perpetually hoodwinked democrats, golden reefer, and more bodies...

claire mccaskill, senator from the ludicrously named "show-me" state, has introduced a bill to limit wall street fuckwads to a mere $400,000 a year after they've again ran off with billions in bonuses - most of which necessarily came from our tax dollars since they lost insane amounts of money and needed a few hundred billion from you and I to make "ends" meet (and by ends, I mean million dollar office renevations, million dollar junkets, private jets, and enormous bonuses to those driving the bus off the cliff). sure, its all well and good that someone is finally listening to us folks that have been screaming for years that clinton's so-called "booming economy" was a disaster waiting to happen and that skyrocketing executive payment is a sign of the growing wealth chasm, which always appears before a global hegemon takes one on the chin. but sen. mccaskill went on a rant, well-intended I am sure (as most feigned righteous outrage is from politicians these days...they are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore...at least not on camera), that exemplified why, despite the emergence of the president, I cannot stand the democratic party and why we never should trust those fuckwads. here is what she had to say about limiting executive pay - "We should have done it in the first place. But I don't think any of us thought these guys were this stupid. I don't think any of us believed that they would take billions of dollars in bonuses while their institutions were literally days from being wiped out. But they did. And we've learned our lesson." does that sound familiar to anyone? two of the most massively important votes by democrats during my lifetime, both of which they rushed and were bullied into - war in iraq and throwing tax dollars at crumbling financial institutions without any strings. and it is the same fucking excuse - "we didn't think they would actually do it." war in iraq? yea, they voted for it, but they didn't think the president would actually do it without a UN resolution and global support, even if they did give him the authority to run in there any second for any reason. and now...even more classic - "we didn't think the greedy sons of bitches that have run the economy into the ground so they could milk it for every cent possible would take tax dollars without strings attach and spend it on themselves like there were no strings attached." (insert slap of forehead here). tell me senator, how many more fucking expensive and devestating lessons must you and your party learn at the country's expense?

michael phelps is a physical freak, one of the greatest athletes (the way most would define "athlete" - personally, I reserve that mostly for decathaletes, triathletes, and gymnasts) in the world, also happens to like his ganga. the horror. executives and stock owners of private prison corporations everywhere are shuddering to think that society might just figure out that you can smoke pot and be productive, hell, one of the top olympians ever. and if society figures out that marijuana does not inevitably lead to a life of destitution, burglary, domestic violence, unemployment, etc....then maybe society will figure out that sending someone to prison for years because they relax at the end of the day with a joint rather than a glass of scotch is one of the most fucking idiotic and counterproductive ideas ever concocted by our "moral" law makers. legalize it, regulate it, tax the living fuck out of it, use that money to fund schools and social programs. in the process, put a cartel or two out of business.

the UN released its numbers on civilian deaths in afghanistan...2,100 in 2008. and no, I have no idea how many of those were the result of an american bomb dropped by some poor kid from rural tennessee and how many were the result of a resurgent resistance. but does it really matter? is the death of an innocent person any less disturbing if it comes at the hands of someone with darker skin and a different heritage? I often wonder how we, as a society, have come to the point where 2,100 civilian deaths in a year thanks to a war we are participating in is the kind of news that is buried deep within the paper, if reported at all. patrick henry purportedly boldly declared "give me liberty or give me death." in the process of trying to give the former, are we too accepting of producing the latter?

if you have something to say, say it to me now...