Monday, April 13, 2009

Franken v. Coleman

Franken wins in a legally protracted squeaker.

So a few random, possibly insulting thoughts. Franken is most famous for two things - first as a cast member (?) of Saturday Night Live, and second as a radio show host on Air America, radio's response to Rush Limbaugh et al. Part of the other side of the partisan 'news' machine. On the 'right,' you have Fox and that channel they claim is based on actual facts, and a whole slew of radio personalities. On the 'left,' we have Air Americam some would argue CNN and MSNBC, and more recently the Huffington Post, whic, let's face it, is basically no more important than this blog is. Frankly, no blog is really news, imo. Not really. It's mostly just really shrill accusations from one side or the other, depending on who's got the conch, as it were.

So, yeah, Franken. I never thought he was funny. Sorry. That said, Coleman looks like he may, in fact, be the least-funny man who ever lived. Maybe. Those two things said, I've got five bucks that says that of the two, Coleman is more likely to be an asshole about it.

No, what really gets me about this little dustup has nothing to do with the winner - I don't care. I am happy with the hand on the National tiller, and it's been going fine without either of these two yahoos. Fuck em.

No, what caught my eye and thoughts was one tiny line in the article on CNN.

"Defense attorney Ben Ginsberg told CNN that the court's order "wrongly disenfranchised" thousands of voters."

Now, he goes on to describe how the courts have been consistent with regards to themselves, but have acted in ways that do not enfranchise voters. But the way it reads kind of amused me.

Because what he's basically saying, Coleman's lawyer, is that the courts, in ruling for Franken, have disenfranchised voters. He means that it was done by allowing county-to-county discrepancies in the counting of various ballots - absentee or otherwise. But how it READS is that the voters are disenfranchised because they lost!!

By that reasoning, I was disenfranchised in 2000.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009


Oh for fuck's sake people.

AIG - bonuses. The outraged public demands that no bonus be paid. Sentaors are outraged. The president is outraged.

Why? The word selection.

You see, these 'bonuses' are not bonuses at all - they're simply a non-salary compensation component. The average American maybe gets a bonus, but when we do (I have gotten some, in the interests of full disclosure), it's usually performance based - either our performance individually or as a team or unit or company. Generally speaking, we think of a bonus as being additional pay that we cannot expect or count on - it comes as an addition to our expected salary and compensation.

And that's why everyone is so pissed. Because for these guys, the bonus is part of the promised package - often with contractually binding terms and language. So those guys who are getting $1 million bonuses? That's really not a bonus - it's just a different form of compensation. These folks knew they could earn these bonuses and worked hard to meet whatever requirements were mandated. I guaran-fucking-tee you that not one of these bonuses was contingent on the company making money or solvency or anything of the kind - these legal contracts were in place and binding long before anyone needed bailing out. Err, said they needed bailing out.

So these people are getting paid the money they have earned, and we are up in arms. Fuck you. If I were making $50K a year with a $20k bonus if I hit all my metrics, and I hit all my metrics - fuck you. That's my money. You can't take it away from me - it was promised before you ahd any say in the matter.

And if you try to apply a 100% tax on it, prepare for that law to be challenged in court tomorrow AM - you can't apply a tax like that, to a select group of people - the government cannot punitively tax a subset of the population. They earned this money, and despite the fact that they are now heavily subsidized, they still have existing contractual obligations they need to either see through or renegotiate.

All of you shrill Americans demanding these bonuses not be paid - what would you do if someone contractually owed you a million dollars? Would you refuse it? C'mon now - you've spent all year knowing you were getting a million dollar bonus. You can't tell me you don't have plans for travel, home improvement, a Vegas binge, a new car, whatever.

So Joe and Jane Podunk step up and cry about how the government is essentially paying my bonus. Well, fuck you. It's my income - sorry for the misuse of the word 'bonus.' Also note that it will probably be several years, if ever, before I have a chance to make that kind of money again. So I might need to bank that mill to keep my family afloat for the 8-10 years it takes to rebuild.

Anyhow, it's just another example of the American public getting outraged because it fails to understand, and a media who sits by and fans the flames of discontent instead of responsibly helping elevate the dialogue to a level that demands more intelligence from the American public. Don't dumb it down for the masses - force the masses to smarten up.

Once again - a bonus is not necessarily a bonus.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Embryonic stem cell reversal is distraction, congressman says -

Embryonic stem cell reversal is distraction, congressman says - "Embryonic stem cell reversal is distraction, congressman says"

Translation: We invest heavily in people who help us make arguments that align with our economic mentality. These people cost a lot of money, have huge organizations, and shift their priorities with all of the agility of a container ship. When you jump off the economy, the topic which all of our political machines are wrangling with in hopes of undermining any real progress to curry political advantage in the next election, then you cost us a hell of a lot of money.

Besides, what I'm really saying is what America, or at least the press, seems to believe - that we can only handle one thing at a time. So economy now - stem cell stuff later.

Folks, this stuff drives me up the fucking wall. Seriously, who reading has ever - EVER - had the luxury of doing one thing at a time? It's absurd. It's simplistic. It's insulting.

Fix it. Fix it all. Fix it all at once.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

I TOLD You Banksh Were De DEBBIL!!

Check THIS isht out.

For me this quote is the crux of how wrong the banks are--
"It's discouraging," Gortler said. "People have limited funds and they don't need to be giving money to the banks. They need to be keeping that money to feed their families and pay bills."

So the states found ways to save money in costs of disbursing unemployment benefits by issuing bank cards which allows access to the money--but the banks in question levees fees on the use of those cards after one or two free transactions with the bank.

Scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, parasitic, opportunistic leeches. Oh, and check THIS out--
Some banks even charge overdraft fees of up to $20 — even though they could decline charges for more than what's on the card.


Oh those BASTARDS.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Mr. Burris deserves a seat


So this guy in Chicago, who looks every bit the mobster, the governor, Blagojevich - has been caught with his hand in the kitty, allegedly.

Allegedly - this is the word of the hour, folks.

Anyhow, allegedly on tape trying to arrange some kind of compensation deal for the Senate seat vacated by our president-elect Barack Obama, formerly the junior senator from Illinois. As this seat is vacant, the law says that the governor is permitted, for all intents and purposes, to assign anyone he sees fit to the role. He could assign me, if he wanted. Well, I suppose it would be good form to assign an Illinois resident at least, but the point is that he has this discretion.

So he was arrested. He was allegedly caught on tape trying to arrange some kind of payment or compensation for the seat. I'm sure this is not uncommon, but apparently he was less subtle about it - hey, give my campaign a million dollars and I'll make you a senator, or something like that.

Classy? No. Legal? Probably not.

But then he actually DID appoint someone. This was after he was arrested, and after he refused to admit wrongdoing and step down. As is his right - it's called due process.

So he appointed Roland Burris, immediately casting a cloud over this apparently decent man. Surely there was no payoff, seeing as Blagojevich had already been charged with wrongdoing, one would assume he would be toeing a line. Right? So why is the fallout hitting Mr. Burris? The state's Attorney General will not sign his credentials, so he's been barred from being seated and sworn in.

Pardon? What,exactly, is Mr. Burris' crime? What has he been accused of? And more importantly, is this not a violation of due process, in which the accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise? Yes, all evidence thus far revealed suggests Blagojevich is a dastardly fellow and probably in violation of some sort of law or regulation. Probably. But until he is tried and convicted, IF he is convicted, he's not guilty until proven otherwise. And Mr. Burris seems to be held in judgment almost as though he were a co-conspirator, of which I have heard zero evidence.

The court of public opinion is one thing, but for the Senate to fall prey to it? Reprehensible. This is our main organ of lawmaking - congress - and they need to know the law and follow it to the letter. Mr. Burris should be seated, at least until such a time that his seat is called into question based on fact, as opposed to allegation and association.