Why voting in a way that allows a Republican to hold office is ALWAYS wrong

Republicans, of course, do not want to do important things and certainly not do them well. They know they can but why would they? Their entire ideology is based of handing everything over to the rich, so instead of doing the people’s work, they sabotage the government.

In other words: Break the government, complain the government is broken and then push to privatize all the stuff you broke in the first place so the rich can get even richer while delivering worse service.

This is the ONLY message we need to get out to voters. Make them internalize it. Make them understand it. If you vote in a way that allows a Republican to hold office, you’re voting against yourself, your country, your children’s future … Mom and apple pie. You’re a traitor to yourself if not your country.

Read the rest.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Xmas eve dinner

What are y’all having?




Assorted cured meats

Assorted seafood

Caesar’s salad (real, home-made, down to the croutons)

Prime rib, on the bone

Yorkshire pudding

Baby potatoes

Green peppercorn sauce

Mascarpone w/reduction of fresh (blue) cranberries

Egg nog

Lemon sorbet w/Marc de Champaign

Cofee & liqueurs



White wine – Albariño

Red wine – Viña Real (Rioja)


Meal for 7 people…

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

A major change?

After many years of being screwed over by my boss/partner, I’m seriously considering breaking off an moving on to my own business…


I’ve had a few evenings out with our top client (one that -I- found, contracted, and do 90% of the work for, but only get 25% of the billing). He’s more than open to the idea, acknowledging that the good work is mine (and that my boss is an asshole).


Still, it’s a major change. And considering that the SOB of my boss owes me 8000 euros… a major risk. On the plus side, my contact/client was once the boss of the head honcho of his company’s primary competitor, and is sanguine with the idea that I can get both clients. The bottom line is that I can triple my income (after costs) and cut my work load in half. Probably a no-brainer, but I have moral and ethical questions and the logical fear of losing the umbilical cord.


My boss/partner had me working for 6 years without a contract, without contributing to social security (major league illegal). He’s profitted off my work while paying me a pittance, and owes me a hefty sum, so the moral question isn’t so difficult. In fact, if he tries to give me trouble I’ll both sue his ass for his debt, and press charges for having me work illegally. For him that would make him ineligible to work again as a lawyer, so I figure that any troubles he might cause won’t pan out.


I’ll have to invest in a bigger apartment (for a bedroom-office), some telephone and computer infrastructure, and little else. My decision is pretty much made up, but I’d appreciate a devil’s advocate or moral support.


I’m 51 years old and at the current rate I have no chance in hell of ever retiring. If I make this move I’ll have a very decent living, a better working environment, I won’t have to deal with a literally fascist boss/partner, and I might be able to retire at one time or another.


FWIW, an ex-workmate and a current workmate want to participate, which would leave the asshole high and dry and without his most important clients… Frankly the SOB deserves it, but I am reticent about being so vindicative….

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Winning ain’t everything

Timbuk and I have coincided on a link of late, describing how the DNC lost its north.


What really happened was that after McGovern’s electoral meltdown, many dem politcos read too much between the lines, and saw that the abandonment of liberal/progressive causes was the only way to get into positions of power. Liberalism lost? Abandon ship! Embrace right-wing policies, and keep the base by sugar-coating it with liberal rhetoric. Bubba/Bliar and the 3rd Way put the final nail in the progressive coffin.


This, needless to say, was a mistake that the GOP, and the corporate sponsors of both the GOP and DNC, took great advantage of. Overton’s window moves to the right with every election cycle, faster under the GOP and slower under the DNC (as opposed to a slight reversal, which would be quite welcome).


As many have noted, the electorate is a pretty stupid animal. Outside the 30-odd percent of “hard liners” of “either” party, there’s no ideological awareness, little or no understanding of what, how and why things happen, and basically look to their (mislead) bellybuttons when it comes time to vote. Times are bad? Oust the incumbant party, be it GOP or DNC. Punitive voting is the electoral reality in this day and age, at least for the fence-sitters that seem to sway each and every election.


So the DNC’s move to the right was a strategic and tactical mistake, if ideology/platforms are of any importance to the majority of DNC politicians. The only way to see the move to the right as correct move is from the perspective of corporate money – moving to the right makes things easier for DNC politicos come election time.


If the DNC had stayed its course, it might have lost a few elections (which it did anyways), but it would actually provide an alternative to the neoliberal/neoconservative swill that passes for policy these days. And there would be scope for reparing the damage after a lost election cycle, when the GOP would  be punished for fucking up as is invariably does.


Luckily, hereabouts some alternatives are arising. I fear that you folks are scewed for the forseeable future.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

News dump

ISIS releases horrifying sex slave pamphlet, justifies child rape

Al Frum’s (former Republican) take on “Why the Democratic Party Acts The Way It Does

“Impurifying our precious bodily fluids” (Published December 5, 2001 by “Reason”, a Libertarian magazine).

On balance the scientific evidence seems to indicate that fluoridation is a safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay. Of course, that doesn’t mean that future studies will not identify problems–research is always subject to revision. However it is highly likely that, after 50 years of use by millions of people, any truly major health problems resulting from fluoridation would already have made themselves evident.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)