I am super bored of hearing this.
Could Yahoo have done...
Seriously talk all your shit about “authenticity” and “real talent” but do you honestly think your cloying overdone White Guy music “legends” could deliver even a nominally passable performance in 6 inch heels while recalling hours’ worth of choreography in super form-fitting clothes while still having to focus on preserving their hair and makeup AND having to be fit enough to at least appear unfazed by the demands of the performance NO you don’t. The fact of the matter is that the spectacle aspect of American pop music is set phenomenally lower for men than women and your criticism is such a snore
I’m looking at you, Rep. Peter King, among others.
Why did you think your districts and states would not be sacrificed to the anti-government spending Moloch YOU helped create? What made your community special enough to escape unscathed?
Is it because you’re a member of the same party? If you’ve learned nothing else in the past two years, it should have been this: Party does not trump ideologues, nor does it trump their will to impose their ideology on everyone – including you.
You gerrymandered yourselves into this mess, and now have representatives unable to represent or even govern. They have no desire to even attempt to govern, only to break down what little functioning governance and cooperative spirit remains.
You are not immune from the consequences of your blind worship at the altar of no spending and no taxes. You will have to return to your district and explain to your constituents why they were not important enough to receive consideration from the U.S. House, a governing body incapable of doing anything but throwing temper tantrums because their hatred of the president outweighs their will to do their jobs.
Good luck with that.
First off, I don’t know of anyone who’s seriously proposing we ban guns outright — just certain types (i.e. military grade assault rifles), and tightening regulations. Think of it as calling for safer tires after the multiple accidents caused by faulty years several years ago, or the call for seatbelts back in the day.
But I keep seeing this come up again and again, and I have thirteen messages in my inbox with this claim — so I’m going to just agree. I’m casting aside the fact that the purpose of a gun is different than that of a car. The only way my gun is getting me a ride to school is if I brandish it in order to get a ride or a jack a car.
Fine. The pro-gun folks win. Let’s treat guns like cars.
In order to drive a car in Wyoming, you first must get a license. The requirements are fairly similar nationwide. Most states require you take a driver’s education course and have a learner’s permit with a multitude of restrictions, but all states mandate you must pass a written test and an eye exam — but don’t forget the actual driving test! You must prove to the instructor you know how to safely and accurately operate the vehicle, and if you are unable to, the instructor has the right to keep you from retaking the test for a specific time period. Scary, huh?
But hooray, you passed!
Not so fast, though! In order to use your driver’s license, your vehicle must be legally registered. This means that you have to go to the courthouse with proof of ownership (the title) to register it initially, and pay a fee every year after that. Failure to register your vehicle yearly can result in a ticket for $110 or more in Wyoming, and can be considered a misdemeanor, especially in other states. If you have multiple vehicles, each must be registered. This must be done within 45 days.
Oh, and you’ll need insurance on your vehicle, in case you damage someone’s property, or cause injury to yourself or someone else while operating your vehicle. In Wyoming, anyone failing to provide proof of insurance on a registered vehicle as required is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable pursuant to W.S. 31-4-103(a) upon conviction. The punishment is a fine of $750.00 or less, or a stint in jail of six months or less. Your insurance must cover each vehicle you own, even if you just drive it occasionally.
Plus, the police have the right to inspect your vehicle if they believe it’s necessary for safety reasons, and most states require a Vehicle Identification Number inspection and check by a sheriff’s deputy or state-designated inspector before the car can be transferred to a new owner, even with a private sale. The new owner must also provide the state with proof of a license and insurance to take possession of the title.
If you fuck up enough, the state can suspend your license as prescribed under the law.
Doesn’t matter if you swear that you didn’t mean to, or that it’s your right to drive wherever the hell you want, when you want. Also, “YOLO, your honor!” will not be a great defense when you go before the judge.
In all seriousness, even an accumulation of little violations or a failure to pay a citation can get your license yanked, including not having insurance or registration.
You might say, “BUT I’M A LAW-ABIDING DRIVER!” Doesn’t matter. Everyone has to live by the same set of laws and obey them, even if they’ve never broken them before. This also means rules of the road in the form of traffic laws and such, including laws about where you can’t take your vehicle. You might think it’s your special snowflake right to drive on the sidewalk, do donuts in a school parking lot, or barrel through a city park, but the law says otherwise. Sorry snowflake!
“BUT OTHER PEOPLE DON’T OBEY THE LAWS!” is also not a reason to do away with traffic laws. Sure, there’s a lot of people who speed, myself included. But you take away the penalty, and it’ll be all fun and games until someone’s kid gets mowed down in a school zone by an asshat doing 60 mph — which happens ANYWAYS but is less likely because drivers like myself know there’s a stiff penalty for blasting through school zones.
And yes, while tens of thousands of people die from traffic accidents every year, and that’s terrible, the laws and regulations we have now decrease the likelihood of it happening. Plus, the death rate from motor vehicle accidents (11.7 per 100,000 in the U.S.) is not that far off from firearms (10.1 per 100,000 in the U.S.) when all manner of deaths by firearm are considered. In fact, in some states, you’re more likely to be killed by a gun than in a motor vehicle accident. Let’s keep in mind, cars are not designed to kill something or someone, which I discuss while taking on the whole “People kill people” canard.
So sure. Let’s treat boomsticks like cars. After all, isn’t this where this comparison would ultimately lead? I’m cool with that.
It’s well-known that red states generally take back more federal money than they give, with Mother Jones nothing that “Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid.” (They also love their pork.) While it’s true that Texas remains one of the few red states that bucks this trend, there’s plenty of other Perry-mooching that can be reimbursed, with those checks written back to President Obama and Uncle Sam.
Specifically, while Rick Perry condemned the president’s stimulus as “failed” and “misguided,” the governor quietly took $17.4 billion in those “failed” stimulus funds to plug the holes in Texas’ budget – twice.
The state’s own House Appropriations chair added that “when you’re short of money and a pot of money shows up, it’s hard for politicians or budget writers to turn it down.” Mind you, the state had billions stored in a rainy day fund, but instead chose to suck off the federal teat, simply because it was convenient, or as Bill O’Reilly would put it: Texans “wants stuff.”
It didn’t stop there with Perry and the stimulus. Perry went so far as to say that the stimulus “didn’t create any jobs,” leaving out the fact that stimulus funds created or saved almost 50,000 jobs in Texas alone, according to the Houston Chronicle. That same stimulus also plugged a hole in the state’s Medicaid funding, saved child abuse caseworker jobs, and funded child-care and job training programs.
President Obama will accept that $17.4 bn check, and the return of those jobs to the United States, before you leave, Mr. Perry.
While Texas secessionists proclaim their state as one of the largest and therefore most capable of maintaining independence, Texas remains one of the poorest states in the nation. Nearly one in four Texans are uninsured, with the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality ranking the state as worst in the nation for health care delivery. Yes, worst out of 50 states. This isn’t even including the nearly 4 million Texas residents relying on federal nutrition assistance.
And that’s only Texas.
Bloomberg notes that “70 percent of counties with the fastest growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.” There’s going to be a lot of state residents knocking on the doors of their broke state governments come independence time for help.
Texas’ farming economy will also suffer under secession. The state remains the number one recipient of USDA farm subsidies, having received $25.9 billion in federal funds from 1995-2011. USDA notes that that the cotton, wheat, corn, rice, peanut, and livestock are among the top ten industries that have received anywhere from hundreds of millions, to billions of dollars in subsidies, all funding that will be cut off.
While I don’t agree with the original article’s sentiment of “let them secede” it is worth pointing out what the consequences of secession would be. Over 3 million people in Texas voted for Obama in the last election, so the 100,000 or so who have signed this petition represent a fraction of the population who are more than likely signing because they are throwing a temper tantrum without thinking about the implications of becoming an independent country.
By these numbers, the first order of business of a newly independent Texas would probably be to apply for foreign aide.
The United States is a capitalist system. No matter what your feelings on capitalism are, that is the system we are currently working within.
Under capitalism there will always be haves and have-nots. Not everyone can be at the top, and the great majority of people are going to be close to the bottom.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t have people who wash your dishes or serve your food when you go out. You wouldn’t have people who work at the grocery store. Not everyone can be a CEO or even middle management, capitalism CAN NOT work without having different financial “classes”.
Because of this we pool resources (with taxes) so that the people on the lower end of the income spectrum still have access to essential resources even if they do not possess the capital to purchase it. For example, police, (as opposed to private, hired security) to ensure people aren’t breaking into your house and taking your shit or shooting you in traffic because you cut them off. The fire departs, highway systems, the military, all the resources we need to operate as a society, because we NEED them to operate our businesses and go about our lives.
When you have a system that HAS to have lower “classes” of income, denying a basic human quality of life item like healthcare to those who fall to the lower end of the income spectrum that HAS to exist in a capitalist society when we are full well and able to pool resources to provide that healthcare is quite frankly inhumane and disgusting.
It is detestable to set up a system where you HAVE to ”winners” and “losers” (and a lot more “losers” than “winners” because capitalism can not operate without the lower income “classes”) and then turn around and say, “You have to be sick/in pain/dying because you don’t have access to enough capital to ensure your well being and quality of life.”
That’s not the world I want to live in, and this past election, a majority of Americans agreed.
I love it when someone claims to be an expert on Middle Eastern AND North African affairs. And it’s usually Western-based “scholars” who like to carry that title. There’s no way to cover that whole entire region, its history, politics, and economy within one curriculum. Impossible.
Those who study the Middle East often forget about North Africa. Those who study North Africa often forget about the Middle East. You’ve got the Maghreb, then the Levant, the Gulf, Egypt is entirely on its own. After a few years, you could probably gain a very basic and general understanding, but there’s no way, NO WAY, you can master the region in its entirety EXTENSIVELY.
The gods in the field are those with a focus on a specific topic in a specific country. Like, okay, I don’t expect to refer to Lila Abu-Lughod for an analysis of the 1990’s counter-revolution in Algeria. And I probably won’t refer to Amel Boubekeur for an extensive breakdown of Iraqi-Kuwaiti relations.
If you begin reading something written by someone claiming to be an expert on all things Middle Eastern and North African, after you finish reading that article on the Washington Post, NYTimes, or Foreign Policy, it’d probably wise to refer to an academic source written by someone who specializes in that specific topic and country afterwards.
Let’s all send this to Thomas Friedman.
I just really want this on my blog.
The Catholic church is now making rumblings about turning away non-Catholics from the emergency rooms of Catholic hospitals. I shudder to make a Nazi analogy, so I won’t. But what other analogy is there for a hospital to even dare start talking about picking and choosing who lives and who dies based on their religion?
Welcome to the Vatican death panels.
Don’t anyone think for a moment that this isn’t a veiled threat of what’s to come.
Remember, the Catholic church warned that it would have to stop foster care and adoption services in Washington, DC and Illinois, rather than abide with anti-discrimination laws, and what did they do? They stopped providing those services in those states. The Catholic bishops are nothing if not consistent when it comes to following through on their threats to harm their human shields.
What’s to stop them from turning away non-Catholics from the emergency rooms of Catholic hospitals - which they just threatened in writing, mind you? These are people who excel at punishing innocent victims, be it a raped five year old or a homeless teenager.
From Maureen Dowd, writing about the latest Catholic scare tactic, distributed in tax-exempt churches, to oppose President Obama’s new contraceptive policy that Mitt Romney previously endorsed as well.The Archdiocese of Washington put an equally alarmist message in the church bulletins at Sunday’s Masses, warning of apocalyptic risk:
“1. Our more than 600 hospitals nationwide, which will need to stop non-Catholics at the emergency room door and say, ‘We are only allowed by the government to heal Catholics.’
The poor oppressed Catholic church. So oppressed that they get $2.8 billion of taxpayer money every year from the US government.
Call them “God’s 1%.”
As Dowd reminds us, the Catholic bishops don’t really speak for actual American Catholics. Note the gay polling, below.I wasn’t surprised to see the Gallup poll Tuesday showing that 82 percent of U.S. Catholics say birth control is morally acceptable. (Eighty-nine percent of all Americans and 90 percent of non-Catholics agreed.) Gallup tested the morality of 18 issues, and birth control came out on top as the most acceptable, beating divorce, which garnered 67 percent approval, and “buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur,” which got a 60 percent thumbs-up (more from Republicans, naturally, than Democrats).
Polygamy, cloning humans and having an affair took the most morally offensive spots on the list. “Gay or lesbian relations” tied “having a baby outside of marriage,” with 54 percent approving. That’s in the middle of the list, above a 38 percent score for abortion and below a 59 percent score for “sex between an unmarried man and woman.”
All they speak for is a Vatican that every four years tries to throw the American election to the Republicans.
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
I’m posting this mostly for myself so I can have a handy link whenever I (foolishly) decide to debate Ron Paul supporters.
How Ron Paul used racist newsletters to wipe out debts, get rich
Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,
But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,
But also REFERENCED HIMSELF in the newsletters.
And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only “some of [it was] offensive,”
Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say
Ron Paul-Supporting Former Ron Paul Secretary: He Knew All About Those Newsletters
TNR Exclusive: More Selections From Ron Paul’s Newsletters (Or: There’s no way in hell he didn’t know what was in them.)
New Batch Of Ron Paul Newsletters Just As Racist As The First
The Freedom To Oppress: Why Ron Paul’s Old Racist Newsletters Matter
Ron Paul has no one Left to Lie To
“Race Terrorism in America” by Ron Paul (PDF)
Ron Paul’s Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They’re worse than they’ve been quoted for.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which “which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style” along with destroying public education and social security, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he’s against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.
Monthly Fuck Ron Paul Post