You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me
• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

February 11, 2011

I Am Curious (Obama)

Here's Barack Obama yesterday:

OBAMA: In these difficult times, I know that the Egyptian people will persevere, and they must know that they will continue to have a friend in the United States of America.

I believe the term Obama actually meant to use here was "friendo."

I wish that someday I could have a beer with Barack Obama (or anyone who's intelligent and perceptive and has risen to a high level in U.S. politics) and ask how they justify to themselves the brazen lies they (apparently) have to tell as part of their job. I think I understand how they see it (my opponents are worse! it's not my fault!) but I would like to know for sure.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Posted at February 11, 2011 06:07 AM

For me it would depend on who's buying the beer.
If the riffraf buy then I'd take the time. If I'm buying then I'm drinking alone.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 11, 2011 01:56 PM

Having a drink sounds way too chummy to me. I'm thinking more along the lines of something like this.

Posted by: John Caruso at February 11, 2011 02:51 PM

Jon, for you to actually understand how they "see it," you'd probably have to stop being you, so please don't do that. Brazen lies are so common in that ethos that they all blur together and the truth becomes inconsequential and even farcical, which is just part of what Ellsberg warned Kissinger about. The intelligent in the group may rationalize like you describe when even they are ashamed of some particular misconduct, but for the most part they feel good about themselves and probably feel pretty cool about being in the know. Alas, lots of people should have worse self esteem than they actually do.

Posted by: N E at February 11, 2011 03:32 PM

Obama's remarks just a short while ago, after Mubarak's resignation, were better than I expected. Which is, of course, not a particularly high standard...

Emphasis on moral power of nonviolent resistance.
Calling on military to end Emergency Law. No crap about "stability", though there may have been an "orderly" in there somewhere.

I posted on my dead blog for the first time in more than a year, buoyed by people of Egypt.

Posted by: Nell at February 11, 2011 04:07 PM


I'm not sure this is "better" than his usual fare:

"I'm also confident that the same ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that the young people of Egypt have shown in recent days can be harnessed to create new opportunity, jobs and businesses that allow the extraordinary potential of this generation to take flight."

In fact, it may be the worst thing he's ever said.

Posted by: Jack Crow at February 11, 2011 04:49 PM

Because, as we all know, the highest aspirations of mankind, and the burning needs that drive people to seek freedom, are to create new opportunity, jobs, and businesses.

Posted by: NomadUK at February 11, 2011 04:53 PM

Perhaps the part about intelligence and being perceptive are an assumption? Obama strikes me as having a rather mediocre mind, his comments from the beginning were ludicrous and changed with whichever way the wind was blowing, and showed complete ignorance of what was happening in Egypt. I think the truth is Obama is just an asshole, and a stupid asshole to boot. Sorry about the cuss word but sometimes they are justified.

Posted by: rob payne at February 11, 2011 06:46 PM

rob payne: Obama is a product of OUR educational system---Havard Grad. (AVERAGE Asshole)

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 11, 2011 07:26 PM

My guess is that they would lie to your face as well as they lie to the cameras. Fuck 'em all, I wouldn't drink with any of the pieces of shit.

Posted by: par4 at February 11, 2011 07:32 PM

A stranger's just a friendo you haven't met yet.

[the following is a repost from October 2009]

There are lots of great things about people, despite our tendencies to be cruel self-absorbed greedheads.

Rabbi Jack Moline: Rabbi Simcha Bunam used to say, "Every person should have two pockets. In one, [there should be a note that says] bishvili nivra ha'olam, 'for my sake was the world created.' In the second, [there should be a note that says] anokhi afar va'efer, 'I am dust and ashes.' One must know how to use them, each one in its proper place and right time. For many make the mistake of using them in their opposite applications." That is to say, too often, when we should be acknowledging our arrogance, we are defending it. And when we should be overcoming our self-denigration, we are confirming it.

Jacob Needleman, in Money and the Meaning of Life, says, "A Freudian psychoanalyst once summed up to me his vision of the human condition by saying that man is not as bad as he thinks he is, nor can he become as good as he dreams of becoming. The assumption of this book is precisely the opposite of the psychoanalytic view: man is in far worse condition than he believes, but he can become far greater than he imagines."

Jeffrey M. Schwartz, in A Return to Innocence: Philosophical guidance in an age of cynicism: "We often hear the phrase 'Knowledge is power' -- but nowhere is it truer than when it comes to knowledge of ourselves."

This last book, by the way, is what I gave to my niece on her thirteenth birthday, in the paperback edition, which fortunately has a more teen-reader-friendly title, Dear Patrick: Life is Tough - Here's Some Good Advice.

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. at February 11, 2011 07:41 PM

Mike Meyer,
Thanks for the correction. It makes you wonder why anyone would think he would have any empathy for the slave classes.

Posted by: rob payne at February 11, 2011 08:57 PM

rob payne:Obama IS unique in that he's half black genetically. His Father was NEVER the child of a slave heritage nor is he. He was raised by his maternal family (caucasion) which seemed to be of some means so he's not raised as poor white. Also his midwest upbringing most likely doesn't touch the "hardcore racism" of the south. He still must face the indemic racism that IS America. THAT SAID, his Wife and Children ARE decendents (I believe?)of slaves and SURELY he MUST see that. Whether he feels the implications of that in his heart or not, I'm sure he understands it.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 11, 2011 09:36 PM

This is a base libel on Anton Chigurh.

At least he still has a code of honour. He listens to that coin.

Posted by: En Ming Hee at February 11, 2011 09:39 PM

Yeah - I'm guessing that you're being overly generous with respect to his intelligence and or perceptiveness.

He's very likely a mediocre mind, albeit from our best institutions (of higher education).

Posted by: moi at February 11, 2011 10:28 PM


I agree with what you said though I was thinking of those people who actually have to work for a living. Obama may be half black but on the inside he is all white. He's the whitest guy I know.

Posted by: rob payne at February 12, 2011 05:10 AM

rob payne: Its the money, not so much his race, IMO. He's rich and he ACTS like rich folks does, no matter what race they be. (Money talks and bullshit walks)

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 12, 2011 09:10 AM

You would probably walk away from your beer thinking, "Wow, I really got through to him. Obama is not bad at all...of course he has to negotiate his way through life and make tough choices."

The job of politicians is to tune themselves to the frequency of whoever they're talking to...he has been bamboozling the left for twenty years. What makes you think you would be immune?

Posted by: seth at February 12, 2011 09:18 AM

"Obama may be half black but on the inside he is all white. He's the whitest guy I know."

I find this comment pretty offensive. I don't have any doubt that Obama was - and is - made to feel the implications of his skin color all throughout his life. It is an inescapable part of living in America, and I don't think white people really have an adequate appreciation for it. That Obama is an imperialist politician doesn't mean he is not black, any more than it means Condoleeza Rice is not black.

Posted by: saurabh at February 12, 2011 12:24 PM

Mike , You cannot deny that whites in America have been lording it over the minorities ever since the beginning of this country. Obama has acculturated himself to white society so completely that he is indeed white, and it has everything to do with it in my opinion. Do you think Obama would be president if he sported an afro and spoke in slang? Oh no, you have to be white to be prez, Obama knew that.

Posted by: rob payne at February 12, 2011 12:43 PM

I agree with Saurabh.

It's a little insulting to suggest that someone isn't black or African-American if they don't have an afro or speak in slang. I have a black African quasi-adopted son(long story), so although I'll agree there is a difference between 'black' and 'african-american'--the Wash Post once to my amusement described Nelson Mandela as the first African-American President of South Africa--in my opinion to talk about a slave heritage doesn't lead anywhere useful and damages the self-esteem of people to think of themselves that way. Malcolm X once wisely observed that people can't do things if they don't think that they have done things, and he and Biko in Africa and the black leaders of that era recognized the importance of belief and pride, which had been severely damaged in their communities and I think remains so. There is as much unrealized human potential out there as ever.

The fact that blacks used to be slaves and have a slave heritage isn't the problem--the problem is that double standards persist, which combined with being poor is a hell of a lot for people to overcome. The double-standard problem exists as to the poor in general, but it exists especially as to blacks and hispanics and I guess women too in many circles. My dad was a prison guard and I didn't have any money to speak of growing up, but I'm an articulate educated white man so people don't generally presume that to be so--in fact they probably presume the opposite. Even now, I'm probably treated most of the time like I have a lot more money than I do, and that's very useful in addition to being more enjoyable than the alternative. It's generally not helpful in life for people (especially those with authority) to assume you're lazy, a criminal, a grifter, incompetent, uneducated, or ignorant, and it's not very helpful to think that way about oneself either. Plus, it contributes to failure.

Obama's problem isn't that he's white. His problem for me is that he hasn't expected enough from himself. I didn't expect that he'd be able to get much done, because our political system and society is a mess, but I had hoped that he would at least try harder than he has. Apart from getting elected and being better than the horrific alternatives, he doesn't have much to be proud of. I would be hard pressed to identify ways that he has been better than Hillary would have been, or than Bill was, which for me is a damning condemnation.

Posted by: N E at February 12, 2011 01:51 PM

The term "friend" seems a lot more comprehensible if one takes out "United States of America" and adds "the family".

Posted by: BenSix at February 12, 2011 02:01 PM

N.E. and Saurabh, save your crocodile tears for someone else. Like maybe for all the people your heros have murdered. If I offend you, too bad.

Posted by: rob payne at February 12, 2011 02:05 PM

Rob Payne

You didn't offend me, and my heroes only murder pets, not people.

Posted by: N E at February 12, 2011 02:55 PM

It’s amazing how this went from the topic of Obama to centering on you and Saraubh. You said yourself you agreed with Saraubh whose main point was he/she was offended but now you say you are not offended. I see. Well, it is at least consistent with your statements such as your”heroes murder pets” which doesn’t surprise me in the least.

You know, if nothing else I admire the Egyptians for their honesty and grasp of reality, it is a breath of fresh air when compared to the irrational illogical mealy mouthed liberals that inhabit this stolen land and view all of eternity framed through the lens of their precious little Obama who murdered three children in the very first week of his reign of terror. Of course Obama has gone on from there, perhaps holding a world’s record in the number of wars he has going concurrently.

Posted by: rob payne at February 12, 2011 03:51 PM

rob payne: Obama ACTS like a corporate lawyer from Harvard, which IS exactly what he is, much like his Wife Michelle. He does what I would expect from a corporate lawyer in his office would do, pad the corporations.
As far as his wars, well they ARE Deadeye Dickhead's and his pet Village Idiot's wars, they started them. (Where is OSAMA BIN LADEN I wonder) The expansion of the battle ground IS nonexistant. As Codpiece TOLD US at the begining it IS a GLOBAL war.
He has NOT oppressed any more people of color (what white folks do) than his predecessor nor does he seem to have ELEVATED whites (or anyone really with the excepion of the RICH) more than OUR last occupant. His color of preference is DOLLARBILL GREEN, not white or black, AND THAT, SIR, MAKES HIM AN AVERAGE AMERICAN PRESIDENT.
As far as killing kids, how is he any different than the last 2 centuries+ of US Presidents? Point out ONE that didn't kill kids. (of course NONE would carry the rifle or grenade themselves, THAT'S ALWAYS left to OTHER AMERICANS, usually Poor Americans)(Well maybe TR wouldn't mind capping kids himself)
Here's a hint, rob, it ain't black people or white people fuckin' U&ME, its RICH people. Obama's rich so he don't mind bending us over.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 12, 2011 05:00 PM

They can endlessly tell lies and make false promises because they don't have a conscience. Obama is probably highly intelligent, but he doesn't have a moral inner voice.

I recommend you read "Conversations with Stalin" by Milovan Djilas. Djilas was a loyal follower of Stalin but he wised up, and wrote this book to try to explain how Stalin thought, and how he was able to justify the murder of so men below him.

I'm not comparing Obama, or any other U.S. leader to Stalin. But there is a lot to be gained from the book. Once America became a global superpower, the only type of men that could speak for it had to have a split personality, or lacking a conscience. For the U.S. government to operate its corrupt foreign policy it has to manipulate the American people at home and keep up the image that everything America does is good, and people like Obama are happy to fill that role. If it wasn't him, somebody else with a suit and tie would fill the role.

Posted by: Truth Excavator at February 12, 2011 10:25 PM


Yes, Obama acts like a lawyer from Harvard and for all the reasons I said, its part of becoming white.

I’m not arguing that there isn’t a class war with the rich robbing the poor that is certainly true but the fact remains that the majority of the ruling elite are white, a few people of color in Washington doesn’t change that.

I couldn’t disagree with you more regarding Obama not being worse for Blacks in America than his predecessors. Obama is doing incalculable damage even as I write this. He is attacking Social Security and Medicare at a time when jobs are scarce for whites which means they are ten times scarcer for Black Americans. Also I suggest you go to Black Agenda Report and read what they have to say about Obama and what he is doing to Blacks.

Regarding the needless slaughter of children you ask how is he any different. Well, he isn’t since he has become white he is exactly like them in every respect. That doesn’t make the needless death of children any less monstrous and Obama is a monster, make no mistake about it.

The rub for me is that Obama is so immune from any kind of criticism from his faithful. They look the other way as the bodies explode where as when Bush was president they were quite against the ghastly rain of death. But now that Obama is in charge, well the peaceniks have vanished along with the peace movements who have remained silent while Obama slaughters.

The idea that Obama isn’t somehow responsible for his actions because that is what was done before is wrong headed. Obama was elected because he had a mandate to end the wars which he let all too many believe while he hid behind a wall of vagueness. Obama had a democratic held congress and the backing of the majority of the voters which he squandered in his first two dreary and long years in office. Bush may have begun the Iraq and Afghan wars but they are Obama’s now, after two years he hasn’t done shit to stop the wars which was plenty of time to do so. Of course his supporters will bleat the realpolitik of it all, the same baloney that has been accepted as the mature outlook by mature and responsible people. They make me ill. Almost as much as intellectuals do. Mature and responsible, what a laugh, I have met few Americans whose maturity level hasn’t ossified at the age of ten. I wouldn’t even call them adults. They are mostly a bunch of babies who want to be cuddled and patted and burped.

Posted by: rob payne at February 12, 2011 11:24 PM

rob payne: Well, I gotta pretty much AGREE with YOUR last post.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 13, 2011 02:47 AM

Can't say WE ain't "dog eat dog & rat eat rat".

Posted by: Mikie Meyer at February 13, 2011 02:50 AM

Rob Payne

Look, friendo, if I say you don't offend me, then you don't offend me.

Don't make me take out my quarter.

Posted by: N E at February 13, 2011 09:00 AM

Surely you meant "offendo."

Posted by: godoggo at February 13, 2011 12:00 PM

rob payne: WE---WE--WE-ARE RESPONSIBLE for what Obama does while in OUR office, in OUR NAME. The blood he and his predecessors shed, the crimes they commit, IS upon OUR heads. He/they are US and WE ARE them.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 13, 2011 01:02 PM

Mike, Right on the money.

Posted by: rob payne at February 13, 2011 02:11 PM

Rob Payne,

Please make the distinction between recognizing that someone is black and considering them to be my hero. I do not admire either Obama or Rice; both of them worship at the altar of power and have done some reprehensible things to get to where they are.

This doesn't somehow erase the fact that they are black people. It's a little more obvious in Condoleezza Rice's case, since she came from a family that was right in the middle of the civil rights struggle, but it's no less true in Obama's case. You don't have to be white to be power-hungry and ruthless, as history has demonstrated repeatedly, and unfortunately coming from a history of oppression does not prevent people from assuming the role of oppressor in other regards.

I can't believe I had to write this post.

Posted by: saurabh at February 13, 2011 03:49 PM

I agree with saurabh again. I know rotten people of all races, colors, and creeds (though I'm not sure they're quite worshipping it). I am even friendos with some of them, and if you overlook their bad qualities, they are pretty much ordinary folks.

Posted by: N E at February 13, 2011 05:39 PM

Yay, Egyptians!

Posted by: weaver at February 13, 2011 06:31 PM

"coming from a history of oppression does not prevent people from assuming the role of oppressor in other regards."

In fact, victims are actually pre-disposed to become victimizers. Said another way, when faced with a protracted, intolerable event--or enduring abuses, seriatim--we tend to internalize the oppressor's behaviour.

The witnessing of always-already illegitimate Power in our lives--self-narrated as, "I am equal to this...", "I will never be a victim...", "this will never happen again...", etc.--engenders like: q.v., Nietzsche's "eternal recurrence of the same" recognized via Freud in his "the return of the repressed."

Said another way--and, from Harvard philosopher Santayana: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

If we are unable to learn from history (our own history, or that of a collective)--owing to the fact of its severity, high pain quotient, etc.--it persists, i.e., it is manifest in new--and often grotesque--ways...

Is not the current "administration", then, a grotesquerie? Is there a more applicable adjective? What?

Posted by: Dean Taylor at February 13, 2011 08:09 PM

"a grotesquerie? Is there a more applicable adjective?"

grotesque editing: a noun.

Posted by: Dean Taylor at February 13, 2011 08:16 PM

"I wish that someday I could have a beer with Barack Obama (or anyone who's intelligent and perceptive and has risen to a high level in U.S. politics) and ask how they justify to themselves the brazen lies they (apparently) have to tell as part of their job."

I strongly suspect that, a lot of the time, they really do believe their own bullshit. The ability to truly believe lies (and even contradictory lies), whilst you are simultaneously in possession of the information which makes it obvious that they are lies, is one of the keys to success in politics. (And sales. Same thing really...)

Posted by: Dunc at February 14, 2011 09:05 AM

Freedom, Justice, Peace, Prosperity, Democracy......
all bloody lies......

"Bombay Dub Orchestra - Beauty And The East"

Posted by: Rupa Shah at February 14, 2011 11:19 AM

Rupa Shah: Compelling video, THANX.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 14, 2011 03:09 PM

Rupa Shah: That is a fantastic video. It's too bad they didn't add a cat playing with yarn to get it a million hits.

Posted by: N E at February 14, 2011 07:25 PM

Long rant, only barely on topic, to follow.

Posted by: rob payne at February 11, 2011 06:46 PM Obama strikes me as having a rather mediocre mind, his comments from the beginning were ludicrous and changed with whichever way the wind was blowing, and showed complete ignorance of what was happening in Egypt. I think the truth is Obama is just an asshole, and a stupid asshole to boot.

This, of course, contraticts the party line, which is that Obama, unlike Bush, Is Smart, whereas Bush was Stupid.

As a general rule, if a difficult-to-quantify adjetive is thrown around by the MSM, the truth is the complete fucking opposite.

You still get a lot of people selling this idea. The fact of the matter is that Obama's intelligence is, quite frankly, pedestrian. Clinton displayed far more cunning and rhetorical skill than Obama -- Bill, that is, not Hillary. In fact, I don't think Clinton really faltered until Lewinsky where his emotions got the better of him. Thus was Clinton able to enact incredibly shitty policies without anyone in the MSM really noticing. Nearly 100% of rightwing/MSM (pretty much the same thing with the exception noted infra) criticism of Clinton was about bullshit that either wasn't true (large government crap, the exactly wrong take on Clinton's warmongering) or wasn't relevant (Lewinsky). And Clinton came out of it with flat-out better numbers for the U.S. population.

Bill Clinton is a complete piece of shit. And when he ran the U.S., we were generally happier than we are now.

Obama is a twit. He believes a great deal of what he sells, and he believes it with a fanaticism that, quite frankly, I don't think most white people really got. You have to seriously buy into the establishment way of thinking to succeed in law, business, and politics while black, or, alternatively, you have to be seriously cunning. Obama never desplayed the latter.

His policies aren't just bad, they're freakn' unartful. He never throws us a bone. Any good thing he's accomplished has been, quite literally, done only if it costs him no political capital with the aristocracy. Clinton's triangulation crushed the Democratic party because Clinton couldn't give two damp shits about the Democrats -- it would never undermine him and he knew it. Obama's rightwing policies have actually undermined Obama's popularity in a way he obviously doesn't want.

If Obama is smart, then Clinton must be a genius. That is obviously going too far. But, what of Bush in this formulation? Since Obama continued Bush's policies, are they both fucking morons? Nope. They are fools for different reasons.

Obama is a closed-minded, self-involved dipshit, much like Bush, though Obama's ego isn't nearly as fragile. The difference, then, is Obama is strongly academically trained, while Bush is willfully ignorant. Remarkably, the result is exactly the same! Obama's academic and beltway-circuit experience makes him unaware of anything outside of the party line; Bush's disdain of, well, having to know more stuff than is strictly speaking necessary makes him unaware of anything outside of the party line.

You get a hyper version of this in Clarence Thomas, btw. Once again, we have a man who subdues his intellect to appease an empire, but Thomas goes further by trading casual contempt for outright loathing of those he betrayed. Note how Obama becomes substantially less charming once he's annoyed that we aren't slavishly following him (he and his representatives, that is). Thomas is the extreme version of that. Non-rightwingers never backed Bush in the first place, so he never had reason to address us, even less to be annoyed by us.

Posted by: No One of Consequence at February 15, 2011 12:16 AM

Btw, slave heritage is completely irrelevant, and it annoys me that people of any race keep bringing it up. Obama's issue is that he is a beneficiary of white privilege (after paying the appropriate price). That's it. That's all. Any black person with sufficient means can do it. Being "descended from slaves" doesn't mean shit.

Further, if you have the right rhetoritician, being descended from slaves is a point of pride. Keep in mind that U.S. history leads to wacky all-or-nothing conclusions when it comes to virtue. Without slavery and theft, whites in the U.S. would have accomplished damn near nothing. Thus, with a fair reading of history, that gives blacks a ridiculously compelling heritage. You can trace pretty much all of modern popular music to black artists -- rock is rock because a black man transformed the guitar from a backing instrument into a lead instrument (yes, I'm simplifying), and jazz and soul's contributions are similarly immense. So when it comes to the arts and industry, 13% of the population is deemed absolutely essential -- and yet has received the worst that society had to offer. Blacks look positively badass in comparison, which is actually a problem for european americans looking for something to feel proud of when reading history honestly. White privilege has the nasty effect of undermining european american accomplishments -- it's like the asterix baseball players have in the hall of fame. All caste systems poison their victims and beneficiaries both. Note that attempting to undermine this requires you to go violently against the system; european americans could, for example, beam with pride over John Brown and hardcore abolitionists, but the former was declared a terrorist and no one remembers the names of the latter.

Obama's "blackness" is in and of itself an aspect of white privilege -- which is why the entire descended-from-slaves issue is a fucking joke. Do tell: why is Obama black? If you're european american and half-anything-from-europe-and-a-good-chunk-of-asia, you're pure white. If you're have european american and something that's not white, you usually get a hyphen -- you're still white. Half black and half white -- you're black, full stop.

The answer, of course, is the One Drop Rule. So whites in the U.S., in a fit of smug self-satisfaction (and, alas, some blacks did this, too), claimed to repudiate racism by voting for the man who was designated black by one of the most quintessentially racist rules in the U.S., where said individual was both a beneficiary and (a million times more importantly) a proponent of white privilege.

Obama, as far as Obama is concerned, is a success, and has much of which to be proud -- as is often the case of a self-concerned asshole. His problem isn't that he's white -- our problem is that he's white. His value system is blinkered. If divine providence picked the "whitest" boy in Appalachia and put that kid in the White House and that young man disdained the privilege of skin color (which, having previously been poor, availed him little) and backed the poor, we'd have the best president we've had in a century, even if he was an idiot.

And, as if I hadn't ranted enough, I should point out that Obama is worse for blacks than Bush was (with the only exception being that the Justice Department may be hearing voting rights claims again). Obama is more effective in getting right wing policies enacted. Obama was easily the worst possible candidate in the primary -- absolutely, with no fucking doubt, and if you didn't know that during the primary you were either ignorant (absolutely no shame in that) or one of the "liberal" jackasses who either a) were being arrogantly glib in their analysis (and then said their mea culpas, like many of the fine -- no sarcasm -- people on this site) or b) were an establishment prick and probably still back Obama. I knew, without a doubt, that Obama was going to murder children via military and economic policies, and when I opposed him, I was going to be blamed for the difficulties of his administration. "Obviously, it's the left-wing fringe that's causing the problem," I knew they'd say.

You can see why I'm so free with the "fuck yous."

If you got it wrong in the primary and still think you made a decent choice in picking Obama, there aren't enough "fuck yous" on Earth to establish my feelings on the matter.

Not to put to fine a point on it.

Posted by: No One of Consequence at February 15, 2011 12:33 AM

"Obama is a closed-minded, self-involved dipshit, much like Bush, though Obama's ego isn't nearly as fragile. The difference, then, is Obama is strongly academically trained, while Bush is willfully ignorant. Remarkably, the result is exactly the same! Obama's academic and beltway-circuit experience makes him unaware of anything outside of the party line; Bush's disdain of, well, having to know more stuff than is strictly speaking necessary makes him unaware of anything outside of the party line."

Very well put. In the past I've struggled sometimes to explain to people with a casual interest in politics why I see GWB and Obama as remarkably alike, and beyond their hubris I've never really pinpointed it.

Of course in GWB's case I think his doing (comparatively)less harm on the domestic front is largely a matter of having been preoccupied with the foreign policy and empire building stuff.

Posted by: Jonathan Versen at February 15, 2011 03:04 AM

"Remarkably, the result is exactly the same!"

Of course, there is another more obvious conclusion, which is that who is President isn't nearly as important as everybody believes, and changing the identity of the President alone doesn't change that much.

But that of course takes some of the fun out of bitching about the President and the President's jackass supporters. NOOC should probably conserve on the FUCK YOUs, because they're going to be needed for a long time given how badly Americans misunderstand their own political system. Egg-headed philosphers like he and I do not get a pass.

It seems to me that people will blame everything on the latest figurehead forever, over and over again, and what's worthy of some mockery is that people feel smugly superior about this view, as if their views would really lead to change if only everyone else agreed with them. It never seems to occur to these prattling philosophers that the prevalence of their views is part of what makes the system stable in the same recurring cycle of false hope, disillusionment, anger, and newly misplaced hope that sums up American political history. This was already going on in the U.S. and had been for some time when the ship carrying my mother's mother from Norway picked up survivors from the Titanic. And still it continues with no end in sight.

Sisyphus with a bolder, that's American politics, not that we're so exceptional there either. It's probably politics everywhere, and will be until somebody builds a political system based on broad universal participation of the people. But jeez, that isn't even in sight. Our problems go way, way beyond who is President--old Chomsky is right about that.

Posted by: N E at February 15, 2011 07:32 AM

Michelle Obama's Senior Thesis at Princeton, B.A. in Sociology, 1985 - "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community"

[quoting Michelle Obama] "The purpose of this study is to examine various attitudes of Black Princeton alumni in their present state and as they are perceived by the alumni to have changed over time. ..."These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant. This realization has presently, made my goals to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community more desirable."

From Politico:

Michelle Obama's senior year thesis at Princeton University, obtained from the campaign by Politico, shows a document written by a young woman grappling with a society in which a black Princeton alumnus might only be allowed to remain "on the periphery." Read the full thesis here: [links in original article]

"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.'


Perhaps one of the most germane subjects approached in the thesis is a section in which she conveyed views about political relations between black and white communities. She quotes the work of sociologists James Conyers and Walter Wallace, who discussed "integration of black official(s) into various aspects of politics" and notes "problems which face these black officials who must persuade the white community that they are above issues of race and that they are representing all people and not just black people," as opposed to creating "two separate social structures."

To research her thesis, the future Mrs. Obama sent an 18-question survey to a sampling of 400 black Princeton graduates, requesting the respondents define the amount of time and "comfort" level spent interacting with blacks and whites before they attended the school, as well as during and after their University years. Other questions dealt with their individual religious beliefs, living arrangements, careers, role models, economic status, and thoughts about lower class blacks. In addition, those surveyed were asked to choose whether they were more in line with a "separationist and/or pluralist" viewpoint or an "integrationist and/or assimilationist" ideology.

Just under 90 alums responded to the questionnaires (for a response rate of approximately 22 percent) and the conclusions were not what she expected. "I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.".

Read the rest at

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. at February 15, 2011 09:54 AM

Presidential importance is a circular argument. If we had a president that was worth a damn, he would be singularly important. This is why the system is rigged to prevent that. 2008 was a glorious example of this, which is why I pollute lefty blog after lefty blog with the same damn rant -- my equivalent of Mike Meyer's all-capitals call-your-rep plea.

We. Had. A. Shot. Seriously. It was there.

It is important to understand why that was a complete and absolute failure. That failure is exactly how the game is rigged.

But, in any event, if the president is not part of the establishment, he is, quite literally, the most important person in the world. Seriously. U.S. power is, ultimately, the result of local control domestically and violence abroad. A moral president could abolish that system of power within months of taking office. Sure, the backlash would be legendary, but ya' know what helps that? The U.S. military, brought home, with their establishment generals fired, backing his play.

This is the part where, if I'm announcing this view in public, the conspiracy theory lover (not that he's the only one thinking it, but he's the one who enjoys mentioning this the most) would say that that president is assassination-bait. And y'know what? He's right. I have no doubt that assassination, in this incredible hypothetical, is the next step. And it doesn't matter. Any president with enough competency to pull this off would have already massed a tremendous popular movement; his death would lead to a very, very bloody revolution, assuming he had bothered to throw up a few institutions that could survive his killing. And at that point it's open season on not just the rich, like the Koch brothers, but on Congressmen. This isn't absurd -- it's the worst case scenario, which is why we can NEVER be allowed to win at the primary level. (This is why Kucinich is always the wrong horse to back -- imagine him attempting any of the above.)

This can never be allowed to happen. The subsequent revolution would shake the foundations of this planet.

So we get a choad instead. And, yeah, the choad is indistinguishable from the other choads because they are in lockstep. The president isn't unimportant; he diminishes his own importance by choice.

Note that a more well-meaning choad is entirely possible. Edwards, for example, would have been good in comparison to the others. But if you think his campaign blew up due to attrition, you're smoking crack rock. He fucked with the insurance comanies and they fucked with him twice as hard. Like Kucinich, he never had the cunning to back up his policies.

And I'm right, btw, to reserve venom for "liberals" who continue this problem. The upper-middle class so-called liberal is the most important part of the Democratic party, bar fucking none. Everyone else is replaceable. Without our Digbys to worship at the altar of the state, the Dems would be as naked as the Repubs and people would start doing crazy shit like reading Black Agenda Report and Arthur Silber. Gwen Ifill is far more dangerous than Rush Limbaugh.

And, I gotta say, the former ilk is way more irritating at parties. I mean, how many racist rightwingers show up at your shendigs? Probably none, excluding family. But everyone on this site has to deal with the Obama supporter in person.

Posted by: No One of Consequence at February 15, 2011 12:05 PM

"A moral president could abolish that system of power within months of taking office."

That statement to me does not show much understanding of how power is obtained and maintained. It ain't no accident that what you'd like never happens.

Posted by: N E at February 15, 2011 02:16 PM

Hm. Funny -- I was thinking the same thing about you, especially since I pointed out that prevention was why my eventuality would not come to pass -- whereas you maintain the naive and blatantly contradictory claim that the very person you complain does not use power simultaneously does not have power.

Indeed, this line:

It ain't no accident that what you'd like never happens.

. . . suggests that there was some reading comprehension fail since part of the point of my previous post was that "what you'd like never happens." I think you missed the point completely -- I can't even tell where your error begins or ends. But hey, feel free to criticize the holder of an office you claim isn't important if wasting your time publicly is what you're into.

Posted by: No One of Consequence at February 15, 2011 06:23 PM

"if wasting your time publicly is what you're into"

that is obviously what i do here

"the holder of an office you claim isn't important"

I never made that claim, oh great reader.

As to my supposed self contradictions, I reread what I wrote before, and I didn't say what you thought it did, but frankly I sound like such a grumpy windbag and pompous know-it-all that it hardly matters, and it is funny that I mentioned Sisyphus and misspelled "boulder." Still, I feel like embracing my inner illiterate pretentiousness sometimes, so wtf.

All that being said, your observation does in my opinion reflect a very common serious misunderstanding of power, and one that helps Americans hold on to the misplaced belief that our political system works. Presidents sometimes in particular moments have lots of power, but they can't obtain it or maintain it the way I understand you to be describing. Not that this excuses cowardice or mediocrity, let alone evil, but it does make the results we get understandable.

Posted by: N E at February 15, 2011 10:59 PM

Well He looks black to me, what can I say? I'm thinking he'll never make it past the application/hazing portion of "The Good Ole Boyz Club". That ALL important KKK Grand Dragon approval, like Georgie and Deadeye got ain't comming I'm afraid.

RACISM IS THE POLITICS OF AMERICA AND BIGOTRY HER SOUL. OUR racism is steeped in slavery and OUR slavery is steeped in racism, and the two are inseparable.

Michelle is quite correct, black first and a student second. To half this nation Obama IS black first and President second. And I'm one. That's PRECISELY the reason he IS PROGRESS. Sure he follows the Cheney/Bush policy line, BUT that problem is with US not him. NO MATTER WHOM WE ELECTED, THEY WOULD KILL CHILDREN BECAUSE WE KILL CHILDREN. Its OUR national policy. (U&I PAY 4 it) (hell, WE let OUR kids get molested, in masse, at the airport, why worry about killing the neighbors kids? ALL in the name of OUR INTERESTS AND SECURITY)

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 15, 2011 11:12 PM

Very nice post, good luck! ;-)

Posted by: viagra from canada at February 15, 2011 11:47 PM

Telling brazen lies when situationally required

Jonathan, try this to get practice at enjoying uttering falsehoods and imagining what that part of being a leader is like. Here's a description of a game I would play, decades ago, with friends and relatives. I don't recall who I learned it from. We called it Dictionary, but apparently the most common name is Fictionary. So says Wikipedia, from whom the following text is taken.

Fictionary, also known as the Dictionary Game or simply Dictionary, is a word game in which players guess the definition of an obscure word.

A turn consists of one player picking a word from the dictionary and each other player composing a fake definition. A round is completed when each player has selected a word to be guessed.

Players earn points (1) by guessing the correct definition of a word, (2) by composing a fake definition that other players guess is the correct one, and (3) as Picker, selecting a genuine definition that no players vote for.

The winner is the player who has earned the most points after a pre-determined number of rounds.


* A large, preferably unabridged dictionary
* A pencil, pen or other writing implement for each player
* Notecards or identical pieces of paper for each player

Order of play

Individual house rules may vary when playing Fictionary, but play usually proceeds like this:

One player, the Picker for the turn, chooses an obscure word from the dictionary and announces and spells it to the other players. The chosen word should be one that no other player knows. If a player is familiar with the chosen word, he or she should say so and the picker should choose a different word. (Cheating only gains one point for the cheater anyway.)

If a word has more than one definition listed, the Picker privately chooses which one to use. Generally, the Picker can edit the dictionary definition as s/he thinks is most strategic.

Each player writes a crafty and credible definition of the word, initials it, and submits it to the word picker. The Picker shuffles the definitions, including their own, which is the correct one. As definitions are handed to him, the picker should check them over to ensure that they can read the handwriting and to clarify any questions. (Stumbling over or misreading a definition is usually a sign that it's not the correct one—unless the picker is trying to bluff.)

Once all definitions have been handed in, the picker reads the list aloud, once. The Picker may read the definitions in any order. On a second reading, each other player in turn then votes for the definition he or she believes is correct. Because the picker selected the word and knows the definition, the picker does not vote.

One variation allows a player to vote for the definition he submitted, although he doesn't get points for doing so. (This can encourage other people to vote for that definition as well, and the player would get those points.) Another variation does not allow a player to vote for his own definition.


Players earn one point for voting for the correct definition, and one point for each vote cast for the definition they wrote. (Other traditions for scoring award more points for guessing the correct definition than you get for picking your own.)

The Picker earns three points if no one selects the correct definition. There are variations where the picker earns no points during their round as picker, fairness being achieved by ensuring that all players take equal numbers of turns as picker.

Play then proceeds with the dictionary going to another player, which starts a new turn. A full circuit of the dictionary constitutes a round.


Often simple words (Strunt) are more successful than complicated words with detectable Latin roots.

Phrases like "Any of several..." or "One or more..." sometimes lend authority to definitions. Players may decide beforehand whether fields are to be included: "(obsolete), (Geology), (dialect)," etc. The dictionary might be passed around first, to remind players of its characteristic style.

Playing for laughs, especially with friends, can be even more fun than getting the most points. Depends on the definition of winning.

Posted by: don't click here at February 16, 2011 07:58 AM
Posted by: N E at February 15, 2011 10:59 PM

"the holder of an office you claim isn't important"

I never made that claim, oh great reader.

Posted by: N E at February 15, 2011 07:32 AM

Of course, there is another more obvious conclusion, which is that who is President isn't nearly as important as everybody believes, and changing the identity of the President alone doesn't change that much.

You can add dissembling to your order of snide contempt -- the latter works out better when you aren't eating your own words, though.

I suspect you're laboring under the delusion that American politics is somehow different from politics anywhere else in the world. I cannot be sure; like I said, I have no idea from whence your naievete (and projection thereof) derives. In any event, the only real rule is that people do what you let them do. Our society runs on convention (like the vast majority of societies), not law. The government operates extralegally with a regularity that should bore anyone who isn't ignorant. The only thing limiting presidential power is the reach and breadth of its backers -- which is exactly the same thing that generates it. Handwaving mysterious forces into existence which keep the president impotent is, of course, fine for the internet, the very home of stupid ideas, but expecting anyone to treat you with respect afterwards is a notion as ludicrous as the initial claim.

Posted by: No One of Consequence at February 16, 2011 10:18 AM

You really want to know what these people think? Get a job waiting tables at Sushi Taro or Bibiana. You'll hear exactly what they think when they think no one is listening. (Waitrons don't count as people, dontcha know.)

Posted by: AlanSmithee at February 16, 2011 12:21 PM

You know what's funny? I always read the comment threads on these posts, and I cannot recall a single instance of anybody saying, "You're right; I was wrong, and my worldview has been shifted in a fundamental way as a result of your cogently argued comment."

What I do read, however, is "I hate this world because it does not conform to my ideas, fuck it and fuck you" over and over and over.

Sometimes it's dressed up rhetorically, sometimes it's in ALL CAPS (hi Mike!) but it's always the same. Words as therapy, not communication.

Nothing wrong with it IMHO--writing or reading (after all, I'm reading)--but I do have to smile when it purports to be something different, which most of these comments do constantly; "comment as educating others" is a position of power, while "comment as therapy" is not.

Commenting because it's better than shooting up a post office is one thing; but the best solution of all would be resolving the suicidal/murderous feelings, and I wish commenting did that. It doesn't seem to. All you people are so smart, and I wish being here wasn't so goddamn uncomfortable for you. It's uncomfortable for me, too, but commenting seems to make it all WORSE, sharper and more embedded, for me at least.

Posted by: Mike of Angle at February 16, 2011 02:42 PM

Mike of Angle: Well, say something that will change our view. (notice no all cap words.)If I may say, calling the speaker seems a good way to begin a change of direction more so than venting, actual activism. If we put people in office and walk away, don't comunicate our desires for specific action, then how can we expect them to follow those directions? They aren't mind readers.
As far as the caps, I look at as art, I'm saddened that most people don't. Maybe after I deceased.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 16, 2011 03:50 PM

from Democracy Now!:

Boehner: "So Be It" If Federal Workers Lose Jobs Under Cuts

"On Capitol Hill, Republicans are vowing to push for deeper spending cuts as Congress takes up President Obama’s $3.7 trillion proposed budget. Republican leaders say Obama’s plan does not go far enough in trimming the federal deficit. The proposal includes a record base budget of $553 billion for the Pentagon as well as widespread cuts to social programs, including heating assistance for the poor. On Tuesday, House Majority Leader John Boehner sparked controversy after shrugging off the prospect that spending cuts will leave thousands of government workers unemployed. Boehner said, "So be it."

John: your rectum might fall out of your pants as you go to church this Sunday to pray to the Good Lordy Lordy (e.g., for your "suntan")...

everyone: "So be it!"

again, Democacry Now!:

"Boehner went on to add that funding for Social Security and Medicare could also be targeted, saying, 'Republicans will not punt. Everything is on the table.'"

Ah, yes: everything is on the table--like, e.g., your orange, oh-so-flaccid butt cheeks when, in congress, you turn around to "pledge allegiance to the flag, of the..."

Posted by: Dean Taylor at February 16, 2011 06:36 PM

Your cogent arguments are always right, but I can't say they've changed my worldview.

I guess the problem is on the internet everybody's a dog, a splitter, or both.


Posted by: lurking gnome at February 16, 2011 06:42 PM

Dog? Splitter?

Posted by: Mike of Angle at February 16, 2011 02:42 PM

What I do read, however, is "I hate this world because it does not conform to my ideas, fuck it and fuck you" over and over and over.

Personally, I care less about principle and more about not being shot or job deprived. There is a vast difference between complaining about an idea and a policy. It's cool that this is academic for you, though.

I actually was discussing this topic with someone earlier today. People do change their minds due to blogs sometimes -- I've seen it -- but that isn't common enough, usually, to really seek. What I hope is that people become more obviously obstinate. That is, blogs encourage people to match their appearance with their favored policies. If a reader heads over to LGF or stormfront and becomes a more obvious racist, good. If a reader heads over Chris Floyd's site and becomes more vocally compassionate, good. Perhaps this will diminish self-delusion, but I'm not concerned with that -- what I want is that people strip away the distinction between their outward persona and their policies. Would-be liberals becoming out-and-out neocons is a win; concerned mother becoming anti-war activist is also a win. Obfuscation serves regressive and immoral policies more than moral ones, so I think moral policies end up winning in the long run. Anger leads to entrenchment, and, in my experience (I can't prove this with a lot of empirical data, but it's a good guess), entrenchment leads to advertising one's positions.

All you people are so smart, and I wish being here wasn't so goddamn uncomfortable for you. It's uncomfortable for me, too, but commenting seems to make it all WORSE, sharper and more embedded, for me at least.

This site is tremendously more comfortable to me than the Real World, not that I post on it or others with significant regularity. Keep in mind that if someone unjustly attacks another off the web, there are often tremendous social institutions that may protect, or even reward, the aggressor. In contrast, if you can point out to even one person that an asshole is an asshole on the web, you're way ahead of the game.

The internet is uncivil because it is uncontrolled; the rest of human experience is uncivil because it's controlled. If your little corner of reality presents itself as remarkably civil as compared to the web, that's awesome, but that is not the mode of human experience.

Posted by: No One of Consequence at February 16, 2011 10:53 PM


Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 17, 2011 07:38 AM


Thanks for reminding me that I am not the most pompous prick around, because I was beginning to worry about myself.

Not to be technical, but the President is obviously important (that's why a bunch of them have survived or not survived assassination attempts), and yet the President is also not nearly as important as you and nearly everyone else believes. I could go on and on and on about that, and good lord have I ever done so too many times, but frankly, nobody gives a shit and I've got other deeds to do now. I will say that you'll have to do some actual work to have knowledge equaling your pretentions, and maybe Chris Floyd will give teach you something profound now and again, so good luck with that. Personally, I don't trust him because of some utter bullshit he once praised, and because he tends to rant in your style, which I think leads nowhere and which I associate with charlatans.

By the way, yes, an asshole is an asshole, but remember that it doesn't always have to smell like one. Nobody thinks they are self-deluded, especially when they are more self-deluded than everyone else. That goes for both of us, of course, but if you're thinking right now about how it applies only to me, that should tell you something alarming.

Finally, I think "vocally compassionate" is pretty commonplace. Personally, I prefer actual compassion, though I obviously do have some appreciation of 'vocal compassion' when I think someone needs it. I'm actually even more of a scrapper than an egg-head, when push comes to shove. So if you push, I'll shove. Salud!

Posted by: N E at February 17, 2011 11:37 AM

Sorry Mike (of Angle), you're a better man than I am!

Posted by: N E at February 17, 2011 11:40 AM


Dog. Splitter.


Posted by: lurking gnome at February 17, 2011 11:48 AM

Still don't get splitter; that was the actual source of confusion.

Posted by: N E at February 17, 2011 11:37 AM

. . . yet the President is also not nearly as important as you and nearly everyone else believes.

Oh sure: you're not a completely pompous asshole, but you can always revel in the privilege of handwaving the importance of the most personally powerful individual on Earth. No matter what I say, you can always take refuge in ambiguity and say "no, he's not that important."

Try something here: try to be a more condescending asshole than you are now. No, seriously, give it a shot. I'd wager that you can't add to that.

This is especially notable considering that the context here is that, ultimately, ne's position would absolve himself or herself of responsibility for an Obama primary vote (or similar political stance). Never mind the facts, backing the establishment pol that fucked you or me over will never have moral impact because the president isn't all that important.

. . . [Chris Floyd] tends to rant in your style. . .

News to me. His online voice is markedly different from what I do. I've never seen him use a cluster f-bomb, or compare an authority figure or foreign policy to effluvia. I'm guessing you're more concerned about content; that is, you read something on his site that was true that you wanted to be false and were miffed. I couldn't care less about Floyd's presentation; I care that he is consistently presenting a worldview that makes brown people who live very far away out to be actual people. This may not be your cup of tea, but it's a difference in fact, not presentation.

Nobody thinks they are self-deluded, especially when they are more self-deluded than everyone else.

In addition, I couldn't care less about self-delusion vis-a-vis the internet. I already said that. As I implied above -- which would have been clear to anyone who bothered to respect someone in the conversation enough to actually read the text -- correcting error rarely happens on the web. I was looking for something very different, something that is actually often the opposite of error correction. But hey, work that strawman.

Seriously, do it. Play the prick, I say, not out of sarcasm this time. This digression began when ne threw out a snide insult with no criteria linking the shot to the (invalid) claim that was supposed to back it, all because he or she wasn't too keen on the idea that an Obama vote was immoral. This is excellent. Our problem is people aren't consistently obnoxious in this particular way in real life. If people who were this assholish had been this assholish before the 2008 election, the false sense of unity that many contra-Bush persons had with each other would have been undermined, perhaps even abolished. (Okay, now I'm being excessively hopeful, but there was a chance.) If you want to get something done in society, the first step is knowing who your friends are. With that in mind:

Remember: political decisions you make that cause other people harm have no moral dimension! If victims complain, dismiss them as intellectually addled. Express your position publicly! Complain about "those people" at parties, laugh at them with co-workers! Own that shit. Let every man and woman be what they are in the light that they are in the dark. Let us end the irl/web distinction.

Incidentally, while I remain annoyed by all-caps in most correspondence, I actually have trouble reading Mike Meyer's posts unless something in it is in all-caps. My brain has carved out an exception just for this site. Anything can become the new normal. I need to do more drugs.

Posted by: No One of Consequence at February 17, 2011 01:06 PM

@No One: We. Had. A. Shot. Seriously. It was there.

What the farging hell are you talking about?

If you want us to treat you with anything but contempt, state the facts you believe we don't accept. And if we actually disagree, give a rational argument for your position.

Posted by: hf at February 17, 2011 01:14 PM


. . . "clear to anyone who bothered to respect someone in the conversation"

Excellent use of irony.

"I need to do more drugs."

Maybe not.

Posted by: N E at February 17, 2011 02:26 PM


Splitters: The People's Front of Judea hates the Judean People's Front for their minor differences, despite their shared hatred of the Romans. They undermine each other as much or more than they fight their shared oppressors. They are paranoid rather than affiliative.

And that's the internet. We don't know enough about the people behind the pseudonyms to trust them (they might be dogs), so we push them away based on the minor differences that aggravate us (assuming they are splitters and becoming splitters ourselves).

It might not have been a proper joke, but whatever it was you killed it dead.


Posted by: lurking gnome at February 17, 2011 02:50 PM

Why can't we all just get along? Whyyyyyyyyy?

Posted by: AlanSmithee at February 17, 2011 03:02 PM

AlanSmithee: BECAUSE that's revolution, THAT'S democracy.

lurking gnome: WE are much, much better off THIS way. SAFETY FIRST, it fun till someone gets a eye poked out.

ONE&ALL: The election was RIGGED two ways. First and foremost, it was a TOTALLY PROGRESSIVE election. 2 women ran and had an excellent shot for the WH.(Hillary&Sarah) A blackman did indeed win and THAT of itself made it WORTHWHILE to vote for him. THAT CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF AMERICA forever, a DESPERATELY NEEDED 90 degree turn.

Second: They are ALL ASSSHOLES and would sell out their own mothers for a nickel and there is NO WAY around that.

Win some, lose some, but then "Ain't that America, U&ME babe".

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 17, 2011 03:37 PM