web analytics
From the monthly archives: June 2010

So I’m pretty sure that my top “slam head against wall until consciousness winks out” moment for 2010 so far is all the media claptrap about how “OMFG, Seriously!  Obama should be…  DOING SOMETHING!!!111!!! about the OIL SPILL!  …  SOMETHING!!!!”

John Cole paraphrases a piece of just such nonsense in the NY Times thusly:

Shorter NY Times Editorial Board: “There isn’t much Obama can do about the oil spill, but he should be doing more of it!”

Metavirus filed this under: , ,  

While making my morning tea, I noticed that my sugar box was so kind as to inform me that it doesn’t contain cholesterol. 

Um, why is that necessary?  Of course it doesn’t!  Cholesterol only comes from animal products!


Metavirus filed this under:  
I came up with this little gem today on Facebook in response to someone lamenting the joining of Sarah Palin’s forces with Carly Fiorina:
i think it was chris rock who made a good point about how we will know when equality has truly arrived.

it is not when one of the smartest black guys on the planet (i.e. obama) can become president.

we will know that equality has arrived when a STUPID black guy (i.e. a black dubya) can become president.

in this way, i am at least glad that it is now evident that women have (mostly) attained equality — because craven, ignorant dipshits like Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina may well someday be President.

{ shudder }

{ 1 comment }
Metavirus filed this under: , ,  

Sharp post on social security means testing from Sully:

Catherine Rampell studies a new report on how much seniors rely on social security:
As you can seen, elderly Americans in the bottom income quintile receive 88.4 percent of their income from Social Security. Members of the highest income quintile receives less than a quarter of their income from this source.
I reiterate my longstanding position: social security should be seen as insurance, not investment. You pay in to ensure that you do not retire or die in penury. But if you have managed to find a way to live well without that security, you don’t get your premiums back. I know this is not how it was sold in the first place; I know this violates core liberal principles about social welfare (but screw you, I’m not a liberal); but in a fiscal crisis where every dollar counts, means-testing the wealthy elderly seems to me an easy call. 
I can’t say that I’m very versed in “who believes what” about this but I really can’t understand why anyone would be opposed to phasing out social security benefits for the wealthy.

What am I missing?

Sully highlights some truly dramatic figures on Drug Prohibition:

The cost of that skyrocket you see above?
We calculate that a reduction by one-half in the incarceration rate of non-violent offenders would lower correctional expenditures by $16.9 billion per year and return the U.S. to about the same incarceration rate we had in 1993 (which was already high by historical standards). The large majority of these savings would accrue to financially squeezed state and local governments, amounting to about one-fourth of their annual corrections budgets. As a group, state governments could save $7.6 billion, while local governments could save $7.2 billion.
And that doesn’t even include the untold billions in lost economic productivity (and tax revenue) caused by locking up millions of petty drug offenders.  Will sanity ever win out?

Via Buzzfeed, we now have incontrovertible logic that the president is to blame for the Gulf oil spill.

Quod erat demonstratum, McShitforbrains.

Rupert Psmith filed this under: , ,  

Via Buzzfeed, we now have incontrovertible logic that the president is to blame for the Gulf oil spill.

Quod erat demonstratum, McShitforbrains.

Rupert Psmith filed this under: , ,  

Your Vintners