GET! OFF!! MY! PHONE!!!!!

Glenn "Ask Me About My Crawlspace" Beck's latest meltdown doesn't exactly help to inspire...confidence.

But it did at least inspire some tasty beats.

Damn. Does it -hurt?-

I never really took the time before to read Pamela Whosis of Atlas Shrugs before, I don't think. Not sure how much influence she has these days, or if she ever even really was more than a novelty act; after all, there's -so much- competition among the foaming classes. And that's before even taking Fox News Channel into account.

Surfing from Twitter just now, though, landed on this moonversation (moonologue?) on Obama's speech to the NAACP. I guess it's probably just boilerplate, standard levels of racism and stoopid from the World Nads Daily (and suchlike) set at this point, nothing new to see here, but. Actually stopped to read this one for some reason. Life on another (small, hostile, noxious) planet:

The speech proves, yet again, that he does not (nor does he want to) represent all Americans. He is the most racist, divisive official we have ever elected to any high office, let alone the most powerful office in the world. The speech was scandalous. Listen to the African American president of the United States rail against discrimination in the country that elected him. Obama deceives and demagogues when he castigates the economy (which he is destroying) as being racist. The economy targets blacks - got that? The US has the highest standard of living for African Americans anywhere in the world, but to the left, facts are irrelevant. He preaches to us that AIDS devastates the African American community here in the US with disproportionate force. Whose fault is that? Sex and drugs is the problem. The culture in the Black community promotes the riskiest behavior...

Oh, there's more. The Muslims are coming ooh ahh etc. More screeching Buchananesque spittle at the Black! President! of the! United! States! focusing on African Americans. In a speech to the NAACP. I mean, how inflammatory and radical can you get?

[Obama]: The first thing we need to do is make real the words of the NAACP charter and eradicate prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination among citizens of the United States. (Applause.) I understand there may be a temptation among some to think that discrimination is no longer a problem in 2009. And I believe that overall, there probably has never been less discrimination in America than there is today. I think we can say that.

But make no mistake: The pain of discrimination is still felt in America. (Applause.) By 2African American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and a different gender. (Laughter.) By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. (Applause.) 3 By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion simply because they kneel down to pray to their God. (Applause.) By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights. (Applause.)

On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination cannot stand -- not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America. That's what the NAACP stands for. That's what the NAACP will continue to fight for as long as it takes. (Applause.)

I think all of us understand that our task of reducing these structural inequalities has been made more difficult by the state and structure of our broader economy; an economy that for the last decade has been fueled by a cycle of boom and bust; an economy where the rich got really, really rich, but ordinary folks didn't see their incomes or their wages go up; an economy built on credit cards, shady mortgage loans; an economy built not on a rock, but on sand...

...So, yes, government must be a force for opportunity. Yes, government must be a force for equality. But ultimately, if we are to be true to our past, then we also have to seize our own destiny, each and every day.

That is what the NAACP is all about. The NAACP was not founded in search of a handout. The NAACP was not founded in search of favors. The NAACP was founded on a firm notion of justice; to cash the promissory note of America that says all our children, all God's children, deserve a fair chance in the race of life.

It is a simple dream, and yet one that has been denied - one still being denied - to so many Americans.

Quoth the Pam:

When Obama speaks of children who don't "have a fair chance in life", he victimizes them before they have had a shot at grabbing the brass ring. Keep telling someone he's/she's a loser and pretty soon they believe you. Everyone is this great country has a fair chance in life.

It is, I suppose, an interesting twist on the "what happens to a dream deferred" question. Angry White Left Behind Version: What happens to a fantasy based in privilege and denial, challenged? I don't know what the verb is, but judging from the output of folks like Ms. Geller, Pat "Sunshine" Buchanan and Glenn "The Alien Probe Was Too Cold Again" Beck, the result rather closely resembles the end of a very long night with severe stomach flu, no meds, and a stopped up toilet.

The comments are...remarkable only it that their ilk is relatively unremarkable in right wing circles by now: Obama is an Indonesian pretender without a REAL birth certificate and will soon be removed from office, Obama was a Black Panther, W.E.B. Dubois was a commie, and the requisite cry to "arm yourselves." Hey ho, let's go.

Ultimately spending too much time around this sort of thing leaves me feeling strangely...inert. Because, you really -can't- argue with this logic, can you:

The US has the highest standard of living for African Americans anywhere in the world

ETA: DUDE!

I have asked the Netherlands Justice Ministry to issue an exclusion order, barring Pamela Geller Oshry from the Netherlands, and I have asked the British Home Secretary to issue an exclusion order, barring her from the United Kingdom. Better known as Pamela Geller, she is the sole author of the xenophobic, racist, right-wing blog 'Atlas Shrugs'. (For coverage of the blog by others, see LGF Watch and GOVVS).

In general, I believe that the American right is America's problem. However,the US 'counter-jihadist' movement has begun building links with the xenophobic-populist parties in Europe, united by the fear of 'Eurabia'. They have adopted Geert Wilders in particular, and Pamela Geller is his strongest supporter in the US blogosphere. Like some other supporters there (e.g. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch) she has now begun fundraising for him...

She supported the recent anti-Islam rally organised by Pro-Köln, a regional xenophobic-populist party which is active in building contacts among European right-wing parties. The meeting signals the shift to pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, anti-Islam positions, among xenophobic-populist and nationalist parties in Europe.

...Geller promotes in the United States the activities of the German xenophobic-populist party Pro-Köln. She has regularly written in support of their anti-Islam meetings, at which neo-fascist and right-populist parties are represented: among others, Vlaams Belang, the Czech Národní Strana, the French Front National, and the Austrian FPÖ.

Through her activities, Geller contributes to the emergence of a transatlantic xenophobic movement, and to increasing co-operation among xenophobic right-wing parties.

...Geller openly advocates the use of torture, inside and outside the United States. In combination with her support for racial profiling - classification as a terrorist suspect on the basis of ethnic origin - this constitutes a physical threat to immigrant minorities in the EU member states.

...she describes other Jews who don't share her hard-line right-wing views on Israel and the Palestinians, as "Jewicidal" or "jihadi".

Why, yes, yes it does hurt, apparently. -clutches head and wanders away, muttering about converting to Druidism and changing my name out of vicarious shame-

Lawsuits from the Moon!!

Long as I was lookin' at the PUMAs, I had to check in on the Birfers as well. You remember the Birthers, right? People who still think they can get rid of Obama on the grounds that he was born in Kenya or Canada or both, or Hawaii isn't really a state or they didn't consent to this reality and it's in the Constitution that they don't have to, possibly all of the above. also something about Bigfoot or twelve foot grey aliens or something. They make the PUMAs look downright sober.

So, the details are kind of boring, but the summary, as far as I can make out, is that there's been an implosion in the ranks, and one Head Birfer Dime Store Lawyer is now suing the other one. Good times already, right? Guess how much they're asking for?

"Total payday they're trying to get from the defendants? $5,044,000,000. That's five BILLION, 44 million dollars."

Yah'Rly.

I don't know why I never thought of that. I'm gonna go sue someone right NOW. I figure even if they only give me 1% that's still a cool 50 million right there; and how could they possibly not grant me 1 measly percent? Right? 50 M ought to get me through the rest of Obama's deadly reign, at -least.-

Maybe I'll do my next door neighbor, I'm sick of the loud music on weeknights.

A trans woman totally stole my uterus in a womens' bathroom.

-deer in headlights stare- ...I got better.

(burn 'er anyway!)

...srsly, stupid people. how frigging hard is it for "progressives" and "feminists" to just agree "yes, if Focus On The Family is for it, we should probably be agin' it?" Especially if it's scaremongering over minorities? dear supposed feminists: you do remember that OH NOEZ EV0L MAN-HATING HAIRY LEGGED PREDATORY LESBEANS WANT UNISEX BATHROOMS was used to help torpedo the Equal Rights Amendment? And that the current iteration of "oh noez scary tranz, tiem for BATHROOM PANICS NAOW" is being brought to you by -exactly the same people?- Who, once again, supposedly only have womens' best interest at heart, yes. Hint: Phyllis Schlafly, despite her presumably still intact female bona fides, is -not- a friend.

Oh, yes, meanwhile, Vermont finally overturned their stupid governor's ruling and made same sex marriage legal, joining Iowa and...well, not California on account of The People Has Spoken, but well never mind. According to people who've been fighting over this for a long time, this latest ruling may well help fuel the momentum to either finally mean a whole lot of longtime together couples don't have to worry about being separated by deportation or denied hospital visitation rights and custodial rights and suchlike; or, the Forces Of Darkness are about to "impose same sex marriage on all fifty states." So, yay on -that.- Maybe in a few years, we'll actually take it for granted that yes, your gonads and/or birth-assigned gender/sex shouldn't be a detriment to marrying the person you love and want to spend your life with.

I wonder how many years it'll take for us to also take it for granted that yes, your gonads and/or birth-assigned gender/sex shouldn't be a detriment to being able to take a crap in peace in a public building.

ETA: Hello.

Okay. You got my attention. Clap, clap.

Mind you, I do tend to be drawn to shit like this; given that I can spend hours at a time perusing David Icke's alien classifications, I wouldn't read too much into my choosing to post on this, but anyway:

Most pathetic post I've read in a while, and that's saying quite a bit.

Is puma the new jew - a people persecuted for their beliefs, and eventually for their failure to fall in line, and follow the chosen one?

Now, I am not saying that PUMAS have been subjected to the horrors of the holocaust, or the years and years of persecution, but I thought it was a snappy intro that might grab your attention.

I started this post with the intent of trying to better understand the current Israel/Hamas conflict, by creating *what if’s*. I thought if I brought the concepts *home* I might be able to better understand the anger and outrage coming from both sides. The process, and research led me to thinking about the hate directed towards one group for holding beliefs different than the majority, which brings me to the comment, *is puma the new jew*.

""You know, I had to work through lunch for the third day in a row. And then when I got home, the takeout place was all out of my favorite cashew chicken AND the hot and sour soup, and my roommate finished all the milk so I couldn't even have mac n cheese, and the grocery store was already closed, and I realized...I now have a bit of understanding what the Irish potato famine was like. I mean, I haven't had any potatoes in WEEKS. Not even a french fry. Now, I'm not saying I've been subjected to the horrors of mass starvation unto the point of genocide, but, well, it's as close as I'm ever going to get, and I can now speculate, based on my feelings of irritation and tummy rumbling, what it -might- be like to starve to death along with my entire family and country, and that led me to more thinky thoughts, isn't that -fascinating?- Damn, I'm getting deep."

And no, Empathy Einstein, Jews have not been solely persecuted for -beliefs-; do you know anything about history whatsoever? The Holocaust? Conversion wasn't an option at that point. To begin with.

I say this as a comfortably assimilated third-to-fourth generation Jewish-American who in no way would appropriate the persecutions of my ancestors and/or distant relatives as my own, nor would attempt to use them as a way of excusing the horror currently going on in Gaza. Commentary on which I have been steadfastly avoiding for a number of reasons. All I will say is that if you truly can't understand why anyone in Palestine, at least, would have a problem with Israel, unless it maybe has to do with garsh Muslims don't tolerate Jewish -beliefs-, that -must- be it, then you are beyond hopeless. At least, -I- can't think of a clue phone that'd ring loud enough. Maybe someone can. Me, I'm just sitting here with the popcorn, as so often.

Oh, I liked this bit too:

To bring Judaism into modern times, the last 2000 years, Jews rejected Jesus as the son of God, which was a major turning point in western history. Jesus was a major game changer in our history. The acceptance of Jesus changed things politically and religiously.

Personally, I see this more so in a political arena, than a religious one, of the Jewish elders reluctance to Jesus as the son of God. I think they saw him as gaining a huge following, and gaining strength as a leader. Perhaps they just didn’t believe him, or what he claimed, or perhaps they were afraid of losing power. But Jesus arrived at a time ripe for change. He had garnered a huge following. Some people chose to believe he was *The Chosen One*, the Savior, the Holy One, and others didn’t. Jesus was a Jew, so he wasn’t some stranger from a strange land. He was one of them. But he divided the *party*. Those who followed him, and those who didn’t, whatever the reasons.

But, whatever the reason, they did not accept that Jesus was the savior. They didn’t believe or accept that he was The Chosen One, or sent down from God, as his son, and they have paid for their beliefs ever since.

-tucks tongue into cheek, hard-

I mean, I'd never be able to tell that the author was at least raised Christian, here. Because this in no way is redolent of all kinds of erm narratives that are only familiar to me from the general culture, decidedly -not- from my family or anyone else who's actually Jewish, at least, that -I've- ever encountered. Yes, it's now divorced from actual theology, -apparently-, but, well. No. Really. No.

"Jews rejected the Savior, and they've been paying for it ever since. Still, they -are- the Chosen People, and Israel plays an important role in eschatology, and the Muslims, well, they're just plain -bad-, so let's appropriate all the most poor-persecuted-us-because-we're-Speshul bits of the Old Testament narrative for ourselves; along with the Holocaust, of course, which is now available to pretty much everyone who feels put-upon anyway; it'll all go nicely with the already-headdesky narrative of 'we're being specially singled out and put up on the cross because we're the only ones who speak TEH TROOF.'"

Certainly none of this has anything to do with tribalism/racism, much less nationalism, or specifically what happens to ethnic groups who don't have a country of their own; and this in turn has nothing to do with why Israel was created in the first place, or why Palestinians might be just a tiny bit tetchy right now. Also, martyrdom is cool. Especially when you don't have to suffer any actual consequences for it beyond "wow, a bunch of people made fun of us for acting like dumbasses, and that doesn't feel very nice."

Yes, there's a lot of seriously hateful crap out there, and I particularly wasn't charmed by that same Wonkette thread. Most if not all of the hatefulness falls into yer classic gross misogyny, along with fat-bashing and a few other familiar categories. Are you really saying you haven't experienced or even -encountered- anything like that ever before? Not even -seen-? Lucky you. Seriously. And yes, it's fucked up. It's just not -new-, even remotely, and people for whom none of this is news aren't particularly charmed by the whole gormless "zomg, I had NO IDEA. Well...sputter...someone ought to -do something- about this!! Why doesn't anyone else think of that, huh?"

Strip all of that away, though, and no, ffs, you aren't being singled out for -persecution- as a political fringe group, of itself: You're being relegated to a running bad joke by more-or-less (relatively speaking, at least) serious politicos and/or bored rubberneckers for basically being the new Lyndon LaRoucheites. One more thing to google, yes.

ETA Oh ffs. From the comments (actually one of the less headdesky ones, but those aren't worth responding to, even rhetorically):

I always wondered about that…. If you are a non practicing Jew, why wouldn’t you say you were Israeli, or Israeli American, or wherever your ancestors are from? Is it a religion, or heritage or both? Saying you are Jewish, I assumed was like saying you are Catholic. And saying you are Israeli is being from Israel, but not necessarily Jewish. (which is one of the reasons I used Jewish for this, and not, for example, an ethnicity, because I was trying to equate it to *beliefs* In my opinion, it is ridiculous to *hate* people for their beliefs, whatever they are…as well as skin color, or sex. But like I said, I was trying to make a point about being hated for your beliefs)

"Wherever my ancestors are from" is, at least within living memory, and quite likely a good few centuries or so, Central to Eastern Europe. There -is- a specific term for ethnic Jews of Eastern European origin: Ashkenazim.

Why I don't generally go around calling myself an Ashkenaz-American:

a) Because most of the time, there's no particular reason to. For demographic purposes within the contemporary U.S., i.e. forms and such, I'm "white."

b) Because "I'm Jewish" is perfectly accurate and sufficient most of the time.

c) Because the blank stares would get kind of old.

If someone asks specifically "where are your ancestors from" (usually the preface is something like "are you Irish," based on my complexion and hair I expect, certainly not my features), assuming it's friendly-like and I want to engage them (usually the case), I might use the term, or just say "Eastern European Jewish."

If the question, however, is, "are you Jewish," the answer is, simply, "yes." I am not a -practicing- or -religious- Jew, that is correct. I also have no particular affinity with or sympathy for Israel the contemporary nation-state (have never been there, don't have any near relatives there, don't know more than your average American about daily life, etc); and I'm not a fan of mystic appeal to ancient legendary homeland blargh, hence would not refer to myself as "Israeli American," ever. Nonethless, I am Jewish, ethnically and culturally.

(No, I don't know who I'm actually addressing at this point, but do with it what you will, ethernets).

A conundrum.

How is it that it is invariably the most backward, least evolved people--mentally, spiritually, socially, emotionally--who are the most fervent advocates of some form of Social Darwinism?

They look at the world, they see a fallen creation that's nasty, brutish and short (not unlike themselves), and they decide that the best way forward--o, for the good of the -species-, mind you--is to get rid of all those -other- people who really aren't contributing anything to the greater good, or at least their capacity to reproduce. You know, THEM. The BAD people. The DEFECTIVE people. The OTHER people.

They will tell you this, with much passion and spittle, using "logic" and often syntax that can be most generously described as "twisted," but more accurately is in fact "sprained." Sometimes--most often, no doubt-- they're the equivalent (virtual or not) of the town drunk. Sometimes they clean up decently and actually sound sort of plausible. Even publish books, occasionally. Sometimes, God help us, find their way to actual power.

But you get right down to it, and -none- of these people manage to make a terrifically good case for why -they- should be exempt from the chop. Oh, sure, they might recognize that no one can actually stand their ass; but -that- is not about their own inherent moral or existential deficiency, no; -that- is about society's failure to -understand- them properly. See.

Which means, clearly, that society is -wrong-; and therefore it's -society-, more or less, that should be up against the wall.

Ah, solipsism. You gotta love it.

A bit more on Bryant

Stonewall Library has a nicely laid-out series on the history of her antigay career.

If you're still wondering why/how a woman becomes frontsipiece for an anti-gay rights crusade, the key is here:

In 1977, Anita Bryant was perhaps best known as the spokeswoman for the Florida Citrus Commission as well as First Federal Savings and Loan Association, Singer Sewing Machines, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Holiday Inn and Tupperware. She was 37, married to Miami DJ Bob Green, mother of four, a former beauty queen and singer, known in the 1960s for her wholesome image. For three consecutive years she won the “Most Admired Woman in America” poll in Good Housekeeping magazine.

She appeared with evangelist Billy Graham in 1963 to call college students back to God, and organized a “Youth for Decency” rally at the Orange Bowl to protest sexual explicitness in entertainment. In her campaign against the gay rights amendment, Bryant told audiences that her twins, who had been born prematurely and almost died “were saved by the grace of God” and that she would not let them be exposed, as a result of the Metro Commission’s antidiscrimination law, to homosexuals.

and

Bryant wrote to the Dade County Commission that passing the ordinance would mean “infringing upon my rights as a citizen and mother to teach my children and set examples of God’s moral code as stated in the Holy Scriptures.”

Eventually, inevitably,

Anita Bryant’s antigay crusade, as the name of the organization she headed indicated, focused on children. She presented herself to voters as a concerned mother.

Seizing on the fact that Miami’s antidiscrimination ordinance would affect hiring in the schools, her rhetoric revolved around the argument that gay people habitually prey on young children and endeavor to convert them to homosexuality.

A poll conducted early in the campaign by Mike Thompson, an advertising executive and Save Our Children leader, showed that female voters in Dade County overwhelmingly supported the gay rights ordinance. Thompson thought this support was based on women’s experience with their “hairdressers, dress designers and dog groomers.” To change mothers’ minds, Save our Children presented gays as a danger to children.

Whenever she spoke, Bryant warned audience, “Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit.

...Bryant’s Christian emphasis did not stop her from aggressively pursuing Miami’s substantial and generally liberal Jewish vote. A preliminary poll showed Jews favoring the ordinance by a large margin, so a coalition of antigay Orthodox rabbis was assembled. They condemned the measure: “Jewish law prohibits parents from allowing their children to be taught by people who are sexually perverted… What right is there to corrupt our children...”

The children, the children, the children. Plus ça change.

California's Prop 8 Push: "Save Our Children!"

...They were yelling, all of them, even the little kiddies, "Save Our Children! Save Our Children!" It's a curious slogan. How, exactly, is banning same-sex marriage "restoring marriage and protecting California children?" It isn't like Measure OO, a city initiative that would boost funding for youth development, dedicating a chunk of the city's budget to after-school and other programs for kids. In fact there's no money at all in the initiative that would save our children, the gay or the straight ones. And it does nothing to restore anything, or protect anything, it's not really "pro" anything.

And how, exactly, is banning people of the same sex from the benefits of marriage keeping government out? Is the government demanding women marry women or men marry men? According to one TV ad it sorta is. In the spot, a young girl comes home from school and tells her mom proudly, "I can marry a princess!" Have mercy, what parent doesn't want their kid to marry into royalty?...

But you see, in the Kinder Küche Kirche worldview, the real horror here is that the hand that was supposed to rock the cradle has been slapped down. Power, you see. Even under the Rule Of The Fathers: -Mom-, while not at the top of the heap, can actually have a fair chunk, or at least the fascimile thereof, if she's correctly situated, of course. Bryant's appeal, like Palin's after her, taps into classic fascist rhetoric: Mama Bear, finally stirred to action by the evil of the world, rises in righteous rage to protect her home and hearth. And, of course, The Children. Not just her -own- children, mind you, but -yours- (assuming you are one of the Ones That Matter).

And, well, if you don't want to call it "power," your guaranteed material well-being as well as a -lot- of ego-stroking -and- oversight of the little darlings all day, particularly if you're homeschooling, well--shit, who wouldn't defend that? Not to mention you can now go all the way to the White House, with the Fathers' blessings, assuming you play by all the rest of the rules. What's -not- to like?

For the record

Dear Violet Socks,

In light of this admirable sentiment,

The attacks on Palin have been analogous to what horrible racist attacks on Obama would look like. I dislike Obama and don’t trust him politically, but that doesn’t give me the right to call him a n***r or a coon or a spade, or indulge in ugly racist stereotypes to demean him.

You may also wish to desist from referring to him as "Oppossum."

In other news, apparently Hillary will be Opossum’s Secretary of State...

Clever and original though that is.

The term coon did not originally appear as a racial slur term for a Black American, though over a short period of time it evolved into that. In early minstrel songs, the "coon" was reference to a raccoon, whose meat was supposedly preferred by plantation slaves. In many cases, for unknowing composers, the term "coon" became entangled with the 'possum, also thought to be a preferred food source. Apparently, many composers were not very familiar with American wildlife and could not tell the difference. As a result, "coon" and "possum" were often used in the same context.

Just putting it out there, friendly-like.

Alternately you could cheerfully ignore it as coming from an evil 'bot (of various sorts), apart from still more whining about how you can't say ANYTHING bad about Obama lest you be accused of being a RACIST, which you so ARE NOT so STOP SAYING THAT.

Btw, as for the rest of that post?

She’s certainly qualified and it’s a position almost worthy of her gifts, but I fear the worst. The last Secretary of State who was given credit for anything or treated as a hero was Henry Kissinger (which is not to say he deserved it). Ever since then the Secretary of State has been the designated fall guy for each administration’s missteps. Given that Hillary is already loathed by the men who run the government and the media, it’s hard to imagine her emerging unscathed.

What’s really interesting, though, is that Obama is willing to entrust such a position to a woman who, according to the Obama campaign, openly lusted for his assassination. A woman who is also, according to Obama, a corrupt plotter, a secretive and sinister agent of evil, and of course a racist.

Innit though.

And a lot of non-PUMA's didn't want Summers and said so, but don't let that ruin your "only us against the tide of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!" narrative or anything.

"Your life is about to get really, really horrible, and you know why? Because -Barack Obama was elected.-"

"I feel for, you, man. I really do."

via Plucky Punk.