Horrible Supreme Court Continues to be Horrible.

(Via NY Times)

WASHINGTON - In its first campaign-finance decision since its 5-to-4 ruling in the Citizens United case last year, the Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona law that provided escalating matching funds to candidates who accept public financing.

Wow! So the same judges who just ruled that money = speech are against a law that would provide more speech because um, I don't get it. What exactly is the problem with having more speech. I thought speech was good?

The vote was again 5 to 4, with the same five justices in the majority as in the Citizens United decision. The majority said the law violated the First Amendment rights of candidates who raise private money. Such candidates, the majority said, may be reluctant to spend money to speak if they know that it will give rise to counterspeech paid for by the government.

 Jeezus! So it's not enough that one candidate has more money, he also gets to prevent his opponent from getting more? And since when is making someone "reluctant" to "speak" the same thing as infringing on his right to speak? The Scalia wing of the court will do all manner of impressive mental gymnastics to make the law fit the decision they want to make. Rather than looking at the law, weighing the arguments pro and con and then arriving at a decision, they seem to begin with a decision, then try to figure out how to make the law agree with that decision.

Okay, we all agree that we hate public financing of elections, right?

Oh, sure, yeah! Really inhibits the corrupting influence of zillionaires!

 

So, we're agreed that we'll strike down this law, 

now what principle can we twist to justify this decision?

 

I dunno, freedom of speech? We could say that giving one candidate the ability to have more speech is actually taking free speech away from the other candidate?

 

Bra - Vo! 

Well done, Mr. Scalia. Make it so. 

And set a course for happy hour.

I'm pretty sure it goes something like that.

Also, Carol Channing, because why the hell not?

The Worst Song I Heard At Work This Week

The Muzak at my place of employment is a veritable cornucrapia of insipid lyrics set to wearisome tunes, but the all-time cake taker has to be the atrocious "Where Have All The Cowboys Gone?" by the abominable Paula Cole. (seen here taking herself way too fucking seriously)

The tune, to begin with, is just an unimaginative mediocrity, and Ms. Cole is a passable vocalist at best. If these were the only complaints, this song would barely merit a mention. It would slide by un-noticed like most second-rate records. But, no! Apparently, the producers had a brilliant idea: "hey, Paula, what if, instead of singing the main verses, you recited the lyrics in a semi-rhythmic stage whisper?"
" Oh My God! Brilliant! Now people will know that I'm a serious artist!"

Then there's the lyrics themselves, which are basically a bizarre longing for a pre-feminist relationship in which "I will raise the children if you pay all the bills." and "I will wash the dishes, you go have a beer." (seriously: Link) And she can't even pronounce "beer" like a normal person. When Paula sings it, it comes out like "beeee-yurrrr." How hard is it to pronounce beer? It's one fucking syllable! BEER! There, see how easy that was?

And, hey, Ms Cole, women have spent the last 30-odd years trying to explain to men that we should be more sensitive, more in touch with our feelings, and God help us, we've been trying. We may not be that great at it, but we have been trying to be more Phil Donahuey and less Clint Eastwoodey. And now here you come along whining "where is my John Wayne?" John Wayne is dead. And if he was alive, he probably wouldn't be a lot of fun to be married to. Remember this famous quote from the Duke? “Women have the right to work wherever they want, as long as they have the dinner ready when you get home”
(Although, based on your lyrics, maybe he would be your ideal husband.)

Anyway, just when the song is winding down, just when it seems like the crapfest is over, Ms Cole launches into a ghastly caterwauling which Lyrics.com translates as "yipee yo, yipee yeah," but sounds for all the world like "Dah- ah - ahh, Duh-ha, Duh-ha!" Either way, I'm pretty sure it violates the Geneva Conventions.

And, ys, I know that this song is over 10 years old, but it hasn't gotten any less horrid in the interim.