Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Hey, at least reading that sorta shit could be marginally more entertaining than hearing endless variations of "Billie Joe Armstrong should probably have stayed in bed this time".
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/09/meadows-boehner-defund-obamacare-suicide-caucus-geography.html
hat-tip to someone on Facebook for finding this
By the way, apologies for the name the article uses. Suicide is a serious, real-life issue. But he "Suicide Caucus" this article talks about is a bunch of people who are not taking serious, real-life issues seriously at all, but instead apparently find it ethically okay to politically grandstand to cater to stubborn ideologues when a whole country is on the line.
So, instead, may I suggest the following alternate name for this group:
the Horrible Jerks Caucus.
In other news, the U.S. Congress voted today to pass a resolution telling the principle of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency to "go fuck itself :-DDDDD".
http://howmanytimeshasthehousevotedtorepealobamacare.com/
And then the House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal life, the universe, and everything.
The only way that I can make this situation palatable to myself in any way is to make it into an endless series of references to MS Paint Adventures.
*punches John Boehner in the snout to establish superiority*
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!
http://govuptime.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/05/the-shutdown-is-a-republican-civil-war/\
(hat-tip to the "government shutdown cabaret" thread on HH)
This article makes some observations that I've been making for a while now.
Yeah, they basically think like terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying stuff. This second quote explains it:
Exactly this. The reason that the tea-partiers are acting so desperate is because they actually, seriously view this whole issue as the end of the world as they know it. They see Obamacare as the end of freedom and liberty. And if you viewed something as the end of the world, wouldn't you be willing to do anything and everything in your power to avert or undo it, no matter how otherwise impractical? Because practicality really doesn't mean much if there's no more world after the end of the world, does it?
It's like some sort of modern fantasy tale that they conceive of themselves in. They see themselves as defenders of liberty against a tyrannical government. Everything they do actually IS consistent, in this worldview. Attempts at gun regulations are interpreted with a slippery slope toward defanging the people so the government can take away more rights, because they've already assumed that the government is actually going to do that. Attempts to get everyone to become medically insured are interpreted with a slipper slope of the government finding ways to control people more, because they've already assumed that the government is actually going to do that.
And frankly speaking, it's the Republicans' own damn fault. They willingly harnessed the power of desperation and emotion politics to solidify their base, starting with Bush's run in 2004, and then in opposition to Obama in 2010.
Yes, they basically struck a deal with the devil for short-term gain. You couldn't write a better story.
Here's what strikes me as crazy about that: since the Bush administration and continuing into the Obama administration, the government has been taking away more and more rights and committing human rights abuses left and right. I don't know how much noise the Tea Party has made about that, or if they've been too busy screaming about Obamacare and gun regulation, but the thing is that the government did all of this to the people while the people still had the right to own guns.
If they government says you made a "terroristic threat" by posting something online, or if they say that you were "aiding the enemy" in the War On Terror by being a whistleblower, or whatever, having a gun hardly helps you at all. At best, it allows you to get into a shootout with the people who are trying to arrest you if you are so inclined, but if things get to that point you are thoroughly fucked because there is no way you walk out of that kind of situation alive and free.
It's important to note that the Tea Party archetype tends to seriously entertain the notion of being minutemen ready to revolt against tyranny.
It doesn't help that the kinds of gun regulations that get passed by the likes of Feinstein tend to be completely feckless knee-jerk measures, like banning weapons that people don't actually use in crimes or cosmetic features that have no effect on them, instead of things that would have any good effect whatsoever like enforcing proper licensing and safety courses.
This is also the subset that tends to be nationalistic enough to support the kinds of human rights abuses that have been going on.
While they're at it they may as well entertain the notion that they're Earth-616-type mutants with superpowers.
I guess to them abuse of power is okay if the victim of that abuse is somebody (or the type of person) you don't like. ¬_¬
Their paranoia would be about half as prominent if Feinstein et al didn't give Democrats such a rabid reputation with clueless gun bans. Nevertheless, Dems are at maybe 5% fault on this whole charade, even if we were to be generous.
Snopes got a new entry relevant to this. Kind of ridiculous that anyone would believe this, though. The picture n question looks horribly fake.
Yes, that looks horribly fake.
> I guess to them abuse of power is okay if the victim of that abuse is somebody (or the type of person) you don't like. ¬_¬
Yep. In case you haven't already noticed, the tea-partiers have a very self-centered way of thinking.
Wow, yes. If that were true, what would it even accomplish? It wouldn't save any money. It would do just the opposite.
Some people are alleging that the government is going out of its way to make the shutdown more annoying to people.
The main annoyance I've gotten is that I can't access time.gov to reset my watch.
Post something and sync to the timestamp.
EDIT: BAHAHAHA that's the most hilariously lazy photoshop ever. That HAD to be a joke. Right?
RIGHT?
If they were saying something like "They're even shutting down services they have the money for, to make us pressure Congress to cave into Obama's demands and 'impose' Obamacare on the American people," that would be...not completely implausible and ridiculous, I suppose. I'm not saying I'd believe it, but I'd want to find out one way or the other if it were true.
But if they're saying "They are actually doing things that cost shit tons of money to make us miserable, to make us pressure Congress etc,"...that's just insane.
Well, that Snopes piece says that the (albeit Republican-held) governor's office in South Dakota claims the NPS is putting up road cones to prevent people from even getting distant photos of the monument. Also, I heard Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on C-SPAN radio last night claiming that there was a park ranger who did somethingorother to purposely make a site inaccessible, saying some throwaway line about how concrete doesn't need maintenance. And claiming there was something involving a non-profit-owned site that gets park rangers being shut down despite the owners wanting to keep it open, or someshit.
Of course, this all neglects the fact that this has like near-zero impact on cost either way. The only reason they're being cited is an attempt to prove motive, and to use motive to prove that the gubbermint is out to screw the people.
I'm still waiting for people to realize that the only reason this is making news is because the first thing the Tea Party did after the shutdown was take a fucking vacation.
So, I checked out the Snopes "25 Hottest Urban Legends" page, and three of the entries were about Obamacare.
All are false. Seems that some people don't actually know what they're allegedly opposing, huh?
Courtesy of the U.S. politics thread on TVTF: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/17/americas_angriest_white_men_up_close_with_racism_rage_and_southern_supremacy/?upw
This analysis is in line with something I surmised: we have a changing economy that's leaving people behind, and their sense of hope is dwindling. And when one loses hope...
I don't quite agree with the conclusion at the very end of the article (that it's all about gender), but nevertheless it has a few intriguing thoughts, including a plausible explanation of the contradictory positions of being capitalist but anti-corporatist and patriotic but anti-government.
I think that that has to do with how the dwindling of hope is attributed. In other historical situations of civil dissatisfaction, you might have had people angry at nobles, and Marie Antoinette's eat cake line can become iconic. In this case, some dissatisfaction is directed toward Wall Street Tycoons, but more broadly, it's dissatisfaction with...well, modern times, one might say. The global reach and connectedness of the economy is probably to blame; while globalization has lead to more information and awareness of one's fellow humans of different stripes and sorts, and usually leads people to be more empathetic, these people of different stripes and sorts have become -- along with the people who support them politically -- convenient scapegoats, for a social bloc left behind by progress.
And honestly, everything kinda plays into a whole "good old days versus modern times" theme, leading to a fallacious -- but attractive -- mistaking correlation for causation. In the good old days, family farms were viable businesses, local economies built on manufacturing and natural resource extraction were expanding, and people had hope; coincidentally, in the good old days, no one talked about gay rights, racial discrimination, climate change, and a host of other issues. That's not to say these aren't real issues -- they certainly are -- but they're just not associated with the good old days.
Ironically, it could be said that two things upon which small-town America was built -- vehicle-based (geographic) mobility and plentiful natural resources (such as fuel) -- eventually became its undoing. Transportation systems expanded and became far more efficient, making it possible for chain restaurants, and big-box stores, and corporate farms to outcompete local, more "personal" economic activity.
When I think about these things, I'll be honest, I tear up. It's an example of the world not being fair, in a very brutal psychological way. And while I strongly disagree with extreme traditionalist and/or racist opinions, I can't help but sympathize with the kinds of people described in the article, whose plight comes from sources so impersonal yet so merciless. As humans, our minds are geared toward identifying cause and effect and rectifying things based on our reasoning, but how exactly can one fight against "the global economy" or "the modern era"? It's one thing to have an untouchable enemy; it's a whole 'nother thing to have an intangible enemy.
Incidentally, I tear up similarly when I think of those small towns whose main source of economic activity has moved away or closed up -- be it a factory, a railroad station, or a little stop on a formerly major U.S. highway that's been superseded by an interstate. I can't help but feel bad when I see population numbers dwindling from a couple thousand people several decades ago down to a hundred or so people who have stubbornly held down the fort and refused to leave. Because I'm not really sure what future I can imagine for these communities, other than a slow, un-notable, gradual death -- it's like, it's a matter of time before this becomes a ghost town, or worse yet, just some dusty sand with ruins scattered among them, whose history is forgotten. And that's not a very happy future to look forward to. But the worst part is this: I can see that bleak future coming, but I can't do a damn thing about it.
Yeah my home town is feeling that personally. It's turning into California's retirement home, and the migrant aging population is scaring off business faster than the active labor force can move out. Our labor participation rate is hilariously low, unemployment among what few we have is hilariously high, and I'm one of the only 4-5 people on the several blocks surrounding my house below age 50.
What isn't helping is that the local businesses and farmers getting driven out are still supporting the wing of politicians most ruthlessly cutting the legs out from under them because they refuse to take five minutes on google and look up the kind of policies they're actually voting for.
How far is your town from a major source of employment like a manufacturing plant or something? Or what exactly is the local economy like?
Used to be a logging town. That fell through decades ago, and the timber industries are more interested in clear cutting old growth than cycling a long-term nursery farm.
Since then we've mostly been getting by because we're right on I-5 and nestled between some smaller warehouse towns that supply the lower half of the valley, dairies that export across half the coast, and a huge medical park; so it's not like we've been hurting for business since timber went down. But half those warehouses' clients have been going out of business left and right because a) nobody can afford to buy stuff, b) property landlords refuse to fix ailing buildings and try to make tenant businesses do it, and c) they're anticipating a lack of workforce due to migrant retirees (mostly from rural California).
So in the last decade or so, a good chunk of the buildings along the three or four main streets have been abandoned and nobody is bothering to pay people to tear down the ones that have actually been condemned.
Our unemployment rate is about 14%.
Hey, remember that tea-partier thinking consisting of "don't you spend MY money on things _I_ don't like?"
Well, a Republican is putting his mouth where his principles are. Or something like that.
TL;DR: Representative Randy Forbes (R-VA-04) would have a problem with the national Republican Party's congressional arm taking his (and his colleagues') money to support gay candidates.
Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX-36) announces a run in the Republican primary for U.S. senator, against incumbent John Cornyn (R-TX). Right at the last minute. He also reveals to us the true full name of his opponent: Liberal John Cornyn.
Someone tweeted the following:
not sure if actual belief or just a stinger line
#vaag hashtag is being retired...until at least 2017.
State Senator Mark Obenshain (R-VA-SD26) is widely expected to end the recount for the 2013 Virginia Attorney General election with fewer votes than State Senator Mark Herring (D-VA-SD33). The recount ends today; Herring's lead has grown during this recount compared to initial certified results. The margin was officially Herring +165, but now it's past Herring +600. Obenshain is currently giving a concession speech; Herring is expected to give a victory speech in about an hour.
This election and its recount process has been hashtagged "#vaag" on Twitter. This fact has been the subject of many jokes and facepalms.