Amusing snark can often make the point better than a serious discourse.
Guys, I wanted to let you know about a personal decision I recently made. I don’t really feel like discussing it, but I want to put my position out there. Please be respectful. This is a really long post, but please read the whole thing.
I’m taking the brakes off my car. This isn’t a rash decision, so please listen up.
A few weeks ago I saw a car accident – two people went through an intersection at the same time. Both slammed on their brakes at the same time and collided. Fortunately no one was seriously injured.
But then it occurred to me – if they had just gone through the intersection, they wouldn’t have collided. The brakes CAUSED the accident!
So, I decided to do my own research and what I found was *staggering*: Hundreds of people every year are seriously injured by unnecessary braking. One time, I was driving in the snow and I just lightly tapped my brakes and it caused my car to COMPLETELY LOSE CONTROL. My brakes could have very easily gotten me killed. Even more astoundingly is how often brake pads will warp and distort rotors, causing bumpy rides and squeaky wheels.
And you know what? I also found that decades ago brakes weren’t even used! People would control their vehicle’s speed with downshifting and engine braking. Maybe it’s just coincidence, but back when engine braking was used there were almost no automotive fatalities. There were NEVER brake caused car accidents.
Republicans were irked by President Barack Obama’s caustic reminder in his State of the Union speech that he defeated them twice.
“I’ve run my last campaign,” Obama said toward the end of the nationally televised address. Republicans in the chamber applauded derisively, which prompted the president to ad-lib a zinger which wasn’t in his prepared remarks: “I know because I won both of them.”
Democrats erupted with applause.
In the Capitol after the speech, Republicans expressed displeasure at being jabbed by the president in the same speech where he asked for their cooperation.
“Probably not helpful when you rub the other guy’s nose in the dirt a little bit,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), a close ally of Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), told reporters.
“Look, he’s allowed to take a victory lap but he ought to be thinking about what works — what’s gonna help me actually put points on the board,” Cole said. “How are you going to define your legacy in the last two years. Is this all about a third Obama term by winning the presidency? Then that would suggest you just want confrontation and the ability for your nominee to attack a ‘do nothing right wing Congress.'”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called Obama’s jab — and overall speech — “disappointing,” pointing to the Democrats’ crushing defeat in the November congressional elections.
“If the president sticks to the tone that he chose tonight — if he sticks to anger and defiance towards the American voters, then perhaps he will veto bill after bill after bill after bill,” Cruz told a scrum of reporters. “But if he chooses to embrace and revel in gridlock and obstructionism that will be an unfortunate choice and I hope he reconsiders.”
These are the same folks who thought it was appropriate for one of them to yell “You lie!” at President Obama during an address to Congress, and now they’re miffed? Oh, really?
I suspect this is exactly the reaction the president wanted.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Majority Leader, thank you for inviting me here tonight to discuss the state of our union. The state of our union is strong, and it’s all because of me, motherfkers, and no thanks to your sorry, wrinkled white asses. I did everything I could do to pull the economy out of the shallow grave your deregulatory frenzy and the two-term nitwit who preceded me dug for it. You stood there like squeaking eunuchs and blocked everything you could, and a narrow slice of the electorate gave you virtually unprecedented control over the entire national legislature. I don’t care. Your party has sold its soul and lost its mind. I’m not going anywhere. So I’m’a gonna do what I goddamn well please, because the state of our union is strong, motherfkers, and it’s all because of me. Nice to see you all again, though.
According to what I’ve seen, the president pretty much said that.
PS: How many ways will the GOP work their way around to calling the president “uppity” without actually saying the word? Any bets?
Two House Democrats have stood proudly this week in front of a cardboard cut-out of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan during floor speeches, using his paper likeness as a prop to urge the GOP to join their cause on issues like immigration and increasing gasoline taxes.
On Wednesday, Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer set up the life-sized Reagan behind him to urge the GOP to support his bill to raise federal gasoline by 15 cents. (Gas taxes were increased under Reagan in 1982.) The next day, Reagan showed up again on the House floor next to Illinois Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, a staunch advocate for overhauling the nation’s immigration laws. (Reagan passed a sweeping immigration reform bill in 1986.)
I live in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country, but on one of the more “modest” streets—mostly doctors and lawyers and family business owners. (A few blocks away are billionaires, families with famous last names, media moguls, etc.) I have noticed that on Halloween, what seems like 75 percent of the trick-or-treaters are clearly not from this neighborhood. Kids arrive in overflowing cars from less fortunate areas. I feel this is inappropriate. Halloween isn’t a social service or a charity in which I have to buy candy for less fortunate children. Obviously this makes me feel like a terrible person, because what’s the big deal about making less fortunate kids happy on a holiday? But it just bugs me, because we already pay more than enough taxes toward actual social services. Should Halloween be a neighborhood activity, or is it legitimately a free-for-all in which people hunt down the best candy grounds for their kids?
—Halloween for the 99 Percent
Dear Halloween for the 99 percent:
“Dear Abby” had the answer to a similar situation: “You could move.” May I add, go shove a Three Musketeers where it will do the most good.
Liberal fascism is alive and well, and seemingly everywhere one looks these days. Not since the dark days of Stalin’s purges have so many so-called progressives exercised so much violent aggression against their enemies. It is indeed a dark time to be considered an enemy of the left-liberal alliance, as so many recent victims can attest.
First, a bunch of Twitter users got mad at Stephen Colbert, leading to Comedy Central agreeing to end his show — forever. Regardless of the merit of the anti-Colbert complaint, it was chilling to see free speech trampled upon as a gaggle of vaguely organized people on Twitter successfully browbeat a massive media conglomerate into sort of apologizing for a joke.
The Florida Republican and potential presidential candidate dodged a direct question at an education forum Monday, saying his own drug experience is irrelevant.
In his words: “If I tell you that I haven’t, you won’t believe me. And if I tell you that I did, then kids will look up to me and say, ‘Well, I can smoke marijuana because look how he made it.”
Which do you find more ridiculous: believing there was a kid growing up in Miami in the 1980’s who didn’t smoke pot at least once, or the idea that some kid today would use Marco Rubio as a role model?
The Ted Cruz citizenship story has another element to it: he is a U.S. citizen by definition of the law here, but he’s also a Canadian citizen. Josh Marshall has the details.
This is getting to be more fun than I thought it would be. Ted Cruz is a natural born American citizen blah blah blah. But because he was born in Canada he’s actually a Canadian citizen too. He’s a dual citizen. This is the same as if a couple of French expats were living in the US and had a child and then returned to France. The child would be a French citizen but also an American citizen, simply by the fact of being born on American soil and whether or not that child ever took any active steps to exercise that citizenship.
After producing his birth certificate yesterday, The Dallas Morning News pointed out that Cruz is actually a dual citizen. At first Cruz and his staff appeared to deny that he is a dual citizen. But in a statement just released from his office, he seems to have come around to the fact that he is in fact a dual citizen and says he is willing to renounce his Canadian citizenship (and presumably any loyalty to Canadian head of state Elizabeth II), if it’s true.
But before he does that, he might want to check and be sure he wants to do that. It’s a really nice country: they have great health care, good theatre, some pretty good hockey teams, not everybody else in the world hates them or resents their swaggering bullying, they haven’t landed a drone on anyone recently, and despite what you might have seen in the tabloids, the royals are really a nice family and having that nice queen as the head of state lends a touch of class.
As a citizen, he could run for Parliament up there (Senators are appointed, though, so he’d have to be on the good side of Prime Minister Stephen Harper), and the Conservatives are in power… for now. He could land on his feet.
On the other hand, maybe the Canadians don’t want him, either.
“I used to live in New York City and would occasionally go to Hoboken, New Jersey, St. Patrick’s Day Parade. And there were so many young white men there vomiting in the streets, urinating in the streets, getting in fist fights in the streets. It was a sight to be seen,” said Jefferson of what he has declared the “white-on-white crime scourge.”