of contraception, including some forms which are specifically named in the complaint, even though there exist several boutique mutual funds that specifically screen companies that are not in line with their client's religious beliefs? How do you sleep at night?

And please, Mr Green, worthless fuck that you are, how do you explain to those of us who actually do have a decent understanding of American History, The United States Constitution, and other such pertinent details, how you can fashion yourself as a champion of religious freedom, when in fact you are giving preference to one belief system over another? You want to know how I know that? Mr Madison told me-when he wrote rather fortellingly about what a worthless man you are:

"The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"

And how too-does this particular case square with your rather blatant cases of anti-Semitism, you supposedly being able to "turn the other cheek".

In September 2013, a shopper reported being told by an employee of the store in Marlboro, New Jersey, it did not carry merchandise celebrating Jewish holidays. While the store carried Christmas items, they did not carry items related to bar mitzvahHanukkah, or Passover. The store employee told the shopper that these items were not sold, due to the owner's Christian values. In response, Hobby Lobby apologized for the employee's comments, stating that it has carried Jewish holiday items in the past, and would do so in test areas beginning in November 2013.

 

Of course it doesn't and just brands you as the worthless hypocrite I already knew you were. Would that I can grab you by the shoulders and slam your white haired visage against a concrete wall. But of course I can't. Your wealth buys you a level of protection your rather overworked employees will never be able to enjoy.

I despise you sir-and the supposedly upright things you believe in.  I have beliefs too-and your zealotry impinges on them. I believe that people should be free to have as much guilt free and consequence free sex as they can with whoever they want. I further believe that their employer should have no interest in what they do away from work or who they have sex with. I believe that access to health care is a right-and you as an employer should have to pay your fair share of that cost, because it is your responsibility as a corporate citizen. Furthermore- I do not believe that corporations have the same rights as you do individually. Corporations do not have souls.

A Christianity that seeks to rid itself of interacting with sinners or infidels is not a Christianity I recognize. A Christianity that can ascribe the core religious nature of a human being to a corporation is theologically perverse. Corporations have no souls. They do not have a relationship with God, as Jonathan Merritt points out here. And a Christianity that seeks to jealously guard its own defenses rather than embrace the world joyfully and indiscriminately is not one that appeals to me.

 

Here is the bottom line, you grey haired, Christianist freak: As a business owner-you are a corporate entity. Businesses are not people, and don't have the same rights as people do. As an individual, you have a right to whine to your fellow churchgoers about the decline of American society. Your business, however, has no right to dictate what insurance it will or will not pay for-and has responsibilities as a corporate entity to its employees first. Your church is not a part of that equation nor should it be.  How long till you convert to Christian Scientist? And decide paying for AIDS medications or chemo-therapy is against your beliefs?  A government has a responsibility to regulate its society-against the worst acts of its citizens, and Mr. Green, your beliefs are just as reprehensible as someone who steals from other people. You are stealing as well-just under a legal sanction to do so. Corporations are not people. If you can't live with that-you should close up shop. I mean its not like you will starve-you have a ton of money.

"This ruling chips away at the notion of a naked public marketplace, where we can leave our faiths behind and simply buy and sell goods and not worry about anyone else’s religion or lack of it. And that’s a loss. "

But you don't really care about that do you? I didn't think so you worthless excuse for a human being.  A real Christian knows where the boundaries are-and "renders unto Caesar, what is Caesars". That you feel compelled to impose your twisted and sick version of Christianity. Personally, these types of decisions, and the rabid beliefs of those who support it, do more to alienate me from the faith than it does to win me over to it. And I am a believer-just not your kind. America is as much about the freedom to sin as it is about the freedom to worship, and religion has no place in the work place or politics. If to be a "Christian business owner" is to be like you-then I will take a pass.

There is really no convincing you otherwise I know that-which is why this now has to be about hitting your where your heart really lies, in your pocket book. Labor unions need to organize truckers strikes against you. Other businesses need to refuse to trade with you. I count my blessings that I no longer live where your stores are located, but neither the SO or I will patronize your businesses. They and you suck.

This decision is a big loss for the United States and for the Christ you claim to love so much.

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go to bed, maybe indulge in some Onanism, and go to sleep-praying for your imminent and painful demise.

I am ashamed to be a citizen of the same country as you.

 

11 responses so far

Jun 07 2014

Because I like beating a dead horse.

This will be my second and hopefully last post on the abomination that is the Harry Harris sponsored assrape investigation into the Blue Angels "command climate". Also known as its more common name, assassination by IG.

There have been wonderful comments made that , "since the events were substantiated as occurring", all objections to the way the investigation was handled and the timing of the complaint are irrelevant. And by implication it is perfectly fine to destroy a good officer's career as a result of one set of time.

I thoroughly reject that contention. And you Navy folks who are voicing it-may rest secure in the knowledge that you have completely sold your souls to Satan. Enjoy life in this brave new world you are creating with its protected classes and diversity bullies run amok.

If you have not read the investigation report, I think you should. It can be found here or here. Sadly, it is clear that the investigation team failed to look at some of the background issues that are also at play in a command like the Blue Angels or for that matter TOPGUN. They are not "normal" commands say that the Captain's VFA squadron was, a tour he did exceptionally well at.

Now perhaps it is because both the Blues and TOPGUN believe their own hype, about having the best of the best, that it sets folks up for the kind of dramas that ultimately created this vendetta by a butthurt subordinate and the subsequent with hunt. Personally, I think Maurice is right and this is a case of someone trying to get even when a selection board did not go her way, and now in the brave new world, the Navy is quite accommodating of this particular type of character assassination. But I think there is insufficient understanding of the group dynamics that are in play in an organization such as the Blue Angels or TOPGUN.

Some history. I was at NSAWC when the three weapons schools, CAEWWS, Topgun, and Strike were brought together in the ultimate "shotgun marriage".  The Topgun guys were our "neighbors" so to speak so we got to observe them up close. TOPGUN very much resented the merger and went out of its way to avoid integrating into the rest of the NSAWC organization. Like the Blues, they had their own set of traditions and rituals. They also like the Blues, have a huge set of powerful "alumni". You tinker with the organizations at great peril. The flag officers who ran the larger organization of NSAWC understood this. I remember having a conversation with one, who really felt that his efforts to reign in the outfit was having a direct impact on the way the rest of big Navy worked with him.

In the Blues, how the 8 aviators get along is more than just important, its a foundation on which their life is built. Thus I categorically reject the assumptions made by the investigators that the support officers were shunned. Anybody who has spent any time in Carrier Aviation knows there is a pecking order in the world, and learns to deal with it. After all in the Blues there are still plenty of good deals to be had.

But you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think a new CO can go in there and be an authoritarian from the gitgo. They have had people who tried to do that. They got run out of town on a rail. So the wise person is going to be very mindful of that and try to shape the change he wants subtly and carefully. Also the squadron is on the road a lot-and that creates its own unique challenges. I personally think CAPT McWherter was mindful of that and thus was trying his best to be collegial with his wardroom and foster camaraderie. Remember that? Much of Naval Aviation tradition is  (or was) built on it-and the best squadrons I served in were where the camaraderie was high and so was the interaction between the wardroom.  During my 20 years of flying, based on this criteria outlined in the CPF report, everyone of my CO's, including myself would have been fired. That alone should tell you it's an unreasonable standard.

Does that mean that there were things in hindsight, that could have been done differently? Of course there could have been. But a simple course correction would have sufficed-not a public shaming. I also don't think the incidents that are discussed are as numerous and non-stop as the report makes out. Seems to me there was also a lot of emphasis on the squadron's primary mission of good demonstration flying. And when you have a lot of young men together, the talk will turn to women and girls. And calling someone gay is still a accepted pejorative. It is a fact of life.

It may not have been right, but the Blues will be a unique organization.  It is not, just another squadron. And it never will be. And in making judgments on this case you should keep that in mind.

And for the record. Maxim style shots of women are not pornography-and people who say they are should be horsewhipped. As should subordinates who think it is their duty to "mentor" people of their gender. ( A key warning flag that this was a withchunt, mentioned in the investigation).

For those people, Professor Van Kreveld would like a chat with you.

3 responses so far

Jun 05 2014

The ease with which some people abandon their conviction.

Today was a sad day for me. It is probably the first day since I graduated from the Citadel, that I was ashamed to wear my ring. A ring I worked hard to earn-and usually wear with pride.

Why? Because it is disgusting to me, to watch legions of my fellow alumni, throw one of their own, CAPT Greg McWherter under the bus, solely to appease their own, pretty much flawed consciences.  The comments have been brutal on the alumni boards I monitor. And in the depths of hypocrisy, many are from the same people who rabidly applauded his ascension to command as the first Citadel graduate to command the blues.

I'll spare you the details-they can be found at Phib's place.  He has a good rundown on the case-and a copy of the investigation. He very ably points out much of the hypocrisy in it-and of the fine art, now being perfected, of assassination by IG.

Worth repeating:

You know I like words. Searching the document about poor performance of a Blue Angels CO and we have homosexual mentioned 18 times, gay 4 times, and the first clue, support officer 13 times. Safety 8 times.

He's been smeared as a sexist homophobe … all they left out was racist, but maybe I missed that.

In some ways, this is just another way to destroy the male oriented, warfighter, TACAIR culture. Tailhook was only the start – this has a similar genesis and is going to be used for the same agenda.

Ironically, the people who will be hurt most will be our female Shipmates – our fellow warfighters of all designators who know what the core of our business is, have a sense of humor, are secure in their womanhood, and as officers, are not going to break in to tears because they miss the drama of Middle School. 

It doesn't take long to figure out that this huge frag pattern that, like Tailhook, will destroy the careers of many good people and was started by a female support officer. Which one? Hard to tell … but with googlefu, you can narrow it downto a few possibilities.

Not really important who though – complaining, weak, and entitled administrative burdens have always been with us. It is what the institution does with it that is important.

Is this proportional? Look it over and tell me.

 

There is so much, that is wrong with this investigation-and The Skipper has done a great job of documenting it. There are so many things that are wrong with this investigation. Lets ask a few questions shall we?

 

The Navy proactively issued a press release within 24 hours of non-judicial punishment, to include release of the investigation. Was that based on FOIA requests from the press or did they do it so they could control the narrative?

 

Is it possible the high-castrati discussed how this case was to be handled before it was handled? I’d bet my stock portfolio it was. That’s unlawful command influence, and it’s against the rules. Just ask General Amos.

 

Do you think it a coincidence that a nuclear submariner was appointed to lead the investigation of an elite squadron? Is that not like asking a pole-vaulter to evaluate a baseball locker room? They are both sports, are they not?

 

Why is it CNATRA is not doing the investigation? They are the first flag in the chain. And where was TRAWING Six in all this. If these things were as rampant as was said-I GUARANTEE you they would have heard about it. The Commodore was too busy to do some discrete counseling? I know Greg McWherter would have taken it to heart.

 

Why did the accuser wait fifteen months after the commanding officer left to lower the boom?

 

If you are flying at 400 knots and pulling 4 Gs in a rolling maneuver with a guy’s wingtip 18 inches from your nugget, do you think it might be helpful to bond with that person and build trust? Would you feel comfortable flying next to him if you knew he would stab you in the back and look after only himself as soon as he deems it warranted?

 

The investigation says that he twice inherited a broken squadron. What of those who broke it? They’re good, then?

 

This whole affair stinks, not the least of reason which, I know the final endorser in the chain. The irony of this whole case is rich- because anecdotally , I know he treated his own JO's like shit. But he got a pass for it. Greg McWherter on the other hand got thrown on the ash heap of Navy history.

Don't kid yourself, for all the high handed rhetoric about the Navy doing the right thing, it did not. It f*&ked one of its own for no purpose. This is clearly a case of where the service was spring loaded to f*ck someone at the drive though.

Look hard at the investigation. You will find what you need on page 16, paragraph 45. I should warn you that the investigation as published is incomplete-since it does not include any of the enclosures -and thus lacks context.

But context is not what Harry Harris cares about.  He would throw his own mother under the bus if he thought it would improve his interests.  As such, he is the typical flag officer in today's Navy.

PS. Here is what a pornkin looks like. It ain't that bad, Which is yet another reason why his accuser can suck a big bag of dicks.

Oh, and for my brothers who wear the ring? Just blow me you chickenshit bastards.

 

4 responses so far

Jun 03 2014

Sideshow Bowe

It is with sad and undisguised disgust that I watch the collective conservative freak out of the release of SGT Bowe Berghdahl, the only prisoner of war held by the Taliban. In the early morning of June 30, 2009, Berghdal went missing from his unit's small outpost in Mest, a restive area in Paktia province. Within several hours, radio chatter from the Taliban indicated that they'd captured the soldier.

He spent the next five years in captivity, growing gaunt in the numerous propaganda videos that the Taliban trickled out to the press. On numerous occasions, they publicly threatened him with execution. Many Afghans and some Westerners in similar positions had been tortured, decapitated, or shot to death.

This passed weekend he was released by his captors in exchange for 5 prisoners being held in the concentration camp prison in Guantanamo Bay. And then the hounds of hell came rushing loose from the caves of the Glibertarian Kingdom.

And who was leading the way? Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods and The Town Hall Harlot herself.  She is pretty much setting a record for hysterical posts screaming about the man, which is a lot considering that this little specimen of female self loathing is always hysterical about something. But in this case-she has her well oiled plagiarism machine working till all hours of the night.

Over on Facebook or any of the normal blogs its no better either. The ranting is especially virulent. It runs along a consistent set of themes:

1) Obama negotiated with terrorists.Which is an interesting whine considering it simply makes him well, President, and is doing the same thing that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush did.

2) Second, he released some bad guys.  People say he should not have done that. However, as the Christian Science Monitor points out-they were going to have to be released soon anyway:

But dealing with people you find odious – your enemies – is how most wars end. And with the US set for full withdrawal from Afghanistan at the end of 2016, the prospect of a crushing defeat for the Taliban is pretty much nil. Getting POWs back, whatever the circumstances of their capture, a crucial goal.

Did Obama just swap five dangerous "terrorists" for Bergdahl, as Sen. Cruz alleges? It depends on your definition of "terrorism."

Four of the five men released into Qatar's custody, where they are supposed to remain for at least a year before being allowed to return home, were indeed senior members of the Taliban movement. The Taliban have been seeking the release of the five in exchange for Bergdahl since 2011, and there had been fitful progress in that regard, with Qatar acting as a mediator, since at least 2013.

Outgoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai has sought in recent years to find a reconciliation deal with the Taliban, and the release of the "Guantanamo Five" has been a part of those efforts.

 

Boo fucking who. The guy is home and that is the main thing.

3) And of course now we come to the real turd in the punchbowl-the guy is alleged to be a deserter. Soonergrunt over at Balloon Juice addresses this in a quite logical fashion:

I don’t know if SGT Bergdahl voluntarily walked off his camp and surrendered to the enemy or not. Just because a few fellow Soldiers in his unit say that doesn’t make it so. The most powerful communication system in an Infantry company is what we used to call “S-5–rumor control.” I’ve never been in a unit that wasn’t essentially a knitting circle with automatic weapons. Young Soldiers, for whom boredom is an almost constant companion (punctuated by moments of sheer terror) can give the most catty junior high school girls’ clique a run for their money. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong, but I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in it without some corroboration. So I’ll hold off judgment on that. It’s also been brought up that he supposedly sent some emails to one or more people expressing doubts about US military actions. So did I. So have a lot of guys who then went out and did the very best they could do for their buddies and their country. It’s irrelevant anyway.

We’re getting out of Afghanistan, and the treaties to which this nation has repeatedly pledged itself require that we release Prisoners of War and repatriate them home. Taliban are distinct from Al Qaeda in this respect because Taliban could be considered the government forces of Afghanistan (whether legitimate, loved, respected, or not) while AQ isn’t anything but a bunch of thugs under international law. So this idea that we gave up valuable prisoners for one guy and that makes it a bad deal is bullshit on its face. We were going to release them. We were REQUIRED to release them under international law that we largely wrote. Whatever intelligence value they had was long since wrung out of them, in some cases literally. One of them had laid down his arms and pledged to work with the new government of Afghanistan prior to the Pakistani government taking him prisoner more as a propaganda tool and removing a potential political problem than anything else, I am given to understand. So we got something we wanted for doing something now that we would have done in a few months for nothing anyway. That’s not exactly brilliant poker, but it was pretty well played.

We don’t leave our people behind. That’s an Army value. The people ranting about this whole thing either don’t understand or don’t care about that simple concept. Whatever SGT Bergdahl may have done or not done, we don’t leave our people behind. If it hasn’t already, the Army will shortly start a 15-6 investigation, so called in reference to the Army Regulation that describes such things. You’ve probably heard the term “Board of Inquiry.” They are essentially the same thing. When the Army has concluded what the circumstances of SGT Bergdahl’s capture and captivity were, then they’ll make some decisions, but I’ll just note for the record that US POWs have rarely been punished for their actions or inactions while in enemy hands. Many, many of the POWs in Viet Nam, including John McCain signed documents created by their captors confessing to war crimes and indicting their fellow POWs and the US. Former CW4 Michael Durant, taken prisoner by a Somali warlord after being shot down in the battle of Mogadishu (Blackhawk Down) made problematic statements to a TV camera that were subsequently shown around the world. None of these men were ever subjected to disciplinary action upon repatriation to my knowledge.

So I’m glad that SGT Bergdahl will be reunited with his family, at long last.

David Graham over at the Atlantic points out much the same thing-pointing out too, that Obama made clear that he was not going to be bound by a stupid Congressional obstacle if it conflicted with his powers as Commander in Chief.  So much for the "he broke the law argument".

Obviously there is going to be an investigation. The Army will make a decision one way or another. And it will have to weight all the factors including what he suffered in captivity.  And somehow it will have to prove its case in court, if it has one. Personally,  I think all this public outrage is doing the defense attorney's job for him-it will make it impossible to prosecute, even if the Army did want to.

Clearly, however, the collective stupidity shown by all the usual suspects makes me wonder about how screwed up the land of my birth is becoming. Everyone needs to chill the f*ck out and remember this little tidbit of advice:

 

 

Nuff Said.

18 responses so far

Apr 15 2014

The impeachment of Barak Obama

It’s a double whammy of depression, of late. On a personal note-the ongoing churn at my place of employ is making the ability to enjoy the choice location more than a little problematic sometimes. As the S.O. and I settle into the new house , the more we like many of its features. The one obvious down side has been the lack of internet connection-but the porch and view from said porch offsets it to a great degree. And after days like this one:

218318.strip

 

I need the peace and solitude it brings.

So I have that bit of downward pressure on my life-offset in great deal by location, but it’s not enough to overcome the frustration of knowing I am right, being right, and being unable to make the types of meaningful changes that need to be made.

Adding to the downward pressure on my spirit is the realization that I will be returning to the US of A-not by choice as much as lack of one. And that when I get there-the downward spiral of US politics will have continued its decline into abject stupidity.

Especially since as many pundits predict-the GOP may take the Senate as well as keep the House. Once that is accomplished, I fully expect the Congress of the United States to do nothing (something they are already doing), but  they will begin a full throated effort to impeach Barak Obama.

It’s coming-you can rest assured of that. And since it takes 67 Senators to convict, and the odds of the GOP winning that many seats are virtually nonexistent, it will be another typically pointless gesture undertaken by the teabagger crazed loons who run and who support the current twisted political vision known as the Republican party.

The bulk of 2015 will be spent talking about it and the Fox Noise machine will kick into overdrive trying to convict the president in absentia, since they will be unable to achieve their real dream of ending his political career. (Remember these were the same people who were telling you that Romney was going to win big).

Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), who has said there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, added: “We’ve also talked about the I-word, impeachment, which I don’t think would get past the Senate in the current climate. . . . Is there anything else we can do?”

Why, yes, there is, congressman: You can hold hearings that accomplish nothing but allow you to sound fierce for your most rabid constituents.

The Republicans in the House know there is no chance of throwing this president from office. Yet at least 13 of the 22 Republicans on the panel have threatened or hinted at impeachment of Obama, his appointees or his allies in Congress. They’ve proposed this as the remedy to just about every dispute or political disagreement, from Syria to Obamacare.

 

This kind of political fight is exactly the last thing the country needs right now-but when did the GOP ever make doing the right thing a priority? Certainly not since the middle of the 20th century.

So how will it happen? I predict they will use the “slow burn” technique. They will pass their 65th or so vote to repeal the ACA.  When that  gets vetoed as it surely must,  it will set forth the following scenario:  there will begin a series of hearings trying to establish that the President exceeded his executive authority by making decisions on extending deadlines and such.  Using those as the pretext they will turn over to the House committee that does such things a resolution demanding the impeachment of Obama for exceeding his legal authority as President. ( When he in reality he has not even used his authority near enough). The old canards will be dragged out: Bengahzi, IRS, and all the rest of the nonsense that has been long been put to bed.)  Fox will have hour after hour of commentary for its brain dead audience-hyping the idea of impeaching the President. Comparisons to Clinton's blowjobs will resound. This will all occur in May or June of 2015 with the actual trial set to occur in September of 2015 after the summer recess. ( allowing the illusion of justice and due diligence by allowing both sides time to prepare-it will also try to be timed so as to make Biden a real lame duck if they should get lucky and win).

Nothing of substance will be accomplished by the Congress in 2015. They will stall on the budget-and perhaps force another debt ceiling fight, hoping to use that to pile on in the process, leaving the country to tear itself apart politically. And in the end-the President will be acquitted, but there will be loads of sound bites that ultra conservative Presidential candidates can use repeatedly showing how the Kenyan usurper was never supposed to be in the job anyway. ( Popular vote or Electoral college results not with standing).

And Nate Silver will be pilloried again-for denying the Romney monster the victory they feel was rightfully his in 2012.

And in the meantime what happens to the country?  Wages will continue to stagnate and more and more wealth will continue to move upward-aggravating the tepid economic recovery by seeing more and more Americans slide downwards in terms of purchasing power. In fact, the country could slip back into recession because of the turmoil the impeachment crisis will create in world markets. Holders of 401K's-like me-will see themselves condemned to working for the rest of our lives at unsatisfying jobs ( as the comic mentions above) because the value of our accumulated savings will tank.

And that will be all occurring before we get to 2016. 

Now ideally, an impeachment drama would produce the kind of universal public outrage that will backfire on the GOP and make it a pariah in the elections of 2016. It can and should lead to a recognition of the flawed and selfish viewpoint of American Politics and economics that was legitimized by Mitt Romney in 2012 ( with his disgusting codification of the rhetoric that 47% of the American population are nothing but "moochers")-and seized upon by soulless men such as the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver , Paul Ryan.

But it won't. Primarily because that kind of outrage will come from an informed electorate-something the United States has not had for a long time. Only about 20% of us actually understand the issues in the proper context, and draw the correct conclusions from it. Another 30% subscribe to the "I got mine, so fuck you!" philosophy of the current teabagger controlled GOP-and the remaining 50% just can't be bothered to get up from the TV to learn anything. Or vote.

If that does not give you good reason to be depressed about the future of the land of my birth-you are not grasping the problem.

Its a bad news story, that could be easily fixed and could have been as long ago as 2009.

But it won't.

Welcome to the new dark ages.

 

11 responses so far

Mar 20 2014

You try to be a good soldier….

Published by under Hypocrites

And what does it get you?

Kicked in the teeth that is what. Our completely dysfunctional workplace has struck again. A project I had devoted some 7 months of effort to-has been done away with. The details are dreary and not befitting anything but swear words. Nonetheless it caps off the end to a fucked up week. All of us from the "old" organization recognize it as the injustice it is. The new breed? Well they are so wrapped up in their own details they have stopped caring about anyone else-and the worst part is, no one cares about what anyone else wants. Which is what the author of this whole abomination wants.

GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!! I am so mad I cannot see straight.

215759.strip

 

Now if you will excuse me-there is a fifth of Scotch to finish.

 

 

2 responses so far

Oct 22 2013

Where is Kent Brockman when you need him?

Well we met our new "team mates" yesterday. As I expected it, it did not go well:

 

It was an interesting exercise in surrealism. Our current boss was basically pre-empted by the GS-15 who seeks to enslave replace him. That issue has not been determined yet-but this guy acted like it had.

Then he went into an instructive little missive of how he and one of our flags went to visit John Deere last year, and told how they brought in an outside firm to help them "reorganize". And because of that experience we should not 'fear change".. ( BTW nice to know that you can afford the travel money for such little ventures-this while we beg for the merest of scraps).

Oh really? When our HR is telling us it knows nothing about this event-and when it does happen, one of the specific goals is a reduction of billets? My office mate and I just looked at each other in sheer amazement.

But I digress-he told us that little story to justify why he is turning to a contractor, one that works directly for him and depends on his decisions for continued work on said contract to organize this merger. He was not in the least happy when it was pointed out to him ( and the contractor person), that doing that is a blatant conflict of interest.

Perhaps a call to the IG might help?

Seriously, John Deere? That company has nothing in common with the organizations we work for. Unless it's veiled imagery for putting us all out to pasture.

Just blow me now.

Probably the most bizarre thing about the whole exercise, is that he seems to think we don't know exactly what happened-when in fact, everyone in the room knows what has transpired and what is transpiring. I mean after all, he's not the only one who talks to flag officers. An outside look? Really?

No one is afraid of change. They do have a desire not to do things just for stupidity's sake, however and that is what the logic behind this is. I've been though that more than couple other times.

The future days, suck they shall.

No responses yet

Oct 11 2013

I’m tired of hearing about the children……

In this debt fight nonsense, the deficit scolds continue to say "its for the children". Whenever I hear that what I want to reply is something profane-and with good reason. The children lose no matter what, if the cruel and inhumane policy prescriptions are carried out. What the arrogant and pompous preachers of the deficit really want is a way to back out of the contract. Basically, the talk of children and their needs is just a smoke screen to hide a more sinister emotion, " I got mine, so fuck off!"

I wrote a year and a half ago why this a flawed viewpoint. I think it bears repeating now:

 

So its about the children, eh?

Also known as-Why Mark Steyn sucks.
 
Phib presumes to lecture me on what issues are really about-sadly I missed most of his lecture because I was having a good time over the weekend-sightseeing and practicing not procreative sex with the S.O. In a recent post, he asserted that he was tired of discussing:
 
This totally contrived non-controversy has almost left me looking to either retreat to my country acreage to wait out the rioting of the unworthy, or join James Cameron in the undying lands to watch to new Dark Age take hold.

 

The fact that some are trying to bring this non-issue up at this time in our republic makes me feel at times that this nation is not worthy of the generations of sacrifice that brought us here … but that is crazy talk. This nation has gone through worse, and in the end all will be well.

 
The issue is not putting a sheep's bladder on your John Thomas; it is what legacy we leave to our children. This is an economic crisis we cannot fix with a peace treaty or a post-war boom; no, nothing that simple – but we need to fix it sooner more than later.
 
Well, jolly good and dandy-it’s for the children is it? Well, on that you are right-but it’s also about telling those same children the correct story-not just the parts that suit your narrative. I’ve got some suggestions about some things you might want to tell your children to warm their hearts as they struggle to keep their heads above water in the multi-polar world you are going to bequeath them, but I’ll do that at the end of this post. One should leave with the things that need to be remembered.
 
And something that is not worthy of any brain memory space are the silly words of that pompous twit, Mark Steyn.  Not the master-as Phib would present him-but just another worthless piece of Fox News paid excrement. Quoting another worthless piece of excrement-Paul Ryan, Mark Steyn has the balls to assert that the discussion about demanding that all employers provde a standard level of preventative care, is somehow a clever ruse to divert public attention away from the President’s recently released budget. ( As a matter of policy here at Far East Cynic HQ-we do not link to idiots, thus you will have to Google what I am about to quote to you). 
 
This is a very curious priority for a dying republic. “Birth control” is accessible, indeed ubiquitous, and, by comparison with anything from a gallon of gas to basic cable,one of the cheapest expenses in the average budget. Not even Rick Santorum, that notorious scourge of the sexually liberated, wishes to restrain the individual right to contraception.
But where is the compelling societal interest in the state prioritizing and subsidizing it? Especially when you’re already the Brokest Nation in History. Elsewhere around the developed world, prudent politicians are advocating natalist policies designed to restock their empty maternity wards. A few years ago, announcing tax incentives for three-child families, Peter Costello, formerly Timmy Geithner’s counterpart Down Under, put it this way: “Have one for Mum, one for Dad, and one for Australia.” But in America an oblivious political class, led by a president who characterizes young motherhood as a “punishment,” prefers to offer solutions to problems that don’t exist rather than the ones that are all too real. I think this is what they call handing out condoms on the Titanic.
 
Statements like these are why Steyn needs to be held down and have his smirk and beard dry shaved off of him. Besides the fact that the prophylactics are not under discussion here-a clever dodge by many of Phib’s commenters to not discuss the real issue-the standardization of services provided by insurers, something they solved a long time ago here in Europe. The services that Steyn and others say “just pay for it yourself” can actually be rather expensive: contraceptive services and related counseling, a number of related preventive health services such as: patient education and counseling; breast and pelvic examinations; breast and cervical cancer screening according to nationally recognized standards of care; sexually transmitted disease (STD) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention education, counseling, testing and referral; and pregnancy diagnosis and counseling. Some of those items can run up a fairly healthy bill-more than just the cost of a box of condoms. Not a great deal for a wealthy man like Steyn-but some 800-1800(cost of screenings and prescriptions) a year in prescription costs can be a lot for someone making less than 25K a year. And what’s more –it’s clear that GOP candidates want to expand what the definition of contraceptive services means, if the “testimony” of that well known douchebag Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has any bearing:
 

Rick Santorum opposes all mandated coverage without co-pays. Rick Santorum is linking mandated coverage to abortion because it’s politically beneficial to him to do so. It doesn’t matter if the mandated coverage without co-pays is screening for gestational diabetes or amniocentesis, so this is (of course) not about abortion because screening for gestational diabetes without a co-pay (for example) has nothing to do with abortion, and Santorum opposes that, too. I know that because that’s what he said.
There’s really no reason to discuss amniocentesis specifically, other than the fact that media swallowed Santorum’s carefully calculated and misleading framing whole and thus discussed only what he wants to discuss. How about this headline: Rick Santorum is protecting large employers and health insurance companies, and he’s using disabled children to do that. The conservative opposition to mandated coverage in insurance policies is about opposing federal regulation of health insurance companies and large employers, not abortion, because conservatives oppose all mandated coverage without co-pays. All of the rest of this over-heated nonsense is misdirection. No one ever asked the religious leaders what other sections of the health care law that apply to large employers they opposed, and that’s a shame, because that would have been a very good question.
 
But then again-misdirection and avoidance of telling the entire story are Steyn’s trademark.  Steyn writes with "a shrill, mocking tone of moral certainty that consigns those who disagree with him to the status of appeasers or even terrorists; and a willingness to distort, misrepresent, and omit facts in order to advance his argument." One should expect nothing more from the man and his column linking the controversy over coverage to the deficit proves it yet again.
 
Which brings us back to the children. When you sit them down and tell then the story of the decline of a once great nation that failed to live up to its potential-make sure you tell them all the facts. Don’t leave out the important ones like pompous moral zealots like Steyn do. Make sure you tell them about the fact that:
 
The great majority of the debt that you so love to rail about-was racked up by a combination of spending on wars that we could not afford, and should probably have never gotten involved in, in the first place. And then tell them that –even for ones that were brought upon us, we failed to mobilize all of our potential strength and power to fulfill the first obligation to win quickly and decisively-because a presidential appointee wanted to prove some outdated theories on “transformation”. The other part was hinged on tax cuts that never should have been made.
 
And then tell ‘em that the President that appointed that same Secretary of Defense, refused to raise the necessary revenue to fund these wars. And decided to double down on not funding those wars when-as many critics had predicted-energy costs rose and impacted growth rates across the world and within the United States.
 
Tell them that in the end-both countries we went in to “save”-were hopeless basket cases, primarily because of the failings of the citizens of those countries. We, however, refused to pin any of the blame on those same tribally motivated people-even when it was clear that we could stay for 2 or 20 years and nothing would change. But we were able to send their aunts and uncles to die in the dusty corners of the far reaches of the American empire.
 
Then tell them tell them that the government-their government, pushed a policy of tax cuts for the richest one percent combined with a systematic dismantling of the regulations that were in place to prevent those same one percent from bringing down the house through unbridled greed.  Tell them that the lure of easy profits distracted the banking industry from its core mission: providing an efficient payments mechanism and assessing and managing risk. That instead of focusing on lending to small businesses and creating jobs-they concentrated on creating increasingly risky securities all so they could reap huge bonuses and transaction fees.  Don’t treat them to tired old explanations about the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie and Freddie-without first pointing out that these criticisms are sheer nonsense. They had nothing to do with the 200 billion dollar bailout of AIG-which was based solely on derivatives, nor did Fannie or Freddie have anything to do with the massive overinvestment in commercial real estate.
 
Tell them about the money the banks were supposed to have used to restart credit. But didn’t.
 
Remind them that the so called “productive class” became so obsessed with short term returns-on which their bonuses and pay were based- that they engaged in repeated and reckless accounting gimmicks-that hid the truth.
 
Tell your children that because of your devotion to American Exceptionalism-they remain just one major illness or job loss away from bankruptcy and poverty ( assuming they aren’t there already)-that in the first decade of the 21st century, when faced with a clear moral and economic incentive to reform the healthcare system and in the end drive down the overall cost of a major driver of the government expenditures you love to lecture them about. Tell them that the rest of the advanced world solved this problem during the 80’s and 90’s offering the US some good ideas to pick and choose from-these countries providing equal or better care than the US,  but spending less than the US does-your country turned its back on literally millions of its fellow citizens in the name of “freedom”.
 
When you tell them the story of Greece-make sure you highlight the role the major banks and funds played in 2010 assaulting the Greek economy when they sold Greek bonds short. Be sure and tell them that the austerity doctrine that you and other “conservative” economic theorists pushed on them –simply created a death spiral that never increased aggregate demand. The banks and funds who demanded all this never got hurt-but the average middle class or lower Greek paid a terrible price. Tell them about the inherent Greek laziness-never too early to have them remember American superiority. But when you do-be sure to point out that the “people” who don’t pay taxes in Greece are mostly big corporations and professionals who can afford to hire people to help them evade taxes. ( Kind of like the GOP wants it to be over here). Remind them that banks got away with it and that linkage of the world economy made a default by Greece a nonstarter from the word go.
 
Tell them too-that companies that could well afford to invest in their companies failed to do so-but instead sold literally thousands of their workers down the river, to make a huge profit for one person. ( Insert well known CEO of a major corporation walking out on pension obligations).
 
Remind them that the banks pulled off one of the biggest frauds in history-but not one banker went to jail for it. Tell them too of the unbridled commodity speculation in 2008 –that literally starved people to death-but made a lot of people rich.
 
And then finally, tell them the God’s honest truth, that their country-a once great nation that still has great potential-frittered away the first decade of the 21st century by failing to recognize the changes that had taken place in the world. And in failing to adapt to those changes-it brought itself to the point where it failed at home and abroad. And in the end it had no one to blame but itself-because it let itself be seduced by an illusion: that things would stay the way they were some 30 years ago, because we were a great power.  We could have still been a great power had we made the necessary changes to fix our society and balance our budgets-but we were too easily fooled by our corporate masters, who were more than willing to write off some 90% of the American population to make sure they were comfortable.
 
Just like the Chinese.
 
 
 
 

10 responses so far

Oct 02 2013

What he said.

Congress imposed a government shutdown? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. The place got hit by lightning? Fuck you, pay me.

 

( All posts will start with this until the shutdown is over).

 

The President summed up the issues at play in this shutdown pretty well yesterday. Its worth listening to his entire speech, not just the condensed or ignored version that would be shown at Fox Noise. (BTW I found it interesting that Fox was more concerned with showing Netanyahu's UN address than anything else-and they have taken their marching orders from Jim DeMint and referred to the shutdown as just a "slow down".)

 

 

 

He needs to talk this bluntly a lot more. 

“At midnight last night, for the first time in 17 years, the Republicans in Congress chose to shut down the Federal Government. Let me be more specific: One FACTION of one PARTY in one HOUSE of Congress in one branch of government shut down the government. All because they didn’t like ONE law.”

“The Republican shutdown did not have to happen, but I want everyone to understand why it did happen. The republicans in Congress refused to fund the government unless we defundedor dismantled the Affordable Care Act. They’ve shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans. In other words, they’ve demanded ransom just to do their jobs…They don’t get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands”…

This shutdown isn’t about spending, or deficits or budgets. After all, our deficits are falling at the fastest pace in 50 years. We’ve cut them in HALF since I took office. In fact, many of the demands the Republicans are now making would RAISE our deficit. So this shutdown isn’t about deficits or spending. It’s all about rolling back the Affordable Care Act…this, more than anything else, seems to be all the Republican party seems to stand for these days. It’s strange that one party would make keeping people uninsured the centerpiece of their agenda. But that is what it is.”…..

If you buy a car, and you don’t pay your car note, you don’t save money by not paying your car note. You’re just a deadbeat. If you buy a house, you don’t save any money by not authorizing yourself to pay the mortgage. You’re just going to get foreclosed on your home. That’s what this is about. This is routine. This is what they’re supposed to do as a routine matter.”

“Congress has to stop governing by crisis. They have to break this habit. It is a drag on the economy. It is not worthy of this country.

 

This is why, I have no time for people like this-who pontificate repeatedly about how "polite" conservatives are compared to progressives. For one thing its not true. The documentary evidence of the coarseness of the denizens of Earl Grey ville is on the record-and has been ever since this bunch of selfish folks and their manufactured outrage showed up on the scene. They have played havoc with the United States, and I am NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANGRY ABOUT IT?

Spare me your condecension! You  have no right to it.

I'm sorry. Putting a gun to someone's head and threatening to kill them unless you do exactly what they say, does not exactly qualify as a "polite" thing to do.

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me – my money – was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle….

Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored – contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong…

Fuck you, pay me.

No responses yet

Sep 16 2013

And while we are on the subject……

Of Mark Steyn-a completely useless man.

Here's another point of view that highlights my steadfast belief that Mark Steyn should just go fuck himself:

“Had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear, they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy. We know that, because that’s exactly how they graded the Iraq war,” – President Obama.

So take that-you worthless Canadian turd.

2 responses so far

Sep 15 2013

True to form

I hate Mark Steyn. He is once again proving himself to be the worthless piece of shit that he is.

Over at the National Review, the resident loony bin of the crazed zealots in America, Steyn is crying because he did not get his "splendid little war".

For generations, eminent New York Timeswordsmiths have swooned over foreign strongmen, from Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer-winning paeans to the Stalinist utopia to Thomas L. Friedman’s more recent effusions to the “enlightened” Chinese Politburo. So it was inevitable that the cash-strapped Times would eventually figure it might as well eliminate the middle man and hire the enlightened strongman direct. Hence Vladimir Putin’s impressive debut on the op-ed page this week……….

This is what happens when you elect someone because he looks cool standing next to Jay-Z. Putin is cool mainly in the sense that Yakutsk in February is. In American pop-culture terms, he is a faintly ridiculous figure, with his penchant for homoerotic shirtlessness, his nipples entering the room like an advance security team; the celebrities he attracts are like some rerun channel way up the end of the dial: Goldie Hawn was in the crowd when Putin, for no apparent reason, sang “I found my thrill on Blueberry Hill,” which Goldie seemed to enjoy. In reality, Putin finds his thrill by grabbing Obama’s blueberries and squeezing hard. Cold beats cool.

Maybe someone should remind this douchebag guy of the facts.

1) The majority of the American people do not want to go to war over Syria. The President has to deal, unlike a smug Canadian pundit, with that stark fact.

2) Our own Congress doesn't support it. Except for Daddy Warbucks McCain and Lindsey, "I never met a war I didn't like". Graham, most Congressmen are hearing and heeding the desires of their constituents to stay the hell out.

3) The US has already wasted a lot of its military, economic, and political capital on two failed wars in the Middle East-which in turn sets the back drop by which any military intervention in Syria will be judged.

We'll not even get to the fact of the lives wasted-in these wars that douchebags like Steyn advocated from the safety of their Canadian Citizenship-never having to serve or take any risk themselves.  Like William "The Bloody" Kristol-Steyn is always willing to sacrifice other people's children for the long lost idea of American global hegemony.

See, guys like Steyn can't seem to make up their minds. On the one hand he and his gang of deluded neocon wannabes bemoans the fact that Obama has usurped the Constitution on many issues. ( Soon we will hear the asshole Steyn screaming BENGHAZI for the thousandth time). On the other hand, "If you follow the Constitution, the power to make war resides in the Congress. Period. That the Congress has allowed that power to drain away, and/or that the Congress has allowed its constitutional authority to atrophy, is beside the point. If it wishes to reassert those powers, it is perfectly within its constitutional mandate to do so. Yet that seems to be the very thing that some of the more serious critics of the president's recent actions are arguing against. It is at the heart of every proxy argument being raised about the president's "waffling" or the country's "credibility."

Which is what is really at the heart of Steyn's whining. He could care less about the people of Syria, anymore than he cares about the majority of people in America. He just wants another cudgel to use on Obama, who he has made clear repeatedly he regards as an illegitimate President. What he fails to realize is that it does not cost the US anything to try Putin's proposal-if it fails the option to use force is back on the table, and maybe, just maybe, we might actually stumble onto the real use of force that makes the most sense: a Turkish Invasion of Syria. Which would go a lot farther towards changing the situation "on the ground" and putting the fear of God into Assad.

Syria has a problem-but it is a Syrian problem. US does not have to “own” Syria or Putin's  proposal. That is something that Steyn cannot imagine – because he is so trapped in his stupid dreams of American exceptionalism. An idea whose time has long passed. 

I have a better idea. Let's lob a couple of cruise missiles at Mark Steyn's house. That would provide a decisive result, one that literally thousands of cruise missiles into Syria cannot. It would rid the world of a worthless muck raker-providing him the exit from this mortal coil  he so richly deserves.  It would be a positive result-by eliminating someone or something that is sucking all the positive ideas out of American society.

 

 

 

No responses yet

Jul 15 2013

The Zimmerman verdict

There is not much for me to say about the verdict. I feel about the same way I did when OJ was aquitted-shock that it happened, and no surprise that it happened exactly the way it did in Florida. Florida's gun laws suck-and the "stand your ground law" that Zimmerman based his defense on, is poorly written and unevenly enforced. 

The two key issues of the case for me are: 1) Zimmerman followed Martin-after he was specifcally advised not to.  In essence he picked a fight he didn't have to pick-and could have left to trained law enforcement officers. 2) Despite the opinion of the jury, the case for self defense here was weak at best. Because Florida's law is written so poorly-and has a lot to do with determining Zimmerman's mental state-logical burdens of proof would not and could not be met:

Contrary to popular misconception, the burden of proof lies on Zimmerman to demonstrate that he acted in self-defense, not on the state to show that he didn't. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to culpability for the offense in question, and no one has argued that Zimmerman didn't pull the trigger that ended Martin's life. While someone who has committed a violent crime obviously has the right to defend himself, we set a dangerous precedent if we automatically give the benefit of the doubt to the murderer instead of the victim. Not only does the victim lack a voice to present his or her side of the story, but any murderer who has been caught will naturally be inclined to argue that his or her actions were somehow justified. Because a murderer's word is obviously suspect, and because murder is not an offense which we can afford as a society to sanction without the strongest of all possible reasons, we must demand that one who is known to have taken another human life establish beyond any shred of doubt that he or she had good reason to do so — and punish them, for the sake of protecting the sanctity of human life, if their culpability can be established and their justification cannot.

Zimmerman never convincingly proved that his life was in danger. His bloody nose and the scrapes on the back of his head do suggest that he and Martin were involved in a physical altercation of some sort, but had he had his head smashed against the pavement several times (as he claims), he would have sustained far worse injuries than that. As the evidence stands, all we know for certain is that he and Martin had a fight, which does not translate into justifiable cause for thinking his life was in danger. If, for example, two men are involved in a barroom brawl, and one pulls out a gun and shoots the other, the killer shouldn't be exonerated simply because both parties were equally engaged in the act of violence; he is only justified if he can prove that he had good reason to fear the other party would have killed him if he had not acted first. A charge of manslaughter may be substituted for a more severe account, but it is ludicrous to claim that he should be entirely acquitted. Similarly, Zimmerman simply fighting with Martin does not justify Zimmerman killing Martin precisely because the only sound evidence that could have proved his life was in jeopardy — the severity of his bodily injuries — failed to meet that standard of proof. In short, there is no good reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had to end Martin's life.

What's probably more troubling are the reactions of the brain damaged individuals who inhabit the Liar's Club and those of the totally deranged at "Breitbart's Mausoleum". It is the reaction of the learning impaired at of these locations that make one ashamed of the human race in general-and Americans in particular. If you want some real evidence of the decline of American civilization and the corrupting effects of a fake news organization like Fox News-just read some of the comments there. Then take several showers to wash the filth off of you.

Matthew Rozsa summed it up well-its time for a "J Accuse" type letter to the country as a whole:

Yet millions of people have ignored the facts, and the rather basic logic that can be applied to them, because they want to take his side. Even before the photographs of Zimmerman's injuries were released, or before Martin's character was smeared by Zimmerman's defense attorneys, these same people were scrounging around for ways to defend Zimmerman and condemn the child whose life he took. For all of the talk of political correctness inconveniencing white people, the primary beneficiaries of braindead etiquette are the racists who are allowed to spew their bile and then hide behind disclaimers of their own so-called "color blindness."

I say enough. And I add to that disgust the following:

I accuse George Zimmerman of being a common murderer, for the reasons explained before.

I accuse Zimmerman's defenders of believing that Trayvon Martin deserved to die because he was a black male.

Some of them undoubtedly have deluded themselves into thinking that they aren't racist; others, just as certainly, know that they dislike black people but lie so as to avoid the stigma of being labelled a "racist." All, however, are basing their opinions on the fact that Martin was black. If both men had been white, these same people would never dream of arguing that a heavyset adult male with a firearm could be defended for stalking an unarmed child and killing him. These same people, whether they admit it or not, would rightly dismiss his claim to have acted in self-defense once the aforementioned evidence was presented to them. Because Martin was black, however, they readily bought into the stereotypes our society teaches about African American men, and formed their opinions accordingly.

Finally, I accuse our society of systematically targeting African Americans using the same logic employed by Zimmerman, his supporters, and the Florida jurors.

20 responses so far

Jul 04 2013

Happy Independence Day

Or as the German’s refer to it-just another work day.

But for me it was good-slept for about 12 hours recharging my batteries from hard booming work in Bucharest.

Took the S.O. down to France today-and we did some French wine shopping. Came back to a dinner of Chinese food and German beer. What better way to honor America than by celebrating internationally?

I spent a lot of time today remembering one particular 4th of July, one that truly represented a declaration of Independence for me, 4 July 2000. That literally was a time of great independence for me. I had broken free from the chains of bondage to that unique specimen of womanhood, fat shrew Americanus-and while I still had a many months of legal hassles to work through, to be rid of that and be free to savor the life beyond the marital grave was indeed a wonderful thing. No 4th of July in 13 years hence has had the meaning for me that that particular 4th did.

Because it also represented the freedom from bondage from the “program” of a particular quack, who had 6 months earlier tried to use his medical license to justify his “right” to interfere in my private life. I can honestly say-he is the one person, really the one and only person-that I have hated with a passion that remains unquenchable. To this day I still despise him-and the “system” he misrepresented.  Maybe eventually my hatred for him will dissipate-in the meantime my remembrance of the words, “ a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security” has special personal meaning for me. In other words, through my betrayal and misfortune at his worthless mind and hands-I learned anew for myself about my inner strength and MY RIGHT  to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Perhaps the suffering he inflicted must needs have come-BUT WOE BE UNTO HIM BY WHICH IT CAME. A cheery” fuck you” to him-a worthless excuse for a medical professional. He had no right to interfere in my life then-and he will never have the right or the opportunity again. Neither did his employer-a point he never understood. His job was to dispense medicine-not to make value judgments.   If you want to know where my stridency on the rights of the Sailor came from, while it did not begin there-it most certainly reinforced the need to defend them. I was lucky, I had the means and seniority to break free from his chains. I shudder to think of the long train of victims he inflicted damage to-who never got the chance to break free from his malpractice.

God,  it felt good and liberating to write that-and I only hope that someday he reads it, or better yet I get the chance to deliver the sentiment to him in person. The 13 years of relative victory-with more than a couple of unplanned detours-represent my personal revolution. My independence day victory.

In the final analysis, its the chains that we let be tied around us, they are the ones that really hold us back. Be them from work, or bad personal choices, or money-or the lack thereof-or just simply allowing people to try to exercise a sway they have no right to exert.

Personal declarations of independence are tough-but once in while you can break the bonds that bind you-and find the courage to step boldly into the unknown.

I hope there is still the strength within me to find it again-and to stay on the path less traveled by-for it has made all the difference. Fuck you KMB!

And Happy 4th of July to the rest of you!

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

2 responses so far

Next »

  • Categories

  • Previous Posts

  • ISSUES?

  • Want to subscribe to my feed?

    Add to Google
  • Follow me on Facebook!

    Just look for Skippy San. ( No dash).
  • Topics

  • Meta