Monthly Archives: January 2010

More assorted shit

If the United States of America is so damned big and bad, then why are we so fucking obsessed with the threat (real or imagined) of terrorism?

When were we ever 100 percent safe? Why don’t we fear our cars, since we’re much more likely to die in an automobile accident than we are to die in a terrorist attack? 

Today The Associated Press has not one, but at least two, news items on security for the Super Bowl: “Protecting Against a ‘Lone Wolf’ at the Super Bowl” and “X-mas Bomb Attempt Prods Super Bowl Security Change.”

You know what I’m hoping for?

I’m hoping that members of Code Pink crash the Super Bowl.

They’re good at getting into events — here is a photo of Code Pink members crashing the lie fest — er, testimony — of former Secretary of State Condoleezza “You Know She’s Lying When Her Lips Are Moving” Rice:

— and they never actually harm anyone.

The Code Pink activists are hated because they stand up to The Man, an act that the brainwashed masses deem to be “crazy.” In a democracy, you see, you’re just supposed to just shut the fuck up and let the stupid white men run the show. They know better than you do. I mean, the current state of the nation after the eight years of the Bush-Cheney administration is proof of that. And dissent is uber-unpatriotic, you terrorist-lovin’ pinko. Real patriots march in lockstep with their all-white-male leaders. Every true patriot knows that.

I recently wrote:

What the fuck is with the widespread belief that others’ beliefs, no matter how insane and potentially oppressive or even dangerous to others, should be held by all of us as sacrofuckingsanct?

We are allowed to believe whatever we want to believe, but when we believe that others should be oppressed or subjugated, that’s a fucking problem, because our beliefs that others should be oppressed or subjugated often end up in actual oppression or subjugation. Actions often follow beliefs. Hate speech, for instance, often leads to hate crimes. And it’s the hateful beliefs that precede the hate speech.

So just now I read a piece on the murder conviction on Friday of wingnut warrior Scott Roeder, who in May 2009 shot to death — in a church — Dr. George Tiller, who had provided abortions in Kansas.

Here is the money shot of the piece:

During closing arguments Friday, [defense attorney Mark] Rudy urged the jury to reject the murder charge. “No one,” he said, “should be convicted based on his convictions.”

Rudy mentioned leaders who stood up for their beliefs, including Martin Luther King Jr. They were “celebrated individuals (who) stood up and made the world a better place.”

So Scott Roeder was just another Martin Luther King Jr., you see. Except that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down in cold blood, just like Dr. George Tiller was. And Scott Roeder gunned down George Tiller. (Don’t try to understand the “logic”; it will just give you a sick headache.)

Tell you what: After Scott Roeder is gunned down like the dog that he is, then maybe, just maybe, we can start comparing him to someone else who was assassinated. Until then, he isn’t a martyr. He’s an assassin, a murderer. And he was convicted of murder, not convicted of having believed something.

You gotta love his “defense,” though.

I suppose that I could have assassinated “President” George W. Bush and been compared to Martin Luther King Jr. for having done so. After all, if Tiller was responsible for taking innocent lives and therefore his killer was a hero like MLK, well, mass murderer George W. Bush is responsible for having taken many more innocent lives, including the lives of more than 4,300 U.S. troops who have died as a result of his bogus Vietraq War for the war profits of Dick Cheney’s war-profiteering Halliburton and the other war-profiteering subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp — and the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis, whom he permanently “liberated.”

You know, wingnuts, you really don’t want to go down that path, that one’s beliefs justify killing others. You lost the Civil War to us blue-staters, remember.

Speaking of abortion, The Associated Press reports today that New Repugnican Hero Scott Brown is pro-choice:

Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts says he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one.

Brown tells ABC’s “This Week” that he disagrees with his party’s position that the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion [Roe v. Wade] should be overturned.

Brown says the abortion question is one that’s best handled by a woman, her family and her doctor. He also says more effort needs to go into reducing the number of abortions in the U.S.

Brown has said the GOP shouldn’t take his vote for granted on every issue. He says he’s fiscally conservative but more moderate on social issues….

I’m not sure how much of Brown’s stance is out of political necessity, given that he’s in the blue state of Massachusetts, and how much of it is out of any actual sanity, but I think it’s funny that the wingnuts — who would prefer Brown to say, like wingnut football hero Tim Tebow has said, that he’s happy that his mama didn’t abort him — don’t have Brown on board with them on the issue of women’s right to have control over their own fucking uteri.

Speaking of fiscal conservatives, I’m totally down with fiscal conservatism — the taxpayers’ dollars should be spent judiciously and responsibly — but I have a real fucking problem with the Repugnicans’ philosophy of spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of the taxpayers’ dollars on the war profiteers via bogus wars but refusing to spend the taxpayers’ dollars on the taxpayers. 

Where in the fuck were the cries of “fiscal conservatism!” when the unelected BushCheneyCorp created a record federal budget deficit, with most of that money funneled to the traitors who comprise the military-industrial complex?

Um, yeah.

A little more on John Edwards, and then hopefully I’ll never feel compelled to write about the loser again.

While I have no plan to buy former Edwards aide Andrew Young’s tell-all book The Politician, I found this recent reportage from’s War Room to be interesting:

Young’s book also elaborates on the now-dominant theme of Edwards as a narcissist on an epic scale. If half of what the book says is true, the candidate’s obsession with his appearance was, if anything, underestimated during the campaign.

Preoccupied with the appearance of his hair and his weight, he scorned state fairgoers as “rednecks” who would try to force feed him. According to Young, Edwards delivered one line that seems a bit too perfect: “I know I’m the people’s senator, but do I have to hang out with them?”

I never bought Edwards’ supposed populism, which is why I never supported him for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Do I blame Edwards for not being thrilled to be hanging out with rednecks? No. I’m not thrilled to hang out with rednecks, either. They tend to be not very bright, not very curious, and they tend to fear — and to oppress and even to aggress upon — those who don’t look, act and believe just like they do.

But the difference between Edwards and me is that I don’t lie about my feelings about rednecks.

Finally, I like this line in an AlterNet piece about why the U.S. Supreme Court fucked up when the five wingnuts on it ruled that corporations have the First Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of money on political ads: “Simply put: money is not speech [and] corporations are not people.”

Yup. I especially believe the latter part: corporations are not people.

One certainly could argue that money is needed to disseminate one’s message, but the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there about corporations having the same rights as do individual people — nothing about corporations in there at all — and the courts have ruled consistently that what appear (correctly or incorrectly) to be restraints on free speech are constitutional if they are content neutral.

Restraining corporate influence on the national political dialogue is not about suppressing individuals’ free speech; to the contrary, it’s about ensuring that the individual’s voice is not completely drowned out in the national dialogue by Big Money.

To allow that to happen would be to hasten the conversion of our democracy into a complete corporatocracy, which has been going on for some decades now.

No one who understands and cares about our democracy would be OK with its hostile takeover by the corporations, which represent the largest threat to our democracy, by far.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

BushCheneyCorp: 2,973; Obama: ZERO

That’s the number of people killed by “Islamofascist” terrorists on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001, under the current White House administration and under the previous White House administration.

I just remind you of that when you see a news story about Repugnican politicians criticizing the Obama administration on its record of preventing terrorist attacks.

I know that this is all ancient history already, but on Aug. 6, 2001, George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

A little more than a month later, Bin Laden did indeed strike in the U.S., killing 2,973 people.

But the Repugnicans now are lambasting President Barack Obama over an attempted terrorist strike in December that killed no one.

Next, I suppose, the Repugnicans are going to criticize Obama’s record on preventing unnecessary American deaths from natural disasters…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tim Tebow, the male Carrie Prejean

FILE - In this Nov. 28, 2009, file photo, Florida quarterback ...

Associated Press photo

Collegiate footballer Tim Tebow of Florida, who wears the abbreviations of Bible verses under his eyes — he probably owns one of those assault rifles with Biblical references on it, too (because the historical Jesus was into football and assault rifles, I’m pretty sure) — says he’s glad that his mother (shown with him in November above) didn’t abort him. (Football players generally aren’t known for their high IQs, and their head injuries tend to make them even duller.) A lot of American women probably wish that Tebow’s mother had nipped him in the bud.

I haven’t paid much attention to the whole Tim Tebow brouhaha, although I did watch this parody anti-abortion Super Bowl ad, which is pretty fucking funny.

Football star Tebow, who has made an anti-choice ad for the Super Bowl for the anti-choice “Christo”fascist group Focus on the Family, tells ESPN (via ABC News) that he’s sure glad that he wasn’t aborted.

Um, OK… That kind of thing can send you into a “Star Trek”-like-alternate-universe-time-and-space-warp kind of mindfuck if you let it, I guess, but in general, were someone to declare to me that he or she sure is glad that he or she wasn’t aborted, I probably would think: It probably would have been better for the gene pool if this dumbfuck had been aborted. 

Tebow’s mother tells ESPN that that her doctor had recommended that he be aborted for medical reasons, but that she knew in her heart that God wanted him to be born, so she refused the abortion.

OK, so (arguably) it worked out OK for the Tebows. The doctor apparently was wrong, as doctors sometimes are.

However, to extrapolate from that one anecdote, or even from several others like it, that all abortions should be prohibited is a stretch at least the size of a football field. 

I don’t hold too much against Tebow. He’s young. He’s stupid. He’s been indoctrinated with “Christian” fascistic bullshit. I mean, if a Muslim football player wore references to the Koran on his face, we’d call him nuts, wouldn’t we? Or at least we’d think him a fantatic — and at least a little bit scary. (Actually, were a Muslim football player actually to try to do that, he probably would be prohibited from doing so.)

In a press conference, Tebow states that those who disagree with his anti-choice stance “can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe.”

Um, many if not most white supremacists stand up for what they believe. Are they respectable?  

What if I believe that we should start throwing the “Christo”fascists to the lions, like in the good old days? Should you just shut the fuck up and respect my beliefs?

What the fuck is with the widespread belief that others’ beliefs, no matter how insane and potentially oppressive or even dangerous to others, should be held by all of us as sacrofuckingsanct?

We are allowed to believe whatever we want to believe, but when we believe that others should be oppressed or subjugated, that’s a fucking problem, because our beliefs that others should be oppressed or subjugated often end up in actual oppression or subjugation. Actions often follow beliefs. Hate speech, for instance, often leads to hate crimes. And it’s the hateful beliefs that precede the hate speech.

I think of Tim Tebow as the male Carrie Prejean. Both of them are young, dumb and brainwashed. She would claim that she just stands up for her beliefs, too. But her beliefs harm an entire group of people who only want equal human and civil rights.

When your beliefs infringe on others’ rights, that’s a fucking problem.

For the record, I am not “pro”-abortion. I don’t relish the idea of abortion. However, unlike the members of the Taliban, I just cannot imagine telling a woman what she may or may not do with her own fucking uterus.

Therefore, I am pro-choice.

Abortion is a choice that, as a man, I’ll never have to make. (And yes, contrary to the wingnuts’ bumper stickers, it is a choice.)

It’s a choice that Tim Tebow never will have to make.

So he probably should shut the fuck up.

And I’m pretty sure that Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross so that the likes of Tim Tebow and Carrie Prejean — who maybe should get married and give birth to the anti-Christ — could, centuries later, spread hateful, oppressive beliefs in his name.

P.S. CBS is going to air the Super Bowl on February 7. CBS refused to air a pro-gay-rights ad in 2004, saying that it doesn’t run advocacy ads. You can sign CREDO Action’s petition to pressure CBS to drop its hypocrisy and its double standard by clicking here.

I would boycott CBS, except that I don’t watch television anyway (I’m an Internet addict)…

Finally, for those fucktards who cry “censorship,” censorship is the actual prevention of CBS from running the radical right’s anti-women’s-rights ad. CBS is not going to be prevented from running the ad, which would be censorship. CBS may run the ad, but CBS should expect fallout if it does.

Boycotts and political pressure aren’t censorship — they are free speech. They are forms of free speech that the radical right uses all the fucking time. The wingnuts should expect it right back.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Blogiquette 101: When is it OK to delete blog comments?

To delete or not to delete?

That is the fucking question.

My boyfriend has accused me (only half-seriously, I think [I hope…]) of deleting comments on my blog pieces if they are comments written by individuals who simply disagree with me.

Not so.

Thing is, my blog is my baby, and for anyone to just come along and shit and piss upon it — well, again, my blog is my baby, and I’m a fiercely protective mother.

I’m fine if someone disagrees with me. However, I want him or her to put some time and thought into his or her disagreement, as I put some time and thought into my blog piece. I don’t like drive-bys. Drive-by comments on my blog pieces are vulnerable to deletion.

In addition to drive-bys, I hate wingnut trolls who just want to pick a fight instead of have anything like a meaningful discussion. I’ve had more than my share of those.

One wingnut recently started off being somewhat civil when he left a comment, but when it became apparent after a few exchanges that I wasn’t going to convert to his side — the dark side — as a result of what he must have thought was his brilliant fucking rhetoric, it got ugly, with him calling me a “faggot.” (Because those right-wingers are so nice. They have God and Jesus on their side, after all.)

Delete, delete, delete. And he’s banned. Hate speech, directed at me or at someone else, I delete.

Delete, delete, delete.

That’s the only thing to do to an ugly string of exchanges with a wingnut whose only intent is to be destructive, as evidenced by the fact that your comment exchanges no longer have much, if anything, to do with the blog piece that you’re supposed to be discussing.

One old wingnut troll recently left an unsolicited comment on one of my pieces. He disagreed with me. Fine. At least he was sticking to the subject.

But then he and I exchanged several comments until it became clear that it was only destructive, and I told him point-blank at one point in our e-fight that I wasn’t going to keep going around and around with him.

Still he kept leaving malicious comments, which I deleted. I’d told him that I was done with the pointless exchanges. But I left his earlier comments intact, deleting only the later, more ugly and destructive ones.

Later, I decided to leave a thought-out, point-by-point comment on one of his pieces (of shit) — which he promptly deleted.

That is the kind of wrongful deletion that my boyfriend wrongly accused me of. This assbite deleted my comment out of spite, not because my comment wasn’t pertinent to what he’d written. (And, of course, my comment blew him out of the water and made him look like the fucktard that he is. So of course he deleted it. Cockroaches loathe the light.)

It was fine for him to leave an unsolicited comment on my blog, but when I went to his blog for the first time to leave a comment, he deleted it. Winguts can dish it out but they can’t take it. They’re all talk and they cut and run.

After I saw that the old wingnut wouldn’t let me post a comment on his blog after he’d posted on mine, I went back and deleted most of his comments, as they had contributed little to nothing to the discussion. However, because I’m much more of a man than he’ll ever be, I at least left his original comment intact.

However, because he deleted my very first comment from his blog, he’s forevermore banned from posting a comment to mine. Ever. Again. 

This wingnut is old, and so thankfully it shouldn’t be too long before the Universe deletes him.

Anyway, these are my own personal rules of thumb for comments on blogs, mine and others’:

  • You are entitled to only one or two, maybe three comments on any one blog piece, as long as you stick to the subject at hand and don’t use abusive speech or hate speech. The blog’s owner doesn’t have to take your abuse or let it become all about you.
  • If your comment isn’t as thoughtful as the blog piece is, don’t expect your comment to be left standing. Especially if your comment is just a drive-by — especially especially if it’s just a slam or a slur — don’t expect it to stand. (And yes, I prefer even a doting fan to add meaningfully to the discussion, not to just tell me that he or she liked my piece. Surely there was something that I could have said in my piece but didn’t, and so I like the comments section to expand the discussion.)
  • If you get into a drawn-out cat fight with the blogger and the blogger later deletes the ugly chain of comments between the two of you, it’s probably because the ugly chain of back-and-forth backbiting comments grossly detracts from the blogger’s original intent, which was, hopefully, meaningful dialogue, not an opportunity for you to virtually vandalize his blog’s comments section with your venom and bile.
  • If you pitch a fit when others delete your comments that constitute only graffiti that deserves to be removed, but you delete even well-written comments that are germane to the subject at hand, like this old fucking hypocrite does, then you suck and you should go to hell and die, like he should.
  • Just because the blogger is engaging you in his or her comments section does not mean that you are entitled to personal information about the blogger, like this creepy codger thinks he is. You are entitled to discuss only the subject at hand, Dr. Lecter.

Those are the guidelines that come to mind.

You’re free to comment.

Subject to deletion, of course.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Assorted shit

I wish that the whole John Edwards thing would just go the fuck away already. It was way back in August 2008 that I wrote, in a piece titled “Good Riddance, Guy Smiley!”:

I never much cared for John “Permasmile” Edwards. A millionaire trial lawyer who perpetually grins from ear to ear and claims to care sooo damned much for the poor — I always sensed that something about him was, um, off. I could tolerate him, but he never made me moist

Thank Goddess that Permasmile never really had a chance at the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, now that he admits that he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife in 2006.

Just when you thought that the Permasmile sleazefest couldn’t get any skeezier, there is this from The Associated Press today:

Raleigh, N.C. – Dealing with a pregnant mistress and a suspicious wife, John Edwards and a close aide agreed by the middle of 2007 to solicit funds from a wealthy widow who had promised to “do whatever it takes” to make him president, according to the former confidant’s new book.

Bunny Mellon, the widow of banking heir Paul Mellon, began sending checks “for many hundreds of thousands of dollars” hidden in boxes of chocolates, according to The Politician by former Edwards aide Andrew Young.

The tell-all account describes how Young took the money and used it to keep mistress Rielle Hunter happy, hiding her from the media and a cancer-stricken Elizabeth Edwards.

Young claims the former vice-presidential nominee later said he didn’t know anything about the cash even though the two discussed the matter and the cash began arriving soon after Edwards made a call to Mellon.

The Politician is due in bookstores Saturday. An advance copy was given to The Associated Press by publisher St. Martin’s Press.

The book has received a lot of attention because of its racy details about the affair, the crumbling Edwards marriage and the candidate’s efforts to keep the paternity of his child with the mistress hidden. John Edwards finally admitted last week that he was the father of the girl, who is now almost 2 years old….

I said good riddance to Permasmile back in August 2008, but now we have stories of Gumpian boxes of chocolates. The man’s political career is over, but he just won’t go the fuck away.

Oh, well; as I noted back in August 2008, at least Baby Daddy Permasmile seems to have proved wrong Ann Cunter, who once called him a “faggot.”

Now, all of a sudden, ending discrimination against non-heterosexuals in the U.S. military is a priority of the Obama administration.

It wasn’t that long ago that we dykes and faggots were told that the nation has more pressing issues, that we’d just have to wait.

Why now, then?

I’m thinking that Team Obama wants a progressive win in order to get its base fired up again, and this probably is the quickest and easiest win that Team Obama can achieve within the near future. (Much easier than, oh, say, real health care reform….)

I don’t know why anyone, heterosexual or non-heterosexual, would want to join the U.S. military when the U.S. military hasn’t been about actually defending the nation from actual threats since — when? World War II?

If you have two brain cells to rub together, it will be clear to you that the U.S. military these days primarily is about funneling billions and billions of our tax dollars to the fat cats legally via the military-industrial complex’s perpetual war machine.

The military-industrial complex is about killing innocent individuals in foreign lands, ensuring that the United States is hated around the world, giving the military-industrial complex a constant supply of “enemies,” real or imagined, an excuse for its continued bloated-beyond-belief existence.

“National security” — what fucking Orwellian bullshit. Yeah, to steal billions upon billions of dollars from us, they have to tell us that it’s for our own good (health care, by contrast, is bad for us). Fucking traitors is what they are.

But I digress. My point is: Why do gay men want to waste their gifts that they have to give the world on the military-industrial complex?

OK, for lesbians I can see the attraction of the military, I guess, but for gay men? [Insert dropping-soap-in-shower joke here…]

Still, discrimination based upon sexual orientation in any sphere is wrong, and equal human and civil rights in the U.S. military, such as the U.S. military is, is another step toward equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals throughout the United States in all spheres of the nation.

And it’s about time that the Obama administration accomplish something, for fuck’s sake.

P.S. The Repugnicans are arguing that we can’t change the U.S. military’s current policy of discriminating against non-heterosexuals while we’re still fighting in the Middle East.

Oh, fuck them.

As the Repugnicans want nothing short of perpetual fucking warfare for their defense-contractor cronies, that means that non-heterosexuals would never get equal human and civil rights in the U.S. military if we wait until the wingnuts deem that it is the “right time.” (I wonder if it never was the “right time,” according to the stupid white men, to stop racial discrimination in the U.S. military, too.)

If the members of the U.S. military can’t handle the fact that there are non-heterosexuals among them, then they are too fucking pussy to defend us anyway — even though they aren’t about defense anyway, but are about enabling the war profiteers and basically amount to being thugs for the corporations (a la “Avatar”) paid for by us taxpayers (and corporations, of course, don’t pay their fair share of taxes).

Can I sense a trend or what?

After Open Salon created an “open call” for our favorite most underrated actor and I picked Joseph Gordon-Levitt as mine, The Associated Press posted a nice piece about him titled “Gordon-Levitt Goes from ‘3rd Rock’ to Sundance Kid.”

According to the piece, Gordon-Levitt has wowed this year’s Sundance crowd with his latest starring role, in the film “Hesher,” as he wowed Sundance last year with “(500) Days of Summer.”

Here’s another gratuitous photo of a shirtless Gordon-Levitt from “Hesher”:

In this film publicity image released by The Sundance Film Festival, ...

Associated Press image

And after I got my first Open Salon “editor’s pick” — which means that my piece appeared on Open Salon’s home page — for my piece titled “Urgent Memo to Jerry Brown: Be a Scott Brown, Not a [Martha] Coakley,” a Sacramento Bee political columnist wrote a column titled “Will California Be the Next Massachusetts?” He wrote:

U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and the lone likely Democratic candidate for governor, Jerry Brown, are taking their cue from [President Barack] Obama and lashing out at corporate executives, including potential Republican challengers, for leading the nation to economic downfall. It’s potentially potent positioning in a state with 12-plus percent unemployment.

Their Republican foes, meanwhile, are portraying Boxer, who is 69, and Brown, who is 71, as aging career liberals who are part of the problem, not the solution, clearly hoping to capitalize on the angry, anti-establishment wave that Scott Brown rode to victory.

Robert Cruickshank, a Monterey college teacher who writes on the liberal website Calitics, declares in a recent article that Jerry Brown could be California Democrats’ Martha Coakley – the Senate candidate Scott Brown defeated.

Is California ripe for a political shift? Anything is possible in a state as inherently volatile as this one in a year like this one.

We are in confusing times, and so yes, I can see California’s voters making stupid (that is, self-defeating) choices at the ballot box in November 2010, but I surmise that Boxer’s re-election is surer than is Jerry Brown’s getting another crack at being California’s governor.

I think that the title of “aging career liberal” sticks to Brown — who still is haunted by the retarded, unfair moniker of “Governor Moonbeam” — much more than it does to Boxer, but again, if Brown doesn’t act like Martha Coakley did, like his win is inevitable, then, well, I think that he’ll most likely win. His most likely Repugnican challenger, billionaire Megalomaniac Whitman, is truly repugnant, which should be a big boon to Brown.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Samuel Alito, judicial activist

I love the wingnuts’ pathologically hypocritical accusation that judges who disagree with their oppressive, retrogressive, anti-democratic, anti-American views — and who actually stand for the American principle of liberty and justice for all — are “judicial activists.”

Not the majority of the American voters, but the wingnut-stacked U.S. Supreme Court, chose the nation’s president in 2000. If that isn’t the epitome of judicial activism, I don’t know what the fuck is.

Now, the same 5-4 skewed-to-the-right U.S. Supreme Court, in order to help the dying Repugnican Party, has ruled, against a century of legal precedent, that corporations may funnel unlimited amounts of money to political advertisements.

But that’s not judicial activism or anything.

Both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have pointed out that the court’s ruling allows — or would allow, if Congress cannot correct the court’s error through legislation — foreign interests to influence our elections for their benefit. To allow that to happen smells a bit like treason to me.

U.S. Supreme Court “Justice” Samuel Alito, a BushCheneyCorp appointee who is, of course, one of the Gang of Five, apparently pulled a silent Joe Wilson during President Obama’s State of the Union address last night when the president correctly criticized the court’s radical-right ruling.

“Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words ‘not true’ or possibly ‘simply not true’ when Obama assailed the decision … in his State of the Union address,” The Associated Press reports.

Oh, fuck you, Samuel Alito!

You don’t uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. You’re a fucking judicial activist for the wingnuts.

Hopefully one of the wingnuts on the nation’s highest court will retire or drop dead soon and we progressives will start to see 5-4 decisions in our favor — that is, in favor of democracy and in favor of the principle of liberty and justice for all, not just for stupid rich white people.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Seriously fucked-up national priorities

Yahoo! News reports today:

With the president’s State of the Union address coming up on Wednesday, the White House appears to be struggling to find its feet. Republican Scott Brown’s surprise victory in liberal Massachusetts has dominated the national conversation in the last week and made Obama’s goal of signing health care reform impossible before the big speech.

Now, even Obama’s apparent attempt to soothe voters’ budget-deficit concerns by proposing a three-year freeze on some federal spending is being met with ridicule from both the right and the left.

The plan Obama will propose breaks down as follows:

  • Freeze discretionary spending on non-security-related programs and government agencies whose budgets are set annually by Congress. Affected programs could include subsidies for farmers, child nutrition and national parks.
  • Exempt from the freeze would be budgets for federal entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as the budgets for the Pentagon, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and foreign aid.

The administration claims this will save the country $250 billion over the next decade, or about 3 percent of the $9 trillion deficits the U.S. is expected to accumulate over that period.

Conservatives have mocked the freeze as not doing nearly enough to get to the root of the country’s economic problems…. Liberals aren’t happy either, arguing that less government spending will slow economic growth, and that cutting government services will harm those in need.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the freeze “a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for.” … 

Agreed. The Obama administration is so beholden to the military-industrial complex — of which the Israel-first lobby is a huge part* — that it would be exempt from a federal spending freeze.

Make no mistake: the Repugnicans are fine with taxing and spending — as long as those tax revenues goes to the war profiteers (most of whom are stupid rich white men) and not to the things that the American people actually need.

The federal budget deficit hit a record fucking high under George W. Bush because of the unelected Bush regime’s looting of the U.S. Treasury via its bogus war in Vietraq. The wingnuts made not a peep of this reckless spending that put the nation’s economy in the toilet.

But when the Obama admininistration wants to give some poor schoolkids some free or reduced-cost school lunches, that’sgasp! — socialism! Because slaughtering children abroad (nip those little “Islamofascist” “terrorists” in the bud!) is a much higher national priority than is taking care of our children here at home, obviously.

So successful has the military-industrial complex’s self-perpetuating propaganda been that Obama is afraid to take the complex on, although he has claimed that he didn’t become president just to kick our most pressing problems into the future.

Well, some U.S. president sometime — and sooner rather than later — needs to confront the bloated military-industrial complex and say: Enough!

Yes, we need national security. I’m all for national security.

But I vehemently oppose bombing and occupying foreign nations that not only never did anything to the United States but couldn’t even have done anything to the United States only in order to inflame anti-American hatred — only in order to ensure that we have plenty of enemies to ensure bullshit justification for the perpetuation of the military-industrial complex’s mega-budget.

These traitors of the military-industrial complex make us more unsafe by unnecessarily creating even more enemies abroad and then screaming about all of our enemies abroad from whom they have to save us. This is what Big Brother did in George Orwell’s 1984: ensure a constant supply of enemies, fake or real, to justify stealing the people’s resources from them, induce them to tolerate going without because supposedly their government was using the lion’s share of its — of their — resources to protect them from imagined or real harm from without.

(The wingnuts’ propaganda has been so successful that many Americans are terrified of things that would help them — such as health care reform — but don’t think twice about the fact that the nation’s wealth is being funneled to a bloated military-industrial complex, since the thieves can’t empty the U.S. Treasury outright.)

If you are as pissed off about our woefully misplaced national spending priorities as I am, you can go to to “tell Congress not to clap when Obama proposes [during his State of the Union speech] spending $100 billion on the war in Afghanistan while freezing spending on everything else.”

Maybe, if Obama says during his speech that we need to put these additional billions and billions of our dollars into bogus wars for the war profiteers, some sane member of Congress will yell: “You lie!”

*Israel is the No. 1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid; apparently the Repugnicans want the Israeli children, not American children, to get those free or reduced-cost school lunches…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Social Darwinism does NOT apply to the poor CHILDREN among us

FILE - In a Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009 file photo, S.C. Lt. Gov.Andre ...

Associated Press photo

Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer apparently is a believer in eugenics for the poor among us. You know, just like Jesus was. Jesus always said about the poor: “You gotta nip ’em in the bud!” (Look it up. I’m sure it’s in there somewhere...)

Memo to Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer: Zac Efron wants his face back.

Second memo to Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer: WTF?

No, really. Everyone is focusing on your recently having compared the poor to “stray animals” that, if we feed them, only “breed.” That kind of talk from a Repugnican doesn’t shock me. It’s from the Nazi playbook: First relegate a group of human beings to subhuman status, and then you can justify oppressing them.

And I myself believe that we have an overpopulation problem. However, I don’t single out any certain class of human beings for extinction by starvation, like you do. Not even the Repugnicans do I single out for such treatment, although I’m confident that the species and the planet — and hell, the universe — would be much better off without them.

What really gets me, Loooootenant, is your apparent “logic” that poor children have lower academic performance because they get free or reduced-cost meals at school.

You said this:

“I can show you a bar graph where the free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina. You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I’ll show you the worst test scores, folks. It’s there, period.”

Unless I cannot understand simple English, Zac, your “argument” seems to be that if we give schoolkids free or reduced lunches, their test scores will go down. Don’t feed ’em, and their test scores will go up! Duh! It’s a no-brainer! Gotta make those lazy kids work for it! Kids these days! They have no work ethic! They think there’s such a thing as a free lunch!

This is the comment of yours, Zac, that is getting people riled up:

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem. If you give an animal or a person ample food supply, they will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that….”

But I find your comment apparently correlating the availability of free or reduced-cost school lunches to low school test scores to be even more ludicrous.

To be fair, and not to be a hypocrite, I don’t give the homeless adults in my neighborhood any money because I know — I know — that they’ll only use it for alcohol or cigarettes or drugs. I even have instructed people visiting me in my ’hood not to “feed the bears.”

Truth be told, I don’t want alcoholic or junkie homeless people in my ’hood. And by giving them even pocket change I don’t want to give them incentive to stay in my ’hood and continue to panhandle.

I do blame their lot largely for the fact that our tax dollars go to human greed — to such traitors as the war profiteers like Dick Cheney’s Halliburton — instead of to human needs. I’ve lived where I live since 2001, and every year that the unelected BushCheneyCorp was in office, the numbers of homeless people I’ve seen in my neighborhood climbed annually.

Still, these homeless people — like the one alcoholic guy who kept sleeping on my porch (thanks, BushCheneyCorp!) — can be problematic, and no, truthfully, I don’t want them in my neighborhood; what I want is for my tax dollars to go toward helping them instead of to bogus wars for the military-industrial complex. 

But these homeless people are adults.

You, Lt. Gov. Efron, are against aiding poor children. Children.

No matter how good a child’s parent or parents may or may not be, you don’t punish the child for the child’s parent(s).

Zac, I understand your Repugnicans’ love of social Darwinism. You don’t want the masses to correctly conclude that it is because of the greed of the rich and the super-rich and the exploitation of the working class and the poor by the rich and the super-rich that we have so many poor people in the United States of America.

The rich and the super-rich fear an uprising of the have-nots. (They look at places like Venezuela, which has had a real revolution, with sheer terror.) Therefore, the rich and the super-rich blame the poor for being poor.

And they pay their spokesnakes, such as Glenn Asscrack and Rush Blowhard and Sarah Palin-Quayle, to put the message out there that it’s the poor people’s own damned fault that they’re poor. Even the poor children, too, according to you, Zac.

Lt. Gov. Efron, to clarify: Children don’t do poorly in school because they get free or reduced-cost lunches, if that is the point that you were trying to make. They tend to do poorly in school if they come from poverty-striken households, however. Their parents may not have had the education to be able to help their children very much, and their parents may not be able to afford things like books or other educational materials for the home. Working single parents may have little time and energy with which to help their children with school. 

Our mission — as Americans and as Christians, if we call ourselves Christians — is to help poor children, not to deny them free or reduced-cost school lunches, a la Ebenezer Scrooge.  

To suggest otherwise is unAmerican and unChristian.

I wholeheartedly support birth control. Abstinence clearly isn’t doing the trick. We get all of these immaculate conceptions even with abstinence. As I said, we need to reduce our population (by attrition; down, boy!). I’ve even used the term “breeder” myself to describe someone who irresponsibly brings a child into this already-overpopulated world.

But I don’t discriminate based upon socioeconomic class. Everyone needs to think twice about reproducing these days. Everyone.

But those children who already are here: We need to take care of them. Regardless of how we might judge their parents.

Only a Repugnican would assert otherwise.

I hope that your political career is over, Zac. Really, you deserve it.

P.S. The Associated Press notes that Bauer, age 40, was “a child of divorce who benefited from free [school] lunches himself.” That’s precious.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Urgent memo to Jerry Brown: Be a Scott Brown, not a Martha Coakley

Democrat Martha Coakley lost last week’s U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts in no small part because she thought that she had it in the bag to the point that she didn’t need to bother to seriously campaign.

Ironically, I have to wonder if Repugnican Scott Brown — who has replaced Democratic icon Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate — mimicked Team Obama’s Democratic primary season strategy of having campaigned in all of the geographic areas that Team Billary Clinton ignored. Billary apparently thought that she had it in the bag on name recognition alone and didn’t need to campaign very hard, especially not in the populous areas of the nation.

While Billary was snoozing like the hare in the fable of the tortoise and the hare, Team Obama, like the tortoise, slowly and steadily won the race. In the parable, by the time that the hare wakes up, the hare finds that it’s too late — the tortoise is just now crossing the finish line.

That happened to the slumbering Democrat Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, and if he doesn’t wake up oh, right about right now, the same is going to happen to Democrat California Attorney General Jerry Brown in his quest for the governorship of the nation’s most populous state.

I fear that Jerry Brown — who has yet to officially throw his hat into this year’s gubernatorial race (he has formed an exploratory committee; he could be bothered to do that much) — has believed that he has the governorship in the bag, as evidenced by the fact that he’s the only major gubernatorial contender who has yet to make his candidacy official.

Although of all of the contenders Jerry Brown would make the best governor, California’s voters — whom I think I know, since I’ve been living in the state’s capital since 1998 — will be turned off if Brown, like Coakley, takes their votes for granted.

I can see the state’s voters punishing Jerry Brown for real or perceived arrogance on his part and voting for a Repugnican, even though doing so undeniably would be in their worst interests.

California’s voters have demonstrated themselves to be capable of making incredibly stupid decisions at the ballot box.

They bought Repugnican Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign lies during the too-short gubernatorial recall election of 2003, and they re-elected him in 2006.

Now, according to The Sacramento Bee, Schwarzenegger’s approval rating among Californians has hit an all-time low, at only 27 percent. Almost 60 percent of Californian voters believe that the state is now worse off than it was when Schwarzenegger took the reins in 2003. Only 7 percent believe that the state is better off now than it was before his hostile takeover of the governorship in the bullshit recall election.

Californian voters also narrowly passed Proposition Hate — er, 8 — in November 2008, 52 percent to 48 percent. I expect the federal court that currently is hearing a case on Prop H8’s constitutionality to rule that the proposition indeed is unconstitutional.

Apparently, the majority of Californian voters aren’t constitutional lawyers. But we let them vote on vital constitutional matters anyway. Thank Goddess for checks and balances.

As anti-democratic as it sounds, the fact is that voters often make stupid, stupid decisions, and now that the same 5-4-tilted U.S. Supreme Court that crowned George W. Bush “president” has given corporations license to pour even more of their billions into pro-corporate election propaganda, voters will be making even dumber decisions, unless the saner Democratic U.S. Congress does something to counteract the top court’s incredibly bad, incredibly anti-democratic decision. (That’s strike two for this 5-4 right-wing court…)

But I digress.

Because California’s voters have soured on Schwarzenegger does not mean that Jerry Brown has it in the bag.

Another recent Sacramento Bee news story reports that Brown’s two Repugnican rivals have gained on him in the polls. His most serious Repugnican challenger, billionaire bitch Meg (that’s short for Megalomaniac) Whitman, who never has held elected office and who wants to buy the governorship and who would be even more disastrous for the state than Schwarzenegger has been, now trails Brown by only 10 percentage points (it’s 46 percent to 36 percent).

At least one of Brown’s supporters has remarked that Brown knows exactly what he’s doing.

“He’s very skilled, and he knows when to be patient and when not to be patient,” Democratic strategist Darry Sragow told the Bee of Brown. “It would be totally inadequate to equate Jerry’s low visibility as a candidate with taking a nap.”

I would love to think that Jerry Brown knows exactly what he’s doing, that he isn’t napping like the hare, but there’s way too much at stake for me or any other Californian who cares about the fate of the state to just assume that Team Jerry Brown knows what it’s doing.

Times have changed since Brown first was governor of the great state of California from January 1975 to January 1983. The state’s voters are, I think, much dumber now than they were then (in no small part due to the corporate propaganda, meant to mislead or at least to confuse the voters, that the U.S. Supreme Court loves so much).

Team Brown, I think, needs to realize that this is 2010, and that yes, a plurality or a majority of Californian voters are perfectly capable of voting in yet another Repugnican governor even though almost 60 percent of them believe that the current Repugnican governor has made things in the state worse instead of better.

Jerry Brown can’t campaign in California like Scott Brown could campaign in Massachusetts. California covers 163,696 square miles, making it the third-largest state in the nation in terms of land area, and California is home to about 37 million Americans, making it the most populous state in the nation. Massachusetts, by contrast, has only 10,555 square miles, making it the 44th-largest state in terms of land area, and with a population of about 6.6 million, it ranks at No. 15 in terms of population.

But the one thing that Jerry Brown can do is to not act like Martha Coakley and act as though he has the governorship in the bag.

That means formally announcing his candidacy sooner rather than later and campaigning as though he were behind in the polls.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Is Cindy sincere or is she just a poser?

You know, as a gay man and as a Generation X’er, I really don’t want to be used as a cause by baby boomers who are trying to make themselves appear to be young and hip again.

So when I read that baby boomer Cindy McCain has signed on to the “NOH8” project — which The Huffington Post describes as “a photo project in which subjects are photographed wearing white, against a white background, with their mouths taped shut and ‘NOH8’ [a pun on the hateful, anti-gay Californian Proposition 8] painted on their faces” — I was (and still am) skeptical. (And why duct tape? How about ball gags? Just a little suggestion…)

The “NOH8” image of Cindy McCain alone —

— looks heavily airbrushed. She was born in 1954, which puts her in her mid-50s. Why, then, at her age, is she trying to look like Britney Fucking Spears?

Does she care more about equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals or about appearing to be as young and hip as her daughter Meghan, who earlier posed for “NOH8”?:


And if Cindy cares so much about being on the side of good instead of on the side of evil, then why in the hell is she still married to John McCainosaurus, who, according to Yahoo! News, “despite the opinions of his wife and daughter … remains firmly in favor of Prop 8”?

I could never partner with a racist; how can Cindy McCain be so easily partnered with a homophobe? A hater is a hater.

Speaking of haters, I have been rather unkind to Cindy McCain in the past. When in February 2008 she insinuated that she is more patriotic than is Michelle Obama, I proclaimed that she “looks like a petrified Barbie doll.” Almost two years later, I still have to stand behind that observation…

Cindy, divorce the old man and divorce the Repugnican Party, and then I’ll believe that you’re sincere about doing the right thing.

Finally, a historical note for those who find it so shocking! that Cindy McCain! has come out in support! of same-sex marriage!: John McCainosaurus has modeled himself more after the late Arizonan political icon Barry Goldwater than probably anyone else, and Goldwater, before he died, came out in support of gay rights. (It probably didn’t hurt that his grandson is gay. Nancy Reagan, after all, came out in support of stem-cell research because Ronnie had Alzheimer’s, which stem-cell research might cure one day.)

The Goldwater Repugnicans tend to be warhawkish and are fiscally conservative, but believe, unlike the BushCheneyCorp Repugnicans, that the government should keep out of people’s private lives.

I can tolerate the Goldwater Repugnicans (and their cousins, the Libertarians) more than I can tolerate the socially conservative Repugs (whom I think of as the “American Taliban”). Unfortunately, the latter grossly outnumber the former…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized