Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer's REAL Master Plan

Spot it here if player doesn't work.

South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer may sound like a despicable fool here. He may sound like someone who thinks less of the impoverished people in his state than he does of stray cats and dogs. It may sound like his pro-life credentials are in deep jeopardy, considering the massive euthanasia-by-starvation he suggests here.

But if you believe that, then you've just been had by the most brilliant satirist this side of Jonathan Swift. In under three minutes, he's out-performed Stephen Colbert's entire career. Jon Stewart is crying in his latkes.

But so far, very few people are on to him. Sure, he may gain popular support in the Bible belt, where many of his constituents are poor themselves but too proud to admit it. They do not believe that he is talking about them, but about those OTHER lazy, shiftless people that have to rely on government aid and are keeping them from their millions.

You see, Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer is smart enough to understand that government aid to the very poor only amounts to a drop in the ocean of the federal and state budgets. He also understands that it is degrading to be forced to take a drug test, and further that taking away the free lunches of any parents that did fail to pass a drug test is only hurting the already-hurt and neglected children, not the already neglectful said parent. The whole endless cycle of poverty thing to the next generation. He understands that the hungry have low test scores partially because they are hungry and many only get any actual meals only at school, because their families can't afford to work AND live.

LG Bauer is delicately laying down a trap. He's merely got the ultra-conservatives right where they are most vulnerable, their naked contempt for Others, even if those Others are themselves.

I mean, he's not a cold, hard-hearted, stone-dumb idiot monster. Amirite?

Watch for the whammy next. He will go on record as to wanting to starve fat corporations of their government welfare. And then he'll hit the middle class with their tax breaks. Lastly, he'll hit the so-called "Moral Majority" for being so hypocritical, so willing to kill living people while seemingly advocating the rights of the unborn (but of course Mr. Bauer knows that it's a double-edged sword to usher in every fetus as being made in God's image and fully human while denying those same rights of children and adults).

It will be then that those who have rallied behind him - the Tea Party faithful, the Ayn Rand worshipers, the Ditto-heads, the White Aryans, the Birthers, the John Birch Society, the Free Marketians - will look around all starry-eyed at this cloudy and increasingly dim world and ask, "Now what? What can be done now? Our world is turned upside down. We have no faith left."

And this is when Lieutenant Governor and Future Savior of the Republic Andre Bauer will lay out a bold, grand, and lovely new schema: Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned and the infirmed, welcome the stranger, pray for justice and mercy. Whoever wants to lead must serve, whoever wants to follow must be innocent like a child.

And he will lead by example.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

So now that corporations are people

Does this mean that we can finally hold them accountable for screwing over people? for prostituting themselves? for theft? for disregard of basic human conditions?

Can they please pay income tax like the rest of us now?

Will BP spend any time in the big house for polluting our waters? Wal-Mart's been stealing from its employees forever now. Somebody needs to reassure me that it'll be sharing a pen with Big Bubba.

Or do they just get one of them cushy 'white-collar crime' jail cells? Bastards!

Is there no justice?

AIG? Lehman Brothers? Any of these suckers?

Or does this thing only, only, only work for their benefit and our detriment?

The above scenario - of corporations being held accountable for their actions like citizens - is obviously a fairy tale. Because the only entity powerful enough - if that - to do so is the government, specifically the government of the United States of America. Of course the US government is quite a bit inept, and large bit corrupt. Legislators' ears have long been tilted at least as much towards the lobbying interests as towards the voices of the people they are supposed to represent. Yet, the voice of the people still had a hearing.

At least until now...

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

How do you spell Relief? By not giving it, that's how!

-by Mike McGowan

I know, I know, I know. I can already hear the blood curdling cries of “heartless” and “monster”, but I don’t think America now has any reason whatsoever for being in Haiti. (Here is where you would expect him to make a rational case, to dispel this notion that he is a monster. Yet, Mr. McGowan seems to relish in the fact that he is not only a monster, but an incompetent boob as well. If you can stand the assault on your precious brain fluids and connectors, please read on...) This represents a change from my previous position, immediately following the earthquake, where I was of the opinion that any life-loving individual who was able to help had a moral responsibility to assist. Let me explain…

Ayn Rand wrote the following in her essay “The Ethics of Emergencies (1963)”, found in her book The Virtue Of Selfishness:

The proper method of judging when or whether one should help a person is by reference to one’s own rational self interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money, and effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)…

A rational man does not forget that life is the source of all values and, as such, a common bond among living beings (as against inanimate matter), that other men are potentially able to achieve the same virtues as his own and thus be of enormous value to him. This does not mean that he regards human lives as interchangeable with his own. He recognizes the fact that his own life is the source, not only of all his values, but of his capacity to value. Therefore, the value he grants to others is only a consequence, an extension, a secondary projection of the primary value which is himself.
(So, in other words, Ayn Rand is a self-loving atheist who does not believe in the golden rule. Nor can she truly believe that Jesus' injunction to love your neighbor AS yourself has any true value. This disturbs me for many reasons. I'll start off with a memory ingrained in my mind as a young fearful Christian that I was impressed to treat 'Secular Humanists' with the utmost disregard. This bothers me now because I realize that even though the SHs may not love the Lord their God with all their heart, mind and soul - hence the 'Secular' part of their name - they do a pretty good practice of loving their neighbors as themselves - the 'Humanist' part of their name - or at least enough to fight for privileges that they may have to be extended to those that don't. On the other hand, Ayn Rand and her acolytes - many of them fine people in other regards - would rather that every person fend for herself. This is true Darwinism at its worst, and it seems more fitting in an oligarchial system than in a true democracy, let alone with the many young self-professing Christians who are now a-smitten with Ayn Rand's atlas shoulders.)

Now, whether or not you like Ayn Rand or think she was the devil’s mother-in-law (Go on...), you cannot seriously argue that you know that you would try to rescue the drowning stranger from her illustration. (Boy, I'd love to see the connection that he makes here. If, say, you give five dollars to Red Cross by sending out a text, you may accidentally open yourself up for attacks by life-threatening phone bills, or radiation emanating from your headset. Or get struck by lightning. But in any case, there's got to be an extreme danger of everyday citizens' lives at stake here in order to make as bold claims as Mr. McGowan is making, surely.) You may like to say and think that you would, but there is no way you could know if you would dive in until faced with the situation. Ayn was telling us why we cannot have that certainty: A rational individual, possessed of self-esteem, cannot place just anyone’s life above their own in terms of value. The closeness of the bond with the other individual is what determines where on the 0% to 100% sliding-scale-of-inherent value they land, and the position an individual holds on that scale determines whether or not you’ll go in after them, with the whole thing being governed by the severity of the situation’s danger. ("Danger"? See. Ok, big boi, give us your best shot. Tell us what kind of danger awaits your typical aid-giver.)

When the news of the earthquake started coming in, when the pictures started showing up on the TV and internet and we began to see the loss of life and devastation, I felt about the same as every other person on Earth felt: We need to help those people.

Why that reaction? Two reasons: 1) “We” usually means “Other People” (Well, for you it does. And I could see why, based on your picture. Holy cow. I mean, HOLY COWS), and 2) “Help” usually means “Give some money to those other people.” Giving to the Red Cross and other charities, while at times a dubious activity where you never know what the money will be spent on (Do you ever know where that money is truly spent on? Say you, Mike McGowan enter into a McDonald's and order a couple Quarter Pounders with Cheese, a Large Shake, two orders of fries, a couple apple pies, and a supersized Diet Coke to wash it all down. Now, before you give your money over, do you ask where exactly your ten or so dollars is going to? Do you demand a detailed list to make sure that none of this money is going to end up in the hands of some drug dealer or as pay-off bribe money for the CIA? Nope, you put down your mother's hard-earned twenty dollar bill, wait for your change and order, maybe bark a little, and scarf down the remainder of your humanity along with too much corn to be safe for human consumption, NQA.), is at least a safe, relatively easy method of satisfying the impulse to aid people in an emergency. Here in America, being as fortunate as we are to have the lives of relative luxury we have, we can usually afford charity, and we give a lot to charity, mainly because there are many moral, ethical people here who truly value life (And here's where you tell us why you're an immoral, unethical monster).

I was all for an extension of relatively-safe charity to the people of Haiti, as was the entire country. But no longer.

It began this weekend, when I caught this bit in a story by the Washington Post:
But there was rising frustration — and scattered looting — among the desperate Haitian population. On Friday, the World Food Program had to suspend distribution of high-energy biscuits near the destroyed national palace when a crowd revolted, complaining that they were not getting better food.

Well… My first reaction was “Ingrates”. That put a pretty sour taste in my mouth. Beggars can’t be choosers, and revolting because you’re getting MREs and not T-Bone steaks when there isn’t a lick of food in your whole damn city kind of pissed me off a bit (Let them eat cake! LOLZ). I didn’t get a T-Bone steak last night either! Don’t see me revolting because of it…

(No. I did not touch this article. Teh stoopid things he writes are intact. I swear to almighty jeebus he is that spiteful a man to rush to the judgment of a people starving and think that they are complaining because their food is not four-star quality. That it never once crossed his mind that they might be complaining because the food is actually inedible, or that they needed something apart from dry biscuits. Or rather, because this is a case near the capitol building that maybe, just maybe these are the very few pampered Haitians on the island, ones not previously forced to subside on, say, dirt pies.)

But today’s headlines and opening paragraphs sealed the deal for me.

About 30 Americans were hurt Monday during a massive relief operation in the Haitian capital in what was described as a “mass casualty event,” US officials said. breitbart.com

WASHINGTON - Some incidents of violence in Haiti have hindered rescue workers trying to help earthquake victims, a top official leading the U.S. government’s relief efforts said Sunday. FoxNews.com

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti - Some 2,200 U.S. Marines arrived off the shore of this crumbled capital city on Monday, their mission to protect a huge relief operation from marauding looters as hundreds of thousands of earthquake survivors wait desperately for food and medical care. MSNBC.com

Violence, looting, attacking Americans who have volunteered to come and give you aid? Hell to the naw! I’m sorry, but the earthquake didn’t hit America, there is no need for it to claim American lives (And yet Saddam Hussein didn't hit America either... Wait, what the f00k? What American lives were claimed by this? Even if one or more were - though they weren't, which the above cited articles make abundantly clear - these Americans - these OTHER Americans as Mickey "Poop My Pants" McGowan made abundantly clear himself just earlier - are trained and know the dangers. They are brave men and women who feel a need to actually DO something that may COST them something. That is why they volunteered, Mike McDumbass). If this is the thanks we’re getting, fine, screw ‘em. Let them starve, die because of a lack of medical care and infection, get pulverized by drug lords and the like. I have not one iota of pity for those who strike at the people coming to help them! (The truth is, that when it comes to other people, specifically "colored", "foreign", "dark", "poor" or "funny-talkin' Frenchy-like" people - all of which apparently the Haitians have against them - some inconsiderate xenophobes will not bother trying to appreciate their point of view - let alone why they may be scrambling to try to get relief. Let me break it down for some of these people: They are starving. If you are starving in a McDonald's and the line seems to be taking too long, you get a little impatient. But the difference is that you know that you will eat soon enough - if not here, then somewhere else. If not now, then shortly. You will eat, and your children won't die of starvation, or internal organ damage. You have no reason to be aggressive. The Haitians don't have those guarantees. They don't have that luxury. Try walking a mile, just a mile...)

If they’re going to go on the war path because aid isn’t getting there fast enough, let them stew in their own misery for a bit with no aid and no promise of aid in the future. Let them see how bad it really can get. It’s what they deserve. (Yeah! Shows them right for getting in the middle of an earthquake. Stoopids!)

To head back to Ayn Rand’s example of the drowning man: One of the first things they teach lifeguards is that you never swim right out to a drowning individual and try to pull them to safety. The drowning person, scared out of their mind and incapable of rational thought, will kill you to try to stay above water. They’ll stand on you, try to push up off of you, hold you under even if it means you both die, because they want to survive. It’s our natural instinct. The lifeguard must instead wait for them to quit struggling, wait till they slip below the waves, then grab them and pull them to shore. (Note: I can't swim and, hence, never trained as a lifeguard. But apparently neither did Mikey, as one of his own readers points out just how inaccurate this analogy is. Drowning to save? Yeah, doesn't work in your fantasies even, Mike...)

This follows Ayn Rand’s model of ethics in an emergency to an absolute “T”. (Except for the fact that neither you nor Rand would even volunteer your awesome lifeguarding skillz. Too weak to swim on their own means too weak to survive, suckaz!) Haiti is a drowning nation. It is fighting, kicking, individuals are fighting not only to survive, but to advance themselves (yes, to undeserved statuses such as "living". Boy, they sure do know how to make billions in Haiti!). This is not the proper climate for us to be delivering aid. As we bring in aid, the various gangs and warlords (which are already there) will be taking it and selling it or holding it back from the people. It’s happened to US relief efforts all over the world. We’re risking the lives of American doctors, soldiers, etc for no reason but to give petty tyrants power and an easy life (and maybe to help some black families that speak the Frenchy language and practice teh devil-worship), and that is not worth it to me (who has not offered to risk my life or any money in the first place).

Let the nation restore its own order, then we (immoral, unethical monsters that we are) can move in to help. (Truly, all they need is to restore their government and self-control. They don't need food, shelter, medical relief, supplies, time, international aid, UN, doctors, councils, the US to stop meddling in their government... After all, if every other nation can so hold themselves up so high by defeating parochialism, poverty, violence, injustice, and corruption, why can't the Haitians do it? Because they're shiftless and uppity, that's why!)

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

This is how awesome the Republican Party is...

...feeling right now thanks to one of the worst-run special senatorial campaigns since Obama blasted that other black guy in Illinois some six years ago.

Thanks to Jon Acuff via Facebook for this AWESOME mindblowing, facemelting portrait.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Wherein a no-name blogger gets a call from Pat Robertson himself explaining himself

Jasdye: hello!

PR: Bonjourno! Is this jasdye? May I speak to Mr. jasdye?

Me: Of course, this is the jasdye household. jasdye speaking. Is this...?

PR: Yes, it's me, Pat, your old friend...

Me: I wouldn't say that we're fr...

PR: Listen. So --- I'm in a bit of a jiffy here. I need you to help me out if you can, and I know you can so please cut the bull.

Me: Me? Help you out? How, with my super-de-dooper blogging skills ?

PR: Yes, of course. You have a window to the world that I do not have.

Me: Cripeys! I have like four readers, if that.

PR: Are they intelligent readers?

Me: I suppose, if you don't count the ones that are drunk-Googling "Sarah Palin is a hot fox"...

PR: Then you've got an audience that I don't have.

Me: You mean the drunk---

PR: No, of course not. And I'd like to tell them the other side, my side of the story that I just told the world. You see, I wasn't being racist or homophobic or zebraphobic...

Me: "Xenophobic."

PR: Or any of that other stuff. See, true story, I know these things because God himself told me about them.

Me: Audibly?

PR: Yes. Of course. He talks to me just as surely as you're talking to me right now.

Me: True story?

PR: True story. So, you see, when I make these damning alleged damns on people getting stricken by natural disasters, dying, losing their families and homes and jobs and entire towns -- when I say these things, I'm not being a hate-filled masochist like you think---

Me: You're right.

PR: Of course.

Me: I AM thinking those things of you.

PR: Nor am I hating on the negroes and towl heads or all the Mexicans, or the homo-men-lovers and dykes...

Me: Ummm... You DO realize...?

PR: ...but rather, I am speaking for the mouth of god, who loves all people - even the Islamists. And even some of the baby-killers. But not all of them.

Me: I don't think you understand that you're....

PR: Yes. You see, whippersnapper, God called me up the other day himself, himself I tell you, true story, and he says, "Pat?" I said, "Yes, Lord, it's me." He said, well, first he said, "We need some more cat food. Could you pick up some on your way home?" And then he said, "Oh, and, true story, the Hatians made a pact with the Devil to get the Frenchies out." I said, "Yeah. Are you pulling my leg, God?" "He said, 'What? Um, no. I'm not, Patty My Boy. The Haitians made a pact with the Devil because they were trying to get out of the Frenchies' spider-looking thumbs." And it was the only way they could get out, because God wanted the Europeans in control...

Me: Now, wait, you're saying that the Haitians gained their independence through the Devil. But, but what about the US? We were under colonial rule as well. We declared our independence and then fought a massive war to be a sovereign nation. If God wanted the Haitians to obey their overlords, wouldn't he also want the former 13 to do the same?

PR: No. We weren't slaves. And we had God on our side. We made, you see, the pact with the right person... True story.

Me: But if we chose the right side, then the Brits chose the wrong side?

PR: Hmm... Sure.

Me: And the Haitians chose the wrong side and have been cursed for it ever since, then it only follows to reason that the French must've chosen the right side. See, now the US and France are both loved by God.

PR: No, the God I hear doesn't follow the rules and logic of "Reason." That would be a mistake.

Me: Okay. But you have to admit, this all sounds fishy. For example, if God wanted to give the United States a clarion call to tell it to end its abortion practices, then why only attack the Atlantic coast with hurricanes? What do hurricanes have to do with abortions? Did they show up in places with a high percentage of abortions? Did it destroy the abortion industry or even dust-up the infrastructure? I mean, what possible link says "Hurricane=God's judgment on abortion"?

PR: Well, you're forgetting one important factor, jasdye...

Me: Yes?

PR: ...and that is, fancy boys and gay gals.

Me: So the hurricanes may be God's discipline for abortion and for allowing homosexuals to live, but not for say, genocide or slavery?

PR: Of course. Because you see, when a man and a man get together to do their... their dirty, dirty deed, that's a sin against all of nature. Everybody is affected, see?

Me: No...

PR: And when a mother gets an abortion, that child could be anybody's child, anybody's grandchild. Everybody is affected. Now, on the other hand, the other sins were either down by (bad, real bad) or to (nil factor) dark-skinned people. But I'm not being racist, I'm just telling you what God told me....

Me: Okay, I think I got enough. I'm going to fire up the old oven and throw my head in now.

PR: True story?

Me: True story.

PR: Well, listen, it was sure nice meeting you and talking to you. Hope to see you soon and all...

Me: Hope you burn in a nice cozy corner...

PR: I'm sorry, what?

Me: (click)

PR: God? Is that you?

Friday, January 1, 2010

She's Gotta Have It

Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel
Last weekend while you were shooting moose from a helicopter with your video game controller, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care hostage situation in a very shady and veiled homosexxual reference. The Senate ended surgery on my grandmother without even reading her Miranda Rights. That and midnight basketball games seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C. No one is certain of what’s in the bill because I can't read it if it's not posted in WorldNETDaily, but Senator Jim DeMint (R-Etard) spotted one shocking monkey regarding the section in the bill describing the FEMA camps' Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Death and Rationing Advisory Board), which is a panel of booty-scratchers charged with cutting bloody health care costs with a butcher knife on the backs of patients – also known as butchering. Sometimes known as maiming. Or backstabbing. Killing. All that quite frankly nasty stuff, youbetcha. Because when they lower costs in medicine, they're just killing innocent, hardworking real Americans left and right. Just like a butcher. Apparently Reid and homosexual lovers have changed the rules of Battleship so that the section of the bill dealing with this waterboarding can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:

“This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We've never, ever, ever seen anything quite like this before in the history of the US or even the Polandara Galaxy where I'm really from. Imagine, deals. They are making deals! Oh, the crying shame. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a giant monkey pee-pee that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. YOU CAN'T EVEN REPEAL A LAW THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!!1! I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional - because I've never read the goshdarn thing, hell, I just make up the whole thing. The interwebz for anything other than propaganda and porn is unconstitutional, it is. But if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule of Jude Law. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill, roadhouse, townhouse, outhouse, steakhouse, big house, poor house, and House MD in the country. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to be immortal for future senates. Zombies!! Vampires!! Team Edward!! Ronald Reagan!! Glitter, sparkle, glitter. I mean, we want to bind future congresses so we can play naughty games. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses. And I know something about trampling the rights of minorities, lemme tell ya.”

In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision from loonies like us that make big screeching mountains out of falling poop. Could it be because grandma-eating is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep the Black man down? Could it be because they are afraid of grandmas and not only want to kill yours now, but also you too when you become your own grandma? And abort your grandchildren before they're even born?

The Congressional Buttface Office (
SNURK!) seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:

“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”

And since I get all my information through my big daddy Bill Kristol - or just "Big Daddy Pain" - you should listen to us. Though Nancy Pelosi and anybody with any modicum of sense have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of monkey-butt tomfoolery – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor all by myself and without any help from anybody else. FIRST!!

This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives, just like the interstates - and we all know how horribly THAT turned out. We’re talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the government’s thumb (which it won't be, because government won't have much control over it), rather than health insurance's thumbs, where it belongs. We’re also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care and clean underwear, which they will also ration.

Republicans and Democrat "moderates" screwed this bill up so much that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with a bill that I would like to take credit for destroying and turning ALMOST worthless? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve because they don't want to stay there on Christmas Day. Ignoring my last statement: Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits until immediately - or if you believe me, until Jesus comes back riding on a dinosaur and wipes all the liberals and gotcha journalists off the face of the earth. (That’s the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won’t grow the deficit for the next ten years. And we all know what to do with tricks, right?)

The administration’s promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one because my party has held every one of his promises hostage for ransom. We are all hoping that Stockholm Syndrome will take in - we desperately need to be loved. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with cat-snuffing satanists, a BLACK man in the WHITE House and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals for insurance lobbyists (Ooops. Did I say that outloud? No? Good). Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their part-time leader/quitters on Facebook and Politico?

My only concern is
about politics, not health care. REal Americans don’t care for poor, brown, black, suffering, sick people. Americans don’t like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to my ramblings about nothing at all. And so has Todd. But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming someday, according to my liberal elite calendar.

- Sarah Palin

Text transliterated from the depths of an Alaskan mudslide.