Main

April 30, 2007

Postscript To Darren Bernard's War On American Tech Workers

Remember how Bernard is oh-so-concerned about the shortage of qualified tech workers in this country that we must flood the marketplace with imports from India or China? Well, a study from Duke University shows that the reason why tech companies are clamoring to hire more foreigners is NOT because of quality and NOT because of quantity, but because of simple greed: foreign workers costs less money than domestic worker. Way to stick up for the bottom line, Darren.

Devilstower at The Daily Kos has more.

April 26, 2007

Darren Bernard Hates American Workers

That's what I can tell from reading Bernard's latest piece, if I am allowed to be as fair in my characterizations as he is fair in his characterizations. Corporate suck-up that he is, he parrots the company line by credulously using Bill Gates as "proof" that Chinese programmers are superior to American programmers, which is just Exhibit 1A in his attempt to give favortism to foreign workers over American workers. Sure he cites happy news that unemployment in the tech sector is at lows, except he fails to mention that those lows are the result of frustrated former tech workers leaving the tech industry altogether. Way to keep looking out for us Americans, Darren!

April 7, 2007

Another Belated Bernard Bashing

I hope Darren Bernard knows that the civil rights activities like voter registration in Alabama did NOT start with Bloody Sunday in 1965, but in 1961. It always nice how wingers nitpick the Dems while ignoring the gaping inconsistencies among the Republican slate of candidates.

March 28, 2007

You Can't Be Too Paranoid

Darren Bernard sneaked by with one of his rare Monday columns, so naturally expecting his usual Thursday column I completely missed it. And boy is it a paternalistic, pant-pissing doozy. Here, his targets are the six imams who are suing US Airways for not letting them board their return flight home even though they've been cleared of any connection with terrorism, and the two Muslim civil rights organizations championing their causes.

It was nice of Bernard to parrot the airline's self-serving "investigation" into the matter that (surprise!) completely absolved the airline. But even if the the account of what the airline says is perfectly true, it still doesn't show that the imams were especially disruptive to warrant their being kicked off the flight, just that they prayed, sat on the airplane and asked for seatbelt extentions. How dare they.

After tossing a back-handed riff on CAIR's Saudi money (which, unlike Bush's Saudi ties, make them suspicious) and MAS's ties with the Muslim Brotherhood that he describes as "violent" (notice that he doesn't say "terrorist" since the group doesn't even appear on the State Department's list of foreign terror organizations), he conflates their support for the imams with their support for the Muslim taxidrivers that refuse to transport alcohol. While I agree that the cabdrivers aren't reasonable, Bernard seems to think that Muslims have no right to complain and accept whatever comes their way with toothy grins. Maybe he could do a an even exchange with the Muslim civl rights groups: they stop complaining about certain affronts if Bernard stops complaining about suspicious Muslims and assorted bands of hippies. Then we shall all be happy.

March 1, 2007

Good God, I'm Agreeing With Him

He gets it about right. Why have full fledged classrooms and a college campus when student-professor interactions are not necessary? Why not just have online classes and cut some major costs?

February 15, 2007

Gee, That Wasn't Too Hard, Was It?

Darren Bernard puts out the rare column whose contents I largely agree with. Schools shouldn't ban portrayals of certain works like Huckleberry Finn, Heart of Darkness or To Kill A Mockingbird because they expose the ugly realities of what happened in the past that might offend overly sensitive people. And they shouldn't ban A Catcher In The Rye because it contains naughty words.

But I still have a couple of quibbles, first this graf discussing Heart of Darkness:

There might not be much chance of a return to colonial times, but the ethnic and religious ills of even developed societies should make people think twice about sweeping the lessons of the past under a carpet of political correctness.

I think we can all safely assume that the Eye-Rack war is an imperialist adventure in all but name. The supporters could be heard during the run-up to the war and the early parts of the occupation telling us it would be downright RACIST not to give these poor Eye-Rackees their democratic utopia free of Saddam. Now that things have gone to hell, those same people, including Bernard, have settled for the tired old tactic of victim-blaming the uncivilized natives.

Also Bernard claims that shielding people from racially insensitive texts will lead them to think words like "nigger" are perfectly okay to say in polite company, pointing to the plethora of rap music that use that term as proof. Well, that may be true of white people, but blacks have used that word among themselves knowing perfectly well the ugliness and animus behind that word.

But other than that, pretty damn good.

February 1, 2007

The One Where He Believes In Global Warming But Still Blames Enviromentalists

Here's the money quote buried deep within Darren Bernard's usual litany of scorn towards the usual suspects:

The Earth is warming, likely because of both natural climate variation and human-created emissions.

But the problem, you see, is that dirty fucking hippies like Al Gore and climatologists are too hysterical about the subject and are not letting Big Oil give their side of the debate. But, alas, Bernard does seem to have a point, in his own way:

Update: Of course, I hope Bernard knows that the "dissent" against global warming is being bought and paid for by the Big Oil lobby.

It is one thing for scientists and congressmen to be frustrated by the dissent of a vocal minority. It is very much another for them to issue veiled threats to squash technical and policy debates. If the green crowd were as confident in their models as they claim they are, they should not need to bully the few skeptics who remain. Such obvious suppression of opinion is not a redeeming detail to people on the fence of the debate - that is, most Americans.

Indeed.

January 18, 2007

The Hack Is Back

What's it been, a little short of two months since Bernard has written a column and I beat up on him? And wasn't it three months ago that Bernard has given the Eye-Rackee government three months to solve the security and political situation?

Well, the deadline is up and the streets of Baghdad are still filled with blood. But it appears that sometime during the hiatus, he has decided to kick the can further down the road and concentrate on ways to bash the Democrats now that they (*gasp*) share actual power in our government. No more of that condescending snark he used to practice when Democrats had no control of government, now he's launching a fusillage of trenchant rage against the powers that be of the Democratic party.

This time he's losing his bile over the fact that Pelosi and Reid (but not several Republicans, a "commanding majority" of the country and the plurality of the military) strongly oppose the current splurge of troops being peddled by WorstPresidentEver. Of course Pelosi, Reid, most of the country and the military want us to lose in Eye-Rack because backing the president no matter what is the key to the victory we now have today.

But once again, the insidious little weasel tries to misrepresent what Harry Reid said just a month ago. On the December 17th edition of This Week, Reid said he would support the escalation IF it were part of a plan to withdraw troops in a year. Two days later when he realized that the troop escalation is just another open-ended delaying tactic he became adamantly opposed to the troop splurge.

Then he tries to say that Charles Rangel and the rest of the Democrats want equal opportunity terror attacks on Americans because they refuse to fight in a country that had NOTHING TO DO with the September 11th attacks. This is despite the near universal opinion that the Eye-Rack war did nothing but INCREASE the probability of more terror attacks.

And last, he says that we must continue with our failed policies in Eye-Rack for the good of the Eye-Rackees, despite the fact that huge majorities of Iraqis want us out now, even if they have to kill for it. But Darren Bernard alone knows what is good for them, a sentiment that is the very province of colonial imperialism.

So Bernard forgets his three-month deadline, lies about what Harry Reid said, claims that Democrats want Americans to die from terror attacks and ignores the fact that Iraqis want us out immediately. In the seriatims of hackery, Darren Bernard has probably hit a new record.

November 30, 2006

It's Pronounced "Nuke-you-ler"

Forget about that clusterfuck in Eye-Rack, it's nuclear Eye-Ran we should be worried about, and it's those damn ruskies and chinamen to blame. So sayeth Darren Bernard in his latest column/coping mechanism.

God there is so many things wrong with this article. He admits that the U.S. (read President Bush and his cronies) hasn't even TRIED engaging with the Iranians directly, but he spends most of the column aqssailing the U.N. - particularly Russia and China - for trying and failing? And why would Russia and China care too much if Iran had nuclear weapons? The mideast has been nuclearized for quite some time (Israel) and they already made peace with the fact that a potentially unstable Islamic state has nuclear weapons (Pakistan). And if Iran starts any trouble, all Russia and China have to do is flex their nuclear muscle and Iran will respect the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Bernard admits that the U.S. is lacking in the possession of bargaining chips, but he expects the U.N., an entity that officially does not have an army, to pick up the slack in the intimidation factor? And since when does the U.N. act independently of the U.S. in security matters? That would present an affront to U.S. hegemony that even Darren Bernard couldn't handle.

The greatest omission, however, is how much Bush has undermined any future gains in diplomatic relations with Iran with his nonsensical and peurile "Axis of Evil" speech. Because of that, the reformist president Mohammed Khatami was booted in favor of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadnenijad, who proceeded to close most doors to peaceful negotiations. Face it, it's the U.S., not the U.N., that is supposed to be the leader in resolving these crises, and with that idiot monkeyboy still in office, the world will continue to suffer a black hole in leadership.

November 7, 2006

Darren Bernard To Sign Up At The Campus Recruiting Office At Washington and Oak.

That's the only conclusion I can gather from this column:

The third choice means escalation, but it may very well be the only acceptable way out. A soldier stationed in Iraq suggested this to the Wall Street Journal last week: "Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000 American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police, and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a military that's fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction. Reassure the Iraqi people that we're going to provide them security and then follow through. Disarm the nation: Sunnis, Shias, militia groups, everyone. Issue national ID cards to everyone and control the movement of the population."

It sounds drastic - even severe. But drastic and severe may be exactly what we need right now. The borders to Iran and Syria must be closed off to the weapons and terrorists pouring into the country. Baghdad and other hotspots must be secured for reconstruction efforts to be at all fruitful. Iraqis are begging for security, and they know that as little as they like having U.S. troops around, Americans are loyal only to the cause.

He does know that type of escalation requires a draft, right? We just don't have those kinds of troop numbers. And all this would accomplish is to provide 250,000-350,000 more targets in the sandbox. But at least he's not a Bush loyalist on the war anymore.

October 13, 2006

Only One Half More Friedman For Bernard

Darren Bernard is getting impatient with the Eye-Rack experiment. He's afraid that the American public will stop supporting the shitmire for three more months if the violence keeps going.

Where the hell has he been for the past year? The American public has stopped supporting the war a long time ago.
Oh wait, he must mean support of Republican chickenhawks not actual Americans.

May 4, 2006

It's The Economy, Stupids!

So what do you do when your One Party Government us faced with the Eye-Rack quagmire, an energy crisis and corruption from all sides? Why talk up the growing economy of course. Bernard just couldn't unnerstand why ordinary people can't see for the fact that the economy is going gangbusters. What, are you people blind? Five million jobs in three year! GDP's increased five percent! Dow 36,000 is coming any day now! The economy is not in the shitter, what the fuck is wrong with you people!

Well, sorry to have to break this to him, but just because the economy is going great for the elites doesn't mean it's going great for the rest of us. According to the true measure of how well the Average Joe is doing - median wages - the "economy" has only grown 1.5 percent from 2000-2004. Meanwhile, inflation has ballooned 10 percent during the same time. Compound that with the fact that poverty has increased every year Bush was in office, then you get an entirely different economic picture between the have mores and the have nots.

April 20, 2006

Finally! The Answer To All Of Eye-Rack's Problems!

So when you think of Eye-rack, what is the first problem that comes to mind? The rise of sectarian militias? Ethnic cleansing? The need to replace the prime minister? No, no, no my friend, for according to the All Knowing Darren Bernard, the root of Eye-rack's problems lay in its inability to adopt neoliberal economic policies. And that is despite the fact that almost every sector of Iraq's economy is below prewar levels - including oil production which is actually 1.7 million barrels per day, not the 2.1 million figure cited in Darren Bernard's piece.

Oh well, I guess I do have to give kudos to Bernard for not ignoring the elephant in the room this week, but once again he is refusing to see the forest through the trees.

April 13, 2006

Those Unhealthy Deadbeats

Hey look, Darren Bernard has a plan to lower health care costs. Not that they are origninal, effective or compassionate or anything, but they are ideas nonetheless.

His first bright idea, we Americans use the hospital too much so the government should put bouncers at every revolving doorto make sure only those with "acceptable" illnesses can come in. All you obese people and other "hypochondriacs" brought the illness on yourselves so you're shit outta luck. That sounds reasonable, except for the fact that hospital visits are not like Gucci fashions. You see, people like to get Gucci clothes, on the flip side, people hate going to the doctor. That would explain the lack of waiting lists for countries with universal health care.

Bright Idea Number Two: Tort Reform!

Never mind the fact that medical malpractice costs make up only two percent of total health care costs, or in other words, even though America spends $6,000 per person on health care, malpractice awards only amount to $16 per person. Only five percent of the patients who are injured actually file any suit, and apparently the medical malpractice "crisis" is already over, huzzah!

April 5, 2006

Race Pimpin'

I've tried to avoid this issue of Rep. Cyntia McKinney hitting a Capitol policeman simply because it is one completely contrived to distract the media and just enough people from the slow-motion implosion of the Republican party, but Mr. Bernard, who decided to write a day early, has forced my hand.

Apparently what happened is that last week, McKinney failed to stop at the Capitol Building when an officer was yelling "Ma'am, ma'am!" Apparently she didn't realize she was the "ma'am they were referring to until she was grabbed from behind, and out of alarm struck the person who grabbed her, who turned out to be the police officer.

She initially apologized, informally and officially, and that should have been the end of that. But prosecuters began pursuing what kind of charges could be pressed against her, So McKinney, detecting a pattern with her previous run-ins with the Capitol police, decided to come out accusing the police of racial profiling. She knows this is a coordinated attack, and she's fighting back like she knows how to do.

And now the embattled conservatives are piling on with glee. The former head snake Tom Delay just called McKinney a "racist" and I won't even address the other methane fumes bubbling from the reich-wing fever swamps. And of course Darren Bernard feels the need to jump right in.

Unlike the Dick Cheney hunting incident, with its cronyism, the denials and the coverups that may or may not be endemic in the Republican movement, the McKinney incident is symbolic of the inefficacy of the civil rights leaders' in ability to take care of the problems of the black community and it's increasing irrelevance in American social and political discourse.

His litany of "proof" is:

1. Julian Bond pointing out that the Republicans have a history of defending the Confederate flag, which he calls the "Confederate Swatstika", which is part of their larger practice of exploiting racial divisions

2. Some unsubstantiated thing about Jesse Jackson he picked up from Kenneth R. Timmeran.

3. Joseph Lowery making a political rally out of the Correta Scott King's funeral, unlike say what everyone else did with the Reagan funeral

4. Fiddee Sents is popularizing promiscuity and materialism, while Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton and most other celebs on E! are practically virginal

5. Rap music (along with every POPULAR segment of the entertainment industry) is violent and black congresspeople aren't bitching about it.

6. Black out-of-wedlock births are insane, even though the number of black children living with single parents has fallen during the last decade.

7. Rap music caused all the innercity poverty, drug use, delinquencies and other pathologies that have been around since before the Sugar Hill Gang came on the scene, even though it left alone all the white kids who buy 60 percent of all rap records.

8. Lil' Kim is in jail for perjury, and Busta Rhymes isn't saying anything about a murder.

Yep, those are compelling reasons why black civil rights leaders (apparently headed by McKinney) should shut their yaps.

Putz.

March 30, 2006

Vete a la verga

Fellow freeper Darren Bernard pens a non-inflammatory op-ed today extolling the virtues of a guest-worker program.

Considering the issue itself, I'd favor the guest worker program IF we actually have a surplus of jobs. It's not jobs that Americans don't want, it's jobs that employers don't pay Americans enough to do. That's why they employ illegals to drive down the wages.

In any case, this whole "illegal imm-i-gants" schpiel is just to distract discontented conservatives from the disasters in Iraq and in the Medicare bill, and that's just that. Someday Darren Bernard and his other freeper buddies will have to contend with those simple facts, or be discredited for a long time.

March 23, 2006

Why Have A Congress?

That's what Bernard says in his latest tongue bath to the Bush administration concerning the seemingly aborted ports deal with Dubai. Why must he and his kind be so hopelessly out of the maintstream?

It's clever how Bernard starts off his column with Senator Chuck Schumer's comparison of the U.A.E. with skinheads, despite the fact that the U.A.E. refuses to recognize Israel. And it's funny how he decries the use of the terror boogieman to scuttle the deal when he of all people knows too well how Bush and his ilk used terrorism to scare people into voting for them and supporting their disaster in Eye-Rack. It is said that the definition of chuzpah is a child who kills both his parents and demands sympathy because he's an orphan. The way Bernard and his kind cannot find the irony within their arguement amounts to genocide.

Nevermind the fact that Dubai is a notorious smuggler and that the royal family had ties to Osama Bin Laden, making their scrutiny justified. What takes the cake, and reveals the omnousness of these right-wing radicals, is the fact that he insists that Congress (while citing their corruption and inefficiency without mentioning that it's fully controlled by Republicans) should be kept out of deals like these, despite the fact that Constitution gives Congress the power to control commerce. This concentration of power to the executive, aided and abetted by these Bushbots should be troubling to us all.


March 9, 2006

Corporate Accountability is HARD WORK!

That should be the title of Bernard's new offering today. Basically he's saying those poor, poor, mom-pop, family-owned barely-scraping-by multimillion-dollarpublicly traded corporations are complaining about the new "complexities" of the Sarbanes-Oxley law that was passed on the wake of the Enron/Worldcom/Tyco scandals. Actually a few of them are since he admitted that only 20 percent of them considered skirting the law and making their public companies private. And apparently only 316 out of 15,000 public companies went private in 2002, or two percent, which is pretty much the same percentage that went private the previous year. If there is a big exodus from Wall Street because of the bill, I'm not seeing it.

So is this how the cons stick up for the little guys, especially those who were shit out of luck because of the corporate scandals, only to see their bosses carrying golden parachutes? Does carrying water for the fat-cats improve their street cred with the regular folks? If the effective federal corporate tax rate is 17 percent while the rest of us pay 23 percent, is it too much to ask for the corporate fat cats to actually fill out more forms to make sure they are not screwing with us? Apparently it is for out-of-touch conservatives like Darren Bernard.

March 2, 2006

Darren Bernard Has A Bunch Of Term Papers

That would explain this yawner of a rethread about how shitty the UN is. He basically wrote the same opinion piece three times already, it's like he just broke into his hard drive, moved around some definite articles, then fired it off as a new opinion piece.

I'm not going to dispute that the UN has a bunch of problems it need to address, but that's basically what you are going to get when you have nuclear powers controlling the all-important Security Council. Those other Third-world nations are going to hang on to their influence on whatever councils they make up, whether it's the Human Rights Council or others.

Also his main criticisms of the UN could just as easily be appllied to the U.S. when it comes to "saving the world". Sexual abuse by peacekeepers? Never mind Abu Ghraib, what about how our soldiers have been charged for rape in the Phillipines or Okinawa? Oil-For-Food? Eye-Rack is just one huge scandal machine. How many billions of reconstruction money has been unaccounted for? And Darfur never received the attention of the U.S. so how the hell can the U.N do anything about it when it's annual budget for peacekeeping missions around the world is less than what the U.S. spends per day subsidizing the civil war in Eye-Rack ($3,870,000,000 vs $4,100,000,000).

It seems that the latest implosion by the administration, be it the civil war, the ports deal, or now the Katrina revelations (see below) has left the right-wing clutching at straws trying to take a wack at easy targets. Well, not this time. You are gonna have to face up to the crises of your own making one of these days.

February 23, 2006

Darren Bernard - Poet Laureate

Is it just me, or are conservatives having too much fun playing down the significance of Dead-Eye Dick shooting a man in the face?

Boxer could grandstand

Kennedy would cry
It would be Alito all over
“Why did you lie?!�

A hearing for Durbin
A statement for Dayton
The awful conclusion:
“Cheney is Satan�

As much as Dems weep
It’s not like Dick tried
As much as libs sob
They can’t prove Dick lied
They cry, “What a scoundrel!
He pretends to have guts,�
But Dems are just jealous
That Cheney has nuts

Hah. . .huh? Perhaps Cheney hasn't lied himself, but his lackeys have been spinning all this time; first he wasn't drinking then he had a cocktail before shooting; Cheney didn't report the incident for hours because he wanted to make sure his friend was ok, even though he never went on the ambulance. And then there was the spin that the whole incident was Whittington's fault for sneaking up on Cheney like a rabid quail, then they had to backtrack when they relized how debased it was to blame the victim.

In any case, a vice-president involved in a shooting accident is a big deal no matter what the case may be. Make no mistake that if it had been Vice President Al Gore doing the shooting, the cons would never leave it alone for a second.

May 8, 2005

Belated Bernard Bashing

Boy, he must be running out of material. Now he's taken to aimlessly criticizing his British ideological counterparts in another sad attempt to make fun of Democrats. Even Anne Coulter would think this is pathetic.

I'll assume Bernard wrote this BEFORE the elections since the loss of 47 seats by any political party is anything BUT a political victory. Don't worry folks, if the Conservatives won a coup of the British government, Bernard would just take it as a repudiation of left-of-center politics at the other side of the pond.


On A related note Bryan Freeman's piece where he whines about Democrats filibustering Bush's wingnut would be taken seriously if his claim that "no judicial nominee supported by a simple majority of the U.S. Senate has been filibustered successfully" was actually accurate. Senate Republicans in 1968 successfully filibustered the nomination of Abe Fortas to Chief Justice even when Fortas enjoyed a majority of the vote (45-43) in his favor.

If Bryan Freeman was more honest and less evasive, if his only qualifications was that any nominee was "filibustered", he would have faced many instances where judicial nominees were filibustered, including one that was participated by the holder of the nuclear football, Bill Frist. Back in 2000, Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered Clinton nominee Richard Paez. Bill Frist was among the handful of Republicans that voted for the filibuster.

All of this gives credence to this simple truth: Republicanism is a dead ideology fueled by sycopanthy and opportunistic hypocrisy.

April 21, 2005

Not Your Usual Brainfart From Bernard

This article from our very own Darren Bernard is surprisingly engaging in it's discussion about the decline of spirituality in today's youth. Maybe it's just me, but the fact that religion today seems to be used as a political instrument of bigotry might have a role in turning off a lot of the "Generation Y" crowd.