Ding! Ding! Ding! Roger Eggbert Goes OFF!

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110414/REVIEWS/110419990

Poor Roger Eggbert. Forced to sit through such tedium when all he really wants is his leftism spoon-fed to him in some pablum. I'm not sure when he turned into such an asshole, but he really is.

I feel like my arm is all warmed up and I don’t have a game to pitch. I was primed to review "Atlas Shrugged." I figured it might provide a parable of Ayn Rand’s philosophy that I could discuss. For me, that philosophy reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what it sounds like to you. Oddly enough, you share that view entirely - remember when you, Mister Rich Man, wrote that piece about how you didn't want to be kept alive artificially and then you almost died but your wife said not to pull the plug? And after much expensive intervention (which I'm sure didn't cost you a dime in premiums or expenses; thus we could ALL afford it) you lived after all and you were glad? And this is why you want all of us to be forced into Obamacare and lose our good insurance plans? Yeah, pot? Meet kettle. Ebert's on board, pull up the lifeline. Hypocrite.

There are however people who take Ayn Rand even more seriously than comic-book fans take "Watchmen." I expect to receive learned and sarcastic lectures on the pathetic failings of my review.

No sirrah, I shall merely point and laugh. And express my contempt.

And now I am faced with this movie, the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault.

Yeah I remember that. Millions of people watched it. And his career is still cooking along last I checked. Even if he is a bit of a dingbat.

I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all

Ok, so first off, you didn't understand it. I wouldn't brag about that, but OK - we shall keep in mind that you do not understand what you are reviewing. As a matter of fact, you should have stopped right there.

and I doubt they will be happy with it.

So OK. Let’s say you know the novel, you agree with Ayn Rand, you’re an objectivist or a libertarian, and you’ve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. It’s not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?

Well, to be entertained it is likely one would need to actually understand the film in the first place, no? Normally if I don't understand something I don't feel justified in mocking it. I would normally at least bother clicking a few links to understand the subject matter at least a tad first; maybe even ask a few questions. As to people who understand it not liking it?

Well, sorry Dilbert but that's a HUGE fail. See, http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/2011/02/earlybird-reviews-of-the-full-atlas-shrugged-movie-spectacular-solid-faithful/ we've got glowing reviews from David Kelley, Hans Schantz, Big Hollywood, REASON.com, Hustle Bear http://hustlebear.com/2011/02/28/im-so-relieved-the-atlas-shrugged-movie-was-fantastic/, and oddly enough the MOST glowing review comes from an Ayn Rand biographer, Barbara Branden. See what a difference understanding the subject matter makes? Except I think you're playing dumb just a little in order to have more negative things to say. You pretty quickly pulled the words "objectivist" and "libertarian" out of your muddled little brain, didn't you? Wonder how that happened.

Based on the one leaked scene I've already seen, I'm aching for more - see, movies are so endlessly, tediously left-oriented, you BET we're waiting for this.

For the rest of us,

Us? You're rich; you're not one of us. Nyah!

it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms.

So there goes the pretense that you didn't understand it. You know exactly what you're doing. You just don't LIKE it.

During these meetings, everybody drinks. More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of oenophiliacs. There are conversations in English after which I sometimes found myself asking, "What did they just say?" The dialogue seems to have been ripped throbbing with passion from the pages of Investors’ Business Daily. Much of the excitement centers on the tensile strength of steel.

The story involves Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling), a young woman who controls a railroad company named Taggart Transcontinental (its motto: "Ocean to Ocean"). She is a fearless and visionary entrepreneur, who is determined to use a revolutionary new steel to repair her train tracks. Vast forces seem to conspire against her.

It’s a few years in the future. America has become a state in which mediocrity is the goal, and high-achieving individuals the enemy.

I'm sorry, how is that the future again? Oh, yeah, it isn't. It's NOW. And don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about as you rail against greedy evil corporations and greedy evil rich people and how much more they should be forced to hand over and how much they should be shackled and regulated. Because that isn't going to work. We're onto that shit.

Laws have been passed prohibiting companies from owning other companies

Sounds like you understand it. Remember that next time you scream for "regulation! Stop the deregulation of business! More regulation!"

Dagny’s new steel, which is produced by her sometime lover, Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler), has been legislated against because it’s better than other steels.

Ah, the Handicapper General in Harrison Bergeron. Who wrote that, Vonnegut? Yes indeed How futuristic is THAT? I mean, nothing like that goes on in the real world today, right? (I could start with "progressive" taxation but that's a tad obvious...we'll look into this "futuristic" reality more later. I'm interested now.)

The Union of Railroad Engineers has decided it will not operate Dagny’s trains.

I could have sworn there were a few unions right NOW that were refusing to do their jobs unless their pay was raised and their power extended...now where did I read about that? Hmmm...

Just to show you how bad things have become, a government minister announces "a tax will be applied to the state of Colorado, in order to equalize our national economy." So you see how governments and unions are the enemy of visionary entrepreneurs.

Hmm, yes, I can see how unrealistic...oh, wait. Spread that wealth around, Ebert! I accept Mastercard and Visa.

But you’re thinking, railroads? Yes, although airplanes exist in this future, trains are where it’s at.

Um...well I guess I missed the part where freight is hauled now largely by airplane and not by trucks and trains and boats. I'll remember next time I have to sit for ten minutes and wait for the freight train to finally get past. Oddly, I just got done spending two years in shipping/receiving for a large warehouse - we didn't have many pilots coming in to get their paperwork signed; it was all truck drivers. Stupid regressive company. And what president and vice president have recently been going on and on and on about how the key to the future is high-speed trains? Hmm...I can't quite remember who said it...

When I was 6, my Aunt Martha brought me to Chicago to attend the great Railroad Fair of 1948, at which the nation’s rail companies celebrated the wonders that were on the way. They didn’t quite foresee mass air transportation. "Atlas Shrugged" seems to buy into the fair’s glowing vision of the future of trains.

So do a certain president and vice president. Their names still escape me.

Rarely, perhaps never, has television news covered the laying of new railroad track with the breathless urgency of the news channels shown in this movie.

Now here's where I stop and let you in on something; there's a reason for that. See, a thousand page book that is not just a story, not just an economics lesson but also a philosophy involves a lot of EXPOSITION. And it's very difficult to translate that exposition into another media, another format, like film. I think it's quite a clever idea to do it using the news. Especially after the collective four year orgasm we've had to watch in the media concerning a certain president whose name still escapes me.

It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?

The movie is constructed of a few kinds of scenes: (1) People sipping their drinks in clubby surroundings and exchanging dialogue that sounds like corporate lingo; (2) railroads, and lots of ’em; (3) limousines driving through cities in ruin and arriving at ornate buildings; (4) city skylines; (5) the beauties of Colorado. There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.

See, I happen to know something concerning Ayn Rand and city skylines; that just tells me the people behind this film really GOT it. Ayn Rand did not believe in building memorials. She believed that the NY Skyline WAS our memorial. So, win.

Oh, and there is Wisconsin. Dagny and Hank ride blissfully in Taggart’s new high-speed train, and then Hank suggests they take a trip to Wisconsin, where the state’s policies caused the suppression of an engine that runs on the ozone in the air, or something (the film’s detailed explanation won’t clear this up). They decide to drive there. That’s when you’ll enjoy the beautiful landscape photography of the deserts of Wisconsin. My advice to the filmmakers: If you want to use a desert, why not just refer to Wisconsin as "New Mexico"?

Um...yeah I could see where that would really annoy...what? See, you're failing in even the rudimentary aspects of your profession here. This film has been optioned for a long long time. Many years. The last time they tried to make it their female lead (Angelina Jolie) had to drop out; there have been millions spent in other attempts. The option was going to run out in TWO MONTHS, so the filmmaker had two MONTHS in which to get the screenplay written, gather the money, select a cast and start production or he would have lost it altogether and the tens of millions he has spent. So, like the good little sheeple you are, instead of rewarding the fact that these people have pulled off a spectacular feat - an Herculean feat, one which all the other reviewers are lauding as something that was impossible, but pulled off spectacularly, you choose to...gee, you choose to punish achievement don't you? Good boy! Now roll over play dead. No, I won't scratch your tummy.

"Atlas Shrugged" closes with a title card saying, "End of Part 1." Frequently throughout the film, characters repeat the phrase, "Who is John Galt?" Well they might ask. A man in black, always shot in shadow, is apparently John Galt. If you want to get a good look at him and find out why everybody is asking, I hope you can find out in Part 2. I don’t think you can hold out for Part 3.

Well most of us already know - this story has been around for 50+ years and "going Galt" is part of a pretty familiar lexicon even to people who haven't read it. And honestly he wasn't supposed to make an appearance until part 3, but they have to give us a LITTLE something, don't they? Call it an Easter Egg. And I'll call your review a big fat juicy turd. No, I don't have to see the movie first; see, we've already established one can pronounce judgment without understanding, so there it is.

Irresponsible: if you can't see it, watch it at Moonbattery

My Idol - Stephen King

Ok so I been reading the guy thirty years or more; I CAN'T HELP IT. Though I gotta say his last book screwed with my head in a very bad, very unfunny way. When he named it "Full Dark, No Stars" he wasn't kidding; this is PITCH black shit. And frankly his last line in the afterword felt like a kick in the face. My daughter assures me it was sarcastic...but I'm not sure. At any rate, he made a comment about Sstephanie Meyer (SP?) and her idiotic "Twilight" books. You a "Twilight" fan? Fuck off then. I hated the first book so much I only read it twice (and lemme tell you, if I only read your stupid book twice YOU SUCK.) He made the comparison between that and the author of the Harry Potter series, saying that at least SHE could WRITE. Now I only read the first three of the Potter series but I would willingly read the rest. SHE actually CAN write. And Meyer can't. So for my enjoyment I am going to include a commentary (a rare commentary since he doesn't talk much) by King about the flap. Oh, you didn't know there was a flap? Well THERE WAS. Twilight fans - all the sad dancing hipsters and emos and whoever the hell else they are had a FIT about the comment. Hahaha - hey, I might find sad dancing hipsters sexy (like 'em young and at least they have the sense NOT to wear loose pants and wear their hair long) but their taste in literature SUCKS.

Here's the commentary: Doesn't matter if it's cut off because there's no movement.

Cry, Baby, Cry! KOS Nooz.

BONUS AT THE END FOR MY READERS!!

Ok this is gonna be a long one, but I assure you it's worth it. Liz at rightnation.us braved the cesspool that is KOS to bring it to us and I'ma rip it to shreds one delicious bite at a time.

As the last election cycle demonstrated, reckless government has awoken the sleeping giant at last (boy was he sleeping hard) and while it must NEVER be pleasant to be a leftist, it's about to get one hell of a lot harder for a long time to come. Too many years we had to be "above" their sleazy level, be the better person, compassionate conservatism blahdeblahdeblah. The bashing was ceaseless, constant, it became like white noise and Bush for all his faults didn't crumple under it and have a mental breakdown. Sure some of us have been angry for a long time, but now millions upon millions more are angry and what's more they're done playing that game. The one some of us knew they could never win anyway. Ok, on to the KOS post that so inspired me - because the taste of their tears is sweet like candy, like sugar, like milk and honey. KOS - you EARNED this and I'mma give it to you.

First, the link - Title: Unsubscribed from Organizing For America - Moved to Tears - we'll see if Markos scrubs it like he does so many other things. I've got it anyway. Title "Unsubscribed from Organizing for America - Moved to Tears. By a man.

I watched some of President Obama's comments in his press conference today, one day after I sent him a letter in response to an Organizing for America email, expressing my disappointment in some of his policies and his proposal to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.

I'm sure he'd already received it and it was his number one priority to address your letter. He didn't have anything better to do that day anyway. Not even a golf game in sight. Now what are we talking about - HIS proposal to extend the tax cuts? HIS proposal? No, honey, let me explain this to you - our guys were not going to play ball on that one, no way no how. And apparently with Obama you don't even have to be in your seat yet; you just have to not blink. They didn't blink. See, it was all or nothing on that one - let the taxes increase for *everyone* - including you leftist bloggers and the people barely scraping by paycheck to paycheck (not that you'd know about THAT; that involves WORK) - or leave the tax rates as they are across the board. He knew how you'd scream if your paychecks (those of you who get them) got smaller and frankly, he also knew it would be wrong to do that to them. He doesn't get why it's wrong to do it to the richer people, but he got that it would be wrong to do to the poorer among us. You didn't get that memo or didn't understand it. Moving on then, since you're a wordy fucker.

Today I saw a president openly mocking and disparaging the principled activists of his party. He sounded like he didn't want my support or the support of any progressives -- that he is done with us and plans to make no attempt to woo us by embracing any of our principles and policy preferences as he has done so frequently and self-abasedly with conservative Republicans.

First of all...WOO you? What are you, 14? An idiot? It is not the president's job to "woo" you - that's called campaigning. See, he's got the job now and he has to, like, DO it. I know, foreign concept. He doesn't have time to KEEP stroking your schlong for you anymore every second of every freaking day - not if he wants to get anything at all done; you people are ENDLESSLY greedy for stroking and you expect it from the guy as your birthright; well grow up.

Second of all, I watched the thing, and what I saw was a man who was TRYING to explain this all to you in very simple terms why it had to happen this way. They weren't lobbing softballs or writing puff pieces this time; this was his time to "get even" with the GOP and you were thirsty for conservative blood, and you thought he could get it for you. He couldn't. And you were galled. Surprisingly enough, not at them for being so insistent, but at HIM this time. I don't think he saw that one a'comin'. Because you built this man up to be a God...well he's a God who BLEEDS! (5 pts for reference.) The FIRST TIME he meets up with the new folk, he strikes a pretty even compromise (you know, that thing you're always telling conservatives to do?) and you call that "frequently and self-abasedly with Republicans"??? Are you kidding me? What in the hell are you going to do for two years when he's forced to make bigger compromises and take bigger losses? Do your heads go 'splodey or what? Because even Olbermann went on an unbelievable rant already; spewing the same shit he always does, only this time at his own guy instead of teh ebil Bush. My God, when it comes time to defund Obamacare and actually make cuts, what happens to you? I can't wait to find out.

But you know, if you had any sense at all, you would have actually listened to his explanation. He even did it your way - he blamed the Republicans for it (you say blame, I say credit - potayto potahto) - and you still wouldn't listen? Why? He was telling the truth (loosely defined) and in all likelihood he did his best (he did come out with a few things of his own, you know) but his best isn't going to be everything you want it to be - nobody's best could be, and this time he's up against real competition for the first time. This time he didn't have an entire congress and senate full of supporters to ram it through without reading it first. (Well...technically he DID, but whatever. I'm not really sure why he had to do this.) And you take his explanations as mockery of you? Get over yourself. He read your fucking letter and he did the best he could about it!

He sounded like he would not even try to "earn back my support and the support of the millions of progressive Democrats, especially young people like myself who invested so much hope in your candidacy two years ago," as I asked him to do in my letter.

Like I said, he read it first thing, and he really tried, my darling. Earning your support is his #1 priority. Along with his 8 thousand other number one priorities.

Then, this evening, I got another email from OFA, asking me to watch a video of President Obama promoting the Republican tax cuts for the rich and to leave a comment as feedback to the Obama campaign. I watched the video and left the following comment:

Whoah whoah - back up there, buddy boy. There were no tax cuts involved here - not for the wealthy. What was on the table was maintaining current tax RATES, not making cuts. Please do get your facts straight on this because it's rather important. Tax cuts come later. Coming soon to a district near you!

* Eric Stetson's diary :: :: * I think President Obama is making a big mistake by moving so far to the right and essentially doing exactly what Republicans want, a tax policy that will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars and necessitate deep spending cuts that will be devastating to the economy.

Ok, how can I explain this one. First of all, the guy couldn't be more leftist if he were Stalin. He REALLY IS on your side. He studied and believes in Marx. He was raised into Islamicism. He finds it beautiful. He makes grandiose speeches to Middle Eastern Islamic leaders about how wonderful they are and bows to them when he can. This "move so far to the right" was an ever-so-slight swerve to avoid a massive pothole - if you think this is moving to the right, you are in for a VERY rude awakening. He hasn't even thought of coming close to the middle yet, and he's going to have to (or he'll have to use his own unemployment plan).

Second of all snookums, the Republicans did NOT get exactly what they want - not by a long shot. They made what is called a compromise wherein each side gives up something and try to come out fairly even. It was too soon for cuts, and continuing unemployment was not a bad one to compromise on for the Rs. With all due respect to Mark Levin, my favorite, this was not at all a bad deal for either side. Certainly not this early in the game.

Lastly, maintaining tax rates does not devastate the economy - tax hikes do. To stimulate the economy you make tax CUTS. You see, the government doesn't CREATE wealth and as Obama found to his chagrin, there are no such things as "shovel-ready jobs" like he thought there were. You make a couple trillion dollars fiat money and that doesn't put everyone to work building highways, unfortunately. All it does is create enormous debt. If you want the economy to grow, government has to GET OUT OF THE WAY of business so it can DO business and put people to work earning sweet sweet dough. That's how the real world works.

I was an enthusiastic supporter and volunteer in Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign, but I am very disappointed with his presidency so far. I was disappointed that he did not fight for a public option in the health care reform bill. I was disappointed that he did not close the Guantanamo Bay prison. I was disappointed that he did not allow investigations of high ranking Bush administration officials who authorized the use of torture. I was disappointed that he escalated the war in Afghanistan.

Ok you mixed them in together but let me pick 'em apart for you. He DID fight for a public option and wasn't able to get it if he wanted his health care plan to go through at all. I don't know why since he had both houses firmly stacked, but that's just how it went. They had to pick something out of that monstrosity, and that was the bit that got taken out of that MASSIVE chunk of bill. He got the rest of it through, or did you miss that part?

Now, Guantanamo Bay - you see, I know he WANTED to do that and YOU wanted him to do that but that was never going to happen. Because once he got there, you see, he found out that you really CAN'T do that. You really CAN'T, as we've tried to explain to you for YEARS now, simply let terrorist enemy combatants loose in the world, and the civil court is certainly not equipped to deal with them. So there has been a stalemate, or another sort of compromise - you don't set them loose or bring them through civil court, and we won't put them in front of a tribunal as SHOULD be done. See how that works? They get to live - in comfort - but they don't get OUT. Until we can get them properly before tribunals, that's how it's going to have to be, and Obama had to face this hard REALITY pretty quickly. You haven't caught on yet is all.

He hasn't brought the troops home and he's escalating efforts in the worst possible area (Afghanistan isn't worth it and doesn't need it) because the man has no foreign policy or military experience, which we told you in the first place. You knew that's what Biden was there for, but Biden is busy eating burritos or something, faking an Indian accent to get into the 7/11. So Joe's a little busy to help with foreign policy decisions. Actually, the man was such an embarrassment they had to shut him up permanently, but we won't talk about that. Many lulz have been denied us that should have been ours from Biden, so I will hold that against you.

At any rate, while he WANTS to simply bring the troops home and declare the Iraq efforts over and done, he was faced with another harsh reality which we have tried ENDLESSLY to explain to you - you SIMPLY. CAN. NOT. DO. THAT. It doesn't work that way. I'll leave it to our friends with military experience to explain to you why this is so. But trust me, it is.

As to "investigating" Bush's policies and trying to prosecute a defunct administration, that was never going to happen. I don't even believe he made any promises to that effect, either. You see, that takes years for one thing. For another thing, he actually has access to the information now, and he knows your rhetoric was mostly all bullshit and there's nothing to prosecute. Caterpillars do not equal torture no matter how you spin it. And while he was wasting his time dicking around trying to find something and prosecute the previous administration, he wouldn't have had a single moment to ram through all the pork you demanded. Which he DID. So you ought to be really, really glad he didn't waste his time on that bullshit.

Extending the Republican tax cuts for the rich is the last straw for me. I can no longer call myself a supporter of President Obama. I hope he will step aside at the end of his term and let other Democrats who actually believe in Democratic principles and policies run for president in 2012.

Slight correction - maintaining current tax rates for everyone. There, fixed it for you. Step aside for another Dem? Who in the hell else do you think is going to be able to A) win and B) get what you want done? You fool! But OK; I have no problem with him stepping aside. Bring it on; whoever you want.

And then I clicked the link to unsubscribe from the Organizing for America email list. I didn't do it lightly. I have thought of doing it before, but never actually did it.

You're gonna...un...un...unsubscribe??? Shit just got real.

Maybe it was my memory of the weekends I spent walking neighborhoods, knocking on doors, passing out literature and attempting to persuade people to vote for this man in the crucial swing state of Virginia.

Yeah I remember that to. He told you to "get in their faces", remember that? He told you to go to the barbershops and beauty shops and your neighbors and get in their faces and tell them who to vote for. And you did it. Seems a little funny now, doesn't it? Yeah, we thought so too.

I was always hoping that at some point, President Obama would surprise me by restoring the hope I had invested in him in his campaign.

Problem with that, dollface, is that "Hope and Change" were a campaign slogan. There was absolutely no meaning behind it. You can't just say "Hope! Change!" without defining your terms. See, we were real specific with our candidates about what they need to do when they're there, or at least try to do. You voted for an empty suit with an empty slogan with no definition. But I'm sorry your poor little hope was just dashed against the rocks like seafoam. Oh, wait. No, I'm not. You're a filthy hatemongering KOStard and I hate you back.

There is such a deliberate finality about taking the action of unsubscribing from the mailing list of an organization that one used to support strongly and in which one made a significant investment. Finally I did it.

ZOMG YOU DID? Cue up the violins, I think he's gonna solo! Then what happened, Eric?

I felt a sick feeling in my stomach and found tears welling up in my eyes. I don't cry easily. I certainly didn't expect that the simple act of unsubscribing from a political mailing list would have such an effect on me, but somehow it did.

Yeah, I think that's the definition of "crying easy." But hey, that's just me. I was sorely disappointed when Fred Thompson dropped out because no one else was suitable, but hey, life goes on. I didn't, like, cry over it.

I think my tears came because of a realization that suddenly hit me full force like a punch in the gut: that Barack Obama will go down in history as a tragic figure, a classic, archetypal example of a man who had so much potential to be a great, transformational leader at a time when the society in which he lived desperately needed such a leader and actually elected him to lead our country in a new direction.

Oh, please. You guys are constantly writing and rewriting and rewriting history before it even happens. You were never taught so you don't have the vaguest concept of history. If the grownups hadn't come in to save him midterm he COULD have gone down as another Carter - an utter failure who led us into some of the deepest misery seen since the Great Depression. Ever hear of the Misery Index? Gas lines? Look into it sometime. But now he won't even get that chance. If he's lucky he'll go down like another Clinton - saved two years in by the efforts of others that he took credit for and got rewarded with a second term for. That's gonna take a hell of a lot of luck, though. Because, see, you didn't count on us. You thought we'd NEVER strike back in significant numbers. You didn't know you'd awoken a sleeping giant with your constant streams of daily invective and utter, mouth-foaming hatred. But you did. The giant am awake now, and he's PISSED. We're done playing pussyfoot with you people. Oh you had it so easy with mild-mannered Bush...you just don't know what's coming your way this time.

And who took the rare opportunity given to him and threw it away, becoming just another typical politician making backroom deals for less than half a loaf -- mere crumbs, in fact, and crumbs spiked with poison -- becoming an accessory to the continued decline of American civilization, shattering the hopes of millions. When he could have been so much more.

First of all, no he couldn't have. He hadn't the vaguest notion of what being president would mean and he had no experience whatsoever. The guy was in way over his head from day one. Second of all, spare me the damned melodrama - the guy did one HELL of a lot more damage than "crumbs" (poisoned ones! Oh noes!) in the last two years. He and Pelosi rammed through MASSIVE expansions of government and extreme levels of unprecedented debt. Trillions of dollars in fiat money. (By the way, something like 100 billion of that was misprinted, or mixed with properly printed and misprinted...so that money's tied up - it would take them 30 years to sort it by hand, but the machines they figure on something like two years. So some of that sweet sweet stimulus money won't be going to Obama's big business friends for a while.) Obamacare. HUGE expansion in governmental power and damage to the insured. The guy even tried to explain THIS to you - he tried to explain that all the massive government entitlements we have today - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc. etc. etc. started out one hell of a lot smaller than they are now - it takes time for them to grow you know; but once you start them, unless you defund them immediately they never go away; they just grow. He TRIED to tell you this and you just kept pounding and pounding your drum and wouldn't listen. Remember when he said the Tea Partiers should be thanking him? YOU should be thanking him. He's done every fucking thing you wanted except the things that there is no way to do (like closing club Gitmo and releasing the rats from their tropical cages) and do you thank him? No, you ungrateful sacks of shit.

Instead what you do is scream and cry and throw a big fat tantrum like children who have to go to bed early or can't get that piece of candy RIGHT NOW. And you know why? Because ALL YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IS HATE AND SCREAM AND TEAR THINGS APART, and it's too old to keep doing Bush now, so you stoked up your hate machine again (because life's no fun without it) and threw Obama into it instead this time. Because this time there was no one else to throw in. The guy is one unlikeable, angry, Marxist, lying sonofabitch, but you know what? He didn't deserve that. Not from YOU. He really HAS done his best by YOU.

But you know what, my friend? That empty feeling in your gut? Those bitter tears that taste like sugar to me? Get used to them. Because we're angry now. And we're not playing your reindeer games anymore. For reindeer, see Sarah Palin's last television show. That's what reindeer get, you Socialist, anti-Semitic, race-baiting scumbags. They get EATEN. What's that? I hear the sound of a shotgun being cocked...oh cry, baby, cry...cry...cry. Damn, that's some tasty caribou. It's gonna take years to clean up your mess and wipe your shitty diapers up but the grownups are going to do it. Just cry it out; it's good for the lungs.

Now, for my readers I have an AWESOME bonus, as promised - with major hat tips to my good friend clambake - GET THIS MAN OVER HERE STAT!!! REALITY CHECK! I was *cheering* as much as the crowd after this one; it's better than your morning coffee, I assure you. And if you can't see it here, go HERE - MUST SEE

Meghan McCain's Huge Whaaaa Problem

I don't know what made me think of her. I was just trawling around, and happened upon Ace of Spades Headquarters, and Iowahawk and Jim Treacher and IMAO and all the good, funny, Tea Party/Conservative spots, and I guess I was just reminded of that whiny little blond girl who had so damn much to say that no one ever wanted to hear during the presidential election. Well, she's still saying it and she's still furious that no one wants to hear it, and she can't believe that no one wants to hear it. It's not a trainwreck, it's more like a little pink Hello Kitty round-cornered baby choo-choo wreck. With bubbles. She honestly doesn't get it. Why does she think she gets all these TV spots or anyone published her books? Because she's so interesting? Of course not, it's because she knows Sarah Palin and they're hoping for some dirt from someone who is openly jealous of her. (No, really, she is openly jealous; she doesn't even try to pretend anything else.) When you literally have to tell a TV interviewer that your book is interesting for all sorts of other reasons than Sarah Palin and he should be interested in those other things so please ask about them NOW, you're really a bubblehead.

Let's link up a couple of her recent articles - one is actually called The Palin Girls Don't Share wherein we are supposed to feel righteous indignation at Meghan being forced to do her own hair and makeup one morning when the Palins were hogging all the makeup artists. She actually likens this to taking the Red Pill in the Matrix, as though her reality is more interesting than the Matrix. (In most cases I'd agree, but in her case, the bubbleheadedness is so strong that I just can't - Mary Poppins is meatier than the stuff this girl writes.) She had never seen anything like the instant phenomenon of Palin, even in all her travels with...John McCain. Well, honey, I hate to break it to you but I wouldn't expect to see something like that traveling with John McCain, whose only contribution in 2000 was to scream "Campaign Finance Reform", which no one - absolutely no one in the whole damn world - could work up the vaguest enthusiasm for except him. The words alone are enough to put me to sleep, something that usually requires a double dose of Ambien. I'm glad to see you don't blame your father, though - since the only good thing he did was introduce Palin to the world before dying a rightful and quiet political death, and got the whole Tea Party movement going and all that good stuff - stuff I know you don't understand with your leftist "big-tent Republican" ideas. I mean Palin was even then the anti-McCain, even when she was using his talking points and supporting his stupid ideas; you knew it wasn't what she was really about. If she hadn't been, it wouldn't have been a race at all, but a vulgar humiliation for your dad, who would have gone down in flames far worse than he did.

"I found myself fighting to convince people interviewing me that my book was about things other than Palin and interesting for many reasons." Hehe. Yes, we know.

But then she gets naughty and here I have to correct her and take issue with her poor little baby heart - she then goes on to say that ALL the Tea Party/Conservative women are just knockoffs of Palin and that's plain horseshit. Michelle Bachmann is no clone; she's a bulldozer all on her own. And get serious; how long has Ann Coulter been around? She was working in the Supreme Court before Palin was on the PTA. What kind of disservice are you doing to women like Michelle Malkin to say she's nothing but a Palin knock-off? Honey, it's not the national obsession that's showing, it's YOUR obsession that's the problem here. So go ahead and write your petty little jealous screeds all you like, but next time don't make the mistake of thinking Palin came first and the rest followed like ducks in a row - she made a tremendous contribution and your father did one thing right in his life by giving her a stage to do it from, but the rest of 'em weren't spawned from her; this is individualism, honey - now go put on some makeup and fix your hair and look pretty for the cameras. And don't forget to dish up all the dirt on Palin you can in your next TV interview; it's the only thing that makes you remotely interesting.

Meghan's Palin ProblemBy the way I think comments are finally available again; I don't know where the wires got crossed but please comment if you're still here!

Stupidity on Display

Travis sometimes asks me why I slum around at such weird places online. Well, I like to know what the left "thinks." But it never ceases to amaze me that it hasn't ceased to amaze me the stupidity of your typical radical leftist. Why would I ever be surprised? They are of course whining that Obama's not destroying the economy and the entire system of government in the US quickly enough or quite the WAY they would, and they're mad that he's not doing it their way. What the hell do they care, the results are the same either way - Cloward-Piven meets Alinsky is still moving full speed ahead so what the fuck are they bitching about? Well, here's one; and it's gotta take idiot quote of the week. In reaction to some obvious morons proclaiming that Obamacare will not necessarily destroy all private insurance companies - obviously a proclamation being falsely made to allay the fears of millions who have a shred of a brain and know what that would really mean (or at least have an inkling) McEwan declares,

First of all, any government health plan that isn't good enough to drive private insurers out of business...isn't good enough, period.

Holy shit. No, you didn't read that wrong. I don't think she comprehends that of course, it is designed to and WILL put private insurers out of business; and it's written into the bill to begin with (guess she hasn't read much of it, like page 16.) Or that these people are out there claiming it won't do what it was designed to do because they want to get it passed and the only way to do that is to lie about what it is designed to do. Because people have some small idea what it is supposed to do, what it WILL do, and they don't want that. So you have to just bald-faced lie to them and tell them it won't happen. But see, she's so out there, so fucking looney-tunes, that she wants them to DO all this - to destroy the economy and our way of life utterly - while PROCLAIMING LOUDLY that that is exactly what they're doing, and screw anyone who doesn't like it. Honey, it doesn't work that way. That's like surprise buttsex without lube - you're not going to get most people to accept it; you have to slip it in a little more subtly than that, or didn't anyone ever teach you that open revolution and open coups have very very unpredictable (and often catastrophic) results? Grow up, put on your damn big girl pants and be glad - he's DOING IT ANYWAY.

Fortunately for you, you're looking like you'll get your socialist society complete with hellcare. Unfortunately for you, it is not designed to provide excellent health care to anyone, much less everyone. You're just too goddamn stupid to understand what it's really about. For the people with half a brain or more, here's a little synopsis from the bill of what we're in store for. I LOVE the part about how the federal government will have realtime access to your personal bank account at ALL TIMES - that's just fucking lovely. Heck, I'll put up the link and a partial list:

• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.

• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll

• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll

• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt’ have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”

• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.

• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.

• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!

Of course, Ms. McEwan is also sick of hearing about the August recess because it's important to ram this thing through before anyone has a chance to properly read and debate this monstrosity - just DO IT already, right? Even though she said it's not good enough. Sheer genius, I tell you.

Why Mommy is an Asshole - I mean Democrat

They're at it again! The folks who brought us the timeless children's classic, "Why Mommy is a Democrap" have now brought us "Mama Voted for Obama"! Yay! More mindless fun from mindless people to make our children mindless Obama youth.

That's from the "Daddy" book. See what Dims do? See the implication in the first picture - the helpless children "made safe" from the stampeding elephant - get it, elephant!?!?! - by the kind, gracious Dims?

The mama pajama obama de lama book concludes, it would seem, by telling us how SOME evil Mamas voted for John McCain. And they included a gratuitous swipe at the hapless candidate.

Well, isn't that special? Look it up yourself, I'm not linking that bullshit.

Yay, A New Post!

It's possible Cheney remains a stalwart defender of conservative principle to cover for his activities leading the Dick Cheney Executive Assassination Squad. Shhhh, it's a secret.

My friends, I am just as dismayed as you at the utter GLUT of news that has continued to pile up day by day by day since November 4th, and am as overwhelmed as you are. I don't intend to stop blogging, but I surely can't cover it all - please refer to Moonbattery, Newsbusters, The Rottweiler, and various other blogs on my roll to keep up with all the happenings, all right? I am only one person, I'm busy, and I am looking to become even busier. But here's one that interested me.

Why IS Dick Cheney so chatty all of a sudden?

Off the top of my head I can think of many reasons. For one, he's finally free of the constraints of actually having to make decisions regarding national security without being a camera whore, he is finally free of the constraints of having wackos trying to handcuff him on stage (ok, so that was Rove) and screaming "BuCheneyHitler!" at him (well, ok, maybe not) every time he shows his face, and last but not least, our new administration has decided to release sensitive and important national security documents and lessen our national security - security which Cheney has worked really fucking hard to build up for the last 8 years or so. I might "chat" a little myself. I might start to defend myself for once as well, waking up and realizing "Wow, it's not all up to me anymore...but the new guy sure is fucking it up - I better speak up now."

One of the main differences between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, was that right away you knew you weren't going to be seeing these guys on television all. the. fucking. time. They weren't big camera whores, they weren't going on Leno, they weren't doing endless photo ops, holding hands and shaking babies world without end. After 8 years of IN-YOUR-FACE, we had some peace and quiet, and we could, within limits, ignore Washington. Contrary to leftist opinion, this is a positive thing. As far as national security, I had some confidence that these people actually did have the best interests of the country at heart, DID intend to keep the US safe and free, and I felt that on that particular score at least, I had reason for confidence - reason to say, "SOME things just have to be secret. It's the nature of the beast." You don't, for example, go blabbing the location of secret Pakistani ally bases helping combat terrorism to the world at large (cough-Pelosi-cough).

With the advent of the new-style hopey changey chop suey, all that changed. This was not just going to be a transparent administration (well...transparent about certain things and not others - certainly transparent about the prior administration!) it became clear that we were once again under the leadership of megalomaniac narcissists who intended each and every day in each and every way to be IN OUR FACES. It was not going to be possible to ignore them to any degree because they are camera whores the likes of which we haven't seen since Billy-boy and his associates. These people mean to be stars, and stars they are! And in order to detract from their utter incompetence and asininity, one of their tactics has been to expose the secret intelligence of the past administration. It had the opposite of the effect they'd intended, so they're gonna try to make it into a...hehe, well, into a federal case. Tried, of course, in the popular newsmedia. Coolness counts! SWAGGA matters! (I'd like to turn a duck gun on that reporter who compared Obi-wan to Billy Dee Williams and Shaft - this guy is so whitebred, so Don No-Soul-Simmons that the very idea of him having the same kind of "cool" as Billy Dee or Shaft or Dolemite is asinine. He possesses the elite urbanite coolness that is popular with white latte-sipping leftists; not SWAGGA FFS.)

On to their speculation as to why he's talking now. First they describe with breathless pearl-clutching how busy Dick and Liz Cheney's schedules have been. Dickses and Lizzes and schedules, oh my! Those tricksy Cheneys!

Parsing Cheney — code-named Angler by the Secret Service — is a lot like fishing in dark water; there's a lot going on underneath, but you'd never know it from staring at the surface. So let's take Cheney's own stated explanation first. The former Veep says he's worried that by dismantling a controversial Bush-era terrorist surveillance program and stepping back from harsh interrogation policies, the Obama Administration is putting the nation at risk. "I think it's fair to argue," said Cheney, "that we're not going to have the same safeguards we've had for the last eight years."

Man, if I have a secret code name with the Secret Service, I hope it's something awesome like "Angler." Um, I guess it doesn't matter anymore that people know this secret code name? I hope not, since they just reported it. However, that explanation makes perfect sense and I'd say he's understating the case. Emphasis mine to show the editorialization of this article. See, it's not labeled Op/Ed, but it am anyway!

Cheney is clearly troubled both by Obama's rollback of the policies he championed and the buzz on the left that a sitting President might prosecute a predecessor who took those policies too far. Cheney has repeatedly charged the White House with proceeding with prosecutions against the Justice Department lawyers who found the legal basis for the policies and the CIA officers who executed them. But Cheney is reaching: Obama has stopped short of calling for anything more than a probe into the genesis of the Bush-era tactics. True, a probe might well lead to more questions about Cheney's conduct, but Obama has specifically ruled out legal action against the CIA officers.

No, they were satisfied with naming, publishing photos, and telling us where those officers now work. Why prosecute when you can paint a target on their heads instead? Also, who cares where Obama has stopped short? The guy's an incompetent boob so far as the nitty gritty and an evil supergenius insofar as the big picture - he also lies through his teeth. His stopping short now will mean nothing a month from now. Cheney is right to be worried.

Now here's the part that killed me - no need to emphasize anything because it's pure spin and it's...insane.

A more likely explanation is that Cheney, who championed the idea of preemptive-attack doctrine as Vice President, knows that in politics as well the best defense is often a good offense. With the White House decision to release various Bush-era memos on interrogation, and the coming disclosure of thousands more photographs from Abu Ghraib later this month, Cheney is "trying to rewrite history," says a Republican consultant who has experience in intelligence matters. "He knows that as time goes by, he will look worse. And so he's trying to put his stroke on it." (See pictures of the aftershocks of Abu Ghraib.)

Cheney obliquely conceded as much on Sunday, when he told CBS's Bob Scheiffer, "I think it's very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done." That sounds like: O.K., we got a little out of hand. But we meant well. So how 'bout we just let it go?

He's trying to rewrite history by getting ALL the information OUT? Even the bit that HAS gotten out has done nothing but vindicate him, as well as to demonstrate that he was NOT in fact the prime mover to begin with (Liz Cheney's interview with Norah Dumbass a few posts ago deals with that well). Providing full documentation is REWRITING history? And by what stretch of the imagination is what he said there possibly interpretable as anything remotely like "Let it go, we fucked up"? In fact it says precisely the opposite, just as the documentation so far proves precisely the opposite. How does this idiot read that stuff and say the opposite of what it means - isn't reading comprehension a bare minimum for journalism??? How did this guy make it through school? Also, when did we switch from legal and sanctioned interrogations approved by all the legal committees and the president's men in Guantanamo - where, you know, the waterboarding took place - to Abu Ghraib? Little bait-and-switch? Do they teach that in Journalism 101? Cheney didn't approve or endorse the abuses of Abu Ghraib and you're comparing apples and garden hoses here - liar.

What's quite clear about Cheney's sudden chatty spree is that he wants to refocus the question about waterboarding and other interrogation techniques from whether they were legal to whether they worked. After eight years on the front lines of the war on terrorism, perhaps that is all a man can see. It certainly might explain why Cheney is making such a fuss about asking Obama to release a pair of after-action memos — which he says offer proof that the controversial methods produced evidence that, as Cheney claimed on Sunday, "saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives."

Which is clearly irrelevant. If it saved 6 million lives it would be irrelevant, right? And we already know it was legal, which is why we can move on to the question of what it accomplished. The un-uniformed, un-countried enemy combatants could have been killed where they stood and instead got a resort-like captivity - and if they didn't spill the goods we knew they had, they got a caterpillar or a walling. 2 of them got legally waterboarded and hundreds of thousands of Americans were saved. Cry me a fucking river.

A far darker explanation for the spring offensive isn't about the past but the future. Obama officials have spied something like a set-up in Cheney's latest gambit. One of the Bush team's biggest talking points in its final days in office was an insistence that its greatest accomplishment was preventing a second attack in the years after Sept. 11. By laying down the charge now that Obama has made the country less safe, the Bush team may be able to point fingers of blame if a second attack ever comes.

Irrelevant. For the next 30 years the left will blame Bush (unless someone else comes along they hate more) and the rest of us already know who is deliberately weakening us and setting us up for another attack. The message of the Bush years was that you may build democracies in the ME (wow...that's really amazing actually) but until you've built *only* democracies in the ME you can't let your guard down for a second. Our guard is being not just let down, but THROWN down with reckless abandon. Cheney's got no reason to go on a tour to set up the possible future repercussions here - he's not that vapid nor that stupid. He knows we aren't either. Hell, Biden himself told us right out that this man was going to be tested within 6 months and that it was going to look like they did exactly the wrong thing, right? Blame Biden, then.

Then they say something about maybe salvaging his reputation - I mean, yeah, I would want to as well if I were this guy. He got one fuck of a bad rap.

Cheney briefly ran for President in 1996, and though he is unlikely to make that mistake again, he may see a chance to boost his dismal approval ratings at least within the battered ranks of the GOP.

Yeah, he already has. Not sure why you care, but when your buddy released those memos Cheney's approvability shot up like a rocket. And the speaking he has been engaging in has had the same effect as well. It might have been nice if he'd done it during his tenure, but he had a damn country to run, and what good would it have done anyway?

In any case, Cheney's reappearance has delighted Democrats — "Bring it on!" quipped a White House official on Tuesday afternoon, when asked about Cheney's re-emergence

God, they're stupid.

— and dismayed Republicans. Said one: "We're trying to turn the page, and he's climbing out of the grave to haunt us."

Holy mixed metaphors, Batman! Must have been Meghan McCain. Some RINO; who cares?

Shark-Jumping

On the same day I find out that the aftermath of that unprofessional bitch reporter's actions were FALSELY removed due to a NON-copyright violation (how the hell did they convince anyone it was their footage when it was a third party? Who paid who off to get it taken down? The purge, it begins...) I come across this piece, which frankly makes me feel filthy. I mean Happy Days, OK...why not? It's from Happy Days that the term "Jump the Shark" even originates so it's OK to use it to any ill ends. Oh, hell, whatever, I don't have so many fond memories of Andy Griffith either. I always thought he was an asshole for not carrying a gun, and the one guy who DID was a complete buffoon who always shot himself in the foot. I still feel dirty, but not for the reasons I originally thought. Opey - you just go on back to Mayberry, why don't you - or your imagined Mayberry of Europe. After all, they can only live in Mayberry because we defend the whole fucking lot of them.

In a brief note on this nonsense in which the so-called "torture memos" were released without the accompanying memos on the invaluable information that was gathered as a result of enhanced interrogations (not torture, sorry) - including the PREVENTION of Wave 2, planned and operational to attack the left coast - I heard someone make a really excellent point. Two (possibly 3) of the prisoners were waterboarded; problem with the "War Crimes" kooks is that waterboarding is not even legally torture. If they were so gung-ho on prosecuting Cheney et. al. for torture and war crimes for putting a caterpillar in with a detainee - an ENEMY COMBATANT - then why don't they go ahead and MAKE waterboarding illegal and make it torture legally? They could do it in a heartbeat. So why aren't they doing it?

Because that would prove what we've known all along, that it WASN'T illegal and it wasn't TORTURE to begin with. To make it illegal/torture now would put the nail in that coffin, wouldn't it now? Not that the memos shouldn't have DONE that already. Non-issue, move on. Next person to say war crimes gets dismissed as a mere, worthless nutjob, a hysteric with nothing real to say.

Rachel Maddow - Sooper Genius

It's a real FATWA out there, with Rush in the dock. So far as I can tell, Obi-wan refrained from bringing up the big guy prior to the inauguration, but days later told a bunch of senators they couldn't just "listen to Rush and get things done." He waffled later, saying he didn't know if that was the exact quote. Up until that day he'd stuck with attacking Sean Hannity - guess he was waiting to bring up the big guns. What's up with a president addressing legislature and bringing up a *civilian* who isn't in any elected position and has never even sought same, in order to score political points internally in the White House? That's just...weird.

That didn't stop the mainstream media from echoing Rahmbo's complaint that Limbaugh was the de facto head of the Republican party. Odd, since they never do anything he suggests. But I have heard that fact trumpeted in the leftist media ever since, every day, in one form or another, declaring Rush the "Leader of the Republican Party." Odd. It almost became a, oh, what do you call those things that mean nothing but are shouted from the rooftops incessantly? - a, uh, oh yeah, TALKING POINT. A FOCAL point in fact. There are petitions, there are pushes for a new Fairness Doctrine (renamed of course) and there is a lot of posturing.

Rush, true to form, did not respond in a way that could have been expected - last time he was served with a Senatorial petition, signed by Hillary, Byrd, Kennedy, and all the rest, sold the thing on ebay to a philanthropist for millions and matched the funds to serve the children of soldiers killed in action. This time, he's decided to make his hay by challenging the president to a debate. He will fly Obi-wan out, put him up in a resort, feed him top notch food (all at his own expense) and debate him over the golden microphone. As he points out, since they claim he's the leader of the party, might as well have the president debate him, right? Makes perfect sense.

No way chicken-shitters are going to do THAT, but it sure would be good. I'd pay to hear that one.

Also, the fat jokes are making the rounds again now - Limbaugh has been described as portly, SWOLLEN and other euphemisms for lolfat in a wide variety of mainstream outlets.

Maddow prefers to just keep lying:

Leno: I mean, it is America, and do you have the right to say, "I don't like his policies, I want them to fail."

MADDOW: He has said that he wants the president to fail. That's the way he put it.

Guess she doesn't do much fact-checking. Because 5 minutes of listening would tell you that indeed EXACTLY what was said was that Limbaugh does not want the man to fail personally (as in, say, do a poor job raising his children, or divorce his wife, be a sexual predator like Clinton was, etc.) but that because his policies are inherently socialist and disastrous, he WOULD like to see him fail at implementing them. Any sane person would.

But once they become the policies of the country, and they are designed to save us from this economic collapse --

LENO: Right.

MADDOW: You ought to hope they succeed, unless you are hoping for your country to suffer worse in an economic collapse. I mean, actually rooting for the failure of your own federal government is pretty creepy.

So I guess once the invasion of Poland succeeded and people were being rounded up into camps, and the purpose was to rebuild Germany's economy, they should have just rooted for them to succeed. I mean, maybe they would have, you know? That makes sense. In lefty-world.

Problem is, Rach, we already KNOW these policies don't work. We have the testimony of SO much history at our backs by now; we know that Clower-Piven strategies only WORK to destroy an economy, not to fix it. But I guess you don't know these things. I guess the lessons of the Great Depression and the near-depression/horrific recession we went through in the late '70s don't scan on your radar. We already know what causes depressions and what ends them. We already know what effect socialist policies have on economies in industrial societies - and what effect slashing taxes and instituting a FREE market have. You are advocating necessitating a great relearning after bashing our heads into the wall repeatedly to see what happens. They DON'T work, Maddow, and we're trying to AVERT their disastrous outcomes. And to preserve our constitutional liberties in the process, which are under grave threat. Duh. Plus, uh, you didn't talk this way when you rooted for the failure of the US in the Iraq conflict, did you? You'd think you would have supported it all once it became the law. I guess you're a hypocrite too.

LENO: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Especially wearing the black shirt and the whole deal. It looks a little creepy. Have you ever met him?

MADDOW: No, no. I don't think he'd want to meet me. I don't know

Nah, he's not picky. He'd love to meet even a fucktard like you, really. While I wouldn't cross the street to meet you, he'd do it and he'd do it with class. That's just how he rolls.

On a happier note, Ari Fleischer STYMIED the Morning Joe people by asking the pertinent question: FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship, what difference does it make? Are you going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann? They really had NO IDEA what to do with that one; one host actually started drinking a coffee and tried to pass the question off LOL.

These? The faces of the "ailing economy"?

A school bus driver with two kids who was so dumb she thought she could walk into an 800 THOUSAND dollar house? Who would think that? What made her think she could ever afford such a thing? We bought our house (in great need of repair I might add) for under a hundred grand, under 1000 square feet, one ancient bathroom and one gutted addition - and when we had to take out some equity to get essential repairs, it became necessary for me to take on full time work in order that we would have enough to pay for this MODEST house. If I'd been so stupid as to try for an 800 thousand dollar house, I'd be blaming no one but myself for a foreclosure. Instead she tells "Obama! Stop the foreclosures!" Are you KIDDING me?

And another subset of the people suffering under this heinous depression we're supposed to be in - the upper-middle-class, unemployed and loving it! Excuse me while I break out the world's tiniest violin for these people. Now which is it, because I could have sworn we were supposed to be talking about people who are forced to live in roach-infested hellholes in overcrowded cities, breathing smog and getting sick while all the doctors refuse to treat them, and instead I'm treated to morons in McMansions they (and I) could never afford, and rich people who have it a hell of a lot better than I ever have living it up on unemployment (they USED to make you look for a job while you collected; but I guess not anymore!)

The one story is supposed to, I suppose, garner sympathy but engenders more of a feeling of "You IDIOT" while the second could never have taken place under George Bush, because anything "bad" that happened under him, like someone losing their jobs, could never be reported as a positive. I also take it that the mom in that relationship, who *willingly* gave up her job, isn't going to go back to work and let dad stay home, eh? I mean, considering she's a lawyer and could probably go back to work anytime, but he keeps saying how he's going to have to, going to have to go back! Nice.

Or maybe we're supposed to be thinking of these folks, an entire family where all the siblings, spouses, parents, - every adult there is - just doesn't work, and are having a hard time making the car payments on welfare. Without that car, how is one of them (the only one even looking for work among those who never have) supposed to "keep" a job. She had "several" last year - which is always a good sign of someone who shows up on time and works hard at their job. Apparently they can't even buy as many groceries anymore on the stingy payments they get from Uncle Sam, courtesy of assholes like me who keep killing myself to work and pay my goddamn taxes so I can maintain a standard of living below what these people have. (Car payments? I've never been able to buy a car that was new enough to have payments - how did she get a loan anyway? I always had to save up a grand or so and buy a junker, then hope to hell it could be made to pass inspection. And with only liability insurance - apparently when you have car payments you have to buy full insurance. Cry me a RIVER. Maybe it's time for me to give this "system-sucking" thing a try - everyone I know who's ever done it lives better than I do, and they don't have to kill themselves.) By the way, in reference to groceries and the fact that they're fat, I don't want to hear it. Fat is not the issue here; lazy and an insistence on being worthless probably is.

"Good Faith"?

Baby 'Liss.

McEwan today,

Now is the time for the overtures to end. The GOP has been given more than enough chance to prove they're operating in good faith. They are not.

Extraordinary. Or maybe they're, you know, acting in good faith with THEIR CONSTITUENTS and not your Messiah; especially considering support for this bill is plumetting like a lead zeppelin. But I can think of a few reasons, dear young crybaby, why the House Republicans won't vote for it. (And by the way, if everyone's acting in "good faith" wouldn't a few Dims have voted AGAINST it? Did that happen?)

They know what devastation this bill will wreak and they don't want any of the blame.

They genuinely think the bill is wrong.

Their base hates them because they're mostly RINOs and liberals, and especially after the McLame debacle they have to operate conservatively - the conservative base has made it clear that this "reaching across the aisle" just so Dims can break your fucking arm is not to be tolerated any longer. They have much more to fear now than broken arms from Dims - they face the spectre of non-re-election. They have to actually be conservatives and stand up against Dim/Socialist unconstitutional bullshit.

They don't have to vote for a bad bill just because it makes them look gracious.

They're raaaaaacist space aliens who feast on newborn kittens and spread albino brain chiggers to the public just to watch them suffer.

Now I'm not sure, but it could be a combination of those things. But they're probably really racist space aliens.

Lefties, on the other hand, are never happy even when they get their way. They just keep wailing.