Nothing fucking golden can stay

First off, I want to say that, generally speaking, if a lesbian has a better haircut than you, then you need a new haircut.



Secondly, I think that I may have underestimated the size of Blago's balls. They're huge. When Rachel Maddow asked him in an interview yesterday, RE his assertion that his taped remarks have been taken "out of context," how the following statement...

“It’s a fucking valuable thing. You don’t just give it away for nothing. If they’re not going to offer anything of value I might just take it. I’ve got this thing and it’s fucking golden. I’m not just giving it up for fucking nothing.”

...could possibly be put in any context that would make it anything other than an admission that he's giving away a US Senate seat to whoever offers him the best SWAG bag, he said:

"Well, let me answer that two ways. First, I can’t comment specifically on that, ‘cause I haven’t heard those tapes. But assuming that’s what it is, if you hear all the tapes, and you hear the whole thing in its context, if I feared that that was something sinister or onerous would I want all those tapes heard?

And, in addition to that, just playing devil’s advocate, I’m not acknowledging that’s what actually were on the tapes, ‘cause we haven’t had a chance to hear it. But playing the devil’s advocate in assuming it was. Why can’t the construction of that be I want them to help me pass a public works program, a jobs program, that the Democratic speaker, Mr. Madigan, has been blocking."

Ah, where do I start?

How about:

1. You haven't heard the tapes? Forgive me if I've gotten this wrong, but isn't that you SPEAKING ON THE TAPES?

2. If you really want to hear the tapes, you should've stopped by your impeachment trial that you decided not to show up to so you could go on your little jury-pool-tainting media blitz.

3. We can't infer innocence from your claim that you want the tapes heard by the public, when you already know that's what's going to happen. OJ pioneered this defense when he claimed that his DNA link to the murder scene could not mean he was guilty, because he wanted the results made public. It's a logical fallacy. Actually, that's a polite word for what it is.

4. When you said that it's possible that all you wanted in return for the seat was cooperation on a piece of legislation, you should've first checked to see if that was also unethical. Because it is.

What an interesting mix of cagey and hilariously fucking stupid the (for now) governor of Illinois is! He's so completely missing the "shame" gene, it's kind of fascinating. It makes me homesick for Chicago, where that kind of politician is as plentiful as the puddles of puke outside of Wrigley Field.

And speaking of no shame, how about that conference that Bank of America hosted for various CEOs so that they could strategize about how to defeat the EFCA?

The EFCA is a bill that would roll back certain provisions of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act, and enable employees to vote a union in at their workplace without allowing management to force a circumvention of the process. It's a good bill. The House has passed it already, and Obama's supporting it. And if passed, it could mean that the vast majority of retail employees, a sector that has replaced manufacturing in terms of its importance to our economy, could earn a wage upon which they could raise a family in something other than complete fucking poverty.

Naturally, big business does not want to see it pass. And in this conference call, which B of A hosted 3 days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, participants (including bailout recipient AIG) were urged to give money to Republican candidates opposed to the bill, as well as to The Center for Union Facts, an anti-EFCA lobbying group founded by Home Depot CEO Rick Berman.

So not only did B of A spend tax dollars to host this thing, but by doing so, they are using our money to enable our own economic oppression.

CEO Berman, whose employees would obviously benefit from increased wages and benefits, stressed the importance of the cause by stating that he could've been on "a 350-foot boat out in the Mediterranean," but instead was on the phone call, working to defeat the EFCA.

I'll just let that settle in for a minute.

I don't know why our government can't simply do what Jon Stewart has proposed, which is to give the bailout money to the people who can't pay their mortgages or their credit card bills, with the stipulation that it can only be used for consumer debt. Because if they did, people's mortgages and bills would be paid, and those same institutions that are now flailing would have their precious fucking money. Everyone wins.

C'mon Republicans. You're always saying that we should keep more of our hard-earned tax dollars, that the government can't spend it as well as we can. Now's your chance to put our money where your mouth is.