Photobucket Enjoy Every Sandwich



Wednesday, June 25, 2008


FUCK IT, I'M GONE!

You can find me here from now on.

Labels:

10:44 AM


The Passing of Greatness: Notes on the Death of George Carlin

I find that as I get older, things suck more. Music sucks, novels suck, politics sucks, and few things suck as much as comedy. I'm a crotchety old man and I'm not even 40 years old yet. But the fact is that none of those things are as good as they were just a twenty years ago.

The only thing worse than watching everything suck more and more is watching the masters of those forms grow old and die. We're in an age where we're not just seeing artists go, we're seeing entire art forms go with them.

Will there ever again be an album as great as Exile on Main Street or Highway 61 Revisited? How about a novel like Lolita? Does anyone seriously think that there'll be another president who achieves as much as Harry Truman or even Richard Nixon?


Does anyone think there will ever be another comedian like George Carlin?


Anyone who studies comedy - which really isn't something to studied - will tell you that there's a holy trinity of the form. It consisted of Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor and Carlin. Anyone who followed them modelled themselves on at least one. As brilliant as he was for about three years, Dave Chappelle was essentially covering the same ground as Pryor thirty years ago. The same is true of Lewis Black and Carlin.


What's different is that they don't have the same insight or humanity. When you watch Chappelle or Black, you'll laugh your ass off, but you don't feel like you would after 90 minutes of Bruce, Pryor or Carlin. You'll laugh a whole lot, but you won't really learn anything. Watching the first group, you walked away thinking "I never really thought of that that way before." And that just doesn't happen these days.


Unlike today's comedians, Bruce, Pryor and Carlin all structured their comedy like music. If you listen to it without paying particular attention to what they're saying, you start to notice little rhythms and counter-rhythms developing. It beautifully built to a point as opposed to race to a punchline, which is what you see all too often now.


Of the three, Carlin was the only one not to destroy himself. In so doing, we got to see that you can take that form of comedy and have it mature with you. Unlike George Carlin's predecessors from the fifties and early sixties, he wasn't doing the same act into retirement that he started out with.


If anything, Carlin's humor got much darker as he got older. Routines like Football and Baseball and A Place for my Stuff were gradually replaced with far more existential riffs that were far more entertaining, at least to me. As much as I appreciated The Seven Words You Can't Say on Television, I fell in love with the more apocalyptic aspects of his last twenty years.


When I was a little kid, my parents were massively pissed that my older cousin introduced me to George Carlin. They were even more pissed that I loved his work so much. By the time I was twelve, I could recite several of his albums by heart - not just the material, but all of the breaks and inflections in it, too. That made them truly nuts.


But the more he listened, the more my father, at least, understood that Carlin was much more than just a guy who said the word "fuck" a lot. Nothing that he did was done for the sole purpose of shocking an audience. When he did it, which was often, there was always a larger point to be made. There was a universe of difference between George Carlin and an idiot like Andrew Dice Clay.

Having a point in recent years has been the death of otherwise great comedians. If you look at Bill Maher and Dennis Miller, as just two examples, you see how true that is. Both have suffered from the syndrome that killed Lenny Bruce's humor; they wanted to be right more than they wanted to be funny. But Bruce had been persecuted to the point that he earned that right. Maher and Miller just want to please their respective political comrades. Consequently, Miller has had a string of failed shows and Maher isn't far behind.

Perhaps the greatest tribute to George Carlin was on Monday's Larry King Live. Some of the biggest names in comedy were on the show, and only one of them, Lewis Black, has been remotely funny over the last decade. Carlin was on stage three times as long as Jerry Seinfeld, but he always stayed hungry and wanted to always be better at his craft, while Seinfeld was happy driving his Porsches and making bee cartoons.

Carlin worked for fifty years. He recorded 23 albums and made 14 HBO specials. He was one of the truly great ones and he will be missed

Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: A Legend in My Time By: Johnny Cash From: American V: A Hundred Highways

Permalink

Labels:

12:55 AM

Tuesday, June 24, 2008


WHEN DUMB AND CRAZY COLLIDE

I don't have aby first hand experience, but I'm pretty sure that being accused of rape would suck. That would be doubly true if you're actually not guilty.

Getting over a rape accusation would be pretty tough, assuming that you're even exonerated in the first place. This isn't a popular thing to say, but just the charge of a sexual assault makes a fair trial very difficult. The charge itself stirs up so many emotions that it can cloud the judgement of otherwise rational people. And no one wants to believe that a woman would make up such a thing.

Indeed, even if you're one of the few who manages to get acquitted, you still find yourself (pardon the pun) screwed. People will automatically assume that you must have done something to find yourself in a position where you're accused of that. People will always look at you just a little bit differently when they learn of your past brush with the law. It can ruin your life, both professionally and personally.

But women sometimes do fabricate a rape charge. In that, it isn't all it different than any other crime. Because even real victims frequently wait before reporting an assault, there is often no medical evidence to disprove the charge. In both the courts of law and public opinion, it is a matter of "he said, she said," and most people are naturally inclined to believe the woman.

In fact, it's probably more common when a celebrity is involved. Some accusers are little more than extortionists, who file a criminal complaint as a way to tee up a lawsuit which will inevitably be settled. And some accusers are just batsht fucking crazy. The fact that there are almost never any consequences for making a false rape accusation only encourages both the extortionists and the insane.

At the end of March, Poison drummer, Rikki Rockett, was arrested in Los Angeles on a Mississippi warrant for sexual assault. It was a pretty big story and things certainly looked bleak for young Mr. Rockett.

However, not only was Rockett not guilty, he wasn't even in Mississippi during the month in question. His exoneration wasn't as heavily covered. It was announced a month ago and I didn't hear about it until this morning at The Superficial. If you have as much time on your hands as I do, google "Rikki Rockett rape case" and you'll find his being cleared .... as the ninth entry. Seven of the first eight highlight his arrest.

Of course, I'd like to congratulate both Mr. Rockett and everyone in Poison, but that's hardly my point in writing this.

I always thought that if you were going to accuse a celebrity of doing something horrific that it would be helpful if you could find someone who is still actually famous. Seriously, Rikki Fucking Rockett? Is it still 1987 and no one told me?

If you're going to lie about a rape, why not make it interesting? Say that you were gang-banged by Rudy Sarzo, Alec John Such and the guy from Cinderella! Why not go nuts and further state that the whole thing was videotaped by Jeff Pilson?

False rape accusations hurt everyone. The more often they occur, the less likely it is that real victims will be discouraged from reporting real assaults by practioners of hair metal. The saddest part of the Rikki Rockett rape saga is that it makes it almost impossible for anyone to believe my story about being fingered by Lita Ford.

I'm not saying that it was an assault or even unwanted. In fact, it was rather enjoyable and something that I'd very much like to repeat. I just wish that I could tell the story and not have people roll their eyes at me. Because the part about being held down by Vixen is really sexy.

Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Talk Dirty to Me By: Poison From: Look What the Cat Dragged In

Permalink

Labels: ,

10:36 AM

Sunday, June 22, 2008


"DESTROY ANOTHER FETUS NOW, WE DON'T LIKE CHILDREN ANYHOW"

I'd like to describe myself as "pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but I'm not a coward. I'm not afraid to say what I'm for, and that happens to be abortion.

No one would describe themselves as being "pro-choice" on, say, civil rights. When was the last time you heard someone say "You know, it would be really nice if black people could vote without being lynched. Y'know, unless white people don't want that?"

No one is "pro-choice" on guns. You either have that right or you don't. Period. The same is true of abortion. If you believe in it, you're not "pro-choice," you're pro-abortion. And if liberals weren't such snivelling little assholes, they'd be proud to say so. When it comes to the rights of the people, there really is no "choice" involved. You either have a right, or you don't.

It might not seem like it, but I actually do respect "pro-life" voices. The problem is that most of them are the same kind of cowards that the "pro-choice" idiots are. If you believe that abortion is the murder of another human being, you do not make exceptions for "rape, murder or the life of the mother." If you believe that there are certain classes of expendable human life, then you're no better than a fucking Nazi.

Abortion is not a morally incrementalist argument. It's either murder or it isn't. A fetus is either human life, or it isn't. The only truly immoral voices in the debate are those of the vast middle, the "choice" believers on the left and the "exceptionalists" on the right. What they seek to do is, pardon the pun, split the baby.

I disagree with pro-life absolutists with every fibre of my being, but I can at least respect them for being honest. I can't say that for everyone else who isn't me. If you argue that "rape, incest and the life of the mother" are incremental steps in banning abortion outright, you might be the most immoral people of all. You are, by your own definition, willing to sacrifice innocent life for decades until you achieve some far away goal. Those terrorist assholes who bomb abortion clinics are more morally honest than you are, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for even suggesting that in public.

I happen to believe that if you can't prove that a fetus is human life beyond any legally definable doubt, then you should cede the choice of what to do with that mass of cells that will someday drop out of college to the person carrying them in their bloated bellies. That's just how I roll.

I have a very difficult time reconciling the belief that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ... shall not be violated, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation" has any exceptions. If anything, the freedom of a woman's uterus from government interference is much more important than, say, your collection of sawed-off shotguns and Internet porn. My position on abortion rests on the foundation of security of the person, particularly the one that everyone can actually agree is a person. Without the security of the person, all other rights are essentially meaningless.

If I have a problem with Roe v. Wade, it is that Justice Blackmun's reasoning is almost incomprehensible. If I were to write that decision, it would be all of two sentences long. It would read "The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution, taken as a whole, clearly establish a right to personal privacy. Fucking deal with it."

Even as strident a pro-life voice as Justice Antonin Scalia has said that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits abortion. Whenever I see a doubt as to what the Constitution says, I feel compelled to side with the individual over the state, which the Ninth Amendment does, too.

Instead, Blackmun wrote an incredibly muddled opinion that has only served to make the United States the political laughingstock of the world. Even the people of a backward country like Ireland, that bans abortion totally, laugh their asses off watching American politicians obsess over an issue than effects a grand total of one (depending on your definition of "life") person.

Widely ignored is the fact that Roe was the least important of two abortion decisions from the 1973 term. The real ground breaker was Doe v. Bolton. Even if Roe was overturned, it wouldn't affect Doe, which established access to abortion.

As a Canadian, none of that matters to me particularly. Canada is alone in the industrialized world in having no abortion law whatsoever. This was a consequence of Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Dr. Leslie Frank Smoling and Dr. Robert Scott v. Her Majesty The Queen, in which the Court found that the federal law violated the "security of the person" provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

After Morgentaler, there was almost no constitutional foundation upon which to write a new, restrictive law. Also, the politics were horrible. Just mentioning abortion in the context of an election campaign is a good way for a political party to get dead fast.

It should be noted that unlike the United States, all criminal law is by definition, the jurisdiction of the federal government under the Criminal Code of Canada. One of the most important parts of Morgentaler v. Her Majesty, the Queen was the finding the provinces cannot pass abortion laws on their own.

Amazingly, Canada has been an abortion law-free kingdom of tranquility and happiness ever since.

Of course, that doesn't stop the jackals in the goddamn liberal media from polling us on abortion.

The poll by Angus-Reid - a firm that I have found to be traditionally unreliable - finds that 91% of Canadian support abortion rights to one degree or another. That isn't hugely surprising. What does shock me is what happens to the numbers when you add public funding to the equation.

When it comes to funding abortions, though, there is not the same level of support.

The same poll found 44% of respondents thought the public purse should only pay for abortions that were medical emergencies.

Four percent think the health-care system should never fund abortions.
Egan said the numbers surprised her, but that they may not truly reflect people's thoughts on the issue.

She said many younger women, low-income women and women from rural areas could not afford abortions if they had to pay for them themselves, and so if the public system didn't pay for their procedures, it would amount to discrimination.
Firstly, the Canada Heath Act (socialized medicine to my American readers) doesn't, despite the best efforts of a bunch of liberal cocksuckers, doesn't deny treatment for maladies incurred by bad behaviour. Those leftist assholes would love to deny me coverage for my eventual cancer and heart disease because I love smoking more than anything in the world.

Furthermore, the taxes I pay on my cigarettes are, according to my government, supporting the fucking system in the first place. As I remember it, that's the justification for tobacco taxes in the first place. Should I demand that those taxes only pay the costs of smoking-related illness? How would all of Canada's remaining stupid motherfuckers react to that?

And what about all of those fatasses out there. McDonald's kills almost as many people as Imperial Tobacco does! Why are those sloppy, sweaty fuckers getting off so easily?

What said leftist assholes overlook is that most health maladies are the result of bad behaviour. When I first had this argument with a professor in college, I used the example of HIV/AIDS, perhaps the most preventable disease in North America after 1984. That didn't go over very well because liberals don't want to say that anything bad that happens to homosexuals might be a result of behaviour.

Making moral distinctions regarding care under a universal health care system would indeed be discriminatory. If you won't pay for a woman's abortion, why should I pay for her retard kid? Abortion is a one time payment of about three hundred bucks. Retards cost a fortune over their lifetime in health care benefits. That's to say nothing about the cost of their education. Them floppy-headed fuckers are expensive, and as a fiscal conservative, I object to footing the bill when an alternative exists.

Like it or not, Canadians have decided that health care is a right. Through our courts, we have also decided that abortion is a right. Furthermore, anything that involves sticking things into a woman's uterus that isn't me is by definition a health-related matter.

If nothing else, abortion and emphysema are at least fun-related conditions. Someone had a good time getting that way. But the 50% of you assholes who are body-surfing your way to Type 2 diabetes on a wave of fucking cheeseburgers and pancakes stuffed with chocolate and peanut butter are the last people who should bitch about funding abortions with your precious health care dollars.

Yet you fat, moralistic motherfuckers are going to be the first ones in my wallet when you have your fucking feet cut off, aren't you?

Let me get this straight, my tax dollars are only supposed to encourage certain kinds of behaviour and not others? Encouraging a girl to be a filthy little whore who needs it bareback is wrong because it costs a few hundred bucks, but holding a parade for you assholes who eat an entire pig for dessert because the fucking cow wasn't filling enough is right because you have a glandular problem is compassionate?

If that's true, fuck you and fuck Canada. I hope the goddamn terrorists win. At least they'll be more honest than you are.

Everybody in this fucking country is an asshole but me.

Thank you for your attention.

Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: The Future By: Leonard Cohen From: The Future

Permalink

Labels: , , ,

12:40 PM

Saturday, June 21, 2008


BARACK OBAMA: HIS BATTLE WITH TRUTH

In 1995 the British journalist and historian Gitta Sereny published the biography Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth, which examined the disconnect between his exculpatory statements during and after his war crimes trial at Nuremberg and the historical record. Sereny, although personally fond of the Third Reich's Minister of Armaments, found that he was nowhere near as innocent as he claimed to be during the last thirty-six years of his life.

Barack Obama is waging his very own battle with truth, and he's doing it within the context of a presidential campaign. Just this week, he has renounced not one, but two major pledges that he made during the primaries, the most recent of which was made just three months ago. It would be a stunning thing to see from an average politician. It is all the more so coming from an almost deified "change agent" espousing a fuzzy and vague brand of "hope."

During the Ohio primary, Hillary Clinton created a great stink regarding NAFTA and her intention to "renegotiate" it to protect American jobs. This was interesting, in so far as most of the lost jobs are more of a consequence of the rise of India and China and the self-defeating stupidity of the American labor and business communities. NAFTA became a catch-all for all the bad American economic choices of the last forty years.

No one was particularly surprised that Hillary would do this. The Clintons have a richly deserved reputation for doing and saying anything to win, regardless of how asinine those assertions are to anyone with a modicum of education. To almost everyone's surprise, Obama decided to compete with the Clintons on who could be tougher on trade, saying that he would use the "hammer" of withdrawing from the treaty to strengthen America's advantage. Not surprisingly, the Clintons won, crushing Obama in the Ohio primary.

Just on NAFTA alone, I was glad to see it and almost wished that one of them was telling the truth and won the presidency on the strength of such a platform.

The Clinton and Bush administrations have made it clear to both Canada and Mexico that the word of an American president is not to be trusted. Of NAFTAs three partners, the United States has been in violation of the treaty most frequently and most unrepentantly. And when that has been the finding of the NAFTA arbitration panel and the WTO, the Clinton and Bush administrations have ignored their rulings.

I've written about how Canada was essentially raped in the softwood lumber dispute before. Worse is the treatment that Mexico has received. 15 years after NAFTA specifically called for the access of Mexican trucks to American roads, the US Congress and Bush administration continues to stall on it, going so far as attempting to pass a law prohibiting it. No reasonable person can be expected to long deal with a partner who only adheres to the parts of a deal that benefit them and lie about or ignore the provisions that don't.

I was great supporter of both the US - Canada Free Trade agreement and NAFTA, so much so that I voted exclusively on those issues in the federal elections of 1988 and '93. To this day I don't regret that support. What I regret is the way that the United States government has conducted itself for the last sixteen years. I voted to partner with the United States of 1941-92, an internationalist nation that stuck it's word and honored its obligations. That country has effectively ceased to exist regarding trade issues.

In his memoir, My Years as Prime Minister, Jean Chretien explains the pressures an American president faces in trade disputes from individual senators when trade becomes an issue. A senator can - and often does - exert pressure on other parts of a president's agenda to force violations of treaties to get their way. And that's what created the softwood lumber dispute. Senators from the American northwest didn't like actual competition and forced the Clinton and Bush administrations to implement protectionist and illegal measures.

Especially priceless was President Bush's reaction when the WTO ruled against the United States. He said that he "would welcome" further negotiations on the matter with Canada. You know, I'm pretty sure that Charles Manson would have "welcomed further negotiations" with the Los Angeles District Attorney's office after he was convicted on 9 counts of first degree murder, but life doesn't work that way. Furthermore, the American government had no problem banning Canadian beef over Mad Cow concerns, but cried to the fucking heavens with other countries banned US beef for the same reason.

I would love like nothing else for an American president to come to Ottawa and demand a "renegotiation" of NAFTA to protect the environment and labor standards. I'd tell him or her to repeal Taft-Hartley and adopt Canada's. I'd also have a few things that I'd like to renegotiate myself. These would include the provisions that demand that Canada supply the United States with energy and fresh water at the previous year's levels, even if Canadians face a domestic shortage. Just to be a prick, I'd demand that the Americans allow Mexican trucking on their roads as NAFTA clearly calls for.

If that president refused, I'd use the "hammer" of opting out. I don't give a shit what pressures a president faces from his Senate or domestic opinion. If the United States can't be relied upon to keep its word, no one should give a fucking inch in dealing with them. No treaty at all is better than a selectively honored one.

Why would anyone renegotiate something that one party isn't complying with in the first place? Wasn't that the justification for invading Iraq?

The fact is that when Prime Minister Mulroney negotiated free trade with President Reagan in the eighties, Canada was being strangled by an out of control deficit and smothered in debt. We negotiated from a position of weakness. That's no longer true. Canada is now the only G8 country operating with a budget surplus and is rapidly paying down its debt. Oh, and we have all the oil now.

It is now believed that there might be more oil in western Canada than in the Arabian peninsula. If you believe President Bush's assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and know how the phenomenon of addiction works, you know that a junkie doesn't dictate the terms of a drug buy to his or her pusher. Can you think of another reason why Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and the source of the overwhelming majority of terrorist money for decades, isn't a target on the War on Terror?

I'm still a free-trader. I'm just not sure that we can trade freely with the United States when it is incapable of trading honestly or fairly. As Senator John McCain pointed out yesterday in Ottawa, Canada is the single largest export destination for 36 of the 50 United States. That will almost certainly continue to be the case whether that trade is free or not. But while, say, Michigan cannot negotiate a free trade deal with China, India or the European Union, Canada can.

I'm sick to fucking death of being targeted by assholes like George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton because they want to please their domestic idiots. If you want to "negotiate," then let's do it. If you want to threaten to opt out of NAFTA, I'm at the point where I'm willing to do it first. Yes, I'll lose jobs in the process, but you'll lose ten times as many. And you'll lose your guaranteed access to oil and water in the process. Anyone who has read me for any length of time knows that I'm a great proponent of the American doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

Not surprisingly, just as McCain was coming north, Obama dropped his hammer.
Barack Obama, who once vowed to use the "hammer'' of opting out of NAFTA to force the renegotiation of the trade pact, now says he will seek change through dialogue if he is elected U.S. president.

The presumptive Democratic nominee says in the upcoming edition of Fortune magazine that campaign rhetoric can sometimes get "overheated and amplified," and he denies he would move to unilaterally reopen the trilateral trade deal.

(...)

"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said in the Fortune interview. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.''
Hmmm, turns out that the famous Canadian embassy memo wasn't as false as Obama spun it to be, was it?
At a debate in Cleveland in the final days of the Ohio primary campaign in March, Obama agreed with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton when she said the six-month opt-out clause should be invoked on NAFTA to force changes.

"I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labour and environmental standards that are enforced," he said.

But every time Obama alters his statements on NAFTA, he lends credence to a Feb. 8 memo describing a meeting between his economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and George Rioux, Ottawa's consul-general in Chicago.

The Canadian memo, which was leaked to The Associated Press, said Goolsbee told Rioux that Obama's campaign remarks about NAFTA should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy.
American assholes decrying Canadian interference in the US primary process caused an unimaginable amount of shit in Canadian politics. The "Obama memo" led to an investigation of the Prime Minister's Office and, indirectly, the resignation of the chief of staff. And now we learn that the memo was largely correct.

What said assholes need to learn is that if American candidates are going to use foreign nations to their political benefit, those nations reserve the right to respond. And we'll do so in your precious fucking primary system if it becomes necessary. If Stephen Harper's staff was behind the leak of the Obama memo - which it almost certainly was - my respect for them just went up about fifteen notches.

After 15 years of being fucked over by the Clinton and Bush administrations, we should cut any other candidate who tries it off at the knees whenever possible. Whoever actually leaked that memo to CTV and the AP should be awarded the Order of Canada and a loving, sloppy blowjob from our super-hot Governor General.

American politicians have shown absolutely no reluctance in using every weapon in their arsenals for decades now. I see no reason why foreign governments shouldn't involve themselves in the electoral process if they continue to be used as a tool for American liars and scumbags getting elected. Besides, it isn't like the United States is entirely innocent in inserting itself in the democratic political process of sovereign nations.

If an American candidate says one thing to a foreign government and another thing to the American people, that foreign government has an obligation to its own people to point that out. So long as American politicians are going to present themselves as the model of openness and democracy, they shouldn't be allowed to hide behind diplomatic niceties as they screw their neighbours. I only hope the Mexicans start doing the same thing.

To use Obama's own pilfered phrase from The Untouchables, Canada brought a gun to his NAFTA knife fight. And you know what? We kicked his fucking ass. We know a little bit about "the Chicago way" our own selves.



Young Barack made another monumental flip-flop this week regarding public funding of his general election campaign.


Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.

(...)

“The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” Mr. Obama said. "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."

Mr. Obama had pledged to meet with Mr. McCain following the primaries to attempt to work out an agreement on financing the campaigns. That meeting never took place, aides to Mr. Obama said, because a meeting between lawyers for the two sides was not fruitful. "It became clear to me that there wasn't any basis for future discussion," said Robert Bauer, the general counsel for Mr. Obama’s campaign.
Let there be no doubt at all, Obama is completely full of shit. His lies in justifying his decision are nothing short of mind-blowing.

John McCain has a long-standing histoy of wanting to restrain 527s. The problem is that the law won't let him. He actually did speak out against the evil and wrong Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but since he wasn't on the ballot, the law didn't apply to him. A 527 is a tax-exempt organization and is therefore precluded from having any communication or coordination with a campaign. That's a matter of federal law.

If McCain were to even attempt to honor Obama's conditions, he'd be committing a felony and Obama knows that. You'll also note that Obama hasn't called on Democratic 527s like MoveOn.org or America Coming Together to hold their fire. Obama doesn't also point out that 15 of the 20 largest 527s in the 2004 cycle were alligned with Democrats

That goes double for Obama's assertion about McCain controlling the RNC. Under current law, the nominee is prohibited from coordinating with the national committee. That was just one of the campaign finance laws that President Clinton broke during the '96 campaign that led to McCain-Feingold in the first place.

If it were up to me, McCain-Feingold would have been avoided because the national parties and presidential candidates wouldn't get public money at all. Obama's right, but for all of the wrong reasons. And he's going to get away with it because so-called conservatives are so fucking dumb.

As much as conservatives like to bitch about campaign finance regulations, they never stopped taking public money to finance their campaigns, did they? Public financing is nothing more than welfare for rich white guys who want to rule the world. But as conservatives never fail to remind other welfare recipients, that money comes with strings attatched. Since recipients of the former AFDC program surrendered their Fourth Amendment rights, why in the fuck shouldn't the DNC and RNC surrender their First Amendment rights?

Besides, didn't President Bush sign McCain-Feingold even as he explicitly said it was unconstitutional? Didn't he also swear an oath to "uphold, protect and defend" the Constituton?

"Good government" shitheads love to say that campaign finance legislation is necessary to prevent things like bribery. What they overlook is that bribery is already a crime. As a matter of fact, it is already written into the Constitution as an impeachable offense. If conservatives were people to be taken halfway seriously, they would renounce "preventative" law enforcement measures across the board as opposed to the ones that just effect them at the ballot box.

If Republicans weren't completely full of shit, they wouldn't protest campaign finance laws as they accept public money. Wasn't "making government live by the same laws the people do" a part of the goddamned Contract With America?

If anything, Obama is taking the more conservative position on campaign finance. It would be better if he pledged to return his matching money from the primaries, though.

That doesn't mean that he isn't a duplicitious motherfucker, because he is. So far as I know, he has supported every reform law since Watergate but now refuses to abide by them. Obama is taking a prticularly rich "destroying the village to save it" position on public financing. It didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work in general elections. And thank Christ for that. I hope that all campaign finance laws are destroyed as a result.

If Obama believes that the system is "broken," he would do something other than abandon it to fix it, although that's pretty much the position the government has taken on New Orleans. The fact remains that Obama wants to save the city by watching it sink.

But Obama couldn't have picked two better issues to lie about. Every sensible adult thought he was lying about NAFTA and no one gives a shit about campaign finance, given what hypocrites Republicans have been about the system.

This guy's a pro, make no mistake about that. The only question is how stupid his adherents in the "new politics" movement are going to feel once they finally realize that Barack Obama was never one of them after all.

Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Lies By: The Rolling Stones From: Some Girls

Permalink


Labels: ,

10:29 AM

Thursday, June 19, 2008


DIAMONDS ARE A GIRL'S BEST FRIEND, STEPHANE DION TAXES CARBON

I've been studying politics like the sexless geek that I am for well over twenty years now. And if I've learned anything, it is that if you're a candidate whose leadership ability has been questioned for 18 solid months, you should come out of nowhere and announce that you're going to tax one of the very building blocks of life. That almost always works.

But be sure that you don't say anything specific about your new tax on all things animal, vegetable and mineral other than you'll implement it. Much better that your opposition can define you for months on end when you could be defining yourself. Better still if the only person willing to support you in public is Jason Cherniak.

That's all you really need to know about politics and, fortunately, that's all Stephane Dion knows. He's performing about as well as you would expect a guy who became leader of the Liberal Party of Canada by accident would. Since his ascension he has resisted repeated opportunities to bring down a government he himself has said is destroying Canada and waited for the perfect issue on which to campaign. And it turns out to be one that he explicitly rejected during the leadership campaign.

New taxes, as you might imagine, are not usually something that politicians promise during a campaign. They tend to be something that are lied about, usually prefacing the term with the word "no." This is either the craziest fucking thing that I've ever heard or Dion has learned a magical new secret about how the electorate thinks.

The plan started leaking on Wednesday and Dion is set to outline it in public today. To be fair, Dion's policy is actually being touted as a "tax shift." This will involve taxes being levied on carbon-based pollutants while income taxes are reduced. In theory, this makes the plan "revenue neutral," something that Canadians are supposed to cherish.

The problem is that taxes are never revenue neutral. It just doesn't happen that way. One can suppose that would be double true when the tax supposedly has a moral purpose such as saving the universe. Politicians are impatient and the public is stupid, so if the tax is implemented and Saskatchewan doesn't become Eden in the first six months, you can rest assured that the tax will become increasingly aggressive.

Furthermore, Canada is such a small country and our percentage of the world's carbon emissions is so insignificant that all 33 million of us could live the life of the Amish and it would do virtually nothing to stop global warming. Even the Bush administration, which created an energy task force comprised entirely of oil executives, is doing better at meeting Kyoto targets (which they didn't even ratify) than is Canada.

Then there's the issue of climate. You might not know this, but Canada gets awfully cold in the winter. And the winter lasts well into July. Home heating oil and natural gas are primary targets of the tax "shift." Not everyone makes enough to pay federal income taxes, but everyone does share the biological imperative to avoid freezing to death. Not only does the carbon shift expand the tax base, it does so in the most regressive way imaginable.

Yes, the Dion plan does call for credits for lower income Canadians, but those can be fleeting. Back in the 90s, when the Liberals learned that running an economy through massive deficits and carrying horrific debt loads, subsidies and tax credits are usually the first thing to go. Under Chretien even health care transfers to the provinces took a significant hit. If the economy goes into recession, which is happening even as we speak, the government is not going to start throwing money around.

Then there is the inflationary effect of the tax shift. Did you know that a chicken, for example, doesn't walk onto your plate and commit suicide? There are several, carbon intensive steps, involved in getting it there. Each one of those steps is about to become markedly more expensive if the Liberals get their way, and those costs will be passed on to you, the consumer.

Anyone who doesn't know what inflation in a recession looks like should study the 1970s. Not only does it cause extreme economic pain, wipe out your savings, and cost you your job, it makes you dress funny. Implementing this tax at the best of times would be inflationary in the extreme, doing it during a recession will be economic suicide. Furthermore, the costs of restructuring the entire tax code to accommodate Dion's pledge might be enough to put the government back into deficit.

Then there's the matter of doing this when gas prices are so high. As much as Americans like to bitch about that, they're paying the lowest price to the gallon of any country outside of OPEC. While US prices are averaging about four dollars a gallon, Canadians are paying over five.

While Liberal spinsters like Mr. Cherniak are saying that gasoline will be exempt, the leaks of the plan don't say that at all. What it calls for is "moratorium on new federal taxes on aviation and diesel fuel for the first year." The problem is that gasoline prices are dictated by the price of oil, from which both aviation, diesel and gasoline all come. I'm not at all sure that you can raise the price of some and not others.

This of course, calls into question the purpose of government. If you're of liberal leanings, this is the ideal tax for you. Not only will you still have your income taxes, the GST and provincial sales taxes, you'll get the Liberals behaviour modification tax as well. You'll be ever so happy if you believe in the power of the government to make life better.

I don't happen share that belief in government. I'm of the mind that the federal government should be limited to paving roads and killing foreigners, two things that it isn't particularly good at. Most Canadians are shocked when the government can shovel snow in less than a week, but now we're expected to believe that it can actually save the world?

Then there's the electoral politics of this, and I've never seen anything handled so disastrously. Dion started musing about carbon taxes months ago but refused to give ant details. This has allowed the Conservatives to define the plan for him and not in the ways that he'd prefer. And most Liberals are just dishonest, not stupid. They have been the government for most of the last century and are the most successful political party in the history of western democracy. They understand how elections work and they understand that no one is going to vote for a giant new tax, shifted or otherwise. This has understandably caused all manner of discontent within the Liberal caucus.

This is not a revenue neutral tax in the way that literate adults understand the term. Not only is it extraordinarily inflationary, it moves Canada away from the principle of progressive taxation and toward a system that rewards or punishes behaviour. The problem is that the poorer you are the fewer options you have regarding your behaviour. Worse still, if you subsidize the bad behaviour of poorer Canadians, you defeat the stated purpose of the plan.

Even if this plan were the greatest thing ever, it is almost impossible to properly explain the context of a thirty second commercial or a ninety second debate answer. And unfortunately for Stephane Dion, those are the only things that voters pay attention to. All Stephen Harper is going to need to say is "Yes, climate change is important, but so is the cost of feeding your family. If you think that you aren't paying enough, I encourage you to vote for my opponent. However, if you think that you're paying too much, you should trust the Conservative Party to manage our fuel crisis and stop inflation before it starts."

And then Stephane Dion will be destroyed.

I don't know what it is about Dion, but he seems determined to make every day Christmas for Stephen Harper.

Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Fall on Me By: R.E.M From: Life's Rich Pageant

Permalink

Labels: , ,

12:19 AM

Tuesday, June 17, 2008


CLAYTON WILLIAMS SAVES THE DAY

As you might have notice, I have a minor affection for US political campaigns. They tend to embody everything that's wrong with the human spirit, and any given campaign could take no fewer than five of the seven deadly sins and put them on a bumper sticker. The messier a campaign is, the more I tend to love it.

Perhaps my favorite race of all time is the 1990 Texas gubernatorial race. The candidacy of one Clayton Williams, the Republican nominee. Not only did he make every conceivable mistake in politics, he seemed to glory in it. It was truly beautiful thing to watch and I still smile when I think about it. It reminds me of a more innocent time when Texas politicians could be moral and political disasters without winding up president of the United States.

When I endorsed Kinky Friedman for governor in 2006, I asked "Where have you gone, Clayton Williams? He is truly a man for all seasons.

If I remember correctly (and I'm far too lazy to find a verifying source), Williams kicked off his 1990 campaign by proudly stating that he hadn't paid taxes at all the previous year. There are few ways to establish your "common man" bona fides better than that.

Things only improved with Williams reached out for the women's vote. This was important because the Democratic nominee was the late Ann Richards, who was thought to have a political lock on broads. When asked what his strategy against Ms. Richards was, Williams replied that he would "head her and hoof her and drag her through the dirt" just as he would the cattle on his ranch. And if you know women like I do, you know that they love nothing better than to be compared to a pack of steer.

But Mr. Williams was nothing if not a helpful ally to broads in the war of the sexes. He was full to the brim of helpful advice to women everywhere. Particularly on the touchy subject of rape. On that, the prospective governor couldn't be more helpful. "As long as it's inevitable," Williams opined, "you might as well lie back and enjoy it."

Even though that advice correlates closely with what experts on sexual assault tell us - with the notable exception of the part about enjoying it - women were less than appreciative of Clayton's sound advice. And it allowed the Richards campaign to run this ad endlessly.



What disturbs me the most about Williams' comments is the expression of hope that Richards hadn't started drinking again. That was strategically stupid in that Texans are nothing but enthusiastic about electing dry drunks to high office. Ann Richards, as we know, was succeeded by George W. Bush, who had actually been arrested for drunk driving. If Lindsay Lohan were only willing to move to Austin, she would have a bright future in Texas politics. She's certainly more fun than Rick Perry and more pleasing to the eye.

But the dreams of Clayton Williams were dashed, the way was cleared for the Dark Age of Bush, and we are all poorer people for it. I hope everyone remembers that the next time they get their panties in a knot about rape jokes.

Worst of all, Williams left us to suffer the consequences of what we had done as President Bush heads us and hoofs us and drags us through the dirt. Had Williams won, he would have almost certainly been renominated in 1994. Without that first election in Texas, Bush would never have been elected president. I hope all those busybody women's groups are happy.

Missing Claytie as I have, I was thrilled to learn last night that the McCain campaign brought him back from obscurity. Everyone else, however, was less enthusiastic.
John McCain should have been fundraising in the Texas oil patch yesterday alongside his good friend Clayton Williams. In the town of Midland, Republican heavy-hitters were lined up to sign some equally weighty cheques for their man's presidential campaign.

Instead, the candidate was busy trying to salvage an already shaky reputation after America's female voters had been reminded of derogatory remarks that "Claytie" Williams made about women and rape nearly 20 years ago. While running unsuccessfully against Ann Richards for governor, the Texan was overheard comparing rape to the weather: "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."

Following the resurrection of this and other off-colour remarks, the McCain campaign decided abruptly to cancel the fundraiser at Mr Williams's lavish Midland home. The campaign is also promising to hand back the $300,000 (£150,000) Mr Williams has already raised for the McCain campaign as it tried to contain the damage.

Mr McCain's spokesman, Brian Rogers, said: "These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time [the fundraiser] was scheduled."
As I've often stated in this space, I've long been a great admirer of Senator McCain. I can't say the same about his campaign staff. They should clearly be set on fire and thrown down an elevator shaft.

How can anyone with even a passing acquaintance with politics be "unaware" of Williams' remarks? Those remarks were famous and students of political history giggle and masturbate when thinking about them to this very day. I'm a schmuck and I don't know much about anything, but if I'm familiar with Clayton's colorful past, how can million dollar campaign consultants not be? Haven't these fucking people ever heard of Google or Wikipedia?

That's actually a serious question. If Team McCain can't vet the potentially controversial people they attract, what would a McCain administration look like? Would Jeremiah Wright be in charge of the faith-based initiative program? How about Richard Ramirez as Attorney General? How would they explain that to, say, the Senate? "The nominee's conduct was incredibly offensive, but we were unaware that he raped and murdered all of those folks. As you know, the campaign didn't spend much time in Los Angeles and AC/DC endorsed Senator Obama."

I still think McCain is going to win, and win pretty handily. But that's not because his team is so scary smart. The fact is that Obama, his quoting of Sean Connery in The Untouchables" notwithstanding, is prone to saying stupid things and is demonstrably incapable of taking a punch.

But McCain better get is shit together quickly because it is possible to throw away a perfectly good election. Just ask Clayton Williams.

Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Rape Me By: Richard Cheese From: Lounge Against the Machine

Permalink

Labels: , ,

11:19 AM

Monday, June 16, 2008


JESSICA SIMPSON'S TITS HAVE A POINT!

Whenever a celebrity has a message, I have an overwhelming urge to punch them directly in the fucking head. This is because those messages are almost never fun. Those messages usually involve stopping the genocide in Darfur, not sexually harassing every woman I meet and not being a prick, all of which are beyond my power to accomplish. What else does the guy from Coldplay want me to do, walk on fucking water?

That's why I like simpler celebrities with simple messages. And great big hooters. Those are the celebrities that you can listen to and hold up to the children as an example. Let's face it, you're kids aren't going to grow up to be Rambo and they aren't finding Darfur on a map anytime soon. This is because your kids are going to be every bit as lazy and worthless as you are.

Now you know why Jessica Simpson is the greatest celebrity of all time. Other than having a breathtaking rack, she has simple, achievable messages that every young girl needs to know and, furthermore, live.

Real Girls Eat Meat. That's all you really need to know. Real. Girls. Eat. Meat.

Lots of you broads, particularly the young ones, think that vegetarianism is the answer to staying thin and sexy. And it might be. But vegetarians are also exceptionally annoying. Everytime a right-thinking person sees one of them, he or she longs for a well to throw them down. Or a pack of rabid wolverine to gang rape them to death. It doesn't really matter which, but a world with any justice at all would involve at least one.

But there's another way, a way that you might not have heard about because the goddamn liberal media has been keeping a secret. All you have to do to be thin and sexy is to go to Wendy's and eat seven or eight Baconators. Then as you feel yourself starting to digest it, run to the bathroom with your fingers in your gullet and puke the whole mess up. If you follow that up by eating no fewer than twelve laxatives, that helps, too.

Not only will that keep you trim and attractive, it's healthy, too. Those fucking Baconators will kill you. But they're too delicious to avoid entirely.

Jessica Simpson knows all of these things and, Christ, just look at those knockers! They're damn near perfect, and refuse to accept the word of any dopey doctor over the truth that those funbags speak to us all. All the truth you'll ever need can fit into Jessica Simpson's beautiful D cups. Arguing with those would be like kicking Jesus in the balls.

Those tits, as we all know, are hard nippled hammers of truth. They are incapable of lies. It's a biological imperative. The nipples hypnotize their owners into always telling it like it is. If you were to break a rack like that out at Guantanamo, waterboarding would go back to being what it was intended to be, a way to pass the time.

If you're a parent with daughters who doesn't hold Jessica Simpson up as a role model, I just don't know what the fuck you're doing to your kids. If the government was halfway responsible, they'd bury you alive.

Picture ruthlessly stolen from The Superficial

Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Eggs and Sausage (In a Cadillac with Susan Michelson) By: Tom Waits From: Nighthawks at the Diner

Permalink

Labels: ,

11:09 PM