Fuckin' Texas, Man!

The Texas Supreme Court sided Friday with a family accused of not teaching its children anything while waiting to be "raptured,"

"Raptured." And I guess that when the Rapture happens, God isn't going to take anyone with basic arithmetic skills or knowledge of history.

Look, if you believe in the Rapture, that's fine. You can believe whatever you want or whatever makes sense to you. Why you would think that the return of Christ is imminent, considering that Christians since New Testament times have thought that the end was right around the corner, is beyond me, but you certainly have the right to believe that. You even have the right to make your kids believe that. Maybe you shouldn't, but that's a discussion for another time.

But whatever you believe, you still have to follow the law. (Or, I guess in Texas you don't, apparently). You don't get to neglect your obligation to prepare your children for real life just because you think they probably won't need it.

They probably won't need a basic education because God is coming back and obviously, OBVIOULSY, you are in the top whatever percentile of righteousness that will get to lounge around Heaven with Kirk Cameron while the rest of us are tribulated,  And your kids are obviously also going to make the cut because righteousness is genetic? Or just because God is totally cool with nepotism?

So, okay, you're convinced that the world is going to end next week or whatever and God better not find you solving for X when He gets back, so you're going to spend all your time memorizing Psalms or whatever. But surely, the state of Texas has rules about educating your children, right? Surely, even Texas must have some standards that homeschoolers have to live up to, right?

Texas doesn't require parents who home-school their children to register with state authorities. While families must meet "basic educational goals" in reading, spelling, grammar, mathematics and citizenship, they don't have to give standardized testing or otherwise prove student progress is made.

Oh, fer. . . Then what is the point? What is the point of having "educational goals" if there's no way to tell whether the goals are being reached? What the hell is even the point?

Problems for Laura and Michael McIntyre, who once educated their nine children

Of course they have nine children. Of course they do!

. . . who once educated their nine children in an empty office at the family's motorcycle dealership in El Paso, arose after an uncle told the school district that he never saw the children do much of anything educational. According to court filings, he also overheard of the children tell a cousin "they did not need to do schoolwork because they were going to be raptured,"

You know, when your own brother is ratting you out, maybe it's time to take a good hard look in the mirror.

The family's eldest daughter, 17-year-old Tori, ran away from home in 2006 so she could return to school.

Wow, running away from home so you can go to school! I used to try and think up ways to get out of going to school. I guess you really appreciate the value of an education when yours has been woefully inadequate.

The El Paso district put her in the ninth grade because officials weren't sure she could handle higher grade-level work.

Attempting to investigate accusations of non-learning, school district attendance officer Michael Mendoza sought proof the children were being properly educated. That prompted the McIntyres to sue, arguing that their equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment had been violated and that the school district was anti-Christian.

How does that violate the equal protection clause? Anyone whose children are suspected of not being properly educated could expect a visit from the truant officer. It's like a bank robber complaining because no one else in the bank is being arrested. And I hardly think that wanting your kids to be able to do long division and write a coherent paragraph is being anti-Christian. I'm fairly certain that mathematics and language arts are not forbidden anywhere in the Good Book.

The high court found that 14th Amendment claims were not a question for Texas' educational code.

"Whether their constitutional rights were violated remains to be decided, but it is a question the courts — not the commissioner — must decide," Justice John Devine wrote,

Okay, that makes sense, but. . . um. . . you are the courts. You're the Supreme Court. If you say that the courts need to decide, then decide. It's you! You are the . . . how is this not obvious?

The lower courts may ask for new briefs detailing each side's argument, but there's "a very good chance" that the larger constitutional issues could eventually be settled legally, according to Chad Baruch, an attorney who represents the McIntyres.

Since the case involved alleged educational violations, the justices sent it back to the El Paso Court of Appeals, which can either rule on it or ship it back to the trial court, also located in El Paso.

Come on! You know this is just going to end up back on your desk. Whoever loses in the lower court is going to appeal this back up to you. Meanwhile there's nine kids getting screwed out of a decent education because their parents think they're going to be airlifted to Heaven next week.

Fuckin' Texas, man!

I really don't understand the European Union

so it's weird seeing this monumental, historical event and not knowing how to feel about it. Is the EU a positive, a negative, a little of both? Should England be congratulated or pitied? I really had no way of knowing. Until now.


Sarah Palin is all for the "Brexit," so that's pretty much all I need to know that this was a huuuuge mistake for the UK.

Sarah Palin celebrates Brexit, says U.K. avoided ‘apocalyptic One World Government’

Of course. Because there couldn't possibly be any logical reason. It couldn't possibly be like there's an economic advantage or something. No, it's straight to the One World Government. Of course.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...
The UK knew - it was that time. And now is that time in the USA.

Yes. we should also leave the Europe.
Okay, knowing her she's probably just fantasizing about secession again.





Which of course, of course, is again being bandied about by those patriots in fucking Texas.

CBS News June 25, 2016, 12:31 AM

From Brexit to Texit? Renewed calls for Texas secession after EU vote

U.S. secessionists hankering for 'Texit'

Brexit inspires Texas, California secession movements

 Et tu, Californe?

Then she gets into the really stupid part:

The Brexit referendum is akin to our own Declaration of Independence.

 

It took some real guts for the Founders to declare independence from Britain. They knew King George wasn't going to let them go without a fight and England had probably the most formidable military in the world at the time. And declaring independence was completely unprecedented. They had no way of knowing how other nations would react. there was a good chance that other monarchies would join in on the side of England to preserve the institution of the monarchy. That's why the Declaration ends with the signers pledging their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Because by breaking away from England there was a good chance they would lose all of those things. It was a real act of courage, knowing that, as Ben Franklin said, they might all "hang separately."

"Brexit," on the other hand, seems to involve the UK saying "thanks, but no thanks." One nation leaving a voluntary congregation of countries with no one threatening any use of force or reprisals of any kind seems pretty different than the US sqauring up against the most powerful nation on Earth.

Congratulations, smart Brits. Good on you for ignoring all the fear mongering from special interest globalists

Um, I'm not a close follower of British politics, but it seems to me that it was the "leave" side who were doing the fear-mongering, predicting an end of English culture as the UK is overrun with swarthy immigrants.

Oh, and fair warning. . .




Oh, yeah. If you thought this was just going to be one of those times when Palin sticks to just being stupid, you're in for a treat. Because this sentence-fragment casserole is about to get bizarre!

. . . special interest globalists who tend to aim for that apocalyptic One World Government that dissolves a nation's self-determination and sovereignty... the EU being a One World Government mini-me.

 Told ya!

Okay, first of all, I don't know which is a more dated reference, the "one world government" or "Mini-Me."

 

Way to jump on that pop-culture train at the hottest moment.!

Also, if you're trying to portray the EU as a scary, evil, despotic threat to freedom, maybe refer to a less cuddly movie character?

 

And also, too, since when do you object to bringing on the Apocalypse? You Evangelicals wait for the "End Times" the way I wait for the next season of Orphan Black. 

I got all my sestras with me!

America can learn an encouraging lesson from this.
It is time to dissolve political bands that connect us to agendas not in our best interest. May UN shackles be next on the chopping block.
- Sarah Palin

The UN "shackles?" What does that even. . .do you even know what shackles are?

 

Turns out you have to pretty careful doing an image search for "shackles!" Yeeks!

Shackles keep you from doing things. What has the UN ever kept America from doing?  I mean, we bombed, invaded and occupied a foreign country that had done us no harm and the UN was like "oh, no. Please don't." What freedoms do you think that we would gain by leaving the UN? And anything from the book of Revelations doesn't count.

Oh, and I find it a bit ironic that when it comes to basic common-sense things like Universal Healthcare, or a minimum wage that's a living wage, America has nothing to learn from anyone and you're a goddamm commie for suggest ing otherwise because everything we do is the best. But when England makes what appears to be a collossal blunder based largely on racial animus, well suddenly "America can learn an encouraging lesson from this."

Really, Maureen Dowd? Really?

Check out Maureen Dowd's brilliant analysis of the Trump campaign so far.

Trump in the Dumps

Maureen Dowd


Here is the first line of her column:

Washington — HE won’t pivot. So I have to.

So, yeah. Why bother having any kind of credibility or professionalism. I've made up my mind that I'm going to support this ludicrous joke of a candidate, so if he refuses to stop being horrible, I'll just have to shift my own sensibilities to be able to justify my support of a monstrous clown. It's called integrity, people. Look it up!

Or, to be fair, maybe she's saying that Trump's refusal to act like a respectable human being now that the GOP horror show is over is making her consider "pivoting" away from supporting him? Which isn't really much better. I mean saying, I was going to support this racist, misogynist self-absorbed oaf because  I thought he was going to start pretending to not be racist, misogynistic and oafish doesn't really speak well for you either.

Anyway. . .
She continues.

Having seen Donald Trump as a braggadocious but benign celebrity in New York for decades

Benign? I think you'd maybe have to ask all the people who were thrown out of affordable apartments so that Trump could convert their buildings into expensive condos how "benign" Donald is. Or maybe ask some of the contractors he stiffed or the creditors he left holding the bag when his various scams developments went belly-up how "benign" they consider him.

Having seen Donald Trump as a braggadocious but benign celebrity in New York for decades, I did not regard him as the apotheosis of evil. He seemed more like a toon, a cocky huckster swanning around Gotham with a statuesque woman on his arm and skyscrapers stamped with his brand. I certainly never would have predicted that the Trump name would be uttered in the same breath as Hitler, Mussolini and scary menace, even on such pop culture staples as “The Bachelorette.”

"Scary Menace?" you couldn't think of one more name of an actual scary menace from history to round out your list? You went "hmm, Hitler, Mussolini. . . oh who knows? There probably aren't any more?" You couldn't pull out Pinochet? Or Stalin? Or Franco? Scary menace? That's pretty lazy writing for someone whose work is inexplicably syndicated nationwide.

Trump jumped into the race with an eruption of bigotry, ranting about Mexican rapists and a Muslim ban. 

You know, "benign."

But privately, he assured people that these were merely opening bids in the negotiation; 

Oh. Okay, then. He opens the negotiations with "Mexicans are rapists" and then maybe bargains down to "most Mexicans are sexual assaulters?" His opening offer is to deport all Muslims, but he's maybe willing to settle for "except Kareem Abdul Jabbar?" 

How is that better? Is it supposed to be that he's not really a horrible bigot, he's just pandering to horrible bigots? Or is it that sure, he's a bigot, but not nearly as much as he pretends to be. He's just trying to negotiate an acceptable level of bigotry? Who negotiates biogotry? How is there a negotiation? It doesn't even make sense.

He yearned to be compared to Ronald Reagan, a former TV star who overcame a reputation for bellicosity and racial dog whistles to become the most beloved Republican president of modern times.

Well, he didn't so much overcome those things as the media and our society decided to ignore and gloss over them

 Trump was applying his business cunning, Twitter snarkiness and bendy relationship with the truth to his new role as a Republican pol.

So. . . he's a dick and a liar? Pretty much anyone coulda told you that.

When Trump pulled back the curtain on how Washington Republicans had been stringing their voters along for years with bold promises, like repealing Obamacare, that they knew had no chance, it was a rare opportunity to see them called out.

Yeas, he called them out for making unrealistic promises. Not at all like his totally reasonable proposal to build a giant wall and make a foreign nation pay for it somehow.

His obnoxious use of ethnicity only exposed the fact that Republicans had been using bigotry against minorities and gays to whip up voters for decades.

You know, he's not a performance artist. He actually is a bigot. He's not doing a Stephen Colbert-type parody of Republican bigotry. This is who he is.

The G.O.P. would love to drop Trump now because it prefers a candidate in the party’s more subtle racist traditions.

Um, the GOP would like to dump Trump because he is going to lose spectacularly to an unpopular Democratic opponent. They would nominate George Wallace in a Klan robe if he out-polled Hillary.

The neocons calling Trump a fascist would certainly prefer a more militaristic candidate.


Yes, because who is less militaristic than a fascist? They're practically Quakers!

then there's some blah blah blah, so skipping ahead. . .

He has made some fair points.

He has made some fair points. A lot of our allies do take advantage of us. Our trade deals have left swaths of America devastated.

What? Large swaths of America have been devastated by American companies gleefully shipping good jobs to low-wage hellholes. They didn't need trade deals to do that. No CEO was sitting around saying "Gawd, I would love to move production to Bangladesh, if only Congress would hurry up and approve NAFTA!"

It's not our allies that are taking advantage of us. It's corporate America happily screrwing over the American workers. You think Trump is gonna change that?

And it was a positive move to propose a meeting with the N.R.A. on gun control for people on the terrorist watch list.

NO!!! NO, that's not a positive move. Further legitimizing the NRA's stranglehold on our nation's gun policies is NOT a positive move. Bobby Kennedy did not call a meeting with the 5 families to discuss whether they might give him permission to crack down on organized crime. You don't ask the root of the problem to consider allowing you to try to fix the problem. All you're doing is confirming that they are the ones in control and you're willing to kiss their ring and pretend like this isn't a tragic travesty. You might as well meet with NAMBLA to discuss what the penalties for child molestation should be. The word you're looking for is not "positive." It's "pathetic."

But his fair points are getting outnumbered by egregious statements and nutty insinuations, like suggesting that President Obama is tolerant of ISIS attacks, an echo of the kooky birther campaign that he led, suggesting that Obama wasn’t qualified to be president.

Now Trump’s own behavior is casting serious doubt on whether he’s qualified to be president.

Really. Ya think? Ya think this buffoon might possibly not be qualified for the highest office in the land? Are ya startin' to think that maybe, just maybe this boorish clod might not be the best choice to lead our nation? Really? Are you sure?

You Couldn't Make This Shit Up!

This whole Donald Trump thing just keeps getting more and more bizarre.

Three days after sending out an e-m,ail blast begging for sup[porters to donate $100k, which should be between-the-couch-cushions change for a supposed billionaire, one of Trump's coterie of weirdo spokespeople went on CNN to declare:

Money is not a problem for our campaign.

 

Honest to God, this is her LinkedIn profile picture!

 

Then she had this exchange with CNN host Brooke Baldwin:

“Guess what? Mr. Trump is a billionaire,” Goertz repeated. “Money is not a problem. Yeah, I’m sure all the papers are saying that. The papers need to say something about Mr. Trump: We are winning, he is the nominee in my mind.”

Baldwin noted that Trump was down 5 points in the latest CNN poll.
“That’s nothing,” Goertz scoffed. “

Wow!
That's like someone going on ESPN and saying "the Dodgers are leading the National League West." And then the host says "well, here's today's standings, and you can see that the Giants are 5 games ahead of the Dodgers." And then the first guy says "Pfft! Five games? Big deal!"

I mean, I know facts are completely optional in Trumpland, and GOPland in general, but how does someone who is supposedly a professional spokeswoman tell such a blatant obvious and easily-disprovable lie on national television? Okay, sure, it's CNN, but there are still some people watching in sandwich shops with the volume off.

Oh, and by the way, look at what this oddball lists as her previous professional experience on her LinkedIn:

Tana Goertz (Hey Tana)

Senior Advisor at Donald J Trump for President Inc.

Des Moines, Iowa Area

Government Relations

Current	Donald Trump for President, The Trump Organization, Donald Trump Presidential Campaign
Previous	Reality Stars Fear Factor, The Apprentice Season 3
Education	University of Utah

Your entire professional resume consists if having appeared on stupid reality game shows, now you're a "senior advisor" to one of two people who could possibly be the next President! You couldn't make this shit up!


Oh, and speaking of shit up which you could not make, this is Trump's actual fundraising email:








How is this matching funds bullshit supposed to be an incentive? Generally, when one does the matching funds thing, it's for funds given to a third party. It's not "for every dollar you give to me, I will also give a dollar to me." That's not helping. If anything, that just seems like you really don't need the little people's donations. If you have $2 million ready to toss into the pot, why the hell should I give you my 10 or 20 hard-earned bucks? Just so you can say that your fundraiser was "the most successful in modern political history?" ( Modern political history, mind you. Even Trump couldn't compete with Constantine the 4th's marketing prowess.)
Seriously, matching funds donated to yourself? You couldn't make this shit up!

Senate Cowards fuck us again.

The shameful spectacle that is our United States Senate hit another new low. After being arm-twisted into pretending to consider modest gun-law reforms, four bills were proposed and all four died like a child facing an armed madman with an AK.  Were they voted down? No. Not exactly. None of them even came to a vote because they couldn't get 60 votes for cloture.

Is there any more pathetic scene than the party which holds the majority filibustering their own bills?
You're in the majority, any bill you don't like you can vote down. The majority party should NEVER have to filibuster anything!

The only possible reason for the majority to filibuster a bill is that they know good and damn well that their constituents want this and they want to reject it without having to stand up and vote nay on the record. These craven, crawling cowards know that the American people want sensible restrictions on gun ownership but they are too afraid of losing their A+ scores from the vile NRA to actually represent the people who elected them. And they don't have the balls to stand up, look their constituents in the eye and say "here's why we're fucking you over. Here's why we would rather let mass murders continue to happen on a daily basis than make any effort to try and stem the flow of blood in our nation's streets."

There is a list of the sick cowards here: http://iammyfather.tumblr.com/post/146259409823/vote-these-fuckers-out ifyou have any doubt whether your Senator was among them. (Hint: If there is an R after their name, then yes.) But how about some recognition for two Senators in particular who saw the epidemic of senseless slaughter and said "hmm. . .what if I could come up with a way to make it worse?"

First: Chuck Grassley. When I saw that one of the gun control bills had been proposed by Grassley, I had a glimmer of hope. Stupid, stupid hope. I thought for a second "have we maybe finally reached such a tipping point that even a kook like Grassley is finally acknowledging that we need some restrictions on guns?" Haha, no.
Here's what Grassley proposes.

SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Protecting Communities and 
     Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2016''.

So right away you know this is bullshit, because can you really do both? Protect communities AND preserve the right-wing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Probably not.

Then there's a whole bunch of mind-numbing legal crap, but the wonderful Igor Volsky sums up the effects of the amendment as:

"It would allow an individual to regain the ability to buy a gun immediately upon release from a period of INVOLUNTARY PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT. It would also allow veterans who suffer from serious mental illness and are at risk of suicide to legally buy guns (emphasis added. By me.)

So, sure, why should having been locked up in a god damn insane asylum keep you from owning weapons of death? And if our brave young men and women who were damaged in the service of their country want to kill themselves, who are we to try and stop them? All in all, a real piece of shit amendment from a real piece of shit excuse for a human being.

Then there's Jon Cornyn. Volsky sums up Cornyn's amanedment thusly:

"A suspected terrorist will be able to purchase a gun unless the Attorney General can prove in court that the suspect has already or will actually commit an act of terrorism. The accused individual must have an opportunity to contest the evidence against him/her and present their own. All this must occur within 3 business days."

Jeezus, where to even begin?
First of all, it's nice to see a right-wing Republican suddenly concerned with due process for terrorism suspects. Although, not those being held in indefinite detention in Guantanamo, or being tortured in CIA black sites, or popping up on the "okay to kill with drone strike" list. No, only for those who want to buy guns. Then suddenly, Cornyn is some kind of civil libertarian.
Also, if the Attorney General could prove that the person HAD committed an act of terrorism, that person would be in some prison we've never heard of being waterboarded and God knows what else. And it is of course completely impossible to prove that someone WILL commit an act of terrorism. Or any act. It's not possible to prove that I'm going to finish typing this sentence. So basically, anyone who in in the US and outside of prison walls can have any gun they want. Because Freedom, I guess?

And this is what is being proposed NOW. In the wake of our nation's worst ever mass shooting. This is what those fuckers came up with, more guns in the hands of the mentally disturbed and terrorism suspects. That's the response. To make things even worse.

 Apparently, even the Senate Republicans, a vile and loathsome group that includes such walking nightmares as Ted Cruz and James Inhofe, couldn't bring themselves to vote on these, that's how disgusting these two amendments are.

So, we're back to what is somehow, inexplicably, miserably, heartbreakingly considered "normal" in the US. Innocent people being mowed down like Australians at Galipoli  is just considered one of those unavoidable unpleasantries by the people who are actually in a position to do something about it. While the rest of us plead for some, any, effort to mitigate the epidemic, our "leaders" kowtow to the death merchants, send "thoughts and prayers" to the victims and shout FREEDOMMMM!!! all the way to the bank. It's sick and disgusting and it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.

Dick Of The Day

Congressman Steven Palazzo (R- Miss)

It all started out very nicely. US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announce that the Navy would be naming a ship after my Congressman, civil rights icon John Lewis.

 Not the most flattering picture, but you get the idea how respected this man is in our district.

At a ship-naming ceremony in January, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced, "Naming this ship after John Lewis is a fitting tribute to a man who has, from his youth, been at the forefront of progressive social and human rights movements in the U.S., directly shaping both the past and future of our nation."

So nobody could possibly have any problem with this, right?


Bill would strip John Lewis of naval ship namesake

June 15, 2016 | Filed in: John Lewis. 

 

 Wait, what? 

Who could possibly object to this?

It doesn't cost anything, we're building the damn ship anyway. 

Who is  trying to stop this?

Sponsored by Mississippi Republican Steven Palazzo, the legislation would bar the Navy from naming vessels after lawmakers who have not served as president or in the military.

 You know, I could maybe, MAYBE believe that this bill was something other than a huge piece of racist dickestry had it limited ships to being named after people who had served in the Navy, or in the military at all, but no. He has to include "or they were president" so we don't have to re-name the SS Gipper.

 

 So, basically ships can only be named after guys that the right-wing considers admirable. And civil rights heroes are definitely not showing up in that category.


According to WaPo:

The ship naming process has been a hot-button issue in some GOP circles in the recent past. (Secretary of the Navy Ray) Mabus, who was appointed by President Obama in 2009, has been criticized for bending traditions to name ships for figures including civil rights activist Cesar Chavez and former Rep. Gabriel Giffords (D-Ariz.), who survived an assassination attempt at a 2011 event in her district.

But of course, Palazzo's bill has nothing to do with his being offended by the idea of honoring Civil Rights Legends like Chavez or Lewis, or someone whose name has become synonymous with the need to do something to prevent gun violence.

Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.) said believes the naming of ships should be reserved for former presidents, war heroes and people who have served in the military, which neither Lewis (D-Ga.) nor Levin (D-Mich.) did.
“My amendment has nothing — absolutely zero — to do with John Lewis or any other member of Congress,” Palazzo said in a statement.

"It's nothing personal against John Lewis,"  he probably did not add, "it's just the idea of honoring a black person. . .ooogh! Am I right?"

So congratulations, Mississippi Congressman Steven Palazzo,

What I Should've Said

Some idiot actually sent me this message on the Twitter.

The guns do not Kill it's People That Kill. What part of that don't you understand? https://t.co/0gIKokFUKg

— DR. Greene / ROHK (@MistervDanny) June 13, 2016

At the time I couldn't think of a more clever response than "you're an idiot," also I would have only had 140 characters, but here's what I should have said.


Guns don't kill? Then why do we give them to soldiers? Why don't we send our troops into battle with knives and clubs instead of automatic rifles? Hell, why not just send them out into battle empty-handed and tell them to strangle the enemy?

Could it possibly be because guns, and especially assault rifles, are the easiest away to kill people? Especially large numbers of people? Because maybe if someone attacks another person with a knife or a stick or a rock that person could either defend himself or run away? And you can't outrun a bullet? Or a barrage of bullets? Is it maybe because automatic and/or semi-automatic assault rifles  make it possible to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time, even if those people are trying desperately to flee?



Oh, and also -- You're an idiot.

This Man could be Vice-President

I mean, he won't be.
But he could.
It is actually possible.

“NEWT GINGRICH: Let me go a step further, because remember, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando involve American citizens. We’re going to ultimately declare a war on Islamic supremacists and we’re going to say, if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are a traitor and you have lost your citizenship. And we’re going take much tougher positions. In the late 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt was faced with Nazi penetration in the United States. We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis. We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis. We’re going to presently have to go take the similar steps here.”

Yes, Newt Gingrich thinks the House UnAmerican Activities Committee should be resurrected.  One of the most shameful chapters in our nation's history, Joe McCarthy's institutional witch hunt, is something that the man who was recently Speaker of the God Damn House of Representatives of the United States of America thinks of as some sort of positive.

have you no shame, Newt? At long last, have you no shame?

Ha! Just kidding. Of course you don't!

No Thoughts, No Prayers

I have nothing. There are no words. What could anyone say that wasn't said after the last mass shooting, or the one before, or the one before. There is nothing to be said.


Except that we all have blood on our hands. Because we, as a society, have opted to accept mass murder as just one of those things that happen every so often and can't be avoided. Like hurricanes or earthquakes. And it's not just the obvious offenders. Not just the slavering jackals of the NRA and its sister gun fetish groups.
And it's not just the politicians who cravenly cower before the gun lobby lest they lose the votes of the supposed "moderates."
Not even the right-wing politicians who wholly, eagerly embrace the insanity of gun culture. Who decided that a military-grade assault rifle was the new flag lapel pin, the new de rigueur accessory for proving one's "real America" bona fides.

Not even the supposedly pro-gun-control President Obama who proposed no meaningful gun regulations after Aurora, or Virginia Tech, not even after a sitting Congresswoman from his own party was shot in the head. It took the slaughter of small children in Connecticut for him to even propose the weak tea gun laws that he did, which of course died on Capitol Hill.

No, it's all of us, because we allowed it. When our state governments expanded open carry "rights," we did not vote them out. When Congress refused to close the gun show loophole, we did not start recall proceedings. When Washington allowed the assault rifle ban to expire, we did not take to the streets demanding its reinstatement.

Every time some monster mows down innocent Americans, we take too Facebook and change our profile pic. We log on to Twitter and re-tweet the hashtag naming the latest city to suffer beedless bloodshed. And we send "thoughts and prayers," which do nothing. Why are we not flooding into the National Mall? Why are we not surrounding the Capitol building demanding change? We now change is possible. Australia gave us the blueprint twenty years ago. But instead, we've learned to numb ourselves, to shrug it off, to accept the spectre of looming violence as inevitable. No other country in the world does this. THESE SLAUGHTERS ONLY HAPPEN IN THE USA. And, as a society, we've chosen to do nothing.

So I don't want to hear any more "thoughts and prayers." They do nothing. It's worse than nothing, because it's a way of pretending that you've done something. And I especially don't want to hear "thoughts and prayers" from Congressmen and Senators and governors and other people who are in a position to actually do something. It's the worst kind of hypocrisy. It's like spitting in the face of the victims and their families if you personally had a chance to vote to keep lunatics from having the ability to slaughter large numbers of people and you chose to side with the grim reaper.
So fuck you, Paul Ryan. Fuck you, Marco Rubio, Fuck you Gov. Rick Scott and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. There's a special place in Hell for all of you, right next to Omar Mateen.

Flashback Friday - Sister Double Happiness and the Dicks from Texas

I don't remember how I stumbled on to Sister Double Happiness in the early '90's. I did see them once in one of San Francisco's smaller clubs, but that was after i already had the cd.
Anyway, I hadn't thought much about them until I read an article on Nightflight.com about a band called The Dicks from Texas. They talked about the lead singer - this guy:

and said his name was Gary Floyd. And I thought that couldn't possibly be the same Gary Floyd from Sister Double Happiness, could it? Then I read a bit further and sure enough:

Singer Gary Floyd left Austin for San Francisco with a new Dicks lineup including Tim Carroll, Sebastian Fuchs, and current Imperial Teen drummer. Lynn Perko. 

Well, Lynn Perko was deefinitely the drummer for SDH, so that's got to be the same Gary Floyd. 

So, please to enjoy a few selections from Sister Double Happiness and the Dicks

So This Lady is NUTS!

Revealed! The real Obama 'pride' month proclamation

Exclusive: Linda Harvey finds 1st draft of White House document on LGBT 'rights'

Okay, somebody need to let this Linda Harvey know that we've moved on to a new outrage du jour. Getting in a huff about gay rights is so 2013. Now we're all in a lather because Chaz Bono might need to pee.

Also, putting the words Pride and Rights in quotes? What's that about? Do you think that these folks




are experiencing some kind of faux-pride? Some pseudo-pride? What exactly are you trying to imply? I mean, I gret that you put the word Rights in quotes because you literally think that LGBT people should have no rights, but pride? You can't stop them fro, having that, no matter what punctuation marks you use.





So anyway, this Linda Harvey person proceeds to fart out what she seems to think is a clever parody of President Obama's Gay Pride Month declaration. Prepare to hold your sides!

Actually, baby, it's probably a bit juvenile for your tastes.

Presidential Proclamation – “Pride” Month 2016 (a parody)

Since our founding, America has advanced on an unending path toward becoming a more perfect Union. Unfortunately, my priorities are toward less perfection and more division, but I will keep up the pretense for the rest of my term, because I just like messing with people.

Ahahahaha! Zing! Take that, Mr. "President!"

Yes, since 1776, this nation has been on a steady and relentless pursuit of perfection. That's why we can boast of such landmark acheivements in the field of perfectness as: The Trail of Tears! The Chinese Exclusion Act! Stealing Hawaii! And the House Un-American Activities Committee! 

The fight for dignity and equality has been a little rough for people who engage in sodomy, as well as the gender defiant who want to have healthy body parts amputated while taxpayers pay for these elective, unnecessary surgeries.

Okay, I assume that by "people who engage in sodomy" you mean gay men, not every teenager who ever got oral in a backseat, so yes - that ssentence is a statement of fact. The fight for dignity and equality has certainly been rough for gay men. And women, although I don't know if the lesbians are lumped in as sodomy practicioners?  Or do you have a different term under which to hate them for no reason?

Also, are the taxpayers really paying for sex-change surgery? Has that really happened? Is that covered by Medicare? I mean, good on us if it is, but I think I would have heard about that. Anyway, I hope you're right.

Nevertheless, tireless dedication by these advocates and allies strives to forge a more allegedly inclusive society, which is actually becoming tyrannical, bigoted, depraved and anti-Christian.

Oh, I know. It's horrible how us cis/het people are persecuted every day. One time, I saw a man kissing a woman in public and then someone shouted "get a room!" Like what is this, Soviet Russia?

Honestly, if you're going to say that society is becoming "tyranical" and "despotic," you really ought o give some examples of the kinds of dictatorial, totalitarian laws that might have recently been enacted to take away the rights of Christians or whatever. Otherwise, someone could get the impression that you're just talking out of your ass and have no idea what you're talking about. 

These advocates have spurred sweeping progress by changing hearts, minds and bathroom behavior, and by insisting that boys shower with girls,

Nope. Never happened. No one is suggesting that boys should shower with girls.

Except for boys. Many boys have advocated this position. 

 

Especially these boys.

.

. . . and demanding equal treatment through distortion and harassment while twisting our laws, corrupting our courts and practicing back-room politics. You would not believe the skeletons and dirt we get on so many people, and, like Hillary and Bill, my homosexual-activist buddies are not afraid to use them!
And there’s ample help from our major funders, like George Soros, who themselves love chaos, destruction and anarchy.

Ohhhh, so that's George Soros's endgame. I wondered why he gives so much money to dirty commie bastards. He wants to make the whole world into gay anarchy! Makes perfect sense now!

He tried to warn us!

You know, if you're going to say that "homosexual activists" are digging up dirt on people and blackmailing them into. . . whatever it is you think they're being forced into, you really need to have at least one shred of fucking evidence, you slanderous hate-monger.  Blackmail is a very serious allegation, and since you don't mention any names (because you don't have any, this is all bullshit) you can't be sued, but you're basically libeling an entire group of people whose shoes you are not fit to tie and you should be ashamed.

This month, we recognize all these relentless activists have done to create societal upheaval, and we recommit to gender-bending the arc of our nation toward our perverted version of justice.

 

 

Yes, it is the gays causing societal upheaval. It is the gay rights activists, for instance, that cause so many children to be born out of wedlock to teenage girls. 

The results of not "practicing sodomy"

It is clearly the fault of the gays that much of rural America is in the grip of Meth and opiate addiction.

Last year’s landmark but totally unconstitutional Supreme Court decision. . .

Oh, I'm sorry. Which Law school did you say you attended? How is it that you are a better judge of what is constitutional than the Supreme Court? 

Last year’s landmark but totally unconstitutional Supreme Court decision guaranteeing marriage distortion in all 50 states was a historic victory for homosexual Americans, which opens the door to the real goal: crushing the opposition. This masquerade of dignity for same-sex couples who believe anal sex is a valid basis of marriage now goes across state lines, whether the states like it or not.

Yes, everyone knows that a valid marriage is based on vaginal intercourse! Duh! That's why when married men get to be a certain age, they either have to get a prescription for Viagara or have their marriages annulled.

Hey, here's some news. Segregation is also now illegal in all 50 states whether the states like it or not.

 

And we do NOT, suh!

 

For every American denied what we keep saying is a basic civil right, this monumental ruling instilled newfound hope – hope that we can wipe out these annoying Christian conservatives and their beliefs.

Actually, no one is trying to "wipe out" you or your beliefs. Folks just don't want to be forced to live by them. You can live by your beliefs. You don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married. That's fine. But when you think that what you believe should be the rule for everyone else, that's when it becomes a problem.

After all, we are all freer when we are treated as equals even if our unnecessary, deviant sex acts are nothing like the consummation of authentic marriage.

 

Has there ever been a necessary sex act?  Sex is never necessary, thousands of people have lived lives of celibacy. Monks, for instance. And nuns. And people who look like Ted Cruz. (Honest to God, Cruz always looks like he just rubbed a canned ham all over his face.)

 

Not to say that sex isn't great. It's just that marital, missionary position, penis-vagina sex acts aren't any more necessary than whatever two men or two women do to express love physically.  (I should probably Google that)

 

 And equality and basic civil rights have nothing whatsoever to do with sodomy – “the behavior” – but I’ll keep winking and pretending it does!

Of course it does. How does it not? If Bill and Jane are free to get all wild 'n' sweaty whenever they want to but Tom and Jim aren't, how is that not a lack of equality? If hetero people are allowed to get it on with any partner who's willing and of age, then that same right has to apply to people who love same-sex hay-rolling.

“LGBT” individuals deserve to know their country stands beside them anyway. But we won’t stand behind those who leave this deviancy behind, because it makes our claims look really weak.

Oh, and also because it never works. NEVER! If the founder of Exodus Ministries couldn't pray himself straight, why would you think that anyone else could? You can't turn a gay person straight any more than you can turn a straight person gay.


Oh my God, this thing goes on and on. . . and it's getting late. I have to turn in, you can read the whole thing here if you're a masochist.

Why is Hillary Clinton Disliked?

Why is HRC not more well-liked?
Well, the way I see it there are two types of Hillary-haters. those who hate her for the wrong reasons (see yesterday's post) and those who hate her for the right reasons.
Again, for the record, I do not hate HRC. I'm not a fan, but I don't hate her. I think she'll probably make a decent president along the lines of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. No one's going to be clearing out any space on Mt. Rushmore for her, but she'll probably be fine.

But anyway. Why do so many people dislike Hillary?

Well, for one thing people quite rightly hate Wall Street and the big banks, the people who fucked the economy, gave themselves bonuses and demanded to be bailed out. Of course all decent people hate them. And HRC is reeeealy cozy with banksters and hedge funders. Hell, her son-in-law is one!
According to the BBC, "three of her top five individual donors have been Wall Street banks - Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan."  Everybody hates those guys and those guys are linked to HRC.

Then there's stuff like this:

Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Armani jacket during a speech about inequality

Sarah Whitten | @sarahwhit10

Monday, 6 Jun 2016 | 5:05 PM ET

 Or:

"You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," Clinton said. "We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses

You know, there are some people who can pull off the "I feel your pain" routine without feeling anyone's pain. Her husband could. Although he had the advantage of having grown up poor. Hillary has never been poor. Which is perfectly fine, neither had FDR or Bobby Kennedy, but  neither of them ever complained about how hard it was to pay mortgages on multiple homes after just having left a $400,000 a year job with book deals in hand. You have to be able to say "I have been fortunate, I've never struggled financially, but I know that a lot of people are struggling and I want to help." And then maybe don't scoff at the idea of a $15/hr minimum wage.

There's also her reputation for war-mongering. A reputation that isn't helped by callously laughing about the "hard choices" of sending American troops off to fight and die.

According to TruthOut: "As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was reportedly one of the most hawkish members of President Obama's cabinet, pushing for the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan and US intervention in Libya. She has also been a vocal proponent of the same drone war that has led to the deaths of 2,400 civilians.. . . She also suggested that the United States should have done more to intervene in Syria, by, in her words, creating a "credible fighting force," while the lack of said force led to the rise of ISIS. In addition, she vociferously defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the assault on Gaza. . . Senator Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war, a vote for which it took her more than a decade to express regret, was clearly not a temporary lapse in judgment.

 Then there's her seeming inability to give a straight answer to simple questions. Questions like "do you support the TPP?" or "Are you in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline?" I don't remember which of these issues she was being asked about when she claimed she couldn't answer because the President was still negotiating or some such nonsense. Of course the reason she has so much trouble giving straight answers maybe in part that she doesn't really seem to believe in anything. Maybe she does, but it certainly doesn't seem that way.
Check out this chart:




Okay, it's hard to read, but I think you can click to enlarge.
Anyway, for example, she was opposed to gay marriage until a tipping point was reached a couple years ago when marriage equality became a majority position then she was suddenly all for it.

She reluctantly supported raising the minimum wage to $12/hr, then when Bernie Sanders got popular enough to make her nervous, she suddenly embraced the #FightForFifteen, claiming to have been in favor of $15/hr all along.

There are a lot more examples, but just ask yourself this: What is Hillary Clinton's message? Why does she want to be President? Sanders' message is Democratic Socialism. Trump's message is "I am great. Vote for me and America will be great." Ted Cruz's raison d'etre was turning the United States into a theocracy. What is Hillary's platform? What reason has she given to choose her as our next president, other than her impressive resume'? How would one complete the sentence "If Hillary is elected President, she will. . .?"
She offers competence. That's great. That alone puts her head and shoulders above Trump or any of the other GOP candidates. But it's not exactly inspiring. There's no "vote for me and I will. . . " in her campaign rhetoric.


Then there's the perception that her good friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz has rigged the election in her favor. Whether that perception is accurate or not (and it sure seems like it is) we've been seeing debates scheduled at the worst possible times. We've seen caucus results worthy of banana republics.

Suspicious votes, long times at Dem caucus

Nevada Democratic Convention: Stories of Voter Suppression

We've seen GOP-style voter suppression tricks aimed at independent (Bernie-supporting) voters.

Placebo Ballots: Stealing California From Bernie Using an Old GOP Vote-Snatching Trick

Election Fraud: Why Are Voter Registrations Changing?

Now, are all these incidents really what the Missus calls "shenanigans?" Maybe not. Maybe some of them are just screwups. Maybe some are just due to incompetence. But they all seem to break in Hillary Clinton's favor, and, as they say in DC, the optics are bad.


So why do so many people dislike Hillary Clinton?
Yeah, David Brooks is probably right. It's because of her lack of leisure activities!

How is David Brooks still employed?

Full disclosure. I am not a fan of HRC. I don't hate her, and if she is the Democratic nominee I will absolutely vote for her. I would very much prefer Bernie Sanders, but against Trump (or any Republican) it's no contest. That being said, David Brooks is  the worst.

David Brooks MAY 24, 2016

Why Is Clinton Disliked?

Honestly, shouldn't you be concentrating on why David Brooks is disliked? Because, believe me, it's a long list.

I understand why Donald Trump is so unpopular. He earned it the old-fashioned way, by being obnoxious, insulting and offensive. But why is Hillary Clinton so unpopular?

You know why Hillary Clinton is unpopular. You know damn well. You know that when Hillary Clinton first appeared on the national scene as the wife of candidate Bill, she was a successful working woman who refused to be apologetic about it.  A married woman who still used her maiden name,and knew that she could raise a child successfully without becoming June Cleaver and conservatives were apallllled! Before anyone really even knew anything about her, the right had convinced middle America that she was anti-family, anti-man, anti-America, etc, etc, etc. That she was contemptuous of traditional mothers, was the anti-christ, etc. You know this. Don't play dumb.

In the New York Times/CBS News poll, 60 percent of respondents said Clinton does not share their values. Sixty-four percent said she is not honest or trustworthy. 

So then what's the mystery?

If the majority of voters hold different values and find her untrustworthy, of course she wouldn't be popular.

But, those column-inches aren't gonna fill themselves, so. . .

But what exactly do so many have against her?

I would begin my explanation with this question: Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton does for fun?

Jeezus Christ, who the hell cares what her hobbies are? I mean, assuming they aren't strangling kittens or committing arson, why would anyone care what Hill does in her spare time? Does she even have any spare time? She sure as hell won't have much if she's president.

We know what Obama does for fun — golf, basketball, etc. We know, unfortunately, what Trump does for fun.But when people talk about Clinton, they tend to talk of her exclusively in professional terms.

Oh, dear God! She's seen in professional terms? What a handicap! People think she's a competent professional? How can that be bad?

Oh, right!

Clinton’s unpopularity is akin to the unpopularity of a workaholic. 

Really? Because you know who was a notorious workaholic?

This guy!

At least in her public persona, Clinton gives off an exclusively professional vibe: industrious, calculated, goal-oriented, distrustful. It’s hard from the outside to have a sense of her as a person; she is a role.

Oh, you know what? Maybe if a bunch of idiots in the media didn't talk about which candidate voters wanted to have a beer with,

A Cold One With Donald 

There has never been a better candidate to have a beer with than Trump.

By Seth Stevenson

 

Who wouldn’t want to pull up a barstool to next to this guy?

 or which is most "relatable" to "soccer moms" or every other bullshit metric you morons come up with to judge "electability," maybe it wouldn't matter so much if people can get a "sense of the candidate as a person" or whatever.  You think George washington was a fun guy to have a beer with? You think you'd like to hoist a pint and shoot the breeze with John Adams or Woodrow Wilson? If you're going by who would be fun to hang with, ony Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson probably make the list. And Ben Franklin would have been president for our country's first decade at least.

This formal, career-oriented persona puts her in direct contrast with the mores of the social media age, which is intimate, personalist, revealing, trusting and vulnerable. It puts her in conflict with most people’s lived experience. Most Americans feel more vivid and alive outside the work experience than within.

Well, A) most Americans have crappy jobs that they hate. and B) most Americans are not qualified to hold any elected office, let alone President. 
Also, I think that the voters understand the difference between some B-list celebrity Tweeting every thought that pops into his head and a serious candidate for the Oval Office.

Obviously, this guy doesn't, but most people do.

There’s a larger lesson here, especially for people who have found a career and vocation that feels fulfilling. Even a socially good vocation can swallow you up and make you lose a sense of your own voice. Maybe it’s doubly important that people with fulfilling vocations develop, and be seen to develop, sanctuaries outside them: in play, solitude, family, faith, hobbies and leisure.

What? What does that even mean? How does a fulfilling career make one lose one's own voice? Also, a "socially good vocation?" Do you not have a thesaurus? Or are you lapsing into Newspeak?  And why would it be important that those who are fortunate enough to have a "vocation that feels fulfilling" be seen to have outside interests? Are the doctors, athletes and movie stars supposed to set an example for us little people? Well, gosh, if Johnny Rockstar has time to take up sky-diving, I'm inspired to do the same! Thank God for people with fulfilling vocations! You know, I was worried for a while when I saw that Sue the Surgeon wasn't developing any sanctuaries outside herself, but now that she's found a hobby and some leisure, I can rest easy!

Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote that the Sabbath is “a palace in time which we build.” It’s not a day of rest before work; you work in order to experience this day of elevation.

Okay, I think we're getting a little off-track now.
 Also, I'm pretty sure that the Sabbath was instituted as a way to compel the children of Israel to take time away from their occupations to praise J-w-h, not to build themselves a time-palace. The point was to remember who the Boss was, and what one's priority should be (the worship of J-w-h), not as a reward for having worked hard the previous six days. And it was certainly not a day for people to experience elevation. Part of the whole Sabbath thing was to keep people humble. You were more likely to be prostrating yourself before the Lord on the Sabbath than elevating yourself in any way.

 See, now you've dragged me off-track too. Can we get back to the subject at hand, which was, I believe, the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Josef Pieper wrote that leisure is not an activity, it’s an attitude of mind. It’s stepping outside strenuous effort and creating enough stillness so that it becomes possible to contemplate and enjoy things as they are.

Okay, that's a fine recommendation for the taking of leisure time. Fine. But what the hell does it have to do with Hillary? Look, I've done this before. Start off writing about one thing and then suddenly realize you've meandered on to a whole different topic. I've done that. But I'm not a highly payed columnist for the NEW YORK FUCKING TIMES either. I'm just some guy who dicks around on Blogger in his spare time, makes zero dollars, and doesn't have the time or inclination to go back and edit. You're supposed to be a professional, Brooks. Get your shit together.

Even successful lives need these sanctuaries — in order to be a real person instead of just a productive one. It appears that we don’t really trust candidates who do not show us theirs.

Wow, nice save.




 You know what I want in a President? I want what I think most people want. I want someone who is going to dedicate her/himself fully to the demands of the job. I want a workaholic. I think most people do. Look at the three candidates left in the race. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are all over 65 years old and amazingly tireless. They campaign non-stop. And people respond to that. People don't really seem to like a presidential candidate that takes time off in the middle of a campaign to go on a cruise, as Newt Gingrich infamously did in 2012. They want a smart, competent, hard-working grinder.

But what if they didn't?

Hillary is that person. So is Bernie. And Trump has conned an awful lot of people into thinking that he is that person too. That seems to be what people want. You want to know why Hillary is unpopular?  Well, we've addressed part of that already , up near the top. Let's get into the rest tomorrow.