Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Vote Hypocrite in 2006!

Today's topic of irritation is hypocrisy.

Not that kind of hypocrisy that has a guy who can't cook or use tools watching the Food Network and "While You Were Out."

I'm talking about political hypocrisy.

Now, normally, I stick to slightly less deep subjects, like how many obscene words I can use before my mother yells at me, or humorous stories about my life. (Remind me to tell you the story about my friend shopping for a German car with me, the Jew.)

But today, political hypocrisy is bugging me, and frankly, I can't think of anything else to write about right now.

The inspiration was the political compromise on Senate fillibustering and President Bush's judicial nominees.

Now, for the record, I'm a Democrat, so I'll probably bash the GOP a little more than my own party, but there's plenty of ranting to go around, so don't worry.

(One odd thing about my Civil War book kick: Back in the 1860s, the Republicans were the Democrats, and the Democrats were the Republicans. You know, the Republicans were progressive and the Democrats liked things just the way they were.)

But let us lead off with the issue of "activist judges," which the archconservative Republicans use as a euphemism for "judges who don't rule the way we like." Meanwhile, of course, the president is putting forth judges who are every bit as radical and political, they just happen to rule the other way. So the Democrats are complaining about judicial activism in the fillibuster mess.

Now, when it comes to standing by your guns, let's keep this in mind: This is a president who is racking up a major league budget deficit to fuel his war in Iraq (hang on, we'll get back to that). And he belongs to a party who, not that long ago, wanted to pass not just a law, but a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget - because a "free spending liberal" president, Bill Clinton, was in office.

But hey, now that the GOP's in charge, it's spend-spend-spend. This from the party of small, stay-out-of-your-life government. You know, the guys who wanted a law forcing one particular woman's family to keep her alive despite her being, well, a vegetable.

Hey, people say, it's a culture of life. Right, Mr. Bush? That would be the guy who executed prisoners in Texas like they were having a going-out-of-business sale at the San Antonio House of Lethal Injection Drugs. Oh, and who, as the "Daily Show" pointed out, passed a law saying hospitals could pull the plug on vegetables when they could no longer pay. And let's not forget, we're bombing the living shit out of two different countries' populations. Quite possibly deservedly so, but I'm pretty sure shooting people with SAW guns isn't part of the culture of life.

Just wait, I haven't even gotten to Tom DeLay yet, I'm just warming up.

Oh, and speaking of shooting people with SAW guns, let's remember, we're in Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction. Right? Oh, wait, I meant, we're in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a bad man who deserved to be toppled from power. Sure, he did, let's not deny that (that would be hypocrisy), but let's remember, he's been a bad man for many, many, many years. Including the last time we attacked him. When we left him in power. When President Bush's father left him in power.

(Ever see "Red Dawn," remember the priceless scene where Jed and Matty's father is screaming "Avenge me!" to his guerrilla sons? I imagine something like that involving the Bushes, just before we started bombing.)

So the question is, did President Bush lie about the weapons of mass destruction? Well, technically, it was bad intelligence.

Remember when we impeached Bill Clinton for lying about Monica Lewinsky? Well, if you believe today's high school "virgins," blow jobs aren't really sex. So it was more a matter of semantics.

Yeah, that bullshit didn't fly like the semen, so why is Bush's bullshit flying like our bombers?

Speaking of war, Bill Maher's in trouble again, as I read today some congressman wants HBO to dump him for saying our troops are the bottom of the barrel. Congressman Southerner believes that's treason, mocking Lynndie England.

I'm willing to bet he defends the Second Amendment with all the fervor with which he's ignoring the First one.

And hey, to borrow a phrase, Bill Maher didn't make Lynndie England the butt of jokes. God did. (By the way, how did that Graner fellow find time to torture prisoners? He knocked up one fellow soldier and married another. You'd think he was too busy playing naked Twister to get the Iraqis involved.)

Now, to kick a party when it's down, let's get back to Tom DeLay. Let me see if I understand this correctly: He ran afoul of ethics rules, so rather than, say apologize without admitting guilt, like companies get to do with the NASD, he wants to change the rules so he's really not afoul of them.

Evidently those vigilantes down in Arizona trying to keep out the Mexicans are waving the morons on through the HOV lane.

He broke the rules. Will he be a man and let Congress put him in time-out? No. He wants to change the rules.

Imagine if life worked that way for the rest of us. I think I'd rob a bank, then pass a law making bank robbery legal in New Jersey. Ex post facto. Yeah, screw getting free golfing trips. I'd be jacking sports car dealerships.

Now, I promised you Republicans I'd explain the symbolism of the Democratic jackass, and you've waded through all this anti-GOP fervor, no doubt reporting me to the FBI and CIA and Department of Homeland Security. So now, the moment you've all been waiting for...

Wait, first let me make fun of that doofus John Bolton a bit. Here's a guy who said he didn't believe the United Nations needed to exist. Now he wants to be ambassador to the United Nations. And Senators aren't sitting up and tearing that stupid mismatched moustache off and bitch-slapping him with it? Why don't we make him ambassador to something else he doesn't think should exist, like a Just For Men factory. Hey, he's not all bad. He tried to fire an analyst who wouldn't support his stance on something. Because we all know that A) that's how the current administration works, it sees what it wants to see; and B) that's the scientific method, making your research support your thesis.

What? It's not? Well, OK, um, er...

Did I mention President Bush was in charge when 9/11 took place? How does he get away with saying we're safer under him? The biggest terrorist attack on American soil, and, well, thank God that Al Gore wasn't president, because, you know, he went to Vietnam and might have some idea how to fight a war. Like John Kerry. All those wimpy Democrats who served their country while Dubya was skipping flight duty in Alabama. But he's a wartime president. Last time we had a war, he was hiding under his bed. At least his father was a real man, a genuine war hero. But boy, does Dubya look good in a flight suit.

Another reason the Army might be having trouble recruiting? How about the Pat Tillman factor? Tillman, who quit the NFL to become a Ranger, then was killed in Afghanistan, was hailed as a hero and posthumously awarded a Silver Star for heroism. And God bless him for giving his life for his country. That's not the point. The point is, it turns out Tillman, even more tragically, was killed by friendly fire. And we're only finding that out now, a year later, because, well, the Army lied.

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to lie in the military. I've watched enough "J*A*G" to be pretty sure of that. But what do you do when the entire freakin' Army lies?

Near as I can tell, you bust a bunch of women and a sociopath for Abu Ghraib and leave Don Rumsfeld in charge of the Department of Defense. What ever happened to the good old days of honorably falling on your sword for your president? Evidently, you don't have to in the Administration of No Accountability.

Sorry. I know, you're waiting for the hypocrisy of the liberals. What can I say? I got distracted watching the wrapped-in-the-Constitution guys blatantly ignoring what it says.

Well, here's what bugs me about the Democrats: They sit around bitching that the Republicans stole the last two presidential elections (oh yeah, those activist Supreme Court justices weren't so bad when they were ruling for Bush in that hanging-chad situation, were they?) and yet, they don't play to win. If the Republicans are going to lie, cheat and steal, why don't the Democrats fight fire with fire? Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser. With Bush ripe for the taking in '04, they put up a half-assed candidate who wouldn't stand up for himself and say, hey, as someone said on Maher's show, how many Purple Hearts do you need before you're more of a man than a male cheerleader?

That's not really hypocrisy, is it? It's more like chronic wussitude. But there's something that fundamentally bugs me about a bunch of guys sitting around bitching and not doing anything about it.

But if it's any consolation, here's some bipartisan hypocrisy: It's not just the conservative Republicans who are opposed to gay marriage (yet another amendment they want!) or who are willing to limit gay rights. After all, this is about the sanctity of marriage as a sacred institution.

If I were in Congress, and I heard that, I'd stand up and say, "Listen, all of you who have never fucked your interns or gotten divorced or cheated on your wives, you can lecture me about the sanctity of marriage. The rest of you can sit the hell down and shut the hell up." Well, you probably can't drop the f-bomb in Congress. Unless you're Dick Cheney.

Point is, I think it's that Jesus fellow all the religious types love so much who said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And when it comes to gay marriage, there's a lot of sinners throwing rocks. Because if a fat redneck can get laid just because he's President of the United States, I'm pretty sure there's some pretty congressmen who are primarily worried about the sacred institution that is their libido.

That ranks up there with zealots blowing people up in the name of a religion that preaches loving thy fellow man.

And copy editors who don't worry about the grammar in their blogs.

As Val Kilmer says, playing Doc Holliday in "Tombstone," it appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds after all.

The Food Network
TLC's "While You Were Out"
The Republican National Committee page, featuring Democrat Zell Miller
The Democratic National Committee page, featuring Republican Tom DeLay
"The Pelican Brief," where they kill the judges right upfront
The Balanced Budget Amendment page, evidently last updated in 1997
The M249 SAW machine gun
A vaguely intellectual, if negative, "Red Dawn" review
The Starr Report, like Penthouse Forum, but with cigars
An article about Lynndie England and, as a bonus, Jessica Lynch
The Minuteman Project, which apparently doesn't guard the Canadian border
• Stop John Bolton, not quite as funny, but more current than Fire John Shoop
• American hero Pat Tillman, may he rest in peace
My tribute to Pat Tillman, from Raiderfans.net
Hara-kiri, taking "fall on your sword" literally
An article defending gay marriage

I could probably throw a bunch more links up there, but I think I've provided a wide range of off-blog entertainment for y'all. And if the links have a liberal slant, well, hell, the Republicans stopped reading about 15 graphs ago.

But, because I couldn't resist, one more: Weapons of Ass Destruction hot sauce.

It was link to that, or the porno.

(Aside, thanks to Stewie, my links now open in their own window, meaning you can keep reading my blog, and they can feel special.)