Republican Congressman Kingston May Have to Work

Crooks and Liars has the story of the true work ethic of our Congressmen...(ok, just some of them). A dude from Georgia named Kingston says its an outrage he should have to work instead of being back at home with his family.....

The story reports that Kingston flies home on Thursdays and stays until Tuesday. Overall it is said that when this 2006 session of Congress ends, the folks will have worked seven days less than the "do nothing" Congress of 1948.

Well, I don't know anything about them, but I do know that Rep. Kingston ought to be ASHAMED. His constituents work at LEAST five days a week. They would LOVE to spend more time with their families, but that's not the way the real world works.

In the real world we all work until late May JUST TO PAY OUR TAXES. By the way, Kingston, thats not a two and a half day work week. That's five and six days a week.
I don't have a problem with taxes. I'm in favor of them. I'm a liberal, so I like the idea of helping those who can't help themselves....of building infrastructure...of funding an assortment of worthy programs.

But I'm also offended by this Republican jerk for being so out of touch with the real world.

If you don't like your job, get a trust fund. (As if you don't already have one with that attitude.)

Read More...

Collapse...

How Republicans Trick Us With Language

A great blogger named Kelly Gorski introduced me to an absolutely incredible piece of writing called "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff.

Give yourself some time to read it...its 36 pages in pdf. It concerns Republican strategies, social theory and framing language (much like this book recommendation I posted previously.

Here is the link: Don't Think Like An Elephant.

(I probably haven't made it sound all that exciting...but if you are a person who continually wonders why people vote for Republicans NO MATTER what they do, you need to read this article!

Read More...

Collapse...

Abortion & Queers: Surely Its All That Matters

Seems that the Rev. Joel Hunter has proven to be a man of principle. Doesn't mean he isn't heavily in favor of outlawing abortion and queers...but...but...wait for it....

For this Christian evangelical pastor, there are actually MORE things on a Christ-centered agenda than JUST abortion and queers!

Well, of course, the bad news is that Pat Robertson and the rest of the Christian Coalition couldn't jive with that, so Hunter resigned.

Does Pat MAYBE think this looks a bit bad? Might a FEW of the CC members see that Hunter quit because he "hoped to include issues such as easing poverty and saving the environment". (Hell, no wonder the Coalition didn't want him. Think how many blow jobs might be perpetrated while we're out there FEEDING SOME KID. The nerve of these liberals.


Now listen to what the CC told Hunter when he had the nerve to mention those snot-nose poverty people. ""They pretty much said, "These issues are fine, but they're not our issues; that's not our base,' "

Our base.

Its not our base, see?

You know...from the Greek word alkjoivuw,mn,mdlkuu, right? Where Jesus said, "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, yadayadayada.... but jab them fags in the eyes too, and get out the vote to make women drive to a different state for them abortions. And most of all, understand your base."
(Why is Jesus so misunderstood? Those instructions are pretty clear, right? The only way they would be more simple would be if he LEFT OUT EVERYTHING AFTER THE "PRISONER"!)

Our base simply looks toward the queers and the baby-killers. Full time job though it is. And don't get us wrong. There are tons of organizations who do that poverty stuff. We're all for em. But look...we didn't build this place on the boring issues. Look, just that Sodomy Series on CD alone built that steeple over there.

Enough for now. I have a lot more to add to this story, but I may go have gay sex and an abortion, just to get the taste out of my mouth from this putrid story. Ok, so I can't stomach sex with a guy, plus I can't get pregnant....so I'll do neither. But by golly I threatened to.

Read More...

Collapse...

Free Republic Blogger Arrested for Terrorism

(Originally published on November 13, 2006)

Who is surprised by this?

A 39 year-old self-described conservative, who claims to "worship" Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin, mailed "white powder" to several celebrities and broadcast journalists.

His victims included Keith Olberman, Jon Stewart, David Letterman, and even NANCY PELOSI, about to be third in line for the Presidency.

What is "terrorism"? Many people believe it is simply killing or injuring people. It is more than that. It is, per Wordnet:

the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or
coerce societies or governments

Sending white powder to the most powerful woman in America is an attempt to coerce and intimidate our government. Sending white powder to television personalities who have the ear of the country is an attempt to intimidate and coerce the SOCIETY.

THIS GUY, if he is guilty, is a terrorist. Is the point of this post to pile on a poor conservative? NO. The reason this story is important is because right-wing Americans are posting all over the internet about how "America is finished" and "the terrorists have won" and "We will be speaking Arabic very soon".


This doomsaying nonsense is SO prevalent on the internet that I really don't think its disengenuous partisan bullshit. I think they honestly believe this. Rush and O'Reilly have succeeded in making these people actually believe that people in the middle east could successfully stage a Normany-style invasion of Virginia Beach. And after they pull that off, they somehow have the ability to occupy every corner of America and install a Muslim state.

How ridiculous is this belief? These people are scaring their children, and my children, and they are just plain WRONG. Yes, we have to carefully and expertly manage the nuclear abilities and activities in the world....JUST like we have had to do since the late 40's. This HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE. (Except for the NEW terrorists we have created by invading Iraq, which was no help at all to this task.)

But to believe that somehow radical Islam will "take over America" is stupid...and to further that bullshit IS TERRORISM IN ITSELF.

Where did this worshipper of Coulter and Malkin get his ideas of who "deserved" his white powder? I think we all know the answer. And how often do these folks hawk the war (and the defense industry and the military machine) by painting the picture of Arabs feeding lions with Christians in Texas Stadium?

Well, if you read the message boards of both left and right websites, you know they must paint these pictures VERY OFTEN.

Here's the deal, America. Iraq is a fraction of the size and a fraction of the population of the USA. WE have the strongest military in the world by twenty or thirty times the second place runner up. And yet....the BEST we've been able to do is hold onto a few blocks, called the Green Zone, in the capital city.

We have the BEST MILITARY IN HISTORY, and that is the best we can do. And these wingnuts really, REALLY believe that someone is going to occupy US one day? Folks, the only enemy who should be feared that seriously is the enemy of division here at home. The way things are going, one of these days, a sitting President is going to say, "well, things are too unstable in the world for me to step down. I'm calling off the election". And when that happens, we are changed forever.

And EVEN THEN, our own military could not control us, even if they supported this rouge President. There is no way to control guerrila tactics in a country our size.

In summary...this dude wanted SO BADLY to continue the hysteria of terrorism, that he became a terrorist himself. Chances are, whoever committed the Washington white powder crimes a few years ago was from a very similar vein.

Let's please stop the hysteria. It is good to be prudent. But for 50 years prudence meant relying on our military, CIA and FBI to manage the threat of nuclear holocaust and violent crime from outside our borders. We must continue to fund these sources of our protection. And THEN WE MUST ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT JOB. Hysterical message boarding is no help to anyone....it is simply a form of terrorism.

Read More...

Collapse...

"Purity Balls"; Dobson, Daddy, and Disgust

How I missed this, I'll never know. Paragon shares this video of Purity Balls, and Feministing adds that this gets federal funding.

Here's what the clip shows: Girls apparently between 2 and 17 go to this Prom-of-sorts with their fathers. It says they get dressed up and some arrive in limos. There's a voice-over by James Dobson (Ted Haggard's "scared straight" coach.) He tells the story of a 17 year old girl who says that she doesn't desire boys the way all her friends do. According to Dobson, this is because she is sitting on her father's lap, and therefore HE is fulfilling "every girls desire for the affection of boys" or something like that.

Then the video shows the dads and daughters reciting and signing these covenants, in which the dads vaguely promise integrity, while the daughters promise to abstain from sex until marriage, so as to give yourself as a wedding gift to her spouse.


Type rest of the post here

Read More...

Collapse...

Haggard's "Choice" for a Blow Job

Originally published on November 8, 2006)

Here's the latest on Pastor Ted Haggard from Salon.

I've avoided this issue, for no other reason than its on every blog on the internet. Also, I knew the real story would be how the fundamentalists spun things.

Would they realize that homosexuality is a genetic reality? That the reason homosexual clergy in homo-unfriendly denominations are a reality is that they were once young men who felt they could hide from their true self if only they became ministers?

No. Instead they are putting Ted Haggard in what the communists would call a re-education program, under the leadership of James Dobson.


James Dobson is a demigod where I come from. People swear by him and finance him. That's fine....people do need to "focus on their family". But the belief that gayness rubs off on people is simply wrong.

Look, if it were contagious, I woulda caught it. I've worked closely with some great guys who were gay, and I've gone out drinking with them, and talked politics with them. Here's the scoop, folks: I could be at the bar after five beers and four months without sex (which is usually), and I'm STILL LOOKING AROUND APPRECIATING THE FEMALES IN THE ROOM. That is who I am.

(And by the way...they are smart enough to know that, so Dobson should know that these folks aren't "recruiting" anybody, EVEN IF that were possible.)

A couple of issues here, and I'm not going to try to document any of this, so you'll have to search for the supporting research.

First, I'm beginning to believe a premise I first heard from an Episcopal priest, a heterosexual I respect greatly. He believes that every person has within their genetic makeup SOME formation of BOTH homo- and hetero- attraction genes. This wouldn't be on a bell curve distribution, because it appears obvious that hetero behavior, not in small part due to procreation, is the predominate preference.

But when you look at people like Ted Haggard, who have five kids, it would support the notion that he would sit somewhere in the middle of that distribution. A "flaming queer" on the other hand, would safely fall on the homosexual end of the scale. And me? Well, I'm in the George Castanza category.

Remember that episode of Seinfeld, when George got the massage from a man? It moved. The fact that it moved convinced George, to his holy terror, that he was gay. Like George, my homo genes are rather non-existent. It would take my back being turned on the massage table for "it to move", and the movement would stop suddenly once I turned around.

Men don't do it for me, therefore I can't be recruited. Therefore I have no stake in voting for anti-gay laws rather than electing officials who will care for my safety and economic well-being.

Second Issue: If you think the above might be true, it would stand to reason that SOME homosexual experiences do amount to a choice by people, no different than any sexual one-night stand is a choice. So yes, probably there are teenage boys (and probably more girls) who are doing same-sex stuff because it is counter-culture and cool. Perhaps the battlefield that James Dobson has made this issue is the REASON it is counter-culture and cool. However, I can tell you that when I was in college, the only thing that would have made me try it would have been a large handgun aimed at me....therefore I still say its about the genetic makeup that would even make it possible. Just as a "flaming queer" would have never been able to stomach experimenting with the opposite sex.

Which brings me to this: If you read the Salon story, or just the quote issued by Haggard's overseer, what do you notice. Let me post it:



"I am a sinner. I have fallen," Haggard wrote. "The fact is, I'm guilty of sexual immorality." Mike Jones' allegations, the pastor insisted, are not all true, but "enough of them are true."

"Part of my life is so repugnant and dark," Haggard said in the letter Stockstill read. "I've been warring against it all my life." He told of how he had sought counseling to address his sexuality, which he said cured him for spells. But then, he wrote, "the dirt I thought was gone would resurface ... the darkness increased and dominated." Haggard asked his congregation for forgiveness for him, and also for his accuser, who he suggested was inspired by God to reveal his "deception and sensuality."

What do you see about illegal drug use, adultery, or paying someone for sex? Nothing. Why would that be?

Its simple. Gay sex is the end-all, be-all sin these days. I'll never forget in about 1984 a girl asked me out to homecoming at another university after she saw me in a play. I gladly accepted.

I drove down there and went to the game, and then came the time for "what do you want to do now?". This question was posed to me, since I was the guest. I suppose I answered nervously with the usual choices, which led her to ask, "you aren't gay are you?".

Being only 19 years old, I didn't have the self-understanding and presence to say, "no, not at all. I just come from a very conservative upbringing, which can be very tough in the guilt arena, and on top of that, I'm a little afraid of a girl this aggressive, cause I've never met one."

A few hours later, after things obviously went her way, I rationalized the guilt with the argument, "I damn shore proved I wasn't gay!".

What does this have to do with the topic? That was over TWENTY years ago. Admittedly that was a time that "are you gay" would have been the ultimate insult. But even then I had justification for meaningless hetero sex, DUE TO the gay issue.

What about kids today? Don't you think their young horny minds can build those rationales even stronger? Look again at the Haggard quote and ask yourself.

What about committed married men today? How long will it take someone to go on a business trip and meet someone and think, "well, pastor Ted's sin was queerness...what's the harm in hiring one of these poor whores as long as its a she?"

What about that married woman who gets so little real conversation at home? How easy today is it for her to say, "My husband is probably gay anyway. I need attention, and there's nothing wrong with this."

Now I'm one who believes that the mind will come up with rationale for sex if the body wants it bad enough, but still....does the evangelical church REALLY want to continue this process of RANKING sins like this?

We must get past this issue in America, just as we had to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1969. Homosexuality is no more a choice than race. If it were, Pastor Ted would have NEVER chosen a man for a massage and a blow job.

Read More...

Collapse...

Sex Is Still All They Got, President Clinton

Originally published on November 7, 2006)

If you want to know what thrills an old man of 41, I'm about to share it with you:


Click here for video
Unfortunately I don't know how to post a click thru image to YouTube. If anyone knows, please tell me.

Now....go watch that clip.

Here's part of the transcript...but reading it absolutely can't describe the genius of Bill Clinton:

The campaign that has been run against Jim Webb is just the sort of most grotesque example of this formula they're running all around the country. It goes something like this. This is their message, pretend I'm their guy: 'OK, we really messed up. I mean, this Iraq deal didn't work out too good and now we put Afghanistan at risk. And we probably shouldn't have put that horse show association guy in charge of FEMA... And you know, it was embarrassing when our senior White House aide that dealt with Mr. Abramoff had to go to prison. But Karl Rove didn't know him very well, he only had 485 contacts with the White House. And he's shy, Karl Rove, you've got to know him 486 times before he knows you. Yeah, we've got a lot of problems but you've still got to vote for us. 'Cuz my opponent is a slug. And they're going to tax you into the poorhouse. On the way to the poorhouse you'll meet a terrorist on every street corner. And when you try to run away from that terrorist you're going to trip over an illegal immigrant. You can't vote for 'em. I mean, is that it?'

(Credit to lowkell at Daily Kos for the transcript.)

I overstated, right? This doesn't REALLY thrill a man of 41.

Actually it did thrill me. I realize I'm a person watching life from the sidelines if life involves anything outside my children...which is rather sad. But Clinton's words, and more so, his abilities, produce joy and sickness at the same time.

Its a joy to watch a true extemporaneous speaker (a key requirement in my own job) craft his art.

Its sick to realize what we lost in Clinton and what we gained in Bush. And I love comments to my blog, but PLEASE don't leave the tired message, "At least Bush didn't shoot off on a blue dress."

At this point, I would be in favor of allowing Clinton to have "Fireside Jerks" on CSPAN if we could get our war dead back...if we could un-create all the terrorists we have created....if we could help the people of the Gulf Coast...if we could regain our stature as the world's MORAL AND FAIR leader.

Yes, I know Clinton's speech is partisan. That was his job last night. But is he wrong? "My opponent is a slug". That's a campaign?? "The terrorists will get you". HOW? HOW will they get me ANY different if a Democrat is making cash deals to give away control of ports instead of Republicans???

Let's all just wait about five or ten years. At that time, we'll see if Bush will be able to stand on his own two feet and make even an AVERAGE speech without five teleprompters. We'll see in another ten or twenty years how Bush is remembered (Nixonesque?) and how Clinton is remembered (the last person to deal with deficit?).

For now....we must each do all we can, and vote is all we can do. Today I will vote against two Republicans who have no chance of losing. But I go out in the rain for two reasons (other than my own conscience):

1) Because I've never missed a chance since my oldest was four of taking my kids to the polls. And by the way...she is 13 now, and a STAUNCH Republican, although she is beginning to doubt due to Iraq. I don't try to change her mind on that...on the contrary, I am proud I have helped her to be interested and informed. (Alas though, for all my Episcopalian leanings, she is all Baptist.)

2) Because today all across the land, people whose vote MATTERS need desperately to get out in the rain and stand in line and VOTE. I stand with them in my own line, even though my vote is a hoax in Mississippi.

And I must say: If I have a hero alive today, it is William Jefferson Clinton. (And yes...I do happen to like big girls with dark hair. I'd actually take Monica out in public.)

Read More...

Collapse...

Get Your Very Own Presidential Pardon

Look, we all make mistakes.

And for those of you who have accumulated enough wealth, there's no longer any reason to fret about the consequences.

Visit Bush's Prez Pardon Site to get all the details.

But see the FAQ's for information on prepayment options, wire transfers, and accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. And if you order today, you can get an 8X10 of Barney, the First Dog.

Read More...

Collapse...

The Legal Drug Debate

Salon had a humorous article today, about an African-American professional helping her aged mother with her ballot. On the ballot was an initiative concerning marijuana.

In short, her mom said, "Jesus didn't smoke no weeds"....which was all she needed to know. Thus, her vote was no.

Well, I happen to believe that legalizing AT LEAST marijuana is one of the most important steps we could take in 1) reducing the deficit, 2) getting people out of jails who don't belong there, and 3) stopping crooks, black marketers and terrorists from profiting in this trade.

PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK, AND IT WILL NEVER WORK!

Anyway....what I wanted to share was this response to the article. The following paragraph states my fundamental opinion on this better than any I've ever seen:

I am sure most of the posters could care less about those folks. A not too wise man once said "George Bush doesn't care about black people." The truth is most of us really don't. If we did then we would not turn so many of their neighborhoods into war zones so that fewer of "us" run the risk of addiction.

The reason this is SO powerful is because this response is written to LIBERALS who read Salon. Many of the responses were from liberals who simply wrote off and discounted legalizers as "dope addicts" and "justifiers of their own addiction".

I must say now that I have never inhaled. (As a matter of fact, I've never even held a joint or pipe or whatever. I'm not a saint...I've been known to partake of hydrocodone recreationally, but I've never even seen marijuana outside of "drug education".

Forget the scientific evidence of how much safer weed is than alcohol (and tobacco). Forget the tax dollars and ridding us of crime. Just think about this man's point:

We care so little for black people that we are willing to turn their neighborhoods into war zones, JUST cause our own white folks MIGHT be less likely to try it.

How powerful.

And yet....we've already HAD an experiment in prohibition. Far as I know, there's NO proof whatsoever that fewer people TRIED alcohol, LIKED alcohol, or GOT HOOKED ON alcohol back in the days it was illegal.

The only difference was the supply and demand realities: Crooks, politicians, bureaucrats, policemen...many of them were the ones who profited. And even sadder....the ones who were HONEST were in more danger in their jobs. Its the same today.

I believe that if drugs were available in the same way that alcohol is available, that crime in this country would decrease by 70% at a minimum.

And believe me....me, my family, my friends....we are ALL more likely to be a victim of CRIME than we are a victim of drug abuse in today's world. You know why?? Because IF WE'RE GOING TO BECOME A DRUG ABUSER, WE CAN DO THAT JUST AS EASILY NOW AS IN A LEGAL DRUG ENVIRONMENT. The only difference is the crime and who profits.

I'm for the crime to go away.

Read More...

Collapse...

Diebold & Repubs; Arms Length?

(Originally published on November 6, 2006)

The War Room reports on a troubling communication from Ken Mehlman to his flock. I've already reported satirically on my opinion of voting machines, and this seems to reinforce my fears.

Here's the story: Taegan Goddard reports the following:


The RNC just sent out detailed talking points about how unreliable exit polls have been over the past several elections. The key arguments are that exits polls typically have a Democratic bias and have wrongly predicted Democratic victories in recent years.

According to a source, the RNC expects leaked exit polls to show Democratic victories and do not want the news to discourage Republican voters from going to the polls late in the day.


Ok, so let's examine. Some believe that once the winner is obvious, people will just stay home from the polls. I think this is over-stated.

The two Democrats I look most forward to voting for are running against Trent Lott (MS Senate) and Roger Wicker (MS House). I don't even know those Democrats' names, and I DO know they are going to lose. But I can't wait to vote for them.

People who care vote. (Some of them even know the candidate names, unlike me.)

So is there another reason for the "talking points memo"?

Well, remember 2004? Exit polls showed significant victories in Ohio for John Kerry. When the voting machines tallying the "actual" vote count, he lost.

Do exit polls "favor Democrats"? Or do those voting machines favor REPUBLICANS?

How do exit polls favor Democrats, by the way? Is this yet another racist and elitist argument? Sounds like they're implying that "the smarter, whiter Republican voter is smart enough to lie to those librul exit pollers. The poor, dumb, minority libruls are honest."

Yes, honesty is such a Right-Wing Christian trait until libruls ask questions (or until a male prostitute outs you.

Maybe there's another reason that asking people questions "favor" one side or another....but take out pure lying, and I can't figure out what it is.

I'm concerned about this....I really am. Have we seen ANY sign that people are NOT willing to rig an election to hold office? Have we seen ANY sign that other people wouldn't take 20 or 30 million bucks to reprogram a computer program? No to both. And 20 to 30 million is chump change for what's at stake here. (Disclaimer: Yes, Democrats have people willing to cheat, just as much as Republicans. I'm just not sure Dems know any computer literate people. Just kidding.)

Look, Diebold is a company that 1) has an interest in Bush's tax cuts, and they ain't worried about the deficit, just their own stock price, and 2) Most of their bucks come from the banking business historically. Now what party do you think the banks are all for? (Hint: They ain't worried about the deficit either. They need the artificial prop-up in housing prices to stay put for as long as possible.)

Read More...

Collapse...