Do you remember searching for that used two-string banjo you bought through CraigsList a few months ago? Remember when you contacted the seller, only to discover that he was a Prada-wearing, flag-burning homosexual with an "Obama '08" bumper sticker on his pink Prius? Don't you wish you had a place to go where you can buy and sell items among those who share similar conservative interests as you, where you won't have to buy goods from tax-loving, minority-friendly commie bastards? Well, now you can, thanks to GippersList, a conservative classifieds site similar to CraigsList, but without all those pesky liberals charging 10% sales tax and forcing you to convert to homosexual atheism with your purchase.
The founder of GippersList, whose name is not on the website, thought it was a swell idea to combine the model of CraigsList with the insanity of the modern conservative movement. Apparently, conservatives aren't already isolated enough from the real world by posting inane comments on the Politico forums or preparing themselves for their shipment to those re-edumacation camps Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann think are on the way, so they now need a place where they can buy and sell items exclusively to other conservative crackpots who share their pain. And boy, GippersList is a diamond among gems. Just take a look at some of the "Frequently" Asked Questions on the website:
What is GippersList?
GippersList is a place where conservatives can buy and sell goods and services. It’s for both businesses and individuals.
...Because CraigsList was never designed for both businesses and individuals, right?
How is GippersList different from other classified websites?
GippersList does not contain offensive categories. In addition, we have more communities included (and can easily add communities if there is enough demand) and more subcategories. In our opinion, it is much more user-friendly and intuitive.
First, CraigsList has PLENTY of communities and areas included in their directory. Yeah, Wyoming gets an entire category on its own, but do you know why CraigsList does that? Because no one lives in Wyoming. Why waste bandwidth by having separate categories for Laramie, Casper and Jackson Hole when users post less than one ad in each category every day? Second, what "offensive" material are they talking about? There are dating services on CraigsList, but if you don't want to read about horny daddies searching for college boys with stoma fetishes, you don't have to click on the relationship categories.
So, in other words, GippersList is different because it seeks to waste bandwidth and exclude homosexuals, unmarried teenagers, and other non-Christian monogamists.
How do I know that the person I'm really doing business with is really a conservative?
The million dollar question! There are no “litmus tests” and GippersList is “on your honor.” The publicity we are doing to promote GippersList is geared toward conservative unbiased and unbiased and conservative media outlets and the positioning is clear. That being said, to support our cause and “prove” that you are a conservative, we ask that all GippersList posters sport a GippersList bumper sticker on their vehicle or in their place of business. When you do a transaction—look for the bumper sticker and if you don’t see it…say something.
Brilliant! If you don't buy our crappy bumper sticker promoting our equally crappy business, you can't be a real conservative! Fear mongering, it seems, has drifted away from politics and into the business world. So remember kids, when buying your goods and services on GippersList, look for a GippersList bumper sticker on that 1992 rusted-out Ford Ranger (it will be next to the Confederate Flag sticker and right above the "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" magnet). Otherwise, the guy you're buying from might be a hidden closet socialist homosexual Muslim who will want to kidnap and rape you while shouting verses from the Q'uran and forcing you to watch an episode of Will & Grace.
Or, the answer to the above question should be fairly obvious: The only people who use GippersList are crackpot conservatives in the first place. Idiots...
And, finally, my favorite "Frequently" Asked Question:
Why Gipper?
It’s simple: we love Ronald Reagan. His life story proves that in America—anything is possible. And we will stop talking about him when the “other side” stops talking about JFK.
Us liberals don't spend every waking minute verbally fellating the rotting corpse of John F. Kennedy. Republicans, on the other hand, like to pretend that Ronald Reagan is still among the living. They like to slap Reagan's name on airports, highways, and parks-- some of which he had never been to, in states he never visited-- in some sort of morbid, eternal memorial that seems a tad bit cultish. See, Democrats don't spend every waking minute masturbating to newsreels of our former presidents, because we like to look to the future when selecting our leaders. That's why we never had the eight Democratic presidential candidates debate at a memorial to FDR, JFK or Harry Truman. No, we didn't invite Lady Bird Johnson to any of our debates, we didn't ask the question "What would Truman do?" during the presidential campaign. And we didn't squawk rabidly whenever one of our candidates disagreed with a fundamental policy from one of our earlier leaders.
Republicans, on the other hand, have dephiled Ronald Reagan's memory enough, and GippersList is perhaps the spitting image of delusional obsession taken to the max. If Ronald Reagan were alive today, and able to remember how to formulate a sentence, I'm certain he would denounce this website as utter trash. Why would he want his name associated to the backwards causes of a bunch of redneck extremists whose fear of a liberal America has caused them to create their own CraigsList-like website? If I were Reagan, I'd rise out of my grave and file a lawsuit.
But anyway, I would like to wish GippersList luck. You know, the next time I'm looking for used autoparts, and I desperately want that "tossed all over my front lawn" feeling from them, I may have to consider posting on this website. These people probably aren't all bad. They're just idiots living on the extremist fringe.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham
The Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor have begun, which means the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have amped up the crazy factor to eleven in order to paint the long-serving judge as a reverse racist, a hothead, and an anti-American villain straight out of a 1960s propaganda film. While there are plenty of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to dissect and analyze, two stuck out like 'lil Southern dandies strapped to a telephone pole in the Bronx, repeating some of the same baseless attacks promoted by the conservative blogosphere while also coming up with some creative attack lines of their own.
First, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) grilled Sotomayor on her Puerto Rican heritage. Not only did he become the one millionth conservative to bastardize her "wise Latina" remarks, but he also voiced his belief that all Puerto Rican judges should vote the same way:
You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren't bound by that case.
Brilliant! Sessions apparently believes that Sotomayor should refrain from independent thought on the bench, and vote with her colleagues because they are of the same skin color and ancestry. This should come of no surprise, considering Sen. Sessions was a former supporter of the Ku Klux Klan down in good old Alabama, so naturally, all Puerto Ricans are single-minded and dependent on one another when it comes to decision making. By the way, for those of you wondering who this Judge Cabranes is, he is a federal judge nominated to the bench by conservative darling Ronald Reagan in 1986. Surely, you'd think Cabranes would be on the same page as Jeff Sessions, considering Sessions used him as political fodder in his attacks against Sotomayor. Well, think again, as this is what Cabranes had to say when he was made aware of Sessions's comments:
I don’t believe for a minute that there are any differences in our [Cabranes and Sotomayor's] approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no affect on her approach to judging.
BURN! Feel that, Jeff Sessions? That's the kick in the teeth you routinely get whenever you claim minorities should vote the same way simply because of their race. Something else you should know about Sessions and Cabranes: Sessions was nominated alongside Cabranes in 1986 to become a federal judge. Unlike Cabranes, Sessions was not confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Why not, you ask? Because of Jeff Sessions's previous affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan and his demonstrated insensitivity towards racial groups. And yet, this man is the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he is allowed to snarl and huff at an Hispanic nominee for being "racist" because she said that a Latina woman like herself has different experiences than stuffy old white men like Jeff Sessions. Ironic, no?
Our second conservatidiot is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who really went a mile out of his way to attempt to paint Sotomayor not only as a racist, but as a terrorist sympathizer. Graham, who supports the "war on terra," re-read the "wise Latina" remark and then claimed that her comments could be damaging to advancing democracy in the Middle East. Why? Because apparently, insurgents in the Middle East give a shit what some judicial nominee in the United States has to say about race and gender. Apparently, such statements will set women back in Afghanistan and Iraq, since a justice who pays attention to race in the United States has some sort of domino effect on what happens over there. Of course, by that logic, then we never should have allowed Sandra Day-O'Connor or Ruth Bader-Ginsburg to sit on the bench, since the "terra-ists" fucking hate women and those two could have inspired women to seek political positions in those countries, which would surely rile the extremists over there.
Sort of like what's happening in America, come to think of it: An Hispanic woman who is proud of her ethnic background will most likely be the next Supreme Court justice in the United States, and right-wing extremists around the country are freaking out. They're calling her a "racist," implying that she is an activist when her decisions don't say as much, and insinuating that remarks she made which were misconstrued by pandering white Republicans are secretly supporting the mission of "terra-ists" abroad. Thank you, Sen. Graham, for proving, albeit unintentionally, that the "terra-ists" you hope to defeat are no better than the majority of those within today's Republican Party.
First, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) grilled Sotomayor on her Puerto Rican heritage. Not only did he become the one millionth conservative to bastardize her "wise Latina" remarks, but he also voiced his belief that all Puerto Rican judges should vote the same way:
You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren't bound by that case.
Brilliant! Sessions apparently believes that Sotomayor should refrain from independent thought on the bench, and vote with her colleagues because they are of the same skin color and ancestry. This should come of no surprise, considering Sen. Sessions was a former supporter of the Ku Klux Klan down in good old Alabama, so naturally, all Puerto Ricans are single-minded and dependent on one another when it comes to decision making. By the way, for those of you wondering who this Judge Cabranes is, he is a federal judge nominated to the bench by conservative darling Ronald Reagan in 1986. Surely, you'd think Cabranes would be on the same page as Jeff Sessions, considering Sessions used him as political fodder in his attacks against Sotomayor. Well, think again, as this is what Cabranes had to say when he was made aware of Sessions's comments:
I don’t believe for a minute that there are any differences in our [Cabranes and Sotomayor's] approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no affect on her approach to judging.
BURN! Feel that, Jeff Sessions? That's the kick in the teeth you routinely get whenever you claim minorities should vote the same way simply because of their race. Something else you should know about Sessions and Cabranes: Sessions was nominated alongside Cabranes in 1986 to become a federal judge. Unlike Cabranes, Sessions was not confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Why not, you ask? Because of Jeff Sessions's previous affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan and his demonstrated insensitivity towards racial groups. And yet, this man is the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he is allowed to snarl and huff at an Hispanic nominee for being "racist" because she said that a Latina woman like herself has different experiences than stuffy old white men like Jeff Sessions. Ironic, no?
Our second conservatidiot is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who really went a mile out of his way to attempt to paint Sotomayor not only as a racist, but as a terrorist sympathizer. Graham, who supports the "war on terra," re-read the "wise Latina" remark and then claimed that her comments could be damaging to advancing democracy in the Middle East. Why? Because apparently, insurgents in the Middle East give a shit what some judicial nominee in the United States has to say about race and gender. Apparently, such statements will set women back in Afghanistan and Iraq, since a justice who pays attention to race in the United States has some sort of domino effect on what happens over there. Of course, by that logic, then we never should have allowed Sandra Day-O'Connor or Ruth Bader-Ginsburg to sit on the bench, since the "terra-ists" fucking hate women and those two could have inspired women to seek political positions in those countries, which would surely rile the extremists over there.
Sort of like what's happening in America, come to think of it: An Hispanic woman who is proud of her ethnic background will most likely be the next Supreme Court justice in the United States, and right-wing extremists around the country are freaking out. They're calling her a "racist," implying that she is an activist when her decisions don't say as much, and insinuating that remarks she made which were misconstrued by pandering white Republicans are secretly supporting the mission of "terra-ists" abroad. Thank you, Sen. Graham, for proving, albeit unintentionally, that the "terra-ists" you hope to defeat are no better than the majority of those within today's Republican Party.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Week
Updating this blog is harder than you think. Not because there's a lack of source material, since conservatives are constantly screwing up and mouthing off these days, but because I have to spend a lot of time researching such instances which are both 1) totally astounding, and 2) something I want to write in-depth about. Additionally, many ongoing topics-- such as the "Sotomayor is a big fat racist" mantra or Sarah Palin's secession from the Alaska governor's mansion-- are just too infuriating and tend to make me want to break my already-worn laptop.
Anyway, I did come across several stories which definitely make you want to invoke the "Facepalm" technique. Here are this week's conservatidiots:
Anyway, I did come across several stories which definitely make you want to invoke the "Facepalm" technique. Here are this week's conservatidiots:
- Rep. Peter King (R-NY), for calling Michael Jackson a "pedophile" and a "child molester" without having substantial proof to validate his claim. King proves he is fantastic at invoking that "judge first, ask questions later" mentality holy-rolling social conservatives constantly spew. Jackson was acquitted in 2003, but King, who lives on Long Island and works in Washington, DC., apparently has access to information the general public doesn't have yet regarding this case, therefore giving him the ability to legally say such horrendous things. Or, he's a hot-headed egomaniac who loves to open his mouth without thinking. I'm going with the latter on this.
- The Drudge Report, for publishing a photo which appears to imply that President Obama looked at a young girl's ass while on last week's trip abroad. Leave it to Matt Drudge to take things entirely out of context; as it turns out, Obama's head was tilted down, because he was helping an aid walk up down some stairs. His eyes were not on that other woman at all, and the video footage from which this photo came from proves this. Then again, this is Matt Drudge we're talking about-- a man who published a photo of Obama in Kenyan garb while on a trip to Africa three years ago, using it to imply that he was a closet Muslim.
- Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) for not learning to keep his fucking mouth shut. Not only does he cheat on his wife and leave his kids to have a fling with his Argentinian mistress, but he continues to embarass them almost three weeks after the revelation by leaking more and more details about his sexcapades. I don't need to know that Mark Sanford, who looks like a horse with skin cancer, has had relations with numerous women while married. I don't need to know what they talked about, what they considered doing, and where their relationships went. All I need to know is that he screwed up, horribly, so I can have a good laugh without feeling dirty.
- Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), for having his parents give $96,000 to his mistress's family. According to his attorney, this money was given as "gifts" and was not intended to silence his mistress or her husband-- former employees of Ensign's, nonetheless-- from blabbing to the media. Please excuse me while I let out a resounding HA!
- Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), for threatening to sue the media for "defamation of character" because it continues to speculate about her resignation, ethics probes, and her personal life. Because, you know, the big bad liberal media is responsible for her continuous fuck-ups...
- Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL), for posing for a picture while holding a T-shirt which reads "Fire Congress," handed to him by his oh-so-charming Alabama constituents. Bright either 1) doesn't realize he is a congressman, 2) is just as mindless as his constituents by posing with such a useless shirt, or 3) unaware that his constituents probably want to fire him because he belongs to the same party as the Closet Muslim Socialist Babykiller (Alabama slang for "President Obama"). He also gets a shout-out for voting against the climate bill, when his district is one of the most volatile districts towards the environment. No wonder why his constituents want to fire him; he hates their health and prolonged well-being.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Conservatidiot of the Day: Sarah Palin
This Fourth of July weekend, Sarah Palin decided to boost her erratic persona up a notch by announcing her resignation as governor of Alaska, effective at the end of the month. While many political pundits expected Palin would not seek re-election in 2010, presumably to divert her attention to a presidential bid, very few expected her to leave office nearly a year and a half before the end of her first term in office. Though unexpected, this isn't entirely surprising; after all, Sarah Palin certainly wins the award for being the most unconventional and unpredictable politician in modern political history, and this stunt certainly validates that title.
There are several possible reasons why Palin is leaving office early. The most immediate assumption is that she wants to set her sights on the White House as early as possible, and her resignation would allow her to travel the country for nearly three years, winning endorsements and re-introducing herself to the American public. Of course, if Palin really plans to embark on such a tour, maybe she should consider hiring a new speechwriter and a grammar coach, since today's announcement was not only incoherent, but chock full of the same ramblings and hillbilly folk sayings which frightened voters away from the McCain-Palin ticket last year. A second reason for her resignation-- and, in my opinion, is most probably-- is that Palin isn't gearing up for a White House run at all, but is in fact thinking about challenging incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski in next year's Republican Senatorial primary. But Palin would be mortally wounding herself should she decide to go this route, since Murkowski is still extremely popular in Alaska, while Palin's approval ratings are currently hovering near 50%. This stunt will probably hurt her even more among Alaskans, considering they did elect her, after all, to serve four years as governor of their state. A third reason for her resignation is that she is "done with politics"-- that is, a year after Palin subjected herself and her family to intense media scrutiny which she apparently can't handle like a normal politician, she is removing herself from the spotlight altogether to live a sheltered family life. And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Alaska I can sell you for a low price.
My honest opinion is that Palin is gearing up for a political campaign, either for the Senate or the Presidency in 2012. And my educated guess is that Palin will lose both should she pursue them. Alaskans must feel betrayed that their governor-- who abandoned them after losing the presidency to get into petty fights with late night talk show hosts and call for the new, democratically-elected Senator from that state to resign after Ted Stevens' conviction was set aside-- has decided to just stop doing her job altogether. Essentially, Palin is saying that she is bored as governor of Alaska, and she wants to do something else-- whatever that is, the cares and concerns of Alaskans aren't nearly as important as her own ambitions. Should she run for the Senate next year, Alaskans might finally question her rationality, considering Palin easily could have run for the Senate as a sitting governor. Should she run for President in three years, Americans are going to look at her track record and wonder why they should elect a fairly oblivious anti-intellectual who only served 30 months as governor of one of the least-important states in the country as President instead of a fairly popular sitting President. Even better, people will be forced to ask whether she will truly be capable of serving out a full term as governor without leaving early because she can't take the heat. Republicans will probably question this, too, and my bet is that she will be destroyed in the Republican primary for this lopsided decision.
Ultimately, Sarah Palin has ruined her political future by deciding to leave office early. Her credibility is in the tank, and any chance for a national political comeback has been obliterated. Thank you, Sarah, for clearing the 2012 presidential field of yet another contender. Hopefully your replacement will actually do what you failed to do upon his succession of the governorship: The job of the governor of Alaska.
There are several possible reasons why Palin is leaving office early. The most immediate assumption is that she wants to set her sights on the White House as early as possible, and her resignation would allow her to travel the country for nearly three years, winning endorsements and re-introducing herself to the American public. Of course, if Palin really plans to embark on such a tour, maybe she should consider hiring a new speechwriter and a grammar coach, since today's announcement was not only incoherent, but chock full of the same ramblings and hillbilly folk sayings which frightened voters away from the McCain-Palin ticket last year. A second reason for her resignation-- and, in my opinion, is most probably-- is that Palin isn't gearing up for a White House run at all, but is in fact thinking about challenging incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski in next year's Republican Senatorial primary. But Palin would be mortally wounding herself should she decide to go this route, since Murkowski is still extremely popular in Alaska, while Palin's approval ratings are currently hovering near 50%. This stunt will probably hurt her even more among Alaskans, considering they did elect her, after all, to serve four years as governor of their state. A third reason for her resignation is that she is "done with politics"-- that is, a year after Palin subjected herself and her family to intense media scrutiny which she apparently can't handle like a normal politician, she is removing herself from the spotlight altogether to live a sheltered family life. And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Alaska I can sell you for a low price.
My honest opinion is that Palin is gearing up for a political campaign, either for the Senate or the Presidency in 2012. And my educated guess is that Palin will lose both should she pursue them. Alaskans must feel betrayed that their governor-- who abandoned them after losing the presidency to get into petty fights with late night talk show hosts and call for the new, democratically-elected Senator from that state to resign after Ted Stevens' conviction was set aside-- has decided to just stop doing her job altogether. Essentially, Palin is saying that she is bored as governor of Alaska, and she wants to do something else-- whatever that is, the cares and concerns of Alaskans aren't nearly as important as her own ambitions. Should she run for the Senate next year, Alaskans might finally question her rationality, considering Palin easily could have run for the Senate as a sitting governor. Should she run for President in three years, Americans are going to look at her track record and wonder why they should elect a fairly oblivious anti-intellectual who only served 30 months as governor of one of the least-important states in the country as President instead of a fairly popular sitting President. Even better, people will be forced to ask whether she will truly be capable of serving out a full term as governor without leaving early because she can't take the heat. Republicans will probably question this, too, and my bet is that she will be destroyed in the Republican primary for this lopsided decision.
Ultimately, Sarah Palin has ruined her political future by deciding to leave office early. Her credibility is in the tank, and any chance for a national political comeback has been obliterated. Thank you, Sarah, for clearing the 2012 presidential field of yet another contender. Hopefully your replacement will actually do what you failed to do upon his succession of the governorship: The job of the governor of Alaska.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: The Parents Television Council
You would think with major showdowns over health care and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor looming, there would be a lot more conservatives flapping their ignorant gums. However, with the death of Michael Jackson and the Mark Sanford saga the top two stories being followed by the media right now, new conservative jackassery is actually pretty hard to find. And since Norm Coleman did the sensible thing today by conceding after eight months of grandstanding, I can't really rant about how much of an irrational kook he is.
As a result, I have decided to tackle an issue which has fascinated me for quite some time: The conservative quest for media censorship. Last night, after watching an episode of Family Guy on Hulu, I looked up the episode I was watching on Wikipedia. There, I discovered that the Parents Television Council (PTC)-- a conservative fringe organization that advocates for censoring television broadcasts to "appeal to a family audience"-- had requested its minions to write sternly-worded letters to FOX expressing their outrage over the episode's content, namely a scene where one of the characters talks about having an "eleven way."
I found the attack against the show quite amusing, and went to the PTC's website to research the organization some more. This truly is one of the most fascinating and disturbing conservative causes I have ever come across. The PTC claims it is a "non-partisan" organization which aims to "promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry in answer to America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming." Even better, it supplies a color-coded guide-- a "television traffic light" where red means bad for children/ families, yellow means caution should be exercised, and green means ay-okay for children and overly-sensitive adults-- which the PTC uses to rank every show and make recommendations for "family-friendly" entertainment.
For an organization which claims to be non-partisan, the PTC certainly doesn't have a problem promoting its rampant conservatism in its reviews of shows and in what it feels should be "standards" set by network television. For instance, the PTC cites House, MD's emphasis on science and religious skepticism as a reason why the series might be insulting to family audiences. In other instances, "references to homosexuality" qualify as "sexually perverse" subject matter, while medical shows which feature blood are considered "extremely violent" and "kissing" is conseridered "gratuitous sexual content." What is so striking about this "non-partisan" organization is that-- while it may claim to be "non-partisan"-- it certainly caters to social conservatism, namely Christian conservatism and not all family-based audiences.
When I was younger, my parents allowed me to watch R-rated movies as early as age ten and TV-MA series when I was in middle school. From an early age, I was smart enough to know that what I saw on film or television was fiction. Violence was the result of special effects, profanity was simply words people didn't like to hear, the sex wasn't real, and drug use was rarely seen as an amazing thing everyone had to go out and do once the show was over. The PTC assumes that all children are unable to handle "mature" subject matter and arbitrarily recommend that shows like House, Bones, Fringe, Arrested Development, CSI, NCIS, Lost and Chuck aren't viewed by children under the age of 18. This promotes "wholesome family values"-- not allowing your children to explore fictional worlds and ponder about characters who may be stuck in situations your children will never be involved in, simply because some idiot kid killed his sister after watching The Wrestler or a friend's child smoked pot after watching Up in Smoke.
The PTC is also so arrogant to believe that the hours of 8pm-10pm should be "family hour," where "adult-oriented" shows are not allowed to air on network television. I don't really understand why there needs to be a "family hour" on network television when there are dozens of cable stations which provide family programming. The reason why network TV has become more "adult oriented" is because they have been more successful with adult audiences over the years. In fact, some of the highest rated scripted television shows on network television are House, CSI, NCIS, Lost and Grey's Anatomy-- all of which receive a "red" rating from the PTC. This ultimately refutes the PTC's erronious claim in their mission statement that "[Americans] demand... positive, family-oriented television programming." Clearly, Americans don't demand such programming, as evident by the large number of viewers some of the PTC's most chastized shows draw every week.
Finally, one of the most laughable causes the PTC has been pursuing over the years is the idea of "cable choice," where cable customers should get to omit certain channels from their cable packages. Not surprisingly, the channels the PTC recommends parents should omit are MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, E!, and BET(because black people are savage voodoo practitioners who disgrace the name of Christ?), among others. Of course, the PTC doesn't seem to understand how cable companies work, since networks buy into the cable company, sign contracts, and offer their services for a very low price on the part of the consumer; as a result, if the PTC were to achieve their goal, conservatives would end up paying more for "cable choice" than they would basic cable. As it stands now, basic cable in my home area costs anywhere from $10-25, depending on the service; "cable choice" would easily add an extra $15-20 on top of that because certain networks which allow for such low prices would be cut out of the deal.But the best part about all of this is, the PTC's quest for "cable choice" is utterly useless. Every cable company I have heard of allows cable owners to block certain stations from their overall package. For those who don't own cable, most television sets come installed with v-chip technology which allow you to block certain programs or networks based on the television ration displayed during the broadcast.
The PTC really is one of the saddest, most unnecessary organizations I have ever come across in my research on the modern conservative movement. If parents want to monitor what their children watch, then they have every right to do so. However, they shouldn't try to punish everyone else by trying to get rid of well-written series like House simply because these series contain a few naughty cuss words and some violent moments.
As a result, I have decided to tackle an issue which has fascinated me for quite some time: The conservative quest for media censorship. Last night, after watching an episode of Family Guy on Hulu, I looked up the episode I was watching on Wikipedia. There, I discovered that the Parents Television Council (PTC)-- a conservative fringe organization that advocates for censoring television broadcasts to "appeal to a family audience"-- had requested its minions to write sternly-worded letters to FOX expressing their outrage over the episode's content, namely a scene where one of the characters talks about having an "eleven way."
I found the attack against the show quite amusing, and went to the PTC's website to research the organization some more. This truly is one of the most fascinating and disturbing conservative causes I have ever come across. The PTC claims it is a "non-partisan" organization which aims to "promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry in answer to America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming." Even better, it supplies a color-coded guide-- a "television traffic light" where red means bad for children/ families, yellow means caution should be exercised, and green means ay-okay for children and overly-sensitive adults-- which the PTC uses to rank every show and make recommendations for "family-friendly" entertainment.
For an organization which claims to be non-partisan, the PTC certainly doesn't have a problem promoting its rampant conservatism in its reviews of shows and in what it feels should be "standards" set by network television. For instance, the PTC cites House, MD's emphasis on science and religious skepticism as a reason why the series might be insulting to family audiences. In other instances, "references to homosexuality" qualify as "sexually perverse" subject matter, while medical shows which feature blood are considered "extremely violent" and "kissing" is conseridered "gratuitous sexual content." What is so striking about this "non-partisan" organization is that-- while it may claim to be "non-partisan"-- it certainly caters to social conservatism, namely Christian conservatism and not all family-based audiences.
When I was younger, my parents allowed me to watch R-rated movies as early as age ten and TV-MA series when I was in middle school. From an early age, I was smart enough to know that what I saw on film or television was fiction. Violence was the result of special effects, profanity was simply words people didn't like to hear, the sex wasn't real, and drug use was rarely seen as an amazing thing everyone had to go out and do once the show was over. The PTC assumes that all children are unable to handle "mature" subject matter and arbitrarily recommend that shows like House, Bones, Fringe, Arrested Development, CSI, NCIS, Lost and Chuck aren't viewed by children under the age of 18. This promotes "wholesome family values"-- not allowing your children to explore fictional worlds and ponder about characters who may be stuck in situations your children will never be involved in, simply because some idiot kid killed his sister after watching The Wrestler or a friend's child smoked pot after watching Up in Smoke.
The PTC is also so arrogant to believe that the hours of 8pm-10pm should be "family hour," where "adult-oriented" shows are not allowed to air on network television. I don't really understand why there needs to be a "family hour" on network television when there are dozens of cable stations which provide family programming. The reason why network TV has become more "adult oriented" is because they have been more successful with adult audiences over the years. In fact, some of the highest rated scripted television shows on network television are House, CSI, NCIS, Lost and Grey's Anatomy-- all of which receive a "red" rating from the PTC. This ultimately refutes the PTC's erronious claim in their mission statement that "[Americans] demand... positive, family-oriented television programming." Clearly, Americans don't demand such programming, as evident by the large number of viewers some of the PTC's most chastized shows draw every week.
Finally, one of the most laughable causes the PTC has been pursuing over the years is the idea of "cable choice," where cable customers should get to omit certain channels from their cable packages. Not surprisingly, the channels the PTC recommends parents should omit are MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, E!, and BET(because black people are savage voodoo practitioners who disgrace the name of Christ?), among others. Of course, the PTC doesn't seem to understand how cable companies work, since networks buy into the cable company, sign contracts, and offer their services for a very low price on the part of the consumer; as a result, if the PTC were to achieve their goal, conservatives would end up paying more for "cable choice" than they would basic cable. As it stands now, basic cable in my home area costs anywhere from $10-25, depending on the service; "cable choice" would easily add an extra $15-20 on top of that because certain networks which allow for such low prices would be cut out of the deal.But the best part about all of this is, the PTC's quest for "cable choice" is utterly useless. Every cable company I have heard of allows cable owners to block certain stations from their overall package. For those who don't own cable, most television sets come installed with v-chip technology which allow you to block certain programs or networks based on the television ration displayed during the broadcast.
The PTC really is one of the saddest, most unnecessary organizations I have ever come across in my research on the modern conservative movement. If parents want to monitor what their children watch, then they have every right to do so. However, they shouldn't try to punish everyone else by trying to get rid of well-written series like House simply because these series contain a few naughty cuss words and some violent moments.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: The Cheating Hypocrites
It has been fifteen days since my last entry. I had planned to write something last week about Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), the 2012 presidential hopeful who admitted to cheating on his wife. However, as far as sex scandals go, his was boring and really uninteresting, especially when compared to other conservative sex scandals involving the likes of former Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and current Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). And because the only semi-interesting thing to come out of the conservative camp this past week was Ensign's affair, I have held back from completing another entry.
Of course, I have decided to hit on the Ensign affair today, now that another 2012 presidential hopeful has admitted his infidelity as well. Yes, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) told reporters today that he has cheated on his wife with a mistress from Argentina. After disappearing for five days-- his family and his office unaware of his whereabouts-- Sanford returned to South Carolina, where he tearfully told reporters about his marital infidelity. This makes him the second high-profile Republican in a week to admit to an extramarital affair, and the fifth in three years to prove the hypocrisy of the social conservative cause.
Sanford and Ensign were both considered beacons of social conservatism, and had been touted as possible presidential contenders who could appeal to the base (due to their wacky, nonsensical opposition to President Obama's stimulus package, which would have poured billions of dollars into their failing states) and so-called "values voters" (due to their wacky, nonsensical opposition to minority rights). Now, their future political ambitions have been crushed. In the past week, Ensign saw his approval rating drop from 53% to 39%, while many in South Carolina are calling on Sanford to resign.
Scandals like these make me laugh with glee. Not because I necessarily want to see their marriages fail, but because it highlights the rampant hypocrisy oozing out of the social conservative movement. Republicans constantly brush off these scandals as "simple mistakes," but they often forget that this isn't so much about the politicians making mistakes as it is evidence of the deteriorating legitimacy of ass-backwards social conservatism. It should make you queasy knowing that while Sanford was trashing gay marriage during the 2008 election, he was also sneaking off to Argentina to screw his foreign mistress, leaving his wife and four children home to wonder what Daddy is doing abroad. And yet, the two men who decide to spend the rest of their lives together, and may very well do so, are the people responsible for society's moral decline. Meanwhile, let's not forget that ten years ago, Sanford-- then a member of the House of Representatives-- voted to impeach President Bill Clinton for receiving oral sex from an intern.
Of course, Ensign, Craig and Vitter all attacked Bill Clinton's infidelity and tried to impeach him. Funny how the tables turn when they're in the spotlight. Craig never resigned, and went to finish out his term. Vitter hasn't resigned, either, and has kept his chairmanships. As far as we can tell, Ensign isn't planning on resigning, but it may be too soon to come to such a conclusion.
If you asked me, I'd say that all of these guys should have resigned. Not because of their infidelity, but because they betrayed the voters who were duped into electing such "morally superior" politicians in the first place. I could give a shit less if these guys screwed around on the side. What I care about is the blatant hypocrisy of their actions and how they have spent their careers chastising others for their "un-Christian" behavior while they exhibited the same behavior when the cameras weren't on.
Also, Mark Sanford should resign because he spent taxpayer money to drive to Atlanta to board a plane to Buenos Aires, and probably spent taxpayer money on the plane ticket. Why does this matter? Because if Sanford can bitch about how evil it is to spend taxpayer money on public health care and research projects, then he can surely put his money where his mouth is when he abused taxpayer money to continue to cheat on his wife.
For the record, here is a list of Republican politicians who have cheated on their wives in the past decade, and have been exposed to the public:
And, just to be "bipartisan," here are the Democrats involved in high profile sex-scandals over the past decade:
Of course, I have decided to hit on the Ensign affair today, now that another 2012 presidential hopeful has admitted his infidelity as well. Yes, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) told reporters today that he has cheated on his wife with a mistress from Argentina. After disappearing for five days-- his family and his office unaware of his whereabouts-- Sanford returned to South Carolina, where he tearfully told reporters about his marital infidelity. This makes him the second high-profile Republican in a week to admit to an extramarital affair, and the fifth in three years to prove the hypocrisy of the social conservative cause.
Sanford and Ensign were both considered beacons of social conservatism, and had been touted as possible presidential contenders who could appeal to the base (due to their wacky, nonsensical opposition to President Obama's stimulus package, which would have poured billions of dollars into their failing states) and so-called "values voters" (due to their wacky, nonsensical opposition to minority rights). Now, their future political ambitions have been crushed. In the past week, Ensign saw his approval rating drop from 53% to 39%, while many in South Carolina are calling on Sanford to resign.
Scandals like these make me laugh with glee. Not because I necessarily want to see their marriages fail, but because it highlights the rampant hypocrisy oozing out of the social conservative movement. Republicans constantly brush off these scandals as "simple mistakes," but they often forget that this isn't so much about the politicians making mistakes as it is evidence of the deteriorating legitimacy of ass-backwards social conservatism. It should make you queasy knowing that while Sanford was trashing gay marriage during the 2008 election, he was also sneaking off to Argentina to screw his foreign mistress, leaving his wife and four children home to wonder what Daddy is doing abroad. And yet, the two men who decide to spend the rest of their lives together, and may very well do so, are the people responsible for society's moral decline. Meanwhile, let's not forget that ten years ago, Sanford-- then a member of the House of Representatives-- voted to impeach President Bill Clinton for receiving oral sex from an intern.
Of course, Ensign, Craig and Vitter all attacked Bill Clinton's infidelity and tried to impeach him. Funny how the tables turn when they're in the spotlight. Craig never resigned, and went to finish out his term. Vitter hasn't resigned, either, and has kept his chairmanships. As far as we can tell, Ensign isn't planning on resigning, but it may be too soon to come to such a conclusion.
If you asked me, I'd say that all of these guys should have resigned. Not because of their infidelity, but because they betrayed the voters who were duped into electing such "morally superior" politicians in the first place. I could give a shit less if these guys screwed around on the side. What I care about is the blatant hypocrisy of their actions and how they have spent their careers chastising others for their "un-Christian" behavior while they exhibited the same behavior when the cameras weren't on.
Also, Mark Sanford should resign because he spent taxpayer money to drive to Atlanta to board a plane to Buenos Aires, and probably spent taxpayer money on the plane ticket. Why does this matter? Because if Sanford can bitch about how evil it is to spend taxpayer money on public health care and research projects, then he can surely put his money where his mouth is when he abused taxpayer money to continue to cheat on his wife.
For the record, here is a list of Republican politicians who have cheated on their wives in the past decade, and have been exposed to the public:
- Gov. Mark Sanford from South Carolina-- Cheated on his wife with a woman from Argentina for roughly a year (2009)
- Sen. John Ensign-- Cheated on his wife with a former staffer's wife; came forward when staffer threatened to blackmail him (2009)
- Sen. Larry Craig-- Attempted to cheat on his wife with an undercover police officer who was using an ajacent stall in the Minneapolis International Airport restroom; reportedly cheated on his wife with other men (2007)
- Sen. David Vitter-- Cheated on his wife with a prostitute; was a client of the infamous DC Madame; reportedly wore diapers and asked to be spanked during his sexual trysts (2007)
- former Mayor Rudy Giuliani-- Cheated on his second wife, Donna Hanover, with Judith Nathan; Publicly announced he was divorcing Hanover at a press conference without having discussed the matter with her beforehand (2001)
- former House Speaker Newt Gingrich--Cheated on his second wife while he was attempting to impeach Bill Clinton for infidelity; also, just for kickers, he divorced his first wife as she was hospitalized for uterine cancer (1998)
- bonus points go to Mark Foley, who wasn't actually married, but had disturbing conversations with some of his male pages (2006).
And, just to be "bipartisan," here are the Democrats involved in high profile sex-scandals over the past decade:
- former Sen. John Edwards-- Cheated on his wife with a nasty-looking thing; discovered by The National Enquirer (2008)
- former Gov. Eliot Spitzer-- Cheated on his wife with a prostitute; discovered via FBI investigation (2008)
- former Gov. James McGreevey-- Cheated on his wife with a gay man, whom he made head of New Jersey's department of Homeland Security (2004)
- former President Bill Clinton-- Received oral sex from an intern. (1998)
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Conservatidiot of the Day: James von Brunn
The latest surge in murders committed by right-wing extremists continued today as die-hard white supremacist James von Brunn, an 88-year-old neo-Nazi from Maryland who frequented the racist online forum stormfront.org, went on a shooting spree at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. The story can be found here.
Von Brunn, by the way, is the administrator of Holy Western Empire, a website he refers to as a "hard-hitting expose of the JEW CONSPIRACY to destroy the white gene pool." Von Brunn also spent six years in prison after he kidnapped several members of the National Reserve Board of Governors and held them at gunpoint in what he referred to as a "nonviolent citizen's arrest" (the reasons for this arrest are unclear). On his website, Von Brunn attacks the "Jew judge" that sentenced him, and refers to the jury which convicted him as a "Negro jury." And, as if the crazy train hadn't gone off the rails already, he is an author, having written the wonderfully titled manifesto Kill the Best Gentiles!, a manuscript complete with racist, anti-semitic rantings which Von Brunn claims White families should read to protect their children. You can read the first six chapters on his website.
And yet, conservatives who decried the recent report by the Department of Homeland Security that claimed right-wing extremist groups are a threat to national security are probably still in denial that people such as James von Brunn are actually capable of inflicting harm. No, they have a right to do and say and think whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. Except, of course, they are hurting people; in fact, these right-wing extremists are even killing people in the name of their political beliefs.
Let's count down the number of murders committed at the hands of right-wing extremists since Barack Obama was elected President:
Makes you feel safer knowing these right-wing nutjobs are allowed to do and say and think whatever they want, doesn't it? Because they never, ever kill... no, they're just exercising their first amendment rights, like good little Americans, and the evil Janet Napolitano is to blame for inciting hatred and politically-motivated attacks on right-wingers.
Von Brunn, by the way, is the administrator of Holy Western Empire, a website he refers to as a "hard-hitting expose of the JEW CONSPIRACY to destroy the white gene pool." Von Brunn also spent six years in prison after he kidnapped several members of the National Reserve Board of Governors and held them at gunpoint in what he referred to as a "nonviolent citizen's arrest" (the reasons for this arrest are unclear). On his website, Von Brunn attacks the "Jew judge" that sentenced him, and refers to the jury which convicted him as a "Negro jury." And, as if the crazy train hadn't gone off the rails already, he is an author, having written the wonderfully titled manifesto Kill the Best Gentiles!, a manuscript complete with racist, anti-semitic rantings which Von Brunn claims White families should read to protect their children. You can read the first six chapters on his website.
And yet, conservatives who decried the recent report by the Department of Homeland Security that claimed right-wing extremist groups are a threat to national security are probably still in denial that people such as James von Brunn are actually capable of inflicting harm. No, they have a right to do and say and think whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. Except, of course, they are hurting people; in fact, these right-wing extremists are even killing people in the name of their political beliefs.
Let's count down the number of murders committed at the hands of right-wing extremists since Barack Obama was elected President:
- Security Guard at Holocaust Museum; murdered by James von Brunn, a white supremacist
- Dr. George Tiller, an abortion doctor in Witchita, KS; murdered by Scott Roeder, a right-wing anti-choice extremist who had previously attempted to bomb abortion clinics
- Four members of the Wood family in Frederick, MD; murdered by Christopher Wood, who was $450k in debt and blamed his struggles on President Obama
- Three Pittsburgh, PA police officers; murdered by a Richard Poplawski, who feared the Obama administration was going to take his guns away
Makes you feel safer knowing these right-wing nutjobs are allowed to do and say and think whatever they want, doesn't it? Because they never, ever kill... no, they're just exercising their first amendment rights, like good little Americans, and the evil Janet Napolitano is to blame for inciting hatred and politically-motivated attacks on right-wingers.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Conservatidiot of the Day: Sarah Palin
When Sarah Palin was selected as John McCain's running mate last year, the reason for her selection was quite clear from the very beginning. Palin had twenty-one months worth of political experience under her belt as governor of Alaska-- one of the least-relevant states in the union, a state only known for the relatively small amount of oil it produces annually, a state better known for its infinite corruption scandals, and a state with a population less than that of the Bronx. Prior to becoming Alaska's first female governor, Palin was mayor of Wasilla, a small town with a population just over 1,000. Compared to Palin, McCain had more political experience in his eyebrows than Palin had in her entire body. And yet, she was selected to be the Vice Presidential nominee, having only participated in one statewide campaign in her entire life in the reliably-Republican Alaska. It was clear from the beginning that Palin was selected by McCain solely because of her anatomy: Yes, Palin was a woman-- a young, attractive piece of eye candy which trumped far more qualified women such as Sens. Kay Baily Hutchison and Olympia Snowe-- and as such, she was a "fresh new face" the Republicans desperately needed to counter the freshness of that black guy with the a-rab sounding name who overshadowed the decrepit, mishapen figure of the 72-year-old political dinosaur at the top of the GOP ticket.
I could go on and on about how much of a failure Sarah Palin is, as a person who slaughters animals for pleasure, as a mother who can't teach safe sex to her children, as a governor who actively engages in corrupt behavior while fighting it, as a self-proclaimed national figure who knows very little about issues affecting the nation outside of Alaska, as an intellectual who went to a handful of colleges before finally getting a basic degree, and as an upstanding citizen who refuses to decry violent attacks against abortion doctors as terrorism. But for the purpose of today's entry, I'm going to avoid going into a Tolstoy-length rant over the thousands of reasons why Sarah Palin is an raging moron, and focus on one tiny aspect of her personality: Her own hypocrisy, particularly regarding remarks she has made about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, as well as an interesting comment she made about media scrutiny against her.
Recently, Palin was interviewed by radio host John Ziegler, who asked Palin if she would have picked Sonia Sotomayor to sit on the Supreme Court. Palin, baffled as always, said that she didn't know, and then followed up those remarks with the following:
“I think gender, race, should not be any kind of test you have to pass... I’m sure that there are many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered.”
Really, Sarah Palin? You, of all people, have the audacity to claim that Sotomayor was selected because of her race/ gender? Pardon me while I take the next few minutes to bang my head against the edge of my desk.
Sotomayor, for those of you who don't pay attention (like Mrs. Palin), has presided over the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for over a decade. She is one of the most respected legal experts in the United States, and had been touted as a possible Supreme Court pick for John Kerry had he been elected President. Her experience is tantamount; her race and gender just happen to be a part of who Sotomayor is.
Meanwhile, take a good look at that quote above. Now, pretend that I'm a liberal politician, say, Joe Biden. I'm Joe Biden, and I was just asked a question about John McCain picking Sarah Palin to be my running mate. Here's my response:
“I think gender, race, should not be any kind of test you have to pass... I’m sure that there are many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered.”
Do you see what's so interesting about that statement? It applies MORE to Sarah Palin than it does Sonia Sotomayor. If John McCain wanted to select a female Republican as his nominee, there were many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered: Hutchison, Snowe, Sens. Elizabeth Dole, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, Govs. Linda Lingle and Jodi Rell, Reps. Heather Wilson, Mary Fallin, and Mary Bono-Mack-- just to name a few.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially giant fucking boulders which crumple the support beams and bring the entire house down in one good toss. In the history of United States Presidential elections, the Vice Presidential selection has rarely cost a candidate the Presidency... that is, until 2008, when Sarah Palin's selection turned off people with half a brain who were appalled by the folksy "I'm just an imbecile who wears fake glasses to look smart while speaking in a midwestern twang to sound like good-ol' simple folk" song and dance routine she paraded around on the campaign trail. The Republicans had a perfect opportunity to slam Obama into election day over his lack of experience, and yet they managed to put someone with FAR LESS experience on their ticket, someone who couldn't make up her extremely short resume with outstanding charisma and charm. Sarah Palin was a raging moron who couldn't impress some of the dumbest idiots in the country with her two-item list of political credentials and ability to offend anyone with ears. And yet, because she has breasts and a vagina-- the latter of which she made damn sure we knew was used every time she paraded her baby, knocked-up teenage-daughter, and Iraq-soldier son in front of the media-- Palin was just a voting booth lever away from being second in command of this country.
But when it comes to Sarah Palin's "I just like to tell 'em what I think" tours she does every now and again, there is always a follow-up logical catastrophe waiting to happen. Zeigler asked Palin if there are times in her career when she questions her decision to be politically active. Naturally, she gave us another wise answer:
“To be brutally honest, yeah, there are some days where I have to ask myself if some of this is worth it... [I] will not sit down and shut up.”
I have an idea: DO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP. If you don't like the criticism you get, then don't parade yourself around in front of the cameras spouting ill-conceived bullshit and folk sayings of the week! YOU make yourself a target the moment you open your mouth without thinking, which is what happens every time you speak, because you never say anything rational which leaves everyone to suspect that you are incapable of thinking before talking.
By the way, Sarah, you have a state you should think about governing. I know it's hard, being a political rock star and all, but you should at least have a little pride and go back to Alaska where you can be the governor the people there elected you to be. You've been governor for less than three years now, and what have you done aside from concocting cock-and-bull stories about selling planes on eBay?
Please, Sarah, for the love of all that is holy-- Stay in Alaska. It won't hurt us whiny liberals if you don't come down here and compare us to communists. It won't hurt you if you stay up there where the big, bad, evil media won't attack you. It's a win-win situation which would make everyone happy.
I could go on and on about how much of a failure Sarah Palin is, as a person who slaughters animals for pleasure, as a mother who can't teach safe sex to her children, as a governor who actively engages in corrupt behavior while fighting it, as a self-proclaimed national figure who knows very little about issues affecting the nation outside of Alaska, as an intellectual who went to a handful of colleges before finally getting a basic degree, and as an upstanding citizen who refuses to decry violent attacks against abortion doctors as terrorism. But for the purpose of today's entry, I'm going to avoid going into a Tolstoy-length rant over the thousands of reasons why Sarah Palin is an raging moron, and focus on one tiny aspect of her personality: Her own hypocrisy, particularly regarding remarks she has made about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, as well as an interesting comment she made about media scrutiny against her.
Recently, Palin was interviewed by radio host John Ziegler, who asked Palin if she would have picked Sonia Sotomayor to sit on the Supreme Court. Palin, baffled as always, said that she didn't know, and then followed up those remarks with the following:
“I think gender, race, should not be any kind of test you have to pass... I’m sure that there are many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered.”
Really, Sarah Palin? You, of all people, have the audacity to claim that Sotomayor was selected because of her race/ gender? Pardon me while I take the next few minutes to bang my head against the edge of my desk.
Sotomayor, for those of you who don't pay attention (like Mrs. Palin), has presided over the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for over a decade. She is one of the most respected legal experts in the United States, and had been touted as a possible Supreme Court pick for John Kerry had he been elected President. Her experience is tantamount; her race and gender just happen to be a part of who Sotomayor is.
Meanwhile, take a good look at that quote above. Now, pretend that I'm a liberal politician, say, Joe Biden. I'm Joe Biden, and I was just asked a question about John McCain picking Sarah Palin to be my running mate. Here's my response:
“I think gender, race, should not be any kind of test you have to pass... I’m sure that there are many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered.”
Do you see what's so interesting about that statement? It applies MORE to Sarah Palin than it does Sonia Sotomayor. If John McCain wanted to select a female Republican as his nominee, there were many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered: Hutchison, Snowe, Sens. Elizabeth Dole, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, Govs. Linda Lingle and Jodi Rell, Reps. Heather Wilson, Mary Fallin, and Mary Bono-Mack-- just to name a few.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially giant fucking boulders which crumple the support beams and bring the entire house down in one good toss. In the history of United States Presidential elections, the Vice Presidential selection has rarely cost a candidate the Presidency... that is, until 2008, when Sarah Palin's selection turned off people with half a brain who were appalled by the folksy "I'm just an imbecile who wears fake glasses to look smart while speaking in a midwestern twang to sound like good-ol' simple folk" song and dance routine she paraded around on the campaign trail. The Republicans had a perfect opportunity to slam Obama into election day over his lack of experience, and yet they managed to put someone with FAR LESS experience on their ticket, someone who couldn't make up her extremely short resume with outstanding charisma and charm. Sarah Palin was a raging moron who couldn't impress some of the dumbest idiots in the country with her two-item list of political credentials and ability to offend anyone with ears. And yet, because she has breasts and a vagina-- the latter of which she made damn sure we knew was used every time she paraded her baby, knocked-up teenage-daughter, and Iraq-soldier son in front of the media-- Palin was just a voting booth lever away from being second in command of this country.
But when it comes to Sarah Palin's "I just like to tell 'em what I think" tours she does every now and again, there is always a follow-up logical catastrophe waiting to happen. Zeigler asked Palin if there are times in her career when she questions her decision to be politically active. Naturally, she gave us another wise answer:
“To be brutally honest, yeah, there are some days where I have to ask myself if some of this is worth it... [I] will not sit down and shut up.”
I have an idea: DO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP. If you don't like the criticism you get, then don't parade yourself around in front of the cameras spouting ill-conceived bullshit and folk sayings of the week! YOU make yourself a target the moment you open your mouth without thinking, which is what happens every time you speak, because you never say anything rational which leaves everyone to suspect that you are incapable of thinking before talking.
By the way, Sarah, you have a state you should think about governing. I know it's hard, being a political rock star and all, but you should at least have a little pride and go back to Alaska where you can be the governor the people there elected you to be. You've been governor for less than three years now, and what have you done aside from concocting cock-and-bull stories about selling planes on eBay?
Please, Sarah, for the love of all that is holy-- Stay in Alaska. It won't hurt us whiny liberals if you don't come down here and compare us to communists. It won't hurt you if you stay up there where the big, bad, evil media won't attack you. It's a win-win situation which would make everyone happy.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada, Jr.
Republicans, aware that voters have rejected them at the federal level and in state legislatures across the country, have now decided that the best way to regain political power is to bypass democracy altogether. In New York State today, the Republican minority courted two Democratic senators-- Hiram Monserrate of Queens and Pedro Espada, Jr. of the Bronx-- to shift control of the state senate to the Republican Party. In exchange for their defection, the Republicans made Espada the new Senate Pro Tempore, creating a "bipartisan" leadership structure, effectively overturning the Democratic majority which was duely elected by New Yorkers eight months ago.
This was a coup. You know, that thing that happens in volatile political states in Europe and Asia when one political party overthrows a democratically-elected government to advance their own political agenda. Rather than work towards bipartisanship, the Republicans in New York felt it was a better idea to screw the process altogether and engage in a thrilling bit of political theater. As a result, the coup only proves that the Republican Party cares more about having power than it does the will of the people. This is the sort of thing we should have expected in post-WWII Europe, or Thailand, or a number of other countries where political stability is practically unheard of. Not one of the United States. Not New York State.
Conservatives across the country are happy about this. Some of them are even pointing to this coup as a "victory" for the Republican Party. Yes-- Victory is taking democracy and flushing it down the toilet. Victory is spitting in the faces of the tens of millions of New York voters who cast ballots for Democrats last November. Victory is emulating the political tactics of the fascist regimes which dominated countries like Greece at the beginning of the Cold War. Victory, for the Republicans, is doing anything and everything outside of the boundaries of democracy to advance an outdated, bigoted, radical agenda which will keep one of the most economically stagnant states in the country in the financial gutter.
We can thank Senators Monserrate and Espada for this garbage. Then again, neither of them pass the political purity test: Both Senators will likely be convicted felons by the end of the year, and face removal from office once convicted: Monserrate reportedly slashed his girlfriend's face open with a broken wine glass, while Espada has apparently been accepting political favors and bribes. With their power and reputations waning, it only makes sense that they joined the Republicans to perform the greatest criminal act ever perpetrated against the voters of New York state. And Espada got his cumuffins, didn't he? He is now the Senate Pro Tempore, a position handed to him as payback for this little show.
Yes, New York State Republicans took Democracy, brought it outside in front of its family and friends (the voters), then proceeded to beat the shit out of it and stab it repeatedly. New York State does not need this right now. It already has an ineffective governor in David Paterson. It doesn't need an ineffective state senate as well.
Thankfully, this coup may not last very long. If Monserrate and Espada are convicted, they will face expulsion from the Senate. And since they are in reliably liberal Senate districts, it is extremely likely real Democrats who pay credence to American Democracy will be elected in their place, bringing the power back to those who earned it last November. Until then, us voters will all be forced to watch in horror as New York state succumbs to American fascism, unable to do anything about the injustices occurring before us all.
This was a coup. You know, that thing that happens in volatile political states in Europe and Asia when one political party overthrows a democratically-elected government to advance their own political agenda. Rather than work towards bipartisanship, the Republicans in New York felt it was a better idea to screw the process altogether and engage in a thrilling bit of political theater. As a result, the coup only proves that the Republican Party cares more about having power than it does the will of the people. This is the sort of thing we should have expected in post-WWII Europe, or Thailand, or a number of other countries where political stability is practically unheard of. Not one of the United States. Not New York State.
Conservatives across the country are happy about this. Some of them are even pointing to this coup as a "victory" for the Republican Party. Yes-- Victory is taking democracy and flushing it down the toilet. Victory is spitting in the faces of the tens of millions of New York voters who cast ballots for Democrats last November. Victory is emulating the political tactics of the fascist regimes which dominated countries like Greece at the beginning of the Cold War. Victory, for the Republicans, is doing anything and everything outside of the boundaries of democracy to advance an outdated, bigoted, radical agenda which will keep one of the most economically stagnant states in the country in the financial gutter.
We can thank Senators Monserrate and Espada for this garbage. Then again, neither of them pass the political purity test: Both Senators will likely be convicted felons by the end of the year, and face removal from office once convicted: Monserrate reportedly slashed his girlfriend's face open with a broken wine glass, while Espada has apparently been accepting political favors and bribes. With their power and reputations waning, it only makes sense that they joined the Republicans to perform the greatest criminal act ever perpetrated against the voters of New York state. And Espada got his cumuffins, didn't he? He is now the Senate Pro Tempore, a position handed to him as payback for this little show.
Yes, New York State Republicans took Democracy, brought it outside in front of its family and friends (the voters), then proceeded to beat the shit out of it and stab it repeatedly. New York State does not need this right now. It already has an ineffective governor in David Paterson. It doesn't need an ineffective state senate as well.
Thankfully, this coup may not last very long. If Monserrate and Espada are convicted, they will face expulsion from the Senate. And since they are in reliably liberal Senate districts, it is extremely likely real Democrats who pay credence to American Democracy will be elected in their place, bringing the power back to those who earned it last November. Until then, us voters will all be forced to watch in horror as New York state succumbs to American fascism, unable to do anything about the injustices occurring before us all.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: The National Review
The next issue of the ever-so-clever National Review will feature several scathing, batshit-crazy, fact-devoid critiques of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. And while the editors and writers at that fantastic magazine are bound to refer to Sotomayor as a "racist" on several occasions, something tells me they will never mention the blatant racism in the cover of next week's issue.
The right has completely bastardized the "wise Latina" comments to a point where it is no longer comical. For the first week, it was hilarious to watch privileged white hicks like Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo bounce off the walls trying to paint her as the equivalent of a Klan member. It was the perfect straw man argument coming from the mouths of men who can't atone for their own racism, and was surely worthy of laughter from those who know better than them. But now, these baseless attacks have gotten older than Dick Cheney insinuating that Obama supports terrorism.
Now, the folks over at the National Review have the audacity to call Sotomayor a racist while portraying her as a caricature of an Asian Buddhist. Brilliant! Nothing says "equality" more than portraying all races as one flimsy caricature. Either that, or the National Review is like most conservatives these days: unable to grasp the concept of minorities being proud of their heritage, and unable to decipher one race from another. As far as they're concerned, all brown people are the same and are united by the fact that they aren't white.
I wonder what next week will hold. Maybe Sotomayor will be wearing a turban? Oh wait-- I must have confused that statement with this billboard in Missouri. Yep, Obama's brown, he must be a Muslim terrorist; Sotomayor's brown, she must be a hippie Buddhist.
And so it goes.
The right has completely bastardized the "wise Latina" comments to a point where it is no longer comical. For the first week, it was hilarious to watch privileged white hicks like Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo bounce off the walls trying to paint her as the equivalent of a Klan member. It was the perfect straw man argument coming from the mouths of men who can't atone for their own racism, and was surely worthy of laughter from those who know better than them. But now, these baseless attacks have gotten older than Dick Cheney insinuating that Obama supports terrorism.
Now, the folks over at the National Review have the audacity to call Sotomayor a racist while portraying her as a caricature of an Asian Buddhist. Brilliant! Nothing says "equality" more than portraying all races as one flimsy caricature. Either that, or the National Review is like most conservatives these days: unable to grasp the concept of minorities being proud of their heritage, and unable to decipher one race from another. As far as they're concerned, all brown people are the same and are united by the fact that they aren't white.
I wonder what next week will hold. Maybe Sotomayor will be wearing a turban? Oh wait-- I must have confused that statement with this billboard in Missouri. Yep, Obama's brown, he must be a Muslim terrorist; Sotomayor's brown, she must be a hippie Buddhist.
And so it goes.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Lack of Updates?
I just want to inform this blog's three or four loyal readers that updates may be a bit sporadic this month, since it is a busy time for me. The long and short of it: don't expect daily updates throughout June.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Top 10 Bestest, Most Conservativist Movies Ever
Yesterday, I stumbled across the National Review's list of the "25 Most Conservative Movies." As expected, the list was ridiculous, featuring such apolitical films as Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters, while also including a number of films which, in the opinion of the list's authors, either vindicated the horrific actions of the Bush administration (The Dark Knight) or contained a few small conservative motifs which the authors felt translated into a sweeping conservative manifesto (Forrest Gump, A Simple Plan).
The list contains very few films with a straightforward conservative message. The Lord of the Rings and Braveheart, for example, are undeniably conservative, considering the talent behind the source material (J.R.R. Tolkein was unabashadly conservative, and Mel Gibson is... well, Mel Gibson). But to claim that Groundhog Day, which was directed by a liberal Jew and starred one of Hollywood's most liberal comedians, is a conservative comedic opus is a perfect example of how many conservatives fail to actually catch the true messages behind the movies they are watching. They see a bomb blast in the dystopian Brazil and automatically equate that act of terrorism with liberalism, then equate the entire dystopian future presented in Terry Gilliam's fantasy epic as what a socialist state would undoubtedly be like. Never mind, of course, that some of what we see in this film-- governments policing its people and preventing free speech and expression-- were equivocal to many of the steps the Bush administration took after September 11, and that this film takes place in the distant future, without reference to any one political movement. Meanwhile, Trey Parker and Matt Stone insinuate that Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are "fags" while mocking Kim Jong-Il with racism in Team America, which automatically makes that movie a conservative masterpiece-- even though Parker and Stone have said repeatedly that the film mocks both liberals and conservatives and how they react to national security.
So, today, instead of seeking out a particular person or group worthy of reprimand, I thought it would be fun to do something different. I have compiled a list of the "Ten Bestest, Most Conservativist Movies Ever" that the National Review just plain forgot about when compiling their list last year. I encourage you to read the original list which is linked above before reading mine. I also encourage you to realize that THIS IS SATIRE. I am not a conservative, nor is any of what I write below representative of my own personal views. It is meant to mock much of what was in that original article, parodying the essence of multiple arguments presented in the original National Review article.
So, without further ado, here is the list:
THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998)
The list contains very few films with a straightforward conservative message. The Lord of the Rings and Braveheart, for example, are undeniably conservative, considering the talent behind the source material (J.R.R. Tolkein was unabashadly conservative, and Mel Gibson is... well, Mel Gibson). But to claim that Groundhog Day, which was directed by a liberal Jew and starred one of Hollywood's most liberal comedians, is a conservative comedic opus is a perfect example of how many conservatives fail to actually catch the true messages behind the movies they are watching. They see a bomb blast in the dystopian Brazil and automatically equate that act of terrorism with liberalism, then equate the entire dystopian future presented in Terry Gilliam's fantasy epic as what a socialist state would undoubtedly be like. Never mind, of course, that some of what we see in this film-- governments policing its people and preventing free speech and expression-- were equivocal to many of the steps the Bush administration took after September 11, and that this film takes place in the distant future, without reference to any one political movement. Meanwhile, Trey Parker and Matt Stone insinuate that Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are "fags" while mocking Kim Jong-Il with racism in Team America, which automatically makes that movie a conservative masterpiece-- even though Parker and Stone have said repeatedly that the film mocks both liberals and conservatives and how they react to national security.
So, today, instead of seeking out a particular person or group worthy of reprimand, I thought it would be fun to do something different. I have compiled a list of the "Ten Bestest, Most Conservativist Movies Ever" that the National Review just plain forgot about when compiling their list last year. I encourage you to read the original list which is linked above before reading mine. I also encourage you to realize that THIS IS SATIRE. I am not a conservative, nor is any of what I write below representative of my own personal views. It is meant to mock much of what was in that original article, parodying the essence of multiple arguments presented in the original National Review article.
So, without further ado, here is the list:
THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998)
On the onset, this Coen Brothers movie—which features an artistic character proud of her femininity and a main character who smokes marijuana all the time—does not appear to be an ideal conservative film. However, the film contains multiple plotlines, and as long as you disregard the yucky liberal characters (in fact, I’d even call them caricatures of liberals, which means they’re ay-okay since they mock what it’s like to be a drug user and a woman), you can find some deeply conservative messages therein. John Goodman’s Walter Sobchak is a true conservative character, someone who is proud to be a Vietnam War veteran (you don’t see that in any Oliver Stone movies, do you?) and is willing to resort to drastic measures resulting in the threat of gun violence and property damage just to make sure people are willing to stick to the rules. Meanwhile, the Big Lebowski himself is a wealthy man who loves stealing from impoverished children and passing the blame onto others—like those radical foreign nihilists—showing us all that it is perfectly acceptable to lie and cheat so long as it doesn’t hurt the wealthy businessmen at the top..
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005)
Yeah, this is a film about two gay men. But it is also a film about the modern conservative movement. Have I lost you? Well, think about this: Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) play two married men who go off and have romantic trysts with one another in the American West. That sounds an awful lot like Larry Craig and Jim Kolbe, don’t it? And Ennis Del Mar is downright abusive to Jack Twist, repulsed by the idea of maintaining a homosexual relationship throughout the course of the movie. You know what they say: It’s okay to be gay, just as long as you have sex with a woman on occasion. Or at least marry one in an effort to retain a heterosexual appearance. The differences between what it’s like to be a gay conservative and a gay liberal are quite apparent in the two main characters: Ennis Del Mar is the perfect embodiment of what a real conservative homosexual should be like—a closeted he-man who is afraid to admit his love for other men— while Jack Twist gets beaten to death in the end because he is too outgoing with his sexuality. Serves the proud little bastard right…
THE CRUCIBLE (1996)
If you don’t accept the Lord Jesus Christ and the messages within his Bible, then you deserve to hang for your sins. This movie showcases how it should be in America: Men who cheat on their wives and question their faith deserve to hang, while those who claim someone is un-Christian deserve the benefit of the doubt no matter how seemingly outlandish their claims are. After all, good Christians never lie, and this country would be so much better if everyone followed one set of beliefs and principles, no matter how impossible it may seem.
THE GOLDEN COMPASS (2007)
Hot on the heels of The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass is a rip-roaring fantasy adventure about a young girl who finds herself stuck in a world where intellectualism dominates her life. She is able to break free from the intellectual community, which throws her into an amazing fantasy adventure to dismantle an evil government entity which experiments on children. This is a movie that shows you don’t need to go to boring college to experience grand adventure, and a film that is adamantly against a nanny state, intellectual, research-based government which horrifically experiments on its people. Oh, and Nicole Kidman plays a character named “Mrs. Coulter,” adding to the deep conservative undertones of this whimsical fantasy adventure.
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK (2005)
Edward R. Murrow is a trite little bastard, and this movie exposes him for what he really was: a liberal hack who was willing to bend the facts to attack Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who was a true American hero willing to get rid of the communist threat at any cost—even at the risk of his own reputation. Yes, George Clooney did a fabulous job portraying Joseph McCarthy as the wise patriotic sage he was. In fact, Clooney did a great service to McCarthy by using stock footage of him throughout the film, because no actor could capture the sheer American spirit which McCarthy embodied. Good Night is a true examination of the lengths the liberal media is willing to go to ruin the reputations of brilliant, heroic men like McCarthy.
HOSTEL (2005)
Torture is awesome. Who can call a movie which glamorizes torture and murder anything but “good?” I know I sure can’t. Yes, if this Hostel was in America, and the Americans had a different skin tone, why, this would be a great American movie which would vindicate waterboarding and other “extraordinary rendition” techniques conducted during the Bush administration. Sometimes, I like to put the volume on “mute” and make up my own dialogue, pretending that the Dutch businessman is an American soldier and that guy who gets his pectorals drilled out is a Muslim terrorist. Now that’s conservative entertainment!
MILK (2008)
Say what you will about that liberal jerk Sean Penn, but he certainly embodies an ideal conservative in this 2008 biopic of some queer city councilman from San Francisco. Ignoring the queerness of it, Milk is about a man who hates the oppressive government regime he lives under and is willing to take to the streets and start a revolution to overthrow some of the horrible laws which discriminate against gay people. “We can have a revolution here,” Milk quips during one of his campaigns to stop some law or something. And all the gay people rise up and fight against tyranny, in the name of the Constitution. Who knew queers could be so conservative? I didn’t. And if you’re turned off by all the queer-o-sexuality in the film, just wait until the end. You get to see Sean Penn and the homosexual icon he plays get gunned down by the conservative, gun-slinging Josh Brolin. What a show!
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST (1975)
If you ever want to know what it is like to live in a “Nanny State,” then watch this movie. Nurse Ratchet is a perfect example of an evil socialist who treats all of her mental patients the same, giving them meds to subdue their emotions when they should, in fact, be allowed to do and say whatever they want to. Randall P. McMurphy is an example of the modern conservative, a man who is trapped in a liberal dystopia and tried to bring about a revolution overthrowing the tyrannical Ratchet and her cohorts. Like most conservatives, McMurphy is forced to endure grueling pain and suffering as he watches his friends voluntarily submit themselves to Ratchet’s horrors. And, like most liberals, Nurse Ratchet constantly seeks to silence McMurphy any way possible, going as far to lobotomize him in the end. This is what us conservatives face in the not-so-distant future, when Nurse Noobama forces us to take socialized medicine and involuntarily admits us to mental health facilities all across the country. They knew this was coming in the 1970s. We were warned. Now, we it’s just a matter of time until we must face the consequences of what happened this past November.
SONG OF THE SOUTH (1946)
Finally, a movie that shows us how blacks really felt during slavery. Contrary to today’s liberal revisionist history, blacks enjoyed being enslaved and even had enlightening friendships with their masters. Uncle Remus is a perfect example of a black man living as a slave in the South. He never moped, he never complained about being a slave, and could always be found whistlin’ tunes and tellin’ stories to all the bright young whippersnappers who came his way. He is neither apologetic nor upset about his situation; no, Uncle Remus just is who he is and doesn’t try to fix a thing. That’s how it should be in America—all races should know their place in society. All this talk of “civil rights” is just liberalized hogwash. Thank you, Walt Disney, for giving us a truly inspirational film about race which should be on the video shelf of every American household.
WAITRESS (2007)
Women should always stand by their men no matter how abusive or stupid they are as husbands. Period. This humble little film follows a Southern waitress as she prepares to give birth to her pending baby and contemplates leaving her abusive husband. Throughout the film, she knows her place in the relationship, as the submissive housewife who must always listen to what all men tell her to do. Andy Griffin has a small role in this film as a wise old man who, like senior GOP figures such as Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney, pops up sporadically to offer feigned advice and petty criticisms about how our waitress heroine should live her life. And the best part? She eventually has the baby against her own personal wishes. The ending sucks a little, since she leaves her abusive husband; but hey, you don’t watch a movie for a happy ending, and sometimes, you have to take the bad with the good. The good, in this case, is a funny, heartwarming conservative indie that shows us women can be happy even if they aren't allowed to make many of their own choices.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: Extremist sympathizers
Last month, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano became an object of conservative ire after a report surfaced which listed right-wing extremist groups as a threat to national security. The report, which stated that such groups promote hate and violence in their ranks and therefore threaten the security of many Americans, was blasted by conservatives as being nothing more than a liberal attack on conservative and Republican principles. Never mind, of course, that the study which served as the basis of this report 1) was completed by the FBI under the leadership of the Bush administration before it was reported by Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, and 2) never once mentioned the words "conservative" or "Republican" in the text.
Nonetheless, conservatives were adamant to defend the extremists who were the subject of increased scrutiny by DHS. They claimed that the report unjustly attacked veterans, since the report stated that returning veterans from Iraq, who were experiencing signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, were flocking to these groups in increasing numbers. Rather than actually look at the facts, the conservatives claimed that the Obama administration was attacking the servicemen of the military, and trying to label conservative principles as a resounding threat to our own liberty and security. Central to their argument, as is always the case, is that people have a right to free speech and expression, and should be able to join extremist fringe associations such as, oh, the Ku Klux Klan and not have to worry about being monitored by the government or deemed a threat to the general public's well-being, even though many of these groups have a long, sordid history of violence which is well-documented in horrific detail in numerous books, periodicals, photographs, and first-hand encounters with these organizations.
The conservatives who slammed this report also conveniently forget that much of the terrorism experienced in this country prior to 9/11 was committed at the hands of right-wing nutjobs. Christian conservatives bombed abortion clinics throughout the 1980s, other conservatives murdered doctors who performed abortion procedures, and a man named Timothy McVeigh, who was a former veteran who believed the Clinton administration was going to outlaw guns and freedom, murdered 168 people after he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Much of these events were inspired by the perpetuation of vicious hate speech which spewed out of the mouths of conservative commentators, whether they were religious leaders who damned abortion, radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh who blamed liberals for all the evil in the world, or racist anti-semites like Arthur MacDonald who called for a violent revolution in the United States to overthrow liberal thought.
Today, right-wing extremists have new reasons to mobilize at an alarming rate. A pro-choice liberal Democrat is now the first African-American President of the United States, and the Democrats control both the House and the Senate by overwhelming margins. Worse yet, though, conservative commentators are fanning the flames of hatred as never seen before. Glenn Beck has claimed that Obama plans to send Americans into a Stalinist state complete with liberal re-education camps, and has also stated that Obama plans to steal everyone's guns and ammo. Rush Limbaugh has called Obama the "greatest living reverse racist in the United States," insinuating that Obama's policies and political nominees have been carefully crafted to discriminate against white people. And conservative demagogue Sarah Palin could not say whether or not bombing an abortion clinic should be considered terrorism during the 2008 campaign.
On April 15, we saw the looming threat of right-wing radicalism at its finest. Tea Parties, which were protests against taxes promoted by the anti-tax, anti-government Neil Boortz/ Glenn Beck followers, were held all around the country, and the men and women who participated in these events were of a disturbing variety. They proudly waved signs in the air which merged Obama's face with that of Adolph Hitler's. Many other signs featured racial epithets or depicted Obama as a Muslim terrorist. The rhetoric continued long after the tea parties were over, as conservatives called Obama a "fascist" and a "communist," and religious conservatives referred to him as a murderer during protests outside of his Notre Dame commencement address because of his pro-choice views on abortion.
Meanwhile, murders have been happening all across the country, real murders which involve Census-designated people, spurred by conservative hate speech. In Pittsburgh, two police officers were brutally murdered by a man who irrationally feared where Obama's presidency would take us. A man murdered his family in Maryland, before he killed himself, because he was terrified of American socialism. And today, abortion doctor George Tiller was shot to death as he entered his church in Witchita, Kansas, in what appears to be a bias-motivated crime.
So for all the conservatives out there who claim that the DHS report which listed right-wing extremism as a threat is "bullshit" or "liberal propoganda," maybe you should study the facts. Maybe you should take a long hard look at our nation's history, and the murders and terrorism which have occurred as the result of right-wing hate speech. If you really don't think right-wing extremists should be listed as a threat, then you must also believe that Al Qaeda should not be listed as a threat, either. After all, radical Islam is just a way of life for many people, and they should have a right to express themselves any way they want. What better way to show dissent than by plotting a revolution against the United States government, murdering people in the name of a religious cause, or bombing landmarks in an effort to dismantle American pride? The only thing is, that last sentence not only applies to Al Qaeda, but it also applies to the right-wing extremist groups in the United States which have long gone unnoticed by politicians and the media.
Nonetheless, conservatives were adamant to defend the extremists who were the subject of increased scrutiny by DHS. They claimed that the report unjustly attacked veterans, since the report stated that returning veterans from Iraq, who were experiencing signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, were flocking to these groups in increasing numbers. Rather than actually look at the facts, the conservatives claimed that the Obama administration was attacking the servicemen of the military, and trying to label conservative principles as a resounding threat to our own liberty and security. Central to their argument, as is always the case, is that people have a right to free speech and expression, and should be able to join extremist fringe associations such as, oh, the Ku Klux Klan and not have to worry about being monitored by the government or deemed a threat to the general public's well-being, even though many of these groups have a long, sordid history of violence which is well-documented in horrific detail in numerous books, periodicals, photographs, and first-hand encounters with these organizations.
The conservatives who slammed this report also conveniently forget that much of the terrorism experienced in this country prior to 9/11 was committed at the hands of right-wing nutjobs. Christian conservatives bombed abortion clinics throughout the 1980s, other conservatives murdered doctors who performed abortion procedures, and a man named Timothy McVeigh, who was a former veteran who believed the Clinton administration was going to outlaw guns and freedom, murdered 168 people after he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Much of these events were inspired by the perpetuation of vicious hate speech which spewed out of the mouths of conservative commentators, whether they were religious leaders who damned abortion, radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh who blamed liberals for all the evil in the world, or racist anti-semites like Arthur MacDonald who called for a violent revolution in the United States to overthrow liberal thought.
Today, right-wing extremists have new reasons to mobilize at an alarming rate. A pro-choice liberal Democrat is now the first African-American President of the United States, and the Democrats control both the House and the Senate by overwhelming margins. Worse yet, though, conservative commentators are fanning the flames of hatred as never seen before. Glenn Beck has claimed that Obama plans to send Americans into a Stalinist state complete with liberal re-education camps, and has also stated that Obama plans to steal everyone's guns and ammo. Rush Limbaugh has called Obama the "greatest living reverse racist in the United States," insinuating that Obama's policies and political nominees have been carefully crafted to discriminate against white people. And conservative demagogue Sarah Palin could not say whether or not bombing an abortion clinic should be considered terrorism during the 2008 campaign.
On April 15, we saw the looming threat of right-wing radicalism at its finest. Tea Parties, which were protests against taxes promoted by the anti-tax, anti-government Neil Boortz/ Glenn Beck followers, were held all around the country, and the men and women who participated in these events were of a disturbing variety. They proudly waved signs in the air which merged Obama's face with that of Adolph Hitler's. Many other signs featured racial epithets or depicted Obama as a Muslim terrorist. The rhetoric continued long after the tea parties were over, as conservatives called Obama a "fascist" and a "communist," and religious conservatives referred to him as a murderer during protests outside of his Notre Dame commencement address because of his pro-choice views on abortion.
Meanwhile, murders have been happening all across the country, real murders which involve Census-designated people, spurred by conservative hate speech. In Pittsburgh, two police officers were brutally murdered by a man who irrationally feared where Obama's presidency would take us. A man murdered his family in Maryland, before he killed himself, because he was terrified of American socialism. And today, abortion doctor George Tiller was shot to death as he entered his church in Witchita, Kansas, in what appears to be a bias-motivated crime.
So for all the conservatives out there who claim that the DHS report which listed right-wing extremism as a threat is "bullshit" or "liberal propoganda," maybe you should study the facts. Maybe you should take a long hard look at our nation's history, and the murders and terrorism which have occurred as the result of right-wing hate speech. If you really don't think right-wing extremists should be listed as a threat, then you must also believe that Al Qaeda should not be listed as a threat, either. After all, radical Islam is just a way of life for many people, and they should have a right to express themselves any way they want. What better way to show dissent than by plotting a revolution against the United States government, murdering people in the name of a religious cause, or bombing landmarks in an effort to dismantle American pride? The only thing is, that last sentence not only applies to Al Qaeda, but it also applies to the right-wing extremist groups in the United States which have long gone unnoticed by politicians and the media.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Conservatidiot of the Day: Tom Tancredo
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, who earlier this week compared La Raza to the KKK, has stated that he does not know if the Obama administration hates white people. The following was exchanged between Colorado's favorite bigot and MSNBC pundit David Shuster:
By the way, what do I-- I have no idea whether Tom Tancredo likes to molest children. I have no idea whether he likes to masturbate with soggy ground-up lamb, which he may ejaculate into and eat later on. I have no idea whether Tom Tancredo likes to hang immigrants in the fields of Colorado. I just don't know. But I do know that he's a fucking moron.
Wonderful. If we have a black president, why, we just can't tell whether or not they hate white people, even though there's no evidence to the contrary. I guess it's safe to say, then, that George W. Bush hated black people, considering how piss-poor the federal relief efforts in the majority-black New Orleans were. And, if John McCain became president, he would hate Asians, considering he used to rant about those evil "gooks" back in the day. Funny how it goes.SHUSTER: Mr. Tancredo, do you agree that the Obama administration hates white people?
TANCREDO: Oh [sighs], I don’t know. But I’ll tell you this –
SHUSTER: You don’t know? In other words, they might?
TANCREDO: What do I — I have no idea whether they hate white people or not!
By the way, what do I-- I have no idea whether Tom Tancredo likes to molest children. I have no idea whether he likes to masturbate with soggy ground-up lamb, which he may ejaculate into and eat later on. I have no idea whether Tom Tancredo likes to hang immigrants in the fields of Colorado. I just don't know. But I do know that he's a fucking moron.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Conservatidiot of the Day: G. Gordon Liddy
Today's conservatidiot is a GOP criminal icon who feels the need to attack Judge Sotomayor for being a woman. Yes, G. Gordon Liddy-- that lovable crook who helped orchestrate the 1972 break in at Watergate-- is warning the world of what would happen should Sotomayor have to preside over the court during her menstrual cycle: "Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."
So the attacks on Sotomayor go from the ridiculously absurd-- She's apparently a racist for being proud of her heritage-- to the absurdly ridiculous-- if she menstruates, the court is doomed, DOOMED I tell ya!
Sigh... just because Sotomayor is a woman doesn't mean she'll become an irrational, angry, bitter bitch during her menstrual cycle (which, considering she's a fifty-four year old woman, has most likely ended by now). Scalia and Thomas have been irrational, angry, bitter bitches ever since they were confirmed, and neither of them have hoo-haws. They do, however, have crumpled-up constitutions lodged in their sphincters, so we'd better hope they never get a bad case of diarhea, because lordy, the court will undoubtedly be doomed then.
So the attacks on Sotomayor go from the ridiculously absurd-- She's apparently a racist for being proud of her heritage-- to the absurdly ridiculous-- if she menstruates, the court is doomed, DOOMED I tell ya!
Sigh... just because Sotomayor is a woman doesn't mean she'll become an irrational, angry, bitter bitch during her menstrual cycle (which, considering she's a fifty-four year old woman, has most likely ended by now). Scalia and Thomas have been irrational, angry, bitter bitches ever since they were confirmed, and neither of them have hoo-haws. They do, however, have crumpled-up constitutions lodged in their sphincters, so we'd better hope they never get a bad case of diarhea, because lordy, the court will undoubtedly be doomed then.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Conservatidiot of the Day: Tom Tancredo
Day Three of the GOP's "Sonia Sotomayor is a big fat racist!" smear campaign: former Congressman Tom Tancredo -- who boosted his political profile by fanning the ignorant flames of hatred towards all brown-hued people -- has compared Sotomayor's association with the pro-immigrant group National Council of La Raza to being a member of the Ku Klux Klan. "If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case... which is from my point of of view any way... nothing more than a ... Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses," Tancredo began to say in an appearance on CNN today, stuttering since there was just way too much ignorance to come out of his mouth at once. "If you belong to something like that in a way that's going to convince me and a lot of other people that it's got nothing to do with race. Even though the logo of La Raza is "All for the race. Nothing for the rest." What does that tell you?"
The former Congressman did get something right in that sentence. La Raza's motto is "All for the race. Nothing else." But he's imbecilic to assume that La Raza's motto is racist against whites, blacks, Asians, or any other ethnic group. La Raza focuses explicitly on expanding the rights of Latinos in the United States. It supports relaxing many strict immigration laws, ending unjust discrimination against Latinos, and is one of the largest Latino advocacy groups in the country. It holds corporate sponsorships with many multibillion dollar corporations, including Citigroup, and works with Latinos in multiple inner city neighborhoods to overcome prejudice and economic hardship to enhance their communities.
What La Raza isn't is a group which parades around a burning cross at night, lynching white people because they aren't as superior as the Latino race. La Raza doesn't advocate for laws which would mandate separate but equal facilities for Latinos and other races, with Latinos having far more adequate facilities than the other "inferior" ethnic groups. And La Raza doesn't go around obstructing the voting rights of other ethnic groups... all of which the KKK did in its heyday.
Of course, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that Tom Tancredo has come out to attack a Latino advocacy group, comparing it to one of the most hate-filled, vitriolic racial groups to ever exist in this nation's history. After all, this is a man who insinuated that all illegal immigrants who come to the United States are closet terrorists waiting to bomb our malls and schools, and has endorsed a little group called the Minute Men which go around brutally beating and intimidating anyone who "looks like" an illegal immigrant. And by that, anyone who has brown skin and speaks in a Spanish-sounding accent is the subject of their brutal, racist attacks.
So, for the third day in a row, a conservatidiot is playing the "racist card" in an attempt to deflect their own racism. And, for the third day in a row, I find myself saddened that this moron is given a public forum to spew such horrendous nonsense. I guess the lesson we can all learn from this is, no matter how racist an ethically corrupt, white GOP congressman is, a proud minority who speaks of her own experiences and associates with groups which aim to enhance the lives of those minorities are far more racist and evil. This marks the next chapter in the white supremacist movement in the United States: All proud minorities are racist against white people, and white people are now the victims.
How ingenius...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Tancredo_La_Raza_is_Latino_KKK.html
The former Congressman did get something right in that sentence. La Raza's motto is "All for the race. Nothing else." But he's imbecilic to assume that La Raza's motto is racist against whites, blacks, Asians, or any other ethnic group. La Raza focuses explicitly on expanding the rights of Latinos in the United States. It supports relaxing many strict immigration laws, ending unjust discrimination against Latinos, and is one of the largest Latino advocacy groups in the country. It holds corporate sponsorships with many multibillion dollar corporations, including Citigroup, and works with Latinos in multiple inner city neighborhoods to overcome prejudice and economic hardship to enhance their communities.
What La Raza isn't is a group which parades around a burning cross at night, lynching white people because they aren't as superior as the Latino race. La Raza doesn't advocate for laws which would mandate separate but equal facilities for Latinos and other races, with Latinos having far more adequate facilities than the other "inferior" ethnic groups. And La Raza doesn't go around obstructing the voting rights of other ethnic groups... all of which the KKK did in its heyday.
Of course, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that Tom Tancredo has come out to attack a Latino advocacy group, comparing it to one of the most hate-filled, vitriolic racial groups to ever exist in this nation's history. After all, this is a man who insinuated that all illegal immigrants who come to the United States are closet terrorists waiting to bomb our malls and schools, and has endorsed a little group called the Minute Men which go around brutally beating and intimidating anyone who "looks like" an illegal immigrant. And by that, anyone who has brown skin and speaks in a Spanish-sounding accent is the subject of their brutal, racist attacks.
So, for the third day in a row, a conservatidiot is playing the "racist card" in an attempt to deflect their own racism. And, for the third day in a row, I find myself saddened that this moron is given a public forum to spew such horrendous nonsense. I guess the lesson we can all learn from this is, no matter how racist an ethically corrupt, white GOP congressman is, a proud minority who speaks of her own experiences and associates with groups which aim to enhance the lives of those minorities are far more racist and evil. This marks the next chapter in the white supremacist movement in the United States: All proud minorities are racist against white people, and white people are now the victims.
How ingenius...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Tancredo_La_Raza_is_Latino_KKK.html
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Conservatidiot of the Day: Newt Gingrich
The right's bastardization of Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 speech continues today, this time as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls for Sotomayor to withdraw her nomination because she's "racist." Newt Gingrich, who deserves some credit for slowly learning how to use Twitter, tweeted the following today: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.' new racism is no better than old racism," referring to Sotomayor's claim that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
It is apparent that the right is going to play the racism card well into this confirmation process. Nevermind, of course, that Sotomayor's claims are valid. A stuffy old white man from Georgia who has the liberty to cheat on his second wife while persecuting the President of the United States for cheating on his first wife doesn't really know what it is like to be a Latina woman, nor does he have the ability to make the proper decisions affecting the lives of Latina women. But Gingrich and many other conservatives, who like to distract people from their own racism by claiming that anything said by a minority against a white man is racist, are not actually looking at the context of Sotomayor's remarks, and are instead looking for any straw man argument they can find to drag her through the mud.
Gingrich also had this to say in a later Tweet: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw." I actually agree with him. If a Latina said, oh, "the Latina race is superior to the white race," and was a member of an anti-white group, and made judicial decisions which discriminated against white men, then she should have to step down considering she brings a dangerous bias to the bench. But, considering Sotomayor never said such a thing, and has rendered decisions in favor of the rights of all races, I don't see where this is a valid argument.
The right will no doubt continue this argument. Whenever a minority points out the richness of minority experiences, or dares to question the horrific actions of white Americans against minorities in our long sordid history, the conservatidiots on the right deflect their own racist leanings by screaming "racism!" at other minorities. What's sad is that some people in this country will undoubtedly listen to Gingrich, much as some do Rush Limbaugh, and will continue to bastardize Sotomayor into a racist demon nominated by an equally racist Super Terrorist who was only elected because racist minorities voted in record numbers in 2008. Oh well-- Thankfully, we have a Senate comprised of at least 55 intelligent people who refuse to cater to such stupid wedge tactics.
It is apparent that the right is going to play the racism card well into this confirmation process. Nevermind, of course, that Sotomayor's claims are valid. A stuffy old white man from Georgia who has the liberty to cheat on his second wife while persecuting the President of the United States for cheating on his first wife doesn't really know what it is like to be a Latina woman, nor does he have the ability to make the proper decisions affecting the lives of Latina women. But Gingrich and many other conservatives, who like to distract people from their own racism by claiming that anything said by a minority against a white man is racist, are not actually looking at the context of Sotomayor's remarks, and are instead looking for any straw man argument they can find to drag her through the mud.
Gingrich also had this to say in a later Tweet: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw." I actually agree with him. If a Latina said, oh, "the Latina race is superior to the white race," and was a member of an anti-white group, and made judicial decisions which discriminated against white men, then she should have to step down considering she brings a dangerous bias to the bench. But, considering Sotomayor never said such a thing, and has rendered decisions in favor of the rights of all races, I don't see where this is a valid argument.
The right will no doubt continue this argument. Whenever a minority points out the richness of minority experiences, or dares to question the horrific actions of white Americans against minorities in our long sordid history, the conservatidiots on the right deflect their own racist leanings by screaming "racism!" at other minorities. What's sad is that some people in this country will undoubtedly listen to Gingrich, much as some do Rush Limbaugh, and will continue to bastardize Sotomayor into a racist demon nominated by an equally racist Super Terrorist who was only elected because racist minorities voted in record numbers in 2008. Oh well-- Thankfully, we have a Senate comprised of at least 55 intelligent people who refuse to cater to such stupid wedge tactics.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Conservatidiot of the Day: Rush Limbaugh
I think it goes without saying that Rush Limbaugh is one of the most detrimental figures in the American conservative movement. He gets on his radio show and rants about bullshit few people aside from the extremist fringe cares about, mocking people with Parkinson's Disease and homosexuals and soldiers who oppose the Iraq war in the process. I really don't want to spend too much time ranting about how much of an asinine buffoon he is, because it certainly goes without saying, but today he said something which I think lingers deep down inside the narrow little minds of conservatidiots everywhere.
Limbaugh has reportedly referred to President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, as a "reverse racist" because of a comment she made during a 2001 speech, where she said the following: "Wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." He then went on to slam her views on affirmative action, and referred to Obama as the "greatest living reverse racist in America."
Okay, so where exactly is the racism in Sotomayor's speech? Frankly, I don't think many white men should assume that they know more than Latina women when it comes to the lives of Latina women. But naturally, the extremist fringe, angry at being called racist whenever they compare black NFL runningbacks to convicts on the run or tell African American callers to take the bone out of their nose, has decided to call anything which exits the mouth of a minority regarding a white man "racist" without searching for the context of what was said. They think that it is racist for minorities to talk about the injustices perpetuated by white men for centuries. They think it is racist for an impoverished minority to want the same access to education and employment as privileged white men have. And they think it is racist for a minority to claim that they know better about minority rights than the majority does.
Keep on shining, Rush. You are one of the greatest gifts ever given to the Democratic Party. Few take you seriously, and the ones who do are just as hopped up on whatever narcotics you're on or bunkered down deep beneath the surface of the Earth with their ten tons of guns and ammo they plan to use against the black Devil president of our's.
Limbaugh has reportedly referred to President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, as a "reverse racist" because of a comment she made during a 2001 speech, where she said the following: "Wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." He then went on to slam her views on affirmative action, and referred to Obama as the "greatest living reverse racist in America."
Okay, so where exactly is the racism in Sotomayor's speech? Frankly, I don't think many white men should assume that they know more than Latina women when it comes to the lives of Latina women. But naturally, the extremist fringe, angry at being called racist whenever they compare black NFL runningbacks to convicts on the run or tell African American callers to take the bone out of their nose, has decided to call anything which exits the mouth of a minority regarding a white man "racist" without searching for the context of what was said. They think that it is racist for minorities to talk about the injustices perpetuated by white men for centuries. They think it is racist for an impoverished minority to want the same access to education and employment as privileged white men have. And they think it is racist for a minority to claim that they know better about minority rights than the majority does.
Keep on shining, Rush. You are one of the greatest gifts ever given to the Democratic Party. Few take you seriously, and the ones who do are just as hopped up on whatever narcotics you're on or bunkered down deep beneath the surface of the Earth with their ten tons of guns and ammo they plan to use against the black Devil president of our's.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: The Confederates
Today is Memorial Day, a day where we remember America's fallen heroes who fought in wars dating back to the American Revolution and through the war in Iraq. These soldiers were true American heroes who fought for the principles which have held this union together all throughout history, making the United States a beacon of freedom and democracy looked up to by millions around the world. They deserve to be remembered and honored as some of the greatest Americans who ever lived.
But something that bothers me is the recognition of Confederate soldiers who fought during the Civil War, a tradition that has unfortunately existed since the ever-so-racist Woodrow Wilson laid a wreath at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. Quite truthfully, the Confederacy was un-American-- it consisted of states which had seceded from the Union, and fought to dismantle democracy in its own right. The reason being, of course, was because the selfish racists who lived below the Mason-Dixon line feared that they would no longer be able to treat African Americans as property, to be traded and sold and commanded to do back-breaking manual labor at their pleasure. So they launched the Civil War, because the democratically-elected President Lincoln appeared to be an abolitionist, and the man they wanted to be President wasn't elected, and they wouldn't be able to demonize black people any longer... or, as confederate sympathizers say today, they went to war because of "economics."
And strangely, that rationale, that the Civil War was a war based on "economic principle," has stood in the revisionist histories perpetuated by politicians in former confederate states. That is why the Confederate Flag, perhaps the second-most racist symbol behind the Swastika, is allowed to fly over numerous state capitols. That is the reason why the confederate flag's "stars and bars" are a part of several state flags, from Mississippi to Arkansas to Georgia. Yes, the conservatives, not wanting to admit fault, continue to claim that the Civil War was an "economic" war, and have even gone as far as to laughingly declare that, had the Confederacy won, African Americans would achieve freedom far faster than they had under the Union.
This is preposterous. The whole reason why Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and separate-but-equal institutions existed was because the South didn't want to treat African Americans as equals. Once former slaves became free, they searched long and hard for ways to treat blacks as lesser human beings than whites. The Confederate States seceded because they were the home of racist scumbags who didn't truly believe that the line "all men are created equal" applied to those with a different skin tone than them. The Civil War was fought on "economics" just as much as the American Revolution was fought on "tea taxes."
The Confederacy does not need to be remembered on a day when we remember America's fallen heroes. Someone who went to war to fight against our Constitutional liberties, who was an enemy of the state, and who helped contribute to one of the most unnecessary wars in American history, does not deserve to be remembered as a hero. They deserve to have their graves spit on by passers by. They deserve to have the flag they fought under taken down from every statehouse and burned. And they deserve to be forgotten.
So for Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Mark Sanford, Haley Barbour, and all the other conservatives out there who still wave the confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage" and "economics" and use secession as a way to deal with the election of a liberal black man to the presidency: When are you going to start loving the United States? When are you going to start loving the Constitution and what it stands for, and the democracy which has allowed us to heal the wounds caused directly by the South's horrific treatment of blacks ever since this country was founded? Or are you more willing to live in the past, the good old days where shouting "nigger" to black schoolchildren was the norm and lynching a black teenager was considered a grand ole hootenanny, celebrating the confederacy and invoking their bastardized ideals as the way to guide the Republican Party into the future? Hopefully I'm not the only one who sees the connection here.
But something that bothers me is the recognition of Confederate soldiers who fought during the Civil War, a tradition that has unfortunately existed since the ever-so-racist Woodrow Wilson laid a wreath at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. Quite truthfully, the Confederacy was un-American-- it consisted of states which had seceded from the Union, and fought to dismantle democracy in its own right. The reason being, of course, was because the selfish racists who lived below the Mason-Dixon line feared that they would no longer be able to treat African Americans as property, to be traded and sold and commanded to do back-breaking manual labor at their pleasure. So they launched the Civil War, because the democratically-elected President Lincoln appeared to be an abolitionist, and the man they wanted to be President wasn't elected, and they wouldn't be able to demonize black people any longer... or, as confederate sympathizers say today, they went to war because of "economics."
And strangely, that rationale, that the Civil War was a war based on "economic principle," has stood in the revisionist histories perpetuated by politicians in former confederate states. That is why the Confederate Flag, perhaps the second-most racist symbol behind the Swastika, is allowed to fly over numerous state capitols. That is the reason why the confederate flag's "stars and bars" are a part of several state flags, from Mississippi to Arkansas to Georgia. Yes, the conservatives, not wanting to admit fault, continue to claim that the Civil War was an "economic" war, and have even gone as far as to laughingly declare that, had the Confederacy won, African Americans would achieve freedom far faster than they had under the Union.
This is preposterous. The whole reason why Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and separate-but-equal institutions existed was because the South didn't want to treat African Americans as equals. Once former slaves became free, they searched long and hard for ways to treat blacks as lesser human beings than whites. The Confederate States seceded because they were the home of racist scumbags who didn't truly believe that the line "all men are created equal" applied to those with a different skin tone than them. The Civil War was fought on "economics" just as much as the American Revolution was fought on "tea taxes."
The Confederacy does not need to be remembered on a day when we remember America's fallen heroes. Someone who went to war to fight against our Constitutional liberties, who was an enemy of the state, and who helped contribute to one of the most unnecessary wars in American history, does not deserve to be remembered as a hero. They deserve to have their graves spit on by passers by. They deserve to have the flag they fought under taken down from every statehouse and burned. And they deserve to be forgotten.
So for Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Mark Sanford, Haley Barbour, and all the other conservatives out there who still wave the confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage" and "economics" and use secession as a way to deal with the election of a liberal black man to the presidency: When are you going to start loving the United States? When are you going to start loving the Constitution and what it stands for, and the democracy which has allowed us to heal the wounds caused directly by the South's horrific treatment of blacks ever since this country was founded? Or are you more willing to live in the past, the good old days where shouting "nigger" to black schoolchildren was the norm and lynching a black teenager was considered a grand ole hootenanny, celebrating the confederacy and invoking their bastardized ideals as the way to guide the Republican Party into the future? Hopefully I'm not the only one who sees the connection here.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: The Senate GOP
Supreme Court confirmation proceedings are expected to be long, drawn-out processes, and for a number of valid reasons. Whoever is nominated by the president to sit on the bench could theoretically be there for the rest of his or her life, presiding over several hot-button issues which could shape the legal, political, and cultural landscapes of the United States for years to come. However, the battle over a Supreme Court nominee should be based on that nominee's qualifications, legal expertise, political predispositions, and moral character, and should not be a battle fought for petty, partisan reasons.
Lo and behold, today's conservatidiots have already launched a full-frontal assault against the Supreme Court nominee, vowing to drag out the confirmation process in the Senate for as long as humanly possible-- even though a nominee has yet to be officially selected by President Obama. The Senate GOP, led by ranking Judiciary Committee member Jeff Sessions (R-AL), has stated that they might want to carry the confirmation proceedings all the way through the end of September as a response to the President's request that the nominee is confirmed by the Senate's August recess. The math on this should be quite simple: If Obama announces his Supreme Court nominee by the end of next week, which apparently is a strong possibility, there will be just over two months until the Senate is adjourned for the month-long August recess. That gives the Senate over sixty days to vet, question, and confirm or reject his nominee. The nominee would then have enough time to prepare for the next Supreme Court term, which begins in August.
So naturally, the Senate GOP has announced that it wants to take as much time as it needs to "thoroughly vet" the President's nominee. Which, in today's Republican Party, means sit idly by screaming "no!" while complaining about how the nominee will destroy America. At face value, their rationale for extending the confirmation process for "as long as it takes" seems fair: this is an important appointment and a rare opportunity to help shape the make up of the Judicial Branch. But, if the Senate GOP was so concerned about "taking their time," why didn't they take eighty, ninety, one-hundred days or so to confirm President Bush's Supreme Court nominees when they were in the majority four years ago? Samuel Alito and John Roberts were confirmed approximately seventy days after they were nominated by Bush. In fact, then-Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had strongly opposed efforts by Democrats to slow down the confirmation process: "Slow-walking the process beyond historical norms and engaging in a paper chase simply to delay a timely up-or-down vote are not hallmarks of a fair process."
Sen. Sessions says he wants sixty days from the announcement of the nominee to the beginning of the confirmation hearings. The typical confirmation process takes between sixty and eighty days to complete. The idea that this is just offering a "check" on the President's nominee is ludicrious. This is stonewalling at its finest.
For more insight on this, read Mike Allen's article at Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22892.html
Lo and behold, today's conservatidiots have already launched a full-frontal assault against the Supreme Court nominee, vowing to drag out the confirmation process in the Senate for as long as humanly possible-- even though a nominee has yet to be officially selected by President Obama. The Senate GOP, led by ranking Judiciary Committee member Jeff Sessions (R-AL), has stated that they might want to carry the confirmation proceedings all the way through the end of September as a response to the President's request that the nominee is confirmed by the Senate's August recess. The math on this should be quite simple: If Obama announces his Supreme Court nominee by the end of next week, which apparently is a strong possibility, there will be just over two months until the Senate is adjourned for the month-long August recess. That gives the Senate over sixty days to vet, question, and confirm or reject his nominee. The nominee would then have enough time to prepare for the next Supreme Court term, which begins in August.
So naturally, the Senate GOP has announced that it wants to take as much time as it needs to "thoroughly vet" the President's nominee. Which, in today's Republican Party, means sit idly by screaming "no!" while complaining about how the nominee will destroy America. At face value, their rationale for extending the confirmation process for "as long as it takes" seems fair: this is an important appointment and a rare opportunity to help shape the make up of the Judicial Branch. But, if the Senate GOP was so concerned about "taking their time," why didn't they take eighty, ninety, one-hundred days or so to confirm President Bush's Supreme Court nominees when they were in the majority four years ago? Samuel Alito and John Roberts were confirmed approximately seventy days after they were nominated by Bush. In fact, then-Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had strongly opposed efforts by Democrats to slow down the confirmation process: "Slow-walking the process beyond historical norms and engaging in a paper chase simply to delay a timely up-or-down vote are not hallmarks of a fair process."
Sen. Sessions says he wants sixty days from the announcement of the nominee to the beginning of the confirmation hearings. The typical confirmation process takes between sixty and eighty days to complete. The idea that this is just offering a "check" on the President's nominee is ludicrious. This is stonewalling at its finest.
For more insight on this, read Mike Allen's article at Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22892.html
Friday, May 22, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: Liberty University's department of student affairs
Ben Smith, a blogger from Politico, is reporting that Liberty University's department of student affairs has revoked recognition of the Democratic Party club on campus. The reason being is because the administration feels that the Democratic Party does not represent the overall mission of the university and to the Christian doctrine because it "supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc."
Of course, Liberty University is an evangelical college which has a long history of implementing draconian rules (such as no-hand holding in public), and this should not come as a surprise to those familiar with its long, sordid history. Founded by evangelical demagogue Jerry Falwell, Liberty University is one of the foremost evangelically conservative universities in the nation. Despite these facts, this action is still disturbing in a number of ways. First, the campus is promoting a radical political agenda by telling its students that they either have to adhere to conservative principles, or else they are not good little Christian warriors. Never mind, of course, that the Bible doesn't offer an opinion on abortion, gay marriage, or socialism, since these political issues did not exist when the omnipotent, ever-present Sky Being wrote the Bible. But worse yet, Liberty University fails to acknowledge that Christians-- no matter how conservative they are in their practices-- do not fundamentally identify with one party over the other. There are evangelical Democrats, much as there are atheistic Republicans. This action marks the end of free speech at Liberty University-- not that political independence was encouraged in the first place-- and is yet another example of an extremist conservative organization irrationally flipping out because the Democratic Party won an election and is viewed favorably by the majority of Americans.
The original post by Ben Smith can be found here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Liberty_U_bans_Democrats.html
Of course, Liberty University is an evangelical college which has a long history of implementing draconian rules (such as no-hand holding in public), and this should not come as a surprise to those familiar with its long, sordid history. Founded by evangelical demagogue Jerry Falwell, Liberty University is one of the foremost evangelically conservative universities in the nation. Despite these facts, this action is still disturbing in a number of ways. First, the campus is promoting a radical political agenda by telling its students that they either have to adhere to conservative principles, or else they are not good little Christian warriors. Never mind, of course, that the Bible doesn't offer an opinion on abortion, gay marriage, or socialism, since these political issues did not exist when the omnipotent, ever-present Sky Being wrote the Bible. But worse yet, Liberty University fails to acknowledge that Christians-- no matter how conservative they are in their practices-- do not fundamentally identify with one party over the other. There are evangelical Democrats, much as there are atheistic Republicans. This action marks the end of free speech at Liberty University-- not that political independence was encouraged in the first place-- and is yet another example of an extremist conservative organization irrationally flipping out because the Democratic Party won an election and is viewed favorably by the majority of Americans.
The original post by Ben Smith can be found here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Liberty_U_bans_Democrats.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)