So You’re Going to Be Arrested at a Protest

First of all, shame on you: protesting is un-American. Unless it’s the kind of protesting that involves yelling about runaway government spending while you’re seated comfortably in a Rascal scooter purchased with some of that sweet Medicare cash. But since you’re determined to be a hippie about it, here’s some advice for staying out of trouble once the heroes in blue decide to arrest your stinky, anarchist ass:

1. Be polite.

This would be obvious to any protestor who was at a legitimate protest (you know, one where you compare the president to a monkey or a terrorist or something), but since you’re some kind of Goddamn socialist, I’m forced to remind you that saying “Please” before “don’t taze me, bro,” is the best way to approach your situation. As is saying “Thank You” after you’re boot-stomped for trying to push your girlfriend out of the way of a swinging truncheon.

2. Shut your damn mouth.

Our heroes in blue don’t want to hear about the metal plate in your skull that you got while you were serving your fourth tour in Afghanistan. The only talk from you should be the aforementioned niceties, or perhaps an offer to narc on your hippie buddies.

3. Remember that you’re not the only one in trouble.

That’s right, asshole: your dipshit politics have gotten your nice little friends police records. Was making some sort of point about a banker’s well-deserved salary really worth the price of seeing your little brother get curb-stomped by a hero in blue? Maybe you should give up some info before anyone else gets hurt–didn’t you get a falafel from an Arab guy earlier? What’s his story?

4. Don’t throw shit at the police.

And don’t stand next to the people throwing shit. In fact, why don’t you just stand across the street at the Dunkin’ Donuts? Just get a cherry blossom donut and forget all about the oligarchy that America has become.

5. Make friends quickly.

If you end up in jail, make friends quickly. Then offer to rat them out. You’re doing the right thing, son.

Advertisements

David Brooks Would Like Obama to Top Paul Ryan With Something Big

David Brooks, keeper of Burke’s reanimated corpse and devotee of madcap monarchism, is disappointed in Obama:

President Obama is an intelligent, judicious man who can see all sides of an issue. But every once in a while he tries to get politically cute, and he puts on his Keith Olbermann mask.

I suppose it’s to his credit that he’s most inept when he tries to take the low road. He resorts to hoary, brain-dead clichés. He wanders so far from his true nature that he makes Mitt Romney look like Mr. Authenticity.

That’s pretty much what happened this week in Obama’s speech before a group of newspaper editors. Obama’s target in this speech was Representative Paul Ryan’s budget.

Yes, the one time that Obama indulges in the rhetorical flourishes that commonly seep from the hemorrhoidic buttocks of the Republitards he is decidedly worse than Gaius Julius Mittensus Caesar, Emperor of Romneyland and Bearer of the Gold Standard of American Meritocratic Failure. Worse still, his target was Paul Ryan, the handsome little man with the big fat plan!

But before Brooks delves too deep into the pit of right-wing ideological adulation, he wants to remind us of his philosophical centrism:

It should be said at the outset that the Ryan budget has some disturbing weaknesses, which Democrats are right to identify. The Ryan budget would cut too deeply into discretionary spending. This could lead to self-destructive cuts in scientific research, health care for poor kids and programs that boost social mobility. Moreover, the Ryan tax ideas are too regressive. They make tax cuts for the rich explicit while they hide any painful loophole closings that might hurt Republican donors.

You see, don’t you?! Brooks acknowledges the difficulties with Ryan’s plan! He’s a true philosopher! Sadly, though the difficulties that he outlines are actually quite convincing, he betrays his argument and goes on to prop up Obama’s reasonable whinging as a dancing straw man (if he only had a brain!):

But these legitimate criticisms and Obama’s modest but real deficit-reducing accomplishments got buried under an avalanche of distortion. The Republicans have been embarrassing themselves all primary season. It’s as if Obama wanted to sink to their level in a single hour.

Again, Brooks equates Obama’s rightly spoken criticisms with the entire Republitard campaign’s rhetorical fracas. So not only does Brooks cast a straw man in his Théâtre de l’Absurde, but he proceeds to light it on fire! Zut alors! Brooks also found Obama’s “tone” to be unacceptable, as well as his use of 80s liberal clichés (paging Ronald Reagan, would Ronald Reagan please report to EVERY FUCKING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE’S STUMP). He then reminds us, in true Brooksian fashion, of his familiarity with the Great Books curriculum:

Social Darwinism, by the way, was a 19th-century philosophy that held, in part, that Aryans and Northern Europeans are racially superior to brown and Mediterranean peoples.

And for those of you following along on your “How to Write an Essay By David Brooks” rubric, now comes the moment when Brooks cites studies to demonstrate his wonkishness and objectivity:

There are, indeed, real differences, but in the short term they are not a chasm. In 2013, according to Veronique de Rugy of George Mason University, the Ryan budget would be about 5 percent smaller than the Obama budget, and it would grow a percent or two more slowly each year. After 10 years, government would be smaller under Ryan, but, as Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute complains, it would still take up a larger share of national output than when Bill Clinton left office.

If only Obama had cited the Cato Institute he wouldn’t have lost all his credibility.

But Brooks isn’t done with Obama yet, because Obama had the temerity to assault Ryan’s asinine Medicare revamp (you know, the one that’s a giant giveaway to the insurance industry, and will likely lead to poor old bastards dying on the street or in their shabby trailers—but fuck them, right? Hahahaha!).

Obama claimed that Ryan’s plan “will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.” Which seems accurate, as that is the ostensible goal of the reform: ending the bloated entitlements and denying the fat coverage that’s bankrupting the nation. But alas, Brooks doesn’t care for that phrasing, most likely because it accurately reflects the plan’s intentions, and so he reminds us that such claims were voted on by the Internetz and were deemed false.

For Brooks, Obama’s rhetoric is a symptom of the pervasive disease: Democrats refuse to do the things that Republicans want them to do without complaining about it. However, it seems as though Brooks’ outrage is the outrage of an assclown; that is to say, he takes Obama to task for something that every Republican has been doing since the beginning of the primaries. According to Brooks, “Obama shouldn’t be sniping at Ryan. He should be topping him with something bigger and better.”

“He should be topping him with something bigger and better…” I see now that I’ve completely misunderstood this piece! Clearly we’ve merely wandered into one of Brooks’ sexual fantasies. Sorry, Dave! But maybe next time leave a fucking tie on the door or something!

Not Surprisingly, Textbook Publishers Don’t Want You to Have Free Textbooks

Sadly, it looks like the days of free textbooks might be over. In a move that shocks no one, at least two publishing giants are suing the small start-up Boundless Learning over the alleged “theft” of content. According to the suit, Boundless Learning “generates these ‘replacement textbooks’ by hiring individuals to copy and paraphrase from Plaintiffs’ textbooks.”

The suit also departs from the characteristic bland language of most lawsuits in a number of places — stating at points that “Defendant teaches only the age-old business model of theft” and that “Boundless gets an ‘F’ in originality.”

Well, if anyone is qualified to comment on theft as a business model, it’s the textbook publishing industry. Naturally, the CEO of Boundless Learning disagrees with the publishing giants:

The content comes from openly licensed educational content, created and posted online by faculty members over the past two decades, and curated by Boundless Learning’s domain experts, he said. Offerings so far are in biology, economics and psychology.

The publishers also contend that Boundless Learning’s products have “a corrosive effect on learning.” Personally, I believe that the runaway inflation of textbook prices is slightly more deleterious to education than what amounts to a more accurately sourced version of Wikipedia, but hey, what the fuck would I know? I couldn’t afford to buy textbooks when I was in school, so I didn’t learn shit.

Anchorage Morons Fight Bravely for Their Right to Discriminate Against the LGBT Community

In a stunning show of stupidity and small-mindedness, Anchorage voters decided to reject a measure that would have prohibited discrimination against members of the LGBT community:

Anchorage voters rejected a proposed ordinance to add legal protections for gay, lesbian and transgender people in a chaotic municipal election fraught with ballot shortages and high voter turnout in many precincts.

With more than 90 percent of the precincts reporting late Tuesday, 58 percent of voters had voted against Proposition 5, the equal rights ordinance that was far and away the most controversial and emotional component of this spring’s election.

It’s about damn time that a brave, Amurrican city stood united against the scourge of the LGBT community, with their musicals and flannels and gender conflict, and said: “Yes, Goddamnit–we would like to discriminate against you!” Sadly, this is the third time that an anti-discrimination proposal has met with rejection in Anchorage (the other two times were not ballot issues, however).

Apparently, the measure was such a hot button issue that polling places ran out of ballots; one hotspot had to resort to photocopying ballots on the school’s Xerox to meet voter demand. Those ballots will be counted as “questioned ballots,” so it remains unclear what the exact percentages will be; despite this, however, the idiots clearly won the day. And the driving force behind the idiots? You guessed it: Jesus.

A group of clergy supporting the ordinance, Christians for Equality, was a key part of organizing efforts, campaign spokesman Trevor Storrs said.

Opponents, campaigning as Vote No On Prop. 5, complained that the law was vague and poorly written and would impinge on the religious freedom of residents opposed to homosexuality. The proposition included an exemption from the law for churches and religious organizations.

I’ll give you a moment to savor the name “Christians for Equality.” Also, take a few minutes and peruse the “Protect Anchorage” website. Just make sure that you have something to release your rage upon after you visit.

But really, one must feel some sympathy for those poor, put-upon American Christians–truly they are the last disadvantaged group in the world! To not be able to discriminate against someone on the basis of some shit scribbled down thousands of years ago is well beyond the pale, sir!

Perhaps it’s unfair for me to paint a portrait of Anchorage based solely on the retards that rejected this proposition; after all, roughly 40% of the people said “Hey, assholes, discrimination isn’t cool–let’s smoke a jay and pet a moose or something.” And I can attest that there are a great many good people in the City of Anchorage who lament the influence of inbred Godtards on Alaskan politics.

Therefore I applaud the minority of citizens who decided that open discrimination is unacceptable and voted against stupidity.

And I issue a hearty “fuck you” to the tyranny of the majority.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.