Showing posts with label michelle obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label michelle obama. Show all posts

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Bow Down for the Bend-Over



With all the fanfare surrounding our President's European tour, with the entire mini-continent all on Obama's Balzac, it's no surprise that America's conservatives are off their collective nut with rage. They've decided that they hate The Big Brother, that his every action makes the bile rise in their throats. Therefore, they are basically automatically outraged by the man's every action--and every action of his wife.

Earlier this week, the First Lady got into trouble for putting her hand on Queen Elizabeth's shoulder. Outrage ensued--followed quickly by controversy. "Violations of protocol!" Yadda yadda. Some were so red-faced, you'd think Michelle kissed Liz's head with a bottle and stole her purse. Eventually, Bob Costas, John Madden, and a telestrator were brought in to analyze the tape. Apparently, the Queen put her arm around the First Lady first, prompting our Lady to put her hand on their Lady's shoulder in what experts are now calling a "reciprocation of affection."



Having finally overcome that controversial obstacle, the White House has stumbled into another with the President's bowing before Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. Screed Queen, Michelle Malkin says the whole thing is "embarrassing" and (ironically, in light of the last administration) complains, "It's like the 'American Hillbillies go to Europe.' He is throwing American power and prestige out with both hands as fast as he can." Defender of the Faith, Gary Bauer, of course, sees a Muslim conspiracy in that nefarious bow. As though the Saudis will now dictate US foreign policy in the region. As though they haven't been doing just that the past eight years.

As Costas, Madden, and the telestrator are once again employed to examine whether or not this was indeed a bow and etiquette experts like Gloria Starr calculate the exact ratio of degree-of-bow to loss-of-American-power, I'll be the first to admit that I actually don't give a shit about any of it. I'll also admit that I didn't care when W. actually held Crown Prince Abdullah's hand during their romantic stroll in Crawford back in '05. Now, don't get me wrong, I made jokes. How couldn't I? Just look at them. But I actually didn't care.



I think whether the President bows, holds hands, kisses, cuddles, or spoons another leader matters about as much as the Pirates' World Series plans. However, for the past 60+ years our country has bent over backwards to please the House of Saud to the point of utterly fucking ourselves, and that's what we seriously have to look into.

FDR started the contortions in 1943, making Saudi Arabia (a neutral country) eligible for Lend-Lease assistance. Saudi security was considered vital to US interests, and that's been our position ever since. The House of Saud could do whatever it wanted (oppress their women, torture its dissidents, spread virulent anti-American Islam worldwide, whatever); as long as they pumped the cheap crude, we'd cover their asses.

It wasn't a pretty relationship, but no junky/dealer relationship ever is. But, during the Cold War, this despicable deal made some sort of realpolitik sense. But the canoodling really needed to stop after September 11.

It's not just that 11 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi or even that Osama himself is Saudi. It's that, for decades, while we Americans have made that country rich by consuming their oil, while we've bolstered and equipped their military with aid they never needed in the first place, while we looked the other way when it came to their abysmal human rights record, and while we went to war to save their oil and asses, the Saudis have been funding the very terrorists who aimed to kill us while spending billions to indoctrinate Muslim children around the world to replace the terrorists who died that day.

It would seem that anybody who did all that to contribute to and actively encourage your own destruction would be classified an enemy. But Bush twisted the Saudis into dance partners.



But not only did the main funders and mentors of al Qaeda become our "biggest allies" in W.'s ack-basswards "War on Terror," but Pakistan (the country that formed and funded the Taliban) became our second biggest allies. How our worst enemies somehow morphed into our greatest allies is still beyond me. It's as though, after Pearl Harbor, FDR joined us to the Axis and we went on to invade Spain and Argentina.

Has such a powerful country ever been so utterly fucked over by a smaller nation only to bend over and ask for more? Back in the day, we nuked Japan. Rome plowed Carthage under with salt. But now our allies whisper sweet-nothings in our politicians' ears while their underlings blow the living shit out of our soldiers.

Now, Lord knows, I don't want us to nuke Saudi Arabia, and the salt thing seems a little too ... well, Biblical. I don't even want us to invade the peninsula. I just want to know why W. never called these "allies" of ours to task. Why did W. insist on calling them "friends"?

While these cons are screaming about Obama's bow, why have they never answered why Boy George was always so eager to bend over for the Saudis? Our thankfully former president not only never caught bin Laden, but he never made the Saudis pay in any way for their involvement with 9/11 or the global network of Islamic terror. There were no breaking of ties, no economic sanctions. We never curbed our "addiction to oil" or even tried to switch dealers.

I'm thinking Malkin, Bauer, and their brood would better utilize their time if they stopped speculating if Obama gave Abdullah a 25-, 40-, or 90-degree bow and actually get to the bottom of the mystery that was W.'s diplomatic policy towards the Saudis. Perhaps, they can even start speculating on whether or not our relationship with that country is even worth continuing.

Now, look, I understand what it's like to hate, hate, HATE! one of our presidents. I spent the last eight years filled with rage everytime I saw that Connecticut Texan on the boob tube. I hated his goofy smile, his chuckle. I even hated the way he walked--like something powerfully uncomfortable was lodged up his rectum--you know, Cheney's forearm. But, more importantly, I hated Bush's supposed "War on Terror," his lying to get us into Iraq, I hated his constant calling for tax cuts despite growing deficits, and I hated his utterly contempt for governance itself, which I believe led to levees breaking, bridges collapsing, poisoned children's toys, and collapsed banks.

So, in the grand scheme of things, how important is Obama's Bow, really? What really matters here is the Bush Bend-Over our country's been experiencing for over seven years now and whether or not Obama's simply going to "assume the position" or actually go in a different, "bold" direction and somehow extricate us from these "Wars" of ours and possibly from the region altogether.

Read more...

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Eat A Armey Award

All right, I don't know if it's the doctor's bill, the quitting smoking thing, or the drug I'm taking to quit smoking that's screwing around with my cranial lobes, or Timothy Geithner's lack of testicles, but I've been feeling more than a little irritated these past couple days. So, in honor of everyone's favorite Dick ...



former Congressman from Texas, House Majority Leader, and "Republican Revolutionary," Dick Armey, I announce my first, weekly (yeah right, Bill, like you have that kind of discipline)
Eat A Armey Award, for the public luminary who's being an especial jackhole the previous week.



The inaugural Eat A Armey Award goes to none other than ...





Michelle Malkin






Oh, there are so many reasons to bestow this honor about Ms. Malkin (whether it's her being a Japanese internment apologist or the fact that she graduated summa cum laude from the Sierra Madre School of Journalism--"Facts?! We don't need no stinkin' facts!!!"--or her huggin' up on swastika-totin' white men ...



or just about anything spewing out of this hate-filled, self-loathing leviathan), but this week I'm giving it to her for her reaction to this photo:







For those who don't know, the First Lady went to a homeless shelter Thursday and served dinner. As one could expect, when such outrageous acts of barbarism are committed, the Right responded with appropriate outrage ... Outrage ... OUTRAGE!!! I say.

Of course, they ain't hatin' on the First Lady. They hate the picture-taker--the one they all assume is homeless.

LA Times's Andrew Malcolm set it off by saying: "If this unidentified meal recipient is too poor to buy his own food, how does he afford a cellphone? And if he is homeless, where do they send the cellphone bills?"

Kathryn Jean Lopez over at National Review offered up that good, old conservative shibboleth for screwing over the poor: "I don't envy this man's situation, whatever it is, and don't mean to make light of it. But we are a blessed people when our poor have cell phones."

Kathy Shaidle, over at Five Feet of Fury, once again reading from the apocryphal Gospel of Fuck All Yall that only Conservative Christians seem to possess, states the waaaaay-too-obvious on this one: "Today's 'poor' are the rich Jesus warned you about: fat, slovenly, wasteful of their money and other people's."

Compared to the usual vitriol vomiting up from her labia, Malkin's claptrap was kind of mild on this one: "Some folks are wondering where the cell phone bills get sent. The answer is obvious: ACORN headquarters"; and "The liberals’ argument is that they need cell phones to get jobs. Do they need Blackberry Pearls?!"

So, Bill, if it was indeed so mild, why should Michelle eat a armey?

Uhhh ... Because I hate her.


Now, my first question I have to ask Michelle and her conservative crew is, What exactly about that picture-taker makes you assume that the man is homeless?

Hmm ... OK, we do know that this is a homeless shelter. So, I'm with you so far. Now, is it the man's hat? Do only homeless men wear those kinds of hats? No, I've seen those hats before. I have one, and I'm not homeless.

Is it his sweatshirt? No. I've got one of those, too.

Bill, did you ever stop to think that you might be homeless?


While I can't rule that out (though I think I want a refund for all that rent I've been paying), it still begs the question, what made these conservatives automatically think that this black man taking a photo in a homeless shelter was himself homeless? What could it possibly have been?

And while you're pondering that, may I ask what is especially wrong with a homeless person having a cell phone? I mean, I don't know much about the damned things. My wife gave me my first one, my mother my second, and my in-laws my third. I'm a Luddite with a website and don't find much need for the cellie. So, Michelle Ma Belle, I don't know if ole boy's sportin' a Blackberry Pearl as you quip. But I'm left wondering why a homeless man--if he were indeed homeless--might need a cell phone.

Hmm ...

Let me see, if I'm homeless, I'm betting people might have a tough time getting in contact with me. Like, my family wouldn't know where I was. I'm confused, how would a perspective employer get in touch with me telling me whether I have a job or not? Hell, how would my current employer get in touch with me? After all, I and a lot of my homeless cohorts are actually employed. We just ain't making enough money. That reminds me, I just applied for this little apartment over on Lazy Motherfuckers Who Are Trying to Bilk Hard-Workin' White Folks Lane. I wonder how they'll get in touch with me.

Damn, if only there was some device, something maybe portable, something I could talk into and hear other people talking to me. As you know, much like yourself, I'm always on the go, moving here, moving there. It's really hard to get in touch with me ... because I'm fucking HOMELESS!!!

I just hope one day they come up with something like that that I could use. I mean, they can put a man on the moon, but they can't come up with a portable talking device that would help me to establish some roots. Wait, what? They haven't put a man on the moon in over 30 years. Do you think that's why they haven't come up with my portable talking thingee?

But no, Malkin and her ilk didn't actually think that a cell phone could be an important device that could help a homeless person better their situation. Nope, she and the others went for the cheap joke, their go-to riff on the "Welfare Queen" myth to once again show how "stupid" the poor are and how you shouldn't give any money, time, or compassion to the unfortunate because they'll ultimately just waste it on something as "frivolous" as a cell phone.

For that, the obvious racial subtext, and the automatic assumption that a black man in a homeless shelter is homeless (not a volunteer, employee, nor director), Michelle Malkin most definitely deserves to ...



EAT A ARMEY!!!




Read more...

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Popular Politics



Why do we have to like our public figures? Why do we have to know so much about them? Do we really need to relate to these people? Why does it matter in the least? Why aren’t even the dead exempt?

Why do I have to hear speculation about whether Abraham Lincoln were gay or not? He fought that Civil War. That’s all I care about. Hemingway may have been a cross-dresser? Oh, really? That still doesn’t tell me why I had to read A Farewell to Arms in high school. And if you told me Thomas Hardy was actually a black nationalist transsexual Satanist, I’d still be pissed about having to read The Mayor of Casterbridge.

But still, we have to know. And we have to approve. Of people’s past and present behavior. LeBron James curses out his mama. Christian Bale pimp-slaps his. Paris shaves, Lindsay shaves more, and Britney cuts it all off.

The paparazzi colonoscopy is constantly searching. Even politicians get the anal probe. Mark Foley wanted to give one to many of his young pages, Larry Craig was looking for one—or just his shoe laces—in an airport bathroom. John Edwards had to confess to probing a former employee. John McCain got in trouble for just looking like he wanted to probe a lobbyist.

All because we need to like not only our celebrities but our politicians as well? Not their policies, but their personae? “Sure, he started a pre-emptive war and lied about it, but he seems like a good guy.” Really? Is that why my brother pulled a tour in Iraq? Because you felt that you, working-class commoner, felt you could have a beer with W., whose family has been rich for a century and a half? Was he inviting you to the Skull and Bones Country Club or was he meeting you at the Bumblefuck Bar and Grille? Or was it that you looked into your TV screen, looked into his eyes, and just knew that he was pretty cool? Now, I realize that that’s a sound way to run foreign policy—and it’s working wonders for us in Russia and Pakistan—but it seems like a completely ridiculous way to vote for a politician.

And what’s even more ridiculous is that now we have to like a candidate’s spouse as well. I mean, why are Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama in the news at all? Cindy has a half-sister she won’t claim; Michelle’s an “angry black woman”; Cindy broke up John’s first marriage; Michelle had some shady dealings with a hospital board; they both love their “black” daughters.

Enough already. It’s petty and annoying. And I’m pissed that I fell for it last night. I mean, Michelle Obama’s a pretty impressive woman. She struck me as a strong, intelligent, talented, and incredibly dynamic woman in her own right. Her speech—her story—was utterly compelling. She seems to me to be a woman who can definitely hold her own and would definitely do us proud as the First Lady.

Michelle Obama is most definitely a strong woman, and weak men generally don’t fall for strong women. Russian mail order brides, trophy wives—or in Donald Trump’s case—both—but hardly ever a multiply Ivy League-trained attorney. It made me a bit more impressed with Barack himself.

But, in all honesty, Michelle Obama’s speech, no matter how eloquent, is not going to have me voting for her husband. I already have my reasons to do that. She’s had no effect on that whatsoever. And if he keeps up with that FISA crap, he could still lose my vote. And if Cindy McCain ends up being Mother Teresa, the Virgin Mary, Lucille Ball, Marilyn Monroe, and Vanessa del Rio combined, I still won’t be voting for McCain. Even if the three of us got drunk at a Redskins game and pissed on Daniel Snyder, I couldn’t do it. No matter how much I loved those two fools, no matter how many candlelit evenings we spent together, gazing lovingly into each other’s eyes, how could that determine my vote? There are wars to be ended, jobs to be found, bridges to fix, healths to be cared for. What does a winning smile and dewy eyes have to do with anything? I can get those and much better music with Prince … but that doesn’t mean I want him in the Oval Office.

Though it would be cool to paint the White House purple.

Read more...