Monthly Archives: October 2012
Awarded for this astonishing bit of chutzpah via Think Progress:
Yesterday, ahead of the storm’s pummeling of the eastern seaboard, Brown gave an interview to the local alternative paper, the Denver Westword, on how he believed the Obama administration was responding to Sandy too quickly and that Obama had spoken to the press about Sandy’s potential effect too early.
Brown turned then to a reliable right-wing attack on the President’s response to the attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that killed four Americans:
“One thing he’s gonna be asked is, why did he jump on [the hurricane] so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly when in…Benghazi, he went to Las Vegas?” Brown says. “Why was this so quick?… At some point, somebody’s going to ask that question…. This is like the inverse of Benghazi.”
You unspeakable piece of offal. Under Brown’s “leadership,” FEMA took the better part of a week to help the (non white) people trapped in the Superdome. People died of thirst and exposure in the middle of a major metropolitan city. Think about that: people died of thirst in the richest country in the world during a natural disaster. Brown resigned (read as: fired) less than two weeks after his incompetence became internationally known.
THAT’S who has the gall to attack President Obama over his response to Sandy? That’s like having Newt Gingrich lecture Obama about staying faithful to his wife. That’s like having Mitt Romney lecture Obama about paying his fair share of taxes. That’s like having Rick Santorum lecture Obama about being more supportive of gay marriage. The unmitigated nerve of a criminally negligent imbecile like Brown criticizing someone that, in every concievable way, is his superior on a subject that he has shown himself to be historically inept simply to score political points is almost unfathomable.
Congratulations, Brownie! You are the ULTIMATE douchebag!
That was supposed to say “loving memories” but I was auto-corrected. Durn iPhone…
No worries, though. We’ll just try again in about two weeks. Of course, it would have made a better story to tell their child: “We found out you were coming on the eve of one of the greatest storms to ever hit New York.” Oh well!
In the meantime, I will have to have a pep talk with my spermatozoa:
Get your tail in motion you lazy little bastards! Find that egg and crack it! Get to work! Move it move it move it! If Bruce Willis can do it, so can you!
An instructional film:
We are now just one week away from the election. The East Coast is, as I type this, getting battered by another “rare” storm that we’re only supposed to see once every century. This is the second time in twenty years and there is reason to believe that Sandy is no longer a “freak” occurrence. But let’s skip that for now.
What I want to discuss is your Ayn Randian insistance that federal disaster relief is “immoral” or that we should cut social spending to pay for it. We can’t cut the military’s massive budget to pay for emergency relief but we can surely spare a few billion from, say, school lunches.
But that’s all in the past, right? Let’s concentrate on the here and now. The damage from Sandy is expected to be unprecedented. It might possibly be one of the most expensive storms of all time. Hundreds of thousands of people will be without power, displaced, homes damaged or destroyed. Businesses will be devastated.
Here’s what I want: I want you to get in front of a camera and tell the entire country how bad you feel for the victims of Sandy and how you will stop at nothing to hold up the emergency disaster aid until you get concessions for spending cuts elsewhere. You did it last time when Joplin, Missouri was leveled and several states ravaged by violent storms. You’re going to do it this time as well, aren’t you? And if not, why not? Maybe because it’s so close to an election? Hmmmm….
Dear Mainstream Media,
After reading the above letter, are you planning on asking Republicans if they’re still opposed to emergency federal spending without offsets? If they say they are not, are you planning on asking them the obvious follow up question of “why?” Are you ever going to do your job?
It’s funny, I could have sworn that the 1993 storm that ravaged the east coast was the “Storm of the Century.” It was insane! Never seen before! Unique! Unprecedented! Yet, here we are, just 19 years later and we have another “Storm of the Century.”
Oh course, part of this is the media salivating over a big storm but the reality is that this kind of storm is supposed to be freakish and rare. 19 years apart doesn’t strike me as “rare.” It is possible that the odds went against us. The meteorological equivalent of snake eyes. On the other hand, it’s also possible that this is no longer a rare occurrence just like tornadoes in Brooklyn and Queens are no longer unheard of.
Conservatives will deny, deny, deny that Climate Change could possibly have anything to do with this storm. I’m actually waiting for some talking head on Fox to say “Well if this ‘Storm of the Century’ happened in the 21st century and the last one happened in the 20th century, I don’t see the problem. It’s still just a once in a century event!”
What do you suppose they’ll say when the next one hits?
If your first response is “How could you attack religion like this?!” You are part of the problem, not the solution. The Catholic Church, as an institution, has covered up dozens, if not hundreds (or more), of pedophiles over the years. That they are a religious institution is irrelevant. If Microsoft did this, we’d be calling for federal investigations and the people that did the hiding would be in jail right next to the pedophiles. Faith does not equal privilege and it’s time these scumbags were held accountable.
This will be a regular feature as I pick, and comment on, my favorite clips from Best of the Left to share with you.
OK, someone explain this to me: Why? I understand why, for decades if not longer, the Church protected pedophiles. They were protecting the reputation of the Church. I don’t agree with that course of action but I can understand it. But those days are over. It is universally understood and accepted that the Catholic Church has a pedophile problem and, more importantly from a public relations standpoint, a reputation of covering for them.
So why keep doing it? What would possess (deliberate pun) a Bishop to protect a pedophile? What looks worse? The Church finding out about a pedophile and immediately turning him over to the police or the Church protecting him? It makes ZERO sense to continue the original policy of protecting the Church’s reputation; it’s already shattered. Rather, they should be aggressively rooting out the remaining pedophiles and handing them over to the police. They are not doing God’s work and are actively hurting the cause. Get rid of them and people will begin, however slowly, to regain their trust in the Church as an institution. But nope! The Church keeps covering it up.
Savage is right, the Church is enabling these sick fucks by covering for them and then letting them continue traumatizing children. I’m beginning to wonder if the Church has a pedo problem BECAUSE it has a reputation for not turning them over to the police. If you were a pedophile, wouldn’t you want to belong to an organization that protects you?
Now if he can just keep that ego of his under wraps! Forbes reports:
Seven months after he got dismissed by Current TV, the temperamental host is aggressively job-shopping, and he’s not being too picky about it.
In recent weeks, Olbermann has reached out to executives at a slew of different networks to communicate his desire for a new on-air role, according to people with knowledge of those conversations. Those include both cable outlets and at least one broadcast network.
He has expressed interest in taking over as anchor of existing shows and in starting a new show. Indeed, several of the networks he’s approached don’t have any news programming per se on their schedules. His frustration at not having a real platform during the height of election season has been evident.
And his commentary has been sorely missed. Kieth certainly knew how to rile up the base while dishing the dirt on right wing scumbaggery. I will weep bitter tears if he ends up doing sports because, bleh, who cares? It’s sports. Politics are slightly more important.
Keep your fingers crossed!
This is Felicia Garcia. Felicia had sex with four older football players. There is no indication that it was coerced in any way. She did not claim she was raped or assaulted. She was, however, harassed about it when two of the players talked about it and were recorded. The bullying led her to commit suicide by falling backwards into an oncoming train.
As tragic as this is, it highlights a larger problem in our culture. Imagine, for a moment, that Felicia had been a 15 year old boy that had slept with 4 older female athletes, cheerleaders, basketball, what have you. And then imagine the story had gotten out. Would “he” have been teased? Or would he have been immortalized?
Do you see the problem?
Yes, 15 is a bit young to have engaged in a five way but her age is almost irrelevant in terms of the reaction to her sex life. The only difference is that she would have been more capable of handling the bullying had she been older. The disapproval and stigma would have been the same.
There were other reasons she was bullied: for repeatedly running away from home, having piercings and living in foster homes but the final straw seems to have been the harassment stemming from the encounter with the 4 boys.
We, as a country continue to treat sex as something dirty. We treat sexually active men as heroes (unless they’re gay, of course) and sexually active women as whores. This twisted thinking infects every aspect of our lives (certainly reflected in our schools whether we choose to believe kids have sex or not) and is a large contributor to rape culture, in which we blame women for being attacked. After all, they’re just sluts that were asking for it.
Felicia was a disturbed young woman who deserved better than to be shamed for being sexually active and in a country less prurient and childish than ours, she wouldn’t have been.