Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver Becomes Speaker Of The House

Wide shoulders?
Nah... narrow mind.

That's right, Paul Ryan (R-WI) will wield the gavel that may (or may not) confer upon him an opportunity to starve an unlimited number of grannies. Or he may receive by turns the unbridled contempt of the paranoid wing and of the merely radical wing of his party, while he accomplishes even less as Speaker than John Boehner. These days, there are no moderates in the House GOP caucus. Ask the Z.E.G.S. in about six months, if he lasts that long.

I confess I detest the man and everything he stands for. He is arrogant, self-important and sententious in everything he says. He also lies egregiously and frequently in his public capacity. One could argue he is better off as Speaker than he would have been as veep, but frankly, Speaker is a more powerful office, in which he can do more damage. The importance of a strong Democratic showing in the 2016 House election, especially if Republicans take the presidency (and I choose the word "take" advisedly, after sElection 2000), cannot be overemphasized.

Dog help us all in the next term!

Zombie-Eyed Granny Starvers; Greedy-Handed Kiddie Slavers

Conservatives are reaching new depths in their insistence upon outright cruelty to children and old people. Some version of the meme has always been part of the conservatives' creed, but it's getting worse.

Everyone remembers Charles Pierce's famous labeling of Paul Ryan as a "zombie-eyed granny starver" in August 2012 in the run-up to the presidential election for Ryan's proposals regarding Social Security and Medicare in his "budget." Pierces' reaction:

Paul Ryan is an authentically dangerous zealot. He does not want to reform entitlements. He wants to eliminate them. He wants to eliminate them because he doesn't believe they are a legitimate function of government. He is a smiling, aw-shucks murderer of opportunity, a creator of dystopias in which he never will have to live.

Conservatives' fondest dream

And most people remember Newt Gingrich's November 2011 proposal that schools fire their janitors and hand brooms to kids enrolled in the free lunch program, a recommendation subsequently echoed by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) as recently as December 2013.

For reasons beyond my comprehension, a commitment to absolutely no redistribution of wealth is important to many conservatives. I am thinking of an old friend of mine who used to say, "TANSTAAFL," an acronym from possibly the 1930s made famous by s/f author Robert Heinlein in 1966. You could almost see my friend raise his index finger in the classic gesture of quoting a wise proverb... at least I think it was his index finger... as if the acronym were holy writ.

In any case, "no redistribution" is absurd: the very people who advocate it loudest are the same people who would be howling in outrage if it were enforced upon their wealth. Look, folks: the whole friggin' world is a free lunch. Life is a free lunch: you didn't earn it, it just happened to you. For most wealthy people, wealth is a free lunch: that's the consequence of living in a society that legally protects most inheritance from parents to children.

So don't give me that "TANSTAAFL" nonsense! And stop starving grannies and slave‑driving children, right this minute!