Silver Star Awards, March, 2011

OK, so it's been a really thin month.  By far the thinnest since I started blogging.  Only four pieces, and two of them were Silver Star entries. Which never seem to get ANY comments! :(

Oh well, at least March's will actually happen IN MARCH.  There were no HoF inductees in 1960, so the year is now 1961 and it saw two Veteran's Committee Inductees, so yeah: We're still on the funny stuff.  There are some really good ones coming in April, when there will be a GOLD Star or two, but we're still on Silver's this month.


The Max Carey Silver Star #25: Venus Envy

Another superb web-comic.  Mind you I don't really read it anymore, because the author, Erin Lindsey, kind of pulled the plug on it just over a year ago - and leaving her main character in a rather tight spot to boot!  Oh well.  In short, Venus Envy is a comic about a transgendered (MtF) teenager.  Believe it or not there are a LOT of TG Web-Comics out there, but I think Venus Envy deserves credit for a few things.  First of all, it's kind of famous in TG circles.  It was one of the first TG web-comics (if not THE first), remains one of the longest running, and from what I can tell was for a long time by far the most popular.  Which I think is due to the second reason: Erin Lindsey's powerfully compelling writing, her off-beat and sometimes self-depricating sense of humor, and her ability to create one of the most sympathetic characters I've ever had the pleasure of reading, in Zoe Carter.  Check it out - you'll laugh, you'll pretend not to cry, but most importantly of all, YOU'LL CARE.  You'll CARE about this character, and what she is going through and dealing with. Regardless of how you feel about the transgendered it is impossible to read this not pull for this person. (And not fear for them.) I'm certainly no expert on TG politics by a lognshot, but this 'strip served as the beginning of my coming to better understand TG issues.  As usual, I recommend reading this web-comic from the beginning but with this one, just be aware that the real story takes a little while to get going.  For awhile there, there are a lot of gag strips.  FUNNY gag strips, but not the profound stuff I'm referring to above.  Also - if the name "Erin Lindsay" sounds familiar, I've referred to her political writings / rants before, here and here.  What can I say? I love her stuff, I really do.  And I really miss 'Venus Envy!'


The Billy Hamilton Silver Star #26: DAMN YOU AUTO-CORRECT!

Screw doing sit-ups.  Just read this site and you laugh your way to wash-board abs.  O.M.F.G!  The main site is a collection of iPhone texts that have been 'auto-corrected' by the phone's auto-spell check / auto-fill-in random nonsense as you type feature.  Fucking hilarious!  And much like several other Silver Star winners from the Cheezburger Network (Failblog, Engrish, etc...) the site linked to several others that are every bit as funny, sometimes much funnier.  The Bad Gifts site is EPIC funny.  Bad Food was a riot as well. (I've eaten a lot of that stuff!) (Shit, I LIKED a lot of that stuff! LOL)  This site was sent to me a few weeks ago by a guy at my office.  I couldn't link to it form my desk (web-sensed) by I pulled it up on my phone and couldn't get any work done for three days. XD  So Check it out, and let me know what you think!

Another Brilliant Piece from Cracked....

It suffers rather a bit from the "false balance" problem... I don't care what they say, you simply cannot compare Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck objectively and conclude that both are "full of shit," implying an equality there.  That's just nonsense.  One makes a well-reasoned argument, based on evidence and principles, while the other just MAKES SHIT UP.  Beck's problem is not that he's Conservative, but rather that he's a PARANOID PSYCHOTIC.  Being CONSERVATIVE is the LEAST of his mental illnesses!

All the same, I think this article does a pretty darned good job at showing WHY WE SUCK SO BAD AT DEMOCRACY.

Been away...

Conchobhar sent me an email today and, reading it, I hadn't realized how long I'd been away - from IMHO and MMFA anyway.  I've been taking a break, trying to re-balance my life.  I'm taking an art class and going to the gym, but that leaves no time for this blog, or my web-comic, which hasn't been updated in over a month either.  (And I don't even mean the NEW one, Utopia, which I stalled out on page two with!) *Phew* It's been crazy and a lot of stuff is not going all that well to boot.  And my company is seriously cracking down on internet usage during work hours, so MMFA-time is pretty much out for me, for the forseeable future. :(

So with that in mind, and all the shit going down in the mid-east, the mid-west and Japan...

Here's a funny story from work today that has nothing to do with anything of any value at all!

As some of you may know, I'm an Engineer working in automotive safety restraints.  And today, we got to do one of my FAVORITE things: Tear-down and analyse WARRANTY RETURNS!

I live for that, seriously.

One of the things that makes it so rewarding, emotionally, is looking at the stupid shit people return stuff for, and looking at the various levels of abuse and mis-uses that they've put our products though. One of the most common issues is foreign objects getting stuck in buckles.  And for the past year or more we've been KEEPING all the little souvenirs that we've taken out of "damaged" buckles that came back through warranty.  I've got about 30 dimes, 20 Buttons (presumably from back-pockets: think about it), broken windshield glass, fake gemstones, staples, nails (both the kind you hammer, and the kind at the end of your finger) paperclips, zipper pulls, pebbles, a few tiny Lego's (including a star wars gun!), a blood-glucose meter testing strip (used)... and even some cool stuff, like a silver dove pendent and a gold cross!

But today I think we've got a new record holder for weirdness, uniqueness and unexpectedness.

I popped off the buckle covers, tapped the frame against the table and out fell some...

POT.

Seriously.  I wasn't 100% sure at first (although I was pretty sure) so I turned to my college who was up from our Mexico plant to train and simply asked him, "Is this what I think it is?"

He said he thought so, and then squeezed the bud in his fingers, smelled it and said, "Yes, definitely, it's pot!"  (I didn't even know to DO that, so I figured he knew what he was talking about better than I did,) (No moral judgement being made there BTW!)

And my boss happened to be walking by, so I asked HIM, "Hey look at this... It came out of a buckle... It this what we think it is?" (Again - asking without saying WHAT we think it is...)

And he just starts laughing. "Yeah... I think it is!"

Six or seven people later, and they all came to the same conclusion.  My director told my boss to make sure we got a picture of it.  (He always gets a laugh out the shit we find stuck in people's buckles.)

So that's my laugh for the day: Buckle didn't work due to POT being jammed in the mechanism.

I can't wait to heat what the customer says when we deliver that report!

LOL

Silver Star Awards, February, 2011

OK, they're a day late. Sue me. No one reads these posts anyway!

(Just has some deju-vu there... I think I've used that line before!)

OK... here we go.  We're up to 1959, which saw one Veterans Committe inductee, and none from the Writers:


The Zack Wheat Silver Star #24: Oglaf

Yeah, it's yet another web-comic that I'm crazy about.  Now... some of the stuff I've linked to, not to mention some of my own writing, has at time been a bit... risque.  I'll warn you right now: Oglaf is downright FILTHY.  It's filthy, dirty, rude, crude, crass, smutty and at times downright pornographic... and really, REALLY funny.  Although it's not a single, continuous story it will still make more sense (and be funnier) if you read it from the beginning.  Mind also, that it's a series of different stories, some of which have multiple pages.  So if the "next page" link is lit, hit that rather than the "next story" link.  I missed that at first, and it didn't make a lick of sense. LOL.

Odd picture choice...

The headline on mail.com (my email service) read: Protesters across US decry Wis. anti-union efforts.

And the article spoke of "Rallies held across the country Saturday to support thousands of protesters at the Wisconsin Capitol in their fight against Republican-backed legislation aimed at weakening unions."

And so on, and so on.

Needless to say, IMHO what Governor Walker is doing here is despicable and may even be illegal (a work force's right to organize IS, in fact, a matter of labor rights, codified legislation and common law, after all!) But at this point I don't really want to get into THAT part of things.  The Republicans spent years fucking everything up, finally got voted out, and then spent the last two years lying to the American public so effectively that [the American people] were stupid enough to put them back into power... And then have enough mind-numbing stupidity to actually be surprised that they've gotten right back to fucking everythingng up again! 


But no, I don't want to talk about that.  While it's what I spent most of last year doing, I no longer have the time, patience or emotional energy needed to continue to catalog all the ways in which the Republicans suck.  Especially given how spineless and useless Obama and the Democrats have been. Not to mention the media.

Which brings me to this:

Now remember, the headline read (and article supported): Thousands SUPPORT the Union Protesters!
 
Let's take a look at the signs in the above photograph that was attached the the article.  (And I've downloaded it, and pasted it here, in case they come to their senses and CHANGE the fucking thing!)
 
"Fight Union Thugery" (Spelled wrong, BTW! Two "g's" in thuggery! Maybe that one should have stayed in school!)
 
"Public Union 4th Branch of Gov't, Hell No!"
 
"Union Leadership Out of Control"
 
"Even FDR opposed public unions"
 
"Love my country, ashamed of Gov't" (what do you want to bet this red-neck hypocritically boycotted the Dixie Chicks at some point?)
 
4/5 of the legible signs are vehemently ANTI-Union!  And the last one?  Well... I can't necessarily tell.  One could argue that he ashamed of what Gov. Walker is doing, but given the crowd he's in, I'm far more inclined to say that it just more of the same anti-Big-Government paranoia and nonsense that the Right has become imfamous for.  (And notice how you never hear that talk when it's a REPUBLICAN who's expanding the Government? Real principled that lot!)
 
Big time FAIL on the part of mail.com's photo department.
 
I'm almost waiting to see a picture of Michael Vick attached to the next article about the Humane Society winning some award or something.
 
Oh yeah...
 
And BEHOLD, YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!

Budget Priorites

So in the ongoing farce to avoid the inevitable necessity of raising taxes, the Republicans in the House first decided that tax cuts were more important than helping to provide poor people with basic health carer services.  This also serves as an example of what they intend to replace last year's health care law with, once they "repeal" it: No health care, for many people.

Wait.. wasn't that the problem BEFORE?  Sure was.  But that's hardly suprising... The First Rule of Conservative Problem Solving?  Deny there's a problem.  Second rule? Villify anyone who tries to solve the problem.  (Hence the vote to defund a 90-year old organization who provides Cancer Screening, HIV Screening, Contaception, Pre-Natal Care and basic well-women checkups to the poor.)

Remember folks: Helping other people IS NOT a "family value."

(And if Obama has any balls, spine, principles or values himself, he'll veto this abortion of a budget.) (Yeah: And the ghost of Franklin Roosevelt will fly out my butt!)

Cockmuncher Boehner: 1, American People: 0

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility?

I've done several pieces over the past year+ showing how absurd it is to consider the REPUBLICANS "fiscally responsible."  Whether it's showing what portion of our debt they're responsible for, or going year by year and showing the trends in deficit spending or even just recognizing the fact that they have been, in fact, actively trying to bankrupt the government in order to force an end to programs that they know they could never get away with, politically, cutting or eliminating.  And that last bit, while seemingly a bit paranoid, is on full display right now in the ongoing farce about trimming the deficit. And to understand just how big a farce this is, realize that you could take ALL of Obama's proposed cuts, ALL of the Republican's proposed cuts, and none of the Republican's propsed tax cuts (yeah - they're "serious" about the deficit, and yet they're STILL proposing tax cuts! That's liek getting "serious" about your credit card debt by working fewer hours!) and even wth all of that, you wouldn't even be HALFWAY to a balanced budget!
And what do we already see will be the result of all these cuts? Hospitals closing, schools closing, tens of thousands out of their jobs, no funduing for public broadcasting (the Right has to LOVE that one!) and the list goes on, and on, and on.

And on.

And for all that pain?  We're not even HALFWAY to a balanced budget?  You gotta be fucking kidding me!

And do you know what's not on the table? RAISING TAXES. Of course.  And there cannot be one person anywhere in the world with two brain cells to bounce together who thinks you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone.  But... this was the Republican's plan all along!  And Speaker Boehner can cry "We're broke!" all he wants, that doesn't make it true.  We're not broke.  That's a bald-faced lie.  We're in the RED, yes.  And that's not good, long-term.  (Although that being the case one has to wonder why the Republicans PUT US in the red every single one of the last 20 years in a row when they held the White House!)  But see... they don't want to raise taxes for two reasons and two reasons only, and neither of them has ANYTHING to do with harming the economy, or creating jobs - botho fwhich are pretty much bullshit.  In fact the same economic model that gives their tax-cut multipliers? (That would be KEYNES.)  Demonstrates that spending changes have a larger effect! (IOW: Those spending cuts will do more harm to the economy than the same level of tax increase. So says the model that gives them the tax-cut multiplier!) And I'm not going to debate that here, but it's a bullshit, nonsense point anyway.  If you want the details, email me or take a goddamned economics course.

The two reasons they don't want to raise taxes is:

1) The American public has grown so stupid and so greedy and so so shortsighted and lacks so much perspective that we're probably to the point where the fools WOULD actually lose their jobs if they did it.  Not that I care about the Republicans losing their jobs, but the bulk of America has grown so spoiled that they just have no clue. No clue at all.  I'll get to what I'd do with taxes in a moment, but the Right has dumbed down America so much, that it probably IS the political reality that raisign taxes is political suicide.  Even though it's needed.  Kind of like... REAL LEADERHSIP.

2) (And this is the important one) Raising taxes would LITERALLY FIX EVERYTHING.  Seriously.  And... they don't want that!  They've been trying to kill these progams for DECADES and they have finally CREATED an environment where they can claim that we have to! (In some cases, IN ORDER TO SAVE THEM!  Figure THAT ONE out!)  But finally, after 30+ years of crippling our governments finances, they finally have enough people fooled into believing that these things have to go. (Persoanlly, I'd say these idiotic Republicans are the ones that have to go, but the people have spoken.) The LAST thing they want at this point is a solvent federal government!

Think about it: How many times have your heard one of these fools, Democrat or Republican, claim, "We just can't afford it anymore?"  I hear it almost every day.  And while they're right, from a certain point of view, it's utterly shocking why no one ever asked about raising taxes back to the levels they were at when the country and its finances were doing just fine!  It's not like we've had these tax rates etched in stone since time immemoriam!  GEORGE W. BUSH created the current tax table, less than a decade ago! And, at least for the past two years, Obama's lowered taxes EVEN MORE!  It's hardly like were tapped here, folks!  It's like we're dying of thirst sitting in our kitchen, and yet refuse to turn on the tap!  It's psychotic!  And if they wanted to lower taxes repsonsibly, all these many long years, they'd have cut the spending FIRST thus keeping the taxes6 cuts deficit neutral.  But since the American people would never go for that, they had to plunge us into debt, creating this artificial crisis in order to confuse the public and get them on board! (And despite being 30 years in the making, with 20 of those years under Reagan, Bush and Bush, somehow this is all OBAMA'S fault!)

Now, I would like to take a look at some of the tax tables of recent past administrations, just to show you how "painful" (hah!) this would be.  As two examples, I'm going to use a household that makes $500,000 per year and my own (approximate) household income.  I'm not going to STATE my income, but I will be honest about what it would cost or save me if we were taxed at some of these older rates.  If you can calculate my income from that information? Congratulations. You pass basic Algebra.  And I'm also assuming that I don't have to explain to any of you how a MARGINAL SYSTEM OF TAXATION works.  So if you don't know where I'm getting my figures, try wikipedia.  One last thing, you can check my tax bracket info aginst the info available at the U.S. Tax Foundation, and my inflation calculatuions HERE.  One last thing: It's worth noting that, starting in 1984, the tax brackets were adjusted each year for inflation automatically.  I happen think this is a good thing, and would automatically adjust ALL fixed numbers in the tax code - including all maximums and minimums - the same way.  So for simplicity's sake, I'm using the last year that the given rates were in effect.

The current tax table is a legacy of the Bush'43 administration:
(Sorry, these run over.  If they were any smaller, you wouldn't be able to read them!)

This is the tax table that resulted in eight years of record deficits (record at elast when compared to any that came before him) under Bush, and another under Obama, and likely another one next year.  Now you hear a lot about eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but I'm on record many times as saying that we should eliminate them accross the board!  Clinton had two budget surplues at the end of his term.  And this was the tax table that created those:

If we adjust for inflation, and move the brackets into 2011 dollars, we get:

So what would all this bed-wetting about the Bush tax cuts cost the rich? Well, that family who's pulling in $500,000 would onlyhave to kick in an extra $12,33.64 a year.  That sounds like a lot, to be sure, but think about it: $500,000 a year!  Think about what you make, what you live on, and ask yourself how hard it would be to find an extra grand or so per month in your budget if you made that many times more than you make now!  You know what I say? Boo-fucking-hoo for the rich.  What would this cost ME?  An extra $1755 a year.  Now that would affect my lifestyle and spendign decisions far more that the $12-large would affect that other familiy's, but I'll be honest with you: $147 less a month?  I could afford it.  Actually? It wouldn't change by budget at all, nor would it impact my retirement savings. I'd still even have some decent cash going into my short-termsavings account. So it really wouldn't change much of anything.  (I guess it must just be good to be me!)  But whatever.  If that's all it cost to REALLY eliminate the defict and KEEP most of our social safety nets? FUCKING DO IT ALREADY!

Now, I will admit that Boehner & Co. may have a point when it comes to tax hikes.  After all, check out the table that got George "Read My Lips" Bush voted out of office in 1992:

adjusted for inflation:

Oh, my fucking god!  His top-rate is still less than his son's!  And he got kicked out of office for that!  Apparently we've been spoiled little cry-babies about taxes longer than I thought, the Clinton years not withstanding!

Now this will illustrate why the whole flat tax thing (and the arguments about top-tier rates) are utter bullshit.  This tax table? Would cost me another $1089 over the Clinton table. (and $2845 over the current table.) That's right: Bill Clinton LOWERED my taxes! (Hint: It was those extra brackets!)  Meanwhile, in all his generosity, Bush'41would give a $13,583 CUT to that family making $500K per year as compared to the Clinton table. (And $1250 less than than what his son's table taxes them at!) Talk about "rob from the poor and give to the rich!"

But how bad was that, anyway?  Why'd he get voted out over that? Well... it was replacing this absurd tax table from Reagan's second term:

Look at that!  A top-tier rate that's actually LESS than what he's taxing the middle class at! Can you believe it!  This is the Right's great hero, folks: Rob from the poor and give to the rich, and don't even try to hide it! Adjusted for inflation, it would look like this:

OK. Under this monstrosity, I'd be paying $3004 more than I'm paying now.  (And $1249 more than the Clinton table!)  Wait... I though Reagan was this great tax-cutter?!  Well... he was, if you were rich enough to afford him:  That family of $500K? Pays $4,872 less than they do now, and $17,205 less that they would owe under Clinton!  The middle class gets soaked for 3-large, so that some making $500K can have an extra 17-GRAND?!  What. the. fuck?  I'm liking Geroge W. Buch better all the time!  At least with him there was SOMETHING in it for me!  As far as I'm concerned Reagan and Bush were a bunch of working-class-people-hating cock-munchers!

There is one thing, however, about Reagan that his current cult-following will not tell you about.  In his first term, he actually signed a top tier tax rate of 50% into law.  It was a CUT at the time but still, let me say that again: Ronald Reagn signed a 50% tax rate into law!  And it was in place until 1986.  Here's what it looked like:

Adjust for inflation and you get...

Looks complicated, no?  Well... complicated can be GOOD sometimes.  Under this table I would owe $2566 more than I owe today, and just $810 more than I would under Clinton.  And those rich folks at $500K?  Would owe $64,798 more than the do now. Wow. And that's under a RONALD WILSON REAGAN CONSTRUCTED Tax Table!  Fuck Clinton! For an extra $810 a year?  I say: let's bring back the first REAGAN tax table!  Let's bring back that $64K tax hike that this great socialist would ask of the rich!

I mentioned that this was actually a reduction, and I've gone so far recently as to call for pre-REAGAN tax rates.  This was the last table under Carter:

Adjusted for inflation:

Do you notice how that top tier rate doesn't even kick in until well after $500K? Remember that the next time someone's making fun of that 70% tax rate.  Now... I'll admit that I could be pursuaded that 70% is too high.  We can argue it.  I'd be perfectly happy with a top tier rate of 50% - with that 1982-86 Reagan Table.

But just for shits and giggles, under Carter, I'd owe $4355 more than I'd owe today.  ($2600 more than with the Clinton table, and $1789 more than with the earlier Reagan table.) That's... a bit much, actually.  I could still swing it, without changing my budget, or my retirement investments, but... there wouldn't be ANYTHIGN left for short-term savings or emergencies. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.  So... yeah, bvioulsy that would eventually impact my budget.  And thus I might just have to back off from my calls of Carter-levels of taxation, even if it would squeeze an extra $117,708 out of those rich bastards down the street, over what they'd owe now. (LOL!) As much as I'd love to seem them pay that... We're getting into T.E.A. territory for me with with what I'd owe.  So, yeah, I'll admit this is excessive.

I'll bet you never thought you'd here me say this: BRING BACK THE REAGAN TAX TABLES!

(Just remember: I mean the 1982-1986 tables, not the 1987-1989 tables!)

What do my libral readers think?  Time to revisit Reagan's great tax policy?

A fuckin' hero...

How's that for a title? LOL.

I just got back for the gym.  Weights tonight.  I usually work out to my "Flogging molly" channel on Pandora.  Celtic Folk and Irish Rock is great music to work out to, whether doing cardio or strength training.  For cardio, it has some of the most hard-driving, up-lifting, foot-slamming, hand-clapping beats you could ask for.  Basically? It's impossible to feel fatigue when listening to Irish music.  For weight/strength training?  The bests are fine, but the THEMES are really what get you.  Good Irish music has some of the darkest, angriest, most bitter lyrics, chronicling their centuries of exploitation, suffering, violence and strife.  They laugh at death, while cursing their life, all the while singing about the cruelest injustices, mixed with powerful patriotic poetry and a love for country and fellow man, juxtaposed with the irony that some much of the recent violence against the Irish has been perpetrated... by the Irish.  Anyway... if the beat doesn't get your adrenaline flowing, the fighting words surely will. 

So for now, I'm hooked.

Anyway, tonight I heard a song that I'd never heard before, and it was like: STOP EVERYTHING.  I had to find out what it was, and who it was by.  It's called Luang Prabang (which is a place in Laos) and it's by Dave Van Ronk.  Anything I could say about it was pretty much summed up by some of the top YouTube comments on the version that I've embedded below:

Powerful..

~scrip7ki77y
 
Awesome! Reminds me of some of the darker Irish rebellion chants. Excellent.

~skelotan

my new task is to make sure this song is more well known.

~shaunathan05

Mine too, shaunathan, mine too.  So here goes.  (BTW, I've got a little bit more to say about it, so after you listen, please keep reading.)



Van Ronk himself described this as "An imperialist love song, and a protest against wimpy anti-war songs." And to that? I say, "Fuck, yeah!"

And I am reminded of something in its combination of powerful anti-war sentiment, while at the same calling for one to honor the fallen and broken soldiers - both in the ironic way that we do now, which the song parodies, but simultaneously with all due sincerity as well. Which, let's face it, we don't. Not when we send our boys on pointless boondoggles around the world, whether it's fighting to secure oil reserves, or merely interfering in another country's internal politics. Our near-schizophrenic hypocrisy regarding the principle of self-determination which we once stood for (and still claim to, whenever it's convenient for us) has cost us more blood and treasure than any post World War Two enemy could ever dream to. All we have to fear is fear itself, was right. We really should have listened.

What it reminds me off was a powerful statement made during the height of the Iraq and Afghan War but the former Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm. She ordered that all flags be lowered to half staff every time a soldier from Michigan was killed. Needless to say that for a good year or two, those flags were down at least once a week. And it sent a powerful statement. It reminded up, every time, of the cost of the insane foreign policy pursued by the Cheney/Bush administration, while at the same time, unequivocally honoring our fallen soldiers. It drove the pro-war crowd abso-fucking-lutely NUTS! And yet they couldn't say a damn thing about it, could they! Because they're always the ones accusing LIBERALS of "hating the troops" or whatever. So who among them was going to be stupid enough to suggest that we STOP honor these fallen men?

I loved it. Probably the best thing she did the whole time she was in office.

Anyway, this song kind of reminds me of that. It reminds us that anti-war is hardly anti-military and that the desire for peace is felt the strongest only by the strongest among us.

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

BTW... here's a more haunting, melodic version by Patrick Sky.  Full lyrics posted there as well, if you're interested.

Jesus Christ, What the hell is wrong with your followers?

OK, I'll admit that I'm incredibly late in coming to this one.  Over a year in fact.  But I came accross this article while looking for something unrelated.  And actually the article I found originally was not the HuffPo piece,  but I can't find the one I read originally and the HuffPo piece has all of the same quotations, so it will suffice.

Plus the headline was a bit more succinct: Religious Right Goes Nuts Over Transgender Appointee Amanda Simpson


(Though, to "go" nuts suggests that you were SANE at some point. Hmmmm...)

You gotta love the Right's all-American reasoning here:

"Is there going to be a transgender quota now in the Obama administration?" asked Peter LaBarbera, president of the anti-gay group Americans for Truth. "How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go? Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby."

 
Right.  Because... it's not like we living in a representative democracy, where all people are equal in the eyes of the law, and everyone should have a voice, right?  Also... I love anti-(some group) groups who act like their all for protecting our rights.  (Our right to live in a world full of Jesus-freaks like them, I guess.)
 
But they go on...
 

Matt Barber, associate dean at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, said the appointment "boggles the mind" and said that while African-Americans might deserve special treatment, transgender people don't.


"This isn't like appointing an African-American in order to try to provide diversity and right some kind of discriminatory wrong," he said. "This is about political correctness."

OK, first of all, Liberty University teaches young-earth creationism as if it were a legitimate, evidence-based, scientific theory.  So care more about what my dog leaves in the back yard than I do about the opinion of their associate dean.

All the same, it's nice to see that he's at least (finally) willing to admit that discrimination against blacks is and was WRONG.  Even though the Republican's model of "diversity" is more akin to "tokenism," it's nice to at least hear him make the concession.  All the same, you've got to love how, in the same breath, he can then go one to completely justify (or at least attempt to) discrimination against homosexuals and transpeople.  (I mean, it's not like they were BORN GAY, right?)

*sigh*

One step forward, two steps back.  That's what passes for "progress" on the Right. 

And there was this from another one of my favorite hate-groups:

"Simpson's nomination was forwarded through to President Obama by a gay activist group, making it appear that this appointment of a male-to-female 'transgender' activist to a high level Commerce Department position to be payback to his far-left base for their political support," a spokeswoman for Focus on the Family said in statement.

(Those are James Dobson's fuck-wads.)

You gotta love how allowing discrimination, and actively discriminating against homosexuals and the transgendered by the politicians that these bigots support is somehow just par for the course, but allowing them to have a voice, to participate in our democracy and to treat them equal under the law is somehow "pandering."

Hey fuck-wads: You did this to yourself.  If you didn't PANDER to the anti-gay agenda, maybe you'd have gotten some of the gay vote!  Did you ever think of that?  Why is it PANDERING to the gays, but not to the Christians who want to continue their policy of discrimination?  (A policy admitted to, by the very fact that Ms. Simpson is, in fact,  the first TG's federal appointee!)

Because, hey: It's not like it's a FREE COUNTRY or anything, right?

And fine.  I suppose you could find a bible verse or two to support that.  You might find something anti-gay there.  But do know what my favorites are?

Does, "Judge not, lest ye be judge yourself," ring a bell?

Or, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

And then there was something about a rich-man passing through the eye of a needle, or something like that. Not really relevant to THIS issue, but it does make me wonder how the Religious Rights gets so wrapped up in MONEY.

In any case, do you know where you will NOT find these bible versus or any others?

In the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the United States.

Those radical, liberal and (obviously) extremely gay documents that this country was founded on.

The Genesis Code?!

I was playing a game on Sporcle just now, when an ad popped up for the "#1 Christian Movie of the Year!," The Genesis Code. 

Ugh.  Reading the wikipedia entry for it almost made me throw up in my mouth a little.

First of all, I'm sure most of us are in agreement that "Christian Movies" inevitably suck.  And it really has nothing to do with the message.  Lots of good movies have positive and, yes, even Christian messages. And do know what they're called? MOVIES.  Calling something a "Christian Movie?"  That's the advertisers trying to scare everyone away who won't automatically love the movies, solely on the basis of it's "Christian message."  You know... 99% of the population including EVERYONE with any taste in movies at all.

They want only that audience which will sit through two hours of glurgy crap, only to praise it as "uplifting" in the end, because it had something to do with God, Jesus, Miracles, or Faith.  And the more heavy handed the better with these people.  It's like for every poorly delivered line, or question directorial decision all the have to do is say "Jesus" five times, or "Miracles" ten, and somehow they've performed their artistic penance and all is well again.

The people THEY want to watch are the one's who would write a critique of a Miyazaki film, saying how they basically loved every single aspect of it, but in the end couldn't recommend it because it didn't have a "strong enough Christian message to it" or that's "it's spirituality was decidedly non-Christian." (You'd be shocked how often I've seen a review like that on Netflix.)

And did you notice the title? "The Genesis Code?"  I guess that's supposed to be in response to that horribly anti-Christian "DaVinci Code."  This is the M.O. with these people, and with conservatives in general.  Creativity apparently has a liberal bias, because everything they do that is so blatantly "Christian" or "Conservative" is always in response to something SUCCESSFUL that was done by a liberal. "Fahrenhype 9/11," anyone?

And they always love to paint successful movies that have a religious theme, as non-Christian or anti-Christian, don't they?  Think about it: The DaVinci Code, Dogma, The Last Temptation of Christ.... it's absurd.  There is nothing anti-Christian or anti-religious about ANY of those movies! Dogma unequivocally recognizes the existence of God and Angels, as well as the divinity of Jesus Christ!  All of these are central to the story, in fact! The DaVinci Code does the same thing!  And The Last Temptation of Christ?! That's one of the most Christ-affirming movies ever written!  But since it wasn't a word-for-word transcription of the bible? It's somehow satanic.  And do you know WHY? Because to these brain-dead fools, it's a sin to even POSE THE QUESTION, regardless of the fact that you ended up with "right" answer! It doesn't matter that, in the end, these works completely affirm all of these people's core beliefs, differing only on irrelevant details.  To them, the fact that the issue was even explored is a problem.  Why would they let THIS movie off the hook, you ask?  Well: It's a CHRISTIAN movie, isn't it?  They tell you right up front, that they're not REALLY exploring any significant issues related to Christianity.  They're just showing you how wrong the non-believers are.  And that's always OK.

Now, as one of my three heroes once pointed out, "All great works of art have a theme that holds them together." I guess Christian works of "art" need to have three.  This movie's?

1) Evolution vs. creation: A completely invented controversy, invented by funny-mentalists who don't know what the word "metaphor" means. (Or how meaningless the word "literal" is for that matter.)

2) End-of-life decisions: Better pray! Better believe! Better get baptised!  Wouldn't want to burn in hell, would you?  (Can we pull the plug? NO!) (Are they in pain? JESUS WILL COMFORT THEM, DAMMIT!)

3) Discrimination of Christians on the college campus: This is the one that makes me want to vomit.  This is so completely absurd. I would LOVE, absolutely LOOOVE for one of the whack-a-loons to give me one, single, solitary example of "discrimination" that a single Christian has EVER experienced on a college campus in this country. EVER.

This, right here, is the problem with these people's entire philosophy.  They LOVE to play the victim, when they are not only the oppressor, but in fact, in this country, the ONLY oppressor!  Their idea of "discrimination?" NOT BEING ALLOWED TO OPPRESS!  No, actually, even the SUGGESTION that what they do might be oppressive is enough for them to cry "discrimination," even as they write their congressman, or state representative urging them to oppose health care benefits for same-sex couples.

Based on the first "theme," and the movie's title,I'm guessing that what constitutes "discrimination" here consists of some poor Christian who's being "forced" to "give up his beliefs" and accept evolution as a fact, and Genesis as a LIE.  What fucking bullshit.  This is the problem with these people.  This is exemplary of their entire fucking mental illness.  They think that because GENESIS isn't being taught IN THE SCIENCE ROOM as undisputed FACT, that they are being "discriminated against."  (How much you want to bet that one of the characters turns in a paper trying to refute evolution with a summary of the Book of Genesis and gets an "F" on it?)  Never mind that evolution is a THEORY, based on observation.  And teaching evolution is teaching THEORY;  Teaching what other people believe happens, based on observation. Does the STUDENT have to BELIEVE it?  Does the student have to reject Genesis to pass a science class? NO and FUCKING NO!  All the student has to do is demonstrate that s/he UNDERSTANDS the theory!  DUH!  Acceptance and belief in it are not required!  I'm so sick and tired of these fuck-wads that don;'t understand this.  It is not a sin to understand a theory.  Nor does understanding that theory somehow mean that you must accept it any other.  And yes, a refutation of that theory must address the EVIDENCE IT IS BASED ON, rather than be made up of a repetition of your Christian dogma!

For fuck's sake, that does not constitute discrimination!

If you're asked to provide a summary of Darwin's theory and you can't do that, YOU FAIL.  End of story, boo-fucking-hoo!  "Disproving" it by evangelizing about Genesis is no more legitimate an answer than giving a review of a film you just saw, or listing the recipe for your Grandmother's Southern-style potato salad: IT DOESN'T ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.  And if asked to provide an alternative explanation? Requiring that it be evidence-based, as opposed to passionate defense of your FAITH, based solely on DOGMA? Can not possibly be discrimination, unless you believe the entire scientific method to be. And let's face it, if the scientific method, so completely destroys your ability to believe in your dogma?  It's time to reject the dogma, not the scientific method. 

Asking someone to THINK, and teaching them HOW TO is not a discriminatory act.  In fact?  That's exactly what you paid tuition for them to do!  To do otherwise? To teach dogma, that runs contrary to evidence? To tell students to ACCEPT, rather than question?  That IS a discriminatory act.  And any student who experiences THAT? Should demand his tuition be refunded.

Another One bites the dust...

One thing you can say definitely say about them: When the Republicans are in power, the stories about "family values" hypocrites seem to grow in both frequency and creepiness.  I'm not sure if Chris Lee (R-NY) was resigning over his solicitation of sex on Craig's List or just the fact that he appeared in this one photograph:

All I can say is, "Thank God he kept it classy."

TEA, Earl Grey, HOT!!!

I can't believe it... the Tea Party, or at least at least some of it's members, were actually GOOD for something!  (And any RW'er who assumes MSN is "liberally biased" can stick their "three ... tools that are crucial to the ... anti-terror law" in their pipes and smoke it.) 

Hey, we'll see.  It probably won't last.  But THIS LIBERAL applauds any "small-government Conservatives" who actually LIVE UP to their libertarian principles and actually vote down government powers that actually interferes with the freedom and privacy of Americans.  Because, far from being detrimental to our security, it is only with privacy and individual liberty and freedom that we can BE secure.  The FISA Court was little more than a rubber stamp anyway, and probably the most efficient part of the Government.  There ws never any reason to go beyond what they did and authorized.  If anything, they probably should have used MORE scrutiny over the years!  But in any case, bring them back, and scrap the god-damned Patriot act entirely! I've said oit many times, Al-Qaeda has NEVER been a threat to our freedom or our way of life: Only our own Government is, and only our own Government ever will be!

My bet?  These guiys will either (1) be branded as RINO's, be blacklisted by the party and get voted out; (2) Be corrupted by politics and slowly morph into BIG GOVERMENT Conservatives - like the ones who wrote, supported, voted for and slandered anyone who opposed the "Patriot" Act in the first place; or (3) THEY WILL CHANGE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR THE BETTER.

And hey... If the oppositon on teh Right is made of PRINCIPLED "small government" types, who will actually STAND UP for our freedom?  I can certainly live with that!

All that being said, I'm still convinced that 99% of the tea party and their supporters are no more than a bunch of ingnorant, racist, greedy, immature, same-old-Republican, clowns. But on this day, this Liberal applauds those brave few Tea Partiers who've done more in one vote to defend our freedom than President Obama has doen in 2+ years. 

(And I only hope that idiot [Obama] figures that out, because otherwise we WILL be looking at President Fucking Palin in 2012!)

Congratulations, Keith!

I just read that Olbermann's got a new gig.  I'll be sure to tune in.  For a little-watched channel, Current's really got some great content already.  "Infomania" was one of my favorite shows at one point, though I lost interest when they stopped doing Sarah Haskin's "Target Women" segment.  Hopefully Olbermann's presence will substantially elevate them in public's consciousness. 

(Though in the meantime, watch the Fox-zombies laugh at his "misfortune," at being force to go to such a minor cable channel.  Lost on these idiots will be that he'll single handedly make Current significant, while the likes of Beck and Hannity were put on the map by Fox rather than the other way around.)

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing what comes of it.  Hopefully he'll keep doing his "Worst Person in the World" segment.  That was the consistently the best two minutes on television each night!

...

One more thing...

The last line of that article is representative of everything that's wrong with the media:

Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBCUniversal, which is majority owned by Comcast. Comcast also owns a stake in Current’s parent company, Current Media.
I have no problem with the disclosure, but no good will ever come of the fact that a mere nine corporations (or just six: Time-Warner, CBS, NBC, Viacom, Walt Disney, News Corps - suprising that Comcast is left out.  Maybe that was written by a Comcast guy? LOL) own and control 99.9% of the media.

(Oh, and, BTW... I don't necissarily endorse every view expressed in that article; only the overall point that Corporate Media Monoploies are bad news.)

Misogyny.

(Please take the vulgar bits humorously, as they are intended, and bear with me for the overall point.)


Now that gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, it was not going to take long before the question of women serving in combat comes up. Well… it’s already come up informally, but I mean as a legislative measure. And I’m sure everyone who was around the last time the Republicans promsied us "something different" remembers Newt Gingrich's wonderfully awkward explanation of why women shouldn’t be allowed in combat:

If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.

Now, just for fun, and to drive home the point later, I'm going to address the… *ahem* questionable points, in the order that they appear.

“living in a ditch”

OK. I realize that our men in green DO spend some time in “ditches,” but LIVING IN THEM? I’ve heard of “always fighting the last war” but THIS GUY seemed stuck fighting World War ONE!  Newt: We don’t have too many men “living in ditches” anymore.

“biological problems” and/or “infections”

I didn’t SEE him say this myself, but I seriously wonder if he was blushing. Newt? WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Is he seriously suggesting that the simple act of “living in a ditch” is somehow more likely to give a woman an “infection” than a man? Somehow I doubt he’s talking about the risk of stepping on a rusty nail on your trench-climbing ladder, but I also strongly suspect that he has no idea WHAT he’s fucking talking about, and that 99% of his audience will be too embarrassed to ask. (The other 1% were women, but the women in HIS audience apparently know better, or at least did way back in 1995, than to question the men.)

“they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare”

Nobody said the numbers should be 50/50, Newt. The INTEREST isn't even 50/50!  The question is why those “relatively rare” (not “rare” mind you, “relatively rare”) specimens of brute femininity are barred from combat operations. Unless you use your dick to load a rifle, I think you just shot your entire argument in the foot. (And I hence award it the Purple Heart, and you the Purple Brain.)

“men are basically little piglets”

The more I here assholes like Newt Gingrich speak, the more I tend to agree with this point, but don’t try to drag the rest of us down to your level, Newt.

“These things are very real.”

The last refuge of every bullshitter: Assuring you that he’s NOT bullshitting you! (And I PROMISE YOU: That’s a FACT!)

“a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time”

Did you ever notice how the only time a man like this asshole ever acknowledges that a woman might be even remotely competent at anything, it’s usually in a job that he figures most men wouldn’t want anyway? (And while it’s beside the point I’m trying to make, I think he’s severely underestimated the popularity of video gaming amongst our young male population, seeing as how the job in question was “managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets.”)

“because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes”

Who the fuck hunts giraffes? Seriously.

OK, THAT was fun. But what’s the POINT? (Apart from making Newt Gingrich look like a crusty old bafoon, which is about as difficult as poutting on a hat.)  Well… In thinking about this line of reasoning, something dawned on me. And I might be late to the party here, but I don’t care.  Maybe you'll all read this and say, "DUH!" But I thought it was rather profound, so please humor me. The chauvinists ALWAYS try to make this kind of an argument: That the sexes are equal, but not the same, and that they’re just good at different things. And USUALLY, at least to me, it seems that the things women are “good at” are generally things men don’t want to do. (Unless the job pays more.) (Which it certainly will, once more men start doing it!)

But it’s not about what women can or can’t do, or even can or can’t do better than men. That really isn’t part of the true reasoning at all. It’s completely irrelevant to them. And that’s evident even in Newt’s own rant: He acknowledges that some, “relatively rare” women, may in fact possess the necessary “upper body strength.” (IOW: Could probably DO this currently men-only job.) But he offers no reason why they should then just be written off. (Unless, as I said, a fifth appendage is somehow necessary to load a rifle and shoot someone.)

Now… give this same man a few drinks (i.e.: loosen him up) and ask him in all seriousness, if there’s REALLY anything a man can do passably well that women can’t.  See… I’ve (mis)spent a lot of my youth drinking with chauvinists and you’d be surprised how often (almost every time) I got the following answer: Pee standing up.


[tongue-in-cheek]

Now, putting aside the profound societal implications that upright urination otherwise enables, I’m sure these same men, in all their infinite wisdom, would be as surprised as many of you no doubt might be, to find out that woman CAN, in fact, pee standing up. With all the socially critical upright posture and politically important accuracy and stream velocity. In fact, with the slightest amount of practice, most women would find that they could “write their name in the snow” every bit as neatly and completely as most men can! (And that’s a critical, combat-related skill after all! I mean: What if your unit got lost in the arctic and you needed to leave a message to help your rescuers locate you?)

[/tongue-in-cheek]


OK, yes, I’m being a bit absurd. And more than a bit vulgar here. But in all seriousness, I am telling NO LIE in my evaluation of the human female’s potential aptitude for artistic expression in that particular media. And what do you supposed would be the answer received from these very same men, given evidence of that revelation?

Well… They’d probably say that it was disgusting. (As I’m sure many of you have also though once or twice by now, hopefully with a unwanted smile, at least on the inside.) But when THEY say “it’s disgusting” that a lot different from YOU saying it, and here’s why:

With you? It’s likely just because you don't appreca vulgarity as much as I hope you do. But with a "little piglet" like Gingrich? It’s because, just like with combat, it’s not about what women can or can’t do, but about what men like Newt Gingrich think they SHOULD be doing. Any woman who comes up against a piece of shit like [Gingrich] in their life, job, relationship, family, etc… will find a constantly moving set of goal posts. At first the man says, “No,” because, “you are not ABLE to do [whatever.]” Then, when a woman shows she CAN do [whatever], the objection becomes. “Men do it better” or (more PC) “men are biologically advantaged towards certain types of activities.” Then when a woman beats out every single man in the world in said activity? She still fails to gain appreciation or acceptance, this time for no reason other than “this is not something [they] think a woman SHOULD be doing.”

The woman’s aptitude for the task in irrelevant, because men like Newt Gingrich don’t really CARE about the task. What they CARE about is the POWER to determine WHO should be doing WHAT. The POWER to decide what tasks should be done by men, (i.e.: the relatively fun, uber-glorified, high paying ones) and what tasks men don’t want to do women are *ahem* better at. What women really can or can’t do, or what (or even IOF) they are REALLY better at, is secondary to these men maintaining their accumulated power over them.

It’s not about a woman taking a man's “job,” whatever that job might have been. It’s about a woman taking away a man’s power to decide where they belong, what a "man's job" actually IS, as opposed to their own ability and actual, objective evidence of their aptitude deciding. Like almost everything else with the Right, REALITY takes a back seat to the perpetuation of beliefs that are beneficial to maintaining their POWER.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear Rush Limbaugh, or any of these fools, talk about equal employment, equal pay, or other “women’s issues.”

(Which, despite what Newt Gingrich might tell you, don't generally have anything to do with “infections!”)

Silver Star Awards, January, 2011

We're up to the year 1957, and there was only inductee, from the Veterans Committee.




The Wahoo Sam Crawford Silver Star #23: How it Should Have Ended

I’ve said it many times, about many Silver Star Winners, but these guys are absolutely freaking hilarious.  They take popular and/or classic movies, change one or two obvious details that the writer and director managed to miss, and show you how it SHOULD HAVE  ended.  They’re website and/or their you-tube channel is a must–see for any movie buff.  Just to give you a sampling (and since there’s only one award this month, and thus super-short post) here’s a few of my favorites:

Star Wars:

Lord of the Rings:


Inception:

Wow.

Wow.

Guilty as charged, on most counts, and just... Wow.

Cracked hits it on the head once again.  Very intersting bit about the media, BTW.  Right on the nose.  But seriously, read the whole thing.  It's just...

Wow.

Good Night, and Good Luck, Keith.

I am very saddened to learn that Keith Olbermann will be leaving MSNBC.  I couldn't sum up his importance an better than MMFA founder David Brock did, saying that "led the charge" against "conservative misinformation in prime time," and "showed there was a market for progressive views on cable news."  Of all the opinion shown on Cable, and in the media in General, Countdown was arguably the one that most resembled actual journalism, the way it is supposed to be practiced, and his practice of criticising democrats and President Obama inarguably sets him apart from the "Left-Wing version of Fox" stereotype that lesser people in the media and the blogosphere would have you believe he represents.

I am curious to see if he DOES end up on CNN.  That would be pretty cool; though I laugh at the statement that it would "mean a dramatic shift in the network's determined nonpartisan stance.  I think it would be more accurate to say that it would "represent a return to balance, and an end to their leaning to the right." Hey, CNN: "Balance" isn't worth anything if it means you've got to let a Conservative Lie, because you've featured a Liberal telling the truth!" In any case, it would be nice to have another major Cable network featuring a strong, popular, and professional Liberal voice. (It would kind of poke a hole or two in the Right's perpetual argument about ratings and the market for Liberal opinion, huh?)  And I'm sure Rachael Maddow will do fine taking over his spot at MSNBC.  She's a great talent and actually, even a bit funnier than Keith. I will miss the "Worst Person in the World" segments though.  That has been my favorite two-minutes of television every week for the past few years now!  (Even if I missed the show, I'd tune in at the end, just to see that.  And if I missed it, I'd faithfully check the transcipts online the next day.)


Another thing I gleaned from this article was about Keith being "hard to work with." The example they give is his leaving MSNBC in the late 1990's because his bosses wanted him to do more about the absurd, non-story that was the Clinton "scandal."  I guess "hard to work with" is a euphemism for "principled and independent."  Like I said: More than any other opiner, what Keith does most closely resembles ACTUAL JOURNALISM.  I've NEVER seen him do PROPAGANDA, I challenge ANYONE on the Right to prove me wrong.

Anyway, Keith? You will be missed, but I'll be sure to tune in wherever you end up. Keep speaking truth to power, and never lose that principled, independent streak you've got.  It's your single greatest asset.  I'd watch a "hard to work with" truth-telling over an easy-going liar ANY day.  So keep fighting the good fight.  There's a generation of truth-tellers waiting to follow in your footsteps.

Good night and good luck, my friend.

Utopia, Chapter One, Cover Page Posted

I guess this means I've officially started, even if it IS just the cover page.  I'll link to the new pages from here, but if you're interested, you can see them all (rigth now, just this one) over at: http://niceguy-eddie.deviantart.com/. (For now.  I don't know if I'll stick with Deviantart or not.)

The comic is titled, "Utopia." The complete (and more pretentious) title is, "Utopia: What Would You Do with Absolute Power?"

Anyway, here's the cover page for Chapter One:

(click to enlarge it)

I DO have to fix the lettering, and probably add a border I guess, but this is the picture anyway.  I'm pretty happy with how it turned out.  The cover pages will typically (always?) feature some piece of architecture, with the Title and Chapter Number placed somewhere on it.  There will also be a quote, which sets up the theme of the chapter.  This is a representation of an anceint set of chortens, from Nepal.  The royal family once worshiped at the particular one I was using for inspiration.  The quote, in case you live under a rock, is from The Lord of the Rings.

Times flies and Civil discourse...

Before I begin, I want to say that this was written last week and I still haven't posted it.  I have be so busy, there is like no time left in my week anymore.  3 Blogs, an art class, and I've joined a gym.  Plus my wife still does aikido twice a week, which is (1) time I have to watch the kids, so can't blog; and (2) time I can't go to the gym, so I have to find other time.  Not that I mind her doing Aikido - I'm happy she's doing it, and doing well in it, I might add.  But somethig's got to give and SO FAR, it's been IMHO.  Now, without any further pitchign and moaning: On with the show...

Wow. So a couple of weeks have flown right on by, and I didn’t make any time to write anything down about it! And what a couple of weeks it’s been. “Speaker” Boehner. *shudder* We’ll see how long that lasts! The unfortunate events in Tucson, and the terrible fate that played out on January 8th. And part of me wants to say “Thank God” that it WASN’T some deranged Tea-Bagger or Glenn Beck fan, or else there would now be some liberal, somewhere, embarrassing himself and the rest of us the way Sarah Palin did for her crowd. Hey: I watched it happen after Seung-Hui Cho and Virginia Tech – the closest thing I have to hallowed ground, I might add. The vigil hadn’t ended before you had assholes on one side calling for more gun control laws (note: the ones we already have weren’t enforced, and the existing system was not operating the way it was designed to, or even being used) and assholes on the other side saying that it's just proof that we ALL need to start carrying guns. Right. Because apparently what Blacksburg and Tucson needed on those terrible days were MORE confused, panicked people finring weapons through the crowd. Anyway, the one guy I think had the best take on the inevitable politicization of public tragedies was Professor Bob Carrol, someone who I usually think has the best take on just about everything. Check it out: Contrary-to-fact Conditionals & Media Vultures in my Crosshairs

I’m not saying that we SHOULDN’T be more civil in our discourse, but using tragedy to highlight even THAT (which to some people STILL constitutes an “agenda”) is still politicizing it. At some point, we need to let the families grieve in piece and realize that the WORLD is not like the INTERNET: People don’t want to hear our opinions immediately after a loved one has died, and no one is looking to us to solve all the world’s problems with a proposal that can fit on a bumper sticker. It’s tempting, I know. But this was nothing more than “just one of those crazy things that happens in this fucked up world.” Civil discourse would not have prevented it. Nor would gun control laws. Nor would MORE guns. Nor would the death penalty. Nor would anything that some dipshit in our sad excuse for the media has to suggest. And little they’re going to say will help anyone make sense of what happened either. There’s not a lesson to be learned, nor is there any hidden meaning, and God doesn’t have a grand plan, here. Each was simply the random act of a madman.

Personally? I might say it’s the price we pay to live in a free and open society. I don’t know if I REALLY DO believe that, entirely, in this case. But the principles are there, and I’ve argued it before. But if I DID decide to make that case, I’d at least have the decency to wait until the dead had been buried and mourned, and not say that in a forum where one of the family would hear it! (Which means… NATIONAL TV is probably out!) What I WILL say is this: My heart goes out to the victims and their families. I can not imagine the pain they must be feeling. They have my sincerest condolences, and I do hope that in time they will find peace.

Was that so hard?

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

A quick adendum... my condolences also go out to the Kennedy and Shriver families for their loss today of Sargent Shriver.  I can't wait to read about Ann Coulter's summary of the man's life, as she evicerates him for the crimes of being (1) a democrat, (2) a Kennedy (sort of) and (3) someone who actually accomplished some GOOD with their life.

Welcome back!

Welcome back! I hope everyone had a safe and happy holiday. I spent about a week visiting relatives in Massachusetts. Since my parents live in Florida, we don’t get up to Massachusetts very often. So from that perspective, it was good to see everybody again. From another… Well, one thing I’ve noticed as I’ve gotten older and presumably, though probably not proportionately, wiser is that I’ve become more aware of what’s going on under the surface of things. Underneath that polite veneer that’s presented to the world, and which as a child I assumed there was nothing behind – that we were just a big happy family with no politics or strife. And that’s not to say that we aren’t, but my god… It drives me nuts just how much into everyone else business they insist of getting, and how much petty sniping goes on in terms of who’s thinks what, and who said what, and who didn’t go to who’s party, or who’s more generous or more stingy, who got the better gifts… Holy hot hopping hell, it’s like going around the table at Thanksgiving and everyone declaring how good everyone else has it! (And realize that these folks are all very well off! No one’s losing their house, or living on the edge.) But seriously, I could never stand having that many people up in my business all time! Oh my God… It drives you nuts after a while! (And the relative lack of that in my life is one of the advantages of living where I do!)

Anyway, we’re home now. And I must say that while overall we DID have a good time, there were some interesting political discussions that happened on this trip that I’d like to share with you all. I’ll say up front, that most of these I was little more than an observer or a devil’s advocate. For the most part I’m keen to let the family partisans fight it out – no one’s really listening to anyone else anyway, or has any intention of changing their position, so I’d rather not waste my breath burning bridges.

The first involved the Massachusetts State Law regarding care for the elderly. In Massachusetts, as in many other places, If a person cannot pay for their own long term care - and let’s face it: if you don’t have a lot of money, LTC insurance and a decent source of income into retirement, few can – then when you need to enter a nursing home, the state will provide this service, taking care of those elderly and indigent people who can no longer care for themselves. These facilities are not great places of course – the one in question was a real shithole. And yet… the costs are still astronomical. Well beyond what most people could afford even for a short time, let alone indefinitely. Now, when you are in these institutions, you are now a ward of the State. The State gets your pension, your social security, and gives you just a small weekly allowance (to spend on what, I wonder? No one ever leaves the building!) They also take any assets you have, to cover the costs of your care. If you own a house? The state will take it. Car? Same. (Etc…) There are ways around this, of course. Since laws are written by lawyers, to give more work to other lawyers, there are trusts and other estate planning tools that will allow your family to keep most or all of these assets. One has to wonder why you would write a law, and then immediately create another law whose sole purpose is to circumvent the first law, but that’s the biggest problem with politics and legislation. Beyond any Liberal or Conservative issues, the primary problem is that laws are written by legislators who are primarily – like 90% of them – LAWYERS. And their “secret agenda” is not Liberal or Conservative per se - it’s primarily to drum up more business for lawyers. If they can write a law that will result in more law suits? Or that can further complicate tax law or estate law and thus make even more work for tax and estate lawyers? They’re all over it.

ANYWAY… Feel as you will about the idea of the State taking your house, or about the fact that if you pay a lawyer to write up a new trust every couple of years, your family can keep the house, the fact is that caring for the elderly is expensive. And SOMEONE, SOMEHOW needs to pay for it! The real point of contention, and where my Father – a staunch Conservative, Republican, borderline Tea-Party type - started chiming in is that in addition to what I’ve mentioned already, Massachusetts does what they call a “five-year look back” to see if you made any large gifts over the past five years. And if you did? The State can go after the recipient to get them back! Again, this sounds really unfair, but MANY States have these look-back periods. They’re basically meant to prevent people from giving their assets away to family in order to get around paying for the care they’ll receive from the State. And, while it seems like it sucks at first, when you think about it, it’s basically FAIR. Well… My father’s having none of that: To him it’s bullshit that the State would take property, let alone look back five years and take it from other people! Now, he understood WHY they do this. He KNOWS that people could easily cheat the system, were it not for the look back system. So I asked him: How would you pay for it then? Shitty a lifestyle though it may be, this is a necessary, expensive service that’s being provided! Why is it wrong to ask the recipients of that service to pay whatever they can for it? I then added the kicker, reminding him that the alternative was socializing it, through higher taxes, spreading the cost across everyone, and making everyone pay for it. That’s a solution that I don’t really have a problem with: it would be part of my overall health care system. But I KNEW he’d never go for it. And, big surprise, he admitted that he had no ideas for alternatives, although he did point out that the family themselves used to care for their elderly relatives in house. (Yeah: Back when you could raise a family on one income, and people didn’t live nearly as long!) Anyway, I learned a long time ago that you can never get a Conservative to admit he’s wrong, but if you can get them to admit that they have no ideas? Count that as a win. For me? I just see it as evidence that Conservatives are basically whiny little bitches who want something for nothing. (And in this case a Government handout and socialized medicine! Imagine that!) But PAY FOR IT? What kind of liberal nonsense is that?!

Also hilarious, to me anyway, is hearing someone like my dad (a very wealthy man, I should add) talk about how we should just go to a “flat tax.” Now… first off all, he’s a deficit hawk, big time. Granted, he’s your typical Right Winger when it comes to the deficit: Lower Taxes (huh?), cut entitlements, trim defense (at worst), no earmarks, no pork, etc… in other words, basically shitty ideas that will do nothing to fix the deficit, and do great harm to the economy and to people’s lifestyles. But when he talks about a flat tax, I wonder if he’s even capable of basic arithmetic. Because if you assume a rate that doesn’t INCREASE the deficit, YES, his rate would go down, but the rates of ~98% of Americans would go UP. A LOT. When 1% of you population make 20% of the income (note: I just made that up – whatever the actual numbers are, it pretty bad) you cannot lower their tax bracket without raising everyone else’s, if you (1) want everyone to have the same rate. And (2) don’t want to increase the deficit / debt. So… why, you might ask would a Conservative be so much in favor or RAISING everyone’s taxes? I don’t have a clue. No, my dad’s not a stupid man. A bit self-centered in his perspective maybe, but he’s not DUMB. He just suffers for the typical Conservative’s disease of completely lacking logical consistently, self-awareness and principled pragmatism.

Another bit topic of conversation was the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” To which I say, “It’s about damned time, and what the hell took so long?!” But my Brother in Law was in the Navy and my Cousin was a Marine, and they’re both Conservatives – my brother-in-law to a kind of annoying, Sean Hannity degree, my cousin to a more psychotic G.Gordon Liddy / Mike Savage degree. And of course, despite the fact that they both served with gays, whether they knew it or not, this was of course going to signal the death knell of American Military Dominance. Putting aside of course that we spend twice on defense what England, France, Russia and China do combined. Putting aside that almost every other non-Muslim country has already done the same thing, and it’s had no impact. Putting aside that polls showed that even 70% of White Evangelical Christians supported its repeal… It all over. We’re doomed. And it seemed like everyone else (most of whom range from Massachusetts Democrats to Massachusetts Liberals) just LOVED to get my cousin torqued up about it, and get him going on one of his homophobic rants. Don’t get me wrong: I love a good rant as much as the next guy, even when I disagree with the speaker. It’s fun to see a man feeding off his own hatred, anger and fears. It’s fun to see someone just lose it. I know. I’m human too! But as I listened to him, a theme started to emerge that I found rather… disturbing.

I can’t really cite any one thing he said, but he acted like the Marines were their own entity. As if they were a club that could make their own rules and their own policies, rather than an arm of the democratically elected Government, created to enforce theirs. He acted like the Marines existed only to fight – which, yes, they do – but beyond that, as if their whole raison detre was fighting for fighting’s sake alone, or for any reason they alone saw fit, and that other factors, like actual foreign policy and actual American Values like freedom and equality were not the REASON they were fighting. I’m not going to suggest that he speaks for all Marines, but to hear him going off, in an almost thug-like, borderline-Nazi manner, you’d think he thought that it was the Marines, and the mentality of Marines like him that decided (not SHOULD decide, but ACTUALLY decided) what they should be fighting for, what the country stands for, and how the laws should be made and that somehow anything that goes against that fascist psychosis somehow constitutes a betrayal of our brave men and women in uniform. But answer me this: If you’re in the Middle East fighting a bunch of misogynistic, theocratic homophobes, and yet you DON’T believe in religious freedom, or equality, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE FIGHTING FOR?! At that point, you can only be fighting for fighting’s sake. I don’t believe, as he does, that America is betraying that part of the Military by allowing Gays to serve openly. I believe that for many years, large parts of the Military have been betraying American values by not respecting, supporting and fighting for what America actually believes and stands for: Equality and religious freedom.

And one point he actually said, “I don’t judge them [gays], but they’re deviants!” Remember what I said about lacking self-awareness?

Of course, the TSA and Muslim profiling came up. At which point I had to point out (again) that the terrorists were not the ones with long beards and turbans, but rather the clean-shaven ones wearing suits. Also that a turban was rarely indicative of a MUSLIM, and far more often indicative of a HINDU. And that the average Hindu hates Muslims even more that then average American bigot does. Now this lead to a brief conversation about other religions, and which point my Mom asked me what religion “those kids I went to school with were.” I knew the ones she meant: The ones who wore turbans and never, in their life, have cut their hair. To which I answered that they were Sikhs. My brother-in-law chimed in, adding that they “wear daggers around their necks” which is technically true, but also a grossly misleading oversimplification. After which my Father commented that it was a religious with “weird beliefs.” I asked him, “What religion DIDN’T ask you to believe weird things?” and then said, “Do you know what you call a religion without weird beliefs? SCIENCE. (And maybe Philosophy.)” That earned me a wink and a nod from my Uncle, by far the most liberal man in the room, and one of the most liberal men I know.

Speaking of weird beliefs… Do notice how some people will believe anything about someone they don’t like politically?

There was an article – on the front page of the Boston Globe no less – about the fact that the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s dog died. (Yes the Kennedy’s are still royalty in Massachusetts to the point where the death of a dead Kennedy’s dog is front page news!) Now… I noticed something in the article that, I thought, revealed either a gross display of bad taste, or a complete lack of self-awareness on the part of the late Senator. The dog’s name? SPLASH. Seriously. A guy who will forever be remember for driving his car off a bridge, drunk, into a river and allowing a female campaign aid worker to die in the icy water… named his dog SPASH. Now… although I’m not a particular critic of the late Senator, I found this point to be at least a bit perversely humorous - my favorite kind of humor - so I pointed it out. At which point Sean Hannity my brother-in-law started talking about how Kennedy often used to “joke about killing that woman,” and how he was such a scumbag, etc… Now… He works at the Pentagon. And he does occasionally rub elbows with people who actually may have had conversations and even a relationship with the late Senator. But the way he told the story? “I heard,” “People say,” that sort of thing? Just makes me file it under “People will believe anything about someone they disagree with politically.” I don’t know if it happened or not. I have no idea. It could have. But what I do know? Is that a Conservative’s burden of proof is fairly low, when it comes to bad things being said about Progressives or Liberalism.

Anyway, while it was still a good time overall… It’s definitely good to be home


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

BTW… There’s was this John Stossell thing that ran on Fox while we were up there that I’d like to debunk, but this post is long enough, and that’s a post that should probably be its own post anyway.