Archive for the ‘snark’ Category

His jobs program apparently is… lawyers.

Yep, Donald Trump’s lawyer has hired a defense lawyer to defend him (the lawyer) against charges of colluding with Russia. Everybody in Trump’s family has hired a lawyer to defend them against charges of colluding with Russia. Donald Trump hired a different lawyer (other than the lawyer who hired the lawyer) to defend him against the charges of colluding with Russia, and it appears that Trump’s Russia lawyer (Kasowitz) is going to have to hire his own lawyer given his own history of collaborating with the Russians. Mike Pence has hired a personal lawyer too to deal with Russia inquiries, and Stephen M. Ryan, the lawyer for Trump’s original lawyer that needed a lawyer to defend him against Russia collusion charges, apparently is also going to need a lawyer because he, too, has been called to testify about Russia collusion. So the lawyer for the lawyer needs a lawyer.

Dear Appalachia: if you guys need jobs, Donald Trump has the jobs program for you! Just go to law school as a defense attorney, move to Washington D.C., and bingo, you’ll be hired immediately by the lawyer of a lawyer of a lawyer who needs to defend another lawyer against charges of colluding with Russia. It’s lawyers all the way down!

– Badtux the Snarky Penguin


Read Full Post »

Found: The memo by the Office of Legal Counsel issued to Trump a few hours before his executive order on immigration was released, okaying it for release:

January 29, 2017

This is the best Executive Order ever. Everyone says so. Thanks, Mr. Commander-in-Chief!
— Office of Legal Counsel

P.S. The Muslims won’t like it. Sad.


– Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Read Full Post »

Aftermath of D.C . protests. We shall rebuild.

Aftermath of D.C. protests. We shall rebuild.

There’s right wingers whining about the amazingly destructive protests against the Trump Administration, which have resulted in a few dozen arrests and a burned-out trash can (we shall rebuild though after this mass destruction!) and maybe a few people delayed getting to work or getting home from work. Ignoring the fact that there was plenty of right wing violence after the election of Barack Obama, including torching a black church, they have a point.

Look. I mean, I have no idea why a black man might be protesting an attorney general who promises to take voting rights away from black people in the Old South rather than enforce voting rights, or why gay men might be protesting a vice president who advocates attaching electrodes to their balls and shocking them with electricity in order to “cure” their gayness, or why parents of handicapped children might be protesting a Secretary of Education whose opinion is that schools should not be legally required to educate the handicapped, or why Muslims might be protesting a Secretary of Homeland Security who advocates rounding up all Muslims into concentration camps, or why women might be protesting the notion that Big Government should have control over their pussies, or etc. I mean, I’m a white straight Christian male, none of that matters to me, right?

So gosh darn it, all those protesters should just give up all those rights quietly rather than inconvenience me on my daily commute! That’s the only right thing to do. Right? Right?!

– Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Read Full Post »

Donald Trump did make his case in at least one instance. After learning how predatory Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior has been in the past, he has convinced me to not vote for Bill Clinton for President.


— Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Read Full Post »

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

So why do we bother arming our soldiers with guns, then? We should just send them with knives and clubs into battle, since guns aren’t necessary in order to kill, right?

I suggest you say that to a soldier. I suggest you say that to his face. I suggest you say that to his face while he’s with several of his unit-mates. First, however, I suggest that you make sure your health insurance and life insurance are both paid up. Because it’s only *after* he and his unit-mates beat you nearly senseless that they’ll point out that guns make them a helluva lot more deadly than their fists do, and while fists are fine for dealing with idiots making stupid statements, they can kill a dozen jihadis with guns in the time it took to turn your nose into mush and your ribs into a band of pain.

Which exposes the senseless ludicrousness of the NRA’s mantra of “guns don’t kill people”. Sure, soldiers kill people, but soldiers with guns kill a lot *more* people. That’s why we give them guns. You don’t think we give soldiers guns for fun, right?

“Gun laws don’t stop criminals, because criminals break laws.”

Well duh. So I guess we don’t need laws against murder and theft and assault and rape and all that either, right? I mean, why have laws if criminals will just break them, right?

So, here’s the deal. Find the extended family of a murder victim and tell them that since criminals break laws against murders, we don’t need laws against murders. Make sure it’s the *entire* extended family, at least three generations deep, including teenage football players, middle aged steelworkers, and elderly grannies. Again, make sure your insurance is paid up. Because after they finish beating you silly, they’ll point out that we need laws against murders for two reasons — to dissuade other people from committing murders, and to punish those who do break the law so that they won’t break the law again (because they’re in jail until too old to murder, or are sent to the electric chair). Gun laws are no different from laws against murder or theft or rape or etc., sure, criminals will violate the law (they’re criminals, duh) but that doesn’t mean we should repeal those laws.

Okay, so two idiotic things down. I guess I should get around to telling you what *does* stop gun violence, but you won’t like it. One word: Australia.

More on that tomorrow. Meanwhile, it’s been two days since 10 people died in Roseburg, Oregon, and we’ve already had two more mass shootings (shootings in which 4 or more people are killed or injured). One in Inglis, Florida, and one in northwest Baltimore MD. But of course it’s too early to talk about gun laws that could have prevented these killings because that would be exploiting them for political gain, though it’s not too early for the NRA to talk about how Obama is gonna use these incidents to grab your guns unless you join the NRA right this moment, that’s not exploiting these incidents for political gain, that’s just… uhm… exploiting these incidents for political gain. Alrighty, then!

– Badtux the Overly Armed Penguin

Read Full Post »

There seems to be a lot of confusion amongst even so-called liberals about what constitutes religious discrimination (nevermind conservatives, who have gone batshit crazy). This is actually defined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in employment. Please note that Title VII *only* applies to private sector workers, *not* to public sector workers, but many states have laws that extend its provisions to public sector workers also. One such state, for example, is Kentucky.

What Title VII says is that if a person has a religious objection to doing part of his job — such as a Muslim flight attendant who has a religious objection to handling alcohol, or a Jehovah’s Witness has a religious objection to working on Saturday, the employer must make a reasonable accommodation of that employee’s beliefs. Only when no such reasonable accommodation is possible — for example, if it’s a small airline that only flies tiny commuter planes with a single flight attendant — is it permissible to fire the employee for not doing his job. If a reasonable accommodation is possible — for example, it’s a large airline that flies large jets with four flight attendants, and it’s possible for the Muslim flight attendant to trade off duties with the other attendants in order to make sure that the customers get served — then the business must make that accommodation. Thus in this particular case of the Muslim flight attendant that appeared before the U.S. Circuit Court, the large airline was forced to re-hire the Muslim flight attendant they had fired for refusing to handle alcohol, and the appeals court upheld that decision because there was a reasonable way the airline could accommodate the Muslim flight attendant’s religious beliefs.

But the key word in all of this is reasonable. The job has to be done, and at a reasonable cost. If the individual’s religious beliefs make it impossible for the job to be done or imposes a cost that is not reasonable, such as if the Muslim flight attendant had been working for a small commuter airline that only had one flight attendant per plane, he can legally be fired under Title VII.

Note two things: 1) Violating the law is *never* reasonable and thus can *never* be considered a “reasonable accommodation”. And 2) Title VII covers only the individual’s *personal* actions. If the individual is a Muslim driver’s license office manager, for example, he can personally refuse to issue driver’s licenses to women because that violates his Muslim beliefs. But he cannot order *other* people in his office to refuse to issue driver’s licenses to women. *They* don’t have a religious belief prohibiting them from issuing driver’s licenses to women.

So now back to the case of Kim Davis of Rowan County, KY. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that if the State issues marriage licenses to heterosexual couples, then the State must also issue marriage licenses to gay couples. This is because of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which says that all citizens must be treated equally by the State. I.e., you cannot have two classes of citizen, one gay and one heterosexual, that are treated differently just because of their sexuality.

So this is the law. It’s been the law since 1868, and the U.S. Supreme Court has now directed that this law must be enforced in the case of gay couples. Now, the question is this: Is there a reasonable accommodation for Chairwoman Kim’s religious belief that gay marriage is immoral?

The answer to that is yes. A reasonable accommodation would be if Chairwoman Kim herself refused to issue marriage licenses, but allowed a member of her staff that did not have a religious objection issue the licenses. It turns out that of the seven people authorized to issue licenses, five of them are willing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. So there does exist a reasonable accommodation.

The problem is that Chairwoman Kim refused that reasonable accommodation. She stated that her moral convictions required her to order her entire office to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But that’s not what the law reads. The law reads that her moral convictions can only direct her own actions. Once she starts directing other people’s actions to the point where the *entire office* violates the law, her behavior ceases to be “reasonable” by any court decision ever, because any accommodation which results in a violation of the law by *definition* is *not* reasonable.

And that is why Chairwoman Kim went to jail for contempt of court — not because she herself refused to issue a marriage certificate to a gay couple but, rather, because she ordered her entire office to do so. Judge David Bunning was willing to release Chairwoman Kim if she would allow those five clerks to do the job of issuing marriage certificates to gay couples. She refused to do so. At that point, she ceased to be the person being discriminated against, and became the person doing the discrimination. Like Chairman Mao, imposing her own will upon other people became more important than her personal beliefs. Thus why I call her Chairwoman Kim — same shit, different barrel.

Now for some snark:

Ten things you don’t say to a judge:

1. F*** you!
2. You’re not the boss of me!
4. What, you’re going to send me to bed without supper?
5. You can’t tell me what to do! I pay you with my taxes!
6. That wasn’t the law when I got my driver’s license so I don’t have to obey it!
7. You’re pretty high and mighty for a man who wears a dress.
8. How much money do you want to find me not guilty?
9. Jesus made me do it!

And #10, guaranteed to get you a free night in jail on contempt of court charges:

10. You can’t judge me! Only God can judge me!

– Badtux the Snarky Law Penguin

Read Full Post »

I keep looking for the part of the Bible that says ‘thou shalt not sign marriage certificates for gay couples’ and not finding it.

A reminder: Wanting cops to quit killing unarmed people doesn’t mean you hate cops. It just means you want cops to do the job you hired them to do — which is keeping the peace, *NOT* killing unarmed people.

America’s national religion will never be Islam and can’t be Christianity because America already has a national religion: the almighty dollar.

Jesus was a homeless brown-skinned liberal who gave out free health care and free food and spoke no English. Which is why Donald Trump would have proposed a wall between Judea and Galilee to keep people like Jesus out.

CEO’s don’t create jobs. Billionaires don’t create jobs. In Capitalism, it is demand that creates jobs. It doesn’t matter if one specific furniture store goes out of business or one billionaire goes bankrupt, if there is a demand for furniture, another furniture store will take its place and hire its former employees, making its owner rich if the owner does a good job. The notion that we must give some businesses preferential treatment because otherwise we’ll “lose jobs” is anti-Capitalist at its core, because Capitalism is about meeting demand for goods and services, not about subsidizing inefficient businesses who can’t survive in a free market. If there is demand, there will be jobs, regardless of what happens to the businesses that are continually demanding public welfare or “we’ll fire everybody and shut down.” Giving subsidies merely interferes with the proper behavior of capitalism, which is a method for matching supply and demand, and cannot operate to do so if government keeps interfering with it by subsidizing things that don’t need subsidizing. Should we have subsidized buggy whip makers when the automobile came around? I don’t think so!

German humor:


That is all.

– Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »