Thursday, November 1, 2007

royalism dick

Not sure if it is ever a good idea to click through on ads, but this was tucked in my gmail sidebar. It’s for ”Handy Spray” – a hand-held bidet. It’s a hose, people, a HOSE! And they want $30 to $60 for it. It’s a hose. A bidet is something the beautiful people use because they can’t deign to wipe their own ass, not unlike that nose freak Mrs. James “The Janitor” Brolin (who, btw, ranks a pic but not not a word – not even his name on Ms. Nostrils’ personal webpage bio. “Um, BS, baby, um, could you, um, maybe mention, um, you know, we’ve been that M-word for almost ten years. Um, maybe you could put my, um, my, um, my name in your bio – you know, just a passing mention, that’s all. Nothing big.” “WHHAAATT!! YOU FUCKING EGOMANIAC!! [TOSSED MING VASE CRASHES INTO HIS HEAD] GO CLEAN THE TOILET!! MAKE SURE THE ROSE PETALS ARE ALL FACE UP. Fucking dammit, just can hire good husbands anymore. What is wrong with the placement agency?”

I can’t believe that I am going to write about what I am about to write about. I am trying to decide whether to wretch or laugh. Ah, what the hell, let’s do it. This is so pathetic. I have to go put on a clean suit. Brb.

OK. Start here. Left side, reads, “Statements. Read the latest comments direct from Barbra.” Oh, God, clean suit bad idea. Vomit contained. Brb.

Click on “Statements” (man, I hate the chewy stuff left over from vomit. What was that? One sec … oh yeah, I had a bagel. OK.) Let’s see we have for “direct from Ba-ba-bar--” (Oh, God, this is bad. brb. … OK. Pasta for lunch. It was whole wheat penne in this fresh tomato sauce. Not bad.) Her first “direct statement” is interesting. Seems she uses the nom de guerre “Bob Herbert” when writing for the NYT. Let’s look for something which she had the masse testiculaire to publish under her own name.

Here we go, Republican Attempt to Steal California’s Votes. Sounds, um, enlarged-scrotum-ish. Let’s dive in.

Her first paragraph as presented: “Karl Rove may have resigned as the President’s chief strategist, but the dirty and secretive tricks that have characterized the Republican Party in recent years are still here to stay. Leading California Republicans are promoting a dishonest initiative that steals electoral votes from California, a democratic state. Republicans attempting to steal votes in a major election? This smells all too familiar.”

Her first paragraph, annotated: “Karl Rove (I read ahead, darlings – KR is not mentioned again. Use of his name is just a ploy to draw in a common audience – emphasis on “common”) may have resigned as the President’s chief strategist (his title was “Senior Advisor.” A campaign has a “strategist.”), but the dirty and secretive tricks that have characterized the Republican Party in recent years are still here to stay (as opposed to the dirty and secretive tricks that have characterized the Democratic Party?). Leading California Republicans are promoting a dishonest initiative that steals (to take and carry away the property of another with the intent to deprive permanently the holder of its possession) electoral votes from (the topic will become a reallocation; California will continue to have them, sweetums) California, a democratic state (as opposed to, the “socialist” state of __? And California is no more democratic than any other state – they are all representative democracies, buttcheeks; we don’t have democracies in America. The closest was the New Hampshire Town Hall system.). Republicans attempting to steal votes in a major election? This smells all too familiar.” (Why does it not surprise me that you would use an olfactory reference?)

Next paragraph, annotated (lost interest in wasting cyber-inches on both versions). “The initiative, crafted by a lawyer for the California Republican Party and member of the group misleadingly called "Californians for Equal Representation,” (as opposed to your several “Farewell Tours”?) proposes to divide (what happened to “steal” and take “from”?) California's electoral votes based on results in each congressional district, rather than award the entire 55 electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote (funny, I haven’t been around politics for a while, but I recall Algore and his ilk proposing this). Proposed for the California ballot in June 2008, where voter turn-out is extremely low (so much for democracy in action), this initiative would essentially give the next Republican presidential candidate as many as 19 additional votes--almost equal to all the electoral votes from Ohio (20) and nearly all from Florida (27 – so that’s the difference between “almost equal” and “nearly all.” I was wondering. So, 2/3s is “nearly all.” OK. Why not Pennsylvania or Illinois, both with 21?)!”

Next: “For many voters, this initiative upon first glance seems logical and fair. (I am so glad that you are here to protect us from what seem logical and fair!) However, in the context of the rest of the country, where large red (oh, so this is a color thing? Since when do democratic principles get determined by current political winds? Sounds kinda unconstitutional.) states in particular (I repeat my last comment, deary, because your lack of commas offsetting the phrase “in particular” denotes its criticality to the sentence – so the issue is that it is a “blue” or “red” state. Got it.) would still award their electoral votes to the candidate who won the popular vote, this ballot initiative is completely imbalanced and undemocratic (Actually, it would more closely resemble a democratic system – one person, one vote. The inherent problem with the approach is that it would render smaller representative democratic states virtually unimportant as their electoral caches would be divided from five to ten down to just two or three at a pop. Politicians would ignore them completely.). There is no way this initiative would create a more fair and balanced voting system in our country, unless it was uniformly adopted by ALL states. (so this system is democratic if adopted everywhere, but not democratic if adopted by California. Can you say, non sequitur?)

The rest of it (besides her links): “This initiative shines a glaring spotlight on Republican hypocrisy. Republicans want to continue the same winner-take-all system in other big states that they consistently win, like Texas and Indiana (Indiana? Indiana?!? It’s got 11 EVs, boxhead.). However, they want Democrats to share the electoral votes in California, a big blue state with the country’s most electoral votes. Democrats have been carrying California in recent elections. Even if Democrats were to win the state in 2008, Republicans would still get a substantial number of electoral votes under this new law (nearer thy god to thee).

“If passed, this initiative would make a democratic victory in any major election extremely difficult. We can not let the Republican Party pull the wool over our eyes and steal yet another election. (I actually teach Constitutional Law, and understand the attempt by Gore to steal the 2000 election by recounting only three counties – where W said, “count them all and you have a deal.” Gore said, “no.” SCOTUS said, simply, “No, Gore, you cannot compel a localized recounting when the entire state’s EVs are at stake. That steals votes from the uncounted counties” And everyone knows that the entire state was recounted privately and W won it. So where was the theft? You people suck at history.)

One last “Statement,” wherein she strongly recommends two books: “I would like to strongly recommend these two books by John Nichols:

“The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism Dick: The Man Who is President (Dick Cheney)

“They both address important issues regarding holding our leaders accountable for their actions.” (Verbatim, folks. Complete and unedited. Four words, full colon, six words, full colon, seven words. I shudder to think what “Royalism Dick” is. Sounds bad.)

I can’t do this any more. I have to shower, then hook up the hose and bidet myself.

No comments:

Post a Comment