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.
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
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 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
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
