5/23/2013
Rights Disappearing Down Obama's Drain:
It's such a kindly-worded "fuck you." That was the Rude Pundit's first thought when he read the letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Sen. Patrick Leahy and the Senate Judiciary Committee (which is the worst band name in history) affirming that the United States, under orders from the President, drone-murdered four American citizens. Oh, sure, the act is couched in all kinds of justifications, including President Obama's "Most Magnificent Guide to How You Excuse Yourself For Drone Murdering Americans."
See, Anwar al-Awlaki was ordered dead by Obama because he met three conditions: "(1) the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is not feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles." Did you know we're still at war? It's easy to forget that. Al-Awlaki was stone cold killed with intent. The other three Americans named were just collateral damage in other strikes.
How do we know that al-Awlaki (or "al-Aulaqi," as the letter transcribes his name) met the mighty condition trio? Because the White House tells us that he did. "[A]l-Aulaqi repeatedly made clear his intent to attack U.S. persons and his hope that these attacks would take American lives." But "it was not al-Aulaqi's words" that forced the United States to turn a citizen into lumps of bloody paste scattered around a wrecked building. He helped the underwear bomber: "Al-Aulaqi planned a suicide operation for Abdulmutallab, helped Abdulmutallab draft a statement for a video to be shown after the attack, and directed him to take down a U.S. airliner." And he did some other shit with explosives.
And how do we know al-Awlaki did these things? Because Holder tells us that he did. That's all. And if you want to see the evidence for this, well, fuck you, that's classified. Some members of Congress were briefed on the matter before it went down. And the letter contains a great deal about how previous Supreme Court decisions during real wars against real states apply and about how the U.S. could legally murder the fuck out of al-Awlaki. Also, government lawyers said it was cool by them. While it's not the same players, you'll remember that when George W. Bush wanted to torture detainees, government lawyers said it was cool. That's what lawyers do. They find a way to justify barbaric acts.
It all reads like an eminently reasonable brief. And perhaps it is. But the Rude Pundit also reads it another way, as a massive middle finger to anyone who would question the President's right to kill at will. "Don't worry your little heads," it says. "We've looked into it and we've found that we can do what we want." It's the honor system, except not with coffee refills, but with missiles of doom.
Holder concludes, "I assure you that the President and his national security team are mindful of this Administration's pledge to public accountability for our counterterrorism efforts, and we will continue to give careful consideration to whether and how additional information may be declassified and disclosed to the American people without harming our national security." In other words, we'll let you know when we want to tell you more. In otherer words, dontcha trust us?
Here's the deal for the Rude Pundit: He was sadly unsurprised that the Obama administration was revealed to be throwing a broad investigative net in order to discover leaks to reporters. What the hell did anyone expect to happen when the Executive branch was granted all those barely checked surveillance powers under the Bush administration? Did you expect Congress to take them back? While we might have thought, in our dearest Obama fantasies, that he would turn away from them, of course he was going to take advantage and expand them to the legal breaking point.
By the same reasoning, of course, some president down the line is going to expand who gets killed on his or her orders. Of course, that president will have lawyers backing up the decision. Of course, there will be another letter to an acquiescent, complacent Congress, which will, of course, make noise as if it's going to do something about it. Of course, the public will be left in the dark as to what's real and what's not. Of course, the public will not give a good goddamn.
This letter was supposed to clear things up. But all it did was make the administration seem even more sinister. Why can't it show us that al-Awlaki was dangerous? The letter says that they can't do so in order to protect sources, but it all just still stinks. Like its war on whistleblowers and leakers, like its insistence on approving quotes for stories, like all of its other attempts to control coverage, Obama's approach to leading the country is to leave the citizens of the country out of it. Well, unless they need drone murdering.
We are in the midst of another kind of media manipulation, beyond just spin. It's the next obvious step: control of the message without consequences or real questions (hence the avoidance of press conferences - not that Obama would get decent questions from a cowed press corps). In his speech today, Obama will no doubt say that what he did was right to keep America secure, even if now we're winding down the drone war.
The United States government definitively says it can kill its citizens if it's too inconvenient to arrest them and try them. That's the bottom line. If you think your government, no matter who is in the White House, should have that power, then you really don't care about your rights.
Except the 2nd Amendment. That shit is sacred.
It's such a kindly-worded "fuck you." That was the Rude Pundit's first thought when he read the letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Sen. Patrick Leahy and the Senate Judiciary Committee (which is the worst band name in history) affirming that the United States, under orders from the President, drone-murdered four American citizens. Oh, sure, the act is couched in all kinds of justifications, including President Obama's "Most Magnificent Guide to How You Excuse Yourself For Drone Murdering Americans."
See, Anwar al-Awlaki was ordered dead by Obama because he met three conditions: "(1) the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is not feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles." Did you know we're still at war? It's easy to forget that. Al-Awlaki was stone cold killed with intent. The other three Americans named were just collateral damage in other strikes.
How do we know that al-Awlaki (or "al-Aulaqi," as the letter transcribes his name) met the mighty condition trio? Because the White House tells us that he did. "[A]l-Aulaqi repeatedly made clear his intent to attack U.S. persons and his hope that these attacks would take American lives." But "it was not al-Aulaqi's words" that forced the United States to turn a citizen into lumps of bloody paste scattered around a wrecked building. He helped the underwear bomber: "Al-Aulaqi planned a suicide operation for Abdulmutallab, helped Abdulmutallab draft a statement for a video to be shown after the attack, and directed him to take down a U.S. airliner." And he did some other shit with explosives.
And how do we know al-Awlaki did these things? Because Holder tells us that he did. That's all. And if you want to see the evidence for this, well, fuck you, that's classified. Some members of Congress were briefed on the matter before it went down. And the letter contains a great deal about how previous Supreme Court decisions during real wars against real states apply and about how the U.S. could legally murder the fuck out of al-Awlaki. Also, government lawyers said it was cool by them. While it's not the same players, you'll remember that when George W. Bush wanted to torture detainees, government lawyers said it was cool. That's what lawyers do. They find a way to justify barbaric acts.
It all reads like an eminently reasonable brief. And perhaps it is. But the Rude Pundit also reads it another way, as a massive middle finger to anyone who would question the President's right to kill at will. "Don't worry your little heads," it says. "We've looked into it and we've found that we can do what we want." It's the honor system, except not with coffee refills, but with missiles of doom.
Holder concludes, "I assure you that the President and his national security team are mindful of this Administration's pledge to public accountability for our counterterrorism efforts, and we will continue to give careful consideration to whether and how additional information may be declassified and disclosed to the American people without harming our national security." In other words, we'll let you know when we want to tell you more. In otherer words, dontcha trust us?
Here's the deal for the Rude Pundit: He was sadly unsurprised that the Obama administration was revealed to be throwing a broad investigative net in order to discover leaks to reporters. What the hell did anyone expect to happen when the Executive branch was granted all those barely checked surveillance powers under the Bush administration? Did you expect Congress to take them back? While we might have thought, in our dearest Obama fantasies, that he would turn away from them, of course he was going to take advantage and expand them to the legal breaking point.
By the same reasoning, of course, some president down the line is going to expand who gets killed on his or her orders. Of course, that president will have lawyers backing up the decision. Of course, there will be another letter to an acquiescent, complacent Congress, which will, of course, make noise as if it's going to do something about it. Of course, the public will be left in the dark as to what's real and what's not. Of course, the public will not give a good goddamn.
This letter was supposed to clear things up. But all it did was make the administration seem even more sinister. Why can't it show us that al-Awlaki was dangerous? The letter says that they can't do so in order to protect sources, but it all just still stinks. Like its war on whistleblowers and leakers, like its insistence on approving quotes for stories, like all of its other attempts to control coverage, Obama's approach to leading the country is to leave the citizens of the country out of it. Well, unless they need drone murdering.
We are in the midst of another kind of media manipulation, beyond just spin. It's the next obvious step: control of the message without consequences or real questions (hence the avoidance of press conferences - not that Obama would get decent questions from a cowed press corps). In his speech today, Obama will no doubt say that what he did was right to keep America secure, even if now we're winding down the drone war.
The United States government definitively says it can kill its citizens if it's too inconvenient to arrest them and try them. That's the bottom line. If you think your government, no matter who is in the White House, should have that power, then you really don't care about your rights.
Except the 2nd Amendment. That shit is sacred.
5/22/2013
In Brief: In 2005, Tom Coburn "Played Politics" with Hurricane Katrina:
The bodies were still stinking up the streets of New Orleans when Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn said that budget cuts would be needed in order to offset the cost of immediate relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. On September 1, 2005, Coburn's statement of sympathy with the ravaged Gulf Coast included this: "Congress needs to go to work now to pay for this massive relief effort with offsetting cuts in other spending bills." Coburn would beat this drum continuously, through all the relief efforts on Katrina.
White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten said, in answer to a reporter's question about Coburn's suggestion, "[I]t's just not realistic to expect that we can offset in other portions of the budget such large amounts, and expect not to cause very, very deep disruptions in other portions of the budget." At the time, most people thought it was horribly insensitive and grossly political.
By the way, in the same September 1, 2005 statement, while people were starving at the Superdome and stranded on highway overpasses, Coburn mentioned how the disaster would make oil and gas prices go up. And he added, "For too many years Congress has allowed misguided environmentalists to block the expansion of our domestic refinery and nuclear power capabilities. Relying too heavily on foreign sources of oil is not only an economic problem but a national security problem." You got that, right? In a press release where he said he had sympathy for the victims of a massive hurricane, Sen. Tom Coburn decided to slam environmentalists because gas prices might get too high. In right-wing rhetoric, that would be while they were still looking for the dead in the destroyed houses. Timing is everything, no?
So, really, conservatives, if you had any shame, you'd not fucking say another pathetic word about liberals mentioning climate change as it relates to, you know, a fucking climate event like the Moore tornado.
The bodies were still stinking up the streets of New Orleans when Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn said that budget cuts would be needed in order to offset the cost of immediate relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. On September 1, 2005, Coburn's statement of sympathy with the ravaged Gulf Coast included this: "Congress needs to go to work now to pay for this massive relief effort with offsetting cuts in other spending bills." Coburn would beat this drum continuously, through all the relief efforts on Katrina.
White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten said, in answer to a reporter's question about Coburn's suggestion, "[I]t's just not realistic to expect that we can offset in other portions of the budget such large amounts, and expect not to cause very, very deep disruptions in other portions of the budget." At the time, most people thought it was horribly insensitive and grossly political.
By the way, in the same September 1, 2005 statement, while people were starving at the Superdome and stranded on highway overpasses, Coburn mentioned how the disaster would make oil and gas prices go up. And he added, "For too many years Congress has allowed misguided environmentalists to block the expansion of our domestic refinery and nuclear power capabilities. Relying too heavily on foreign sources of oil is not only an economic problem but a national security problem." You got that, right? In a press release where he said he had sympathy for the victims of a massive hurricane, Sen. Tom Coburn decided to slam environmentalists because gas prices might get too high. In right-wing rhetoric, that would be while they were still looking for the dead in the destroyed houses. Timing is everything, no?
So, really, conservatives, if you had any shame, you'd not fucking say another pathetic word about liberals mentioning climate change as it relates to, you know, a fucking climate event like the Moore tornado.
5/21/2013
Dear Conservatives: Fuck Your Delicate Sensibilities:
Oh, dear, sweet, unstable conservatives, we know that your outrage detectors are set to go off at the drop of a feather. Your brains now work like this: "Obama farted near Netanyahu? Why does he want Iran to enslave Israel?" And one of the ways in which you get your blood all het up is leapin' at and yappin' how evil liberals are exploiting a tragedy for political gain. In the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, it was wrong, according to you, to talk about gun control. Now, in the wake of the nightmarish destruction of the Moore tornado, you tell us it's wrong to talk about climate change and it's wrong to say things that mock right-wing responses to other tragedies. We should wait, you say, wait until the bodies are recovered, the bodies are buried, the bodies are mourned. Of course, even when politicians and pundits wait, you then say that they are exploiting a tragedy for political gain. Like 9/11. Oh, wait. That was you, so it doesn't count, of course, sorry, forgot.
Let the Rude Pundit clarify this for you in simple language: You don't get to dictate the terms of public rhetoric. You don't get to make the timeline. Fuck your delicate sensibilities, you hypocritcal scat players.
Yesterday, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, gave a passionate speech on climate change on the floor of the Senate. In it, he went after big polluters and big organizations who deny climate change: "Like the heads of Hydra, they may look like many, but in reality it’s all the same beast. It’s all the same scheme. It’s all the same money behind the scheme. You can name those front organizations, and many more, but none of it is real. They’re all just part of the same cheesy vaudeville show put on by the big polluters." Whitehouse was practically begging Republicans to come into the fold and help on environmental issue:
"In this corner, the Joint Chiefs, the bishops, Walmart, Ford, Apple, Coke, NASA, thirty top scientific organizations, the top insurers and reinsurers, and by the way several thousand legitimate others.
"In that corner, the polluting industry and a screen of sketchy organizations they fund.
"Let’s be serious. Do you really want to bet the reputation of the Republican Party that the polluters are the ones we should count on here? ‘Cause that’s what you’re doing."
It was a plea for sanity, for the Republican Party to start giving a shit again. Oh, and in a list of recent climate-related disasters, Whitehouse mentioned "cyclones" in Oklahoma. Oklahoma and its tornadoes made up less than ten words of the speech.
So, of course, the headline at The Daily Caller (motto: "My goodness, Tucker Carlson looks bloated") was "Democratic Senator uses Okla. tornado for anti-GOP rant over global warming." And the Washington Times and the usual monsters piled on, with one blog saying that liberals were "using the bodies of dead children" for their "cause." Because a conservative would never do that when talking about other issues, like abortion.
Why is it that when conservatives cite death and destruction to further their agenda, it's okay? 'Cause, see, the Rude Pundit's not really sure what the difference is, politically, between, for instance, gun control advocates using Newtown to call for bans on weapons and magazines and gun nuts using it to call for more guns in schools. Can anyone explain that? No, you can't. Because conservatives clutch their pearls and hankies and head for the fainting couch made of outrage and hate whenever someone suggests that an awful event might mean we need to change how we behave.
So, for instance, how is Whitehouse using the tornado-murdered children (which he pretty much didn't) to further his agenda, but Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican ogre from Oklahoma, isn't when he says that he'll call for budget cuts to offset the cost of disaster aid to his state's aching citizens? Isn't Coburn standing on the bloodied ruins of an elementary school and declaring that his fiscal ideology is more important than his constituents' pain? Hey, if nothing else, Coburn is a consistent cockknob, unlike his fellow senator, the inflamed hemorrhoid known as James Inhofe.
The slavering watchdogs of the right, best represented by whatever the fuck Twitchy is, are always ready to attack, like brainless zombies on a feeding frenzy. The Rude Pundit witnessed it in real time last night and today when his friend, the comedian/activist (and Daily Show co-creator) Lizz Winstead, tweeted, "This tornado is in Oklahoma so clearly it has been ordered to only target conservatives." It was a jab at both the ludicrous right-wing mania over the IRS faux-scandal and a smack at evangelicals who say that sinful places, like New Orleans, get Gomorrahed by giant storms.
Picked up by various conservative outlets, including the thoroughly worthless used cum-rag, The Daily Mail, Winstead faced a storm of attacks on Twitter, which no doubt included calling her a "cunt," a "bitch," and all kinds of things (the Rude Pundit's been through the Twitchy blender before and, truly, they are drooling madhouse denizens attempting to cobble together words into a cogent thought).
Winstead apologized, saying that she didn't know how devastating the tornado was when she made the joke. Fuck, even Glenn Beck told people to back off. But the attacks on Winstead continue unabated, the bloodlust of the right knowing no bounds when it comes to 140 character threats and insults.
Hang in there, Lizz. These worms of hate will crawl back into the dirt soon.
Time and again, conservatives tell us how outraged they are at liberal reactions to events, as if the only proper way to react is the one they deem so. The Rude Pundit is reminded of a time that he was visiting Chichen Itza, the Mayan ruins in the Yucatan. He was with his then-partner and his then-partner's family. His partner's father was incensed that the Rude Pundit wasn't wandering around with his jaw open, in awe, oohing and cooing at the scenery. Actually, the Rude Pundit was taking it in, quietly, thinking about civilizations crumbling and disappearing. He was moved, not in awe of the architecture and the view, but in awe of what it meant, something deeper and more meaningful than simple reaction.
Events should teach us something more, not just "shit happens."
Oh, dear, sweet, unstable conservatives, we know that your outrage detectors are set to go off at the drop of a feather. Your brains now work like this: "Obama farted near Netanyahu? Why does he want Iran to enslave Israel?" And one of the ways in which you get your blood all het up is leapin' at and yappin' how evil liberals are exploiting a tragedy for political gain. In the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, it was wrong, according to you, to talk about gun control. Now, in the wake of the nightmarish destruction of the Moore tornado, you tell us it's wrong to talk about climate change and it's wrong to say things that mock right-wing responses to other tragedies. We should wait, you say, wait until the bodies are recovered, the bodies are buried, the bodies are mourned. Of course, even when politicians and pundits wait, you then say that they are exploiting a tragedy for political gain. Like 9/11. Oh, wait. That was you, so it doesn't count, of course, sorry, forgot.
Let the Rude Pundit clarify this for you in simple language: You don't get to dictate the terms of public rhetoric. You don't get to make the timeline. Fuck your delicate sensibilities, you hypocritcal scat players.
Yesterday, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, gave a passionate speech on climate change on the floor of the Senate. In it, he went after big polluters and big organizations who deny climate change: "Like the heads of Hydra, they may look like many, but in reality it’s all the same beast. It’s all the same scheme. It’s all the same money behind the scheme. You can name those front organizations, and many more, but none of it is real. They’re all just part of the same cheesy vaudeville show put on by the big polluters." Whitehouse was practically begging Republicans to come into the fold and help on environmental issue:
"In this corner, the Joint Chiefs, the bishops, Walmart, Ford, Apple, Coke, NASA, thirty top scientific organizations, the top insurers and reinsurers, and by the way several thousand legitimate others.
"In that corner, the polluting industry and a screen of sketchy organizations they fund.
"Let’s be serious. Do you really want to bet the reputation of the Republican Party that the polluters are the ones we should count on here? ‘Cause that’s what you’re doing."
It was a plea for sanity, for the Republican Party to start giving a shit again. Oh, and in a list of recent climate-related disasters, Whitehouse mentioned "cyclones" in Oklahoma. Oklahoma and its tornadoes made up less than ten words of the speech.
So, of course, the headline at The Daily Caller (motto: "My goodness, Tucker Carlson looks bloated") was "Democratic Senator uses Okla. tornado for anti-GOP rant over global warming." And the Washington Times and the usual monsters piled on, with one blog saying that liberals were "using the bodies of dead children" for their "cause." Because a conservative would never do that when talking about other issues, like abortion.
Why is it that when conservatives cite death and destruction to further their agenda, it's okay? 'Cause, see, the Rude Pundit's not really sure what the difference is, politically, between, for instance, gun control advocates using Newtown to call for bans on weapons and magazines and gun nuts using it to call for more guns in schools. Can anyone explain that? No, you can't. Because conservatives clutch their pearls and hankies and head for the fainting couch made of outrage and hate whenever someone suggests that an awful event might mean we need to change how we behave.
So, for instance, how is Whitehouse using the tornado-murdered children (which he pretty much didn't) to further his agenda, but Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican ogre from Oklahoma, isn't when he says that he'll call for budget cuts to offset the cost of disaster aid to his state's aching citizens? Isn't Coburn standing on the bloodied ruins of an elementary school and declaring that his fiscal ideology is more important than his constituents' pain? Hey, if nothing else, Coburn is a consistent cockknob, unlike his fellow senator, the inflamed hemorrhoid known as James Inhofe.
The slavering watchdogs of the right, best represented by whatever the fuck Twitchy is, are always ready to attack, like brainless zombies on a feeding frenzy. The Rude Pundit witnessed it in real time last night and today when his friend, the comedian/activist (and Daily Show co-creator) Lizz Winstead, tweeted, "This tornado is in Oklahoma so clearly it has been ordered to only target conservatives." It was a jab at both the ludicrous right-wing mania over the IRS faux-scandal and a smack at evangelicals who say that sinful places, like New Orleans, get Gomorrahed by giant storms.
Picked up by various conservative outlets, including the thoroughly worthless used cum-rag, The Daily Mail, Winstead faced a storm of attacks on Twitter, which no doubt included calling her a "cunt," a "bitch," and all kinds of things (the Rude Pundit's been through the Twitchy blender before and, truly, they are drooling madhouse denizens attempting to cobble together words into a cogent thought).
Winstead apologized, saying that she didn't know how devastating the tornado was when she made the joke. Fuck, even Glenn Beck told people to back off. But the attacks on Winstead continue unabated, the bloodlust of the right knowing no bounds when it comes to 140 character threats and insults.
Hang in there, Lizz. These worms of hate will crawl back into the dirt soon.
Time and again, conservatives tell us how outraged they are at liberal reactions to events, as if the only proper way to react is the one they deem so. The Rude Pundit is reminded of a time that he was visiting Chichen Itza, the Mayan ruins in the Yucatan. He was with his then-partner and his then-partner's family. His partner's father was incensed that the Rude Pundit wasn't wandering around with his jaw open, in awe, oohing and cooing at the scenery. Actually, the Rude Pundit was taking it in, quietly, thinking about civilizations crumbling and disappearing. He was moved, not in awe of the architecture and the view, but in awe of what it meant, something deeper and more meaningful than simple reaction.
Events should teach us something more, not just "shit happens."
5/20/2013
Obama's Words Magically Make IRS Agents Investigate Teabaggers:
So we've reached the point where the narrative on the IRS "scandal" is crystallizing into something completely impervious to proof. If you think about it, it's really pretty damn impressive, considering how Obama-hating conservatives were burned by the Benghazi Email That Wasn't There. Now, from right-wingers fringe and mainstream, they've created a way to blame Barack Obama for the IRS's overworked, underfunded agents' asking some Tea Party groups for extra information before bestowing tax exempt status on them that can't be disproved. Call it the Conspiracy of the Wink.
Apparently, in addition to his Kenyan hoodoo magic and his radical Muslim America-hating agenda, Barack Obama can order low-level government workers to stretch the law by merely implying that it's something that would please him. Yes, yes, like potentates of old, Obama's minions act on their interpretation of his whims in order to please him and get in his good graces. Or something. Who the fuck can tell at this point. Either way, Obama is evil, don't you know?
Starting low on the food chain, nutzoid blog American Thinker lays out a base of cow dung to fertilize the new landscape. Obama spoke in public about how, post-Citizens United, groups were popping up whose donors were, by law, kept secret. The most basic kind of attack politics is to imply that secrets are bad and nefarious, except, of course, when Barack Obama does it. Then he's nefariously bad. Quoting a Wall Street Journal piece on the issue, Obama said, according to AT, "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation." (In that speech, Obama then said, "You don't know if it's a big oil company or a big bank. You don't know if it's a insurance company that wants to see some of the provisions in health reform repealed because it's good for their bottom line, even if it's not good for the American people.")
For the ironically-named American Thinker, what Obama was doing was ordering the IRS into action. Investigate these new organizations, goddamnit, and do so by using your mighty forms of doom. AT adds that another way that Obama signaled his displeasure with Tea Partyers was that he "spoke of Tea Party supporters using an obscene term referring to a homosexual act, as 'tea baggers.'" Now, the Rude Pundit is pretty much positive that teabagging, like anal and oral sex, is not an exclusively "homosexual" act. But apparently, IRS agents heard Obama say, "Teabagger," and then, it being code for gay ball play, understood it to mean, "Probe deeper. Deeper. Good god, even deeper."
But the idea that Obama used the power of his brainwaves to hypnotize IRS officials into action isn't limited to the bug fuck blog scribblers. As mentioned, the Wall Street Journal is in on the action. Kimberly Strassel says, flat out, that Obama "did in fact send [the IRS] orders," despite the, you know, fact that he didn't, which Strassel said just a paragraph earlier: "Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets." It might be close, but it ain't an order.
On Meet the Press with David Gregory's Bowl Cut, sour pickle and former lie-writer for Reagan and Bush the Not-As-Dumb, Peggy Noonan, called Obama's words a "dog whistle" to the his followers to press the IRS into action. Her proof is that Obama, get this, spoke. In public. About things.
No, no, this had nothing to do with the IRS being tossed into the post-Citizens United tsunami of shitty, inbred PACs trying to get their money for nothing. And, no, no, Congress providing absolutely no guidance at all for a massive change in tax law had no effect at all. But Obama's invisible wink while saying, "Teabagger"? That is the mountaintop on which the palace of scandal is built. And once it's done, no amount of "fact" is going to knock it down.
One more thing: There's a debate on whether Obama has become "Nixonian" in his seeming paranoia about his "enemies." In a post titled "Richard Milhous Obama," Real Clear Politics blogger Carl Cannon explores how much he thinks Obama is obviously just like Nixon. At one point, he compares how Nixon privately talked about how much he hated the press with how Obama officials have decried Fox "news." Cannon writes, "In so doing, Obama has actually gone places in public Nixon only dared go in private."
You want to know if Obama is like Nixon? You pretty much have your answer right there.
So we've reached the point where the narrative on the IRS "scandal" is crystallizing into something completely impervious to proof. If you think about it, it's really pretty damn impressive, considering how Obama-hating conservatives were burned by the Benghazi Email That Wasn't There. Now, from right-wingers fringe and mainstream, they've created a way to blame Barack Obama for the IRS's overworked, underfunded agents' asking some Tea Party groups for extra information before bestowing tax exempt status on them that can't be disproved. Call it the Conspiracy of the Wink.
Apparently, in addition to his Kenyan hoodoo magic and his radical Muslim America-hating agenda, Barack Obama can order low-level government workers to stretch the law by merely implying that it's something that would please him. Yes, yes, like potentates of old, Obama's minions act on their interpretation of his whims in order to please him and get in his good graces. Or something. Who the fuck can tell at this point. Either way, Obama is evil, don't you know?
Starting low on the food chain, nutzoid blog American Thinker lays out a base of cow dung to fertilize the new landscape. Obama spoke in public about how, post-Citizens United, groups were popping up whose donors were, by law, kept secret. The most basic kind of attack politics is to imply that secrets are bad and nefarious, except, of course, when Barack Obama does it. Then he's nefariously bad. Quoting a Wall Street Journal piece on the issue, Obama said, according to AT, "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation." (In that speech, Obama then said, "You don't know if it's a big oil company or a big bank. You don't know if it's a insurance company that wants to see some of the provisions in health reform repealed because it's good for their bottom line, even if it's not good for the American people.")
For the ironically-named American Thinker, what Obama was doing was ordering the IRS into action. Investigate these new organizations, goddamnit, and do so by using your mighty forms of doom. AT adds that another way that Obama signaled his displeasure with Tea Partyers was that he "spoke of Tea Party supporters using an obscene term referring to a homosexual act, as 'tea baggers.'" Now, the Rude Pundit is pretty much positive that teabagging, like anal and oral sex, is not an exclusively "homosexual" act. But apparently, IRS agents heard Obama say, "Teabagger," and then, it being code for gay ball play, understood it to mean, "Probe deeper. Deeper. Good god, even deeper."
But the idea that Obama used the power of his brainwaves to hypnotize IRS officials into action isn't limited to the bug fuck blog scribblers. As mentioned, the Wall Street Journal is in on the action. Kimberly Strassel says, flat out, that Obama "did in fact send [the IRS] orders," despite the, you know, fact that he didn't, which Strassel said just a paragraph earlier: "Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets." It might be close, but it ain't an order.
On Meet the Press with David Gregory's Bowl Cut, sour pickle and former lie-writer for Reagan and Bush the Not-As-Dumb, Peggy Noonan, called Obama's words a "dog whistle" to the his followers to press the IRS into action. Her proof is that Obama, get this, spoke. In public. About things.
No, no, this had nothing to do with the IRS being tossed into the post-Citizens United tsunami of shitty, inbred PACs trying to get their money for nothing. And, no, no, Congress providing absolutely no guidance at all for a massive change in tax law had no effect at all. But Obama's invisible wink while saying, "Teabagger"? That is the mountaintop on which the palace of scandal is built. And once it's done, no amount of "fact" is going to knock it down.
One more thing: There's a debate on whether Obama has become "Nixonian" in his seeming paranoia about his "enemies." In a post titled "Richard Milhous Obama," Real Clear Politics blogger Carl Cannon explores how much he thinks Obama is obviously just like Nixon. At one point, he compares how Nixon privately talked about how much he hated the press with how Obama officials have decried Fox "news." Cannon writes, "In so doing, Obama has actually gone places in public Nixon only dared go in private."
You want to know if Obama is like Nixon? You pretty much have your answer right there.
5/17/2013
Another Day, Another Asian Garment Factory Disaster:
Today's Asian garment factory disaster is brought to you by Cambodia. The place made shoes for Asics, Japan's largest sporting goods company (and the shoes are available in the U.S.). While only three people died from the collapse of the mezzanine floor of the building, it's not even clear that the owner had a permit to build the factory in the first place, let alone built it to anything close to code.
Of course, this brings to mind the horrific sweatshop building collapse in Bangladesh last month. They stopped looking for bodies there, with the total dead at over 1100. In that country alone, we are assured, there are "hundreds of buildings" like the one that caused the scores of deaths, places where even having clean drinking water is a regulation that is ignored.
These hellhole factories, which assure the United States a steady stream of cheap garments (and garments with amazing mark-ups, like at The Gap), are also, for the female sweatshop workers, seen as "the greatest opportunity that these women could ever have imagined." Seamstresses in the Cambodian factory sewed 450 pairs pairs of sneakers a day. The starting salary was $75 a month, and that's after three strikes that saw wages go up for most workers.
By the way, The Daily Beast has to win some kind of prize for sensitivity and class for this headline in its fashion section:
Wait, were Julianne Moore's toes squashed by the collapse of the Cambodian shoe factory? Shit just got real.
Today's Asian garment factory disaster is brought to you by Cambodia. The place made shoes for Asics, Japan's largest sporting goods company (and the shoes are available in the U.S.). While only three people died from the collapse of the mezzanine floor of the building, it's not even clear that the owner had a permit to build the factory in the first place, let alone built it to anything close to code.
Of course, this brings to mind the horrific sweatshop building collapse in Bangladesh last month. They stopped looking for bodies there, with the total dead at over 1100. In that country alone, we are assured, there are "hundreds of buildings" like the one that caused the scores of deaths, places where even having clean drinking water is a regulation that is ignored.
These hellhole factories, which assure the United States a steady stream of cheap garments (and garments with amazing mark-ups, like at The Gap), are also, for the female sweatshop workers, seen as "the greatest opportunity that these women could ever have imagined." Seamstresses in the Cambodian factory sewed 450 pairs pairs of sneakers a day. The starting salary was $75 a month, and that's after three strikes that saw wages go up for most workers.
By the way, The Daily Beast has to win some kind of prize for sensitivity and class for this headline in its fashion section:
Wait, were Julianne Moore's toes squashed by the collapse of the Cambodian shoe factory? Shit just got real.
5/16/2013
Appreciate the Little Things: Eric Holder Pushes Louie Gohmert Into a Crazy Idiot Rage:
In this degrading time of overhyped wannabe scandals and fictional impeachable offenses, you gotta learn to appreciate the little things when they come along. So, yes, angry as many on the left are at Attorney General Eric Holder for the Justice Department's way-too-broad subpoena of AP reporters' phone records, a seemingly and disturbingly legal action, it was gratifying to see him bitch slap arrogant numbnuts Rep. Darrell Issa at yesterday's House Judiciary Committee hearing. But one other confrontation from the bizarro hearing, which covered everything from pot legalization to Kermit Gosnell's crimes, will give you a little warmth on this cold fish of a week.
So it was that Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert, a shitkicker from one of the shitkickingest districts in Texas, started to question Holder. In case you are unaware of what a hilarious public figure he is, Gohmert looks like Jim Nabors' inbred cousin and sounds like Foghorn Leghorn trying to cough up a stray pubic hair. He also is one of the craziest sumbitches in the crazy-ass House Republican caucus, ready to believe anything Glenn Beck vomits into his brain.
Gohmert opened by saying that Holder never gave Congress records on a particular closed case, as Gohmert had requested. Gohmert went as far as to threaten a subpoena of the documents. Holder responded, "[W]hat my people tell me is that we never heard from your staff to make those arrangements. We'll promise to make them available to you. What I would just ask is to have your staff contact mine and--" At which point, looking like an incompetent boob, Gohmert cut him off.
Then he moved on to his main issue: that he thinks the FBI is a bunch of fuck-ups who "blew the opportunity" to stop Tamerlan Tsarnaev from bombing Boston because the FBI didn't fully investigate the information Russia was giving it. Holder demurred on much of what he was asked because it is an ongoing investigation. Gohmert insisted that he knew all about the FBI's refusal to go after Tsarnaev and then he played to his base of evangelical dumb fucks when he said to Holder, "Look, the FBI got a heads-up from Russia that you have a radicalized terrorist on your hands. They should not have had to give anything else whatsoever. That should have been enough. But because of political correctness, there was not a thorough enough examination of Tamerlan to determine this kid had been radicalized. And that is the concern I have. On the one hand, we go after Christian groups like Billy Graham's group. We go after Franklin Graham's group. But then we're hands off when it comes to possibly offending someone who has been radicalized as a terrorist." Having tickled Franklin Graham's prostate but good, Gohmert's time expired.
Holder started to speak to say that Gohmert was wrong when, his blood all het up by gettin' backsassed by a Negro, Gohmert jumped in, "You point out one thing that I pointed -- that I said that was not true." Gohmert had to have his cross-burning ass smacked down by committee chair Bob Goodlatte (which is just the most awesome name for a Republican), who told Gohmert to shut the fuck up and let Holder answer.
And then Holder pantsed Gohmert in front of everyone and pointed out what a tiny little dick and balls the Texan has: "The only observation I was going to make is that you state as a matter of fact what the FBI did and did not do. And unless somebody has done something inappropriate, you don't have access to the FBI files. You don't know what the FBI did. You don't know what the FBI's interaction was with the Russians. You don't know what questions were put to the Russians, whether those questions were responded to. You simply do not know that. And you have characterized the FBI as being not thorough or taking exception to my characterization of them as being thorough. I know what the FBI did. You cannot know what I know. That's all."
What followed can best be described as Gohmert going into an insulted idiot rage, screaming and slapping himself, crying that the Negro had gotten so uppity as to tell him he's wrong, while the other Republicans, including Issa, realized they had let him out of the cellar for too long and tried desperately to shut him up and get him back into the basement to sit in his rocker next to the radio that plays Rush Limbaugh's show. Holder's look of barely contained amusement is pretty fuckin' sweet. It climaxed with Gohmert saying, and this is as clear as can be in the video, "The attorney general will not cast aspersions on my asparagus." No, really. And so, his asparagus defended, he was done.
Then Holder kicked Gohmert in the stalk, stating for the record that Louie Gohmert is not nearly as important as Louie Gohmert thinks he is: "He could not know the answer -- he could not know -- there couldn't be a basis for the assertions he's making, not the questions, but the assertions that he made unless he was provided information, and I would say inappropriately, from members of the FBI or people who were involved in the very things that he questioned me about. And I do not think that that happened."
The punchline? Gohmert has posted the exchange on the front of his House website. He's proud of what he did. And you can bet his constituents are, too.
In this degrading time of overhyped wannabe scandals and fictional impeachable offenses, you gotta learn to appreciate the little things when they come along. So, yes, angry as many on the left are at Attorney General Eric Holder for the Justice Department's way-too-broad subpoena of AP reporters' phone records, a seemingly and disturbingly legal action, it was gratifying to see him bitch slap arrogant numbnuts Rep. Darrell Issa at yesterday's House Judiciary Committee hearing. But one other confrontation from the bizarro hearing, which covered everything from pot legalization to Kermit Gosnell's crimes, will give you a little warmth on this cold fish of a week.
So it was that Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert, a shitkicker from one of the shitkickingest districts in Texas, started to question Holder. In case you are unaware of what a hilarious public figure he is, Gohmert looks like Jim Nabors' inbred cousin and sounds like Foghorn Leghorn trying to cough up a stray pubic hair. He also is one of the craziest sumbitches in the crazy-ass House Republican caucus, ready to believe anything Glenn Beck vomits into his brain.
Gohmert opened by saying that Holder never gave Congress records on a particular closed case, as Gohmert had requested. Gohmert went as far as to threaten a subpoena of the documents. Holder responded, "[W]hat my people tell me is that we never heard from your staff to make those arrangements. We'll promise to make them available to you. What I would just ask is to have your staff contact mine and--" At which point, looking like an incompetent boob, Gohmert cut him off.
Then he moved on to his main issue: that he thinks the FBI is a bunch of fuck-ups who "blew the opportunity" to stop Tamerlan Tsarnaev from bombing Boston because the FBI didn't fully investigate the information Russia was giving it. Holder demurred on much of what he was asked because it is an ongoing investigation. Gohmert insisted that he knew all about the FBI's refusal to go after Tsarnaev and then he played to his base of evangelical dumb fucks when he said to Holder, "Look, the FBI got a heads-up from Russia that you have a radicalized terrorist on your hands. They should not have had to give anything else whatsoever. That should have been enough. But because of political correctness, there was not a thorough enough examination of Tamerlan to determine this kid had been radicalized. And that is the concern I have. On the one hand, we go after Christian groups like Billy Graham's group. We go after Franklin Graham's group. But then we're hands off when it comes to possibly offending someone who has been radicalized as a terrorist." Having tickled Franklin Graham's prostate but good, Gohmert's time expired.
Holder started to speak to say that Gohmert was wrong when, his blood all het up by gettin' backsassed by a Negro, Gohmert jumped in, "You point out one thing that I pointed -- that I said that was not true." Gohmert had to have his cross-burning ass smacked down by committee chair Bob Goodlatte (which is just the most awesome name for a Republican), who told Gohmert to shut the fuck up and let Holder answer.
And then Holder pantsed Gohmert in front of everyone and pointed out what a tiny little dick and balls the Texan has: "The only observation I was going to make is that you state as a matter of fact what the FBI did and did not do. And unless somebody has done something inappropriate, you don't have access to the FBI files. You don't know what the FBI did. You don't know what the FBI's interaction was with the Russians. You don't know what questions were put to the Russians, whether those questions were responded to. You simply do not know that. And you have characterized the FBI as being not thorough or taking exception to my characterization of them as being thorough. I know what the FBI did. You cannot know what I know. That's all."
What followed can best be described as Gohmert going into an insulted idiot rage, screaming and slapping himself, crying that the Negro had gotten so uppity as to tell him he's wrong, while the other Republicans, including Issa, realized they had let him out of the cellar for too long and tried desperately to shut him up and get him back into the basement to sit in his rocker next to the radio that plays Rush Limbaugh's show. Holder's look of barely contained amusement is pretty fuckin' sweet. It climaxed with Gohmert saying, and this is as clear as can be in the video, "The attorney general will not cast aspersions on my asparagus." No, really. And so, his asparagus defended, he was done.
Then Holder kicked Gohmert in the stalk, stating for the record that Louie Gohmert is not nearly as important as Louie Gohmert thinks he is: "He could not know the answer -- he could not know -- there couldn't be a basis for the assertions he's making, not the questions, but the assertions that he made unless he was provided information, and I would say inappropriately, from members of the FBI or people who were involved in the very things that he questioned me about. And I do not think that that happened."
The punchline? Gohmert has posted the exchange on the front of his House website. He's proud of what he did. And you can bet his constituents are, too.
5/15/2013
In Brief: It's All About 2014 Now:
The biggest waste of time in Left Blogsylvania, if not all over Left Mediaville, is reacting to the multiple "crises" in the Obama administration with the pathetic cry of "But George W. Bush was worse." So? It's like telling the dude in the prison shower about to penetrate your ass that rape is wrong. Do you really think that a guy nicknamed Rapey Jake hasn't already considered the legal and moral ramifications of his actions?
Of course, Republicans barely peeped when there were dozens of embassy, consulate, and diplomatic outpost attacks during the reign of Bush the Dumber, when the Bush administration sicced the IRS on liberal churches and groups, or when the Patriot Act was proposed, which is what led us to the government having the ability to secretly get phone records on AP reporters. Great. We know it. How's your asshole feel?
If you believe that a single GOP player in this upcoming clusterfuck of investigations is going to pause and think, "Huh. You're right. I didn't care when George W. Bush did the same or worse. I should end this hypocrisy," you are as delusional as the most extreme Benghazi conspiracy theorists, the ones who think that the IRS thing is Obama's way to distract from the far, far worse Benghazi "scandal." (No, really, Rush Limbaugh believes this.)
Your argument is noted, good liberals who still smart from the lack of prosecution of anyone for the crimes and excesses of the Bush administration. Indeed, it was laughable when today John Boehner asked regarding the IRS asking conservative groups extra questions, "Who's going to jail over this scandal?" Your first instinct might be to say, "Oh, shut the fuck up, Annoying Orange."
There is only one thing that'll end this madness: End the madness of GOP control in the House and prevent them from gaining control of the Senate. All effort on the left needs to be focused on the congressional midterms in 2014. On Morning Starbucks with Joe today, Rep. Charlie Rangel said as much while still saying that he wanted answers regarding the investigation of the AP. As the Rude Pundit said yesterday, that's the difference between the GOP and Democrats: Democrats will actually hold hearings about Democratic presidents. But at least the government will function and this insane impeachment talk will be off the table.
Give up on the Bush comparisons. It will only raise your blood pressure and make you incapable of seeing clearly the path of the next few months. It's time to ask if Americans want a government that gets bogged down in (mostly) meaningless hearings or do they want one that is working on jobs.
If the Rude Pundit was writing an ad for Democrats for the 2014 midterms, he'd ask, "Remember what happened the last time Republicans persecuted a Democratic president and forced him to respond to endless inquiries instead of letting him lead and defend the country?" And then show George W. Bush's face and film of the Twin Towers collapsing.
The biggest waste of time in Left Blogsylvania, if not all over Left Mediaville, is reacting to the multiple "crises" in the Obama administration with the pathetic cry of "But George W. Bush was worse." So? It's like telling the dude in the prison shower about to penetrate your ass that rape is wrong. Do you really think that a guy nicknamed Rapey Jake hasn't already considered the legal and moral ramifications of his actions?
Of course, Republicans barely peeped when there were dozens of embassy, consulate, and diplomatic outpost attacks during the reign of Bush the Dumber, when the Bush administration sicced the IRS on liberal churches and groups, or when the Patriot Act was proposed, which is what led us to the government having the ability to secretly get phone records on AP reporters. Great. We know it. How's your asshole feel?
If you believe that a single GOP player in this upcoming clusterfuck of investigations is going to pause and think, "Huh. You're right. I didn't care when George W. Bush did the same or worse. I should end this hypocrisy," you are as delusional as the most extreme Benghazi conspiracy theorists, the ones who think that the IRS thing is Obama's way to distract from the far, far worse Benghazi "scandal." (No, really, Rush Limbaugh believes this.)
Your argument is noted, good liberals who still smart from the lack of prosecution of anyone for the crimes and excesses of the Bush administration. Indeed, it was laughable when today John Boehner asked regarding the IRS asking conservative groups extra questions, "Who's going to jail over this scandal?" Your first instinct might be to say, "Oh, shut the fuck up, Annoying Orange."
There is only one thing that'll end this madness: End the madness of GOP control in the House and prevent them from gaining control of the Senate. All effort on the left needs to be focused on the congressional midterms in 2014. On Morning Starbucks with Joe today, Rep. Charlie Rangel said as much while still saying that he wanted answers regarding the investigation of the AP. As the Rude Pundit said yesterday, that's the difference between the GOP and Democrats: Democrats will actually hold hearings about Democratic presidents. But at least the government will function and this insane impeachment talk will be off the table.
Give up on the Bush comparisons. It will only raise your blood pressure and make you incapable of seeing clearly the path of the next few months. It's time to ask if Americans want a government that gets bogged down in (mostly) meaningless hearings or do they want one that is working on jobs.
If the Rude Pundit was writing an ad for Democrats for the 2014 midterms, he'd ask, "Remember what happened the last time Republicans persecuted a Democratic president and forced him to respond to endless inquiries instead of letting him lead and defend the country?" And then show George W. Bush's face and film of the Twin Towers collapsing.
Late Post Today:
Super-Skrull is fucking up the city's day. Time to flame on and take care of business.
Back later with more impeccable rudeness.
Super-Skrull is fucking up the city's day. Time to flame on and take care of business.
Back later with more impeccable rudeness.
