Debt Ceiling/Fiscal Cliff Remix is going platinum

Stop me when this sounds familiar will you?

According to Republican Pat Toomey in order to stop the debt ceiling "we Republicans need to be willing to tolerate a temporary, partial government shutdown"

Stop you say? you heard that exact same thing from republicans last year? And the attempt at avoiding it lead to the Super Committee which lead to the sequester which lead to the fiscal cliff which lead to kicking the sequester down the road two months right into the debt ceiling again.

Yes seriously, we are back here again. And the republican party hasnt learned that this isnt a good idea for their parties image and the democratic party still hasnt learned to negotiate (IE giving away all their leverage by separating taxes from spending in the fiscal cliff and kicking the spending into the debt ceiling talks).

Although their is one minor minor minor change. See last year they were talking about a full government shut down unless their demands were met, this year they are only saying they might go for a partial shut down.

And for the record its not just Toomey, this is the coordinated GOP message. Here's Senator John Cornyn the new Number 2 ranked republican in the senate "It may be necessary to partially shut down the government in order to secure the long-term fiscal well being of our country, rather than plod along the path of Greece, Italy and Spain."

Again note the use of "partial shut down" this is the new republican position. But heres the thing despite what it sounds like its not really a more moderate position. In fact its just an even more dickish one, they are just counting on you to be too stupid to know that.

See in a full government shut down, everyone goes home and no one gets paid. In a partial government shutdown "essential" personal are still required to come to work, and of course they get paid. And by the way Congress counts as essential personal.

So see last time they basically said "fuck you" this time, they are trying their hand at reverse prostitution, they not only want to fuck you, they want you to pay them for the privilege of letting them fuck you. And actually to be fair they want to do a whole bunch of other unmentionable things your usually only willing to tolerant on special occasions.

You see, like referenced before, we still need to figure out all the cuts we are supposed to make from the last time we went through this, and those decisions just got meshed into this time around.

Say for example we decide to cut Social Security by 150 billion from last time, well before we can settle on that we now have to decide how much to cut from this go around as well (say another 150 billion) so both sets of cuts will go into place at the same time.

Basically its the Fiscal Cliff on steroids, except this time there is no democratic leverage (so yea hopefully you werent planning on using student loans, or medicare/medicaid or social security, or child tax credits, or home mortgage deductions ect ect, since the Dems have nothing to bargain with this time).

And of course if it plays out like last time, we will have yet another Fiscal Cliff in the future, further compounding the cuts (which are in practice such a bad idea that everyone is trying to avoid making them, which is how we got into this mess in the first place. The GOP demanded cuts, got the cuts, realized putting the cuts in place would be a disaster so kicked the cuts down the road, so that they could demand more cuts.....)      

And of course like last time the credit agencys have warned the Republicans (specifically them this time) that if this happens we will have our credit rating down graded AGAIN.

Which as you remember is one of the reasons the GOP brand name is now in the toilet, they got blamed (correctly in my opinion) for the downgrade. So of course they want to try it again.

Now of course there is a very simple solution to all of this: Decide that the idea that Congress can force the president NOT to pay the bill Congress ran up is an insane one.

Because thats basically all the debt ceiling is. It's the president going to congress to ask for permisson to get money to pay the bills on things congress has spent money on.

And saying its an insane idea that should be fixed is actually shockingly easy.

Heres part of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

In short what that means is "we as a country pay our bills and are legally barred from not doing so"

So yea just point to that and tell the GOP to fuck off, your not allowed to tell the president he cant pay the bills as he has a Constitution obligation to ignore you and pay them anyways. 

Or it SHOULD be a simple fix. You see President Obama has already announced that that solution makes too much sense and is much too easy and might actually result in him getting a clean win and not having to compromise, so he's not gonna do.

So whats the next solution?

Well that would be the Platinum plan.

See by law only the Federal Reserve can mint any coin made with  copper gold silver or paper, and such money is controlled by congress. But the exactness of the wording IS the issue here, the law specifically states gold and silver copper and paper. Any other coin made out of any other precious metal is given over to the president.

So in theory the president can as Democrat Jerrold Nadler (and others) suggests, mint a trillion dollar coin made from platinum and pay off the deficit that way. And of course to prove the minting is legal, they would reference the section of the 14th amendment I quoted before.

Because why take the simple road when you can do something a whole lot more complicated that people really arnt going to like and that will have all kinds of inflationary issues as well?

So yea there you have it: On the one hand the GOP wants to take the debt ceiling hostage again, because doing so the last time basically destroyed their brand since it turned out even they realized their demands were a horrible idea, so we should do it again.

On the other you have the Democrats who somehow think some complex end run and printing a whole new kind of money is an easier thing to explain to the american people then the sentences "The debt ceiling is like a credit card bill and the GOP doesnt want to pay for what they bought. And we are legally required to pay the bill and we will"

No wonder politics is broken......

Hey after all its only New Jersey

So most of the media coverage today is focused on the fact that the US House came back in session just long enough to vote for the fiscal cliff deal.

But it turns out there is another big story as well: US House came back in session *just* long enough to vote for the fiscal cliff deal.

In that it turns out the cliff deal wasnt the only major piece of legislation congress needed to pass.  In fact they had already promised they would pass another bill.

Lets just listen for a second to this congressman and I think you'll see what I mean:

"No one even told us, the Speaker walked off the floor, told an aide to the Majority Leader that the Congress was finished. There were no votes and they come back and told us. Listen, I’m not taking this as personal offense. I’m talking about the thousands of people in my district, hundreds of thousands of people throughout the New York-New Jersey area. Within 10 days after Katrina, $60 billion was appropriated. Nine weeks after Sandy, not one penny has been appropriated. And let me just make this one point. These Republicans have no problem finding New York when they’re out raising millions of dollars. They’re in New York all the time filling pockets with money from New Yorkers. I’m saying anyone from New York and New Jersey who contributes one penny to Congressional Republicans is out of their mind. Because what they did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans, it was an absolute disgrace. …

Why the Republican party has bias against New York, this bias against New Jersey, this bias against the Northeast. They wonder why they’re becoming minority party. Why we’ll be party of the permanent minority. What they did last night was so immoral, so disgraceful, so irresponsible. They’re supposed to be the party of family values. And you have families that are starving, families that are suffering, families that are spread all over living in substandard housing. This was a disgrace. They are inexcusable. And they have had it. As far as I’m concerned I’m on my own. They’re going to have to go a long way to get my vote on anything."

Now thats some pretty strong language, especially that bolded part, about the republican party. But I know what your thinking, thats pretty typical language when talking about the opposition party. And you might be right, but theres an small problem. That wasnt a member of the opposition party. That was congressman Peter King, a Republican who happens to represent part of Long Island. And not just any republican, he's the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and normally not my favorite congressman (cause hes a bit crazy, he spend most of last year holding hearing into American Muslims secret desire to topple to the US) but still thats a rather powerful committee especially if he follows through on the pledge to go on his own.  (also for the record in a latter interview in which he said much the same thing King also added Connecticut to the list with NY and NJ)

So yea, there you have it, a far right committee chairman is now calling people crazy if they give money to the republicans.

And he's not alone either:

"We were all set to go, and I feel that this was a betrayal, I just half to say it, I feel it's a betrayal and an indefensible, an indefensible error in judgment on the Speaker's behalf."-- New York Congressman Ryan Grimm

“With all that New York and New Jersey and our millions of residents and small businesses have suffered and endured, this continued inaction and indifference by the House of Representatives is inexcusable, It has now been 66 days since Hurricane Sandy hit and 27 days since President Obama put forth a responsible aid proposal that passed with a bipartisan vote in the Senate while the House has failed to even bring it to the floor. This failure to come to the aid of Americans following a severe and devastating natural disaster is unprecedented.”

“The fact that days continue to go by while people suffer, families are out of their homes, and men and women remain jobless and struggling during these harsh winter months is a dereliction of duty. When American citizens are in need we come to their aid. That tradition was abandoned in the House last night.”

Thats from a letter co-authored by New York governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat and New Jersey Republican Governor, Chris Christie.

I'm honestly not shocked the GOP is blocking disaster relief  they tried to do it after Irene and the Earthquake, they tried after the Colorado wild fires, they tried after the Joplin, hell they even blocked aid to 9/11 first responders.

What I am surprised about, and half pleased about is that Republicans are finally calling their party out for their own bullshit.

During the Irene/Earthquake double whammy, both Virginia's Eric Cantor and North Carolina's Virginia Foxx attempted to block disaster relief to their own constituents. Now at least republicans who's voters have been directly affected are at least tired of the gamesmanship.

I mean it would be better if they werent totally self serving, since King did call out the party of the 9/11 aid blocking but not on any of the others, but its a big start (Christie to his credit has not as far as I know ever favored blocking aid to anyone) at least.

Now of course John Boehner is now promising that Sandy Relief will be a top priority in the next congress....after of course saying it would be a top priority in the lame duck of this one, so credibility is a bit of a problem I would say.

Also of course on top of that because the 112th Congress is over, the relief bill has to start over from scratch, the version that had passed the Senate with GOP support and Obama was willing to sign no longer exists. Repassing that bill in the Senate (which I assume will be done pretty easily) will add maybe a week or two onto the final passage of the bill.

And hey I mean whats an unnecessary extra week or two redoing the same thing we already did simply because John Boehner is incompetent and apparently cant multitask. I mean after all its only [mostly] New Jersey  its not like its a state anyone gives a fuck about right?       

the Fiscal kick err cliff deal

So I admit for a number of reasons I havnt been able to be as attentive as usual to politics in the last week. So I'm kinda playing catch up on the fiscal cliff deal.

I read an article a couple of days ago talking about how Republicans surrendered on the chain CPI, in that they removed their demand for a Chained CPI change from the bill despite the fact Obama have already conceded the point to them in his previous offer.

Now of course they did that, because after the House Plan B bill blew up in John Boenhers face and weakened the GOP so badly they had no choice to basically allow the Senate Democrats and Obama to figure something out.

In otherwords the last I paid attention the very strong Democratic hand had just been made a lot stronger.

So I was a little shocked when I read the details of the final plan.

First we've got the tax increases....for those making more then $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. Which is alot higher then the 250,000 Obama ran on.

To be fair given the most recent republican offer in the house of taxes staying the same for 1,000,000 and lower its a hell of a lot closer to what Obama wanted then the GOP, so i guess we can call it an Obama win.....except of course when your in a strong enough negotiation position that your opponents give back concessions you've already made.

I mean I realize I sound a bit like a Tea Party republican, but seriously, why should you compromise anymore then you have to in that kind of situation? and I'm not convinced that was a compromise that had to be made.

Plus their is the other way of looking at it. The whole reason taxes were going up was because the tax cuts were expiring. They were expiring because they had been intended to be temporary, because the GOP knew that making them permanent  wasnt cost effective and wouldnt be doable given how detrimental that vote would be to the GOP long term. Its not that they didnt want to make them permanent, they couldnt politically afford to.

And now Obama just did it for them for more then 98% of all the cuts.....so thats actually a massive win for the GOP, and would have been even at the original Obama offer of 250,000

Now to be fair, its also possible that the increase in capital gains taxes from 15 up to 20% may have been traded for raising the bush tax cuts from 250 to 400 thousand, and honestly if so, then I guess I'd be behind it, simply because since the richer someone is the more likely the are to pay capital gains and capital gains alone thats a very very effective tax to raise to get the rich to pay more. So if it was a trade I give Obama a pass....otherwise I'd like some explanation.

And my personal favorite concession., and by personal favorite I mean "What the fuck?" is the part I'm gonna call the Fiscal Kick. Basically they moved the sequester part (the cuts) down the road for two more months.

I really really really dont get this. Like the balance in the current round of negotiations was basically the GOP wanted some cuts and no tax increases and the Dem's wanted tax increases and some cuts.

Which meant if nothing happened, the Dem's would win taxes (get the tax increases) and both sides would move to repair the cuts. And the Dem's could use the tax increases they already had to trade for the cuts they wanted (they'd back tax cuts for the increases they got in trade for the cuts).

And basically the whole GOP reason to bargain this time around was to avoid that situation from coming up...by accepting  some increases they got a much better say on the cuts then they would have otherwise.

The thing is though, we didnt do the cuts this time around apparently. We seem to have kicked that down the road.

Now the public favors higher taxes and big cuts. So in a debate over just cuts the public will side with the party that wants the bigger cuts (the GOP), the only thing the dems had to stop this was wanting higher taxes....which they basically just took off the table.

Near as I can tell, that was the end result of all of this, taxes went up......slightly. But they didnt take any cuts off the table.

So now in two months the Dem's have to do this again...... except of course they voluntarily surrendered their leverage. They no longer have anything to counter the GOP cuts demands.

Which means that despite the fact that the taxes side of this actually does seem fair (payroll tax expire (GOP win) inheritance tax goes up (Dem win), Alt minimum tax fixed (dem win) deductions for the rich capped (GOP win...or both sides I guess) Unemployment extended (dems) small business tax credits extended (GOP), ect) what you have in the long run is very unfair Cut negotiations coming up, where the GOP is going to have most of the leverage.

So when you take the two parts together its going to be a GOP win, they win on cuts and got 50% on taxes.

All that from a party who imploded trying to pass their own plan so badly they had to return concessions they had already won, which just begs the question....what the hell is wrong with the democrats? I mean honestly this was a bit like the Black Knight from Monty Python claiming he can still win, except that the Democrat black knight seems to have cut his own limbs off.

On the upside John Boehner has actually NOT said he will pass this plan, he said he may instead pass a "republican alternative", so maybe since I have faith in the total dis functionality of the House Republican, the Dem's will get another crack at this.

And then maybe their black knight will cut their own arms off as well.....      

Hobby Lobby and its new Dominatrix hobby.....

So between allergies and smashing up my hand (merry Christmas to me) I havnt been able to write as many of these as I want. Hopefully that ends now. So I guess we will kick off my big return ( :p ) with something that SHOULD be a blast from the past, but sadly isnt.

Anyone ever heard of the "Hobby Lobby"? My guess is knowing at least several of my friends read this and all of my friends are nerds and/or geeks (like me) I assume many of you do. If you dont, the name is pretty self explanatory.

Well anyways it turns out the Hobby Lobby has a message for the United States Supreme Court.....go fuck yourself.

Let me explain: Last year the Obama administration passed something called "a contraception mandate" Basically what it says is that the health insurance you get though your job has to cover female contraception.

And not to shockingly many religious people who own companies are complaining that its totally unfair that the government gives you the OPTION of swallowing something (like say a Pill) instead of deep-throating the owners personal religious belief (which has to be the WORST Penis allusion ever, but hey work with me here). And this group of religious owners includes the Hobby Lobby.

So they sued to stop the government from allowing YOU to have affordable contraception, because it violates their religious beliefs. See apparently the 11th commandment states "Thou shalt place in thy mouth only what thy employer wants there". As a side note, I've heard thats the usual rule about quick promotions as well....

Now look heres the thing,  I think most people can figure out my personal stand on this based on the jokes made thus far. But I also respect that Hobby Lobby has the right to sue to try to change the law. So thats not my problem.

But they lost. So they appealed to the Supreme Court. And to be honest, the Supreme Court moves quickly....just like a tortoise. So they asked for an injunction while waiting for the appeal.

An injunction for those who dont speak lawyer, basically means a court action that blocks the law from applying until the legality of the law can be decided. In short, with an injunction the Hobby Lobby wouldnt have to give you a health insurance plan that covers contraception unless/until the SCOTUS (supreme court of the united states) ruled against them later when they heard the appeal.

Now look, I admit something sounds "fishy" about injunctions "the law doesnt apply, unless we say it does later" but I can think of many examples where for non self serving reasons I am in favor of them, so I dont actually have a problem with the request.

BUT (and this I promise is the problem) the SCOTUS DID NOT grant the injunction  So what was the Hobby Lobby's  reply? "Yea well, fuck you, we still wont cover contraception, fuck off"

Now this bothers me on two levels. One is the basic argument in this case specifically. Which basically seems to be "You cant touch my freedom of religion, by forcing me to do something that I believe would make it harder for me to practice my beliefs, but I can totally do it to you" since thats basically what they are saying to their employees

The other level in this. Had Hobby Lobby gotten their injunction they would have quite happily have told the government "yea see I DONT have to give contraception (or anything really, to make this situation neutral) because the SCOTUS said so, so suck on that bitch"

And they rightly would have been furious if the government (or anyone else) said "we see your SCOTUS decision...so what? do it our way". I mean think of it like this, what do you think Hobby Lobby's reaction would be if they win the eventual SCOTUS case and the government says "thats nice. we dont care, we are still saying you have to buy contraception"?

Personally I think you would see wall to wall coverage on all television networks of the "poor" hobby lobby spokesmen, speaking out against this unprecedented violation of the rule of law.......you know, the same rule of law the Hobby Lobby is currently shitting all over.    

And their is another thing here as well, In deference to the need to explain the situation I "short-handed" the Hobby Lobby's objection as being against paying for contraception, but its actually a bit more complex then that. See they dont object to paying for ALL Contraception, just certain kinds, specifically Plan B.

See they claim that Plan B is an abortion. Its not, but hey who needs facts.

Now look, I'm sure their are some insane religious zealots out there who will make some technical BS argument about how Plan B's stopping ovulation and preventing fertilization is an abortion. But the problem for those people is that is also the exact same description of the birth control pills (which Hobby Lobbby claims they will pay for happily). really the main difference is do you take it preemptively or in a larger emergency dose.

But hey size matters (at least thats what my ex told me....and I assume the that's the Hobby Lobby's point as well). And apparently it matters enough that ALL THING including the rule of law, science and facts all come second to size.

I will say this though, I do reluctantly have the give the Hobby Lobby a tad bit of credit, they have said they will not fight the punishment that will come from refusing to obey the court ruling on the injunction  which looks like it will be about 1.3 million dollars a DAY in fines.

Now look I could be wrong, but I think renting a submissive is a much cheaper way to tell someone what to swallow (or not swallow) and when, but I could be wrong......and to be fair being a Dominatrix is a Hobby, so at least the Lobby is living up to its name.

The years most misleading headline.

Honestly I dont like things that proclaim something the "----" of the year, since they will likely be one-upped with something else later, but 5 days left in the year I think I can say it safely in this case that wont be happening.

Which brings us to our most misleading headline of the year: the handful of headlines floating around talking about how "President Obama cuts vacation short  returns to Washington to work on Fiscal cliff deal"

And see heres the thing, those headline are doubly misleading. First I dont really think you can say Obama was "on vacation". While its true he talks his family to Hawaii every year for the Holidays, I should point out that this year, he left the same day as the senate, who like him also ALL went to Hawaii this year. But not for a vacation. All of them, including Obama, VP Biden and a ton of former senators, were in Hawaii for the funeral and memorial of Senator Dan Inouye, the Hawaiian senator who died the other week. Obama even delivered one of the eulogies. And now of course Obama is set to return to DC tomorrow along with the Senate.

Now look I admit I am sure Obama spent Christmas Day in Hawaii with his family, just as I'm sure Mitch McConnell spend it with his family in Kentucky, or Harry Reid with his in Nevada, both having flow out of Hawaii Tuesday night, like every other Senate member, before they all return to DC tonight or tomorrow.  But really the question is, is one and a 1/2 days with your family (and a handful of hours other days when not all the massive amounts of memorial services) really a vacation in the first place?

I say no. I say thats more like "Obama gets a few hours free to see family on Christmas", its not a vacation.

And that brings us to the other misleading part of the headline: the idea that Obama is coming back to Washington to work on the Fiscal Cliff Deal. Because again he's not. I mean after all who would he work with?

Obama cant pass a Fiscal Cliff deal by fiat, and Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution says "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

So to put that in plan English, all tax bills (which the Fiscal Cliff agreement is) MUST by law start in the House.

And as you may have noticed I have mentioned the senate a bunch of times, but I havnt mentioned the House yet.....thats because we dont know where they are.

See after their Plan B bill exploded in their face, the House adjured (or tried to) until....well actually we dont know until when.

At some point today the House is supposed to hold a conference call of leadership, to decide when or even IF the house is going to return to consider legislation.

Now I should point out that in theory the House is in fact in session. See the Constitution also makes it illegal for one house to adjourn without the consent of the other, and the Senate never actually passed the House Adjournment (as they were already in Hawaii, with House approval, for Sen Inoyue's funeral).

So legally the House has never Adjourned, in stead they are holding called a pro forma session, which is basically one poor bastard shows up, gavels in the House (starting the session), and Gavels it out and then goes home (until the next day). Monday's House session for example lasted from 12:00:32 PM until 12:03:36 P.M....a whole 3 minutes and 4 seconds (most of which went into the opening prayer and the pledge of Allegiance. And presumably they will do the same thing today.

And tomorrow as well. See the one thing the House HAS decided on is that no matter what they decide on the conference call today, they WILL NOT be returning to work tomorrow.

And given the usual House pattern of not working friday's or weekends, I doubt they will be back before Monday....which since the year ends Tuesday, basically means they arnt gonna be able to do a damn thing.

Which also means there is no reason for Obama to cut his non vacation short, since there is no possible way he can get a Fiscal Cliff deal. So clearly he cant be working on one.....he's got no one to work with.

What it does mean though is that he can play up the optics of being in Washington (because somehow in the internet age Americans are still stupid enough to think geographic location matters)  and claiming he's working on Cliff deal.....or at least willing to, something the GOP wont look like they are doing.

Which means really he's hoping the optics will give him a better deal after we go off the cliff. And that is all he's doing (and the senate is doing) no matter how somber and serious the completely inccorect headlines are.

We are going off the cliff, and all this is at the moment is a totally transparent political ploy, that the media, mainstream and otherwise has bought into hook line as sinker as they always do with transparent political games.

In otherwords its the media trying to create a story so they have something to do until news actually starts happening again after January 1st (like every year).   

I'm too sexy for a job.

So I think I've figured out why I'm having so much trouble landing a regular job.

It's not that there is a recession on, and that the recession hit men harder.
It's not that I'm a history major, and if you look up worthless degree in the dictionary, theres a picture of my degree.
It's not even that as a full time college student, I didnt want to work a full time job AND have an internship, because I believed in something called sleep (And I know, my mistake right?)

No, it turns out that I just cant find a job because I'm too damn sexy for a job.

No seriously it turns out thats a totally valid reason not to hire or to fire someone.

At least thats's what the supreme court said in Iowa. No seriously, in a 7-0 decision the court ruled that you CAN fire an employee for feeling of "irresistible attraction" by their supervisor.


See in this particular case, this sex pot, who I assume looked like ------>,


had been working for her boss for about 10 years, but in the recent few her boss had starting telling her off about her clothing, saying that "if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing" and telling her about her lack of a sex life  "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

And then of course her bosses wife found out about it. And well you can guess how this went. Turned out it wasn't her bosses fault she was so damn sexy, but they needed to remove the temptation. So they did the logical thing and conferred with a pastor, who agreed that in order to save their marriage the hottie had to go. So they fired her.

And here's the thing that's totally freaking legal according to the all male Iowa supreme court, you see "Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender" so said the Chief Justice.

And mean after all, the bosses employees were all women, no men. As was the new hire who replaced the sex pot. So again to quote the Chief Justice ""The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage."

And see that's cool. obviously the fact that you want to fuck me should totally be a reasonable reason for not hiring me. (which I guess means I should be flattered about all those job interviews that end in me not getting hired.....although then again most of my interviewers were male and I'm straight. But hey at least someone can see my sexiness)

Oh and btw, this is NOT a one off occurrence.

In New Jersery, a woman was fired by her Orthodox Jewish employers for being too busty or at least looking too busty in her outfit of a "form-fitting sequined black dress and black leather, sequin-studded boots" or at least that's what she was wearing when she was told "You are just too hot for this office." and fired.

Now here's the [even more] insane part: While it true that the Orthodox have some rather odd (read Ass-backwards) ideas about how women should dress, these particular Orthodox owned store called "Native Intimates" and by Intimates they mean lingerie. Now see here's the thing, in the ass backwards dress code of the Orthodox, "thongs with hearts placed in the female genital area and boy shorts for women that say 'hot' in the buttocks area." clearly arnt Kosher (so to speak), even though thats what they are selling. Which means even if you buy their bullshit about religious expression/beliefs ect, (and I dont), they clearly arnt following them in this case. So they cant even hide behind that this time.

And now finally a woman was fired by Citibank after being told "as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly 'too distracting' for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear."

Prior to being fired she'd been given a list of clothes she couldnt wear "turtlenecks, pencil skirts, and fitted suits. And three-inch heels."

And lets be honest. I mean who would wear a fitted suit in a business environment? there has never been a successful woman in a suit. Those are totally worn only for sex appeal.

Two trollops who clearly will never be successful women

But look honestly, like I said before, I'm kinda glad about these stories. See now I know my unemployment isn't due to the fact that the economy sucks, so even a guy with a genius level IQ and a college degree cant get hired. Cause see that's depressing as fuck. Instead I have finally learned the truth: I'm too sexy for a job too sexy for a job, so sexy it hurts.

If I was just a bit uglier I'd have a job. So I'm just a bad accident away from full time employment WOOOO! 

But there is a downside here as well. You see I also need to issue an apology to a few of my female friends. See heres the thing, I've find several of you extremely attractive, and I'm sure, since subtly is not my strong suit, that I've been caught checking you out on several occasions, and youve just been too polite to call me out on it. Heck my guess is some of you have been flattered. 

But since most of you are employed, clearly I was wrong. Your not really that hot, or you'd have been fired. And I'm sure now in hindsight my ogling may have accidentally given you false confidence about how attractive you are, instead of using a real gauge  like how quickly you get fired.

Anyways  I just wanted to say the mistake is all mine, clearly I just dont have good taste in hot women, and I apologize for the confusion.  From now on I will wait until after you have been fired, and therefore confirmed as hot before checking you out. And I realize given my troubles in getting work I am clearly god's gift to women and by far the sexiest beast you have ever seen. Which makes my false positives all the more embarrassing. Again I'm sorry.

The alternate reality of the NRA president.....

Look at this point I dont think I need to defend myself to NRA member's, by and large they tend to be very sane and actually very pro gun regulation (compared to the rest of us), because they know better then most of us the damage guns can do.

But see here's the thing, the NRA members are paying there dues to a madman who may or may not have suffered a full break with reality. On Friday NRA president Wayne LaPierre gave a speech about what he thinks is causing gun violence and proves that he doesnt live in the same reality as the rest of us.

Here are some of the "highlights"

"Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security."

Armed Guards in a bank? I gotta be honest, I've NEVER seen one. I've banked or been in banks in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, DC, Pennsylvania, and New York City, and I've never seen an armed guard anywhere in any bank. Hell I live in a place that earlier this year had had more murders then we had had days in the year, so I'm sure if armed guards were needed I'd see them.

Now did we used to have them? sure I would assume so from what people tell me, and to be fair I'm sure a few banks still have them. But the fact of the matter is the vast Majority of banks dont have them, cause they dont need them, thanks to a shit ton of security cameras and time locks on the vaults so they cant be opened no matter what.

Same's true for a sporting event, while I'm sure its happened on occasion depending on the events, I've never seen an armed guard there either, and I've been to a fair amount of sporting events (DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC)

And when's the last time you heard about a mass murder at a bank or a sporting event? As far as I know its never happened.

So analogy fail here for Mr. LaPierre, who apparently doesnt get out much......or hallucinates guns.

"So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you've got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization."

To be fair I believe Mr. Lapierre is right on the first half of his paragraph, based on the last few years we have complete records for violent crime is starting to swing up again, and has for the last 3 complete years or so (so thats about 2006-2009....we only have rough numbers for 2010 and 2011 that I could find anyways, and they also show that).

Now thats where is gets kinda interesting/the part Mr. LaPierre would prefer you not know about. 19 years ago was 1994. The year the assault weapons ban went into place.Which apparently led to a decrease in violent crime, according to Mr. LaPierre, which has only increased in recent years (after the Ban was allowed to lapse.....)

So yea in a speech talking about why we dont need more gun restrictions the NRA president just made an argument [indirectly] for the assault weapons ban.....OOPS

Also as to the second sentence in that paragraph I have no idea what the heck thats about. I think (i could be wrong) it might be claiming hurricanes can be controlled.....or maybe that gun violence is an act of nature. I really do just assume its a sign of a psychotic break with reality.

"And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."

Actually to be fair, Mr. LaPierre is totally right here. I've been to Canada, France, England, Austria, Germany, and the Czech Republic in my life time, and I can attest they dont have video games over there. In fact the leading form of entertainment is other countries still beating a hoop with a stick.....except for Canada where its hockey. But yea I mean that's why their homicide rates are so low, they have never seen or played video games, and they have no idea what "Mortal Kombat" is.

They also dont have internet so they cant download american games from online. Instead they still communicate via smoke signals and carrier pigeons....except for Englands wizard population, they use owls.

So clearly it is the unique availability of video games in America that is the problem.  

"In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18."

Yea I dont know where those numbers came from in that last sentence either. Normally I would assume they came from Mr. LaPierre's ass.....but then i dont know where he would store his head.

I also assume that Mr. LaPierre is referring to acts of violence and death in video games. I could be wrong though cause you dont usually call a video game death "Murder".........well at least not if your able to distinguish between real murders, like say 20 children in CT, and the blinking out of various electronic pixles meant to show the fictional death of a fictional person......but maybe that's just me.

Or maybe we just found out way more about the reality Wayne LaPierre is living in, and that he really cant tell the difference......which is terrifying since he's leading a gun lobby.

Oh but wait we are about to reach one of my favorite parts. And by favorite parts I mean the absolute proof Mr. LaPierre no longer exists in reality.

"And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

The media call semi-automatic firearms "machine guns" — they claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers ... when all of these claims are factually untrue . They don't know what they're talking about."  

By the way, I should point out that .223 were the caliber fired by the Sandy Hook shooter last week. Just FYI.

So yea there you have it, according to Mr. LaPierre the shooting is the media's fault, as is the hysteria behind it. Because rather then take away our video games, so we can beat hoops with sticks like they do in Europe, the media lies about how dangerous bullets are. 

I mean lets face it, .223's only killed 20 kids, that's not dangerous thats normal. A really dangerous bullet would have killed a kid, penetrated the wall behind the kid, and shot the kids in the next room too.

One child per bullet is simply the bullet working as advertised and therefore totally not dangerous, right? I mean whats the worst that could happen? other then 20 dead kids........

"Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed."

I know right, people like Wayne LaPierre who point out how crime was lower when the assault weapons ban was in place are trying to distract and mislead you from the real issue. I mean we all know gun ban's dont work....that's why crime was lower when we had a ban, just like LaPierre said......

"The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minuteaway?"

See here's the problem with that theory......
here's the list of shooters I could find taken down during the rampage by unarmed civilians:
The Long Island Railway shooter, Jared Lee Loughner* (Congresswomen giffords assination attempt), The Richland High School Shooter, The Frontier Middle School shooter, Michael Carneal (heath high school shooter), The Thurston High School Shooter, The Rocori High School shooter, The Campbell County High School shooter, The Weston High School shooter, University of Alabama shooter and the Chardon High School shooter.

Now for the list of shooters taken down by armed force from someone other then the police:


Thats the whole list. It's never happend. Not once. In fact at the Gabby Giffords shooting, someone in the crowd did have a gun, and even drew it.....and then by his own admission almost shot and killed the man who managed to get the real shooters gun away from him. So yea he almost shot the wrong person.

But you see in Wayne LaPierre's reality there are actually events on that second list......never mind that you cant see them....they are real to him damn it.

And then there is more from the strange universe of Wayne LaPierre.

"Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim,"are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the president isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you."

Again thats a favorite mass delusion of the NRA's. ASSUMING someone is going to break into your house in the first place, the most recent crime statistics say that there is a 75% chance you wont be home. of the 25% chance you will, there is only a 7% chance the robber will turn violent, and of that 7% only a 40% chance he has a weapon, and only a 12% chance of it being a gun.

Basically assuming your one of the 3 million people (out of a population of 314 Million) who will have their house broken into, you have about a .006% chance of the guy carrying a gun.

Now on top of all of that, 75% of robberies happen during the day, further reducing the changes of a 3am break in. (to .0015%)

In fact the much better odds suggest the robber is totally unarmed and as soon as they realize your home they will run like hell. (because he meant to break in when you werent home and made a mistake)

So in short Mr. LaPierre's situation sounds scary.....but it basically never happens.

"So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our president or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools?

They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And it's not just our duty to protect them — it's our right to protect them.
You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?"

To be fair we all know the armed police officer at columbine prevented that shooting, right? I mean there was never a shooting at columbine high school right? see how well armed cops work.....(and yes by the way, there was an armed police officer at columbine named Neil Gardner)

"With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can't afford to put a police officer in every school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm."

Exactly, I mean why are we giving foreign aid to by sticks to hit hoops with, instead of trying the stratigy that worked to prevent the Columbine shooting?

"Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now . We can immediately make America's schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America's police force."

Hold up, Reserve Military? The NRA president just called for putting Active Duty [reserve] Military in our schools? Do I really need any more proof this guy has suffered a full break from reality?

Like seriously does anyone want more evidence?

"The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.

I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it

now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.
Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over legislation, regulation or anything else, as soon as our kids return to school after the holiday break, we need to haveevery single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security ."

Just by the way, that would cost about 6 BILLION dollars assuming one new cop, at usual pay for the local department, per school. (which again didnt work in columbine)

So yea that's 6 BILLION in NEW spending the house republicans would have to OK, in the middle of the Fiscal Cliff negotiations to reduce spending on something that we (and by we I mean those who dont live in LaPierreland) know doesnt work....instead of trying to find something that might.

And now one final point from LaPierre

"The NRA is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be developed by the very best experts in their fields."

Wait a second "student training"? Training to do WHAT, exactly....shoot a weapon? I mean I dont really see anything else he could be suggesting for the student. I mean "RUN" is pretty self explanatory and the only other option would be for the students to confront the shooter.

So just remember in January, when your kid's go back to kindergarten to make sure they dont forget their lunchboxes or their AK-47's.......but on the upside we will finally be teaching something more bad ass then Home Economics.

"For the sake of the safety of every child in America, I call on every parent, every teacher, every school administrator and every law enforcement officer in this country to join us in the National School Shield Program and protect our children with the only line of positive defense that's tested and proven to work."

And by tested to work, we mean that shit has never ever ever ever once worked. Again Columbine had a Cop at the school.... Virginia Tech has a whole damn police force...and again unless I totally misunderstood the news there were massacres at both schools.

But I guess in LaPierreland lack of evidence counts as evidence. After all I'm pretty sure its always ass-backwards day in LaPierreland.

Also one last point from me. I admit I cropped the speech a bit (full transcript here ) but I hit every one of his points. And apparently Wayne LaPierre only thinks kids can be killed in school. Not in Movie Theaters (one of the victims of the batman shooting was 6) or parking lots (another victim at the gabby giffords shooting was 9). So we dont need to address those at all. Or mall shootings. Or Military Base shootings (Ft. Hood).

Cause you know that could never happen, and we never need to protect our kids there, since those places are never marked as "gun free zones" no one would ever try to shoot a kid or anyone else in any of those places.  And really how else do you stop the next major crisis from happening if we cant pretend they only happen in places that serve our ass backwards argument.

And one last final point to my friends who are NRA members (and I do have several, although I have no idea if they are reading my blogs) YOU GUYS ARE PAYING THIS MAN'S SALARY.

This is what your dues money is going towards. Over a Million Dollars a year to this guy's salary in order to spew this kind of insane ass backwards bullshit.

But hey I guess if you want active duty military and kindergardener's with guns in all your schools, and believe that its a good idea to defend the ammunition choices of mass murder's then it's money well spent.