Tag Archives: secession

Waiting for President Bernie Sanders (and/or a rematch of the Civil War…)

New York Times news photo

Last week illegitimate U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III had the fucking gall to come to my city of Sacramento and proclaim that California may not “secede,” actually comparing California’s intent and desire to protect the most vulnerable among us to the South’s attempt to preserve the slavery of black people. (In his hateful little lecture-speech to California, the most populous state of the nation by a margin of more than 10 million people over the next-most-populous state, the Nazi elf brought up the pro-slavery John C. Calhoun but for some reason didn’t remind us that his first and middle names have very special meaning in the South.)

My regular readers (there are at least a handful of them) will have noticed that during the illegitimate reign of the unelected Pussygrabber regime* my blogging has dropped off considerably.

It’s that I can’t blog on every outrage. There are far too many of them these days (and weeks and months).

I will comment on one recent outrage, however: the Pussygrabber Department of “Justice” suing my state of California over its being, by state law since January 1, a “sanctuary state” and Pussygrabber regime Attorney General Jeff Sessions proclaiming that California may not “secede.”

(Specifically, Sessions proclaimed that “There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is the supreme law of the land. I would invite any doubters to go to Gettysburg or to the tombstones of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln. This matter has been settled.” Yes, he went there.)

Funny: Nazi elf Sessions’ Southern ilk wanted to secede — and did secede, even before President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated after his first election, for fuck’s sake — in order to be able to continue to mistreat human beings abhorrently (indeed, the pro-slavery white Southerners didn’t consider the black slaves to even be human beings).

Yet when California wishes to protect human rights, human dignity and human well-being, Jeff Fucking Sessions, a treasonous piss-ant piece of shit, has the fucking gall to actually liken California to the slave-owning Southern states that had their asses handed to them on a silver platter by us slave-liberating Northerners. (Yes, of course, California was a Union state, unlike Jeffy’s backasswards, treasonous state of Alabama.)

Here’s the deal on “sanctuary cities” in California (and the fact that by state law the entire state is a “sanctuary state”): One, these “sanctuary” jurisdictions have been around in California for decades now and so aren’t new. And two, no California elected official, whether on the city, county, state or any other level, wants to just allow violently felonious “illegals” (a.k.a. “bad hombres”) to murder and rape fine white California citizens on his or her watch. That’s what you call bad politics.

Therefore, no, “sanctuary” jurisdictions do not protect violent felons who are in the country illegally. (As the Los Angeles Times notes, “The [“sanctuary state”] law prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from using personnel or funds to hold or question people, or share information about them with federal immigration agents, unless they have been convicted of one or more offenses from a list of 800 crimes.” [Emphasis mine.])

No, the idea of “sanctuary” jurisdictions is that law-abiding residents (those who haven’t committed serious crimes, anyway; almost all of us in the U.S., citizen or not, have committed at least misdemeanors during our lifetimes, whether we’re ever charged with those misdemeanors or not), whether they are here legally or not, don’t have to feel terrorized by storm troopers from ICE — a bunch of mostly right-wing, authoritarian, hypocritical white men with fascist tendencies if they’re not already full-blown fascists who get off on terrorizing others even for nonviolent legal infractions (such as merely existing where they’re “not supposed to” exist). This makes their fucking fascist day, you see.

And the idea of “sanctuary” jurisdictions also is that no resident in California, whether here legally or not, is too afraid to report a crime committed against him or her and/or against others because of his or her and/or the others’ citizenship status. Or is too afraid to testify or otherwise appear in a court of law. Or too afraid to seek medical care for himself or herself or another because of his or her citizenship status. Or to even to just go to school or to just take his or her child or children to school.

And the idea of “sanctuary” jurisdictions is that families (chosen families as well as biological families, in my book) aren’t ripped apart. It’s in society’s interests that that doesn’t happen. (The Repugnican Party is supposed to be all about the family, but of course that’s only white, Repugnican-voting families.)

Still, even being a “sanctuary state,” as Vox.com notes, “California, like any other ‘sanctuary’ jurisdiction, isn’t stopping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from being able to arrest, detain, or deport immigrants. In fact, ICE has already responded to the 2017 laws in its own way — by escalating raids in California and claiming that the state’s sanctuary laws force ICE to get more aggressive in its tactics.”

Indeed, the unelected and thus illegitimate Pussygrabber regime’s acting head of ICE, Thomas Homan — of course yet another stupid, fascist white man — in January proclaimed (of course) on Faux “News”/state television, “California better hold on tight. They are about to see a lot more special agents, a lot more deportation officers.”

This moronic fascist who heads ICE demonstrates the need for California to protect its most politically vulnerable residents. And I’d gladly trade one stupid white man like Homan for 1,000 “illegals,” the vast majority of whom are hard-working and law-abiding.

(Indeed, non-citizens are less likely to commit crimes in the U.S. than are U.S. citizens. This isn’t shocking, as the vast majority of those who are not here legally quite obviously don’t have the strong desire to draw negative attention to themselves, be that by voting illegally or murdering and raping and pillaging and plundering, although it’s awfully interesting that the traitors on the right proclaim that the “illegals” are interested in both murdering and raping and in voting, because, you know, our prisons are filled with felons — bad hombres — who put voting illegally at the top of their lists of their favorite crimes to commit. [“You just raped and murdered a beautiful young white woman! What are you going to do now?” “I’m going to go vote!”])

Since Nazi elf Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III went there first, I’ll say it again: The North acted to stop the South’s terrorizing of brown-skinned human beings there. Now, the South thinks that it’s going to invade the North to terrorize the brown-skinned human beings here.

A second fight with California and the rest of the North** is not a fight that the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, MAGA-cap-wearing, Confederate-flag-waving fascists want to pick.

But, alas, as much as I often think that Abraham Lincoln’s No. 1 mistake is that he didn’t destroy the South entirely, but let way too many of the inbred traitors there live only to continue to drag down the entire nation to today, it most likely won’t come to that.

What’s more likely to happen is that the Repugnican traitors lose the U.S. House of Representatives in November. Then, “President” Pussygrabber is neutered. (True, expect him and his band of fellow traitors and criminals to do as much damage as they possibly can until then and even afterwards.)

Then, after November 2020, ideally we’ll have both houses of Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, as woefully imperfect as the Democratic Party is, and we’ll have President Bernie Sanders in the Oval Office.***

Maybe the red states will try to secede again between Bernie’s election and his inauguration, and they’ll get that rematch of the Civil War that they — and many of us on the other side — are itching for.

*Again, to me, if you did not win the popular vote, then you are not legitimately the president, as the majority of the American people did not select you. This is the case with “President” Pussygrabber as it was the case with “President” George W. Bush (whose “re”-“election” also was bullshit, since you can’t legitimately be elected again if you never were elected legitimately in the first fucking place). 

**By “North” and “South” and “Northern” and “Southern,” I sometimes refer not (only) to the regions (the blue states and the red states), but (also) to the fascist/anti-democratic/treasonous and non-fascist/democratic/patriotic mindsets of the South and the North respectively; of course a person could be in the North but be a Southerner at heart and vice-versa.

***PredictIt.org, as I type this sentence, has the Democrats more likely to take over the White House in November 2020 than Pussygrabber is likely to keep his job, and has Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden tied for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

I am not at all on Team Biden. I see him as a male Billary Clinton, a Democrat in name only (well, maybe he’s a little to the left of Billary, but she’s so far to the right that it’s a pretty insignificant distinction), and I don’t think that has-been, faux-progressive populist Biden will be able to overcome the enthusiasm that Bernie, a genuine progressive populist, generates.

Biden has, after all, run for the White House twice already. His plagiarism scandal of 1987 (which apparently wasn’t an isolated incident of plagiarism) speaks to his character, methinks, as does his mistreatment of Anita Hill in 1991.

Hopefully the changes that supposedly are being made within the Democratic National Committee after the fucking fiasco that was 2016 will mean that Biden won’t simply be coronated, like Queen Billary was.

Should anything like what happened to Bernie Sanders in 2016 repeat itself in 2020, what’s left of the Democratic Party can count the number of days that it has left; the Democratic Party already is on life support right now.

What support the party has now comes more from fear and loathing of the fascists who comprise the Repugnican Party than from real love and respect for the Dem Party, which lost its spine and veered away from progressivism no later than in the 1990s.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Rick Perry and WHOSE Army?

Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry poses with a cut out of U.S. Army Reserves Spc. James Benal of the Nebraska National Guard, serving in Afghanistan, after he was approached by his mother Patty Benal, as Perry visited the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, Monday, Aug. 15, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Associated Press photo

Repugnican Tea Party Texas Gov. Rick Perry (photographed above in Iowa today) says that if he is made president, then our troops will respect the president of the United States again. (But that’s not sedition or anything from the same treasonous bastard who has called for his state’s secession.) Of course, our troops to the likes of pseudo-patriot Perry are just like the cardboard cutout above: expendable cannon fodder for the corporateers and war profiteers whom the Repugnican Tea Party traitors coddle at the expense of the rest of us, The People.

Of Repugnican Tea Party Texas Gov. Rick Perry I recently noted: “Perry will tout Texas’ actual or alleged job growth during his tenure as governor, but of course while he’ll talk about a quantity of jobs, don’t expect him to talk about the quality of those jobs.”

While I didn’t go into as much detail as I could have, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman breaks it all down in his latest column, titled “The Texas Unmiracle.”

You should read the whole column, but the money shot, I think, is this:

…[The] rapid growth in the Texas work force keeps wages low — almost 10 percent of Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average — and these low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State. …

What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.”

The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state.

In fact, at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs…

So when Mr. Perry presents himself as the candidate who knows how to create jobs, don’t believe him. His prescriptions for job creation would work about as well in practice as his prayer-based attempt to end Texas’s crippling drought.

Again: We need to look at the quality of the jobs in Texas — which is why the last time that I talked about Texas, I called it “McTexas” — and not the mere quantity of jobs in Texas.

What real difference would it make if there technically virtually were no unemployment in Texas, but the vast majority of Texans were wage slaves who didn’t make a living wage — which is the plutocratic Perry & Co.’s wet dream?

I expect Rick Perry to be the Repugnican Tea Party traitors’ presidential candidate in 2012 (Mitt Romney may or may not be his running mate), and if enough Americans fall for Perry’s lies about how great it is in Texas (well, it’s great for the treasonous plutocrats there, anyway) — so much so that we need to Texas-ize the entire United States just like George W. Bush did — then I expect President Perry and his plutocratic pillagers and plunderers to polish off what little is left of the American empire.

And the man who has talked about Texas’ secession (which, as I have noted, I’m all for) now can add sedition to his resume.

In Iowa last night, Rick Perry reportedly stated, “One of the reasons that I’m running for president is I want to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on the uniform of the United States respects highly the president of the United States.”

Wow.

So 53 percent of Americans (including me) voted for Barack Obama in November 2008. (The highest percentage of the popular vote that George W. Bush ever got was 50.7 percent, in 2004.) More than half of Americans chose Obama as their nation’s commander in chief, while 46 percent had cast their vote John McCainosaurus.

So — Rick Perry very apparently essentially does not respect the results of a democratic election. (This is in line with the vast majority of the Repugnican Tea Party traitors, who like democracy only when democracy goes their way. When it does not, they believe that they simply can ignore the democratic choice of the majority, as they did most spectacularly in the stolen presidential election of 2000.)

Rick Perry very apparently also believes that the members of the U.S. military can respect only a right-wing white guy from Texas.*

Secession, sedition — Rick Perry is, in a word — OK, two words — a fucking traitor.

If Texas wants to secede, that’s fine with me — it can take all of the other treasonous red states with it and make Rick Perry its Neo-Confederate president.

But Rick Perry in the White House probably will mean blood in the streets.

Another civil war in the United States has been brewing for some time now, and a President Perry would be the perfect catalyst to make the pot boil over.

I, for one, have had more than enough of traitors from Texas ruining my nation, and I, for one, am ready to take to arms to take my nation back from the Repugnican Tea Party traitors.

I’d prefer a rematch of the Civil War to the continued slow and agonizing death of my nation at the hands of the Repugnican Tea Party traitors.

*I know of no evidence that anything even approaching a majority of the members of the U.S. military do not respect President Barack Obama, which, of course, is exactly what Perry is asserting, and if he weren’t such a fucking coward himself, he would just come right out and say it and not beat around the Bush — er, bush.

Further, what would gain their respect? A president who sends even more of them to their unnecessary deaths (or their maimings) for corporate profits, just like the unelected BushCheneyCorp did? Is that how you show your love for our troops — by making sure that even more of them die and are injured unnecessarily in bullshit wars that are fought only for the war profiteers and the corporateers?

I get it that there are plenty of white male “Christo”fascists in the U.S. military who hate Barack Obama because he’s not a right-wing white guy. (The caption for the photo above, for instance, indicates that the soldier depicted in the cutout is on active duty and that his mother wanted a picture taken of his cutout with Perry. If the soldier himself is OK with this — mothers sometimes embarrass us by doing things that we’d prefer they not do, I understand — then I think that it raises interesting questions as to the ability of the soldier to obey his current commander in chief; is the soldier’s loyalty due only to a president of his preferred political party or is it strictly due to the president who last democratically was elected, no matter who he or she is?)

But these white male wingnuts’ (and other wingnuts’) job is to serve their commander in chief. If they feel that they cannot do that, then they need to leave the U.S. military. For them to actively oppose their commander in chief makes them parties to treason.

Indeed, during the unelected reign of the Bush regime, members of the U.S. military were expected to be loyal to George W. Bush — to at least keep their mouths shut, even if they opposed vehemently Bush’s wars for Big Oil — so why the fucking double standard?

Why is it that a white, right-wing president is to be strictly obeyed, but it’s perfectly OK to be disloyal to a black “Democratic” president?

P.S. And be careful. Rick Perry very apparently is a biter:

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Texas Governor Rick Perry eats a corn dog at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa

Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry walks with his wife Anita and eats a veggie corn dog as they visited the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, Monday, Aug. 15, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Reuters and Associated Press photos

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Perry a potential Repugnican Tea Party insurgent to be reckoned with

Texas Governor Rick Perry

AFP photo

Texas Gov. Rick Perry addresses the Wingnuts’ Ball (Conservative Political Action Conference) in Washingtion, D.C., in February. Perry reportedly is testing the presidential waters.

I hate Repugnican Tea Party Texas Gov. Rick Perry. I hate Texas. I hate the Repugnican Tea Party. I hate baby boomers (most of them, anyway) and Rick Perry is one of them.

But putting my broad-spectrum hatred aside, I think that Perry has a great shot at winning the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination.

Perry is the demonic hybrid (hey, if Ann Cunter can use “demonic,” I can, too) of Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.

Romney is a Richie Rich frat boy who has the support of the Repugnican Party Old Guard (or maybe that should be Old Money), because he promises to protect and to expand their fortunes, to further enrichen the already rich and to further impoverish the already impoverished.

But the “tea party” traitors aren’t so keen on Romney, in no small part because his Mormonism isn’t in step with their brand of “Christo”fascism, but for other reasons, too, such as that he was, in their eyes, the too-moderate governor of the blue state of Massachusetts. (This — the ability to win in a blue state — actually would be a strength for a Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate in actually winning a national election, but the worst of the wingnuts probably don’t see it that way.)

Bachmann, who is an abject lunatic, replete with eyes like a deer’s in headlights, is the “tea party” darling, but she doesn’t have the support of the Repugnican Party Old Guard, in no small part because unlike Romney, she doesn’t come from Old Money, but also because, let’s face it, she’s just embarrassing. (For someone who wraps herself in the flag so much, she struggles to get a single fact about American history correct. And that’s for starters.)

Perry’s biography doesn’t indicate that, like George W. Bush does, he comes from Old Money, but Perry has the gravitas of Old Money nonetheless — at least in stark contrast to Bachmann, who is Sarah Palin’s Mini-Me.

In a political pinch, like the pinch that they are in now (there is doubt that Romney can beat Barack Obama), the gravitas will do for the Repugnican Party Old Guard, methinks.

Perry also is a “tea party” darling. He has called forth the specter of Texas seceding from the Union, after all (to which I say Good fucking riddance, but that’s another blog post).

Perry has two main obstacles to the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination, that I can see: He doesn’t have Romney’s money and political and fundraising network (Romney has been running for president for years now), and there are and there will be the inevitable comparisons of Perry to the last Texas governor who became president of the United States.

But, in the end, Rick Perry is not George W. Bush.

It’s true that Perry started out as Bush’s lieutenant governor in January 1999 and became Texas’ governor when Bush went to the White House even though he had lost the presidential election to Al Gore, but Perry went on to win the Texas governorship in his own right in 2002, in 2006 and in 2010, “an unprecedented feat in Texas political history,” according to Wikipedia, which adds that Perry is “the longest continuously serving current U.S. governor and the second-longest-serving current U.S. governor after Terry Branstad of Iowa.”

And Texas is the nation’s most populous state only after California. (It’s a distant second, however; California has more than 12 million more residents than does Texas, according to the 2010 U.S. Census.) Texas is the most powerful of the red states, as California is the most powerful of the blue states. Both behemoths have millions and millions of dollars of potential campaign contributions and millions and millions of potential votes.

And while he hasn’t been running for president like Romney has, Perry isn’t exactly a political neophyte, having been governor of the most populous red state longer than anyone else ever had before him, apparently.

And, of course, Perry is a late-middle-aged white “Christian” guy, the kind of candidate that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors prefer.

Romney matches Perry on that one, but Romney’s Mormonism and Massachusetts political roots are, I think, no match for Perry’s Texas roots (he’s a fifth-generation Texan, per Wikipedia), and while (per Wiki) Perry at least nominally is a Methodist, he caters even to the way-off-the-deep-end Pentecostals, since it’s politically beneficial. (Perry, among other things, opposes women’s right to control their own uteri, denies the fact of global warming, and of course he opposes same-sex marriage and loves the death penalty. I mean, Texas.)

Perry is, I think, for a political party that has seen the milquetoast Mitt Romney as its best hope for months now, the best of both worlds: He can get the “Christo”fascist vote without turning off Old Money.

It seems to me that if he fights for it, the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination is his.

P.S. Some perhaps-not-so-trivial Rick Perry trivia: According to Wikipedia, Perry began his political career in Texas as a Democrat and even “supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and was chairman of the Gore campaign in Texas.” In 1989, Perry switched to the Repugnican Party, according to Wiki.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Thoughts on the new year from the Island of California



Early explorers thought that California is an island. It might as well be.

2011 should be an interesting political year.

It’s ironic that Repugnican former U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been convicted of money laundering just as his stupid white male ilk, led this time by the steely-cold-blue-eyed Repugnican Rep. John Boehner, are ready to take over the House — you know, to bring back the good old days of Tom DeLay & Co.

When we of the left say that Americans are fucktards, this is the kind of thing that we’re talking about: expecting the same bunch of people who sank the nation in the first place to be the same ones to rescue it.

Here in California, things should be at least a little different next year.

On November 2, not a single Repugnican was elected to statewide office here in California, and come early January, gone will be Repugnican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was elected governor in the gubernatorial recall do-over election of 2003. (The Repugnican candidate in the 2002 gubernatorial election, Bill Simon, was an uncharismatic Richie Rich fucktard who lost to the uncharismatic Democratic incumbent, Gov. Gray Davis, although by just under 5 percent, so the Repugs just orchestrated a do-over election the next year with a much more charismatic candidate this time.)

Schwarzenegger promised to turn California around, but of course he leaves the nation’s most populous state in worse shape than it was when he got it. Ironically, in his too-short recall election campaign, Schwarzenegger blamed the BushCheneyCorp’s sins, including the Enron* debacle, on then-Gov. Gray Davis, even though Schwarzenegger had had a secret meeting with Enron head Ken Lay before he went on to run for governor of the state that Enron crippled. By Schwarzenegger’s own logic in 2003, though, we can blame only him for California’s current mess (even though, of course, the unelected BushCheneyCorp has been a huge factor in California’s decline, from 2001 to present). 

In the days of old, it was believed that California is an enchanted island — the long peninsula of Baja California is what gave the early explorers the idea that California is an island; they didn’t realize that Baja California is attached to the rest of the continent. (It is, in fact, attached to Mexico just under California.)

With the Mojave Desert in the southern part of the state and the Sierra Nevada mountain range running along the eastern part of the state, however, geography actually did leave California as somewhat of an island to itself, and for a while, anyway, these natural barriers for the most part kept the hordes of westward-immigrating white people out (two words: Donner party…).

Speaking of white people, it’s fairly clear that brown is the new black, and that as the nation’s population of Latinos continues to grow — here in California, more than a third of us are Latino, and more Latinos live in California than in any other U.S. state — the white supremacists, whose numbers, at least proportionally to the numbers of non-whites, are dwindling, are going to continue to blame the decline of the Great White American Empire on the browned-skinned.

A tea-bagging white-supremacist dipshit here in California (yes, unfortunately, plenty of fucktarded whiteys have made it past the Mojave Desert and the Sierra Nevada to inflict themselves upon the rest of us) has been given the legal go-ahead to try to collect enough signatures to put an Arizona-like anti-Latino law on the state ballot.

I expect the white supremacist, who used to be a Repugnican Party county chair (surprise surprise), to succeed in getting his signatures; it seems that nothing appeals to the voters like hatred, bigotry, ignorance and making scapegoats of minority groups. The voters seem to be loathe to OK anything productive, but to dog-pile upon already historically persecuted minority groups is just great fun! Proposition Hate was evidence of that.

However, while Prop H8 passed in November 2008, I expect a proposition for an Arizona-style anti-Latino law to fail here in California, where, unlike in Arizona, the majority of us are just fine with sharing our state with those of other races, and here in California, Latinos aren’t “other” — they are part of what makes California California, perhaps especially since California used to belong to Mexico, and the names of California’s largest cities are testament to that historical fact: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, etc., etc.

Ironically, it seems that it’s the brown-skinned who most likely can save the sinking United States of America. While the United States’ white overlords seem congenitally unable to do anything but to overextend themselves and to self-destruct, like their British forebears did, progress is being made in South America.

Notes a columnist for The Christian Science Monitor:

One in 10 South Americans – about 38 million people – escaped poverty during the past decade. That’s remarkable progress by any measure.

Contrast that with the United States, where poverty has been growing due to a decade-long stagnation of income for the middle class and the Great Recession. In 2009, the U.S. had more poor people than in any of the 51 years since poverty levels have been estimated.

Of course, America’s poor are far better off than South America’s poor. And the U.S. still has a much lower poverty rate (14.2 percent versus around 70 percent). South America remains infamous for huge income gaps between a tiny elite and masses of people making, often, just $1 or $2 a day.

Still, 10 years of growing prosperity has shrunk that gap. The credit goes to democratic leftist governments that have vastly boosted social spending to help the poor, maintains Mark Weisbrot, a left-of-center economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

Half of that improvement comes from Brazil. Under outgoing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the nation pushed up the minimum wage a real 65 percent in eight years, helping to raise the wages of tens of millions of workers, including many receiving more than minimum wage. A program offered small cash grants to poor families if they sent their children to school.

The results? Real income per person is up some 24 percent since 2000. Illiteracy is down. Poverty has been halved since 2002; extreme poverty is down by 70 percent, says Mr. Weisbrot, pulling more than 19 million people into the middle class.

And the economy hasn’t suffered. Unemployment under Mr. da Silva’s presidency dropped from more than 11 percent to 6.7 percent. Income inequality has fallen considerably.

Other nations with “progressive” governments have made much social progress, notes Weisbrot. He lists Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Venezuela. Under President Hugo Chávez, attacked by the right in the U.S., oil-rich Venezuela has tripled social spending per person since 2003. Attendance at universities has doubled. Most of the poor now get health care under a government program.

The continent weathered the financial crisis relatively well. Social spending rose. So there was no big rise in poverty, says Norbert Schady, an economic adviser to the Inter-American Development Bank, speaking from Quito, Ecuador.

Moreover, prospects for continued economic progress are strong. The Institute of International Finance (IIF), set up by the world’s biggest banks, forecasts 6 percent growth in gross domestic product in Latin America this year, which includes Mex­ico and Central America as well as South Am­er­ica. That growth should shrink poverty further.

By contrast, the IIF forecasts a 2.5 percent growth rate this year for the U.S. At that slow pace the U.S. could see a further rise in poverty. [Emphasis mine.]

South America’s new economic vigor is also causing a geopolitical shift. The U.S. has long considered Latin America part of its political and economic sphere of influence. Officials running South America’s left-of-center governments often charge the U.S. with imperial ambitions.

But as U.S. growth slows, South America’s businesses have reached out to other markets. While 15 percent of South America’s trade is still with the U.S., a greater share is tied to Europe. Also, trade within the continent is growing with a free-trade deal. So South American governments no longer feel so much under the thumb of the U.S.

What the columnist doesn’t note is that the Eye of Sauron, which sits atop the Pentagon, for decades focused its evil gaze upon Latin America, where its Uruk-hai ruthlessly quashed any democratically elected governments that actually dared to put the needs of the people above the greed of American corporations. And that now, with the Eye of Sauron having been focused on destroying the Middle East for the past decade, democracy has been flourishing in Latin America, and consequently, poverty there has been declining, now that U.S. interference there is at its lowest in decades.

Filmmaker Oliver Stone, in his worthwhile documentary “South of the Border” (in which he visits with South American presidents Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Lula da Silva, Cristina Kirchner [and her husband, former President Nestor Kirchner] and Rafael Correa and with Cuban leader Raul Castro), posits that, ironically, it might be the democratization of Latin America, with Latinos’ growing influence on U.S. politics, that finally democratizes the United States of America. (You know, something like that dreaded “domino effect” that the right wing used to talk about where Vietnam was concerned.)

California, with more Latinos than any other state (more than 13 million of them**), and now with Democrat Jerry Brown to take back the helm of the state on January 3, just might lead the way in the democratization of the nation.

The myth of California as a magical island might not be so mythical after all.

It will be interesting to watch the rest of the nation from the Island of California in 2011. I expect to see the nation only worsen under a Repugnican-controlled House of Representatives, and it will be interesting to see which wingnut emerges as the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nominee. Will it be Sarah Palin-Quayle, who says that we must stand with our “allies” in North Korea?*** It would be rather Kubrickian if a U.S. president nuked the wrong Korea, wouldn’t it?

Stay tuned. I sure will, from my island.

*Such wonderful things come out of the state of Texas: Tom DeLay, George W. Bush and Enron, to name just three. Really, when Repugnican-of-course Texas Gov. Rick Perry talks about secession, we should give him our full support in such an endeavor.

**Texas is at No. 2 in terms of its Latino population, with around 9 million Latinos.

***Really, though, it’s apparent that white privilege makes whites incredibly stupid, probably from their overly comfortable lives and their lack of any challenges.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Can we start the civil war now, please?

Associated Press photo

Barack Obama, shown above during his Lincolnesque formal kick-off of his candidacy for president in February 2007 at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, now finally concedes that with the Repugnican Party, “The day has passed when I expected this to be a full partnership.” Yup. Attempting bipartisanship with Repugnicans, who respect the results of the democratic process only when those results go their way, is bullshit and it’s time to open a can of blue-state whup-ass, because that’s all that the fucktarded red states can understand. 

They say that the Civil War even pitted family member against family member.

Yeah, I can see that.

My mother and I today exchanged some pointed e-mails about Arizona’s handling of its “illegal immigrants.” She still lives in Arizona, where I was born and raised and from where I escaped in 1998 to my new home state of California.

I haven’t set foot back in Arizona since I left it, and I don’t plan to any day soon.

In fact, I support boycotting Arizona, and I am delighted that my city of Sacramento is expected to add itself to the list of cities boycotting the racist, white supremacist state of Arizona.

In fact, today I saw Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson (himself also a former resident of Phoenix; he used to play for the Phoenix Suns) eating lunch outdoors here in Sacramento. I almost stopped and attempted to speak to him, but I didn’t want to disturb his lunch (he was eating with some other people). Instead I e-mailed him later that I support the boycott, even though he already leans toward it.  

My mother, on the other hand, apparently has imbibed the right wing’s Kool Aid that the nation’s ills have been caused primarily by the poor and powerless brown-skinned peoples from south of the border.

Gee, I didn’t know that the “illegals” were responsible for the nation’s economic meltdown. I’d thought that it was the mostly white white-collar crooks, such as the crew of Goldman Sachs, who did that.

Of course, the reason that the right wing pushes hatred of the “illegals” is not only because the “illegals” are powerless and poor, and can’t fight back, but because it’s a great diversion from the nation’s real enemies: the white-collar criminals, most of whom are Repugnicans and whom the Repugnican Party aids and abets.

I mean, for instance, who’s responsible for the oil that continues to fill the Gulf of Mexico? The Mexicans?

I’m beyond sick and fucking tired of the red-state bullshit. We have Alaska’s Repugnican Sarah “Drill, Baby, Drill!” Palin-Quayle now saying that President Barack Obama is too chummy with Big Oil; we have Arizona’s Borg Queen governor, Jan Brewer, Sen. John McCainosaurus, and McCainosaurus’ primary election opponent, J.D. Hayworth, all Repugnicans, of course, all trying to out-hate each other where it comes to the “illegals” for their personal political gain; and we have Kentucky’s Rand Paul saying that he disagrees with at least some of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that criticism of British Petroleum is “un-American.”

While my mother is pontificating in her e-mails to me about how much the “illegals” are costing us, it’s funny, because not only do the billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded bailouts go to the corporatocrats, and not only do we, the people, also always end up paying for shit like the Vietraq War and the British Petroleum debacles — both of which Dick Cheney’s Halliburton has had an oily hand in — but Arizona itself is a welfare state.

As I noted in April 2009, Arizona gets back from the federal government about $1.20 for every dollar that it puts into the federal government.

My home state of California gets less than 80 cents for every $1 that it puts into the fed.

Palin-Quayle’s Alaska approaches two dollars back for every dollar that it contributes, and Rand Paul’s Kentucky gets about a buck and a half from the fed for every buck that it puts into the fed.

Yet here are these right-wing asswipes bitching and moaning about the evils of welfare when their states are sponging off of us blue states. The majority of the blue states get less from the federal government than they put into it, while the majority of red states get back more from the federal government than they put into it.

And they hate our president, too, primarily because he’s black.

Well, fuck off, red-staters, because 53 percent of Americans voted for Barack Obama, more than who ever voted for your precious George W. Bush in 2000 (less than a full 48 percent) or in 2004 (less than a full 51 percent).

I’ve had it with the right wing and the red states, and I’m ready for a second civil war.

Of course, the red states can prevent that and secede, and we blue states should fucking let them. They only drag us down anyway.

Texas, a.k.a. Bushland, whose Repugnican stupid-white-male governor already has raised the specter of secession, can be home to the New Confederacy’s capital. Texas, which loves to rewrite American history, would be the perfect headquarters for the coalition of states that don’t want to follow the wishes of the majority of Americans who voted for Barack Obama.

Speaking of whom, since Obama has compared himself to Abraham Lincoln — he formally announced his candidacy for president in Lincoln’s Springfield, Illinois, and he even was sworn in on the same Bible that Lincoln used (I saw the Bible when it was on display here in Sacramento as part of a Lincoln museum exhibit) — Obama could preside over the Second Civil War, if it comes to that. It would be fitting that the nation’s first black president should finish the red-state ass-kicking that Lincoln should have finished but did not.

If the secession of the racist red states won’t happen, I’m fine with another civil war.

I’m fighting fucking mad.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Let’s let the parasitic red states go

Repugnican Texas Gov. Rick Perry is coming as close to threatening to secede from the Union that he can without actually using the “s” word.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Those red states that want to secede — let’s blue-staters let them.

The red states are nothing but a drag on the blue states anyway. Not only do the red states cause us blue-staters international embarrassment, but they’re a huge drain on us financially as well.

For all of the red staters’ bitching and moaning about having to pay taxes and how horrible welfare is, most of the solidly red states* receive more from the federal government than they contribute to the federal government.

For fiscal year 2005, the latest year for which I was able to find figures, for every $1 that Repugnican Gov. Haley Barbour’s state of Mississippi gave the federal government, it received $2.02 from the federal government in return. A 202 percent return ain’t bad! Repugnican Gov. Sarah Palin-Quayle’s Alaska? $1.84 — you betcha! Repugnican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s Louisiana? $1.78. Yet all three of these Repugnican governors have balked at accepting even more money for their states from the federal government — not because their states hate to receive federal money, obviously, but apparently because it’s Democratic President Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president, who is offering it.  

The list goes on: In 2005 West Virginia got back $1.76 for every $1 that it contributed. North Dakota: $1.68. Alabama: $1.66. South Dakota: $1.53. Kentucky and Virginia: $1.51. Montana: $1.47. Arkansas: $1.41. Oklahoma: $1.36. South Carolina (whose Repugnican governor also has balked at accepting even more federal money for his state): $1.35. Missouri: $1.32. Tennessee: $1.27. Idaho: $1.21. Repugnican presidential wannabe John McCainosaurus’ Arizona: $1.19. Kansas: $1.12. Wyoming: $1.11. Nebraska: $1.10. Utah: $1.07. Georgia: $1.01.

All of those states went to George W. Bush in 2004 and to McCainosaurus in 2008, with the exception of Virginia, which in 2008 went to Obama, so I guess it’s purplish.

So that’s 21 states that went to Bush in 2004 and to McCain in 2008 that in 2005 received more than $1 from the fed for every $1 that they contributed to the fed.

Only a handful of solidly blue states in 2005 received more than $1 from the fed for every $1 that they contributed: Hawaii ($1.44); Maine ($1.41); Maryland ($1.30); Vermont ($1.08); and Pennsylvania ($1.07).

The purple state of New Mexico (it went to Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008), for whatever reason or reasons, got the most bang for its buck from the fed in 2005: $2.03 in return for every $1 that it contributed. Other purple states that got back more than $1 in 2005 are Virginia, as I mentioned already; Iowa (Bush 2004, Obama 2008; $1.10); North Carolina (Bush 2004, Obama 2008; $1.08); and Indiana and Ohio (both Bush 2004, Obama 2008; and both $1.05).

The list of states that in 2005 got back less than $1 from the fed for every $1 contributed to the fed — the states that are supporting the rest of the nation — is overwhelmingly blue.

New Jerseyans get screwed, blued and tattooed the worst, with a return of only 61 cents on every $1. Next up is the purple state of Nevada (Bush 2004, Obama 2008), with only 65 cents. Then follow the solidly blue states of Connecticut (69 cents), New Hampshire (71 cents), Minnesota (72 cents), Illinois (75 cents), Delaware (77 cents), and population powerhouses California and New York (78 cents and 79 cents, respectively).

Purple Colorado (Bush 2004, Obama 2008) got only 81 cents for every $1. True-blue Massachusetts got 82 cents; Wisconsin, 86 cents; Washington state, 88 cents; Michigan, 92 cents; and Oregon, 93 cents.

The only state that went to Bush in 2004 and to McCain in 2008 that in 2005 received less than $1 from the feds for each $1 that it gave the feds was Texas, with a return of 94 cents on the dollar.

Purple state Florida (Bush 2004**, Obama 2008) in 2005 got 97 cents back for every $1.

Only the blue state of Rhode Island broke perfectly even, with $1 received for every $1 contributed.

Looking at the 2005 figures for all 50 states, which are in a table below, it’s pretty clear which states need the other states the most.

Again, of the solidly red states, Texas did the best in 2005, and it gave up only six cents of every dollar that it gave to the federal government, contrasted to blue states like California and New York, which gave up 22 cents and 21 cents, respectively.

If the red states want to secede and make Texas their fucking capital, as Texas’ governor seems to be offering, that’s fucking great by me.

Once the red states — which are fucking parasites on the blue states yet have the fucking gall to complain that they pay too much in taxes — have seceded from the union, then I, as a Californian, will actually start to see significantly more for my federal tax dollar than I do now.

Please, Texas, go — and take the rest of the red states with you. We blue-staters will miss you about as much as a dog would miss its ticks, fleas and worms. 

 

State FY 2005 Federal Spending per $1 of Federal Taxes Rank
New Mexico $2.03 1
Mississippi $2.02 2
Alaska $1.84 3
Louisiana $1.78 4
West Virginia $1.76 5
North Dakota $1.68 6
Alabama $1.66 7
South Dakota $1.53 8
Kentucky $1.51 9
Virginia $1.51 10
Montana $1.47 11
Hawaii $1.44 12
Maine $1.41 13
Arkansas $1.41 14
Oklahoma $1.36 15
South Carolina $1.35 16
Missouri $1.32 17
Maryland $1.30 18
Tennessee $1.27 19
Idaho $1.21 20
Arizona $1.19 21
Kansas $1.12 22
Wyoming $1.11 23
Iowa $1.10 24
Nebraska $1.10 25
Vermont $1.08 26
North Carolina $1.08 27
Pennsylvania $1.07 28
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05 30
Ohio $1.05 31
Georgia $1.01 32
Rhode Island $1.00 33
Florida $0.97 34
Texas $0.94 35
Oregon $0.93 36
Michigan $0.92 37
Washington $0.88 38
Wisconsin $0.86 39
Massachusetts $0.82 40
Colorado $0.81 41
New York $0.79 42
California $0.78 43
Delaware $0.77 44
Illinois $0.75 45
Minnesota $0.72 46
New Hampshire $0.71 47
Connecticut $0.69 48
Nevada $0.65 49
New Jersey $0.61 50
     
Source: Tax Foundation, Census Bureau

 

*I define a “solidly red state” as a state that went to George W. Bush in 2004 and to John McCainosaurus in 2008 and a “solidly blue state” as a state that went to John Kerry in 2004 and to Barack Obama in 2008.

**Well, Al Gore actually won Florida in 2004, but the “official” results are that Bush won Florida in 2004. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What’s next? Secession? (I hope!)

Updated Saturday, February 21, 2009 (see below)

Red-state and especially Southern Repugnican (that’s pretty redundant…) governors are at least considering to refuse some of the funds that would be offered to their states as a result of the economic stimulus package that was democratically passed by the U.S. Congress.

Reports Politico today:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced [today] that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states.

In a statement, Jindal, who is slated to give the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s message to Congress on Tuesday, expressed concern that expanding unemployment insurance coverage would lead to increased unemployment insurance taxes later on.

“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”

Jindal is one of a small group of Republican governors, which includes South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, who have said they might refuse some or all of the stimulus money targeted to their states.

In an interview [today], Barbour said he, too, would likely decline funds for broadening access to unemployment insurance.

“Subject to learning more, my position is that Mississippi won’t accept funds that require us to have a tax increase later, because [they would force] us to change our rules for qualifying for unemployment compensation,” he said.

It is not clear which, if any, other parts of the stimulus funding Republican governors will decline. But initial suggestions that anti-stimulus governors might decline all the funds targeted for their states have faded.

Joel Sawyer, Sanford’s communications director, said the South Carolina governor was still reviewing his options with respect to the stimulus.

“We haven’t made any decisions on any part of the stimulus yet,” Sawyer said.

Gee, maybe the blue states should have refused the Bush regime’s orders to send their National Guard personnel to the Vietraq War, because that certainly wasn’t in the blue states’ best interests.

There are a whole host of things on which the blue states, for good reasons, could have and should have bucked the Bush regime — but did not.

So who in the fuck are these red states to refuse to be a part of the United States?

And why didn’t these Repugnican governors have any problem with billions and billions of American taxpayers’ dollars going to the war profiteers, such as Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, via the unelected Bush regime’s Vietraq War? They don’t want to help the unemployed, but they’ll wholeheartedly support bogus wars that result in the plundering of the U.S. Treasury by the war profiteers and result in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of U.S. military personnel (not to mention the unnecessary deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians).

The Repugnicans actually have no problem whatsofuckingever with high federal government spending, as evidenced by the fact that under the unelected Bush regime the federal budget deficit grew to an all-time high.

The Repugnicans just don’t want the federal government to spend any money in any way that actually benefits the common American — instead of giving the American taxpayers’ money away to war profiteers and other crooked Repugnican cronies.

How about the red states that have a problem with the fact that the majority of Americans democratically elected a black man as president just go ahead and secede from the union now?

We don’t need them anyway — more federal tax dollars go to the dumbfuck red states than the red states return to the U.S. Treasury. The red states are welfare states anyway, so it’s rather ironic that their governors would refuse any portion of the funds from the economic stimulus package.

While I long have thought that a second civil war to polish off the red states, which only drag down the entire nation, sure would be nice, we can avoid the bloodshed and just let the ignoramuses secede. 

Hell, we can even build walls dividing the treasonous red states from the blue states.

Why do we blue-staters continue to kiss red-state ass?

Why do we continue to tolerate the red-staters and the Repugnicans telling us that our not blindly supporting their unelected mass-murdering dictator, George W. Bush, amounted to treason on our part, yet here are the very same red-staters and Repugnicans refusing to cooperate with our president who actually was democratically elected?

Red states, please, please, please secede and see how long you make it on your own. And, my fellow blue-staters, let’s let them secede this time.

Updated (Saturday, February 21, 2009):

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Repugnican who has to be a moderate in order to survive politically in the very blue state of California, jokes(?) that he’ll be happy to accept for California any of the economic stimulus funds that other states’ Repugnican governors refuse. Reports Politico today:

Fresh off a grueling budget battle in his state, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said [today] that if fellow Republican governors threatening to turn down stimulus funds follow through on their pledge, he’d be happy to have their share.

“Everyone has their own way of thinking,” Schwarzenegger said of those governors in an interview with Politico at the National Governors Association‘s annual meeting. “I just hope they give me their funding.”

Schwarzenegger supports President Barack Obama‘s $778 billion stimulus, but four Republican governors have said they may reject some of the stimulus funds….

I don’t expect the red-state governors actually to refuse much, if any, of the stimulus funds. I think that for political gain they just want to look like they’re rejecting the “socialism” of the economic stimulus package, when, in fact, as I noted, their states are welfare states supported by the blue states anyway, so I anticipate that they’ll take the free money from the blue states, as they always have.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized