Why we lose

On Saturday morning the delegation from the Chaos Compound (Me and the Missus) went to the DNC Winter Meeting in downtown Atlanata, hoping to drum up support for Keith Ellison.

 

 And if there were any questions about why Democrats keep losing, I think they were answered that day.

Donna Brazile opened the proceedings announcing the color guard from a local ROTC program. Then silence for a minute. "Um, is the color guard here?" Silence for another minute. "Okay, yeas they're here, please rise for the presentation of the colors." Silence. . . "Um, color guard? Are you. . .?" Eventually they made their way to the front, but Christ, she couldn't even get that to run smoothly.







Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed was in attendance, and his presence was noted, but he was not invited to speak, which seemed like a pretty big snub considering he is the mayor of the host city. You'd think they'd at least have him do one of those "on behalf of the city of Atlanta, I would like to welcome you, blah blah blah. . ." kind of things. But nope. Nothing.

 Then there was a debate over Resolution 33.

DNC members are considering Resolution 33 banning corp $ now pic.twitter.com/LbR4Nz48md

— Daniel Marans (@danielmarans) February 25, 2017

This was a proposal to re-instate President Obama's policy of not allowing the DNC to accept corporate money and not letting corporate lobbyists serve as "at-large" members. This was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm by the attendees like ourselves who were not voting members. It was, of course, stricken from the by-laws. The opposition was led by some guy from California named Mullholland who stepped up to the mic and said something to the effect of "We're not the little sisters of the poor, we're the Democratic party."  This would have been an easy bone to throw to the grass roots, since not striking it down would have merely referred the by-laws in toto to another discussion committee where the proposal could have been killed quietly. But Democratic leadership isn't even smart enough to do that.

Then there was a video tribute to Donna Brazile who acted as if she had no idea this was going to be sprung on her **eyeroll**. The video played for about a minute, stopped, the screen went blank, then it started again from the beginning. As the Missus noted "it's hard to get competent tech people when you piss off all the millennials."

Then Donna Brazile read off a list of people she wanted to thank and said that without them, they never could have accomplished all that they had accomplished and everyone in our pro-Keith-Ellison section started chuckling and looking around saying "she thinks she's accomplished something?"

You just lost a race to the most beatable candidate in history. You lost the House and you lost the Senate. And you're talking about your "accomplishments?" This is why it's going to be so hard to make anything better, the higher-ups in the party refuse to learn a single goddamm lesson from losing. When you lose a race that the opposition party had pretty much gift-wrapped and handed to you on a platter by nominating an unstable buffoon, a cartoonish blowhard, an admitted sex offender, and a man with absolutely zero qualifications to hold public office as your opponent - when you somehow manage to lose that race and you think "ah, time to rest on my laurels!" nothing is ever going to get better.

And if she had talked about her "accomplishments" and the other DNC members had laughed or heckled or booed, I might have some reason for optimism, but no. They applauded politely as if what she was saying made some kind of sense in their world. It was appalling.

Then they chose the DLC-affiliated Tom Perez as the new DNC chair, because apparently they're just fine with the job done by Brazile, Wasserman-Scultz, Kaine, etc. The only encouraging news was that it took a second ballot, and the vote was pretty close, so there are at least a sizable minoroty among the voting members that seem to have some sort of clue as to how to move forward.

Oh, and the vote took forever because the hand-held clickers that they were using to record votes didin't work right and they eventually had to switch to paper ballots. I forgot to mention that at the very beginning, members were to press a button on the clicker to record their presence so that a quorum could be established. That took forever and several members never did get their presence recorded because the most simple technology is apparently beyond the grasp of the party that, as the Missus says, pushes away the young people.


That afternoon, we participated in a "save the ACA" march. We marched past the convention center where the DNC meeting was still going on, and the hotel where the DNC bigwigs were staying, shouting and chanting and whatnot. It would have been an easy thing for someone, say Tom Perez?, or anyone to come out of the convention center and address the assemblage. Just tell us that you hear us, you understand, you intend to fight, just basic boilerplate stuff would have gone a long way. But did anyone come out? Haha, no. Of course they didn't.

And that is why we keep losing.

The Crazy has spread to Iowa!

Sp you know how college campuses are full of young people and like liberals and progressives and what-not? Well, an Iowa state senator has a solution to that problem!

Iowa Starting Line

Your Home for Iowa Caucus and Iowa Politics News

 

Senator Mark Chelgren Aims To Purge Democrats From Iowa Universities

February 20th, 2017

Well, to be fair, he only wants to get rid of about half the Democrats.

Chelgren wants to impose an ideological litmus test in order to create a “partisan balance,” based on how Iowa has voted in past elections.

Because if the corn farmers of your state all voted a certain way, that should affect the political makeup of your institutions of higher learning.

The legislation proposes that a “person shall not be hired as a professor or instructor member of the faculty at such an institution if the person’s political party affiliation on the date of hire would cause the percentage of faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of faculty belonging to the other political party.”

Because you know how much conservatives love affirmative action and quotas and social engineering to ensure "fair" outcomes.

By the way, he does know that there are more than two political parties, right?  You're trying to keep an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, what about professors who are registered Green Party or Libertarian, or Reform Party (is that still around?)
What about professors who are part of the American Independent Party or the Peace and Freedom Party or the Democratic Socialists? What about those who register as "no party affiliation" or aren't registered to vote at all?

The Secretary of State’s office would be directed to provide voter registration lists to the colleges so that new job applicants’ party affiliation could be checked before the hiring process gets underway. Graciously, Chelgren allows for people registered as No Party to slip through the process without facing the litmus test.

So anybody considering applying for a job at the University of Iowa just has to change their registration to "No Party" and the whole fascist system comes tumbling down?

You know, I could see where you might want to be sure that different viewpoints are represented in, say, the Political Science Department. Or the Philosophy Department, maybe the History Department. But what possible difference could it make whether the professor of Calculus is a Democrat or Republican? Or the Computer Science prof? Or, really any of the S.T.E.M. fields?  What is even the point of this proposal?

I would say that there's no chance of this bill passing, but it's 2017 and when it comes to right-wing politics, all bets are off.

Trump voters get feelings hurt, are pathetic little wiener babies.

Are Liberals Helping Trump?

By SABRINA TAVERNISEFEB. 18, 2017

And here we go. Here we go with the whole "your protesting is just making things worse, why don't you just be quiet and polite and just put up with the destruction of your country? Isn't it better to see a once-great nation destroyed than to hurt the feelings of the extreme right?"


Also, there's a rule about headlines, and I can't remember to whom the credit goes, but the rule states that whenever a headline  poses a question you can assume the answer is no. I'm assuming this headline will be no exception.

Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina, voted reluctantly for Donald Trump. As a conservative, he felt the need to choose the Republican. But some things are making him feel uncomfortable — parts of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, for example, and the recurring theme of his apparent affinity for Russia

So he voted for Orange Julius Caesar, but now he's a bit uncomfortable with him doing the things he said he would do before this wiener voted for him? And did he really not know that Il Douche was chummy with Putin before casting his vote?

Mr. Medford should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Mr. Trump was a bad choice. But it is not working out that way. Every time Mr. Medford dips into the political debate — either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles — he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority

 

Why should Medford be an ally of "liberals?"It's like saying that a guy who feels naseous after eating a whole pack of hot dogs should be an ally of vegans trying to convince people that meat is murder. The guy who thinks maybe Cheeto Mussolini might have a couple of flaws after all is supposed to be an ally of the people who tried to warn him that electing a ridiculously unqualified walking personality disorder with a history of assaulting women and defrauding business associates was a monstrously bad idea? Fuck this guy. What makes anyone think that this guy is going to realize how stupid he's been and put a Bernie 2020 sticker on his douchemobile? If anything, he's maybe going to think "yeah, I shoulda voted for Ted Cruz" or "maybe Jeb! wasn't so bad after all."

And I think it's fair to say that those of us who did not support a racist misogynist pussy-grabber have a right to feel a bit of moral superiority to those who did, those who looked at the racism, xenophopbia, hatred of Muslims and boasts of sexual assault and did not find a single deal-breaker among them.

“We’re backed into a corner,” said Mr. Medford, 46, whose business teaches people to be filmmakers. “There are at least some things about Trump I find to be defensible. But they are saying: ‘Agree with us 100 percent or you are morally bankrupt. You’re an idiot if you support any part of Trump.’ ”

Oh my Gawd! Conservatives are such fragile flowers!

Who is it that is saying "agree with us 100% or you're morally bankrupt?" Go ahead, name one person who has said that to you. We'll wait. . .
Because of course no one has said that to him. Of course he can't give a single example. Interestingly, he also seems to be unable to give an example of any of the things he finds defensible about the Rump.
And, by the way, if a month in to his administration, the best thing you can say about him is that he has some aspects that are "defensible," not "laudable" or "commendable" but "defensible" - if that's the best you can say about the man you chose to fill the highest office in the land, that he's not 100 percent completely indefensible, maybe you just ought to go ahead and sit out the next several elections.

He added: “I didn’t choose a side. They put me on one.”

You didn't choose a side? Really? What the hell do you think voting is? You didn't fill out your ballot for "oh, either one, they both seem okay." You chose a side. No one forced you to, you could have abstained from voting. No one would have missed you at all.

Liberals may feel energized by a surge in political activism, and a unified stance against a president they see as irresponsible and even dangerous. But that momentum is provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the right. In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism — the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one. Disagreeing meant being publicly shamed.

Hmm, funny how we never saw articles like this for the last 8 years while conservatives were dressing up as Paul Revere and demanding their country back. No one ever said to the teabaggers, "hey, you know, protesting might feel good, but you risk alienating liberals  with your harsh eliminationist rhetoric."

Surely there's no harm in telling people who voted for a mild-mannered centrist that they support a Muslim Marxist! They're sure to come around to our side 

when they read our pithy signage!

Never underestimate the power of a well-reasoned argument

 to sway your opponents to your side.

Protests and righteous indignation on social media and in Hollywood may seem to liberals to be about policy and persuasion. But moderate conservatives say they are having the opposite effect, chipping away at their middle ground and pushing them closer to Mr. Trump.

Moderate conservatives? We might lose the support of moderate conservatives? Both of them?
And what is a "moderate conservative" these days anyway? Someone who would rather have seen Mike Pence at the top of the ticket? Someone who thinks maybe the Republicans should shut down the federal government a little less often? Someone who thinks that maybe Social Security shouldn't be completely eliminated?
Assuming these people exist, and if they do, they had to have voted for Il Douche, how does pushing them even closer to the gaping maw of utter insanity make any real difference?
I mean, my God! What if instead of tepid support for Trump, they instead start feeling strong support for him. What a gamechanger! Just think how much more enthusiastically they'll pull the (R) lever next time! That will surely make a huge difference!

The name calling from the left is crazy,” said Bryce Youngquist, 34, who works in sales for a tech start-up in Mountain View, Calif., a liberal enclave where admitting you voted for Mr. Trump is a little like saying in the 1950s that you were gay.

No. No no no no nooooooo.

No, being a Trump supporter is not anything like being gay in the 1950's.

No one has to fear losing their job because they voted for Trump.
No one has to fear being physically attacked because they voted for Trump.
No one has to worry about being evicted from their residence because they voted for Trump.
No matter how big a fucking baby you are, and you certainly are, the hurt feelings you get from co-workers rolling their eyes and saying "Trump? Really?" do not begin to compare with the bullshit gay people have to deal with today, let alone in the dark ages of the 1950's.

Oh, and before you even begin, let me just go ahead and tell you that being a Trump voter in california is also NOTHING like being a Jew in Germany in the 1930's.

 

But, but. . . I'm the victim here!

The name calling from the left is crazy,” said Bryce Youngquist. . .  “They are complaining that Trump calls people names, but they turned into some mean people.”

Aw, no! Did the mean people hurt your little feelings? Ahh, here have your teddy bear and go take a nice little nap, eh?



 Also, gosh, I wonder how it must feel to have your political opponents insult you and call you names?

 Mr. Youngquist stayed in the closet for months about his support for Mr. Trump. He did not put a bumper sticker on his car, for fear it would be keyed.

 The fact that this idiot feared that his car would be keyed is NOT evidence of.. . well., it's not evidence of anything. But it definitely is not evidence of liberals being too mean to poor little conservatives. If I see someone walking toward my car and I lock the doors because I think he looks suspicious, that's not evidence that this stranger is a car thief. It's just me being overly-cautious.  And Mr. Youngtwit fearing someone would key his car almost certainly has more to do with the media he listens to telling him that "liberals" are out to get him than it does with any actual lib/progressive people he might encounter.

And yes, I saw the "in the closet" line, It's really just too pathetic to comment on.

The only place he felt comfortable wearing his Make America Great Again hat was on a vacation in China. Even dating became difficult. Many people on Tinder have a warning on their profile: “Trump supporters swipe left” — meaning, get lost.

Oh my GOD! Are you telling me that some ladies on Tinder don't want to date men whose political beliefs are the opposite of theirs? Discrimination! Next you'll be telling me that some people don't want a relationship with someone of a different religion!
I mean, isn't political compatibility one of the basic criteria people have always had for dating? I was going to ask whether it was likely that Mr. Youngtwit would be interested in dating a liberal woman, but I realized the answer was probably "if her boobs are nice enough."

He came out a few days before the election. On election night, a friend posted on Facebook, “You are a disgusting human being.”

“They were making me want to support him more with how irrational they were being,” Mr. Youngquist said.

*Sigh* No, he did not "come out." Do not cheapen the difficult experience that many LGBT people have had and will have by comparing this douchebag's experience to theirs.

Also, he not only voted for Il Douche, he had a "Make America Hate Again" hat. How much more could he support the guy? "Oh, they make me want to support him more?"  What's he gonna do, vote for him twice next time?

Conservatives have gotten vicious, too, sometimes with Mr. Trump’s encouragement.

Oh, Eleven paragraphs in and we're finally going to acknowledge that? For one tiny throwaway sentence?
Are we going to mention that "conservatives getting vicious" includes things like bomb threats phoned into Jewish centers and mosques being burned down and shot up? Not that that compares to the real  sin of being a jerk on Facebook, but still.

Conservatives have gotten vicious, too, sometimes with Mr. Trump’s encouragement. But if political action is meant to persuade people that Mr. Trump is bad for the country, then people on the fence would seem a logical place to start. Yet many seemingly persuadable conservatives say that liberals are burning bridges rather than building them.

Nope! Of course we're not going to touch on that. Because no matter how many acts of violence, no matter how many hate crimes are committed by Trump supporters, the real villains are of course you dumb old liberals being impolite on social media. If only you liberal jerks would reach out to the voters who chose a bloated racist buffoon with a trail of bankruptcies and trophy wives to be president because Hillary seemed kinda bitchy, surely they would join hands with us across the aisle and usher in a new golden era of bipartisan cooperation. But that will never happen now, because right-wing conservayives got their feelings hurt when you stupid liberal jerks called them names.

The end of America is on your heads, dumb old liberals!

Flashback Friday -- Stiff Little Fingers

Outrage and adorable babies

Idaho judge orders 19-year-old statutory rapist not to have sex until he is married

Judge Randy Stoker sentenced Cody Duane Scott Herrera of Twin Falls to five to 15 years in prison, but he suspended the sentence for a one-year rider program. If the unmarried Herrera completes the programme, he’ll be released on probation, which requires celibacy unless he weds.

I don't know what to be more outraged about. The fact that another rapist is going unpunished, or that a judge in America thinks he can order someone not to have sex.

Stoker said the probation condition is needed because Herrera told presentence investigators he’s had 34 sexual partners. “If you’re ever on probation with this court, a condition of that will be you will not have sexual relations with anyone except who you’re married to, if you’re married,” Stoker told Herrera.

How many consenting adults this pig has slept with is none of the court's business. It really seems that this judge is more upset about the number of partners that this scumbag has had than the fact that one of those partners was fourteen years old.

 

 Also, no he has not.

And I do NOT like being put into a position where I feel like I'm sticking up for a lowlife like Herrera because I am NOT sticking up for a lowlife like Herrera, I hope he never has any kind of sex ever again in his life. But if this judge can order a chum bucket like him not to have sex, what's stopping him, or any other judge, from deciding someone else should be forced to remain celibate? Maybe someone the judge feels has made too many babies or maybe the judge just has a sincere religious belief that people should not get any action before their wedding night. I don't know, but if we allow judges to start telling people what they can and can't do with their naughty bits, that can not end well.

Also, start putting rapists in prison, goddammit! Even if they are young white men with bright futures.


And speaking of government officials who want to take us back to Puritan times:

Tennessee GOP Lawker Files Bill To Make Children Born Through Artificial Insemination Illegitimate

An excuse to post pictures of adorable babies? Yes, Please!

Seriously, though. . .

A bill filed by a Tennessee Republican aims to make children born through artificial insemination illegitimate.

Really? How is that. . . how is that even still a thing? Who still makes a distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" babies? Are there still people out there saying "you can not inherit our father's title, for you are a bastard!"

WMC reported that state House Representative Terry Lynn Weaver is sponsoring HB 1406 to repeal Tennessee current statute, TCA 68-3-306, which declares that children born through artificial insemination are the "legitimate" child of the mother's husband.

I don't know which is a sadder statement, the fact that this nincompoop is trying to repeal this law, or the fact that this law had to be passed in the first place. Was there a problem with couples going to fertility clinics and then the husband saying What? I'm not the biological father? You whore!"

Does the law in Tennessee distinguish somehow between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children? Is there some benefit given to those whose parents were legally married, or denied to those whose parents weren't? I can't imagine even in Tennessee that "legitimacy" holds any legal status.

Pictured: Totally legit.

So what is even the motivation for trying to make this change?

Last year, Weaver was one of 53 GOP lawmakers who got involved in a same-sex marriage divorce that dealt with the custody of a child born through artificial insemination. Weaver and the other lawmakers asserted that the lesbian wife of the child's mother should not be considered a "legitimate" parent under the current statute.

Of course! Of course it has to do with the gay! Of course it has to do with a way to try and hurt or punish same sex couples. Of course! How did I not guess?



Okay, one more adorable baby, and then it's off to bed!

Trying to keep up with the insanity

It's getting really hard to keep up with all the insanity, it comes at you so fast these days.
There was inhuman monster Ted Cruz congratulating a woman for having MS:

Beautiful moment: @tedcruz defends cutting Medicaid by wishing woman with multiple sclerosis "congratulations on your struggles" pic.twitter.com/6PJBmHqRis

— CAFE (@cafedotcom) February 8, 2017

There's the constant stream of lies coming from Spicer:

Spicer falsely says Atlanta hit by Islamist terror attack

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, pointed to Atlanta several times recently while defending President Donald Trump's executive order limiting travel from seven majority-Muslim countries.
Spicer mentioned Atlanta alongside cities where Islamist terrorism has been carried out.


"What do we say to the family that loses somebody to a terrorist -- whether it's Atlanta, or San Bernardino or the Boston Bomber? Those people each of whom had gone out to a country and then come back," Spicer said while speaking to ABC News' Martha Raddatz on the January 29 edition of This Week about the White House's controversial executive order limiting travel.

I've lived in Atlanta since 2005 and I'm fairly sure I would remember if there was a terrorist attack.
To my knowledge, the only terrorist attack ever to happen in Atlanta was carried out by this guy:

who had not "gone out to a country and then come back."
Also, not a Muslim.
Or Arabic.
Or Middle Eastern.
Just plain old Christian white trash.



And speaking of which. . .

White supremacists who carried out bombings & mass shootings will no longer be targeted in counter-terrorism program https://t.co/Ys48yc4b0f

— Mike Rosenberg (@ByRosenberg) February 1, 2017

And it seems to be the perfect time to stop monitoring white supremacists. . .

Georgia white supremacist under FBI investigation after police find evidence of ricin in his car

Erin Corbett
08 Feb 2017 at 17:28 ET        


William Christopher Gibbs, a 27-year-old man from Fannin County, Georgia is under FBI investigation after driving himself to the hospital last week, claiming he came into contact with the deadly substance ricin.
Fannin County Sheriff Dane Kirby confirmed that Gibbs’ car tested positive for ricin, a deadly poison that is found in castor beans. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the substance can come in the form of a powder, a mist, a pellet, or can be dissolved in liquid and just a small amount of it can kill. The CDC notes, “It would take a deliberate act to make ricin and use it to poison people.”

And of course Spicer wasn't done. He also said that he believed that if Coretta Scott King were alive today that she would support Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, because in his fantasy world, I guess she would have become less bothered by racism over the years?

Sean Spicer: I Hope Coretta Scott King Would Support Jeff Sessions Today

Also, if Winston Churchill were alive today, I'm fairly sure he'd side with Germany.
And if George Washington were still around, I'm fairly certain he'd be a British loyalist..
And if Liberace were still with us, I feel confident that he would be an incorrigible skirt-chaser.



And I'm 100% certain there was a lot of insanity I missed. Probably more has happened since I began typing this post. There's just no way to keep up.

The scariest thing I've seen from the Trump regime yet.

During a portion of the meeting that a press pool was permitted to observe, Eavenson complained that a senator from his state was offering asset forfeiture legislation that Eavenson thinks would aid Mexican drug cartels.

“Who is the state senator? Want to give his name? We'll destroy his career,” Trump said, prompting laughs from the room.

I don't know what is the most chilling part of this little exchange.
Is it the Texas sheriff complaining about the possibility of having to actually convict someone of a crime before depriving them of their property?
Is it Trump's godfather-esque offering to use the power of the Presidency to ruin a man's career?
Or is it the laughter that erupts from the assembled law enforcement community? (as far as I can see, none of the press was laughing. I sincerely hope none were).

Also, this is how they act when they KNOW the cameras are on them. Imagine what they're like behind closed doors!

They find a new low

Just when you think they can't sink any lower. . .

GOP lawmakers look to penalize refugee resettlement charities

• By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services
• Feb 3, 2017 Updated Feb 4, 2017

PHOENIX -- Unable to block the federal government from sending refugees to Arizona, six Republican lawmakers want to penalize the charities that help them resettle here.

Sen. Judy Burges of Sun City West, who is leading the effort, told Capitol Media Services she wants to "have a discussion'' about how refugees wind up in Arizona and what costs are incurred by the state.

Well, for a start, I'd say that stopping charities from helping them will add to the cost to your state, but I'm guessing that's not really your point.

 Also, that's not how you have a discussion. You don't threaten to punish the people who disagree with you as a discussion starter.

State Sen. Judy Burges

The potentially more far-reaching part of her legislation would impose a fine on charities of $1,000 a day for each refugee it helps place in the state. And if a refugee is arrested, the charity would be financially liable for the cost of arrest, prosecution and incarceration of that person.

Burges conceded that she is using that approach because, realistically, it's the only option available to her to stem the flow of refugees.

 

When the United states accepts refugees, the United States decides where to resettle them. And, as you should have learned over the last several months of asshole Republican governors trying to keep refugees from their states, individual states do not get to decide whether or not the new arrivals can live in their state. Punishing charities won't change that, it will just make the refugees' lives even harder.

But as other states that have taken similar steps have found, approval of SB 1468 would not stop the refugees. All it would do is mean the federal government would continue to send people to the state, only without cooperation and coordination with the state.

And there is nothing that stops refugees from moving to Arizona once they're in the country legally.

Except the fact that it's Arizona.

The measure concerns Ron Johnson who lobbies for Catholic Charities, one of the groups involved in helping refugees resettle in the state.

"Obviously we're all concerned with proper vetting and national security,'' he said.

"But that's not something we do with Catholic Charities,'' Johnson explained. "Once they're here, we help them: find a job, find a place to live, learn the language, all kind of good things that help them be a part of society so they're not dependent on the government.''

 But of course, the cost to the government of AZ is not really what concerns people like Burges. Pretending to worry about costs is a more polite way of saying 'we don't want them durn furriners in these here parts."

 And if punishing catholic Charities for actually acting Jesusy is what it takes, well these fine upstanding Christians are willing to do just that. As long as it hurts brown and black people most.

"To punish the Good Samaritans that are trying to help them is a bit misplaced,'' Johnson said. "These people are already here.''

Burges was unsympathetic.

"I've talked to Ron Johnson myself,'' she said. "And I know that they get millions of dollars to administer these programs.''

 

Yes. I'm sure that's it. Catholic Charities is just raking in all that sweet sweet government cash, that's why they're doing this. Just like all those climatologists are pretending global warming is real so they can get their greedy hands on some of that sweet sweet grant money. That's probably it ecxactly. No one ever does anything good to help people without an ulterior motive!

"She's probably talking nationally,'' Johnson responded, noting there are more than 80,000 refugees being resettled this year.

"I won't deny that helps keep these program running,'' he continued. But Johson said it would be wrong to say that Catholic Charities is somehow making money on the programs.

"There's also local donations to help make ends meet,'' he said.

Burges said she wasn't saying that groups that work with refugees are in it for the money.

"As a charitable organization, they feel it's their responsibility,'' she said. But she said the state needs to have some say over who comes here.

No. No the state doesn't. That's not how this works. At least not yet.

Two Republican U.S. senators from Texas last month introduced legislation designed to let governors block the federal government from resettling refugees in their states.

 

 As crafted by Ted Cruz and Ted Poe, the State Refugee Security Act would require the federal government to notify a state at least 21 days before a refugee is resettled there. A governor, at his or her "sole discretion,'' could veto the move absent "adequate assurance that the alien does not present a security risk to the state.''

 No. States do not get to overrule the Federal Government. Here's a little light reading you might want to take a minute to peruse:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 It's from a little document you may have heard of called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. You know that document you all claim to love and revere so much. States do not get to overrule the federal government.

 Also, I know you like to pretend that refugees just walk up to the US embassy and get flown over here no questions asked, but they do actually go through a very long, very strict vetting process. The fact that they are being brought here to the United States, THAT IS your assurance that they do not pose a threat. There is no better assurance. A refugee is about a million times less likely to pose a threat than the guys hanging around the shooting range thumbing through issues of Soldier of Fortune and listening to Alex Jones. But of course safety isn't really your concern either, is it?

I really really hate Groundhog day

I hate Groundhog Day way more than I can possibly rationalize. I should really have much more important things occupying the hatred centers of my mind like, I dunno, the current President, maybe? But for some reason this annual insult to our national intelligence really gets under my skin.

So today we present a look back at some of our previous Groundhog Day observations.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Can Someone Please Explain To Me

Why in the hell this

is still going on in this day and age?
Surely there isn't anyone out there who actually believes that the weather is dependent upon whether or not a particular rodent sees its own shadow. And does anyone really think that you can even tell whether he has seen it or not? How does the rodent tell you, how does he communicate this information to you? By returning to his hole? I know if I got up, went out my front door and saw Creepy McMoustache and a bunch of slow-witted ninnies popping flashbulbs in my face, I'd turn around and go back to bed too. But I wouldn't expect anyone to see my actions as a foreboding omen of weather to come.

And it's bad enough that the top-hatted nincompoop battalion

goes through this absurd charade year after year, but media outfits like Reuters, the AP, and even National Geographic cover the nincompoopery as if it were a legitimate news story. Seriously! Look:

Ker Than

for National Geographic News

Updated February 2, 2010

Don't pack away those winter clothes just yet: This morning famed groundhog forecaster Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow. . .

Way to go, National Geographic!

msnbc.com news services

updated 12:45 p.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 2, 2010

PUNXSUTAWNEY, Pa. - The world's most famous groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, emerged before chilly revelers in western Pennsylvania on Tuesday to see his shadow, a sign his handlers say means winter will last another six weeks.

What a story! MSNBC, your place for politics! And rodent shadow coverage!

I guess the media has plenty of time to cover retarded nonsense like this, because there's just not that much going on right now. We're only involved in two wars. That's not very many. That should occupy like what, one reporter per war? And maybe a reporter or two to look at the economy, there's not a whole lot to report on there. And there are hardly any allegations of torture coming out at the moment, and only two political parties combining to fuck up healthcare reform. So sure, ther should be plenty of reporters left to cover the fuzzy animal falderal.

Or maybe it's just that there's only one time per year that reporters get to use the phrase "Gobbler's Knob." Yeah, really.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Stop the Presses!

This breaking news just in:

Punxsutawney Phil Isn't Always Right

By Alyssa Newcomb | ABC News Blogs – 11 hours ago

Wow, way to go, ABC! Way to nail down that scoop! The behavior of a random rodent is not really all that predictive of the future? Well blow me down!

An analysis by the National Climatic Data Center found there is no correlation between Phil's predictions and the actual weather.

The National Climatic Data Center? Please tell me that isn't a government agency. . . ah, crap! They have a .gov web address! Seems like the National Climatic Data Center ought to have bigger fish to fry than determining whether some ridiculous bit of nonsensical folklore involving a rodent might somehow have some shred of veracity in it. (hint: no, it does not)

The well-fed, revered groundhog also has a penchant for seeing his shadow. Ever since the tradition began in 1887, Phil (and his ancestors) saw their shadows 99 times, while predicting an early spring only 16 times. There was no record for nine of the years.

Of course he always sees his shadow! He's not blind. Assuming that it is actually possible to somehow determine what the little guy is actually seeing or not seeing,  wouldn't you just assume that he would see his shadow? And the 16 times he supposedly didn't see it, wouldn't that just be an indication that it's time to break in a new groundhog, because this one's losing his eyesight?

But thank God we have a free press in this country so we can read hard-hitting investigative stories like this. ABC News, give this lady a raise!

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

It's the stupidest day of the year

Everything about Groundhog day is mind-bogglingly stupid.
For starters, where in the world did anyone get the idea that whether or not  a certain small fuzzy animal sees its shadow  is somehow predictive of anything? What is that even based on? I'd Google it, but I'm sure it's stunningly stupid and  I just don't care enough. Also, how in the hell would you know whether this particular cute fuzzy animal has seen its shadow or someone else's shadow or a blade of grass, or. . . how could you possibly know what an animal has seen or not seen?

And yet, every year, these idiots dress up in formal wear and watch this rodent pop up out of some hole and pretend that they're doing meteorology.







Which is bad enough, but every year every goddamm news agency in the country sends reporters, actual reporters who probably went to journalism school to report on this stupid waste of everyone's time. And they're not allowed to report what actually happened. They're not allowed to say:

Dateline: Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania.
A strange ritual occurred today in this quiet little town as a douchebag in a top hat held aloft a large rodent while pretending that it had some effect on the weather patterns of North America. People who had gathered around for some reason that this reporter could not fathom began to cheer inexplicably as if they had witnessed some sort of actual event. No word yet on whether the top-hatted imbecile has been committed to a mental asylum, but he clearly seems to be a danger to himself as well as not doing the local woodland creatures any favors.

No, they have to go on camera and, with a straight face, talk about how we're going to have a longer or shorter winter this year based on some idiot's idea of what a cute fuzzy animal may or may not have seen. And they have to act like there's something to it. "Well, Bill, it looks like old man winter's going to be around a few more weeks since this overgrown chipmunk seems to have seen its own shadow. reporting live from Pennsatucky, I'm Joan Smith. Please give me a reason not to slash my wrists right here on the air."


I mean, I get why they go on the air and pretend that there are radar sightings of a flying sleigh on Christmas Eve. That's to make children happy. But no child gives a fat fuck about Groundhog Day. Even the smallest child isn't stupid enough to think that a fuzzy animal has any bearing on the climate. So who is it for? There can't possibly be adults who enjoy pretending that an oversized squirrel can predict the future, can there?

Also, the groundhog's name is "Punxsutawney Phil." Who came up with that? If you're going to give the animal a name that starts with "P" to go along with Punxsutawney, why not use a name where the "P" is pronounced as a "P," not an "F?" Why not Punxsutawney Pual or Punxsutawney Pete or Punxsutawney Pat? How hard is that?

Also, what is "Gobbler's Knob?"

A crowd gathered at Gobbler's Knob early this morning, awaiting the emergence of the groundhog named Punxsutawney Phil. After a tap of a cane on Phil's tree-trunk cage, his door was opened, and the animal emerged.

The town is Punxsutawney, PA. Why do they say it happened at "Gobbler's Knob?" What is Gobbler's Knob? Never mind, I'm pretty sure I don't want to know.

Gobbler's Knob is a pretty stupid name for a town or a neighborhood or geographical location, but it's probably the least stupid thing about Groundhog Day, the stupidest day of the year.