John McCain is a schmuck. John McCain is a sniveling weenie. John McCain is a bumbling buffoon of a fuddleduck. John McCain is a sleazy, pandering, deranged, and insufferably vapid goon. John McCain is, let there be no doubt, a right-wing extremist. But lest I be accused of hyperbole, for a republican candidate, he’s not so bad. After all, he got tortured in Vietnam, which apparently imparts upon one a higher degree of wisdom or morality, or something. It probably tends to engender a diminished proclivity to torture other people, as in McCain’s case. I guess that explains why he is nearly unique among his extremist comrades in that regard.
Besides his opposition to torture, there are a couple of other ways in which McCain is not so bad. But I can’t think of any right now. Suffice it to say that McCain is no George W. I sincerely believe that he isn’t an evil bastard, as opposed to the shrub, though he obviously lacks the degree of integrity or personal fortitude which would be required to counterbalance the seething tide of wickedness promulgated by his cohorts, and indeed, he seems to keep blissfully in step with their sinister ploys, except when doing so gives him nightmares that make him pee his bed, apparently.
Let me make my case.
First, he hardly ever makes any sense. For example, one of his keystone issues is domestic drilling. He talks about it everywhere he goes and acts like it’s some kind of “magic bullet” that will solve all of our energy problems, saying that it would “be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis." Hmm. That puts him at odds with virtually every analyst in the country, including the Federal Energy Information Administration, whose 2007 study concluded that domestic drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030”. Other analysts put the return on investment even further out. The FEIA study also says that “Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” THAT MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT ON DOMESTIC GAS PRICES FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS, and then, the impact on prices will be “insignificant”.
Shut up, already.
Why does he get away with spouting that nonsense all the time? The reason, of course, is that his followers either don’t bother to listen to objective analysis, or they get all their news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh. The effect in the mind of the uneducated voter becomes, “well, at least McCain is going to do something to make my gas cheaper”. The fact that the Republican party so uniformly supports domestic drilling in the face of it’s total purposelessness is, of course, simply an illustration of the extent to which they are in the pocket of the world’s largest and most powerful corporations. We might as well call them the Exxon-Mobilicans.
Another of my favorite inane statements from McCain came forward a couple of weeks ago in the form of a major policy statement, “What we need today is an economic surge. The surge has succeeded in Iraq militarily -- now we need an economic surge to keep jobs here at home and create new ones.”
Of course! A surge! It worked so well in Iraq, so obviously it’ll work in when implemented in a totally unrelated way, in a totally unrelated arena. The details of this “surge” remain undefined, except for massive tax breaks for the largest corporations, of course, as well as a continuation of Bush policies. But hey, who needs sound economic policy when you can just, “surge!”? Sounds good to me.
But perhaps the scariest thing about McCain is his apparent inclinations when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. When asked by Rick Warren, “What Supreme Court justices would you not have nominated?” McCain responded, “…Justice Ginsberg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter and Justice Stevens” accusing them of “legislating from the bench”, a charge I’ve never quite understood. Clearly then, he has no problem with Scalia the Evil, or Clarence “The Government derives it’s right to rule from God” Thomas the Stupid (or as Obama put it, “He’s not a strong enough legal thinker”). If McCain wins the presidency, we are headed for a true disaster in the Judicial branch.
Please don’t let anyone you know vote for that schmuck.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
I had to. I couldn't help it!
What can I say? I love Marx and I love Bama!
And yes, that is THE Red Army Choir, comrade.
And yes, that is THE Red Army Choir, comrade.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Olympic boycott?
Calls for a boycott of the 2008 Olympics have increased lately as a result of the humanitarian disaster occurring right now in Tibet.
I'm not sure I favor anything more than a Diplomatic boycott, and/or a boycott of Olympic sponsors. A full boycott would likely not accomplish much. Opponents of a boycott point to the fact that the Olympics have served to shine light on human rights abuses committed by China, and that China has vowed to improved its human rights record as a condition of hosting the games.
None of that has amounted to anything meaningful yet. Now that the inevitability of the Beijing Olympics has been solidified, China is certainly moderating its promises of improvement. On the contrary, China's behavior seems to have become even more brazenly anti-humanitarian, i.e., the brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters in Tibet, the arrest of political dissidents, and hyped-up rhetoric justifying its support of the genocidal government in Darfur, Sudan.
But what I'd like to know is, Why was China considered as a host in the first place? China's human rights abuses certainly don't seem to be in line with the IOC's official Charter stating, "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." China continues to routinely torture its people, arrest and jail dissidents, and generally behave as autocratic dictatorships are inclined to.
And the situation in Tibet is particularly nasty. The Chinese Government is killing people for peacefully protesting, and the IOC is lending them prestige and international legitimacy. The USOC is complicit in this, of course.
But, all that aside, the over-riding reason that the Olympic games should NOT be hosted by China is their support of the Sudanese government. China is supporting the genocide in Sudan, the biggest humanitarian crisis of this century, with weapons and money. That fact led Steven Spielberg to resign as artistic advisor to the 2008 Olympics, saying, "At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur."
Way to go Steve! But I'd really like to see the International community step up and refuse to condone the legitimization of genocide. Is that too much to ask in 2008?
So no, there should not be a boycott of the 08 Olympics. The Olympics should be moved to another city. Or at least that threat should be firmly on the table. The leverage that could be exacted by such a threat should absolutely be exploited to its fullest potential. It is a moral imperative.
And let's be clear; the IOC, as one of the sleaziest organizations around, will do nothing on its own. The threat of a full pull-out must come from, oh, I don't know, maybe the U.N.? Why not? Using the threat of a pull-out to compell China to make human rights improvements, on several fronts, represents the easiest, least costly, and perhaps most effective means of effecting change in the world today.
It is an opportunity that must not be squandered. But, of course, it will be.
I'm not sure I favor anything more than a Diplomatic boycott, and/or a boycott of Olympic sponsors. A full boycott would likely not accomplish much. Opponents of a boycott point to the fact that the Olympics have served to shine light on human rights abuses committed by China, and that China has vowed to improved its human rights record as a condition of hosting the games.
None of that has amounted to anything meaningful yet. Now that the inevitability of the Beijing Olympics has been solidified, China is certainly moderating its promises of improvement. On the contrary, China's behavior seems to have become even more brazenly anti-humanitarian, i.e., the brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters in Tibet, the arrest of political dissidents, and hyped-up rhetoric justifying its support of the genocidal government in Darfur, Sudan.
But what I'd like to know is, Why was China considered as a host in the first place? China's human rights abuses certainly don't seem to be in line with the IOC's official Charter stating, "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." China continues to routinely torture its people, arrest and jail dissidents, and generally behave as autocratic dictatorships are inclined to.
And the situation in Tibet is particularly nasty. The Chinese Government is killing people for peacefully protesting, and the IOC is lending them prestige and international legitimacy. The USOC is complicit in this, of course.
But, all that aside, the over-riding reason that the Olympic games should NOT be hosted by China is their support of the Sudanese government. China is supporting the genocide in Sudan, the biggest humanitarian crisis of this century, with weapons and money. That fact led Steven Spielberg to resign as artistic advisor to the 2008 Olympics, saying, "At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur."
Way to go Steve! But I'd really like to see the International community step up and refuse to condone the legitimization of genocide. Is that too much to ask in 2008?
So no, there should not be a boycott of the 08 Olympics. The Olympics should be moved to another city. Or at least that threat should be firmly on the table. The leverage that could be exacted by such a threat should absolutely be exploited to its fullest potential. It is a moral imperative.
And let's be clear; the IOC, as one of the sleaziest organizations around, will do nothing on its own. The threat of a full pull-out must come from, oh, I don't know, maybe the U.N.? Why not? Using the threat of a pull-out to compell China to make human rights improvements, on several fronts, represents the easiest, least costly, and perhaps most effective means of effecting change in the world today.
It is an opportunity that must not be squandered. But, of course, it will be.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
McCain: A man of principle

In his 2000 campaign, McCain famously said that he would "openly condemn agents of intolerance", refering specifically to the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Recently though, he has been buddying-up with such unsavories as John Hagee who blamed Hurricane Katrina on gay parades in New Orleans.
I suppose that "condemning agents of intolerance" has become too much of a political liability for McCain. Though I wonder if that is wise on his part.
Principle indeed.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
