Monday, December 21, 2009
P.S.
And this from a guy who studied. Leadership is accountability. Whatever health care reform looks like, today or in the future, I cannot imagine seeing Obama's name and the word "leadership" used in unison to describe how we got there. Hope is not the Full Cynical. See you in 2010!
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Full Cynical
We know you have been waiting patiently for HIGHpocrisy to write at length on this topic, so here goes:
Trying to stay on top of ongoing discussions on health care reform -- on a daily basis and just from the blogs linked up on the right-hand side -- is making my brain hurt! But this week, I heard on Thom Hartmann's radio show the strongest, most obvious explanation about this whole charade that so few in the MSM have even bothered to mention (no surprise): that it's been Obama's goal from the start to honor the deals he and his RahmE. struck with big pharma and big insurance. [Firedoglake has been on this, but no offense, if anything, the MSM would resent any progressive voice doing its job for them. Don't forget, the Senate Finance Committee bill was not the entire Senate's bill; the current Senate bill is not the entire end game either. The House bill is an afterthought, I guess, despite having stronger progressives there than in the dysfunctional prima donna forum.] Why does everyone talk and act as if the Senate deal is the only thing going? Read on...
I'm paraphrasing Thom Hartmann now: 'Obama got elected by a majority of American voters, but before he could focus on governing them, serving their needs, just maybe making their lives a little better, he made Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff, and they had to 1st bolster the chance at getting re-elected.' Back to Rollah: I'm not sure if Obama ever thought about pushing for the best plan ever, but my senses are frying from this ordeal, because we know the plan that's being settled on (compromised away) is nowhere near the best. Not in terms of controlling costs (anything to compete with private insurers a la single-payer, public option or Medicare buy-in?), and not in terms of making affordable care available to those who need it most. More Thom Hartmann (now 2:2 in money quotes, with better paraphrasing by me): "Obama is making the biggest political mistake of his life if he listens to Rahm Emanuel and thinks he can govern like Bill Clinton ... the system is broken, so Obama had 2 bets to make: 1st he could have used his political capital from the election to take on the system, tear it down, change it, really lead the country in a new direction as a new way of governing; or 2nd, to tinker at the margins and be happy, never trying anything bold. Obama placed the 2nd bet, and I think he is going to lose".
Also getting very little coverage: the basic moral imperative at stake here! Forget labels, party affiliation, LIEbermonkey vs. whoever (though, personally, I'm rooting for the lean, Dean, fighting machine). Something as broken as health care has to get fixed, period! That fix has to include some recognition that this country cannot survive without taking care of its sick and infirm. It can't always be about money, or fame. Every other industrialized place on Earth can do that, but we can't because the few are too powerful and greedy? We have to be civil if we are to make it in a civilized society. If we wait for war-profiteers or big whatever to suddenly get all moral and start acting like responsible corporate citizens, we're toast. Principal Ed Rooney in Ferris Bueller's Day Off: "between grief and nothing, I'll take grief". That's what progressives (the real reformers?) are being asked to support? crap that only gives us grief, but nothing in return!?! [Aside: 'progressive' should include anyone wanting to save lives by making health care affordable, a right not a privilege; profit is OK but not at the cost of human suffering, and not unless you're also helping improve the human condition, stuff like that].
Which brings us back to the newest addition to HIGHpocrisy's lexicon in the title of this entry. Had the WH reneged on its secret deals and come out vocally for what would be best for the majority of the voters who helped elect Obama in the 1st place, we doubt much of this circus would have happened at all. For the top domestic priority, the no-drama-Obama camp has been 1 giant drama-making machine. Why? Why play the victim card, they're so powerless to affect the change they promised, how could they exert any pressure over this process? Shorter Glenn Greenwald: Rahm to Obama in January, "Ya know, we couldn't get health care reform under my pal Clinton because he was trying too hard to impose his own mark on it; let's just sit this one out and hope Congress does its job of, like, legislating and all that". And while plenty of blame can rightly be directed to Emanuel "Can't", he wasn't elected President on a platform of hope and change. So instead, we get all this BS masquerading as hysteria, from just another politician saying whatever he wants to say in order to get anything passed, so he can call it reform, dupe most people into thinking he's with them, but against their corporate puppet-masters, and 'won't everyone's lives be better next year when it's time to vote again'. I.e., just trust him! Well, the Full Cynical goes beyond being disappointed and frustrated with Obama's lack of leadership. Some of the many side effects: LIEberpunk goes unpunished for his lack of any moral compass (Keith Olbermann called him a Senatorial prostitute); progressives are off the reservation; the most important voters to the Dem base (younger and minorities) won't turn out enough next year to keep the Dems in control (talk about disenfranchising!). So the status quo churns, or worse, the corporatist take-over spews the know-nothing party of No to an even faster plummet over the Cliffs of Insanity (Princess Bride reference). I guess the Full Cynical is something like the Full Monty, but you're bent over by some Wall St. banker or Aetna lobbyist, without even the common courtesy of a reach-around... Oh the humanity!
And thus we look to the emotional impact of the Full Cynical. To some of the defenders (not apologists) who dismiss the value of emotion and try to re-direct our attention on the long term ('Obama's had some wins, all of this reform effort is a work in progress, he's not Bush', we get it), Captain James T. Kirk and I have the same reply: "I need my pain", pain is what makes us human. And my pain, btw, is not even real pain, as compared to others'. [It should not have mattered how Obama got there. Once he won, and helped deliver down-ticket wins too, he could govern however he wanted.] My sadness kicks in at the level of what I wanted to believe would be: he would govern aggressively, right out of the chute, punch, not counter-punch or rope-a-dope. Be passionate, but carry the intellectual force and personality to aspire to transformational greatness (a la Jackie Robinson, see older post), and thus become a great President. Dang me for assigning too much short-term emotion to a long-term process. -- When you hire Rahm, Timmy, and Larry, but tune out Krugman and Stiglitz; when you fail to even investigate torture or war crimes, let alone perpetuate some of the worst policies of your predecessor; when you escalate wars instead of ending them; when your tinkering at the margins can't even achieve some of the most basic goals to keep your promises to the base, well it should be obvious that the Full Cynical tears the blinders off an even larger systemic problem. Yes, our 2-party political divide has morphed: progressives are formerly Democrats who want to work for social justice and move the country forward; buttloads of regular rightward-leaning Dems and moderate Republicans are in the muddled middle; and there's the nutbar right-wingers. We're not presuming to know the actual percentage of each group. But, we're all confined to operating within a corporatist oligarchy (me spell good, Beck). That Obama would continue grasping for that faint whiff of bipartisanship no one else can smell, is absurd. He knows damn well that the right will never agree to anything he tries to do.
So it is an emotional issue after all, affecting us humans, who are emotional creatures with our very survival. That is why we get upset over a perceived bail-out of an industry that (a) is not even hurting, and (b) is so viscerally reviled. That is why we can feel like Obama, in making and keeping his secret promises to the fat cats but breaking his ones to the rest of us, has let us down. If only there could be rational debate. We could see the back and forth, we could think, make informed decisions as if we had control over them and our lives. But to so many who only wanted their voices to be heard, not only are we feeling ignored, now we're being belittled by the same people we put our faith and trust in.
Ultimately, then, if Firedoglake, Daily Kos, Howard Dean and now Keith Olbermann all agree that the Senate version of 'reform' sucks, that it does more harm than good, then those are the voices that Rollah is OK hitching his wagon to before they sail away. [We love mixing metaphors]. We're not talking about giving up all reform! We are instead focusing on the fight that has to happen to make things better for the needs of the many [back to Star Trek]. And so, as this crazy year draws to a close, we at HIGHpocrisy say to all: "God bless us, everyone".
Trying to stay on top of ongoing discussions on health care reform -- on a daily basis and just from the blogs linked up on the right-hand side -- is making my brain hurt! But this week, I heard on Thom Hartmann's radio show the strongest, most obvious explanation about this whole charade that so few in the MSM have even bothered to mention (no surprise): that it's been Obama's goal from the start to honor the deals he and his RahmE. struck with big pharma and big insurance. [Firedoglake has been on this, but no offense, if anything, the MSM would resent any progressive voice doing its job for them. Don't forget, the Senate Finance Committee bill was not the entire Senate's bill; the current Senate bill is not the entire end game either. The House bill is an afterthought, I guess, despite having stronger progressives there than in the dysfunctional prima donna forum.] Why does everyone talk and act as if the Senate deal is the only thing going? Read on...
I'm paraphrasing Thom Hartmann now: 'Obama got elected by a majority of American voters, but before he could focus on governing them, serving their needs, just maybe making their lives a little better, he made Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff, and they had to 1st bolster the chance at getting re-elected.' Back to Rollah: I'm not sure if Obama ever thought about pushing for the best plan ever, but my senses are frying from this ordeal, because we know the plan that's being settled on (compromised away) is nowhere near the best. Not in terms of controlling costs (anything to compete with private insurers a la single-payer, public option or Medicare buy-in?), and not in terms of making affordable care available to those who need it most. More Thom Hartmann (now 2:2 in money quotes, with better paraphrasing by me): "Obama is making the biggest political mistake of his life if he listens to Rahm Emanuel and thinks he can govern like Bill Clinton ... the system is broken, so Obama had 2 bets to make: 1st he could have used his political capital from the election to take on the system, tear it down, change it, really lead the country in a new direction as a new way of governing; or 2nd, to tinker at the margins and be happy, never trying anything bold. Obama placed the 2nd bet, and I think he is going to lose".
Also getting very little coverage: the basic moral imperative at stake here! Forget labels, party affiliation, LIEbermonkey vs. whoever (though, personally, I'm rooting for the lean, Dean, fighting machine). Something as broken as health care has to get fixed, period! That fix has to include some recognition that this country cannot survive without taking care of its sick and infirm. It can't always be about money, or fame. Every other industrialized place on Earth can do that, but we can't because the few are too powerful and greedy? We have to be civil if we are to make it in a civilized society. If we wait for war-profiteers or big whatever to suddenly get all moral and start acting like responsible corporate citizens, we're toast. Principal Ed Rooney in Ferris Bueller's Day Off: "between grief and nothing, I'll take grief". That's what progressives (the real reformers?) are being asked to support? crap that only gives us grief, but nothing in return!?! [Aside: 'progressive' should include anyone wanting to save lives by making health care affordable, a right not a privilege; profit is OK but not at the cost of human suffering, and not unless you're also helping improve the human condition, stuff like that].
Which brings us back to the newest addition to HIGHpocrisy's lexicon in the title of this entry. Had the WH reneged on its secret deals and come out vocally for what would be best for the majority of the voters who helped elect Obama in the 1st place, we doubt much of this circus would have happened at all. For the top domestic priority, the no-drama-Obama camp has been 1 giant drama-making machine. Why? Why play the victim card, they're so powerless to affect the change they promised, how could they exert any pressure over this process? Shorter Glenn Greenwald: Rahm to Obama in January, "Ya know, we couldn't get health care reform under my pal Clinton because he was trying too hard to impose his own mark on it; let's just sit this one out and hope Congress does its job of, like, legislating and all that". And while plenty of blame can rightly be directed to Emanuel "Can't", he wasn't elected President on a platform of hope and change. So instead, we get all this BS masquerading as hysteria, from just another politician saying whatever he wants to say in order to get anything passed, so he can call it reform, dupe most people into thinking he's with them, but against their corporate puppet-masters, and 'won't everyone's lives be better next year when it's time to vote again'. I.e., just trust him! Well, the Full Cynical goes beyond being disappointed and frustrated with Obama's lack of leadership. Some of the many side effects: LIEberpunk goes unpunished for his lack of any moral compass (Keith Olbermann called him a Senatorial prostitute); progressives are off the reservation; the most important voters to the Dem base (younger and minorities) won't turn out enough next year to keep the Dems in control (talk about disenfranchising!). So the status quo churns, or worse, the corporatist take-over spews the know-nothing party of No to an even faster plummet over the Cliffs of Insanity (Princess Bride reference). I guess the Full Cynical is something like the Full Monty, but you're bent over by some Wall St. banker or Aetna lobbyist, without even the common courtesy of a reach-around... Oh the humanity!
And thus we look to the emotional impact of the Full Cynical. To some of the defenders (not apologists) who dismiss the value of emotion and try to re-direct our attention on the long term ('Obama's had some wins, all of this reform effort is a work in progress, he's not Bush', we get it), Captain James T. Kirk and I have the same reply: "I need my pain", pain is what makes us human. And my pain, btw, is not even real pain, as compared to others'. [It should not have mattered how Obama got there. Once he won, and helped deliver down-ticket wins too, he could govern however he wanted.] My sadness kicks in at the level of what I wanted to believe would be: he would govern aggressively, right out of the chute, punch, not counter-punch or rope-a-dope. Be passionate, but carry the intellectual force and personality to aspire to transformational greatness (a la Jackie Robinson, see older post), and thus become a great President. Dang me for assigning too much short-term emotion to a long-term process. -- When you hire Rahm, Timmy, and Larry, but tune out Krugman and Stiglitz; when you fail to even investigate torture or war crimes, let alone perpetuate some of the worst policies of your predecessor; when you escalate wars instead of ending them; when your tinkering at the margins can't even achieve some of the most basic goals to keep your promises to the base, well it should be obvious that the Full Cynical tears the blinders off an even larger systemic problem. Yes, our 2-party political divide has morphed: progressives are formerly Democrats who want to work for social justice and move the country forward; buttloads of regular rightward-leaning Dems and moderate Republicans are in the muddled middle; and there's the nutbar right-wingers. We're not presuming to know the actual percentage of each group. But, we're all confined to operating within a corporatist oligarchy (me spell good, Beck). That Obama would continue grasping for that faint whiff of bipartisanship no one else can smell, is absurd. He knows damn well that the right will never agree to anything he tries to do.
So it is an emotional issue after all, affecting us humans, who are emotional creatures with our very survival. That is why we get upset over a perceived bail-out of an industry that (a) is not even hurting, and (b) is so viscerally reviled. That is why we can feel like Obama, in making and keeping his secret promises to the fat cats but breaking his ones to the rest of us, has let us down. If only there could be rational debate. We could see the back and forth, we could think, make informed decisions as if we had control over them and our lives. But to so many who only wanted their voices to be heard, not only are we feeling ignored, now we're being belittled by the same people we put our faith and trust in.
Ultimately, then, if Firedoglake, Daily Kos, Howard Dean and now Keith Olbermann all agree that the Senate version of 'reform' sucks, that it does more harm than good, then those are the voices that Rollah is OK hitching his wagon to before they sail away. [We love mixing metaphors]. We're not talking about giving up all reform! We are instead focusing on the fight that has to happen to make things better for the needs of the many [back to Star Trek]. And so, as this crazy year draws to a close, we at HIGHpocrisy say to all: "God bless us, everyone".
Monday, December 7, 2009
annual BCS B.S.
We hope to make this a brief but annual divergence from all-things typically HIGHpocritical... then again, if we're talking about how this country has become so corporatist, the BCS is a great example.
DID NOT mind seeing little Timmmaaayyy cry at the end of that 'Bama pounding he took; I have a friend who's a Gator, but just got sick of that act. But we digress. 5 Bowl games after but not on New Year's Day?!?! 5, really?!?!? Used to be, in the real America we grew up in, there were lots of Bowl games ON New Year's Day, including 5 that meant something: Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, and we'll even concede the Fiesta (not the Tostitos-owned). But now? The International, PapaJohns.com, Liberty, Alamo and GMAC bowls all come between 1/1 and 1/7/2010. Parity or purity? We don't see either.
DID NOT mind seeing little Timmmaaayyy cry at the end of that 'Bama pounding he took; I have a friend who's a Gator, but just got sick of that act. But we digress. 5 Bowl games after but not on New Year's Day?!?! 5, really?!?!? Used to be, in the real America we grew up in, there were lots of Bowl games ON New Year's Day, including 5 that meant something: Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, and we'll even concede the Fiesta (not the Tostitos-owned). But now? The International, PapaJohns.com, Liberty, Alamo and GMAC bowls all come between 1/1 and 1/7/2010. Parity or purity? We don't see either.
Monday, November 30, 2009
post-turkey geeker
Queen of the Batshade quitting a 5k run halfway through? We get that. [Separate irony that she posed for the Runner's World picture she later objected to when it was used for the Newsweek cover - we sort of get that, too]
But the Commander in Chief escalating yet another un-winnable war for some godforsaken reason? We'll never get that, not in a million years. Which, by the way, humanity doesn't have. And we're not the only ones in shock over this awfulness. J, should we throw in the towel, raise the white flag or take some other action that rhymes with "quit"?
And here's the thing: it would be just as easy, more popular and the actual right thing to do, to withdraw all troops and end all wars! So, when we see glass-half-full lists like this, we have to raise a sobering few of our own, to show what might have been if only hope had met up with audacity: war crimes investigations/prosecutions, Gitmo, state secrets, rendition, DOMA/DADT, not enough stimulus, bank bailouts... and some of those are just things Obama promised during the campaign! Oh, Batshade Queen, end times indeed.
But the Commander in Chief escalating yet another un-winnable war for some godforsaken reason? We'll never get that, not in a million years. Which, by the way, humanity doesn't have. And we're not the only ones in shock over this awfulness. J, should we throw in the towel, raise the white flag or take some other action that rhymes with "quit"?
And here's the thing: it would be just as easy, more popular and the actual right thing to do, to withdraw all troops and end all wars! So, when we see glass-half-full lists like this, we have to raise a sobering few of our own, to show what might have been if only hope had met up with audacity: war crimes investigations/prosecutions, Gitmo, state secrets, rendition, DOMA/DADT, not enough stimulus, bank bailouts... and some of those are just things Obama promised during the campaign! Oh, Batshade Queen, end times indeed.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Big Picture 1.0: I, Gluteus
Following the previous a$$-themed post, sometimes, irony can sound like a broken record. So can HIGHpocrisy. There have been instances of both throughout the health care debacle, but also, we've harped on the leadership question here many times. So it is time to trot out the attributes as outlined in an old post from last November [and courtesy of an even older column in the local paper]:
- leaders are globalists; leaders know themselves; leaders are coaches; leaders influence others; leaders manage change; leaders are strategic; leaders must be managers, too; leaders hold themselves and others accountable ("accountability overrides all other attributes") (our emphasis).
How many of these apply to Obama the President right now?
Or, see if you recognize this exchange from Rob Reiner's The American President (1995!) in any or all of the current uncivil discourse, to then guess where this country is headed.
[If we could figure out how to upload video, this would be more powerful]
- leaders are globalists; leaders know themselves; leaders are coaches; leaders influence others; leaders manage change; leaders are strategic; leaders must be managers, too; leaders hold themselves and others accountable ("accountability overrides all other attributes") (our emphasis).
How many of these apply to Obama the President right now?
Or, see if you recognize this exchange from Rob Reiner's The American President (1995!) in any or all of the current uncivil discourse, to then guess where this country is headed.
[If we could figure out how to upload video, this would be more powerful]
Paranoia, self-destroyah
Mr. Krugman's column this morning, "paranoia runs deep", includes the recognition that the lunatic right fringe has no interest in governing. Glad he agrees with us.
Sadly, HHHighpocrisy can run even deeper: the House of Representatives (misnomer of the century), led by a woman, passed an apparently very bad anti-choice amendment in its health care reform plan. Many Dems were on board. Obama's press sec'rety Gibbs punted 4 times in questioning today. So because Rahm was around in '94 when the Clintons supposedly tried to bully their plan through, he's convinced Obama to do the exact opposite, and leave no footprint this time around? Sorry, but a big-a$$ footprint is needed more than ever, especially from the most competent among us, and especially up the big a$$e$ of countless others. We all know Obama's leadership style by now, however, is that he's not the a$$-kicker/name-taker/power puncher we were looking for. Our own paranoia is that rope-a-dope might not be enough to turn this sinking ship around.
Sadly, HHHighpocrisy can run even deeper: the House of Representatives (misnomer of the century), led by a woman, passed an apparently very bad anti-choice amendment in its health care reform plan. Many Dems were on board. Obama's press sec'rety Gibbs punted 4 times in questioning today. So because Rahm was around in '94 when the Clintons supposedly tried to bully their plan through, he's convinced Obama to do the exact opposite, and leave no footprint this time around? Sorry, but a big-a$$ footprint is needed more than ever, especially from the most competent among us, and especially up the big a$$e$ of countless others. We all know Obama's leadership style by now, however, is that he's not the a$$-kicker/name-taker/power puncher we were looking for. Our own paranoia is that rope-a-dope might not be enough to turn this sinking ship around.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
HHighpocrisy HHalloween
Dang we meant to post something brief, but it was last Saturday, and we were busy.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
the 1-year
Has it really been 1 year already since Obama won? Has it really been 4 months since Batshade Sarah quit her cushy 'political' job in order to get more involved in politics for "real Americans"? Wow, time really does fly. On these mini-occasions, Matt Taibbi is still a must-read.
And so are any jokes about the LIEberstooge, courtesy of a Taibbi colleague at True Slant.
And so are any jokes about the LIEberstooge, courtesy of a Taibbi colleague at True Slant.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
It Lives to LIE Again
Well that was fast. The conclusions may be over the top, and too soon, but another bashwagon on LIEberstooge's latest (since last year, didn't we call him "LIEbertool", or was it "LIEberpunk"?) --
- the very, very clinically cynical says that his personal savior the big O, + fellow jew Rahmbo, are calling in their markers to have lil' joe take 1 for the team (the 'we can't break our secret deals' team); no public option for you, so might as well do the WH's bidding. Evil geniuses!
- the less overtly cynical says the guy was bought already; might as well do the industry's bidding. Not a coinkydink that most big insurers rest their greedy heads in his state.
- and the somewhat naive but still cynical-leaning says he's lied before, he'll lie again. It's not like he's going to get re-elected so what does he care?!
- with just a dash of attention-seeking tantrum thrown in to complete the brew: "Hey, did ya see how my esteemed colleague, the Senator from butt-munch, fared this week? Because now it's my turn! I had to stay quiet for months while so many others got to pitch their hissy fits, how do you think that made me feel? Wah-wah, not fair, wah-wah." Somebody give that guy a big binkie and plug his stinkin pie-hole.
On a broader and still funnier note, there could be LIEberspawn. HIGHpocrisy runneth over.
- the very, very clinically cynical says that his personal savior the big O, + fellow jew Rahmbo, are calling in their markers to have lil' joe take 1 for the team (the 'we can't break our secret deals' team); no public option for you, so might as well do the WH's bidding. Evil geniuses!
- the less overtly cynical says the guy was bought already; might as well do the industry's bidding. Not a coinkydink that most big insurers rest their greedy heads in his state.
- and the somewhat naive but still cynical-leaning says he's lied before, he'll lie again. It's not like he's going to get re-elected so what does he care?!
- with just a dash of attention-seeking tantrum thrown in to complete the brew: "Hey, did ya see how my esteemed colleague, the Senator from butt-munch, fared this week? Because now it's my turn! I had to stay quiet for months while so many others got to pitch their hissy fits, how do you think that made me feel? Wah-wah, not fair, wah-wah." Somebody give that guy a big binkie and plug his stinkin pie-hole.
On a broader and still funnier note, there could be LIEberspawn. HIGHpocrisy runneth over.
Monday, October 26, 2009
When Harry Met Spiney
With today's announcement, Sen. Reid (D-craps table) might've actually put some leading into his leadership role, of the majority party no less?! While HIGHpocrisy may still show up later, it was nice to see no Snowe job [we're in it for the puns]. See prior post below.
Friday, October 23, 2009
disbelief, again?
We're back to not knowing what to believe and what to ignore. How could that be in this new era of gov't transparency? With all of these conflicting reports on the same day, let's breathe in, hold it, exhale, repeat. Until some news comes along to disspell the latest, though, we'll assign a temporary Highpocrisy to the WH (italicized to demonstrate its fleeting nature), and here's why: no one who's been following this dance gives 1 rat's ass about a Senator from Maine! She was not elected President of even her own state! And, no one who's been following is stupid enough to think that her 1 vote means the winners get to call it "bipartisan"! That's not what the word means. If the big O thinks either the general public is that gullible, or that his Rahm-brokered deals are that fragile, then it won't work anyway.
[That's not to argue that Americans are savvy either; we are just big, dumb animals. Or that Rahm should be brokering serious issues at all; he shouldn't, because he already tried that in the 90's. Just saying]
[That's not to argue that Americans are savvy either; we are just big, dumb animals. Or that Rahm should be brokering serious issues at all; he shouldn't, because he already tried that in the 90's. Just saying]
Monday, October 12, 2009
Obvious
In a move fooling no one, the health insurance lobby realizes it might not be getting the bazillion, gajillion dollars it wanted to get from merely 1 of the 5 different congressional committees working on fixing what's really broken. So they dropped the kid gloves. Now they want to duke it out? No brainer HIGHpocrisy. Sure hope they don't have to raise premiums, deny or drop coverage, or do other bad things just to survive. The horror, the horror.
Nobel NObama
I was as 'sur-prized' as anyone that big O got the Nobel; I get that the nominations were back in February but the voting was not done until recently. I get the committee wanting to reward effort; reward should follow effort. I'm not on the Nutbar exit to Crazytown, but I'm just not reconciling the whole 'peace' part of the award with ongoing 'wars' (not to mention rendition, Gitmo, state secrets, FISA and the Patriot Act). Wouldn't it have been easier to give him the award after he brings peace to the process, ya know, by actually ending the wars? Obama doesn't do 'easy' you say, so how could that be? Wars cost so much more these days (!) so here's a suggestion for how to end them:
Yes, as Eric Cartman's eloquence might have even presaged the President's own soaring rhetoric, "Screw you guys, I'm going home".
Updating: eh
Monday, October 5, 2009
'When Good Books Go Bad'?
Or as Don Rumsfeld might suggest, you go to Sunday school with the Bible you have, not the Bible you wish you had.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Back to HH
We may have been sidetracked by recent events, though there has been HIGHpocrisy in all of stages of this health care 'reform' debacle (we don't use the word 'debate' because that would imply 2 sides making legitimate policy arguments. Can anyone explain what's to defend in giant insurance companies, as if the current system is fine? This morning's AP article on the Senate Finance Comm. has the R talking point as a gov't plan would drive private insurers out of business... really?!?! Blue Cross, Aetna, Utd Health, all too big to fail, really?!?!? Can anyone explain why the already compromised public option would not be a choice ["option" right there in the title!] to help cover almost 1/6th of the entire country? There's no debate. Oops, dang, sidetracked again). We'll have a final post or two on that later.
But getting back to our roots for a moment, we award 2 HHs -- HHighpocrisy -- to Big Oil companies like Chevron whenever they run ads touting their concerns for the environment (or for people). I heard a radio ad from Chevron the other day, 'they're so green, so friendly', blah blah blah. I had a client who worked for Chevron; brilliant man. I have a friend who worked for a local Shell refinery. Can people be good and productive? People can. Can Big Oil concerned only with making money for their shareholders be good corporate citizens? Not so much.
But getting back to our roots for a moment, we award 2 HHs -- HHighpocrisy -- to Big Oil companies like Chevron whenever they run ads touting their concerns for the environment (or for people). I heard a radio ad from Chevron the other day, 'they're so green, so friendly', blah blah blah. I had a client who worked for Chevron; brilliant man. I have a friend who worked for a local Shell refinery. Can people be good and productive? People can. Can Big Oil concerned only with making money for their shareholders be good corporate citizens? Not so much.
Monday, September 14, 2009
two quick Dishes
The first is more reader-centric, while the second is more Andrew Sullivan. Last ¶ has the money-quote.
what to believe?
good bill or bad bill? reform or no reform? wait or don't wait? there's a lot to take in, but here's just 1 place to start. yes, the boxing analogy is in there, too (why can't we get credit?), and so is the "inmates running the asylum" line. [Great minds think alike / fools seldom differ]
We might disagree with a few of the points made therein, but the overall gist is close to what we are currently feeling, so we'll go with that. Why then, is Obama saying the same thing about the 'public option' post-speech, but the media reports on all of the caving from Dem leadership and the WH as if there won't be a public option? And if Rahm gets his way, does that mean Obama doesn't? So what does reform look like? Oh, how we wish we had the answers.
J adding, also from the NYT: "the first paragraph says it all...shameful!" But J, haven't you learned that only elitist, commie pinko lib'ruls read that paper and only when it's not perpetuating the lies that lead to war? Why can't you be more prideful in American ignorance? You wouldn't want your children to listen to a smart person about studying when they can read My Pet Goat instead. Welcome to the 21st Century!
We might disagree with a few of the points made therein, but the overall gist is close to what we are currently feeling, so we'll go with that. Why then, is Obama saying the same thing about the 'public option' post-speech, but the media reports on all of the caving from Dem leadership and the WH as if there won't be a public option? And if Rahm gets his way, does that mean Obama doesn't? So what does reform look like? Oh, how we wish we had the answers.
J adding, also from the NYT: "the first paragraph says it all...shameful!" But J, haven't you learned that only elitist, commie pinko lib'ruls read that paper and only when it's not perpetuating the lies that lead to war? Why can't you be more prideful in American ignorance? You wouldn't want your children to listen to a smart person about studying when they can read My Pet Goat instead. Welcome to the 21st Century!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Master Rope-a-doper
Naturally the cynic in me started drafting this entry before Obama's speech to Congress last night. I was going to call it "Epic Fail" if he came out loving and not fighting as I expected. But I gotta admit, from the parts I've heard, seen, and read about, the man is a great politician. I'll get to that below, but first: I had a dream 2 nights ago that I was in a room, tables arranged in a square. To my right at the same table was some faceless Fox blowhole. To his right was Obama. Symbolism? Obama would have to meet me all the way around a circle if anyone thinks he's to the right of Fox. [BTW, socialism is on the left; fascism is on the right.] Back to my dream: I was standing and arguing about health "insurance" reform, shouting down the Fox moron, while Obama sat there grinning. So I thought I had better write that down for posterity.
Back to speech commentary:
On some level, this was about wanting a fighter. Hence the boxing metaphor. About believing he was different, but thinking I was getting the same. It definitely goes beyond health care. He still has his smarts, so I'll never know why he wasted so much time before, when he is a natural leader, thinking he could hang back and let the inmates run the asylum. Just as I'll never know why someone goes in to the WH one way, but somehow, once the doors close, he emerges seemingly beholden to the same special interests that he promised would not keep their stranglehold on politics. Obama said Wednesday morning that he might have made mistakes letting Congress try to act, all grown-up, like legislators or something. Ya think? I want to believe he will do what's right, and for the good of the country. That is the job to which he or any President is always elected: to make people's lives better. It is why Bush failed so miserably (among many other reasons). It is why I could see myself feeling this morning like that Boise State football player who taunted the Oregon running back but then got sucker-punched to the jaw. Go see, it's all over the web. But the other part of that dude's problem, which didn't make it to air, was that he was swinging at his own guys who were trying to get him off the field. He would have gone into the stands if not for his ass't coach, and some police, holding him back. That was what bothered me the most: fighting the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Back to speech commentary:
On some level, this was about wanting a fighter. Hence the boxing metaphor. About believing he was different, but thinking I was getting the same. It definitely goes beyond health care. He still has his smarts, so I'll never know why he wasted so much time before, when he is a natural leader, thinking he could hang back and let the inmates run the asylum. Just as I'll never know why someone goes in to the WH one way, but somehow, once the doors close, he emerges seemingly beholden to the same special interests that he promised would not keep their stranglehold on politics. Obama said Wednesday morning that he might have made mistakes letting Congress try to act, all grown-up, like legislators or something. Ya think? I want to believe he will do what's right, and for the good of the country. That is the job to which he or any President is always elected: to make people's lives better. It is why Bush failed so miserably (among many other reasons). It is why I could see myself feeling this morning like that Boise State football player who taunted the Oregon running back but then got sucker-punched to the jaw. Go see, it's all over the web. But the other part of that dude's problem, which didn't make it to air, was that he was swinging at his own guys who were trying to get him off the field. He would have gone into the stands if not for his ass't coach, and some police, holding him back. That was what bothered me the most: fighting the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
And now for random eloquence:
The bigger picture here is this: all those people who worked so hard to help Obama get elected; all those young voters who engaged in politics and its discourse; they could have been even more disillusioned. They could have become cynics like me. And if they disengage, if they tune out for another generation, then more would be lost than Obama's presidency. True progress would be lost. The ability to cover 1/6th of the U.S. population with affordable health care would be lost. Hate and crazy would only advance.
So now that Obama has regained some mojo, where does that leave us? Maybe "Wall-E" or "Planet of the Apes" number of years from now, history will have 'decidered' (rendered judgment for those who don't speak W). And history will show that on this issue, fixing 1 of the main things broken in this country, we had a President who spoke like a President, like an adult even, to a room full of petulant children. I've looked at HuffPo, and the links on the right, to see if someone posted a more succinct blog of how I might capture all of this. Haven't found it yet. For me though, I saw the guy I voted for. He's so far above the intellect of all those who seek to hurt him, or have him fail. He never takes the bait; the other side can't help themselves, so they always end up looking even worse than they probably are. All the vile crap, and he just stands there and says, 'you want to keep acting this way, fine, go ahead. I'm not sinking to your level.' Obviously, if he did, the nutbars would trot out the angry black man card. Obama has that calm demeanor that I wish I could have. He's so composed, and the more hate the crazies spew at him, the more he brushes it off. Maybe that is the transformative power of his message? Even if I've been disappointed in a few of his policies, and this health reform has not become law yet, I still give him all the credit for standing there, taking it all in, and never flinching when the punches come right at him. He may never be the most powerful counter-puncher ever, but he has mastered the rope-a-dope. He may never win by knock-out or even TKO, but if he wins all of his major bouts, even by split decision, he still wins. Even if he doesn't go undefeated, he could still be a hall-of-famer. That would help.
Back to HIGHpocrisy soon (we're looking at you, MSM)!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Tempest nothing
language vs. language. They're both right, in their own ways.
Almost a year ago (Oct. '08), we posted an entry comparing Obama's resolve in the face of all things ugly to the courage of Jackie Robinson. And that was before Obama won! Robinson was a hall of fame athlete with a super-human personality to match. We'll know soon enough if the comparison was apt, because you can't be transformative if the talent never rises to defeat the tempest.
Almost a year ago (Oct. '08), we posted an entry comparing Obama's resolve in the face of all things ugly to the courage of Jackie Robinson. And that was before Obama won! Robinson was a hall of fame athlete with a super-human personality to match. We'll know soon enough if the comparison was apt, because you can't be transformative if the talent never rises to defeat the tempest.
Friday, September 4, 2009
how many times
and ways am I going to say the same frikkin thing: can anyone explain why Obama would even be considering punking his base when he has to know damn well that the other side will never give him 1 frikkin vote? Repukes -- the ones running the freak show -- do NOT WANT TO GOVERN! They are Bush's petulant offspring; they have already declared they want to both pick up their own ball and go home, at the same time they steal all the candy from the babies on the playground. There is no good faith negotiating. There is no support to be had. They just want failure to restore them to power, to then destroy again, without checks or balances. They do not want to build, to "progress", to create. And my blood is boiling as I refuse to believe Obama cannot see that! He must, so WTF is he after? What's the end game here if his own base has to bend over on every important issue, just so he can appease the lunatic fringe? Do blinders come with the job he was elected to do? AAAAAAARRRRRRRGHHHHHHH
deep thoughts
And hopefully, some final thoughts before next week's make or break speech by the big O. There are just some crazies who will never support anything Obama tries to do. He could go on TV next week and say that water is wet, the grass is green, and the earth revolves around the sun. But nutbars will rush right out to say the opposite. The problem is, too many of these people are actually in what was once the GOP, now unrecognizable. Have they even once proposed a solution of their own, to any serious problem? No, because they don't want to fix what's broken. And they're so far off the HIGHpocrisy scale of 5 Hs, we can't even track it [e.g., what happened to supporting a war-time president?]
The other problem is that the MSM reports the batshade as de facto news. Arianna Huffington has lamented this repeatedly. Not every issue has 2 sides, there can actually be truth and fiction; right and wrong. Ratings, profit, ego, power, all are wrapped up in this neat little package. That's what an oligarchy does (I can spell-check, too); it's why fear-mongering has worked, because it's how you suppress the people from owning up to their responsibility as an informed citizenry.
Enough rambling and incoherence: next week, Obama will either have pulled off the baddest, mother-F^&k*n' rope-a-dope in history, or his entire agenda will be history. As we've said already, if he can't win this one -- with Dem. majorities, popularity and public opinion on his side, not to mention the right thing to do -- what can he win?
The other problem is that the MSM reports the batshade as de facto news. Arianna Huffington has lamented this repeatedly. Not every issue has 2 sides, there can actually be truth and fiction; right and wrong. Ratings, profit, ego, power, all are wrapped up in this neat little package. That's what an oligarchy does (I can spell-check, too); it's why fear-mongering has worked, because it's how you suppress the people from owning up to their responsibility as an informed citizenry.
Enough rambling and incoherence: next week, Obama will either have pulled off the baddest, mother-F^&k*n' rope-a-dope in history, or his entire agenda will be history. As we've said already, if he can't win this one -- with Dem. majorities, popularity and public opinion on his side, not to mention the right thing to do -- what can he win?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
duh x3
Duh to this header, but didn't read it; duh to this header too, would not read it [does anyone even in CT -- J? -- still pay attention when that guy speaks?]. And BIG DUH to this, read it. Especially the parts that refer to the wingnuts doing everything they can to beat Obama, anything to have him fail, b/c after all, government is always the problem when Rs are not in power. It's also the problem when they R in charge, but they just suck at it so bad. Guess we'll find out in a week who gets to decide the health of this country, literally!
Sorry, one more, read it. Will he be a lover or a fighter?
Sorry, one more, read it. Will he be a lover or a fighter?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
It's not reform if nothing changes
We're not rushing to hop on the Obama "bashwagon" (new copyrighted term here at Highpocrisy HQ). We also think Howard Fineman is too much of an insider to provide new and useful insight. But he has a take on the current health care debate, here. Money quote to us: "...there are no moderates left in the GOP. Only conservatives who want to deny Obama success or legitimacy. They'll oppose anything he proposes and call it principle." Fineman does mention that Obama might have been too naive to think he could achieve bi-partisanship on this issue.
We might extend that claim to any of his big-ticket issues. We've said before how hard it is for the powerful to relinquish control and power to another. Especially, THE "other". But part of the problem at least for me, is that I wanted to believe Obama was more progressive. Basketball may have been his sport on the campaign trail, but since he took that oath, he seems to have run to the center faster than Usain Bolt. Or did he? Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow said on Real Time a couple weeks ago that she always thought Obama was a moderate. I didn't want to accept that. But Obama has not pushed for any war crimes investigations yet. He lost control of the debate on his own top priority of health care reform. His economic plans have been too timid for the likes of Paul Krugman. And yet, he's still the President! He's the smartest guy in the room, with a pit bull for a Chief of Staff (sans lipstick). I'm just not getting why Obama can't see what's needed here!?! What is the game plan? If he can't win this one, what can he win? It's still way too early in the game, but I really wish he'd take advice from a source in none other than his own hometown of Chicago, courtesy of Sean Connery's Jim Malone in The Untouchables (poetic license taken):
"You wanna know how to get [health care reform]? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. THAT's the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get [health care reform]..." Given the current climate, this could not be more apt. OK, Mr. President, now what are you prepared to do?
supplemental: J and I make a couple of extra points in comments, but keep reading Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone. Obama began the whole reform process without his A game, i.e., the single-payer alternative. Never even made it into the gym. If he were really cocky enough to think he could push through the Plan B "public option" (or worse, take credit for any reform that passed), I could at least respect the effort, but still hate the result. We both sure "hope" he hasn't checked his senses at the door to 1600 Pennsylvania.
We might extend that claim to any of his big-ticket issues. We've said before how hard it is for the powerful to relinquish control and power to another. Especially, THE "other". But part of the problem at least for me, is that I wanted to believe Obama was more progressive. Basketball may have been his sport on the campaign trail, but since he took that oath, he seems to have run to the center faster than Usain Bolt. Or did he? Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow said on Real Time a couple weeks ago that she always thought Obama was a moderate. I didn't want to accept that. But Obama has not pushed for any war crimes investigations yet. He lost control of the debate on his own top priority of health care reform. His economic plans have been too timid for the likes of Paul Krugman. And yet, he's still the President! He's the smartest guy in the room, with a pit bull for a Chief of Staff (sans lipstick). I'm just not getting why Obama can't see what's needed here!?! What is the game plan? If he can't win this one, what can he win? It's still way too early in the game, but I really wish he'd take advice from a source in none other than his own hometown of Chicago, courtesy of Sean Connery's Jim Malone in The Untouchables (poetic license taken):
"You wanna know how to get [health care reform]? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. THAT's the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get [health care reform]..." Given the current climate, this could not be more apt. OK, Mr. President, now what are you prepared to do?
supplemental: J and I make a couple of extra points in comments, but keep reading Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone. Obama began the whole reform process without his A game, i.e., the single-payer alternative. Never even made it into the gym. If he were really cocky enough to think he could push through the Plan B "public option" (or worse, take credit for any reform that passed), I could at least respect the effort, but still hate the result. We both sure "hope" he hasn't checked his senses at the door to 1600 Pennsylvania.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Go see Bill
But first, read Paul Krugman in yesterday's NYT op-ed. J provides his own take thusly: "Wonder how those people opposed to Obama's health care reform would react to the idea that they are in the same group of people that are part of the 'birthers' movement? Or, how these same people might react to the idea that they have aligned themselves with a cadre of race-baiting wing-nuts? What a country!"
Well, here's an answer or two, courtesy of Rollah and Bill Maher: the health care debate can't just be labeled as Obama's plan. For one thing, there is no alternative. It's either fix what's broken, or we continue to decline as a country that does not care about the health of its citizens. Forget stupid-ass party affiliation also. Republicans are most likely to play the fear card, but congressional Dems have not exactly been on the path of the virtuous. No, the larger problem is as Bill Maher described it on his show last week. "Dummies talking to other dummies." Bill's been on fire this Summer; we strongly encourage you to watch, or read up via the internets: http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/index.html
This country continues to be run by corporatists (read, older rich white guys), not the will of the people. They are the ones who are most afraid, of losing control and power. They turn that fear over to their constituents, however they can. [Two asides: (1) read Matt Taibbi's long article on Goldman Sachs in last month's Rolling Stone, that's some scary sh^&; and, (2) re Judge Sotomayor's confirmation: old, rich white guys can never claim reverse racism. They have always been the oppressor, never the victim. Ok, (3) add in Jeremy Scahill's account of Blackwater]
You can see where we're headed. As long as greed and selfishness prevail, this place will continue to tank. And the scariest part? Obama could ram anything he wants down Congress' throat. He's that smart, and they're that lame. But if it's not in him to get mean, get nasty, if he stays true to himself and always plays the nice guy, the bipartisan, touchy-feely, Mr. Kumbaya? Then we're all screwed; our kids, their kids, the planet. If you've never seen the movie, Wall-E, go rent it. That's not 700 years down the road if things don't turn around! That's a short trip down I-5 to Tomorrowland and Fantasyland all in 1 stop.
Well, here's an answer or two, courtesy of Rollah and Bill Maher: the health care debate can't just be labeled as Obama's plan. For one thing, there is no alternative. It's either fix what's broken, or we continue to decline as a country that does not care about the health of its citizens. Forget stupid-ass party affiliation also. Republicans are most likely to play the fear card, but congressional Dems have not exactly been on the path of the virtuous. No, the larger problem is as Bill Maher described it on his show last week. "Dummies talking to other dummies." Bill's been on fire this Summer; we strongly encourage you to watch, or read up via the internets: http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/index.html
This country continues to be run by corporatists (read, older rich white guys), not the will of the people. They are the ones who are most afraid, of losing control and power. They turn that fear over to their constituents, however they can. [Two asides: (1) read Matt Taibbi's long article on Goldman Sachs in last month's Rolling Stone, that's some scary sh^&; and, (2) re Judge Sotomayor's confirmation: old, rich white guys can never claim reverse racism. They have always been the oppressor, never the victim. Ok, (3) add in Jeremy Scahill's account of Blackwater]
You can see where we're headed. As long as greed and selfishness prevail, this place will continue to tank. And the scariest part? Obama could ram anything he wants down Congress' throat. He's that smart, and they're that lame. But if it's not in him to get mean, get nasty, if he stays true to himself and always plays the nice guy, the bipartisan, touchy-feely, Mr. Kumbaya? Then we're all screwed; our kids, their kids, the planet. If you've never seen the movie, Wall-E, go rent it. That's not 700 years down the road if things don't turn around! That's a short trip down I-5 to Tomorrowland and Fantasyland all in 1 stop.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Return of the J
Just when we thought our well of Highpocrisy would dry up after S.C. gov Mark Sanford's "hiking" trip last month, along comes the resident Republican batshade standard-bearer herself, the 'thrilla from Wasilla', with her dress for the press, and on the Friday of the Independence Day weekend, no less (shout-out, Dr. Seuss). Has Countdown taken all the good puns ['Iquitarod' was an instant classic]? We hope not, because here J revives some long-dormant, never before posted quips of his own (and the classics never die). Regardless of whether you believe the Tina Fey wanna-be is going to the talk show circuit, the courtroom, a padded cell or her next helicopter ride up to shoot wolves on her way to Michael Jackson's funeral, J cautions you to be ever-vigilant:
"Countdown has used the 'Palin-tology' graphic before. Sounds remarkably close to paleontology, which is the point of course. If you believe what the soon-to-be former Mrs. Governor of AK believes, there would be no such thing as paleontology. Or, at the very least, she would have you believe that paleontologists, professional wrestlers and celebrity psychics are all cut from the same cloth. And speaking of her cloth... does she still believe that witches and demons walk among us and must be purged from our souls? Hi Memory Lane, it's me, Trip, wanna take a walk?
Sarah Palin supposedly thought it was fine that her aides ignored subpoenas during Trooper-gate. Remember she wanted to bill (did?) rape victims for their medical kits? Foreign policy experience meant seeing a sliver of Russia from her house. Obama's there now. Can she see him waving to her? Does she still think the Founding Fathers were omitting a few powers from the Constitution that only the Vice-President had or knew about 230 years later? Highpocrisy HOF'er on the issue of a woman's right to choose. Downright Bushian in her ability to remain unencumbered by syntax, grammar or the modern English language. You betcha! Quick brain teaser: which was the more rambling, incoherent episode between her VP debate or last Friday's press conference? Trick question, because the answer is, both were G-d's will.
Now it's time for J's blatant rip-off of a top 10 list of reasons why McCain picked her in the 1st place:
10 - Nobody else would
9 - Alaska is the only state where McGeezer didn't have a house
8 - Mcgramps wanted to see the Northern lights for real, not just in his nightmare 'Nam flashbacks
7 - Lost his bet with Phil Gramm that he couldn't find anyone worse than Dan Quayle
6 - Alternative to Viagra
5 - Thought "field dressing a moose" meant something else
4 - Hillary said no
3 - Promised Pat Buchanan he'd pick a running mate who could give him a woodie
2 - Found his intellectual soul-mate
and
1 - Hoping for a 3-way with Cindy"
Wind J up, watch him unleash the pent-up fury. He's baaaack, and he's brought hell with him.
"Countdown has used the 'Palin-tology' graphic before. Sounds remarkably close to paleontology, which is the point of course. If you believe what the soon-to-be former Mrs. Governor of AK believes, there would be no such thing as paleontology. Or, at the very least, she would have you believe that paleontologists, professional wrestlers and celebrity psychics are all cut from the same cloth. And speaking of her cloth... does she still believe that witches and demons walk among us and must be purged from our souls? Hi Memory Lane, it's me, Trip, wanna take a walk?
Sarah Palin supposedly thought it was fine that her aides ignored subpoenas during Trooper-gate. Remember she wanted to bill (did?) rape victims for their medical kits? Foreign policy experience meant seeing a sliver of Russia from her house. Obama's there now. Can she see him waving to her? Does she still think the Founding Fathers were omitting a few powers from the Constitution that only the Vice-President had or knew about 230 years later? Highpocrisy HOF'er on the issue of a woman's right to choose. Downright Bushian in her ability to remain unencumbered by syntax, grammar or the modern English language. You betcha! Quick brain teaser: which was the more rambling, incoherent episode between her VP debate or last Friday's press conference? Trick question, because the answer is, both were G-d's will.
Now it's time for J's blatant rip-off of a top 10 list of reasons why McCain picked her in the 1st place:
10 - Nobody else would
9 - Alaska is the only state where McGeezer didn't have a house
8 - Mcgramps wanted to see the Northern lights for real, not just in his nightmare 'Nam flashbacks
7 - Lost his bet with Phil Gramm that he couldn't find anyone worse than Dan Quayle
6 - Alternative to Viagra
5 - Thought "field dressing a moose" meant something else
4 - Hillary said no
3 - Promised Pat Buchanan he'd pick a running mate who could give him a woodie
2 - Found his intellectual soul-mate
and
1 - Hoping for a 3-way with Cindy"
Wind J up, watch him unleash the pent-up fury. He's baaaack, and he's brought hell with him.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Spawn but not forgotten
No, we have not forgotten about our little blog of heaven. But yes, we have dropped someone's ball in not updating since end of March. We've missed a lot. Meant to write about Gov. Rick Perry's secessionist nonsense. Still might. Gotta catch up on all the hypocritical goings-on, but life has found a way to keep J and Rollah busy. More to follow because HIGHpocrisy never stops.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
NAILed it !
As in, "nail in the coffin" of this country. I wish there was a way that Matt Taibbi could explain as forcefully what the frikk we're supposed to do now. You'll have plenty of time to read this long piece, meandering amid the ruins of what was once a god-fearing, hard-working upstart nation. But if you don't survive the impending doomsday, here's a short excerpt to drive that final nail home:
That roll of the eyes is a key part of the psychology of Paulsonism. The state is now being asked not just to call off its regulators or give tax breaks or funnel a few contracts to connected companies; it is intervening directly in the economy, for the sole purpose of preserving the influence of the megafirms. In essence, Paulson used the bailout to transform the government into a giant bureaucracy of entitled assholedom, one that would socialize "toxic" risks but keep both the profits and the management
of the bailed-out firms in private hands. Moreover, this whole process would be done in secret, away from the prying eyes of NASCAR dads, broke-ass liberals who read translations of French novels, subprime mortgage holders and other such financial losers.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Morning Joe for the colon blow!
Every morning while I’m getting ready for work, I turn on those morning buffoons from MSNBC……they are just so darn entertaining. If your regular cup of “morning Joe” isn’t enough to kick-start your system and keep you ….well…. regular, then you should really power up the boob tube and tune into some super duper high intensity, fast acting, fiber rich laxative from the likes of Mika, Willie, Joe, Pat and Mike. Wow, just typing their names makes my sphincter pucker uncontrollably. Remember the old SNL commercial for “Colon Blow” cereal? [Gotta love Phil Hartman......“How many bowls of your cereal would it take to equal the fiber content in new Colon Blow Cereal? ....... It would take over 30,000 bowls ...... With new Super Colon Blow, it would take 2 million bowls”]. Well, unless you’ve seen “Scarborough’s Appalachian Country Fair” lately, you don’t know what diarrhea is! Mika Brzezinski is just like that innocent, little wet fart that precedes the gargantuan dump. You’re never quite sure whether it’s a harmless little squeak or whether that seemingly innocent little blurt is going to let go and bury the audience in an avalanche of hazardous, republican, fecal matter…..she is so vacuously cute, like the Energizer Bunny, desperately trying to contribute anything remotely interesting to the conversation. Just above Mika on the “Morning Joe Doo Doo scale” is the show’s resident spontaneous farter, Wee Willie Geist. You never know what is going to come out of him or when. Non sequitur, lame attempt at a joke or steaming pile of dog squeeze……..he is our adorable little Mr. poopy-pants! Then there’s Pat “Mt. Vitruvius” Buchanan……who could blow at any second. He is the old, constipated, isolationist who hasn’t laid a smooth tread in over a month. Old people are just so darn cute…..but beware, he is just one really good broccoli fart away from covering the entire set, knee deep in his conservative “ma-caca”. And Mike Barnicle……poor, sensitive, Mike Barnicle….accomplished print journalist trying desperately to make the jump to TV while hiding the giant load in his pants from his uncontrollable, high-fiber diet binges. Mike wants to be a good guy and at times he shows signs of wanting to use the potty with the rest of the big boys……but alas, Joe or Pat says something that “moves” him or he catches a whiff of Peggy Noonan’s rank perfume and he can’t help but soil his pants yet again! And how about our fearless leader………..backwoods, banjo playing, freak-on-a-bridge from Deliverance, Joe, “the equal opportunity critic” Scarborough. This guy is such a turd……a living, speaking, walking but barely thinking piece of pure unadulterated excrement! He is our own adorable and retarded version of Mr. Hankey. This morning was just so…..so……so…….cleansing. When vaunted financial analyst Jim “Mad Money – thyroid case” Cramer and Joe Blow-hard started whining about Jon Stewart and the Daily Show I could feel a classic Morning Joe bowel movement “brewing”. Scar-blow actually had the audacity to call Jon Stewart an ideologue and challenged him to appear on “Morning Joe” and explain to the viewers his solution for the economic recovery. These “shit-for-brains” morons appear everyday on TV talking about how Obama is failing to deliver on his promises and how his decisions have caused the worst economy since the great depression! The man has been president for 2 months! It took Bush 8 years to flush this country down the economic, human rights, foreign affairs, health care and education toilet and these freakin hemorrhoids expect things to get better in 2 months! MSNBC needs to install a giant bidet and blast these dingleberries right off the air. Now that was a satisfying dump.
-J
-J
Thursday, March 5, 2009
they're not booing, they're saying yooooooooo
I never doubted that my sublime name-calling could be outdone: use the link on the right and read The Rude Pundit's posts from yesterday and today. Thank goodness I couldn't get in to Boalt; it saved me the trauma of being more ashamed 20 years later now that the school employs this batshade POS.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Em-'bear'-assing level of batshade
As Cal grads, J and not so silent Rollah respectfully urge Boalt Hall School of Law to summarily dismiss the batshade nutbar disguising himself as a 'law professor'. Any institution of higher learning (esp. ours) should be ashamed for employing anyone who could spit on the U.S. Constitution like this: The country, he argued, was in a "state of armed conflict." The scale of violence, he argued, was unprecedented and "legal and constitutional rules" governing law enforcement—such as the Fourth Amendment prohibition on "unreasonable" searches and seizures—did not apply.
I'm no legal scholar, but I can parse a sentence. The 'country' was not in a state of armed conflict. We were attacked, but Yoo's boss sat and read a kiddie book for 7 minutes, and then told everyone soon thereafter to go shopping. What was the scale of violence compared to the 4250+ U.S. dead, thousands wounded, maybe hundreds of thousands Iraqi civilians dead, 2 million+ refugees since then? That's not teaching we can believe in. I can see Stanford bringing Rummy to the Farm, Condi was already there for a loooong time. But et tu, Boalt?
For more on that sorry excuse for a lawyer, read the Newsweek article, here.
I'm no legal scholar, but I can parse a sentence. The 'country' was not in a state of armed conflict. We were attacked, but Yoo's boss sat and read a kiddie book for 7 minutes, and then told everyone soon thereafter to go shopping. What was the scale of violence compared to the 4250+ U.S. dead, thousands wounded, maybe hundreds of thousands Iraqi civilians dead, 2 million+ refugees since then? That's not teaching we can believe in. I can see Stanford bringing Rummy to the Farm, Condi was already there for a loooong time. But et tu, Boalt?
For more on that sorry excuse for a lawyer, read the Newsweek article, here.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
misrememberin' ?
I must not have heard this right: the 30-something-year-old governor of the state devastated by Katrina claiming that because the Federal gov't failed massively on the watch of the worst president ever (R), that we don't need no stinkin gov't now under Obama (D) to help with anything?
J, is that batshade enough for ya?
Update: thanks for commenting, J. As if to prove your point ...
J, is that batshade enough for ya?
Update: thanks for commenting, J. As if to prove your point ...
Monday, February 9, 2009
Empty kool-aid
There are enough accounts of this travesty to satiate all sides of the blogosphere; even w/in the 10 spots linked on right. I chose ABC's because of how mainstream they're supposed to be; but look at the comments below the blog post. Nothing says 'divided' more than some of these nutbars. Couple this decision with Panetta retracting the torture prosecutions, and Obama letting himself get played by idiots in Congress who have no clue how to fix what they helped break. [Or, maybe they have a clue, but they don't care; they want it to stay broken]. And what you have is 1 empty trough o' kool-aid. No justice, no peace.
Adding: Why can't someone just be honest about their dishonesty, as in, "You can't spell F#ck without U!" There, I said it.
Adding: Why can't someone just be honest about their dishonesty, as in, "You can't spell F#ck without U!" There, I said it.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
repubes take ball, go home
I'd show House Rs some respect if they acted like adults once in a while, or ever. But what's the point? These are grown men and women who got elected, or re-elected, as representatives of the people? Not seeing it. And don't rely on the MSM to put these kids in time-out.
Nah gah happen.
Nah gah happen.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
En fuego J
You can't stop him any longer, you can only hope to contain him:
Well played, Mr. Neiwert. You just earned a spot on the J-LEB (J’s List of Enlightened Bloggers). The list is still young but highly exclusive. Heretofore you can call yourself a J-LEBrity.
- J
J's unleashed his hounds, so he's right up there with "batshade" TM. When we combine these 2 newest catch-phrases, we're really on to what will surely be a cultural phenomenon: a "Batshade J-LEBrity".
Well played, Mr. Neiwert. You just earned a spot on the J-LEB (J’s List of Enlightened Bloggers). The list is still young but highly exclusive. Heretofore you can call yourself a J-LEBrity.
- J
J's unleashed his hounds, so he's right up there with "batshade" TM. When we combine these 2 newest catch-phrases, we're really on to what will surely be a cultural phenomenon: a "Batshade J-LEBrity".
so basic
even your Republican hypocrite friends can understand.
- J
Updated: But for those of you who read that lib'rul NYT, here's another basic.
- J
Updated: But for those of you who read that lib'rul NYT, here's another basic.
Monday, January 26, 2009
O2
Just to follow on your "single letter theme" ….allow me to buy a vowel and add a number! I experienced what can only be described as someone finally opening a giant window, after eight long years in some dark, dank, oxygen-deprived, bunker somewhere in east, butt-f%&k Texas! It was a strange and painful existence, where incomplete, often incoherent sentences were the norm, and Mr. Whipple’s Charmin was replaced with the constitution to clean up the diarrhetic bile that spewed from the mouths and rectums of W and Dick. Obama is saying all the right things and it is such a breath of fresh air. Let the healing begin!
- J
- J
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
quickie from J
Most ironic that Norm "Howdy Doodie" Coleman was so righteously outspoken when he was leading the vote to have Franken concede for the "good of the country" and the "good of Minnesota". Now that he is about to lose he decides to file a lawsuit! He is pulling a "LIE-bermann". What a freakin hypocrite............definitely a triple HHH for Highpocrisy!!!
-J
Note: while this may only be J's 2nd overall contribution, we are still expecting great things in 2009...
-J
Note: while this may only be J's 2nd overall contribution, we are still expecting great things in 2009...
Friday, January 9, 2009
BCS edition, 2.0
Alt. title: "Stupid is as stupid does." Last year about this time, I posted on another site, which may or may not still exist, re the stupidity of the BCS system. No re-hash here. But I did want to make an observation, not necessarily Highpocrisy-related, into my truer passion than politics: sports. Driving home from work and listening to the pre-game on radio, I thought maybe Fla. wins 31-21, but then that might be too high-scoring, so more like 24-10. I can be that prescient, because I am that knowledgeable about the sports I follow. I tried to watch some of the game last night betw. Okla and Fla., and I told my older daughter that Fla. was going to win. She asked how I could be so sure when it was only the 1st half. Here's how:
Okla. had to know they were not going to score their 50+ pts. average against that defense. Stoops had to know too, that he'd been pulling an 0-fer on recent BCS games. So what happens? Exhibit A: 1st and goal with this year's Heisman winner at QB, and they run 3 times to no effect. Instead of taking the points in a gimme FG, they try a 4th straight run. TO on downs. Exhibit B: 10 seconds left in the 1st half; another chance for gimme 3 pts., but this time, a passing play that gets deflected for an INT. Game over by halftime.
From the ol' Ghostbusters movie: 'when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!' When you have a chance to get 6 pts via 2 cheap field goals against the best D you've seen all year, you TAKE THE POINTS! QBs and defense win football games. Ya know what else wins? Scoring more than the other team. Okla. deserved to lose. That's the message I could convey with utter confidence. And since there is usually plenty of Highpocrisy in the sports world, we need to stay on top of it whenever possible. So, we will.
As an aside, I hope Bradford stays in school another year. Then my Lions can draft the OL from 'bama with the #1 pick; then KC takes Stafford, and so on. World order restored.
Okla. had to know they were not going to score their 50+ pts. average against that defense. Stoops had to know too, that he'd been pulling an 0-fer on recent BCS games. So what happens? Exhibit A: 1st and goal with this year's Heisman winner at QB, and they run 3 times to no effect. Instead of taking the points in a gimme FG, they try a 4th straight run. TO on downs. Exhibit B: 10 seconds left in the 1st half; another chance for gimme 3 pts., but this time, a passing play that gets deflected for an INT. Game over by halftime.
From the ol' Ghostbusters movie: 'when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!' When you have a chance to get 6 pts via 2 cheap field goals against the best D you've seen all year, you TAKE THE POINTS! QBs and defense win football games. Ya know what else wins? Scoring more than the other team. Okla. deserved to lose. That's the message I could convey with utter confidence. And since there is usually plenty of Highpocrisy in the sports world, we need to stay on top of it whenever possible. So, we will.
As an aside, I hope Bradford stays in school another year. Then my Lions can draft the OL from 'bama with the #1 pick; then KC takes Stafford, and so on. World order restored.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
2009
the 1st post of the year, and it's administrative. Hopefully, I was able to change the page layout to put the picture at bottom, and have the blog list along the right-hand side. Substantive posts to resume shortly. And of course, more importantly: for the privileged few who may have actually stumbled upon us, it's henceforth known as Highpocrisy, in title and now in URL: http://www.highpocrisy.blogspot.com/. Rollah yields.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
