Tag Archives: Rick Warren

In defense of Paula Deen

“He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.”

— Jesus Christ, talking to the fucking hypocrites of his day (John 8:7)

Food Network won't renew Paula Deen's contract

Associated Press image

I’m not big on baby boomers or Southerners — hell, I’m not big on many if not most of my fellow whiteys — but I am big on fairness and justice, and I don’t see that celebrity cook Paula Deen, who renounces racism today, thus far has been shown much fairness and justice for her admission that back in the day she used the word “nigger.”

First off, let me get my own biases on the table: I don’t like baby boomers and I don’t like Southerners, especially those with the Southern drawl. Both groups remind me of what’s so wrong with the United States of America. And Paula Deen is both a baby boomer and a Southerner, having been born in 1947 (making her 66 years old) and being a resident of Savannah, Georgia. (Indeed, the portrait of her above doesn’t warm my heart, but gives me the willies.)

That said, regardless of your demographics, you are entitled to fairness and justice.

When asked if she’d ever uttered the slur “nigger,” Southern-cooking queen Deen reportedly admitted in a recent court deposition, “Yes, of course,” adding, “It’s been a very long time.”

How long ago it was that Deen last used “the ‘n’-word” (I favor spelling it out, frankly; why candy-coat racism?) I’m not certain. Was it five years ago? Ten? Twenty? Thirty?

If Deen used it last week or last month or last year or even five years ago, then I could see reason for the outrage, which has culminated in Food Network terminating her cooking-show contract, but if Deen truly last used “nigger” many years ago and truly regrets it, and if her views on race and race relations have changed, then the dog-piling upon her now serves no useful purpose.

Seriously — the woman was truthful in a deposition and now she faces a firestorm for her truthfulness? Why should anyone else be truthful, then, in a similar situation?

And if we won’t accept that any person who previously had racist views could have changed and evolved, but must wear a big, red letter “R” for the rest of his or her life, what does that mean? Does that mean that we want racism to linger, to be a permanent condition?

Does that mean that we’re so smug and so small and so petty and so hypocritical, that, in order to feel so fucking superior, we periodically must publicly burn someone like Paula Deen at the stake? (That was a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer it anyway: Yes, yes, yes, it does.)

Maybe it was the casualness with which Deen admitted her past use of “nigger”: “Yes, of course” I used the word “nigger,” she reportedly testified.

My guess is that that was her world, the world in which she grew up: That in her day and place (apparently, she has lived in Georgia her entire life), “nigger” was tossed around quite casually by the whiteys who surrounded her. If that’s just historical fact, then why are we lynching Paula Deen for the racism of so many, many others?

I’ll tell you what I find offensive: The fact that in his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama — whose sphere of influence is much, much vaster than is Paula Deen’s — told “Christo”fascist “pastor” Prick Warren: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” — “a sacred union,” he added, adding, “God’s in the mix.”

I find that very offensive not only as a gay man, but as an atheist who wants no elected official to shove his or her belief (or stated belief) in a non-existent entity (let’s fucking face it: “God” is just a Santa-Claus figure on crack, knowing whether you’ve been “bad” or “good” and rewarding you or punishing you thusly) down my fucking throat.

Obama also in his 2008 remarks to Prick Warren also made the “states’ rights” argument where same-sex marriage is concerned (the same argument that the white supremacists have made where discrimination against blacks has been concerned), and Obama stated that he supported the “separate-but-equal” (my words, not his) civil union for same-sex couples, but not same-sex marriage. (The video clip of those remarks is right here.)

Now, 2008 wasn’t very long ago — my guess is that Paula Deen last used “nigger” before 2008 — but I don’t see what good it would do to lambast Obama, who supposedly finally “evolved” and stated in May 2012 that he now supports same-sex marriage — as a permanent homophobe for what his stance was in 2008.

True, Obama didn’t publicly use a slur such as “fag” or “queer” or “dyke,” but let me tell you something: I don’t fucking care what words you use or don’t use. Obama in 2008 (and before and beyond) publicly espoused such deeply unfair and unjust and unconstitutional ideas as the idea of “states’ rights” where equal human and civil rights are concerned and the idea that the “separate-but-equal” civil union in lieu of actual marriage for same-sex couples is A-OK, even though the civil union in lieu of actual marriage essentially forces non-heterosexual couples to drink from a different drinking fountain.

I find these dangerous, harmful, blatantly unjust and unconstitutional ideas to be at least as offensive as the use of the word “nigger.” I don’t care that Obama used “nice” words to express his right-wing, discriminatory, heterosexist, bigoted ideas in his little chat with Prick Warren in 2008. The ideas themselves are ugly enough, and only morons to whom words are magic! get tripped up by “bad” words such as “nigger” while allowing the expression of absofuckinglutely unconscionably oppressive ideas a free fucking pass because the utterer of those ideas didn’t use any “bad” words to express them, but used only “nice” words. (So-called “Christians” love to believe that it’s perfectly fine to express Nazi-like ideas — just as long as you don’t use any profanity. Jesus himself would have told these fucking hypocrites to go fuck themselves. [Truly — read the New Testament and see what Jesus said to and about the “religious” hypocrites of his day. It’s there in black and white.])

Further, do I believe that Barack Obama truly gives a shit about non-heterosexuals?

Fuck no.

Obama has no moral compass, but is a political weather vane, facing whichever direction the weather vane is facing.

Obama is a human calculator. He calculated in 2008 that for maximum political gain he should tell “Christo”fascist Prick Warren that he opposed same-sex marriage. (Really, watch the clip — Warren’s audience applauds much of what Obama has to say.) In May of last year, Obama calculated differently, calculated that now he should announce that he finally has “evolved” on the issue of same-sex marriage. (To my knowledge, however, Obama has yet to drop his “states’ rights” stance, that is, to my knowledge, to this day, Obama still believes, or at least still publicly states that he believes, that each of the 50 states should be able to decide whether or not to honor non-heterosexuals’ equal human and civil rights that are guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States of America. That’s fucking sick.)

Obama certainly had calculated differently on same-sex marriage back in 1996. In 1996, when he still was involved in Illinois state politics, Obama responded, in writing, to a gay and lesbian newspaper’s questionnaire: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

He proclaimed that back in 1996, when he was first elected to the Illinois legislature. Today, he shouts, “States’ rights”! So much for Obama’s promise that he would fight efforts to prohibit same-sex marriage!

Obama is an opportunistic bag of slime, but I don’t see what good it would do to burn former (or supposedly former) homophobes at the stake for their former (or supposedly former) homophobia. Even if these individuals still interiorly were homophobic but at least publicly took an anti-homophobic stance, hey, that’s better than someone who publicly is taking a homophobic stance.

It wouldn’t advance equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals to hang a big red letter “H” on former (or supposedly former) homophobes, so I don’t see how it advances equal human and civil rights for non-whites for us to hang a big red letter “R” on Paula Deen.

I don’t know whether or not Paula Deen interiorly is significantly racist. Probably only she knows that.

It’s good enough for me that whatever word or words she uttered back in the day, today she rebukes racism and racist expression.

If you believe otherwise, then perhaps you emotionally and cognitively and egoistically are invested in the continuation of racism, as evidenced by the apparent fact that you apparently fucking refuse to allow anyone to reform — which makes you just as fucking sick as the actual racists whom you castigate.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

Glenn Beck is No. 1!

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

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

1. Dick Cheney

2. George W. Bush

3. Karl Rove

4. Donald Rumsfeld

5. Rudy Giuliani

6. Ann Cunter

7. Rush Limbaugh

8. Pope Palpatine

9. James Dobson

10. Pat Robertson

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

1. Glenn Beck

2. Dick Cheney

3. Sarah Palin

4. George W. Bush

5. Rush Limbaugh

6. Karl Rove

7. Pope Palpatine

8. John McCainosaurus

9. Benedict Lieberman

10. Tie: Carrie Prejean and Prick Warren

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe next year, Ann.

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

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

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

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

‘The gay ATM ran dry’

I and millions of other non-heterosexuals won’t give President Barack Obama or the Democrats another fucking pink penny until they follow through on their campaign promises and stop taking us for pansies who will bend over and take it perpetually. We’re beyond sick and fucking tired of being treated like a pink ATM.

I don’t usually regurgitate others’ work in its entirety, but this piece by gay blogger John Aravosis (via Salon.com), titled “President Obama Betrays the Gay Community,” is worth regurging in its entirety (links are Aravosis’); I agree with every word of it. As I wrote back in December, I regretted my vote for Obama even before he took office.

Team Obama keeps telling lesbian and gay Americans like me to be patient. If we just wait a little longer, administration officials whisper to us lovingly (and out of earshot of the media), after the White House finishes with healthcare reform and getting the troops out of Iraq, your time will come. In the meantime, cheer up — we put a gay band in the inaugural parade!

Everyone loves a parade, but we don’t like being betrayed. And while gay and lesbian Americans were initially willing to cut our new president some slack, the president’s now-clear reticence to follow through on even one of his many campaign promises to the gay community has put the Democratic Party on the precipice of an ugly and very public divorce with this once-solid constituency.

During the presidential primaries, then-candidate Obama promoted himself as the biggest defender of gay rights since Harvey Milk. He would be a “fierce advocate” for our rights, he promised, and he even out-gayed Hillary Clinton: telling gay and lesbian voters that while she was for a partial repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), he’d get rid of the whole damn thing.

And there was much rejoicing.

Then, not so much.

About a year before the November election, primary challenger Obama invited Donnie McClurkin, a homophobic gospel singer who claims to have been “cured” of his own homosexuality, to lead a series of concerts in the South in order to woo the black vote. The gays were not amused, but candidate Obama held firm.

The gays forgave the Big O until a year later, when then-President-elect Obama chose evangelical preacher (and well-known homophobe) Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer. Again, the gays expressed their ire, Obama wouldn’t budge, and his advisors continued to whisper sweet nothings in our ears about how glorious the future would be once Dear Leader was finally in office.

But a funny thing happened on the way to equality. Rather than clouds opening up and angels descending from on high, Barack Obama became president and things never got better for the gays. In fact, they got decidedly worse.

On taking office, Obama immediately announced that he was doing away with the Clinton-era concept of special assistants who served as liaisons to various communities like gays and Latinos. He then went ahead and appointed special liaisons to some of those communities anyway, but never to the gays.

Around the same time, the White House website, once detailing half a page of presidential promises to the gay community, overnight saw those pledges shortened to three simple sentences. Gone were five of the eight previous commitments, including the promises to repeal both Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA.

Adding to a growing sense of angst, senior White House officials kept telling the media that they weren’t sure when, if ever, the president would follow through on his promises to the gay community.

Then there were the Cabinet appointees. Three Latino nominees but nary a gay in sight.

And finally, last week our president had his Department of Justice file a brief in defense of DOMA, a law he had once called “abhorrent.” In that brief, filed on the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia (which outlawed bans on interracial marriage), our own interracial Harvey Milk, not lacking a sense of historical irony, compared our love to incest and pedophilia.

Shit, meet fan.

Tonight, President Fierce will try to make amends by signing either a memorandum, a directive or an executive order, directing some federal agencies, but not others, to provide some benefits, but not others, to some gay federal employees, but not others, at some undisclosed time in the future. (And the benefits may reportedly go away when Obama leaves office.)

First problem, federal agencies already have the right to provide these benefits to gay employees — and several, including at least one DOD agency, do. Second problem, the administration can’t tell us exactly which benefits they’re talking about and for which employees.

That’s because this was all hastily thrown together after the incestuous and pedophilic gays nearly brought down a Democratic National Committee gay pride fundraiser scheduled for next week. A gay blogger got hold of the event’s guest list and published it, and once D.C.’s gay paper, the Washington Blade, announced that it would be staking out the entrance to the event with camera and video, the $1,000-a-head attendees started dropping like flies.

In other words, the only reason we’re getting anything: The gay ATM ran dry.

Don’t get me wrong. Some federal employees getting some benefits at some future point is definitely something. But it’s not an answer to why this president directed his Department of Justice to defend a law he previously opposed when he didn’t have to. It doesn’t explain why the DOMA brief linked a key Democratic constituency to pedophilia and incest. Or why this president has already overseen the discharge of 253 gay service members, and has refused to issue a stop-loss order ceasing those discharges. Or why he won’t lift a finger to push Congress to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

The president would like us to believe that he’s awfully busy being president, and if we only wait a little while longer, we’ll get our rights. Of course, the president isn’t too busy to stab the community in the back by continuing the military discharges, defending DOMA, and comparing us to pedophiles. (On Wednesday, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs was given a chance to repudiate the DOMA brief’s language about incest and pedophilia and would not.)

When, Mr. President, will be a good time to set my people free? When will the leader of the free world get a breather, a presidential timeout as it were? (And I thought this was the administration that could walk and chew gum at the same time.)

Are we really to believe that 2010, a congressional election year, will be any more timely than today? Or 2011, the beginning of the presidential primaries? Or 2012, with a congressional and presidential election? There is quite literally no time like the present.

The real problem is that Team Obama is stuck in 1993. Perhaps some advisor has convinced our once-fierce advocate that gay rights is the third rail of presidential politics. Just look at what happened to President Clinton 16 years ago when he tried to help the gays, the insider is likely warning.

But 2009 is not 1993. Sixty-seven percent of Americans now favor granting same-sex couples the right to marry or join in civil unions. Sixty-nine percent support letting openly gay men and lesbian women serve in our military, including a majority of Republicans (58 percent), conservatives (58 percent), and even churchgoers (60 percent). And an overwhelming number of Americans have long since supported passing legislation banning job discrimination against gays.

The controversy is in President Obama’s mind — at least it was until it became real and moved to the Democratic Party’s pocketbook.

What can the president do to avoid outright rupture with the gay community? He needs to start fulfilling his campaign promises — even one would be a nice start. He needs to stop the discharges, and stop the Falwellian legal briefs in support of a policy he opposes. He needs to push — really push — for legislation banning job discrimination, repealing DOMA, and lifting Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Many of us were willing to cut our new president some slack. Not anymore.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Oh, gee, that makes it all better

Team Obama wants to make sure that you know that they’d never kiss the asses of those who helped put them into office.

In the wake of the announcement that openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson will deliver the invocation for Sunday’s kickoff inaugural event at the Lincoln Memorial, a Team Obama source, according to Politico, stated: “Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about [homophobe] Rick Warren [delivering the invocation on Inauguration Day]. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism — but it’s just not so.”

Uh, is that supposed to make me, a gay man who stupidly gave Barack Obama hundreds of dollars to help get him into the White House, feel better?

Yes, God forbid that Team Obama would make an intentionally reconciliatory overture to us gay men and lesbians, even though we helped Barack Obama to get to where he is.

Until and unless he dramatically starts showing some appreciation for those whom he used in order to get to where he is, Barack Obama will not get another fucking penny from me and I won’t make the same mistake of casting a vote for him ever again.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

End of baby-boomer rule at hand?

The mere thought of the baby boomers finally no longer being in control of my nation is enough to make me jizz in my pants, but until they actually are no longer in control, they’re still in control.

My fantasy, I guess, is that they would be selfless for just once and fling themselves off steep cliffs like lemmings (in an environmentally friendly way, of course; I guess that we would have to stagger their cliff-leaping so that the oceans could accommodate the decomposition). Or that we institute a “Logan’s Run”-like policy — now. (I’ll be generous and up the permanent retirement age to 65.) Carousel, anyone?

The boomers fought authority in the 1960s and the 1970s only so that they could party. Sex, drugs ‘n’ rock ‘n’ roll, you know. Once they became the age of their real or perceived oppressors, however, they became the oppressors, and it turns out that the only group whose rights they ever were fighting for was their own.

The boomers are the first generation in American history that didn’t give a flying fuck about making conditions better for the generations that follow them. Instead, the boomers have been, in the words of Paul Begala,  “a plague of locusts, devouring everything in their path and leaving but a wasteland.” (Begala correctly terms the boomer generation “the worst generation“; no other American generation has come as close as the boomers have to destroying the entire fucking nation.)

The funny thing is that the hordes of boomers had thought that they could devour everything and then die, but their voraciousness has been such that things in the United States of America have seriously gone to shit before they have kicked off, and thus they now have to experience themselves that which they had figured only my generation (“Generation X”) and succeeding generations would have to experience.

Oops!  

Anyway, what has inspired my anti-boomer rant is this Associated Press story from today:

NEW YORK – When George W. Bush lifts off in his helicopter on Inauguration Day, leaving Washington to make way for Barack Obama, he may not be the only thing disappearing into the horizon.

To a number of social analysts, historians, bloggers and ordinary Americans, Jan. 20 will symbolize the passing of an entire generation: the baby-boomer years.

Generational change. A passing of the torch. The terms have been thrown around with frequency as the moment nears for Obama to take the oath of office. And yet the reference is not to Obama’s relatively young age — at 47, he’s only tied for fifth place on the youngest presidents list with Grover Cleveland.

Rather, it’s a sense that a cultural era is ending, one dominated by the boomers, many of whom came of age in the ’60s and experienced the bitter divisions caused by the Vietnam War and the protests against it, the civil rights struggle, social change, sexual freedoms and more.

Those experiences, the theory goes, led boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, to become deeply motivated by ideology and mired in decades-old conflicts. And Obama? He’s an example of a new pragmatism: idealistic but realistic, post-partisan, unthreatened by dissent, eager and able to come up with new ways to solve problems.

“Obama is one of those people who was raised post-Vietnam and really came of age in the ’80s,” says Steven Cohen, professor of public administration at Columbia University. “It’s a huge generational change, and a new kind of politics. He’s trying to be a problem-solver by not getting wrapped up in the right-left ideology underlying them.”

Obama, it must be said, is technically a boomer; he was born in 1961. But he long has sought to draw a generational contrast between himself and the politicians who came before him.

“I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage,” he wrote of the 2000 and 2004 elections in his book, The Audacity of Hope.

It’s been a while since historians spoke of generational change in Washington. Fully 16 years have passed since Bill Clinton, the first boomer president, took office. Before that, presidents from John F. Kennedy to George H.W. Bush — seven straight — were part of the World War II generation, or what Tom Brokaw has termed the “Greatest Generation.”

If Obama isn’t a boomer in spirit, then what is he? Not exactly a member of Generation X, though obviously that generation and the next, Generation Y (also known as Millenials) embraced him fully and fueled his historic rise to the presidency.

“Gen Xers are known to be more cynical, less optimistic,” says social commentator Jonathan Pontell. “Xers don’t write books with the word ‘hope’ in the title.”

Some call late boomers like Obama “cuspers” — as in, [on] the cusp of a new generation. One book has called it the 13th generation, as in the 13th generation since colonial times. And Pontell, also a political consultant in Los Angeles, has gained some fame coining a new category: Generation Jones, as in the slang word ‘jonesing,’ or craving, and as in a generation that’s lost in the shuffle.

Jonesers are idealistic, Pontell says, but not ideological like boomers. “Boomers were flower children out changing the world. We Jonesers were wide-eyed, not tie-dyed.” …

“It may be technically correct to call [Obama] a boomer,” says Douglas Warshaw, a New York media executive who, at age 49, is part of whatever cohort Obama is in. “And it’s in the Zeitgeist to call him a Gen Xer. But I think he’s more like a generational bridge.” He adds that Obama got where he was by “brilliantly leveraging the communication behaviors of post-Boomers,” with a campaign waged across the Web, on cell phones and on social networking sites….

Obama’s biracial heritage also plays into the generational shift, [says Montana Miller of Bowling Green State University]. “It’s so emblematic of how the world is changing,” she says. “So many people are now some sort of complicated ethnic mix. Today’s youth are completely comfortable with that.”

Will Obama speak of generational change when he stands on the podium to issue his inaugural address? Given some of his rhetoric on the campaign trail, it’s reasonable to think he will — just as, some six months before he was born, JFK pronounced on Inauguration Day that “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace.”

Interestingly, Kennedy is often claimed by boomers to be one of their own, even though he was nothing of the kind; born in 1917, he’d be 91 now. In the same way, many Gen Xers and even Gen Yers like to claim Obama, too.

“As humans we all want to be part of something bigger than ourselves, part of a page in a history book,” Pontell says. And at least for now, he adds, “Obama’s a rock star, and people are dying to call him one of their own.”

I, for one, admittedly got a little tipsy, but never flat-out drunk, on the Obama Kool-Aid, and so while I’m glad that our next president is under age 50 — I supported Obama mainly to ensure that boomer Billary Clinton didn’t get the Democratic presidential nomination — I wouldn’t say that I am “dying to call [Obama] one of [my] own,” and I don’t expect The Rise of the Xers to come under President Obama. He seems too eager to please everyone for there to be any kind of a revolution.

And, as the news article above points out, Obama is generationally cuspy. Technically, given his birth year, he is a boomer, and when someone is cuspy like that I look at his or her characteristics to see which generational side he or she leans toward. My boyfriend, for instance, born in 1962, technically is a boomer, but he’s a cuspy boomer, and if he leaned more on the boomer side than on my side (Gen X), there’s no way in hell that I could have been with him for more than the past year now.

And when I examine Obama’s behavior, he seems to be truly cuspy, that is, right smack dab in the middle between the boomers and the Xers. He kisses Zionist ass*, for instance, just like boomer Billary Clinton does, and his selection of bloated baby boomer Prick Warren, who reminds me of a Jerry Falwell Jr., to give the invocation at his inaugration also smacks of a choice that Billary would make (remember when she cozied up to the rednecks during the Democratic presidential primary season, declaring herself to be one of them and declaring Obama to be an “elitist”?). Yet as the article above eludes to, Obama also was able to exploit the power of the Internet and to energize the youth vote far more effectively than the crusty Clinton could.

Obama has demonstrated that he can go either way: he can be progressive (such as with his opposition to the Vietraq War, for which Billary Clinton voted in October 2002), true to his Generation X side, or he can kiss the establishment’s ass (such as with his blind obedience to Israel and his refusal to disinvite homophobe Prick Warren to his inauguration), true to his boomer side.

My best guess is that Obama’s presidency always will be like this, straddling both sides of the generational divide, and thus I anticipate that the boomers will be a thorn in our national side for years to come.

Only rather than directing our national policy, their bloated corpses will overfill our nursing homes, reminiscent of the bloated denizens of the film “WALL-E,” manatees of human beings in their floating lounges with TV screens perpetually in front of their faces and straws perpetually in their mouths, and we will have to try to find the resources to take care of their demanding, dependent asses even though they have depleted all of our resources.

Or will we?…

Soylent Green,” anyone?  

*In the timely documentary “Jimmy Carter: Man from Plains,” former President Jimmy Carter explains how the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) grills candidates for office, and if those candidates aren’t 100 percent on the same page with Israel and the Zionist cause, AIPAC will fund those candidates’ opponents. Thus, we see Democratic as well as Repugnican candidates in the pocket of AIPAC. Really, we should just move our nation’s capitol from D.C. to Jerusalem, since it is Jerusalem that calls all of the shots for the United States of America.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Still desperately seeking a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties

Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians, whose land the Israelis occupy, continues. The Associated Press reports that in Israel’s eight days of aggression against the Palestinians that most of the civilized world has condemned, more than 480 Palestinians have been slaughtered — to only four Israelis killed, fewer than one Israeli for every 100 Palestinians.

Yet the unelected, mass-murdering Bush regime still blames everything on Hamas and won’t renounce the Israelis’ continuing insanely lop-sided slaughter.

It seems fairly clear what Israel is doing now: knowing that the Bush regime is out the door soon, bloodthirsty Israeli wingnuts decided that they’d slaughter as many Palestinians as they could while they still had the full cover of the United States government.

It’s very doubtful that President-elect Barack Obama once in office will treat the Palestinians with even-handedness and fairness, but my guess is that he’ll be more sensitive to world opinion than has been the outgoing Bush regime, and that with Obama behind the wheel Israel won’t have quite the blank check that the Bush regime has given it.

Sexy brainiac Glenn Greenwald has been writing about how Democratic and Repugnican politicians are virtually indistinguishable in their blindly slavish support for Israel; he writes that “the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy [that] typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel — thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes — is in full force with this latest conflict.”

Greenwald notes that “Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive — by a 24-point margin,” yet “Democratic Party leaders — including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi — are just as lockstep [as are the Repugnicans] in their blind, uncritical support for the [current] Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions.”

Greenwall asks:

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?

More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party’s voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party’s leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue?

Probably not, but, as I have noted before, most of the Democratic “leadership” opposes same-sex marriage* — even though, I surmise, the majority of Democratic voters support same-sex marriage.**

Polls taken in the last month indicate that as many as 44 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage and that 63 percent of Americans support some sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples, although not all of them are OK with calling it marriage. Only 30 percent are opposed to any sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples, and the rest are undecided.

A poll taken in the last month also indicates that 52 percent of Americans would oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in all 50 states (43 percent would favor doing so, with the rest undecided) and that 49 percent of Americans would vote against amending their own state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage (45 percent would vote to write hatred into their state’s constitution, with the rest undecided).

The Obama administration has a chance to take some real leadership on the same-sex marriage issue. If the Prick Warren fiasco is any indicator, though, the Obama administration will be about as great on equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals as was the Clinton administration.

The Democrats sure love to get our non-heterosexuals’ money, but have a severe problem delivering much, if anything, in return.

*Barack Obama’s public stance is that each state should decide the issue of same-sex marriage for itself — although we don’t leave most civil-rights matters up to each state for very good reason. Obama’s stance is the coward’s way out, and the “states’ rights” argument is soundly rejected by those who fight for rights for racial minorities. 

**I have been unable to find recent polls on same-sex marriage broken down by the respondents’ political party affiliation, but it’s a good guess that most of those who say in polls that they oppose same-sex marriage are Repugnicans and that most who say in polls that they support it are Democrats.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why Barack Obama is dead to me

I could just post these two news photos to explain why I’m not exactly moist, to put it mildly, over the inauguration of Barack Obama three weeks from today:

Three Palestinian children from the Balosha family, of five ...

In this Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2008 file photo, Pastor Rick Warren ...

Associated Press photos

The second photo of the bloated baby boomer with the shit-eating grin is, of course, of Prick Warren, the homophobic stupid white man who, in the spirit of “inclusion,” Obama invited to give the invocation at the inauguration.

Gay most definitely is the new black if a black Democrat sees no problem inviting a homophobe to open his inauguration.

A gay male co-worker of mine recently stated that he isn’t going to let Prick Warren ruin the inauguration for him.

Oh, I am.

First we California fags and dykes were hit with the narrow passage of Proposition 8 on Nov. 4. I fully expect the California Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8 and reinstate same-sex marriage in California next year, as the same court ruled in May that the state’s Constitution mandates that same-sex marriage be legal, but as of today, same-sex couples may not legally marry in California. We don’t have equality. In only two states do we gay men, lesbians and other non-heterosexuals have equal marriage rights.

While we’re still reeling from Proposition 8 (and other anti-gay ballot measures that passed in the nation on Nov. 4), Obama picks homophobe Prick Warren to set the tone for his inauguration and he won’t back down from his incredibly poor political decision. You know, fuck “political.” This is a matter of Obama’s fucking character. He (presumably) isn’t gay, so he doesn’t give a flying fuck about gay men and lesbians.

I can’t just get over that like my co-worker can. I can’t just pretend that I don’t know what I know.

And with Barack Obama, if you are a progressive, that’s what you have to do in order to be jazzed about his impending inauguration: ignore certain things. Psychologists and pychiatrists have terms for such mental gymnastics.

Barack Obama doesn’t have my back. He no longer has mine. I regret that I gave him hundreds of dollars and I regret that I cast my vote for him. The only thing I’m glad about where he is concerned is that it wasn’t Billary Clinton who won the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, as he is the lesser of the two evils and as I doubt that Billary could have beaten Repugnican John McCainosaurus on Nov. 4. I was glad to help Obama knock Billary out of the race, but it’s been downhill with him ever since.

Yes, I suppose that there are larger issues than same-sex marriage, such as war and peace and right and wrong, and Obama is all wrong on those issues too.

The caption of the first photo above reads: “Three Palestinian children from the Balosha family, of five who were all killed in the same Israeli missile strike, are seen in the morgue before their burial at Kamal Edwan hospital in Beit Lahiya [in the] northern Gaza Strip, [on] Monday, Dec. 29, 2008.”

The Associated Press reports that the Israelis have slaughtered more than 370 Palestinians this past week in a campaign of aggression that world opinion, including the United Nations, has condemned.

Although Team Obama’s fucking mantra is that “there is only one president at a time,” Obama somehow found himself able to publicly state today that Illinois Gov. Rod “$enate $eat for $ale” Blahblahblahblah’s choice for Obama’s replacement in the U.S. Senate should not be seated because the scandalous Gov. Blahblahblahblah has zero credibility — and that Blahblahblahblah should resign. 

While it’s nice to be able to agree with Obama on something for once, Obama’s statement on the gubernatorial hijinks in his home state probably more than anything else is meant to protect his own political ass from too much tarnishment as he assumes the White House next month. Standing up for what’s right when doing so serves oneself — well, that diminishes the good deed a bit, doesn’t it?

While he can speak up on right and wrong when it helps himself, Obama remains deafeningly silent on the carnage that continues in the Gaza Strip. Because it’s not his children whom the Israelis are dropping bombs upon. Obama rather now-famously said back in July: “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I [would] do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

OK, fine, but the Palestinian children whose corpses are pictured above: they were dangerous members of Hamas? Obama cares about the safety of the Israelis’ daughters and his own daughters, but what about the safety of the Palestinians’ daughters?

Did Jesus Christ teach that it’s OK to pick and chose which children’s lives are valuable and which are not?

Obama is a “Christian”?

Bullshit. A Christian follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Barack Obama isn’t a Christian. He’s a politician. That’s his religion. He doesn’t answer to a higher power, unless you count the American Israel Public Action Committee (AIPAC) — the Israel-first lobby — as a higher power.

“Change”?

Yeah, right — keep hoping.

P.S. How are my two questions to Barack Obama doing at change.gov?

Recall that my two questions, verbatim, are:

  • I’m a gay man who gave your campaign hundreds of dollars. You have invited homophobe Rick Warren to appear at your inauguration. How about you invite Rush Limbaugh to perform “Barack the Magic Negro”? C’mon, now! In the spirit of “inclusion” and all!
  • Are you going to treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with SOME degree of even-handedness and fairness or are you going to kiss Israeli ass, thus further enraging the Arab world and further putting the United States at risk for terrorist attacks?

Apparently neither question has been yanked from the site (yet…), and thus far the majority who have voted like Question No. 1 by 123 votes to 91 votes, or 57 percent to 43 percent, and the majority also favor Question No. 2, by 80 votes to 59 votes, or 58 percent to 42 percent. (No, I haven’t voted for myself or asked anyone else to vote on my two questions.)

Gee. So a clear majority of Obama’s strongest supporters — those who take the time and trouble to visit his site and vote on shit — agree with me that these two issues are important and that Obama is misfuckinghandling these two issues (or at least the first one).

What if I had posed the two questions in a “nicer” way? I’d have received even stronger support from Obama’s supporters.

Will Obama listen to his supporters on these two issues?

Um, no, probably not. Prick Warren appeals to the dumbfuck vote that Obama for some reason is courting (as though eight long years of American stupidity weren’t enough), and Obama listens to his pimp$ at AIPAC, not to his supporters or to the American people, where the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is concerned.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized