Bizarro Jerry

Holy cow, readers, what kind of bizarro world are we living in these days, anyways?

Darth Cheney is supporting gay marriage.

President Obama is refusing to release detainee photos

Michael Moore is a millionaire. GM is bankrupt.

Eminem has a sense of humor. (Seriously, I mean, wow, who’s next? Sean Penn?)

And white men are the victims of racist Latina women.

You know, I remember when the CTA finally put wheelchair lifts on the city buses in Chicago. At the same time, they also tore out several rows of seats in order to make a sort of wheelchair cubby – they’re everywhere now so you know what I’m talking about. But I remember, many years ago now, the first time I saw the new arrangement put to use. Many other riders that day were transfixed by the sight of the man being lifted in his chair by what I must admit was a very slow mechanism. Everyone was kind of staring. And this middle-aged businesswoman standing beside me made a point of looking at me and rolling her eyes. “I don’t understand why they can’t have their own buses like before,” she said. “They slow everyone else down, and if they hadn’t torn out all those seats for them, then we could be sitting down right now.” She paused, and then narrowed her eyes at me. “Don’t you think so?” she said, rather aggressively.

“I think,” I said “we should get down on our knees and thank our lucky fucking stars that we can walk onto this bus on our perfectly functioning legs.”

Okay, maybe I didn’t really say that. Maybe I’ve only spent the last twenty years formulating the ultimate trepverte response. Maybe at the time I only glared back in a sullen twenty-something way. But even back in my sneering, snotty, black-clad, self-absorbed salad days, readers, I knew she was an asshole. Even I knew that.

And I feel similarly about the LEGIONS of white dudes who are complaining about the “racism” of SCOTUS nominee Sonya Sotomayor. It’s just so unseemly. It’s just…so fucking obscene that a white man, or a white woman for that matter, would hear the following quote:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

and would have the gall, the unmitigated fucking gall, to call it “racism,” instead of – hey, I’ll say it – instead of…truth.

Because isn’t it true? Isn’t it?

If you’re having trouble with her statement, perhaps it might help if you consider that she might very well have had someone like our current chief justice, John Roberts, in mind when she spoke about that nameless white male. Jeffrey Toobin recently wrote in The New Yorker:

“In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.”

Yes, it’s quite a record. No doubt influenced by his background and his heritage as a proud white male Bush campaign supporter and general legal toady for the right. That kind of influence is apparently okay, however, the influence of an upbringing that takes you from the Bronx projects to the Ivy League to the federal bench – fuckin’ Latina fuckin’ racist, y’all.

And if you buy that, then I got a La-Raza-is-the-Hispanic-KKK to sell you, cheap.

Also, I would just like to state once and for all, for the record, that no matter how many times the yammering idiots on TV say otherwise, you cannot substitute “white” for “Latina” or “black” and prove racism. It just don’t work that way. There are, as I noted previously, LEGIONS of bitter white dudes out there who desperately, desperately want it to work that way. But it don’t. It ain’t so black & white, white dudes. “It’s a white thing, you wouldn’t understand” is not okay. “White power” is not okay. The National Association for the Advancement of White People is not okay. And if there were one, and you called it “The Race” (La Raza), it would be SO not okay that I’m pretty sure the Feds would be knocking down your fortress walls and blasting your compound with Jay-Z (with special guest Ciara) in order to make you and your similarly brainwashed comrades come out with your hands behind your heads, you fucking redneck racist AK-7 totin' motherfuckers.

Deal with it. And while you’re at it, get down on your knees and thank your lucky fucking stars that you were born white and male in a time and place where it remains, by far, the easiest thing to be.

If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it - UPDATED

Don’t let anyone fool ya, it is still plenty tough for a woman up in this USA mug.

Sure, we’ve gotten into some pretty high places, but the climb’s still a rough one. Plus, once we get there, it’s as likely as not that there’s going to be some guy there to take our crown away and organize a club around making sure that as few of us as possible get through the next time. Plus, I don’t know if you gals out there know this, but marriage only exists to limit access to our hoo-hahs. Although if that’s true, then I don’t know why two lesbians wouldn’t be okay with all them marriage Nazis, because then you would have twice as much coochie guarding going on, right? Lesbian readers, feel free to chime in with any coochie guarding tips you might have. Being a straight gal, I have no clue how to limit access to my lady parts, and maybe a lot of that went on during my two marriages, but that’s not really what I remember. I mostly remember the fantasy football.

Being female is awesome (although I am still waiting for red flowers to grow in the crotch of my underwear like that film strip in 5^th grade said would happen). Except sometimes, it sucks. For example, in my life, I oversee quite a few construction contractors. Every once in a while, I will call over a male colleague to confer with me in the presence of the contractor on user-specific issues. And you know, it makes no difference that I am the one that called the contractors in, the one that approved the estimate, and the one that oversees their work, issues the change orders, and asks them all the questions – if there is a man standing next to me, they will talk to the man. I ask a question, and the contractor tells the answer to the guy standing next to me. It would be kind of hilarious if it weren’t so infuriating.

Ok, perhaps they’re not used to reporting to someone who steps over circular saws in a pencil skirt and adorable 3 inch strappy sandals, but hey, to whom is it not obvious yet that the world is changing every minute, baby? Either get on and strap in, or get the fuck off and shut the fuck up.

And from the GTFO&STFU category, we have the myriad of Sotomayor critics on the right, who are throwing out more red herrings than Gus Van Sant imitating Brian DePalma imitating Alfred Hitchcock. If one were to listen to these right-wingers, and I must warn you beforehand that I am not making any of these things up, we would be enlightened by the following arguments.

Sotomayor:

1.) Is being unreasonable about the pronunciation of her name. Americans want to put the emphasis on the first syllable (SO-to-my-yer) instead of the last, (so-to-my-YOR). So she should let them stress the first syllable and stop insisting on the correct pronunciation, because it’s annoying. After reading this unbelievably juvenile diatribe, I was struck by a couple of things, the first one being that the author’s name is Krikorian, (emphasis second syllable) and he probably would not be too keen on being called “Cry-Korean!”

The second thing is that he also tries to pick a fight with Latino/Latino sticklers, saying that “English dropped gender in nouns, what, 1,000 years ago?”

Oh, okay, I’ll try to remember that the next time an actress or a comedienne or an aviatrix or a seamstress or a heroine or a waitress or a chairwoman or a landlady come by, trying to give me shit about where are all my extra letters at, bitch?

2.) Is claiming that her extra special rulings are food-inspired. Yes, again, please to remember that I am not kidding. The incredible stretch of logic goes like this: Sotomayor says that Puerto Rican food is an important part of her heritage. Sotomayor also says that her heritage is an important part of her rulings, ERGO, pig’s feet with beans = illegal Mexican abortionists running wild in the streets. Never mind that W. appointee Justice Alito went on and on and on during his confirmation hearings about his family’s immigrant background and his, ahem, empathy for others in similar immigrant-y type situations.

3.) Is a stupid bitch. In spite of graduating summa cum laude from Princeton and graduating from Yale Law School as an editor of the Yale Law Journal, she is apparently “not that smart” according to an anonymous former clerk whose words have been repeated in perpetuity throughout the dumbiverse. Also, when she is not busy basing rulings on how she feels about things (Duh! She’s a woman! Probably also on her period!), she’s too clinical. Also a bully. Except when she’s too feminine.

Is your head reeling yet? Mine is, but that’s probably because I’m a girl.

Also, just as warning to all my single ladies, I don’t know if you know this, but it turns out that conservatives have a much more highly developed sense of disgust than liberals do. I know! The anal sex obsession/revulsion, the poor-people-living-in-squalor-hating, it all makes so much more sense now, doesn’t it? So, you marriage-minded gals, you know, if you’re looking for someone to help with the diaper changing, or the bathroom cleaning, or the sex-during-that-time-of-the-month having, maybe a Republican spouse is not such a good idea after all. Just sayin.

---------------------------------

UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE

--------------------------------

Yesterday on his radio show, the deliciously thick-skulled Republican show poodle G. Gordon Liddy (does EVERYONE on the right get a radio show?) said, regarding SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor, "Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating."

I got 3 reactions to this.

1. "Conferences?" Do you mean the oral argument sessions? Who calls them conferences? You'd think someone who's been eaten up and shat out by the legal system would have a little better handle on the terminology.

2. Fucking bring it, assholes. You'll only make it easier for Sotomayor to get through. And for the next one to get through as well. You're only making it easier for people to stop calling themselves Republican. You're only making it easier for me, not more difficult. So flail, motherfuckers, flail. Mmmm...I love it. It smells like fresh, newly-mown victory, deep fried and dipped in a side of cool, creamy vindication, motherfuckers.

3. At 54, Sotomayor is a few years past the average age for the onset of menopause, so the whole "on the rag" joke is just a bit off the mark. Not that I would expect Liddy to know at what age women are likely to be menopausal. In fact, I seem to recall a few similar jokes made by other men on the right regarding Hillary Clinton and even Nancy Pelosi, who are 61 and 69, respectively.

So the question is, if you've got yourself a menopausal-age woman that you want to ridicule, why go for the menses? I mean, it's kind of like teasing a 30-year-old man for having pubes. Why not go for the hot flash joke? It seems like kind of an equivalent slam to me, so why do those types never do it?

The answer is, only women make jokes about hot flashes and menopause. Men don't joke about it because they don't know what it is. They have no idea what menopause even means. Because by the time women have reached the age of menopause, men have long since stopped paying any attention to them. No wonder women like Sotomayor and Pelosi and Clinton confound those old washed-up pants-pissing fear monkeys. Unless they're making them a sandwich or washing their laundry, those old fucks have no idea that women even live past the age of 40.

Well, I can clearly see you're nuts

Hey, you know what’s fun for the holiday weekend?

Making fun of idiots on the right. Right?

So get a load of this chick, sent to me originally by astute reader Marshall. More than one cyberfriend has indicated to me that they have received this from a Republican with the implication that it IS possible to recover from liberalism, ha ha ha.

To which I say physician, heal thyself. It’s not liberalism that’s been proven to be a mental defect, ho ho ho.

Also, the magazine itself is pretty lame. I mean, check out the satire in which some douchebag theorizes that the key to economic recovery is – get this! - to let everyone print their own money! Hilarious!

But so anyway, as usual, here's this jagoff who purports to have been recently “deprogrammed” from her liberal upbringing:

When I was in high school in the early 70's in New York, I wrote impassioned essays on civil rights and on feminism. In college, in the days before universities became indoctrination factories, I searched for politically left classes, and took every one I could find. I spent years in consciousness raising groups lambasting male oppression with other angry feminists, and yelled "Two Four Six Eight, Pornography is Woman Hate," at numerous marches.

Wow. Anti-pornography feminism is hard core feminism. I’ll give her that. When I gave up on Andrea Dworkin and anti-pornography feminism, however, I did so because I believed that her central thesis was flawed, and I came to that conclusion because I used my eyes to see things and my brain to think about them. Something tells me that that is not the method this chick embraced.

Plus, if this chick is half a decade older than me, then I can tell you exactly why she’s “seeing the light” and becoming a conservative. She’s got classic old fucker syndrome. You know, those people that spend their whole lives being Democrats, until they reach a certain age, and then they decide that they’d rather spend the rest of their short time left on earth cowering in fear of Mexicans and hiding their money inside hollowed-out copies of all those Ayn Rand books they’re always talking about but have never read?

Anyway, let’s check back in with Grandma No Fun:

When I was 26, I parked myself in the People's Republic of Berkeley, CA, the epicenter of the far left. I came as a liberal but soon morphed into a leftist as most people here do. In Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and the outlying towns, there is no Republican Party. Literally. There are only Democrats running against other Democrats. I recall years ago going to vote at a time when there were separate lines for Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats' line was a mile long. The Republican's was free and clear. After we all stood there waiting for 45 minutes, a brave young man walked up to the Republican booth and quickly voted. I still recall the cackles and giggles as we pointed and stared at this odd, exotic bird that had come to perch for a brief while.

There’s no Republican party in Berkeley??? That’s about as shocking as their being no Democratic party in the ignorant bumfuck backwater where I grew up. And if you were to compare the two places, intelligence-wise, I wonder how my hometown would stand up against the greater San Francisco area? Hint: not well. Also, boo-hoo, the Democrats sneered over their lattes at the Republican who had the audacity to vote. How would you like to have been a liberal growing up in the town I grew up in? Hint: you wouldn’t. Because I guarantee you, when I was growing up, I would have been thrilled to have only been sneered at.

So maybe you get now how hard it was, how disorienting and destabilizing and crazy making it was, when I realized about 1 1/2 years ago that I no longer believed in liberalism. I walked around in a confused state for weeks. Being a Democrat, a liberal, a far left radical from Berkeley was a big part of my identity. So who the heck was I if I weren't a leftist?

Holy cow, I give up. Who were you? A pirate? A ballerina? A fireman?

And what in the world would I do, given that my husband, all my friends, and all my psychotherapist clients…

Whoa. Hold on. This chick is a psychotherapist?? Are you fucking kidding me?

…and all my psychotherapist clients were liberal and I would be public enemy #1 if I told anyone? Converting from Islam to Judaism, yet still hanging out in front of the old mosque in Kabul, probably would have been easier.

You know, readers, a portrait of the author of this piece is slowly assembling itself before our eyes. Notice the tendency she has to regard herself as a victim of the forces of her life, instead of an actor. Notice that despite having a husband, and friends, and a standing in the community, she feels that her new political beliefs will completely alienate her from others. Ask yourself now why would that be?

After weeks of shuffling around like a zombie, it was time to do something about it. The first step, I decided, was deprogramming myself from decades of liberal propaganda. Out went books by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, and various 9/11 conspiracy books.

Bingo. Got it.

“Various 9/11 conspiracy books.”

Readers, come on, can I smell a pathology, or can’t I?

In came Mark Levin, Ben Stein, Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand.

Told ya.

Plus, geez, could she at least pick an intelligent conservative, like…um…

I heard something vaguely about Talk Radio, so I scanned my AM dial, and found Michael Savage. I was shocked and offended by his diatribes -- but also oddly intrigued. I found many others: Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Boortz, Medved, all of whom became my "sponsors" in recovery this last year. I found wonderfully insightful websites like American Thinker.

Hey, it never hurts to kiss the publisher’s ass. And that website’s just moronic enough to be thrilled to be in that kind of company.

To my disbelief, the more I listened and read, the more these folks made sense. For instance, at first I couldn't understand why so many conservatives expressed concern about morality issues, like gay marriage. Berkeley is Lesbian Central, and I know many good hearted gay people.

Does anyone smell a big but coming?

But the more I learned, the more I started getting the larger picture; that conservatives were not necessarily impugning the character of gay people, but they were alarmed at the breakdown of traditional values.

Nice! Classic conservative double-speak! We’re not talking smack about gays…but they are immoral, you know.

If the basic structure of society goes, e.g., traditional marriage, religion, patriotism, common language, what remains? If everything becomes fluid, what is there to hold onto? Without any moral structure and traditions, a society descends into anarchy and mob rule, as it is clearly doing today.

So, not only are there kids on her lawn, but they’re speaking Spanish!

As I educated myself, I started thinking and rethinking. I'd wake up in the middle of the night with the sudden realization that deeply held beliefs made no sense.

Jesus Christ, this woman is frightening.

Take the anti war stance of the left. Noble and sanctimonious and all that.

Yes, yes, I think it was Jesus who said “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sanctimonious pricks.”

But how easy it is to sit back and preach peace when you have an army defending you;…

Right, and how easy is it to preach “thou shalt not kill,” when you have a police force to arrest people when they do it?

…to rail against the U.S. when you are protected by free speech laws;

Which….I believe you are doing right this minute, granny.

to demonize Israel, when you've never lived through the murderous pogroms of Tsarist Russia or the Holocaust.

Or the Left Bank. Or the Gaza Strip.

How hypocritical to lambast Big Business while you are making money from their stocks in your mutual fund portfolio (that is, until Obama took over).

Someone buy this woman a calendar.

And this love affair with Radical Islam -- what's up with that?

Yes, by all means, be sure to paint liberals as “in love” with radical Islam. Because liberals are known worshipers of oppressive patriarchal conservative religions.

I had previously thought of Islam as a quaint, folksy religion.

Wha – seriously? This woman is killing me. Killing!

I had been oblivious of the horrendous treatment of women: the honor killings, beheadings, genital mutilation.

So…this should be a treatise not against being liberal, but against being willfully fucking ignorant.

It now seemed like the height of naivety, if not masochism, to embrace with open arms people who want to kill you.

You know, Grandma Scaredypants, I’d say that is the most sensible thing you’ve written in this whole long tedious-ass essay. The only problem is, no one is saying otherwise, you stupid twat.

God, you bore me.

While as a liberal I was socialized to believe everyone was good, all cultures were the same, and We Are The World, We Are The Children, I began to understand that evil exists…

Alright, I’m cutting this chick off. She’s had more than enough column space here. Suffice it to say that while attempting to hammer her point about liberalism being an immature point of view, she only succeeds in further convincing the reader that she is herself an appallingly immature person, motivated primarily – big fucking surprise - by fear of the unknown.

Plus, can I just say how super wrong it is that anyone who is a practicing psychotherapist is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist? That horrifies me. I’m not expecting every therapist to be Sigmund Freud in a skirt (although that would be fun), but holy smokes, when you let your own infantile compulsions overcome your critical thinking…should you really be in charge of opening up anyone else’s brain and rooting around?

So, whee, it’s been fun in that tiresome can-you-believe-how-fucking-stupid-someone-can-be kind of way. Have a good weekend, my precious readers. I’ll be back next week.

Yeah, this one's not making me any friends.

Remember when Barack Obama almost sank his political career by aligning himself with Reverend Wright, a clergyman whose opinions were shockingly radical and hateful towards certain sectors of American society?

Well, he’s done it again.

Obama recently endorsed by his presence and by his praise a church whose leadership is just as radical as Rev. Wright. A church led by a minister who has enabled the denial of the Holocaust, and who has made statements impugning the beliefs of our most important Middle Eastern ally. This church has also accused the president of the United States of immorality, has commanded that the minority overtake the majority by force, and has recommended that our citizens engage in activities that would put our lives at risk. And like Wright before him, this church that Obama is courting for pure political gain accuses the citizens of the United States of being to blame for the recent evils that have been visited upon us, and warns us that our country is damned by God.

Yes, by appearing to speak at Notre Dame University, Obama has endorsed with his presence the Catholic Church, the Pope, and all its leadership. And just as the media hounded him to repudiate Wright, they should now hound him to disavow himself and the office he holds from the terrible and hateful positions of this radical church.

That might seem like an unlikely event, but we must not give in to the soft bigotry of low expectations. We must insist that it be done.

Shrill, baby, shrill.

Have you guys seen this thing that keeps washing up on beaches on the East Coast? There has been a lot of speculation about its origin, but given the location and the timing, I think it’s pretty plain what this bloated white thing is.

It’s the remains of the Republican Party. And frankly, it’s a lot more attractive than I expected it to be.

Poor Republican Party. Recently, they tried to equate Obama’s preference for fancy mustard to anti-Americanism, or socialism, or being just generally all Frenchified, like that America-hating Vietnam War veteran John Kerry, who must have breathed a sigh of relief knowing that he was, after all, primarily funded by mustard’s more patriotic rival, ketchup. Nevertheless, Dijongate was mocked by the liberal main-stream media and most people with IQs over forty, worldwide. Too bad, because I heard that Republicans had planned on a second wave of media blitzing, during which they would point out that Martin Luther King Jr. himself endorsed their character-assessment methodology…and then someone in the party actually read the speech and figured out that King was referring to the “content” of people’s characters, not the “condiment.”

Then they tried to slam Obama by saying that he laughed at some jokes that were made by – get this – a comedian! Yes! Outrageous! A comedian, making jokes at a comedy dinner that did not take place at the White House and was not organized by the president’s staff or anything, but still, he was there, laughing at comedy jokes made at the expense of a person who has done nothing to him - except mock him and his supporters rather viciously, and say that he would like for all of Obama’s efforts to save our economy and keep our citizens safe to fail - that’s all! And for that this person was mocked! By a comedian! In front of a comedy audience!

So, yeah, Sykesgate doesn’t appear to have legs, either.

Alas, what’s a poor Republican Party to do? They already tried, you, know, listening to people. That did not turn out so good, mostly because one of the guys doing the listening tried to point out that their current re-election strategy of nostalgia for a dead guy who left office twenty years ago was not exactly a working political platform. Especially since no one could really say why they think the dude was any good in the first place (hint: he wasn’t). And then remember that guy who got made fun of by the comedian? He said that listening is for losers, and everyone in the party was forced to say “sir, yes sir!” and scrub out his private jet with their toothbrushes or something.

So I guess it’s no wonder that no one wants to admit that they know them. And hopefully soon, everyone will fully wake up from their idiocy-induced comas and realize that the Republicans fell for one of the most badly executed bits of redirection, from one of the most amateur and transparent political magicians, ever, and allowed him to dupe this country into a death-steeped quagmire so big that when you look up “quagmire” in the dictionary, it says “How about Iraq, ya fucking idiot?”

Meanwhile, Cheney continues on his Chicken Little press junket, and glass teat boobs like Scarborough grab onto his tailfeathers, claiming that the second after Justice Roberts fumbled the last word of Obama’s oath of office, we became “less safe.” Well, claiming we are less safe is like voting against the stimulus package: it has no down side. It will never be proven to be wrong unless the worst happens, and then it will become the base from which to launch a campaign of faux-patriotic crimes against the future of humanity so big, it will make the aftermath of 9/11 seem like Hug an Arab Day at the U.N.

Perhaps someday the Republicans will collectively heave themselves, like Senator Specter has, off of their runaway train of irrelevance, get up, dust themselves off, and fashion a message that makes sense for this country. After all, there will always be those who are willing to shortchange the poor and working class in order to line their own pockets. But until they do, I have to admit that I’m all too willing to watch them hurtling towards extinction.

In fact, if I could cut their brake line, I would.

I am, and always will be, your friend.

I can’t stop thinking about Zachary Quinto.

Watching him play Spock last night (yes, I went to the opening night, and I am apparently not afraid to admit it) was like watching Nimoy on TV when I was kid.

Watching Nimoy play Spock in the movies doesn’t do the same thing to me. He’s still great at it, but Spock as a senior citizen has too much gravitas, too much surety, too much warmth for me. Give me Spock as the awkward colt, all angles and undiscovered grace. Give him to me hiding his pain under a thousand layers of reason. Give him to me as the eager know-it-all who will never, ever, ever understand how deeply unattractive it all is.

And yeah, that was me, of course. Of course that was me.

Extra points for those who have figured out that if I was a skinny young Spock, face in a book, hiding from the bullies whose scorn I did not understand, then who was my sister? My sister, running, hitting balls, driving cars fast, taking chances I would never have taken? Who could she have been?

That’s right. Isn’t it funny that we both grew up admiring one half of that famous duo, and then, in a way, grew up to be those same people?

There are more similarities in the relationship than propriety will allow me to express. We both went through a period in our youth when we could barely tolerate each other, when we each believed ourselves to be so profoundly right, that we could not stand to see the other act differently than us, and yet feel the same. We still could hardly be more different considering that we grew up alongside one another. And it's not as if we could fall back upon a familial resemblance, I mean, it used to be a family joke that strangers would look at us and not believe that we were related, much less sisters.

Suffice it to say that now, we are like war buddies. We travel well together. She asks me what I think about things when I can tell she is gathering information for a decision. She values what I think. She is too much her own person to be truly swayed by anyone, but she gives it weight, I can tell.

And she pushes me to do things I would not otherwise choose to do. She pushes me forward, and forces me to step through the invisible web of caution and reason that I weave around me. Within the comfort of our familiarity, I find that I can do extraordinary things. Surprising things. I need that. Man, I will always need that.

And I’m glad I saw that movie last night, because without all the embarrassing bloat of age and bad rugs and fallen faces, the Star Trek world became nimble again, became possible again, in a way. Look, I’m not the first one who has compared our president to the world’s most famous Vulcan, and it’s not surprising that Obama himself is a fan; a fan who gave Nimoy, when he met him face-to-face, the Vulcan salute.

I just want to believe that we can save ourselves and this world we inhabit. I just want us to think, uh, logically about things, and stop letting our revulsion at something that’s different from us stop us from doing what’s right for all us. After all, the needs of the many…they outweigh the needs of the few, right?

It’s encouraging that young people are becoming less religious. I think it’s a good sign. Not that they’re less spiritual, or even less truly religious, but that they’re giving up the church. The church has overstayed its welcome and abused its privileges. Time for the church to go, and for reason to take the day. I hope it’s not too late.

Live long and prosper, readers.

Is it safe?

So I’m sitting here trying to figure out who is the bigger tool.

There’s this guy, who is clearly so invested in believing that his psychologist colleagues who coached the military on how to torture people more effectively are not a disgrace to their Hippocratic oaths, that he has perverted that same oath beyond recognition. “First, do no harm” no longer means that your primary goal is to not harm your patient. Because your patient is really the United States of America, and if the person sitting in front of you might be thinking of harming one of us, then, well, fucking have at him I guess. Or, in his own words: "America is my client; Americans are who I care about. I have no fondness for the enemy, and I don't feel like I need to take care of their mental health needs."

Not to call forth one of those tired-ass Nazi comparisons, but, y’know…yikes. Where'd this guy learn medicine, from watching Laurence Olivier work on Dustin Hoffman's teeth?

Or there’s this “professor of law” bitch, who not only equates caterers being able to turn down a gay wedding with “religious freedom,” she doesn’t know what the phrase “flip side” means. She proposes that the “flip side” of enabling gays to marry is protecting those who object to the gays on “religious” grounds from being forced to provide them with tacky wedding cakes, and rubbery chicken dinners, and from taking poorly lit and boringly staged pictures of their ceremonies.

Yeah. And if you think that line of reasoning is circling the drain, check out the following argument, and while you do, remember that this chick is a professor of law:

What they should not do is what New Hampshire's Senate did last week: pay lip-service to religious freedom while enacting meaningless protections. New Hampshire's bill provides that "members of the clergy ... shall not be obligated ... to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion." But this is a hollow guarantee: The 1st Amendment already provides such protection.

“The 1^st Amendment already provides such protection.”

Hm. Maybe because not having to perform religious marriage services for those who don’t adhere to your bullshit religion is the only fucking issue here! And wonder of wonders, it’s already provided for in our Constitution? Who’d a thunk it?

Oh, only everyone, you stupid fucking idiot professor of law.

Because making a wedding cake for gay people is not a violation of your religion, you only want it to be. What it is a violation of, is your sense of douchebag entitlement. Well, guess what, professor of law genius person? If I made cakes, I wouldn’t want to make them for Christian couples. Because I wouldn’t want them procreating and making more fucking pain in my ass Christians. But I would not be allowed by the government to discriminate against Christians in my little cake-baking business, because if I did, I would be in violation of the law. I would also be an asshole. You know, kind of like the assholes who used to not let Jews into country clubs, and the fairer sex into college, and colored people onto the front of the bus. See, the government has an understandable interest in making sure that everyone in the secular world is treated fairly. And cake-baking, catering, photography? All secular pursuits.

Still confused? Okay, let’s look at it this way. Is your cake-baking business untaxed because it is a religious institution? No? So you have to pay taxes to the government, and you have to have one of those business license thingies? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

What you got yourself there is a business. A business. Not a religion, but a business. And if you want to be an American business, and operate within the good ole US of A, and enjoy separating Americans from their hard-earned dollars, then you have to conform to the rules of doing business here. One of the most important rules of doing business here is that you can’t arbitrarily choose which Americans you will and will not serve. In short, gay people get to sit at your lunch counter now, and thanks to our kick-ass Constitution, soon there will not be one damn thing you can do about it.

Get it, ya fancy dumbass professor of law?

Okay, readers, who's the bigger tool? Dr. Mengele, or the nutty professor?

With obvious apologies to that dude that does that redneck bit

Have you noticed how many people are out there talking through the tubes of the internets, spewing right-wing talking points such as “torture works,” and “Obama’s a socialist,” and yet when you make a comment about the Republican party, they quickly assert that they are “Independent,” and “disgusted by both parties”?

It’s officially a trend, according to Pew Research. In 2004, one in three people identified themselves as Republican. Now it’s less than one in four.

That’s not to say that conservatives are getting less conservative. They’re just too fucking chickenshit to stand up for the party that embodies their beliefs.

Yeah, for all their guns and hellfire and damnation, they sure are a bunch of pussy-ass motherfuckers.

I mean, seriously, can you believe that shit? I have always been proud to be a Democrat, because even in our dark days, it’s the ideals of our party that make us super badass. We cannot be truly represented by any one politician, no matter how cool he is, and we cannot be brought down by just one, either. The Democratic party is like that loud ethnic family on your block: they’re always screaming at each other, and they can be verbose and sentimental and bull-headed, but they look out for one another. At first they seem kind of embarrassing, but in the end, they stick up for people, even if they don’t see eye to eye with them. Not like that scary repressed WASP-y family across the street. No one wants to be them, no matter how much money they have. Sure, it’s nice that all their bullying makes them successful at protecting their money and buying expensive things, but hey, what good are expensive things when no one wants to sit next to you at the block party because you’re so damn mean?

Still, I think that admitting you have a problem is the first step toward healing. And so, as a service to Republicans, I am giving them a handy guide for self-diagnosis. Here’s hoping they put it to good use, and get some help before it’s too late.

You Might Be a Republican If…

If you think that the TV show “24” is proof that torture works…you might be a Republican.

If Dick Cheney’s word is good enough for you…you might be a Republican.

If you listed “the specter of gay marriage” on your divorce papers as the reason why your own heterosexual marriage didn’t pan out…you might be a Republican.

If you don’t understand that Colbert is making fun of you…you might be a Republican.

If you uttered nary a peep for six years about the 3 trillion we’re spending in Iraq, but go apoplectic and don a hat made of teabags at the mention of 800 billion for projects to benefit the USA…you might be a Republican.

If you think Sarah Palin is qualified to govern, um, anything…you just might be a Republican.

If you have no idea what ACORN is, but are pretty sure it’s out to ruin America…you might be a Republican.

If you think hate crimes legislation will end free speech, but support the FCC ban against saying naughty words on the TV…you might be a Republican.

Of the last two presidential candidates, you think Obama was the one not born in the United States…you might be a Republican.

If you think the president’s use of a teleprompter is worth even one second of discussion…you might be a Republican.

If you think that if a president authorized it, it can’t be illegal…you just might be a Republican. Hell, you might even be a former Secretary of State.

If you oppose abortion, but support the death penalty, extraordinary rendition and waterboarding…you are definitely a Republican.

If you think the best way to “represent” California is to advocate disenfranchising 5% of the state’s population…you’re a Republican, all right. Oh, and if your idea of “helping young girls with their self-esteem” is to get state pageant officials to pay for your boob job…you’re definitely a cunt as well.

If you're a closeted homosexual who digs anonymous gay sex but preaches that gays are evil...dang it, there's not even a joke there. The odds are real damn good that you're a Republican.

Readers, this list is by no means comprehensive. I invite you to submit your own “you might be a Republican if” in the comments.

Milky Way, United States Get Bronx Cheer

I am so ready for some good news, readers. I want us to do something right for once. We have been on the fucked-up side of history for so long, even the universe is giving us the razzberry.

This will have to do for now: nine Republicans crossed the party line to confirm Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services today; eight if you don’t count the newly Democraticalized Arlen Specter.

She’ll have to hit the ground running, especially since it seems likely that the US will have at least some swine flu fatalities, and the WHO just bumped our pandemic status up another notch, and Mexico has closed all its restaurants. Restaurants, y’all. Mexican restaurants. Closed. For health concerns. I don’t know about you, but if that doesn’t sound like one of the seven signs of the apocalypse, I don’t know what does.

The Republican opposition to Sebelius was centered around her pro-choice voting record. Wow, imagine, Obama nominating a pro-choice person for a position that oversees the government’s involvement in issues of women’s health. Crazy.

You know, Republicans, not to give away free advice to the party of torture lovers, but you might want to save your ju-ju for opposition to a position that is not 100% predictable and expected and proper and, like, the biggest “Whew!” that women have experienced in this country since McLovin left office eight years and 100 days ago.

And speaking of torture, leave it to the inimitable Harry Shearer and his indispensible Le Show to make me aware of what the major rags have not – that torture was used against prisoners for the purpose of, yes, finding that elusive link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.

I’ll pause while you pick your jaw up off the floor. I know I had to, because, readers, even I did not think that we would stoop so low.

During the period in question, two “high-value” prisoners were water-boarded a total of 266 times between them. Knowing that, as we were subjecting them to simulated drowning, we were asking about the non-existent collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaida kinda sticks a big pin in that whole “ticking time bomb” Jack Bauer bullshit, don’t it? Witness:

"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," [a former senior intelligence official said].

"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."

Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.

A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

Look, I can’t believe that any argument about torture as a policy would hinge upon whether or not it is effective. Torture is what third-world banana republics and despots and criminals and terrorists do, it’s not what we should do. It’s why you go to the goddamn trouble to create a civilization in the first place, so that things like basic human rights are afforded to everyone, not just those who obey the law, but everyone. Sixty years ago, we knew that. Sixty years ago, we prosecuted those who tortured in order to help win their war. Today, the question of whether or not to torture is fodder for the moronic yammer shows. What the fuck has happened to us?

And even if you can get around the morality, how the fuck do you justify waterboarding one person 183 times? I mean, do you say to yourself “Never mind, 183’s a charm!”????

And just for the record, it’s not effective. It’s just not. You know who used to torture, but stopped, because it WASN’T FUCKING EFFECTIVE? Israel. Yeah, Israel.

And you might say they know a thing or two about Islamic terrorism.

Selfish, shellfish

My mom ordered too much clam sauce.

And no, it’s not a euphemism. And ew, if you thought it was. No, mom literally ordered too many cans of clam sauce. Apparently there was a minimum amount you had to order, and so because she was jonesing for clam sauce which you apparently can’t get in the middle of Bumfucknowhere, Nebraska, she caved and she ordered those half a dozen cans from some online clam sauce purveyor.

So now five cans of clam sauce sit on the shelf in her pantry. And rather than consider herself in possession of an embarrassment of clam sauce riches, Mom is desperately seeking to unload a few cans.

The reasons for this are a little complicated, I suppose, if you’re not really familiar with the Midwest, as I’ve noted before. In a nutshell, my mom is becoming more and more aware of her mortality, and just in case she dies, she doesn’t want to be known as the crazy clam sauce lady. She doesn’t want one of her neighbors coming in her house, seeing five cans of clam sauce in her pantry and saying “Well! Wasn’t she fancy!” or “Who in the heck did she think she was?” or “Someone who spends that much on fixing up her noodles maybe should’ve put a little bit more in the collection plate on Sundays.”

Being a vegetarian, and with limited suitcase volume to boot, I was immune to Mom’s clam sauce entreaties, but I did get a chance to marvel at my sister’s mastery of the firm “no” and the change of subject.

The upshot is that Mom will either have to drastically increase her clam sauce intake, or finally, finally make peace with the knowledge that she will be judged by those Nebraskans she leaves behind no matter how hard she tries not to be.

My money’s on the former.

And aw, but Jeezy Creezy, but we do love focusing on all the wrong things, don’t we? Mom tried for an hour to explain to me why farmers hate regulation, because they don’t want the government to tell them they have to, say, terrace a corner of their field to prevent soil erosion – because it’s their field, dammit, and if they want it to erode then who by god can tell them otherwise? Never mind that their actual enemy is de-regulation, and the resistance by their favored Republican party to impose any restrictions on the market – the same market that fixes their prices and wipes out their profits in the blink of a future-trading eye.

If I could talk to them and make them listen, I would tell them that just as the tumbling economy and implosion of major financial institutions created a unique mandate to the US Government to prop up the pillars before the whole damn thing came tumbling down, so too it presented a unique opportunity to require revolutionary but prudent concessions from those same institutions. Concessions that would make their re-growth more efficient and durable. Concessions that would make the huge damn horsepill of a thing easier for us billpayers to swallow. But we didn’t. And the fault for that failure lies squarely at the feet of the last administration, BushCo, and most especially at the feet of their grand poobah of WTF?, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

The morning after this last election day, when stunned Republicans picked themselves up off the floor – stunned that, after 5 years of catastrophic failures in Iraq, they could not succeed with a Presidential ticket headed by one of the premier congressional cheerleaders of that same damn stupid war – stunned that their selection of a white-trash version of W in a skirt didn’t inspire a majority of the voters to choose 4 more years of ignorant, Jesus-steeped nonsense – stunned that more people than not finally, finally, FINALLY saw through the charade – that morning, Republicans picked themselves up off the floor, crawled to their keyboards and into the studios of idiot-friendly yammer shows and declared that they were going to blame the economy on Obama.

No subtlety, no justifications or obfuscations necessary: BushCo’s follies and criminal collusions were to be recast as the result of Democratic over-spending and general big-governmentalness. “Why the fuck not?” they thought. “It’s the only idea we have right now, and besides, we’ll get at least a couple thousand idiots to buy it.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a couple thousand idiots:

As a general rule, you can pretty much always extract the word "Christian" from any protest placard, and substitute "bigoted self-deluded moron" in its place. This asshat is certainly no exception.


When making irrational arguments, it never hurts to cover all bases.



It's not easy to pull off racism whilst also employing an arcane pop culture reference. Kudos.


Hey, at least he's admitting that the Holocaust happened.


I saved the best for last, didn't I? I mean, as far-out as it seems, don't you think that somewhere, deep down, this dude has the hit the teabagging nail on its crazy-ass head? I do.

Break

All apologies, readers, for my lack of posts. It's been a little crazy.

I'm going to meet up with GKL in Boulder, and then travel from there to see the Moms.

I'll be back next week. Unless the teabags get me.

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded

It’s a tough world, y’all. Muslims may don blackface to imitate your president. Asians insist on having complicated names. Adorable comic actors are rationalizing date rape.

The press is taunting vegetarians and calling our concerns for the planet pretentious and tiresome, which probably assures us of some kind of Al Gore-type told-you-so status in the coming years, but still.

Plus, it turns out pirates are kinda sympathetic, after all.

And the courageous and outspoken director of LSU’s Hurricane Center, who refused to be silent about the criminal neglect committed against the residents of New Orleans by the Army Corp of Engineers, has finally been fired by the University. BushCo, even though out of office, has a long reach indeed.

A unique symbol of the American Revolution is being co-opted by corporations and the lobbyists and think tanks that shill for them, as citizens born without the sense god gave a goose cheer them on.

Our president struggles well to make himself heard and to be the thing that keeps our bloated and half-drowned asses from going under for the last time. And for his efforts, he is ridiculed by terrible people who seem to have no problem with the fact that they are, or might become, the inspiration for awful, pointless violence.

I love my country dearly, and I am sorely tired of pointing this out to those that believe that they can only gain for themselves at the expense of others. The world is corrupt, foolish, and reckless, and becoming more so every day, it seems. Is it any wonder that at last Friday’s wonderful, amazing, heartbreaking Leonard Cohen concert, the following poem cut through my skin and into my soul like a hot knife through Chinese drywall?

Thank you, Uncle Lenny.

The culture of afterthoughts

"Certainly the views of the administration have been and will be communicated to the Karzai government. And we think that it is very important for us to be sensitive to local culture but we also think there are certain basic principles that all nations should uphold." - President Obama, on the impending passage of an Afghan law abolishing the rights of Shia women.

Yes, let’s be certain to remain sensitive to local culture. It’s very important.

The next time some redneck tells me that Obama is “uppity,” I’m going to remember to be sensitive to his culture and the long tradition white people have of putting colored people in their place.

Also, when I see pictures of those Minutemen guarding our border, talking about shooting any Mexicans they see trying to cross, I’m going to remember it then, too.

I’m especially going to remember it the next time a Muslim member of my community talks about their business being targeted by anti-Muslim vandals. “Hey,” I’m going to say, “Christians have a rich and storied history filled with the harassment and killing of Muslims. We have to be sensitive to their culture.”

Hm. So, I have been waiting, ever since the news about Afghanistan’s new law came out, to hear how we will respond. And I gave Obama more than a few days, knowing that he does prefer to know what he’s talking about before he speaks.

The response pretty much sucks. Because not only does Obama temper his criticism of the law he calls “abhorrent” by reminding everyone that beating, raping, and generally oppressing women is part of Afghanistan’s “culture,” but he also stressed, multiple times, that our mission there is to wipe out Al-Qaeda, period.

How does this jive with Hillary Clinton’s statement, made at The Hague just days before the details of the Afghan law were revealed, that "women's rights are a central part of American foreign policy in the Obama administration; they are not marginal; they are not an add-on or an afterthought"?

I don’t know about you, readers, but it’s looking pretty afterthought-y to me. Kinda like a photo op of a president who’s a big basketball fan, and who fills out his NCAA men’s bracket for the cameras, completely forgetting that there is, you know, also a women’s NCAA tournament going on at the same time.

In any event, Karzai has promised, under international pressure, to “review” the law, although he’s also indicated that he doesn’t understand what the big deal is and the law looked just fine to him the first time the Shias came to him and said sign this and we’ll support you, but whatever.

Yes, it’s reassuring that the president of a country whose brand new constitution guarantees equal rights for men and women doesn’t understand why it’s okay to sign a law that makes women living under Sharia the powerless slaves of their husbands or fathers. And you know who else doesn’t understand it? The parliament that passed the law. One female lawmaker gave a statement to the media that effectively said: Meh. It could’ve been worse.

Indeed, it could’ve been. And no doubt the next time Karzai needs to suck up to some fucking brutal bullshit hater minority, it will be. A government is only as good as those who are exploiting it for their own personal power, after all. And the government of Afghanistan’s first democratically-elected president has been marked by corruption on a scale that you’d normally think possible only in a land ruled by a thousand different warring despots.

Oh, wait.

And our prospects of changing Afghanistan into a nation that gives a good goddman about women are not particularly good. Look at another one of the fucked-up ‘Stans: Pakistan, our long-time Cold War ally. In 1988 they elected their first female head of state (and first female head of a Muslim country, ever), something the US has yet to accomplish. Of course, these days, they’re not so much into electing women into office as beating them publicly for being seen on the street with a man to which they are not related.

Readers, you know your country is fercockt when the same dude screaming that the release of the video of said beating is a conspiracy against Islam, is also claiming that the woman got off lightly, and rightly should have been put to death.

In other words, the video is fake because the real one would’ve been way worse? Fucking yikes, dude.

There is no winning here, readers. Given the fluidity of the border and the sympathies of the Pakistanis, there is no ridding Afghanistan of terrorists without also invading Pakistan, and we do not want to invade Pakistan. Maybe next year, if we economize, you know, and cut back on the bank buyouts, and make a few big payments on our credit card.

Until then, as far as I’m concerned, Afghanistan is Vietnam, and Pakistan is Cambodia, and we need to take our lumps and walk away. There is no winning of hearts and minds possible anymore. We are too far gone for that. And maybe all the people who believe that our retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq will mean collapse of the region are wrong, just like all the Domino theorists were wrong.

Frankly, besides the welfare of the women of these countries, whom we appear to be powerless to help anyway, I can’t see a reason to stay one more minute.