Oh joy, just what we all needed: PUMA 2.0

aka: "Shut up, Hamster."

Srsly okai.

Or, I guess, I had a long sit, as my partner drove. I read Deoliver47's post about 'Ms. Hamsher' and it rather annoyed me. I've lived for most of my life amongst those people who now go by "tea baggers" (their own moniker) and I knew that no matter what happened in politics, I could never accept an alliance with such hate-filled individuals and I couldn't understand a progressive that might advocate such a move. Then I read a diary that said Ms. Hamsher had gone on Faux and Friends to appeal to their audience to 'kill the bill'. It wasn't much of a diary (sorry diarist!), so I checked the Fox site itself and damned if it wasn't true. Not only had she gone on Faux, she'd not even asserted herself to decry what the party of "no" had done to decimate the hcr bill. She talked about how the bill would increase costs to the middle class and would effect your current coverage and "causes it to be worse"; it sounded like right-wing talking points.

So, despite my struggle to remain objective, I was getting a lil subjective. When I logged on tonight, the first diary I saw was about Ms. Hamsher joining forces with Grover Norquist to force Rahm Emmanuel to resign. Grover Norquist? Really? I'm sure readers here know who Norquist is...founder, supported by President Reagan, of American's For Tax Reform; opposition of President Clinton's attempt at health care reform; Contra and North supporter; co-author, with Messr. Gingrich, of the "Contract with America; Abramoff aficionado; supporter and promoter of President G. W. Bush. Need I say more? That sort of perked my ears.

But it wasn't until a poster noted that Ms. Hamsher had tweeted about Senator Bernie Sanders losing his seat unless he killed the bill. Losing his seat. The only self-professed socialist in the political spectrum. Losing his seat because he wasn't progressive enough? Bernie Sanders, promoter of single-payer health care? That guy who passionately argued for, and offered an amendment that would provide health care and dental coverage for every American? I almost couldn't believe it. But I clicked the linky, and sure enough...there it was, in all its glory...

moar:

Grover Norquist is a lifelong Right-Wing warrior. Destroying all progressives and any progressive/liberal agenda is his life’s work. He is very good at and has been finding useful idiots to help him divide and conquer progressives for over thirty years.

Norquist started this work with Jack Abramoff at his side. One party rule has always been their goal and Democrats and liberals have always been their blood enemies. Destroying progressives and everything we believe is their life's work. It is what they do.

Grover is deeply connected to Abramoff. Perhaps nobody goes back as far with Jack as Norquist...

...These two created Ralph Reed and inflicted him upon the world and they spawned a host of other lobbyists, activists, media whores, think tankers, staffers and politicians that make up the extreme conservative movement in America. Jack Abramoff’s ability to lobby and be successful as the point of the spear for the K Street Project depended upon Norquist and his weekly gathering of DC conservatives (Jack’s in jail, but these weekly meetings go on—perhaps Ms. Hamsher will be Grover’s featured guest at a future meeting). The sweatshops, sexshops, human trafficking and systematic labor abuse on the Marianas Islands have Grover Norquist to thank for their protection by Republicans just as much as they have Abramoff to thank (and Jack kicked back funds to Grover as part of the circle of "thank yous"). Norquist should be in jail, but he was protected by McCain, Rove, Bush and Congress. Now he is still out on the streets of DC and making fresh "alliances" with gullible and foolish people within the progressive movement. Sadly, Jane Hamsher is one of those foolish people.

...And the heart of her alliance with Norquist is the fact that she is lending her support and credibility to the conservative conspiracy theory that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending money to poor people through the Community Investment Act and Community Banks. It is an article of faith among conservatives that Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama forced Freddie and Fannie to engaged in risky loans and that these two mortgage giants forced the big banks to do the same. And then the system crashed. See, in wing-nut world everything bad that happened to the economy was caused by poor people taking advantage of the system. This is a scandal that the wing-nuts want exposed just like they want that whole birth certificate thing exposed, and the ACORN thing exposed, and the death panel thing exposed, and the government’s dirty hands on your Medicare thing exposed, and the socialist takeover of America exposed, and the...

...If you want to fight with Rahm Emanuel, fine. If you want to pretend that he is your chosen personification of evil on this earth, go ahead. Whatever. But, if you decide that your hatred of Rahm is stronger than common sense, if you decide that you must join Jane Hamsher in making common cause with a shitbag like Norquist to attack Democrats, the President and his agenda, well then—and I mean this in the most civil way possible—go to hell. You have let your anger and your desire to piss farther and harder than you think Rahm can piss cloud your judgment.

Honestly? I'm listening to people on the left who are against the hcr bill as it stands now, even though I'm leaning toward the "hold your nose and support it, after making it as good as possible till the very end, because whatever that is is as good as we're going to get." But, joining up with Grover "drown the vulnerable anyone who gets in my way the government in a bathtub" Norquist to try to unseat Bernie Sanders because Sanders isn't progressive or aggressive enough in upholding progressive values. Because the guy who's been actually doing work, even brought up a bill for single-payer, has said this bill is worth supporting; and you think you know better, so you're gonna go side with the people who don't think we should have health care (reform) *at all*. Ooooookayy.

As for Obama and (some of) the Congresscritters supporting this bill (Lieberman can also be devoured by roving wolverines, yes, that goes without saying):

Listen, if I'm going to be supporting actual moderate-to-conservatives/self-aggrandizing cynical corporate sellouts going under the progressive flag whose "help" in this case not only doesn't much but may (*may*) even make things worse, I'm at least going to stick with the ones who aren't complete fucking boneheaded losers. That would be the ones who got elected into office, have some proven ability to find their ass with both hands, and are at least *trying* to make some kind of useful policy that will *help* *some* actual people be better able to not, you know, die. Hint: P.R. disasters like the Lieberman blackface stunt do not count as "progressive activism." They do count as "boneheaded loser moves."

p.s. how the hell did I get on Hamster's mailing list, anyway? No, I'm not signing your stupid petition. GOE AWAY.

Damn.

p.p.s. This, dammit.

If anyone thought that Obama's language about bipartisanship and compromise were just a ploy to get elected, and the fierce passionate liberal would then pull away the mask, they were deluded.

To me, Obama's open, bipartisan and cross-ideological tone was never just a pose. It was how he intended to govern, defining a mild, modified liberalism as centrism and putting the opposition on the defensive. A fierce, aggressive liberalism, the counterpart to the high point of conservative exercise of institutional power in the middle of this decade, was not going to succeed. Recall, that such an approach ultimately failed conservatism.

However, Republican senators' refusal to participate in any meaningful way in the health-care conversation, with the small and notable exception of Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe's single, hesitating vote when the bill was before the Finance Committee, is a painful revelation that Obama can't govern the way he campaigned. And that revelation is in itself a kind of cost, a useful illusion now lost. As recently as a few weeks ago, every savvy Hill insider would tell you that health reform might get 58 votes and fail, or it might get 61 or 62 votes. But it wouldn't, couldn't get exactly 60 votes, just because some Democrats -- Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu -- would insist on Republican cover. The biggest surprise of the last week is that health reform had to hit that target 60-vote target exactly, and that it did.

Health care's passage shows exactly how small the target is for any future Obama initiative, from cap-and-trade to financial reform. With no room for bipartisan compromise, and also no room to tell Joe Lieberman what everyone surely wants to tell Lieberman, the path forward is hard to see. As long as Republican opposition holds, even with the occasional press-release exception such as Sen. Lindsay Graham on cap-and-trade, there will be no room to the right and even less room to the left..

Reaping the whirlwind

John McCain is booed by his own rabidly anti-Obama crowds for telling them that maybe they ought to put down the pitchforks and torches after all.

The anger is getting raw at Republican rallies and John McCain is acting to tamp it down. McCain was booed by his own supporters Friday when, in an abrupt switch from raising questions about Barack Obama's character, he described the Democrat as a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

A sense of grievance spilling into rage has gripped some GOP events this week as McCain supporters see his presidential campaign lag against Obama. Some in the audience are making it personal, against the Democrat. Shouts of "traitor," "terrorist," "treason," "liar," and even "off with his head" have rung from the crowd at McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, and gone unchallenged by them.

...When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country," McCain stoked the sentiment. "I think I got the message," he said. "The gentleman is right." He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.

On Friday, McCain rejected the bait....

Um, yay? Still three and a half weeks to go, though, and that Ayers ad...and there's still your charming assistant running around doing her best Anita-Bryant-at-Nuremberg impression...

Well. And now for your moment of WTF?

"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:

"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

Arab: decent family man. Arab: decent family man.

"He ain't Arab, he's my colleague..."

'k then.

But no, there's no -racism- here or anything, so -stop saying that.- I mean, we totally almost don't even mind that he's -black.- What more do you want, for heaven's sake...?

Mind you, we -could- just slink back into the comforting miasma of xenophobic hate.

It's not that I don't -get- feelings of pessismism and loathing of one's fellow humans, you understand. Witness for instance this charming and under-reported story of children being gassed at a mosque in Dayton, Ohio., bizarrely entitled "No evidence of hate crime"

A 10-year-old girl sprayed in the face with a chemical Friday, Sept. 26, while at a local Islamic mosque was not the victim of a hate crime, police Chief Richard Biehl said.

The girl was watching children whose parents and relatives had gathered at the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, 26 Josie St., to celebrate Ramadan when she noticed two men standing outside a basement window about 9:40 p.m., according to police.

One of the men then sprayed something through the open window and into the girl's face from a white can with a red top, according to a police report. The girl said she immediately felt burning on her face and felt "sick to her stomach," the report stated.

Other children and a woman in the room felt affects from the chemical and the mosque was evacuated.

"The men didn't say anything to her (before she was sprayed)," Biehl said. "There was nothing left at the scene or anything that makes us believe this is a biased crime."

...Mosque board member Tarek Sabagh said many people within the mosque speculated that the incident was the result of a DVD about Islamic radicalism titled "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" that was mailed to area homes by its producers and circulated as a paid advertisement with more than 70 newspapers, including the Dayton Daily News.

"We are not linking the two at all," Sabagh said.

Oh, yes, "Obsession."

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/about_synopsis.php

(not hyperlinking)

Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against the West is a new film that will challenge the way you look at the world.

Almost 70 years ago, Europe found itself at war with one of the most sinister figures in modern history: Adolf Hitler. When the last bullet of World War II was fired, over 50 million people were dead, and countless countries were both physically and economically devastated. Hitler’s bloody struggle sought to forge the world anew, in the crucible of Nazi values. How could such a disaster occur? How could the West have overlooked the evil staring it in the face, for so long, before standing forcefully against it?

Today, we find ourselves confronted by a new enemy, also engaged in a violent struggle to transform our world. As we sleep in the comfort of our homes, a new evil rises against us. A new menace is threatening, with all the means at its disposal, to bow Western Civilization under the yoke of its values. That enemy is Radical Islam.

Using images from Arab TV, rarely seen in the West, Obsession reveals an ‘insider's view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. With the help of experts, including first-hand accounts from a former PLO terrorist, a Nazi youth commander, and the daughter of a martyred guerilla leader, the film shows, clearly, that the threat is real.

A peaceful religion is being hijacked by a dangerous foe, who seeks to destroy the shared values we stand for. The world should be very concerned.

Yeah, probably. Probably so, at that. Although maybe not for exactly the reasons the authors of this...project think. Oh, they've been mailing it to peoples' homes, unsolicited. 28 million copies so far, apparently. (Oh, and only in the "swing states," curiously enough.) Thousands of which landed in Ohio residents' mailboxes the week before the gassing of the Dayton mosque.

I read the story as reported by the Dayton Daily News, but this was after I had received an email written by a friend of some of the victims of these American terrorists. The matter of fact news report in the Dayton paper didn't come close to conveying the horrific impact of this unthinkable act like the email I had just read, so I asked the email's author for permission to share what they had written. The author was with one of the families from the mosque -- a mother and two of the small children who were in the room that was gassed -- the day after the attack occurred.

"She told me that the gas was sprayed into the room where the babies and children were being kept while their mothers prayed together their Ramadan prayers. Panicked mothers ran for their babies, crying for their children so they could flee from the gas that was burning their eyes and throats and lungs. She grabbed her youngest in her arms and grabbed the hand of her other daughter, moving with the others to exit the building and the irritating substance there.

"The paramedic said the young one was in shock, and gave her oxygen to help her breathe. The child couldn't stop sobbing.

"This didn't happen in some far away place -- but right here in Dayton, and to my friends. Many of the Iraqi refugees were praying together at the Mosque Friday evening. People that I know and love...

The presidential campaign edition of the Obsession DVD, produced and currently being distributed by the Clarion Fund, carries the endorsement of the chair of the counter-terrorism department of the U.S. Naval War College, using the name and authority of an official U.S. military institution not only to validate an attack the religion of Islam, but to influence a political campaign. For these reasons, this endorsement has been included in MRFF's second lawsuit against the Department of Defense, which was filed on September 25 in the Federal District Court in Kansas.

My opinion as an individual and thoroughly appalled human being:

John McCain has a moral obligation to publicly censure the Clarion Fund; to denounce the inflammatory, anti-Muslim message of Obsession; and to do everything in his power to stop any further campaign activities by his supporters that have the potential to incite violence.

Which I'm sure he will, any day now, 'coz, you know, we're all about taking the elevated, bipartisan, non-hatin' tone these next few weeks.

And, it's perfectly understandable that people are reluctant to classify the mosque attack as a hate crime, or connect it in any way to a boogity-boogity-THE ISLAMOFASCIST HORDES ARE COMING FOR YA movie sent to a tenth of the U.S. population, including right there in the town where it happened. Or that the Islam-baiting is anything other than a perfectly rational response to extremist zealots who've already targeted us once, after all (which, we have none of our own, extremist zealots that is, or anyway those are worser, always), and has nothing to do with good ol'fashioned Fear And Hatred Of The Other, Especially When The Other Is "Swarthy" And Have Funny Names And Are Supposed To Be Doing Menial Tasks For Us Instead Of Being All Uppity And Shit.

Of course.

The 16th Street Baptist Church bombing was a racially motivated terrorist attack on September 15, 1963 by members of a Ku Klux Klan group in Birmingham, Alabama in the United States. The bombing of the African-American church resulted in the deaths of four girls.

- Wikipedia

I can’t remember a time when I really didn’t know about this story. About four girls whose lives were taken from them because of the color of their skin at a place of community, a place where above all they should have been safe. In short they lost their lives because of hatred a hate so strong that no where and no one is safe.

...Last night as I read the accounts of the gassing at the mosque in Dayton Ohio, last Friday, my mind continued to flash on the pictures of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing.

It is disturbing to read how Dayton Police could not think this was a hate crime. As if the perpetrators walked up to any random building, lighted, filled with people, with cars in the parking lot, then sprayed something in the windows was a normal occurrence. No, not targeted at a group for their beliefs, they merely mistook the irritant gas sprayed for a can of Glade Air Freshener...

Yeah, basically.

Josh Marshall on McCain's attempt to postpone the debate in the name of (go on, you can say it with a straight face) putting the good of the nation over partisan politics.

Occasionally..., in a perverse kind of private entertainment, I've found myself imagining what would happen if I pawned off on someone just the ballsiest, most inane excuse for flaking on some commitment. And not something that people might buy -- nothing entertaining about that -- but just something completely off the wall and nonsensical. What would people's reaction be? Speechless, laughter, tearing me limb from limb? Would they ever speak to me again?

So, let's see, I can't moderate the panel because I've been called to Washington to give a special briefing on guerilla tactics to be used against the Taliban?

Or maybe, I want to be at the meeting, but as weird as this sounds, all the bridges and tunnels out of Manhattan have been shut for the day. Some counter-terrorism thing probably. I tried renting a helicopter but they're all booked by people at the UN.

Isn't this pretty much what John McCain tried to pull today? But actually really did it? And on a national stage? He wants to cancel the debate? And maybe also Palin's debate. Are you kidding? Why not cancel the election too? And because he has to go back to DC to solve the financial crisis? Really? The topic he knows nothing about and after he's shown up less in the senate in the last two years than anyone but Tim Johnson, the guy who had the stroke? Which of my employees is going to call from home tomorrow and say they can't come to work because of the financial crisis?

What gutted me was, the first I read of this, the article was making like saying "um, how about no" was going to put Obama in a bad light, which, I can't even look at the latest spin/etc., but, really:

--oh, the same yahoo link now goes to an update. Before Obama's response it was something like, it puts Obama in a bind, because if he says "yes" it looks like he's following McCain's lead and thus not, you know, leading; but if he says "no" it looks like he's rejecting McCain's noble, selfless call to put the good of the country first and that makes him, Obama that is, look bad...

thankfully, his response was only a slight elaboration on the answer that was going through my brain like a CNN news ticker as I rode the J-line right after reading that yesterday ("Betch, please.")

"It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess," Obama said at a news conference in Clearwater, Fla. "It's going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."

Honestly, I have to say, if he -hadn't- responded with something like that, I'd have probably written him off for good, because part of the president's or rather any effective politician's job is -also- to smack down such transparently bullshit manipulations as that as clearly and succinctly as possible.

I mean, it took chutzpah, I'll give him that, McCain. Sadly, all too often over the past umpty years, that's been enough to carry the fuckheads in charge through. Spit and chutzpah. "The Big Lie." Please Deity that -might- finally be coming to an end. -Please.-

and um yeah, hopefully a bit more will be said, come the day, on oh maybe -why- we're in this fucking meltdown in the first place.

I mean, not that I in any way suspect ulterior motives to McCain's wish to "cease campaigning" much less (!!) CANCEL THE DEBATE right about now, and particularly put the kibosh on any heated arguments over the IMMINENT ECONOMIC FUCKING CRISIS MY DOG WE NEVER SAW THAT COMING LO ALL THESE MONTHS AND YEARS, not in the light of say news tidbits like this:

Source: McCain aide's firm paid by Freddie Mac
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 24, 7:09 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Almost up until the time it was taken over by the government in the nation's financial crisis, one of two housing giants paid $15,000 a month to the lobbying firm of John McCain's campaign manager, a person familiar with the financial arrangement says.

The money from Freddie Mac to the firm of Rick Davis is on top of more than $30,000 a month that went directly to Davis for five years starting in 2000.

The $30,000 a month came from both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the other housing entity now under government control because of the nation's financial crisis.

Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reported early Tuesday evening that Davis' lobbying firm remained on the Freddie Mac payroll. The New York Times reported all the payments, posting an article on its Web site Tuesday night revealing the $15,000 a month to the firm of Davis Manafort. The newspaper quoted two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

On Wednesday, the campaign of McCain's Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama, accused Davis and McCain's campaign of not telling the truth about Davis' continuing financial relationship with Freddie Mac.

Campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said it was troubling that Davis' firm "continued to be compensated by Freddie Mac until as recently as last month, but that the firm did little work and apparently was being paid simply to provide access to the McCain campaign."

McCain' vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, said her understanding was that Davis had recused himself from the firm's business.

"I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago that he's not benefiting from that," she said when questioned about the payments during an interview Wednesday with "CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric. "And you know, I was ... I would hope that's not the case..."

Wouldn't you just.

But I mean, yeah, fuck knows, let's all come together and solve this problem, let's not point any fingers of blame, what's done is done, (just like Iraq, it's not like anyone's to BLAME for that being a fuckup, it just HAPPENED, let's move on, you know, let's not be ANGRY or anything)-- let's all just sing Kumbaya for six weeks until the election which is actually going to happen regardless, I didn't see any call for postponing the ELECTION, mind you, not even o somehow trying to get it on a weekend, as long as we're changing Big Shit at the very last minute, and hey maybe some more of the voters who aren't -yet- unemployed from the fallout of Big Fucking Greedy Institutional Bastards Who Overate And Have National Indigestion Now can actually go and fucking vote...

I mean, let's not get carried -away- or anything. Let's be, you know, -reasonable.- Noble, selfless, concerned for the nation's wellbeing as opposed to one's personal career and/or sorry ass, etc. etc. etc.

you MAVERICK, you.

ETA: oh dear, looks like the Dems really aren't feelin' the bipartisan luv. I'm surprised and saddened, I really am:

Democrats think that Republicans were backing away from a compromise many of them agreed to earlier Thursday — without McCain's involvement — in order to give McCain time to play a role and perhaps appear as a rescuer.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he believed the breakdown was simply an effort to allow McCain to miss Friday night's scheduled debate with Obama.

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, seconded that belief. "I think McCain was hurting politically," Frank said. "I think this was a campaign ploy."

When McCain arrived in Washington to discover that an agreement was near, Frank said, it became necessary to upset it so that McCain could later be seen to have played a role. "He's making it harder to get things done," Frank said.

...fuck it, I keep saying I'm not paying attention to this shit, but it's time, I guess: tis now and truly the season. and hey, if everything burns down around our ears at least it makes the popcorn pop more better. Pass it over here.

-chomp chomp chomp-

Sarah Palin is a woman. So are Ann Coulter, Anita Bryant, Phyllis Schlafly, the late Elena Ceausescu...

Oh, you know what else that list has in common? Not really known for being great for -other- women; including, but not limited to, reproductive rights.

Specifically, McCain's veep choice, well, let's see now:

In a gubernatorial debate, Palin stated emphatically that her opposition to abortion was so great, so total, that even if her teenage daughter was impregnated by a rapist, she would "choose life" -- meaning apparently that she would not permit her daughter to have an abortion.

Palin also had to withdraw her appointment of a top public safety commissioner who had been reprimanded for sexual harassment, although Palin had been warned about his background through letters by the sexual harassment complainant...

Oh yeah, some of her best friends are gay, you know, but with friends like these...

As Governor, Palin currently supports the efforts of radical activists to strip Alaska residents - specifically state workers - of the most basic domestic partner benefits.

- It was only when the Alaska Attorney General warned Palin that the Republican position of stripping domestic partnership benefits was unconstitutional (in light of a recent Alaska Supreme Court ruling) that Palin reluctantly vetoed legislation that would have defied the court ruling. Palin quickly moved on to support an alternate strategy to strip domestic partner benefits by placing an anti-equality amendment onto the state ballot.

- When Alaska had the opportunity to extend the freedom to marry to all Alaskan couples, Palin joined with radical efforts to scapegoat same-sex couples in order to scare voters on this issue. In 1998, Palin championed a constitutional amendment that deeply discriminated against same-sex couples in the Alaska constitution. The passage of this amendment, with the full support of Palin, kicked-off a wave of discrimination by encouraging Republicans and radical activists in other states to place similar measures on state ballots for the next decade to come.

- Palin is the friend of anti-LGBT special interests. At the Republican National Convention, Palin will be honored by anti-LGBT crusader Phyllis Schlafly [see?] at a reception for leading anti-LGBT advocates seeking to further influence the positions of the Republican Party. Palin will share the stage with Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (MN) who is known in the media for her frequent, anti-gay, blathering statements and tirades.

A CORRUPT, WASTEFUL RECORD

An Anti-Equality Advocate from Day One

- The FIRST piece of legislation signed by Governor Palin was done at the request of radical, anti-LGBT groups.

- Palin squandered over $1.2 million of taxpayer money to place an anti-LGBT "vanity" vote before voters at the request of radical anti-LGBT activists - including Focus on the Family, the Concerned Women of America and the Family Research Council. The ballot language asked voters if they supported Republican efforts to strip existing benefits for LGBT state employees. As a non-biding initiative, the measure had no influence on Alaska law. As the only question on the ballot, Palin willingly wasted over $1.2 million in state money to promote the talking points of anti-LGBT activists...

Oh, but she's a moderate, right? The way McCain is a maverick, a "moderate," and now, apparently, totally a friend to women. I mean, okay, conservative on "family values," but not really that -extreme,- as these things go, right?...Oh, wait.

There are quite a number of extremely troubling links between Sarah Palin and neopentecostal dominionists--enough that, in truth, she may be ultimately as much of a "dream candidate" for the dominionist movement as Mike Huckabee was. Even worse, she's running in a manner that has been frighteningly successful for dominionist groups since the early 80's--specifically, as a "stealth candidate".

Palin's Assemblies linkage

The first link in and of itself is a doozy--and one of the most damning indeed. No less than the official newsletter of the Assemblies of God of Alaska promotes her proudly as one of the denomination's own, and she was actually feted at an official function of the Assemblies' Alaska District as recently as this year:

The opening night banquet of the 2008 Alaska District Council was honored to have Governor Sarah Palin address the delegates and guests. Governor Palin spoke of her appreciation for the Assemblies of God and requested that the Council pray for both her and the State of Alaska. Superintendent Ted Boatsman, who was Palin’s junior high pastor at Wasilla Assembly of God, along with Pastor Mike Rose of Juneau Christian Center, where Palin presently attends church when in Juneau, laid hands on the Governor and led the Council in prayer.

...she and her husband, Todd, believe that every child is a gift of God, deserving of life, and that God was asking them to accept His will for their lives. The Alaska District Council believes that the State of Alaska is blessed to have a woman of faith and courage as Governor.

A look at the home website of Palin's church tends to be revealing. Among other things, a particular Assemblies buzzword associated frequently with Hillsong A/G and New Zealand Assemblies churches shows up ("Destiny", here, is a buzzword for "Joel's Army", and is being preferred even as the phrase "Joel's Army" is getting enough negative spin that even the Assemblies is now having to do some rather massive spin control); cell churches are promoted (of the same sort that are linked to short-term and longterm psychological damage and are among the most coercive tactics ever documented in spiritually abusive groups). The church, like a number of other large Assemblies churches, is the center of a dominionist broadcast TV center whose programming is carried across multiple channels in Alaska.

...As if the Assemblies links weren't enough (and between this diary and the stuff that has been reported re John Ashcroft--much less George W. Bush's consistent support for Assemblies frontgroups--that should be a pretty big damn danger sign right there!), there's still more to indicate Sarah Palin may have been put in as a "stealth dominionist".

Among other things, Palin explicitly promoted "teach the controversy" by calling for the misnamed "creation science" to be taught in public schools (as now well documented in Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District, it's known that "creation science" is nothing more and nothing less than a method of putting young-earth creationism in public schools).

The other thing about dominionist types, female ones, too: they tend not to be real big on preserving the environment. You know, "God said the Earth is yours. Take it, rape it..." They're not the only ones who aren't green, of course. Still, worth noting, whatever the reason, Palin's not a friend:

"Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration."

...[Palin] [s]ays the climate models are unreliable, and claims that there is no relationship between global warming and human activity or greenhouse-gas emissions.

But, wait, anyway, she IS a feminist, Palin, right? Feminists for Life, true...

FFL in fact engages in "cultural appropriation" of women's suffrage icons to promote a very woman-unfriendly agenda that--despite attempts to sound "not like those crazies in Operation Rescue"--would not only criminalise abortion but the IUD and hormonal birth control methods, and potentially everything outside the rhythm method (the term "abortifacient birth control" is a codephrase in the dominionist "pro-life" community for hormonal birth control--partly due to a unique urban legend claiming "the pill" and other hormonal birth control causes abortion and partly because of a unique definition of pregnancy beginning at conception rather than at implantation (the latter is what most mainstream OB/GYNs use) and thus making anything preventing implantation potentially "abortifacient").

FFL promotes such fun bogosities as "post-abortion syndrome" (the idea that having an abortion will inevitably lead to PTSD and insanity), and promotes mandatory waiting periods and misinformation guidelines that can be insurmountable for poor or rural women--even those forced to make the most heartbreaking choice because of a nonviable pregnancy. In fact, one of their biggest causes isn't feminist at all--they actively promote the idea that the best choice for women is to stay home as fulltime mothers, and it can be well argued that the only traditionally feminist viewpoint they really support is women's suffrage!

One of the big things FFL promotes is deceptive "pregnancy counseling centers"--where pregnant teens are forced to essentially listen to an altar call on how "abortionists want to murder their children" whilst a pee-stick test clears--and if she tests "yes", she gets a hard-sell to keep the child or to check herself into a dominionist-run "halfway house for teenage moms" where she will ultimately be forced to sign her kid over. (Yes, there is an entire private adoption industry in the dominionist community--mostly focusing on adopting out the infants of poor teenage mothers who have been forced to give their kids up and who have been either scared into it or checked into such facilities by their parents.)

Ironically, FFL itself is rather a "stealth" organisation in and of itself--yes, even the dominionists admit this. Interestingly, despite their claims of being more "moderate" than most anti-abortion groups, very few real solutions are offered on how they intend to fund such things...

Oh, well. Details, right? At the end of the day, I think Sylvia's right: Sarah Palin is Hillary Clinton. Is Maggie Thatcher is Rosa Luxemberg is Marie of Romania is Mother Jones is Mother Theresa is Mother Frickin' Hubbard. Symbolic gender solidarity uber alles, gyns! Go Republicans for breaking on through that glass ceiling, because it's not like there's ever been a female vice presidential candidate before either. That tear in my eye is a tear of joy, really.

.

A clarification.

Wrt the "open letter" post. Perhaps I did not communicate my thesis as well as I might have done. Let me try to explain more clearly and succinctly:

I HATE CAPITAL P ELECTORAL POLITICS, I REALLY FUCKING HATE THIS PRIMARY SEASON, AND MOSTLY RIGHT NOW I HATE YOU ALL. -flaps hand irritably in general direction of irritating people-

'K?

I don't actually hate Hillary. I don't -know- Hillary. That's kind of, you know, the point. She's not my bestest buddy. She's not gonna get me a job or a girlfriend or a golden ticket through the glass ceiling to the top of the heap. She's not my fairy feminist godmother, gonna wave a wand and make my (for I am, indeed, Every Woman) life all better. NONE of the candidates are. We know this, as nice sensible rational non-sheeple, kee-rect?

I mean, this is why, when I go to read a nice, sensible person who's very concerned about the impending crypto-fundie-fascism of the "Obamabots" (yes, I'm sure they're really terrible TOO, I don't CARE, I didn't even mean to look THIS far, and Tom? so gonna KICK YOUR ASS for making me look)--she has this list, right, wherein she says,

The seeds of the new progressive blogosphere

A list is taking shape of those political bloggers who are either pro-Hillary or at least fair in their coverage of the candidates — in other words, bloggers who aren’t raving Clinton-hating Obamabots. Versions of this emerging blogroll are popping up here and there; the one below is cobbled together from lists at Tennessee Guerilla Women, The Hillary 1000, and a couple of other places.

Why does this list matter? It’s not merely a question of knowing where to go for misogyny-free political commentary. These are the seeds of a new progressive blogosphere in the making. The Obamabots are poisoning the original netroots, transforming what used to be an arena for progressive politics into nothing more than a rabid, mindless He-Man Woman-Haters club. The Democratic Party — or at least the high-visibility Obamabot segment — is morphing into the Young Republicans: all the misogyny and callowness and ignorance and blind hero-worship of the old GOP, but with a self-congratulatory aura of imaginary cool to make the YouTube generation feel at home.

And where does that leave the women of America?

...so, I click at random on a link from the list, right, and this is what I immediately run into:

http://alwaysforhillary.blogspot.com/

This is my blog on campaigning for and supporting Hillary Clinton for President! I firmly believe she is the most intelligent, qualified, and experienced "person" running and the fact she is a woman is just icing on the cake!

Wednesday, May 7, 2008
I'M SEETHING!!!! I'M ANGRY!!!!

Last night, Hillary won Indiana where Obama won North Carolina. Indiana was a state his campaign predicted they would win by at least 7 points. Well, because Hillary only won Indiana by 2 points, the pundits and media have AGAIN COUNTED HILLARY OUT AND LEFT HER FOR DEAD!!!! They are saying the nomination is over and Obama will be the nominee. He may well turn out to be the nominee, but this is at least the 4th or 5th time throughout this campaign, that Hillary's political demise has been delivered!!! Today George McGovern who supported Hillary early on in the campaign, for him both Bill and Hillary campaigned for him for president in the 70's, has now called on Hillary PUBLICLY TO GET OUT OF THE RACE and he has switched his support to Obama!!! I am SO ANGRY; I AM SEETHING!!!!!

Hillary is the most admirable woman in the world!!! As this campaign has progressed, my admiration and love for her as deepened day by day, month by month. After being counted out time after time, she STILL GETS UP EVERY DAY and goes out there and campaigns. This is a woman who has again lent her campaign another $6 million so she can be competitive with Obama!! Doesn't the fact she has loaned her campaign over $11 million already, and is willing to give more, SHOW HOW PASSIONATE SHE IS TO HELP THIS COUNTRY?????

I just made by upteenth call to the DNC. I told them how ANGRY I was; how I was SEETHING!!! I said Hillary won Indiana last night and all I'm hearing is how she should get out of the race; the race is over, "she's toast", etc. I told them that I had said all along that I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA BUT THAT I WOULD WRITE IN HILLARY'S NAME, but I have gone one step further. I am SO ANGRY that I have decided if Hillary does not get the nomination which she deserves and has earned, I WILL VOTE FOR MC CAIN!!!!! And that goes against everything I believe in, but at least I RESPECT MC CAIN! I DO NOT RESPECT OBAMA!!! I DO NOT TRUST OBAMA!!!! I THINK OBAMA WOULD BE TERRIBLY DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY!!!

In both states last night, 50% of Hillary's supporters said THEY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA!!! They will either vote for McCain or not vote at all. I am not giving up yet. Hillary is a FIGHTER and she might still have some tricks up her sleeve. I PRAY SHE WILL STILL WIN THIS NOMINATION. I want to vote for the person I believe in!! I want to vote for the person who will be great for this country!!! I want to vote for the person who will be a GREAT PRESIDENT!!! I WANT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!

***

I'm not sure, but I think she's saying that she's for Hillary, there.

"Where does this leave the women of America?"

Well, I can't speak for the rest of 'em, but THIS woman is left rolling her eyes so hard they've fallen down the back of me.

Jesus fuck, can't these people indulge their passions in something -healthy-, like, I don't know, Harry Potter fandom or something? This person is 55? and she sounds like a rabid Harmonian (no, don't ask me how I even know about this shit, really).

ZOMG BILLARY 4EVER!!!ELEVENTYBEEP!!...

I mean, I -was- going to say something a bit more in-depth about, well...back to Violet, because there's some shit to unpack that I find interesting, here:

Well, first of all, she links to this endorsement of Obama, with the following accompanying photo:



And, well, yeah, that is rather creepy. At minimum: seriously naff. Vote for Obama and Thomas Kincade will give us all a unicorn? What? And as the first commenter notes:

The only problem with the picture you have of Obama is that he is not walking on top of the water.

So, Violet has some commentary, and some of it I do agree with, in fact, this bit:

Barack Obama is not a creep or a vicious little man. He is, however, a canny politician, and not even a particularly honest one. He’s a product of the Chicago machine, and he’s played as dirty as anybody. His whole career, going back to the moment he graduated from Harvard Law, has been focused on one thing: his own advancement. The elaborate advertising campaign that’s selling him to the gullible masses as some kind of savior is just that — an advertising campaign.

Agreed. He's a canny politician, for better or for worse. It's looking increasingly like he just might be even cannier than Hillary, and this is why, in fact, he's edging her out. It may or may not be that he's the better candidate. Me, I still think in a number of ways it's a coin-toss. Depends on the issue, what time of day you ask me, and how arsed I can be to actually go know what the fuck I'm talking about.

As for "not particularly honest:" well, again, haven't been following the play by play much this time so can't really comment, but I will say with some rather glibly cynical confidence that "___ is not a particularly honest politician" is a truism on the level of "the Atlantic is not a particularly dry ocean."

What I -do- think is

a) either one of them is way WAY better than McCain, and I still will vote for whoever actually wins the nomination, assuming this ever fucking ends

b) neither one is exactly ideal and both have made me :headdesk: a number of times

c) actually? a little canninesss and charisma are not, perhaps, such bad things, in a politician. I mean to say, it'd be a refreshing change from our current dumbass arrogant motherfuckers, who simply rode as far as they could on nepotism and deluded arrogance and Rovian levels of dirty fuckery, and simply -bludgeoned- the rest of their way, Vogon-like, as far as they could go, domestically -and- internationally; and, well, check out the results. "We're soaking in it."

Hell, it's why I supported Clinton's husband in the damn first place. Rather eerily similar mix of personal charm, either inspiring or nauseatingly saccharine, depending on your purview, appeals to "hope," apparent genuine better-than-the-other-guyness and disappointing sellouts; and, yep, canny, even oleaginous, as all fuck, no doubt. It's what made him good at what he did, see, in large part: charm and canniness HELP when you're trying to persuade people to pass your bill or put down the large nuclear weapon. It -can- be used to get people to drink the Koolaid or join the Hitlerjugend too, yes. But it doesn't have to be. And without it, well, basically...you're Ralph Nader.

There was, for me, with Bill, a tipping point where I just couldn't muster up any enthusiasm anymore--this was well into his actual tenure--but I never had any illusions that he was, y'know, Holy Savior On A White Unicorn. And if anyone -really- did, to the point of actual -worship-, well...more fool they, I suppose.

That said, though, well: okay. We're not just rolling our eyes at this pic, apparently, we're supposed to, what, see this kind of generic poli-fanboy kitsch as a threat to humanist democracy, because:

Obamamania gives liberals the opportunity to surrender to the same mindless hero-worship as Republicans. That’s really the deal. George W. Bush is, in actuality, a creep. A vicious little man. But he was marketed as a Man of Honor, a Man of God — and people fell for it. Because they wanted to, because they were ripe for that kind of pseudo-religious surrender.

...We are a nation of consumers, of believers, of dupes. Maybe we don’t deserve democracy anymore.

You know, there's more to say about the not-so-subtext--there's an actual texty quote I had to this effect, by someone else of similar politics, elsewhere--about this tendency about let's say a certain demographic of people, I think more on the more or less "traditional" left, perhaps, to look at anything smacking of actual religion/faith with deep suspicion, how it ALL must be scary fundieism; and how indeed this fear of fundamentalist demagoguery ties into the mistrust of, well, again, charisma.

But it's more than my frazzled attention span can manage at the moment, it's a longer post than I've already got here anyway. Besides, the conclusion I'm stumbling toward, i.e. actually "the spirit," let's say very generally, is a GOOD thing, a HUMAN thing, and if the left doesn't acknowledge this um...well, what -are- we talking about? appeal to faith, hope and charity? theatre and spectacle and ritual and all things associated with religion as well as humbug? the wisdom of crowds?...but rather insists we must do away with it altogether, well, THAT'S when you get your Hitlers and other false prophets. It's not a question of needing to believe so and so really IS the Messiah; you're right, literally putting that on any human being IS a bad thing, that's what fundamentalism IS, the over-literalization of all...this; it is however a question of, no, we're -not- all just-the-facts-ma'am, it's not how we're built, and it's better to work with it consciously than rail about what stupid unevolved sheep we all are...something like that.

...anyway, well, let's just say the -philosophical- tone I was gonna take with -that- post, which is indeed a separate post I think, much less "why yes, having faith in -something-, especially one's fellow human critter, is a -good- thing in a leader and a political movement," sits rather uneasily with my current mood of FUCK ALL Y'ALL, YOU'RE ALL TERMINALLY ANNOYING MYOPIC BASTARD PEOPLE AND I HATE YOU SO BAD.

It'll pass.

Anyway.

So let's just take this thesis of Violet's on its face for now, okay, that Obama-Kitsch-person is a representative of all that's bad and scary about THEM, you know, the Obama people, and we must turn to the sane sober -smart- people who are NOT prone to mindless worship to save us from ourselves, i.e...the Hillary supporters.

Like this person.

Hillary is the most admirable woman in the world!!! As this campaign has progressed, my admiration and love for her as deepened day by day, month by month. After being counted out time after time, she STILL GETS UP EVERY DAY and goes out there and campaigns. This is a woman who has again lent her campaign another $6 million so she can be competitive with Obama!! Doesn't the fact she has loaned her campaign over $11 million already, and is willing to give more, SHOW HOW PASSIONATE SHE IS TO HELP THIS COUNTRY?????

Well. Okay then!! I'm convinced!! Sign me up for my full quota of exclamation points!!!!! -thumbs up-

Did I mention the part about oh GOD will the LOT of you SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY? I may have, once or twice.

And finally, here's the part which really fucks me off, okay:

These people who are all like, nnnghh rrrggghhh HILLARY (or OBAMA I suppose, someone must be doing this somewhere, NO don't show me) OR BUST n i'll VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN or stay home and BITE MY PILLOW! ?

are, in many cases the VERY SAME PEOPLE who four years ago (remember?) were all like,

ZOMG BUSH CAN'T WIN AGAIN IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD THE LAST LATE CHANCE FUCK YOU YOU NADER FUCKERS FOR RUINING EVERYTHING IF HE DOES WIN OMG HE DID WIN O DESPAIR DESPAIR WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOMED FOREVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR it's the end of democracy and Western Civ and puppies and EVERYTHING.

Remember this?

And you know? I kind of bought it, for a while. Maybe I was right to, even. I mean, we DO live on a Hellmouth, more or less; we just kind of, what, get used to it? Something. Fuck knows there are a bunch of people in the Middle East who are a lot more dead than they probably would've been if someone who wasn't totally in bed with the neocons, the theocons, and their daddies' pals in the Awl Bidness had been in office. (Which is not to say that there still wouldn't have been a body count; yes, I am well aware Bill Clinton was not exactly a bomb-free gift to the Iraqis or a bunch of other people either, yes) Plus a bunch of other -specifics- that I'm too lazy and shallow to get into at the moment, but hey join the club there. And fuck knows Nader sucks, yes.

And yet. So now, though, here we are again, four years later, and YEAH, for a lot of people the world DID end, same as it always has cause garsh, there's more to U.S. policy and politics and well LIFE than you imagined, Horatio, and more people in the world, too, but well never mind;

But fact is, the world still continues to turn, more or less, against all odds, and now oh look just in time for election season (which I KNOW some of these same people screaming about their primary candidate now were swearing upndown we'd never have one again at ALL after '04), it's yet ANOTHER fucking crisis.

No, the world won't even probably end as such if McCain wins either, or not -just- BECAUSE McCain wins instead of the Democrat. Although I DO think it'll be pretty bad for a lot of people in ways that it wouldn't be otherwise, yes, and I plan to write more about this henceforth. And no, it won't be all roses for everyone if either HRC or Obama wins either. Absolutely.

But. Here's the point: whom do you imagine is most going to feel the immediate impact of the -actual policies- enacted by the -actual whoever is voted in, o flag-waving peanut gallery? You? I wonder. Because, well, four years after the last OMG THE SKY IS FALLING, well, here you all are again, more or less, gearing up for the NEXT test match, threatening imminent doom and/or hara-kiri if your candidate doesn't WIN DAMMIT, all sound and fury and signifying not a whole fuck of a lot, quite frankly.

Which leads one, finally, to the question:

Why get all het up over the CANDIDATES so much more than the ISSUES? (whatever they were again?)

Well...it's more fun and it's sexier, and fuck knows it's -hard work- to pay attention to the issues. Hey, guilty as charged right here.

But for the love of little plastic baubles, do NOT try to sell me YOUR political fandom as the ONE TRUE SHIP while at the same time handwringing about all those OTHER terrible people who just don't -understand- what's at stake here, unlike you, o enlightened, -serious- person.

As for this?

Maybe we don’t deserve democracy anymore.

Speak for your damn self. And, piss off with the damn Twilight of Western Civ elegies, T.S. Eloise, I -hate- that shit. Include me out with your -we-, and don't tell me what I -deserve-.

I don't know -what- "we," or even I, deserve, to be perfectly honest. I know what I -want-, but that may not be what I -deserve-. And to some degree, well, karma will wreak its justice, and them's the breaks.

What I -can- control, however, is whether or not I continue to hurt my brain by tuning into this crap.

I don't -think- I deserve it (glares at Tom). I know I don't -want- to.

So, I...won't.

Off to cultivate my garden, or some goddam thing, at least till the next outrage I get caught up in (checks watch)

***

ETA: Let me be a little clearer about one last thing, also. I am not actually saying she should drop out before the last few primary state elections straggle to the end, no. Not at this late date. That would not be reasonable.

What I AM saying is, the suggestions that at the end of those, even if she's in the red in delegates, superdelegates, AND money, she's still gonna plug away at Michigan and Florida and maybe fuck me dead even run as an independent after the nomination (no, I don't think she'd go that far, but there WAS fucking Lieberman, not the same I know, but...)

Again. The last. fucking. thing. anyone wants. is to have a prolonged drag out fight. over a technicality. in FLORIDA.

Please, God? Please? PLEEEASSSEEEEE

An open letter to HRC

This is one of my -very- few commentaries on this sorry clusterfuck of a primary season. Please Maud it will be my last.

Dear Hillary:

I totally, totally hate you. Please go away now kthxbai.

And you know what the bitch of it (something not even -remotely- Freudianly suggestive of internalized sexism) is? I -didn't- particularly hate you before. Was (ETA AND STILL AM IF BY SOME MIRACLE OF MAUD YOU ACTUALLY TURN THIS THING AROUND, I JUST DON'T THINK YOU WILL, OKAY) ready to get behind you or whoever won, albeit without much enthusiasm. Have not been much of an Obama supporter; I voted for him at the last minute, but that was about it. Did not pass go, did not collect my brief flaring of passion for the guy wayyyyy back in '04, did not join the campaign or even write or read more about him. Just went right back to dumb-as-shit blogwars where at least I can engage/spar more or less -personally- with the dumbasses in question; and picking dandruff off the cat; and y'know, generally, my own life, such as it is. No more rah rah goDemsgo for me, thanks.

"I've been hurt before."

Mostly, this round, I've been trying to -ignore- -all- of your sorry asses, and the even dumber and more hateful arguments among your various supporters. All the race-baiting, and the what-trumps-who, and the number-crunching, and the backseat pollstering, and the posturing at great length which we all know perfectly well will mean precisely nothing as soon as victory's in your or anyone's hot little hand, and the fucking FUCKING mass emails and dead trees jamming up my mailbox and the -phone calls-, oh GOD the PHONE calls, how many different ways are there to tell someone you've never met "no, I am not giving you any money, now will you PLEASE take me off your list now PLEASE?"

And no, I can't even reference the latest oh-Christ-what-the-fuck-did-they-do-NOW except in the vaguest of ways, the headdesky racist phone calls in whosit, the dumbass public remark or staff gaffe du jour. Never even mind hahaha the ISSUES. I mean, the difference between your positions and Obama's and how exactly you're each pinky swearing no one's gonna pull away the football THIS time and who probably means it slightly less? Does anyone even know what they -are- anymore? Does anyone care? Do you? Fuck knows I barely do at this point. -trudges off to do quick refresher course, grinding teeth-

-That- bit's my own fault, I admit it.

The bit where I've been too disgusted and jaded to even -bother- paying attention, because I know that once I start I can't avoid an earful of the really hateful, -stupid- shit, plus I don't trust any of you lot as far as I can throw you at this point anyway so I feel like it barely matters? YOUR fault. Among others', -yes-. No, sharing the blame doesn't get your ass off the hook. No, I do not want to hear about your -platform- now, much less how "we can do it! chirp!!" Shut up. YOUR FAULT. (Did I mention the part about 'I hate you?')

ETA: YES, already, if the positions were reversed, I would be addressing this letter to Obama. Hey, I'll even put it in for the hell of it, I'm sure I'll be thinking it again before long.

Dear Barack: I totally, totally hate you and I hate your ass face (actually I kind of do, he physically kind of reminds me of my arch-nemesis at the Dwama School, not his fault, but it doesn't help matters), shut UP shut UP shut UP.

Would be the gist of my appeal, if he were the one losing at the straggling end of this loooooooong ass primary but still plugging away. But...he's not. That simple.

Lookit: It's MAY. McCain's been the Republican nominee for how long? Over a third of a YEAR, you say?

See, if you bunch of sorry-assed Beltway mofos HAD to imitate the Republicans in ANY way, the ONE way you SHOULD be doing it is of course the ONE way you -don't-. To wit:

When it's obvious it's either you or the Party, it's time to finally sit your ass down.

And, like so -many- other people, believe me, of -course- I don't give a fuck about the -Party.- What I do give a fuck about is NOT having THIS guy win, okay:

McCain, whose six years of captivity and torture in Vietnam made him a national celebrity, negotiated (in September 2006) a compromise in the Senate for the Military Commissions Act of 2006, suspending habeas corpus provisions for anyone deemed by the Executive Branch an "unlawful enemy combatant" and barring them from challenging their detentions in court. Coming on the heels of a Supreme Court decision adverse to the White House, McCain's compromise gave a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed acts of torture and abuse, and permitted the use of statements obtained through torture to be used in military tribunals so long as the abuse took place by December 30, 2005.[11] McCain's compromise permitted the President to establish permissible interrogation techniques and to "interpret the meaning and application" of international Geneva Convention standards, so long as the coercion fell short of "serious" bodily or psychological injury.[12] Widely dubbed McCain's "torture compromise", the bill was signed into law by George W. Bush on October 17, 2006, shortly before the 2006 midterm elections.

...In October 2007, McCain said of waterboarding that, "They [other presidential candidates] should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture."[14] However, in February 2008 he voted against HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from waterboarding prisoners.

...In a major economic speech on April 15, 2008, McCain proposed a number of tax reductions and backed away from his pledge to balance the budget by the end of his first term, saying it would take him eight years. His speech focused on cuts to corporate tax rates and the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and also called for eliminating the alternative-minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for dependents to $7,000, This is in contrast to McCain's historical emphasis on deficit reduction over tax cuts. [42]

...The Washington Post noted that "much of what he detailed was a corporate special pleader's dream: a cut in the corporate income tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent, a proposal to allow businesses to write off the cost of new equipment and technology from their taxes, a ban on Internet and new cellphone taxes, and a permanent tax credit for research and development."...

McCain is against publicly-funded health care, universal health care, or health coverage mandates, instead favoring tax credits of up to $5,000** for families that get health insurance.

**(had to pay any health care costs out of pocket lately? -major- health care costs, like surgery and longterm hospital stays? basically, this will get you something involving a can opener, some string, and maybe a bottle of duty-free vodka for anaesthetic. never even mind chronic conditions like cancer or lupus or...)

you know, THIS guy:

# Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
# Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
# Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)

...Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.
# Rated 33% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
# Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

...# Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
# Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
# Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

...# Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
# Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
# Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
# Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
# Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
# Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)

...Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)

...I support the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. (Jan 2006)

...and so on. Compare and contrast, if you please, with Obama's positions and record. Might as well start, because he IS the presumptive candidate. Which brings us back to our thesis here, i.e. go away now plzkthxBAI.

What's that you say? But, but but BUT, but...where's my sisterly solidarity? The First Woman President! It had -such- a nice ring to it.

Listen up, because I'm only gonna say this once more: I. Don't. Care.

That's right. Do not care. Don't care if you have EIGHT vaginas. Don't care if you have endorsements from Early Money Is Like A Yeast Infection [ETA this does make me wince on reread, strike one for internalized wotsit] and Ilse Muttersdottir the First Matriarch AND Asphalta the Goddess of Parking Spaces. (ETA: Yes, I know "eight vaginas" and the rest of this bit ISN'T FUNNY AT ALL. I -have- eight vaginas. Damn right it isn't funny. -You- try going to the ob/gyn with...) See this? This is my not bothered at ALL at this point what goddam gender the next President is face, okay. And you want to know cause why?

1) at THIS point, whatever symbolic significance there is in having a woman break that last glass ceiling, and I will admit there is -some-, pretty much we've had it already. It's like the Oscars: the important part is the nomination. Yeah, yeah, I know, no one who's up for one REALLY believes it, and you've been SO ready for your closeup for SO long. Nonetheless. I'm sure the -next- female candidate who -isn't- a total plonker will be indebted to you, as are we all, really. Brava. However, this is a separate question from your PERSONAL ambition, I am afraid, and THAT, well, really not caring about. Like, at all. Sorry.

2) also? If you have to become more and more like Maggie Thatcher to win this thing? Don't want you -anyway.- And say-hey, ever since Maggie lo these couple of decades or so ago, why, there's no more sexism, legally OR culturally, in the UK, right? Right...?

3) yes, we know, there's been really rancid sexism in the media aimed at you. It sucks. We've discussed this. Thing is, of itself, not really enough to make me support -you-, as opposed to simply noting "gorram, those people are sexist fuckstains." What's more, they can and will continue to be sexist fuckstains quite happily with OR without your continued candidacy. It's just how it goes. And, we can attack them for being sexist fuckstains without having to add the obligatory "even though I don't particularly like Hillary herself...", really, we can.

4) -snaps fingers- oh yeah! Womens' RIGHTS, as in what affects the REST of us who AREN'T you and have OTHER primary concerns besides YOUR PERSONAL CAREER.

Well, now, let's see. Here's McCain on reproductive rights.

# Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
# Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
# Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
# VVoted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
# Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
# Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
# Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
# Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

I am pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere in the world, because to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator. I will never waver in that conviction. Our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.
Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008
# Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.

Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?

A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series May 13, 2007

On the issue of nominating Supreme Court justices based on an abortion litmus-test, �McCain has said that he will nominate justices based on their experience, and those who share his values,� said a spokesman.

and here's Obama:

* We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)
* Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)
* Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)
* GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
* Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
* Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
* Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
* Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
* Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
* Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
* Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
* Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
* Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
* Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
* Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
* Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Yeah, there is also this.

"In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted 'present" instead of "no' on five horrendous anti-choice bills."
--E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.

The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama's record on abortion, citing his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planne Parenthood strategy of voting 'present,' saying "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes." Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 NOW pro-Clinton campaign literature Feb 6, 2008

You may or may not agree with this spin on his decision. Personally? On the whole, he rides the fence too often for my tastes, yes, on a number of things. Definitely do not love his lip service toward "abstinence" in public school education, although his actual voting on any such isn't clear from that. (We won't even get into the "yay, giant useless expensive fence along the Mexican border which no one including his co-sponsor McCain actually thinks will do any good at all." See above re 'actually, I hate you all and I hate your collective Ass Face.') And yeah, of themselves, the quotes on abortion being a moral issue and so on? Sure, they grind a lot of peoples' teeth. But... look at how he -did- vote, -when- he did.

Now look at McCain. And well--look at you. Are you "better" when it comes to reproductive rights? Well, depends on your perspective, obviously. But assuming one takes the position that "my body, my choice" is sacrosanct, -even if- this were the Most Important Issue Ever: if you -are- better than Obama in this one regard? at this point, by my lights it's not enough to justify your plugging away and risking McCain instead. (Are you listening, Phyllis Chesler?)

Obama: 100% rating by NARAL. McCain: 0% rating by NARAL. Y/N?

Oh, right, okay, but: still, it's been a close race, you're a fighter, yadda yadda. Yes, up to a point. But, the diva, she has -sung-, geddit? He's -ahead-. He's -been- ahead. There's just not that much more to say, and you can't close the gap. And if you're counting on Florida and Michigan, -all- I have to say is: NOW you want to go to the mat over a technicality in fucking Florida rather than concede? NOW?? FUCK YOU.

At this point it's not even about Obama or you. No one wants a gorram intraparty repeat of 2000 here, understand? You're not worth it. Seriously, just...go. Have some damn dignity. Go build houses with Jimmy Carter or something. And, hey, look on the bright side: if Obama wins, and he turns out to be as much or more of a plonker as you, well, hey, at least you won't be the one who's totally, totally hated.

It'll mean less glory too, yes.

You'll live.

And that's all she wrote, folks.

ETA: Let me be a little clearer about one last thing, also. I am not actually saying she should drop out before the last few primary state elections straggle to the end, no. Not at this late date. That would not be reasonable.

What I AM saying is, the suggestions that at the end of those, even if she's in the red in delegates, superdelegates, AND money, she's still gonna plug away at Michigan and Florida and maybe fuck me dead even run as an independent after the nomination (no, I don't think she'd go that far, but there WAS fucking Lieberman, not the same I know, but...)

Again. The last. fucking. thing. anyone wants. is to have a prolonged drag out fight. over a technicality. in FLORIDA.

Please, God? Please? PLEEEASSSEEEEE

And yet more! House passes bill targeting "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act;" What Does It All Mean, Dear?

These guys think: nothing good..

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

First let’s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.

The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda...

...

The bill, btw, was sponsored by a "rank and file" Democrat, Jane Harman. Apparently this is the first of the 38 bills she's sponsored which has made it out of committee. The one before this was a bill to get the President to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo.

I dunno what she/they were thinking. One wonders if perhaps someone finally took the "hey, all this focus on the evil Islamofascists and no one's doing jack about groups like Operation Rescue" seriously and, things being what they are, this is what became of it in committee. One ponders that something this vague could, like so much else thrown at us by Fearless Leaders recently, be dangerously unConstitutional and target a number of undeserving innocents and be completely toothless toward finding and stopping actual dangerous groups at the same time; or if indeed the whole thing mostly translates to "put in circular file, needs further study," or what.

One then considers that technically, HUAC was a "committee."

One is feeling sort of overwhelmed by information/panic overload alternating with everyone's apparent apathy/cluelessness at the moment. One has misplaced one's tinfoil hat and has an eye on one's passport. One wants to go home. Wherever that is.

h/t Lisa Harney.

Do what, now?

Gee, I guess he isn't dead. (Again? Still? Perhaps?) Color me shocked. Now if we could only remember who this fellow was exactly...