One of the definitions of a prostitute is, "a person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money." So, if you're getting over $400,000 a year from a bunch of guys in a particular industry, does that make you a whore?
And what does it make you when you side with your "financial backers over the public interest"? A brazen hussy.
In the wake of last month's catastrophic Gulf Coast oil spill, Sen. Lisa Murkowski blocked a bill that would have raised the maximum liability for oil companies after a spill from a paltry $75 million to $10 billion. The Republican lawmaker said the bill, introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), would have unfairly hurt smaller oil companies by raising the costs of oil production. The legislation is "not where we need to be right now" she said.
Well I sure would hate for the little bitty oil companies to get hurt while thousands of gallons of oil a day are pouring into the Gulf, threatening the entire ecosystem, the wetlands, the marine life, the coastline, the fishing industry and the tourist industry, and the quality of life of its inhabitants for decades to come.
I wonder just where Mukowski thinks this legislation should be right now. I wonder if she's considered, or if she even cares, where the money is going to come from to pay for the cleanup and all the other fallout from this disaster. I wonder if she thinks about those 11 men who were killed - and their families. I wonder if she thinks.
Murkowski's move came just hours after Washington's top oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute (API) expressed vociferous opposition to raising the cap. It argued that doing so would "threaten the viability of deep-water operations, significantly reduce U.S. domestic oil production and harm U.S. energy security." API's membership includes large oil companies like ExxonMobil and BP America, as well as smaller ones.
An API spokeswoman told TPMmuckraker that the bill represented "a knee-jerk reaction that could have unintended consequences." she added: "It's important that the Senate did vote it down."
In fact, the Senate didn't vote on the bill. Thanks to Senate procedures, Murkowski was able to block it simply by objecting to a voice vote request on the bill.
It's not clear that Murkowski's move will end up affecting how much BP and Transocean pay. The White House told TPMmuckraker last week that if the courts find BP to have been "grossly negligent or to have engaged in willful misconduct or conduct in violation of federal regulations," -- which would seem likely -- then the $75 million cap disappears. And there will likely be further efforts in the coming days to raise the cap.
(. . .)
Menendez was scathing in response to Murkowski's move, telling reporters: "Either you want to fully protect the small businesses, individuals and communities devastated by a man-made disaster -- this is not a natural disaster; this is a man-made disaster -- or you want to protect multibillion-dollar oil companies from being held fully accountable. Apparently there are some in the Senate who prefer to protect the oil companies."
If you are as angry as I am and if you want to scream at the top of your lungs, here's a couple of ways to go about it:
Senator Murkowski’s office phone number is 202-224-6665.
Her email is http://murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact
Ifidel753 provides this link to sign a petition to save the Clean Air Act. Guess who's trying to kill it?
Ya gotta wonder what kind of thingy is in the water up there in Alaska.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
BPocalypse
Every day, I check the latest updates on the Gulf oil spill. The spill is massive; the response of BP is slimier than a cesspool; and our government appears incompetent and impotent. Last night, this article caught my attention, Loop Current Is Now Drawing The BP Oil Disaster To Florida Keys. Sometimes a reader comment is better than the article, such as this one (which follows after the jump):
No TEA for me please.
Rand Paul has things backwards and I don't mean his name. His win in the Kentucky Senate Republican Primary is not quite the same thing as being elected Senator and of course it's at least a few furlongs short of winning the Derby, or "taking back the Government" since, of course it wasn't taken from the voters in the first place. OK, there was Bush V. Gore, but you know what I mean.
Pretending that having been voted out of office was a breach of democracy seems to work for those at the Tea Party table, but then anything
seems to work except reality and the reality is that we're not taxed enough already and we haven't had the tax increase they hope you believe we've had. Yes, we may be taxed unfairly and tax policy may have been written by people who can afford lobbyists and huge campaign donations, but beyond the amorphous anger, I haven't heard any proposals for a new tax code that could approach remedying the debt in any reasonable time much less as quickly as we paid off World War II.
They won't come up with one either unless they dispense with the repeatedly disproved fallacy that cutting taxes for the very rich will increase government revenues, spur investment in new businesses and boost employment and won't cause investment bubbles -- and that laissez faire capitalism doesn't lead to monopolies, corruption of government, fewer choices for consumers and less opportunities for small business.
In real terms most of us are paying less in Income tax than we used to -- less than at any time in my lifetime. The countries that have lower taxes are few and tend to have economies based on gambling, money laundering or revenues from things like the Panama Canal. The Republicans were ousted because of public anger and frustration with corporate control over people's lives, because of another apparently pointless and interminable war and the fear mongering that's eroded our freedom. I don't see where Mad Hatters like Rand Paul are addressing that and I do see that the Tea movement, if we can fall it that, is based on the hope that shattering the old form of government will magically cause freedom, justice and prosperity to break out and allow "the people" to control their own destiny. Sound like Marx to you? It does to me too. Does it sound like the same old: "don't trust them, but trust us even though we don't really have a plan other than to cloud your mind with anger?" It does to me too.
Pretending that having been voted out of office was a breach of democracy seems to work for those at the Tea Party table, but then anything
seems to work except reality and the reality is that we're not taxed enough already and we haven't had the tax increase they hope you believe we've had. Yes, we may be taxed unfairly and tax policy may have been written by people who can afford lobbyists and huge campaign donations, but beyond the amorphous anger, I haven't heard any proposals for a new tax code that could approach remedying the debt in any reasonable time much less as quickly as we paid off World War II.They won't come up with one either unless they dispense with the repeatedly disproved fallacy that cutting taxes for the very rich will increase government revenues, spur investment in new businesses and boost employment and won't cause investment bubbles -- and that laissez faire capitalism doesn't lead to monopolies, corruption of government, fewer choices for consumers and less opportunities for small business.
In real terms most of us are paying less in Income tax than we used to -- less than at any time in my lifetime. The countries that have lower taxes are few and tend to have economies based on gambling, money laundering or revenues from things like the Panama Canal. The Republicans were ousted because of public anger and frustration with corporate control over people's lives, because of another apparently pointless and interminable war and the fear mongering that's eroded our freedom. I don't see where Mad Hatters like Rand Paul are addressing that and I do see that the Tea movement, if we can fall it that, is based on the hope that shattering the old form of government will magically cause freedom, justice and prosperity to break out and allow "the people" to control their own destiny. Sound like Marx to you? It does to me too. Does it sound like the same old: "don't trust them, but trust us even though we don't really have a plan other than to cloud your mind with anger?" It does to me too.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
READIN', WRITIN', AND ASSASSINATIN'
The GOP has encouraged extremists in its party by promoting and tolerating hate mongers and near-seditionists like Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin or any other jackboot who will join them in stirring up the mobs in order to nullify the election of 2008.
How many times have we heard not just nutjobs like those mentioned above but even GOP Congressmen and women refer to the government, which they are part of, as a criminal organization--a "gangster government?"
And that is why a weak-minded moron, like this teacher in Alabama, felt comfortable in casually talkiing about murdering President Barack Obama as a way of explaining cosines. When stupid people like this teacher constantly hear his cynical leaders call the leaders of the opposition party, leaders of our government criminals, it follows that they deservc to be murdered, doesn't it? And if you're a teacher, what better way to introduce this idea than in math class?
Sara Robinson at Orcinus has written an excellent piece on where this tolerance for radical insurrectionist talk can lead. She discusses the Hutaree conspirators and the group, Guardians of the Free Republic:
"These two events are a wake-up call for progressives. They're telling us that it's time to openly confront the fact that conservatives have spent the past 40 years systematically delegitimizing the very idea of constitutional democracy in America. When they're in power, they mismanage it and defund it. When they're out of power, they refuse to participate in running the country at all -- indeed, they throw all their energy into thwarting the democratic process any way they can. When they need to win an election, they use violent, polarizing, eliminationist language against their opponents to motivate their base. This is sedition in slow motion, a gradual corrosive undermining of the government's authority and capacity to run the country. And it's been at the core of their politics going all the way back to Goldwater.
This long assault has gone into overdrive since Obama's inauguration, as the rhetoric has ratcheted up from overheated to perfervid. We've reached the point where you can't go a week without hearing some prominent right wing leader calling for outright sedition -- an immediate and defiant populist uprising against some legitimate form of government authority.
Moderates and liberals are responding to this rising threat with feckless calls for "a return to civility," as if all that's needed to put things right again is a stern talking-to from Miss Manners. Though that couldn't hurt, the sad fact is that we're well past the point where it's just a matter of conservatives behaving like tantrum-throwing spoiled brats (which they are). When a mob is surrounding your house with torches and telling you they intend to burn it down, "civility" really isn't the issue any more.
At that point -- and we're there -- criminal intent and action become the real issues. Progressives need to realize that the right began defiantly dancing back and forth over the legal line, daring us to do something about it, quite some time ago. And it's high time we called it out -- and, where appropriate, start prosecuting it -- for exactly what it is."
How many times have we heard not just nutjobs like those mentioned above but even GOP Congressmen and women refer to the government, which they are part of, as a criminal organization--a "gangster government?"
And that is why a weak-minded moron, like this teacher in Alabama, felt comfortable in casually talkiing about murdering President Barack Obama as a way of explaining cosines. When stupid people like this teacher constantly hear his cynical leaders call the leaders of the opposition party, leaders of our government criminals, it follows that they deservc to be murdered, doesn't it? And if you're a teacher, what better way to introduce this idea than in math class?
Sara Robinson at Orcinus has written an excellent piece on where this tolerance for radical insurrectionist talk can lead. She discusses the Hutaree conspirators and the group, Guardians of the Free Republic:
"These two events are a wake-up call for progressives. They're telling us that it's time to openly confront the fact that conservatives have spent the past 40 years systematically delegitimizing the very idea of constitutional democracy in America. When they're in power, they mismanage it and defund it. When they're out of power, they refuse to participate in running the country at all -- indeed, they throw all their energy into thwarting the democratic process any way they can. When they need to win an election, they use violent, polarizing, eliminationist language against their opponents to motivate their base. This is sedition in slow motion, a gradual corrosive undermining of the government's authority and capacity to run the country. And it's been at the core of their politics going all the way back to Goldwater.
This long assault has gone into overdrive since Obama's inauguration, as the rhetoric has ratcheted up from overheated to perfervid. We've reached the point where you can't go a week without hearing some prominent right wing leader calling for outright sedition -- an immediate and defiant populist uprising against some legitimate form of government authority.
Moderates and liberals are responding to this rising threat with feckless calls for "a return to civility," as if all that's needed to put things right again is a stern talking-to from Miss Manners. Though that couldn't hurt, the sad fact is that we're well past the point where it's just a matter of conservatives behaving like tantrum-throwing spoiled brats (which they are). When a mob is surrounding your house with torches and telling you they intend to burn it down, "civility" really isn't the issue any more.
At that point -- and we're there -- criminal intent and action become the real issues. Progressives need to realize that the right began defiantly dancing back and forth over the legal line, daring us to do something about it, quite some time ago. And it's high time we called it out -- and, where appropriate, start prosecuting it -- for exactly what it is."
Big top
The Republicans sometimes like to talk about their big tent. Others, in consideration of the exploits and shenanigans of the party of values and families and apple pie may think it's more like a freak show tent, but we shall see soon enough which kind of tent the Donna Milo show winds up in.
Cuban born, 48 year old "Conservative" Republican Ms. Milo is running to unseat rather liberal Broward County Florida U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Yes, Miami Cuban Republicans are pretty numerous and at first glance one who didn't know that Ms. Milo used to be a Mr. Milo, whose friends called him Ed, wouldn't think anything was out of the ordinary.
Donna Milo is a person who prides herself in getting to where she is by her personal ability and in spite of her differentness -- not like those who we support with our tax money or special favors to Cuban immigrants, perhaps. Will that differentness matter more to the GOP than the traditional Republican attitudes she publicly displays?
It remains to be seen whether the party so traditionally inimical to the rights of gay, lesbian and transgendered people -- their agenda -- as they so often phrase it, will welcome her into the three ring big top with the other anti-Castro, pro-corporate liberal-bashing Miami paranoids or ushered out the side door.
Cuban born, 48 year old "Conservative" Republican Ms. Milo is running to unseat rather liberal Broward County Florida U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Yes, Miami Cuban Republicans are pretty numerous and at first glance one who didn't know that Ms. Milo used to be a Mr. Milo, whose friends called him Ed, wouldn't think anything was out of the ordinary.
Donna Milo is a person who prides herself in getting to where she is by her personal ability and in spite of her differentness -- not like those who we support with our tax money or special favors to Cuban immigrants, perhaps. Will that differentness matter more to the GOP than the traditional Republican attitudes she publicly displays?
It remains to be seen whether the party so traditionally inimical to the rights of gay, lesbian and transgendered people -- their agenda -- as they so often phrase it, will welcome her into the three ring big top with the other anti-Castro, pro-corporate liberal-bashing Miami paranoids or ushered out the side door.
Christian Politicians Deliberately Twist Constitution To Gain Votes
If you can pay the price you can buy almost anything you want in this country -- car, home, toothpaste, clothes, food or a charcoal grill. If you can pay the price you can buy services such as sex and votes. It doesn't matter if you don't know your history or your Constitution but it matters how hard you can thump the good book.
Liam Fox sets out to prove this on News Junkie Post.
Religions demand tolerance and acceptance of their own views, practices, prescriptions and prohibitions, when all they offer to others is intolerance. Religions requiring that others be forced, or coerced, to adhere to their tenets are nothing more than fascist political systems, and belief systems that regard their doctrine as being above a democratically elected legislature are seditious.
The founding fathers engineered the separation of church and state to protect America from Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam and all other politically insistent theologies while simultaneously protecting those and all other religions from the interference of government.
In the desperate political climate that they find themselves in, Politicians lacking a clear understanding of or commitment to the First Amendment line up in favor of sectarian measures in the hope of garnering votes and winning elections. . . . Politicians can knowingly violate the constitution secure in the knowledge that the support for their unconstitutional decisions will be provided by those that they have benefited.
TED POE, TEXAS REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN: His web page is headlined "National Day of Prayer is constitutional whether federal judges like it or not."
Displaying monumental ignorance, he goes on to say, ". . .James Madison knew more about the First Amendment than anybody else since he was the author; yet, in 1813, President Madison proclaimed a National Day of Prayer. . . ."
Wrong. Liam Fox writes: "In 1789, James Madison proposed twelve amendments that ultimately became the ten amendments. In this respect, Madison was the person who wrote the First Amendment, but he wasn’t the one who initially came up with the idea. In fact, there are several factors that qualify the claim that he is the sole author." See here
Although President Madison did issued prayer proclamations during the war of 1812, at the behest of congress, he later expressed regret for these actions. In an undated essay believed to have been written in the year 1817, referred to as ‘The Unattached Memoranda‘, Madison discusses the issue in detail providing five particular reasons for disagreeing with his prior actions of proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and espousing some insight that we would be wise to heed today. See here.
BRADLEY BYRNE, ALABAMA REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: He was attacked by the True Political Action Committee "for his previous support of teaching of evolution in public schools and reportedly having the gall to suggest that the Christian bible may not be entirely true."
In a switch reminiscent of John McCain, Byrne became a Born Again Christian and wrote on his website:
“I believe the Bible is the Word of God and that every single word of it is true. From the earliest parts of this campaign, a paraphrased and incomplete parsing of my words have been knowingly used to insinuate that I believe something different than that. My faith is at the center of my life and my belief in Jesus Christ as my personal savior and Lord guides my every action."
SARAH PALIN (no introduction necessary): In a Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly Palin with all blinking eyed ga-ga smiling sincerity declared:
“I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, you know, nobody has to believe me though. You can just go to our Founding Fathers’ early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives. And our Constitution, of course, essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man; they come from God. So this document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe upon our rights to have freedom of religion and to be able to express our faith freely.”
Someone at Fox, if they even know it, should explain to the Palin that neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence mentions a particular religion, Jesus, the Bible or God. The Constitution does mention a "Nature's God" a few times but not Christianity or Judaism.
The principle misunderstanding of Mrs. Palin’s, is that her interpretation of “our rights to have freedom of religion” translates in her mind, as it does in the minds of most fundamentalist evangelicals, to ‘the right of Christians to impose their beliefs and practices on American law, politics, society and education.’
STEVE PEARCE, NEW MEXICO REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, states on his website that one of his political goals, and a promise to voters, is that he will "protect our right to prayer and against the government halting expressions of faith."
It is due to the fact that America is a secular nation that no ones religious freedom is threatened. No ones religious freedom is threatened because America has a constitution that charges it’s government to remain neutral and to not get involved in religion or make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The only threat to the religious freedoms of all Americans comes from religious organizations and their inability to accept a non-theocratic secular government.
Freedom of religion is not the freedom to impose ones religion on others and the First Amendment is not the property of politicians to trade off for votes. Politicians desperate for votes need to get a platform and leave the constitution, and the American people’s freedom of religion, alone.
Liam Fox sets out to prove this on News Junkie Post.
Religions demand tolerance and acceptance of their own views, practices, prescriptions and prohibitions, when all they offer to others is intolerance. Religions requiring that others be forced, or coerced, to adhere to their tenets are nothing more than fascist political systems, and belief systems that regard their doctrine as being above a democratically elected legislature are seditious.
The founding fathers engineered the separation of church and state to protect America from Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam and all other politically insistent theologies while simultaneously protecting those and all other religions from the interference of government.
In the desperate political climate that they find themselves in, Politicians lacking a clear understanding of or commitment to the First Amendment line up in favor of sectarian measures in the hope of garnering votes and winning elections. . . . Politicians can knowingly violate the constitution secure in the knowledge that the support for their unconstitutional decisions will be provided by those that they have benefited.
TED POE, TEXAS REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN: His web page is headlined "National Day of Prayer is constitutional whether federal judges like it or not."
Displaying monumental ignorance, he goes on to say, ". . .James Madison knew more about the First Amendment than anybody else since he was the author; yet, in 1813, President Madison proclaimed a National Day of Prayer. . . ."
Wrong. Liam Fox writes: "In 1789, James Madison proposed twelve amendments that ultimately became the ten amendments. In this respect, Madison was the person who wrote the First Amendment, but he wasn’t the one who initially came up with the idea. In fact, there are several factors that qualify the claim that he is the sole author." See here
Although President Madison did issued prayer proclamations during the war of 1812, at the behest of congress, he later expressed regret for these actions. In an undated essay believed to have been written in the year 1817, referred to as ‘The Unattached Memoranda‘, Madison discusses the issue in detail providing five particular reasons for disagreeing with his prior actions of proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and espousing some insight that we would be wise to heed today. See here.
BRADLEY BYRNE, ALABAMA REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: He was attacked by the True Political Action Committee "for his previous support of teaching of evolution in public schools and reportedly having the gall to suggest that the Christian bible may not be entirely true."
In a switch reminiscent of John McCain, Byrne became a Born Again Christian and wrote on his website:
“I believe the Bible is the Word of God and that every single word of it is true. From the earliest parts of this campaign, a paraphrased and incomplete parsing of my words have been knowingly used to insinuate that I believe something different than that. My faith is at the center of my life and my belief in Jesus Christ as my personal savior and Lord guides my every action."
SARAH PALIN (no introduction necessary): In a Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly Palin with all blinking eyed ga-ga smiling sincerity declared:
“I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, you know, nobody has to believe me though. You can just go to our Founding Fathers’ early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives. And our Constitution, of course, essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man; they come from God. So this document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe upon our rights to have freedom of religion and to be able to express our faith freely.”
Someone at Fox, if they even know it, should explain to the Palin that neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence mentions a particular religion, Jesus, the Bible or God. The Constitution does mention a "Nature's God" a few times but not Christianity or Judaism.
The principle misunderstanding of Mrs. Palin’s, is that her interpretation of “our rights to have freedom of religion” translates in her mind, as it does in the minds of most fundamentalist evangelicals, to ‘the right of Christians to impose their beliefs and practices on American law, politics, society and education.’
STEVE PEARCE, NEW MEXICO REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, states on his website that one of his political goals, and a promise to voters, is that he will "protect our right to prayer and against the government halting expressions of faith."
It is due to the fact that America is a secular nation that no ones religious freedom is threatened. No ones religious freedom is threatened because America has a constitution that charges it’s government to remain neutral and to not get involved in religion or make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The only threat to the religious freedoms of all Americans comes from religious organizations and their inability to accept a non-theocratic secular government.
Freedom of religion is not the freedom to impose ones religion on others and the First Amendment is not the property of politicians to trade off for votes. Politicians desperate for votes need to get a platform and leave the constitution, and the American people’s freedom of religion, alone.
BEYOND PETROLEUM
Given the continuing saga of the Gulf oil spill, news of dead zones and deceptive conduct by BP officials, and our helplessness in the face of catastrophe, perhaps we are at least due a moment of comic relief:
Credit: Nina Paley @ Voluntary Human Extinction
A special hat tip to our friend and rhyming
amphibian … (drum roll) … finefroghair.
Monday, May 17, 2010
don't say it.
Well, my mentor Dr. Syntax read Everything is on the Table today and liked it a great deal. Unfortunately he had a total breakdown this morning when the fellow in front of him in the Starbucks line said something about a Simplograndemochamacchimacchihalfcalfcrappochinofrappe with cinnamon to the Barista. I don't know which word set him off but they had to take him away in a basket and so I'm posting his response inspired by Sharia's post:
Dear Americans,
There are so many more things you shouldn't be saying. But you keep at it, don't you?
It's not hopeless, you can change if you really want to. After all, you managed to pry yourself away from "efforting" not that long ago and if you keep trying you can stop pushing envelopes too and leave it to the mailman. The worn out engineering metaphor was about pushing the outside of a performance envelope anyway and you don't even know what that means, do you? Efforting -- don't you feel, well, effortless without it?
Yes, I know what you're saying and I know what you're talking about so you don't have to point out that everything you said or saw or liked was what you were talking about, OK? The same for you telling me about what you were like or are like when you were trying to tell me what you said. I already know what you're like what you said and what you've been talking about and I don't like it.
Believe me, I'm being tactful when I mention for the umpteenth time that intact is one word, not two and that you don't tow a metaphorical line, you toe it. So can you remember that, or do I have to get nasty? Because that actually is what I'm talking about -- and while we're about the word because it's because there never was a reason that was because anything. Let's pause and contemplate the cause of such confusion. That's if you want to know the reason that I said it not the reason why I said it. The reason is that I prefer to make sense and that preference takes precedence over my American desire to sound as unlettered and unfettered by logic as possible .
So you want to know your congressman's track record? So do I, because I don't want my congressman betting on the horses or dogs or anything else that runs on tracks. Track records are records one holds at the track or that the track keeps records of. One can have all kinds of records you know. Try saying congressional record or job record or any other kind of record you can think of -- please. You can simply stop saying track record like a broken record now and all of the above in one swoop and I don't care if the swoop is fell or kindly. Just stop.
Are you going green or are you already there? If so, get off my boat or take a Dramamine. It's fine if you turn lights off or drive a small car and commute a short distance and keep your cell phone charger unplugged, but that isn't making the oceans or rain forests any greener because you're not doing a damn thing when compared to what the cattle ranchers and the oil drillers are doing and that Wal-Mart you shop at burns up more Wal-Watts than all the SUVs in the parking lot just keeping the air conditioning cold enough so you won't smell the customers. Just save energy and leave it at that. Green is pretentious, don't pretend it isn't.
Wall Street Vs. Main Street? They don't measure up to Interstate 94, so lose the metaphor and cutesy dichotomy dude, cause it's my way or the highway says the cliche -- or maybe Rte A1A if you prefer the scenic route.
High Tech means absolutely nothing. It's a gimmick designed to make a gimmick more appealing to people who don't know how gimmicks work. It's not a useful comment. Stop saying it.
Did you know, by the way, that you can get close, or even up close without getting personal, and since you can also get personal without getting up close there isn't any reason to keep adding one unrelated action to another as though they were inseparable, is there? So why do you keep doing it?
I had a hard time with the Sunday crossword puzzle yesterday and I was outside on the patio and not in any kind of box, so thanks for your suggestion, but it doesn't help anyone think -- so stop saying it.
And last -- perhaps least perhaps not least, that's up to you -- stop trying to sound like a 14 year old street urchin, unless you are one -- and even then, hipness is only a type of conformity and there's nothing more cliche than a hipster of any age even a week out of date with his palette of cliche-of-the-day speech. It's OK to grow up. It's OK to sound like you are grown up (Not if you're running for office, of course) and have read books and don't need to paste together cutouts from other people's speech like someone writing a ransom note in some 30's cinema noir film.
It's OK to defeat someone without kicking their ass; to be bad at something without reference to fellatio and please, for God's sake don't open another can of whoop ass on me. It was out of date 30 years ago and smells like it.
I could go on, but my message is like simple and I'm like limiting the list in order to impactify it so that it will impact negatively on you in an impactful way and because like you know I can't do this all day without more coffee -- that's what I'm talking about.
-Dr. Syntax-
________________
Dear Americans,
There are so many more things you shouldn't be saying. But you keep at it, don't you?
It's not hopeless, you can change if you really want to. After all, you managed to pry yourself away from "efforting" not that long ago and if you keep trying you can stop pushing envelopes too and leave it to the mailman. The worn out engineering metaphor was about pushing the outside of a performance envelope anyway and you don't even know what that means, do you? Efforting -- don't you feel, well, effortless without it?
Yes, I know what you're saying and I know what you're talking about so you don't have to point out that everything you said or saw or liked was what you were talking about, OK? The same for you telling me about what you were like or are like when you were trying to tell me what you said. I already know what you're like what you said and what you've been talking about and I don't like it.
Believe me, I'm being tactful when I mention for the umpteenth time that intact is one word, not two and that you don't tow a metaphorical line, you toe it. So can you remember that, or do I have to get nasty? Because that actually is what I'm talking about -- and while we're about the word because it's because there never was a reason that was because anything. Let's pause and contemplate the cause of such confusion. That's if you want to know the reason that I said it not the reason why I said it. The reason is that I prefer to make sense and that preference takes precedence over my American desire to sound as unlettered and unfettered by logic as possible .
So you want to know your congressman's track record? So do I, because I don't want my congressman betting on the horses or dogs or anything else that runs on tracks. Track records are records one holds at the track or that the track keeps records of. One can have all kinds of records you know. Try saying congressional record or job record or any other kind of record you can think of -- please. You can simply stop saying track record like a broken record now and all of the above in one swoop and I don't care if the swoop is fell or kindly. Just stop.
Are you going green or are you already there? If so, get off my boat or take a Dramamine. It's fine if you turn lights off or drive a small car and commute a short distance and keep your cell phone charger unplugged, but that isn't making the oceans or rain forests any greener because you're not doing a damn thing when compared to what the cattle ranchers and the oil drillers are doing and that Wal-Mart you shop at burns up more Wal-Watts than all the SUVs in the parking lot just keeping the air conditioning cold enough so you won't smell the customers. Just save energy and leave it at that. Green is pretentious, don't pretend it isn't.
Wall Street Vs. Main Street? They don't measure up to Interstate 94, so lose the metaphor and cutesy dichotomy dude, cause it's my way or the highway says the cliche -- or maybe Rte A1A if you prefer the scenic route.
High Tech means absolutely nothing. It's a gimmick designed to make a gimmick more appealing to people who don't know how gimmicks work. It's not a useful comment. Stop saying it.
Did you know, by the way, that you can get close, or even up close without getting personal, and since you can also get personal without getting up close there isn't any reason to keep adding one unrelated action to another as though they were inseparable, is there? So why do you keep doing it?
I had a hard time with the Sunday crossword puzzle yesterday and I was outside on the patio and not in any kind of box, so thanks for your suggestion, but it doesn't help anyone think -- so stop saying it.
And last -- perhaps least perhaps not least, that's up to you -- stop trying to sound like a 14 year old street urchin, unless you are one -- and even then, hipness is only a type of conformity and there's nothing more cliche than a hipster of any age even a week out of date with his palette of cliche-of-the-day speech. It's OK to grow up. It's OK to sound like you are grown up (Not if you're running for office, of course) and have read books and don't need to paste together cutouts from other people's speech like someone writing a ransom note in some 30's cinema noir film.
It's OK to defeat someone without kicking their ass; to be bad at something without reference to fellatio and please, for God's sake don't open another can of whoop ass on me. It was out of date 30 years ago and smells like it.
I could go on, but my message is like simple and I'm like limiting the list in order to impactify it so that it will impact negatively on you in an impactful way and because like you know I can't do this all day without more coffee -- that's what I'm talking about.
-Dr. Syntax-
Kids in cages
"Children should neither be seen or heard from - ever again" said W.C. Fields.Surprisingly, our activist Supreme Court has begged to differ. It was only five years ago that the Supreme Court finally decided that killing kids for justice was a bit behind the times, but of course some "Conservative" states have continued to sentence juveniles to life without parole. Chief amongst those states is Florida, which houses about 70% of them.
It would be hard to describe Florida as a particularly child-friendly state. Although I can't say it's particularly friendly to those who prey on them or neglect them, the poverty, substance abuse and ignorance that abound isn't child friendly either. Certainly "55 and older" communities are everywhere and as communities of older people are more likely to be afraid of the noise wild behavior and petty crime, there's a certain hostility. There's a certain feeling of helplessness and even terror amongst older people that can lead to hostility. It's a terror that overrides conscience in some cases and that sides with a draconian justice system while whimpering about a less powerful government.
Of course there's a big difference between chasing those brats off your lawn and locking them up in a cage for as long as they shall live, and that bit of casual inhumanity has at last drawn Supreme attention. Terrance Graham was implicated in armed robberies when he was a minor and has been sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. The court voted 5-4 on Monday and Kennedy, writing for the majority said:
"The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law. This the Eighth Amendment does not permit." (as a cruel punishment)This decision was a majority one because Chief Justice Roberts sided for once with the liberals although with the qualification that it should not apply to all non-homicide crimes. That of course makes the decision less than decisive. It's a step forward, but a timid and qualified step toward humanity; toward sometimes, in some cases allowing a second chance to someone who got caught doing what millions of others have got away with and never done again. That's just the sort of thing conservatives object to: making the law and justice more congruent; making the law for man and not man for the law -- and that's just the reason we need to balance the angry, self righteous and fearful elements on the court.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Everything Is On The Table
by Nance
I'll be the linguistic equivalent of those old men I used to see in the late eighties who bagged groceries at the military commissary wearing Donald Trump comb-overs and baby blue polyester flare-bottoms with white pleated flare inserts that zipped down from knee to ankle. In 2023 I'll be using phrases I heard in 2004 and expecting somebody at the assisted living facility to compliment me on how hip I still am. Past a certain age, we just don't take in new trends. We don't see the need; there have been plenty in the previous sixty or seventy years. When is enough, enough? I hereby declare a moratorium on catchy phrases. Right on.
The Online Dictionary defines a buzz-phrase as, "A word or phrase connected with a specialized field or group that usually sounds important or technical and is used primarily to impress laypersons." All you laypersons out there, are you impressed yet? Insider jargon just gets my goat.*
The phrase that's been bugging me lately is, "Everything is on the table." I just can't seem to grok it no matter how I try. And neither, apparently, do most people who use it. I've been hearing about this laden table more and more frequently over the past few years, but it reached a personal tipping point (oh, dear) in April, when I heard Alan Simpson sling it into his gleeful, garbled, phrase-hashing announcement on the President's Budget Reduction Commission, which he'll co-chair with Erskine Bowles. From his NPR Talk of The Nation appearance on April 1st:
This is a suicide mission for a couple of old coots who believe more in their grandchildren than they do in other words, it's not the current election that's important, it's the next generation. So when we were asked to do this by the and Erskine, a very marvelous man, a splendid gentlemen, immediately the cry went out we were stalking horses for taxes. I said, I'm not a stalking horse for taxes. I'm a stalking horse for my grandchildren, and unless we get serious here, everything is on the table. So of course, you know, they come shrieking, you know, like the hounds of hell and the harpies from the cliff at me, and here, I've dug up my record on taxes, and I'm going to slip it right to them.Those pronouncements had me as worried as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. I'll bet Alan Simpson wears plaid bell-bottoms. As Rush Limbaugh has put it, "button your seat belts" for a full-frontal assault (dang it) on Medicare and Social Security. I think that Mr. Simpson is using the phrase everything is on the table, which came directly from Obama's instructions to his commission chairmen, to mean that, in a desperate search for solutions, no stone should be left unturned. Apparently, he was also instructed to pair off in threes, line up in a circle, alphabetically by height. I'm afraid I don't think of Simpson as the sharpest marble in the drawer. If he's older than me, I guarantee you he's a few bats short of a belfry.
Of course, now that we have the Obama administration's iconic metaphor, we'll be hearing it from every middle manager 'til kingdom come. "When the White House was asked if they might pause all off-shore drilling, Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior David Hayes admitted 'everything is on the table.'” And, "As House Ag Committee Chairman Peterson correctly said in announcing his panel's work on the U.S. farm bill -- everything is on the table." I get it; this business with the table ain't coming up constantly because life is just a bowl of cherries these days; it's coming up because, when the going gets tough, the tough get going (choke).
I never expected to hear the table metaphor used in regards to condiments, however. In responding to a call by the Institute of Medicine for federal limits on sodium levels in packaged foods, FDA spokeswoman Meghan Scott stated, "Nothing is off the table," which I suppose to mean that everything is on the blessed table. Ms. Scott is a pretty smart cookie, but I wouldn't want to be sitting in her shoes. She's already being accused of starting a riot in the chef's kitchen. Look for restaurant signs: This is a Salt-Free Environment. There'll be protest announcements on the Food Channel when the Himalayan Pink comes under attack.
And, finally, my odds-on favorite, from an anonymous officer of a financial services firm: "Everything is on the table now, and you can bet that when the smoke clears, budgets and processes will be a whole new animal." You can't beat that one with a dead stick.
So, does everything is on the table mean that all the cards are on the table? That we're betting the farm? That they'll be looking under every rock? It sounds suspiciously to me as though somebody in the President's speech-writer's pool has been watching a little too much Celebrity Poker Showdown.
Group Project: Help me start a list of currently trendy phrases that need to be retired. So far, in addition to the laden table, I've got...
"That said,..."
"Back in the day"
"old school"
"unpack"
"deconstruct"
"drilling down on..." (my goodness!)
Contest: How many buzz phrases, overused metaphors, twisted similes, etc., can you find in this post? It's chock-a-block full of them. Some are cleverly disguised as proper usage and others are as obvious as the nose on your face. I know you can do it; it isn't rocket surgery. [The author will need a linguistics intervention after this.]
* In the Middle Ages, goats were put in stable stalls with nervous race horses to act as calming companions. The surest way to win a race was to steal your opponent's goat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)