opportunity

I have nothing more to say today than I have for the last week (or year, for that matter). However, today is February 29th, and I figured I ought to take advantage of posting something on a leap day, since this event happens but once every four years. We'll get another full lunar eclipse before that.

sunday funny

Q: What did Ignatius of Loyola wear when he got dressed up?

A: A Je-suit.

ratings

Bummer. I would have prefered "genius", but oh, well, that's ego for ya. I should be happy I got that considering my refusal to use apostrophes in many of my contractions.

(props to the Sapient Sutler.)

On the other hand, I'm apparently read more than I think I am.



(props to spiiderweb™.)

social studies

My wife's a teacher and this morning I found this on a sheet of paper she'd copied from one of her textbooks:

liberalism: A political and economic movement that began to flourish in the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe in response to the the arbitrary rule of absolute monarchs. In the political realm, this movement stresses the rule of law, individual liberty, universal rights, and adherence to constitutional procedures. In the economic arena it emphasizes free trade, individual property rights, and the removal of restraints on economic activity.

fascism: A political philosophy based on an extreme sense of nationalism and the concentration of power in strong, charismatic leaders. This philosophy holds that people are unequal and that human potential is best achieved through war and conquest. Thus, it denies the democratic notion that ordinary citizens should retain power.

Which one sounds to you more like the Republican Party?

fortune cookie moment

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Give a man an Office, and he'll make you give him and his family fish for the rest of their lives.

today's quote

Okay, here's a good one: Imagine if George Bush were to deliver the Gettysburg Address, only now and about the Iraq War. It might go something like this...

Two score and 17 months ago, I brought forth in the Persian Gulf a new conflict misconceived in secret and dedicated to the proposition that all oil belongs to Halliburton...

Read the rest at the Quaker's Colonel.



finders fee to Millard Fillmore's Bathtub

no, nope, nuh-uh, never, no waynegative

"Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night...There’s a big difference between us — speeches versus solutions. Talk versus action. You know, some people may think words are change. But you and I know better. Words are cheap."

Hillary Clinton

Dont get me wrong, I dont have anything really against Hillary Clinton. If she should win the White House, that'll probably be okay (of course, relatively, almost anybody would be better than George Bush). But seriously, who buys into bullshit like this.
Hillary, I have a message for you. What you said there, that was a speech. It was words, it was talk. The bitch of any election is that you never know until you have a winner in place how that winner is going to do, and that includes you, ma'am. In 1999, I dont think even the most pessimistic, cynical Liberal thought George Bush would be this bad.
Unfortunately, your speech is disturbingly similar to one of my least favorite Dubya-ism: You seem to think that because you say it, we ought to believe it, and because he says it, we ought not*. Sorry, I've had seven years of that bullshit, and I'm sick of it. Make your promises, and act like a person who will keep them.
Oh, and dont think that I'm not going to look at promises already made. Remember that next time a vote comes up in the Senate for something Lord Bush wants but the rest of the nation does not. The Democrats, whether up for election in 2006 or not, rode to the Majority on the idea that they would stop the madness of King George, and so far they've been a terrible disappointment. This kind of talk doesnt do it for a lot of us any more, and having been a victim of it yourself since you made the "awful" proposal that maybe the government should provide health services the same way it provides fire and safety services, you'd think that you would know better. Alas, apparently not.

Here's the thing; after a couple of decades of listening to the Republican Party tell me how wonderful they are and how awful everyone else is (even as their wonderfulness was demonstrably not true), I've pretty much decided that when someone, including you, Ms. Clinton, tell me not to trust the other person, I'm more inclined to look askance at you.

* Also, it's something which Dubya displays a real "talent" for; it's one of those statements that your opposition could just as easily say about you.

a little bit punky

Want a bill,
want a bill,
want a good bill,
one that fulfills mah
fascistic needs

olbermann rocks

Seriously, this man is good.

post: ex-factoid

I am so sick of this telecom immunity thing. Does nobody else recognise the hard sell?

Well, I need to have an answer right away, 'cause there was naother counrty here looking at this baby also, and it's the last one in stock.

Here's a question: If you can grant immunity to the telecoms ex post facto, can you revoke it ex post facto, too?
I'm sick of the Bush Administration, I'm sick of their daily lies, I'm sick of the spin and the rationaizations and the absurd logic that passes for proof from them. Mostly though, I'm sick of being told to FEAR. You know what the prime difference between the Clinton presidency and the Bush presidency is? Clinton was positive, but Bush is all negative. Sure Bill was a horn-dog and an asshat, but he didnt build you up by tearing someone else down. Bush acts in a manner which we would never accept from our children, and he does it using countries.

Hey, here's another question: What does it matter if Congress passes the bill or not? Bush will do whatever he wants to do, regardless of law, or even of reason. Who's going to stop him? The stacked courts? The pussies in the Democratic Party? The voters???

Here, let's describe the Republican party, at least as its leadership stands now, in simple terms: They are the Sith.

The Sith are portrayed in various Star Wars media as individuals who use the dark side to attain power at any cost. The prequel films establish that they draw upon strong emotions, both negative and positive, as the source of their power, and care only about themselves.

Seriously, am I right? What we need is a Jedi Knight, who'll come in and kick their dark asses, but without malice, and in a spirit of Justice, rather than Revenge. I'm not crazy about Obama, but does anyone really think that Hillary is that Jedi?