Eaglefly124 @eaglefly124 - Tumblr Blog

Empires Fall

Remember when CBS CEO Les Moonves said of Trump's candidacy, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."? He was of course referring to the sound-bite-heavy speeches, and the ratings to be had covering all the outrageous rhetoric Trump used to ascend to his current position.

I understand that at the time Moonves said those words, most rational people thought there was very little chance an ignorant buffoon like Trump would be where he now is. But he is- and now he seldom speaks to the media, his WH press briefings don’t allow cameras, and our Secretary of State might as well be in the Witness Protection Program. The entire administration scorns media, and Trump and his mouthpieces deride it as “fake news”. A GOP candidate body-slammed a reporter and got elected to Congress.

So tell me, Les Moonves- is it still good for CBS?

If a parasite kills its host, it either dies as well, or has to find a new host. Since CBS is an American company, anything that is bad for America is also bad for CBS.

The above illustrates an idea that is central to my hatred for the Republican party, who regards America exactly the same way. Despite the fact that every single empire in human history has fallen, they treat the United States as if nothing they do will affect our standing in the world, our economy, our “empire”.

They can sabotage the economy (as they did with deregulation of banks, and their refusal to help Obama address the crisis that followed), and it apparently never occurs to them that America might not recover. They can threaten to not raise the debt ceiling, which would affect America’s credit and ability to borrow money. Carelessness and stupidity of that nature would almost certainly (eventually) result in the dollar no longer being the de facto world currency, which would do yet more damage to our economy. Congressional Republicans either know this, and play with fire anyway, or they are so ignorant about what their own jobs entail that they are a complete menace to the country. It never occurs to them that their idiotic tantrums can do actual damage.

They can plan to strip healthcare from millions (in exchange for an enormous tax cut for already-wealthy people and industries), with never a care for the fact that they are passively murdering and/or bankrupting their own voters, and fellow citizens. And of course, this is damage from which they are completely immune- they’re killing YOUR healthcare, not their own. It is apparently of no concern to them that- since they generally use other people’s children to fight the wars they start- a country full of unhealthy peasants wouldn’t make a very good army to defend their ivory towers. Nor would the peasants be inclined to do so.

They vote to strip away environmental protections that were put in place when American rivers were literally on fire- and whose purpose is to keep our air safely breathable and our water safely drinkable- so that corporate polluters (and just plain corporate looters, in some cases) can enjoy higher profits. Obviously they never read “The Lorax”; Ted Cruz choose a different work by Dr. Seuss when he did his fauxlibuster on the Senate floor. Since they live in the same country and on the same planet, I don’t understand this one at all. They can’t eat or drink money, or take it with them when they die...maybe they just don’t care if their grandchildren can ever swim in a river, or play outside? Regardless, it’s just one more way they “use” the country, but don’t protect it.

Over and over again, they act as if this “American empire” is infallible, and that the United States is impervious to the damage they do. It’s obscene, and it’s stupid. I know humans seldom learn from history- but every past empire has fallen, often due to arrogance and complacency. And the current Republican party in America is as arrogant and complacent as you can get.

~ Eaglefly124 6/23/2017

The Shooting In Virginia

The GOP consistently supports an any gun/anyone/anywhere policy. The same GOP is currently trying to strip healthcare from millions of people- in secrecy, so they will not have to face the backlash (or the people they will be condemning to death, suffering, bankruptcy).

Isn’t Steve Scalise lucky to have excellent health insurance in his time of need?

So, while the GOP are not actively trying to kill anyone, they commit so-called “passive” acts of violence against people on a regular basis.

I do not condone the violence visited upon them today. But I also do not condone the uncaring violence they thoughtlessly- and sometimes proudly- visit upon others (remember the beer party over their first attempt to kill the ACA?).

They declined to change their NRA-whoring ways after 20 little kids were massacred. And after their own colleague Gabby Giffords was shot. And after 49 people were murdered at the Pulse nightclub. Even their hero Ronald Reagan (the real one, not the myth they’ve constructed) felt that some limitations on gun policy were perfectly acceptable.

Yes, what happened today at a baseball practice was terrible. But similar incidents happen all over the country, many times, every year. None of those incidents concern the GOP enough to make them rethink their gun policy, or their healthcare policy. None of the GOP stop to think about what happens to anyone else who gets shot. Or their child, or parent, or spouse. None of the GOP think about the consequences, if that family has no health insurance. The previous version of the GOP healthcare bill (the one people were actually allowed to READ) exempted insurance companies from paying for, among other things: Hospitalization, Emergency, and Prescriptions. It’s quite possible that a shooting victim might require all three of those categories, don’t you think?

I do not condone the violence GOP members faced today. But I’d be lying if I didn’t admit I find it easier to sympathize with people who cannot exert any control over violence perpetrated against them- by criminals, crazies, or congressmen.

~Eaglefly124 6/14/2017

9/11

A few words about 9/11, for the record:

I remember 9/11 perfectly well, as do most sentient beings in America who were alive at the time. We were attacked. It was traumatic, and devastating.

But- to be blunt- I'm tired of the annual self-flagellation. We didn't learn to be vigilant, we learned to be bigoted. We didn’t learn to question our politicians and hold them accountable, we “learned” to hand over our privacy to help them “keep us safe”. We didn’t learn that violence begets violence (we were attacked, & started wars in two countries- including one that had nothing to do with it- which helped bring about Daesh), we “learned” that we should all have guns in case we turned over a rock and a terrorist was under it. And we didn’t uphold our supposed values- or laws- and the ideals that made us superior to our enemies, we tortured people instead.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, we armed and helped the “freedom fighters” (a group that eventually included the young Osama bin Laden). And promised to be there to help them in the future. The Soviets bled themselves dry- in actual blood, AND money- failed, and left. We promptly bailed, leaving Afghanistan, and the mess made by the superpowers’ proxy war, behind. (Newsflash- they don’t hate us for our freedom, “they”- in various places around the world- hate us for repeatedly doing things like that. Read Charles Pierce’s recent writing about Laos: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48369/obama-laos/ for further example.)

And, oh-by-the-way, we’re about to do the same sort of thing AGAIN. In America’s ongoing and apparently endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are thousands of Afghans and Iraqis helping us (as translators, for instance). We promised them sanctuary, since what they are doing for us could easily mean a death sentence for them (and their families). The program authorized to fund this sanctuary expires September 30, and Congress isn’t renewing it- so, again, we made promises we won’t keep and eventually we’ll just bail.** (Also, let’s note that Congress wants us to keep fighting these wars, but they don’t want to get their hands dirty by voting on anything related to them- an abdication of their congressional responsibility, and a display of utter cowardice.)

Why do “they” hate us? Gosh, I can’t imagine.

Anyway, it seems to me we’ve learned nothing (useful) from 9/11. And it feels like we often no longer observe it as a remembrance of those lost, but as a renewal of our “national grudge”- with no reflection on our own policies that affect how we are perceived around the world.

I remember 9/11. I will never forget. But I can’t help wishing that we actually learned from history.

I- like most people- have many, many thoughts and emotions related to this day. I do not in any way intend any disrespect to those lost on 9/11, or the heroism of our first-responders, or to our troops who have fought on our behalf since then. I’m trying to honor their sacrifices with an honest accounting of some of those thoughts and emotions.

**Link to segment of Rachel Maddow’s show discussing this, 9/7/16: http://on.msnbc.com/2ciiSow via @msnbc

~Eaglefly124

My Fellow Americans (and Sanders supporters)

I voted for Bernie in the primary, and I’m not a big fan of Hillary Clinton’s. Having said that, I will now tell you that I will be voting for her in November. I’ve seen a lot (way too much, to be honest) of Sanders’ supporters planning to vote for Stein, or even Trump, and I want to be perfectly clear about how I feel about that:

It’s fucking stupid, childish, and dangerous- and if that’s your plan, it’s best if you don’t follow me, because you have effectively declared yourself my enemy.

I understand being disappointed by politics- get used to it, that’s how it is. I’ve cast more votes against people than I ever will for people. Life’s tough, get over it. The lesser of two evils may kinda suck- but it’s still the LESSER. I have complained quite a lot in my blogs here about the Democrats, who often fail regular people miserably on many issues- but the GOP always fails, and by a wider margin. I think the DNC sucks, I would never give them a penny, and I frequently tell people to support candidates they like and NOT the party organizations, who will take your money and use it to elect people you don’t particularly like or support. But putting Republicans in charge- particularly the crazy, irresponsible fraud that is Trump- is NOT the answer.

We are not yet and probably will never be (at least in any of our lifetimes) at a point where a third party candidate can win. Therefore, voting third party is a waste of your time and your vote. The one thing our two parties agree on is making sure no one else can jump on their gravy train, and they have carefully coordinated the election process to keep it that way. Between the media attention, the money, the name recognition, the lack of party organization behind you- it’s difficult on a small scale, and pretty much impossible on a national one.

As I have said, I am not a Hillary fan. However, Donald Trump is a racist, misogynist, know-nothing, completely ignorant and obnoxious pig. He has insulted women, blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, the disabled, Jews- did I forget any? This man would be speaking for the United States, setting our foreign policy, nominating Supreme Court justices (lifetime appointments, remember). If the Senate and House remain in GOP control, a President Trump could sign every piece of stupid legislation they’ve passed (overturning the ACA, defunding Planned Parenthood, and every other ideological piece of garbage they dream up). Right now, only President Obama’s veto pen stands between us and all the GOP bullshit (along with a few GOP senators in blue or purple states who want to be reelected even more than they want GOP wet dreams signed into law).

Trump is, in my opinion, DANGEROUS. He’s an idiot with a big mouth, and he’s accustomed to being a bigshot businessman, where some toady is always available to kiss his ass and tell him how right, how smart, how wonderful he is. But the United States isn’t a company, it’s a country, and the President doesn’t get to just impose his will on everything he touches. Furthermore, Trump appears to have the attention span and temperament of a four year old- again, this is flat-out dangerous in a leader. And as a businessman- supposedly his qualification for being President- he’s ripped people off, discriminated, and declared multiple bankruptcies.

If you supported Sanders and the things he talked about during his campaign (money in politics, the influence of the wealthy and corporations, climate change, unions, the minimum wage, reproductive choice, college tuition, etc), I understand if you don’t feel Hillary is your best representative on some of those issues. But Trump doesn’t support ANY of them.

You are entitled to your disappointment and/or anger, and you have the right to vote any way you please. But if you intend to use your vote in a way that might culminate in a childish, stupid, vindictive, bigoted asshole like Trump getting elected, then it is my opinion that you are also being childish and stupid.

I will not argue with you about it, and- other than this post- I won’t try to talk you out of it. But I don’t appreciate your choice to sabotage your country, and me, because you’re angry. That is precisely what asshole Republicans have been doing for the last eight years.

~ Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

*Editor’s Notes: Use of the words “my enemy” above was a bit strong. But you’re not helping me or the USA.

Also, I don’t *want* to argue about it/try to talk you out of it...but I might.

Dear American Media

Wonder when most American media will stop thinking The Grate Pumpkin’s Traveling Grift Reality Show is fun? Far too many subscribe to the “It’s great for ratings/clicks/etc, so it’s okay with us! We understand it’s terrible for America in multiple ways, but oh well.” school of thought.

It should be apparent to them that what’s bad for America is also eventually bad for them, but evidently it is not- possibly because American business has managed to divorce itself so completely from America that they think nothing can touch them.

(And I am- of course- not talking about Fox News, here. They helped launch this farce and have never been a legitimate news source. They are a RW propaganda machine, only rarely interrupted by sanity or actual news.)

A) His campaign put reporters in a pen- that didn’t cause sufficient outrage.

B) Members of his campaign staff manhandled & occasionally assaulted both media and audience members- that didn’t elicit notable concern.

C) The candidate himself knows damn near nothing about damn near everything, at least in terms of what one might reasonably expect someone running for President to know. Furthermore, he shows zero interest in learning anything, and is possibly the most prodigious liar ever to campaign for high office. On top of that, he has frequently and deliberately insulted various groups of people- Mexicans, Muslims, women, the disabled...just to name a few. This has been treated by much of the media as a comedy routine, rather than an ignoramus running his idiotic mouth. And some of his idiocy is frankly dangerous to the country- it’s kind of important that the US President not be a recruitment tool for extremists every time his lips are moving. The majority of the media has seldom bothered to point out these facts.

D) He has banned more than one legitimate news organization from covering his campaign...even as he frequently quotes nutball conspiracy theorists (Alex Jones), cites stories he saw in The National Enquirer (by the way, he’s pals with the owner), and surrounds himself with members of the violence-inciting tinfoil hat squad (Roger Stone). His Twitter account has several times retweeted white supremacists, and he enjoys spreading outrageous rumors while taking no responsibility for it, by saying, “I’ve heard...”, “People tell me...”, or “I read somewhere...” Most of the media evidently doesn’t have enough of a problem with this behavior to warrant sounding any alarms.

In fact, CNN has just hired the Mandarin Candidate’s ex-campaign manager to provide “political commentary”- despite also reporting earlier that he likely signed a non-disclosure agreement preventing him from offering negative information about the candidate or campaign. A so-called news organization did this.

It makes you wonder if most of the American media is capable of any form of responsible civic-minded behavior, or if they recognize any problem here.

It would be nice if they figured it out before an evening news anchor reports that “Our Dear Leader has been reelected with 100% of the vote”, with an off-camera rifle aimed at their head.

Ok, so I was being dramatic to make a point- but this is not how a democracy and a free press are supposed to work.

~Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

About Alan Grayson

Just a few words about Alan Grayson, if you please...

I read the NYT piece about his hedge fund. And I can’t say I exactly approve, but there’s a couple factors I liked even less.

1. Being a hedge fund manager isn’t illegal. It’s frequently the purview of the immoral, but that’s a case that could be made irrespective of the presence and participation of Grayson.

2. There was no proof of any wrongdoing in that article; it was, as far as I could tell, what someone once splendidly called “insinuendo” (including the “blood in the streets” quote, which isn’t Grayson’s).

It reminded me a lot of what the NYT spent months doing with Hillary Clinton’s emails- lots of space devoted to shadowy insinuation of wrongdoing, without any actual proof of same (not to mention that after months of that, they endorsed her- meaning either the NYT was using the email stuff as the equivalent of clickbait, or they’re full of shit and endorsed her despite all the inches of column they devoted to implying wrongdoing on her part).

I happen to like Alan Grayson, because he calls out Republican bullshit better than almost anyone in office. If he did something unethical relating to this hedge fund, so be it, and I would rethink and likely withdraw my support of him. And yes, if it was a Republican, I’d probably condemn the hedge fund- because Republicans routinely vote for legislation that puts people at the mercy of predatory business interests. As far as I know, Grayson has not done that.

Furthermore, it pissed me off that Harry Reid called for Grayson to withdraw from the Florida Senate race, based on an ethics investigation that hasn’t happened yet- perhaps the investigation should be done first, before national Democrats judge him guilty? And the Democratic Party is trying to get his opponent, Patrick Murphy- who was a Republican until 5 minutes ago- elected instead, so of course they want Grayson to withdraw. Furthermore, our Congress gutted disclosure rules on insider-trading laws, and voted to cease disclosure on members who receive subsidy money from the Farm Bill- so what high moral ground do they think they’re standing on, exactly?

I don’t claim any special knowledge or expertise on the subject, but to my knowledge, Grayson hasn’t voted for legislation that gives moneyed interests advantage over you and me. I’d like some proof that he is compromising what he claims to stand for, before I condemn him over this.

~ Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

The problem with “compromise”

Read a piece in Salon earlier- kind of a hatchet job on Hillary Clinton, imho, but the following paragraph is spot-on:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

(from http://ow.ly/Y2bGO by Daniel Denvir, via Salon)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

I recognize that compromise is a necessary component of a functioning democracy. I also recognize that virtually nothing good can come of compromising with the GOP as currently constructed (particularly as they are uninterested in a functioning democracy, or compromise).

It’s my belief that neither Democratic candidate, if elected, will be able to get very much (good) done, working with Congress. It’s not what the two parties or either potential Dem President can’t get done that worries me- in some ways, the more alarming idea is what they might get done.

If there’s a single thing to which today’s GOP would agree that would benefit anyone other than themselves and their donor class, I can’t imagine what it might be. And too often, for too long, Democrats “compromise” with Republicans on some awful piece of legislation that hurts regular citizens- usually to stave off some disaster the GOP has contrived to provide an even more awful alternative (think “sequester/debt ceiling”)- then wring their hands and say, “We had to!”. Even when accurate, it’s pretty cold comfort.

I know there’s not much to be done as long as voters insist upon stocking Congress with idiot children and sociopaths. But it’s a myth that the United States doesn’t negotiate with terrorists- the sane people in Congress have to do it every day (or at least, every day Congress deigns to “work”, which is only about one-quarter of a calendar year- just like your job, I’m sure).

Anyway, being someone who can “work with Congress to get things done” sounds to me like both a misconception and something of a threat. I’m not sure I want a President who will work with Congress (unless the election radically alters the makeup of Congress). If America elects a Republican, they’ll work with Congress- to overturn/defund the ACA, defund Planned Parenthood, and various other GOP wet dreams. At this point, I might prefer a President who says they’ll fight the GOP tooth-and-nail (maybe he or she could vow on Inauguration Night to obstruct every single thing the GOP tries to do?).

I will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who that is, because for SCOTUS and many other reasons, there is no other way it can be. Even if I hated Hillary or Bernie (and I don’t), the GOP are domestic terrorists. I will never give them my vote, and I will never stay home with my vote unused and let others determine the outcome. But Democratic candidates don’t need to promise me they’ll work with Republicans- more often than not, I’m quite content if they don’t.

~ Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

About the Baseball Hall of Fame

It’s far from the most important thing in the world, but here goes...

I understand the people who say that known PED users shouldn’t be in the HoF. However, some of the “known” users are actually “suspected and/or widely believed to be” users, and many who used undoubtedly are not known and never will be, and may go into the Hall regardless. Many users may already be in there- as many past cheaters of other eras almost certainly are.

Then there are the distinctions between suspects: Roger Clemens, for instance, was a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher, long before he is suspected of ever using PEDs. There are others whose stats took notable jumps while they were suspected of being users. Then there are those who used them- but were never suspected, investigated, caught, called before Congress, or punished...they just got the “enhanced” stats, and the attention and money of a big-league player, with none of the suspicion or punishment endured mostly only by the more high-profile players.

I’ve evolved through different positions on this, to where I now am: unless we can know everyone who used PEDs (we can’t), the best players should go into the Hall of Fame regardless. I know people will howl with outrage, but the fact remains that we will never know who/how many players used PEDs (how many pitchers did Barry Bonds face that were using? How many batters were “juiced” when they went to the plate against Clemens?)- and I don’t like the idea that only the best players will ever be punished.

Furthermore, this means I have to relinquish a long-held grudge and say that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame also. He’s an arrogant ass (and always has been, in my opinion) and he knew what he was doing was completely wrong. And it was completely wrong, especially as a manager; I roll my eyes at people who think it wasn’t a big deal. If you bet $5000 on your team on Tuesday, you are far more likely to pinch hit, pinch run, use your pitchers harder, etc. You don’t care as much if you burn everybody out and lose on Wednesday- because on Wednesday it doesn’t cost you $5000. Not betting on your team on Wednesday effectively becomes a bet against them. And if your ace closer hurts his arm on Tuesday, it doesn’t matter as much to you, as long as he got that last out...but it matters just as much to him, and affects his career. And that doesn’t even address the issue of getting into debt and/or possibly “throwing” games. If you think the "integrity of the game” is scarred by PEDs but not by gambling- sorry, you’re just wrong. The bottom line is, very few high profile sports have much to do with integrity- they are businesses, their foundation is money, not integrity. So Rose should go into the HoF too.

I don’t like having to accept that cheaters and rule-breakers will be enshrined in the Hall of Fame (but remember, they almost surely will, and already have been). Also, HoF voting is completely subjective- there is no specific criteria, it’s a survey of opinion. I may change my mind and position on this issue again in the future. But until there is a clear rule- stating that you cannot be inducted into the Hall of Fame if proven guilty of particular offenses- then the best players should be there.

So...you didn’t ask, but that’s what I think.

~Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

Thanks, John Boehner

I have no use whatsoever for Republicans (except for the comedy). I’ve thought they were pretty much wrong about every single thing there is to be wrong about, since I was old enough to care about politics. And I wasn’t a fan of John Boehner, although I don’t think he’s a horrible person- unlike many of his fellow GOPers, who absolutely are.

Having said that, I do feel a tiny bit of sympathy for him (not much, but a wee small bit), because he had what probably should have been a dream job (Speaker of the House, 3rd in line for the presidency) that turned into a nightmare.

My sympathy is limited by the fact that I regard the Tea Party as utterly ignorant, stupid, bratty children, who know jack shit about governing- and they don’t care, because they don’t want to govern. And the GOP is stuck with these uncontrollable knuckleheads because they invited them in, encouraged them, used them to gain the majority...and then discovered that they can’t be controlled, and are so stupid that they’d deliberately harm the country without even knowing that’s what they were doing. Or they’d think it was some kind of tough love, and they were actually helping. The one and only time the credit of the USA has been downgraded was when these idiotic children played games with the debt ceiling, and decided maybe America wouldn’t pay its bills. And the GOP doesn’t suffer the consequences alone, they signed us all up for this.

So, the position in which Boehner found himself was- as Speaker- having to try to explain to a caucus full of imbeciles that they actually did need to govern from time to time. Unfortunately for him, this was destined to fail, since it was like Dad telling the kids to eat their asparagus, do their homework, and go to bed.

I personally think Boehner is just a regular Republican- the kind I vehemently disagree with about damn near everything, but not the kind who would sabotage America for his own or his party’s benefit (unlike, for instance, Ted Cruz, who is a nutjob asshole of the highest order). When John Boehner became Speaker, it was an utterly impossible job- like herding greased cats. I’m sure Boehner might have happily engaged in much of the obstruction the GOPbaggers have so enjoyed over the course of Obama’s presidency, but I also think he probably would not have played games with the debt ceiling, or shut down the government in a tantrum.

Anyway, the caucus full of insane, irresponsible children was clamoring for his head (because he actually dared to govern occasionally), and he resigned. But the last thing he did as Speaker was hold a vote on a budget deal that took the raising of the debt ceiling off the table until March 2017- a move that served a dual purpose (provided the Senate also passes it). It saved his own party from political suicide-by-stupidity, playing more games with the nation’s credit. And it also saved the rest of us- the grown ups of America- from further blackmail by the domestic terrorists of the GOP/Tea Party (at least on that particular issue).

*Side Note: it’s pathetic that we’ve fallen so far that we are now grateful when a group of elected officials doesn’t actively sabotage the USA.*

I’ve criticized John Boehner many times over the course of his reign as Speaker. So now I’m saying Thank You, John Boehner- the last thing you did as Speaker of the House was a true service to your country.

Stupid Excuses

Just had to take a moment, in the aftermath of America’s latest mass shooting, to destroy one of the stupidest arguments- constantly deployed, despite its stupidity- in the gun debate...

“Laws only affect those who abide by them; criminals don’t care.”

How many times have we heard some version of this, in opposition to any proposed adjustment to our nation’s gun laws? I know I’ve heard it dozens, maybe hundreds of times.

Here’s the part that makes it stupid: laws may not prevent an incident from occurring. If someone wants to do something badly enough, they will do it. Laws simply provide a consequence. That’s all any law ever does. We have laws against murder- they don’t prevent murders. They do, however, provide a consequence for committing murder, and a path for civil society to seek punishment for the perpetrator.

A law requiring universal background checks, or one that limits the capacity of a magazine available to the public, will not unduly burden law-abiding gun owners. Nor will it stop determined individuals from finding ways around those safeguards. What it will do is provide an avenue to punish someone who does not abide by the established conditions, or someone who abets another in avoiding them (if you sell your AR-15 over the internet, without a background check, to someone who couldn’t pass that check, and they kill their ex-wife, or a room full of movie-goers).

So, may we please have an end to the “only law-abiding people obey laws” bullshit argument? Laws are mostly not intended for the law-abiding, they are a mechanism to provide a measure of justice for society, and punishment for people whose conduct harms that society.

~ Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

The NRA Says Grace

Now as we sit down to eat

A nice big plate of raw red meat,

Give thanks for shootings with multiple dead

That provide us with our daily bread.

Only in “civilized” Murikkka

Do more guns equal safety. I mean, c’mon- DUH.

You say you want background checks- we just ignore you.

Cuz if you didn’t shoot each other, we’d have to do it for you!

We don’t admit that massacres are something that we like,

But we do anticipate the exciting gun sales spike.

You say we’ve blood on our hands- we find that funny.

We don’t see any, and it doesn’t stain money.

We tell YOU that gun-free zones are targets on a map.

But our HQ’s a gun-free zone, cuz WE don’t buy that crap.

Responsibility versus Profits- money is the winner.

We’re sorry that your kid is dead- but, hey, join us for dinner!

But as you sit down to partake from our table,

Sit next to Congress, speak the NRA fable:

“Guns don’t kill people, just bad people do.

And blood may be red, but we’re Red, White, and Blue.”

The Cost of GOP Hypocrisy

It’s almost funny- the GOP has been dealing with the fallout of their own monumental hypocrisy for years now. They feed utter bullshit- that they themselves don’t believe- to their toadstool base, who swallow it whole. And they have the likes of Fox “News” and Limbaugh to reinforce it, day after day. And we end up with half the country believing completely crazy, stupid crap (Jade Helm is about invading Texas, for instance). And then the politicians have to act even more crazy, because their base believed what they said.

GOP: “Obama’s a tyrant! We must stop all his crazy spending!”

Base: “Then why are you helping him by raising the debt ceiling?”

GOP: “Um...well, see, it’s like this. Raising the debt ceiling doesn’t give the President money to spend, it pays our bills.”

Base: “No, no! He’s a tyrant- don’t let him spend money!”

And so on. It stops being funny when it starts affecting all of us, not just the disingenuous idiots who unleashed it.

Currently, “conservatives”- you know, the people who used to believe in freedom, privacy, and personal choice- are screaming to defund Planned Parenthood, due to hack-job videos created by people that support the shooting of doctors who provide abortions (they call themselves “pro-life”, in an irony they are incapable of grasping).

Senator Mitch McConnell (one of those mouthing outraged words about defunding) voted for the measure that allows the donation of fetal tissue after abortion. It’s enormous hypocrisy for him to act as though he knew nothing of this practice that now so offends him.

Short Aside: Planned Parenthood does not “sell baby parts”, as the ignorant morons like to say they do. And do any of these knuckleheads believe in medical research, or organ donation?

Returning to the point, some so-called conservatives DO believe in abortion when they accidentally impregnate the woman with whom they are having sex (but not the matrimonially-sanctified kind). And most would absolutely believe in it if their wife, girlfriend, or daughter was raped. And the wealthy and privileged will always have access to abortion- defunding Planned Parenthood would only deny that service (and many others) to less fortunate people. It’s another one of many cases where the rules they swear by are intended for you and me- not for them.

Then there’s Senator Ted Cruz, who fauxlibustered (or was it filiblustered?) for 20+ hours, and then voted YES on the item he was supposedly filibustering. And his idiot fan club cheered this waste of time and taxpayer money. Or there was the time he pushed to shut down the federal government- and then showed up at a veteran’s memorial (funded by that same federal government) for a photo-op show of phony outrage that it was closed. Hypocrisy.

So they spew their bullshit to the masses, who allow themselves to be spoon-fed, and follow their Simon-Says “leaders” like good little sheep. And though the politicians know it’s bullshit, the masses don’t- they believe. And that is how we end up with half a nation full of ignorant, hateful knuckleheads- and an entire political party that incites and then panders to them.

Woe to thee, America.

~Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

George Takei

Despite the breathless hysteria of the RWNJ, George Takei was not wrong about "Justice" Clarence Thomas. He certainly used inflammatory language to make his point, but it is a valid point nonetheless.

Thomas- as part of his dissent when the Supreme Court ruled on marriage equality- said that slaves were not stripped of their dignity because the government allowed them to be enslaved. I assume he was referring to the idea that one’s dignity cannot be taken unless it is surrendered...but he’s totally full of shit. It’s pretty fucking hard to maintain your dignity while being horsewhipped by someone who OWNS you.

In 1850, Thomas might have found himself in that exact position, and I doubt he would have felt his dignity was intact. Furthermore, in 1960, Thomas’ own marriage would have been illegal in many US states. So I don’t know who the hell he thinks he’s kidding about “dignity” and whether or not the government can confer it or take it away.

George Takei used inartful, unfortunate language when he said Thomas was “a clown in blackface”. A shame, because it detracted from the point he was making- that Clarence Thomas is a bonehead asshole who has no business being on the Supreme Court.

~Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

Confederate flag thoughts

Briefly~

Jim Webb (not a fave of mine, jfr) didn't exactly defend the Confederate flag. He said, basically, that some people had fought bravely for the South- which is no doubt true (though it omits the part about said bravery being offered on behalf of a treasonous insurrection).

It was an example of the kind of nuance that cannot be dealt with by our mostly idiotic media, who like things black and white (pun intended) and as simplistic (read: moronic) as possible. Do you think all the American soldiers who fought in Vietnam, Korea, or Iraq were believers in “the cause”? They were not, I assure you.

Having said that, let’s be clear: the resurgence of the Confederate flag occurred roughly concurrent to the Civil Rights movement, and before that, had often been used by the KKK. So its symbolism has far less to do with visions of the “noble Southern soldier” than with sheet-wearing, cross-burning, segregationist racism and murderous hate. It should have no more place in “civil” society (by "civil”, I mean both decent people, AND public/government buildings) than a swastika.

Do you have the right to display it? Sure. Just accept that reasonable people will regard you much the same way they would a skinhead with a swastika tattoo- as a race-baiting prejudiced jerkoff who should probably be monitored by the FBI, in case you should decide to become a VIOLENT race-baiting, prejudiced jerkoff. If you’re going to advertise yourself as such, be prepared to be perceived as such.

~Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

OU, & Part of the Problem

The recent recording of the SAE “frat boys” singing their not at all cute, despicable song makes me want to point out a few things...

First: defenders of the young men involved say, “Oh, they’re just kids.” Um, no, they’re not. Some of you “defenders” are likely the same people who insisted Trayvon Martin was a man, not a boy- and he was younger than these college students. If these young men had robbed a bank, they would be considered adults, and charged as such. They are old enough to be held responsible for their own conduct.

Second: nope, don’t want to hear the “apologies” of any of them, via a written statement probably penned by a lawyer. You proudly sang the song for your frat brothers and a camera (knowingly or not, I don’t care)- you can stand up in front of people and cameras and read your own damned apology.

Third: the “boys will be boys” excuse overlooks one especially enormous problem. These young men are in college. Presumably they will, within a few years, go out into the world- where they will become businessmen, cops, lawyers, doctors, etc.

Change the letters in their putrid song from “SAE” to “CEO”...for anyone unsure about what “institutionalized racism” means, THAT is part of what it means.

These young men could one day be in position to hire- or not hire- a qualified black man or woman, or determine whether someone receives an opportunity for advancement. Or whether they- as a police officer- should pull their weapon and fire ...do you want to just trust that they were only “boys being boys” when they sang about hanging someone from a tree?

There are far more vile, racist people in existence than most of these college “kids”, I suspect (I see examples of this on Twitter, much more often than I care to). But don’t just tell us we should shrug it off and say, “They’re just kids.” Kids grow up into adults who can affect the lives of others. Sometimes, for instance, they grow into Republican governors who pass laws that restrict voting.

I’m not suggesting these young men should be punished for the rest of their lives for their obnoxious song and behavior. I’m just pointing out that both attitudes and actions have consequences.

~Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

theraroth

eaglefly124

Today in yet another 5-4 split decision running the rails of the political divide, in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that leading a group Christian prayer before a...

Government "Of/By/For The People"? Yeah, right.

America still pretends that our government works for, and is an extension of, the will of the people of this country. BUT...

1.) The Defense Authorization Act contains a rider allowing a mining company to mine Native American land for copper. Because we must defend copper mining corporate profits from Native Americans- from whom we are not yet finished stealing land, apparently (even though, after we took the rest, we generously "gave" them this land).

2.) Congress recently stripped campaign contribution limits for individual donors...because why shouldn't wealthy people have more influence on candidates, really?

3.) Now both parties are mostly (with a few exceptions) lined up to pass a budget deal that allows the biggest banks in this country to return to making their shady, wildly speculative bets...under the safety net of insured taxpayer money- meaning John Q. Public would once again be on the hook when those banks suffer huge losses. Mind you: their huge profits would still be theirs alone- no nasty "socialism" on that side of the equation...We The People would only share in the socialism of having to pay off their bad bets, not in the wealth of the profitable ones. Presumably, we all enjoyed trillion$ of our dollars being shoveled into their economic crash last time- only six years ago- and we can't wait to do it again. Never mind that, while the big banks have recovered just fine from their disaster, many of the regular people affected by it absolutely have not recovered, and their lives and finances are hanging by a thread.

Some Democrats are already floating the "defense" that this is the GOP's doing, and that this is the only surviving aspect of several awful provisions the GOP tried to put into the bill. Probably true...but that doesn't make it okay. And "But it could have been much worse- we protected you!" is a helluva thing to try to tell us, after you royally screw us- but just not as horribly as you could have done.

Anyone who can still pretend the American government makes a habit of working for the American people must either be naive or just plain stupid. Far more often, we are the Corporate States of America- and our politics reflect that very clearly.

~Eaglefly124: Rant Sequence Complete

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Eaglefly124