Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Now This Is Spooky Shit

The bloody rags who make decisions in the NY Time's editorial board room chose to print this vacuous piece of nonsense a couple days ago. (See full article below.)

While reading it I'm reminded of black and white ads from '50s-era horror movies: There's terror in the streets! A giant monster is stealing the children in the night! It's a crisis! An state of emergency! Who will save us!  Oh, the humanity!   

But why is it that everything requires "big government"? To these mindless creeps, there is no problem, no riddle, no moral dilemma or existentially compelling human paradox that does not require "big government". Government, like God, is the answer to all of our problems. 

In other words, the editorial board at the New York Times (and those who belong to its church) proves itself, with articles like this one, to possess all the wit, education, intelligence and creativity of your average Bible-banging hick who superstitiously swallows the highway billboard signs that read, "Jesus is the Answer to Your Problems!" 

For every fundamentalist church, there are roughly two-to-three-hundred idiots. But the church of the government--that Supreme Being that knows all, sees all and can solve all your problems!--is filled with  hundreds of millions of true believers. 

And these people really do consider themselves and their own intellects to be the best of the best when it comes to human ingenuity. 

What a joke.

 Sorry to be such a downer on your church, NYT, but that's how I roll when I read dogma and nonsense that's preached to the masses as the absolute and obvious capital-t Truth. 

Your are no better or wiser than the preachers who condemned witches in Salem 400 years ago, or the Catholic inquisitors who burned peasants alive in Europe for their "heresies". We blasphemers are a scary lot. We've always rattled your self-righteous dispositions, shaken your unshakeable "truths",  and pissed on your holy books (or newspapers) with our skepticism. You can burn us, but you can never commit our minds or spirits to the flames. We heretics will always be here. 

Now, I have to prepare for my night of sin and evil with my fellow heretics, skeptics and witches--those folks you might well want to damn straight to hell. Fine. Then let us be the damned and condemned to hell. 

It sounds more fun than hanging in a utopian heaven with a bunch of fundamentalist, puritanical idiots who write for the New York Times. 

Here's to a night of burning down churches and desecrating holy relics of the state!
Happy Halloween! 


A Big Storm Requires Big Government

  • E-MAIL

Most Americans have never heard of the National Response Coordination Center, but they’re lucky it exists on days of lethal winds and flood tides. The center is the war room of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, where officials gather to decide where rescuers should go, where drinking water should be shipped, and how to assist hospitals that have to evacuate.

Related in Opinion

Opinion Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

"Why bother with satellites and professional forecasters when all we need is a million people sending tweets to the Weather Channel?"
Jim S., Cleveland
Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of “big government,” which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it. At a Republican primary debate last year, Mr. Romney was asked whether emergency management was a function that should be returned to the states. He not only agreed, he went further.
“Absolutely,” he said. “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.” Mr. Romney not only believes that states acting independently can handle the response to a vast East Coast storm better than Washington, but that profit-making companies can do an even better job. He said it was “immoral” for the federal government to do all these things if it means increasing the debt.
It’s an absurd notion, but it’s fully in line with decades of Republican resistance to federal emergency planning. FEMA, created by President Jimmy Carter, was elevated to cabinet rank in the Bill Clinton administration, but was then demoted by President George W. Bush, who neglected it, subsumed it into the Department of Homeland Security, and placed it in the control of political hacks. The disaster of Hurricane Katrina was just waiting to happen.
The agency was put back in working order by President Obama, but ideology still blinds Republicans to its value. Many don’t like the idea of free aid for poor people, or they think people should pay for their bad decisions, which this week includes living on the East Coast.
Over the last two years, Congressional Republicans have forced a 43 percent reduction in the primary FEMA grants that pay for disaster preparedness. Representatives Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and other House Republicans have repeatedly tried to refuse FEMA’s budget requests when disasters are more expensive than predicted, or have demanded that other valuable programs be cut to pay for them. The Ryan budget, which Mr. Romney praised as “an excellent piece of work,” would result in severe cutbacks to the agency, as would the Republican-instigated sequester, which would cut disaster relief by 8.2 percent on top of earlier reductions.
Does Mr. Romney really believe that financially strapped states would do a better job than a properly functioning federal agency? Who would make decisions about where to send federal aid? Or perhaps there would be no federal aid, and every state would bear the burden of billions of dollars in damages. After Mr. Romney’s 2011 remarks recirculated on Monday, his nervous campaign announced that he does not want to abolish FEMA, though he still believes states should be in charge of emergency management. Those in Hurricane Sandy’s path are fortunate that, for now, that ideology has not replaced sound policy.


No comments:

Post a Comment