New post today (see below), but this link seems to comport with the consensus of entymologists over the derivation of the word c**t from a previously posted video, since there’s apparent dispute here. http://www.takeourword.com/pt.html.
Not that it matters….I think we all know what it means. Ask Larry David! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E_7q4hzWFc
Cliche has it that “God, Guns, and Gays” are the default positions of the American right wing so it’s interesting that the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court dealt with a couple of these positions in some recent decisions (altho it’s difficult to seperate God from the righties’ obsession with gays). The real question is how does any of this effect the election of ‘08; have these issues been effectively spayed or do the court decisions put them in play, and who benefits, McCain or Obama?
The gay marriage ruling has been destroying straight marriage now for 3 weeks and kids are “going gay” in record numbers. Funny how that works because as long as straight marriage has been the norm, it apparently hasn’t kept anyone from “going gay” but I guess the opposite isn’t true. So now that were cast into this right wing talk show version of Dante’s Inferno, which presidential candidate benefits? Obama is on record as being opposed to gay marriage so it’s difficult to see how he’s hurt, but the devil is in the details. The straight marriage initiative is on the California ballot which, of course will drive untold number of homophobic morons to the polls in California (all of whom, I’m assuming, are McCainiacs) but Cali is a given for Obama in the fall. The real concern here is for the upstart congressional Democratic candidates facing Repug incumbents and a hostile brood of feverish Jesus freaks driven to the the polls strictly to vote for a constitutional amendment which will be ultimately proven to be unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the California constitution.
The gun thing is potentially a nation-wide issue, but Obama has made all the correct noises about gun rights, although his hometown Chicago will be the next to face a NRA lawsuit over their gun restriction laws. If McCain’s storm troopers can find even a scintilla of written evidence that Obama has actively or latently defended those laws ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0627edit1jun27,0,1543324,print.story ), you can bet the straight shooter will exploit it. Plus, there’s the small town rubes clinging to God and guns line which will haunt Barack either way (http://www.newsweek.com/id/143759/output/print ). Brace yourself for the obligatory photo-op of Obama emerging from an Illinois corn field with a 12 guage and a former migratory bird flung over his shoulder. Hopefully the latte will be cropped from the picture. That none of this really matters, or should matter, to the American electorate is a moot point. The easily frightened, the paranoid, and the Jesus-fevered are consistently begging to be manipulated and the Repugs are masters at that game.
Obama’s recent move to the right on some key issues will satisfy some concerns, altho I find them unsettling. How do you go from a position of promising to filibuster the new FISA telecom immunity bill to supporting it in the name of “national security” is beyond me, except that it’s one of those politically craven compromises national candidates must make in order to win over the “security moms”. Too bad/how sad. Thought Barack was a “different” sort of politician, guided by principle not electoral pragmatism. Combined with his bizzarly hawkish speech last month before AIPAC and his tough guy support of capital punishment in light of the recent Supreme Court decision on kiddy rape, one can’t help maintaining anything but healthy skepticism about all this hope and change. Given Obama’s notorious free trade position and his love of corporate money, what are we really dealing with here? A third Bush term vs. a third Clinton term?
As promised, a very funny satire that pokes more fun at the “news” media then it does at McCain. (warning: adult content)
Another “3 dot” entry today, just to give you contributors something to munch on….
Oooooooo! All is not well in the Obama camp, perchance giddiness has given way to sober reality? Is it really possible that a remnant of America’s racist past still exists out there in some isolated holler? Let’s hear an opinion of an Obama presidency from chain smoking Johnny Telvor of Williamson, West Virginia:
‘We’ll end up slaves. We’ll be made slaves just like they was once slaves,’ he said. Telvor, a white Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in West Virginia’s primary, said he planned to vote for Republican John McCain in November. ‘At least he’s an American,’ he added with a disarmingly friendly smile. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/08/barackobama.hillaryclinton)
Doubtless Telvor speaks for the teeming masses of slack-jawed yokels who are willing, once again, to sell out their own interest at the polls this November in exchange for unleashing the full twitch of their reptilian brains. As the Guardian article points out, “the chattering class” has largely ignored this possibility because (sniff, sniff) their transcendent Many Colors of Benneton world views don’t allow for such dirty little thoughts as racism or sexism or just plain hatred….
Speaking of red necks, San Diego’s political leaders continue to pretend that Robert Young and Jane Wyman still rule the roost, and that the world is still peopled with perfectly coiffed housewives serving savory casseroles to dads in smoking jackets and well-mannered kids with adorable cowlicks. S.D. County Supervisors are pushing forward with their lawsuit challenging California’s medical marijuana laws and are also now pursuing the dubious goal of politely and artfully opting out of the freshly minted same sex marriage law. Seems public officials will not have to subscribe to the new law if it offends their personal beliefs. Fair enough, but let’s take it a step further: any civil servant who is not willing to uphold state law should simply choose to work in the private sector, or better yet, move to West Virginia where they can consort with the Johnny Telvors of the world, sit around the ol’ cracker barrel and discuss the size of Jews’ noses or black ladies’ derrierres…
Johnny McCain has unvieled a new campaign ad where he manages to keep a straight face while telling America that he “hates war” ( http://weblogs.fox61.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/john_mccain_i_hate_war.html), but fails to mention he only means those that last less than 100 years…
All three remaining candidates last week made their obligatory visit before AIPAC, the Israeli lobby and did the usual pandering, each claiming unified hatred of Islamic terrorists and ensuring that no matter who is elected, Israel will remain above criticism for the next 4 years. Oh yeah, and that Iran will be nuked back to the stone age if they so much as make eye contact with the Judeo-Christian world. Iran, for it’s part, reiterated its belief that Jews eat babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel). Johnny Telvor believes that too but he’s voting for McCain anyway.
I lead with this today, because it seems to be part of a consistent theme:
Your listeners do not have the straight story, if they have listened only to Stacy’s interview of Leibham. This election is an opportunity to take back the 50th district, but not if Leibham wins, because he agrees with too many stay-the-course issues, as in the issue of media consolidation, which does not concern him because of the Internet. In addition, his loyalty is to staying in power—as in pretending to Howard Dean that he was the only Democratic candidate in this race to try to get Dean’s endorsement, which he did not get—his loyalty is not to any position on an issue or principle.
This is from Cheryl Ede who’s running for the Dem nomination in the 50th District vs. Nick Leibham. I heard exactly the same thing from Vicki Butcher and her supporters who are vying for the nomination in Duncan Hunter’s lapsed district, the 52nd. Vicki is the true “progressive”, former Navy Seal Mike Lumpkin is the trojan horse conservative. Actually, I heard a lot of this before, about former Reaganite Navy Secretary Jim Webb, who switched parties to purge George Allen from the Senate and also Paul Hackett, another Iraq War vet, who narrowly lost to the demonic Jean Schmidt in Ohio a few years back in a closely watched congressional election that was widely regarded as a referendum on Bush’s incompetence.
Aside from the common demoninator of veteran status (Liebham being the exception), it’s not clear to me why any of these guys is considered the stealth non-progressive fox-in-the-Dem-hen-house. Because they’re guys? Because they served in the military? Because, on 2 occasions (Webb and Lumpkin), they changed parties? Because they own guns?
Fact is, winning is the issue now. Get a super majority, withstand the veto, kick Republican ass. All of the above seem to be on the right side of the health care debate, the domestic jobs debate, and the get-the-hell-out-of-Iraq debate. And more importantly, they are, or potentially are, electable. If “progressive” means idealistically intent on purity over electibility, I’ll take my chances with the “operational” over the “aspirational”.
Powered by WordPress
