We are racists

Norway this past week suffered a brutal terrorist attack. Whatever your opinions on the man (and I eventually believe his co-conspirators) and his political and religious beliefs, he murdered a lot of people in a country without a lot of people. The event was a shock to their way of life and they reacted with swift vengeance and an increase in security.

No wait - that's what we would do. Kind of. In fact, Norway has reacted with reasonable calmness and resolve - investigating the crimes without any actions that increase security at the cost of personal liberties and freedoms. How un-American of them!

With every terrorist attack since 9/11 the United States of America has increased security and decreased personal liberties for our citizens. Remember when you didn't have to take your shoes or belt off to get on an airplane? remember the days when Miranda had to be read to you every time, with no exceptions? Remember when we used to put all accused criminals on trial?

So what's the difference? Why have we been terrorized when Norway hasn't fallen prey to it, despite a home-grown terrorist attack? Glenn Greenwald at Salon has a good article on it but I don't think he hits hard enough on a key issue. He talks about how Norway has resisted pressure to increase security and until this moment of home-grown terrorism has done so successfully - and appears will continue to do so. He talks about the differences between our country and Norway, and how we have become terrorized while they have not.

It's in an update to his article that I notice something. He talks about how we didn't increase security in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. Well, he accurately points out that in fact we did, but it was nothing on the scale of what we go through today. But there's something else underlying all of this. A man blows up an abortion clinic and sets off a bomb in the Olympic park in Atlanta. A man guns down a doctor in his church. A man places a bomb on the streets of Seattle. None of these terrorist threats warranted an increase in security anywhere in the U.S. But a man attempts to set his feet on fire, and another his undies. A man shoots up an army base, while another attempts to drive a car bomb across the Canadian border. Each of these terrorist threats were responded to with changes and increases in our security.

The difference? Group A weren't Muslims. Group B was. Greenwald didn't want to go to the logical conclusion and went to great pains in his article to talk about differences and make it out to be a difference between our country and Norway. I'm going to go a touch further.

For a melting pot we seem to be really unable to accept differences. We suck at it. Conservatives hate gays and Islamic people and even sometimes Jews. Liberals hate those who are close-minded. I could site you a thousand examples but the point for today is a simple one - these security increases and loss of liberties are the result of perceived Islamic terrorism.

Bill ORLY has nearly popped a vein in his skull over the idea that the Norwegian killer could be called a Christian terrorist. Well, I call bullshit. If you can constantly refer to people using the name of Allah to commit unspeakable acts as Islamic terrorism then this nut job in Norway is certainly a Christian terrorist. And therein lies the heart of the matter - we are racist against Muslims. It's a definitional problem, the same as a white man will lock the doors of his car when he drives through a black neighborhood. You don't want to acknowledge that this is racism, but it most certainly is.

And I don’t see how we're going to get past this without a complete overhaul. Or perhaps by defeating the thing that scares us most - our own fear. I'm not saying it's easy - FDR really nailed it on the head with that one. But until we reach that point the terrorists beat us. Because we are afraid of the people they supposedly represent (even though they don't). It's the same reason that blacks have a suspicion of whites even if they don't dress in sheets. It's the same reason that Native Americans distrust our government and have their own cops - because they were railroaded so often. It's the same reason that Jews, Irish, Italians, and just about every immigrant group has been blamed for the bad crap that happens all throughout the history of the United States.

We are a nation founded on escaping persecution, and while our founding fathers found a way out of that morass for the most part we easily sink back into it. It becomes an us against them mentality, and lately it even permeates the differences between political parties. And even if they all have the same skin color it all boils down to that basic fear - the problems are caused by the NOT US.

Racism. And unless we get past that we're in serious trouble - because we're losing the moral fight.

Cheap shots:

Proof, at the Congressional level.

I'll be honest, I never thought there was a fan-fiction category for anything like this.

Kick his ass lady!

Painfully thickwitted. I like that phrase.

Leave Brittney alone!!!!!!!!!!11!

And again, The Onion nails it.

No Rand, you've misinterpreted the book. The Hobbits weren't the heroes - a small band of them, outcasts from the rest, were the heroes. You and McCain are just assholes.

Speaking of books, I think I just found two more to add to the summer reading lists of my children.

Interesting trailer.

And the jobs bill is where exactly?

Someone castrated the Speaker of Orange!

And because I love you, Robert Randolph and the Family Band

NEVER, you fucking idiot

My mom worries that I've lost my mojo because I didn't rant for nearly a month. Not to worry. Buckle up.

Question for Glenn Beck: Under what circumstances is it acceptable/understandable to shoot a bunch of children? If they are "Hitler Youth" does that make it acceptable? If the camp that they are attending is some sort of "political brainwashing" does that make it acceptable? Under what circumstances is this okay?

Stop thinking about it and answer reflexively. NEVER YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!

The answer is NEVER. Not ever. Not under any circumstances. Period. No exceptions. Ever. The fact that you've already come up with excusing what the shooter in Norway has done makes you a monster. Evil. Demonic.

I don't give a fuck if they're all going to grow up and become terrorists. I don't give a fuck if they're being indoctrinated in Hitler Youth, Islamic Youth, Christian Youth, 4-H, or even your own 912 project. I'm not saying that these kids were such a thing. I'm not saying they weren't. I'm saying it makes no fucking difference whatsoever under any circumstances.

I don’t give a fuck if they're being taught to burn books in Bible camp in Alabama. I don't give a fuck if they're being taught to say "Allah Akbar" every night before they go to bed in Wisconsin. I don't give a fuck if they have to kiss their 4 mothers to sleep every night in Utah. I don't give a fuck if they're being raised to take over the family moonshine business in West Virginia. I don't give a fuck if they witnessed their gay uncle and his "friend" get married this past weekend in New York. I don't give a fuck if they're being raised on the monies earned in the drug trade in Arizona. I don't give a fuck if they're being raised to become suicide bombers in Florida. I don't give a fuck if they've been raised to fuck goats in Chicago. (All examples based upon real incidents, by the way.)

I don't even give a fuck if they're the children of racist right-wing radio hosts that spew hate with every breath.

I don't give a fuck about any of this because it is NEVER acceptable to kill children or hurt them, under any circumstances. If you think otherwise then you are brain-damaged and should be removed from the gene pool. Yes, I will say it to your fucking face if I ever see it.

You and the people like you who have been back-tracking and stumbling over the most basic of syllables ever since it was discovered that a right-wing "Christian" militant with an anti-Islamic bias killed all those people in Norway this past weekend should all be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that you're not is proof enough that whatever afterlife I find myself sentenced to heaven wouldn't include you fucks.

The man who did all of this is NOT a "serious political thinker" of any kind. He is a murdering pedophile, and to elevate him with anything else makes you his equal. It is NOT about blaming multiculturalism. It is not about blaming Islamic culture for making this murderer  afraid. It is not about misinterpreting a Pamela Geller column - which it seems to me he read correctly. It is not about blaming pro-abortion groups, or euthanasia groups, or Al Gore. All of you who are saying things like this today should be lined up and tased repeatedly. (For the record, I am not advocating violence. These same people keep telling me that tasers are safe).

As for the cocaine-snorting snot-rag pedophile-sympathizer of hate radio I have only one thing to say. Go to hell, you self-aggrandizing hate-filled mistake. God didn't make you; the opposition did.

Cheap shots:

Apparently Comicon in San Diego was the awesome.

Has Donald Trump been right about anything in the past two decades?

Kids, we all know that living in her district must be tough, but hang in there. It gets better. (yeah, doing that joke after my rant? I never claimed to be a nice guy).

And here is a perfect example why some voter ID laws are the moral equivalent of unwelcome sodomy.

I want Obama to come out against extending the debt ceiling - just to see if these assholes will suddenly say they're for it. Groucho was satire you morons. Here is proof:



Cock Block Murdoch!

They've colorized Niagara Falls!

Climate change deniers can swim in this.

Power corrupts, and is apparently an unspeakable fetish as well.

Looking at the future.

By the way, just who will be hiring Guido to come break Lady Liberty's kneecaps if we default? It's not who you think.

8 at 27.

By the way, did any of you notice that the FAA shut down a couple of days ago? That's 4,000 people laid off already and another 87,000 construction jobs about to disappear.

I love Congressman Henry Waxman.

Are you sure he isn't the Godfather of… Chicken?

Who does the Speaker of Orange represent again?

And because I love you, Eluveitie

Calling it for what it is

Yeah, I've been gone for a while. What can I say? There was a sale at Border's Books.

I am going to spout off about Rep. Allen West of Florida. Someone please tase this fucker in the junk. He may be the only member of congress to have actually murdered someone (while stationed in Iraq) but let's just talk about his conduct as a member of congress. He yesterday in a letter referred to another member of his state's representation as a vile human being and "not a Lady", and said he will not offer her any measure of respect. Then when he was called out for it he called his attackers racist.

Representative West is black. Let's be upfront about this - the man has experienced racism. I have no doubt of this as every black man in this country has experienced it. And not being one myself it is hard to equivocate his experiences to any of my own, and a black man in general is going to be a better judge of this than I am.

Now to specifics - I am not talking about black men, but a singular black man. A black man kicked out of the army for mistreating a detainee while in Iraq. A black man who hung out with illegal motorcycle gangs. A black man who called the President's children a menace to America. A black man who referred to ME as part of what undermines this nation.  A black man who to date has yet to give his opposition the proper respect of calling them by their actual name instead of a nickname made up by Rush Limbaugh.

Now I could have said all of those things without using the word "black" and still have made my point. The man is a jerk. But being a jerk is color-blind. You don't have to be white, black, mauve, green or orange (although the only orange-Americans I can think of off the top of my head all are). I am not being racist for calling you an asshole when you behave like an asshole, just as I believe that your attack on your fellow representative wasn't sexist - I think you would have attacked anyone who had followed you in this manner.

Oh, except for the "you're not a Lady" part. As if you knew what a Lady actually is - it's not like you are one, after all. Or are you hiding something?

Cheap shots:

You would think that Santorum, of all people, would know better than to try to fuck with Dan Savage.

This is going to mess up properly reading The Chronicles of Narnia.

High-sticking! 5 minute penalty!

Bachman Barbarian Glitterbomb!

Grover the terrorist.

To the people that don't believe in global warming - Red means Hot.

And because I love you, The Polecats

Pigs fly

Antonin Scalia, one of the most jack-assed people ever to sit on the Supreme Court, is right about something. There. I said it. He was the lead judge in the 7-2 decision that said you cannot ban video games based upon violent/sexual content. He came down on the side of free speech, along with all the dirty hippie liberals and the Chief Justice. In the process he said something absolutely brilliant and correct, "Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not  constitutional ones."

Right on.

Scalia is the man who gave us George W. Bush as President. He has been wrong on so many things. He looks at the constitution as an absolute and if it ain't in there, then fuck you. But I have to give the man credit - he's intellectually consistent with that and here it worked.

There were two dissents, and one of those two thought that if the law could be interpreted narrowly then it would be fine. The other dissent was Clarence Thomas - who came out with an opinion so stupid that Scalia himself wrote a scathing dismissal of the man's intellectual abilities.

Basically, Thomas wrote that there is no constitutional right to speak to a minor without a parent's permission. Give that one some thought. If he's right then every ice cream man in the country should be thrown in jail. Thomas goes on for pages about this. Scalia shot back, "... denies that persons under 18 have any constitutional right to speak or be spoken to without their parents’ consent. He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none."

Scalia goes on to point out that under Thomas' opinion attending church if you're a minor would be unconstitutional. So would attending political rallies. He concludes, "This argument is not, as JUSTICE THOMAS asserts, “circular." It is the absence of any historical warrant or compelling justification for such restrictions, not our ipse dixit, that renders them invalid.

Wow. When one of your closest colleagues on the bench calls you an idiot, perhaps you should bow out before you really embarrass yourself.

Cheap shots:

Now who is overpaid again?

I had never really thought about it before, but it's a good point. Maybe we should be lowering the age requirement for holding federal elected office. It would require a constitutional amendment.

and maybe find a way to get rid of the requirement that to run for office you need to be rich. Again, it needs a constitutional amendment.

Chill.

The Defeated. Over and over again.

I'm sure anyone could have made that mistake. Nope. I lie.

Fukushima, Nebraska.

In all fairness, 4 of those 17 counts were actually just for his hair.

Best use for an iPad EVAR.

This could really change how buildings are built.

Texting? Really?

I'm not going to pretend I know what the truth is here. But somebody with independent authority better investigate.

Someone please tase Josh Trevino. I'm cool with it.

And because I love you, Big Audio Dynamite

Pity that isn't true: Debate Issue Number 2 - Taxes

Note: This is the second of what will be a regular series of posts that feature myself against a generic Republicant both running for an unnamed federal office. The purpose of this is two-fold; one is to show you that I have no business running for political office (which has been suggested to me more than thrice) as I am unable to curtail my language to television-friendly sound bites and two, to show the Democrats of this nation just how easy it can be to refute the idiocy of the positions these morons take. Please note that this is a Generic Republican candidate I am debating, not any specific person, although the views are consistent with views espoused by candidates we've all seen and heard on television and radio this year.

Republican candidate: Tax cuts are the answer to everything. Business in this country pays a higher tax burden than in almost any other place in the world, and if that burden is reduced it creates the incentives to create more jobs. The government doesn't need more money, it needs to work with less. We have a spending problem in our government, and we need to take the money out of their hands and put it back in the hands of the American public and American business to make this country strong again.

Me: So the idea here is that we have a higher tax burden than elsewhere in the world, coupled with a spending problem in our government.

Republican: That is correct.

Me: Pity that isn't true.

Setting aside for a moment the whole incongruity of the concept that we spend too much money and take too much money in at the same time let's take a look at those two ideas separately and in reverse order. You say we have a spending problem. That's just bullshit. Allow me to break that down into terms of a single family.

A man earns $70,000 per year - who has done so for a couple of years now. Not a huge income, but not bad and certainly a livable wage - enough to keep up with the bills and feed and clothe a family. Then for whatever reason that man loses his job. It could be down-sizing, it could be that the company no longer needed his position. It could be from any number of things. What's important is that he now has no income. Sure, unemployment will kick in shortly, but that's nowhere near enough money to feed and shelter his family. If you disagree with that statement I dare you to try it.

The man goes searching for a new job, but he can't find one at the level he's used to so he takes a job that pays less, say $40,000 per year. It's not a terrible wage, but it's not what he once had. Because he was living at a lifestyle that probably included some debt - car payments, maybe a mortgage, certainly credit cards - while he now has enough money to feed and shelter his family he doesn't have enough to meet every obligation he has already incurred. There's going to be some juggling of expenses and that will work for a while, but ultimately he's going to be getting phone calls at all hours from people looking for him to honor the obligations he's already made.

He has to spend less simply because he has less than he used to, but his obligations are roughly the same. But by your definition he's got a spending problem. Bullshit. He has a revenue problem.

The Republican solution seems to be that this man should be happy with the $40,000 he now earns and adjust his lifestyle to it accordingly. I'm telling him to keep searching for a better paying job - one that pays $70,000 or even more. He must have the skills for it; he kept that last job for a few years. You've offered a solution and I'm saying there's a better one.

The programs you insist upon cutting, the austerity that you embrace, all of that is attempting to not honor obligations we've already made. To our seniors, to our poor, to our health, to the workers who are the backbone of our great nation, and to our future. You don't spend less on them unless you want them calling you at all hours of the day and night demanding that you honor agreements already made. You are setting us up to be a nation of YouTube rants, glitter bombs and out and out protests and strikes.

Republican: The money to do what you suggest simply isn't there.

Me: Sure it is; it's just in the wrong pockets, which brings me to my other point. You claim that we have a higher tax burden than elsewhere in the world - that lower taxes will stimulate growth. Again, pity that isn't true.

Tell me, given that we had huge tax cuts under President Bush the Younger, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that this was supposed to create? They haven't been made so far by the recipients of these tax cuts, so when are they scheduled to start? Do you have a time table?

You don't. Dude, the way that rich people and rich corporations stay rich is that they don't spend any money.

Our taxes are already lower than they were under President Clinton. They're the lowest they've been since World War II. Somehow, America thrived and grew during those years when taxes were higher. Somehow we kept our schools going, manufacturing going, and innovation that was second to none all the while paying taxes that would seem to make you curl up in a little ball on the floor. Once we started cutting taxes we started having issues with some of these things. Sure, there was some waste and a few bureaucratic nightmares, and things that could be done better, but for the most part it worked well. The system in place promoted everything that makes our country and its people great. Our current tax structure is designed to promote greed, and nothing more.

Republican: You're promoting class warfare!

Me: Maybe so, but the poor and middle class didn't fire the first shots. Hell, they didn't fire the first thousand shots. But you've missed the point - somehow when taxes were higher than they are now we grew and prospered as a nation like we never had before. You seem to be saying that higher taxes or a more fair distribution of them will hinder growth that that's just a lie. American business and innovation is smarter than that; or do you not have enough faith in our abilities?

In regards to the rates themselves picture this - GE paid an effective tax rate of negative 14% in 2010. In my opinion, you're not allowed to complain about your taxes if you don't actually pay any. There is a disconnect between the effective tax rate and the actual, real world taxes paid by many of these corporations and that has to be addressed, but it won't be enough. We need to make taxes reasonable. The rich in our country have benefitted and grown because of the opportunities given them, and it's time they gave back.

Hell, taxes are as close as many of us get to demonstrating patriotism in actual tangible terms without service in either government or the military. Every last one of us has an obligation to making this a better place, and the way most of us do that is through our taxes. Let me restate that in the simplest fashion possible; paying taxes is patriotic. Paying taxes is patriotic.

Here's my thought - if you've served in the military or are currently serving in the military you're already shown your patriotism in a way most of us never will. You put your lives on the line for us and we should do a better job thanking you. So how about for those people who have served honorably and are serving honorably we eliminate the taxes they would pay on the first $100,000 of their income. Make that first $100,000 tax free. The rest of us can pick up the slack as a thank you. It won't be that hard, and I'll bet you good money that you'll see an uptick in recruitment as a result as well. Or are you against rewarding those who have served their country well?

The bottom line is this - we talk about rugged individualism and self-sustainability as good things and we should. But the same is true for the country as well as its citizens and austerity won't get the job done.

A pale shadow

Chris Wallace is such a cheap imitation of his father (the great Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes fame). Proof lies in the work of Jon Stewart, who went on Wallace's show yesterday.

Here's a question I'd love to ask this moron. He has called Andrew Breitbart a "journalist". I wonder if he thinks he compares to his dad.

By the way, my next update will be part of my continuing series about how Democrats can easily win every debate on every issue. See you Wednesday!

Cheap shots:

Thomas=Fortas.

A threat from China?

So where are you going to be at 8pm tonight?

It's egotistical only if it works. Otherwise, it's just sad.

They appear to have hired Emily Loutella as their spokesperson.

I can't even imagine what it would feel like to have Major League Baseball throw a monkey wrench into your divorce settlement, and have good cause to do so. Me thinks the dodgers are fucked.

How about some budget cuts here?

Michelle Bachman doesn't understand stimulation.

Awkward!

And because I love you, Peter Gabriel. Embedding has been disabled, so you have to follow the link. Trust me, it's worth it - you might not know this song.



Freedom

When I was a kid the family of a friend of mine converted to Jehovah Witness. I was a little kid and really had no clue what that meant - religion was one of those things I didn't get yet - what I noticed was that my friend was no longer required to say the pledge of allegiance at school.

Now I had never been a fan of the pledge, even as a kid. But I did what all the other kids who thought the whole ritual was stupid did, say it quietly and change the words. "I pledge allegiance to Queen Fragg" or "The United Airlines of America" - you know the stuff. Juvenile but it will make a pre-teen boy laugh. But having a kid (two actually -he had a twin sister) who didn't say the pledge caused an uproar. He was berated by teachers until the school principal made the judgment call that he was excused for religious beliefs.

Again, I didn't really understand it at the time, but being the obnoxious rebel that I was (and mostly still am) I decided on my own that I no longer had to do it either. So one day when it was time to stand up my friend stayed seated, and so did I. I caught some hell for it for about a week but I stood my ground, arguing (successfully) that you couldn't make an exception for just one kid. It also helped to be the top student in the class, I must admit - it might have gone much differently if I had been middle of the pack or mediocre.

I was reminded of this today thanks to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, which in a unanimous decision ruled against a judge in that state who had made it mandatory to say the pledge in his court at the start of the day. He had fined a lawyer who didn't stand and recite $100 and thrown him in jail. The Mississippi Supremes basically called the judge an idiot and smacked his hand with a ruler.

The freedom to say (or not say) the pledge is so basic that it boggles my adult mind that there are still people in this country who attempt to force it on people. Allow me to let someone more eloquent than I am explain it all here.

And that friend? He stopped being my friend before we were out of elementary school. He also converted to bully-ism. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't right all along about this. In the end, his right to not say the pledge was a badge of honor for him. Me too.

Cheap shots (get your drink on):

Was it a mispronouncification? Hot, throbbing Koch?

Now just who was the dick here?

Samuel L. Jackson is my fucking hero.

Um, since when is a man's accent the same as the color of his skin?

This just keeps on getting worse and worse.

The Economy for Dummies, explained by someone very smart.

Now that is a headline.

Way to go Ohio.

And because I love you, The Graces

Pity that isn't true: Debate Issue Number 1 - Abortion

Note: This is the first on what will be a regular series of posts that feature myself against a generic Republicant both running for an unnamed federal office. The purpose of this is two-fold; one is to show you that I have no business running for political office (which has been suggested to me more than thrice) as I am unable to curtail my language to television-friendly sound bites and two, to show the Democrats of this nation just how easy it can be to refute the idiocy of the positions these morons take. Please note that this is a Generic Republican candidate I am debating, not any specific person, although the views are consistent with views espoused by candidates we've all seen and heard on television and radio this year.

Republican Candidate: On the question of abortion it is my belief that conception is the moment that life begins, and as such abortion is tantamount to killing a human being. Life is sacred and the idea that taking the life of an innocent is wrong is one that is understood by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and people of all faiths and beliefs. Because of the basic tenant that life is sacred, the taking of life must be considered wrong and unjust. I am against abortion in nearly every case - exceptions will occasionally need to be made based upon the medical health of the mother and certain types of inescapable trauma - and I am against using federal moneys to support any organization that provides for abortion in any form.

Me: So your position is a moral one; that you are against abortion because you believe that life is sacred.

Republican: That is correct.

Me: Pity that isn't true.

I'd say that about 95% of all elective abortions are done for the same reason; that the mother isn't ready. She isn't ready to go through the whole process of having a child. She isn't ready to raise that child. She may not have the financial resources to provide for that child. So your position is to force a child upon a person who isn't ready for it. The problem there is that you do nothing for the child once it's been born. Hell, given how many cuts to prenatal care and health care your party is responsible for you may push that woman into deep debt because she couldn't afford the medical expenses alone, let alone those of raising a child.

Your party has been responsible for cuts to just about every program that would give support to a woman that you've forced into this position. You've cut education. You've cut programs to provide support and care for newborns. You've made cuts to food programs that would help feed these children. On the plus side, you've managed to get the child born. On the minus side, you then expose it to the elements on the hills outside of Sparta.

You cannot claim that life is sacred, that innocent life is sacred, if you are unwilling to help provide for that life once it has been brought into the world. If that life is so sacred then you have to provide for it like a father, and you have no intention of doing so. Your intention is to turn our nation into a deadbeat dad.

Republican: These children can be adopted if the mother is unable to provide for them. There is a waiting list for children to be adopted and we could solve two problems at once.

Me: Setting aside for a moment the virtual prison sentence of forcing a woman to give birth to a child that she will not raise, I also have to point out that this is also untrue. There is a waiting list for babies, not children. Ask any foster kid who doesn't get adopted - which is a shamefully large number. Your premise has established that people who adopt should be able to put their own stamp on raising the child and not be burdened with a history that a child who isn't a newborn doesn't have. It's as if you're saying that these other children, whose numbers are greater than all of the people attempting to adopt children in this country combined, are somehow damaged. That's just mean.

And I put it to you that it's meanness that you are proposing we support. You are asking that we force women into a position they do not want. There's a word for that; rape.

There is nothing wrong with being opposed to abortion on moral grounds. In fact, I find that commendable and worthy of praise. But to be that without creating a support system that continues to support that life isn't being consistent with this morality and that I find to be reprehensible and morally inconsistent - something that a person who holds the job we are both asking people to give us should not be.

Republican: Are you saying then that it is better for that child to not be born?

Me: I am saying that the person who would be responsible for the choices that follow be the person who makes that choice, and that includes the right to have an abortion as one of the options. That's not the government who makes that choice. That's not the moral code of any person or doctor that makes that choice. It is the woman who makes that choice and I believe that we as lawmakers do not have the right to put restrictions on a choice so personal that those of us outside each individual situation cannot comprehend the process that ultimately leads to that decision.

As for your position, make it consistent and then we can have a real dialogue. Otherwise you're just a flyer on a bulletin board and nothing more.

blech

I'm not doing much today. My grand post will be on Wednesday - after the first major Republican debate - so that I can include anything stupid that they say.

Cheap shots:

I think that someone is ashamed that the man is Jewish. Sometimes a cigar is just a phallic symbol.

Dude, it is racist, but on the reverse side a black friend of mine asked me "why can't White people properly use slang?"

It's not that we're scared - we're not - it's that we have trouble believing that you could possibly be that stupid.

Methinks that someone needs a quick lesson in forensic decomposition. That and what fish will eat.

Get the fuck out of Iraq.

A bench warrant is about to be issued for the arrest of Roger Ebert in Tennessee.

This is pretty cool. Shame it could never work here.

Retcon ad infinitum.

And because I love you and figure that you need words of encouragement, I give you Conan O'Brien.

Coming attractions…

Over the course of the next few weeks I'm going to write a series of essays featuring myself versus a fictional Republicant candidate for some unnamed Federal office. Each essay will be on a single issue and feature talking points and actual quotes from real Republicants, followed by my own rebuttal. The purpose of this will be two-fold; one is to show you that I have no business running for political office and I am unable to curtail my language to television-friendly sound bites and two, to show the Democrats of this nation just how easy it can be to refute the idiocy of the positions these morons take.

Every day I think to myself just how easy it would be for the Democratic party to win about 75% of all elections, but just stating the obvious and the real, and answering with just a touch of cynicism and toning down the supposed respect you should have for your opponent. It's so freakin' easy to do but no one ever does it, so I'm going to hold a series of quick seminars showing how it's done. Stay tuned, you just might learn something.

Cheap shots (get yer drink on):

Not going to do it today. Assume I swore like a sailor on leave in Thailand for a week (don’t ask me how I know how much that is and I won't have to lie to you) and party irresponsibly. Or Responsibly. Whichever it is, don't blame me for your alcohol poisoning.

And because I love you, David Bowie with a song you might not have heard before…

Cheesehead rant

So it appears that there will be two recall elections in Wisconsin in July. One on the recall of 6 Republicants, and another on the recall of 3 Democrats. The recall of the Republicants was going to happen; the signatures in place were more than sufficient. And despite allegations of fraud and out of state handling of signatures for the recall of the 3 Democrats, there are sufficient signatures to proceed with their recall as well.

Good.

I'm not going to do what a lot of the left blogosphere has done and cry foul. These are the rules in Wisconsin and everyone has to play by them equally. But more than that this is a real test of whether or not Wisconsin can reverse course or not. Sure many of us in and outside of that state (I'm outside) want a specific outcome, but whether or not it actually happens will depend upon the voters themselves, and whether or not they've finally grown tired of all the bullshit or if they've succumbed to it.

I don't know which is correct, but I do believe that the outcome of these two elections will be a good indicator of which it is. I hope the answer is that we've finally grown tired of it all - but given how the recent Supreme Court election in Wisconsin went, I think it's too early to tell. I think the next 45 days are going to be ugly as sin (we're already seeing dirty tricks that would make Nixon blush) and I think a lot more is riding on what happens there than most people are publicly acknowledging.

The Republicants in Wisconsin decided that this was their battleground; that this was the place where they would implement the things they wanted done, from busting unions to wholesale firings of teachers, firefighters and police, to placing restrictions unheard of in Wisconsin on women's reproductive rights… the list is rather long. So the question really is, are the people of Wisconsin - one of the great union states with a history of people power - going to slide into ruin or take back what is theirs?

Either result will be a bell-weather of things to come for our country.

Cheap shots:

Um, excuse me, but doesn't this mean that we'll be paying more out of pocket next April 15 to make up the difference?

Newt might be fucked.

Someone please tase David Barton.

Yeah, but it will make a great prop for the remake of 2001; A Space Odyssey.

Seems to me that if you run for President you should know the difference between exaggeration and alliteration.

I wonder if the remaining money got left to any puppies. Or anyone claiming to be her puppy.

Dude, stop hitting yourself!

I am honestly curious how this will play out.

Hey! Maybe we're getting smarter!

Props.

Sometimes facebook just goes too far.

And because I love you, Shout Out Louds