Good News: Republicans are reaching out to Latino's......in 1813.

So I Don't know if you heard about this, but the State Director of Florida Hispanic Outreach for the Republican National Committee quit today.

And I dont just mean he quit his job, but as the first line of his public resignation letter states:

"Friend,

Yes, I have changed my political affiliation to the Democratic Party."

That's right, he just quit the whole freaking republican party and jumped ship.

Now why did he do that? well thats line 2

"It doesn’t take much to see the culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today. I have wondered before about the seemingly harsh undertones about immigrants and others."

In short he quit because of the republican stand on immigration and how out of touch the republican party is on the issue. it should be noted the former director in question here is himself Latino

So that begs the question, how out of touch is the republican party? Well just take a look at one of the 23 amendments presented by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) to the big immigration bill working its way through the senate.  In the amendment Sen. Lee would exempt any illegal immigrants and their employers from e-verify checks or prosecution for employing illegal workers.....assuming of course the illegal immigrants worked in the following fields

"cooks, waiters, butlers, housekeepers, governessess, maids, valets, baby sitters, janitors, laundresses, furnacemen, care-takers, handymen, gardeners, footmen, grooms, and chauffeurs of automobiles for family use" 

Now on a first read a couple of this positions might jump out at you, "Housekeepers" "Janitors" "Handymen" and "Gardeners" are stereo-typically Latino.  So he's basically reinforcing the racist sterotypes of what Latino's do, and basically saying these are the jobs we will allow you to do if your breaking the law simply by being here.

So he's adding the assumption that anyone who does these jobs is illegal on top of the sterotypes and degrading the legal workers in these fields as a result.

But what actually struck me as much more interesting were some of the other job titles, titles that I admit sent me running the the dictionary or an encyclopedia to figure out what they were, because it turns out, most of those positions dont actually exist anymore.

Take Furnacemen for example. A Furnaceman is (as near as I can tell cause its not in the dictionary) a person who comes to your house to dump more coal in your Furnace. You do have a coal burning furnace in your home right? And if your one of the rare people who do, you clearly have better things to do then shovel coal into it right? I mean why no pay someone to do that for you?

 Next up we look at laundresses. Like a Furanceman a laundresses is pretty self explanatory. Its the woman who does your laundry (no not your mother). Whats that you say, you use a washing machine to do your laundry? Well that would explain why all the google image results came up looking something like this:

Speaking of terms you dont know because modern technology has made them obsolete what about a "Footman"? what is a Footman you ask?

Footmen.

Thats right, Footmen are the guys who ride on the back of a carriage (or run along side it) and move any obstructions it encounters out of the way, so the carriage can proceed.  Your family does own a carriage right? I hope so no self respecting modern family would ever be caught without one. And yes by the way, they are actually expected to dress that stupidly. You see "footmen were something of a luxury and therefore a status symbol even among the servant-employing classes. They performed a less essential role than the cook, maid or even butler, and were part only of the grandest households. Since a footman was for show as much as for use, a tall footman was more highly prized than a short one, and good looks, including well-turned legs, which were shown off by the traditional footman's dress of stockings worn below kneebreeches, were an advantage." (credit wikipedia).

Thats right, its tall young men with awesome legs being trotted around so rich people can so off status. Which of course is why all you peons out there dont have one.

Fair warning however, its possible your Footmen might clash with your "chauffeurs of automobiles for family use" and create an anachronistic tear in the space time continuum.

What your footman will match well with is your "Groom". And sorry ladies, they dont mean you can marry that hot latino hunk down the street even if he's not legal. They mean a Horsegroom.

Thats the guy who takes care of your horse and stables. You know, the Dancing Horse your sending to the Olympics

Rafalca Romney....Mitt's dancing Horse.

Wait you mean you dont own a horse and a person to look after it?

So you probably dont have a governesses either....unless your name is Von Trap

Just saying. These days schools, public or private are kinda readily available.........

Yea in case you havnt noticed, theirs a bit of a pattern here. Every position there are servants of rich people. Most of them exclusively so (Butler, Footman, governesses,  chauffeur, ect)

Basically what Senator Lee's amendment comes down to is if your a brown folk and you want to serve rich white folk we can wave the rules for you. Otherwise get the fuck out and stay out.

In fact with a pitch and occupation list like that, I cant see at all why people think the republican party is behind the times, out of touch with the middle class and why latino's are evacuating the party in droves.

Seriously can you guys just admit the whole "Latino Outreach" thing was an April fools joke you let drag on way too long?

This week in stupid. Bombs over Benghazi edition

Well, its been about a month but the stupid has finally hit critical mass. Which means its time for another "this [very loosely defined] week in stupid".

Now just like my last attempt had a "theme", so to does this weeks gathering of the Congress of Cretins. This time though its based on two ideas too complex for mustered misinformed, Benghazi (read: terrorism) and how bombs work.

But just like last time, their is one stupid comment that breaks the rules, and this time its up first.

On his Radio show today the maharajah of mendacity Rush Limbaugh said this:

"Hawaii Five-O‘s premise last night was kidnapped girls held until they were 18 and then let go or killed, well, always killed, by a couple doing it for the welfare benefits...Now I don’t know what happened in Cleveland, but I couldn't help but make the connection. "

His point was that the kidnapping of 3 girls 10 years ago was likely because the kidnapper was trying to scam the welfare system.

The problem of course is actually in Limbaugh's own [and correct] summary of the Hawaii 5-0 episode. On the TV show the girls were killed at 18 because that's when they were ineligible for benefits as minors. The 3 women who were kidnapped were (according to about 45 seconds on Google) 14, 17 and 21.

Meaning one of them was already over 18, and within the first year two of them would have been. So clearly the Hawaii 5-0 Episode has nothing to do with the case here as far as motive.

This is not the first time Rush has been foiled by 45 seconds of research either, he previous praised the Lords Resistance Army for fighting in the name of Christians. Do a 45 second google search or the name Joseph Kony, and you'll soon see the problem. Same too with his infamous attacks on Sandra Fluke, or as he repeated called her durring the first day of attacks "Susan Fluke".

So yea, 45 seconds on google 3. Rush 0.

Now moving on to the first or our two categories tonight, Benghazi.

Today Congressman Darrel Issa held his hearing on the so called Benghazi cover-up (because it worked so well for republicans the last 23 times they tried this attack line). Absent from the hearing was Thomas Pickering, the co-chairman of the State Department’s committee investigating Benghazi.

Now Issa is saying Pickering refuses to testify, Pickering says he was never invited. So ABC's Jon Karl decided to get to the bottom of it, by asking Issa's spokesman a simple question, if Pickering announced he wanted to testify today would he be allowed.

To which Issa's spokesman replied "nope". Well that was easy, clearly we now know who is telling the truth about Pickering's non-involvement.

Now heres the thing, if your going to lie OR even if your going to just tell the facts from your own point of view, its probably a good idea to tell your spokesman. Just saying, otherwise you look like a fool.

And next up with a comment that almost speaks for itself, the scion of a threesome between Dracula, Emperor Palpatine, and Mephisto, former Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, who took the occasion of Issa's hearings to make his own comment on Benghazi:

"When we were there, on our watch, we were always ready on 9/11, on the anniversary, We always anticipated they were coming for us, especially in that part of the world . . . I cannot understand why they weren’t ready to go.”

Thats right, Bush and Cheney were always ready on 9/11......well except for that one time, you know the one whos anniversary they were referencing. But you know other then that.

To rephrase what Dick Cheney is saying "Don't worry honey,  I'm STD free....well except for the AIDS"

And lets not even mention the terrorist attack on an american embassy on 9/12 (2006), because that isnt really the anniversary to be fair, it was after midnight [our time] so it didnt count.....

Moving on to our next category, it turns out Republicans have no real idea how bombs work....or guns for that matter.

Up first Senator Rand Paul. Now Senator Paul is known most recently for two things. The first was a 13 hour filibuster against the use of drones to kill american citizens. The second was this quote:

“I never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or policeman kills him,”

Now Senator Paul got hammered for his seeming flip-flop, but thats not what got him here. What got him here is a much bigger problem, namely that he doesnt seem to actually understand how a Drone works.

Now see heres the thing: no matter what you think of Drones, if you approve or disaprove, Drones kill by dropping bombs. In fact thats how so many innocents get killed, and one of the major reasons using drones at all is controversial.

I mean lets say a drone showed up to kill a guy who just robber a liquor store. It would drop a bomb on the guy since thats what drones do (unlike cops) Not only would that guy be dead, so would every single person inside the liquor store he just robbed, and the people in the next building over, and the poor smuck driving by on the way home from work.

Clearly Rand Paul doesnt actually understand that though, I think he thinks a drone is basically a flying sniper rifle.

But hey, you have to applaud the guy, he did take a hard principled stand against drones, and then a hard principled stand for drones.  AND proved you dont actually have to know anything about something to have [at least one] hard principled stand on the issue.

Thats a pretty impressive resume.

But then there is our winner (and I believe a repeat winner) Wayne LaPierre.

At the NRA convention this weekend, Mr. LaTotallyfuckingnuts, said:

"How many Bostonians wished they had a gun two weeks ago?"

I'm gonna go ahead and hazard a guess here.....None. Why? Simple NOBODY SHOT AT THEM, thats why we called the terrorist "Boston Bombers" and not the "Boston Sharpshooters" because they didnt use a gun.

Hell in fact the guys basically werent even there when the bombs went off. They used a long distance signal to blow the things up.

I'm sure this is common knowledge to most people, but for Mr. LaCompensatingfortinydick, unlike a gun, a bomb doesnt actually require the bad guy to be there to use it.

Now Mr. LaUnhealthyloveforphaliclikegun, added to that comment that Boston was another "proof" that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun (which you know wasnt used in the bombing) is a good guy with a gun.

But again who exactly would you shoot? at the time of the bombing, and for several days after, no one had any idea WHAT the bombs where made out of, where they were, or who the bombers were.

So short of just randomly shooting someone every hour, I'm not entirely sure I see how guns would have helped here.

Granted I'm not sure Mr. LaBangbang does either. I mean he did kinda switch the weapon midspeech from a bomb to a gun (held by a bad guy), so maybe hes just that out of touch with reality,

Then again unlike Mr. LaNutjob I'm not really a firearms expert. For all I know simply holding a gun gets you a +20 dodge bonus, +12 Dexterity Modifier +50 Armor Class +100 Deflection and/or a deflector shield. And if any of that is the case then you know what, Mr. LaPierre has a point about more guns helping prevent bomb crime.

Of course if thats NOT how gun's work, then I'm afraid I have no choice but to name Wayne LaPierre [once again?] the stupidest person of the week.

Or at least I would, but my mother told me not to pick on the retarded so I guess I have to give him a pass.....