Today I'm going to compare Osama Bin Laden to Hitler and Valerie Solanas. It's a comparison that conservatives will initially like, but hate by the end. I am implying that you have to read the whole thing. So, here we go. Correct me if I get anything wrong.
ENEMIES
-Osama Bin Laden: Non-Muslims. Here, Muslims are defined as "Muslims who agree with what Osama Bin Laden wants to do."
-Hitler: Non-Aryans. Here, Aryans are defined as "people equally white as or whiter than Hitler who agree with what Hitler wanted to do."
-Valerie Solanas: Non-Women. Here, women are defined as "Women who agree with what Valerie Solanas wanted to do."
TACTICS
-Osama Bin Laden: Terrorist attacks against countries that aren't Muslim enough (see previous definition of Muslim).
-Hitler: Invading all countries in the world, one by one, and killing all non-Aryans.
-Valerie Solanas: Terrorist attacks against male institutions, gradually moving into an all out female revolt, that ends with the euthanization of all males, though she planned to be polite about it.
WAS/IS THIS PERSON INSANE
-Osama Bin Laden: Yes.
-Hitler: Yes.
-Valerie Solanas: Yes.
Ok, here comes the important bit.
PEOPLE THIS PERSON TRIED TO APPEAL TO
-Osama Bin Laden: Muslims in the Middle East in the present day.
-Hitler: Germans in the 1930s.
-Valerie Solanas: Women in the U.S.A. during the 70's and 80's.
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STATUS OF THESE PEOPLE
-Osama Bin Laden: Shit. Many of these countries were recently colonies, which means that they got fucked up economically in favor of wealthier countries. Also, nobody likes the idea that America can bomb the shit out of you at any time and get away with it.
-Hitler: Shit. The stock market had crashed recently, which meant that everyone working class was economically fucked up in favor of a few wealthy people*. Also, nobody likes the idea that America, Britain, and France can kick your ass, take your money, and force you to sign documents saying it was your fault, and get away with it.**
-Valerie Solanas: Pretty good, actually. The U.S.A., though it was doing worse than average during some of the times Valerie Solanas tried to take over the world, is always a good place to live. In general, there are jobs, and you get to vote.
DID THEY EVER GET TO DO ANYTHING BAD ON A LARGE SCALE <
-Osama Bin Laden: Yes.
-Hitler: Yes.
-Valerie Solanas: No.
HAVE YOU EVEN FUCKING HEARD OF THEM?
-Osama Bin Laden: Yes.
-Hitler: Yes.
-Valerie Solanas: No.
And there you have it. Sure, there are well educated terrorists. There's, like, at least five of them, and they run everything, and they're crazy. But without legions of uneducated desperate people, they couldn't do anything except print out a bunch of terrible pamphlets, get laughed at, and shoot Andy Warhol.
*Well, this was true in the U.S.A., anyway. A lot of people made huge amounts of money off the Depression. They had money allready, so it was just the ultimate opportunity to buy low, and once you've done that you're halfway to economic success.
**This is known as World War I. You probably know this, but a swing voter might have bumbled here.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
I assume someone else has noticed this by now, but I hadn't until the DNC, when I saw some commentator criticize Kerry for being boring. She kind of pissed me off, but I couldn't explain why. I mean, she wasn't saying anything particularly bad or untrue.
Then I realized that she was the exact same sort of person who would give a "Dean/Gore/etc is a madman/menace/extremist" speech.
Then I realized that it's always the same person. Dammit swing voter types, I already know and accept that you're dumb. Anyone who doesn't know who they are voting for -- at this stage of the campaign -- because they "need more information" is a stupid stupid idiot who just proved themself incapable of reading a candidate's platform or taking an incredibly short test with no possible wrong answers.
But come on. You can't criticize everyone for having strong opinions, then be surprised when the most successful candidate is a boring asshole who plays to the dumbest possible crowd, that crowd being you. You're praying for a Bullworth type hero to destroy the media bullshit that you know exists because the media told you so, but if he came, you'd crap your pants in fear because "he talked sort of loud."
Then I realized that she was the exact same sort of person who would give a "Dean/Gore/etc is a madman/menace/extremist" speech.
Then I realized that it's always the same person. Dammit swing voter types, I already know and accept that you're dumb. Anyone who doesn't know who they are voting for -- at this stage of the campaign -- because they "need more information" is a stupid stupid idiot who just proved themself incapable of reading a candidate's platform or taking an incredibly short test with no possible wrong answers.
But come on. You can't criticize everyone for having strong opinions, then be surprised when the most successful candidate is a boring asshole who plays to the dumbest possible crowd, that crowd being you. You're praying for a Bullworth type hero to destroy the media bullshit that you know exists because the media told you so, but if he came, you'd crap your pants in fear because "he talked sort of loud."
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Since I've been gone for a while, I'm going to start slowly. So first, The Bitter Shack of Resentment goes on my wad of links, for being good.
Second, I make fun of something conservatives say a lot. It's a really easy one, but I'm out of practice.
I assume you've all heard Clinton's speech at the Democratic convention. You can read it, listen to it, and watch it here if you haven't. It's fairly badass and most of it is totally irrelevant to the point that I'm going to make. The relevant bit is here, when Clinton talks about the distribution of Bush's tax cut:
When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note—until I realized they were sending you the bill.
Now, I've heard many people criticize Clinton for this. They say he's a hypocrite, because he criticizes the wealthiest %1 of Americans while being one of them. Good job guys. As always, I'm going to use an analogy that you'll understand one sentence in, thus negating any point of writing the whole thing.
So, imagine a theoretical white person in the mid 1950s.
This theoretical white person says, "You know, it's really unfair how much official discrimination there is against black people. I'm going to work hard to make this country more fair towards all people, even if that may make me less wealthy or powerful in the long run, because it's the right thing to do."
Now, is it more accurate to describe this person as "a reasonable human being with a conscience and a strong sense of right and wrong" or "a hypocrite who flip-flops and didn't really go to Vietnam somehow?"
Second, I make fun of something conservatives say a lot. It's a really easy one, but I'm out of practice.
I assume you've all heard Clinton's speech at the Democratic convention. You can read it, listen to it, and watch it here if you haven't. It's fairly badass and most of it is totally irrelevant to the point that I'm going to make. The relevant bit is here, when Clinton talks about the distribution of Bush's tax cut:
When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note—until I realized they were sending you the bill.
Now, I've heard many people criticize Clinton for this. They say he's a hypocrite, because he criticizes the wealthiest %1 of Americans while being one of them. Good job guys. As always, I'm going to use an analogy that you'll understand one sentence in, thus negating any point of writing the whole thing.
So, imagine a theoretical white person in the mid 1950s.
This theoretical white person says, "You know, it's really unfair how much official discrimination there is against black people. I'm going to work hard to make this country more fair towards all people, even if that may make me less wealthy or powerful in the long run, because it's the right thing to do."
Now, is it more accurate to describe this person as "a reasonable human being with a conscience and a strong sense of right and wrong" or "a hypocrite who flip-flops and didn't really go to Vietnam somehow?"
So, I kind of forgot about this site. Then I remembered it again, and I said to myself "If the lefty directory bothered to link to me, I'll start it up again, and if it didn't, I'm going to forget about blogger forever" So then I checked, and obviously, since you are reading this, they updated. So, starting tomorrow, I'm going to resume my pseudodaily destruction of republican talking points with my mighty wit.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Ok. Scroll down to my May 17 entry.
Read this, noting how she mentions sarin.
I'd be less pessimistic if everything I predict didn't turn out to be true.
Read this, noting how she mentions sarin.
I'd be less pessimistic if everything I predict didn't turn out to be true.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
I can't get enough of these White House press briefings. They're so good. It's like a complete list of everything Bush did wrong that day, with spokesman who alternates between being stumbling around not knowing where he is and blatantly contradicting himself thrown in for comic relief.
Consider this:
Q Scott, accepting the fact that you're going to lay blame for the current high gasoline prices on the Democrats for not passing your energy bill three years ago, what levels do prices have to reach before the President determines that they are having a detrimental effect on the economy? Are we there yet, or does he believe that there's still room for prices to rise?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President believes, like Americans do, the gas prices are too high. That's why we need a comprehensive energy plan, to address this problem that continues to come up every year. I think we've gone through this every year from this podium during this administration.
Remember that in 2001, the President put forward a comprehensive energy plan to address the real problem, which is our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This plan would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy; it would increase domestic exploration and production; it would expand conservation; and it would increase energy efficiency. It was a comprehensive plan. It would also modernize our electricity grid. And this was an important plan.
The President urged Congress to act in 2001. He urged Congress to act in 2002. In 2003, he urged Congress to act again. Then we were faced with a blackout last summer, and he again urged Congress to act, so that we don't keep going through this problem year after year.
Q So he says that gas prices are too high. But does he believe that they're high enough now that they are having a detrimental effect on the economy?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, the economy is growing stronger because of the action that this administration has taken to get the economy out of recession and moving forward. So the economy is growing stronger. But the President, as part of his six-point plan to create an even more robust environment for job creation has called on Congress to pass a comprehensive energy plan. That's what we need to do. We want to continue to create as robust an environment as possible for job creation.
Q The Democrats are out there today saying that the high gasoline prices, high oil prices are having an effect on everything from the airlines -- which have to spend an extra $180 million a day for every penny the price of fuel goes up; consumers are feeling the pinch, as well. Does the President accept the Democrats' argument that high gas prices are having a detrimental effect on the economy?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think the American people deserve more than cheap political rhetoric. The American people deserve leadership and action. This President has led and acted. This President, when he came into office, worked to develop a comprehensive energy plan that would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. He has led and acted, and he has called on Congress to act.
Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have held up moving forward on a comprehensive energy plan. They have obstructed the process. So we continue to find ourselves in the same situation year after year. The reason we are in this situation is because [OF THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR NEVER ENDING SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM] The reason we are in this situation is because there has been years of inaction. This President has acted. This President has put forward a plan. And this President has called on Congress to act, and that's what Congress needs to do, so that we don't continue to go through this issue year after year.
(emphasis and stupid, obvious edit mine)
Also note that the reporter asked Mr. McClellan a yes or no question, and he talked for a day without saying yes or no. Good job, Mr. McClellan.
Consider this:
Q Scott, accepting the fact that you're going to lay blame for the current high gasoline prices on the Democrats for not passing your energy bill three years ago, what levels do prices have to reach before the President determines that they are having a detrimental effect on the economy? Are we there yet, or does he believe that there's still room for prices to rise?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President believes, like Americans do, the gas prices are too high. That's why we need a comprehensive energy plan, to address this problem that continues to come up every year. I think we've gone through this every year from this podium during this administration.
Remember that in 2001, the President put forward a comprehensive energy plan to address the real problem, which is our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This plan would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy; it would increase domestic exploration and production; it would expand conservation; and it would increase energy efficiency. It was a comprehensive plan. It would also modernize our electricity grid. And this was an important plan.
The President urged Congress to act in 2001. He urged Congress to act in 2002. In 2003, he urged Congress to act again. Then we were faced with a blackout last summer, and he again urged Congress to act, so that we don't keep going through this problem year after year.
Q So he says that gas prices are too high. But does he believe that they're high enough now that they are having a detrimental effect on the economy?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, the economy is growing stronger because of the action that this administration has taken to get the economy out of recession and moving forward. So the economy is growing stronger. But the President, as part of his six-point plan to create an even more robust environment for job creation has called on Congress to pass a comprehensive energy plan. That's what we need to do. We want to continue to create as robust an environment as possible for job creation.
Q The Democrats are out there today saying that the high gasoline prices, high oil prices are having an effect on everything from the airlines -- which have to spend an extra $180 million a day for every penny the price of fuel goes up; consumers are feeling the pinch, as well. Does the President accept the Democrats' argument that high gas prices are having a detrimental effect on the economy?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think the American people deserve more than cheap political rhetoric. The American people deserve leadership and action. This President has led and acted. This President, when he came into office, worked to develop a comprehensive energy plan that would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. He has led and acted, and he has called on Congress to act.
Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have held up moving forward on a comprehensive energy plan. They have obstructed the process. So we continue to find ourselves in the same situation year after year. The reason we are in this situation is because [OF THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR NEVER ENDING SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM] The reason we are in this situation is because there has been years of inaction. This President has acted. This President has put forward a plan. And this President has called on Congress to act, and that's what Congress needs to do, so that we don't continue to go through this issue year after year.
(emphasis and stupid, obvious edit mine)
Also note that the reporter asked Mr. McClellan a yes or no question, and he talked for a day without saying yes or no. Good job, Mr. McClellan.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Children don't just need two parents; they also need a mother and father.
This is why the government bans divorce and not remarrying instantly if your spouse dies.
When your entire argument is based on one sentence, you'd better make sure it isn't stupid.
This is why the government bans divorce and not remarrying instantly if your spouse dies.
When your entire argument is based on one sentence, you'd better make sure it isn't stupid.
Monday, May 17, 2004
This is really quite genius. See, first, something happens that proves - if you are incredibly dumb - that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program that he refused to dismantle and we knew where it was, which is why we found it by accident when it went off and had almost no effect on anything.
Next, someone speaking for the Bush administration quietly mumbles something about how it doesn't prove anything about Saddam Hussein's WMD program because we can't prove it originated in Iraq, plus it was probably the most laughable weapon ever and really not worth invading a country over.
Then, Newsmax immediately links to a nearly identical story with the link text "WMD Confirmed: Sarin Bomb Explodes." I assume this is going to be even bigger than that time terrorists defeated Spain.
A few days later, the Bush administration has not said "shut up you dicks" to Newsmax.
A few months later, support for the war in Iraq is way higher, and even more people think Iraq had a direct role in the 9-11 attack.
Next, someone speaking for the Bush administration quietly mumbles something about how it doesn't prove anything about Saddam Hussein's WMD program because we can't prove it originated in Iraq, plus it was probably the most laughable weapon ever and really not worth invading a country over.
Then, Newsmax immediately links to a nearly identical story with the link text "WMD Confirmed: Sarin Bomb Explodes." I assume this is going to be even bigger than that time terrorists defeated Spain.
A few days later, the Bush administration has not said "shut up you dicks" to Newsmax.
A few months later, support for the war in Iraq is way higher, and even more people think Iraq had a direct role in the 9-11 attack.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
So, I haven't updated in weeks. See, I wanted as many people as possible to see the Immigrant X post, so I decided to leave it up for a few days. Then I forgot about everything and did nothing productive for a week. But now I'm going to be good now until I lose interest again.
So, here's what I would do if I were Bush.
First, find one of those good targets that Iraq is famous for having, and just bomb the fuck out of it. Make sure there are terrorists in it.
Next, declare victory again. Don't involve the phrase "mission accomplished" or any banners, or people will get suspicious.
Finally, invade Vietnam.
Yeah, you heard me. They're communist AND Asian, and between this and the surprising lack of any moral objection I've heard of to The Vietnam War: The Video Game plus any of the generic "we could have won in Vietnam if it weren't for those damn terrorists* at home" talk that I hear constantly, you know it would go over well with enough people to keep the approval ratings up.
It worked in Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, you can still get news from Afghanistan, and you can kind of predict the sort of thing they have to say. Hey, we're still here, we're just totally fucked over. Thanks for leaving before you accomplished anything. Love, Afghanistan.
It doesn't say that right this second, but scroll down.
So, here's what I would do if I were Bush.
First, find one of those good targets that Iraq is famous for having, and just bomb the fuck out of it. Make sure there are terrorists in it.
Next, declare victory again. Don't involve the phrase "mission accomplished" or any banners, or people will get suspicious.
Finally, invade Vietnam.
Yeah, you heard me. They're communist AND Asian, and between this and the surprising lack of any moral objection I've heard of to The Vietnam War: The Video Game plus any of the generic "we could have won in Vietnam if it weren't for those damn terrorists* at home" talk that I hear constantly, you know it would go over well with enough people to keep the approval ratings up.
It worked in Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, you can still get news from Afghanistan, and you can kind of predict the sort of thing they have to say. Hey, we're still here, we're just totally fucked over. Thanks for leaving before you accomplished anything. Love, Afghanistan.
It doesn't say that right this second, but scroll down.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Democrats Outdo Bush in Abetting Illegal Aliens!!!!!
Ok, aside from the obvious slant on what is supposed to be a news article*, this seems really stupid. Now, most people who support the sort of thinking in this article actually aren't any more racist than I am**, no matter what anyone tells you. I hate accusing people of being racist because it's hard to prove, but in this case I don't have to! I just have to accuse them of not knowing how to count.
The standard non-racist argument against illegal immigration is that illegal immigrants pay significantly fewer taxes than the average citizen, while using significantly more money in social services. While I could be a dick who hates logical argument and say "that's also a good argument for putting poor people in camps, you asshole," and win the argument in most people's eyes, I'm not going to. Instead, let's look at one person who comes to the country illegally to get a job, which is usually why people come here illegally, in two different scenarios.
Now:
Step 1: Immigrant X sneaks around the border patrol somehow.
Step 2: Immigrant X gets a shitty job and ends up getting way less than minimum wage, because Immigrant X's employer can threaten to get Immigrant X deported.
Step 3: Immigrant X has very little money, and AS A RESULT PAYS VERY FEW TAXES AND USES A LOT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
Ok, I think most of you know where I'm going with this by now, but for those of you who don't, here is the second scenario:
Step 1: Immigrant X sneaks around the border patrol somehow, gets the same shitty job but gets minimum wage and some security due to being legitimately in the country, and as a result has more money, pays more taxes, and uses fewer social services, and everybody fucking wins except for possibly Immigrant X's employer, but who gives a shit because they were breaking the law to screw people over.
Step 2: Immigrant X goes to Rupert Murdoch's house and takes a giant dump on the windshield of his car.
Step 3: Immigrant X is applauded by everyone and makes thousands of new friends.
Also, if you name your band Immigrant X and have a show near me, I'll go to it.
*"At a news conference, Jackson Lee, D-Houston, proposed her own bill for comprehensive immigration reform while criticizing President Bush's plan that would allow those who have a job to apply for a three-year temporary visa."
OH NO!! PARTISAN POLITICS OF DIVIDING AND NOT UNITING!!!
**Nobody told me it was racist to say "fuck the Jews" until after I said it, so it's ok.
Ok, aside from the obvious slant on what is supposed to be a news article*, this seems really stupid. Now, most people who support the sort of thinking in this article actually aren't any more racist than I am**, no matter what anyone tells you. I hate accusing people of being racist because it's hard to prove, but in this case I don't have to! I just have to accuse them of not knowing how to count.
The standard non-racist argument against illegal immigration is that illegal immigrants pay significantly fewer taxes than the average citizen, while using significantly more money in social services. While I could be a dick who hates logical argument and say "that's also a good argument for putting poor people in camps, you asshole," and win the argument in most people's eyes, I'm not going to. Instead, let's look at one person who comes to the country illegally to get a job, which is usually why people come here illegally, in two different scenarios.
Now:
Step 1: Immigrant X sneaks around the border patrol somehow.
Step 2: Immigrant X gets a shitty job and ends up getting way less than minimum wage, because Immigrant X's employer can threaten to get Immigrant X deported.
Step 3: Immigrant X has very little money, and AS A RESULT PAYS VERY FEW TAXES AND USES A LOT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
Ok, I think most of you know where I'm going with this by now, but for those of you who don't, here is the second scenario:
Step 1: Immigrant X sneaks around the border patrol somehow, gets the same shitty job but gets minimum wage and some security due to being legitimately in the country, and as a result has more money, pays more taxes, and uses fewer social services, and everybody fucking wins except for possibly Immigrant X's employer, but who gives a shit because they were breaking the law to screw people over.
Step 2: Immigrant X goes to Rupert Murdoch's house and takes a giant dump on the windshield of his car.
Step 3: Immigrant X is applauded by everyone and makes thousands of new friends.
Also, if you name your band Immigrant X and have a show near me, I'll go to it.
*"At a news conference, Jackson Lee, D-Houston, proposed her own bill for comprehensive immigration reform while criticizing President Bush's plan that would allow those who have a job to apply for a three-year temporary visa."
OH NO!! PARTISAN POLITICS OF DIVIDING AND NOT UNITING!!!
**Nobody told me it was racist to say "fuck the Jews" until after I said it, so it's ok.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)