Friday, May 22, 2009

The Newest Jams from Run RNC

Last week the Republican National Committee's plans to call the Democrats the "Democratic Socialist Party" sadly failed.  In the wake of a president who plans on drastically ramping up federal spending, ratcheting up at least one inherited war, tackling racial issues, and expressing empathy for the worst-off in society, the GOP has rightly called out this 21st century Lyndon Johnson for who he is: a socialist!

I was surprised, then, to wake up this morning and find that the Republicans are emulating the lowest moments of Johnson's tenure.  No, I'm not talking about any of the entitlement payments, or the signing of the Civil Rights Act, or even those aspects of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that forever eroded the sovereignty of great educating states like Mississippi to determine educational outcomes.  I'm talking about the Daisy Ad.  The Republicans have copied it (below):

In a way I think that maybe Democrats should be happy about this.  The Johnson ad always kind of ushers in creepy feelings about a moment (and there were many others, and will continue to be others) when the Democrats out-Republicaned the Republicans.  At least now I feel like the GOP has decided to take ownership over this ad--which, for the record, only ran once due to its controversial nature.  

Now is the time for the Democrats to copy that Willy Horton ad, replacing Horton with a white corporate executive, but keeping the kidnapping, stabbing, and raping lines.   

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Because Dubya is Gone, and Need be Forgotten

I'm posting a series of images from NASA's Landsat 7 satellite that are not particularly spectacular, just so that I don't have to stare at our former electoral aberration every time I refresh this page.

Monday, May 04, 2009

Disturbing Picture of the Day

Saturday, May 02, 2009

Go fuck yourself

Today, a New York Times op-ed argues that the recent SCOTUS decision regarding the FCC's no-swearin-on-TV-cuz-the-kids-r-gonna-b-harmed-help-yall-rule is bullshit. While discussing the word "fuck" (a verb meaning "to fuck") the author, Adam Freedman, cites an "expert in swearing" who claims that "fuck" can be used nonsexually. Freedman gives the following example:
The nonsexual use of the word can be seen in countless contemporary examples, as when Vice President Dick Cheney used it in 2004 to recommend that Senator Patrick Leahy do something that is, strictly speaking, anatomically impossible.

Although I agree with the substance of the article, I cannot agree that this use is nonsexual. I believe the impossibility of the act is what makes it sexual: one is forced to imagine (NSFW, disgusting) the contortions through which the object of the command would attempt to obey it. Although this would not be "sexual" in the sense that it would not involve reproduction by two members of opposite sexes, it does partake of the idea of sexuality insofar as it would replicate sexual feelings in the actor. 
All of that being said, I do believe that "fuck" can be used non-sexually, and even if it couldn't, I would want it on television because I like the dirty, funky side of life (and children growing up in clean households have all sorts of problems). It's just that I'd like to keep the Grey Lady honest as she enjoys her last years of existence.