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

I got a little bone to pick

the senator in question

It's been a few days since I heard this idiotic statement during an NPR story on Missouri's vote against the Obama healthcare bill, but it's been bugging the hell out of me. Here's the statement, made by Missouri state senator Jane Cunningham, who is of course a republican:

It is unprecedented in the United States of America for a government to say just because you live in this land and you breathe in this land, you will buy a product, any product, with your own money against your will. That has never before happened in America.

Now I don't want to talk about stupid Missouri thinking they can make a state law that will trump federal law (BTW, hello, Arizona, the "stupid" tag applies to you too). That's not the bone I want to pick.

No, what I have a problem with is the stupidity of republican talking points, this one being just the latest in the ever-escalating moronic talking points of the republican/tea party.

Let's take a look at this statement which Sen. Cunningham blasts at the oh-so-unfair idea of getting everyone health insurance so that we're not going broke paying for people to go to the ER all the fucking time because they have no insurance. (oops, sorry, I picked at another bone there. Sorry.)

So "never before" has it "happened in America" that we, who "live in this land and... breathe in this land," have been forced by "a government" to "buy a product, any product, with [our] own money against our will" -- is that your contention, senator? Is that your problem with the health care law? It's "unprecedented?"

Because I have to call bullshit on that, madam. Why, you ask? Let me offer you a short list of "products" we as living breathing Americans have been forced by this government to pay for with our own money and against our will:
1. Iraq War
2. Afghan War
3. War on drugs
4. the first Gulf War
Shall I go on? Because believe me, I could think of PLENTY of "products" this government has used our money to pay for even though many of us were pretty fucking against them. We paid our money in taxes so that King Georgie McChimp could pretty much just give it to his rich friends, his dad, Halliburton, and BlackWater. And yet I don't remember you speaking up for those of us who didn't want that "product" and didn't want our money spent on that product.

But now, when our president tries to actually do something for people BESIDES those rich friends and family -- whether it's gonna work or not, the effort and intention were there, Senator -- NOW you want to argue that "It is unprecedented in the United States of America for a government to say just because you live in this land and you breathe in this land, you will buy a product, any product, with your own money against your will. That has never before happened in America"?

NOW you're saying this? Like the government has NEVER BEFORE shoved some bullshit policy or imperialist war or tax cut for the super-rich down our throats and demanded we pay for it?

Bullshit, Senator Cunningham. Bullshit. Oh, and your haircut is freaky.

But I digress.

Now go back to your local library, Senator, and read the Constitution. Read some constitutional law. Because, as University of Missouri School of Law professor Richard Reuben said in that same NPR story, "This should be a no-brainer for the courts. Under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a state statute that is in direct conflict with a federal statute is simply invalid."

What the hell?

I've been having such a great time watching the Harry Potter Weekend on ABCFamily Channel, but there's been one commercial playing over and over that has me completely stumped: the "Falsies" mascara commercial with--for some fucking reason neither AB nor I can figure out--the theme from "Magnum, P.I." playing in the background.

What the fuck does Magnum have to do with "falsie" eyelashes?

I see it now. I get it.

I just watched Rachel Maddow deliver her edited version of President Obama's big Oval Office speech last night. I see it now. I get it. I see why every lesbian (and lots of men) is in love with Maddow.

Amazing. And hey, I'm okay with a blotchy president who gets a little teary-eyed when she gets mad. At least she'd show some emotion when an entire region gets ruined forever by an oil company.

P.S.--yes, I did a little editing on that screen capture of Maddow. See if you can find it.

Still here

I'm still alive, though I haven't posted for a while. I've been getting into my new job at MegaCorporationInc, and I'm in Harrisburg all week at a sales training class. But I'm still here.

Like many of you, I've tired of the crap they call "news" on TV and radio, so I haven't been much in the loop on what's happening in the big world. I've kept my focus local of late, on settling back in Pennsylvania after my long time away, on integrating my stuff into the apartment I'm sharing with AB, on learning to live with someone again after a while on my own. It's been great living with AB, who's just plain dreamy in every way! I miss my parents and my family, but I'm so glad to be back in PA.

I'll leave you with this pre-adolescent school picture of me in fourth grade; I kinda missed that little recent trend on Facebook where everyone was using school pics as their profile pics. Oh well. Better late than never:

Just call me "Superfly."

The mirror has two faces

Don't worry: I don't mean that Streisand movie. Whew!

I mean the way regular people like you and me, and the people all around us at work and the grocery store and places, talk about political figures we don't like.

Remember how, during the GWBush presidency, we all talked about him like he was a dictator, a Hitler who was taking away our rights? And the Patriot Act was the end of our country as we knew it? I won't bother with links; we all remember our posts. We believed we were right, and that we knew what repugs and Faux Nooz and Rush Limpdick and Glenn Prick didn't know: that Bush was basically the antichrist, and we were in big trouble.

Over the last week and a half, I've been temping at a local car dealership, answering the phones and filing and stuff. During this time, I've heard almost the exact same things, word for word, that we used to say about Bush -- only this time, these guys are saying it about Obama. They really think they're right. People who seemed sensible only moments before suddenly start saying things like "Obama is exactly like Hitler!" and "this healthcare bill is the end of our democracy!" "Obama's the antichrist!"

These people list things like "parallels" between Hitler's Third Reich and Obama's presidency (stuff about their talent as public speakers, the takeover of businesses by the government, etc.); you've heard it all on Faux Nooz. The thing is, they all believe they're right too, just like we do. They all think they know the truth, and that the other side is completely wrong and full of idiots, and that NOW we're all screwed because this crazy guy in office is taking our country straight to the gulag or the concentration camp or whatever.

A lot has changed since Bush took office in 2000. But are we in nazi Germany? It doesn't feel like it; no one's coming for my neighbor yet, or for me. All our bloggy jokes about getting picked up and put in Gitmo for trashing Bush/Cheney? Never happened, at least not to any of us.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Do any of us really know what's happening in D.C.? Do we have any control over what happens in D.C., or Afghanistan or Iraq or anyplace outside our own homes and jobs? Is our government even our government anymore? I mean, one minute Chimpy McStagger is signing blank checks to Halliburton for providing our soldiers with contaminated drinking water; the next minute, the Carebear is allowing offshore drilling pretty much everywhere.

Sometimes you just have to say WHAT THE FUCK?, you know?

I've thought before that our government/power elite exist in their own world, completely insulated from the everyday, the mundane concerns you and I live with. Our media is part of their world; they prop up Bush and his wars, give pub to morons like Sarah Palin and the teabaggers, let insane sociopaths like Glenn Prick or Rush Limpdick air their verbal poison.

We--you and me and all our neighbors--are simply the entertainment in this world. That powerful elite populace, all 1% of them, just point and laugh. And can you blame them? Look at the way we're portrayed on TV, on shows like Cops, American Idol, World's Dumbest, 19 Kids and Counting, Faux Nooz's entire schedule. Notice a trend there?

I'm reminded of an Ani DiFranco lyric from her song "Tamburitza Lingua":

TV is, after all, the modern-day Roman Coliseum
Human devastation as mass entertainment
And now millions sit jeering
Collectively cheering
The bloodthirsty hierarchy of the patriarchal arrangement

The power elite are sitting in those seats, making "thumbs down" gestures when it comes to doing anything that might help us get out of there alive. They'd rather we get eaten by the lions, or better yet, that we kill each other.

You watch one channel and you hear how crucial it is that we vote out all the democrats in the next election, or basically the country will collapse. You watch another channel and you hear the same thing, only with voting out republicans.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Does it even matter? Is our innate stupidity and need to put down that which is different from us so powerful that, no matter what side we're on, we're still singing the same songs but just substituting different nouns in the "I hate __________" spots? Are we any different from them?

Or are we just right?