bobquasit: (Lo Pan)
Posted over on the New York Times, waiting for approval.
Oh my god, politics, don't read this )
bobquasit: (Default)
I ended up writing a letter to Salon about the "Infinite Debt"/Dateline NBC takes on debt:
There's another article on the same topic which absolutely horrified me recently: "Infinite Debt" by Thomas Geoghegan in Harper's. It lays out in stark detail how the abolition of usury laws in the US (under the tender ministrations of credit-industry lobbyists and our corrupt Congress) allowed the financial sector to produce profits for their investors of 300% or more. With that sort of profit to be had, is it any wonder that investors ran away from the manufacturing industries - industries which would normally produce 3-5% profit?

There's a great deal more in the article, which is well worth reading. Unfortunately, it's only available to subscribers (and by coincidence, I got my subscription to Harper's for renewing my Salon subscription). It's well worth looking up. If you can't afford Harper's, try to see if you can find it in your local library; it's the April 2009 issue.

But I ran into an odd juxtaposition last night: a story on NBC's Dateline about the "Debt Trap". I thought it might shed an interesting sidelight on the insights raised in "Infinite Debt". And it did - but not in the way that I hoped or expected.

Rather than report on the wholesale usury of the financial sector and the complicity of Congress in abolishing age-old protection for the public from financial wolves, Dateline instead focused on some sleazy debt collectors who used "questionable" practices. They - gasp - lied to the people they were calling! Watching these lower-class employees chatting and smoking on secret camera in their parking lot, I couldn't help but be reminded of the "bad apples" like Lyndie England who carried the Bush Administration's torture policies and ended up taking the fall for them.

Dateline thoughtfully announced that everyone filmed by the secret camera had later been fired.

But it was the management of that debt collection company that really must have run up the Dateline dry-cleaning bill. The producers must have ejaculated into their pants about twenty times over when they found that the owners of the company were all black "gangsta"-types. Thugs and criminals, to be sure. But very minor criminals indeed compared to the real criminals: the respected members of Congress, the titans of industry, and the media who all cheered as organized labor was broken and the game was rigged in favor of a financial sector whose sole purpose was to shear the sheep - the public - to the bone.

The maximum interest rate allowed used to be 9% plus a small additional percentage. And now...there IS NO maximum. We have been turned into nothing more than beasts to be slaughtered in the financial stockyard. And the "winners" of society, obscenely wealthy and virtually all-powerful, continue to hold the reins of power firmly in their hands - and by all signs, they always will.

It's a bitter pill to swallow.
bobquasit: (Default)
I don't like writing this sort of thing, and I'm going to try to avoid doing so in the future. It started as a reply to a piece by Glenn Greenwald of Salon on the sudden turn-around by Senate Democrats on the issue of torture. Senators Feinstein and Wyden, fierce advocates against torture during the Bush Administration, are suddenly backtracking as fast as they can. Apparently, torture is now okay with them - as long as they don't call it "torture", of course. And only if it's really, really necessary.

I'll say it again: don't be surprised as America continues its long slow slide into fascism in all but name.

Under Obama and the Democrats, torture will continue, and probably increase. Privacy rights will continue to erode. Governmental secrecy will increase, except in meaningless, superficial ways ("Look! This shiny new government website lets you see some documents that mean nothing and look important! Give us your feedback, and we'll send you a form-letter of thanks!").
Read more... )
I would like to believe that after the collapse, there will be some sort of chance for redemption, some way for a better world to come to pass. But if such a possibility exists, I can't see it.
bobquasit: (Default)
A response to a rather horrifying editorial in the NYT ("The Jungle, Again"), about the rather remarkable and egregious persecution of workers in a slaughterhouse.

Of course the Bush Administration enjoys persecuting the poor and weak! How can anyone claim to be surprised by this? The overprivileged sociopaths that now rule this nation, virtually unfettered by the slightest taint of opposition by the supine Democrats, like nothing more than torturing the helpless.

George W. Bush himself displayed this tendency clearly, at an early age, with his love for stuffing firecrackers in frogs in order to watch them explode. We have allowed people without consciences to seize this country. How can we pretend to be surprised when they act like the monsters that they are?

Having grown up with people like this, I've seen first-hand that many of them are raised to see the poor and helpless as nothing more than animals: legitimate prey for their amusement.

God help this country.
bobquasit: (Default)

For the past 3-4 weeks the Franklin #715 train (departing South Station at 4:10pm) has been desperately overcrowded. Not only is every aisle full of standees, but passengers are being forced to ride in the vestibules between the coaches as well. By my estimate there were at least 190 standees yesterday on the five-coach #715.

This is now TYPICAL of the ridership on that train.

It is, of course, forbidden for passengers to ride in the vestibules due to safety concerns - but there is simply no other option.

Conductors are unable to collect fares. Two days ago I stood for half an hour next to a woman who was six-months pregnant; she couldn't get a seat, and had to physically squeeze past standees along half the aisle to get off at her stop.

Given that standees have a much greater likelihood of being injured during an accident, the current state of overcrowding presents a daily hazard to a large and increasing number of riders. This matter is urgent, and needs to be addressed immediately.

MBCR and MBTA management have repeatedly refused to address this issue. Please do not simply forward me to MBTA/MBCR management; they will not take any action. Large numbers of MBTA passengers are being placed in danger on a daily basis, and there is no sign that ridership is going to decrease. Please take meaningful action.

I've also contacted the Boston Globe and Boston Herald - I'll let you know if either follows up with me.


Feb. 18th, 2008 10:24 pm
bobquasit: (Default)
A letter to Salon about Narnia in neon, an article about the children's television of Sid and Marty Krofft (subscription or ad-watch required).

I'm part of that odd generation that grew up watching the Krofft shows. I was born in 1964. My wife is a few years younger than me, and she'd never heard of them - although she'd watched more TV than I did, as a kid.

Any time I meet anyone born in 1964, though, I always find that we speak the same language: Krofft. We all dreamed about those shows, and our imaginations were forever changed - twisted? liberated? - by them.

So I bought the complete Pufnstuf and Lidsville series on DVD for my little boy. He's going to have the same bizarre images as I have floating around in MY subconscious. That may seem domineering, but have you looked at modern television for kids? It's either gross-out animation in the spirit of Ren & Stimpy (but without the talent) or the same perky-happy-crappy garbage that has been churned out for defenseless kids practically since the medium began.

Yes, I'm talking about you, Dora the Explorer, Little Einsteins, Hannah Montana, and the atrocity of the Winnie-the-Pooh shows featuring an animated perky AMERICAN GIRL in place of Christopher Robin (who was, damn it all, ENGLISH!). I'm talking about YOU, Disney! Mickey Mouse was NEVER funny!

And every single goddamned show is backed up by millions of dollars worth of focus groups, psychological research, and products to buy, buy, buy.

It's sanitized. It's sterilized. It's televisual pap! And what is that doing to the minds of our children?

Take a look at a random episode of Lidsville. It would never be made or broadcast today. The evil Hoodoo the Magician (Charles Nelson Reilly) having lost his "zap" powers to Raunchy Rabbit (I swear to God I am not making this up) dresses up as a female bunny and seduces the hapless lagomorph out of his powers!

Adults cringe in amazement at the sight of the tutu-wearing girl-bunny-disguised Reilly rolling around on a chaise longue with a little person in a bunny costume. But kids love it.

It feels as if Sid and Marty Krofft got a gang of brilliant maniacs together, said "hey gang, let's put on a show!" and made it happen. They're incredibly lose and amateurish compared to modern shows. There are obvious mistakes; for example, take the opening of Lidsville. Butch Patrick's fall into the giant hat was visibly botched - you can see his foot kind of bouncing there as he hits the padding upside-down at the bottom of the hat.

TV executives today would fire anyone for suggesting that a mistake like that be broadcast. But god forbid that even a smidgen of the creativity and imagination that the Kroffts displayed in almost every episode get on the screen now! Our screens must remain sterile as our children's minds. I think that the time will come when we realize that raising our children in an ideologically pure and sterilized environment destroys their mental immune systems, just as raising them without exposure to germs and dirt destroys their resistance to physical disease. Both are a cruel disservice to the next generation.

Pufnstuf and Lidsville were the purest of the divine Kroftt madness, in my book. They give us a window into a brief time when American culture was on the edge of becoming something truly, fundamentally different. Instead, that change was assimilated, digested, and eliminated.

Land of the Lost was a fun show (as a kid I loved it), but didn't have the essential Krofft craziness; that seems to have required giant-headed puppet-costumes. Sigmund & the Sea Monster verged on the weirdness, but somehow never quite reached the same level of strangeness and magic. That was probably, I think, because unlike Pufnstuf and Lidsville the child-protagonists of Sigmund were never taken away to another, magical world; their California world expanded a little to include sea monsters and other creatures, but it retained a link to reality that somehow made everything seem a little flat.

As for the Bugaloos, I didn't watch it much as a kid. And when I tried to watch it as an adult, I just couldn't take it. Yes, it seems to be the true Krofft quill...but maybe you have to have first seen it with the eyes of a child to be able to really enjoy it.
bobquasit: (Default)
For some reason two of my letters in Salon on this topic were selected as "editors choice". Here's the thread. I've replaced various other user names with variations on [user], to protect their privacy - silly though that is, since the posts are public on Salon. This will be quite long, by the way! There's also a bit of repetition, both within the thread and from other stuff I've written here. I do try to improve my points over time, though. For example, I much preferred "fucking" to "sleeping with" - it's funnier. But I can only use "fucking" in places where I know it won't be deleted for it.

Goodbye, Super Tuesday

Scenario: Confusion
So here's what's puzzling me.

If neither Hillary nor Obama wins sufficient delegates in the primaries and caucuses to win the nomination outright, and the whole thing goes to the Democratic convention, what then? What are the scenarios?

If the superdelegates decide it, but give it to the candidate who came in second in terms of primary/caucus votes OR elected delegates (recognizing that there can be a difference), how will the rank & file take that? And how will ordinary voters take to having the Party hierarchy make the decision for them? I realize that that was how it was done for a long time, but these days the people are used to being the ones to select the nominees. Having the party leadership decide seems ironically anti-democratic.

And given the absolutely miserable record of performance for the vast majority of the Democratic Party leadership, the thought of leaving the choice up to them is one that makes this Democrat uncomfortable.
Read more... )
The thread seems to have died at at point - no one has responded since.

Tomorrow I'll try to post some stuff from Askville - it's much more varied.
bobquasit: (Default)
Last post tonight, I promise!

I'm no genius, but when the original Iraq authorization bill came around it seemed totally obvious to me that it was handing George W. Bush a blank check to do exactly what he desperately wanted and needed to do: get this country into a war that would give the Republicans the whip hand over the Dems.

So, what - am I smarter than Hillary? If so, maybe I should run for President.

Alternatively, if she made the calculation that a "no" vote would cause political damage to her future Presidential campaign, then she cynically sold the lives and health of our soldiers - as well as that of untold Iraqis, our national economy, and the Democratic Party itself - for her own personal gain. In which case she belongs in jail, not the White House.

Much like the current residents, come to think of it.
bobquasit: (Default)
The story was run while I was on vacation. I find it interesting that the MBCR spokesman was flat-out misleading in the story; he claimed that a locomotive could only pull so many coaches, which is true, but overlooks the fact that the #715 Franklin train only has six single-level coaches at most - which is almost certainly well below its maximum load.
bobquasit: (Default)
In Salon's advice column today there was a letter from a woman whose boyfriend was visually checking out other women - even when they were together. He was apparently trying to hide it, but I guess he wasn't good at it, because she caught him several times.

My boyfriend is checking out chicks while I'm standing right there!

My sarcasm mode immediately turned on, viz:

Dump the cheating bastard!

How DARE he obey eons of genetic selection for males who are constantly on the watch for potential mates? Doesn't he know that he's not even supposed to notice any other girl in the world, now that he's with his current girlfriend?

Even if he was surrounded by gorgeous naked starlets, it would be his basic moral duty to claw his own eyes out rather than look at him.

Nasty, dirty, filthy man. Doesn't he know that the only reason he has the instinct to appreciate female beauty was to allow him to meet his one destined soulmate? And that now that that function has been fulfilled, he must never find any other woman to be attractive?

He may whine that it's out of his control. NONSENSE! Everyone knows that the male sexual urge is totally volitional in every way.

Oh my god - I just had a horrible thought. What if he sometimes actually fantasizes about having sex with other women? That's the moral equivalent of ADULTERY! His girlfriend must sue him for divorce immediately - right after they get married, that is.

Then she can continue her search for the perfect non-girl-watching boyfriend. I'm sure he's out there somewhere!

In the meantime, I just had another horrible thought. What if her boyfriend ever decides to have a wet dream? Or even multiple wet dreams? Serial adultery - and she could catch an STD from one of those dream-sluts, to boot! She'd better get herself checked by a doctor right away. While she's at it, she could talk to her doctor about some form of medication or surgical procedure for her boyfriend which will eliminate all of those nasty, unacceptable sexual urges.

That may leave her a bit frustrated, of course, so she might also want to invest in a good vibrator. Which she will use only while fantasizing about her now-safe boyfriend, of course.

Problem solved!

What do you think - was I unfair? :D
bobquasit: (Default)
What the hell. I wrote to the Governor.

The #715 Franklin commuter train is dangerously overcrowded. On Friday, 7/13/07, there was a medical emergency in the coach next to mine; a woman had passed out. Passengers tried to notify a conductor, but there were none to be found. When a passenger tried to come into our coach looking for one, he was completely unable to pass through the aisle. I counted 33 people standing in that coach, including myself. We had to resort to trying to shout out a message to be passed down the line to the next coach. It took several minutes, perhaps longer, to finally get a conductor.

I assume that the ill woman's condition wasn't serious (I spoke to a nurse who tended to her on the train). If her condition HAD been serious, the delay caused by the dangerous overcrowding of that train could have caused a tragedy.

I've been riding the #715 Franklin from Ruggles (departing at 4:19 PM) every day for several years. In that time, I've been able to get a seat less than ten times. I'm never the only one left standing; on average, I've counted 11 standees in each coach. Usually most of us are forced to stand until the train starts clearing out at Norwood Central. That's over 25 minutes standing on a lurching train, often in conditions so crowded that some passengers have nothing to hold on to.

At the same time, the Needham Heights train which stops at Ruggles at 4:13 always has AT LEAST eight fully empty seats per coach.

I and other passengers have written and called the MBCR. We've never received any satisfaction. Conductors are usually rude and unresponsive to complaints. I wrote to Governor Romney two years ago and after five months received a form-letter response and no other action.

And don't even get me started about coaches without air conditioning! On hot days the temperature in some coaches is in excess of 100 degrees. That's a medical emergency just waiting to happen.

Passengers are angry - I know, because we chat about the lousy service we're getting. We're sick of being told that there are plenty of seats. Our eyes (and feet) tell us otherwise. We've been lied to again and again by the MBCR, told that two-level coaches can't fit on the tracks (funny, they fit well enough on later runs on the same track), and that an annual survey ensures that there are more than enough seats for all.

That's simply not true, and we know it. We see other trains which have far more seating for passengers. To be honest, a lot of us have given up complaining, because it's obvious that management simply doesn't care. I wouldn't have bothered this time, except that the medical emergency on Friday made it clear that the MBTA/MBCR's negligence is going to have terrible results sooner or later.

I hope that you'll take action on this issue. Thanks for your time.

I hope he'll be more responsive than Mitt Romney was.
bobquasit: (Bad Sam!)
I'm posting this because it covers something that I was going to write about a few days ago. Unlike the other letter, which went directly to the MBCR, this one is going to the head of the MBTA - it's a column he does in the Metro. I'll elaborate after the letter.

I've been riding the #715 Franklin train from Ruggles (at 4:19 PM) for more than three years now. In that time I have been able to get a seat less than ten times. Often ten or more people are left standing in whatever coach I'm in. The same overcrowding takes place in all six coaches. On many days the train is so crowded that people are jammed in the aisles.

Yet the #619 Needham Heights which stops at Ruggles at 4:13 always has AT LEAST eight fully empty seats per coach. Why?

Last Friday (7/13) I counted 33 people standing in my coach; it was impossible to move down the aisle. There was a medical emergency, and passengers were unable to move down the car in search of help. We had to resort to shouting to try to get the word passed to a conductor that a woman had passed out. It took ten minutes or more for a conductor to arrive. Had the woman's condition been serious, the delay caused by overcrowding could have had serious consequences.

I've spoken to MBCR employees many times in the past and filed "concerns". I've never received the least satisfaction. I've been told over and over that the annual ridership survey insures adequate seating. In this case, I'll believe my eyes rather than MBCR spokespeople who've lost all credibility.

The conductors are often rude. I've personally seen instances in which a conductor has neglected their post, leaving it up to fellow passengers to open the stairways for pregnant women and handicapped veterans - this is NOT an exaggeration.

We passengers often discuss the terrible service we receive. Many of us are paying more than $200 a month for our passes, and yet we can't get a seat until Norwood Central or later - that's 25 minutes or more spent standing, crammed elbow to elbow with other passengers.

Many of us have filed complaints, only to receive the same completely unsatisfactory responses. Frankly, we've given up making complaints. It's clear that management couldn't care less.

The woman looked as if she were in her late 30s, blonde, a bit chubby. A pregnant nurse managed to struggle through the crowd from our coach and reach her; so did a paramedic on the other side. There wasn't much they could do without equipment, but they monitored her. That's more than those two conductors were doing; when they finally arrived (where the hell where they?), all they did was stand there and gawk at her.

The train stopped at Readville for 20 minutes until and ambulance came and paramedics with a stretcher took the woman off. As we were waiting, several of us who were standing in the vestibule were chatting; we'd been pushed into the vestibule to allow the nurse to get through the crowd. Suddenly, a fat woman came to the door and yelled that the door should be closed to keep in the air conditioning, and slammed the door in our faces. It hadn't been particularly hot, but apparently that lard-ass felt that every little bit of AC was vital to her well-being - more vital than ordinary everyday politeness, obviously.

Jesus, I'm pissed off tonight.
bobquasit: (Default)
Bush is refusing to answer Congressional subpoenas, claiming executive privilege.

Bush Won't Supply Subpoenaed Documents

Pretty much anyone could have seen this coming, of course. My comment over at the Post:
And so it's war between the Executive and Legislative branches. Of course this was what Rove and Cheney wanted from the beginning. I only hope that Congress has the guts to push it all the way.

Gonzales and the DC US Attorney will doubtless refuse to take action, and the SCOTUS 5 will eventually uphold Bush. But at least we'll have a record of an attempt to stop this lawless gang of criminals who've set up a dictatorship in our country.

I hope our nation survives.
bobquasit: (Bad Sam!)
Once again I've been provoked by the sheer dishonesty of a Post columnist. How ironic: I despise so many of their reporters and columnists (always excepting the excellent Dan Froomkin and Gene Robinson), but I read them because the Post, unlike so many other news outlets, allows readers to talk back.

Undercover Journalism

Kurtz was going on and on in his sanctimoneous way about how some reporters dare to make political donations - and what's more, they donate to DEMOCRATS! According to Saint Kurtz:
"The scorecard -- 125 of 144 donations to Democrats -- provides fresh ammunition to those who say the press has a liberal tilt. It's hard to argue you don't favor one party when you've just coughed up cash for that party."

I couldn't take that lying down. Particularly when Kurtz had been whining about investigative reporters who lied to get stories. It still sticks in my craw that an outstanding investigative report which shows that Food Lion TREATED OLD MEAT WITH BLEACH to make it look edible was effectively dismissed because - horrors! - the reporters LIED to get jobs in the meat department. Why, I'm sure that if they'd gone to the store manager and said "Hi, I'm an investigative journalist, may I work here for a few weeks to see how you're POISONING YOUR CUSTOMERS?" the managers would have fallen all over themselves to let the journalists in!

Anyway, here's what I wrote:
How remarkably one-sided of you, Mr. Kurtz. To detail political contributions by reporters but not by media owners and editors is to completely distort the story. That's little short of a lie such as those you decried so piteously earlier in your column.

Media owners often directly influence their newsrooms, as anyone who's followed the careers of Rupert Murdoch or the "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon would know. Reporters often self-censor or slant their stories in order to please their bosses, as you might be expected to know if you were, say, A MEDIA CRITIC.

Self-censorship and punishment of journalists who report stories which contradict the political or corporate interests of their owners have been well-documented in works such as "Into the Buzzsaw" by Kristina Borjesson.

Apparently you're not familiar with that book, nor with Messrs. Murdoch and Moon? Or perhaps you have a blind spot because so many media owners are closely tied to the inner circles of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. You do seem to have a preference for slanting stories in favor of the Republicans and the media monopoly.

The fact is that political contributions to Republicans by media owners and major stockholders vastly outweigh contributions from reporters. It's also a simple fact that journalists do NOT give up their freedom of speech, no matter what a sanctimonious hypocrite like you might say in the Post.

Why do I call you a hypocrite? Because your one-sided, ridiculously biased columns consistently support Republicans and the media oligarchy. You may not be donating cash, but you certainly donate your time, efforts, and credibility in support of a political party.

Although why you're still considered to have ANY credibility is a mystery to me. A case of one hand washing the other, perhaps? You certainly seem to have pleased your corporate masters.

It's on the first page of comments, so maybe it will get some recommendations.
bobquasit: (Default)
Made a comment on an opinion piece today in the Post whining that corporations in the US pay too much in taxes, and should have their rates cut:

Cutting Corporate Taxes to Save America

Let me get this straight - CORPORATIONS pay too much taxes?

What do crazed corporatists like JD Foster want? When will they have a big enough share of the pie? You people have far more than the lion's share, but it's never enough.

Hell, Foster, why not just advocate putting the entire American working and middle class into a meat grinder and selling the results to China? The profits could be given to the corporations you love so dearly and serve so loyally.

You people are truly sociopathic.
bobquasit: (Default)
The Washington Post's ombudsman is pretty much a joke. So since she's doing a chat right now, I couldn't resist commenting.
From your answers so far I suspect that you view your task here as holding the line against a rampaging mob.

I am a proud member of that mob; I frequently disagree with Mr. Hiatt's editorial positions, and feel that too may reporters are far too comfortable repeating the party line rather than pushing for the truth (with a few notable exceptions). That said, the Post website gets far more of my attention and time than any other site. Why?

Comments and chat. The chance to give feedback and actually interact with journalists and newsmakers - and to know that they are actually LISTENING - is invaluable to me.

To be honest, that's why I'm a little disappointed in this chat in particular; your answers so far have fallen into two categories, either "I'll pass that on" or a non-detailed defense of a policy which amounts to nothing more than a pat on the head.

I'd put the odds of her selecting my comment at 100 to 1, and of a substantive response at 10,000 to 1.

Later - I am surprised. She responded, and the response could be called substantive.
bobquasit: (Default)
It struck me recently that it would be a good idea to give Senator Whitehouse some feedback and suggestions; he's been doing a good job so far, but he's not a mind-reader and some feedback seems appropriate. I AM a constituent, after all!

Just a note to urge you to continue pursuing testimony from Rove, Miers, Goodling, and others who are involved in this apparently wide-ranging scandal. I don't believe that the White House will ever offer serious co-operation in any way with Congress on this issue; they've made it clear that their intention is to run out the clock.

I, for one, hope to see subpoenas - even if they have to be litigated. The White House is stonewalling, and they will take any attempt at compromise or reasonableness as a sign of weakness.

Please don't back off on this issue. The perversion of the DOJ into a tool for real election fraud - unlike the fabricated stories of fraud which Republicans have been using to disenfranchise minorities and the poor - must be thoroughly investigated.

On a completely unrelated note, at the dinner in Woonsocket last year you spoke quite strongly about the EPA decision to undermine anti-pollution cases and judgements against power plants in mid-western states. I agreed with you at the time, and since then signs of global warming have become much clearer and more alarming.

Water levels around the area do not seem to be going down; every morning on my commute I see more and more lawns flooded, and they aren't drying. I realize that this is anecdotal, but given the record heat and bizarre weather patterns we've seen lately, I am VERY concerned about the world that my son will inherit - and (though this may seem over-dramatic) about the future of our species. I'll gladly support any action you take to ameliorate the global warming crisis.

Thanks, and please keep up the good work!

Of course it's just going to be read by a staffer, but I hope the basic message - subpeonas and global warming - gets passed on in some form, if only as an aggregate "constituent feedback" precis.


Apr. 15th, 2007 08:00 am
bobquasit: (Reid - Wanna fight?)
Today the Washington Post editorial page printed an article by Alberto Gonzales (!), defending his record. And he had the chutzpah to title it "Nothing Improper". I had to comment, although I'm sure that the sleazy, corrupt bastard will never read my comment:

Only the Post - or perhaps the Wall Street Journal - would lend the credibility of their editoral page (dubious as that might be, in this case) to such a serially-proven liar.

This man has betrayed his oath of office and willingly cooperated in the corruption of the Department of Justice in an attempt to convert the United States of America into a dictatorship. He is beneath contempt.
bobquasit: (Mii)
I don't know why I write these. Well, actually I do. These pundits just piss me off so much! Particularly ones like Richard Cohen, the Alan Colmes of the Washington Post editorial page.

Hmm. My original post was apparently rejected by the Post's censorware because I originally called Cohen a jackass. So I re-wrote it:

Now I remember why I stopped reading Richard Cohen. He's a joke. Well, originally I used quite a different (and longer) word, but the Post seems to have auto-rejected my original post for that word.

"No crime committed"? Pure GOP BS, quite thoroughly disproved by testimony under oath before Congress by Ms. Plame's superiors. Are you a liar, Mr. Cohen, or just utterly unqualified for your job?

Equally bankrupt is the argument that the Fifth can be invoked to preclude even appearing at a hearing, and that it is legitimate to use it because questioners might be meanies.

Mr. Cohen, bare-faced lying might be the fashion on the Washington Post editorial page. But I assure you that your readers know better.

Sir, your slip is showing.

If you're aspiring to be the Alan Colmes of the Washington Post, mission accomplished. The sad thing is that you probably consider that a compliment. In your mind, Colmes is probably an effective and honorable representative of the centrist-Democratic position, rather than the professional punching bag and sick joke that he actually is.

I hope that you come to realize just how contemptible your kowtowing to Republican talking points is, and that the vast majority of readers can see right through your sleazy little act.

Hmm. I don't believe that anyone here finds this sort of post interesting. Sorry about that. To make the post slightly more interesting, I've used my new Mii icon. Unfortunately it's from a photo of the TV screen, so the resolution sucks. Oh well.
bobquasit: (Default)

Circuit City has proudly announced that it is firing about 3,400 employees who were paid above the market rate. They're firing them presumably because those employees made the mistake of being, you know, good employees. Or alternatively made the mistake of staying with Circuit City too long.

And they're going to replace them with new hires at a lower rate.

I'm not kidding. Here's Circuit City's news release about it, and in case they take it down, here's a key excerpt:
The company has completed a wage management initiative that will result in the separation of approximately 3,400 store Associates. The separations, which are occurring today, focused on Associates who were paid well above the market-based salary range for their role. New Associates will be hired for these positions and compensated at the current market range for the job.

So I couldn't resist writing to them at

Subject: Congratulations!

I'd like to congratulate Circuit City on your brilliant plan to "separate" approximately 3,400 store Associates and hire new ones at a lower salary.

In fact, I've decided to emulate your approach by "separating" myself as a consumer from Circuit City. I will never shop at Circuit City again, and neither will any member of my family. I'll be urging my friends to take their business elsewhere, too.

Please note, I was a fairly frequent customer, and in the past I had written positively about Circuit City in a number of online forums, as well as recommending CC to friends and family.

Your corporate behavior is nothing short of contemptible, and I will not forget it.


Incidentally, I originally wrote "fora" rather than "forums", but I revised it to the less-correct but more common form because I didn't want them to write me off as an eggheaded intellectual. I want them to worry.


bobquasit: (Default)

February 2016

212223 24252627


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 31st, 2017 12:25 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios