Does experience really matter in a President?

In the last few months, anyone who even casually peruses newspapers, magazines, radio, TV or internet blogs has heard quite a lot of noise about the “greenness” or lack of experience of Senator Barak Obama. What I find most interesting about these queries is how rapidly the alleged guidelines about not just the concept of experience itself but whom and what define these parameters.

Few seem to appreciate just how much the conservative media define the terms of each debate and then causally toss them away during the next election cycle. Although this has been going on for many years, it became glaringly apparent during the 1992 Presidential election. That year when George H. W. Bush ran against Bill Clinton, the media hammered away at Clinton and Gore for their relative lack of foreign policy experience (Bush went as far in a rally to say that “My dog Millie knows more about foreign policy than those two bozos!”), and the fact that Clinton objected to and did not fight in Viet Nam, whereas Bush was a WWII vet. The media and much of the public groused that only those with military experience should be qualified to lead the country. This repeated itself in 1996 when Clinton ran against Bob Dole, another WWII vet.

All of this was discarded in 2000.

That year, George W. Bush ran against former Senator and Vice President Al Gore, who hands down, had FAR more “experience” than Bush and was a Viet Nam vet. But thanks to spinmeisters like Karl Rove and the greatest propaganda machine of all time (FOX news). Gore was smeared as a traitor and a coward, even though Bush skipped out on his Texas Air Guard duties thanks to his father’s connections and had a horrendously bad record in his 6 years as governor of Texas, his sole political experience prior to running for President. We’ve also had 3 Presidents who were former Generals (Washington, Grant and Eisenhower) with no prior political experience, and history has judged Grant rather harshly.

This all becomes relevant again since we are in the midst of another Presidential campaign, and the conservative media has once again flipped the script since the Democrat (Barack Obama) has no military experience and relatively little political experience, whereas his Republican opponent (John McCain) was in the Navy and has been a senator for more than 20 years.

For all intents and purposes, the job of President of the United States is the ultimate case of on the job training. Therefore, the elusive quality of true leadership becomes far more important than “experience”. Nixon was one of the most “experienced” Presidents in history (Congressman, Senator and Vice President), but he is always ranked near the bottom due to his paranoia and loathsome character. On the other hand, Bush with his 6 years experience as governor of Texas is rated by many as the worst president of all time.

One of the measures of a President’s effectiveness is the staff he chooses. Jimmy Carter, for example, is a brilliant man by any measure, but did not assemble a cabinet that complemented his strengths and overcame his weaknesses. Overall, no candidate in history has had sufficient “experience” given the nature of the Presidency itself.
In contrast, Obama's foreign policy experience includes graduating from Columbia University with a degree in political science with an emphasis on international relations. In the U.S. Senate Obama is unique among Senators in that he serves on three of the four Senate Committees dealing with foreign policy issues including the Foreign Relations; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs committees and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Relations which is responsible fore U.S. relations with European countries, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). His service on the Foreign Relations committee has placed him in an unique position in that he is the Chair of the Subcommittee on European Relations and serves on the Subcommittees on African Affairs; East Asia and Pacific Affairs; and International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection. 1

Most of the media have either ignored or given tacit approval to FOX’s racist smears and innuendos. They cannot scream the “N” word on the airwaves, so they resort to equally repugnant tactics by questioning his religion, his patriotism, his loyalty to his country and anything else they can find to scare middle (white) America into fearing him and his agenda, since Obama represents real change on a multitude of levels, which is where his real threat lies. The irony is that since Bush has screwed things up so badly, he opened the door for people to actually want the type of change Obama represents rather than more of the same from the Republicans. McCain himself cannot keep passing himself off as an agent of change since he voted with Bush more than 90% of the time.

Qualities such as intelligence, hard work and an understanding of what the average person in this country has endured under the Bush economy are going to register with voters this November far more than prior political experience. McCain ignores this at his peril and the average person is seeing and feeling this and is supporting Obama for these reasons, plus he will bring far more to the table on “day one” than Bush did.



1. http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Does+Barack+Obama+have+enough+experience+to+be+president%3F?t=anon

Why I support Obama

A friend whom I’ve known for more than 30 years often kids me that I seldom pick the winning candidate in the presidential elections. I’ve retorted that although this is often true, my personal convictions are such that I always back the most progressive candidate. Unfortunately, that person almost never gets the nomination. These included Gary Hart in 1984, Paul Simon in 1988 and Jerry Brown in 1992. But the nature of the beast in the primaries often means that the most liberal/progressive candidate gets slimed by the conservative media and almost never has a real chance to actually win the Democratic nomination, which brings us to 2008.

My primary choice this time and in 2004 was Dennis Kucinich. He (along with ex-GA congresswoman Cynthia McKinney) is one of the very few politicians in the country who actually had the courage to stand up and demand the impeachment of George Bush AND Dick Cheney. These two loathsome excuses for humanity have committed more real crimes against the U.S. Constitution and the American people than virtually any President and Vice President in history, so this alone earned him my support.

Also unfortunately, the man has an image problem, and many have dismissed him as a troll, similar to the image problems Senator Paul Simon had in 1988. It should NOT matter how a person looks, since we are allegedly electing a national leader, NOT participating in a beauty contest. But the shallow nature of our popular culture dictates otherwise.

That being said, I threw my support to John Edwards. Edwards had the best populist economic message, the best message of hope and change (at the time) and I also admired him for not taking any corporate donations for his campaign, which meant he would not be bound by special interests. The Republican slime machine obviously saw this and felt threatened by his candidacy. For well over a year, FOX “news”, especially Bill O’Reilly called Edwards a liar, a hypocrite, a phony and worse. Ann Coulter even went as far to publicly call him a faggot on two occasions. Conservatives have claimed for decades that liberal men are effeminate pussies and that only conservative Republicans are “real” men. After a string of 3rd-place showings in the early primaries, Edwards dropped out in early February.

This left Senators Obama and Clinton, and for me this was a no-brainer. I lost respect for the Clintons years ago. I will always feel that Clinton was a FAR better president than Bush OR Reagan, but the Clintons have gotten FAR too chummy with the Bush family, especially Bush Sr. and NOTHING can possibly make me comfortable with that. Plus, Hillary Clinton has sold out just too many of her principals to get this far, taking major campaign donations from the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. And she has not hesitated to slime Obama herself, including weighing in on this absurd non-issue about Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

I personally LOVE the fact that either a white woman or a black man will be the Democratic nominee this fall, as opposed to the same crop of boring old conservative white men who still dominate the Republican Party. But I will not apologize for Senator Obama not being my first choice. We have just endured almost eight years of the most far-right administration in history, and the pendulum will just not swing from far-right to far-left overnight, and THE issue this year is to send a message that we will not tolerate another Republican administration following the crimes of the Bush administration.

And after all of THAT being said, Obama deserves our support, NOT just for being a better and stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton, but also for his being able to resonate a real sense of hope and change not seen since Robert Kennedy in 1968. And that he is a good man who cares more about the direction of our country and the welfare of its people than the Republicans ever will. Some say that his candidacy is far too divisive for the country, but that is rank hypocrisy after looking at Bush’s pathetic record of cynically dividing the entire country along every conceivable line imaginable. The primary fear is that a black man actually has a REAL chance of winning not just the nomination of his party but the actual presidency.

Since 2000, the fear-mongers of the far-right have all but paralyzed our country and poisoned real debate and rational discussion. It goes without saying that they wish to keep it that way, and Obama is their worst nightmare. So if we collectively think this primary season has gotten ugly, it is NOTHING compared to what is ahead if Obama faces John McCain. Our work is cut out for us as we need to get the black, Jewish, Latino, progressive and youth vote out in the greatest numbers ever seen. We DO have a right to decide the direction of our lives and of this country and to ignore the voices of fear and hate. Therefore, I close out this essay with a quote by Martin Luther King Jr.:

“Normal fear protects us; abnormal fear paralyses us. Normal fear motivates us to improve our individual and collective welfare; abnormal fear constantly poisons and distorts our inner lives. Our problem is not to be rid of fear but, rather to harness and master it.”

Worst Pres ever? Hell yes!

Since the November 2004 election, a number of people have posed this question: Is George W. Bush the worst President ever? The answer, for an appallingly long list of reasons, is an unequivocal yes! Among those who have analyzed this question in the last year or two are David Greenberg and Douglas Brinkley, who explored numerous avenues that would lead to this conclusion, but left many other issues unexamined. For example, yes, Iraq is the most glaring Bush administration failure, but it is but one factor amongst an extremely lengthy list.

Mr. Greenberg contends it is far too early to make such a proclamation. But Bush’s failures as President are so epic, so far-reaching, the damage he has inflicted so gargantuan that it is simply not going to take 30 years of hindsight and historical examination to legitimize this assessment. Among other prominent people who have reached this conclusion are White House press corps columnist Helen Thomas, who publicly stated Bush was the worst president in all of American history. Other than being attacked and dismissed by the far right for her comments, Ms. Thomas is rightly acknowledged as one of the most highly respected columnists and commentators in the country and has even taken the press corps to task for its inability to ask the tough questions that needed to be asked during the reign of this administration. Many others, especially on various blogs have taken the entire American news media to task for the same reasons.

Greenberg’s insistence that Richard Nixon deserves the “worst ever” title does not hold up to careful and unbiased scrutiny. I am scarcely a Nixon apologist, or one who would defend Nixon and his Watergate legacy and record of dishonesty, racism and paranoia, and these things certainly do earn him a place at or near the bottom rung of American Presidents. But he is also responsible for normalizing relations with Soviet Russia and Communist China during the height of the cold war, the SALT 1 talks, and the establishment of the Office of Minority Business Enterprise and the Environmental Protection Agency. Despite Nixon’s crushing errors, he did have some foreign and domestic policy successes. Virtually none of Bush’s domestic or foreign policy initiatives can compare to that record.

Nixon’s biggest foreign policy blunder was in prolonging the war in Viet Nam, which he promised to end during his 1968 campaign. True, it was a war he inherited from his two predecessors, but Bush unilaterally began a war that virtually no one wanted based exclusively on lies, pretense and false and exaggerated information which completely contradicts Douglass Binkley’s contention of Bush’s honesty, and his administration allegedly being “mostly corruption-free”. How could anyone who lies as openly and as often as Bush does be deemed “honest”? How is it “honest” to have Karl Rove direct the conservative attack dogs on FOX news and talk radio in their attempts to smear the reputations and question the loyalty, sanity, motives and patriotism of anyone who dared to question the war or think for themselves? How is it “honest” to allow no-bid contracts to go to Haliburton, Vice President Cheney’s former employer? This smacks of corruption and malfeasance of the highest order.

Besides Iraq, Bush has presided over transforming the largest budget surplus of all time into the biggest deficit of all time in less than four years. Squandered the good will America had immediately following 9/11 by making us the most universally despised country on earth due to his heavy-handed, cowboy diplomacy. He disgraced the nation with his spectacularly incompetent response to hurricane Katrina. “Outed” formed CIA agent Valerie Plame just because she was married to Joseph Wilson, who questioned Bush’s intelligence gathering? Accelerated both the largest upward distribution of wealth of all time and the greatest overseas job loss of all time? Dismantled Habeas Corpus by allowing uncharged and unindicted “enemy combatants” to languish for years in Guantanmo Bay? This is a list that can go on for days.

By now, the only ones who continue to be Bush apologists are media hacks who are paid to be whores, corporate executives who are the prime beneficiaries of the Bush presidency and a dwindling base of hard-core Christian fundamentalists who despise Muslims and gays and lesbians. Hardly a group of people with any true credibility.
Frankly, Americans should have a higher responsibility and commitment to fairness to stop this tidal wave of outrages, and bring Bush and Cheney to justice. At this point, ANY Senator or Congressional representative who does NOT support full impeachment of Bush and Cheney does NOT deserve to hold office. Period.
As history unfolds (providing there IS a history to tell), it will become more and more obvious that those who share these views were correct and hardly deserving of the contempt of the far right. Our nation needs a return to sanity NOW!

The Seven

In the months following the 2006 mid-term elections, the Neocons and ultraconservatives in this country, instead of learning a lesson or two (including honesty and humility) have instead stepped up the sheer viciousness of their attacks against anyone with the audacity to think for themselves. Ann Coulter sneeringly referred to John Edwards as a “faggot”, following many years of innuendos and accusations from Neocons that all male liberals and Democrats are weak and effeminate. Michael Savage recently announcing he is considering running for President since NO ONE is either qualified enough or conservative enough to satisfy him. A FOX “news” smear campaign against Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. More stupidity from Pat Robertson. The list goes depressingly and nauseatingly on.

The global machinations of H.A.R.M. (Homophobia, Anti-Semitism, Racism and Misogyny) are nowhere more glaringly obvious as they are in the U.S.A. thanks to the above factors and more. But the question still remains WHY is this so? Why have we collectively grown so little, why is there so little real leadership, why are the movers and shakers of society still mired in their petty fears and phobias? What follows will no doubt be dismissed by anyone from the right end of the political spectrum as simply an orgasm of political correctness, but I feel there is a need to analyze these phenomenon on a level that is going to step on quite a few toes but will hopefully be done in a way that will prod further analysis and discussion.

Many are familiar with the story of the Seven Deadly Sins. Although rooted in medieval era Catholicism and literature and have been adapted repeatedly in modern times (most recently in the film “Seven” with Morgan Freeman), few realize how deeply they have permeated our collective consciousness. They are: Greed, Wrath, Lust, Gluttony, Pride, Sloth and Envy. What is far less known are how their contemporary counterparts have such startling parallels. The true power elite, the ones who have complete control over the world’s most important institutions and resources fall into seven distinct categories: Wealthy, White, Heterosexual, Conservative, Republican, Protestant Males. Seven characteristics that are intrinsically linked with the Seven Deadly Sins.

Although nothing is inherently wrong with any of these characteristics, in and of themselves, the American obsession with wealth and power by any means necessary also entails wholesale demonization and exclusion of those who do fall into all seven categories. However, due to the Republican’s illusion of inclusion, one is now permitted to have two exemptions from that list. Just ask Condi Rice.

The neocons that have absolute dominance over the media and most important institutions love to proclaim that any analysis or criticism of their agendas and especially their identities as “political correctness”, as if that epithet alone is supposed to induce shame and squash debate. But their agenda is ALWAYS the same: To lock out anyone from power who does not fit into those seven categories and to constantly attack, dismiss and dehumanize those who do not.
Thus a correlation began to be established between these seven characteristics and the classical “seven deadly sins”:

Contemporary 7
Wealthy
White
Heterosexual
Conservative
Republican
Protestant
Male
7 Deadly Sins
Greed
Wrath
Lust
Gluttony
Pride
Sloth
Envy

The first correlation (wealthy/greed) is pretty obvious on the surface, but what is less known is how the unquenchable thirst for more money and more power spills over into the remaining six categories since if only those whom fit into all seven have access to wealth and power there is simply less competition for its acquisition. Also, the fact that greed itself is a spiritual sickness and an addiction, no more and no less than that of substance abuse of any kind. According to an online Wikipedia article on the Seven Deadly Sins, actions associated with greed include “disloyalty, deliberate betrayal, or treason, scavenging and hoarding of materials or objects, theft and robbery, especially by means of violence, trickery, or manipulation of authority are all actions that may be inspired by greed.” These and more should all sound familiar by anyone who has witnessed the avarice of corporate America in the last 25 years, especially the more glaringly obvious cases such as Enron and Worldcom. I have long felt that 12-step style recovery programs should be established to treat greed as an addiction since American corporate greed is, in my estimation, the primary factor that is destroying the fabric of global society and ultimately all life on this planet barring intervention to reign in the bottomless pit nature of addiction itself. Moreover, the quest for power and wealth is not limited simply to material acquisition, since it also entails an appalling level of entitlement towards controlling all life and all resources on the planet.

The whole war in Iraq is largely predicated on the notion that only white, Republican businessmen are entitled to control the world’s remaining oil reserves and that they and only they are deserving of billions of dollars in largely unearned wealth both home and abroad by lying, cheating and stealing from everyone, everywhere. But it does not stop there or even in this lifetime, as the more hard-core evangelical Protestants insist that they and only they will inherit the kingdom of heaven and the more militant ones believe that by helping bring about the complete and total annihilation of all life on this planet for eternity is in complete alignment with “God’s will”. Thus, they are entitled to all the world’s power and material wealth in this lifetime and all of the rewards of heaven in the afterlife. Truly, this is the ultimate power and control issue.

The second correlation (white/wrath) is one of the two or three least obvious connections and will thus take the most detailed analysis. The most intricate explanation is again contained in the Wikipedia article: “Wrath may be described as inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. These feelings can manifest as vehement denial of the truth, both to others and in the form of self-denial, impatience with the procedure of law, and the desire to seek revenge outside of the workings of the justice system (such as engaging in vigilantism), fanatical political beliefs, and generally wishing to do evil or harm to others. A modern definition would also include hatred and intolerance towards others for reasons of race or religion, leading to discrimination. The transgressions borne of Wrath are among the most serious, including murder, assault, discrimination, and in extreme cases, genocide”.

More than any country on earth (even more so than Nazi Germany or Apartheid-era South Africa) there is a thread of entitlement that comes with white skin that erupts in spasms of lethal violence when this racial caste system is challenged on any level. The denial of any form of truth remains a key component in keeping this system alive and unwell. The vigilantism described above has manifested itself in White Supremacy organizations such as the Klan, the Neo-Nazis, the skinheads, the Aryan Identity movement and many others. This has included, over the years, the fanatical political beliefs of the old-south Democrats as well as the contemporary Republican party plus many so-called preachers who continue to pervert the bible by promoting hatred, violence an death towards racial, religious and sexual minorities. In its most extreme forms, as stated above, results in periodic campaigns of genocide, which is euphemistically referred to in modern times as “ethnic cleansing”. This too has a tendency to be justified biblically in addition to those who claim that the continuation of democracy is also dependent on racial subjugation and white dominance.

Next is the (heterosexual/lust) connection. Obviously, lust is not exclusively restricted to heterosexual or “straight” people, but the entitlement factor creeps in here as well, especially with regards to straight men. The Wikipedia article states: “Lust is usually thought of as involving obsessive or excessive thoughts or desires of a sexual nature. Unfulfilled lusts can lead to sexual or sociological compulsions and/or transgressions including (but obviously not limited to) sexual addiction, adultery, bestiality, and rape.” Heterosexual men commit most sex crimes. Again, this is NOT an absolute, but statistically this still remains true. Rape, sexual torture and sexual addictions often manifest themselves amongst white men as lust mingles with wrath as an expression of entitlement and supremacy and obvious spasms of hatred and violence towards those they are trying to control or destroy, or at minimum, multiple affairs pursued by married men as a form of “conquest”. Thus, there is a territorial aspect where only those in power are “allowed” to allow lust in their hearts where everyone else is committing a crime or a sin.

Fourth on the list is the (conservative/gluttony) correlation. Referring back to the Wikipedia article, it states that gluttony is “marked by unreasonable or unnecessary excess of consumption, Gluttony could also include certain forms of destructive behavior, especially for sport, or for its own sake. Substance abuse or binge drinking can be seen as examples of gluttony.”

Modern-day American conservatism is inexorably attached to excessive consumption and epic selfishness. The war in Iraq so a few dozen oilmen can benefit from the carnage, constant outsourcing of jobs to India and elsewhere so that a few hundred corporate executives can become richer at the expense of the disintegration of the American middle-class, conspicuous consumption of gas guzzling and polluting SUV’s and more are all symptoms of conservative excess for its own sake. There is no end game in this milieu. Just an omnipresent fixation with acquisition, the constant need for more money, more toys, more possessions, more power. The addiction factor once again comes into play as they constant need for further acquisition and consumption for its own sake is identical to the need for more alcohol or drugs as well as the carnage wrought by those whose addictions become the only priority and only motivation in their lives. When there is NO such thing as “enough”, then intervention and behavioral modification are the only paths to sanity and recovery and our future as a species depends on it.

Moving down to #5 is the (Republican/pride) relationship. The Wikipedia article on Pride states: “In almost every list Pride is considered the original and most serious of The Seven Deadly Sins, and indeed the ultimate source from which the others arise. It is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to give compliments to others though they may be deserving of them, and excessive love of self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God). Dante's definition was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor."

The most interesting aspect of this definition is that far too many modern Republicans think of themselves as being better than the rest of humanity and above the laws of God, which they constantly insist are immutable absolutes that apply to everyone except them. I have lost track of how many times in the last 25 years I have heard conservative Christians state that God is a Republican, that the Republican party is “God’s party”, despite the fact that so many of their actions would be an aberration in the eyes of their God and their church. Pride is also referred to as vanity, and narcissism is a common trait of conservative Republicans who believe that the universe revolves around THEIR needs, wants and agendas, despite the fact that Jesus would be APPALLED by this behavior.

The sixth correlation is that of (Protestant/sloth) and another referral to the Wikipedia article, which states: “More than other sins, the definition of Sloth has changed considerably since its original inclusion among The Seven Deadly Sins. It had been in the early years of Christianity characterized by what modern writers would now describe as apathy, depression, and joylessness — the latter being viewed as being a refusal to enjoy the goodness of God and the world He created.”

Martin Luther’s Protestant Reformation was in large measure a response to the perceived corruption and unresponsiveness of the Catholic Church to the needs of the common people of Europe in the 16th century, but was also marred by his own personal hatred of Jews and Muslims. In modern times, much of the “apathy, depression and joylessness” described above can be seen in the attitudes of far too many American Protestants who have been lied to by their churches and ministers who routinely express hatred towards anyone who is not a straight, white, conservative, Republican Protestant. Most of the seven sins/seven traits come full circle here as these teachings have been so deeply ingrained in the American psyche, that any contradiction of these prejudices have been violently dismissed as being an attack on Christianity itself, despite the fact that these feelings and perceptions are a stark contradiction to Jesus’ teachings. Plus, if one were to assume for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that a straight, white, conservative, Republican, Protestant male WAS indeed superior to every other human being on the planet AND is assured of his place in Heaven, then WHY are these people so bitter, so angry, so utterly joyless? Would it not seem they should be the HAPPIEST people on earth if their complete control and dominance over this world is ordained by God and their place in eternity secured? Somehow this line of logic is never explored or discussed.

And Finally, the last parallel, which is (male/envy). The Seven Deadly Sins article on Wikipedia states: “Those who commit the sin of Envy desire something that someone else has which they perceive themselves as lacking. Dante defined this as love of one's own good perverted to a desire to deprive other men of theirs."

Among the lies we have been collectively told, especially where the concept of envy is concerned is that all Black people secretly want to be white and that women have what Freud called “penis envy”. As with much of our sick, twisted and warped culture, we have both of those things backwards. White people are the ones who wish to be BLACK and men have clitoris envy. The hatred, and yes, envy that white have exhibited towards blacks and that men have exhibited towards women is stark testament to this collective psychosis. Simply think about the BILLIONS of dollars white women spend to make their lips and butts larger, their skin darker and their hair nappier! Yet we have been collectively brainwashed into thinking that the original article is ugly but a cheap imitation is all that!! And men have been jealous for centuries regarding female sexuality. Few men are able to achieve more than two MAYBE three orgasms in a row, but a woman can have DOZENS of clitoral or vaginal orgasms. Plus, women give life and men are secretly envious of that as well. But this envy dangerously expresses itself in deadly spasms of violence towards victims who posses the coveted and sought after traits and characteristics.

The above obsessions with wealth and power and the perceived need to control or destroy those who are deemed inferior or unworthy are at least partially rooted in false standards, false self-empowerment and the need to project a sense of natural superiority based largely on circumstances of one’s birth. Thus, I refer to the quote below to sum up this essay:

“No matter how big a nation is, it is no stronger that its weakest people, and as long as you keep a person down, some part of you has to be down there to hold him down, so it means you cannot soar as you might otherwise.”Marian Anderson

Was Katrina the last straw or was it inevitible?

It was both. It was inevitable because it was stark evidence of the effects of global warming, which the neocons have deliberately ignored for more than 20 years since it would cut down on the precious profit margins for a few dozen corporate executives.

It was the last straw since it revealed (again) the utter incompetence of Bush and his administration, and showed the world (again) the twin poisons of racism and classism that infect our national psyche. Even Anne Coulter, one of Bush's most relentless and shameless cheerleaders is beginning to dismiss Bush as an idiot. The remaining Republican attack dogs criticisms of anyone who deigned to think for themselves and see through all this bull shit are sounding whiny and disingenuous. Blaming the corruption of the local and state officials of Louisiana does NOT alleviate the responsibility of the federal government, or the incompetence of Bush cronies like Michael Brown. We are nation divided against itself and we the people are being compelled to take action by leading ourselves and our communities since it is obvious our leaders cannot and will not lead.

Resolved: USA Next is full of shit

I know I am hardly alone in my outrage and disgust at USA Next’s loony-tunes Internet ad claiming the AARP hates our troops and supports gay marriage. Never mind that the AARP is a respected senior’s lobby, or that there is virtually no connection whatsoever of support for our troops (yeah, we support them, BRING THEM HOME!!) or lack thereof, and support for gay marriage.

These ultra right-wing fundamentalists have once again overextended their reach, even for them! This is yet another set of useless Neanderthals who need to crawl in a fucking hole and die! James Dobson, Fred Phelps, Lou Sheldon, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, damn what a bunch of ugly, pathetic losers! Between their immovable opposition to gay rights and reproductive rights, I am forever reminded of George Carlin’s observation: “Doesn’t it strike you as mildly ironic that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place?”

Hell, I want to go a MAJOR step further: Let’s round up all of these hypocritical moralists, lock them up in one big cell, and then have a 6’8’ black man (these motherfuckers are all homophobes and misogynists, so it’s practically an iron clad guarantee they are racists as well!) with a 15” dick fuck them all in the ass till their hemorrhoids have hemorrhoids! We’ll put it on cable TV with a 24 hour loop-feed, and call it “Pay Per Screw!” Oh, won’t Karl Rove just LOVE that?? And maybe even extend it to an ongoing reality show with the TV audience betting on which defrocked (defucked?) preacher will become Bruno’s Bitch in prison! Oh, the possibilities are endless! Let’s fax and e-mail our suggestions to FOX and watch Sean Hannity’s blood boil! Boo-yah!

Who is Kathleen Antrim, and why does she say all these nasty things?

Psycho-bitch alert! The Friday, Feb 25th column in the San Francisco Examiner by right-wing apologist Kathleen Antrim spews forth yet another screed against Michael Moore! Damn, hasn't this well run dry yet? Antrim is another cookie-cutter white girl doing the dirty work for the neocons' Old Boys Network. Like Linda Bowels (another wing-nut), Antrim seems to channel the spirit of their bitch-goddess muse Ann Coulter.

Antrim quotes Douglas Urbanski who claims that Moore "hates America, hates capitalism, and hates any normal concept of freedom and democracy", and that he is "running a Jesse Jackson-like shakedown". This simplistic tripe or "us vs. them", that Muslim terrorists hate freedom and that anyone who disagrees with them is a traitor is straight out of the Fox "news" playbook!
Are there ANY conservatives in this country who are capable of a single original thought? ANYONE who does not bow down in obsequious deference to Bush, Jesus and free-market capitalism the way THEY perceive those things, is automatically anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-white, anti-what-ev-er! They even claim Moore is now hated by the left for helping Bush win reelection, much in the manner they also claim San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome helped Bush win by OK-ing gay marriage. C'mon already! Fear, racism, homophobia, neo-colonialism, greed, stupidity, Karl Rove and Diebold are what "won" the head-chimp-in charge his reelection "victory"!
Does anyone else find it disingenuous in the extreme that the neocons are relying more and more on women and non-whites to push their agenda? That the illusion of inclusion is more important than actual inclusion? That the appearance of diversity is being sacrificed on the alter of rigid, ideological conformity? (Or, as Ted Rall put it: "Diversity without Democracy! It's da bomb!")
Somehow, simply by the "virtue" of having hateful, stupid things spewing from the mouths of women, Blacks, Jews, Asians and Latinos lends a veneer of credibility that would otherwise be lacking if it came from the usual cabal of wealthy, Republican white males. And by the constant tearing down of the sanity and credibility of anyone who won't get with the program, they create two bookends that complete the set of "my way or the highway!"
Methinks we "godless liberals" are going to have to start employing one of the right's most sacred tactics: Since they boycott anyone or anything they perceive of as left-of-center, why don't WE boycott any magazine or newspaper who carries mindless right-wing drivel? Yeah, I know that is a very slippery slope, but let's face it: Hurting Republicans in their pocketbooks is pretty much the ONLY way they tend to listen.