Michael Steele as Face of the GOP? Ok. So I Just Re Read This Book.

And there is this one scene that takes place in Post Civil War Charleston. The line that I mean to recall is where the title character describes the scene when he, a black man, was savagely attacked by a mob of rabid white southerners, partially on account of that whole taboo of messing with white women, but on the higher level because:

"They were so full of hatred, because that spring in America, all the niggers were free men and women, and they did not like it. It was the end of their world."
(Galilee, by Clive Barker, p. 541.)

And I am sure there are some people (even some well meaning, sensitive, smart people) who will disagree with me, but I get that sort of vibe off the Republican Party (slightly more restrained, though) with the election of President Obama. The end of the days when only white men get to be president, is here. Glory Be.

Or, if you have a vested interest in maintaining the reducing areas where white privilege still exist -- Oh nooo! The Horror!

And now the party of 90% white people, otherwise known as the Republican Party, has chosen a undeniably black man as Chair of the Party.

So who is this a good day for, then?

Well, let's take care of the obvious; it is a great day for Michael Steele. I will not get too deep into my inside baseball (sorta) knowledge of Maryland politics, but I will just say (and I am not being pissy here, the conclusion follows the facts) this is a major achievement for any man or woman who's greatest political achievement to date has been only to be elected as Lt. Governor of a state, running as running mate of the candidate for Governor. And for a black man? Well, he has been doing the inside work; he has been doing the party back office stuff for the past few years. As opposed to Sociopathic Succubus Sarah, at least he got to be a contender, on his own merit.

Moving on with the idea of who this is good for?

I guess it is good for the GOP. I emphasize the word guess. And the reason I am qualifying that is that on first blush, it seems to show the GOP as a potential bastion of diversity. But that is the new veneer that might not be warranted. A party that has more than 90% of it's membership as white people, and a consistently better than 90% rejection rate by blacks, has to do a shitload more than pick a black man as it's Chair. Not that I think this is a token choice (as I already said, I think Mr. Steele has been playing the back room game and seemingly well), but I fear, based on the track record of the GOP as a whole, and so many of it's members, that he will end up as token by default. That is what I call the process when Republicans trot out their more visible blacks. The more they talk about the few the rare, the black republicans, the more it seems they are being symbolized, and in a dishonest way for a dishonest purpose, and as a result of that, it smacks of tokenism.

Then there is the fact that there are still so many out and out, if not violently, while still in denial, racist GOPers.

And that leads us right back to the quote from the book. Here is the question. Granted, there will be (one hopes) lots of members of the GOP who will either be happy to see the color line broken in the leadership of the GOP, or at least, are not racist enough to give a shit about the way Steele looks, and what his race is. But is the racist faction of the GOP so large, and so powerful that he is going to be a divisive figure? We already have the more racist people in the GOP frothing at the mouth at the election of President Obama. How are they going to react to the party organization's leader looking more like Obama than them?

Not well, I am guessing. And Steele does have another problem. He actually gets it, that the GOP needs to modernize and -- shock, horror -- move to the middle.

I would not be my last dollar on his chances of success. And the fact that he is not a hard assed conservative gives the racist wing of the GOP a non-racist club to bash him with.

But here is what I will bet my last dollar on; that the racist wing of the GOP will not content itself to only use such neutral clubs. We know their racism will leak out. It always does.

Sean Hannity Proves What I've Been Saying for Years. They Use the Same Words, but it's Not the Same Language.

I know I have said it here, in the past. I have for a long time believed that Republicans use the same words those of us chained to reality, the rules and customs of English Language Usage, and dictionary meanings do, but it really is not the same language. And Sean Hannity tacitly admits that, sorta back handed, but follow me here.

In the new incarnation of the former Hannity and Colmes show, Hannity has this (really dinky, juvenile) recurring segment called "Liberal Translation." Now according to him, it is the place where they tell people what liberals "Really Mean," when they speak.

From my POV, the truth is really about 180 degrees away, on the compass. It is a stark and clear example of how Republicans don't speak English, as those of us actually fluent in the language do. Here is how the insanity and lie works. Hannity's staff takes a video of some Democrat, and chop it up in chunks. They inter cut the actual words said in English, words spoken in mind of their clear plain dictionary meanings, and suggest their alternative meanings for the textbook literal actual English Language custom and usage meanings.

Now I will admit, it is sort of an exaggeration to say that using Hannity's filter is every bit, every time as delusionally inaccurate as to say that when Joe said,"The dog is on the back porch," he actually meant,"The socialist revolution starts at 12pm tomorrow, EST."

But to be honest, I am only exaggerating just a small bit here. They are so unhinged from reality and employ the partisan curve ball, bullshit, and out right lies so easily that they might as well be as off the wall as the made up example I provided above.

Now my last remark might seem a little tangential but where are all the Republicans who can play chess? How come they can't see past their own noses?

Anyway . . .

Exactly How Racist Does a Republican Racist Have to be, Before Other Republicans Stop Defending These Racists?

Rush Limbaugh's racist rantings are so frequent an occurrence that it no longer shocks me, to hear, read, or learn about the latest hate spew from him. The most recent example of this is his remarks about having to bend over and grab the ankles just because Obama's father was black.

Now one of the first things that came to mind when I heard that was:

"Didn't the fat bad man loose his short-lived football commentator gig, for saying something as hateful and racist about a certain black quarterback?"

Moving ahead and to today's point, we go back to yesterday's MSNBC broadcast, featuring Nora O'Donnell interviewing Mike Pence, current Chairman of the House Republican Conference. Ms. O'Donnell brought up the Rush comment and quoted it, but did not at all even allude to the racist tone, flavor, or context. She just pushed Pence on the whole why can't he, "Denounce something like that. Are you so beholden to someone like Rush Limbaugh," part.

Pence didn't take the question head on, nor did he take it on obliquely. He did not do the usual sidestep/straw man argument. What he did do was what lawyers call the anticipatory defense; he when off about how there is not a racist bone in Limbaugh's body.

WTF?

Isn't this the same Rush Limbaugh who called the Latino Mayor of L.A. a “Shoe Shine Boy?" Isn't this the same Rush who is patron of that racist and untalented "Magic Negro," parody man, Shanklin? (Hell, I am on a roll here. Let's do a proper roll call.) Isn't this the same Rush who has said:

1. I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

2. You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

3. Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

4. Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.

5. Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

6. The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

7. They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?

8. Take that bone out of your nose and call me back(to an African American female caller).

9. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.

10. Has called Obama a ‘halfrican American’ has said that Obama was not black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than one percent of Kenya.

(thanks to the following, for this top 1o list of Limbaugh Racist Quotes.)

http://newsone.blackplanet.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

But let's move back away from Limbaugh's actual record, and get back to what Mike Pence and why he said it, likely? Ok. That rhetorical question takes us right back to the Top 10 List, and what ever else is out there in the record. And that begs the question as I put it up there in the title line, and I repeat:

Exactly How Racist Does a Republican Racist Have to be, Before Other Republicans Stop Defending These Racists?

Sick! Sick! Sick! But No! It Can and Will Get Worse!

Firstly, we had the GA Congresscritter tell (and rightly so) Rush Limbaugh to back down.

That's a win for the Forces of Courage and Integrity.

Then the weasel crawls to Rush, and apologizes to him with the head bobbing efficiency of a fluffer on a porno shoot set (metaphorically speaking.)

That's a win for the Forces of Cowardice and Evil.

But it gets worse. And I am usually behind the vid, but I am ahead of it now. Dick Armey went so over the top on a segment on Hardball, that the first thing someone said in the next segment (different guests) was to point out the out of bounds sexism of Dick Armey's vicious attack on Joan Walsh. The nasty bit of garbage was some load of bile about how Dick Armey was glad she wasn't his wife so he did not have to live with hearing that . . . all the time.
In text it is not as harsh sounding as it was when delivered. Context counts, and so does tone and body language.

He was a total pig. He was worse than that; he was a freaking Orc!

Irony was that a large part of the conversation was Rush's now seemingly slightly less offensive line about bending over and having to take it from Obama cause his father was black.

I warned ya'll. This shit is just gonna get worse.

According to O'Reilly, if You Don't Get Paid to Talk Politics, Shut Up!!

Nope, that was not exactly the topic, or his intended message, but it was the undercurrent. The topic was that most (or at least one of the most) witless of Right Wing knee jerk beliefs; celebrities (Dem./Lib., only) have no right to talk politics.

He had, as his bat boy, Andrea Pesyer, who is to my mind is an acidic, and I mean in the Republican drinks and pisses acid sense, columnist for the NY Post. She has authored a new book called:

"Celebutards –The Hollywood Hacks, Limousine Liberals, and Pandering Politicians Who Are Destroying America."

You can see that she is as objective as the next Republican writer, meaning she is as biased as the day is long, and as bigoted as the ocean is deep. (Side Bar: Do people actually pay money for this shit? In this kind of economy?)

Back to O'Reilly. At one point he was talking about Bruce Springsteen, and he said something like for Bruce to talk politics was as wrong as for O'Reilly to try to play "Born in the USA." And after that he talked about Bill Maher, but gave Maher something of a semi pass, as he makes a good living with his political act.

So is that the message Mr. O'Reilly? If you get paid to do it, no matter lack of credentials (like himself) than you can talk politics in public, but if you are a singer/songwriter/musician, or actor, or butcher or baker of candlestick maker, you can't? I mean you can't just single out show biz types. They are not the only people out there not getting paid to talk politics.

Witlessness. Funny thing is that O'Reilly is to my mind truly insane, and in a world truly run by the rules of reason and rationality, thinking that way about celebrities would be enough to doubt his mental state. However, in the Right Wing Reality, that is a commonly held belief.

That shit is way messed up!

Anyway, I am not even going to embed, but I will link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C82Idyx71zc

You See? You See? This is Why I Will Not Lay Off Sociopathic Succubus Sarah, Until Indicted, and Convicted, or Otherwise Marginalized.

She has launched a PAC.

Here is the pizzle drizzle, currently found on the website:

Sarah Palin's Official PAC Dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation. SarahPAC believes America's best days are ahead. Our country, founded on conservative principles and the fight for freedom, must confront the challenges of the 21st century with integrity, innovation, and determination.

SarahPAC believes energy independence is a cornerstone of the economic security and progress that every American family wants and deserves.

SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of an historic renaissance that will build a better future for all. Health care, education, and reform of government are among our key goals. Join us today!

(And No I ain't gonna link it from here.)

It's just like that one skit done by the talented Tina Fey where her version of Palin says."I ain't going anywhere." But like I say in my title here, I want to see her go down in scandal and charges of corruption; I am sure of that deep in my bones. I could be wrong about that, but I am confident she has more than moose blood under her finger nails.


Oh and before I end? My comments on the text as quoted above? America founded on conservative principles? As if overthrowing the yoke of monarchy and oppression by a foreign colonial power in a violent revolution is inherently conservative an idea? WTF?

And this renaissance they are talking about? Well shee-it damn. That's one of them french-ified fancy elitist foreign words. Got to be careful using them multi syllabic words. Ya might loose the hillbilly vote. They forgave the borrowed expensive clothes. But it is a tricky act to pull off, tyring to be the symbol of Redneck Royalty. Can't let yourself look too high and mighty. Ya might just turn off rabble if you stop sounding like one of their own and instead like one of Them Others. But come to think of it, if G.W. Bush, despite the prep school and Ivy league credits was embraced by the right wing plebes, I guess Succubus Sarah still has a way to go before the little dog pulls on the curtain and the right wing plebes see what I have seen from day one; a humbug and fraud, pulling on the levers, manipulating people mainly for the sociopathic thrill of it, and the creature comforts that can provide.

Have I Ragged on Glen Beck Yet, or if so, Recently?

I am pretty sure not recently, so here goes.

I saw this clip over on Crooks and Liars where Beck, newly happily comfy as part of the Fox (not) News family, went on one of his loony tunes flavored tangents about a judicial decision striking down a school moment of silence on account of that whole deliberately encouraging prayer thing.

And before I go all off with my "Free Thinker," ya'll got the right to believe what you do, but you don't have the right to even try to only encourage me to do your thing, leave alone try to force me thinking? Actually that is where I want and need to go here. Now perhaps not here, but I have (swear) said the following about Mr. Beck. He is a crazy man. Either that or he is one hell of an actor, as he has me convinced that he has some serious brain damage, or biochemical imbalances, based on just the clips I have seen/heard. In any event, the following detail is not evidence of being truly crazy, but being more ordinarily not thinking properly. Words so have meanings, meanings have concepts, concepts are based on ideas, and one should keep to the reality side of things, and not spin them to suit one's biases and bigotry.

That is the long way (but complete way) to get to the following point. Crazy man Beck did the "We're Oppressed" line. Hell, he started out with that nonsense, and actually said that the 10% of America that doesn't believe in God is pushing around the 90% who do. (In my book, that counts as being detached from reality, but I will just leave that at that.) But he goes further to suggest that (and note, I am explaining here, not quoting) when members of the 10% remind the 90% that no, you can believe what you all want but you have no right to even make us have to listen to your stuff, or stand idly by while you engage in you religious practices, on public property, that that is oppression. Telling religious peeps, thanks but no thanks, keep your religious practices in your homes and places of worship, but out of the public places supported by all of our tax dollars, is not oppression. It is, however, an unfortunately too frequently necessary reminder to some zealots that their rights to their beliefs ends at the next person's nose. And if that next person is either a non-believer, or someone who practices a different faith/ritual/practice, well, it is the obligation of the zealot to zip it, particularly in the publicly funded locations owned and operated by Fed., state, and local government. In fact, we start off with the assumption in the American System that professing your faith and or practicing your religious ritual/practices is basically forbidden in those government owned and operated places.

How is that oppression? Are people's houses of worship being stormed, and people dragged off for practicing the wrong ritual? No. Are people being snatched off the street, or pulled out of their homes and forced to convert to the official practice, or be locked up, tortured, or have their property confiscated? No. Are people being barred from voting or serving in government or getting a job with the government on account of their preferred practice? Quite the opposite, really. The only thing people are being forced to do is not evangelize or proselytize, or engage in any sort of pro-our-religion activity on government property. That applies across the board to all religions, so no body is being picked on. Every one gets treated the same.

And just to be clear, here, there is no rational basis for saying that the prohibition of religious practices and rituals on government owned and operated property is in any way pro Atheist. Never mind the reality that a lack of belief in God is no where near the same as following a religion, but the reality based truth of the matter is we are striving for neutrality in the government owned and operated spaces, not advocacy or predominance of any idea, ideology, or dogma. That is what neutral means, no body's belief is raised above the others.

Hell. I stared on Beck, but went longer on the underlying issue there. I wish that it was not necessary to have to tell or remind people that not getting their way is not the same as being oppressed. But this weirdness with religious zealots is what it is. They tend to believe not only are they right, but that their way of belief can not possibly be wrong. It is one thing to be knowingly engaging in the process of coercion. That is one level of odiousness. But then there are those zealots who are in denial of it; they misstate their intentions (when circumstances require dishonesty to advance their goals), and then they act like a religion neutral environment is particularly oppressive to them, even if there are (let me check) some 22 major religions in the world.

Obnoxious, selfish, thoughtless, delusional, and transparently hypocritical, I call that.

So I Just The Other Day, Yesterday, Finished a Book With a Heavy Religious Bent . . .

The Secret Scroll.

Nope, it really was not the sort of seriously blasphemous sort of thing. The parts involving Jesus were sort of the "Gospel of Thomas," sort of stuff; heavy on the humanity of Jesus, and leaving the divinity thing . . . hanging. Whether or not Jesus was risen was not crucial to the plot.

But I am mentioning it mostly on account that the book touched on the great debate; whether or not we should think of salvation and/or other religiously drenched ideas as metaphor, or literalism?

I am not a literalist. I get metaphor. I don't need to really even see Jesus as a miracle worker, for him to be a powerful figure in human cultural history.

Just saying.

I Think I Finally Get Why Them Wing Nuts Think That All Dems/Libs are Commie Pinko Trotskities.

And I admit this is nothing new, but I think I finally know, as in understand, how and why they act like people who are totally driven by ideology, instead of facts, reality, or the process of reasoning.

First you have to recognize that if you are an Extremist Right Winger, you are not allowed to see shades of grey on policy issues. Conservatism is autocratic and despotic dogma (except when hypocritical, and well, they just ignore the man behind the curtain, so to say . . )

Next, you need to know that everything should be expressed in black and white, usually false choice, either this or that extremist . . . for lack of a better word . . . reasoning.

Can't have moral clar-i-ty if ya gots damn new-ounces, or critta-kal thinkin', Lawd no!

And ya, these peeps are way the fuck far out on the right wing. And they think not only they are the good guys, and they are right, but they believe there is no way they can be wrong about anything. And as they see the Red Menace, Commie Pinkos as the other end of their false choice, black and white, non real reality, that sets up the following.

So ANYTHING not close to their way of thinking HAS TO BE closer to Red Menace, Commie Pinkos kind of thinking, even if all they see is small movement away from their excessively right wing ideology. That then equals motion towards the general direction of that other pole, Red Menace, Commie Pinkos. So why bother with degrees and nuance, or reality, when you can just dismiss anything two baby steps to the left of your ideology as Red Menace, Commie Pinkos type stuff?

Ya, it is a thought process devoid of anything remotely resembling reasonable thinking.

But I am not saying it is reasonable. I am only saying, I get it, finally, how they get to that conclusion.

That is all I am saying.

My Report From the Inaugural Will Have to Wait.

I just got back, and it is going to be a bit more typing than the usual (even longer than usual) blog. And I am going to try to make it a proper piece of writing. I will actually open up Word and type it with the concurrent spelling and syntax filters in force.

Beyond that? A quick taste? Over the past couple days I have thought of the Bob Marley song,"400 Years." Naturally my thought was that yup, things have very much changed now, as of a little after noon, yesterday.

Oh and here is my one complaint about the event (not the security, which seemed draconian, as far as the excesses of the flow of pedestrian traffic is concerned); Rick Warren. Reciting the whole of "The Lord's Prayer?" Now for the record, I have said that many times in my life, and I do not mind saying them in Church. Hell, I did not even mind it at my local town's 9/11 memorial ceremony (we also had a rabbi there, so there were at least multiple theologies in force.) But at that particular inauguration -- the first inauguration that counts as a major break from racial/ethnic sameness, and where the theme of the diversity of the USA was finally really being an issue, and celebrated? Pastor Warren's use of the binding, core prayer of Christianity, instead of sticking with the usual sort of self-authored Sect Neutral sort of thing was just obnoxious.

This is why I use the lower case c for describing christians so often. Not that they are the only religion who does this thing. They all do it. But since in the USA 66% of the population is some flavor of Christian, they are the biggest meaning most frequent and numerous offenders of the kind of obnoxious religious behavior that I will call, for the purposes of this post, My God is Better Than Your God Syndrome.

It was in poor taste, and was hostile to not only all who were not self-described Christians, but also to Christians who truly believe in a non-coercive, non denominational approach to invocations of The Almighty, in the Public Sphere. Make no mistake (and look to my most recent previous post to see why), but I am not sorry for saying that. And this is from someone who is not really into religious stuff, but really is not hostile to it, in theory. I am mostly if only hostile to hostile invocations of religious dogma and practices.

This is why I am against Prayer in school. It seems that no one who is all for that really wants the other sect's prayers forced on anyone. They only want their own prayers thrust on others.

Sickening, that. Anyway . . .

I Have Heard That Today is Religious Freedom Day

Granted, I did get the hint from the fine people over here, and in mind of that, I am going to post a chunk of and a link to the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, Thos. Jefferson, author.

Let's make that two chunks. Here is part of the case why religion should be considered strictly a no compulsory matter of conscience:


An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time.


And here is the operative section of the statute:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=950

Now I am really a hard ass when it comes to the matter of religious compulsion, or coercion, or evangelizing, or back door or other wise styled subtle and covert means to make an end-run around The Establishment Clause, of the US Const. Part of the reason I am such a hard ass is because I really get what Jefferson is saying there, not just in the chunks that I quoted, but in the whole of the statute. And I am sure there are many, even millions of christians in America who really would not consider it an Affront to the Almighty to seek to coerce, either directly or indirectly, anyone to follow their chosen religious dogma or ideology. But as is plain to you, I am siding with Jefferson. I think he really got it, and got it right, in how matters of religion need be a matter of personal conscience, and any attempt to make it a matter of coerced compliance is not only an affront to the very notion of liberty, but to The Almighty.

Let's get real here. If you assume God is omnipotent and omniscient, you take it as a matter that necessary follows the preceding, that you can not fool God.

(For the second time in recent postings, I am going to do the dialogue thing. I hope it makes the point clearly.)

St. Peter: "Ok. We have reviewed your file. So what say you? Explain yourself."

Wannabe Theocrat: "Um, I am not sure what you mean."

St. Peter: "We have your file and it is complete. You spent decades of your life forcing your dogma and practices on others."

Wannabe Theocrat: "But I was only doing that for the greater glory of The Lord."

St. Peter: "So is what you are saying, is that you expected The Lord to be impressed that you forced people to lie to Him and to be insincere servants to Him?"

Wannabe Theocrat: "Well . . . um . . . "

I hope I am not Jumping the Gun

But as I am not going breath a sigh of relief till I see, and it should be personally with my own damn eyes, P.E. Obama take the oath of office, still I think it is a good time to make my statement on the end of the Bush years:

This Shows Why I am Afraid of Fundy, Meglomanical, Retail, For Profit Churches and Pastors.

From the point of view of someone who as default has a live and let live view of religion, until that religion or its adherents dare get in my face with their particular brand of goofy thinking, I do, generally, have a healthy distrust of the institutions of religions. And more specifically, I have a range of views on religions/sects/practices that is a scale from on the one end, watchful guardedness and jaundiced suspicion, all the way to the other end of the scale, which would be unashamed disparagement and for lack of a better word, demonization. I am particularly unsympathetic to any sort of fundy religion. Don't care for them at all. Wish they all would drop off the face of the planet, no matter what religious group they belong to, I would consider it global Happy Happy Joy Joy Day, if all the fundamentalist religious traditions and practices ended on Planet E. on the same day (or if it worked out this way, on the day the last fundy sect became defunct.) And just to be clear, as I know there is a non-judgmental definition of Christian Fundamentalist, but that is the insider' strict definition, and there are outsider's definitions. And since there are many variants of the outsider's definition, here is my nuanced take (so it will be clear what I mean when I say fundy.)

If you believe your religion is right for you, I have no problem with you. You are a deep believer but not a threat to my free will or conscience. However, if you think your religion is right for me, and at minimum think you have a right to pester me to try to convert me, or force me to respect or follow your religious dogma or practices? Then you are the kind of person I call a fundy and really think of as not only a personal threat to my well being, but a threat to all of humanity. Good. I hope that clears things up for you.

But my title line, above, was hinting at something more particular that generalized fundy religions. Hell, I am getting more specific than fundy christianity. I was getting specifically on the case of what I call megalomaniacal, Retail, For Profit Churches and Pastors. Now I call a lot of these "Evangelical" churches and pastors that way, as that vein of christianity seems most prone to the sickening practices of meglomanical pastors; pastors who operate in the market place very much like athletes. The more folk they pack in the pews, the better their rep, the more they get paid. And more so than some athlete, the bigger these pastors get, the more actual power they accumulate. And even if they start off humble and sincere, the megalomania sort of just comes as standard equipment with a Premier Popular Pastor Professional Package.

Now as low on the list I am, as far as being considered a religious person (I am not into faith, or any of that stuff), I still think I understand enough of what the nuns and other Sunday School teachers tried to teach me. I will say the following, and anyone who disagrees with me is perfectly allowed to have their own and different opinions, but here is the way I see it. And I will put it in the form of a question. Now do you honestly think The Lord Jesus Christ, who famously chased out the money lenders from the temple, people who's only sin was to conduct ordinary business at that convenient location, would approve of the way modern Evangelical pastors not only get rich from their work in the pulpit, but get stinking rich?

Hmm . . . . . that is easy for me to say, hell no, Jesus would not be down with that. But I admit I am biased against the idea of preaching your way to be a millionaire, just on principle.

But that is sort of a digression, as the real thrust of this post is to criticize the meglomanical, power mad, cult of personality, narcissistic, if not more seriously pathological way some of these pastors talk and act. And the trigger for this post is the horrid yet real example of what I consider to be the worst and the scariest part of any fundy philosophy; that conquer the world and rule it in the name of Our God thing? In this case it is Pastor Rick Warren, indulging in an orgy of a meglomanical global theocratic domination fantasy. If it only stopped there, I would have been thoroughly repulsed. Seriously. But it gets worse. Now Pastor Rick. Even if I find the very idea of any religion having a powerful, radical, global reach, remaking the planet under their own small minded, bigoted bigotry as hell on earth, and a sin against all humanity, did you have to call on the example of the world's worst, meaning most actually successful, meglomanical and totalitarian brutalizers and crushers of humanity, butchers of free will, killers of souls, for the example of what you wish your Army of God's Warriors to emulate?

Again, I am not ashamed to say this, and judge me if you must.

The very idea of any religion achieving global theocratic, or if you prefer the disingenuous softened up term, spiritual, domination, is something I find revolting.

Going a step beyond that, and wanting your spiritual warriors to show the level of devotion of Nazis, and Communist murders? That is devil talk. That is bloodless evil, I say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRctKSeyQ-s

Well, that is my thought for the day. Just say NO to Global Theocratic/Spiritual Domination Movements.

Hell, say no to any Global Domination Movements. Ya. That covers all the bases.

Speaking of Thwarting Crazy Acting Republicans, Don't Forget the Parody Singing 'Comic" Republicans.

Last week I confessed that I fell off the wagon, and had been fighting Republicans over on some forum over that "Magic Negro" song. Granted, it is crazy of me to even bother to do that, but at least I know, there is little chance of accomplishing anything -- but for blowing off steam -- and ending up even more agitated, after. But back to the guy who wrote that alleged parody song; Shanklin? I mean, doesn't he know how really bad he is? I am not even talking the politics here, I am saying flat out this guy must be quite insane if he thinks he has any talent.

I am back on the topic of him as today I listened to just a little bit of his newest hit (on the GOP Pop-Parody charts, I guess): "Banking Queen." Not only much in the same way that his voice in "Magic Negro," was allegedly supposed to be that of Al Sharpton, and misses that by a country mile, he is supposed to be imitating Barney Frank in "Banking Queen." And this time he misses the mark by one hundred country miles. Good grief. This guy is to vocal impersonations what that 'guy who butchered She Bangs' on American Idol is to the world of lounge singers.

Stink. Phew. Don't give up your day job. But in this weird case, Shanklin is basically subsidized. I mean, would anyone know about this guy but for Rush Limbaugh's patronage? Weird stuff, indeed. And as far as the weird people who say they find his stuff funny goes? Beyond the being crazy liars part, I should be more specific, and I say that it is a weird variant of conformation bias. Apparently what this Shanklin dude does is he packages some Republican approved stereotype, insult, target, and/or buzzword, and repackages it, and sells it right back to the Republicans, who believe that shit already.

It is the lowest form of humor. It basically works as follows:

"Hen-hen. That man insulted somebody I don't like. So he must be a funny guy. Hen-hen."

At one point last night I was thinking about a more striking way of describing the relationship between real comedy, and Shanklin's shit. My mind landed on the following. The difference between real comedy, done by actually talented comedians, to Shanklin's shit, is like the difference between making love with your lover, and getting a hand job from a bored crack ho.

Ya. I know what you are thinking. But there are people out there who actually enjoy getting hand jobs from bored crack hos.

And my reply to that is,"That is exactly my point."

And In Related News. About More of a Generalized Mental Illness Issue. The Need to Correct Crazy Talk, and Crazy Acting.

The first rule (ok, not literally but work with me here) is never ever let the crazy person get away with it. The actual practitioners of psychotherapy talk about discouraging "acting out." Particularly, when following the method of treatment known as Cognitive Therapy, the crazier ways of thinking are challenged, as well as the crazier behaviour. The goal, however, is to sufficiently correct the patent's faulty thinking with rational thinking. The logic is simple, even if the process often is not. The logic of course is that if the patient no longer thinks that is is appropriate to think it is ok to act badly, they will not act badly. To put it into layman's terms (and I technically am that), the job is to get the patient to cut the bullshit, and to get real.

Now in an ideal world, it would be a simple process of finding the irrational data in a person's mind, removing that bad data, and replacing it with good rational data. But that is often a difficult process when the patient is just one stubbornly resistant person. But what about when we are not dealing with a single sick person, but a sick institution? How do you eliminate the irrational thoughts and replace them with nice, rational thoughts, particularly when the sicker members of that institution reinforce each other's madness? How about the even worse scenario, where there is a profit motive for encouraging the irrationality; not only a mere motive but a multi, multi million dollar market for the right flavored kind of irrationality?

Now some might accuse me of making an unfair point at the cost of the Republican Party. I admit to deliberately trying to make the point, specifically, that the Republicans are stewing in their own irrational madness. And I do not feel guilty for it, as over the course of decades, and more so, following the election of P.E. Obama, I am seeing far more than the usual level of Republican irrationality. And I think it needs to be thwarted. At minimum, the crazy talking and acting should not be tolerated.

Let's run through a quick and not inclusive list of the irrational things far too many Republicans think.

(a) Despite the failure of the free market, as evidenced by the failure of not only the financial sector, but the effect of that failure on the national and global economy, continuing to believe that markets are self correcting and best left unregulated.

(b) P.E. Obama is a (pick and choose as many as you like) socialist, communist, Muslim, militant, half black, half white, Indonesian, Kenyan, Fifth Columnist, Manchurian Candidate, Sleeper Agent.

(c) That if you call the deliberate infliction of pain in order to extract information out of unwilling people by any word other than torture, than it is not torture.

(d) That education and professional expertise are bad things.

(e) Hell, I might as well say it this way, as so many Republicans are acting like . . . the sky is falling.

(f) for now, lastly, believing that the mere fact you find anyone else who agrees with you means you are not crazy.

Actually, that is one huge, honking cognitive defect. That is likely the most important, clinically.

Anyway, you should get the point. I wish I could make it less issue oriented, but unfortunately the matter is deeply intertwined with the problem of Republicans substituting dogma and ideology with reality. Opps. That is one huge, honking cognitive defect, too. But more to the point, that is a better way of saying it than above (but I am not going to delete what I have typed.) And as a practical reminder of how irrationality should be thwarted, and people brought back to reality, I include the following excerpt from the film, "The Madness of King George."

And don't go making some gotcha point, since I mentioned torture, and the doctor who treated George III used his "restraining chair." Here in the 21st century they use Lithium, or Prozac, or any of a wide range of interesting, and sometimes actually effective pharmacologicals to chemically subdue patients' behavioral excesses, so they can move on to the more important task of treating the irrational thinking. And yes, I know the visual of the chair is striking, but the important part (for my purpose) is that last speech by the doctor.

And yes, I know we can not dope up the Extreme Irrationals in the Republican Party, and then go about fixing their more irrational thoughts. Again, this is what has been driving me to make this specific post for a day or more; the idea that acting out, that the crazy talk and the crazy acting

Must Not Be Tolerated.

I am not commending the specific technique this turn of the 19th century doctor used, but only the core idea behind his therapy, which as I hope I have made clear, is still one of the core ideas behind modern Cognitive Therapy.

While Researching Republican Sociopathy, A Strange Thing Happened to Me, Today.

Google returned a hit back to this page, as number 10 of it's top 10 hits. Although I am flattered, I still would prefer to have greater access to more academic data, instead of now being able to circumloquatiously refer back to my own self. But still, I should know better, specifically that sociopathy is not the approved clinical term, so I should tweak my search string:

republican + party + social + pathology

Ahh, that's better. But before I start even looking for valuable nuggets in the new vein, I want to just throw out the following observation, based on watching Sociopathic Succubus Sarah's videos (and reading commentary), and particularly, from watching vid of The Coultergeist from her recent book whoring tour, specifically and most recently, her nasty assed performance on the View, from yesterday. In short, she was rude to all, particularly Barbara Walters. She did noticeably pull her punches while engaging Whoppi. Coulter, as a genuine sociopath, might lack real empathy, but she does understand the need for self preservation, even while in the middle of her hateful shtick.

But I digress; back to the point. I noticed that Coulter, then (but more noticeable in that vid where Al Franken destroys her lame, but falsely self valued as witty point about what in history they would change), and as well, Succubus Sarah, (Particularly in the more disastrous interviews) have "tells." Now I should mention the difference in "performance skills" of the two sociopathic shrews. Coulter is actually much better at ad lib, off the cuff remarks. Mostly, I believe that is due to her lawyer training (study your stuff), and the fact she writes her own nonsense, and lastly, that since her nonsense is often time extreme, all she has to do is throw out something more extreme, when she runs out of, or decides to move past the prepared, over studied material. But Succubus Sarah is someone with at least if not better than average retention skills, but she does not really produce her own material in the same way that Coutler does.

In short, even if her mind is the metaphorical embodiment of the 7th circle of Hell, Coulter can think; she possess a fully functional, even if evil mind. Palin is a not a thinker. She lacks the credible and flexible ability to deviate, to devise, to adapt, to respond to changes in the plan and find a new workable solution on the spot, and implement it. That is why usually when cornered, or at least well met in the joust, Coulter reverts to greater snark, if not insult, if not excessively over the top anti social declarations. Even if it broadcasts her dysfunction loudly and clearly, as anti social thoughts and behaviours are the kernel of sociopathy, she uses it not only as a shield but as a sword, at times. It is almost as if she is daring her opponents to call her out on how sick a person she not only really is, but really obviously is. But she will crash and burn. In that exchange with Al Franken I posted a few days ago? It is clear that although she smugly thought about the smattering of approval she would get for the FDR bash, but she did not think one move ahead. And Franken adapted, and she was left with out even a sociopathic anti social retort. The look on her face says it all; fwk I am cornered. Freeze. MUST FIND WAY OUT.

Saying touché never crossed her mind, I am sure. And that is the easiest way to get out of the corner. But sociopaths don't congratulate their sparring partners for earning a point; they fantasize about jumping them from behind, or poisoning their food, on another day.

And back to Succubus Sarah. Again, she lacks the skills of the polished debater. Like my well respected Pythonian, John Cleese observes in that vid I posted back in October or so, Palin is like a pretty parrot who does not know what the words she utters mean. That is why she crashed and burned in so many of those interviews. She can deliver a prepared speech, but she can not engage in a battle of wits with anyone smarter than a toddler. But instead of how Coulter looks, when cornered, Palin panics and flails. She is so, and falsely, enamored of her own weak charms that she falsely believes that as long as she has a stream of words coming out of her mouth, she will come across as cute and/or slyly seductive. Even at this late date, and even if she herself had the presence of mind to review those tapes, she still can not see that no, she ain't that charming, or cute, or slyly seductive when she has to think on her feet like that. She comes across as a witless disaster in expensive shoes and makeup. And again, I mention lawyer skills -- it is not ego to watch your performance over and over in order to improve it; it is ego not to do that, but instead rely on your own self delusional belief that you are indeed all that and a bag of chips.

Granted, I have not gone too deep in analysis here, but at least I have drawn and shown a contrast between the two. When Coulter is cornered, she shuts up (if only then.) When Palin feels cornered, she blabbers and blubbers and will not shut up. They are total opposites as far as their tells, go. But make no mistake; both are serious sociopaths. Both are cunning ( at least in the ability to get as far as they have to day), self centered, at best superficially charming, not really interested in any other living person, non-empathetic human monsters, who are willing to go to extremes of meanness and cruelty to get what they want.

And Republicans stand up and cheer for these two.

And that is why I curse Republicans; sociopathy should not be exalted, but should be identified as the huge threat to society it truly is, and those who indulge in it should not be rewarded, or allowed to profit from it, but instead, they should be shunned.

Opps. I never got to my new vein of research. It will be there later, though.



Edit to Add:
IT'S ALL ABOUT MEEEE! SARAH!

Now way back in September or October might have been the first time I described the Palin family/world as trailer trash reality TV. Remember. That was before news was out that the (still only, since as far as we know there has been no wedding yet) baby-daddy was dropping out of school, and before his momma's arrest for multiple narcotics felonies. Now at this point I am almost willing to drop that description in favor of calling it more like some really badly written soap opera story line. But I will stick to trailer trash reality TV. Again, stoned Hollywood/Manhattan TV writers would have a hard time making this shit up. Ok not really. But this is real life, so I will stick with the reality TV theme.

Anyway, here is the latest installment in "Real Life with Sarah Palin." This is the content of an email exchange she had with the editor of the Anchorage Daily News.

I could repeat what I said a few days ago only, about trying to imagine who would be in the room with her, in order for Palin to be the smartest person in the room, or I can run with the new one.

Given the Newspaper angle, I will make the point as a Faux Headline:

ALASKA GOVERNOR PALIN
GOES HEAD TO HEAD
AGAINST NEWSPAPER EDITOR.

NO WONDER SHE HATES THE
"ELITIST" MEDIA.
Making Her Look Bad, by Making Her Make Herself Look Bad, by Being Smarter and More Honest Than Her.

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/136523


Ya. I know the first bit is about Levi being described as a high school drop out. But what do you think she was more concerned about? His feelings about being seemingly accurately described as a drop out, or the fact it makes her look like Governor Trailer Trash, Reality TV Star, to not only have a bastard for a grandchild, but the bastard child of a high school drop out. Um make that two high school drop outs. Didn't the fruit of her own womb, the mommy, also drop out of school?

Honestly, these Republicans, sociopathic or otherwise afflicted, really have deep problems with the actual dictionary meanings of actual words. Maybe we should borrow a term that is more closely associated with the world of racing? DNF; did not finish. Not much better. Better clean that up some. DNFY; did not finish, yet. Or maybe WFS; will finish someday. Or maybe . . . .
(I herein invite you all to make up your own bullshit, deceptive way to describe it when someone stops going to high school before finishing the required work and earning a diploma. It's fun!)

Now The Video is Titled,"Is Sean Hannity a racist anti-semitic bigot?" But it Goes To Republican Racism and Worship of Sociopathy.

Just watch it. I do not make this stuff up. I do not have to. I only react to these sociopathy worshiping, racist Republicans.

Sickening. But as I say, the people who enable these hate mongering sociopaths are as bad if not worse.

Sickening!

I Self Censored Myself Again.

I will just give you all a hint about what I started writing about, but chose to delete instead of publishing. I went off on tangent over the people praying for Divine Intervention to change P.E. Obama's position on that Freedom of Choice act.

Instead of going long and serious, I will go short, and cheeky.

Remember kids. Jesus is not a Republican.


And this is just a free range though I had this morning. Would not it be funny if all the people allegedly mocking P.E. Obama with some variant of the messiah snipe had to answer for that as blasphemy?

"No, we were not trying to insult you Lord Jesus."

"Um, you did use the word messiah."

"But we were not making fun of you so much as the people who hold that politician as if he were a messiah."

"You mean to say that your intent was to point out it was not a fair comparison?"

"Yes Lord Jesus."

"And that is why you made the comparison yourselves, to show how unfair the comparison was."

"Yes Lord."

"Do you now see the flaw in your logic? "

"No Lord."

"Are you saying you miss that whole part about how you actually did mock me, in order to show how people who were not actually mocking me, would be mocking me, if they were doing the same thing you actually did, but they did not do, actually."

"Um. . . . ."

Republican Math; Negative Infinity.

(*delete* *delete*)

I was going long there, and decided I was wasting too many keystrokes.

Let me jump right to the punchline. Just when you think the Republicans can not possibly dig the hole any deeper (Palin), can not celebrate stupidity any more slavishly (Palin), can not prove themselves to be more out of touch with objective reality (again, Palin), what do they do?

They send Joe the Plumber to the Mid East as a war correspondent?

Can I start calling him Joe the Stooge, now?

What is next? Are they going to start interviewing lobotomy patients for challengers to Dem held Congressional seats, for the mid term elections?

Hey. I Got Artistically Creative. Woo That.

My yet untitled Inaugration themed sonnet.

(I was trying to rip one off in under half an hour, but honestly it took me closer to 35 minutes. I am slipping in my skills, in my old age.)



When History's old debts are way past due,
The Fates may force the deficit be paid
Although resistance shall be met, tis true,
But only to the Gods, the Fates give way

Reason's light engulfed by those derranged,
Holding out against enlightenment
But as the Furies' choice was change, arranged,
And so are Anti reason's forces rent.

Not to say the vanquished will depart,
But for a time their voices shall be weak
And while their bootless cries ring in the dark,
Their own rebirth, but not reform, they seek.

But for now Reason's friends and allies cheer
For our successes bless the brand new year.


(Ya, I went for the slant rhyme there. I usually do that at least once, per Elizabethen Form Sonnet.)

How Do I Title This? Do I Lead With More Republican Racism Reports, or Call it the Week End Wrap Up?

Doesn't really matter, I recon. Forget about this blog ever being Pulitzer material. I will never even make a notable blog list (last time I checked Technorati my rank was 4,600,000 or some such.) Anyway . . .

As far as more evidence of Republican Racism, I read this interesting tidbit in the NYT article talking about how there were two credible black candidates for RNC Chair. But neither of them are the point. The point is the southern white contender, who on the one hand quit his racially discriminatory country club, but on the other hand dismissed the controversy as "Bogus."

Ya, Mr. Dawson. Being a member of an all white country club in the 21st century is a bogus issue.

Racist Runs for RNC Chair.

Once again we have a clear example of redefinition of offence by Republicans. Yes, they use this slimy trick for any of a wide open range of offenses -- um things we who live in the reality based sector consider as offensive. But it is particularly useful for those pesky racism charges.

So as of this week (again, as I sorta remember in the near past, that shit being either considered not racist, or just white people's rights as white people) being a member of a racially segregated country club is defined as not racist. Do I need to reemphasize the racially segregated part? Not that it would do any good to point out the obvious and factual to these shits. They make up their own reality as it suits them, damn the natural and logical effects of being either factually wrong, or inconsistent, from one breath to another.

Speaking of inconsistency, consider this Follow Up to the Victim Sarah and her Whining Lies, story. Apparently not only was Sociopathic Succubus Sarah the victim of the Media Elite, bloggers, and Tina Fey, but she was taken out of context, in the You Tube snippets of that so-called Media Malpractice movie, earlier this week. And to properly dovetail with the previous graph, the 'director' of that movie was on David Shuster's show, where he disagreed with Sociopathic Succubus Sarah's claim that the You Tube clips were out of context. And soon after that he launches into a passionate, yet unhinged defense of her.

My favorite moment in the exchange was when Shuster was pushing Zigler on the matter of Palin ever taking any responsibility for the failures of her campaign, and Zigler said something like yes she did. And that takes us right back redefinition of reality (perhaps in this case not so much of offence.) No, Mr. Ziegler. When Sociopathic Succubus Sarah says she should not have done day two of the Katie Couric interview on account of it going so badly, that is not taking responsibility, but it is evidence of cowardice. Ya. This is a person who is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency -- some coward who runs away from a softball question interview with Katie Couric (no insult intended there to Katie, who was professional and so fair to Palin that any criticism must the product of the worst of partisan delusion and spite.)

Go here for the story and the vid, if you have not seen it yet.

I do like the blogger's description of Ziegler:

"[a] prickly ideologue who quickly descends into abuse and dismissal, relying on simple tropes and an aggressively picayune attacking style to carry his argument."

I could not say it better myself, and yes that describes to a "T" so many of the Republican disinformationists (be they Licensed Professional Media Whore Class, or even Amateur Hour Wannabe Class.) In any case, Ziegler is yet another graduate of the Limbaugh/Hannity School of Obnoxious Public Speaking.

Speaking of fathead Hannity, the Ancien Régime is o'thrown, the Co-Regency is no more. Last night was the last night for live broadcast of The Hannity and Colmes Show. Not that this is news, really, but here is my prediction for the new format for Fathead. It will generally be lopsided in favor of the Extremist Right Wing Lunatic Fringe POV. The more skillful individual left wing temp foils will be used sparingly, if even allowed back for another shot, should they ever eviscerate Hannity (metaphorically speaking.) We will never see anyone in that chair who is so skillful they could eviscerate him any day of the week. And, the X-factor feature, where someone who really is out of their element, even against an intellectual lightweight like Hannity, will not only serve to raise the comic value (and reduce the broadcast's already low level of credibility), but will serve a couple other functions. Deliberately putting some one from outside the usual Circles of Punditry and the Land of the Talking Heads, will naturally make Hannity look a little smarter, and will provide Hannity with an easier target, should the rent a lib prove to be too challenging a sparring partner.

Well enough of all that. I have gone longer than I expected to, but as always, I reserve the right to amend or throw up another post later.

Not That I Am Going To Get Obsessed About The Coultergeist Again, But

I will get to the vid with her, after the set up.

Now have you ever seen those moronic (usually) emails or postings that Republicans get their nipples all hard over? They usually are cast in light of, The difference between Republicans and Democrats, or Cons vs Libs, and they usually boil down to something less funny than a fart joke. Ya. The punch line usually is GOP is Tough and Manly, Dems are Wimpy Girlie Men. Fatuous and boring. My dad can beat up your dad, grade-school level entertainment and content. The people who draft that shit could save a lot of keystrokes by just saying Democrats got poopy pants and bogger faces.

Witless.

But the following vid, which I found on Crooks and Liars yesterday, is a real life co-appearance example of the difference in the two camps, as represented by Coultergeist and Al Franken.







Coulter was trying for (the Republican, sociopathic version of, sorta I recon) clever. Too bad for her she forgot to think before she opened her damned mouth.

Last thought. Why is it that these Republicans, do not get it, that (a) they are now and have always been a minority party, and (b) only they believe their bullshit, particularly when it is totally made up shit (that FDR was bad talking point), and lastly (c) if you are going for sociopathic mean, you don't have to think things through, but if you are actually attempting to try for clever, ya need to think two steps ahead?

I Could Call It Disturbingly Humorous. But Instead, Typical, For a Republican.

During the same week where The Coultergeist is out there whoring her new book, which has as a premise, that liberals are whiny victims, we have Sociopathic Succubus Sarah whining about how everyone was so mean to her, in a new interview with some Republican troll who is producing a movie about "Media Malpractice."

Ok.

Katie Couric was so mean to her, asking her about what newspapers she read.

Charlie Gibson was so mean to her, asking her about current U.S. Foreign Policy Doctrine.

The rest of the media (and mean old people on the Internet tubes, so does her good buddy ex Senator Ted Stevens call it/them) were mean to her on account of them questioning her family business.

Need I remind her and her fans that the truth of the matter (so she called it) turned out to be as bad as the rumors, and as lurid as the topic for a Jerry Springer show?

Nope, I am not passing off my daughter's out of wedlock child as my own. She got a bun in the oven now (that was later born a bastard, himself.) And the other grandma, later, got busted for multiple felony charges related to selling Oxycontin. Good thing we are nondenominational Armageddon Death Culters, instead of Catholics, or that whole childhood baptism event could be a potentially explosive thing. But hell, I got the Alaska State Police for my posse.

Ya, Sarah. The media would have treated you just fine and nicely if you had been a Dem.

Opps, even if you are right (and you are not) you would have had Rush Limbaugh on you ass on air (but privately trying to get your daughter's baby-daddy's mommy's digits for the hook up for his fix, sho 'nuff), and as well, fat head Hannity, and the rest of them Republican skunks doing their version of the GOP cell-block gang-rape on you.

Truth be told, you were only put under ordinary scrutiny by the so-called Media Elite. They did not buy your craptastic act, your dumbassed jokes, your barely disguised racist innuendo, or generally, your bullshit. Not a traumatic thing, that, particularly, when compared to what the Right Wingers do to peeps they dislike. They'd be calling for you to be beaten, shipped off to some prison, or killed . . . just like your hate-mongering fans were saying about P.E. Obama at your rallies.

Ya. You got savaged, Sarah. You believe that if you gotta. Poor Baby. Here. Have a cookie.

Didn't Bush Say Something Like He Was Planning on Restoring Honor to the White House 8 Years Ago? Well His Booking of Blair House

to the following git, the former PM of Australia, instead of keeping Blair House open for the incoming First Family, is a particularly odious parting bit of scumbaggery. Never mind getting a hummer in the Oval Office. Particularly making the Obama's have to stay in a hotel for that insulting git, John Howard, is particularly disreputable, and personally insulting to the incoming first family.

Take a look and listen to Mr. Rudd, the current PM destroying Howard. This gaffe, the topic of the speech I mean, likely is a large contributor to the fact that Rudd is the current PM, and Howard, the former PM.

Granted, I Believe in Self-Ownership of One's Actions

(but feelings are often a reflection of and/or reaction to circumstances, events, and otherwise, sensory input, such inputs often being unpleasant. But I digress),



but I wish I could blame my antagonistic and grouchy mood on that Malarial Creature, the shrill blonde death eater in a short skirt. Yes kids. I am talking about the Return of the Dread Coultergiest. (And I know, the economic downturn has lots of folks grouchy. Work with me here. I am trying to be creative, you know?)

I have no intent to wax long on The Coultergeist, but to say that on the one hand, I am trying to do better than her, myself; I usually can't talk about her with out resorting to cussin' a blue streak. I forbear for my own sake. And on the other hand, as odious as she is, I really should reserve the bulk of my bile for the as foul and usually less intelligent cretins who buy that creature's books. I mean really. Don't feed the monsters, all that. And like I admitted in a previous post, I was swimming in that shit again, recently, and it was that "Magic Negro," song that got my fight all up and excited. During an interlude in fighting with those kind of people I did at one point make my real feelings on the matter clear; I was more offended by the people who defended that song, than the original racist idiot who wrote and performed it.

Yes, I blame the willing members of the purchasing market for that shit, as much if not more than the peddlers. If there was no market for Coulter's extended hate speech, or racist flavored really poor examples of "satire," the peddlers would naturally be less inclined to make more of that shit.

To my mind there truly is this streak, this vein, this bent, in the Republican Party. And that bent (I will use the one word for now) is not only to respect strength, in its more utilitarian and honorable forms, but it seems to my mind to respect the uglier side, which is:

Aggression, for the sake of it,
Dominance, for the opportunity of it,
Compulsion, when you can get away with it,
Force, if only because you have the energy to spare,
Oppression, when you are sure the other side is weaker,
Hatefulness, since it is not only that your side is right, but your side can never be wrong,
and lastly

Violence, because it just feels good to be violent, when you are a sociopath.

That is why people like Coulter can proposer selling hate; there are enough people out there who not only get off on that shit, they will plunk down good money for book after book that basically says the same thing:

"Liberals are bad, conservatives are good. The end." Love, Ann.


What is the retail price of her latest book? Amazon has it for $15.37. And I just gave the thesis and summary of it away for free. And I know what a fan or contrarian would say. They would say that it is not the thesis and conclusion the purchasers are buying, but the entertaining method of laying out that thesis.

And my reply to that is go back and re read my list of pathological threads that come together to form the Republican bent to respect what is essentially sociopathy.

But ya know. There is another market out there for snuff movies, and real death, dying, and torture video. The fact some people enjoy that shit does not in any way, shape, or form, legitimize it.

And if you think I am being a bit too harsh (no pun intended) on Coulter, consider the following. In her book tour Coulter is recounting this story about how some Code Pink protesters tried to disrupt Palin's nomination speech, and this is her thoughts about how that should have gone down:

"[t]he stunning thing about this story is, if you can get the video, and you only see it online, you see all these Republican men standing there, right next to these screaming banshees, doing nothing! Doing nothing! Sheez, you have this 99-pound woman in heels, onstage trying to deliver the most important speech of her life, and strong Republican men standing there -- how about a punch in the yap to these screaming banshees?"

http://crooksandliars.com/node/25080/print

Yikes! Or not. No one should be surprised by her saying something like that.

Look What I Got In The Mail Today

Yea, Baby.

This Is Why (One Example) These Republicans Make Me Go Nuts!

Ok. So I was lurking on that fathead's website (Hannity) and read the thread dealing with Sanjay Gupta being picked to be Surgeon General.

All these right wing peeps were plotzing over the choice. And for my own sake I will only briefly mention the barely concealed racism, and say that the way these people were bouncing of the wall it was as if this guy was some kinda hack. I mean really, this guy ain't no brain surgeon or anything? Right? Wrong. He actually is a well qualified Neurosurgeon.

Opps!

Not Exactly, as a Rule, But as a General Matter I Do Not Formally Make NY's Resolutions.

But I do try to do some things better than the previous year/years/decades.

Item one on my current "try" list.

I will try to stop fighting republican racists on that whole being racist thing (unless getting paid to do it.)

For that matter I should try to not fight republicans one on one as a general matter, unless getting paid to do it.

That does not prevent me from posting my screeds here. I am talking about avoiding the time-wasting, often aggravating process where it all boils down to an infantile spat. And all of us who do it/have done it, know it. But the pull of the fight? (Be Strong! Hold Fast! Resist!)

And I had a bad start off to the year. I confess (*grr*) But hey I can start by getting up out of the mud and trying again, to leave that shit alone. No. What is the line from the series Deadwood? "I don't swim in that shit." Well, it is time for me to reaffirm that, and stay out of that shit.

And I need to loose 15 to 20 pounds. And fast. Those Xmas cookies don't make it easy now, ain't that the truth?

And About that Mr. Burris?

Blag the Operator's pick to fill P.E. Obama's Senate seat?

At first my thoughts where on the order of, why would any sensible person get caught up in that shit? Then, I remembered that for myself, to be a Senator is a big deal. I would not leave the Senate myself, for a Secretariat. That is the way I roll. So it is not all that hard to imagine why someone would swim in that shit that is the Blago scandal, if it gets them to the U.S. Senate. So I was prepared to cut him some slack.

Then comes the following quote from him:

"We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained."

One of the fastest ways to make me reject a person as a dangerous nutcase, is for that person to in any way, shape, or form, to invoke Divine Deity as either personally talking to them or otherwise sending them communications, or to claim to be directly or indirectly doing God's work, of fulfilling God's will.

Burris has every right to think that. I can not divest him of that right. Nor do I wish to deprive him of that right. But I, conversely, have the same right to reject him as as delusional and those Heretical Pentecostals who speak in tongues and have mass hallucinations, and all that scary weird out-to-lunch and eating sawdust and dirt sandwiches, crazy shit.

I know some people get off on that shit. That shit turns me off faster than Kryptonite makes Superman remember, there is some other place he'd rather be.

I am Going to Try to Move Off My Pet Peeve About Republican Racists, But

I will mention the fact that the GOP is 90% white:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5598010&page=1

(The stat is buried in there, somewhere.)

And that these fools are so locked into their cultural view that they will deny that something so obviously (at least) inflammatory and loaded with racial overtones and implications as the "Magic Negro," song can reasonably be viewed as patently offensive or racist. Some of those monsters actually think that shit is funny.

But I am going to back away from that subject (I should have had enough of it by now, having obsessed about it, part time, over the past few days.) Instead I am going to talk about Republican Victim hood. Ironic, I should say, that that skank-a-slore Coulter has a book out now partially taking aim at Dem./Lib victim hood, just about the time that the GOP is getting its whine on.

First there is the previous election, the one two years ago. That sorta got the whine started.

"How come we lost total control of Congress?" And at that point everyone from the evil elite mainstream media, to soy bean farmers in China were to blame. Well, everyone and everything was to blame but for themselves.

Few if any GOPers came to the logical conclusion. "Either we suck, or too many people think we suck. In any event, it is our fault."

Then there was this past November's election. That got the whine going very strong.

"How did we loose the White House (and to a negro/Muslim/elite who pals around with terrorists?)"

And yet again, everyone from the evil elite mainstream media, to soy bean farmers in China were to blame. This time ACORN was blamed. Hell, GOP Candidate McCain even tried to front load the blame on ACORN before election day (cowardly lie, that was.) Well, everyone and everything was to blame but for themselves. Few if any GOPers came to the logical conclusion. "Either we suck, or too many people think we suck. The think the last GOP President sucks. They thought our ticket sucked, In any event, it is our fault."

Even Succubus Sarah, when she fired off her list of what went wrong, she blamed everyone but did not take the smallest of blame for her self (yes there is a pattern.)

And as of today, the loss of Norm Colman to Al Franken? Well it is not a loss that the incumbent brought on him self for sucking so badly that the race was a squeaker he could not win. The election was STOLEN by Franken. So they say. I mean WHINE.

Ya know what the worst part of the next four if not eight years is going to be? Listening to the whining from the Republicans. And they are good at that shit. If only they actually were good at governing they would not have as much to whine about, as that whole running the government well part, keeps ya in office. But ya know? Even when they are in control, they tend to whine way too much too.

First Post of 2009 -- There are Still Too Many Racist and Racist Sympathizers in the GOP.

Let us not kid ourselves. That shit really needs to be beaten down, defeated, burned to ashes, and the ashes scattered on the ash heap of history.

I am not holding my breath on seeing it happen in my lifetime but a boy can hope.

Speaking of good possible results I am not holding my breath on, on seeing achieved in my own lifetime, let 2009 be the year when all Protestant Pastors realize that the pulpit are the place, only, to exalt the Name of Jesus Christ, and NOT try to convince their flocks that every bigoted chauvinistic ignorant point of view and opinion they the pastors hold on anything, is the only correct point of view that is approved by GAWD?