See, what he did was okay, because he never lied under oath about getting a blowjob…

Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney in the House yesterday. There are three articles, all relating to misleading the American public and government about WMD’s in Iraq, an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, etc. It is extremely important for all Americans to note, however, that Cheney has never lied about getting a blowjob. He’s probably never gotten one, period.

I still say we need more sex in the White House (the kind that’s possibly illegal in some states) to fix many of the problems we have right now. Where’s that porn star who ran for governor? (NSFW!)

Share

Oh, snap!

From today’s NYT:

Mr. Reid fired back directly at Mr. Cheney on Tuesday, appearing at the same microphones just moments after the vice president.

“The president sends out his attack dog often,” said Mr. Reid. “That’s also known as Dick Cheney.”

Defending the legislation up for a vote this week, he said, “We believe the troops should get every penny they need and we have put our money where our mouth is with supplemental appropriations, but we believe there must be a change of direction in the war in Iraq.”

Mr. Reid said he was not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with the vice president. “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating,” Mr. Reid said.

Share

Hottest new real estate investment opportunity!!!

Be sure to grab your piece of newly-discovered possibly-habitable planet 581c now, before all the corporate colonization funds get in on it! Only about 20 light years away, so it’s still reasonably convenient from Midtown Manhattan.

Photo

Share

United in disbelief, or something

Making fun of Dinesh D’Souza is about as easy as shooting fish that are duct-taped to the barrel of a gun, but I just can’t help myself. I once observed how he made a convincing case that debauchery and vice is every American’s patriotic duty, and now he sort of makes a case for the inherent kindness and decency of atheists (other good comments here and here). His point seems to be that atheists never show up to make statements/pronouncements/whatever when something tragic happens. As evidence, he notes that Richard Dawkins has not been invited to speak at VA Tech. To my knowledge, Dawkins has never been named the Atheist Pope, so I’m not sure why this matters. D’Souza also offers no particular answers to his own question (“Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?”) other than a few paraphrasings of Dawkins’ writings that make me wonder if he actuallyt read any of them. All I can get from this (and I acknowledge a possible bias on my part towards rational thought and looking for the good in all people) is the following:

1. Atheists by and large do not congregate in large groups and therefore do not have spokespeople.
2. As a derivative of item 1, they also do not advertise or make public statements on behalf of anyone but themselves.
3. All he does is beg the question of where God was during the shooting, since he’s asking about atheists afterwards.

My faith in humanity is restored by the utter beatdown he gets in his own comments section.

I suppose he is expecting Richard Dawkins to show up in Virginia, approach the family of a victim, and tell them in his haughty British accent that the souls of their loved ones do not really exist and that they did not go anywhere after death. D’Souza may be surprised to find that he is dealing with a rather polite and considerate segment of society. Dickishness in the face of tragedy is more the idiom of the religiously-oriented.

Share

Newsflash: Oliver North is an Ass

The pungent commentary about VA Tech is inevitable, of course, but I was not so prepared for the not-apparent-to-me connection to the War on Terror. Oliver North was good enough to elucidate:

On April 18, as the potentates of the press were discovering stories of courage and compassion at Virginia Tech, [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates, standing beside his Israeli counterpart, Amir Peretz, declared that they had decided to “deal with the Iranian nuclear problem through diplomacy, which appears to be working.” He went on to note that the international community is “united” in this approach. This sounds eerily like urging deeply disturbed, homicidal students to seek counseling and talk about their problems in lieu of more stringent measures that might deter them from committing mass murder.

Unfortunately, the homicidal Islamic radicals running Iran are arming themselves with weapons far more lethal than handguns, and the mass murder they plan to perpetrate will kill millions. And yet, if the advice being proffered by Messrs. Gates and Peretz is followed, we will continue to ignore all the warning signs and “talk” with Iran until it is too late.

The killers at Columbine and Virginia Tech repeatedly denied that they were potentially destructive to themselves or others — until they acted. They hid their weapons and their intentions while plotting mayhem. That’s the same pattern of behavior that the Ayatollahs in Tehran have followed.

The clandestine Iranian nuclear program was underway for nearly 18 years before being discovered. When International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors finally investigated, the Iranians lied and destroyed evidence.

I am tempted to ask Mr. North whether he knew anything about clandestine Iranian nuclear programs when he was selling them arms, but then that would just be an ad hominem attack, and I’m above that.

Aside from the rather odd notion that the behavior of a disparate group of mentally unstable individuals is reliably on par with the actions of a nation-state with millenia of history, a modernized population, and a nutjob government, I would like to ask what “more stringent measures” he proposes for said mentally unstable individuals. Should we go back to the geek-profiling of the post-Columbine days, but add a touch of Gitmo? I know, I know, North’s whole point in bringing up VA Tech is to artlessly segue into what he already wanted to say about Iran. Please stop, Ollie. You’re only embarrassing yourself.

Share

A Friendly Reminder

In the wake of the tragedy in Virginia, it is important to remember the following: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

They often do so with guns.

All guns do is make the killing incredibly efficient. Remember a few years ago when that student at Imaginary State University killed 17 people in a thirty-minute garrotting frenzy? Or the Great Jambox-In-The-Bathtub Massacre at Make-Believe Tech? Oh wait, those didn’t happen.

I have to agree with the NRA, though. Guns aren’t really the problem, it’s the people who would take advantage of the efficiency they offer in killing that are the problem (at least, I think that’s their argument). The solution is either (a) kill anyone who might go on a mass killing spree to prevent said spree, or (b) fix human nature to prevent inter-person violence in the first place. Since option (a) quickly collapses under the weight of its own sarcastic irony, I guess we’re left with (b)–if improving human nature is the plan, though, then why is the NRA such a bunch of dicks?

Besides, can we not agree that, had Mr. Burns not been packing heat, Maggie never would have been able to shoot him?

What do you think, 1970’s sci-fi gimmick Zardoz?

Hey, Zardoz is a Republican!

Share

It can, and does, happen here

Lest I be seen as being too flippant or somehow minimizing the tragedies of all that happened in the world today, please believe that this is not my intention. I haven’t seen the full coverage yet, but some sick bastard gunned down at least 32 people in Virginia today.

Two things strike me about this story, aside from the typical people-are-bastards reaction I usually have.

One is that this further underscores the strange insistence of the Bush Administration to undermine only 9 out of 10 parts of the Bill of Rights. In the face of unspeakable tragedy, they had this to say, apparently:

“As far as policy, the president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly, bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting numbers — I don’t want to say numbers, because I know that they’re still trying to figure out how many people were wounded and possibly killed. But obviously, that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for. “

Remember when, shortly after 9/11, Ashcroft et al resisted all efforts to incorporate gun registries into the broader law enforcement effort against terrorism? The arguments advanced at the time were bemusing then, but they are hilarious now. For the record, I am in favor of gun rights, but to somehow elevate that right above all others is absurd.

Second, put bluntly, this sort of tragedy happens almost every day in Iraq. For a time, possibly continuing to now, more Iraqi civilians were dying every month than there were deaths on 9/11.

What happened today was a senseless tragedy. I would hope that it might make people (the White House) more reflective about senseless death. I’m naive that way.

Share

I am proud to be better than you.

Seriously, though, I don’t know for sure if I’m better than you. I don’t even know who you are, necessarily, since we are not speaking directly but across a void of time from when I post to when you read. Still, my point is that I am pretty freakin’ smart, and I’m not going to be afraid to say so anymore. My inspiration for this, of course, came from something else I read on the internet, here. I went to a damn good law school and I don’t think I’m too off base to say that it is better than Regent University School of Law. Supposedly, America reelected George W. Bush because he was the more appealing person with whom to have a beer. In 2007, could it not be fairly said that this is an unfathomably stupid way to choose a leader? First of all, the man says he doesn’t drink; and second, what the hell would we talk about? I would much rather have a president who is smarter than me. He or she should be able to communicate, of course, but that whole intelligence thing is pretty damn important. Bill Clinton may have been something of a schmuck, but he’s smart and has some hipness as well. My point is, I’m smart, and I’m proud, and I’m not going to let any mediocre conserfascists make me feel bad about it.

I’m pretty good-looking, too.

Share