Been too long since my last post. When was it I said I was going to try to post twice a day? And the refuckyoucan party loves Amurrka. OK, whatever. So catching up...
I have to admit, I wasn't nearly as pissed off as I expected to be after bummer's SOTU address. Seemed like he was calling out the opposition for their obstructionism and basic asshattery. At least in his fashion. He managed to tell the SCROTUS they fucked our system up with their corporatic decision on campaign finance. As an aside here, that decision points out the true genius of Dubya: Od something so apparently stupid and inept to cover your true evil intent. Harriet Myers, anyone? He never intended for her to sit on the bench. She was named as a smoke screen so he could appoint the one he wanted: Scalito. What were Democrats going to do after bitching about her? Bitch about him? Leave the opening for the, "OK, what the fuck do you want?" accusations? Like they could get off their backs and stop wishing for the belly rub from Refucks that they'll never get. Come on. Anyway...
Aside from that and his minor chiding about having to take responsibility for (the non-existence of) government, he seemed to be the picture of the disappointed dad, talking to his children who he wishes could just for a time, get along before he dies. He seems to really believe his bullshit about bi partisanship... getting along... and all that. Is it still bullshit when you believe it? Or are you just that much more deceived and demented?
Then again, I remember during the primaries,everyone wanted him to drop the gloves with Hillary. Get down in the mud with her, Slug it out, and all that shit. He didn't.
And he won.
Then with McStain and the Talibunny, making their acusations about him being a friend of terrorists, and Muslim (because he attended a Christian church), and a Kenyan, and... Once again everyone was calling for him to call them out and duke it out and put them in their places. He didn't.
And he won.
Will he win this time? Sure looked like that a few days later when he lectured the children at their refuckyoucan retreat. They had NOTHING. He made them look so fucking bad their private noise machine had to turn off. Like Hitler's news channels when Joe Louis beat hell out of Max Schmeling.
I was hopeful until the otherday's news of Shelby placing holds on 70+ Obama appointments. So he could get his own version of a Cornhusker Kickback or Loiusiana Purchase II. That's right, I'm not carrying Obama's water on this one. He has no fucking leg to stand on. He's already given in to the proverbial gun to the head with Landrieu, Nelson and LIEberbitch. What moral high ground does he have to refuse Shelby?
None
OK.... game time...
I tried my first Brisket. I have a long way to go to learn the art of slow cooking.
Supposedly it takes 1 1/2 (give or take) hours per pound at 225 - 250 deg F. I can't get my Green Egg grill that cold and still cook. I get it hotter and it cooks too fast. A couple of months ago, I did a pork shoulder. The internal temp hadn't budged after 6 hours at the low temps.
My 8 1/2 lbs brisket was at 170 after 4 hours @ 300. It was at 210 after 10 hrs. And that time includes 4 1/2 hrs with the fire shut down, burping the heat out of the grill every 10-15 mins or so. I was planning on 14 hrs of cooking, so I could pull it off at halftime and slice it after the game. Now it's already be resting and I'll be cutting it before the fucking game. Oh well. Live and learn.
Oh well. With luck it'll turn out better then the healthcare fiasco.
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Day of Infamy II
Judicial restraint vs judicial activism. Ah, yes. We've been told time and again now that we can't trust those liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench.
So when the Roberts gang took up "Citizens United vs FEC" naturally they would restrict themselves to the case before them. Right? It would be the liberals/leftist judges -- Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer, and especially that loose cannon wise Latina, Sonya Sotomayor -- who would seek to reach beyond the confines of the case. Right? They would be the ones to overturn settled law and precedent. Right?
WRONG!
Seems as though the Roberts reactionaries looked at every case BUT the case before them, as they overturn roughly 100 yrs of precedent, and declare that we are entitled to the finest government corporations can buy. Insanity.
No, it's beyond insanity. This is a death sentence for government as we've known it. Remember who appointed this ass wipe. As a reward for coaching his lawyers as they prepared to argue before his former boss and SCOTUS in 2000. Can't get away from that slimeball's legacy.
Now before you go on and say something about how that's a good thing, seeins how government's broken, consider that the last time corporations were in control of things -- the 1920s -- we were able to elect a president and government that in turn shackled them and laid the foundations for a period of stability that only ended with the Reagan policies of voodoo economics with his massive tax cut induced deficits, further fueled by ideologically mandated deregulation induced financial instability. Oh....
I forgot. St Ronnie did no wrong. He's the one who ended the Roosevelt Depression. But I digress....
The Constitution has been turned on it's head. The Bill of Rights has been turned against us. I know there will be suggestions that we amend the Constitution to somehow redefine people or declare that it only pertains to natural born citizens or some such thing. Do that and the literalist knuckle dragging conservatards will then declare that it cannot regulate anything Non Living, Such as corporations.
I guess the big question now is, Who chooses the big cheese? Oil? Insurance? Pharma? Coal?
In-Bev?
China?
So when the Roberts gang took up "Citizens United vs FEC" naturally they would restrict themselves to the case before them. Right? It would be the liberals/leftist judges -- Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer, and especially that loose cannon wise Latina, Sonya Sotomayor -- who would seek to reach beyond the confines of the case. Right? They would be the ones to overturn settled law and precedent. Right?
WRONG!
Seems as though the Roberts reactionaries looked at every case BUT the case before them, as they overturn roughly 100 yrs of precedent, and declare that we are entitled to the finest government corporations can buy. Insanity.
No, it's beyond insanity. This is a death sentence for government as we've known it. Remember who appointed this ass wipe. As a reward for coaching his lawyers as they prepared to argue before his former boss and SCOTUS in 2000. Can't get away from that slimeball's legacy.
Now before you go on and say something about how that's a good thing, seeins how government's broken, consider that the last time corporations were in control of things -- the 1920s -- we were able to elect a president and government that in turn shackled them and laid the foundations for a period of stability that only ended with the Reagan policies of voodoo economics with his massive tax cut induced deficits, further fueled by ideologically mandated deregulation induced financial instability. Oh....
I forgot. St Ronnie did no wrong. He's the one who ended the Roosevelt Depression. But I digress....
The Constitution has been turned on it's head. The Bill of Rights has been turned against us. I know there will be suggestions that we amend the Constitution to somehow redefine people or declare that it only pertains to natural born citizens or some such thing. Do that and the literalist knuckle dragging conservatards will then declare that it cannot regulate anything Non Living, Such as corporations.
I guess the big question now is, Who chooses the big cheese? Oil? Insurance? Pharma? Coal?
In-Bev?
China?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Sotomayor...
OK. Here's the deal:
They hate her, because Obama picked her.
Fucker never learns either. He bends over backwards to try to meet these assholes in the center and they still fling shit at him.
Who was the C'tard on the Judiciary Committee who walked out of the hearings on Roberts/Scalito after saying that the issue of SCOTUS appointments was settled when Dubya stole his election(s)?
Of course we know the things Refuckyoucans say, don't apply to them.
They hate her, because Obama picked her.
Fucker never learns either. He bends over backwards to try to meet these assholes in the center and they still fling shit at him.
Who was the C'tard on the Judiciary Committee who walked out of the hearings on Roberts/Scalito after saying that the issue of SCOTUS appointments was settled when Dubya stole his election(s)?
Of course we know the things Refuckyoucans say, don't apply to them.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Basic Problem of Conservatism.
I used the title phrase here, and Dale asked me about it in comments. Rather than bury the answer, and since I'm too stupid to figure out how to put hyper links in my comments, I decided to make my answer a full fledged post. So here goes...:
I tried to explain the basic problem of conservatism in my first post. It's difficult to explain, because as I see it, true belief in conservatism requires the total suspension of reason. It is only through its failure that Conservatism proves itself correct. Even before Reagan, conservatives were for free, unregulated markets, which led to the Robber Barons, monopolies, crazed speculation on the stock and commodities markets, and then the Great Depression. Those same principles are fucking up our economy now. It doesn't really matter how far back you go, to try to find a particular brand of Conservatism. They're all at their roots, the same. Dubyaism is just Conservatism on steroids. OK, with some hubris, insanity and despotism thrown in.
A conservative once told me that the government's job was to "protect the borders." How? Militarily? OK. But what about from illegal immigrants? From the introduction of infectious disease? From lead painted toys? From tainted food stuffs? From cheap, shoddy goods made by slave labor? Those are just a few things I think Government should consider when protesting our borders, and we're not even getting to, "...promote the general welfare and ensure the prospects of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." (from the Preamble to the Constitution)
Small government, like the idea of trickle down economics, is a Conservative mantra. You were just a tot when Reagan ran for Pres, but he ran on an anti-government platform. I've quoted him here, and I know I've said it to you, but the one I really love: "I've often thought that the Nine most feared words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Then he would go on to explain that government cannot solve problems; that government IS the problem. So Ron... as leader of the nation, what will you do? Nothing; Government CAN'T do anything. Reagan set the presidential vacation record that Dubya broke.
Conservatism seems to hold this as an inherent problem, that can only be solved through deregulation and privatization, and conservatives will often go to great lengths to prove this. Bush has over and over again appointed cronies and incompetents to head programs and agencies, with sad results. It's not by accident; it's by design. It's so that they'll get people to say things like, "Look at how the State department fucks up passports. Sure as hell don't want those assholes running health care." Things don't have to be that way. They are that way, because want them that way; because it makes them seem right.
So what about Conservative programs that work? I really can't think of any. Certainly not like Social Security, FHA and the rest of FDR's New Deal. What about the EPA? True that was started by Nixon, and Nixon was a Republican, but he wasn't necessarily a conservative. He also tried to institute a comprehensive health care plan, OSHA, Affirmative Action and tried to control inflation through a price and wage control board. Not exactly free market small gov stuff there. Eisenhower was also a Republican, but besides fucking up the White House floors with his golf shoes, I can't say what he did. I remember he was quoted that he ran as a Republican to "save the two-party system."
Reagan... good old Ronnie Raygun. The guy the Refuckyoucans worship, emulate, imitate and see on Mt Rushmore during their wet dreams. Gutted the civil rights act, affirmative action, the EPA... discontinued all the Carter initiatives into alternative fuels and conservation... tried to start drilling in ANWR... dumped shitloads of money into stuff like Star Wars... set the deficit records that Dubya broke... deregulated the airlines, so they could become the models of efficiency they are today... busted unions... So he appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court and she turned out to be a centrist/swing vote, but he also appointed Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy when he couldn't get Bork -- who was truly bugfuck crazy -- appointed. "Amnesty" for illegal immigrants? A Liberal idea? NOPE.
Basically, if a conservative Refuckyoucan administration ever instituted a program that worked, they would prove Reagan wrong. They have NO incentive to succeed. They purposely break government programs and then replace them with shit from deregulated private industries. They make the army more efficient by taking away duties like cooking meals and trucking fuel, resulting in scamming and over charging by KBR and others. Not to mention soldiers getting sick from tainted water. They offer "improved service" from public utilities supposedly through competition by deregulating and privatizing, resulting in power grid failures, rolling blackouts, massive rate increases, and ENRON. Could you fucking imagine privatized Social Security, backed by securities packages backed by sub-prime mortgages?
These are a few of their favorite things... when the dog bites... when the bee stings... when they're feeling sad. They simply deregulate some other thing, and then they don't feeeeeel soooo baaaaaaad.
Fucked up government is good for Conservatives.
I tried to explain the basic problem of conservatism in my first post. It's difficult to explain, because as I see it, true belief in conservatism requires the total suspension of reason. It is only through its failure that Conservatism proves itself correct. Even before Reagan, conservatives were for free, unregulated markets, which led to the Robber Barons, monopolies, crazed speculation on the stock and commodities markets, and then the Great Depression. Those same principles are fucking up our economy now. It doesn't really matter how far back you go, to try to find a particular brand of Conservatism. They're all at their roots, the same. Dubyaism is just Conservatism on steroids. OK, with some hubris, insanity and despotism thrown in.
A conservative once told me that the government's job was to "protect the borders." How? Militarily? OK. But what about from illegal immigrants? From the introduction of infectious disease? From lead painted toys? From tainted food stuffs? From cheap, shoddy goods made by slave labor? Those are just a few things I think Government should consider when protesting our borders, and we're not even getting to, "...promote the general welfare and ensure the prospects of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." (from the Preamble to the Constitution)
Small government, like the idea of trickle down economics, is a Conservative mantra. You were just a tot when Reagan ran for Pres, but he ran on an anti-government platform. I've quoted him here, and I know I've said it to you, but the one I really love: "I've often thought that the Nine most feared words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Then he would go on to explain that government cannot solve problems; that government IS the problem. So Ron... as leader of the nation, what will you do? Nothing; Government CAN'T do anything. Reagan set the presidential vacation record that Dubya broke.
Conservatism seems to hold this as an inherent problem, that can only be solved through deregulation and privatization, and conservatives will often go to great lengths to prove this. Bush has over and over again appointed cronies and incompetents to head programs and agencies, with sad results. It's not by accident; it's by design. It's so that they'll get people to say things like, "Look at how the State department fucks up passports. Sure as hell don't want those assholes running health care." Things don't have to be that way. They are that way, because want them that way; because it makes them seem right.
So what about Conservative programs that work? I really can't think of any. Certainly not like Social Security, FHA and the rest of FDR's New Deal. What about the EPA? True that was started by Nixon, and Nixon was a Republican, but he wasn't necessarily a conservative. He also tried to institute a comprehensive health care plan, OSHA, Affirmative Action and tried to control inflation through a price and wage control board. Not exactly free market small gov stuff there. Eisenhower was also a Republican, but besides fucking up the White House floors with his golf shoes, I can't say what he did. I remember he was quoted that he ran as a Republican to "save the two-party system."
Reagan... good old Ronnie Raygun. The guy the Refuckyoucans worship, emulate, imitate and see on Mt Rushmore during their wet dreams. Gutted the civil rights act, affirmative action, the EPA... discontinued all the Carter initiatives into alternative fuels and conservation... tried to start drilling in ANWR... dumped shitloads of money into stuff like Star Wars... set the deficit records that Dubya broke... deregulated the airlines, so they could become the models of efficiency they are today... busted unions... So he appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court and she turned out to be a centrist/swing vote, but he also appointed Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy when he couldn't get Bork -- who was truly bugfuck crazy -- appointed. "Amnesty" for illegal immigrants? A Liberal idea? NOPE.
Basically, if a conservative Refuckyoucan administration ever instituted a program that worked, they would prove Reagan wrong. They have NO incentive to succeed. They purposely break government programs and then replace them with shit from deregulated private industries. They make the army more efficient by taking away duties like cooking meals and trucking fuel, resulting in scamming and over charging by KBR and others. Not to mention soldiers getting sick from tainted water. They offer "improved service" from public utilities supposedly through competition by deregulating and privatizing, resulting in power grid failures, rolling blackouts, massive rate increases, and ENRON. Could you fucking imagine privatized Social Security, backed by securities packages backed by sub-prime mortgages?
These are a few of their favorite things... when the dog bites... when the bee stings... when they're feeling sad. They simply deregulate some other thing, and then they don't feeeeeel soooo baaaaaaad.
Fucked up government is good for Conservatives.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Has SCOTUS Declared War on Costco?
(Am I alone in this? Does SCOTUS make you think of Scrotum / Scrota? )
On my way to work yesterday, I was kinda pissed to find that Stephanie Miller was on vacation. I like Elaine Boosler OK and all that, but she's not Steph. But I listened. After all, it was easier than searching my '68 Mustang's AM dial for something different. Well...
They got talking about the Supreme Court's recent decisions, and dropped this one in the mix.
The bastards overturned a decision from 1911. The first thought that came to mind was, "What'll this do to COSTCO?" Miraculously, I didn't forget about it during the day, and went looking last night, after making my Libby rant. I'm nothing close to a legal scholar, but what it looks like to me, is that SCOTUS has allowed manufacturers to tell retailers the minimum they have to charge us for their products. Kennedy in his majority opinion, seemed to go to great links to try to explain how this will benefit consumers and spur competition. I don't see it.
With all the hubbub about the recent decisions regarding abortion and school segregation, I don't know if this one's going to get much play in any media, but it should. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to show a lack of respect for precedent and settled law, as well as showing how little respect the conservative side of the court has for the rights and needs of those of us struggling to stretch our hard earned cash.
On my way to work yesterday, I was kinda pissed to find that Stephanie Miller was on vacation. I like Elaine Boosler OK and all that, but she's not Steph. But I listened. After all, it was easier than searching my '68 Mustang's AM dial for something different. Well...
They got talking about the Supreme Court's recent decisions, and dropped this one in the mix.
The bastards overturned a decision from 1911. The first thought that came to mind was, "What'll this do to COSTCO?" Miraculously, I didn't forget about it during the day, and went looking last night, after making my Libby rant. I'm nothing close to a legal scholar, but what it looks like to me, is that SCOTUS has allowed manufacturers to tell retailers the minimum they have to charge us for their products. Kennedy in his majority opinion, seemed to go to great links to try to explain how this will benefit consumers and spur competition. I don't see it.
With all the hubbub about the recent decisions regarding abortion and school segregation, I don't know if this one's going to get much play in any media, but it should. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to show a lack of respect for precedent and settled law, as well as showing how little respect the conservative side of the court has for the rights and needs of those of us struggling to stretch our hard earned cash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
