If this is your "revolution," then I want no part of it.

I heard two pieces on NPR today that made me so livid that I had to fight hard not to vomit on my steering wheel.

First came a story about the California town of Costa Mesa, which has just informed its public employees that half of them would be laid off within the next six months. The workers have been devastated; one of them, "reportedly distraught about the layoffs, jumped to his death from the roof of City Hall." Does this sound familiar?

So what's the solution to their budget crisis? Privatize everything, of course! Fire everyone, naturally! And what's the republican/tea party response to these events?

Why, it's an opportunity! Orange County republican party head Scott Baugh is then heard telling a tea party gathering, "Ground zero is right here in Costa Mesa for this revolution!"

Let's look at that again. The situation in Costa Mesa, where fully half of public employees will LOSE THEIR JOBS -- where the government will be paying people less and no longer providing people the opportunity to look forward to a decent retirement -- This is what republicans/tea party morons are calling a "revolution?"

Balancing the budget on the backs of your workers? Cutting pensions and going back on your commitments to people who came to work every day and held up their end of the bargain? Privatizing everything (which ALWAYS cuts costs! Just see the military budget for proof!) and saying "it's not too hard to figure out" that you're going to save money, though no one can say just how much (if any!) will be saved?

If this is your "revolution," then I want no part of it.

- - -

Later came an interview with Rep. Joe Walsh (what else? R - Illinois), a member of the "House Tea Party Caucus" -- what the fuck is that? It's NOT an official party, but they have a caucus in the House? -- anyway, I heard this guy claim that democrats are doing all they can to shut down the government because they won't "compromise" on spending cuts. Walsh claimed that republicans have been the ones putting forth bills while dems have "been silent" and "the President should be ashamed."

The latest (ahem) brainchild they've put out there cuts $61 billion from social programs and education (among other things like Planned Parenthood) while funding the military for the rest of the year.

Surprisingly, NPR's Melissa Block challenged Mr. Compromise several times, repeating his soundbyte, "I came here ready to go to war -- the people didn't send me here to compromise," and basically asking when he's ever shown a willingness to compromise. He then claimed, "again, it's 'cooperate' not 'compromise.'" Oh I get it -- so your idea of "compromise" and "cooperate" is to have the dems come to the table, bend over, and let you ram your shit up their asses. Otherwise, THEY'RE the ones not "compromising." THEY'RE the ones being irresponsible and "mystifying" to him.

"I'd love to see a number though that they would put in front of us," he claims. "Can I accept less than 61B in cuts? I sure hope not...." I think this guy needs to look up "compromise" and "cooperate" in the dictionary.

Separate disgust stems from the fact that I can't remember the last time I heard a freshman democratic rep on NPR being allowed to deliver an uninterrupted tirade about anything.

Still more disgust springs from the idea that republicans claim to be serious about cutting the deficit, yet NOWHERE do they touch military spending -- despite the fact that the published figures (which doesn't include the tons of spending bills and other secret money that the Pentagon gets) show that it accounts for 25% of our budget. Here's a nice link to the true cost of our many ongoing wars.

But hey, let's cut education and pensions and Social Security; let's raze Medicare and Medicaid to the ground and leave the aged and our children to fend for themselves at the feet of the zillionaires at the insurance companies. Let's lay off workers and call it a "revolution!" and pretty much not even put a fucking dent in the REAL deficit, not even TRY to do anything to reduce our spending on wars in the Middle East.

No, let's just clog the news cycle with bullshit about "they want to shut down the government!" and "they won't compromise!" and every other horseshit bill that our government throws out there, and then we can just brush over the fact that a guy jumped off a building because he was upset about losing his job.

In Tunisia a fruit vendor, upset over the loss of his job, set himself on fire -- and triggered a revolution.

What will it take to get true revolution here?

What if _________ were gay?

It occurred to me recently that our history, our present, our future could be incredibly and unrecognizably different if certain prominent figures were gay. Dare I say it might be a better place? I don't want to offend you hets, but let's think about this for a moment.

WHAT IF RONALD REAGAN WERE GAY?

REAGAN ANNOUNCES BILLIONS IN RESEARCH FUNDING FOR NEW MYSTERY ILLNESS -- headline in the New York Times

Look at that suit. All he
needs is a little paisley scarf.

It's 1982 and President Reagan, out of concern for millions of gay men who are dying of mysterious affliction some doctors are calling Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome, has announced that he will increase funding to NIH and the CDC to try to learn more about the spectrum of illnesses and how to stop them. "I care about my fellow homosexuals," Reagan said in an exclusive interview with Barbara Walters. "I've known all my life that I was gay, and my partner Hank and I are dealing with a lot of loss right now -- our friends are dying, people's sons and fathers and brothers are dying. As president, I can help stop these needless deaths. Forget missile shields in space and other such boondogglery; I want to save lives."

Oh, if only. Let's keep dreaming, shall we? (Is "boondogglery" a word?)

WHAT IF ABRAHAM LINCOLN WERE GAY?

Look at that impish grin. He's
probably thinking about Joshua
Fry Speed right now.

Oh wait. This one's kind-of a gimme. The guy didn't get all war-crazed and say "fuck the rebels! blow 'em to hell!" like, say, a moron hetero like Chimpy would've. Nope, he was sensible. Sensitive. Thoughtful. Gay, perhaps? He brought our nation through a bitter and bloody civil war; he helped bring an end to slavery. Let's face it -- probably gay! It's not like we haven't all heard the stories!

Let's keep thinking. Maybe a movie star...

WHAT IF TOM CRUISE WERE GAY?Oh wait. Yeah. Gay. Obvy! Okay. Let's think here. No more Hollywood. Let's go back east to the tough guys....

WHAT IF J. EDGAR HOOVER WERE GAY?

"Ooooh, watch where you point that thing, tough guy!"

Well, shit! This is really hard! Who else?

Editorial Note: I really DO wish Reagan had been gay, and not just gay but OPENLY gay. Of course, he'd never have been president -- unless we started our little game so far back in history that, by the time 1980 rolled around, homosexuality was completely accepted. So let's try that....

WHAT IF ALEXANDER THE GREAT...oh fuck.

WHAT IF JULIUS CAESAR WERE GAY?

"Talk to me, Marky Mark."

Hmmm. I know the Greeks were always having man-sex, but what about the Romans? If my barely passable knowledge of the Roman Empire is correct, I don't recall any gay rumors among the Caesars or Marc Antonys of Rome. Still, there was that whole stabbing on the Ides of March thing. Jilted lovers? Gay drama? Bizarre love triangle? You decide.

Moving on through history...

WHAT IF KING ARTHUR WERE GAY?

Where IS that handsome Lancelot?

So after pulling the sword from the stone and becoming the boy king, Arthur Pendragon gets Merlin to set him up this hot guy named Lancelot. They hang out together, sword-fighting (ahem) and creating Camelot, decorating the castle just so. Guinevere is never able to turn Lance's head so none of that drama starts. Instead all people are allowed to love whomever they want, and they all drink from the grail at weddings both gay and straight.

Onward....

WHAT IF QUEEN ELIZABETH WERE GAY?

Imagine her in some khakis,
a button-down shirt,
and some Hush Puppies.
Can you say "World Peace"?

Now THIS isn't hard. She'd still have remained single, still have kicked ass in battle, still have been the ruler of the free world -- and she would've gotten to wear sensible shoes and comfy clothes instead of that weirdo kabuki makeup and stuff. The Gay Virgin Queen! Bring on women's lib, Renaissance style! Pants for everyone! Some Italian invents Doc Martins and we all live happily ever after in a Shakespearean sonnet!

WHAT IF RICHARD NIXON WERE GAY?

"Hey, Macarena--YEAH!"

All republicans would be officially gay, by order of the President. End of story.

WHAT IF GLENN BECK WERE GAY?

"All I want is a REAL relationship with a hot and
loving man! Is that so much to ask, people?"

Then he wouldn't be such a fucking douche bag, now would he? He'd demand equal rights for all, collective bargaining rights for all unions, and a permanent social safety net -- all at the expense of bullshit military spending. Oh, we'd still have a military....But WHAT A MILITARY!

Editor's Note: I didn't link to any American soldier dancing videos because, well, how can I put this without insulting our brave men and women in combat? Let's just say that we really need some gays in the military, if only to teach these guys how to dance.

Today's top scary stories!

In no particular order:

--Infants shouldn't drink tap water in Japan due to radiation levels.

--You'd better hope you're not deemed a "terror suspect," what with the government's latest assault on personal rights.

--Miss Shell-Shocked Bachman announces she's interested in being president. Because Sarah Palin wasn't fucking scary enough.

What's scaring you today?

Our latest adventure in empire

Tough to know how to feel about this latest (ahem) entanglement we're getting ourselves into. I feel for the Libyan rebels who, fresh from watching the Egyptians take out Mubarak with little or no blood, set themselves the task of taking back their country from Muammar Gadhafi (spell it however; it doesn't matter). They had a few days of success, followed by a flexing of the military muscle Qaddafi (whatever) got from (who else?) us, the Russians, whoever.

The rebels started out saying they didn't need anyone's help; now they're begging for help.

So we've gotten a UN resolution (1974, bring back Jerry Ford!) to go in and clear the decks for a no-fly zone. Only a few weeks ago, Hillary and others were screeching about how there was no WAY we'd do that because it would involve bombing!; now it's bombs away, everyone! France bomb! Britain bomb! Everybody bomb!

But remember that our role is limited! Obama's assertions that he won't involve any ground troops remind me of Georgie Sr's "read my lips: no new taxes!" pledge, especially when I read what the military guys are saying:

Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the U.S. military's Joint Staff, said of the U.S. role: "We are on the leading edge of a coalition military operation. This is just the first phase of what will likely be a multiphase operation."

"first phase"? "multiphase"? Well, shit.

And what of budget cuts and government shut-downs and deficit hawks? Hey, folks, this is MILITARY spending we're talking about here. That's off limits. Now you old people and sick people and poor people -- get ready to bend over and take it up the qaddafi because we've got to cut this deficit!

When did up become down?

When exactly did the change happen -- the change during which democrats became republicans and republicans became assholes?

Let's look at a few noteworthy elements. During the Civil War and Reconstruction, republicans -- the party of Lincoln -- were fighting for the rights of freed black slaves to own property, vote, work for money, and other rights that only whites had previously. Republicans were pro-Union (USA, that is) and fought to keep everyone working as one nation. Democrats (Dixiecrats) were shouting "states' rights!" and Jim Crow-lawing the fuck out of freed slaves and black people right into the Civil Rights era, trying to keep alive the old ways of slavery, persecution, and lynching of blacks. Granted, republicans were always pro-business, but labor unions leveled the playing field and made sure that everyone made a fair wage for their work.

Today, it's the democrats who embrace the minorities, who fight for the little guy, who help the businesses but still support the unions. Republicans are now completely in the corporations' pockets, and corporatocracy favors the white man and all the money he can steal from pretty much everyone, black or white. Far-right republicans, or "tea party" supporters, are now the ones who shout "states' rights!" whenever a democratic president wants to do something they don't like. Gay marriage? States' rights to stop that perversion, no matter what Washington says! Legal abortion? States' rights to prosecute those baby-killing doctors and put 'em to death, no matter what the federal laws are! Labor unions? States' rights and "right to work" (i.e., right to be unemployed at the company's will) forever!

When did the switcheroo happen? Why did it happen? When did the republicans become the party of whiteys and the dems become the party of the rest of us? When did republicans say "fuck the Union!" and start hollering "states' rights!" everytime something didn't go their ideological way? I know that George "segregation foe-evah!" Wallace was a republican; my parents hated that guy! But when did that switch happen?

Did republicans, the party of anti-slavery, tap into the racism of the south in order to win the south's vote? Was that it? Or maybe they were always racist, and perhaps I'm unduly equating anti-slavery with anti-racism. Perhaps I'm generalizing that all northerners, and thus all northern republicans, were all pro-integration, pro-civil rights. Maybe it was just the poor ones, the ones NOT in power, who favored treating the black man fairly.

I'm no history scholar; I know only a little, albeit about a lot of things. But this has been rolling around in my brain for a while, as we watch the union battles in Wisconsin between the corporatocracy's republicans versus the common people's democrats. Why do republicans hate unions? Is it pure greed, pure pro-business at the expense of everything else? Hell, democrats are taking a lot of the same corporate money as republicans, but they're still largely supporting labor unions.

So what gives?

Taking bets...

potential story for Matty Boy's tabloid blog,
headlined "Gadaffi and Jacko join forces for Victory tour!"

How much longer before Gadaffi (how many different ways can you spell it?) either offs himself in a big martyr-style fashion or is just pushed out and runs away to some undisclosed location?

I give him another week, tops. Then he's going to either go nuts and kill himself (and probably his whole family -- the guy's nuts), or he's going to just sneak out of the country and turn up someplace else.

An interesting opinion

I heard one of the guys on Stephanie Miller's show the other day saying that no one seems to have noticed the possible connection between President Obama's strategy on the Middle East (the whole "we are not your enemy" approach) and the emergence of rebellions and protests in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. He thought that maybe Chimpy's "bomb them into democracies" policy didn't exactly create a climate conducive to revolution, while maybe Obama's relative hands-off policy might.

Of course, this assumes that Obama HAS a hands-off policy. He has continued the war in Afghanistan and we're not exactly out of Iraq yet either. Still, I do wonder if maybe the protesters at least feel that Obama won't rush to bomb the fuck out of them to defend old dictators in the name of "stability" or whatever.

He also mentioned the excellent point that, were Obama to offer any kind of tangible more-than-just-kind-words assistance to the protesters, the loyalists would seize on that support as evidence that the entire protest is simply an American-backed destabilization effort.

I'm not exactly up on Obama's foreign policy, as I kinda feel like he doesn't really seem to have one (other than continue wars, don't piss anyone off, don't make any bold moves), so I ask those of you who know more than I do: what role do you think Obama's different approach to the Middle East has played in the current climate of rebellion there?

Random thoughts on protest and Egypt

I'm really liking that protest fever is spreading, from Tunisia to Egypt to Wisconsin! I have been asking myself often lately whether a mass protest in DC could ever topple our government, or even make a whit of difference. Of course, we've HAD mass protests in DC and they've never made a difference; think of all those gay rights marches and peace protests.

But really, could US leadership ever be destabilized by anything its citizens might do in terms of protest? I don't think so, mainly because of the set-up of this country. It's too big, too diffuse -- I could maybe imagine that a big protest in Rhode Island, say against their governor, might have some effect. And I'm only using RI as an example because it's tiny, but picture this: let's say that the governor of RI gets into some big sex scandal or something. He gets caught stealing money right out of the state treasury or whatever. So tons of people (well, at least as many people as they have in Rhode Island) march down to (what the hell is their capital?) Providence (?) and start protesting, yelling "throw da bum out!" or whatever. I can see this having an effect; the governor, knowing he's been caught, might resign. It's a small state, and the crime was clear, and things could fall apart.

But let's say people in the US got fed up--for some of the same reasons the people in Egypt got fed up, like no jobs, a government that wasn't listening, corruption, etc. And god knows the corruption and not-listening in our government are pretty extreme. Still -- could any protest be mustered that would cause our president (or even a congressman or anyone in power) to step down? Would enough Americans unite? Where would they protest, to have maximum effect? If there were, say, protests in every state capitol, would that do it?

Doubtful.

I think our government is pretty much downright insulated from anything that we normal humans outside the Beltway do, whether it's protest or suffering or joblessness or every other ill we deal with every day. Our American Revolution already happened, and it will never happen again, no matter how rotten-to-the-core and completely corrupt and corporate our government gets.

On a related note, did you notice that the Patriot Act's clutches are still around our throats and will likely remain there? It barely got mentioned in the media today, even on Democracy NOW!'s show tonight. Yup, "roving wiretaps" and other violations of freedom will likely be extended by Mr. Constitution Scholar.

Back to Wisconsin: has there ever been a more bold-faced attempt at union-busting than Walker's little ploy? At least that's getting the press it deserves, and even President Obama said it sounded like union-busting to him.

For the love of cheese!

Well, as a Cowboys fan, I'm not exactly a Green Bay Packer lover, but I'm sure glad they beat the Steelers! Especially glad that Roger Staubach didn't have to hand the Steelers the trophy, although he did have to stand next to Terry Bradshaw on the dais. Did you notice how fast he got outta there?

A question

So... listening to the latest incremental back-down from power by Hosni Mubarek (I'm sure even he sees the writing on the wall), a question comes to mind.

IF -- IF we actually stay out of the Egyptian uprising and they have a free and fair election, with their own candidates who took it upon themselves to run for office....

...will this be the first time we have NOT stepped in during a power-vacuum situation to put in our own little puppet dictator? (See, oh I don't know, maybe Hussein, Saddam; Karzai, Hamed; Noriega, Manuel; Pinochet, Augusto....)

Will President Obama be able to resist the temptation? Will he continue to just stand aside and use words, not military/black-ops interference to (ahem) "influence" the outcome of any Egyptian elections? Will the Egyptians get the revolution they want?

On Obama's latest capitulation

Far be it from me to state that President Obama's done nothing while in office. He's (probably) created some jobs with the economic stimulus package, he's passed some albeit tepid healthcare policy, he's overseeing some improvement in the economy, and--who knows?--he might just get "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" off the books.

Still, it seems like it's always one step forward and two steps back, especially given the complete stonewalling of republicans whenever anything just might possibly get done in this country and the media's worship of said stonewalling. Assholes like McChinless and the Bronze Boner don't actually have to DO anything, help anyone, show even an ounce of caring for us little people. They just have to say NO and the Faux Nooz morons drool over their "principles" and admire them for things like cutting off jobless benefits and giving us poor slobs a tax break.

It's easy for Pelosi and her chums to claim Obama's a turncoat; they still have their jobs with no sign of losing them, especially Pelosi. Obama's essentially caught between a rock and an asshole, the Scylla and Charybdis of choosing us little people over himself and his reputation. He's catching hell for choosing to help us little people, of course. But what the hell else was there to be done? You can bet that if he'd "stood firm" or "stuck to his principles" or whatever other cliche the media's using today, come April 15 we all would've been crying about how he didn't help us out. Even sooner, when unemployment benefits ran out and people were basically hitting the streets, progressives would've been tearing their hairshirts and claiming Obama done 'em so wrong.

Obama manages to save the tax cuts and jobless benefits for the rest of us, and the media basically portrays him as bending over with Boner's boner in his ass.

(Sorry for that image; maybe I've been reading too much of The Rude Pundit.)

It's a serious case of "you can't win for losing." Obama defends his move, stating that he had to give in or millions of Americans would pay thousands more in taxes next year and/or would be cut-off from their unemployment checks (more on that in a second). The media paints it like this:

Forced to choose between standing with the Democratic leadership and his own liberal base, or compromising with the ascendant Republicans in Congress, the U.S. President opted to turn his back on his own party.

Can't a brother get a break?

Nope.

Hey, so long as the rich get to keep their billions, who's going to say they're wrong? Millions of stupid Americans voted MORE of these republican assholes into office last month, so the McChinlesses and Boners of the world pretty much know they're golden, untouchable. They do NOTHING to help our country, yet the media slobbers all over them, calls Obama a pussy, and the rich get richer. Landslide win for the republicans. Fuck the rest of us.

P.S.: I wrote this Dec 7, but I wanted to give Elizabeth Edwards her day at the top of my blog.

Rest in peace, Elizabeth Edwards

Another woman succumbs to breast cancer.

What the hell is this about?

I have from time to time found myself asking, "What the hell?" when I listen to the news as so many of the repugs' moves make no sense whatsoever. Here's a recent list:

1. What the hell is the repugs' blocking of re-signing the START treaty about? Why would they not want to sign a treaty that was first proposed and signed by their own GHW Bush, especially when it limits the number of nukes other countries like Russia can build to aim at us? (Not that they're even bothering with trying to blow us up anymore--why bother?)

2. What the hell is the Israelis' refusal to stop building on other people's land about? Let's say for the sake of saying that Iranians sneaked across Jordan and starting building "settlements" in Israel. The Israelis would nuke Iran so fucking fast we wouldn't even have time to say "What the hell?" Yet the Israelis feel they can build their "settlements" wherever the fuck they want to, no matter whether the land's ownership is truly decided or not. And for this, the whole "peace in the Middle East" thing fails yet again. If only some Palestinians could secretly rent some of these apartment and homes right out from under the Israelis. But I suppose that's probably impossible.

3. What the hell is this new "Inside the State Department" show about? Have you seen it yet? Exclusive interviews with and following around of Hillary Clinton waxing philosophical about her role as Sec of State, blah blah blah. Why would she be doing this show now? Is this some kind of PR exposure for a possible run for VP or even President? Not that I wouldn't vote for her, but -- this seems weird.

Be careful what you wish for

It's tempting to sign up for these "updates," isn't it?

So the repugs got what they wished for--the House--though they didn't get the Senate. Their super-way-out freaks (Angle, O'Donnell, Buck) did not win, thankfully. But Rand Paul and a lot of others did. Pennsylvania, a state that had gone blue in the last three presidential elections, now has shiny new repug governor, lt. governor, and senator.

And now we can see what the repugs do with their new-found (newly bought?) power. The Bronze Boner will take Nancy Pelosi's chair, and may the full-court press of "HELL, NO!" continue!

I'm curious to see whether they'll actually get anything done, whether it's their ridiculously vague Compact with America or Treaty with America or whatever they called it or something more radical. It's pretty easy to just say NO all the time, instead of coming up with ideas of their own, but then that's never slowed them down before.

Note: Many people are predicting the repugs will start working toward impeachment as soon as they can--anything they can do to tarnish and weaken the president even further. It's not like they need to use facts, after all -- amplified lies have been their stock in trade since Faux Nooz's first broadcast day.

It looks like they'll be crawling up the administration's ass to ensure nothing happens during the next two years, so don't expect anything productive to come out the government anytime soon.

WE DID IT!

WE BEAT THE YANKEES!

Republicans successfully block the universe

It seems a day doesn't go by that I don't hear about some democratic bill being blocked by the "minority party" republicans. It's incredible what a party with absolutely no ideas, no morals, and no scruples can do to the supposed majority in Congress.

The latest blockade prevented a bill to end tax breaks for U.S. companies who send jobs overseas. Bitch McConnell claimed that the bill was merely a last-ditch effort by dems only "pretending" to care about American workers, calling the bill "an insult to the millions of Americans who want us to focus on jobs."

So let me get this straight: we're losing jobs overseas, we've been losing them overseas for a while now. Companies get all kinds of tax breaks and deferrals when they send our jobs overseas. So a bill that would try to make companies either keep jobs here or have to pay more taxes is... a bad thing?

Uh-huh. Okay. Um, so he's saying that a bill that would punish companies for taking jobs overseas is an insult to American workers. And hey, those dems who proposed this punishment are just "pretending," so let's NOT make those companies pay extra taxes for taking jobs overseas! That'll show those dems for pretending to care!

Instead we'll let the repugs "focus on jobs" by--wait for it!--making the Bush-era tax cuts, even those for the richest Americans, permanent! Because those tax cuts certainly have created lots and lots of American jobs, and that's why the economy is humming along swimmingly, dear! Status quo all the way, baby!

Besides, no one could ever accuse repuglicans of pretending to care about American workers.

The best part, I think, is his justification of his party's policy of obstructionism:

"The Senate is operating how it should," he said, explaining that President Obama's "far-left agenda" forced the Republican conference to try to block what McConnell described as terrible policy.

"There are differences of opinion in a big country," McConnell added, speaking to reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

This guy's a fucking comic genius. No wonder he's the speaker for the minority party. He had me positively roaring with laughter right from his opening line, "The Senate is operating," because, really, since when has the Senate done a goddamned thing, much less operate "how it should?" Whew! I'm slapping my knee right now, practically crying from laughing so hard.

But the real crowd-pleaser comes when he calls President Obama's a "far-left agenda." Boy, who knew that pretty much rubber-stamping the Bush era policies of government secrecy, keeping DADT, staying in Iraq and Afghanistan, and letting Wall Street go pretty much completely unpunished (if not rewarded) for bringing down the entire world's economy was "far-left?" Oh Bitch, you're cracking me up! I'm practically blowing milk out my nostrils! Tell me another one!

That Bitch McConnell. He really knows how to bring the house, not to mention the Senate, down.

An informal poll

Do you think President Obama will win a second term?

Apparently, we no longer have a two-party system

Has anyone else noticed how, in the span of less than two years, this collection of ultra-right-wing morons calling themselves the "Tea Party" has actually become a party, at least in the MSM? These idiots are getting more and more attention as a legitimate third party, completely separate from the republicans (because, according to a report on NPR today, republicans aren't conservative enough).

Did Nader get this much attention in 2000 (at least before the election)? Hardly. Does any other party not calling itself Democratic or Republican get this much attention? Again, hardly.

The Green Party, the Progressives, the Libertarian Party--those are always treated as just fringe movements, never legit third party options; they're just random people stealing votes away from Dems or Repugs. But just today, I heard yet another report on NPR's "All Things Considered" about how all these "Tea Party candidates" are winning elections. Just look at NPR's Election 2010 page; there are three stories about Tea Party bullshit in Delaware, and only one about Democrats. (Republicans don't even rate the front page, not that I mind.)

So after all years and all this talk about how we'll never get true reform until we get more than a two-party system, etc. etc. etc. -- THIS is the party the media chooses to pay attention to and hence give some semblance of legitimacy to?

I have to ask, WHY? Why THIS 'party' that isn't even a party so much as a collection of Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin-worshipping idiots with overtly racist and classist talking points?

I'm sure it couldn't be the gazillions of dollars thrown into these races by people who made their gazillions by voting republican but who are now turning their backs on the republican party because King Georgie apparently didn't do enough to push us toward a dictatorship.

A question

Why are Americans so stupid?

Hey, Gibbs!

If you think the "professional left" is such a pain in your ass, try winning an election without them.

(I'd love to say "without us," but being a leftie hasn't paid off since I voted twice, once at home and once at college, for Ann Richards in the same election.)

Saint Ann, a proud progressive