Monthly Archives: August 2009

Pussified princess Rep. Doris Matsui holding conference call, not town hall

Her hair alone is a crime, but I can’t stand U.S. Representative Doris Matsui because she represents the very worst of entrenched “Democratic” politics. In lieu of a real town hall on health-care reform, Matsui has opted for a fucking conference call — because she can.

There will be no raucous town-hall meeting on health-care reform in my Congressional district, because my U.S. representative, DINO (Democrat in name only) Doris Matsui, is a princess and a wuss.

Matsui came to office in 2005 under questionable circumstances. Her husband, Robert Matsui, was a career politician, having been in the U.S. House of Representatives for more than 25 years, from 1979 to his death on Jan. 1, 2005.

He had won re-election to the U.S. House for his Sacramento-area district yet once again in November 2004, and then, just the next month, in late December 2004, he was hospitalized. And then he died on Jan. 1, 2005.

Now, in his 2004 re-election campaign, Robert Matsui had never let his constituents know that he was ill. Not a word about it. According to Wikipedia, Robert Matsui died of a rare blood disorder called myelodysplastic syndrome (of which astronomer Carl Sagan and children’s author Roald Dahl also died; there is some trivia for you).

My reading of Wikipedia’s article on the syndrome (which I linked to above) indicates to me that it’s unlikely that Robert Matsui had had no idea on Election Day 2004 that he had the disease or at least some serious health problem or problems; few diseases kill you within two months without your having had serious, usually long-term symptoms to alert you to the disease. 

My guess is that Robert Matsui was aware of his terminal illness on Election Day in 2004 but that he and his family and his closest associates kept it quiet because they all wanted his wife, Doris, to succeed him in the U.S. House of Representatives. My guess is that it was the couple’s plan, well before Election Day 2004, that after his death, Doris would succeed him in the House. Of course Doris has denied that there was any such plan (I heard her deny this myself at a rare [for her] public forum) — but of course she would deny that whether it were the case or not.

In any event, a special election was held on March 8, 2005 to fill the deceased Robert Matsui’s seat, and even though it was a longshot to prevent Doris Matsui, with the Matsui Dynasty brand name behind her, from getting her greedy grubbies on the Congressional seat vacated by her late husband,  I actively supported one of the many others running for the seat in the special election, progressive (that is, real) Democrat Julie Padilla. I knew that once Doris Matsui got in, ever getting her out would be like pulling teeth.

In the special election Padilla came in at a distant No. 2 to Doris Matsui, with 9 percent of the vote to Matsui’s 68 percent. (A Repugnican candidate came in at No. 3, with 8 percent.) Of course, Matsui, who had been a Washington lobbyist and who had worked in the Clinton White House, had the entire Democratic Establishment Machine (DEM) behind her, and Padilla had those of us with consciences who don’t march in lockstep with the DEM. The Matsui camp had all of the money and all of the political might; we of the Padilla camp had only right on our side.

Matsui was roundly criticized for skipping out on appearances at debates and other public forums in the short campaign period for the March 2005 special election. But why should she have bothered? She had the Matsui Dynasty brand name and the DEM behind her. It was going to be a cakewalk — and it was.

So now, it is unsurprising that Doris Matsui has chosen a “telephone town hall” on health-care reform instead of an actual town hall. Um, isn’t a “telephone town hall” just a fucking conference call?

I got an automated call on my voice mail from Doris herself on Thursday. She says in the message that she’ll have her “telephone town hall” on Sept. 3, this coming Thursday. To be able to participate, she says, I should press “1,” but since it’s a voice mail, I don’t know how I would participate in the conference call even if I wanted to (which I don’t, since Doris nauseates me with her pretense of being so sweet and meek and delicate even though she has been part of a powerful political dynasty for decades).

The Sacramento Bee has criticized Doris Matsui for once again skipping out on facing the people face to face. Here is the Bee’s editorial from yesterday:

Back home for the August recess, members of Congress in our region are meeting with constituents. They’re conducting telephone and face-to-face town hall meetings to present updates and hear concerns on health care legislation.

With one major exception.

Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, has planned no face-to-face town hall meetings to date.

She will hold one telephone town hall at 7 p.m. Thursday, calling all registered voters with phone numbers on record – others can sign up for the call. She has said telephone forums allow her to reach more people. That’s true.

But it’s no substitute for a member of Congress having face-to-face contact with constituents. Matsui seems to think that her recent “health care tour” – meetings with patients, doctors, nurses and medical staff at local clinics, hospitals and labs – is enough face-to-face engagement.

It’s not. Matsui is on a key committee that is drafting health care legislation. She needs to stand before a skeptical public and show that she understands the issues, can explain them in plain language and can make a strong case for reform now.

She needs to show that she is not afraid of dissent – and can set a civil, respectful tone in addressing those who disagree. She needs to experience firsthand the passion, the anxieties and the compelling stories that people bring to the debate.

To date, the face-to-face town halls in our region have been filled with vociferous, exuberant individuals – but no shouting matches or shoving. People applaud and boo. They make their views known. That’s democracy, and Matsui should embrace it.

Unfortunately, her refusal to hold face-to-face town hall meetings is all too reminiscent of her refusal in the 2005 special election campaign to debate rival candidates. Matsui finally reversed her position and participated in two forums in 2005 – something she should do today.

Matsui still has time before Congress reconvenes Sept. 8 to schedule at least one face-to-face town hall meeting.

Doris Matsui most likely won’t do that, of course.

Doris Matsui is yet another baby-boomer asshole (that’s pretty much redundant, of course…) with a sense of entitlement. Why should she work when she doesn’t have to, when she can coast on her Mastui Dynasty brand name and the political connections that she and her dead husband developed over decades? After all, didn’t that strategy of coasting on the family name and the family’s political connections work well enough for her fellow baby-boomer asshole George W. Bush?

Embrace democracy? Oh, I’m not holding my breath that Doris Matsui ever will do that.

Hopefully, this corrupt brand of politics, and all political dynasties (Bush, Clinton, even Kennedy, et. al.), will die with Doris Matsui and her ilk.

And heads up, my fellow Sacramentans: Although I expect Doris Matsui to try to hold onto her seat until she dies, like her husband did, Robert and Doris Matsui had a son together

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Inglourious Basterds’ rather inglorious for a film by Quentin Tarantino

In this film publicity image released by The Weinstein Co., ...

Lead Nazi slayer Aldo Raine, played by Brad Pitt, addresses his merry band of Nazi slayers in Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds,” one of Tarantino’s less gory — and lesser — endeavors (which at least came to us in just one part…).

As I have noted before, I think that they make way too Holocaust-themed movies. No, I’m not anti-Semitic, and no, I’m not a Holocaust denier, and it’s sad that I have to state that up front.

It’s that the Holocaust has been done.

But I’m a Quentin Tarantino fan, and so I saw “Inglourious Basterds” on its opening weekend.

I love ya, Quentin, but I can give “Basterds” only a “B.”

“Basterds” starts out promisingly. The opening scene, in which Nazis search for Jews being hidden at a French farmhouse, at first seems overlong, but then you realize that Tarantino got it just right.

And then it looks like the entire movie, or most of it, anyway, is going to be about Brad Pitt, who plays an American named Lt. Aldo Raine with a hick accent who is something like Robin Hood leading a band of merry men, only this Robin Hood and these merry men (who call themselves the “Inglourious Basterds”) don’t steal from the rich and give to the poor, but they hunt, kill and scalp — yes, scalp — Nazis in Nazi-occupied France. And most of these Nazi slayers are Jews.

But after teasing us with this novel slant on the whole Holocaust-movie thing, “Basterds” then goes into a much-less-interesting and less novel direction involving a young Jewish woman named Shosanna (well-played by Melanie Laurent) who survived the Nazis’ slaughter of her family and who plots her revenge when the premiere of a Nazi propaganda film is slated to be shown in the movie theater that she owns and operates in France.

Pitt and his band of merry Nazi killers come back into the movie, but only after we’ve been fairly bored by the whole movie-theater subplot.

Pitt does a kick-ass job in “Basterds,” as does Christoph Waltz as Nazi Col. Hans Landa, the “Jew hunter,” whose Oscar-worthy role runs throughout the entire film. It is largely on the strength of the performances that I can give “Basterds” a “B.”

Also doing a great job are Eli Roth as the “Bear Jew,” who takes a baseball bat to Nazis’ craniums, and Til Schweiger as former Nazi Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz, who for some reason decided to turn on his fellow Nazi officers and start terminating them (whether he opposed their “cause” or whether he is just psychopathic is not clear to me) before he was taken in by the Basterds. I wanted to see much more of these two characters and I was disappointed to see one of them terminated too early and too ingloriously.

Also interesting about “Basterds” is Tarantino’s reinterpretation of Adolf Hitler (played by Martin Wuttke) as a perpetually fuming and sputtering tyrant hilariously (darkly so) replete with a red monarch’s cape. (Tarantino also reinterprets the history of Hitler in an interesting way that I can’t tell you about, because it would give away the ending of the movie…)

Mike Myers (yes, the “Austin Powers” Mike Myers) makes an appearance as a British general that is supposed to be quirky, I think, but is more throwaway than quirky.

Tarantino’s re-envisioned Hitler and his twisted version of Robin Hood and his band of merry men alone make “Basterds” worth seeing — and I must admit that it’s hard not to feel some amount of glee to witness Nazis being exterminated like the cockroaches that they were — but “Basterds” has too much that isn’t that interesting and doesn’t measure up to what we’re used to getting from Tarantino, so it misses an “A” for me.

Maybe the uninteresting portions of “Basterds” were Tarantino’s attempt to be a more “serious” director? If so, well, he should have stuck to what he does best. There is no shortage of “serious,” “respectable” movies about the Nazis and the Holocaust out there.

“Kill Bill,” to me, still remains Tarantino’s best work to date.

My grade: B

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Envy is a blogger without a book deal

I started blogging back in the latter part of 2002 on Salon Blogs. It was a great time to start blogging; in the wake of the destruction wrought by the unelected Bush regime and in the midst of the regime’s impending launch of its bogus Vietraq War, the Internet and its newish “blogosphere” were buzzing with progressives who loved civic engagement (and e-catfights; more on that later…).

I immediately found blogging to be user-friendly — if you can word process, you can blog — and rather addictive. The idea that whenever something pisses me off or whenever there is just something that I want to say, I can post it on the Internet, where anyone in the world can read it — I still like that idea.

I probably would continue to blog no matter how small my audience. Blogging to me is what dancing is to a dancer or painting is to a painter.

Having an audience is great, especially when, like I do, you think that you’re a pretty fucking good writer. But, like any other artist who primarily does it for the love of it and not for the audience, I continue to blog even with a small audience.

But those bloggers who get book dealsarrrggggghhhhhh!

There is Dave Cullen, who, like I did, started out with Salon Blogs. Truthfully, I found Dave’s blog to be rather mediocre. He wrote about the “reality” television show “The Great Race” or whatever in the hell it was called, for fuck’s sake. After each episode, of which I never watched a single one, he’d feverishly let all of us know his every thought and impression of it. Barf bag, please! (If memory serves, Dave’s obsession with the show primarily was because one or more of its cast members he found to be a hottie. [I think it was that one cast member with the Nazi-sounding name… Third Reichen or something like that… Yeah, you know, I just can’t get past a Nazi-sounding name…])

When he wasn’t writing feverishly about his favorite reality TV show, Dave feverishly was writing about his favorite reality TV politician, Howard Dean. I, um, supported John Kerry from the very start, figuring that although Kerry wasn’t my ideological favorite of the Democratic bunch for the 2004 presidential nomination (that wild and wacky Dennis “Snowball’s Chance in Hell” Kucinich was), with his military background Kerry was much more likely to defeat BushCheneyCorp in 2004 than was peacenik Dean. (Unfortunately, 9/11 was still lingering in the national consciousness — endlessly stoked by the BushCheneyCorp, replete with its false color-coded terrorism risk alerts, of course — and I knew that the Repugnicans would make mincemeat of Dean.)

Thankfully, Dean imploded in the snows of Iowa in January 2004 and that was that. But Dave, who had even invaded Iowa with the throngs of other Deaniacs in their tacky bright orange caps, didn’t appreciate my gleeful blogging on Dean’s demise, and if memory serves, that is where it really devolved between Dave and me.    

Dave and I always had fought over Dean vs. Kerry, but after Dean’s demise after the scream heard ’round the world, Dave and I had such serious e-catfights via our blogs’ comments sections that we had to call it quits lest law enforcement officials get involved…

Anyway, if memory serves, I found Dave to be a mediocre writer with waaay too many typos and misspellings, but sometimes compelling, like car accident images on the Internet can be compelling; you know that you probably really shouldn’t look at the spectacle, but you just can’t help yourself. (I seem to remember that I especially enjoyed reading about Dave’s parallel implosion with Dean’s implosion on Dave’s blog. Dave wrote some rather surreal stuff about his Dean-related devastation, if memory serves.)

Anyway, so of course Dave later landed himself a book deal. His book Columbine (a subject that doesn’t interest me; Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” pretty much satisfied that itch for me) as I type this sentence is No. 3,007 on, but the book, timed for the 10th anniversary of the suburban teenaged massacre of April 1999, was on’s top-100 best-selling books list for at least a little while.

I hate you, Dave. You’re a mediocre writer but you got a book deal. I hate you, I hate you, I hate you.

No, OK, fine, congratulations, I don’t hate you, really I don’t, in fact, contgratulations, yeah, what-eeever. After all, I just linked to your book on and I just might get you another sale or two or three. If I hated you that much would I have done that? No, I think not, Dave.

(If you want to argue about it, Dave, leave a comment on this post, bitch. It would be just like old times. I dare you!)

Even more successful than Dave (ha ha, Dave!) is former Salon blogger Julie Powell. I don’t know her at all — although I was aware of her blog when she and I were fellow Salon bloggers, I never read her blog because I’m not into cooking and her blog was about cooking — but I hate her perhaps even more than I hate Dave because not only did she get a book deal, but she got a fucking movie deal, too. Her book Julie & Julia: My Year of Cooking Dangerously is now a frigging movie tie-in paperback with Meryl Fucking Streep on the cover and is No. 54 on’s top 100 best-seller list as I type this sentence.

I’m not linking to Powell’s book because once you have Meryl Streep on your resume, you just don’t need any more help, do you?

(Dave, if you get a movie deal, I’m going to find you, and maybe I will massacre you, Columbine-style, and I will use your flesh in one of Julie Powell’s Julia Child-inspired recipes. [Then maybe I could get a book deal…])

Anyway,’s editor, Joan Walsh, makes this admission in a rubbing-it-in-my-face blog piece that she posted today about how some Salon bloggers went on to make it big: “The Salon Blogs program was worthy and innovative, but it didn’t get the attention it deserved —  most notably, from Salon.”

Exactly. We Salon bloggers plunked down our $40-a-year fee for our blogs with Salon’s promise that Salon would support us, even promote us, and Salon didn’t. Salon picked a few Salon bloggers, almost seemingly at random, to give some attention to, but the rest of us were ignored.

I guess that in order to have gotten my Salon blog noticed I would have had to have blown former Salon managing editor Scott Rosenberg, who then was in charge of Salon Blogs and whose own Salon blog was lackluster at best (if memory serves, he primarily wrote about technical computer crap, which even I, with my great writing talent, probably couldn’t make interesting — probably).

I did contact Rosenberg a few times to see if he’d promote my blog, but he steadfastly refused. Probably because his own blog sucked. And because he also was one of the Lemmings for Howard Dean and I was one of the few bloggers for Kerry. (OK, so maybe I was the only blogger for Kerry…)

I gleefully note that Rosenberg’s book on — w a i t   f o r   i t — blogging, which was released last month (I won’t help him by even giving you its title), as of right this moment is No. 9,530 on

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, Scott!

Oh, I don’t think that they’ll be making a movie out of your book!

So that’s at least two mediocre bloggers who got book deals, one of them with a book about blogging. 

Anyway, so yeah, as Joan Walsh admitted today, Salon abandoned its bloggers. At one point Salon stopped even mentioning the Salon blogs on Salon’s home page, and then at another point Salon stopped accepting new blogs, and now, at the end of this year, the blogging platform that Salon blogs utilize, Radio UserLand, is going kaput.

At the end of October I switched from Salon Blogs/Radio UserLand to WordPress. I am much, much, much happier with the WordPress blogging platform. Aside from being FREE, WordPress offers a lot more functionality that Radio UserLand ever did. (I can enumerate on one hand what Radio UserLand has that WordPress doesn’t, but I could enumerate on my pubes what WordPress has that Radio UserLand doesn’t.)

Anyway, so I’m happier on WordPress, and I rarely use “I” and “happy” in the same sentence.

But, unfortunately, my readership on WordPress isn’t any larger than it was on Salon Blogs.

And I still don’t have my book deal yet — but I think that I can come up with something for Meryl to do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Corporations should not control the national political dialogue

Advertisers are fleeing Fox “News” blowhard Glenn Beck’s show in droves, The Associated Press reports.

As much as I hate Beck and his stupid-white-man ilk, as much as I see them as a threat to our democracy (which they call “tyranny” when it doesn’t go their way), I am disturbed that corporations are controlling, through their advertising dollars, the national dialogue to the extent that they are.

Notes the AP:

The Clorox Co., a former Beck advertiser, now says that “we do not want to be associated with inflammatory speech used by either liberal or conservative talk show hosts.” The maker of bleach and household cleaners said in a statement that is has decided not to advertise on political talk shows.

So what is the effect of this, then? That there is no political dialogue at all on the air waves? I mean, how do you define “inflammatory speech” when just about anything that you say is going to make someone butt-hurt?

Sure, the corporations would love that — what little Americans already engage in thinking and in the political process already is too much for the corporations, who only want Americans to be obediently exploited worker bees, wage slaves, and insatiable consumers of goods and products that they don’t need but that they want because of a relentless onslaught of corporate advertisements.

As damaging to the nation as I find the wingnuts to be, if they are silenced, then any of us can be silenced. When the wingnuts go too far — such as by bringing guns to appearances by the president, intimidating everyone around them with their lethal weapons (the Second Amendment is meant to guarantee actual self-protection, not to chill the free speech of others with whom you disagree by packing heat) — then they need to be put in their place, but otherwise, it’s their constitutional right to spew forth their fascist bullshit.

Besides, without the wingnuts as a troglodytic contrast, there can’t be such as thing as progressivism, can there? No, without national political dialogue, no matter how polarized, all that would be left is the universal mindless mush that the corporations want, which they already almost have achieved.

Americans have been brainwashed by all of the corporately owned and controlled media (including school textbooks, of course) into believing that we really have free speech in the United States. No, the fuck we don’t. For the most part, we have only the speech that the corporations want us and enable us to have, since they own and control the means of mass communication (duh).

As long as corporate money influences the national dialogue, we do not have free speech; we have corporately endorsed speech.

P.S. Note that according to the AP article, most advertisers are just moving their ads somewhere else on Fox, just not on Beck’s show, so Fox apparently isn’t losing money. Only one corporation — United Parcel Service, surprisingly — has decided not to advertise on Fox at all, at least for the time being, according to the AP.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Must-see: Jon Stewart comments on asshole Glenn Beck’s asshole surgery

“The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart shows clips of Fox “News” propagandist Glenn Beck first talking, in 2008, about how horrible the health-care system is in the United States — the idea is to push patients out as soon as possible, Beck states — and then claiming more recently that the United States “has the best health-care system in the world.”

Stewart even shows us a clip of Beck bemoaning the state of health care in the United States while Beck is in bed at home in January 2008 recovering from some surgery (hemorrhoid surgery or some other “anal procedure,” Stewart tells us).

In the home video, Beck states, “It was one of the most eye-opening experiences of my life to receive health care in the United States.” If the hospital where he was treated doesn’t even care about the president of General Electric (who, Beck states, also has been treated at that hospital), Beck adds, what does the hospital care about “schlubs” like him? (Yeah, Beck is just one of us; all of us have our own major television network show on which we can tell any number of lies with impunity.) 

The clip is a litte more than a week old already, but it’s a must-see, since Beck is one of the wingnut mouthpieces convincing dipshit Americans that adequate health care not only is against their best interests, but actually threatens their liberty and feedom and represents tyranny.

I don’t watch television, since most of it is corporate brain-wasting pap, but this clip alone demonstrates the credibility of baby-boomer asshole Beck, who actually writes books with such titles as Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine.

Inspired by Thomas Paine?

No, more like inspired by Archie Bunker.

P.S. I did some quick and dirty Internet research on Beck. He’s just another Joe the Plumber to me, albeit a Joe the Plumber who managed to get himself on the TV, so before today I’ve never bothered to look into his background.

Wikipedia notes of Beck: “Beck is a self-described recovering alcoholic and addict. He and his first wife divorced amid his struggle with substance abuse…. [Beck] eventually converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints….” The Wikipedia article notes that Beck was raised a Roman Catholic and that his mother and brother committed suicide.

So yeah, Beck is just yet another stupid white man who is channeling all of his toxic waste on the rest of us. Spewing forth right-wing bile is so cathartic and therapeutic!

Yeah, Beck is a real Thomas Paine.

It’s funny, in a terrifying-for-the-future-of-our-nation kind of way, how, to unqualified-to-be-discussing-politics morons like Joe the Plumber and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, “common sense” is just whatever bullshit they pull from their egomaniacal stupid white male asses.

P.P.S. Oh, shit. According to The Huffington Post, Beck indeed did have hemorrhoid surgery. I’d thought that Stewart probably was just joking…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Memo to Jon Voight: I prefer civil war over tyranny of the minority — BITCH!

Updated below (Saturday, August 22, 2009)

Wingnut Jon Voight (in stills from the 2007 film “September Dawn”) says that democratically established government-run health care is a call for another civil war. I say: let’s give the treasonous wingnuts the Civil War re-enactment that they seem to want.

Jon Voight (Angelina Jolie’s daddy), one of the few wingnutty actors the wingnuts can get them to speak for their “cause” — and actors are always bad unless they support the Repugnicans/wingnuts, dontchya know — says in an interview with the wingnut rag The Washington Times that those who want a government-run health care option are just asking for another civil war.

Wow. Think of that: In November 2008 we got the first legitimately elected president of the United States since 1996. Fifty-three percent of Americans chose Barack Obama and 46 percent chose Repugnican John McCainosaurus. (For those who could only talk about the Electoral College count when Repugnican George W. Bush stole office in 2000 after Democrat Al Gore won more than a half-million more of the popular votes than Bush did, Obama won 365 of the Electoral College votes to McCainosaurus’ 173.)

The American people spoke in November 2008. They elected Barack Obama by a margin too large for the Repugnicans to be able to steal a third presidential election in a row.

Obama had promised to reform health care. The majority of Americans elected him to do just that.

Whatever health care reform might pass the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate would be a result of a majority vote of the representatives elected by the American people.

This is called democracy, folks.

But when democracy doesn’t go the wingnuts’ way, they call it “tyranny” or “socialism” or “liberal fascism” or the like.

The wingnuts are now even bringing guns to appearances by the president.

Yet Voight and his ilk claim that it’s Obama’s supporters who want a civil war.

Obama’s supporters are the majority of the American people. Fifty-three percent of the American people voted for him in November 2008 and national polls taken this month put his favorability rating around 60 percent. More than 50 percent of Americans in national polls taken this month approve of the job that Obama is doing.

The concept of “the majority rules” was perfectly fine with the wingnuts when the unelected Bush regime was in power for eight long, dark and disastrous years. Now that a Democrat has been elected to the White House — and a black one at that — the Repugnicans/wingnuts are screaming for minority rule.

Another civil war?

You fucking betcha!

Bring it on, bitches!

When these tyrants — the minority who think they can run roughshod over the majority, which is the very definition of tyranny — are bringing guns to political events in order to intimidate those who disagree with them with the threat of violence or even the threat of death, it’s time to fucking knock them down.

Violence is all that they understand; let’s speak back to them in their mother tongue. The future of the nation — and of the world — is too much on the brink for Gandhian nonviolence. We no longer have the time for that pussyfooted bullshit.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again and again: If the wingnutty minority wants a rematch of the Civil War, let’s fucking give it to them. And let’s finish the job this time.

P.S. Another image that I found while searching for images for this post:

larger_voight2.jpg image by VONPIP

Sadly, I’m not sure whether the creator of this little image is for or is against what Voight stands for… I mean, you hope that it’s satire, but…

Update (Saturday, August 22, 2009)

I guess that I’d better get myself a copy of this old book so that I can do my part in creating a liberally fascist United States of America with my Obama-lovin’ comrades.

While looking at’s top 100 best-selling book titles just now, I noticed that the rather obscure Rules for Radicals by some guy named Saul Alinksy is, as I type this sentence, No. 47 on amazon’s list.

Why would a book first published back in 1971 be on the list now?

Well, it might be related to Jon Voight. In his interview with right-wing rag The Washington Times that I made mention of above, among other things Voight states: “Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don’t know what that method is, I implore you to get the book Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods.”

OK, so yes, if memory serves, I have seen a battered paperback copy of Rules for Radicals in a progressive used bookstore near my residence, but even I, a foaming-at-the-mouth moonbat, didn’t buy it, since I’d figured, given its copyright date, its information had to be dated and its relevance long faded.

But apparently Rules for Radicals is the socialist’s handbook for the socialist takeover of the nation from stupid white men like Jon Voight.

Calling Barack Obama a radical — oh, puhfuckinglease! The Democrats have much more “political capital” now than the unelected Bush regime did after the Bush regime “won” “re”-election in November 2004 with only 50.7 percent of the popular vote to Democrat John Kerry’s 48.3 percent but called that a “mandate” that gave them a shitload of “political capital” anyway. But the Democrats are pussies who refuse to wield the power that they have gained at the voting booth.

George W. Bush — now there was a radical, stealing elections and starting a bogus war and almost putting the nation into another Great Depression because all that he did on the domestic front for eight long disastrous unelected years was to aid and abet his super-rich white buddies.

Anyway, I surmise that far more paranoid wingnuts (I know, that’s redundant) are actually buying Rules for Radicals than are left-wingers, and I’m not sure whether Voight started the trend or whether he was just parroting what he’d heard from the right-wing noise machine.

But do the wingnuts really want to resurrect from the tomb the sales of an obscure left-wing tome?

Admittedly, I’ve been tempted to buy some of the best-selling wingnut titles in order to see what “arguments” the enemy is making (that is, what fucking bold-faced lies they are telling), but I’ve yet to do so. When I weigh satisfying my curiosity against actually enriching these wingnuts by buying their books for which trees actually died, the majority of these wingnuts being stupid white men (exceptions include Ann Cunter and Michelle Malkin, who are stupid white men trapped in women’s bodies), I find that I just can’t do the latter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Potbellies in, buffness out?

Is this actually becoming the new standard of male attractiveness? (If so, then I’m one attractive guy! [But I don’t have man-boobs (not that there’s anything wrong with that!) and I’m a bit more endowed than that…])

Has the chiseled, buff look been so co-opted by gay men over the past several years that the chiseled, buff look now actually is considered to be effeminate?

How fucking pleasantly ironic if so!

I was delighted to see a recent piece on the New York Times’ website indicate that perhaps this is so — and that the potbelly (the “Ralph Kramden”) apparently is in. From the piece:

…[T]his year an unexpected element has been added to [men’s popular] look, and that is a burgeoning potbelly [that] one might term the “Ralph Kramden.”

Too pronounced to be blamed on the slouchy cut of a T-shirt, too modest in size to be termed a proper beer gut, developed too young to come under the heading of a paunch, the Ralph Kramden is everywhere to be seen lately…

Leading with a belly is a male privilege of long standing, of course, a symbol of prosperity in most cultures and of freedom from anxieties about body image that have plagued women since Eve.

Until recently, men were under no particular obligation to exhibit bulging deltoids and shredded abdominals; that all changed, said David Zinczenko, the editor of Men’s Health, when women moved into the work force in numbers. “The only ripples Ralph Kramden” and successors like Mike Brady of “The Brady Bunch” had to demonstrate were in their billfolds, said Mr. Zinczenko, himself a dogged crusader in the battle of the muffin top. “But that traditional male role has changed.”

As women have come to outnumber men in the workplace, it becomes more important than ever for guys to armor themselves, Mr. Zinczenko said, with the “complete package of financial and physical,” to billboard their abilities as survivors of the cultural and economic wilds.

This makes sense, in a way, but how does one account for the new prevalence of Ralph Kramdens? Have men given in or given up? …

“I sort of think the six-pack abs obsession got so prissy it stopped being masculine,” is how Aaron Hicklin, the editor of [the gay men’s magazine] Out, explains the emergence of the Ralph Kramden. What once seemed young and hot, for gay and straight men alike, now seems passé.

Like manscaping, spray-on tans and other metrosexual affectations, having a belly one can bounce quarters off suggests that you may have too much time on your hands.

“It’s not cool to be seen spending so much time fussing around about your body,” Mr. Hicklin said.

And so guys can happily and guiltlessly go to seed.

Women have almost never gotten a pass on the need to maintain their bodies, while men always have, said Robert Morea, a personal fitness trainer (full disclosure: my own).

It would be too much, he added, to suggest that “potbellies are suddenly OK,” but as lean muscle and functionality become the new gym mantras, hypertrophied He-Men with grapefruit biceps and blister-pack abs have come to resemble specimens from a diorama of “A Vanished World.”

“When do you ever see that guy, anyway?” Mr. Morea asked, referring to those legendary Men’s Health cover models, with their rippling torsos and famished smiles. “The only time you really see that guy, he’s standing in front of an Abercrombie & Fitch store.”

Perhaps, he suggested, there is really only one of them. “It’s the same guy. They just move him around.”

I’m not advocating that the “Ralph Kramden” should be the new gold standard for gay men’s look and that thus those soon-to-be-extinct dinosaurs with the “grapefruit biceps” should stop lifting weights and start developing watermelon abs.

I advocate that we gay men learn how to love and appreciate each other as human beings rather than as mere pieces of meat and that we see the beauty in all kinds of physical forms.

And, as much as this “bear”* might love to see chunky become the new gold standard of gay male beauty and to see the gym rats fall by the wayside — it would seem like exquisitely rare poetic justice — I hate gay clones and I don’t want voluptuous to become the new buff. Clones are clones, no matter how much body fat they are packing.

Speaking of gay clones, I understand that the gay men of the Castro district of San Francisco in the 1970s all looked alike — ectomorphic (slim) to mildly to moderately mesomorphic (muscular) — so that the phenomenon of gay clones has been with us for decades, apparently.

When I attended the Castro Street Fair almost two years ago, it was apparent that the ideal gay look was chiseled and buff (i.e., extremely mesomorphic).

After the thousandth shirtless hyper-mesomorphic clone that I saw at the street fair, I saw some normal-looking gay guys (that is, ectomorphic to mildly mesomorphic, not too thin but not buff or fat, either) at a kissing booth. After all of the nauseating mesomorphic clones, who apparently think that they’re special by copying everyone else, the ectomorphs-by-comparison at the kissing booth were looking very appealing to me. Seriously; after all of those walking slabs of beef I just wanted to see some normal guys.

When I see an uber-buff gay guy, I don’t think: Stud! I think: This guy spends waaay too much time in the gym to have developed any sort of a personality. This guy cares way too much about what others think of his appearance to have any substance. And of course he’s going to judge me by the same superficial standards by which he judges himself. And I think: The aging process is going to chew this guy up and spit him out.

Not that you can’t take care of yourself. Not that I oppose healthful practices.

But the swarms of sides of beef that I saw at the Castro Street Fair almost two years ago weren’t about health. They were about vanity and about wanting to be at the top of the gay-looks pecking order. My guess is that many if not most of them were on steroids, causing long-term damage to their bodies as well as to their souls.

The buff look became the gold standard for gay men sometime in the 1990s. Maybe it was the economic plenty of the Clinton years that freed up so many gay men’s time to be able to live in the gym.  

Gay porn, on which I am a bit of an expert, went from normal-looking guys in the 1970s to the early to mid-1980s to the buff look by the 1990s to the present.

Guys in 1970s mainstream gay porn rarely were fat, it is true, but they weren’t bodybuilders, either. Today, virtually no gay porn star can make it big unless he’s big because he lives in the gym.

Hopefully, the New York Times piece is correct and this is about to change.

Before I wrap this up, let me share a personal anecdote:

I attend a gay men’s discussion group once a week and a newbie named Albert (his real first name) came this past week. He’s about my age and he has a significant “Ralph Kramden” going on.

All that I could see (and feel) was Albert’s strong, positive energy. He’s newly out of the closet, says that he’s a construction foreman, and he looks it; you wouldn’t know that he’s gay unless he told you.

After group, when I remarked to another gay guy who had attended the group that I found Albert to be an attractive man (admittedly, it’s a contributing factor that Albert at least somewhat resembles a [slimmer] ex-boyfriend of mine whom I’ll always love), my peer stated that no, not with that belly is Albert attractive!


I saw Albert, and apparently all that my peer could see was Fat Albert.    

We gay men want acceptance from the non-gay community when we don’t exactly have a shitload of acceptance within our own…

Yeah, you betcha, I sure in the hell hope that chunky becomes acceptable within the gay community. And that thin remains in.

And that it’s even still OK to be buff, too. 

P.S. I stumbled upon a Slate article critical of the New York Times piece on potbellies.

I hate Slate. First of all, it’s owned by mega-corporation MSN, so I’ve always been suspect of Slate from the get-go. Secondly, the writers always seem to look down upon their audience.

Anyway, the Slate writer writes that the New York Times writer “names no leader of potbelly hipness and uncovers no evidence of hip potbellies in the cinema, the stage, the concert hall, the night club or elsewhere. It’s just these random guts strolling around New York.”

OK, it’s not like they’re going to do a scientific study on the critically important subject of the hipness of potbellies, but the New York Times writer might be correct. And if potbellies are just now becoming hip, it would take a little bit of time for that fact to be reflected in the popular culture (duh!).

It seems to me that in times of economic downturn, people might focus less on the extras, less on the cosmetic. If you can’t make your house payment, maybe the status of your abdominal muscles isn’t so important to you anymore.

Time will tell whether or not the bulge is the new black.

*I put quotation marks around the word because while physically I am a “bear,” I don’t partake of the bear subculture and I don’t think that I have the “bear” persona.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Another GOP deception debunked

I’m on the Repugnican National Committee’s e-mail list — know thy enemy — and RNC chairweasel Michael Steele is credited with having written this in an RNC fundraising e-mail that I received this morning:

Barack Obama recently said, “I think private insurers should be able to compete…. If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

The President is acknowledging what Republicans have been saying all along: That the private sector does a better job offering choices and delivering services to customers in a competitive and cost-effective manner than a government-run monopoly.

But Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress are pushing for a government-run health care scheme that is inefficient, limits choices and hemorrhages taxpayer money like the Post Office.

Two weeks ago, the Post Office was called a “high-risk” federal agency by the Government Accountability Office. The Post Office will have a $7 billion operating loss this year. So what makes the President, Nancy Pelosi and their left-wing allies think that government bureaucracy can run health care better than the private sector?

Robert, it’s clear Americans simply aren’t buying into the Democrats’ government-run health care experiment. They are waking up to the fact that the Democrats are trying to strip us of more of our freedoms all in the name of their “government knows best” philosophy.

Your generous support of the RNC is critical to laying the foundation Republicans need to defeat the Democrats and stop their leftward push to control every facet and detail of our lives.

Please help the RNC recruit and train the next generation of conservative Republican candidates who are committed to our core values of limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 today.

No matter how the President and his liberal allies try to spin it, they cannot escape the fact that his government-run health care plan would increase costs, increase taxes, increase the deficit and reduce health care choice and quality.

Robert, we can win this fight and stop the Democrats from another government takeover. Please give as generously as you can to help defeat Barack Obama’s risky health care scheme. 

OK, first off, the most obvious: Comparing the U.S. Postal Service and private-sector delivery services like FedEx and UPS to health care is like comparing pineapples to oranges.

Secondly, the U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 — it hardly was some “government takeover” of what the private sector already had been doing better.

Thirdly, the U.S. Postal Service is not funded primarily by the American taxpayer, as the RNC e-mail implies; it’s funded primarily by its sales of postage and other postal services and products.* In this respect it’s much like a government-owned business.

Last but not least, the main reason that the U.S. Postal Service is having a budget crisis now can be summed up in a word: the Internet.

The 200-plus-year-old USPS had quite an infrastructure in place before the Internet boomed. (Indeed, only Wal-Mart employs more civilians in the United States than does the USPS.) Now, with e-mails and online transactions and other Internet-based communications that make the USPS unnecessary, the USPS indeed is hemorrhaging money.

But again, that’s because of the Internet, which drastically reduced the need for the USPS’s services — within what, only about a decade? — not because the government can’t do things as well as can the private sector.

The private-sector United Parcel Service (UPS) and FedEx developed in the shadow of the U.S. Postal Service. That is, their business models and infrastructure were developed around the long-pre-existing USPS, and they are much, much younger than the USPS — and, of course, their volume is much lower than that of the USPS — so if FedEx and UPS are doing OK right now while the USPS is struggling, that’s why.

Speaking of the private sector, I hate having anything delivered by UPS. The UPS drivers stick around for maybe five seconds after ringing the doorbell before they fly back inside their trucks and zoom off. That’s what corporate greed causes: given a delivery quota, the UPS drivers don’t have time to wait even 10 seconds for you to answer the fucking door, I surmise.

And because a UPS package once went missing from my porch, UPS refuses to leave packages at my address ever again — but UPS only delivers during business hours from Monday through Friday, when I’m at work. So I have to have any UPS packages redirected to my boyfriend’s place in order to actually receive them. (UPS will leave my redirected packages at my boyfriend’s place — but they won’t leave my packages at my own home. That’s corporate logic for you.)

For me, UPS hardly has been convenient or timely or efficient — and their employees are mildly friendly at best. The U.S. Postal Service will leave packages on my front porch — and delivers on Saturdays. And their employees are much friendlier than are UPS employees, probably because USPS employees are taken much better care of than are UPS employees, who are only corporate slaves.

Better taken-care-of employees are happier employees, and happier employees do a better job. Under the corporate model, in which you extract everything that you can from your employees while giving them as little in pay and as little in benefits as you can, happiness is impossible for a sane individual.

No, the profits-over-people private sector can’t do it better than the government can do it.

Yes, the U.S. Postal Service is struggling and is downsizing due to the impact of the Internet and, let’s not forget, due to the impact of the shitty economy in general. (Newspapers and other printed media also are suffering — are downsizing or folding altogether — due to the unexpected, relatively sudden rise of the Internet and the BushCheneyCorp-induced shitty economy.)

Again, the U.S. Postal Service’s woes are not because the government can’t do anything right, and the RNC fundraising e-mail falsely implies that President Obama actually agrees with the Repugnicans’ philosophy that privatization is superior.

While Steele is at it, he even gets the “freedom” meme in there, even though his and his fellow Repugnican overlords’ central interest certainly is not Americans’ freedom, but is corporations’ ever-increasing profits. Corporate profiteering — even from basic human needs like health care — far from giving them more freedom, turns average Americans into slaves to the corporations.

Perversely Orwellianly, the Repugnican/wingnut noise machine calls continued slavery to corporations “freedom” and calls any attempt to free Americans from corporate slavery “tyranny.”   

The Repugnicans not only blatantly mislead and lie to their own supporters, whom they want to enslave to their corporate interests, but then ask their supporters to give them donations afterward.

*According to a recent article:

Contrary to what many people might guess, the USPS is not a government agency. It hasn’t received direct subsidies since the early 1980s. Aside from a miniscule fraction of its budget for free mail services for the blind and Congress’ franking privileges, the Postal Service pays its own way with postage revenues, which in fiscal year 2008 reached $75 billion.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

U.S. very much still a corporatocracy

So it looks like the Obama administration is scrapping any plans for a government-run health insurance plan. Notes Reuters: “Democratic proposals in Congress for a government-run insurance option have sparked intense opposition from Republicans who argue it would unfairly compete with private plans and would cripple the insurance industry.”

Hmmm. These are the very same profits-over-people traitors who claim that only the private sector can do anything right. So what in the fuck are they afraid of? If private-sector health care is so clearly superior to government-run health care, then why in the fuck are the Repugnicans and plutocrats (and their tea-bagging dupes) so opposed to a government-run health care option?

A better question is: Why do we, the people, kowtow to the corporatocrats in the first place? We, the people, should put corporate greed above our own human needs? Clearly, the Repugnican Party wants us to do just that.

Government-run health care would “compete with private plans and would cripple the insurance industry”? Oh, boo fucking hoo! Cry me a fucking river!

The private sector pays lip service to the free-marketplace idea of competition, but when faced with actual competition, the private sector suddenly cries Foul!

I was a nurse in the 1990s, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that private-sector health care doesn’t have health care as its aim — it’s profiteering that is its aim, which is why I call it wealth care.

Let the profiteers profit from the nonessentials, such as cell phones and DVDs and fast food, but when it comes to something as basic a human need as health care, profit — greed — should not be anywhere in the fucking equation.

Let’s call those who wish to profit from their fellow Americans’ pain and suffering, and to exploit for personal profit their fellow Americans’ basic human need for health care — and those who support them, such as the Repugnicans in Congress — what they are: FUCKING TRAITORS.

If the votes aren’t in Congress for a government-run health care insurance option, then let’s definitely go with the other option that the Obama administration has been talking about, co-ops. Notes The Associated Press:

Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.

With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.

But expect the Repugnicans/plutocrats/corporatocrats to fight the establishment of health-care co-ops, too; if these traitors aren’t sucking the lifeblood of the average American, they just can’t sleep at night.

Once enough of the Repugnicans have been voted out of office, we will get the government-run health-care insurance option that we should have had long, long ago.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Jackson-endorsed ‘District 9’ watchable but often nonsensical and lacking detail

The alien's stalled mother ship in a scene from "District ...

This movie still released by Sony Pictures shows, left to right, ...

Reuters and Associated Press images

Arthropodic extraterrestrials’ ship is stalled above Johannesburg, South Africa, in stills from the Peter Jackson-endorsed “District 9,” which came in at No. 1 at the box office this weekend.

I love a good science fiction movie, especially one with political overtones, and since according to Yahoo!’s roundup, the film critics gave “District 9” an average grade of “A-“ — and since “Lord of the Rings” director Peter Jackson gave “District 9” his stamp of approval (he is one of the film’s producers, and the ads for “District 9” tell us this) — I dragged the boyfriend to it yesterday.

I give it a “B.”

“District 9” has some interesting concepts, such as the apparent parallels between the “prawns” (the crustacean-like extraterrestrials put in a concentration camp called District 9 in South Africa after they found themselves stranded on Earth) and the Palestinians in occupied Palestine, and private military corporation “MNU” (“Multi-National United”) and private military corporation Blackwater, but “District 9” has too many elements that just don’t make sense for me to be able to give it anything higher than a “B.”

Where to begin?

There is the mysterious black liquid extract — we’re never told what it consists of — made in an ET’s shack like an impoverished, desperate person might make methamphetamine in his shack, and this mysterious black liquid, which took the ET two decades to make, not only powers the stranded ETs’ ship, which still hovers (somehow — that’s not explained either) over Johannesburg, but also somehow slowly turns the human protagonist into one of the ETs after he accidentally splashes himself with it. (The mysterious black liquid probably is a great stain remover, too…)

Then there is the alternating view of the ETs’ capabilities. At first they’re portrayed as rather savage and stupid, caring only about feasting upon livestock carcasses (especially the heads, for some reason) and canned cat food (yes, canned cat food), and then at least one of them, the protagonist ET, is portrayed as having quite sophisticated technological ability, far surpassing that of humans.

The human protagonist is portrayed as being about as sympathetic to the ETs as any of his human counterparts are ever going to be — he doesn’t like it when the ETs are exterminated wantonly by MNU’s hair-triggered, testosterone-overdosed mercenaries — yet in one scene he demonstrates that he has no problems with the destruction of the ETs’ young, noting that when set aflame, the ET-ling pods make an interesting popping sound. (Apparently the ETs are to get human approval before reproducing, and these young thus were “illegal.”)

If District 9 is a closed-off area meant to contain the ETs, then why do the ETs have such frequent, such apparently casual contact with the South African gang members?

Speaking of which, how, exactly, do humans and the ETs have sexual relations? (Apparently female human prostitutes cater to the male ETs, and the protagonist human apparently is accused of having had sex with a female ET.)

What exactly were the medical experiments that MNU was conducting on the hapless ETs?

Was the protagonist ET especially intelligent for his kind? Was he a special kind of his kind? Were the other ETs like worker bees, not meant to be very intelligent?

While I love to empathize with an extraterrestrial, especially a benign one persecuted by ignorant humans, would a crustaceous extraterrestrial really regard its offspring the way that a human male would regard his son? Would the crusty ET’s offspring really be kind of like a little boy? And wouldn’t such an ET have many offspring, and not just one? And where was the mommy ET?

“District 9” is watchable enough, but I’m the kind of person who needs a movie to make sense.

I’m sure that it’s not easy to create such an alternate reality as director and screenwriter Neill Blomkamp did in “District 9” — there are so many angles that you have to look from in such creation, and so many details that you have to create in order to satisfy those angles — and I don’t have to have every little thing explained to me, but what is (more or less…) explained to me at least should have its own internal logic.

When it doesn’t, that interferes with my ability to enjoy the film, and that’s why I can give “District 9” only a “B.” It’s a good-enough idea, but its execution is lacking. Attention to its own internal logic seems to have been sacrificed for special effects, such as the climactic battle scene of the protagonist human in the automated body armor that is too reminiscent of what we’ve already seen in “Iron Man” and even in “Aliens” (ditto for the fried alien eggs; we saw those in “Aliens,” also).

My grade: B

P.S. I’m not familiar with South Africa’s history, but film critic Roger Ebert explains in his review of “District 9”:

The film’s South African setting brings up inescapable parallels with its now-defunct apartheid system of racial segregation. Many of them are obvious, such as the action to move a race out of the city and to a remote location. Others will be more pointed in South Africa. The title “District 9” evokes Cape Town’s historic District 6, where Cape Coloureds (as they were called then) owned homes and businesses for many years before being bulldozed out and relocated.

The hero’s name, van der Merwe, is not only a common name for Afrikaners, the white South Africans of Dutch descent, but also the name of the protagonist of van der Merwe jokes, of which the point is that the hero is stupid. Nor would it escape a South African ear that the alien language incorporates clicking sounds, just as Bantu, the language of a large group of African apartheid targets.

Being unfamiliar with South Africa, the parallels between the real South Africa and the South Africa portrayed in “District 9” were quite escapable to me… I still see a parallel between the “prawns” and the Palestinians, however, and with the plight of the Palestinians being portrayed in the media to this day, it seems to me that I’m probably not alone.


Filed under Uncategorized