Sunday, July 22, 2012
1) She's missing a front tooth (I sympathize);
2) She loves ice cream;
3) She's dead;
4) She was killed by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Now, three questions directed to this so-called A.Scalia, by all accounts with a full set of teeth and breathing in and out.
1) You are quite fond of the 2nd Amendment, as are we all, because it was after all a pretty good law for its time, and you like the "for-its-time" thing don't you, being what they call a Constitutional "originalist" or something. True?
2) Qualifying as an audible life-form, you were appointed to the SCOTUS Corporation, owned by Ronald Reagan at the time, based on your fondness also for the Tridentine Latin Mass (sponsored by a famous chewing-gum company) and GUNS. Right?
3) As one of the known mobsters on the Court, you are sympathetic to the proliferous gun-lobbies and to organized crime, who reject any kind of Federal regulation of guns and ammunition of any kind. Including assault rifles. Yes?
4) Your ties to the Mafia are not only indicated by #3, but also by your last name, your religion--clandestine rites in a dead language--and the Soprano-perfect sign you are wont to use when annoyed by reporters asking about these biased decisions:
This photo captures the secret gesture midway between first cupping your hand under the chin and full-out FLICK of hand and fingers, does it not? The visual mummery represents the underlying code in Italian "Ba(va) Fungule(fan culo)"--meaning literally in English "Go find an ass (your own, to fuck, implied). Abstracted meaning, of course: "Fuck you." And Mr. Scalia, you would be up on your Latin/Italian roots, based on your old-timey Roman church experience, would you not? ***
5) You are responsible for the murder of this young lady, Veronica Moser-Sullivan, who while doubtless finishing her dental-friendly ice cream and waiting for The Dark Knight Rises to appear on the screen of her local Cinema ... he did. Movie cancelled for Veronica. New front tooth mooted.
This innocent was slaughtered by an angry white man in a black suit carrying an AK-47 assault rifle--a Weapon of War. Unless this was a SOLDIER run amuck, suffering from PTSD, i. e. Particularly Terrible Something or other, thinking in a crazed state he was firing at terrorists in Saskatchewan--you might be off the hook. Right? But no ... he WAS a civilian! Because of your gaseous gun decisions, and in particular your fatal deconstuction of the 2nd Amendment, the shooter possessed a weapon of war, "legally." You put it in his hands. The AK-47 was the ONLY way that the shall-be-nameless boy could have killed and wounded the incredible amount of people he did. Is this not all true Justice Scalia?
***Look for my Mafia connections soon in Mosteller Musings.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
... about TELLING THE TRUTH,.
How's this for a headline:
Honesty All But Destroys Governor Romney's Presidential Campaign Presumptive nominee's admission of being WRONG costs him GOP major support. Primary battle now shifts in favor of ...
Richard Nixon ... Gotcha. Now you must adMIIT to being totally and completely fooled by my fake/true/fake headline, Or not. But boy-golly it's a tangled web, as Somebody once said, or said was said. The WRONGITY for Romney pere, as it turns out, was about the VIETNAM WAR--he discovered he was against it, In 1965. A Republican fercryinoutloud.. What. A. Guy. Cost him the Presidency in 1968 and his (incumbent) Michigan Governorship later that year, if he'd been running for it. .
Headlines like the one above reflected the Gov's changed attitude about THE war of our time as early as mid-year 1965, when by now the former auto executive and Michigan CEO appeared already to be the man to run against LBJ in '68. But he had zero foreign policy experience. He decided, alone among presidential hopefuls, to take a look, 'Nam-wise. Result? "I was FOR, but NOT ANYMORE or some such dramatic stuff. Before TET, Cronkite. An epiphany.
He saw the shambles--the literally and etymologically abattoir of bloody failure of US intervention--and declared the so-called "progress" bullshit. Or something like that in Mormonese When he got face-to-face with the Generals directly in charge of the Vietnamese killing fields ... he knew. Their so-ridiculous-sounding-now protestations of "light at the end of the tunnel"--standard issue phraseology memorized from the Officer's Code, or something, as it is today--cut no shit with the Michigan/Mormon Elder. And he said as much, on record, in late-'67:
Ah, soooo ... the Brainwashing. Sinatra's Manchurian Candidate was still fresh in every brainwashed American mind, as it should have been. But Frank got George W. (hmmn) in big trouble when all of this soundbite baggage concatenated up into the newslines of 1968. And the Primaries.When I came back from Vietnam, I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get. I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop Communist aggression in SE Asia. [No kidding; this is how a lot of grownups really talked back then]
The Chicken-Hawks of the GOP got fugacious ("fug-" to fly; flee; ult. fr. Latin fugere "fuck you"). Yes, they abandoned him in flocks, and prez hopes fluttered away for one of the first unlikely doves, lo unto Zolub, of the anti-Vietnam-war cause.
Naive; i.e. HONEST ... George W. (hmmn) Romney was NOT a dumb guy. He SAVED American Motors Corp,(irony alert) a struggling Detroit auto company on the verge of bankruptcy after buying out the venerable Nash and Hudson brands. He innovated. My first legal motorcaraage, in fact, was via our family's AMC/Hudson Rambler "Cross Country" model which was CEO Romney's precursor to the modern mini-SUV! No kidding. Great car. It came with--guess what-- a built-in dog-carrier rack on the rear top of the little wagon,
No, not a dumb guy--later, Mitt's father had done a good enough job as Gov of a difficult state to be elected for three 2-year terms. Guess whose first legal ballot was for George to serve the second of those terms? Here's the headline:
Noted Future Blogperson Casts His Vote for Romney in 1964 Gubernatorial Election Gov Wins by Single Vote
Monday, July 2, 2012
Take a look and a double-take at the following post****** down the page, written March 2010 just after Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, which somehow was replaced with the puzzling term "Obamacare." Here's what you'll shortly discover: it could have been written today! I swear, it's la plus ca change with a vengeance, almost literally. It's as if you and me and the world haven't MOVED that much in the last couple of years. Like woo-woo suspended animation. I expect an alien to burst from my belly any minute. Geraldo Rivera maybe/ Ouch.
So I'm recycling the "All Aboard" post #212 of 3/25/10, unchanged, to make the point above, ...and another point or two about THIS election year--namely, that the Democrats' strategy should remain unchanged as well (that is, what little there was OF it back in 2010).. SCOTUS, whatever that is, has made the President a WINNER again, and it's still all about the Kids. With Health Care reform now firmly in place, parent's and grandparents, and aren't we all, are going to vote for The Man who did it--who assured their progeny of health coverage no matter pre-existing conditions; of coverage to age 26 under the family's insurance; of coverage for themselves for life (no "caps") to see it all happen.. All this is among other good stuff like preventive care and more--the devil has NEVER been in the details. i.e. the specific ACA provisions, for the clear majority (60-80%) of the Electorate--they're for the good stuff that Team Obama can now put on sale with all-to-hell impunity. Republicans, or, technically, oxygen users, ain't got nothin' ...
******Here's "back-to-the-future" 2010 post, updated by bold in brackets--
Or ... sort of continuing from last post, "Go for it"--said President Obama to Republicans (and Blue Dog Dems sub rosa) who would fashion this year's off-year election campaigns [now Presidential and down-ballot] on REPEAL of the new Health Care Act. His version of Clint Eastwood's "Make my day." Further along in his Iowa City presser today [3/25/10] (still here) it was the even more genteel challenge, "Be my guest."
Mr. Obama can afford to be smugly magnanimous in victory [now again this new one] because he knows he's a winner, not only in this recent battle. but most likely now in several wars to come. Why?--because in this and future legislative struggles over social justice the lately extreme-right-wing G.O.P. along with the forever-reactionary, small-state southern Democrats will be RUNNING AGAINST LITTLE KIDS. No win. Battle lost. [Here I was sadly mistaken. Republicans cleaned clock around the country in the 2010 elections.]
First of all, the forces for progressive change will be aided by--to our shame, really--the "band-wagon" effect. A check of the polls reveals that curious fact about human nature: immediately after the HCR bill had passed, more people were for it. The only difference?--it was now a winner [like the SCOTUS victory] What had been disfavored by a slight majority of the American people only a few days earlier was now favored by a slight majority. [SAME DAMN THING ... last week. Polls already show a "bump."] Evidently, several millions of those originally opposed had set aside the time to read all 3000 pages of the bill ... and were convinced otherwise. Yeah, that's it. But whatever the case, I'm sure these numbers will grow.
For, more importantly, it all comes down to the children--their protection and well-being. The winning side. As for the new health-care program, Republicans on the campaign trail are wildly deluded that "Repeal it and start over"--John Boner's mantra--is going to have any resonance whatsoever with American voters. Correct me, but I believe parents and grandparents make up a sizable voting block. This formidable bunch of ballot-casters (including me) in November are going to vote FOR allowing insurance companies to again deny coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions? Fuhgeddaboudit. Or vote AGAINST children being covered under their parent's policy till age 26? No way. There's even a further incentive for parent-minded citizens in the same bill-now-law re-passed yesterday: it was revised to include a major expansion of the college-loan program. [Again, the down-ballot Electorate didn't buy it in 2010, but it was never really sold aggressively. Still, the People loved the ACA in detail, but somehow not in general. Brainwashed by the Teabaggers, somebody said.]
Other challenges to the status quo ante? Other changes "you can believe in" as the Obama campaign put it? Well, "Yes we can." The re-invigorated Obama administration along with the newly-victorious progressive forces in Congress [Whew, boy] will again have the kids on their side. (more)