Tuesday, April 12, 2016

The States Protecting The Children!!!

While DC continues as a swirling vortex of partisan inertia, states have never moved faster to pass legislation! Clearly there is an overarching goal acting as the impetus for this action, and that goal is simple: end the constant raping of women and children (why doesn't anyone ever think of the children) by men in dresses in restrooms.

These new laws now make it illegal for men in dresses to rape women and children in restrooms.  Previously there was some kind of loophole that allowed men to rape women and children in restrooms if they wore a dress, a kicky skirt with a scarf, or matched separates. This has been happening hundreds of times a week based on the urgency with which these new laws are coming into existence.

That or it's a Presidential election year and we're still all too stupid to recognize the legacy of Karl Rove. (I want to believe, deep down, that Lee Atwater would consider Rove disgusting.)

Either way, now we are going to have a real problem. 

Where are we going to store all of the rape kits (you know, the forensic evidence gathered when some woman decides to ruin a guy's life by lying about him)? It's not like we actually send those to a lab for testing* and those things take up space. So now these hundreds of previously legal but now illegal rapes will probably generate new test kits that we need to stick away and forget about... where can we put them? 

No, not up my ass, that spot's taken.

Some folks might think that I'm wrong in drawing these conclusions. I'm not sure why as my conclusions are built on a foundation of solid logic. I mean, if there wasn't this loophole then the existing laws should be plenty. But it must be happening a lot, and everywhere, to explain this urgency. Cause if it's not actually a problem in real life, aren't there things like lead poisoning to deal with? Are all the people reporting a rape not lying? Cause that seems to be how we treat them, and certainly we're not actually testing the rape kits (which we are, collectively, making them pay for).

Or is it just another election year and we remain too fucking stupid to see the goddamn faux culture war shit magically appear when water was added? Nah. Oh hey, Storage Crusades is on, switch it over.

* Because the victim is charged for the kit, and often private insurance is billed for all or part of the charge, these police departments are guilty of insurance and Medicare fraud, but shhh, don't tell.  

Bill O'Reilly Feels Sad For The Blacks...

...because they're just so awful.
"Many of them are ill-educated and have tattoos on their foreheads, and I hate to be generalized about it, but it's true."--Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, April 11, 2016
Shorter Bill O'Reilly: since I don't know or work with any black people they must not be worth knowing or employable what with all their forehead tattoos which is a verifiable thing only among the blacks and not something I've just pulled out of my ass because I'm a racist idiot. It's their own fault they don't have jobs.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

At Least A Lot Of Sub-Optimal Stuff Will Get Done!!!

"If possible, I would go through this entire Hillary Clinton endorsement without actually talking about Hillary Clinton."--from "I'm With Her... I Guess" by Elie Mystal at Above the Law Redline
A million years ago, in a promo CD for Sweet Old World, Lucinda Williams wrote a sentence or two about some of her early songs. About "Passionate Kisses" she wrote "sometimes you have to believe you deserve to have it all."
  • Terrifying foreign policy
  • Will kill people
  • Will continue spying on people
  • (On her approach to Wall Street reform: sound of crickets [and/or cicada])
Sometimes you have to believe you deserve to have it all!

I probably post more about Hillary Clinton than any other candidate and I think it's because I want her to be better. [EDIT: I want every candidate (and human) to be better. I was about to opine about what minor tweaks her campaign would make then I saw myself in the mirror and decided to stop.] I don't want her to pretend to be a progressive who get's shit done to try to, what, trick Sanders supporters into thinking she's a progressive because she says it? Does that work? In that case I'm fit! And a sexual dynamo! (disclaimer: that last part is totally true; ask your doctor if you're healthy enough for sex with me)

Why are people making so much about the "low-key advocate" part of her eulogy of Nancy Reagan? Because she didn't need to say anything at all, and she didn't need to talk about what was the Reagan administration's biggest failing (if you don't count how they did highly illegal deals with Iran and lied about them to Congress or how they were secretly arming the Contras and creating a massive deficit and an escalated arms race and, you know what, everybody gets a ribbon) and she didn't need to suggest something so blatantly wrong. 

If she said of Mitch McConnell that he was a low-key partner with Obama during his presidency would people be wrong to react to that?

What's my point? I forget. But remember folks, Bernie Sanders can't win (like he didn't win X of the last Y whatevers), and he sure as hell can't do anything when he wins (but, and this is important, if Donald Trump wins [sorry, when Donald Trump wins], he totally can because he'd be the best President, as you would totally expect).

I still think the best reason to vote for Hillary is to make so many Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity fans miserable for 8 more years. (Their ratings will soar again.)