July 31, 2010
July 30, 2010
Fuck you with the combined fuckrage of the souls of the millions Hitler killed by Hitler for even trying to defend a fucking beast such as that. Fuck you for defending a man who killed millions for no good reason other than how they lived their lives. Fuck you for being such an arrogant goatsegrabbing fuckwart. And fuck you for making a long list of shitty, preachy movies that I even had to waste time and energy to ignore.
In 1997, 400 African American farmers sued the USDA, alleging discrimination in subsidy policy, and a range of other areas over the preceding 15 years. In the resulting court case, Pigford v. Glickman, the USDA agreed to pay $50,000 to each farmer. By then, the suit had become a class action, and USDA expected to have to pay roughly 2,000 farmers. 22,505 joined the suit.
Two years later, the USDA agreed to pay 16,000 of those farmers the agreed-upon $50,000 in compensation - just over $1 billion in total. But according to the USDA, a full 70,000 additional farmers claimed that they had submitted petitions for damages, but that those petitions were received late due to bureaucratic incompetence or poor legal representation.
The matter remained unresolved until 2008, when Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Barack Obama, D-Ill., teamed up to earmark $1.25 billion in that years farm bill to pay the outstanding claims.
But the 70,000 farmers who say they were wrongly denied damages plus the 16,000 who received $50,000 from the federal government exceeds the total 26,785 African American farmers present in the United States in 1999, and the 39,697 present today.
Then this week, seemingly out of the blue, the administration announced that it does not have the funds to pay out that $1.25 billion. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are outraged, claiming that "if the administration can find $1.5 billion within its administrative funds to pay mostly white farmers in Arkansas and other states, it should be able to pay black farmers who suffered discrimination."
Seriously, folks. Did you really expect Teh Won to give a damn about you once you were elected? If so, then I have a bridge to sell you.
On top of being a slow news week, seems we've all been kinda busy in Real LifeTM as well, sorry, at some point someone will do something fucking stupid or awesome, and it'll make for lots of fun, funny shit, in the meantime, if you've got a post to plug, by all means,
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Wisconsin shows Johnson with 48% support. Feingold, a member of the Senate since 1993, again picks up 46% of the vote. Two percent (2%) favor another candidate in the race, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
While it would be great to talk about something that was right with Wisconsin, I'm not going to get too optimistic about this one. Feingold has been winning by double digits for quite a while and for the first time, I'm seeing him actually put on television commercials.
Sure, that means he's nervous but he's also good at this. If Reid can come back and take a lead, bet that Russy will do the same.
Also, go Johnson!
Finally, he wrapped it up: “And then you should ask Mr. Limbaugh — I don’t know what kind of car he drives, but I bet it’s not an F-150.”
The F-150 truck, we should note, is made by Ford, which didn’t get federal rescue funds.
Better luck in the Showcase Showdown, Robby, but at least you won that Blackberry.
Thursdays this summer at the Atlas Performing Arts Center [in Washington, D.C.] will be Gay 101 – a series of films one must see to be a card-carrying gay man.
Sucks for you guys, I think I'd rather set myself on fire than watch some of that list...
*tumbleweed blows by*
July 29, 2010
The university previously argued that the timing of Rove's appearance for the upcoming school year could imperil its 501(c)(3) tax status.The article notes that they're letting some no-name Obama appointee from "the White House interfaith council" (yawn) speak on campus, but that's really nothing major compared to this:
"The timing of this event is problematic given the campaign cycle," Kimberly A. Moore, director of student affairs and Greek affairs, told students in an e-mail. "Loyola has to maintain impartiality in order to protect our tax-exempt status."
Conservative students point out that the school has hosted partisan speakers on election years before. In September 2004, the school hosted Howard Dean, who ran for president that year. A couple of weeks after his speech, political activist Ralph Nader, who also ran for president that year, spoke on campus -- a speech that was advertised as a campaign event in which donations were solicited.But neither of those events were a threat to the school's tax status, whereas Rove (who the article notes isn't even working on any campaigns this year) appearing on campus would be a big problem. Yeah.
I honestly would have a lot more respect for these douchebags if they would come right out and just say that they didn't want someone like Rove delivering a speech on their campus because they disagreed with his political views. At least that would be honest, but I guess that's a little too much to ask for. Surprise, surprise.
Update: Now that I think of it, though they probably don't like Karl Rove, maybe they are worried about their tax status. This is Barry and Rahm's home turf, after all.
"Wouldn't want anything to happen to this nice university you've got here that would raise your taxes, would you?"
July 28, 2010
So here's the question for all the lawyerly types; have you read the ruling and what do you think of the reasoning? I have to admit I only read the first 18 pages, but here is what I gleaned from it; the injunction stems from the fact that congress didn't make it a crime to be in the US illegally. I'm not quite sure how she came to that conclusion but that's her basis. All the rest of it - The burden on federal authorities, the possibility of detaining lawful aliens, all that is just window dressing. What I really don't understand is how she can injoin (?) the part of the law requiring aliens to carry their paperwork when federal law already requires the same thing. She asserts that the AZ penalties somehow adversely impact the uniform alien registration requirement that Congress enacted. I just don't see how one necessarily follows the other.
Hopefully at some point Law and Order LA will do an episode based on this so I can broaden my legal education.
Basil Marceaux does not explain himself. He kills hippies, dispenses justice, and ballroom dancesNow that's my kind of politician.
Oh, and once again, for catharsis and motivation in November, anybody who supported this fucking pile of fuckwaste can get fucked so hard with this chart, they will be twisted around and forced to fucking walk backwards so that they can see ahead of themselves. Fuck them for ruining the most innovative and life saving medical system around. And fuck them for making such fucking gawdawful charts.
One of the memes of those who advocate a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan is that historically the Afghans have never been conquered; that Afghanistan is “the graveyard of empires”. I have argued against this view in the comments sections of other blogs as well as here, most recently last year when Ralph Peters once again called for us to withdraw. Once again I must be a trend setter because now almost a year later Foreign Policy magazine has published an article entitled, “Bury the Graveyard” which advances the idea that the graveyard of empires meme is hurting our progress in Afghanistan:
The Victorian British and the Soviet Union, the story goes, were part of a long historical continuum of arrogant conquerors that met their match in the country's xenophobic, fanatical, trigger-happy tribesmen. Given a record like that, it's obvious that the effort by the United States and its NATO allies to stabilize the shaky government in Kabul is doomed to fail.
Look, failure is always a possible outcome, especially judging by the way things have been going lately. But if the United States and its allies end up messing up their part of the equation, blame it on their bad policy decisions. Don't blame it on a super simplified version of Afghanistan's history -- especially if you prefer to overlook the details.
One of those myths, for example, is that Afghanistan is inherently unconquerable thanks to the fierceness of its inhabitants and the formidable nature of its terrain. But this isn't at all borne out by the history. "Until 1840 Afghanistan was better known as a 'highway of conquest' rather than the 'graveyard of empires,'" Barfield points out. "For 2,500 years it was always part of somebody's empire, beginning with the Persian Empire in the fifth century B.C."
Unfortunately, popular views of the place today are shaped by the past 30 years of seemingly unceasing warfare rather than substantive knowledge of the country's history.
So, what does this mean as far as the current war in Afghanistan go? Well in practical terms probably not much. The COIN strategy that GEN Petraeus is likely to pursue is inherently based on the idea that a stable government (or more accurately a stable enough government) can be established. All that an acceptance of this view of history can really accomplish in the current fight is to foster an acceptance, among the political class, that it actually can be won, and I stick by that assertion. From the article:
I made my first visit to Afghanistan that same year (ed. 2001). The Afghans I met were neither xenophobic nor bellicose. What they wanted most of all was peace, and they didn't trust their own leaders to bring it. "We're sick of fighting. We hate war. We want to have a free election," one grizzled -- and illiterate -- warrior told me. "And let's have the United Nations come in and make sure it's fair, so the warlords don't interfere." I heard similar views from many Afghans.
Really the fight is ours to lose, but given the attitudes currently in existence in D.C. I think that we are well on our way to that outcome.
July 27, 2010
I'm not going to inflict a picture on you, but WTF is wrong with his left (your right, morons!) ear?
...even the Mad Men star could not hide her blushes when she got chatted up on live television by a female host.
The curvaceous beauty, who plays Joan Holloway on the hit TV show, was appearing on U.S. TV's The View when guest host Alexandra Wentworth told her she was her 'girl crush'.
At one point she placed her hand seductively on Christina's leg.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1296929/Mad-Mens-Christina-Hendricks-gets-chatted-WOMAN-TV-presenter.html#ixzz0utp1qkUQ
I probably don't need to say much more. more...
67 queries taking 0.1505 seconds, 180 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.