Senate abdicates its responsibility

When the president starts spying on his citizens without having to demonstrate to anyone that it’s legitimate, what would you expect the legislature to do? I’ll give you a hint: remember, the whole idea of checks and balances built into the three branches of government?


Well, that’s ok. Neither does the legislature.

When the president breaks the law and spies on Americans, apparently the legislature’s job is to do absolutely nothing.

  • Would someone please give W a blowjob so we can impeach the fucker. Since apparently serious crimes aren’t enough to do that.
  • Would someone please tell all those conservatives who railed against the Soviets’ spying on their own citizens during the Cold War and are now not worried about W doing it that they’re big fat stupid hypocrites.
  • Does anyone else feel a bit like the Seahawks at the Superbowl? We could be winning this thing, but the refs keep making dirty calls.
  • Why does the Senate hate America?
  • I’m going to cry now.

Chuck Norris is my homeboy

Everything you ever wanted to know about Chuck Norris. And more.

For example, did you know that:

  • Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks don’t really kill people. They wipe out their entire existence from the space-time continuum.
  • Chuck Norris is the only person in the world that can actually email a roundhouse kick.
  • Some people wear Superman pajamas. Superman wears Chuck Norris pajamas.
  • In a fight between Batman and Darth Vader, the winner would be Chuck Norris.
  • Chuck Norris can blow bubbles with beef jerky.
  • Crop circles are Chuck Norris’ way of telling the world that sometimes corn needs to lie down.

Tim Eyman is a big fat idiot–and a bigot

In case you missed it, Tim Eyman, our statewide superhero for selfish anti-community, anti-transit, anti-tax irritations has broadened his horizons and is now also a full-on crusader for bigotry.

Yep, Tim and his crew of ignorant little creeps want to try get an iniative on the ballot to undo the anti-discrimination billl that finally passed the state legislature last week.

Of course, the thing is, in reading his diatribe, it’s clear that not only is he a bigot, but an enormously stupid one at that. What’s his rationale for opposing the law? That preferential treatment for a class of citizens is wrong. Uhm? Right. Which is why the law is good. Remember, it undoes the preferential treatment that straight people had under the law before, and now provides equal protection.

I’d like to propose an initiative for the ballot as well–that for the good of the people, Tim Eyman be banished to one of the Aleutian Islands. Or, it might be just as satisfying to kick that bastard in the nuts.

And another victory in the war against terrorism

This a more positive one, though still it’s not an unequivocal one. And one that, again, highlights that religious extremists are the most dangerous people in the world today.

Yay! Finally the anti-discrimination bill passed in Washington, providing legal protection for all people, regardless of sexual orientation in housing, employment, and lending. I’m pleased as punch that it passed. Much rejoicing and all that.

But reading further in the PI article certainly dampened my excitement. The hate-filled and ignorant statements representing the 23 state senators who voted against the bill just left me flabberghasted and sad. Because the thrust of their argument is that the bill endorses discrimination by not allowing religious extremists to deny another group of people equal protection under the law.

Just think about the statement they are making here. What kind of religion–what kind of person–is dependent upon being able to legally repress another group of people?

According to Sen. Dan Swecker, “The bill would trample religious freedom for those who believe homosexuality is wrong.” The bill certainly doesn’t require any church to allow gay marriage, gay clergy, or even gay constituents. It doesn’t require that anyone be gay. It requires that people of all sexual orientations have the same basic rights in employment, lending, and housing. Anyone who feels that threatens their ability to practice their religion clearly belongs to a seriuosly fucked up church.

So I’m sorry I can’t be overjoyed by the bill passing, though I’m relieved and heartened, and my fullest congratulations to our Rep Ed Murray for sticking with this one all these years. You did good, Ed. I just wish more of your colleagues were made of the same good stock.

And it is a victory on the war against religious terrorism that the right is waging within our borders.

A clear victory in the war against terrorism

Unfortunately, it’s for the bin Laden side.

Very little commentary needed. 53% of Americans are ok with unwarranted wiretaps if they think it will help protect them from a terrorist act.

Bush can hem and haw all he wants about how passing laws to allow him to do what he’s doing anyway let the terrorists know what we’re doing. So what? They win. Americans fear terrorism more than they care about preserving the fundamental basis of what this country is about.

(I’m also tempted to talk about the emptiness of any of those 53% talking about supporting our troops who are out there protecting our liberties. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are apparently over their putting themselves in real jeopardy for a bunch of cowards who are perfectly willing to let someone risk their lives to protect not our freedom and liberty, but our lazy, gas-guzzling, selfish lifestyles.)

I leave you with two thoughts.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” –Benjamin Franklin, 1755

“Harsh times call for harsh measures. Americans have a greater right to be safe than to be private.” —Joseph Palladino, Jan 23, 2006

David Letterman, 2006’s Jon Stewart

Letterman interviewed Bill O’Reilly last night on his show, and it was fun to watch him dismiss as stupid most of O’Reilly’s points, and then sum the whole thing up with the statement, “I have the feeling that 60% of what you say is crap.”

Of course, it’s still a little distressing that only comedians are willing to take any of these knuckleheads to task, but I guess it’s better than no one doing it.

Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts!

I guess I missed this, but was made aware of it when Adam Smith was on KUOW’s Weekday this morning, but dear leader apparently told Brit Hume the other day that we were going to war with Iraq regardless of whether there was any reason to.

Does it matter that they lied about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Not really. Much like not going to Congress about getting revisions to FISA, that would have been a distraction and possibly precluded the legislature giving him the greenlight to invade. WMDs, however compelling an argument they might have seemed, and however confident Bush and Cheney claimed to be that they knew for a fact that they were there, were moot, because we would have invaded anyway.

How is this asshole getting away with this?

HUME: Can you say today that if you had known then what you know now about the weapons, that you would have made the same decision.

BUSH: I said it today, and I said it at the last speech I gave.

And I’ve said it throughout the campaign to the American people. I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision.

HUME: Now if you had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation, because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?

BUSH: Absolutely.

In other words: “Eh. Evidence. Yeah, we gave you evidence so you would vote to let us do what we wanted. It’s not like it mattered. We were gonna invade anyway because I wanted to.”

Could he at least claim that of course we wouldn’t have gone to war if we thought we had no cause to? I mean, I wouldn’t have believed it, and neither would anyone capable of thinking, but to admit that we were going to invade a country that had no attacked us, regardless of whether the only justification we could come up with was true–how much of an arrogant prick do you have to be?

You should also read Dahlia Lithwick’s article in Slate about the administrations disdain for actually have to obey laws or anything so boring as that.

A little good news, at least

The Senate didn’t pass the defense spending bill with the ANWR drilling ammendment in it. So that makes me feel a little better.

But I do want to respond to Lisa Murkowski, a republican senator from Alaska who said that drilling there was a matter of national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. IF you actually care at all about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, then I very much look forward to the legislation you’ll no doubt be putting forward setting high standards and funds for more wind farms, solar energy, and much stricter fuel efficiency standards for automakers.

shame, and the shameful shamers who cry shame

Our dear leader, in defending his decision to BREAK THE LAW and spy on American citizens with no court oversight of his decision, called the New York Times shameful for making public that he has been BREAKING THE LAW for the past few years, ignoring the laws of the country, and deciding by himself what constitutes grounds for this kind of infraction of civil liberties. His justification? That the congress gave him the authority to do whatever he wants when they authorized the use of force in Afghanistan.

Uhm, what?

Every citizen of this country should, right now, be calling for his impeachment. He has overstepped his bounds, broken the law, violated the oath he took to uphold the constitution, and done more than anyone else to help the terrorists win by determining that we have to destroy what this country stands for in order to fight them. Any member of Congress not actively pursuing his impeachment right now should be ashamed of themselves.

And what’s more, in light of the fact that our president cares so little for what this country stands for that he would violate our constitution so flagrantly and then stand there unapologetically defending his actions, his APPROVAL RATINGS IMPROVED?!?

To all of those who approve of this action, and to all of those whose impression of him and his handling of the “war on terror” has been improved by this whole affair, you have a lot of nerve calling anyone else un-American. Because supporting him now is rejecting what this country stands for. The only patriotic action is to call for his impeachment at this point. Anything else is saying that our Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. And if you honestly believe that he’s only using this self-proclaimed power for fighting terrorism, think again, and then think of Nixon’s enemies list, and remember why we have laws against this in the first place.

A year ago, when enough people in this country showed that they were either bigoted, stupid, or selfish enough to have voted for this man, I was in absolute dispair. That’s nothing compared to the dispair I feel that he can actually improve his approval ratings by shitting on the constitution and our laws. Are the American people really, truly, that stupid? Or do they really want to live under a despot?

Before I end this rant, I’d like to point that Bush is a fucking lying bastard, by the way. The little shit had the nerve to go on TV just last year, and claim that it is illegal to conduct surveillance on Americans without court orders. It’s amazing how easily they and the American people can just ignore that fact, much as they so easily ignored Bush saying anyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame’s identity would be fired, until it became public who was responsible for it. Hypocrites and liars.

Unfortunately, the question is, who do you have to get a blow job from in order to get impeached in Washington today?