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?
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 Salon.com’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.