The importance of not giving a fuck

Obama signs debt deal

 President Barack Obama has signed the debt compromise deal, staving off the potentially calamitous economic effects of a U.S. debt default.

Let me see if I have this "deal" straight.

 The teabaggers get huge spending cuts, no tax increases and no loopholes closed. And in return, the democrats got. . . . um, the economy not being blown up? That's pretty much what it seems like, for all the concessions they gave up, what they got in return was that the economy will not be purposely destroyed.

It's like a couple arguing in the car, and the husband says "tell you what, you let me have my way on this one, and I won't steer into oncoming traffic." It's ridiculous. Why were the Republicans allowed to get away with pretending that a government default was not going to hurt them as much as anyone else?

I've been trying to figure out why Republicans are so much better at these "negotiations" than Democrats, and I think I have it figured out. They don't give a fuck. And not giving a fuck is a damn strong bargaining position.

Imagine you and your spouse are negotiating about the household chores. Neither one of you wants to clean the bathroom, you both would rather do whatever the easiest thing is. You are in a much stronger position if you can say "Hey, it's your family coming over, I don't give a fuck if the house gets clean or not." (do not try this at home)

That's the Republican bargaining strategy. they don't give a fuck. If they don't get what they want, hey maybe the economy blows up, maybe it doesn't, either way, they don't give a fuck. They want what they want when they want it, and if they don't get it,  they don't give a fuck about what happens to the country. Either they're going to be happy or no one will be happy.

 

That tax cut wasn't big enough! Now this is happening!

An Open letter to Everyone Invoilved With "Project Runway"

Dear Everyone,

     Please, please, please for the love of God, stop using the singular "pant." I don't know why it's so annoying, and I don't know why I find it vaguely creepy, but it is and I do. The term has always been "pants." As in "I have designed this pair of pants which do not fit my model correctly and make her appear to wearing Huggies." Why do you all insist on using "pant," as in "I think instead of a dress, I will design a jacket and a pant which will be too tight and make my model look lumpy and misshapen."

If you are for whatever reason, you are uncomfortable with the term "pants," there are other alternatives.

Slacks

Trousers

Britches

Pantalones

Cullotes

Whatever. Just please stop saying "a pant."

I thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Taking a Couple Days Off

Looks like I'll be taking a couple days off while I work on a different web project.
I'll be back irritating everyone very soon.
Try to hold back your tears.

My problem with the new Planet of the Apes trailer

Well, two problems reaaly. My first problem is that they are making another Planet of the Apes movie. Didn't they already make more than enough of these silly movies in the 1970's?

 

Apparently, Monkey Lovin' was considered acceptable back then?

 And haven't they already done the obligatory "gritty reboot?"

 

And didn't we all laugh at it then? So why in the world would they think to make a new version with a completely different origin story with the "unintended consequences of science" theme popularized by Mary Shelley?

 

Why we can't have stem-cell research, because this might happen.



 


But, since the movie industry has developed a crippling fear of anything original, I guesss I shouldn't be too terribly surprised. They made a Miami Vice movie, for God'sake. And an A-Team movie. And Two Charlies' Angels movies!

But here's my main problem with the new Planet of the Apes trailer:




Okay, I get that the chimps are super-smart. And I get that they are seriously pissed off, and rightly so. And there are a lot of them, and they're very strong. But what the filmmakers seem to have forgotten is that people have guns. If a bunch of angry monkeys started tipping over cars on the Golden Gate Bridge, how long do you think it would take for the SFPD to mow them all down? Okay, maybe the SFPD isn't our best defense, but eventually, these damn dirty apes are going to wind up in East Palo Alto or Richmond, and they're going to run into these muthafukkas:

 

Or they'll wander into Oakland and run smack into these sob's:

 

Either way, there's gonna be a whole bunch of dead monkeys pretty quick.

Granted, these monkeys are pretty scary.

 

But how are they going to beat a species who have this:

 

And this:

 

And this:



I just don't see how you could make a Planet of the Apes movie that's so unrealistic!

Now this is more like it:

Who the hell put this scumbag in charge?

The Fast Fix: Grover Norquist’s effect on the debt ceiling

 

I knew this little turd had his stupid "No new taxes" pledge, and I knew some Republicans had signed it, but holy shit! Two Hundred and Forty members of Congress?  How dare they? How dare they sign an oath to a single person when they are supposed to represent the people of their district and the people of the United States in general? So even though a majority of the people want to see a compromise on the debt ceiling, even though most people want to see the Bush tax cuts expire for the richest, and most people want to end tax breaks for huge super-profitable corporations, these assholes are apparently willing to ignore the will of the people because they owe their loyalties to one little shitbag who hates taxes.

 

Bow before me, Republicans! Pledge to me your loyalty!

Don't the members of Congress take a much more serious oath upon taking office? Don't they swear to support and defend the Constitution? The Constitution which requires that we do not default on our debt payments? Shouldn't that oath supercede any brain-dead promise to a weasly little bag of scum who clearly does not have the best interests of the Nation in mind?

 

.Fuck it, I'm rich. What the hell do I care if the country goes broke?

Why is this even allowed? Isn't this a pretty blatant conflict of interest? And also just blockhead stupid. No matter the circumstances, no matter what might be best for the US of A, you swear that you will not allow even the slightest revenue increase? Because your anti-tax anti-government ideology is more important to you than the health of the US economy. Does that sound like responsible leadership to anyone?