Monthly Archives: December 2009

Top 10 Wingnuts Whose Deaths I’d Celebrate, 2010 Edition

Glenn Beck is No. 1!

The May 2007 death of Jerry Falwell inspired me at that time to compose a “Top 10 Wingnuts Whose Deaths I’d Celebrate List.” It seems to be that time of year for top-10 lists, and the great news that Rush Limbaugh is in the hospital for chest pains has inspired me to revisit and revamp my list.

In May 2007 my list of Top 10 Wingnuts Whose Deaths I’d Celebrate was as follows:

1. Dick Cheney

2. George W. Bush

3. Karl Rove

4. Donald Rumsfeld

5. Rudy Giuliani

6. Ann Cunter

7. Rush Limbaugh

8. Pope Palpatine

9. James Dobson

10. Pat Robertson

My Top 10 Wingnuts Whose Deaths I’d Celebrate for 2010 are (drum roll, please):

1. Glenn Beck

2. Dick Cheney

3. Sarah Palin

4. George W. Bush

5. Rush Limbaugh

6. Karl Rove

7. Pope Palpatine

8. John McCainosaurus

9. Benedict Lieberman

10. Tie: Carrie Prejean and Prick Warren

New to the list are Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, John McCainosaurus, Benedict (a.k.a. Joe) Lieberman, Prick (a.k.a. Rick) Warren and Carrie Prejean.

As I’ve noted before, dry drunk Beck has a face that I’d like to punch. I know that Dick Cheney has done a lot more damage to the nation and the world than Beck has, but I really, really, really hate Glenn Beck. He is pure evil — a mixture of stupidity, bigotry and arrogance that is unmatched in the wingnut world. My hatred of him is visceral.

George W. Bush also has done a lot more damage to the nation and the world than Sarah Palin has, but I fucking hate Sarah Palin and everything that she stands for. (OK, Levi Johnston is a hottie. If he ran for president I might consider him.)

Bush and Cheney are a little lower on the list than they used to be because they’re out of office, but Cheney is above Bush on both lists because we all know that he really pulled the strings.

Karl Rove remains on the list because he and fellow Gee Dubya puppeteer Cheney Cheney are still appearing on television all the time criticizing the Obama administration. If they’d just go the fuck away, like Donald Rumsfeld and Rudy Giuliani did, they might not still be on my list.

John McCainosaurus didn’t appear on my 2007 list because I didn’t expect him to get the 2008 nomination, but he did. And because he also keeps criticizing the Obama administration, as though the BushCheneyCorp had done a great job from early 2001 to early 2009, and even though the American voters picked Obama over him by 7 percentage points, McCainosaurus makes this year’s list.

The pope just refuses to die — I think that sheer spite, his desire to drag the entire world back to the dark ages, keeps him going — and he goes up one notch this year. (I know, you think it’s awful that I include the pope, but he and his backasswards wingnutty views fuck up millions of people around the globe.)

Benedict Lieberman needs no explanation if you have been paying attention at all. I heard that Al Gore stated that he doesn’t regret that he’d picked Benedict as his running mate for his 2000 presidential run. I don’t believe that.

Dropped from the list are James Dobson and Pat Robertson, about whom you don’t hear much anymore, and in their place is Prick Warren and Carrie Prejean, who (along with Sarah Palin) seem to be the new faces of the remnants of what passes for Christianity for way too many Americans. I hate Prick Warren and Carrie Prejean, and since they have so much in common — the whole faux Godliness thing — I put them at tied for 10th place.

You might be surprised that Ann Cunter has dropped from the list. Oh, don’t get me wrong; I still fucking hate Ann Cunter. But Glenn Beck seems to have knocked her out of the limelight entirely.

So I would put her at No. 11, except that this is a top-10 list.

Maybe next year, Ann.

P.S. If you think that I’m missing anyone or you’d make any changes to my list for 2010, feel free to leave a comment below.

P.P.S. I will make a pre-emptive strike and state that I am immune to any criticism that my composing such a top-10 list is “inappropriate.” I mean, oh puhfuckinglease if you think that there aren’t a bunch of people the wingnuts would want dead, such as Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore and, of course, Barack Obama (but not because he’s black, of course!).

P.P.P.S.: Honorable mentions for 2010: Joe Wilson, the fucktarded U.S. representative from South Carolina who yelled out “You lie!” during President Obama’s nationally televised address to Congress on health care, and Meg Whitman, the billionaire bitch who is trying to buy the governorship of California (the gubernatorial election will be in November 2010). I imagine that we Californians will hear a lot more from her in the coming months. What we’ve heard from her thus far (she has declared war upon state government workers and the environment) has been nothing short of pathetic.


Filed under Uncategorized

Internet revolution the ONE good thing about the dog shit of a decade that was

The last 10 years really have sucked ass.

First there was the blatantly stolen presidential election of late 2000.

Hey, what harm to the nation could a band of thieves possibly do in the White House for four or eight years? George W. Bush & Co. are whining more loudly for the White House, so let’s just let them have it! In late 2000 that was the mentality of Americans, who, fat and lazy from the prosperous Clinton years, didn’t give a shit that their democracy had been dangerously subverted by Team Bush. Hey, they had things to buy and things to consume!

Bush had lost the popular vote by “only” more than a half-million votes. Close enough! And that his brother was the governor of Florida, the pivotal state that Bush “won” — and that Florida’s top elections official, Repugnican Katherine Harris, also had sat on the state’s committee to elect Gee Dubya — and that the Repugnican-tilted U.S. Supreme Court voted to stop the whole silly recount nonsense; none of that was a problem. Democrat Al Gore was just being a “sore loserman.”

I saw the decade coming. In early 2001 I attended a “Not My President Day” rally at the California State Capitol here in Sacramento to voice my dissent to the Universe. In November 2000 I’d voted for Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader, but it was obvious that Al Gore had won the too-close election.

Then there was Sept. 11, 2001, and the months of post-9/11 hysteria. 9/11 was the unelected Bush regime’s Reichstag fire.

Speaking of which, then there was the unelected Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust launching of its Vietraq War in March 2003. (In February 2003 I was at the state Capitol again, this time protesting the coming Vietraq War, which the Bush regime might have called “Operation Iraqi Liberation,” except that that spells O-I-L, so they called it “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”) On May 1, 2003, “President” Bush declared “mission accomplished,” but thus far the Vietraq War has claimed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives (these Iraqis were permanently “liberated,” you see) and the lives of more than 4,300 U.S. military personnel. And hundreds of billions of American taxpayers’ dollars that the Repugnicans are perfectly OK handing over to the war profiteers, such as Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, via bogus wars – but not to things that Americans need, such as health care. Because that would be socialism! Better dead than red, but, of course, with the for-profit wealth care — er, health care — system, you’re going to be dead anyway.

Then there was Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 to blow away and wash away any and all doubt that it was a big fuckin’ mistake to have just allowed Team Bush to steal the White House in late 2000.

Both Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 killed more than 2,000 Americans each, yet the Repugnicans now are lambasting President Barack Obama — who, if nothing else, actually fucking won the presidential election — because some lonely young dude from Nigeria tried to blow up an airliner but only succeeded in burning himself.

We just can’t trust Obama to keep us safe!, except that thus far he has, and it was George W. Bush who couldn’t keep us safe. But facts have become a matter of opinion in the United States of Amnesia.

But I digress.

After Hurricane Katrina, it was just waiting it out until President Bozo and Vice President Penguin were termed out of the White House.

Barack Obama and Billary Clinton duked it out for months on end during the interminable 2008 Democratic presidential primary season.

Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and the general election based upon his promises of “hope” and “change.”

Keep on hoping for that big change! That was the theme of 2009.

So yeah, the last 10 years have been a big, steaming pile of dog shit.

But it was an article via AlterNet titled “This Decade Mostly Sucked — Except for the Huge Expansion of the Internet” that made me realize that yeah, there was one good thing about the past decade.

The author of the piece notes:

The Internet is a disruptive technology for our entire species, even if it has a long way to go before it spreads to all humans. The exponential decline in the cost of information brought about by the Internet and mobile phone technology will be, in all likelihood, the top cultural and technological development of our lifetimes. The way this has changed, and will continue to change, our economic, social and mental structures puts it on par with the printing press as an agent of change….

I agree with all of that. Unfortunately, the author then goes on to discuss Net neutrality, which is an important issue, but he misses what I think is the biggest achievement of the Internet: the Internet has been an end-run around the baby boomers, who have been hell-bent upon destroying the nation that they inherited from their spoiling parents (the so-called “greatest generation”) in a fat and juicy state but have sucked bone dry during their too-long lifetimes.

The Internet wasn’t around during most of their lives, so to the boomers the Internet wasn’t that important. It was a mildly useful and/or amusing tool or toy – you can buy stuff on it, you can save money by sending some e-mails instead of stamped letters or instead of making long-distance phone calls, you can look at porn (but you probably shouldn’t, because while they enjoyed wild, uninhibited sex when they were young, the boomers don’t want the generations that follow them to enjoy sex, and since the boomers’ sexual excess brought us AIDS, we can’t).

But the boomers never appreciated the potential power of the Internet.

Until it was too late.

“Inspired” by the multiple rapings to our democracy, starting with late 2000’s theft of the White House, and also “inspired” by the inevitable Vietraq War, which it was clear that the unelected Bush regime was going to start no matter fucking what, I started blogging in late 2002, and millions of others also have been using the power of the Internet this decade to do an end-run around the traditional power structure.

Information is power, and so the informational system is the power system, and we sneaky Generation X’ers (and Gen Y’ers [and yes, a handful of non-evil boomers]) have used the Internet to get around the blockages that the power-hungry boomers placed before us.

Not to get too geeky here, but the human body, when a large blood vessel is blocked or otherwise not functioning, will form a network of smaller, more numerous blood vessels in order to compensate for the lost circulation.

That’s what we progressives have done: gone around the boomers’ blockages in smaller, more numerous ways, such as with blogs and many other new ways of sharing information electronically.

The invention of the printing press indeed made it harder for the powers that be to maintain their power by withholding information from us peasants, and the Internet has expanded upon the success of the printing press exponentially, because while printing presses cost a lot of money, almost everyone has access to the Internet. (Indeed, don’t even get me started on how hard it is to get noticed as a blogger, even if you’re an excellent fucking writer, as I am, because of the crushing number of blogs out there.)

As I said, before the boomers realized how powerful the Internet could be as a tool for the downtrodden to politically organize and to share information that the powers that be would try to keep from us peasants, it was too late; the world had changed irreversibly because of the Internet. The “solid” foundation that the boomers thought they were standing upon had been quietly eaten from beneath them by millions of busy termites.

It’s too late for the boomers who never bothered to join the Internet revolution. The world has changed around these dinosaurs while they’ve remained stuck in the past. (Fuck, I have had boomer “managers” who can’t even fucking touch-type in this, the Information Age!)

So anyway, we end 2009 and the decade with President Obama. Let me remind you that he never was the superhero that many made him out to be, with a big “O” on his chest. Obama simply rode the wave that Howard Dean created in his campaign for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

Speaking of which, the 2004 election also was a big event of the past decade to me; I’d never been that politically involved before or since, and it was the felons and the traitors of the unelected Bush regime who induced me to become so politically aware and active* — an unintended side effect of their treason and their felonies, I’m sure.

Anyway, even though I always supported John Kerry over Dean, figuring that there was no way that Dean could win the White House in 2004, not with the Repugnicans still rabidly milking the TERROR! cow, I credit Team Dean with having changed forever the way that presidential politics are played, including the phenomenon of individuals’ political donations (including mine) becoming as important if not more important than the fat cats’ political donations.

As 2009 and as the decade come to a close, it’s clear that we progressives — those of us for whom “hope” and “change” aren’t just slogans that you cynically slap on campaign merchandise — have a long way to go, but we start the new year and the new decade with the advantage of having seriously undercut, quietly but surely over the past decade, the biggest threat to our nation and our democracy: the baby boomers.

We did it legally and democratically and, luckily for them, bloodlessly.

So far.

*I became so politically active that, among other things, at one point I got to shake John Kerry’s hand during one of his visits to California (too bad that he didn’t become president), and I also met Cindy Sheehan before she became nationally (in)famous for having camped outside of Gee Dubya’s ranch in Texas in August 2005 in protest of the Vietraq War, in which her young son Casey had been killed. (I will brag that I blogged about Sheehan a full six months before she became nationally known.)

I have to say that Sheehan might be my most-admired person of the decade. I can think of no one else who so courageously stood up against the Bush regime — too bad that Al Gore didn’t in late 2000, or the decade might have turned out quite differently — and she took so much bile and venom for her incredibly brave patriotism.

The war that Sheehan opposed but took so much shit for having opposed is now considered by the majority of Americans to have been a bullshit war. (I doubt that anyone has apologized to her, though, because being an American means never having to say that you’re sorry…)

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Even unsuccessful terrorist attacks are successful if we respond with terror

Is it me or do Americans actually miss the post-9/11 hysteria? Based upon the it-must-be-a-slow-news-week media coverage and the politicization of an apparent failed attempt of a 23-year-old Nigerian to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, you’d think so.

There is President Barack Obama, missing only a superhero’s cape, proclaiming that “We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us.” Just replace “violent extremists” with “evildoers,” and that sounds like it’s right from the mouth of “war” “president” George W. Bush.

Then there are the hypocritical chickenhawk Repugnicans using the incident for political gain — as though their party weren’t in control of the White House on Sept. 11, 2001, and in August 2005 when Hurricane Katrina struck, with both catastrophes — the former of which I believe quite possibly was preventable, and the latter of which was was wholly preventable — killing more than 2,000 Americans each.

Yeah, the Repugnican Party has a great fucking track record on keeping the “homeland” (I shudder at that Nazi-like term) safe.

Let’s keep this in perspective: a failed attempt is not the same as a successful attempt. And any commercial airliner can be targeted for a terrorist attack at any time. There is no such thing as a completely risk-free ride on a commercial airliner. Never was, never will be.

Yes, let’s be on alert, but let’s not go ape shit.

After all, the purpose of terrorism is to create terror, is it not?

To go all ape shit over something that might have occurred but did not occur only encourages even more attempted terrorism; the ape-shit overreaction only encourages the evildoers because it rewards their behavior.


And anyway, I don’t want my illusion of Americans being all tough and bad-ass and fearless being shattered — over something that didn’t even happen, for fuck’s sake — so let’s all chill the fuck out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Settled: Scott sucked as Scrooge

1984-xmas-humbug-scrooge.jpg image by mattcale3

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the Scroogiest of them all? To George C. Scott’s Scrooge (top), anyway, I say: Bah humbug!

I’ve seen at least two posts that assert that the late George C. Scott’s 1984 television-movie portrayal as Ebenezer Scrooge is The. Best. Portrayal. Of. Scrooge. Ever. (There is’s assertion and this Open Salon blogger’s assertion.)

Based upon this assertion, yesterday, on Christmas Day, I watched Scott’s portrayal of Scrooge on DVD.

I was unimpressed.

Sorry (OK, not really sorry), but I want my Scrooge to act like Scrooge. To be grumpy. To be mean. To be bitter.

Oh, George C. Scott underplayed the role, his fans say. Oh, really? To me he just seemed to just read his lines.

Scott’s Scrooge seems to be only mildly irritable, and is that enough to warrant the visits of four ghosts warning him that he’d better change his ways before it’s too late?

And I like the idea of a skinny Scrooge, a skinflint. I like the idea that Scrooge is so miserly that he is even miserly with himself, that he is so cheap that he eats only enough food to keep himself alive and bitter.

The portly Scrooge that the portly Scott portrays: I say bah humbug to that.

And the George C. Scott TV version of “A Christmas Carol” — well, it comes off as what it is: a made-for-TV movie.

I can deal with low-tech special effects, but I especially don’t like the way that the made-for-TV Scott “A Christmas Carol” portrays the Ghost of Christmas Past. I’m fine that a woman played that role in the Scott version, as the original Dickens character isn’t defined as a male or a female and apparently was meant to be androgynous — but give me Robert Zemeckis’ novel version of the Ghost of Christmas Past, hands down.

Speaking of the Zemeckis version, people seem to hate it because it’s modern and it’s high-tech. But Zemeckis nails the Dickens story, with the exception of the addition of the shrunken little Scrooge. That deviation from the Dickens tale wasn’t necessary, but it doesn’t destroy the overall film, either. And Zemeckis, for the most part, uses the technology at his disposal to support the spirit of Dickens’ tale rather than to just dazzle us with technology.

And I still don’t understand why Jim Carrey has taken shit for supposedly having done a poor job as Ebenezer Scrooge in the Zemeckis version. Carrey’s portrayal is the Scroogiest that I’ve ever seen — and Zemeckis’ Scrooge is the skinniest that I’ve ever seen, as Scrooge should be.

Admittedly, I haven’t seen the other versions of “A Christmas Carol” — that is, I haven’t seen them lately or I haven’t seen them at all — but I’ve seen the Zemeckis version and the Scott version lately, and between those two versions it’s no fucking contest: Zemeckis wins, hands down.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Debate on pregnant U.S. soldiers misses the point, as usual

I just read a column by yet another apparent self-loathing woman — you know, the kind of woman who thinks that Sarah Palin is just great, you betcha! — on the topic of pregnant U.S. soldiers. The piece (of shit) is titled “National Organization for Irresponsible Women,” and it’s penned by she-wingnut Mona Charen.

The crux of Charen’s column is this paragraph:

Feminists, above all, should recognize that when a woman takes an oath as a soldier, she has freely undertaken extraordinary responsibilities. If she becomes undeployable and has to be sent home (the unavoidable consequence of becoming pregnant), someone else must serve in her place. The Army loses a valuable investment, and the unit is left vulnerable.

Wow, has Charen imbibed the Kool-Aid or what?

First of all, a human being is a human being. Not an “investment.” Not a thing.

It is sick and twisted that the capitalist United States of America has turned even human beings into commodities — yet claims at the same time to be “Christian.”

And it’s interesting that the pro-military wingnuts are so fucking “pro-life” — except when the woman is an “investment” of the stupid white man’s military. Then, she is chattel.

Memo to U.S. women: You are allowed to get pregnant only when the stupid white men give you their permission to do so. (But you knew that already, didn’t you? You have the pope, the Repugnican Party, Faux “News,” the Mormon cult, et. al., et. al. telling you your place every fucking day, don’t you?)

And, women, you have the likes of Mona Charen, head of the National Organization for Sellout Women, working for the stupid white men to help keep you in line, as though you were living under the rule of the Taliban.

You betcha.

But even all of this misses the main point, which is that the U.S. military is not worth joining in the first fucking place.

The U.S. military stopped being about defense a long, long time ago. Now, the U.S. military is only the avenue through which the stupid white men pillage and plunder the U.S. treasury. This wholesale looting of the treasury by the military-industrial complex is called “defense,” which, of course, is “in the national interest,” because that, you see, justifies the looting of public billions by private interests.

Again, the question isn’t whether or not it’s OK for women to get pregnant while they’re in the U.S. military.

The question is why in the fuck any woman would want to join the U.S. military in the first place, when by doing so she is not serving her country, but is serving only the war profiteers.

Nor do I understand why gay men and lesbians want to join the military, when anyone with half a brain cell could see that the U.S. military stopped being about defense years and years ago.

But so brainwashed are most Americans that they actually view the U.S. military as the protector and the expander of freedom and liberty and democracy, even when the illegal, immoral and unjust Vietraq War, which thus far has benefitted only corporations like Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, and the Abu Ghraib House of Horrors remain recent history.

I have cringed lately when I have seen Christmas sentiments extended to those “serving” overseas for our “freedoms.”

They’re not serving us or our freedoms. They’re serving the profiteering of the military-industrial complex, to whom they are only “investments.”

If we perpetuate this sick and twisted thinking, that the U.S. military actually is about expanding freedom and liberty and democracy, instead of recognizing what it’s really all about — war profiteering and expanding the power and the profits of the corporations for whom the U.S. military acts as thugs (thugs paid for by us taxpayers, not by the corporations, of course) — then we will go the way of ancient Rome. Assuming, of course, that we haven’t reached that point of no return already.

P.S. Charen also writes with her poisoned pen that “it would be nice if [feminist U.S. senators, including my senator, Barbara Boxer] thought of themselves as representing the interests of the nation from time to time, and not just as compliant mouthpieces for interest groups. Do any of these liberal senators ever lift their sights enough to recognize that an army is not a social welfare agency?”

There’s that “interests of the nation” bullshit again. Does Charen really believe that the military-industrial complex is about our “national interests”? Is she truly that fucking deluded? Or does she want to continue to personally profit from the exploitative stupid-white-male system that she so dutifully supports?

Speaking of which, how can Charen blast feminist U.S. senators for being “compliant mouthpieces for interest groups” when Charen herself is a compliant mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex? (Do hypocrites recognize their own hypocrisy or is the nature of hypocrisy such that hypocrites are utterly unable to recongnize their own hypocrisy?)

And are there more women in the United States of America or are there more members of the military-industrial complex in the United States of America? So who is representing the interests of more Americans, then: these “femi-Nazi” U.S. senators whom Charen blasts — or Charen and the other defenders of the corrupt military-industrial complex?

Memo No. 2 to U.S. women: You aren’t more than half of the American population now. You are now just another “interest group.” Your bud Mona says so! And she can’t be wrong because she actually gets paid to write a column!

Finally, yes, I agree with bitching and moaning bitch Mona on one point:  the U.S. military should not be “a social welfare agency.”

The trillions of dollars — mine and yours — that go to the bloated U.S. military-industrial complex instead should go to Americans’ needs (food, health care, shelter, the creation of meaningful jobs, education, environmental protection, etc.) instead of to the stupid white men’s military-industrial complex’s greed.

Would Jesus Christ spend billions and billions of the American taxpayers’ dollars on the military-industrial complex’s greed or on human beings’ needs? Um, yeah.

The anti-Christian Mona Charen supports the sick system that makes people so financially desperate that they see no other alternative than to join the U.S. military because all other jobs have disappeared (and because a college education has become woefully unaffordable for most Americans), and then she blasts these poor people for their desperation.

We should ship Mona off to Afghanistan, since she cares so fucking much about our “national interests.”

And we don’t have to worry about her getting pregnant, because what man would touch a cold bitch like she?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I guess the pope ISN’T inFALLible

Photo made available Friday Dec. 25, 2009 by the Italian Interior ...

Associated Press photo

If at first you don’t succeed…: 25-year-old Susanna Maiolo, a Swiss-Italian national, tackled Pope Palpatine at St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican last night. She tried unsuccessfully to get to Palpatine last year on Christmas Eve, and reports are that this year she even wore the same red hooded sweatshirt that she did last year. Palpatine was unhurt and hours later he delivered his annual Christmas address (below).

Pope Benedict XVI blesses the faithful as he leads his Urbi ...

Reuters photo

I can think of no better Christmas gift to the world than for Pope Palpatine — who was a member of the Hitler Youth — to get knocked down by some 25-year-old woman.

I mean, the symbolism of it: The old, crusty, white male pope (I know, that’s redudant), protector of the Old Patriarchal Order, literally toppled by youth, literally knocked down by the feminine — that is, by the New Order.

So much for the infallibility of the pope, eh?

Surely God wanted the young woman to knock him down or it wouldn’t — couldn’t — have happened, no?

Merry Christmas and happy new year.

The new year — and the new decade — seem promising thus far…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Sally Struthers has hijacked my e-mail

A tearful Sally Struthers used to be the only one we had to worry about. Now, charitable organizations are trying to make us feel guilty right and left so that we strain our already-strained wallets even further. Oh, well. I guess that in these times it’s always nice to know that someone somewhere always has it worse off than you do…

You’d never know that we’re in a severe economic downturn, given the number of fundraising appeals that I receive via e-mail and snail mail every day.

I understand that charitable organizations are hurting — many have gone under and many more are threatened with going under — but Jesus fuck, we of the working class are not just nickeled and dimed, but we are are five-dollared and 10-dollared to death as it is.

So why the big push on fundraising e-mails and snail mails now? Who has money that they can just give away? The rich don’t give (they don’t even want to pay their fair share of taxes) and the middle class can’t afford to give — not anymore. 

I have to wonder if the cost of sending the snail-mail fundraising appeals is even recouped by those who actually can afford to send anything in.

And it pisses me off royally that if we of the working and middle class want anything good in our nation, we have to fucking donate to charities and/or we have to volunteer our time when we already are working one or two (or maybe even three) jobs.

Why don’t our fucking tax dollars go toward helping those who need help instead of to endless bogus wars in the Middle East for the war profiteers of the military-industrial complex? And to bailing out corrupt corporations?

We of the working and middle class get screwed right and left. We are the only ones who pay taxes — corporations avoid paying their fair share of taxes like the plague – and if we want a better world, we have to pay even more out of pocket and/or give even more of our already limited time and energy to charitable organizations. It’s sick, twisted and wrong.

So is the e-mail that I received today with this subject line: “The dog with no lips: Her inspiring story‏.”

“The dog with no lips.”

I couldn’t make that kind of shit up.

And here is a nice visual to go along with the Humane Society of the United States’ fundraising appeal:

The name of the lipless dog is Fay, of Missouri. She lost her lips from having been used in dog fighting. (Her story is here.)

Don’t get me wrong. I’m an animal lover. I hate animal cruelty. I would string up those who treat dogs and other animals as Fay was treated, except that people are animals, too, and again, I’m against animal cruelty. (Besides, only the Repugnicans and the “Christians” endorse torture.)

I have donated to the Humane Society and yes, even to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and to other animal-welfare organizations.

But Jesus fuck, are we of the working and middle class not already shell-shocked enough that we have to receive e-mails with pictures of lipless dogs?

And again, why aren’t my tax dollars already going to the needy instead of to the fucking greedy?

Unfortunately, this overload of fundraising appeals at the worst possible time makes me want to give even less, not more.

If I’m not the only one who feels that way — and I can’t imagine that I am — then the charitable organizations are harming, not helping themselves by not knowing when and where to stop.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Apocalypse right now

Film review

In “The Road,” Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee (above) play a father and a son fighting to survive in a barren post-apocalyptic United States of America where they always are in danger of being hunted by bands of cannibalistic hunters (such as depicted below in another still from the film).

The Road Movie by John Hillcoat

If you’re prone to suicidal ideation during the holidays, then don’t go see “The Road,” one of the bleakest films that I’ve ever seen, but if you are able to gaze into the abyss, as I am (which is why I’m a blogger…), then “The Road” is for you.

“The Road” is a post-apocalyptic tale of a man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) who travel south to warmer climes after some unspecified apocalypse — the aftermath of the election (probably stolen…) of Sarah Palin or her ilk as president, I like to think — has occurred.

“The Road” leaves lots unexplained and has lots of potholes in it, though. In no certain order: It makes no sense how so many humans could survive an apocalypse that even the vegetation and the vast majority of animal life couldn’t survive. Is it really practical or even possible to push a shopping cart along all kinds of terrain? How does the boy have such a strong sense of right and wrong when he was born into the apocalypse? How does the apparently half-blind old man fare as well as he does when the able-bodied, fully-sighted younger man struggles to survive? How do we see a healthy-looking dog at the end of the film when the humans are even eating each other? Wouldn’t any scraps of food that the dog’s owners manage to get go to them rather than to the dog?

There are other holes that I’d divulge, except that it would ruin key parts of the film, which, despite all that it doesn’t explain and all about it that doesn’t make sense, is worth seeing.

The scenes of cannibalism, including the few-and-far-between surviving humans hunting other humans for their meat — and yes, the hunters appear to be the kind of people (survivalist nuts) who would vote for Sarah Palin — are strewn throughout the movie, and most viewers will find these scenes disturbing, but, it seems to me, we Americans cannibalize each other (so to speak) every fucking day. We use and abuse each other without a second thought, and we casually dismiss it business as usual. Everyone does it, right, so what’s the problem? The only reason that we don’t literally cannibalize each other — yet — is that we have such an abundance of fast food, it seems to me.

So to me, “The Road” could be seen just as much as an externalization of the spiritual decay of the common American that exists today as it can be seen as some cautionary tale. The gray wasteland of “The Road” already exists in the United States of America, it seems to me — interiorly, with the exterior only needing to catch up to the interior. Even at this late hour that probably still is preventable, so yes, “The Road” can be, and should be, seen as a cautionary tale as well.

“The Road” also made me think repeatedly of the homeless people within our midst. I live in downtown Sacramento, where homeless people who look like the characters in “The Road” are fixtures. How can we call ourselves civilized when we allow such misery? It’s easy to see how our savagery could indeed lead to something like we see in “The Road,” where we, instead of the homeless people whom we see every day (and take as just a given), are the ones pushing the shopping cart along bleak terrain — if we survive at all.

Which raises the question of whether, when and if the shit ever really hits the fan, it would be worth trying to survive at all. In one scene in “The Road,” Charlize Theron, who plays the man’s wife and the boy’s mother, tells the man that she doesn’t want to just survive.

Which is something that I’ve always wondered about the survivalists, and what you keep wondering as you watch “The Road”: what in the fuck are you surviving for?

Is there more to life than just surviving? Is it only about staying physically alive as long as possible?

That’s the main question that “The Road” asks.

See it and ponder the question.

My grade: B+

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I give Obama a ‘C’ for ‘Clintonesque’

We voted for Barack Obama in November 2008, but we got another President Clinton anyway.

I supported Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary primarily because I didn’t think that his primary opponent Billary Clinton could win the White House, and also because I didn’t want another Clintonesque (that is, “centrist” — that is, milquetoast) “Democratic” president.

Now, I realize that there is little difference between Obama and Billary — except that I still believe that Billary couldn’t have won the White House, and that if Obama hadn’t won the Democratic primary, we’d have another Repugnican in the White House right now.

Many have pointed out that Obama never promised to be a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal president. Well, if that is accurate, Team Obama certainly never did anything to dissuade the dollars that we liberals liberally poured into Obama’s campaign coffers. If neither Obama nor his team ever promised the starry-eyed moonbats a rose garden, well, neither Obama nor his team ever did anything to disabuse them of the notion that Obama was on their side.

President Obama recently gave his term as president thus far “a good solid ‘B+’.”

Progressive Ralph Nader, whom I almost voter for in November 2008 instead of Obama — and whom I wish I had voted for instead — gives Obama’s first year a good solid “F”.

“He’s been far too concessionary to large corporations, many of which want to block his legislation and many of which are being bailed out by his administration,” Nader said of Obama. “And when you’re concessionary, for the president, the Republicans smell weakness, they smell pliability, they smell the desperation … and when you project weakness, instead of steadfastness, then you facilitate divisions within your own party.”


Obama, I suspect, gives himself a “B+” because George W. Bush lowered the presidential bar all the way to China. Yes, if Bush II represents the new normal for the White House, then Obama would get the “B+”, but Bush was an anomaly, not the new normal.

Ralph Nader’s “F” is a bit harsh, though, as Nader represents progressive change that more than 90 percent of politicians are way too petrified to even attempt to attempt. Yes, by Nader’s lofty, idealistic standards, Obama gets an “F.”

With the extreme outliers of George W. Bush and Ralph Nader ignored, I think it’s safe to give Obama a “C.” He’s an average U.S. president: still kowtowing to the corporations and to big money, still putting the interests of the power structure over the interests of the majority of the American people. He made lots of campaign promises that he hasn’t delivered upon. He is, in short, another typical American politician.

If Obama were the only president to campaign one way and to administer in another way and to put the fat cats’ interests above the average American’s interests, then yes, I could give him an “F”, but as it’s just business as usual, I give Obama a “C”. “C” does, after all, mean average.

And “C” also is for “Clinton.” And for “centrist.”

That’s the kind of president that Obama has turned out to be: an awful lot like Bill Clinton, only Clinton was beleaguered by a Repugnican-dominated Congress while Obama has a Congress dominated by his own party, so Obama has much less of an excuse for his “centrism.”

I’d love to give Obama an “incomplete,” with the hopes that he’ll actually earn that “B+” that he claims he has earned, but my hunch is that he’ll round out his one or two terms with only a “C”.

P.S. While looking back at past weekly “This Modern World” ’toons, this one struck me as germaine to this post:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Boxer already has won re-election

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Sen. Barbara ...

Associated Press photo

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, chair of the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C., today on the climate-change talks in Copenhagen. Meanwhile, her would-be Repugnican successors are focusing on the scandalous! fact that she actually asked someone to address her as “senator”!

The 2010 election is almost a year away, but I think it’s safe to say that U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer is going to win re-election.

This from The Associated Press today:

Washington – The widely played video clip of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer reprimanding a general for calling her “ma’am” is the gift that keeps on giving for the two Republicans hoping to challenge her next year.

Republicans Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore are trying to capitalize on the exchange by making it a key ingredient of their fundraising efforts and attempts to recruit grassroots support. Both campaigns say the video revs up a GOP base that already has long-standing animosity toward Boxer, among the most liberal members of the Senate.

Whether it will have currency beyond next June’s Republican primary, when the winner will have to appeal to a much larger and more diverse audience, is an open question.

During a hearing last June, Boxer interrupted Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh of the Army Corps of Engineers in mid-sentence: “Do me a favor?” she said. “Could you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’ It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it. Yes, thank you.”

Boxer said the general was not offended by her remarks, but many in the GOP clearly were, including the two Republican challengers.

Former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina thought the exchange was so memorable that it prompted her to create a website titled, which she uses to raise money and keep in touch with supporters.

Campaign aides said they could not quantify the site’s appeal, except to say it has received thousands of hits and led to thousands of dollars in donations.

The campaign of state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore juxtaposed the Boxer clip with an Austin Powers movie frame showing the Dr. Evil character upbraiding those who dare refer to him as “Mr. Evil.” The 30-second video has generated more than 108,000 clicks on YouTube. It’s been one of the campaign’s most popular tools for reaching out to potential supporters.

Barbara O’Connor, professor of communications at Sacramento State University, said the use of Boxer’s comments from the hearing will no doubt fire up the GOP base during the primary campaign but probably will not hurt the third-term senator in the general election. Jobs, health care and other bread-and-butter issues are expected to take precedence….

Um, yeah.

To give just one example, while Fiorina never has held elected office but just wants to buy office (and the governorship of the nation’s most populous state at that), like so many Repugnicans do, and while DeVore is just another stupid white man who stupidly believes that Californians at this point in time want to replace Boxer with a stupid white man, Boxer has been at the forefront of combating global warming. (Fiorina and DeVore, of course, being Repugnicans, would put profits over the planet.)

Um, yeah, I’m a lot more concerned about scientists’ projection that the Arctic could be ice-free in less than a decade than I am that Barbara Boxer — gasp! — actually asked some general to call her “senator”!

The fucking Repugicans fucking fiddle while the polar ice caps melt. It’s fucking great.

Those who hate Boxer are going to hate Boxer. Those of us Californians who love her are going to love her, and no rich bitch trying to buy office or stupid white man is going to get our vote for the U.S. Senate over Babs.

And what, exactly, was Boxer’s “crime” in asking the general to call her “senator”? She was not deferential enough to a man in the military?

Oh, fuck that shit!

I smell sexism — and fascism.

Barbara Boxer nor any other American citizen or elected official is required to fall at the feet of anyone in the U.S. military.

Anyway, the AP also reports:

Registered Republicans represent less than a third of California’s electorate. Women, who vote in greater numbers than men in California, may well see Boxer’s statement as a demand for equal treatment….

Boxer said her opponents’ focus on the exchange says more about them than it does about her. She’s not about to apologize.

“Once in 17 years that I’ve been a senator, I asked a witness to call me ‘senator,’ because we were having a back and forth and I kept saying ‘general’ and he kept saying ‘ma’am’, and it went ‘general,’ ‘ma’am,’ ‘general,’ ‘ma’am.’ And I thought, you know what, this is one of those times we ought to call each other by our titles,” she said in an interview.

Boxer’s strategy for dealing with the fallout is simple: Let her opponents talk about the exchange while she focuses on talking about jobs and other priorities. It’s her way of conveying to voters that she is focused on the issues they care about while her opponents are focused on petty issues….

Fiorina and DeVore already have demonstrated their pettiness and political naivete amply. They might be in touch with California’s wingnut minority, but they’re grossly out of step with the California majority that elected Barbara Boxer for her third term in the U.S. Senate in 2004 with 58 percent of the vote to her Repugnican challenger’s 38 percent. In 2004 she earned more than 6.9 million votes, more votes than any other candidate for the U.S. Senate ever earned in the nation’s history, and more votes than any other candidate ever won on the California statewide ballot.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized