Fucktards

NYT reports:

Supporters of the plan, which revised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, said that the final vote reflected both political reality and legal practicality. Wiretapping orders approved by a secret court under the previous version of the surveillance law were set to begin expiring in August unless Congress acted, and many Democrats were wary of going into their political convention in Denver next month with the issue hanging over them—handing the Republicans a potent political weapon.

So the crack group of thinkers running the Democrat Party responded by...handing the Republicans a potent political weapon. Here, Luthor, have some kryptonite. I know there's nothing you can do with this. Ha, see how I've outmaneuvered you by giving you the thing with which to kill me.

Naturally, the Democrat had a cunning plan:

Democrats pointed to some concessions they had won from the White House in the lengthy negotiations. The final bill includes a reaffirmation that the surveillance law is the “exclusive” means of conducting intelligence wiretaps — a provision that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats insisted would prevent Mr. Bush or any future president from evading court scrutiny in the way that the N.S.A. program did.

Ho ho ho, they sure showed the GOP. First, let me legalize everything illegal you've been doing for years. Then, I'll also let you and your enablers off the hook without EVER checking into what, exactly, it was you were even doing. Then, I'll reaffirm, in a very strongly worded letter, that the law is the law! Amazing, really. Such strict terms.

Worth noting that a GOP Congress couldn't get this piece of shit passed; for that, we needed the Democrats in charge. Brilliant. Thank God Dear Leader is reportedly happy and expected to sign the bill into law quickly. Wouldn't want to inconvenience or annoy the least popular President in the history of polling. Why, that might make the Democrat appear weak and feckless.

4 million quatloos for the newcomer

Hey, DHS, this is really a great idea:

A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device [...]

This bracelet would:

• take the place of an airline boarding pass

• contain personal information about the traveler

• be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage

• shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes

This is fantastic. But why let these liberal alarmists on the Left and the crazed communists at the ACLU worry us into limiting this remarkable technology to flying 'Mericans? If we really want to challenge The Enemy, we should make these into stylish neck bracelets that all Patriotic 'Mericans wear. I know I'm not afraid of being tracked (and proactively punished) 24/7. It's really no different from the tracking that Lord Jesus performs on me anyway.

Interiors

Is there some overriding reason that the various departmental functions of Homeland Security can't be folded into the Department of the Interior? Then can we ban the use of the phrase "The Homeland" when referring to the United States of America for at least the next 10 years?

The arrangement makes more organizational sense, eliminates one whole department of government (golly, think of the savings!), and prevents any intelligence "stove-piping" re: the Native American Menace. It's win/win. Unexpected bonus: DOI already has a bitchin' logo. Once The Enemy has a chance to see that buffalo, I say let 'em bring it on.

Just a splash

Well, this didn't take long:

SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."

MATTHEWS: No.

SHUSTER: He did.

And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands.

Indeed you don't. In many parts of the world such an incredible affront as requesting what you'd like to consume in a restaurant is met by torture and/or indefinite imprisonment. You know, how they roll at Guantanamo. Either way, I hope somebody sent the alert to MoDo:

DOWD (4/21/07): Whether or not the country is ready to elect a woman president or a black president, it's definitely not ready for a metrosexual in chief.

In presidential politics, it's all but impossible to put the man into manicure. Be sensitive, but not soft. Effete is never effective. Not much has changed since George H. W. Bush drove his New Hampshire campaign off the road by requesting ''a splash'' more coffee at a truck stop.

John Kerry sank himself by windsurfing in spandex and ordering a cheese steak in Philly with Swiss instead of Cheez Whiz.

Next thing you know, we'll have to sort out how to tell the children that Obama wears four button suits. It's just not 'Merican. That's all I'll say.

Texas Lottery: Voluntary Scourge of the Super-Rich

Texas, our Texas introduced a $50 lottery ticket in hopes of attracting affluent players...how'd that work out? Not so much:

Laura Estrada, 33, can't seem to get enough of the high-dollar tickets. She earns just more than $22,000 a year as a customer sales representative for a party store in north Austin but spends anywhere between $100 and $200 a week on scratch-off tickets, including the $50 games. She loves the rush.

"Losing $50 makes you perspire; it makes you nervous. 'Gosh, I shouldn't have bought that.' But then you win and it makes you feel great," she said.

Estrada harbors no illusion: She knows the lottery is a money drain for habitual players like herself. But it's her favorite hobby. So she doesn't calculate the losses; she concentrates on the wins, like the $200 she collected on a $50 ticket. She has to think hard about how many $50 tickets she's bought to win that one — between six and 10, she estimates.

Her reason for continuing to play? "I have to try to get my money back."

Census analysis shows she's pretty much squarely the average player. Neat. So I guess they plan to get rid of the thing? Not so much:

"The $50 ticket salvaged our entire fiscal year last year," said Robert Tirloni, projects manager for the Texas Lottery Commission, bringing $137 million to state coffers since the game's debut in May and helping the commission close a $93 million gap in revenue between 2006 and 2007.

Kind of gives you warm fuzzies, doesn't it? Maybe it's better that the media is just used to keep track of all the missing white women after all.

The Clinton Rules

And so we begin in earnest: Hillary Clinton, non-tipper.

Forget for a moment that this wasn't Hillary popping in for a honeybun on her way to catch a Greyhound over to Mount Pilate, this was one of those campaign "events" generated entirely for the media...why the candidate is just plain folk: they eat too!
There were dozens of her staffers there. The overall bill ran to $157. They have records showing they left a $100 tip. Perilously close to 50% (EXTRA: Clinton. Is she too rich to rule?).

Forget all that, though.

Concentrate on this: if you think that this sort of asinine "story," originating from that right-wing noise machine bastion NPR is limited to Clinton, then think again. Once she's been dispatched based on excessive or minimalistic tips (and, rest assured, there will be blowback on over-tipping down the line), the laugh, cleavage, haircuts, shoeshines, brand and/or price-point of shampoo, or whatever other critical issue can ultimately be found, the media will eventually move on. Rest assured, though, they won't move on to, say, Giuliani claiming to know more of torture than John McCain, a man who has actually been tortured. Nope. Nor do we care about the five big lies relating to Giuliani's signature issue, 9/11. Nope, none of that is important enough even for a passing mention in the mainstream media. Neither can we focus on Hillary's own highly dubious choice in voting to give Bush license to attack Iran without provocation or further Congressional approval. What we care about are vague missteps in the tightly choreographed luncheon photo shoots of the Democrat. Especially when there's proof (in this case, proof of a gratuity) that there was no misstep. That's the best kind of misstep possible: the one that can't be put to rest because it never happened in the first place. Let's go 24/7 on this one! This is how you take the true measure of a candidate, after all.

Next debate: Blink round! Candidates, signify with one blink or two: 15% or 20% the adequate tip for service that's merely "so so"? (Did you see how he/she blinks!?! Is this a President? I think Americans blink with a little more conviction. And, Christ, do I see four buttons on that suit?)

Revert?

Seeing as it's almost 2008, I guess it's time for a reasonably comprehensive look at the War on Gore. Not that anyone involved with the magnificent work that gave us President George W. Bush, a man who didn't know Social Security was a federal program (and may still not), sees anything particularly wrong with their output. Not at all, why that was tough-minded stuff, all that about Gore's potential for lactation and the rather conveniently consistent misquoting on top of misquoting. Why, it still goes on today...there are probably no fewer than 10 mentions of "invented the internet" around the American press-o-sphere today.

But, then, even Peretz seems to miss the point, wondering if a Gore entry into the 2008 contest would cause the press to "revert." Yeah, if he got in, the press would likely start spending all its time reporting on a given candidate's hairstyle or necklines and whether or not their house is too valuable for them to care about the poor. We wouldn't want any of that to get started up. Again.