the mad teabagging party

ok, so the mad teabagging party was held yesterday on april 15th. meanwhile, responsible citizens like me, instead of having teabagging parties, actually paid our taxes. and you know what? this year, i actually got money back from the state and federal governments, whereas in past years, i have always had to pay them money. the teabaggers claim to, among other things, be protesting high taxes, but didn’t barack obama just lower taxes for 95% of americans? seriously. unless you are part of the top 5%, you already got a tax cut. what are they protesting, the bailouts? well guess what? if the bailouts hadn’t happened, their precious private sector and large corporations would have all gone bankrupt by now, and we really would have socialism. the wingnuts and paultards keep crying socialism all the time, like the boy who cried wolf, and it is getting kind of ridiculous. if they actually saw socialism they wouldn’t recognize it. so this astroturf operation by the republicans, the teabagging parties across the nation, was originally started by the paultards, which is what everybody who is not a ron paul supporter calls wacko ron paul supporters when we want to make fun of them. remember the paultards also celebrated “v for vendetta” and its anti-hero who wore a guy fawkes mask with a “money bomb” of large numbers of contributions to ron paul’s presidential campaign on guy fawkes day. the anti-hero of v for vendetta was a terrorist, and so was guy fawkes, who tried to blow up the british parliament several hundred years ago. now the internet hacker/activist group “anonymous”, like the paultards, also is into guy fawkes masks, even more so, but anonymous is into them in an ironic way. the first member of anonymous to wear a guy fawkes mask was a stick figure cartoon character known as epic fail guy. similarly, the ron paul campaign was nothing but epic fail. basically, this teabagging thing was first started by paultards (and after all paultards are republicans, since you had to be a registered republican to vote for ron paul in most of the primaries or caucuses). then some republican bloggers and national republican organizations started to take notice and became official supporters of the teabagging parties, and soon republican fox news and republican talk radio were full of stuff promoting the teabagging parties. they renamed them “tea parties” from the original idea of “teabagging”, since the republicans did not want to be associated with oral sex, although current republican senator david vitter has publicly admitted to be totally into prostitutes... and now he is into teabagging parties. you know what is funny? according to the local newspaper, there were actually 3 of these teabagging parties here in broome county in upstate new york. today when i was going to work someone actually asked me for directions to this place, and i gave him directions, and after i got home and looked at the newspaper, i realized that the guy who asked me for directions was going to one of the teabagging parties. and i gave him the correct directions for how to get there, too! then later that night one of the radio hosts on the student-run radio station from binghamton university gave an on-the-air speech in favor of the teabagging parties and expressing regret that he had been too busy with his classes that day to attend the teabagging party that was held at binghamton university. i heard the dj’s speech live on the air and it actually seemed to make some sense. the dj was mostly concerned with government spending and deficits getting out of control, and said how great america is. and he, like the republican leaders, referred to these protests as “tea parties”, not using the original term that the paultards had called it back when they first got the idea of “teabagging” all the politicians in washington, d.c. yes, originally it was called teabagging, because it involved sending actual teabags in the mail to members of congress, and congress is always unpopular. the people who came up with the idea of teabagging knew exactly what it meant, and the whole thing was a big joke while at the same time having a serious message... the paultards felt tired of being screwed by the government so they decided to screw the government symbolically, with teabags sent in the mail representing the sexual practice of teabagging, while at the same time having some kind of connection to the boston tea party back when the american colonists were protesting british taxes. i don’t quite understand the whole thing and how it developed, but apparently when rick santelli on cnbc went into a sick rant and it became a viral video, this helped build momentum for this teabagging idea. or should i say, joementum, in tribute to joe lieberman and his myriad failings as a senator. obviously joe lieberman was not involved in this, except as one of the victims who received teabags in the mail along with everyone else in congress. i just like saying joementum, just like i prefer calling them teabagging parties to tea parties. so apparently the teabagging parties were not big gay orgies, despite being called teabagging parties. fox news and other right-wing media are portraying this as if it is the first great populist grassroots movement since... since what? since the great populist movement of the pumas last year, remember? the p.u.m.a. movement stood for “party unity my ass” and was another republican astroturf operation that targeted hillary clinton supporters and tried to get them to vote for john mccain in the general election. originally there were just a few pumas and they actually were democrats who supported hillary clinton, but once the republicans found out they created lots of puma websites and started trying to spread puma propaganda, and republicans effectively took over leadership of the puma movement, which petered out after hillary conceded the election to barack obama and endorsed him, turning out to not be much of a movement at all. some of the pumas called barack obama a dangerous left-wing socialist and said we needed sensible centrist leadership like hillary clinton or john mccain. other pumas called barack obama a right-wing neocon in disguise and said that electing him would be like 4 more years of bush so john mccain would be better since after those 4 years hillary clinton could come back as the great liberal savior who would finally end right-wing misrule. yes, some people actually thought obama was a right-wing neocon, just like some people think he is a left-wing socialist. the pumas never had a coherent message other than hillary clinton good, barack obama bad. the message of the newer astroturf movement, the teabaggers, is even more incoherent, since some of them want to throw out all the bums in washington in both parties, and others are partisan republicans who support republican politicians and oppose democratic ones. basically the teabaggers are against taxes, government spending, bailouts, big government, barack obama, the democrats, and liberalism. after years and years of liberals doing public protests and conservatives just supporting george w. bush and the republicans but never doing any protests or activism outside party politics, now the right-wingers seem to be actually doing protests for the first time in a long time. well, ok, the anti-abortion people have been doing protests all these years, but most republicans are not that into protests and think it is some liberal hippie silliness that no sensible person would ever be involved in. protests are usually full of silliness, but now all the silliness is at right-wing protests. those of us on the left still have protests (i think)... for instance lots of pacifist groups keep holding peace vigils and protesting the wars, even now that barack obama is the commander-in-chief and many of them voted for him. protests sure are silly, but these teabagging ones take the cake, except maybe when compared to the pumas last year, since the pumas were really quite ridiculous, especially harriet christian, the most famous of them, or lady lynn forester de rothschild, an ultra-wealthy banking heiress from european nobility who called barack obama an elitist.

on to more serious news, the obama family has a new dog named bo. it is a gift from ted kennedy and is a portuguese water dog, the same type he has as pets, and it is related to the dogs ted kennedy has, from the same breeder, and trained by the same professional dog trainer. this is possibly one of ted kennedy’s last major public acts, since after all he is dying of brain cancer, and probably has just months to live. if dying of brain cancer is not serious business, i don’t know what is. also, dogs might act silly, but they are our friends, they help cheer us up, and when we lose a dog, it feels just as sad and tragic as when a human being dies. getting a new puppy is sort of like getting a new baby, except babies grow up to become regular boring adult humans, while puppies grow up to become dogs that are almost as silly as puppies.

on to even more serious news... pirates! they keep kidnapping people, ships, and cargo off the coast of somalia. somalia is the only country in the world whose form of government for over a decade has been anarchy. some anarchist theorists actually claim that economic growth under anarchy in somalia has been better than it was during the years when somalia had a functioning government. and some even more crazy people sometimes claim that somalia actually has a government... what it actually has are a bunch of people who pretend to be a government but do not even control their own capital city, let alone any other territory. whenever someone mentions “the government of somalia” you know they are full of bullshit. that is like referring to the one world government. similar to the government of somalia, the one world government is pure fiction and does not exist. so according to market anarchists (who are like libertarian paultards except they take libertarian principles to their logical extremes), somalia’s anarchy is totally awesome and causes all sorts of innovation in the private sector, and things that ought to be legalized are legal in somalia because under anarchy there are no laws, which is exactly what anarchists want. anyway, one of the innovations that the people in somalia’s private sector have come up with, one that would be illegal in any other country, is hi-tech, 21st century piracy. yes, these pirates are hi-tech. they have machine guns, speed boats, and satellite phones that work out in the middle of the ocean. their operations are extremely profitable, and the pirates in charge of things stay put on land, keeping in contact with the pirates at sea by phone. it is basically somewhat similar to the mafia, drug cartels, or street gangs, except they do this stuff out in the ocean. while somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world, it is near the suez canal, where a large portion of the goods that supply europe go thru all the time, coming from asia. as for europe exporting stuff back to asia... well not as much, but i am sure they export at least a bit, and it probably mostly goes thru the suez canal. everything that goes thru that canal goes by the coast of somalia, and the pirates can easily attack any ship they want. under maritime and international law, non-military ships are not allowed to have things like machine guns, so it is illegal for the merchants shipping goods through the suez canal to carry weapons onboard the ships that are as powerful as the weapons carried by the pirates onboard their speedboats. shipping companies almost all have pursued strategies of negotiating with the pirates, giving them ransom, and letting them keep it and get off free, and now the pirate leaders of somalia are very wealthy, especially compared to everyone else in somalia. any would-be government of somalia that ever tried to form would not stand a chance against the pirates, who would be able to use their money to buy weapons for and hire as mercenaries large enough armies to crush anyone else in somalia who dared to oppose them. the only forces that are powerful enough to fight the pirates are forces from outside somalia, such as the united states military, or, believe it or not, the french military. yes, both we, the americans, as well as the french, have killed somali pirates in recent days to end hostage standoffs. i think all the non-pirates behaved heroically. however, the pirates are resolved to continue their piracy, and for good reason: they are making money hand over fist, it is the only way they have to make money, and they live in a country that has not had a functioning government for many years, filled with extreme poverty, starvation, and lots of violence and collapse of social order. islamists tried to take control of somalia awhile ago, but since they were loosely allied with al qaeda, the united states paid ethiopia money to invade and occupy somalia and support a fake somali government, which was toppled soon after ethiopia decided to withdraw its troops. now, to be honest, there are different parts of somalia that are controlled by different “governments”, each claiming to be legitimate, and some of these parts are more stable than others. after the ethiopian withdrawal, the islamists have gained control of more territory once again, for example. however, these “governments” are mostly just warring factions fighting over territory, and are not like real governments. the pirates in somalia are closely allied to one of the “governments” that controls a bit of territory along the coastline. it is easy for the pirates to ally with one of the warring factions that controls some territory, since the pirates are the ones with all the money they got as ransom payments for the ships, hostages, and cargo. everyone else in that country is dirt poor so the pirates can easily bribe the leaders of a faction into supporting them. the united states has been involved in somalia too, of course, but we have been supporting a bunch of losers, namely the so-called central government that is incredibly weak and does not control any territory, rather than supporting a rival faction that has a better chance at winning control of the country. that is why we had to pay ethiopia to invade somalia on our behalf, using the entire ethiopian military as a mercenary-for-hire proxy fighting service because the united states military was too busy fighting other wars. that mission did not exactly go as planned, although early on the ethiopians easily defeated every foe they faced. the ethiopians got tired of fighting on our behalf, and we were not paying them enough to make them continue, so they withdrew. we americans could easily conquer somalia if we wanted, but then we would face the same problem as in iraq and afghanistan: invading and occupying a foreign country, doing nation-building, putting in place a puppet government, and fighting an insurgency. the amount of money that such a military endeavor would cost is probably far more than the amount of money the pirates are making, so a more fiscally responsible policy would be to just pay the pirates the money they ask for, after talking them down to a reasonable sum of money. we are in enough wars already. maybe if some other country wants to fight the pirates, we could offer them some kind of support, but our military has enough other problems to deal with. by the way, according to market anarchists, having a government-run military is evil socialism, and gives the government a monopoly on the use of force to impose its will on others, and is therefore horribly oppressive. market anarchists believe in having privately owned militias that people pay money to in order to have protection. so, for all the teabaggers protesting so-called socialism, do you realize that the biggest socialist institution in the entire world is the united states military? why don't you send the military some of your teabags? oh yeah, no gays in the military, how could i forget. if there is ever a draft, i hope the no-gays rule is still in place, because i will need some way to avoid being forced against my will to fight for a cause i do not believe in, and if pretending to be gay is the only way to avoid having to serve in some unjustified war like the one in iraq, then that is what it takes. back in world war 2, i think men up to their early 40s were drafted, so i am not out of the woods yet at my age, since i am still in my 20s. just like the former hippies holding weekly peace vigils, i am pretty much a pacifist opposed to all war, so i could never in good conscience ever serve in a war. and if i were a soldier, my anxiety disorder would mean that either i would be a nervous wreck, too nervous to shoot straight or function properly, or i would be drugged up on anti-anxiety pills, too drugged up to shoot straight or function properly. even if i believed in the mission and wanted to fight, i would not be capable, because of my emotional disorder of panic attacks. anyone who wanted me as a soldier would have to be crazy, since besides that problem, i was always the worst person at every sport i played in school, and i would just totally suck at being a soldier. maybe they could have me clean latrines or cook food for the actual soldiers, or do some other menial task. i dunno. maybe they might even decide to put my ivy-league education, high intelligence, and math and computer background to good use, and have me actually use my skills. naw. nobody would ever give me a job where i actually use my skills. hasn’t happened yet. that’s why the economy sucks, because nobody is behaving rationally. just look at all the teabagging parties... can you honestly name 1 person who is behaving rationally? and no, you can’t name yourself, since you are biased in your own favor, probably. the fact is, we people are never rational, since it is biologically impossible for us to achieve rationality. our brains are just not wired that way. now think about this: is it rational for someone to give himself up as a hostage and put his own life on the line to help save his ship’s crew? very brave and heroic, but not exactly rational. is it rational to give orders to shoot the pirates on a lifeboat with that very hostage, if just 1 missed shot means that the hostage will either be killed by you or by the pirate that is not killed instantly by a bullet, and if your mission is to save the hostage, not kill him? if you really think about it, nobody in this pirate debacle behaved rationally at all, not the pirates or anybody else. the only thing everybody had in common was irrationality. now computers are perfectly rational, so if we built robots to do stuff, the robots would be rational too if they had computer chips functioning in the same role as our human brains. imagine robot pirates taking a robot ship captain hostage, and then a navy of robots is sent to rescue the robot captain from the robot pirates. the whole thing sounds utterly absurd! robots would never behave in such a silly fashion! they are far too sophisticated... instead, the robots would all be having parties to celebrate how logical they are, and only the most rational robots would get invited. the less rational robots would just sit there and rust in self-pity, feeling an irrational sense of loneliness that does not make any sense for robots to have, since robots are not supposed to have any emotions. now, as for the pirate situation, the nation hardest hit by the piracy is of course egypt, since the pirate attacks are causing less and less merchants to ship cargo thru the suez canal, cutting into the egyptian government’s main source of revenue. so logically, egypt has a stronger direct interest in putting a stop to somali piracy than any other nation. if other nations like the united states encourage egypt to take care of this problem, perhaps the great pharaoh will be moved by our pleas and let our people go from the pirates who take them hostage. well ok, egypt has a president now, instead of a pharaoh, but he still needs to let our people go... not just let them go from the pirates, but how about letting us go thru the suez canal without paying him a toll? no, just kidding, of course egypt gets a toll, otherwise there is no incentive for them to crack down on the pirates. another idea is, maybe if we let the islamists take over somalia, the islamists would put an end to the piracy because it violates shariah law? who knows? the taliban is apparently profiting off the trade of afghan heroin, so i don’t think we can count on islamists to not want to make money off lucrative money-making opportunities such as somali piracy. or we could just ask our best friends, the israelis, to launch some of their nuclear weapons, and have the weapons aimed all over the coastal areas of somalia. then afterwards we would claim we had nothing to do with the nuclear attack by the israelis, and join the rest of the world in condemning their actions. what an incredibly stupid idea. we should probably just do absolutely nothing, and wait for the egyptians or someone else to solve this problem for us. besides, the suez canal is not used to supply the united states with goods; it is used for trade between europe and asia. if egypt does not deal with this, perhaps the europeans or asians will, but it does not really affect the united states that much at all. perhaps we just need to periodically make a show of force to demonstrate we are the world’s only superpower, and that is why we killed those somali pirates in a daring rescue of the captain. we have been paying out so much in bailouts, we could have easily afforded the ransom and not had to kill anyone, and it would have cost less than this naval expedition. or we could have just nuked the pirates ourselves. what is the point of having nuclear weapons if you never get to use them? i am just kidding. we need to eliminate all nuclear weapons from this planet because they are too dangerous. being nuked is almost as bad as being teabagged. ALMOST.