Monthly Archives: February 2016

Black Lives Matter activist brilliantly brings Queen Billary Clinton to heel

"I'm not a Superpredator, Hillary!": Black Lives Matter protestors confront Clinton at South Carolina fundraiser

The video grab above shows brilliant and brave activist Ashley Williams crashing Billary Clinton’s $500-a-head fundraiser at a mansion in South Carolina on Wednesday, putting Billary’s own ugly, dehumanizing, racist words right in her own face. Unfortunately, Billary very most likely still will win South Carolina by double digits today.

I find it interesting that the crashing of Billary Clinton’s exclusive, $500-a-head fundraiser at a private mansion in South Carolina this past week by a Black Lives Matter activist hasn’t received nearly the same amount of mainstream media “news” coverage that the crashing of Bernie Sander’s public appearance in Seattle in August did.

Methinks that the members of the corporately owned and controlled “news” media believe that the corporation-friendly Billary is “inevitable,” even though with 46 more states to go after today, polls have her down to only 5 percent or 6 percent ahead of Bernie Sanders among Democrats and Democratic leaners nationally — her smallest lead over Bernie ever, and dropping (see here and here) — and they don’t want to lose access to the “future” President Billary by pissing her off with any unflattering coverage now.

I note, first, that Black Lives Matter isn’t monolithic, that BLM has little to no control over who calls him- or herself a BLM activist, and that among BLM’s ranks are astute activists and, um, much less thoughtful slacktivists. The latter type crashed Bernie’s appearance in Seattle in August.

I mean, there are important differences between the two events.

In the August event, the two BLM (or self-identifying BLM) slacktivists’ main problem with Bernie apparently was (and probably still is) that he’s not black. (Yes, that is racist.) They had no coherent message or specific complaints about anything that Bernie had done or said himself. And they called the crowd of their allies gathered to hear Bernie speak “white supremacist liberals,” a wonderful touch, especially when words such as those were spoken by apparent black supremacists.

Also, of course, no one had been asked for a penny to hear Bernie Sanders speak that day at the city park in Seattle. And their constitutional (First-Amendment) right to gather peaceably was infringed upon by the BLM slacktivists, as was Bernie Sanders’ First-Amendment right to speak (and the audience’s First-Amendment right to hear him speak and perhaps ask him questions).

You don’t get to violate others’ constitutional rights like that, and the two self-identifying BLM morons who commandeered Sanders’ appearance at that city park in Seattle in August should have been asked to leave by law enforcement and then hauled away if they refused, as the constitutional rights of the many do actually outweigh the “rights”* of the few — even in “white-supremacist-liberal” Seattle.

But the slacktivists were not, to my knowledge, even asked to leave, and they certainly weren’t physically forced to leave. No one put hands on them, and ultimately Sanders left the venue in exasperation, without giving his planned speech.

By contrast, the pay-to-play Billary Clinton fundraiser that a lone BLM activist, Ashley Williams, crashed on Wednesday was at a private residence in Charleston, South Carolina. Indeed, the foyer in which Billary was blathering is reminiscent of the Southern mansion featured in the movie “Borat” in which Sacha Baron Cohen as Borat brings a woman posing as a black hooker to dinner, to the shock and horror of his white dinner hosts.

As Billary pontificated at her fundraiser on Wednesday, apparently on the topic of how much she cares about black people, Williams unfurled a sign that read, “We have to bring them to heel,” words that Billary spoke in a January 1996 speech that she gave in New Hampshire. (More fully, she said in that speech: “They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”)

Of course, the quotation is an excellent example of how Billary and Billy Boy always have tailored their words for their audience. Billary’s audience on that day in New Hampshire in January 1996 apparently was an all-white or mostly-white crowd, and apparently the topic was “criminal” “justice.” (Similarly, she told a crowd in Ohio just in September that she’s “moderate and center.” Today, she is a “progressive.”)

On Wednesday at that swank home in Charleston, Ashley Williams, apparently the only black person there at the fundraiser, said to Billary, “I’m not a super-predator, Hillary Clinton,” and “Can you apologize to black people for mass incarceration?”

If you want to see an actual crowd of “white supremacist liberals,” look at how the people at the swank fundraiser reacted to Williams. And unlike happened at Bernie’s event in August, hands were put upon Williams and she was physically escorted out.

Thankfully, it was captured on video and released for all of the world to see. It’s graphic evidence of the usually-secret world of the limousine liberal, the rich, usually white, person who talks about caring about the disadvantaged and the dispossessed but whose actions and luxurious lifestyle reveal something else altogether.

Oh, I’m not claiming that Ashley Williams didn’t violate anyone else’s rights at that tony Charleston house on Wednesday — I mean, I suppose that we could talk about a “right” to dutifully listen to Billary Clinton robotically drone on and on about how she cares about some group of people when all that she ever has cared about is power and money for herself and her close circle — but it was a brilliant piece of activism.

It was, entirely unlike the August debacle in Seattle, well thought-out. Williams paid the $500 to be able to be there among the almost-all-white limousine liberals and then she unfurled a banner with rather devastating words that the then-first lady had uttered herself. I mean, you talk about dogs “heeling,” not human beings. The term “super-predator” also is quite dehumanizing. 

And yes, Bill and Billary Clinton, because of her support for him, indeed are responsible for the fact that today we have and for far too many years now we have had way too many non-white men and women behind bars for “crimes” that did not involve physical violence (especially drug “crimes”).

Williams appropriately called Billary out on her hypocrisy and lies. What Williams was exposing was far more important than were the lies that Billary mechanically, second-naturedly was spewing at that fundraiser for rich people to be able to rub elbows with Queen Billary Herself (and even get selfies with Billary with which to impress their friends and family members!).

So bravo, Ashley Williams! You are one hell of an activist. You are brave, and your critique of Billary was fair, dead-on and devastating.

Unfortunately, I still expect Billary Clinton to win the South Carolina primary by double digits today.

Sadly, even if Williams had exposed Billary significantly earlier, I don’t think that it would have lost South Carolina (and the rest of the South) for her.

I mean, people who vote for and otherwise support Billary (unless they are rich) inherently are pretty fucking stupid — to vote against your own best interests, you have to be pretty fucking stupid — and so they are immune to facts and to the evidence (even evidence on video, like Ashley Williams’ gem) that Billary Clinton is, at best, just another Repugnican Lite.

*I use quotation marks because violating others’ First-Amendment rights is not a right.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Billary’s nationwide favorability is underwater by double digits; yes, lemming, that’s a looming cliff you see

Why Does Hillary Clinton Keep Having Coughing Fits?

A Quinnipiac University poll of more than 1,300 registered voters nationwide that was taken earlier this month found that only 37 percent of American voters favor Billary Clinton while a whopping 58 percent do not favor her — and that 51 percent of American voters favor Bernie Sanders, while only 36 percent do not. Billary’s favorability is underwater by 21 percentage points, whereas Bernie is liked by 15 percentage points more than he is disliked. Billary is popular enough within the calcified Democratic Party establishment, especially within the identity groups that she has pandered to for years, but how in the hell can she win the White House without being favored by even 40 percent of the American electorate?*

Yesterday I saw at least two headlines on Yahoo! News referring to Billary Clinton’s “big” win in Nevada. Um, per Politico, with 95.3 percent reporting, Billary garnered 52.7 percent to Bernie Sanders’ 47.2 percent in the Nevada caucuses yesterday. That’s a whopping difference of 5.5 percent.

I’d call it a fairly definitive win — it was not as close as Iowa was, with a difference of not even 0.5 percent; it was not close enough, as Iowa was, for us to publicly wonder about shenanigans — but a “big” win?

To me, a “big” win would have to be at least in the double digits. Bernie Sanders’ 22-percent victory in New Hampshire, for instance — that was a big win.

But we Amuricans love our presidential horse-race drama and, of course, there are plenty of Billarybots working within the media who are all too happy to spin a 5.5-percent win as a “big” one.

The fact is, Billary was expected to do much better in Nevada than she did, and her nationwide polling numbers continue to drop (gone is her double-digit national lead), no doubt a reflection of the fact that more registered voters dislike her than like her — by double digits.

Real Clear Politics’ average of nationwide polls of Democrats and Democratic leaners gives Billary only a 5.6 percent lead, the lowest lead that she’s ever had over Bernie nationwide, to my knowledge.

(You know, I noted yesterday that Nevada very apparently is pretty representative of the nation, and look — Billary won Nevada by 5.5 percent yesterday and RCP’s average of nationwide polls of Dems and Dem leaners right now has her up by 5.6 percent. Yup. I rest my case.)

If you don’t trust Real Clear Politics (I do — they’re pretty solid and they are widely quoted), know that The Huffington Post’s average of nationwide polling of Dems and Dem leaners right now gives Billary only a 7.4 percent lead over Bernie nationwide.

If 7.4 percent seems pretty good to you, look at the HuffPo’s current graph of the nationwide polling in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary battle; look at the trending:

The chart begins on January 12, 2015, at which time Billary’s lead over Bernie was 56.8 percent. Again, now she isn’t even 10 percent ahead of Bernie nationwide.

Nevada was only the third state to weigh in, after Iowa and New Hampshire, and Billary won Nevada narrowly, yet’s otherwise thoughtful Jamelle Bouie has claimed that because she won Nevada, “Clinton has the advantage, and barring a catastrophic decline with black voters, she’ll march steadily to the nomination.” (He hedgingly acknowledges that “This doesn’t mean the campaign is over” and that “Sanders is still a formidable candidate.”)

But it seems manic as well as grossly premature for one to declare in a fairly close two-person race that whichever candidate won the latest battle (and only the third battle — out of 50 battles) inevitably is going to win the war that probably is going to go on for some weeks to come. And with the headline and subheadline of Bouie’s piece — “Hillary Clinton’s Path Is Clear: Barring a catastrophe, her nomination is inevitable” — that is what Bouie, or at least, has done. (The teaser for Bouie’s piece on’s home page is more direct; it reads: “Winning Nevada Makes Hillary Clinton’s Nomination Virtually Inevitable.” How is that not declaring the winner after only three states have weighed in?)

I’m seeing news of Billary’s “big” win in Nevada, and the “inevitability” argument has resurfaced after Billary won Nevada by a not-huge margin of 5.5 percent, but I’m not seeing a lot of attention to the fact that we still have 47 states to go and that Billary is sinking and Bernie is surging in the nationwide polls — and that there remains plenty of time for Billary to continue to slip in the polls, even if there isn’t a “catastrophe,” such as a federal indictment of Billary for her criminal mishandling of national secrets. (I mean, a home-brewed e-mail server. When you are the U.S. secretary of state. Wow. She has gotten the pass on this that she has only because of her dynastic surname. If it were you or I…)

At any rate, I repeat: Bernie is rising and Billary is dropping in the nationwide polls of Dems and Dem leaners, and we have 47 more states and several more weeks to go in the Democraitc Party presidential primary contest.

Let’s calm the fuck down and let the democratic process play itself out.

We Amuricans are so fucking impatient for a winner that we’ll declare the “winner” 3/50th of the fucking way in.

As far as the upcoming state No. 4 is concerned, I never will understand why South Carolina is considered to be so fucking pivotal in the 2016 Democratic Party primary race. It’s an incredibly backasswards state — home to the likes of white-supremacist mass murderer Dylann Storm Roof and the first state to secede from the Union — a bright-red state (the last time that a Democratic presidential candidate won South Carolina was Jimmy Carter in 1976), and it is not at all indicative of the Democratic Party’s traditional (that is, progressive) values and beliefs.

So Billary will win the backasswards, ultra-red state of South Carolina on Saturday. Big fucking whoop. It’s nothing to brag about; it only demonstrates what a progressive she isn’t.

As far as the all-important-according-to-the-Billarybots black vote goes, I have three things to say about that:

One, presumably black people were included in the nationwide polls of Dems and Dem leaners, which show Billary losing ground and Bernie gaining ground nationwide. (Duh.) I don’t deny that Billary has an edge on Bernie with black voters (which she inherited from her hubby, our “first black president” [shudder]), but will that edge be her lifesaver? I think that that question is far from settled. Yet again, we have 47 more states and several more weeks to go.

Secondly, Latinos are the nation’s largest non-white racial minority group, not blacks. The black-white binary conception of race in the United States is outdated. So ingrained is this false racial binary within the United States, especially among the older set, that Latinos and Asians (and other non-whites and non-blacks) are pretty much overlooked altogether by white supremacists and by black supremacists, who fairly literally see only black and white.

Because of the shifting racial demographics of the U.S., increasingly, it is the support of Latino Americans that is crucial to winning elections, especially national elections and regional elections with high populations of Latino Americans. With each successive presidential primary and presidential general election, Latino Americans will have more of an influence and black Americans (and white Americans too, of course) will have less. If black Americans truly are the Democratic Party presidential nomination kingmakers that they so widely are said to be now, I don’t see that status lasting for long.

Finally, black Americans, just as are all Americans of every stripe, are perfectly free to vote against their own best interests, such as by voting for a pseudo-progressive like Billary Clinton. I, for one, am not going to beg anyone to vote for the candidate who fairly clearly would be best for his or her own interests. (And the more that you try to convince someone who is not very bright not to do a stupid thing, the more likely, it seems to me, that he or she will do it.)

If black Americans do indeed prove to be instrumental in winning the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination for Billary — only to have her lose in November to the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate (an event that is quite predictable) — I won’t be happy with them (to put it mildly), as I wasn’t happy (to put it mildly) with the 70 percent of black Californians who quite homophobically voted against same-sex marriage in California with Proposition Hate, but with a Repugnican Tea Party president in the White House in January 2017, they will suffer the consequences of their piss-poor judgment just as I and everyone else who isn’t super-rich will suffer. (Only I can see that suffering coming now, so I won’t be blindsided by it, like they will be.)

No, I don’t assert that Bernie Sanders could come into the Oval Office with his magic socialist wand, wave it a few times, and magically make everything all better for black (and other) Americans.

But I do believe that he would at least try, and that he would try hard, and that he would try a lot harder to fight socioeconomic injustice than Barack Obama ever truly tried. (The hopey-changey Obama can give a good speech, and that’s about it.)

One thing that I and most black Americans do agree upon, if we can’t agree upon Billary Clinton (and apparently we can’t), is that we’d rather not that the next occupant of the Oval Office be of the Repugnican Tea Party.

But, again, the presidential match-up polls show (and have shown for a long time now) that Bernie Sanders can do better against the Repugnican Tea Party presidential contenders than can the widely nationally despised Billary Clinton.

Take a look at Billary’s nationwide favorability numbers (such as the recent Quinnipiac University poll that found that only 37 percent of all Americans favor her while 58 percent disfavor her) and compare them to Bernie’s (such as the same poll that found that 51 percent of Americans favor him while 36 percent do not).

Go ahead; be you a “feminist” (who doesn’t want to go to hell), be you a black American, be you an LGBT American (as I am), be you whoever you are: Support Billary Clinton, who does well enough among Democrats (especially Democratic Party hacks, who are legion) but who is fairly reviled by a solid majority of all American voters.

On the night of Election Day in November, when Billary loses by a large-enough margin that we won’t have to stay up that late for the winner of the presidential election to be called, I will tell you: I told you so.**

*That mostly was a rhetorical question, but the match-up polls suggest that of the top three Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidates — Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz — the only one of these three Billary can beat is Trump, by only about 3 percentage points. Trump’s recent Quinnipiac University poll numbers are quite similar to Billary’s —37 percent favor him while 57 percent do not.

**And mostly, no, I will not derive any pleasure from that.

And you won’t admit that you were wrong for having supported the detested Billary Clinton, and you certainly won’t apologize, because being an Amurican means never admitting it when you are/were wrong, and it certainly means never apologizing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

With narrow Nevada win, Billary is one step closer to losing the White House

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton arrives with former President Bill Clinton to give a victory speech at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas Saturday, Feb. 20, 2016. Clinton edged out Bernie Sanders on Saturday in Nevada's Democratic caucuses, capitalizing on a more diverse Democratic electorate to propel her to a critical win and give her momentum as the presidential campaign shifts toward the South. (Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus via AP)

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (R) and husband Bill Clinton (L) wave to a cheering crowd after winning the Nevada democratic caucus at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada on February 20, 2016

Las Vegas Sun/Associated Press and AFP photos

Billary Clinton celebrates her relatively narrow win in today’s caucuses in Nevada. (Of course Billy Boy is there, since she needs all of the help with likability that she can muster.) However, Bernie Sanders beats or at least ties all of the Repugnican Tea Party presidential contenders in match-up polling, whereas Billary in match-up polling loses to Ted Cruz and to Marco Rubio — and even to John Kasich. The lemming-like Billarybots fairly clearly have us all headed for a cliff.

Unfortunately, apparently Democrat in name only Billary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses today. With 82.7 percent reporting, Politico reports as I type this sentence, it’s 52.4 percent for Billary to 47.5 percent for Bernie — a difference of just under 5 percent.

The Billarybots can celebrate today, but Nevada demonstrates that about half of the Democratic Party and those of us who lean toward the party don’t want Billary as our standard-bearer in November.

And yes, the state of Nevada apparently is fairly representative of the nation as a whole. As Wikipedia notes of Nevada:

Nevada has voted for the winner in every presidential election since 1912, except in 1976, when it voted for Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter. This includes Nevada supporting Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Republican George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and Democrat Barack Obama winning the state in both 2008 and 2012. This gives the state status as a political bellwether. Since 1912, Nevada has been carried by the presidential victor the most out of any state (25 of 26 elections).

Nevada also is a purple state — yes, Obama won it in 2008 and 2012, but George W. Bush won it in 2000 and 2004. Its governor is a Repugnican and one of its two U.S. senators is a Repugnican. So a blue state it ain’t.

Considering that fact, democratic socialist Bernie Sanders did well in Nevada today.

Billary very most likely will win the South Carolina primary a week from today, and so apparently she gets to go into “Super Tuesday” on March 1 having two clear wins under her belt (Nevada and South Carolina) to one clear win for Bernie (New Hampshire) and a tie (Iowa, although of course the Billarybots won’t admit that Iowa was a tie).

“Super Tuesday,” on which 11 states hold primary elections and caucuses, will be a real test for Bernie, but whether Bernie ultimately wins the Democratic Party nomination or not, that he has done as well as he has thus far demonstrates that Billary Clinton is not a strong candidate.

Billary is going on her surname and the widespread belief that “it’s her turn,” as well as the belief of the New Feminists that women who don’t vote for other women like they’re told to go to hell (one wonders: Did this “feminist” fatwa also apply to the likes of Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina?), but the one critical thing that Billary doesn’t have is very much enthusiasm among the electorate, which probably will put the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate, whoever it turns out to be, into the White House if Billary is the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee.

If you think that I’m just being a “Bernie bro”/Chicken Little, know that while Billary beats Donald Trump in polling match-ups (but only by about 3 percentage points), she loses to Marco Rubio (by almost 5 percentage points) and even to Ted Cruz (and get this: John Kasich beats Billary by more than 7 percentage points).

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, in the match-up polling beats or at least ties ALL of the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidates. (He beats Trump by almost 8 percentage points, beats Cruz by almost 5 percent, ties Rubio and beats Kasich, although admittedly not by a lot.)

Chew on that fact, Billarybots!

So yes, it’s quite possible that Billary wins the Democratic Party nomination but then loses in November. Not only is it quite possible, but I’d say that it’s more likely than not to happen if she wins the nomination.

The Repugnican Tea Party traitors, after eight years of “socialist” Barack Obama, will be a lot hungrier in November than will the Democrats. They will vote.

If Billary wins the Democratic Party presidential nomination, I — and many, many other Berners — won’t vote for her in November. That’s all that there is to it. And I don’t care what anyone thinks of me.*

The Democratic Party has become a shell, a husk of its former self, a pro-plutocratic, pro-corporate Repugnican Lite Party, and I cannot and I will not support it as it is now.

I am a registered Democrat now only so that I can vote for Bernie Sanders when California finally has its primary in June. (Even if he has dropped out of the primary race by then, if he still is on my primary-election ballot, I’m still voting for him.)

Billary Clinton at a “town hall” recently criticized Bernie Sanders’ past criticisms of “Democratic” sellouts, saying, “Maybe it’s because Senator Sanders wasn’t really a Democrat until he decided to run for president.” (She was booed by the audience, deservedly.)**

Bernie isn’t an actual Democrat but Billary Clinton is? Oh, really?

As a true progressive his entire time in Congress, I’d say that for some decades now Bernie Sanders has been one of only a relative handful of true Democrats in Congress. Center-right sellouts like Billary use the label “Democrat,” but true Democrats they are not.

Billary the uber-harpy can entertain herself and her “fem”bots with her bullshit charge that she’s the true Democrat. Fuck her. I’m not voting for her, giving her a penny, or supporting her in any way whatsofuckingever.

Unlike the legions of Billarybots, who are too fucking stupid to vote in their own best fucking interests, I, for one, will not help Billary Clinton to screw me, the common American, even more than she and her Democrat-in-name-only ilk already have, at least ever since she and her DINO husband turned the once-progressive Democratic Party into a slightly paler imitation of the Repugnican Party in the 1990s.

Fact is, come January 2017 I’d rather have a Repugnican Tea Party president than a President Billary. I’d rather deal with the obvious wolf than the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

If it takes another disastrous Repugnican Tea Party White House administration to finally drive a stake through the heart of The Vampire Clinton, then so be it.

I want the Democratic Party back, and it won’t come back with Billary Clinton in the White House.

*Fact is, if Billary is the Democratic Party presidential candidate, in November she will win my very blue state of California and all of its 50-plus electoral votes anyway. Therefore, my vote already doesn’t count, not really.

All of the fucktards who quite ignorantly would say that by refusing to vote for Billary I helped the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate to win sorely need Civics 101, including education on how the U.S. president is chosen by the Electoral College (which sorely needs to be abolished), not by a popular vote.

**For years my party registration has alternated between the Green Party and the Democratic Party, and that’s because the Democratic Party establishment makes me want to vomit.

So when Queen Billary slams Bernie for not embracing the craven Democratic Party establishment, which hasn’t deserved our support for many years, she slams millions of us Americans who are left of center and who want to vote on the Democratic Party ticket but who are disgusted with how far to the right the Clintons and their DINO ilk have dragged the party, which once stood for progressivism and for good, but which now stands for regressivism and for greed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Firewall,’ schmirewall: Could Billary be on the brink of spectacular collapse?

Billary Clinton must be shitting her pantsuit right about now.

Polls have the Nevada caucuses, which take place this Saturday, at a statistical tie between Billary and Bernie Sanders, and Billary’s lead in nationwide polling is dropping while Bernie continues to surge nationally.

Real Clear Politics’ average of the admittedly-too-few recent polls of Nevada right now has Billary at 46.5 percent and Bernie at 46 percent. The Huffington Post’s average of the Nevada polling right now has Billary at 48 percent and Bernie at 47 percent.

Bernie very well might take Nevada.

Real Clear Politics’ average of the nationwide polling right now has Billary only 12.8 percent ahead of Bernie, whereas HuffPo’s average of the nationwide polling right now has Billary up only 7.7 percent on Bernie.

If that doesn’t mean much to you, here is HuffPo’s graph that illustrates the trending in nationwide polling starting from January 12, 2015, to the present:

On January 12, 2015, the graph’s beginning, Billary stood at 60.8 percent to Bernie’s 4 percent.

Today, they stand at 48.2 percent to 40.5 percent. Um, yeah.

Team Billary’s propaganda has been that sure, Bernie would do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but then rather immediately thereafter, he would crash and burn once he hit Billary’s “firewall.”

But Bernie might take Nevada, which would throw iced water on Billary’s post-Iowa-and-New-Hampshire “firewall,” dealing Team Billary a crushing blow.

Even if Billary takes South Carolina on February 27 — I expect her to, since RCP right now has her leading there by 21.2 percent and HuffPo right now has her leading there by 23.3 percent — if Bernie wins Nevada, I expect Billary’s “firewall” to collapse; South Carolina would prove to be an outlier, not the rule.

(If Bernie actually ekes out a win in South Carolina, then Billary definitely is toast, but again, unless something big happens between now and then, such as a federal indictment of Billary, I expect her to win South Carolina.)

As the Huffington Post’s graph of nationwide polling from January 2015 to the present indicates, the more that people learn about Billary and Bernie, the less they like her and the more they like him.

“Saturday Night Live” already has called the Democratic Party presidential primary battle, it seems to me. It recently had Billary Clinton singing Bonnie Raitt’s “I Can’t Make You Love Me” to Berners:


Pretty much.

I don’t agree with all of the sentiments expressed in the skit, such as that Billary is the most qualified candidate for president we’ve ever had (oh, please) and that we Berners don’t go on substance but only on “vibe” (methinks that we go on both) — the writers wrote this bullshit, I have to suspect, to be able to say that they were “fair and balanced” to both candidates — but overall it captures where we’re at.

That said, as I’ve written before, what does it say of Billary that her strength is in the South? The South reflects the Repugnican Tea Party’s values and beliefs much, much more than it does the values and beliefs of the base of the Democratic Party.

I, for one, never would brag about being the darling of the South.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ding-dong! Antonin Scalia is DEAD!

Updated below

FILE - In this June 17, 1986 file photo, President Ronald Reagan speaks at a news briefing at the White House in Washington, where he announced the nomination of Antonin Scalia, left, to the Supreme Court as a result of Chief Justice Warren E. Burger's resignation. William Rehnquist is at right. On Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016, the U.S. Marshals Service confirmed that Justice Scalia has died at the age of 79. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

Associated Press file photo

Hell has a new resident. The freshly late Antonin Scalia, left, is shown with then-President Ronald Reagan and then-U.S. Supreme Court “Justice” William Rehnquist at a press conference in the White House in June 1986 at which Reagan announced his nomination of Scalia to the Supreme Court. Scalia — who, among others things, took issue with “the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture” and the “homosexual agenda,” and who believed that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee abortion rights but that it does support the death penalty (even for minors and for mentally retarded individuals), and who blatantly treasonously and anti-democratically put George W. Bush into the White House even though he had lost the 2000 presidential election to Al Gore — does not somehow magically become angelic in death, since everyone dies.


Fascist U.S. Supreme Court “Justice” Antonin Scalia was found dead this morning, apparently of natural causes, at a luxury ranch resort near Marfa, Texas, at age 79 after he hadn’t shown up for breakfast. At the time of his death he had been the longest-serving of the current members of the court. He was nominated by one of our worst presidents, Ronald Reagan, and mind-blowingly unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1986.

So President Barack Obama gets to nominate another U.S. Supreme Court justice, apparently.

Hopefully this means that 5-4 decisions from the nation’s highest court from here on out will mean decisions that lean to the left rather than to the right, as has been the case for far too long now.

P.S. Years ago, I saw Scalia speak at the University of Arizona in Tucson. I don’t remember most of what he said, as it was so long ago, but I do recall his defense of his strict, supposedly “originalist” interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and his wholehearted rejection of the view of the Constitution as a living document, which must evolve with the demands of the times.

I recall a woman in the audience lambasting him for his cold-bloodedness during the Q-and-A. His “defense” of his far-right-wing position on constitutional matters was something like, “Do you really want people like me deciding what the Constitution is all about?” (Sadly and pathetically, this “argument” seemed to disarm the angry woman, who then actually apologized to him.)

Anyway, that’s what Scalia did anyway during his time on the U.S. Supreme Court: he interpreted the Constitution to fit his own, far-right-wing political ideology, which included preventing the expansion of freedom beyond those who belong to the elite and otherwise defending the socioeconomic status quo. (It’s only an “activist” judge if it’s a left-leaning judge, you see.)

Update: This was predictable: Politico reports that Repugnican Tea Party Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says that Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court should not be filled until after the presidential election in November.


President Barack Obama still has more than 11 full months in office. (Inauguration Day will be January 20, 2017.)

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” the tortoise-like McConnell fascistically proclaimed in a statement.

The American people have had a voice. They elected Barack Obama twice. When they elected Obama for a second term in November 2012, they knew fully well (or should have known, anyway) that he would have the power to nominate, if necessary, a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court during his second term.

The Constitution says that the president nominates, and that the Senate must confirm, all new justices to the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any constitutional (or other legal) deadline for this process once there is a vacancy. However, the suggestion of the traitors who comprise the Repugnican Tea Party that President Obama should be deprived of the president’s constitutional privilege of nominating an individual to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court is yet another example of their treason and their treasonous hatred of democracy when the democratic process does not go their way (such as their full support of the blatant electoral theft of the White House in 2000).

Surely if Obama were a Repugnican Tea Party president in his last year in office (and if he were white), the Repugnican Tea Party traitors would demand that any vacancy on the nation’s highest court be filled ASAP, presidential election year or not. They would argue that our democratic process demands it.

Fucking hypocrites.

Holding up the replacement of the abominable Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court when the duly-twice-elected President Obama has more than 11 months to go would be yet another anti-democratic act of war — and treason — against the American people and should be reacted to accordingly.

More than enough is more than enough!


Filed under Uncategorized

Michael Moore’s ‘invasion’ of other nations for their ideas is worth the trip

Film review

Michael Moore horrifies French public schoolchildren with his French and with his graphic depictions of typical American public school lunches in his latest film, “Where to Invade Next.”

Michael Moore’s “Where to Invade Next” is both familiar and unfamiliar territory. It contains Moore’s deadpan humor that had me laughing out loud many times (as well as a few jokes that don’t work quite as well), but at the same time it’s a new direction for Moore, whose approach apparently has mellowed a bit with age and whose tactic, at least in this film, is not to critique the United States so much (although there is plenty of well-deserved criticism of the U.S. in “Where to Invade Next”) but to compare aspects of it to the much more successful aspects of other nations.

These aspects include public education, health care, workers’ rights and benefits (including paid vacation time and paid family leave time — and yes, two-hour lunches), criminal justice (including the “war on drugs” and white-collar crime [which in the U.S. goes mostly unpunished]) and women’s rights.

In “Where to Invade Next” Moore travels to (in alphabetical order) Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and Tunisia, symbolically planting the U.S. flag in those nations in order to claim their good ideas, much how American colonizers planted the American flag to claim others’ land.

Ironically, we find that the United States actually was the inspiration for many of other nations’ good ideas; it’s that over the past several decades, as the American people have been sold out further and further to treasonous, corporate interests — and as we, the American people, collectively have just allowed this to happen — other nations have improved themselves to the point that now they kick our ass in the area of social welfare (“welfare” as in human well-being, not as in “gubmint handouts”) while the United States has become pathetic, sad and even despicable in how much it just allows its own people to struggle.

In “Where to Invade Next” Moore at least somewhat addresses the United States’ out-of-control military spending, but some graphic graphs, like these — 

— might have helped drive the point home.

A basic point that “Where to Invade Next” doesn’t make nearly enough is that the United States of America has the resources to keep every individual on its soil afloat, but that our corporately owned and controlled elected officials choose instead to squander our (ournot their) collective resources on the U.S. military, our No. 1 sacred cow. And we, the people, just allow them to fuck us over like this; we buy their fear-mongering bullshit that they must treasonously funnel our money to themselves (via the bloated-beyond-belief U.S. military) by spooking us, à la 1984, with ever-changing Bogeymen from overseas.

Indeed, in the last Democratic Party presidential debate, when asked about looking at federal spending, she-hawk Billary Clinton certainly didn’t propose to cut the military budget, and Bernie Sanders, as an apparent afterthought, dared only to go so far as to suggest that we look at the military budget; he did not dare to call for a substantial cut to it.

“Where to Invade Next” also is a refreshing paean to feminism, and I agree wholeheartedly that we need far more women in positions of power on the national and on the global stage, that the nation and the world would be a much better place if this were the case.

However, we can’t lump all women together, and “Where to Invade Next” pretty much does that. All women are not the same. Here in the United States, for instance, we have the true feminists, such as Elizabeth Warren, and we have the women who call themselves feminists but who act just like the stupid, selfish, short-sighted men who have been destroying this nation (and the world) for some decades now — women like Billary Clinton, who is as truly feminist as are the likes of Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina.

I’m not saying that women may not be gargantuan assholes just like some men are (true equality, I suppose, would have to guarantee that “right”); I’m saying that these she-assholes don’t fit my own definition of feminism, which necessitates a concern for the collective (and, indeed, for the entire planet) and not just a concern primarily for oneself.

Otherwise, feminism is pointless and is no different from the malevolent spirit of the patriarchy that has been destroying the very planet for some time now. (What I have dubbed “the New Feminism” just adopts the worst aspects of the patriarchy and calls itself “feminism” because its perpetrators are female instead of male. The vast majority of the Billarybots, for instance, are New Feminists, not true feminists.)

I won’t regurgitate the unfolding of “Where to Invade Next,” since other reviews of it do that and since I think it would ruin it for you; I think that you’ll enjoy your travels with Michael Moore much more if I don’t tell you what to expect every step of the way.

But I will say that while “Where to Invade Next” in my book isn’t Moore’s best film (although it’s hard to compare it to his past films, since it largely is a departure from them), it’s worth taking the trip with him.

Every exposure to other nations’ culture we Americans should take advantage of. Indeed, as one woman who is interviewed by Moore puts it, we Americans are too busy claiming that We Are No. 1! to be able to realize that in many areas of human life, other nations actually do it much, much better than we do.

So “Where to Invade Next” already starts on a strong foundation of exposing Americans to other cultures, and with Moore’s film-making talents, that’s an added layer of worth.

My grade: B+

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Live-blogging the sixth Dem debate

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., right, raises a fist as he arrives for a breakfast meeting with Al Sharpton at Sylvia's Restaurant, Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2016, in the Harlem neighborhood of New York. Sanders defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday in the New Hampshire primary. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Associated Press photo

I don’t know that Bernie Sanders had to kiss kingmaker and gatekeeper wannabe Al Sharpton’s ring yesterday, but Sanders does respond to political necessities. Sadly, though, while we commoners get bogged down in our relatively petty identity politics, fighting each other for scraps of scraps, we miss the larger picture, which is that we continue our collective socioeconomic decline — which is perfectly A-OK with the elites of both the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party, because if we’re fighting each other then the status quo is unthreatened, and the status quo has been pretty good for them.

So the sixth Democratic Party presidential debate is scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time, 9:00 p.m. Eastern time. It’s being moderated by PBS NewsHour anchors Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff (no Chuck Todd, thankfully), is being held at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, and is being carried by both PBS and CNN.

With South Carolina looming as the next big battleground (its presidential primary election is on February 27), tonight I expect racial concerns, especially those of black Americans, to come front and center, with Billary Clinton boasting establishmentarian black support, such as the predictable support of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Bernie Sanders boasting the support of the (mostly) less establishmentarian set within the black community, including former NAACP President and CEO Ben Jealous, Cornel West, U.S. Rep. Keith EllisonHarry Belafonte, Ta-Nehisi Coates*, Wade Davis and Erica Garner, daughter of Eric Garner, who was murdered by cop in New York in July 2014.

5:58 p.m. (all times Pacific Time): The debate is about to begin.

6:04 p.m.: Bernie Sanders gives his opening statement. He reminds us how far he has come in the past nine months. “The American people have responded to a series of basic truths,” he proclaims, talking about “the corrupt campaign finance system,” “a rigged economy” and “almost all new income and all new wealth” going to the top 1 percent, and a criminal justice system out of control. “The American people are tired of establishment politics, tired of establishment economics” and want a revolution, he says.

6:07 p.m.: Billary’s turn. (She looks awful in yellow. Who let her wear yellow?) Anyway, Billary says that “Americans haven’t had a raise in 15 years” and concedes that the system is rigged. She says she supports campaign finance reform and says we can’t allow Wall Street to wreck the economy again. She now is pandering to black Americans. She wants to be the panderer in chief… Billary’s words now just don’t jibe with her actual record. She’s now reduced to mimicking Bernie because his campaign message has been a winning message for him.

6:09 p.m.: A break already…

6:11 p.m.: Judy Woodruff asks Bernie how much bigger the federal government would be in the lives of average Americans under his presidency.

Bernie says every American should be guaranteed health care, and that his plan would save the average family $5,000 a year on health-care costs. He says he wants free or nearly free college and university tuition, and that he wants us to improve our infrastructure.

It is the role of the federal government to ensure that all Americans have a decent standard of living, Bernie states.

6:13 p.m.: Billary, sounding like the fear-mongering right-winger that she is, says that Bernie’s plans would expand the federal government by 40 percent. I don’t believe that.

Billary again reminds us that she’s the pragmatist in this race, and that No, We Can’t. How she still thinks that is a winning message eludes me completely.

6:15 p.m.: Billary reminds us that she’s a “staunch” supporter of “Obamacare.” She says that “Medicare for all”/single payer would supplant Obamacare, since Obamacare is based within the insurance system.

Well, yeah, we need nationalized health care, so Obamacare and all of the insurance companies can go. That’s fine. Just because it has Obama’s name on it — who cares? People need and deserve health care, which, as Sanders says, is a right, not a privilege.

6:18 p.m.: Billary again claims that trying for health care for all would be too contentious and too difficult to pass in Congress. Her stupid supporters in the audience actually cheer this bullshit, like chickens cheering for Colonel Saunders.

6:20 p.m.: Billary says that there is widespread skepticism of the federal government, including even from the left, which isn’t true. This is a right-wing talking point, not a progressive one.

6:22 p.m.: Bernie talks about how he would pay for his proposals, including closing tax loopholes and taxing Wall Street. He says he has a way to pay for all of his proposals.

6:24 p.m.: Bernie says that a college degree is necessary in today’s world, and since we cover K-12 education, we should cover college and university education, too. Yup.

6:25 p.m.: Judy reminds Billary that more women in New Hampshire voted for Bernie than for her… Billary gives a mostly non-substantive response, and then notes that three of the four people on the debate stage are women.

6:27 p.m.: Bernie says his campaign is about bringing all Americans together and reminds us that he’s always been pro-choice and that he opposes disparity in pay between men and women and supports paid leave for all families.

6:29 p.m.: Billary says she doesn’t ask people to vote for her because she’s a woman, and then immediately reminds us that Planned Parenthood and NARAL both endorsed her. Well, yeah, they endorsed her primarily because she is a woman… I support their missions (while disagreeing with their endorsement of Billary), but let’s be real about that.

6:32 p.m.: Over-incarceration is now the topic. A black male born today stands a one in four chance of being incarcerated, Bernie says. Four times as many blacks are arrested for marijuana use than whites, and that sentencing is harsher on blacks than on whites, he says. “We are sick and tired of seeing videos on television of unarmed” black Americans being shot by police officers, he says, adding that cops need to be held accountable.

6:34 p.m.: Billary reminds us that the first speech she gave in the campaign was about over-incarceration and the need for criminal justice reform. She’s now pulling a Martin O’Malley, with an anecdote out of Wisconsin. (I’m OK with anecdotes, but not patently pandering ones…) Jobs, education and housing are part of solving the problem of racial disparities, Billary says.

6:36 p.m.: Bernie concurs, and adds that we need more diverse police forces and that we need to do more to help offenders lead successful lives.

6:39 p.m.: Judy says that Barack Obama’s presidency hasn’t done much to help race relations and asks Billary how she could do better as president. Billary bullshittingly states that Obama has done a lot for race relations and gives a bullshit explanation that the widespread use of smartphone cameras only relatively recently shed light on how serious our race relations are. Wow.

6:41 p.m.: Bernie states that tackling income inequality will help all Americans, including poorer people of color.

6:44 p.m.: Gwen asks about white Americans who also are struggling and therefore might also be resentful. Both Billary and Bernie state that they support all struggling Americans. Bernie reminds us that bad trade deals and other corporate abuses have socioeconomically harmed Americans of all races.

6:48 p.m.: Immigration is the topic now. Bernie says he supports “comprehensive immigration reform” and “a path to citizenship” for the estimated 11 undocumented immigrants in the United States. Billary echoes this, adding that of course we won’t deport 11 million people from the United States.

Bernie and Billary have wrangled over legislation he voted against in 2007. He says that LULAC and others opposed it because its guest-worker provision was akin to slavery. Billary the name-dropper and triangulator says it was Ted Kennedy’s bill, as though that means there was nothing wrong with it. Bernie says he doesn’t apologize for having voted against the bill. (This is such a common tactic in politics — to say that your opponent evilly opposed the Cute Puppies and Kittens Bill, when, in fact, the bill had something odious in it, which is why he or she voted against it.)

6:57 p.m.: Bernie says as president he would expand Social Security benefits. Billary says she would focus on those whom Social Security has shorted the most and help them first. Bernie says that Billary doesn’t support expanding Social Security for everyone. She reiterates that she would prioritize those who need the help the most, which sure sounds to me like Bernie is significantly more generous on Social Security than she is. (After all, she’ll never have to rely on it…)

7:01 p.m.: Judy reminds us of the millions of dollars that Billary has taken from donors. Billary says she has more than 750K donors, if I heard her correctly. She claims a lot of “small donors.”

Bernie reminds us that big donations, including to super PACs, corrupt our democracy. Bernie says he decided early on to eschew any super PAC. Bernie claims more than a million individual donors and once again reminds us that his average donation is $27.

Billary again says that Bernie is attacking Obama by attacking her, since Obama also took money from Wall Street. It’s really pathetic and sickening how she repeatedly uses Barack Obama as her human political shield.

Bernie says that Billary insults Americans’ intelligence and that “people aren’t dumb” and says that of course Wall Street, Big Pharma, the fossil fuel industry, et. al. spend Big Money in order to influence policy making.

Billary claims that she has proposed regulations that would go further than Dodd-Frank and would rein in more than the banks, but other financial institutions as well.

Bernie again calls for reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.

7:10 p.m.: A break now. This is really repetitive stuff. Again, I’ve watched all of the Dem debates, and we don’t break much new ground with each new debate.

I will remark that if Bernie Sanders is too vague on his proposals, then Billary holds back too much about what she would do as president. She spins things very carefully, based upon her audience, and what she leaves out seems to be more important than what she states. Keep in mind that she’ll tell one audience that she is a “moderate,” but will tell another one that she is a “progressive.” Tonight we’re seeing the “progressive” Billary. With Bernie, we always get an actual progressive.

7:16 p.m.: Bernie is asked if he would reduce any part of the federal government. He says there is waste within government but doesn’t give specifics. Billary also calls for more streamlining and more efficiency but doesn’t give specifics.

Bernie, thank Goddess, now says that we need to look at the Department of Defense’s spending. Hell, yeah. We needed something specific, and I do believe that we need to start with our military spending, where most of the fraud, abuse and waste in our federal spending lies. (We sheeple have been led to believe that spending on human beings’ needs is wrong, but that spending on death and destruction is critical.)

7:19 p.m.: Now we’re talking about ISIS and national security. Billary says that demagoguery against American Muslims, such as Donald Trump’s, makes us less safe.

7:21 p.m.: I love Bernie, but he now is reminding us yet once again that he didn’t believe George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and so he opposed and voted against the Vietraq War, and states that what he’d warned about, such as instability in the area because of the invasion, has come about. He states that the U.S. military relatively easily can rid a nation of its dictator, but that such regime change usually causes more problems than it solves. “Unintended consequences,” he says. Yup.

Billary wants us to overlook her 2002 vote for the Vietraq War and wants us to face ISIS today, she says. Billary reminds us that Obama (like Bernie) opposed the Vietraq War yet chose her to be his secretary of state. Again, Barack Obama as her human political shield.

“Judgment matters as well” as experience, Bernie reminds us of Billary’s four years as secretary of state.

7:27 p.m.: Billary again reminds us of her role in snuffing out Osama bin Laden. Going back to 2002 is too far to go back, but going back to 2011 is fine, you see.

7:28 p.m.: Bernie says that unlike Billary, he doesn’t listen to the likes of Henry Kissinger. (Wikipedia notes of Kissinger that “A number of activists and human rights lawyers have sought his prosecution for alleged war crimes.”) Billary responds that Kissinger was good on China, but Bernie reminds us that Kissinger’s opening us to trade with China resulted in American job loss.

7:31 p.m.: Now Syria. Judy asks Bernie how he would handle the problem within the nation. Bernie talked about how we must be cautious with Russia’s involvement, but didn’t really talk about Syria. Billary apparently is addressing the question much more directly and comprehensively, but is quite good at throwing a lot of words out there without saying much of anything, and again states that Bernie wants Iranian involvement in the Syrian problem, which she opposes.

Bernie says he wants us to achieve better relations with Iran, as we have with Cuba.

Billary is railing against Iran. Bernie says he has “no illusion” about Iran, but reiterates that the goal needs to be to improve relations over time with nations long considered to be enemy nations. (I agree, and it’s apparent that Billary wants Iran to be her Bogeyman for her own personal political gain — a right-wing thing to do, but Billary is significantly right of center.)

7:40 p.m.: Gwen is talking about the ongoing refugee crisis (refugees from the Middle East seeking sanctuary in Europe), including deaths. She asks what more the United States should do. Billary states refugees would have to be well vetted to be admitted here and calls it “a humanitarian catastrophe,” but gives no numbers. She calls for the U.S. giving more aid at the sites where the refugees are now.

Bernie says that the U.S. should continue to be a “beacon of hope” and should work with European and wealthy Middle Eastern nations and the entire world to help end the refugee crisis, but doesn’t give any specifics, such as how many refugees the United States should take in, either. Overall, rather disappointingly vague answers.

7:43 p.m.: Judy asks the last question: Name two leaders who would influence your presidential decisions. Bernie names Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. He says Churchill was a conservative, but that he rallied the United Kingdom against Nazi Germany during World War II. Billary names FDR and Nelson Mandela (not that she is pandering to her audience again or anything).

Billary now diverges from the question entirely and rambles on about criticisms that Bernie Sanders allegedly has made of Barack Obama. (Clearly, she had intended to get this into the debate somewhere.) Wow. You’d think that Barack Obama were running for a third term. Billary has basically called Bernie not a Democrat. (Funny, because I see Billary as not a Democrat.)

Bernie reminds us that in a democracy, a U.S. senator may disagree with the president.

Billary embarrasses herself with her continuing triangulation, using Barack Obama to hide behind (is that a  feminist thing to do?). Bernie reminds us that Billary ran against Obama (in 2008), not he, which is an obvious but a great point…

7:51 p.m.: Bernie’s closing statement is his standard stump speech in which he reminds us that we need to take our power back from the 1 percent. (It is true that the Occupy movement probably did give rise to Sanders’ campaign, and I am happy to see Sanders championing the cause now.)

7:52 p.m.: Billary’s closing statement alleges that she is not a “single-issue candidate” (and therefore Bernie is, apparently with the issue of income inequality). She reminds us again that she shamelessly, blatantly panders to every group, including non-whites and the LGBT community.

Problem is, for years and years we have had the Democratic Party establishment playing identity politics, paying lip service to diversity, while the quality of life for most of us, whatever our group identity might be, has deteriorated. 

That’s because both the Democratic Party establishment and the Repugnican Tea Party have been in bed with the corporate fat cats for decades now.

The Democratic Party establishment will throw us historically oppressed and disenfranchised groups a tiny bone now and then, but we commoners, regardless of our own identity politics, are tolerable to these elites of the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party only so long as we don’t demand any substantive change in the socioeconomic status quo.

Billary Clinton exists to perpetuate the socioeconomic status quo, which has been pretty good for her. She is quite invested in it, literally.

I’m a gay man, but Billary’s pandering to me as an “LGBT” is less than meaningless. Economic inequality is the issue. So many of our other serious problems directly stem from it. We historically oppressed and disenfranchised groups don’t need periodic pats on the head from the likes of Panderer in Chief Billary Clinton so that we’ll shut up and go away for a while.

We need change. BIG change.

We would not get that from a second President Clinton; with a second President Clinton we would get more of the same. Billary is even directly promising more of the same, is promising that her presidency would be a third (and perhaps a fourth) Obama term.

Billary Clinton is grotesque, is rotten to the core, but in the coming weeks, as more states hold their primary elections and caucuses, we shall see, I think, whether or not members of historically oppressed and disenfranchised groups who are supposed to be happy with perpetual lip service from the Democratic Party establishment while year after year after year after year their everyday lives don’t improve at all are going to buy Billary’s establishmentarian bullshit — or whether they’re going to go with Bernie Sanders, who wonderfully names FDR and Churchill as his inspirations.

Those are wonderful inspirations because not only do we need to tackle income inequality like FDR did, but income inequality is a war here at home that we have to fight, not unentirely like how World War II had to be fought. The main difference is that in this war, our worst, most damaging enemies are within, not from without. (Our worst enemies certainly aren’t in Iran!)

We will see if the Democratic Party establishment can keep the long-running ruse going, if we, the people, will continue to settle for only promises of “hope” and “change,”** or whether we will demand actual change.

*Coates has stated that he plans to vote for Bernie Sanders, but that he doesn’t want to call it an endorsement. Reports The New York Times:

Ta-Nehisi Coates, the award-winning writer who has become one of the nation’s most influential voices on cultural and political issues, particularly touching on race relations, said Wednesday that he would be voting for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

The decision by Mr. Coates, the recipient of a MacArthur “genius grant” and the author of “Between the World and Me,” winner of the National Book Award, came as something of a surprise: Last month, Mr. Coates, author of a widely read 2014 Atlantic essay, “The Case for Reparations,” wrote two articles sharply criticizing Mr. Sanders over his opposition to reparations for slavery.

“I have tried to avoid this question, but yes, I will be voting for Senator Sanders,” Mr. Coates said in an interview with Democracy Now! that aired Wednesday.

Mr. Coates said he was “stunned” by Mr. Sanders’s rise and by his ability to compete with Hillary Clinton.

“Had you told me this like a year ago, I certainly would not have expected, you know, an avowed socialist to be putting up these sorts of numbers, and actually be contending for the Democratic Party nomination, but I think it’s awesome,” Mr. Coates said. “I think it’s great.”

Backing from Mr. Coates, 40, could bolster Mr. Sanders’s efforts to court black voters as the Democratic primary contest moves into more diverse primary states, where African-Americans make up an enormously important constituency.

In an interview with The New York Times on Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Coates said he was concerned about Mrs. Clinton’s ties to Wall Street and her past stances on criminal justice.

“The Goldman Sachs thing really bothered me. You have somebody taking $600,000 a year and not really disclosing what they talked about, you know, in a country where wealth inequality is so, so huge,” Mr. Coates said of Mrs. Clinton. “You’re living in another world now.”

He added that he was also concerned about the criminal justice bills passed under President Bill Clinton. “I’m a kid born in the 1970s,” Mr. Coates said. “I came up in the early 1990s, the crime bill from 1994 is huge. I understand, Senator Sanders voted for the crime bill. I got that. But there’s a clip of Secretary Clinton. They are talking about criminal justice policy and she uses a term that — it just chills me when I hear it — and that is ‘super-predator.’ I am of that generation of ‘super-predators.’ That’s where I come from and our current policy today has been an absolute, absolute disaster.”

Mr. Coates also said he liked having more than one Democratic candidate in the race. “I need people to understand, and I want people to understand that the world we live in now is not the world that we have to live in,” Mr. Coates said. “It’s really, really important to me that we have a broad range of of options in terms of the electorate. So for me, I think the idea that somebody is standing up as an avowed socialist and is actually contending — it doesn’t matter if that person wins or not from some perspectives because folks will see that and say damn things that we thought we couldn’t say, we actually can.”

Yet, Mr. Coates said he would not be helping to elect Mr. Sanders by making an appearances and that he would have preferred not to reveal that he planned to vote for him.

“I’m not going to make any calls. I’m not going to volunteer. I’m not doing anything,” Mr. Coates said. “I answered the question because I was asked the question. But, I just want to be clear. I reject the term supporter. I reject the term endorsement. I’m a voter.”

Mr. Coates’s announcement comes as Mr. Sanders is pushing hard to broaden his support among African-Americans. He met Wednesday morning with the Rev. Al Sharpton in New York. Last week, he won the endorsement of Benjamin T. Jealous, a former N.A.A.C.P. president, who vowed to campaign for him in South Carolina.

And the lawyer for the family of Walter L. Scott, who was fatally shot by a police officer in South Carolina, withdrew his support from Mrs. Clinton and endorsed Mr. Sanders last month.

Mr. Coates also said he supports Mr. Sanders’s plan to make public colleges and universities tuition free and to lower the interest rates on student debt. He added that he is deeply interested in the issues of economic inequality and appreciates that Mr. Sanders has made them a core of his candidacy.

“The way Senator Sanders has made this a huge part of his campaign from jump, I mean, that resonates with me, personally,” Mr. Coates said. “I haven’t written too much about wealth inequality in this country, but as a citizen I think about it obviously all the time.”

Mr. Coates said he isn’t sure when he decided to vote for Mr. Sanders, but he said his 15-year-old son is a big supporter of Mr. Sanders. The writer also said he hopes people will take the time to form their own opinions of the presidential candidates.

“I would hate for this to be an endorsement,” Mr. Coates said. “What I want folks to do more than anything in this world is not vote for who I’m voting for. Don’t follow me, dude. Don’t follow me. I want you to scrutinize your candidate. I want you to scrutinize your history. I want people to think for themselves. This is what I’m doing.”

**To Billary’s credit, perhaps, so obvious it is that the Democratic Party establishment at this point doesn’t even want to expend the time and energy giving us even more false promises of hope and change that Billary isn’t even trying with that approach, but is lecturing us on how we can hope for only the tiniest of the most incremental changes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Michael Moore’s new film on socialism* opens across the nation tomorrow


Michael Moore’s new film “Where to Invade Next,” which interestingly coincides with democratic socialist Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the presidency, starts tomorrow. You can see if it’s playing near you by visiting the film’s website (click or tap here) and clicking or tapping on “screenings.”

In my fifth decade of life, not much excites me anymore, but I’m still excited by a new Michael Moore movie.

I saw Moore’s breakthrough film, “Bowling for Columbine,” here in Sacramento at one of our historical art houses when it came out — and Moore himself made an appearance inside of the movie theater and spoke for a while during the showing, which was a great treat.

(“Columbine” went on to win the Oscar for Best Documentary for 2002. “Sicko” was nominated for Best Documentary for 2007, and Wikipedia notes that “Fahrenheit 9/11, at the time the highest-grossing documentary film in movie history, was ruled ineligible [for an Oscar nomination] because Moore had opted to have it played on television prior to the 2004 election.”)

While Bernie Sanders has stopped mentioning Denmark in his public appearances (Sanders does take feedback and he fairly rapidly adjusts accordingly), Moore’s newest film, “Where to Invade Next,” at least on its face seems to be an ad for Bernie, as in the film Moore apparently doesn’t travel to Denmark but does travel to Finland, Iceland and Norway (and to Germany, Italy, Portugal and France and other nations) and points out the areas in which these other nations do a much better job of taking care of their peoples than the United States does of taking care of its own.

The popularity of “Fahrenheit 9/11” didn’t prevent “President” George W. Bush from getting a second term, but in November 2004, Bush “won”** with a “mandate” of a whopping 50.7 percent of the popular vote.

(“Fahrenheit 9/11” helped to keep Bush’s margin of “victory” quite slim, I surmise — recall that in 2004 the “war on terror” was still fresh enough for the right wing to use fear tactics with the voters quite effectively and that the Repugnicans in 2004 also used same-sex marriage as a wedge issue and scare tactic — but despite its having been the top-grossing documentary of all time at that point, “Fahrenheit” wasn’t enough to boot an incumbent president, which is difficult to do.)

We’ll see how much of an effect “Where to Invade Next” has on the current presidential election cycle. I expect it to boost Bernie, whom Michael Moore has endorsed, of course.

I plan to see “Where to Invade Next” tomorrow, its opening day — at the same theater where I saw Michael Moore discuss “Bowling for Columbine” all of those years ago — and I plan to post a review of it no later than on Saturday or Sunday (probably Saturday).***

Yes, if I don’t like it, I’ll say so. Some of Moore’s films are better than his others. I rank his bigger films thusly, from my most favorite to less favorite: “Fahrenheit 9/11” (2004), “Bowling for Columbine” (2002), “Capitalism: A Love Story” (2009), “Sicko” (2007) and “Roger & Me” (1989).

*We shouldn’t run away from the “s”-word. If the United State of America were so fucking free, then why do we commoners not have the freedom to discuss alternative socioeconomic models?

And if capitalism were so inherently and self-evidently great, and since it preaches competition, why can’t the capitalists handle any competition in the marketplace of ideas?

**I put “won” in quotation marks since you can’t win re-election if you never legitimately were elected in the first place (Al Gore won in November 2000 by more than a half-million votes, and Florida’s electoral votes were stolen blatantly) and because in 2004 there was plenty of electoral fishiness in the important swing state of Ohio, whose then-secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, was a Repugnican operative, much how swing state Florida’s former secretary of state, Katherine Harris, was a Repugnican operative in 2000 who delivered the state to Gee Dubya, with help from his then-governor brother Jeb! and the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court, among others.

***Some time ago I used to post movie reviews regularly, but I’ve really dropped off from that, out of lack of time and out of my inability to see new movies as quickly as I’d like to sometimes. But I have to review a new Michael Moore movie…



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Live-blogging the sixth Dem debate

The sixth of the now-10 scheduled Democratic presidential debates is slated for tomorrow night, just one week after the fifth debate.

Because I’m a glutton for punishment, I most likely will live-blog it.

The debate is to be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is to air on PBS.


Filed under Uncategorized

Bernie wins N.H., of course; Robo-Rubio apparently KO’d from race

Updated below

With 92 percent of the precincts reporting, Bernie Sanders beat Billary Clinton in New Hampshire yesterday by more than 20 percentage points — 60 percent to 38.3 percent, per Politico.

Final polling had Bernie beating Billary by around 13 percent, so I had expected him to win (by at least high single digits), but no, I didn’t expect him to beat Billary by the 20 percent or so that he’d garnered in some of the polls.

We’ll see how the Nevada caucuses pan out on February 20, but until then, Bernie gets to be the victor for the next week and a half. We’ll see if that’s enough time to erode any lead that Billary might have had in Nevada.

I mean, keep in mind that Billary won New Hampshire in 2008, but just barely — she beat Barack Obama by 3 percent in the popular vote, but both of them walked away from the state with the same number of delegates.

So ponder the fact that Billary beat Obama (barely) in New Hampshire in 2008 but lost by double digits there to a self-proclaimed democratic socialist yesterday. Methinks that the times have changed but that Billary still lives in the 1990s, when a center-right Democratic Party, a Repugnican Lite Party, a Democratic Party in name only, still was OK with enough Democratic voters for sellout DINOs like Billary to be able to win a nationwide (or other big) election.

On the Repugnican Tea Party side, with 92 percent of the precincts reporting, it’s Donald Trump at 35.2 percent in yesterday’s primary election in New Hampshire, John Kasich at 15.8 percent, Ted Cruz at 11.7 percent, Jeb! Bush at 11.1 percent and Robo-Rubio at 10.5 percent. Just after Robo-Rubio is the man who brought him down, Chris Christie, at 7.5 percent.

If there were fewer competitors and if Christie hadn’t beaten him down at the last Repugnican Tea Party presidential debate, Robo-Rubio would have done better than fifth place (thus far) in New Hampshire yesterday. (Yes, the vote-counting isn’t over, but with more than 90 percent of it complete, I don’t expect Robo-Rubio to get into the top three.)

So it looks like the Repugnican Tea Party is stuck with Donald Trump and with Ted Cruz, the only two candidates who ranked within the top three in both Iowa and New Hampshire (unless Jeb! Bush actually overtakes Cruz and finishes at third place in New Hamsphire; we’ll see).

Trump loses to both Bernie and Billary in the match-up polling, but Cruz actually barely beats Billary in the match-up polling, whereas Bernie barely beats Cruz. Bernie does better against both Trump and Cruz than does Billary, in fact, so, as Robo-Rubio might say: We can dispel with the fiction that Billary is more electable than is Bernie. We can dispel with the fiction that Billary is more electable than is Bernie. We can dispel with the fiction that Billary is more electable than is Bernie. We can dispel with the fiction that Billary is more electable than is Bernie. We can dispel with the fiction that…

Update: It’s being reported now that Chris Christie is dropping out of the race. 

Well, we can’t say that he accomplished nothing; he apparently knocked Robo-Rubio out of the race, and, again, Robo-Rubio had been polling against Billary and Bernie better than anyone else in his party.

With 95.7 percent of New Hampshire’s precincts reporting, Robo-Rubio remains at fifth place, with only 10.5 percent of the vote.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized