Mr. Pitt Sinks the Hook

William Rivers Pitt of Truthout has quite a knack for setting up a story.

The Scum of the Earth

Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, GOP luminaries Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh have once again waded into a catastrophic tragedy with all the care and concern of hammerhead sharks unleashed into a fish tank full of orphans. 

As I sit and flick between channels, it's impossible to avoid the images of disaster and human anguish - and yet, these two men, who are without shame in guiding the souls of Conservatives into a handbasket destined for hell, these two men see this disaster as merely another opportunity to press partisan positions.

It does have the advantage of clarifying the nature of the partisanship.

If you are black, if you are poor, if you genuinely need help, not merely a tax break, if you belong to the wrong faith - a faith that buys no gold mines and blood diamonds for Mr. Robinson - then the sooner you die and create a real estate opportunity, the better.

This is the manifestation of their republicanism we saw first in Katrina and now we see it in completely unalloyed odium toward Haiti. Because, after all, Haitians are not citizens. Not even a modicum of false compassion need be displayed. It's completely without apparent consequence to them to display their soulessness.

Mr. Robertson, Mr. Limbaugh, yes, their IS evil in this world, and yes, it's clear that some people have made pacts with the devil. But Mr. Robertson, please keep your intra-union disputes out of the public eye. It's distasteful.

The Junior Senator from the Trick or Treat State.

John Ensign is apparently only capable of speaking the truth when he thinks he's lying for effect.

John Ensign Scandal: Senate Republicans Decline To Defend Colleague: "'I have a little alert to tell Washington,' Ensign said during the televised hearings. 'The people don't trust us. They don't trust us to make these decisions.'"

It is the usual tranparent appeal to the prejudices of the wingnut social conservative fringe, who can be depended upon to take the assertion as gospel. On the other hand, it's a pretty moronic idea for a Senator be flinging around - because there is no more important thing than having a government that you CAN trust to "make those decisions." That is, after all, the job.

The man often referred to as "the Hairdo" by his critic is not the sort of man that it is wise to allow to take the point on the rather critical issue of the honor, honesty and credibility of the US form of Representative Government. One would think, at any rate, for the sad truth is there is no-one able to make that statement with greater unintended irony than John Ensign of Nevada. Or so I hope.


Nevada is a place where people come to get rich or get lost. It's politicians and business people tend to be of the former sort, but in some particular cases the latter happens - because fast buck artists don't tend to be drawn from the classes of "The Best and the Brightest." It could well be called the "Trick or Treat State;" it gained statehood on Oct. 31, 1864, with the issue of slavery being a trick or a treat, depending on which side you were on. Things pretty much continued in that vein thereafter. The Hairdo Himself tends to underline the importance of a good costume in getting the biggest haul of candy. I think this explains his membership in Promise Keepers®, a conservative Christian movement with the motto, "Men of Integrety."

Central to Promise Keepers® membership is a pledge to keep the Seven Promises, among them:

PROMISE 3: A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity.

PROMISE 4:  A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.

Why go to all that trouble actually doing the right thing, when you can simply join an organization that says you are above reproach for a modest annual fee?

On both sides of my family tree, the sagas and tales of my axe-flinging ancestors whisper to me that there is no greater offense to Odin Skyfather than the unspilled blood of an Oathbreaker. Me, I do try to keep such intemperate reactions in check - particularly since the only thing Ensign did that would be of concern to my forebears was that he broke an oath - a bond precisely as sacred to them as a gambling debt.

Speaking of Nevada politics.

I advocate no violence; I merely find it hilarious that my ancestral collection of reprobates, raiders and remittance men would be offended by the man's offense, for, in a literary sense, it is exactly the sort of arrogance that the Gods, we are told of in the sagas, hero-tales and morality plays find remarkable enough to correct personally. So beware of doing harm to Ensign and his ilk.

It's imprudent to deprive a Ceiling Cat of it's mousie.

The New York Times published an overview of the sorry tale of presumption, adultery, deceit, deception, corruption and malfeasance that in the end led to the scuttling of John Ensign's presidential ambitions.

Mr. Ensign allowed Senator Tom Coburn, a friend and fellow conservative Christian, to serve as an intermediary with the Hamptons in May in discussing a large financial settlement, to help them rebuild their lives. “John got trapped doing something really stupid and then made a lot of other mistakes afterward,” Mr. Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in an interview. “Judgment gets impaired by arrogance, and that’s what’s going on here.”

No doubt that we are supposed to presume that Sen. Coburn - fellow conservative Christian and close friend - was as suprised by this behavior, this abuse of his trust as was the husband of his paramour (and campaign treasurer), close friend Douglas Hampton. Goodness, how could anyone have possibly foreseen such a thing?



But, man, he does look fine in public; the looks of a George Clooney, albiet with the eyes of an inbred Cocker Spaniel.

His capacity for looking good in public, coupled with his inability to avoid causing problems that could indebt him to those who make problems go away for a price made him the perfect candidate to place into high office, from a certain cynical perspective.

It's no wonder at all to me that he was seen as being a likely heir to Ronald Regan.

Whatever the motives of those who knew Ensign of old and supported him for office anyway, they certainly got exactly what they paid for. But like many superficially attractive investments, he depreciated rapidly. There is an axiom referred to as Hanlon's Razor which states that one should never presume malice when stupidity alone is sufficient to explain the situation - but to presume such comprehensive stupidity on the part of his backers is so insulting that I prefer to err on the side of charity.


John is a man who's character is made evident by his behavior. My primary impression comes from constituent correspondence. I wish I had copies - but I shredded them with extreme prejudice.

They revealed a breathtaking arrogance coupled with the complete absence of any thought put into the issue I had raised. Since they were form-letter responses to common questions and he has a staff who are actually paid to be smarter and better-informed than he is, there's simply no excuse for headpatting platitudes as a response to a constituent's concerns - most especially when you wish them to be reassured in their complacent presumption of your competence.

It was not difficult to find an example of the Ensign Style of Communication in the public record. Indeed, he communicated it to the Editors of the New York Times.

Published: October 8, 2007
To the Editor:

Your Sept. 27 editorial “Let the Sunshine In” left your readers in the dark on the issue of transparency in the Senate. I support electronic filing of fund-raising reports in the Senate because, as we probably agree, disclosure leads to more transparency in government. I have never had a secret hold on this bill.

In the same spirit of transparency, I requested a vote on my amendment that would require groups filing ethics complaints against senators to reveal who is financing their efforts. Light needs to shine on this increasingly abused process, but Democrats are clearly afraid of voting on my amendment.

Your editorial compared the House and the Senate, but on this issue there is a big difference. In the House, a member of Congress has to file a complaint. In the Senate, there are no requirements — anyone can do it anonymously, without even a signature. The result of the Democrats’ blocking my amendment is that people can continue to hide in the dark to lob partisan attacks against senators.
John Ensign

U.S. Senator from Nevada
Washington, Sept. 28, 2007

See how it gives the dual impression of impervious arrogance while revealing an inability to comprehend that there might actually be a principle at stake?

It's long been a GOP meme that ANY ethical question directed at a Republican is merely a "partisan attack." And they should know. They'd pioneered that style of political action with their attacks on Bill Clinton. So, we should all understand that when ethics complaints are being made, they aren't really ethics complaints. They are just attempts to replace one sumbitch with another, equally corrupt sumbitch who owes his loyalty to different backers and gets his political support by pandering to a different segment of the credulous public.

But - even if that WERE true - it is still a strange position for a Senator who comes from a state where "none of the above" is one of the options on the ballot.

But the objection to autonomous complaints - well, I do understand that completely. Those who casually cause offense, outrage and harm do like to know if those "little people" are banding together to get themselves some even. The idea that a complaint might be based in some legitimate concern for, say, national security or the rule of law can be dismissed as fantastical.  Concerns about personal safety, or other forms of retaliation? Absurd! Paranoia!

Anyone making a complaint would OF COURSE be employed by or funded by some political action group. That's how things "really work." That is the assumption made when Republicans attack ACORN and the ACLU. Whatever these groups say, or even actually achieve, their only real agenda is to make make it difficult for Republicans to hold on to political power.

As patently absurd as that statement is, I do think those people best placed to influence the Republican party and the Social Conservative Base actually believe that politics is the primary motivation of critics, that their opponents see ethics, law, justice, civil rights, gun laws, health care, global warming, church and state issues, marriage rights and every other issue as simply sharp rocks to pelt the GOP - and that there could not possibly be any larger motivation - like, say, moral indignation, or a sincere appreciation for the economic, social and environmental impact of heedless social, environmental and foreign policy.

That is not because of a fundamental difference in political philosophy. It is because that sort of blindness is required if you are a corrupt sonofabitch belonging to a club of corrupt bastards, for in order to look in the mirror, you must embrace the faith-based doctrine that all persons of your walk and station are no better than you. 

When you offend a large enough number of people over a long enough period of time with the expressed attitude of "whatcha gonna do about it," - well, sooner or later, one of those people will be in a position to do you a grave injury. Meanwhile, even those you helped - well, they probably had to pay a great deal for the help that should have come as a matter of course - so when you lose your ability to deliver the goods there is no bond of loyalty or gratitude, no debt of honor or genuine friendship to presume upon.

Now, I have no idea whether Sen. Ensign's ethics amendment passed, but regardless, it is ironic to note that if we were to trace the source of the funding for the complaint against him - well, it would come from "Ensign, Inc." Literally. But it is reasonable to question the motives and the character of people bringing complaint, as a matter of significant interest that should be independent of the facts of the complaint.

It is a sad fact of human nature that most crimes are solved with the help of other criminals. 

To put up with Ensign, and people like Ensign - you have to take him as being the very model of a modern Statesman. You have to be able to dismiss every hint that he's less than intelligent, less than prudent, less than honest and certainly FAR less than what he seems. You have to somehow continue to accept him at face value and at his word. That makes you either very stupid indeed, or very willing to look the other way in return for some personal benefit. For the latter case, we have Douglas Hampton to illustrate the matter. The Ensigns and the Hamptons were said to be very close, over a very long period of time. It's difficult to credit the idea that people who are so close are truly unaware of the essential nature of their bedfellows. 

When you choose to be friends with someone like John Ensign - well, it's kinda like inviting a loaded skunk into your home. Sooner or later, the damn thing is going to go off. It's in the nature of skunks and narcissists to do that when every little thing fails to go their way.  A narcissist may be charming - may indeed charm your pants off. But if you permit that to happen more than once - it's a consensual relationship with a very predictable story arc leading from "ohgodohgod" to "owfuckOW!"

This story will no doubt be fodder for playwrights and novelists for generations to come. It is a story that in it's improbable degrees of arrogance, theatrical details and breathtaking contempt for the standards of moral behavior may be in all seriousness be compared to great tragedies such as Antigone, Oedipus Rex and Othello. 

But I must confess that there is a distinction between the real-life clusterfuck that is Ensign and a classical morality play. Mark Twain famously observed that the difference between truth and fiction was that fiction had to make sense.

It will take a great deal of literary hagiography to transform Ensign into a plausible vehicle for an actor of stature greater Will Ferrell or Pauly Shore. Othello was not merely a jealous prick. Oedipus was not just a fool who stepped on his own dick. The tragedy of Antigone is that all involved were genuinely mistaken in their attempts to honor Family and Gods.

Ensign - well, if there is a God that would be caught dead in the C-Street church - it's the one that appears every time in the mirror when we brush our teeth. But then, to people like Ensign - no higher power exists.

Bullshit Baffles Brains? Maybe not forever.

The bullshit is so deep out there that hip waders aren't enough. You need a dry suit and a self-contained air supply. Let's show what toxic waste is doing to people...





It's not often that you see Bill Moyers get upset. Heck, it's not often that you see Bill make an unconditional statement. Bill is just sick to death of the bullshit.




Canadians are getting fed up with their health care system being demonized. The bullshit fear-mongering annoys us. It makes us cranky enough to make definitive statements. This is how a Canadian says "You are so full of shit."

It's done politely - and it burns all the worse for that. But, sweet John A. McDonald, how attached to your ignorance must you be to believe so many stupid things simultaneously, oh Right Wing Umurikins?

And lest you state that it's none of our business - you morons are flushing the hemispheric economy down the toilet. Health Care Reform is critical to rebuilding a robust middle class with a flourishing diversity of small businesses, which, by the by, is one of the reasons Canada is not actually circling the drain right now. It's not the result of "socialism" - not alone. It's at least as much due to some hard nosed Conservatism, of the "grounded in fiscal reality" variety of conservatism and not of the "there's a homo nigger commie with a tube of flouride toothpaste under my bed" variety.

Hell, over at MSNBC, John Harwood just doesn't care any more. As far as he's concerned, there's just no word for stupid better than "stupid."


H/t The Joshuablog for all these videos. (Follow him on Twitter - he collects such nuggets quite reliably)

I really understand the impatience.

Is it too much to ask of you nutbars to come up with an INFORMED opinion?

Ron Paul has done so. William F. Buckley did. Pat Buchanan does. Whatever I or you may think of their opinions is immaterial - their positions are arguable, and each of them is well known and justly famed for being willing and able to assert them. Not one of them has to "cut the mike" of anyone in disagreement. They can mix it up. They can bring it.

They are based in reality, fact and reason; they don't resort to the argument from authority, they are - legitimate - authorities in their realms.

But your average wing-nut would be hard pressed to explain in their own words how and why Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul differ on, say, campaign finance reform, much less come to an informed decision as to which was the more persuasive argument.

And that makes said wing-nut's opinion bullshit. It's crap, and you should ignore it, for truly, they have pulled it out of their ass.

I treat that handful of bullshit in exactly the same way I would treat an offering of crap pulled out of a toddler's diaper, for the exact same reasons. It's unhealthy and the only sane response is to commit an act of sanitation upon them. I will certainly not celebrate it as an artistic expression. It's poo. And it doesn't belong on my walls.

When I see a public-policy debate - ANY public policy debate - and everyone on the one side is being fairly sensible, while everyone on the other side is flinging poo and flaming straw men, then the odds are very good that even if I can't follow the argument on it's merits, the sensible-sounding side is more likely correct than the one losing it's water into it's shoes.

Pick your social media outlet of choice, and you will see exactly that sort of consensus developing on a wide range of issues, from health care to drug policy to prison reform to foreign policy, all against the backdrop of shrill whining about how "unfair" it is to be "dug down" for calling Obama a "Socialistic Fascist."

You see, when you say that, you reveal a complete ignorance of socialism, fascism and Obama's on-record policy statements and legislative history. It's not that you are being dug down for criticizing Obama. You are being dugg down for being fucknuts. You are uttering nonsense with such total conviction that ignoring you is only sensible thing to do.

It's impossible to usefully argue with someone who believes that a provably false idea is just as good as a provably true idea if enough other stupid people agree. Wishful thinking - and that's the kindest way to put it - is no basis on which to run a country. Or deploy armies. Or make really important economic decisions.

It's really not that difficult to inform yourself, to develop an expertise about an issue that matters to you, and then develop an intelligent position from any reasonable political perspective. Therefore, an intolerance of stupidity and conspicuous impatience with aggressive, loutish behavior is - well, I'd commend it more were it not so long overdue.

For myself, here's a discussion over on digg that I think illustrates the point. It's about the "radical" proposition that we should just legalize all "illicit" drugs, and then regulate them, according to our models for alcohol and legal drugs.

Quickly skim and evaluate both sides. One side makes quite sound-seeming arguments that you can fact check - and the other side makes accusations, appeals to authority and moralistic predictions that, if they were actually true, would have come true with the repeal of Prohibition.

And, far more in line to the general thrust of what I write, these comments often reveal a chilling indifference to the impact of policy on individuals; they show a heartless, mean-spirited and cruel mindest. Truthout just ran a rather good piece on that very point.

A right-wing spin machine, influenced by haters like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter, endlessly spews out a toxic rhetoric in which: all Muslims are defined as jihadists; the homeless are not victims of misfortune but lazy; blacks are not terrorized by a racist criminal justice system, but the main architects of a culture of criminality; the epidemic of obesity has nothing to do with corporations, big agriculture and advertisers selling junk food, but rather the result of "big" government giving people food stamps; the public sphere is largely for white people, which is being threatened by immigrants and people of color, and so it goes. Glenn Beck, the alleged voice of the common man, appearing on the "Fox & Friends" morning show, calls President Obama a "racist" and then accuses him of "having a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." [2] Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh unapologetically states that James Early Ray, the confessed killer of Martin Luther King Jr., should be given a posthumous Medal of Honor, [3] while his counterpart in right-wing hate, talk radio host Michael Savage, states on his show, "You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see - how do you like that? - a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children." [4] He also claims that Obama is "surrounded by terrorists" and is "raping America." This is a variation of a crude theme established by Ann Coulter, who refers to Bill Clinton as a "very good rapist." [5] Even worse, Obama is a "neo-Marxist fascist dictator in the making," who plans to "force children into a paramilitary domestic army." [6] And this is just a small sampling of the kind of hate talk that permeates right-wing media. This could be dismissed as loony right-wing political theater if it were not for the low levels of civic literacy displayed by so many Americans who choose to believe and invest in this type of hate talk. [7] On the contrary, while it may be idiocy, it reveals a powerful set of political, economic and educational forces at work in miseducating the American public while at the same time extending the culture of cruelty. One central task of any viable form of politics is to analyze the culture of cruelty and its overt and covert dimensions of violence, often parading as entertainment.
Underlying the culture of cruelty that reached its apogee during the Bush administration, was the legalization of state violence, such that human suffering was now sanctioned by the law, which no longer served as a summons to justice. But if a legal culture emerged that made violence and human suffering socially acceptable, popular culture rendered such violence pleasurable by commodifying, aestheticizing and spectacularizing it. Rather than being unspoken and unseen, violence in American life had become both visible in its pervasiveness and normalized as a central feature of dominant and popular culture. Americans had grown accustomed to luxuriating in a warm bath of cinematic blood, as young people and adults alike were seduced with commercial and military video games such as "Grand Theft Auto" and "America's Army," [8] the television series "24" and its ongoing Bacchanalian fête of torture, the crude violence on display in World Wrestling Entertainment and Ultimate Fighting Championship, and an endless series of vigilante films such as "The Brave One" (2007) and "Death Sentence" (2007), in which the rule of law is suspended by the viscerally satisfying images of men and women seeking revenge as laudable killing machines - a nod to the permanent state of emergency and war in the United States. Symptomatically, there is the mindless glorification and aestheticization of brutal violence in the most celebrated Hollywood films, including many of Quentin Tarantino's films, especially the recent "Death Proof" (2007), "Kill Bill" 1 & 2 (2003, 2004), and "Inglorious Bastards" (2009). With the release of Tarantino's 2009 bloody war film, in fact, the press reported that Dianne Kruger, the co-star of "Inglorious Bastards," claimed that she "loved being tortured by Brad Pitt [though] she was frustrated she didn't get an opportunity to get frisky with her co-star, but admits being beaten by Pitt was a satisfying experience." [9] This is more than the aestheticization of violence, it is the normalization and glorification of torture itself.

Personally, while I applaud Truthout's treatment of the issue, I don't see this as a new phenomenon. I see it as simply becoming more and more obvious. It used to be that the sadism was cloaked a bit more, a rationalization or two presented for the viewpoint - but the Authoritarian brutality celebrated in Hawaii 5-0, Kojack or the Dirty Harry movies was aimed for the very same, visceral target; the idea that all of the "moral failures" of society could be resolved with the right amount of pain applied to the right target.

The difference is that these days, the need to justify the urge seems to have worn threadbare. Hurting people and reveling in the suffering of others has become normalized, and not without a lot of help from supposed Christians who really ought to know better. In this transcript of an interview with Max Blumanthol, author of the newly-released Republican Gomorrah, lays much of our current sociopolitical problems with torture, violence and outright depravity at the feet of James Dobson, of Focus on the Family.

Where did Dobson’s fortune come from? How did he erect this empire? It came mainly from one book, which I quote from extensively in my book, Republican Gomorrah­Dare to Discipline, which is essentially a manual for corporal punishment, for beating your child. In this book, he says pain is a marvelous purifier that a child should be­that pain goes a long way with a child, that pain should be dispensed sufficiently enough to make a child cry, but then the child will crumple to your breast, and you should welcome the child with warm, open arms. This is a recipe for sadomasochism. And sadomasochism, as I discovered in­ [lost chunk in rush transcript]

JUAN GONZALEZ: And he saw himself originally as the antithesis to Benjamin­Dr. Benjamin Spock.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Dr. Benjamin Spock, who tells you to basically pick your child up and cradle it. And, you know, I mean, I was­you know, for whatever it’s worth, I was raised along those guidelines. When your child’s crying, you pick up the child.

By creating a belt-wielding army of millions, Dobson created the next generation of Republican shock troops, who are more radical than before. And sadomasochism­I know this sounds a little strange­is what defines the essential character, you know, that­this is what­at least what I’ve discovered­of the Republican follower of today. They’re sadistic in that they want to lash out at deviants, at people who are weaker than them, homosexuals, immigrants, foreigners, socialists. At the same time, they’re masochistic. They are followers of a higher cause, of a strong leader, a magic helper like Dobson or George W. Bush or the macho Jesus archetype that they worship. And this is what defines this movement.

So many of the people that Dobson has been able to get close to and work with in the Republican Congress and in American culture have been viciously abused as children. And he understood that by advocating violence against children, deliberate violence, he was creating this sensibility, which would produce a radical generation of political followers.

Tom DeLay, for example, who Dobson converted from Hot Tub Tommy, a dallying, philandering, no-name legislator in Texas, you know, who lived in a house that was nicknamed “Macho Manor,” Dobson converted him into this hardcore­you know, into “The Hammer,” the man who whipped the Republican Congress into shape and turned it into one of the most radical congresses in history.

Ted Bundy, who I write about extensively in my book, Republican Gomorrah, who is the most notorious serial killer in American history, Dobson helped convert Ted Bundy on death row into a born-again Christian and then got the final interview before Ted Bundy was executed and sold tapes of this interview to raise a million dollars for his political empire and to generate national renown.

Unrestrained sadomasochistic lust does not translate into sane public policy. It doesn't create a workable society. Those who take delight in the suffering of others and who see punishment of the weak this as part of the definition of a powerful State are made incapable of making rational, ethical decisions either on their own behalf or as rational participants in a democratic society, if for no other reason than this - in order to create the pain to revel in, you must become indifferent to the absolute cascade of bad outcomes that will surely pile up to the point where society shatters. For there is no earthly reason to expect that people will generally put up with such crap.

They WILL resist, they will retaliate, and there can no reasonable expectation that they will be as stupid about going about resisting authority as Conservatives have been in justifying it's cruel excesses.

The right wing answer to this, of course, is to call for a theocratic state. There are words for that sort of thing... but frankly, "Stupid" is more succinct.

A Mighty Wind Is Breaking

MultiLayer Text Template Tee by webcarve
Design personalized t shirts At www.zazzle.com

NOM Launches "2M4M" Really.:

File this under "Stuff You Just Can't Make Up". First we had the unintentionally hilarious "teabaggers", now we have the National Organization for Marriage. They are the folks who produced this ridiculous "scary" ad:

Now they are formally launching a campaign called "2 Million for Marriage" which they have so helpfully abbreviated for us as "2M4M". No, really. I swear to God.

What's even better is that they apparently didn't register the domains for their campaign before they announced it either. The URL 2M4M.org is, shall we say, less than sympathetic to NOM's cause.

You just can't make this stuff up.

But wait! There's MORE! Nothing like that can be posted on YouTube without a cascade of responses. This is aside from the snarky comments and the single star rating (the aggragate of 1,826 as of writing this).

Let's leave the windup for Rachel Maddow.






Wait... what was that about teabaggers?

UPDATE: The Gay Divas & Icons Remix! Crude, but effective!

A Graphictruth via Crooks and Liars

Fully credited to "Original Col Kilgore" who comments in response to Yet Another Republican Pedophelia Scandal:

"I have always said that Republicans talking about honor and fiscal responsibility is like Ted Bundy talking about foreplay."

Oddly, Ted Bundy WAS a Republican.

Here's the Zazzle page -I drew the illustration to the right from it. Click to read the fine print.

This is my response to the people already flooding the comments thread at C&L to minimize it with the usual "few bad apples" meme.

Haven't we seen this before, in another hierarchical, moralistic, doctrinaire and now nearly irrelevant organization called Catholicism? Hell, I've gotten OLD watching that slow-motion train-wreck!

Crooks, liars, perps and confidence men ALWAYS gravitate to organizations that stress the appearance of propriety - because when appearance becomes confused with performance, they have free rein to do as they wish. And in doing so, they undermine, drive out and sabotage those who would actually live up to the ideals of that organization - those who do not simply leave in disgust.

There are many people who would be quite happy being called a Republican if there was any real connection between semblance and substance but clearly, that's not true, and it's not true on every level from raw personal perpishness to grand political strategy.

People who do things like this perp did do them because they are confident they can get away with it. Why are they so confident? Because they have gotten away with many other things for a very long time as an integral part of the process of getting to where they are. They have helped other crooks and perps cover up messes and feel they are owed. One hand washes the other. Men of the world understand how these things work, don't you know.

Yes, they work by means of obstruction of justice, in furtherance of a conspiracy. Sad to say, not only has the Republican Party prospered by means of obstruction of justice and conspiracy, it doesn't even seem to have collectively enough brains to realize that a conspiracy has to remain covert to succeed. When a story about the obvious political interference in a pedophilia problem by the US Atty. General hits World Net Daily, Raw Story AND Prison Planet and then VANISHES from mainstream news, not only is there an obviously rotting elephant in the room, it's become liquid in it purification.

Of course, we must ask why. The answer must, of course, be somewhat speculative, but some reactions are very revealing. I point to the front page of "Armchair Subversive" - a site that takes great glee in listing the perps figuring in significant Republican Scandals.

And what is a typical, Middle-American reaction? It's to be found at the bottom of that page.

"HATE MAIL:"Maybe you have no control over where they post your political bullshit but I wish they wouldn't post it on google when my 11 year old daughter is just trying to find ideas for her 12th birthday party. I am sure there are plenty of liberal fucks out there molesting children also!!!!!!! Post it where it matters in the trash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, a concerned mother"

Of all the logical failings of social conservatives, "shooting the messenger" seems to be the most widespread.

Now, one could argue that it's unattributed and might even be fabricated. One could and should consider the source. But the counter argument would be; does this response sound at all unusual? Sadly, it's a rather common sort of response, examples of it are already flooding into this thread and infest any attempt on any significant site to raise awareness of systemic abuses. As an exemplar, it speaks directly to the problem in exactly the way most others do - which is an attempt to preserve the appearance of morality and propriety at the expense of justice for those victimized by those hiding behind it's tattered facade.

If Social Conservatives who seem to be all that remain of public republicanism spent a tenth of the effort they invest in denial into due diligence and self policing, the Republican party and social conservatism might deserve a shred of respect, might have a trace of credibility.

But, to cite the name of yet another famous blog: Sadly, No.

Well, when corruption becomes something that can be assumed, taken for granted, when law enforcement is conspicuously conditional upon party affiliation, no matter how utterly repugnant the crime might be - how can anyone expect respect for the law? How do we raise the next generation to respect laws and lawmakers if it's laughable to point to the ones in power and the laws they pass and selectively enforce as proofs of concept?

That's one of them rhetorical questions.

Mormons may have violated Election law and IRS Standards.

Whether or not a case may be proven without access to Mormon financial records is actually immaterial from the viewpoint of individuals such as myself. It's fairly clear that steps were taken to evade IRS and election oversight measures. In other words - words being echoed by various activist groups - the Mormon push on Prop 8 was clearly and deliberately intended to subvert the political process - which governs every citizen of a nation - in order to impose religious rules that apply only to a tiny minority of ... well, let's call it for what it is; religious bigots.

You see, not doing something or forgoing something for religous reasons, for yourself and to a limited extent, on behalf of family is one thing. Imposing conditions on other people in order to make it easier for you to adhere to your faith is quite another. One might seriously question the "faith" of persons who see social control as a tool of faith.

H8TRED, LOVE, which are the red letters? by webcarve

In any case, whatever is proven, this direct interference in the lives and moral choices of other people should be persuasive to persons of genuine faith and conscience. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the ten commandments - but adultery is. Adultery, in the Hebrew, speaks to "splitting apart" a relationship. It's speaking of any human relationship. It's considered to be as serious a matter as murder or giving false testimony in order to harm another.

This would seem to disqualify anyone in a leadership position from leadership if they could see this as a proper course of action for a church.

Shake the dust from your feet. Faith is about upholding and living up to standards to the best of YOUR ability - not imposing standards upon others and punishing people in the civil world for not setting examples you approve of. That's indistinguishable from pure bigotry, and you can find that sort of "faith" in any corner bar.

So, why not get a beer for your five bucks, if you are willing to settle for that sort of uplifting companionship?

One More Reason Why McCain Should Lose

Pre-emptive Ejection is the reason. It turns out that McCain's campaign is profiling and ejecting people who look like they MIGHT protest. Who might protest, heckle or boo? Young people.

Elborno said after seeing the people who were asked to leave, she was concerned that McCain’s staffers were profiling people on appearance to determine who might be a potential protester.

“When I started talking to them, it kind of became clear that they were kind of just telling people to leave that they thought maybe would be disruptive, but based on what? Based on how they looked,” Elborno said. “It was pretty much all young people, the college demographic.”

Elborno said even McCain supporters were among those being asked to leave.

“I saw a couple that had been escorted out and they were confused as well, and the girl was crying, so I said ‘Why are you crying? and she said ‘I already voted for McCain, I’m a Republican, and they said we had to leave because we didn’t look right,’” Elborno said. “They were handpicking these people and they had nothing to go off of, besides the way the people looked.”

Well, we knew McCain supported the Bush Doctrine. Now we know he supports preemptive action against citizens who might have questions about his leadership. It was disrespectful, dishonorable and cowardly. I don't want a gutless wonder like that in the White House.

Too sarcastic? Over the top? Perhaps. But it does go to character, Your Honors. What it shows me is that McCain is not confident enough of his ground to dare face critics at a televised event. It makes me wonder how many of the crowds are hired theatrical "extras," or even patched in with CGI.

I think this is the answer they were looking for. It's a shame that for some, it came too late.

No Whining, John!
by

webcarve

Create a Customized TShirt On Zazzle
More Words To Live By T-Shirts

Irony Abounds at Townhall.com

News Headlines - Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship : Townhall.com:

"A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy."

The facts are not in serious dispute by serious persons. But we are speaking of Townhall Dot Com. Not exactly a hotbed of objective, fact-based thought.

Indeed, they are clamoring that the dismissal of this utterly friviolous, unfounded suit shows blatant contempt for the Constitution.

Unlike the Patriot Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, "Sneak and Peek" warrants, the gutting of FISA and Bush's grandiose theories of unitary executive power; THAT bothers them!

Unlike the the widespread imposition of "Free Speech Zones" and the videotaped documentation of jackbooted goons beating the crap out of dissenters, THIS act of requring that a suit have standing and a factual basis is "wiping one's ass on the constitution."

Kris Location: PA

Reply # 6
Date: Oct 25, 2008 - 5:29 PM EST

Standing?

The Constitution demands that the President be a "natural born citizen."

Mr. Berg, and indeed the entire country, could suffer irreparable harm if a person is elected to the office of President despite a failure to meet the minimum requirements to hold that office. This is a matter of a member of the public challenging a candidate for PUBLIC office to prove he meets the requirements of that office as defined by the supreme law of the land! The Federal court has an obligation to hear this case, and is now in violation of its duty to uphold the Constitution.

But who am I kidding, the courts decided long ago that the constitution is worth less than a roll of Charmin when deciding matters of law.

As for Factcheck.org going to the actual document, instead of "analyzing" scans that may have been touched by who knows who for ghu knows what reasons, one reader says this.

Forrest Location: IL

Reply # 51
Date: Oct 25, 2008 - 8:47 PM EST

Subject: Birth Certificate

I don't know that Fact Check can be trusted. At least one of those groups is allegedly an Obama front. I am surprised that Sandra did not quote Moveon.org. I believe they, or a group like them, also came up with the thing she is talking about. Also, he has not actually presented a birth certificate, according to Berg, and the document he did produce has been allegedy altered. Just produce the Birth Certificate, and that will be the end of it. Them all we have to do is worry if he will house all of his Marxist, anarchist, racist friends in the White House so they will be close by to advise him on how Saul Alinsky, Hugo Chavez and Raila Odginga would do things.

How much reality do you have to ignore in order to believe made-up shit like this?

Well, here's one example - and one reason why the McCain campaign uses paid surrogates such as Corsi. Of course one wonders why a party with such access to resources can't afford a better grade of liar. Maybe - and I don't think I'm the first person to think of this - but maybe they honestly don't believe they need better lies - and maybe they are right. With exemplars as seen above, it would be difficult to honestly believe that you needed to bring your A game.

Teaching kids that Uncle Fred might be a pedophile is "unprincipled?"

High Ideals and No Principles by Thomas Sowell on National Review Online: "What is called “sex education,” whether for kindergartners or older children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values that go against the traditional values that children learn in their families and in their communities."

Were that true, it would be a damning allegation. It's a shame that the once respectable NRO seems to have abandoned the principle of basing opinions upon facts presented honestly in the light of respectable and honorable Conservative perspective.

Here's what Obama was actually suggesting:

When Obama's campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers "age appropriate" for kindergartners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had "moved to clarify" in his Senate campaign that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"

In addition to local schools informing kindergartners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an "opt out" provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about "inappropriate touching," according to Obama's presidential campaign. Despite Obama's support, the legislation was not enacted.

So, I'm forced to wonder aloud - as I have, all to often when these memes come up - as to how such harmless and frankly needful information could be considered destructive and harmful to families?

Could it be the "inappropriate touching" part?

Look - I know how utterly snide and insulting that sounds. But I'm not saying it in order to score political points or shoot across the bow of anyone's "Culture War" gunboat. This observation comes out of almost two decades of involvement in abuse and survivor's issues. Bluntly, I'm the product of something that (though my specific memories are unreliable) would, both by the patterns of cracks in my psyche, point toward something for which the term "inappropriate touching" would be an understatement of truly mythic proportions.

And of the people I know who's shatter patterns resemble mine, it's almost a cliche' to observe that the shattering occurs within a family context that justifies it's abuse via authoritarian belief structures, generally with some religious trappings.

I can count on the fingers of one thumb the number of polyfragmented, traumatized, dissociated and disordered multiple personalities that did not have such a background, absent something like autism or a particularly hidious scholastic enviroment. Lucky me, I hit the trifecta and despite my inherent conservative biases, it's real hard to ignore such compelling evidence without engaging in levels of denial that are truely and literally insane.

Further, my wife was a special educator for twenty years and has a parallel observation - that in her suburban schools, it would be common for two to three children to disclose (out of classes of 25 to 30) some form of abuse whenever the issue was brought up - often through a reading assignment. Oddly enough, such books are very high on the list of books conservative and religious groups would like to see banned.

As a person who's dedicated much of his adult life to figuring out how things can go so badly wrong within the confines of family and church; institutions that both claim the right, duty and ability to shape children so that they "do right," I have come to the conclusion that our national fetish for preserving "innocence" of children is, sadly, just that.

A fetish.

And whether or not that fetish is personally sexual in any particular person, all persons that buy into and support it add to the cover it grants to Republican Pedophiles.

It seems that the authoritarian conservatives - and far too often, the religous authoritarian conservatives - are easily seduced by the idea of proving their power to themselves and to others by sexually exploiting those with less power, while sexually disenfranchising all those who are not in power. In the most brutal and literal sense, the Authoritarian sees power and sexual abuse - rape, to not put too fine a point on it - as being both the expression, the reward and the natural right of the alpha male.

Now, this understanding is cloaked in culture and shrouded in denial, to the point where conservatives may think that they are being completely honest in making what they think as principled objections to what they see as interference in family matters, and the right to determine what sort of information regarding sexuality is appropriate to their children.

But I see nothing in what Sen. Obama was advocating that would actually be a threat to that - assuming the matters were handled appropriately. And meanwhile, the "abstanance only" movement is more than willing to trade in misinformation and outright lies about the consequences of premarital sex, contraception and abortion.

So if this is a principled position, it's a principle that admits that it's ok to decieve "for the greater good," to bear false witness, to install toxic fear and shame as an acceptable price for the prevention of "sinful behavior."

Having spent far too many years hip deep in the consequences of such stupitdity, both personally and in support of the weeping consequences of being forced to face the price and consequences of surviving their childhoods in abusive and almost universally religous conservataive families, I call bullshit.

And Thomas Sowell is either bullshitting himself or trying to bullshit you. Either way, it's another reason to vote for someone with a realistic view toward the costs and benefits of early information and age-approprate education about maintaining appropriate sexual boundries, both in and out of one's own family.

Frank Schaeffer goes for the Chromefishtian Groin

Words in Red: Luke 16:10
by

webcarve

Create photo shirts On www.Zazzle.com
View more United States T-Shirts

SING it, Frank!

Take a hard look at yourselves. Play back this year's Republican convention and you'll see an all-white crowd of people screaming for offshore oil drilling -- fat lot of good that will do! more carbon! more polution! -- and essentially reacting like starved hyenas when presented with a piece of juicy carrion. At the convention Sarah Palin and others produced nothing more than a snide list of smart ass put downs aimed at the really dumb, with so little substance that former conservatives such the late William F. Buckley, for instance (let alone my late father) would simply have been ashamed to be in your company. You have become a hate-filled rabble proud of your ignorance and resentful of the rest of your own country, resentment that's exceeded only by your maudlin (and false) sense of victimhood.

People that hate half the population of their own country can scarcely be called patriots. On the contrary, people who exult in mocking as their only way to "contribute" to solving our huge environmental, energy, military and economic problems are true subversives.

The smell emanating from your convention was that of a beer hall putsch circa 1930s, not anything remotely like participation in a democracy. Now you all know what it felt like to be in a lynch mob minus the hanging. You should be ashamed. But shame is something that apparently Republicans are no longer capable of feeling, at least when you get together in a mob.

read more | digg story

Here's what I said on Zazzle about the illustration, before I read this. It's nice to know I'm not merely howling in the wilderness - entirely.

Don't tell me you are a Christian. Really. If you need to tell me that you are a Christian, that guarantees I might have some doubts about it, otherwise. It also tells me a lot about why you think it might improve my opinion of you, in the face of other things I might learn of.

Oh, and when you say "God Told You" or "God Wants you to" or most especially, "God hates," understand that when you accept the responsiblity of speaking for God, there's a biblical standard of accountabilty.


The OT cites are especially grim, dear. What was that you said about a gas pipeline, again?

Click thru to check out the back of the shirt. >veg<

Please don't buy this shirt! (Buy the stickers instead!)

These are the people in your neighborhood T-Shirt
by

webcarve

Make personalized t shirts At Zazzle.com
Browse Satire T-Shirts

HT: Inspired by a post from the Vegas Gleaner, one of them rabble-rousing Lib-a-ruls. Of course he should be on zazzle himself. I mean, just the title alone:

"Billions of Nevadans make pilgrimage to glimpse Divine Prophet"

When I want to punch the stupid out of people, I don't get mad, I get creative. Really. That's why I do it. It really, really gets in the way of making commercial stuff.

Ya see, this shirt basically says that only idiots who like beating up people who disagree with them are actually still stupid enough vote for Palin and McCain.

Let me underline this with the fact that Ron Paul refused to endorse the ticket, and of all people, Paleocon Patrick J. Buchannon has actually endorsed Obama!

If Pat and Ron don't feel room in that big tent - and they are far from alone in that, well, we should look at what's left. Neocons, snake-oil artists and the sort of people that poisoned their own kids because Jim Jones said so.

So, given that these people are not just foolish, but dangerously and stupidly foolish, it doesn't seem like the smart money is on wearing one in public. But, I do have an idea. If a t-shirt is just too damn dangerous to wear in public, it's time to have a little fun with stickers.

The Corn Is Watching
by

webcarve

Design a cheap sticker on zazzle.com
View other Satire Stickers

Get out there and back-slap a few Republicans. You know, ones who don't know where you live.

Gleaner, Wonkette and even maybe even John Stewart miss "Pappa Bear's" Best Line.

Once you listen to this, and savor O'rielly's amazing lame response to Stewart's artful on-air roast of him for not blaming the Palin's Sr. for the manifest indescretions of Young Ms. Palin as he had already done to Brittney Spears' parents for the indiscretion of the younger daughter, back up to the one minute mark.

Clearly it's easy to miss, but here's a crude transcript:

In a commentary a few months ago I scolded the parents of Brittney Spears for not supervising their children, a situation that has been well-documented....

Of course, there is no evidence that the Governor's children are unsupervised...

So, Bill, are you saying that Bristol Palin WAS supervised when she conceived? Do you have proof? Home video perhaps?

Should there be proof that she was under parental supervision when she became pregnant, I think there would be some rather pointed bi-partisan interest in such a family dynamic, even before we consider who by, really.

On the other hand, Bill, if you are actually suggesting what my catholic-educated ears picked out of the background noise - that Bristol's baby is the product of an "Immaculate Conception," - I think I'll tell you what I suggested to Fr. Kieran, SJ, just before he told me to shut me heathen yap.

Which is it, Bill? Was she "properly supervised?" By whom? And how does pregnancy fit into "proper supervision" when we all know that in her family's moral scheme, that would make her A Bad Girl Who Is Probably Going To Hell?

...even in cases of rape and incest.

I mean, Bill, if you really respected the Palins - or anything other than your loofa - you really ought to try and do an honest day's work of spin control. All the total effect of your "clarification" was to make things one hell of a lot worse for the Palins.

I mean, not that I particularly care. I happen to believe that you don't bet on getting a nice red Roma tomato from a deadly nightshade - even if they are closely related.

It Goes To Credibility, your Honor...

Hilzoy, writing in the Washington Monthly, managed to nutshell one critically important aspect of the postmodern Presidency that McCain is striving to inherit, the critical fact that lies go to credibility.

If we are simply reduced to picking a candidate based on which lies we prefer while knowing they are lies, we may as well just write representative democracy off as a failed experiment. If a man or a woman lies to me in order to gain my vote, and worse yet, lies in service of appeals to my basest instincts, they work against the fundamental, REPUBLICAN premise; that some people ARE more qualified to represent us than others; that while you or I may not be interested in or able to do the job ourselves, it should be possible to learn enough about the candidates to choose between qualified candidates who make an honest case for their ambitions and intentions.

When politicians lie -- and here I mean not just putting the best spin on things, but out and out lying -- they might as well walk up to each and every one of us and say: Hello! I have no respect for the value of your time! You might have other things to do -- work, playing with your kids, taking a long hike in the mountains, whatever -- but I don't care. I'm going to put you in a position where you're going to have to research everything I say, or else just give up on your civic duty. You don't get to assume that my words are, if not exactly true, at least somewhere in the general vicinity of the truth, and decide whether or not to vote for me. If you want to be an informed citizen, you'll have to become obsessive, like hilzoy.

I was going to blog this, as a natural followup to my last post. However, I do like to read what other folks are saying, to see if there's a hole somewhere a post naturally fits. Well, it turned out that someone had written the damn blog post for me. Ted; I'll back this up with a personal invite; you can blog here any time you care to.

Palin is so obviously unfit for command -- not because of her experience, not because she is a woman, and not because comes from a small state or even that she holds conservative views. She is unfit because she has never even thought seriously about the job or the issues she would address before McCain gave there the nod.

That shows you everything you need to know about the nature of the Conservative Movement that has cynically selected a "maverick" like McCain to continue its control of the country. The conservative movement is not "conservative" in the least. It is radical and revolutionary at its core. And like all revolutionary movements through history it's aim is destruction. The Republican Party waves a lot of flags and speaks of duty, honor, country and patriotism. But at some deep level they do not believe that America today believes any of those things. They believe that conservatives are patriotic and loyal to the American tribe, but they don't think the nation is. And that is their primary issue. That is the "change" Republicans cheered last week. They are not interested in the least in the mortgage crisis, or the environment, or whether invading Iraq is wise or insane. They care only that people think America is pure and good. When Republicans listen to Democrats talk about what is wrong in America, they do not hear about problems that must be solved but proof that liberals hate America.

Conservatives are not in the least interested in a government that works because it doesn't believe in government. That don't want good government. They want no government at all. That is why conservatives can campaign against the government even when they control it.

Neither are they interested in good governance -- the kind that requires balanced judgment, knowledge of the issues, an even temperament for leadership. Governance requires balancing interests and bringing the country together by making people see that there is more that unites us than divides us. Conservatives believe in unity too -- but it is the unity of conformity and obediance to orthodoxy. And the only real issue they believe in is erradicating a modern, secular American culture which conservatives consider to be corrupt. They would replace it (or "purify" it to use a horrifying but accurate word) with something more aligned to the particular folkways of the largely rural southern sub-culture.

We are simply talking two different languages here. Democrats are running to take the helm of the government of a nation is perilous times. Conservatives are running to continue a cultural revolution that would destroy the very institutions they seek to control.

Posted by: Ted Frier on September 7, 2008 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

An Incredible lapse in judgement.

Clearly, it takes a particular combination of stupidity, arrogance and contempt for the intelligence of others to still be a Republican party member in Ohio. We won't even bother addressing the ethical aspects - if they aren't obvious, there's simply no point in pointing it out.

Mom, Can My Voting Machine Spend the Night? - The Lede - Breaking News - New York Times Blog: "Ohio is an election battleground state with perennial problems at the polls. So what have election officials in some precincts of the state been doing to keep their voting machines safe from tampering?

Taking the machines home with them and stashing them in their garages in the days before a big election.

If it sounds like something pulled straight out of an episode of Saturday Night Live, or Borat for that matter, it’s not. The practice has become so widespread that it even has a nickname, “sleepovers.”"

Appalled? Stunned? Amazed at the sheer amazing witless stupidity? Wait, it gets better!

Many local election officials who defend the “sleepover” practice say it makes it easier for them to transport the machines to polling sites, and that it allows them to keep an eye on the machines. But their critics call that nonsense, and argue that allowing people to take voting machines home with them — where they can access them at any time, and potentially hack into them — is the very definition of a security risk.

Look, any even vaguely credible review of the validity of electoral procedures would say that this completely invalidates the election itself. If this is not actually illegal, it ought to be, and it should be grounds for an immediate push to overhaul the procedures and fire anyone corrupt and or stupid enough to actually think this is defensible.

Not to put too fine a point on it, any candidate that supposedly wins under these conditions will never be trusted by anyone. If Obama does win, everyone will have to assume he's a Trojan horse candidate. If McCain wins, everyone will refer to it as a "selection victory."

We have barely enough time for the states to return to good old fashioned paper ballots - which may sound expensive, but if the alternate is the collapse of confidence in government, it would be cheap at any price.

On The Frontlines Of The Culture War: James Hartline Reports Exclusively!!!

James Hartline T-Shirt
by webcarve

Lesbians Terrorize San Diego Community

During Obscene Political Event

As Parents Are Forced To Keep Their Kids

Off The Streets To Protect Them

During The 2008 San Diego Dyke March.

Public Obscenities By Radical Lesbian Group
Spells Doomsday For Family Values
If Same-Sex Marriages Are Not Banned In California.

Warning: This Article Includes Evidence That Contains Graphic Language

Don't we all? Boobies are friendly and warm, soft and cushy.
How could anyone NOT heart Boobies?

Be afwaid, be vewwy vewwy afraid!
Public displays of affection between women might lead to...

James, vhat is zis between you undt your Muzzer?

The James Hartline Report: "Friday, August 08, 2008
National Outrage Over Lesbian March in San Diego
Comments have come flooding in on the report of lesbians marching through a San Diego neighborhood with profanity-filled signs and public displays of immorality.
Here is one of many Comments regarding the Lesbian March Through A San Diego Suburb that has terrified many families with children:

I wanted to see the "comments flooding in" and, to be honest, I wondered if the "profanity filled signs" were funny enough to put on t-shirts. I steeled myself to wade through several pages of the sort of xenophobic crap I'm used to seeing on sites such as this - but I was glad to be disappointed. The comment cited was pretty much the sum total of "the flood" in support. There were a few taking exception, far more politely than he deserved. As the only real support was unsigned, it could easily have come from Hartline himself - and considering his page rank is actually lower than mine, I'd say that's kinda likely.

But nonetheless, I was led to believe that there was much more to this story by this "flood of comments" than there actually was.

"Some gays shoot themselves in the foot once again. In trying to be accepted like regular people wanting to live regular lives, they parade their freaks for all to see...proudly even. These freaks are an embarrassment to those in the homosexual community who just want to live and not bring down anything in order to bring themselves up. So, these freaks will never have my sympathy. They got their attention, now they can kiss the respect that they want goodbye."

Ok, I've seen freaks flying their freak flags in Pride Parades before. I like that sort of thing. Hell, I AM that sort of thing. So, of course, I had to look...

Me, I see a crowd of normal-looking people who happen to be lesbians. They clearly ARE regular people living regular lives - without benefit of clergy. Doesn't seem to have done them any-much harm, either.

Many are parents, and those kids look suspiciously normal, too.

It's about as terrifying, as shocking and as perverted as a puppy stampede.

Perhaps you could have found actual "evidence" of something you could argue to be perverse, but the fact that you THINK you found abundant evidence makes me concerned for you. Truly.

The last thing I think of when I look at the parade is *hot*lesbian*sex*. Frankly, it was more along the lines of "aww, aint' they cute holding hands like that?"

And one person allegedly has a sign that says "I Heart my C*nt". Couldn't find it myself; I am apparently not obsessive enough. But, well, shouldn't she?

I mean, which is better, That Word used in a positive sense, or the fact that you clearly see all these women in the exact way that men like you mean when using That Word and all other references - connoting nasty, evil, vicious, prick-teasing, smelly...

Me, I just see a lot of women. At least one thinks her {(o)} is lovely. I'm sure it is, too. Or at least, I'd never be rude enough to disagree.

But clearly, you see that shaming her her dangerous vice of self-approval (and self-sufficiency, for that matter) as a mandate imposed by your personal faith. I intuit even more about the doctrine of your "faith" when you market this "vile event" as pornography, well, you do it for the same reason that pornographers do. To get the clicks which brings the money.

But, ya know, real porn delivers the full frontal goods. From you, we get a same-sex Hallmark card.

WHERE'S my HOT LESBIAN SEX, James? YOU PROMISED ME HOT LESBIAN SEX that would make the Eyes of The Children Bleed and Change our Families Forever!

Not only were the horses not scared, the ponies didn't even NOTICE!

The families looked just like... ah, I begin to garner a glimmer of your concern!

You'd be much less terrified if they were being conspicuously freaky. And as miserable as you are, you bitter old queen. Yes, I do mock. I do.

On the other hand, the fact that you can even MAKE your face do that while preachin' the Good News tells me that you ain't been mocked NEAR enough!

Nope, when you clearly loathe yourself to the very depths of your withered little soul, who am I to contest your self-assessment? All I do question is your ability to assess others. You know that proverb about "judge not, lest you be judged also?" Well, James, you are the poster boy for that proverb.

Make 'em laugh and they'll cough up the cash."

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, ‘Where is that marvelous ape?’" John McCain, 1986, The Tucson Citizen: (PDF)

He told this "joke" to a conference of the National League of Cities and Towns, while in the process of campaigning for Senate. Well, any campaign handbook will tell you to "make 'em laugh" - and experience will tell you that the best way to "make 'em laugh" is to take aim at the folks that you know trouble the folks who have the money you want. The beautiful thing about a crude joke is that it's deniable, at the very worst, you get a little free publicity (they will tell you,) all provided by "those bitches who won't vote for you anyway."

You see, when you tell a joke like that, you are sending a message. "I'm with you. I don't like these uppity women and "gorillas" any more than you do."

Of course, you do scan the room to see if there were any women or "gorillas," but no doubt there were only a couple-three servers and secretaries, so he wasn't concerned.

Betcha five bucks he's got coon jokes tailored (by a focus group) for the Hispanic community. Considering who he's running against - I bet you he's got a LOT of them.

This comes via Rum, Romanism and Rebellion who have a fun bit of shwag.

This one is a sure-fire gift for every button collector on your November is as Good as Christmas List.

---

Polish-Mexicans for Obama, 2 1/4" Button
$2.25