Empty Suit Throws Hat Into Ring

Has any political candidate ever been more of a non-entity that Howard Schultz?

Who does he think his constituency is? I consider myself reasonably well-informed, but until he announced his mindless quixotic presidential bid, I had no idea who he was. I had never heard the name Howard Schultz. Why would he think he could make the slightest ripple in the 2020 campaign?

Oh, right. Because he's a billionaire, so the media will fall all over themselves to build him up into some kind of legitimate statesman.

But seriously, he doesn't even have a platform. He has zero ideas of what he would want to do as president other than not tax billionaires.

Here's something he actually said on 60 Minutes as if it were a selling point:

 I don't care if you're a Democrat, independent, Libertarian, Republican. Bring me your ideas, and I will be an independent person who will embrace those ideas because I am not in any way in bed with a party.

So, I'm running for president - just tell me what you think would be good and I'll run with it! Even if your idea is the worst Libertarian drivel, I'm all ears!


He does, apparently, believe in something he calls "comprehensive tax reform," by which he means. . . you know, tax reform that is comprehensive.


Via NPR:

INSKEEP: President Obama's theory was that you reduce the deficit in small measure by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. President Trump's theory was that you reduce the deficit by cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans. You're smiling. Which, if either of those, is true?

SCHULTZ: Can I say it in my own words?

INSKEEP: Please.

SCHULTZ: So we are in dire need of comprehensive tax reform, which would include a significant level of infrastructure developments.

INSKEEP: Is it safe to say that the wealthiest would have to pay more? Whatever the rates become, however the reform is structured?

SCHULTZ: What I would say is that we need comprehensive tax reform.

So he either doesn't know, or doesn't want to say, whether marginal tax rates would go up or down under his "reform," but rest assured, this "reform" is exactly what America so desperately needs at this time.

SCHULTZ: . . . I think there are a number of areas here that need to be addressed. And I'm not trying to dodge any question. I just feel like, you know, what we have today is an unfair system. 

Unfair in what way? Well, why does that matter? Look, whether you think that your tax burden is too high or too low, whether or not you think the wealthy and the corporations should be paying more or less, none of that matters. Because REFORM! COMPREHENSIVE!

. . . what we have today is an unfair system. However, when I see Elizabeth Warren come out with, you know, a ridiculous plan of taxing wealthy people a surtax of 2 percent 

You're right, Howard. 2% is ridiculous. Anything less than 10% is insufficient!

However, when I see Elizabeth Warren come out with, you know, a ridiculous plan of taxing wealthy people a surtax of 2 percent because it makes a good headline - or sends out a tweet when she knows for a fact that's it's not something that's ever going to be passed, this is what's wrong. 

Okay. Good. Now we're getting somewhere. We've identified the problem and that's a start. The problem with the United States tax code is. . . Elizabeth Warren tweeting! Wait. Are yiu sure aboiut that?

INSKEEP: But I'm just thinking, you've got trillion-dollar annual deficits now in good times. Getting that down calls for some specific, painful-sounding things - drastic cut in military spending, at a time when the United States is confronting China and Russia and who knows who else, changes to Medicare and Social Security, tax increases on somebody. Are you going to do that?

SCHULTZ: Well, you haven't talked about growth. So...

INSKEEP: You think you can grow your way out of a trillion-dollar deficit?

SCHULTZ: I don't think you can - no. No. I don't think you can grow your way out of a trillion dollars. 

Oh my God, then why did you bring it up?

But I - remember, I've been an entrepreneur for the last 40 years. I view things a little bit differently than, certainly, a traditional politician. And I have a 30-year-plus record of being able to solve complex problems in unique ways.

Oh for fuck sake. Maybe, MAYBE, you could have trotted this out prior to 2016. Maybe. Bur America has had two years now to see what happens when you elect a "billionaire" businessman with zero political experience to the highest office in the land. And I don't want to speak out of turn here, but we ain't too happy.


Also, that's your pitch? Imagine being two years into the tRump administration and thinking "Now's the time America is ready to gamble on an outsider businessman!"

You know, it seems like every election cycle there's at least one. There was Ross Perot, there was Steve Forbes, There was Hermann Cain, and Carly Fiorinna. And none of them came close, except Orange Julius Caesar who was the most famous businessman in the world and also a reality TV star that for some reason a lot of people found charismatic. (I will never understand why) But sure, the guy who used to run Starbucks, who is nowhere near a household name, and has zero charisma is the perfect candidate to win as a third party candidate!

Especially with specific, precise policy goals like this:

People need real opportunities to help themselves, not unrealistic policies and promises. Genuine opportunities, like the ones I had, which helped me leave the housing projects of Brooklyn and realize my dreams. #ReimagineUS pic.twitter.com/oUBxTN57iW

— Howard Schultz (@HowardSchultz) January 30, 2019

Oh, opportunities! Oh my God, I think you're on to something! No political candidate has ever offered vague, nebulous promises of "opportunity" before! in 2020, when you've got the candidate on one side of you shouting "Vote for me if you hate Mexicans and Muslims" and the other promising to give you a pay raise and let you go to the doctor when you're sick without losing your house, voters are sure to be drawn to the guy in the middle saying "ahem, I believe Americans should have opportunities."
Yeah, forget "policies and promises!" Those things don't help anyone. What we need is the amorphous gossamer of "OPPORTUNITIES!"

Also, I'm not sure Schultz really understand how American elections work.

Here he is on CBS This Morning:


"I think Republicans are looking for a home. If Republicans have a choice between a far left liberal progressive candidate on the Democratic side or President Trump, President Trump is going to get reelected.


Well, yeah. That would be true, if only Republicans voted. If you offer Republicans a choice between tRump and a progressive Democrat, of COURSE tRump would win. But, it may surprise you to learn that, desoite Republicans' best efforts, Democrats and Independents and Green Party and Libertarians and DSA are all allowed to vote in our elections. And according to the Washington Post:

More Americans now identify as independents than as members of either political party, according to June data from Gallup. In fact, only about a quarter of the country identifies as Republican, and about 3 in 10 identify as Democrats.

So, yes. In a two-candidate race in which one candidate is a Republican and the other is a Democrat, the Republican candidate would win the votes of that quarter of the electorate. Not sure how many of them would be peeled away by a moderate centrist who, up until 10 minutes ago, was a lifelong Democrat.

"We will be on the ballot in every state, all 50 states. And this is so vitally important. In the last presidential elections the only thing that matters is about eight states, battleground states that define the race, if I enter the race I'll be on the ballot of every state in all 50 states. Everyone's voice would matter."

Oh my God. Does he think that the reason the battleground states are so important is that major party candidates are not on the ballot in every state? Does he think that Hillary won in California because Trump wasn't on the CA ballot? Or that had there been another CEO douchebag on the ballot in California, that she wouldn't have won there?



Either way, the "battleground" states will still be the "battleground states." California  and New York will go Blue, Alabama an Mississippi will go Red whether any third party candidate is on the ballot or not. And Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, etc will still be the states that are up for grabs.And those swing states would be the only states where Schultz could possibly hope to make any kind of a difference.  Is Schultz the only person in America who doesn't get this?


He also doesn't seem to understand the Democratic Party.

"I'm not a Democrat," Schultz told the 'Morning Joe' panel. "I don't affiliate myself with the Democrat Party who is so far left, who basically wants the government to take over health care, which we cannot afford, the government to give free college to everybody and the government to give everyone a job, which basically is $40 trillion on the balance sheet of $21.5 trillion. We can't afford it."

First of all, how many Democrats are pushing for single-payer healthcare? Last I heard, only about 1/3 of Senate Democrats were on board. Also, we absolutely can afford it. Why do you think Canada can but we can't. How come the U.K. can but we can't? Is this guy really so dense that he doesn't understand how Medicare-for-All would be funded? Maybe. Because here's what he had to say on the subject in his NPR interview:

SCHULTZ: Free Medicare for all, government-paid, free college for all - first of all, there's no free. I mean nothing is free.

Yeah. We know that. We're not stupid. We get that single-payer would be paid for with our tax dollars. We get it. We understand that, instead of having money taken out of our paycheck by Aetna or Blue Shield, we would have money taken out of our paycheck by Medicare. The difference is, we'd get a much better product.

And, I don't know whether Howard Schultz knows this, but state colleges used to be tuition-free. At least they were ion California. Before they elected Reagan governor.

(Joke stolen from Dana Gould)

So, this "raidcal" "leftist" idea of tuition-free college, is actually pretty retrp. It has been done and could certainly be done again. In fact, Bernie Sanders has aplan to pay for state colleges with a transaction tax on Wall Street. It would be pretty much completely painless for John Q. Taxpayer.

So, in conclusion, Howard Schultz has no ideas, no platform, and no policies. And he doesn't understand the Electoral College, how things get paid for, his opposition, or the zeitgeist.

"I must be doing something right to create so much interest and backlash from the Democratic Party. Some of it is a surprise, but we expected to see some of the level of vitriol but not the extent it's been." -- @HowardSchultz pic.twitter.com/PJ5nrWAJFc

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) January 30, 2019

Sure, Howard.
Sure ya are.

People Who Won't Go Away

So this guy is still around somehow.

Female butt obsession is a gateway to homosexuality. pic.twitter.com/H8cFAX62x9

— Roosh (@rooshv) January 28, 2019

You'd think after Mr HeMan Ladykiller was discovered to be a sad little manchild living LITERALLY in his mother's basement, he would have slunk shamefully away into well-deserved anonymity. But no. Apparently, there must still be some people who want to hear what this pathetic little cloaca of a man has to say. Even if it means listening to sex-talk from a man who refers to his genitalia as a "Benis?"

So, apparently this little simpleton has gotten the idea that if one was to indulge in anal intercourse with a woman, then that person would, I guess, just go "hey, butt-sex is fun. Who else has butts? Oh, right. Men do!" and then just become all gay or something? I don't know. But I guess he thought that this was an insight that needed to be shared with the world. Between long awkward sips of coffee. As you do when you've gained enlightenment that must be promulgated.

He states unequivocally that he has never had back-door sex. Well duh! I can't imagine he's ever had sex of any kind in any door. Who would let this self-impressed worm get anywhere near her boudoir?

He says he has had a couple of women ask him if he wanted to try it. I do believe that. I just assume that the offer was immediately followed by "cuz that costs extra."

He also seems to think that showering daily is something to brag about, not just a part of any normal person's routine. And that showering makes him not want to do butt sex, because that's where poop comes out. (No one tell him about what comes out of vaginas! Or maybe do tell him. Maybe that will be enough to put him off women entirely, for which the women in whatever town he lives in would probably be eternally grateful.)



Oh, and speaking of people who will not just go away, please for the love of God just go away:

Milo Yiannapoulos Loves Jesus, Hates Mammon, Is Stealing Gospel Songs Now

Robyn Pennacchia

January 28, 2019 04:59 PM







For some bizarre reason, Milo has recorded a Gospel song. And there is an accompanying video which, for as long as I could stand to watch, contains zero pictures of Jesus, or the Bible, or a church, but dozens and dozens of pictures and video clips of Milo making an ass of himself in various ways. There's Milo pretending that reporters are following him around. There's Milo pretending to beat up ethnic criminals. There's Milo standing behind an Israeli flag because, sure, I guess Yianopoulos is probably a Hebrew name. Then the first time the song mentions "a Savior" we see a photo of Milo kissing Donald Trump's star onm the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Subtle!
then he sings about how much he likes Jesus over a video of thong-clad women gyrating while wearing some sort of head-covering/veil type of thing because ooh, he's so edgy, he's really taking it to those Muslims and their concepts of modesty!

Wonkette fills us in on some of the background info:

If you are anything like me, your first thought upon listening to this was "Oh there is no way that Milo Yiannopoulis got that many black people to sing back-up for him." And if you did think that, you would not be wrong! Because the entire backing track was straight up lifted from the version of the song recorded by Kirk Franklin, the gospel singer who originally sang it.

God, why won't these halfwit assholes just go away?

Weird Stories in the News

Weird story # 1:

Casey Hathaway, missing 3-year-old, found alive - CNN - CNN.com

At first glance, this story doesn't really sound weird so much as uplifiting. This lost child has been found and returned to safety. That is a 100% positive story.

Here's where it gets weird:

Hundreds of people joined in the search to help find him, including some 600 volunteers and members of the FBI, NCIS and US Marine Corps.

After days of desperate searches for the little boy, crews on Thursday night responded to a report of a child crying in the woods and found Casey "about 40 to 50 yards in the woods, tangled up,"

Okay, the boy wandered out of his grandparents' back yard and into the woods. So you have a starting point to begin the search. And you have 600 people searching for this kid, presumably fanning out from the known starting point. And for what, two and a half days, no one can find him? And he only got 40 to 50 yards into the woods?
 And these weren't a bunch of random idiots doing the searching. There were FBI agents, the local sheriff's department, Marine Corps servicemebers and N.C.I.S.

One of these days, we're going to have to have a serious talk about NCIS. But not today.

How do 600 people spend 2 days looking for this kid who is shouting distance from the place he was last seen and not find him?


Now it gets weirder.

Casey is in good condition and resting, Dr. Nicole Check of the CarolinaEast Medical Center said Friday morning.

Casey’s aunt, Breanna Hathaway in a Facebook post said her nephew was “healthy, smiling and talking” following his return late Thursday.

Doctors at Carolina East Medical Center spent Thursday night examining Casey, who was left mostly uninjured from his time in the woods aside from a few scrapes and bruises. They said Friday that he was “in good condition and will be released later today or tomorrow,” WBTWreported.

He's fine. A three-year-old boy spent three nights alone in the woods, and he's fine?

And it's not like he was out there on warm summer evenings.

"What he survived out there -- temperatures in the 20s, low 20s, the rain, the downpour that almost put our search on a standstill," Craven County Sheriff Chip Hughes told ABC New Bern affiliate WCTI Friday morning. 

So, had he maybe spent some or most of this time indoors? Maybe in the home or the vehicle of an abductor? Nope!

"By his condition it was pretty obvious that he had been out there for the time," the sheriff told ABC News Friday.

The Craven County Sheriff's Office has not found any evidence of criminal activity surrounding the disappearance of a three-year-old who miraculously was found safe 55 hours later, according to a press release.

. . .  law enforcement, who are still unsure how Casey remained mostly healthy in the woods for two day without food or water.

So this is all pretty weird, right?
Ready for it to get weirder?

North Carolina 3-year-old Casey Hathaway says he hung out with a bear after he vanished from his grandmother's backyard

 

Okay, fine. He's three. three-year-olds have vivd imaginations. And being soaking wet in sub-freezing temperatures while dehydrated and hungry could make anyone imagine or dream or hallucinate some pretty wild stuff. 

But. . . 

If there's  no bear, how did the kid not freeze to death? A nice fluffy furry fuzzy bear could certainly keep you warm enough to survive. I honestly think the bear story is at least plausible. A mother bear might see a small human cub and instinctively want to care for and protect it. I've seen enough Animal Planet to know that stranger things have happened.

You know what this is, right?

This is a superhero origin story.

There is virtually no way that this little boy does not grow up to fight crime as Grizzly Man or Bear Boy or something/

Or, if things go wrong, a supervillain.

You heard it here first. And if I were Marvel or DC, I would jump on the rights to this kid's story.

(There were a couple other weird stories, but this one ended up taking too much time.)

Flashback Friday -- Uncle Tupelo

Do you know how good Uncle Tupelo was? Uncle Tupelo was so good that when they broke up, they split into Son Volt and Wilco! Which is especially impressive when you consider that when the Beatles broke up, they split into Wings and the Plastic Ono Band.


Chicago's Uncle Tupelo, along with Nashville's BR-549 and San Francisco's Dieselhed were the vanguard of the late 80's-early 90's "alt-country" or "no depression" movement. I don't know for sure, but I think the name "no depression" came from Uncle Tupelo's cover of the Carter Family classic.

I mena, I know the music "scene's" name came from a fan magazine entitled "No Depression," but I always assumed that the magazine title came from the Uncle Tupelo record.





Anyway, please enjoy a few selections from Uncle Tupelo.

Silly Goose of the Day

Geese, as we all know, are the silliest of God's creatures. But sometimes a person can be as silly as a goose. Yes. it's true!
so who's being a silly little goose today?


Why, it's none other than South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson!

 

No, not that one.

This one:

Now you wouldn't think that an attorney general would be particularly silly. Especially not an attorney general who fought for a law to make it harder for mentally ill persons to get firearms and sued the Trump administration to stop offshore drilling.

But if silly is as silly does, then Alan Wilson is one silly silly goose.

SC police, doctors fighting medical marijuana; AG calls it US’s ‘most dangerous drug’

Yes. the most dangerous drug!







You want to know how dangerous? Well, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has some chilling statistics. For instance, look how people died from cocaine overdoses:




And heroin:




Now compare that to the results you get by searching their site for the term "marijuana overdose."



"marijuana overdose"
1 results

Study Links Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Reduced Mortality From Opioid Overdose | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

Boy, it really makes you think, doesn't it?

Well, it does if you're not a silly goose.

COLUMBIA — Flanked by lawmakers, law enforcement officials and doctors in white lab coats, S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson called marijuana “the most dangerous drug” in America while denouncing legislation Wednesday that would allow patients to obtain it with a doctor’s prescription. 

Because there's no way for doctors to know whether a substance might be harmful for their patients!

Various speakers, which included State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel and leaders from the S.C. Medical Association, suggested the use of medical marijuana would cause a litany of problems in South Carolina: addiction, increased traffic accidents and — without specifically citing any peer-reviewed research — an increase in the number of overdose deaths. 

Hmm, no peer-reviewed studies, eh? That's kind of hard to believe. I mean, there must be just tons of studies about all the people who die from smoking the devil's oregano.


Why, look. Here's one now!





So, no peer-reviewed studies, what did Wilson list as the basis for his condemnation of Satan's spinach?

While standing in the center of the Statehouse lobby, Wilson rattled off slang describing the high from marijuana. “They use words like stoned, high, wasted, baked, fried, cooked, chonged, cheeched, dope-faced, blazed, blitzed, blunted, blasted, danked, stupid, wrecked — and that’s only half the words they use,” Wilson said. “Are these consistent with something that describes a medicine?” 

Well, that settles that! Screw your stupid "studies" and "statistics" and "knowledge" about "things." There are a bunch of slang terms that make smoking wacky weed sound bad, so ipso facto it must be bad. If the slang terms sound odd, it must be outlawed is a time-honored legal principle. Just like how in France, the "climax" is referred to as "le Petite Morte" and so no one is allowed to get off in France. Wait, is it France? I must have France mixed up with a different country. Maybe the Vatican. Anyway, it's not important. The point is, that if people talk about something using terms that make that thing sound like it might be kinda scary, then that thing is inherently too dangerous to be allowed. It's just common sense, people!

Wilson classified marijuana as the most dangerous drug because he said it was “the most misunderstood drug.” 

Well, it's hard to argue that. I mean clearly it seems to be completely misunderstood by the prominent citizens of South Carolina.

Dr. March Seabrook, the S.C. Medical Association president, focused his opposition on the lack of medical and regulatory oversight of marijuana. 

Well, yes. The government does not allow any research to be done on marijuana, so therefore there isn't a lot of research on marijuana, so therefore the government must continue to ban any use of marijuana that might allow its effects to be researched.

After the news conference, the Medical Association said it disagreed with Wilson’s assessment that marijuana is “the most dangerous drug” in the country. Still, Seabrook argued the new legislation “will not improve the health of South Carolina.” 

Now let's all just forget about this ridiculous marijuana. Here, I'm going to write you a prescription for Oxycontin. That'll help you forget all about it. And you know Oxy is safe, because it's legal! I mean, if we even suspected at all that it might be unsafe, we obviously would make it just as illegal as Lucifer's lettuce!


Should we continue?

Okay, fair enough!