Tag Archives: New York Times

LOCK THEM UP!

“Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” The New York Times reported yesterday in a bombshell news story.

(Dan Rather wrote that this might be bigger than Watergate; specifically, he wrote, in part: “On a 10 scale of Armageddon for our form of government, I would put Watergate at a 9. This Russia scandal is currently somewhere around a 5 or 6, in my opinion, but it is cascading in intensity seemingly by the hour. And we may look back and see, in the end, that it is at least as big as Watergate. It may become the measure by which all future scandals are judged.”)

“President” Pussygrabber’s shit storm of a tweet storm lambasting, among others, the supposedly “failing” New York Times and Washington Post (which aren’t “failing,” of course, but are growing, ironically in large part because of Pussygrabber and his non-stop bullshit) only bolsters the Times’ case; the pathologically lying fascists who comprise the Repugnican Tea Party always encourage us commoners to ignore the message and to shoot the messengers, as this is the best possible outcome for them.

(In his uber-presidential tweet storm, Pussygrabber, a noted media expert, also oh-so-helpfully noted that while MSNBC and CNN are “unwatchable,” “Fox & Friends” “is great!” [“Fox,” of course, is just short for “the fox guarding the hen house”].)

In a nutshell, yesterday the Times reported that during regular surveillance of Russian intelligence operatives (which not only is routine and very apparently very necessary, but is legal by U.S. law), U.S. intelligence operatives and law-enforcement officials discovered that several members of Team Pussygrabber, in the year before the 2016 presidential election, “had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials.”

While the Times reporters make clear in their news story that right now they have no evidence of these members of Team Pussygrabber having coordinated illegal activities with Russian intelligence officials, or even knowingly having had contact with Russian intelligence officials, that the associates of a presidential candidate (knowingly or not) had sustained contact with a foreign (and, in this case, an enemy foreign) nation’s intelligence officers is a stunning revelation that at the bare minimum reveals deep incompetence, negligence and untrustworthiness if not proven illegality.

The Repugnican Tea Party traitors, from the “president” on down, of course are focusing on the leaks to the media rather than on the substance of the leaks, but the leaks are necessary, because obviously the treasonous Repugnican Tea Party is not going to investigate itself. It has an obvious inherent conflict of interest.

When do the powers that be ever allow anything to threaten their grip on their own power?

Thus, leaks often (if not usually) are patriotic acts, especially when they reveal treasonous acts that otherwise never would come to life because the perpetrators and their aiders and abettors obviously are going to do everything within their power to prevent the knowledge of those treasonous acts from ever coming to light.

“President” Pussygrabber would much, much rather that we watch “Fox & Friends” than read The New York Times and The Washington Post.

I’ll stick with the Times and the Post, Mr. Pussygrabber, fuck you very much.*

*Again, it’s rather ironic that the “president” quite unintentionally greatly has helped the formerly struggling print media, whose services we need now more than ever.

I have subscribed to the Times online and I also read articles from the Post online daily. Both news outlets have been producing high-quality journalism for a while now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bernie and Billary agree to four more debates, including one before N.H.

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and rival candidate U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders speak simultaneously at the NBC News - YouTube Democratic presidential candidates debate in Charleston

Reuters photo

Billary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are pictured at the Democratic Party presidential debate earlier this month in South Carolina. The two front-runners have agreed to four additional debates, one wedged between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and three more after the New Hampshire primary.

Politico reports today that Bernie Sanders and Billary Clinton have agreed to four more debates, which would bring the total number of 2016 Democratic Party presidential debates to 10.

The Democratic National Committee (that is, Debbie Wasserman Schultz) would have to approve the additional debates, however.

The first proposed new debate would be sandwiched between the Iowa caucuses on Monday and the New Hampshire primary on February 9. This additional debate would help Billary, especially if Bernie wins Iowa — something that Nate Silver says is more unlikely than likely to happen yet still is quite possible, given that the two have been neck and neck in Iowa recently but that Billary is up around four points right now and has the support of the establishment, yet if Bernie can get his more-enthusiastic-but-younger supporters to turn out, that could win it for him.

(Right now Real Clear Politics’ average of Iowa polls has Billary at 3.4 percent ahead of Bernie, while the Huffington Post’s average of Iowa polls has Billary up over Bernie at 4 percent right now.)

Indeed, an additional debate sandwiched between Iowa and New Hampshire would do more good for Billary than it would for Bernie, given that Bernie has been leading Billary in New Hampshire by double digits for some time now. (Right now RCP’s average of New Hampshire polls has Bernie at 14.3 percent ahead of Billary, and HuffPo’s average of New Hampshire polls has Bernie beating Billary there by 13 percent.)

Especially if Bernie wins Iowa, another debate before New Hampshire could, I surmise, harm his chances there. Recall that in 2008, Billary came in at third place in Iowa and then turned on the waterworks and won New Hampshire (because The New Feminism is all about attacking others for their sexist or even supposedly sexist stereotypes — but employing blatantly sexist stereotypes oneself when it benefits oneself).

On the balance, though, the addition of three more debates after New Hampshire should help Bernie, because the Democratic National Committee/Debbie Wasserman Schultz thus far has scheduled only two debates after New Hampshire: on February 11 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and on March 9 in Miami, Florida.

In addition to the debate wedged between Iowa and New Hampshire, the Bernie and Billary camps have agreed to additional debates in March, April and May, Politico reports.

If the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary season is stretched out, like 2008’s was (recall that Billary didn’t finally concede to Barack Obama until June 2008), the three extra debates after New Hampshire, bringing the total post-New-Hampshire debate total to five, would benefit Bernie.

Indeed, scheduling only two debates after New Hampshire apparently was Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s tactic to expose her precious Billary to as few debates as possible after the earliest-voting states.

So while I’m hoping for the four extra debates — even though live-blogging the debates, as I have been doing, can be a bit of a pain in the ass — I’m not holding my breath that the Democratic National Committee/Debbie Wasserman Schultz will say yes to them.

The process has not been very democratic thus far.

P.S. In other news today, the New York Times quite stupidly has endorsed Billary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. (This endorsement comes on the heels of the resurfacing of E-mailgate — news yesterday that Billary’s home-brewed e-mail server contained at least 22 top-secret e-mails. Yeah, it’s really smart to endorse a candidate who might be indicted any day now…)

Can you say “establishment”? The establishmentarian New York Times had endorsed Billary in 2008, too, and we know how well that turned out.

What so many people forget (or ignore) is that the corporately owned and controlled mass media want a corporation-friendly president. Therefore, their endorsements reflect what’s best for them, not what’s best for the majority of the American people.

The Times once again has perceived the most corporation-friendly candidate to be Billary Clinton. Let’s hope that the Times is as right this year as it was in 2008.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Barack Obama to attack Syria himself in Air Force One

The way that it’s going, if U.S. President Barack Obama wants to bomb Syria, he’s going to have to drop the bombs himself from Air Force One. But he won’t be lonely on his trip; he’ll have “embedded” “journalists” along with him for the ride. And maybe the French will provide some wine and cheese for the mission.

Seriously: The British Parliament’s very wise decision yesterday not to join the U.S. in another boondoggle in the Middle East is a blow to Obama (as well as to Conservative Party British Prime Minister David Cameron).*

Now all that Obama has, pretty much, is the conspicuous silence of most of his fellow Democrats (in name only), most of whom are party hacks who don’t want to buck the Obama White House but who also know that the majority of Americans don’t want a military attack upon Syria — and, of course, the corporately owned and controlled “news” media.

The New York Times on Monday declared in an editorial:

… [President] Obama put his credibility on the line when he declared last August that [Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s] use of chemical weapons would constitute a “red line” that would compel an American response. After the first attacks, earlier this year, killed between 100 and 150 people, the administration promised weapons for the rebels but delayed in delivering them.

This time the use of chemicals was more brazen and the casualties were much greater, suggesting that Mr. Assad did not take Mr. Obama seriously. Presidents should not make a habit of drawing red lines in public, but if they do, they had best follow through. Many countries (including Iran, which Mr. Obama has often said won’t be permitted to have a nuclear weapon) will be watching. …

Wow. The Times widely is considered to be the thinking person’s media organization, and is widely to be considered “liberal.”**

Yet the Times’ central “argument” is that once you threaten to do something, you must go through with it — or risk being deemed “weak.” That’s a wise, high-minded stance? Even if something is a really bad fucking idea, you should go through with it anyway — to save face?

My own city’s main “news” organization, the Sacramento Bee, like the Times, also widely is considered to be center-left, yet in an editorial today the Bee proclaims that “The president has previously said there would be consequences if Syria crossed the ‘red line’ of chemical warfare. His reputation – and U.S. standing in the world – will suffer if that turns out to be an empty threat” (apparently the Bee’s editorial writers read the Times…) and “If it can be convincingly demonstrated that the recent massacre in Syria was the result of chemical weapons, and that Syrian forces were responsible for it, Obama will have to act, hopefully with a few allies.”

I’m guessing that that editorial was penned before the British Parliament yesterday voted against joining the U.S. in its latest boondoggle in the Middle East even if it definitively is demonstrated that the Syrian government used chemical weapons as charged.

AFP notes that “It is believed to be the first time since 1782 that a British government has lost a vote about military action,” which to me is a measure of what an incredibly fucking shitty idea it is to militarily attack Syria right now.***

So why are our corporately owned and operated “news” organizations gung-ho on an attack on Syria?

“Corporately owned and operated” is the key.

Corporations love war and the profiteering that goes along with it. Corporations not only benefit nicely in their war-related contracts (as well as in their ongoing regular military contracts) with the federal government, but the U.S. military often opens up other sovereign nations’ natural resources — like Iraq’s oil — to corporations for their free and unfettered exploitation.

War is bad for individual human beings, but great for corporations.

Also, of course, war is great for “news” “coverage.”

This is not new.

The Spanish-American War of 1898, Wikipedia states, “is considered to be both a turning point in the history of propaganda and the beginning of the practice of yellow journalism. It was the first conflict in which military action was precipitated by media involvement.”

Wikipedia goes on to note that “William [Randolph] Hearst, the owner of the New York Journal, was involved in a circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and saw the conflict as a way to sell papers.”

I remember how the corporately owned and controlled “news” organizations handled the Vietraq War. First, they (including, of course, the New York Times’ infamous Judith Miller) for the most part uncritically repeated the Bush White House’s lies about the “reasons” to invade Iraq. Like the cowards in Congress, these “journalists” cowed to the post-9/11 hysteria and hyper-jingoism and for the most part dared not question the ever-changing “arguments” for war that the members of the Bush regime were spewing.

Then, when the invasion of Iraq that they’d wanted and pushed for actually came, they treated it like a fucking sports event, like the fucking Super Bowl.

It even had its own slogan: Shock and awe! (Actually, now that I think of it further, it probably was much more like a “professional” wrestling event…)

The “journalists” were “embedded!” in Iraq, they couldn’t tell us enough.

“Embedded,” of course, meant in bed with the White House and the Pentagon.

Sure, the Pentagon allowed the corporate media weasel-whores to feel special, rubbing shoulders with high-ranking military officials while they dutifully acted as public-relations stenographers, not as journalists.

The price for remaining “embedded,” of course, was that the “journalist” never reported anything that the Pentagon or the White House didn’t want him or her to report.

So: Our “journalists” gained some “access” but at the price of being censored. So what good was that “access” for which they had to sell themselves out? When the powers that be are tightly controlling and regulating the “access,” how meaningful can that “access” possibly be?

At this point, Barack Obama’s strongest supporters for a military attack upon Syria, apparently, are France and the American corporate media weasel-whores who want to jump into bed with him.

Former “President” George W. Bush, recall, in the post-9/11 political environment had the majority of Americans, the U.S. Congress, the British government and the corporate media weasel-whores behind him, which allowed him to launch the illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War even against the wishes of the United Nations Security Council.

In this political climate, thank Goddess, I don’t see Obama pulling off any significant military attack on Syria.

If he does so anyway, it will be, I think, a Richard-Nixon-level political mistake that he and his party will regret.

*I heard former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — a war criminal who already should have been executed for his participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq — blathering on news radio this morning that if only Obama had defined the mission in Syria better, and had not “led from behind,” Britain would have jumped right on board.

Never fucking mind that maybe, just maybe, the larger issue is that after the Brits were punk’d big time with the Vietraq War and Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, they didn’t feel like being punk’d by the U.S. government again and so soon after the last time, and so this time, they ignored the White House’s cry of “wolf!”

As much as I’m not a fan of Obama and as much as I oppose his sketchy proposal to attack Syria, we can’t blame this, too, on him; the lion’s share of the blame for it rests squarely on the members of the unelected Bush regime, including Rumsfeld, of course, who lost the trust of the British over the bogus Vietraq War.

**Well, since being “liberal” these days mostly means being a Democrat in name only, a center-right sellout who changes his or her stance on important issues based upon the party affiliation of who is supporting and who is opposing those issues today, the Times actually indeed is “liberal.”

***One who is progressive and sane (which, to me, are one and the same) hopes that the majority of the citizens of the Western world finally are turning against military action as a way to resolve international (and intranational) conflicts and see that militarism almost always only benefits our plutocratic overlords, not us commoners.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Vast majority’ of ’08 donors haven’t ponied up for Obama’s re-election bid

The New York Times ran an interesting article yesterday that reports that “a vast majority of [President Barack] Obama’s past donors, who number close to four million, have not yet given him any money at all [for his re-election bid].”

Wow.

The Times also reports that

Through June 30, the close of the most recent campaign reporting period, more than 552,000 people had contributed to Mr. Obama’s re-election effort, according to campaign officials. Half of them were new donors, and nearly all of them gave contributions of less than $250.

This doesn’t require a shitload of analysis — just a little bit of awareness. Obama burned those to whom he repeatedly had promised “hope” and “change,” and, according to the Times, about half of his current donors are newbies. (I surmise that they haven’t been paying much attention since Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, and/or the specter of a President Perry or President Romney “inspired” them to give money to Obama, even though he hasn’t delivered upon his much-hyped promises of “hope” and “change.”)

We see this in our daily lives: Those who go around burning people always have to obtain fresh victims to burn.

Only now that his re-election looks less likely over time has Obama promised to be the president that he’d promised us back in 2007 and 2008 that he’d be. He now promises, in his third year in office, to finally do something significant about unemployment and he now promises to make the rich and the super-rich pay their fair share of taxes, even though it was only in December that he allowed the Bush tax cuts for the rich and the super-rich to continue for another two years, violating yet another of his campaign promises.

Meh. I don’t believe him. I don’t believe that Obama would do much more, if anything more, in a second term than he has done thus far.

I think that he’d say anything to get re-elected, but the millions of us who haven’t given him another penny since the 2008 cycle — yes, that includes me — recognize his false promises as the false promises that they are.

Obama’s only hope for re-election that I can see is that the fear of a President Perry or a President Romney “inspires” former supporters to pony up and/or to vote for him again.

But that’s not a strong re-election slogan: “Re-elect Barack Obama: He’s Not As Bad As the Other Guy.”*

I surmise that more people voted against George W. Bush in 2004 than who voted for John Kerry — that is, their fear of a second term of the unelected Bush regime was greater than was their enthusiasm for Kerry.

The calcified (well, calcified except where it needs to be calcified: its spine) Democratic Party establishment sorely needs to go back to the drawing board and ask itself if it wants to return, ever, to the progressive policies and the willingness to fight tooth and nail for those policies, as was the case for the party’s leaders in the distant past, or whether it is safe for the party’s continued existence for its leaders to continue to believe that it’s enough to only continue to point out to the voters that the Repugnican (Tea) Party candidate is even worse than is the Democratic candidate.

I, for one, am willing to suffer through another Repugnican presidency if that would mean that the Democratic Party finally got its fucking shit together and stopped expecting us to expect nothing in return for our money and our votes.

But I don’t think that I’m alone. Apparently, thus far, anyway, at least a few million others are with me.

*If you think that I’m exaggerating, you should read this Associated Press news article from today:

Seattle — President Barack Obama charged [today] that the GOP vision of government would “fundamentally cripple America,” as he tried out his newly combative message on the liberal West Coast.

Aiming to renew the ardor of Democratic loyalists who have grown increasingly disenchanted with him, the president mixed frontal attacks on Republicans with words of encouragement intended to buck up the faithful as the 2012 campaign revs up.

“From the moment I took office what we’ve seen is a constant ideological pushback against any kind of sensible reforms that would make our economy work better and give people more opportunity,” the president said at an intimate brunch fundraiser at the Medina, Wash., home of former Microsoft executive Jon Shirley.

About 65 guests were paying $35,800 per couple to listen to Obama at the first of seven fundraisers he was holding from Seattle to Hollywood to San Diego [today and tomorrow]. The three-day West Coast swing, ending Tuesday in Denver, offered him the chance to re-engage with some of his most liberal and deep-pocketed supporters. … [Entire article is here.]

This really does appear to be Obama’s “argument” for re-election: “If you think that I’m bad…”

That’s an incredibly weak, deeply uninspiring talking point.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The new, ACTUAL axis of evil

Trifecta! Repugnican Sarah Palin-Quayle delivering the keynote address at a “tea party” convention covered by Fox “News” in February. If this isn’t a sign of the end times, I don’t know what is.

In my last post I invented the “Unholy Trinity of Wingnuttery” — FOX “News” and other right-wing propaganda outlets, the Repugnican Party and the “tea party.”

Timely, because today CREDO Action announced today that “After tens of thousands of votes, FOX News has earned the title of champion of the Bracket of Evil.”

Yes, Fox “News” beat out Sarah Palin-Quayle, the “tea party” dipshits, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, among others, as the most evil person or group of persons in CREDO Action’s rounds of voting in its “Bracket of Evil” over the past month or so.

And speaking of FOX “News,” FOX “News” head honcho Rupert Murdoch recently had the hypocritical gall at the National Press Club to bash the New York Times as biased. (Non-fucktarded media, you see, have a “liberal bias.” Intelligence = socialism. Fucktardation = patriotism. God bless America!)

Murdoch even said this: “We have both sides in our news shows, our politics or whatever. We have Democrats and Republicans and whatever.”

Yeah, whatever. (Great public speaking skills there, Mr. Murdoch!)

Let’s see — FOX “News” has Repugnican Sarah Palin-Quayle on its payroll and covers the very same “tea party” gatherings that it promotes. But the New York Times is biased!

FOX “News” is a textbook example of how concentrated wealth and power in the mass media can subvert democracy into serving the interests of the wealthy.

The mass media, the “fourth estate,” are a critical part of the workings of politics, power and democracy, which is why the plutocratic elite control so much of the mass media and furiously are consolidating media outlets so that common Americans have fewer and fewer options and get their information from fewer and fewer (corporate, of course) sources.

It’s funny that it’s FOX “News,” because it’s the fox guarding the henhouse. Oh, yeah, thechickens can trust the fox to give them reliable, fair and balanced information that is in thechickens’ best interest.

Also in the news is one of the other branches of the Unholy Trinity of Wingnuttery, the “tea party” “movement.” Reports The Associated Press today:

St. Paul, Minn. – Several tea party leaders announced plans [today] to form a national federation to promote the movement’s conservative message and to counter the idea that the tea parties are politically unsophisticated and disorganized.

Tea party leaders from Memphis, Tenn., Richmond, Va., and Orlando, Fla., along with representatives of several other groups announced the new National Tea Party Federation during a rally outside the Minnesota Capitol. They said 21 tea party groups around the nation had joined the federation.

Memphis Tea Party founder Mark Skoda said recent media coverage had questioned whether the conservative tea parties, which number in the thousands nationwide, were too loosely organized to be politically effective in the national midterm election.

He said the federation intends to convey a unified message about the tea party’s brand of fiscal conservatism, which emphasizes limited government, less public spending and free markets….

Um, “federation” or “confederacy”?

Looks to me like the election of the nation’s first black president has many Americans (a minority, but still a sizeable minority, and certainly a vocal one) wanting to form a separate nation again…

As far as the third branch of the unholy trinity — the Repugnican Party — goes, it’s hard to say how much FOX “News” harms vs. helps the party. It seems to me that having a networkdedicated to your “cause” could only be more helpful than harmful. Sure, FOX “News” solidifies those of us on the left, but FOX “News” also misinforms millions who believe everything that they see and hear on the tay-vay.

If the “tea party” splits the Repugnican vote, however, that could spell real trouble for the Repugnican Party. And the “tea party” also is driving Repugnican candidates even further to the right. Notes Yahoo! News:

… [The] popular anger stirred up under the [FOX  “News”] network’s auspices may not be an unqualified boon to a GOP facing a tough primary season that pits many “tea party”-style insurgents against candidates aligned with the national [Repugnican Party] organization.

Two of the most prominent such races are the [U.S.] Senate contests in Florida and Arizona, where two more compromise-minded mainstream candidates, Charlie Crist and John McCain, are fending off challenges from candidates backed by the “tea party” — and running strongly to the right of their usual positions as a result.

Beyond the primaries, the GOP is looking to make significant headway against the Democratic majorities in Congress — hoping even to return the House to Republican control. But to do that, Republicans will have to overcome their disadvantage in voter registration in many districts by appealing to independent voters — and those are the very sorts of voters most likely to be repelled by an angry ideological message….

I would think that the “tea party’s” influence on elections would cause more overall long-term harm than benefit to the Repugnican Party. The more right-wing candidates can win the Repugnican primaries, but they struggle in general elections except in the redder regions of the nation.

White supremacism and racism, misogyny and patriarchy, homophobia, “Christo”fascism, xenophobia, jingoism and militarism — to name just a few of the “values” that the “tea party” stands for, whether it will admit it or not — do not appeal to those demographic segments of the nation that are growing, but appeal only to certain demographic segments of the nation that are shrinking.

The “tea party,” aided and abetted by FOX “News,” it seems to me, very well might end up speeding up the demise of the Repugnican Party.

In the meantime, I remember when “President” George W. Bush named, in his 2002 State of the Union Address, Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the “axis of evil.”

Funny, because Iraq certainly never posed a threat to the United States, and thus far Iran and North Korea haven’t harmed the United States, but FOX “News,” the “tea party” and the Repugnican Party eat away at the fabric of our democracy every fucking day,bringing us closer to ruination of our nation than the members of the unelected Bush regime’s “axis of evil” ever could hope to – without their having to launch a single missile, or, indeed, having to lift a single fucking finger.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

NYT pieces on Prop 8: The black vote and yes to probing the Mormon cult

The New York Times has two op-ed pieces on Proposition 8 this weekend; it’s interesting how California’s Prop 8 (the hateful, anti-American and anti-Californian ballot proposition that wrote homo-hatred into the state’s constitution with 52 percent of the vote) has become a national issue.

Times columnist Charles Blow (no guffaws), who is black, argues that blacks didn’t push the passage of Prop 8 over the edge, and he’s probably right; although about 70 percent of California’s blacks voted yes on hate — er, on 8 — blacks comprise only about 7 percent of the state’s population, which doesn’t make them a huge political force in the state.

It’s pretty much a no duh, but Blow attributes blacks’ homo-hatred to their church attendance. He writes:

[The] high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Let’s just call them Afropublicrats.

Yup. Black “Christian” churches are strikingly similar to white “Christian” churches. Fundamentalism is fundamentally fucked, whether it’s black or white.

Blow writes that more black women than black men vote, so “gay marriage advocates need to hone their strategy to reach them [black women].”

There’s that fucking gays-must-supplicate-blacks “argument” again, it seems. And, strictly practically politically speaking, it makes little sense for Blow first to argue that blacks didn’t put Prop 8 over the top and then to argue that gay men and lesbians need to start kissing black ass.

Still, it’s a social issue that we need to continue to talk about, that so many blacks are just as ignorant, fearful, hateful and bigoted as are so many whites. And just as I won’t be kissing any bigoted white ass any century soon, I won’t be kissing any bigoted black ass any century soon, fuck you very much.

Blow does make one suggestion that might have some effectiveness: remind black women that making homosexuality so fucking taboo only encourages black men to lie about their homosexuality, which can backfire on black women. Blow writes:

…Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn’t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky….

So many black men hide their sexual orientations and engage in risky behavior. This has resulted in large part in black women’s becoming the fastest-growing group of people with HIV. In a 2003 study of HIV-infected people, 34 percent of infected black men said they had sex with both men and women, while only 6 percent of infected black women thought their partners were bisexual. Tragic. (In contrast, only 13 percent of the white men in the study said they had sex with both men and women, while 14 percent of the white women said that they knew their partners were bisexual.)

So pitch it as a health issue. The more open blacks are to the idea of homosexuality, the more likely black men would be to discuss their sexual orientations and sexual histories. The more open they are, the less likely black women would be to put themselves at risk unwittingly.

And, the more open blacks are to homosexuality over all, the more open they are likely to be to gay marriage. This way, everyone wins.

I don’t think it would be all that simple and easy, like the ending of a Disney movie in which everyone lives happily ever after, but demonstrating to black women that voting for homophobia actually harms them when their male partners, in an atmosphere of homophobia, lie to them about their sexual orientation and sexual history, might be somewhat effective. This isn’t ass kissing — it’s demonstrating to people who aren’t very insightful that they actually vote against their own best interests when they vote for homophobia.

Unfortunately, although it can be like pulling teeth to get people to do the right thing, when they see that something actually is in their own best interests, they might be turned from the dark side…

The other New York Times piece is this great editorial:

California’s fair-elections commission is investigating a complaint against the Mormon Church’s role in campaigning for Proposition 8, which made marriage illegal between people of the same sex. Based on the facts that have come out so far, the state is right to look into whether the church broke state laws by failing to report campaign-related expenditures.

Proposition 8, which California voters passed on Nov. 4, overturned a ruling by the California Supreme Court and wrote discrimination against one particular group of people into the State Constitution. After it passed, tens of thousands of people rallied in cities across the country in support of same-sex marriage. The California Supreme Court said recently that it would review whether Proposition 8 was constitutional.

Mormons were a major force behind the ballot measure. Individual church members contributed millions of dollars and acted as campaign foot soldiers. The church itself also played an unusually large role. Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the full name of the Mormons’ church — said that while the church speaks out on other issues, like abortion, “we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”

Fred Karger, the founder of a group called Californians Against Hate, who filed the complaint, contends that the Mormon Church provided significant contributions to the pro-Proposition 8 campaign that it did not report, as state law requires. The Fair Political Practices Commission of California is investigating, among other things, commercials, out-of-state phone banks and a Web site sponsored by the church.

If the commission finds that the church violated state reporting laws, it could impose penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, and sue for additional amounts. The Mormon Church, which says it is sending information to the commission, says it did nothing wrong.

Churches, which risk their tax-exempt status if they endorse candidates, have more leeway in referendum campaigns. Still, when they enter the political fray, they have the same obligation to follow the rules that nonreligious groups do.

Yup. If the Mormon cult could do it over again, I doubt that the “Christo”fascist motherfuckers would have pushed Prop 8 like they did.

The Mormon motherfuckers counted on us fags and dykes to just roll over and play dead.

Instead, in the aftermath of Prop 8, far from the ushering in of the “Christo”fascist era that the Mormon motherfuckers and their ilk so desire, what has happened is that the disinfecting spotlight of truth has been directed squarely at the Mormon cockroaches. And they won’t survive the light.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized