Cool Blue Reason

Gay people have, as a community, gotten used to being blamed for the evils visited upon us.

It's something of a tradition--not merely in America, although Americans have perfected the art of blaming their nastiness and hatred on the people they victimize. From the bogus "Twinkie defense" that got a confessed murderer freed, to the lackadaisical response to violent and disgusting hate crimes; from the inability to care about the Fred Phelpses of the world until they attack a group that really matters, to allegations of "gay panic"--gay people's pains and plights are either disregarded or excused by heterosexuals.

It is not insignificant, in my mind, that many of the excuses people make for rapists are similar to the excuses people make for those who harm gay people. Whenever an alleged rapist is arrested, there is always a sub-set of people who rise up, and utter those phrases that people incorrectly believe that feminists make up. "She only said 'no' after they had consensual sex." "She was drunk, but she consented." "She was dressed like a whore." "She was just a stripper." "She shouldn't have been in that part of town at night." The instinct of such people is not to empathize with the victim, and it's not even to maintain neutrality until the accused is found innocent or guilty. The instinct is to tacitly admit that the rape took place, but excuse it as acceptable, and place all the blame on the alleged victim.

So too with gay-bashing. Whether as simple as screaming the word "dyke" or "faggot" at someone, or as depraved as a calculated murder, there is a sub-set--a very loud one--that mutters much of the same things about the victims. "He was dressed like a girl." "He was hitting on that guy--what else are you supposed to do?" "She shouldn't have been holding hands with her girlfriend in that part of town." "She really liked it--I mean, all lesbians just need a good dicking to set 'em straight, and I guess he gave it to her."

Again: the instinct is not to be neutral, and it's not to empathize with someone who's been victimized. It's to find a reason, any reason, to blame the crime on the alleged victim.

The difference between female rape victims and gay-bashing victims, I think, lie only in the intent of the excusers. People who excuse the behavior of rapists may not be rapists themselves, and they may not have the urge to do such a thing--but their own hatred of women, and their desire to keep women in their place, precludes such men and women from admitting that a man could ever do something wrong.

People who excuse gay-bashing, though, often do share the precise same urges that motivate violence against queers. The revulsion such people hold for gays is evident in the scornful, sardonic, and hateful manner in which they heap further abuse on the victim. When people do refer to alleged rape victims as "sluts" or "bitches", those people are treated with disdain by the majority (although anything up to the point of using slurs is generally acceptable). When people refer to the victim of a gay-bashing as a lisping, prancing, nelly queer, no one cares. While misogyny is still very much an accepted part of American life, it is not as acceptable as homophobia and heterosexism.

This should surprise no one. Remember: when teenagers think that something is stupid beyond belief, it's not "bitchy"--it's "gay". And when they think that someone is excrement, you're just as likely to hear them called a "fag" as you are anything else. A certain level of contempt towards gay people is simply accepted, if not expected and considered to be normal.

In February of 2008, fifteen-year-old Lawrence King was murdered while he was at school. He was twice shot in the head by a classmate. The classmate, Brandon, McInerney, is being charged both with a hate crime and as an adult. Unfortunately, the indignities being visited against poor Lawrence did not end with his tragic and untimely demise.

A few weeks ago, Newsweek put out a shit-stained article on the affair. The upshot was that Lawrence had brought his own murder on himself. The "reporter" meticulously noted that Lawrence was allowed to wear makeup and high heels to school, and that he sometimes signed papers with a female name. He also noted that the day before the murder, Lawrence asked for Brandon to be his Valentine. The article clearly insinuates that Lawrence's dress and behavior were the reasons why Brandon chose to smuggle a gun to school and shoot him twice in the head.

Left unasked was this: did Brandon also shoot any unattractive girls who asked him to be their Valentine? If not, does this not mean that Brandon's act of wanton violence was meant to target a gay kid? Furthermore, if a gay student were to shoot a straight one for rejecting his advances, would we not see a plethora of articles dedicated to how gay men are pathological psychos, and placing all of the blame firmly on the gay student? Then why, when a supposedly heterosexual psychopath shoots a gay student twice in the head, do we instead find articles in major news outlets insinuating that the faggot deserved it? If he didn't want to get shot, he shouldn't have dressed that way: that is the lesson one takes, rather than "Don't shoot people who are different from you, even if they make you uncomfortable".

Now, there's this.

Lawrence King's family has, it seems, decided that their son, their brother, contributed to his own murder. Instead of this being the responsibility of Brandon McInerney, they are blaming... wait for it... the E.O. Green Junior High School that Lawrence attended. They allege that if the school had not made its dress code lax and allowed their son to wear makeup and heels, he never would have been shot by Brandon in the first place.

I'm not even going to address the bizarre insanity one would have to indulge in to claim that a goddamned public school is more responsible for what its students are wearing than, say, the kid's own fucking parents. I will address that this poor child's family has handed a doozy of a defense to the psycho who killed their son.

Brandon, who inexplicably pled not guilty, can continue his smear campaign of claiming that Lawrence had it coming. Were I one of the kid's lawyers, I would point to this claim against the school as proof positive that Brandon wasn't responsible for his actions. "See, even Lawrence's parents don't think that Brandon's responsible--they blame Lawrence's cross-dressing, and the school's liberal, permissive attitudes. Even they acknowledge that his behavior was threatening to other students, and a violation of the rules. Why hold my client responsible when even the parents of the victim don't?"

And, even leaving that aside, it is far more likely that the incident that triggered Brandon's rage was when Lawrence asked him to be his Valentine. This is not an attempt to excuse Brandon's behavior; reacting to an unwanted romantic proposal by hunting down the person who propositioned you and shooting them twice in the head is completely and utterly inexcusable. But it does mean that Lawrence's choice of clothing should be irrelevant.

If the King family wanted to do something that would actually help children like their son, why not work to help pass more anti-bulllying measures targeted to help queer youth in other states? But, no--that would take years of hard work. Unlike Matthew Shephard's mother, Judy, a wonderful woman who has since dedicated her life to the charity she named after her son--the Kings seem distinctly more interested in finding anyone to blame for their son's murder.

Anyone, it seems, except for the killer himself.

Meanwhile, mainstream America's only real exposure to this case has come from the Newsweek article, and from this new claim filed by the parents. The traditional media simply hasn't bothered with saying much of anything about Lawrence King's tragic murder. Except to remind everyone that, well, Larry kind of deserved it, didn't he? He was asking for it. He wore girly clothes, and he asked another boy to be his Valentine.

Surely that means that Brandon was justly provoked into smuggling a gun to his school and shooting Larry twice in the head while the little faggot was working on a report for school. If Larry, and people like him, don't want to get shot, well, they should stop acting so gay around other people. Any heterosexual can understand that. Right?

I don't know enough about either modern Russian politics (although my general impression is that the Tsars have never really left that country--they just keep changing titles), or Russia's relationship with Georgia, to offer any kind of informed commentary on the war.

Unlike the vast majority of pundits on the teevee, I plan on maintaining my silence as long as my ignorance lasts--and, since I really don't have the time to do much research, that probably means I won't be saying much, apart from this: it scares me.

I normally don't watch the news, or hit any blogs, over the weekends. This is, primarily, something I do to help maintain my sanity. Even a politics/news junkie like myself can't stay abreast of all the awful things going on in the world seven days a week.

So, I had no idea until this morning that Isaac Hayes passed away yesterday. Hayes was, of course, a famous soul singer; in regards to pop culture, he wrote the theme song for the TV show "Shaft" and was the voice of Chef on "South Park". Hayes's biggest moment of infamy, IMO, came when he left the cast of "South Park" when they satirized his faith, Scientology. (That "South Park" had previously satirized virtually every other religion on Earth did not seem to make an affect on him.)

Regardless, the man was talented, and he's certainly left his mark on our culture. I was sorry to hear that he passed.

And--in my mind, even sadder--Bernie Mac died on Saturday. I have never seen a movie with Mac in it that I didn't like--I thought he was especially funny in "Ocean's Eleven", to the point where I still think they under-exploited his character.

Bernie Mac was only fifty years old. Isaac Hayes was only sixty-five.

I know that we aren't supposed to know either the day or the hour, but still. It's really sad.

( You are about to view content that may not be appropriate for minors. )

I understand that the traditional media is completely, embarrassingly in the tank for McCain. The fact that McCain has not yet been laughed out of the campaign is mighty proof against the usefulness of the media, who are more interested in giving McCain's ads free air-time than they are in tracking the multitude of lies, mistakes, and crazy BS statements that have been flooding out of his mouth.

Even so, this is pushing it. Really pushing it. It makes me want to track down the "journalist" who wrote it and try to teach her how to feel humiliation. Embarrassment is a very useful emotion; it keeps one humble, and it helps one to not make dumbass, public mistakes over and over. If more of our "journalists" in this country felt embarrassed over how far their tongues can fit up McCain's withered buttocks, perhaps we wouldn't be in this fucking mess.

Think about this. A poll taken three months before the election shows that Obama is ahead of McCain, 48%-43%, with a 3% margin of error. A junior Senator who's had both Clinton and McCain's kitchen sinks thrown at him for a year and a half, who's been accused of being nearly every single boogeyman that Americans have ever been frightened by, who's dark-skinned and has a funny name--this guy is beating the experienced Senator who's been in politics for decades, and who has the media as his barbecue-slurping lap-dogs.

Keep in mind, when you consider this, that this time in 2004, Kerry--a Senator who had a great deal more "experience" than Obama on the national level--was starting to get hammered by the Swift Boat Veterans for Lying Out Of Our Assholes About A War Hero. This was the reason why Kerry ultimately lost his lead on the President--along with the fact that, well, Kerry had no idea how to parry an attack.

It's a huge fucking deal. In spite of all the negativity, the smears and the lies, Obama is still ahead in the polls. And, here, I'll willingly make a political prediction: once we see Obama and McCain debate each other, he will pull ahead even farther. One of the reasons why we haven't seen an insurmountable lead is because we haven't yet gotten a chance to directly compare how awful McCain truly looks, as a candidate and as a person, beside his opponent. (And on the rare occasions where that has happened, as when McCain delivered his infamous Lime Jello Background speech on the same night Obama accepted the nomination, the results have never been pretty for the Republicans.) Even so, polls this far ahead of the general election are mostly meaningless--again, Kerry was ahead of Bush in '04 until mid-September. So the whole thing should be moot.

But no. Our "correspondent" who wrote this "analysis" of the polls has decided that a 2-5% lead for Obama means that he's in trouble:

"Just five points separate the two candidates -- Obama's 48 percent to McCain's 43 percent, with 9 percent undecided... While those numbers suggest the stage is set for the Democratic presidential candidate to win, Obama is holding on to only a narrow advantage."

What makes it even sadder is that, if you read the article, you are immediately bombarded with a wealth of reasons why the premise is utter bullshit. It quotes a poll saying that 48% of voters will decide who to vote for based on the candidate's economic policies, and that 54% prefer Obama's economic package; and another poll, stating that over 60% of respondents favor Obama's timetable-for-withdrawal plan for Iraq.

This is so frustrating that I'm going to start grinding my teeth down to nubbins. If McCain were five points ahead in a poll--any poll--the traditional media would be all over it, and insisting that Obama was doomed, DOOMED FOR ALL TIME. When Obama leads by five points, they claim that he's merely "squeaked by" McCain, and question why he doesn't have 95% of the popular vote in every single poll.

It is, quite literally, a case where Obama can do no right. It's a little bit like the horse-race against Clinton--even though any intelligent person could look at the numbers and know, as early as mid-March, that Clinton was toast, it took the media an extra two months to finally catch up and realize that it was over. They've built their shiny RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE graphics, and by damn it, they're going to use them as often as humanly possible.

Also: I want an 'Obama Energy Plan' tire gauge, but I don't want to have to donate $25 to McCain in order to get one. Anyone have any ideas on how I can get one?

Title: At abuse shelters, girls just wanna have fun!
By: Carey Roberts

Carey Roberts is one of the most loathsome columnists employed, such as it is, by RenewAmerica. No one seems entirely sure of how old he is, but photos indicate that his age would probably have to be determined by a skilled team of archaeologists. Carey's schtick involves him obsessively, eternally ranting about feminists, lesbians, sluts, skanks, bitches, whores, nut-crackers, and women in general. One would not be blamed if one came away with the impression that Carey's political opinions are based on some personal slight. While many modern conservatives base their politics on "Someone was mean to me in an Internet forum and their screen-name contained the word 'liberal'", Carey's seem to be based off his having been rejected by his own true love when he asked her to a hoe-down, back in the year 1893.

I have never, to my knowledge, written anything about Carey, although the Sadlies brought him to my attention years ago, and I've been laughing at him ever since. To be truthful, I thought that it was a little mean, picking on the guy--he obviously is depressed over the fact that his great-great-grandchildren won't visit him in the old folks' home, which explains why he rages against the world. I also assumed (and rightly so, I think) that Carey is a lot more likely to die at any second than the average person; I would feel guilty if I ruthlessly mocked someone who finally expired and (I presume) crumbled into powder after I mocked him. However, Carey's latest column is good medicine for that--it both cured my reluctance to make as much fun of him as possible, and cured the "whither feminism?" funk I've been in since the whole thing with Hillary.

This, really, is a wonderful lesson for anyone who ever feels tired, worn out, or passionless towards a cause that, formerly, they couldn't stop talking about. If you ever want to remind yourself of why you love something, it helps to seek out the opinion of someone who is fanatically opposed to whatever it is that you like. Nothing rallies up the feminist in me quite like reading the opinions (which, if spoken, would likely be thickly clotted with bubbles and chunks of gelatin or mashed potatoes) of someone who really, truly can't stand females:
( tl;dr )

Title: Obama thinks he's better than you
By: Craig R. Smith

or, The Righteous Abuse of "Blazing Saddles" Quotes

>> The more I observe the great illusionist Barack Obama, the more I am convinced that if he is able to dupe enough voters into putting him in charge it will be the most entertaining presidency in the history of the office. Is there really any sane person who believes this guy would make a good president? <<

Well, part of the problem with answering that question is the old saying about how insane people don't know that they're crazy. Craig, here, makes it easy to write off anyone who thinks Obama would make a good President--or that, at least, he could do no worse than the Chernobyl-level disaster we have in office right now--as nutters. Nice rhetorical trick, but only if you're a complete fucking idiot who can't see it coming.

>> Forget for a moment the people with whom he associates. Look past the bomber, mad preacher, angry wife and crooked slumlord. They are merely distractions. Forget the lack of experience or substantive legislation during his short stint in the Senate. Just focus on his current actions. <<

Oh, thank God. I'm honestly getting sick of seeing all the lies swirling around both Obama's record and people in his personal life (although Craig, true to conservative form, does not fail to refer to Michelle as "angry"--it never hurts to pound in the Angry Scary Black People message whenever possible).

>> One would think when millions of Americans campaign for and contribute to a virtually unknown commodity like Obama, it would create within the candidate a sense of awe: A humility that would overwhelm the average person, an outpouring of love and support which might bring a mere mortal to tears, a heart so filled with gratitude the candidate would thank the American people for the vote of confidence. Not Obama – quite the opposite. <<

Well, of course not. First of all, anyone who had achieved the kind of fundraising numbers Obama has should rightfully be proud. Second, anyone who's running for President is by definition a borderline-narcissistic egomaniac. Much as I still like Obama--he's certainly better than McCain--he, too, I must presume, is an egomaniac. Personally, after eight years of a President who claims to be a humble, just-folks everyman, I'd rather have a vain and competent motherfucker in the White House. But, then, I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that the damage Bush has wrecked on our country is, you know, bad.

>> When he takes the stage, there is an air of arrogance I have never sensed from anyone else in a similar situation. <<

The candidate's a ni--
( tl;dr )

Title: State job is not to redefine marriage
By: Orson Scott Card (yes, THAT Orson Scott Card)

One of the most frustrating things about arguing with a Mormon is how nothing--nothing at all--is ever the fault of the LDS Church.

This is, I think, different from Christians who argue that Christianity as a whole is acceptable, and that it's only specific Christians who fail. For example, one of the best Christians I know is a hard-core Lutheran; and even she will admit that, while she thinks Lutheranism is the best denomination for her, it's not perfect. That the denomination itself, which is composed of and run by people, fails is not enough to challenge her belief in God or Jesus.

Mormons, on the other hand--Mormons will never, ever admit that the Church itself is imperfect. As a Mormon, I was raised to believe that the Church was "the most true and correct" institution on the face of the Earth. There are a google of excuses, rationalizations, and explanations as to why the Church is perfect. The most frequent one is the That's Not Doctrine excuse: if it was not literally written in one of their holy books, Mormons contend that it's not doctrine and therefore irrelevant.

If you ask five Mormons their opinions on some of the most basic aspects of Mormon doctrine, you will usually get seven different opinions in response. All of those opinions will be prefaced, though, with "... and this is my opinion, not doctrine". Anything embarrassing in Church history--like, say, institutional racism--is either strongly denied, or "That was the culture of the time, not doctrine". It becomes impossible, after a while, to figure out what it is that the Church does hold as doctrine.

A marvelous example is Orson Scott Card's rabid screed. He is a prominent Mormon, probably one of the most famous Mormons since the Osmonds. He wrote the following unhinged rant for a website called MormonTimes, a blog maintained by and for Mormons, featuring news and opinion written by members of the Church. He, and the others at the Times, are in essence, Mormon wonks--they blog about and follow stories regarding their religion the way that politics geeks follow the minutia of Congressional voting. The blog has prominent links to LDS-run websites, including the Church's official site; it also reproduces material written by Church leaders. But if you look at the bottom of the front page, it asserts that it "is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

In spite of that caveat, one can certainly get a sense of what prominent Mormons think based off of Card's ravings. Let's take a peek:
( Read more... )

Republican Ted Stevens has been indicted by the Justice Department. The indictment is for seven counts of making false statements to federal investigators, the same sort of crime which Scooter Libby was eventually found guilty of.

CNN clarifies that he was indicted by a grand jury called by the Justice Department, and that the crime he stands accused of relates to improvements made to his home. I would presume that these improvements were made with dough he got from less-than-honest places.

This indictment will, most likely, torpedo Steven's chances at re-election this year (not that being a criminal and a liar has ever stopped a Republican from keeping office). Stevens would have to get through the GOP primary in late August. It is likely, I'd say, that another unknown Republican will be picked in his place--another factor which is turning Alaska into a battleground state.

When asked to comment, Stevens issued this statement:

"They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the indictment. And again, the indictment is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's, it's, it's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."

1. A college student knew someone who was curious about what the Eucharist looked like. He reportedly stole a communion wafer from a local Catholic church (by which, I mean that he accepted the wafer from the priest during Mass, then pocketed it), showed it to his friend, and then returned the wafer.

2. Catholics, who believe that the Eucharist is the literal body of Christ, wound themselves into a tizzy over the affair. Bill Donahue predictably beat his fat chest and claimed that "all options should be on the table [for punishing the college student], including expulsion".

3. Atheist blogger Paul Zachary Myers apparently decided that the issue wasn't silly enough as it was. Most people would find it impossible to be more of an attention-grabbing douchebag who gets himself into a lather over shit that has nothing to do with him than Bill Donahue, but damn it, Myers tried. Under the headline "It's A Goddamned Cracker", Myers promised that, if anyone would provide him with consecrated communion wafers, he would "show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare". He promised to take pictures of this desecration and post them on the Internet, on the website provided to him by the school he teaches for.

4. Now, Donahue and Myers are getting into the sort of slap-fight that one expects when two hubris-swollen, self-righteous jerks square off. Donahue is attempting to contact all of Myers's bosses, because any pictures he would post on the university's website could constitute a violation of their Code of Conduct. Myers claims that he has received death threats--none of which he took seriously. He also provided a marvelous example of guilt by association, in which he seemed to be personally blaming Donahue for the heinous actions of the Catholic Church regarding pedophilic priests.

5. Both Donahue and Myers get to toddle off to their respective audiences and assure them that, no, really, they won this round against their Loathsome, Faceless, Amoral Enemy.

As one can likely tell, I deeply dislike both the Donahues and the Myerses of this world. The former, for all the obvious reasons. The latter, because I believe in both respect and tolerance. I do not, therefore, like people who treat me with disrespect, disdain, and loathing. Because I am something of a religious person, Myers believes that he is smarter, saner, and a better human being than me--and, as with this kerfluffle over the Eucharist, he believes that his superiority gives him the right to treat other people like shit, while simultaneously whining and blubbering about how nobody likes him. Just as I cannot respect Richard Dawkins--who charmingly took advantage of the 9/11 attacks to refer to my beliefs as "lethally dangerous nonsense", and who thinks that my intent to raise my kids in a religious household amounts to child abuse--so I cannot respect Myers.

Respect, simply put, must go both ways. If men like Myers and Donahue want respect, they must be respectful. But they don't want people to respect them. Respect isn't fun. It isn't exciting. It doesn't get headlines or attention. It doesn't heat the blood. It doesn't reduce communications and debates to red-faced screaming matches. Donahue wants to live in a world where he can be as rude as he likes to non-Catholics, so long as no one is allowed to ever say anything that may even be perceived as anti-Catholic. Likewise, Myers wants to live in a world where--if religion cannot be banned--he can mock religious people all he wants, so long as no one is ever allowed to say anything against atheism. People like this don't want respect; they want a fight, a battle that they can win. Their respective persecution complexes cannot allow for anything less than a rhetorical bloodbath in which one or the other will emerge as victor.

To be frank, all this attitude makes me--as someone who's neither a Christian nor an atheist--think is: "Both of you are fucking lunatics who need to take some anger management classes."

I am not asking for Myers, or anyone else, to believe that the Eucharist is the literal body of Christ. I don't believe it myself, and I didn't even when I was a 'Christian' (Mormons, I should say, do not believe in transubstantiation, except in the symbolic/spiritual sense). But, just because I don't believe it, that doesn't give me a license to desecrate the things. It's an extremely important symbol for certain people. I can respect that. I would want for non-Buddhists to respect the holy symbols of my own religion, and not go about defacing temples, statues, prayer wheels, and the like. I'm not asking for anyone to hold these things as sacred: I'm just asking for my right to hold them as sacred. I don't think that's hard, and it speaks poorly of Myers's personality that he cannot leave other people alone.

In regards to the death threats: since Myers himself is not taking them seriously, neither am I. I would like to point out that one in four American residents are Catholics, and that Myers has not received death threats from anywhere near 25% of the population. People who think that the death threats prove that all religious people, especially Catholics, are nutcases are simply kidding themselves, in much the same way that Christians kid themselves when they imagine that the arrest of one pastor in Scandinavia years ago proves that all Christians in America are being persecuted by gay people.

This, obviously, does not make the death threats a good thing: those people are clearly crazy. But all it proves, in the end, is that some people are insane. Who didn't know that already?

The worst part, to me, is that the original story has been lost. Myers effectively distracted everyone from the college student's plight and made it All About Him. Instead of having a reasonable discussion about Donahue's nonsensical and hateful actions and words regarding this poor, unfairly targeted man, I now have to--by the dictates of my conscience--write something that probably makes it sound like I'm defending the bastard. And instead of having a discussion over showing respect for the Eucharist--pictures of which, by the way, can be found with a quick Google and does not require a physical presentation--we're all atwitter over what Donahue and Myers will do to piss each other off the most. That's shitty, both on Myers's part and on Donahue's part.

If I thought that either of these attention-whores were capable of the emotion, I would suggest that they should feel ashamed.

Around the time of my birthday earlier this year, my father flew me in so that I could spend the time with my family. I ended up getting to spend some quality time with him, my stepmom, my little brother, and his wife. It was a great visit, overall, especially because I'd literally just come out to my dad. He was exquisitely cool about it all (I'll probably tell that story sometime soon).

At any rate, while the visit was wonderful, it had its share of awkward moments. One of those moments reinforced a little theory I've developed on the behavior of white people. The theory is thus: the longer that a group of all-white people are gathered together, the likelihood that someone will say something along the lines of "So, what about those black people and their rap music?" approaches 1.

This theory was proved during that visit when, while sitting and talking about a jazz performance we'd seen on my birthday, the topic of Those Wacky Black People came up. One family member noted how rap music disgusts them. Another noted that she thought that black people didn't really want equal rights, as evidenced by how they don't trust white people. If you've ever been in a room alone with a bunch of white people from the South, you've heard all this before.

Now, what I thought was interesting was that my brother's wife complained about how separatist black people are. If I recall correctly, she said something along the lines of "It's like they don't even want to integrate into society". Aside from the fact that she seems to think that the word "society" is synonymous with "white people's society", her statement brought up another conundrum, one which I put forth to my various readers:

If you are not black, let's suppose for a minute that you are. Let's further suppose that you are not stupid. You would likely be fully aware of the theory I've outlined above--that, whenever you're not in the room, white people can be counted on to make patronizing and stupid comments about you, the music and TV they think you listen to and watch, and your entire race. Why, then, would you ever try to seek out these people's company? Why hang out with people who talk shit about you behind your back and hold you in contempt? I'm curious.

James Dobson to Obama: "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."

Me to Dobson: "Well, then it's very fucking fortunate that Obama isn't running to be the Pope of America, isn't it? In fact, he isn't running for anything that requires him to have ever even seen a Bible, much less believe in it in the traditional fashion."

Obama to contributors: "Please help Hillary Clinton with her campaign debt."

Me to Obama: "Tell you what: I'll start caring about whether or not a multi-milliionaire can pay off all of those restaurant owners and caterers she's been stiffing for months right around the time that you start caring about my constitutional liberties. Sound fair?"

According to all the news agencies, George Carlin has died of heart failure. He was 71.

To show my Child of the '90s cred: I will, in all likelihood, more fondly remember Carlin for his work as the Conductor on "Shining Time Station"--which I did watch as a kid--than I will for any of his comedy routines.

So, today, the House of Representatives was the site of one of the world's biggest televised gang-bangs. Two hundred and ninety-three Representatives all bent over, spread their ass cheeks, and begged for President Bush to pretty-pretty-please dry-fuck them with his fist.

The President complied, all the while praising these brave two hundred and ninety-three souls for passing a bill which grants retroactive immunity to telephone companies that helped him illegally spy on Americans without warrants. He did not mention aloud that his chief reason for praising them was because the discovery process of lawsuits against those companies is one of the only ways that we, the American people, have left to discover what crimes he is guilty of--all thanks to the process of discovery, which, I'm sure, Bush would rather simply delete. No, he simply praised them for their "bipartisanship" in working against "the terrorists". Given how the word "terrorist" can mean pro-peace Quakers and members of the ACLU, I fail to see how this means anything.

Oh, yeah, not to mention that they bent over and let themselves get buttfucked in an election year that overwhelmingly favors Democrats, by a President who is less popular than both President Nixon and genital herpes.

While the majority of Democrats voted against the bill, over one hundred crossed over to vote in favor of it stand in line to be gang-fisted by Bush.

There is no good goddamned reason why this should have happened. The only rumor I have heard on the Internets that makes a damn bit of sense is that Democrats are being blackmailed somehow, but even so, I don't believe it. I simply think that those hundred-odd Democrats are scumbags--and I mean that in the old-fashioned sense. They have all the moral authority and ethical standards of Ted Haggard, and the believability of Larry Sinclair.

I am pissed off beyond all reason at our beloved Democratic "leaders", although I probably shouldn't. Pelosi, et al., are known for nothing if not for pretending to put up resistance to Bush, then turning around and giving him whatever he wants.

I am also extremely disappointed in Obama. As the presumptive leader of the Party, he had a real chance to--at the very fucking least--speak up against this bullshit before the vote this morning. And he has done nothing. He has said nothing. At this point, I will vote for him, but I will not give him anymore money, and I'm not going to waste my time campaigning for him. It's going to take a fuck of a lot to win me back. Unlike him, I actually give a damn about whether or not lawbreakers are taken to trial for their crimes.

EDIT:

Another theory I've heard is that the Democrats are only playing along with the Republicans until a Democratic President is in place. After Obama is elected, apparently, then Congress will overturn all of those laws, Obama will approve of all of those overturnings, and ponies will come flying in rainbow-tinted herds directly out of my asshole.

The fact of the matter is this. The Democrats can only suck Bush's cock for so long. There comes a point where one wonders why it is that these theorists have gotten the impression that Democrats are political experts and Secret Liberals who are only dressed up like conservatives in order to get votes. At what point do we accept that these Democrats are, in fact, exactly what they appear to be? When can we admit that the only difference between them and Republicans is that Republicans have backbone? How many times do we have to, essentially, catch Pelosi sucking Bush off before we can point at her and go "Hey, maybe she's not just scheming for 2009--maybe she's just a cocksucker".

EDIT THE SECOND:

Obama issues a tepid statement.

Although he cannot influence the House of Representatives before they voted, he apparently thinks that he will be able to force the House to concede to any changes he makes when it comes to FISA. Mm-hmm. Right.

I'll be blunt. The pragmatic part of me knows that I will vote for Obama. The pragmatic part of me also knows that I will eventually come to a point where I'll donate money to his campaign, and possibly volunteer. But the idealist part of me is hurting badly. The idealist in me knows that, unless Obama does something to win back his cred with liberals like me, any work I do for him will solely be because I don't want McCain in the White House. And that fucking sucks. I am sick of having to vote for candidates just because I think their opponent is a living shitstain.

When I first heard that John "Older Than American Express Credit Cards" McCain was declining to attend the Texas Republican convention, I assumed that his absence was due to his being, in the eyes of true-blue conservatives, a stinking liberal. I also presumed that he declined to attend because, down here in Texas, the issue of immigration is something of a hot button (to greatly understate the issue), and Republicans believe that McCain came down on the wrong side of the issue. You know, in the sense that he doesn't advocate just shooting anyone who approaches the border.

I should have known better.

See, McCain's general method in this election is to permit others to do his negative campaigning for him. He allows the crazies and morons to air racist, bigoted rants, then issues a weak-worded condemnation of it later. This allows for McCain to not have to spend any of his nonexistent funds on real campaigning; it gives him the appearance of condemning racism and props up his Maverick Republican cred; and it has the delightful effect of smearing Obama with racist tripe while giving him plausible deniability. There is a reason, children, why almost all of the negative attacks on Obama have come from the Republican National Committee, and not the supposed leader of the Republican Party.

From a purely political perspective, this is not a bad way to go, in the sense that it saves both McCain's money and reputation. In practice, of course, it is reprehensible, as almost everything that the Republicans have done over the last few years is reprehensible.

And what was it, you ask, that McCain wanted to maintain an arm's length of plausible deniability from?

Why, it's the sale of these:



When Obama started to look like he would win, I half-jokingly thought that it would only be a matter of time before Republicans started to drop the N-bomb on national television. It's not a joke anymore. I'm seriously expecting it to happen.

(provided by Sadly, No!)

As of this morning, the state of California has begun to legally issue marriage licenses to gay couples.



While quite a lot of counties in the state are fraudulently claiming that they can perform no marriages at all (a condition that only mysteriously began after the Supreme Court ruling), the majority are just fine with it, and making extra preparations. San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsome, has even offered to fly to any counties which claim they cannot perform any marriages in order to officiate over such ceremonies himself. That guy, in case you were wondering, is one of the gay community's greatest heroes--and one of the few straight men in America to stand up for us.

This is just beautiful (especially the woman on the far left). The couple in this photo have been together for over fifty years. They were the first couple to get married in 2004, and were the first--as of 5:01 this morning--to be legally wedded today. That image is from their first '04 marriage; this is from their marriage today.

Most important of all--apart from, of course, the happiness of these couples--is the fact that there is no discernible negative backlash against them. The religious right even gave up its fight to ban gay marriage in Oregon today, because it knew that it could not gather enough signatures to get such a ban placed on the November ballot.

On a personal note, iyoichi's mother has gone in for surgery today, to get the lump in her breast removed. Prayers, good vibes, nice thoughts, well-wishes, etc., are all appreciated.

I have said, both on the Internet and in real life, that I was looking forward to the Republicans melting down as they try to trash Obama without explicitly bringing up race. Specifically, I recall saying that I looked forward to conservatives breaking down and running "DON'T VOTE FOR THE DARKY" commercials.

I admit, though, that I thought it would take longer for something like this to happen.

Seriously, what?

EDIT:

Believe it or not, it can get worse.

I swear to God that I'm not making this up.

I've written a lot about Hillary over the last few weeks (see most of my entries under the "election 2008" tag). There was a part of me--a very large part--which feared that I would have to keep writing about her for months: until August, let us say, or until November. I was afraid that I would have to sit and angrily write about her attempts to subvert the primary season's outcome, and possibly, about her throwing the election to McCain with her antics.

While I did address those fears, the closer we got to the end of the primary season, the less willing I was to indulge those feelings. I found myself less persuaded by conspiracy theories that purported to prove that Clinton was going to torpedo the Dems' chances in November in order to get herself another shot in 2012--I mean, there was really very little she'd done to prove that she was politically savvy enough to pull that off.

Even so, I was really worried directly after her Fuck You Speech, the one she gave right before Obama declared victory. I remained worried until this Saturday.

Now, my fears are completely purged.

Not only has Senator Clinton unequivocally done all of the things she needed to in Saturday's speech--congratulated Obama, fully endorsed him, and spent most of her time trying to talk her supporters into supporting him--but she has, today, officially told her pledged delegates and superdelegates to vote for Obama during the Democratic convention in August.

This means, should you have any doubts, that Hillary is not going to the convention. All chants of "ATTICA! ATTICA! DENVER! DENVER!" are in vain. She will not attempt to subvert the process any longer, if that was ever her intention. She will not be running on an independent/third-party ticket.

She is finally doing the right thing.

Because he is a classy mofo, Barack Obama's campaign website has set up a "Thank Senator Clinton" page. You can use this page to send her a message thanking her for a hard-fought race. I have not forgiven the Clintons for their race-baiting, but on the other hand, I'm completely capable of thanking her and Bill for their actions over the last week. I did so without being rude. Should you use this service, please do the same.

The silly season is not yet over, though: we still have to beat John "Older Than Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches" McCain. I'm not shivering with fear.

Perhaps because the Bush years are finally nearly over, I've been in a retrospective political move of late.

When I finally heard yesterday that Clinton might (or might not) be conceding defeat, and might (or might not) endorse Obama, my mind was drawn back to the 2006 Congressional race. I remember how Karl Rove oh-so-confidently predicted a Republican landslide victory; I remember his assertions that, while the Democrats might have some kind of math on their side, he had The Math. And I think we all remember exactly how that equation turned out.

That was the year when I could look back on all the journals I'd written about Karl Rove, shake my head, and laugh. I had built him up to be a villain whose cunning and scheming abilities rivaled David Xanatos from "Gargoyles". His name was invoked, by me and many others, only fearfully--as if the very mention of Karl Rove could be enough to summon him to your room, in a cloud of stinking sulfur, ready to steal your soul. Reality, of course, is far less impressive: he was a propagandist who had a great knack for manipulating the paranoids, racists, religious bigots, and homophobes who make up the GOP's natural constituency.

The only reason why Rove ever had the power he did was 9/11. 9/11 made a lot of otherwise-sane people into paranoids; it made a lot of otherwise-hate-free people hate and fear all Muslims. Rove knew exactly how to manipulate these new allies, and he played them like a master musician playing an old violin. But once the potency of invoking 9/11 every six seconds wore off, Rove grew to be less and less relevant. And, eventually, he retired from the White House--a useless disgrace to all mankind, but hardly the Republican Overmind.

Democrats have told themselves a lot of stories about the Clintons. In a way, those stories are quite similar to the stories they've told ourselves about Rove and his ilk. They have cowered in the face of the Clinton machine, horrified at the idea of ever challenging it; they have folded, time and again, to do things their way. They ran 50% + 1 strategies even though it kept losing them elections, and they kept moving ever rightward, until the party was barely much different in practice than the Republicans. All of which was part and parcel of Clintonian politics. After all, the Clintons could not be beaten.

Those stories have another striking similarity with the ones told about Karl Rove: by and large, they are not true.

Bill and Hillary were both smart politicians in the 1990s, but they have learned absolutely nothing since then. They have helmed one of the worst Presidential campaigns since Fred Thompson's run (and even then, he had the decency to drop out). Lady Clinton began this run with a lead of several hundred superdelegates, more money, more media time, and the mantle of inevitability resting on her shoulders. And, at nearly every turn, she was out-campaigned, out-raised, and most importantly, out-voted. It is both embarrassing and amazing to watch the unstoppable Clintons be foiled by a half-black kid with a funny name.

As with Rove's humiliating wrongness in '06, I look at the Clintons, shake my head, and laugh. I wonder what it was that I was so afraid of. I wonder why it was that I always thought that the Clintons were political masters, even though I have nearly always disagreed with their policies and tactics. Most of all, I find relief in the idea that, soon--maybe not today or tomorrow, but soon--it will be over.

Here's the thing: you know how, in quite a few films, there's a scene of a car falling off a cliff? The car tilts and seesaws on the edge; from the outside, you can see the occupants screaming, waving their limbs, madly struggling to balance it out. The audience holds its breath in anticipation. Then, just when everything seems to be evening out--the car slips free, and turns into a multi-ton missile of metal, rubber, leather, and human beings, plummeting to the rocks below. The anticipation before the actual impact, and the inevitable explosion, is horrible and intense--but, if the people trapped in the car are the bad guys (or minor villains), there is almost always a feeling of schadenfreude-laden enjoyment, too.

There have been some false starts in this direction, but we're finally at that part of the movie now. The Clinton campaign--and, one hopes, the Clinton ideals--is trapped in the freefalling vehicle. All that remains is the crash and the burn. When it is done, hopefully, we can turn our attention to the final fight with the real villains. After all, even if the mooks do end up crawling away from the smoking wreckage, no one even cares--they're too busy watching the denouement.

All of that said, I won't actually believe that Clinton will do the right thing until she actually does it. She has done nothing so far to indicate to me that she deserves the benefit of the doubt. But, one way or another, her run against Obama will end by this Saturday. Whether she'll endorse him or announce an independent run, I do not know. We shall see.

I watched parts of John "Older Than Kraft Macaroni and Cheese" McCain's speech last night. I also caught most of Hillary's speech, and all of Obama's.

The difference between the three candidates was startling. McCain looked like a badly-constructed skeleton in a children's Halloween haunted house. He has the habit of cueing the audience at moments when he wants or expects applause--usually, by baring his teeth in something which, I suppose, is a smile, or by giggling. Few things on this earth are more frightening than a giggling John McCain. But that aside, the thrust of John's speech (that I saw) focused on insulting Obama and elevating himself as, not a clone of Bush, but a humble servant of America. Of course, his voting record in the Senate of late has been either 95% or 100% in line with Bush's policies, but we're supposed to ignore that, I guess.

Hillary's speech gave even less than I was expecting. I wrote yesterday, at some point, that at the very most, Hillary would suspend her campaign, and that at the least, she would concede that Obama got an insurmountable majority of delegates. As it happens, she did not even go that far. She refused to recognize that Obama had, not long before her speech, officially obtained the magic number of delegates. She did not congratulate him, for this monumental, historical win, or for any other times he's beaten her. Instead, she continued making her bogus 'popular vote' argument, and announced that she would be making no decisions for the next few days. I am not surprised that Hillary consistently fails to meet even the gutter of my expectations, or of basic human decency.

There are few options available to Clinton at this late stage:
( tl;dr )