We Are Never Ever Getting - Shut The Hell Up!

For the record, I don't hate the country-pop superstar known as Taylor Swift. I respect and admire that she writes her own songs, plays her own music, she supports LBGT issues, and the fact she built up her fan base via social networking sites. I understand her appeal: she's pretty, but not supermodel hot; her doey-eyed optimism and young girl angst makes her easy to relate to. Swift is the girl next door that your mother would be proud to call her mother-in-law if you ever had the good sense to look past the hotness factor and see the radiant and mature woman that she is. She hasn't fallen into the trap of transforming from Ms. Innocent into an over-sexualized Britney Spears clone, and for that, we are all very thankful that young girls still have an idol to look up to in an age where too few of said idols are around. And I think we can all say we were on the Swift bandwagon after Kanye stormed the stage saying that Swift didn't deserve the award for Best Female Video at the 09 MTV VMA's. We all wanted to give Swift a big ol' hug when it was reported that she was crying furiously after West ruined her big moment, and give West - and his ego - a nice, hard kick in the ass.

Unfortunately, overexposure and her stunted growth as a recording artist have swallowed up most of the goodwill she received after Kanye-gate, and to an extension, the last three years. Most of her songs, from "Fifteen", "You Belong With Me", "Teardrops On My Guitar", "Speak Now" and "Back To December" all deal with either one of the following themes:  Her having a crush on a boy, experiences in high school, or a breakup with a boy. How many times can an artist return to the same drinking well before that baby is tapped out completely, or when does it reach a point where people just get sick of hearing the same song over and over again and tune her out.

Apparently, not anytime soon, as Swift has released her new single, "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" from her fourth LP, Red due out next month, and as I speak, it is now the no.2 song on Billboard's Top 100 charts. What makes Taylor's latest break-up anthem insufferable to listen to? Well, ladies and gentleman: she's officially sold herself out.

Let me explain: despite Swift falling back on themes of first love, teenage angst, and bad breakups, I'll admit there was a certain sincerity to the songs; you felt that she had a true connection to the words and lyrics she crafted, despite how annoying and overplayed Swift eventually became. "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together", by contrast, sounds like something that was written by studio hacks; it's the kind of soulless, yet highly polished, bubblegum track that sounds almost nothing like the artist that sings it. But it's not just the predictable hooks or the fact Swift ditches her signature Folk/Country sound for the bland, already-been-chewed, slickness that is pop music, it's the lyrics themselves which make the song even worse than it already is.

As you might have guessed by the title, Taylor is involved in yet another failed relationship (breakup no. 28, if you're keeping score at home), but this time, after all the drama and bullshit she's been through with this guy, she's finally (like, for real this time) ending it with him.

Wait....what?



Now that we've all had time to digest this song (and if somehow the chorus and this line, "You go talk to your friends, talk to my friends, talk to me," gets stuck in your dome, I suggest you avoid all top 40/pop music stations for the next few days and drown it out with Radiohead's The King of Limbs), you may have spotted some problems within the song. Let's discover them together, shall we?

I remember when we broke up the first timeSaying this is it, I've had enough, 'cause likeWe haven't seen each other in a monthWhen you, said you, needed space (what?)

A month? Seriously? I'm no expert on relationships, but if a guy wants space and doesn't see you for a month, chances are he's either moved on from the relationship, or he's playing you like a fiddle, in which case, you had every right to dump his ass and probably don't need him around!

Then you come around again and sayBaby, I miss you and I swear I'm gonna changeTrust me, remember how that lasted for a day?

I'm not sure what I find more sad and pathetic: the fact you still took him back when he basically said 'Sweety, i've changed my ways, for reals this time, and I wanna be with you forever, promise baby!' (or most commonly called, a man's lie), or the fact that it took less than 24 hours for the boy to fall back into old habits. Again, i've never had a girlfriend before, but I doubt that it takes this long for anyone to fall back into old, destructive habits that doom a relationship! This is more of a caricature than a supposed mystery ex from Taylor's love life.

Oooh we called it off again last nightBut Oooh, this time I'm telling you, I'm telling youWe are never ever ever getting back togetherWe are never ever ever getting back togetherYou go talk to your friends talkTo my friends talk to meBut we are never ever ever ever getting back together
Like ever...

Taylor, your valley girl accent doesn't make this song witty, more upbeat, or catty, it makes this song more annoying than it already is. The valley girl accent didn't make Ke$ha any more tolerable, it got really repetitive when Alicia Silverstone played a Cher Horwitz-clone in the animated series Braceface and hearing girls (it wasn't just regulated to white girls, let me tell you) talk in that holier-than-thou, smug sense of superiority over everyone else all through my high school experience reminds me of a person taking a rusty nail and scraping it across the chalkboard. It's not cute, it really makes me want to slit my throat.

I'm really gonna miss you picking fightsAnd me, falling for a screaming that I'm rightAnd you, will hide away and find your piece of mind with some indie record that's much cooler than mine

I'm having a hard time buying Taylor Swift listening to any indie records, unless she's confused  Drake or Nicki Minaj as being apart of the indie scene in music. I'm skipping over the second chorus because you don't want to hear it again, much less see it again in this review. Next part!

I used to think, that we, were forever ever everAnd I used to say never say never

You want to know a good way of making a song even more insufferable? Pour on more aggravating, girly catch phrases that should have died out at the end of the 90's. Hell, the coffin should have been slammed shut and buried six feet under when "reality TV" shows like Laguna Beach and The Hills finally came to a close!

Huh, he calls me up and he's like, I still love youAnd i'm like, i'm just, I mean this is exhausting, you knowWe are never getting back together, like ever

SHUT UP!!!

My God, I don't think i've ever encountered a song this terrible, this aggressive in letting the listener know that Taylor Swift, the good country girl who writes optimistic and heartfelt, yet overplayed teenage ballads, has become a shameless sellout with this already-been-chewed pop song that we've heard waaaay too many  times before! And you want to know the really sad part about this song? There's a better song out there that deals with a woman kicking her no-good douchebag of a boyfriend to the curb:



Say what you will about Beyonce, but when she says, "I can have another you in a minute / matter fact, he'll be here in a minute", I believe her. She's got the attitude and the forcefulness this song calls for, and does it fairly easily, too. Taylor Swift's attempts at being peppy, witty and bashing her loser ex come off as "not over it" written all over her face. Her newest single will probably please the fans who like this sort of "boys suck!" anthem, but to everyone else, this cookie-cutter pop song will leave you feeling empty and disappointed.

The Birther Saga Returns!

In 1946, one year after the end of the Second World War, a young, ambitious veteran defeated a three-term sitting senator from his own party, Robert M. La Follete, Jr. of Wisconsin. The reason for his victory? He claimed that La Follete had not only being a coward for not enlisting in the war after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, but for making obscene profits while he was gallantry fighting for his country. The belief that La Follete was a war profiteer damaged his career, and was swiftly defeated. The name of the newly-elected nominee for the state of Wisconsin was Joseph Raymond McCarthy. Ironically enough, Robert was 46 years of age and serving his third term when the attacks took place, and that McCarthy himself, invested money in the stock market whilst serving his country, raking in $42,000 in 1943. Those facts didn't matter in the end. What stuck was the repeated spin that La Follete's very patriotism was suspect. McCarthy's brash, brazen and disgusting attacks on an opponent's character have been apart of his rise to power and prominence, even back to when he was running for local office in his home state, as the internet magazine on law, Legal Affairs, documents:

The 10th Judicial District was largely rural, and McCarthy, in his three-month campaign in 1939, visited farmers and their families. He knew how to talk to them about crops and climate. He sent out thousands of postcards showing a little boy holding a baseball bat, captioned: "Let's Play Ball." But more potent than these Currier & Ives methods was his attack on Werner's weak spot. The standard biographical source for lawyers, the Martindale-Hubbell directory, listed Werner's date of birth as 1866, which would have made him 73. As a candidate in 1916, Werner had added seven years to his age in order to seem more mature. But now the deception, repeated in edition after edition, backfired. Joe ran ads in the local papers accusing Werner of lying about his age. Werner produced a birth certificate that showed he was born on July 24, 1872, in Black River Falls, Wisconsin, which made him 66 in February 1939. But he was not as effective in broadcasting his defense as McCarthy was in attacking him. Shortly before the election, Joe ran an ad under the headline: "What About This Age Question?" In April 1939, McCarthy won, by 15,164 votes to Werner's 11,219. Once again, the lesson was: Dirty tricks work. At 30, Joe McCarthy was the youngest man ever elected a circuit judge in Wisconsin. 

McCarthy's bully-boy strategy of destroying an opponent by fabricating the most outrageous and malicious slanders, half-truths and false accusations imaginable without even a hint of remorse or shame, and how repeating said smears ad nauseum  until they become the truth, lives on in our political climate to this day. From Saxby Chambliss tearing down the career of thrice amputated war veteran and then-sitting Senator from Georgia Max Cleland, to Karl Rove using John Kerry's service in the Vietnam War to question his own patriotism, the politics of character assassination serve as a reminder that they work and have gotten others elected.

Which brings me to Donald Trump and the resurgence of the Birther bullshit. Yes, just when you thought this sad and shameful bit of thinly-veiled racism had finally been put to bed by President Obama himself when he released, to the press, his birth certificate, "The Donald" makes his un-inglorious return to the 24-hour cable news circuit whilst shilling for the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

On Tuesday morning, Trump appeared via telephone on CNBC, where he argued that questions about Obama's birthplace have not been adequately answered, despite Obama releasing a copy of his birth certificate over a year ago.
"Nothing has changed my mind," he said.
Trump was skeptical about a recently unearthed promotional booklet from Obama's former literary agency that erroneously reported the president was born in Kenya. After the discovery of the booklet reignited rumors that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen, the author of his biography quickly came forward and said the mistake was a simple fact-checking error.
Trump, however, was not convinced. "Look, a publisher come out last week and had a statement about Obama given to them by Obama when he was doing a book as a young man, a number of years ago, in the 90s," he said. "Now amazingly, the publisher is 'oh we made a mistake.'"
"[Obama was] a young man doing a book, and he said what he believed to be the truth."
Unsatisfied with Obama's birth certificate, the authenticity of which he said many people have "serious doubts" about, he called for Obama to provide his academic transcripts from Columbia, Harvard and Occidental College.
"A lot of people want to see his college transcripts," Trump said. "They're not looking at his marks, his grades. ... They want to see, what does he say about place of birth. Now, those transcripts have disappeared, nobody seems to be able to get them."

I'm not about to re-hash this matter, mostly because i've pointed out the obvious several times before on this blog. What I will say is that if you're looking for Mitt to distance himself from this nonsense, don't waste your time. He won't, and neither will the rest of the Republican Party. In secret, they know this line of attack is reprehensible and ludicrous in almost every conceivable way.  But they're hunting bigger game: the game plan has been to use coded words to paint President Obama as "foreign", or a president "who isn't like us," or "one of us." This line of personal attack is one i'm sure ol' Tailgunner Joe would be proud of.

A tale of two speeches

Last night, as the city of Tuson, Arizona, and a nation mourn the loss of half a dozen innocent civilians as a disturbed lone gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, nearly assassinated Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, there were two headlines, two speeches that, in the humble opinion of this 20 year-old blogger, voter, and citizen, speak volumes of their character as public servants.

President Obama spoke just a few hors ago on tragedy that occured at a shopping mall on the morning of January 7. Instead of rehashing what was said and what's being repeated on the cable news networks, allow me to let the words and the man speak for themselves.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There are some on the left who will say that the President should have called out the people who were throwing red meat to their base, words and rhetoric which crossed over from passionate debate to implying that the other side must be taken out, either by the ballot, or by the bullet, for they pose a grave and dangerous threat to security of our country, and to be perfectly honest, the passionate side of me would want and say that the Palins, the Becks, and the Limbaughs of the world should have to stand trial along with the crazed shooter for the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords and the senseless murder of 6 other victims. As I stated before, the nation is mourning over the loss of life, and at this time, as the President told the nation tonight, cooler heads must prevail, and our spirited debate must not blind a simple truth: that at the end of the day, we are all Americans who want only what is best for our country, so in keeping with Obama's theme of toning down the rhetoric, I won't let my spirited and heated side get the better of the me. If there's one thing that has been constant about the Obama Presidency, and what I admire, it is that the President has always called upon his supporters and his detractors to find the better angels of our nature and find ways to work together and move the debate of how we can drive the nation forward.

The same cannot be said for Sarah Palin.

Also today, the one-time Governor of Alaska and Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008 also touched on the shooting, before she exposed the real reason she took to the camera: to paint herself as a major victim of the heinous event. Again, I am going to let Mrs. Palin, and her words, speak for themselves.

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

If you're a rising star in the GOP, had put crosshairs on the districts of opponents who are up for re-election in the House, and one of those representatives was almost assassinated, what would your choices be?
A. speak briefly; say that this is a terrible tragedy and that our hearts and prayers go out of Rep. Giffords and her family, and take your lumps.
B. see A, abd also announce that although a crazed, apolitical gunmen acted alone in his deranged, twisted mind, you announce that you and everyone must tone down the rhetoric and remember that we may allign ourselves as Republicans and Democrats, we are Americans first, and foremost.
C. take to the camera and not only paint yourself as the victim, but use a term that hold deeply negative connotations against the Jewish people.

Sarah, as you can see by the video, chose C.

Mrs. Palin probably can't understand why she's taking all kinds of shit from the national media, from people on Twitter and Facebook, and Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, so as a public service, I will be the one to help her out: Sarah -- it's not just the fact you used a highly offensive term to describe how the media is going after you (a thesaurus and/or a dictionary are you friends, Sarah!), its the fact that, once again, you chose to make yourself the victim; like it was you who was most affected by the tragedy, like it was you who was neary assassinated, or that you lost someone near and dear to you becasue of the lone gunman. You acted as if it was the media who was burning you at the stake, or nailing you to a piece of wood. None of us on the left or the national media are pointing the finger at you for this tragedy (Note: anyone on the left who seriously beleives she is to blame for this is a damn fool), but the fact that your actions with the crosshairs that were chosen at Democratic incumbents who's seats were up for grabs in the Midterms, and all the red meat you've been throwing to your base, is only heading our nation for more potential grief, and if you still can't see that...then that's you're biggest problem.

The two speeches that were given last night outline two completely different personalities: one took the high road and allowed us to grieve and celebrate those who acted without thought for themselves to save others' lives, and calls on all of us to follow their example. The other showed that even in the face of tragedy, she never misses an opportunity to play politics and make the story all about her.

Tea Party = GOP (Now with 2x the crazy!)

First there was Sarah Palin. The architect of downright dipshit candidates that the Tea Party now promote. We all remember her list of maladies: she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, she couldn't tell you what newspapers she liked to read, winks numerous times in a vice-presidential debate, she supported hunting wolves from an airplane, she used to ban books while mayor of Wasilla, and once received protection against witchcraft from a witch doctor.

Then there was Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate that won her Republican Primary and is now locked in a fierce race in Nevada to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Her claim to fame? She used to be apart of Nevada's Independent Party back in the 90's. The party she supported through the 90's (up until she left in 1997) were strongly homophobic.

Next came Rand Paul, the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Ron Paul is one of the few Republicans in politics I have respect for. His son, on the other hand, is a real piece of work. We all remember Paul Jr. being interview by Rachel Maddown and how he would tackle the Civil Rights Act of 1964...or his lack of action. Dr. Paul stated that he believes that institutionalized racism is wrong and abhorent, but it's not the place of the federal government to demand that private businesses sy that they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orentation, and disability. Nevermind that private and public ownership of busses, diners, and other areas that blacks were discriminated against played a huge part in why Dr. King marched on Washington D.C. on August 22, 1963, or why African-Americans in Montgomery, Alabama boycottted public transportiation.

And now we have Christine O' Donnell, the Republican nominee from Delaware. Of all the things i've listed about the batshit candidates, she takes the cake. Not only is she another overzealous Jesus freak and a Palin-clone(i.e. the good ol', plain-speaking girl next door routine, looks and speaks just like your mother or family elder), she also believes that masturbation is a sin against the Almighty himself.

“The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can’t masturbate without lust. The reason that you don’t tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue. You’re just gonna create somebody who is, I was gonna say, toying with his sexuality. Pardon the pun.”

No words can describe just how ridiculous that statement is. Did I also forget to mention that she used to "dabble in witchcraft?"

These are the members of the Tea Party, the group not created from Dick Armney's "Freedom Works" think-tank and from irrational fears that the President is a black radical hell-bent on taking away the white man's guns, and his daughter's virginity founded on freedom, on reducing the size of government, on getting a foothold of the out-of-control deficit, on shouting from Arizona to the footsteps of Capitol Hill, "Read our lips: No new ta..." Wait a minute...these guys sound like what former Republican Presidents have been spouting off for the last 20 years!

The Tea Party is really nothing new = it's the GOP, but in a shiny new wrapper, only now they come with frothing-at-the-mouth racial insensitivity towards gays, blacks, and latinos! The sad part in all of this is that the Republicans foolishly thoguth they would be able to control these people...now in this election cycle, the puppetmaster has become the puppet, and if Obama and the Democrats can't get their act together and sell the slow progress they have been legislating, the last 8 years of the Bush Administration wouldn't look so bad after a few rounds with these reactionary lunatics.

War Is Over!

By now, you've seen the video footage of the last of U.S. ground troops leaving Iraq, thus ending Operation: Iraqi Freedom. 50,000 U.S. forces will stay to train the Iraqi army, and provide security for the country for the time being. Most of you who have read my blogs, both at Jonathan's Corner and on B&D, know my stance on the Iraq war, so I won't continue to beat a dead horse. Instead, let me take this time and this space to thank the men and women who served with the up most honor and distinction during tour after tour. These brave souls answered the call when their country called on them to serve, and did their job to the best of their ability. For that, they have my, and a nation's, eternal thanks for doing what they did.

The Fundamental Problem Between Democrats and Republicans

Of all the things Dems and the GOP could endlessly argue and debate, I would at least think that the rescue workers - many of whom have suffered damage of their organs, have developed breathing problems, or other medical-type issues - that sacrificed their lives to save others trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center....something like giving them free healthcare and compensation for their tireless efforts would be a no-brainer, everyone in the freaking House of Representatives would unanimously support.

The bill came to the floor, was debated for weeks, and the final tally was in: yeas - 255, nays - 159. Did I mention that the bill, despite it's clear majority, didn't pass? Yes, you read that right: it had a clear majority in the House, and it didn't pass. And, oh yeah - and i'm sure this will shock every last one of you - most of the 159 representatives who voted no were.....drum-roll, please.....Republicans. So what was the argument behind voting no, you ask?

GOP critics branded the bill as yet another big-government "massive new entitlement program" that would have increased taxes and possibly kill jobs.

To pay the bill's estimated $7.4 billion cost over 10 years, the legislation would have prevented foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S.

Bill supporters said that would close a tax loophole. Republicans branded it a corporate tax increase.

Pardon my French, but ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?!?!?! These are the men and women who put their own lives on the line for their fellow man, and this is how you choose to repay them!? By giving them the proverbial finger while you, once again, defend the interests of Corporate America!? What the hell is wrong you?? At what point did outright greed trump helping those who have given back and are suffering from respiratory problems and whatnot?

And the Democrats....I can't even begin to explain what I think of these guys....

King said Democrats were "petrified" about casting votes as the fall elections near on controversial amendments, possibly including one that could ban the bill from covering illegal immigrants who were sickened by trade center dust.

When will you guys stop acting like a bunch of petrified pussies, and start standing up to these corporate thugs? You have the Majority and yet, you're letting the Minority run the show???

Great. Republicans keep sucking that big business cock, while Democrats refuse to fight back against Republican opposition. The result is that the 9/11 first responders don't receive the treatment and the benefits they so rightly deserve, which, inherently, outlines the fundamental problem with our two parties in this day and age: Democrats are like the Lion in The Wizard of Oz, desperately searching for some courage, while the Republicans have morphed into Daniel Day-Lewis's character in There Will Be Blood: a greed-filled misanthrope who has longed forgotten to call the human race his own.

The Palin Foreign Policy Manifesto Or: Why We Should Vote Obama in 2012

My friend Kerri Greene and I were talking about positive and negative energy in the Universe and how she does her best to throw out positive vibes rather than negative. For the most part, I'm trying to follow her lead:

* Guys like Sean Hannity and Mike Galllagher, and Bill O'Reilly who I hated with passion; now, whenever I see those clown on TV, I just change the channel. It's just not worth the energy to yell when I already know their shtick is to appeal to the lowest common denominator and exploit the viewer's negative-held beliefs on anyone and anything that maybe different that them or how they think, or look, etc.

* The Los Angles Dodgers, our rivals in the National League West are just that: our bitter rivals in a hotly contested divisional race. I'll be disappointed if the Padres don't win the West and L.A. does, but I won't lose sleep over it.

* Not being the jock or the cool kid who got the super-cute girls in high school, adding my insecure nature and struggle to be just like I am, drove my depression in my Junior and Senior years, and i'm now beginning to realize that all of that shit doesn't matter, that traits like that don't really help in the real world (unless you're an athlete who's banging a underwear model or a porn star, then you suck even more!)

Sarah Palin, though? I have to give her credit: when she spouted her foreign policy, "Peace Through Bombing the Shit Out of Anyone Who Fucks with Us" agenda, she set off a nerve in me. Here's some of her bullet-points:

On Defense Spending:

Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.

This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.

First off Sarah: the Obama administration is actually doing what you propose, by way of a spending freeze starting in 2011, where just about everything but defense is cut.
Second: We did reduce spending the "American" way. It was in the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. years, and now we're in the "Great Recession" because of the policy that Big Business and Corporate America can be trusted to regulate itself, when in fact, they can't.
Furthermore, what's the point of our military might if citizens at home are falling through the various cracks? How we claim to defend the interests of America and her allies abroad, if we're behind the ball on universal health care for all citizens, or clean energy jobs?

On the War on Terror:

When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11.

And who, pray-tell, was in charge of the country, months before the devastating attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center? Who was handed a memo that read "Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.", one month before 9/11, and still did nothing!?

When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances...their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror...Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security.

If you mean "winning" by bribing the Sunnis and the Shi'ite not to kill American ground forces, then i'll gladly give you that one, but let's not kid ourselves on the former president and allies and alliances. Our only major partner in this nightmare was Great Britain, as the rest of the world opted-out of joining W. down a quagmire of epic proportions not seen since Vietnam. Oh, and Obama is still committed to the War on Terrorism: we're escalated troop levels in Afghanistan, and the use of drones is becoming a big factor in our approach to taking out terrorist leaders.

On Dealing with Less-Than Likable Leaders and Nations:

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.

Or, what normal, sane leaders would call, diplomacy. Before the Republican Party abandoned rationality and reason for quick, knee-jerk action in the international arena, President Nixon actually used it to cool off tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. You see, Sarah: even Nixon, paranoid crook that he was, understood that the continued arms race between the two nations would lead to the tipping point that neither side would be able to contain, so he introduced the SALT I and SALT II treaties to reduce the no. of stockpiles of weapons both sides would build to avoid plunging the world into a nuclear holocaust. Hell, now Nixon would've been considered a "pussy" by arrogant, trigger-happy morons in this day and age because he favored avoiding war.

On Obama's "Differing Views of America"

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience?

Bullshit, Sarah. On the campaign trail, then-Senator Obama stated many times how his story and his rise on the national stage wouldn't have happened anywhere else but in America. Oh, and when you have a white mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, and when you travel beyond the borders of the United States for a good portion of your life, you tend to see the world and your country in different-colored lenses, which is well-needed clarity for this country.

At this point, anyone who's read her policy carefully, pretty much understands what the former Governor of Alaska is about: she's a Bush Jr. clone who prides herself on not-knowing jack. She doesn't know and understand complex foreign policy issues, and frankly, she doesn't want to know. To her, if the discussion doesn't include "U.S.," "America," "United States," "Americans," "U.S.A." or some combination of the words, then she doesn't give a damn. To her, its our way or its gonna rain bombs over your neck of the wood, diplomacy be damned; plus only pussies try to "reason" and "negotiate," because might always makes right. Sarah Palin and the new trigger-happy members of the Republican Party are the textbook example of Jim Rome's take on "Likes to Fight Guy", but on an international stage.

Going back to Kerri and throwing out positive energy in the Universe, I was about ready to write a short post, and just blast her away, as i've done in some posts in the past. As I read her piece, I had a change of heart: like getting worked up about the right-wing clowns, and the Dodgers, and what i'm not when I attended Otay Ranch High School, it's not worth the energy. Plus, its more therapeutic for me to write out lengthy pieces on, as disheartening many liberals and progressives are with the change (or lack thereof in the eyes of some) President Obama is administrating, that the other alternative the GOP is proudly suggesting, is a no-brainier: we'll stick to fighting for the change he promised on the campaign trail than resort to cynicism and apathy, allowing their brand of insanity to return to the White House.

Ramblings on a Saturday night

A few nights ago, I make a quick run across the street to Vons off on Canyon Plaza. As I'm putting my items on the conveyor belt, I scan the pop trash mags next to the M&M's and Trident gum packs.

One mag headline had the star of The Bachelorete, talking about how much of a jerk the winner and "lover" (allegedly) Jake was towards her once the cameras stopped rolling. I guess someone forget to tell her that actually falling in love with the "winner" is a no-no. I mean, the big-wigs at ABC have to keep the reality series going with the likable jilted lovers looking for happiness, and the stuck-up fame whores looking to keep their faces on E! News every night.

Another mag had one of the stars of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse on the cover, and when I read the captions Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattinson, I almost immediately looked to the next mag on the stand. I'm sure Lautner is a pretty cool dude, and i've seen some interviews of him on late-night TV where he comes off as a charming guy, but I can't wait until this whole Twilight-fad joins Pokemon, Hannah Montana, boy bands, and Heidi and Spencer in the trash bin of pop culture history. I've had enough about hearing endless debates between Team Edward and Team Jacob and whether or not Pattinson and his co-star, Kristen Stewart are dating.

The last magazine I skimmed over is something I still can't fully comprehend: a magazine devoted to Canadian teen sensation Justin Bieber. From which celebrities find him adorable, to his secret tattoo, to his clothing style, it covered just about every aspect you could think of on the kid. And then there was this section I found honestly pathetic: how your boyfriend can look like Justin......page 72. Am I the only person who finds that disturbing? Why would you want your boyfriend to look like male jailbait?

More to the point: why do we, as a society, place so much emphasis on popularity, on who's "in" or what's "out"? Allow to steal a quote from the Denver-based folk/alternative band DeVotcKa: "If you win the rat race, if you come in first place / Then a rat is all you will be." If we're this shallow and vapid, that we have to look a certain way to impress groups of people, or believe that if we just do this we'll feel accepted amongst the sea of same, then we're only lying and deceiving ourselves, and effectively, slowly destroying our individuality for the sake of vanity.

Greed Over Principles or: the G.O.P.'s attitude toward Americans

Remember John McCain's slogan he used back in 2008, Country First? Remember how all of the GOP talking heads repeated how that, under a McCain-Palin administration, he was going to put "Country First"? When all Senate Republicans and one conservative Democrat stood together to block a jobs bill that would have reinstated many financial aid programs, including unemployment benefits to those currently out of work and/or looking for a job, is this what they had in mind when it comes to "Country First"?

Reid and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), in an effort to mollify a handful of conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans, have spent the past several weeks trimming the bill to reduce its deficit impact. But after jettisoning several provisions to help the old, the poor and the jobless, reducing the bill's ten-year deficit impact down from $134 billion to just $33 billion, the bill is still sinking. Not a single Republican is willing to lend support and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson is still holding out, leaving Democrats two votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

Extended unemployment benefits lapsed at the beginning of June. By Friday, more than 1.2 million people out of work for longer than six months will have found themselves ineligible for the next tier of extended benefits, which were originally provided by the stimulus bill to fight the recession. Other programs that lapsed include elevated federal aid for state Medicaid programs and a "Doc Fix" that prevents doctors from a 21-percent drop in reimbursement for seeing Medicare patients.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a statement put out today said the reason the Republicans in the Senate blocked this important piece of legislation for millions of Americans is because they're worried about what this will do to the deficit.

That's complete bullshit!

If these so-called "fiscal conservatives" were so concerned about the deficit, then why did the GOP rubber stamp Bush Jr.'s tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans and to big business? If the Republicans were that concerned about bringing some fiscal discipline, then they wouldn't have allowed Reagan to balloon defense spending from $134 billion to $290 billion within the 8-year tenure of his presidency, or hold firm on Bush and the neoconservatives' push to drag America into an unnecessary war with Iraq. Now these self-righteous pricks have the stones to tell us that now they're worried about the national deficit they helped create over the last eight years, only after they were bounced out of power!?

Let's cut the fucking bullshit and get to the real reason the Senate Republicans are giving the proverbial middle finger to Americans who are desperately trying to find work: they've made the cynical bet that the only way they'll get back into power is to block, de-rail, and oppose every scrap of legislation the Democrats and President Obama try to push through in order to help middle-class Americans. They don't care if America has to face another near-economic crass, or if kids on the streets of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have been reduced to begging for food because the parents can't afford a damn meal, let 'em starve; hungry kids are not they're problem. To the GOP, the ends will always justify their means.

So, I revert to my original question: back in 2008, when McCain's slogan was "Country First", and all the right-wing talking heads said that under a McCain-Palin administration the pair would put "Country First"...did they mean this one? Because they've got a funny way of showing it.

My generation sucks

That there
That's not me

I go
Where I please
Radiohead, "How To Disappear Completely"

People keep telling me that every generation had its share of pop culture bullshit. But how can they explain the nonsense that's been going on the last few years: Taylor Swift winning Album of the Year at the 2010 Grammys after Kanye West couldn't keep his big-ass ego in check for one night. A mediocre series of novels is hailed by millions of their fans as the heirs to the brilliance of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter saga, then become blockbuster movies that appeal to fickle-headed teenage girls who want their dream boyfriends to be sparkly (quite literary), Prince Harry-like handsome, and share sentiments that their life sucks (even though their higher middle-class and come to school decked out in Abercrombie & Fitch gear). Musical heroes aren't what they used to be: we had pioneers like Kurt Corbain, Tupac, Michael Jackson, to name a few, who we idolized, almost religiously, but now heroes consist of manufactured pop schlock like Miley Cyrus, the Jonas Bros., and Justin Bieber. And every generation had its share of fame-seeking, attention whores looking for their 15 minutes, but if they could see what Perez Hilton, Heidi Montag and Paris Hilton will do to keep their names in the tabloids, even they would agree that those freaks are going too far. In my generation, apparently, good taste is hard to come by.

Proud to be Seditious, Mark?

Dictonary.com defines sedition, as the following:

se·di·tion
–noun
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic . rebellious disorder.

The U.S. Constitution also talks about what constitutes as an act of sedition:

SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

It is one thing to be completely ignorant about something.
It is another thing entirely to be completely ignorant about something, but still speak like you know what you are talking about.
Mark Noonan's latest screed throws him in the latter category.

After all, we were born of rebels:

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, speaking at a law school forum, said that GOP opposition to the Obama program “is almost at the level of sedition.”

Patrick later said the phrase was a mere “rhetorical flourish,” but this isn’t the first — or the fifth — time a prominent liberal politico has accused conservatives of approaching sedition in opposing Obama administration policies. See, the “almost” part is key, because then it isn’t offensive, right?

And the thing is, we’re not like the liberals who call themselves rebellious. No, not like that at all – liberals are slaves who, doing their master’s bidding, think they a “speaking truth to power” or whatever catch phrase of the day it is. We, on our side, are like this:

Words like 'sedition' used to refer to serious crimes and misdemeanors, but now, they've become political catch phrases, and have almost lost their meaning. I believe that until one of Rush's or Beck's empty-headed zombies attempts to overthrow the current government and/or make an attack on the life of a public servant in a high position of power, then it should be considered an act of sedition, and the Beck's and Limbaugh's of the world should stand trial along with the conspirators.
Having spoke my peace, back to Noonan's screed: Mark, you're in no position to take the moral high ground here, about how "liberals are slaves who, doing their master’s bidding..." because it has been well-documented time and time again that you acted like Bush's personal pit bull whenever a valid Bush criticism reared its ugly head.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. – Patrick Henry

We refuse to give up that force and we won’t be cowed by hacks like Deval Patrick. Call us seditious and we’ll wear that badge with pride – we do, indeed, seek the overthrow of the liberalism being imposed upon us. There will be no let up on our part until liberalism is consigned to the ash heap of history.

First off, self-labeling yourself as 'seditious' isn't something something to be proud of. Being labeled as "seditious' is the equivalent of being called a traitor to your fellow countrymen. Why the hell would you want that label slapped on your conscious?
Secondly, your attempt to tag yourselves as the re-incarnation of the ideals Patrick Henry and the rest of our Founding Fathers fought for are an insult to Patrick Henry himself. Henry and the lot were railing against a King who taxed his subjects to the point where the Monarchy would find new ways to squeeze a profit out of the people who were already poor or low income. If you had no currency left to give to King George, then land, labor, and crops would be next on the chopping block. To make sure none of His subjects revolted, those who did would be made an example of, namely, through imprisonment or hanging from a tree in the middle of town. President Obama has nowhere near reached that level of dictatorial brutality, nor would it ever happen. Quit aligning yourself with men like Patrick Henry when the flip side of our democratic process doesn't go your way.
Finally, there is no way you will ever be able to vanquish the concept of liberalism. Ideas never truly die, and they always find a way to return to the forefront. How do I know this? Take a look at countries like China and North Korea. Years after the Cold War ended and capitalism beat out communism, the theories and practices of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Che Guevara, etc. still live on through the current leaders, and their primary economic platforms.

Stand down, Mark. You're just making a complete fool of yourself.

More bullshit from Palin

From the Book of Matthew:

12And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

My utter disgust for religious fanaticism has been documented many times over on this blog, and over at Banned and Dangerous. I hate the ignorant pawns of blind faith - the kind that asks you to unwaveringly follow without questioning and having second thoughts about one's faith, the kind of people who have the nerve to judge me because my viewpoints on God and faith are not the same as his or hers. It is revolting to me how any one person can take an innocent life and then claim that they were carrying out God's righteous will, or how any individual can mask their intolerance of another person or group through their Holy Books.

What I hate even more than the pawns, are the snake-old salesmen, the charlatans, the money-lining shyster-scumbags who prey on the lesser angels of human nature in order to assume power or make a quick dollar. Enter former Governor of Alaska and Former Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and her misguided belief that American law was based on Judo-Christian teaching.

According to Palin, the recent backlash against the National Day of Prayer is proof that some people are trying to enact a "fundamental transformation of America" and to "revisit and rewrite history" in order to shift the Christian nation away from its spiritual roots.

Palins's advice: "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments.

"What in the hell scares people about talking about America's foundation of faith?" Palin continued. "It is that world view that involves some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square, that's the only thing I can attribute it to."

Governor Palin, you're full of shit. The Founders created laws based on the ideas and beliefs that came from the Age of Enlightenment, where artists, thinkers, philosophers and the like began to strongly question the Church, the notion of a monarchy, and the idea of a select few ruling over the many. Laws like freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble, etc., did not come from the Bible.
And, as an FYI - If the Founders meant to build our Constitution and our laws around Christian teaching, wouldn't they have specifically announced in the Constitution that the United States subscribes to the Christian faith?

Ya think?!

Newsweek's article on the teabaggers states the bleedin' obvious.

Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology. When read the statement that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites," 73 percent of the movement's supporters agreed, while only 33 percent of people who disapproved of the Tea Party agreed. Asked if blacks should work their way up "without special favors," as the Irish, Italians, and other groups did, 88 percent of supporters agreed, compared to 56 percent of opponents. The study revealed that Tea Party enthusiasts were also more likely to have negative opinions of Latinos and immigrants.

As to the reason why these reactionary recneck bigots and outright crackers are so pissed off? When the teabaggers holler "we want our country back!" they mean they want their county back...when they were the majority in American society, as this revealing chart on future U.S. growth in population projects.

Among the other key population projections:

■ The Latino population, already the nation's largest minority group, will triple in size and will account for most of the nation's population growth from 2005 through 2050. Hispanics will make up 29% of the U.S. population in 2050, compared with 14% in 2005.
■ Births in the United States will play a growing role in Hispanic and Asian population growth; as a result, a smaller proportion of both groups will be foreign-born in 2050 than is the case now.
■ The non-Hispanic white population will increase more slowly than other racial and ethnic groups; whites will become a minority (47%) by 2050.

This is what it all comes down to for the teabaggers: they're afraid of being the minority party. It scares them that, in 40 years, they won't be the majority (ethnic-wise) anymore, and now the race is on to cling to their old prejudices and majority, foolishly believing that it will be enought to stop what what will eventually happen. In this sense, I feel sorry for this group. Almost.

Of course, many teabaggers are furious when they get painted as a hateful, racist group of pissed-off rednecks venting becasue the president is black, as Tom Fitzhugh states.

"It really makes me mad...They have tried to portray us as a bunch of radical extremists."

And here's Fitzhugh's beleifs about President Obama as the section continues on:

He considers Obama an abomination—possibly "the most radical-voting senator that ever was" and someone likely to "takeus down the path of destruction." He believes the administration is intent on taking away his guns, trampling on states' rights, and opening the borders with Canada and Mexico. He has serioanyone with a functioning brain belives that you ignorant fucks are anything but racists!us doubts that Obama was born in the U.S. and suspects that the president is a closet Muslim.

Yet Tom and his ilk want me to beleive that this group's outrage isn't motivated by race? A quick note to him and teabagger nation: comments, like the one Fitzhugh trot out, are the reason why African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, gays, and anyone with a functioning brain belives that you ignorant fucks are anything but racists!

Uh...what the f%@k, Virginia!?!

The month of April marks the beginning of the regular season in baseball, my birthday, and - thanks to Virgina's current governor Bob McDonnell - Confederate History Month. Yes, you read that right. Gov. McDonnell is celebrating the South plunging the nation into a war over slaves and states' rights.

WHEREAS, April is the month in which the people of Virginia joined the Confederate States of America in a four year war between the states for independence that concluded at Appomattox Courthouse; and

WHEREAS, Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, the numerous civil war battlefields that mark every region of the state, the leaders and individuals in the Army, Navy and at home who fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today; and [...]

WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia's history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live, and this study and remembrance takes on particular importance as the Commonwealth prepares to welcome the nation and the world to visit Virginia for the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Civil War, a four-year period in which the exploration of our history can benefit all;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert McDonnell, do hereby recognize April 2010 as CONFEDERATE HISTORY MONTH in our COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

Its been a while since i've taken an American History course and i'm sure the textbooks haven't radically changed all that much (unless the Texas schoolboard has done a near-whitewash of the reasons why the Civil War Broke out, the same way they blanked out Thomas Jefferson for Christian icon John Calvin); I understand why it is required studying in high school, but we never celebrated how a nation nearly tore itself apart and the blood that was shed becasue of fundamental differences.

What's worse is that the main reason why both sides engaged in the first place - the beleif that Southern States had the right to own other human beings for back-breaking labor - according to McDonnell, slavery wasn't the biggest issue that caused a Union to split in two and put the nation through four years of intense combat and bloodshed.

McDonnell said Tuesday that the move was designed to promote tourism in the state, which next year will mark the 150th anniversary of the start of the war. McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia."

The issue of slavery wasn't merely an issue that led to the Civil War: It was the only thing.
Its the reason why young men, on both sides, fought in the battle of Gettysberg and died.
Its the reason why the Confederacy broke away from the Union.
I would ask what the fuck is wrong with the fuck is wrong with this governor, but that was before I found out two revealing facts about McDonnell:
1. He went to Regent University (aka: Pat Robertson's school of duh), and we all know that school's track record on their former law studensts.
2. His thesis, entitled The Republican Party's Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of The Decade.

At age 34, two years before his first election and two decades before he would run for governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell submitted a master's thesis to the evangelical school he was attending in Virginia Beach in which he described working women and feminists as "detrimental" to the family. He said government policy should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators." He described as "illogical" a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.

So allow me to rephrase my question: Virginia, why the fuck would you elect someone like this!?

Don't stop, Democrats!

This week, Democrats finally grew a pair and passed health care reform. The bill is far from perfect (many of us would prefer a public option, but we can takle that bridge later on in the year, and we will), but two things were proven: 1.) our government can still take on big issues and 2.) President Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate have the spine and the will to stand by their convictions, instead of folding over like a piece of paper becasue Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh lie and distort the message that healthcare isn't a socialist plot to destroy America, but a right every citizen deserves; it shouldn't be a priveledge to prolong one's life when they get sick.

Anyway, I originally intended to make a long post about this occasion, but Bill Maher beat me to the punch.

To anyone who still believes we have the world's best health care system

To all the conservatives and critics who are trying their damned hardests to block health care reform, then claim that our for-profit health care system is the best in the world - here are some damning facts about the U.S. system of health care:

-According the World Health Organization, the United States ranks 37th in the world of health care performance, and ranks 72nd in overall health.

-Of all the wealthy, industrialized nations of the world, the United States is the only one that does not guarentee all of its citizens with some form of coverage.

-The gross domestic product (GDP) America spends on health care is over 17%. by 2019, we will spend almost 20% (that's 1/6th of the national economy) on health care costs.

-A report published American Journal of Public Health last year, finds that 44,000-plus Americans die every year becasue of a lack of health insurance.

-The U.S. Census Bureau states that 45.7% of Americans are not covered.

Our currents health care system is nothing to pat oursleves in the back for.
Insurance industries like Aetna, WellPoint, and Humana (to name a few) rake in quarterly profits of billions of dollars, while dropping their patients left and right for "pre-existing conditions."
Business goons, like Ron Williams, the chairman and CEO of Aetna, recieve $38.12 million in bonuses, and Angela Braly, the President and CEO of WellPoint, has $14.86 million in stock options. Meanwhile, American families are forced into bankruptcy becasue of rising medical and hospital bills they can't afford to pay on a regualr salary.
There's no hint of compassion or care in our health care system - you know, the ingredients needed in treating the sick, wounded, and dying in any society - it's sending a messge, basicallly saying: "I've got mine. You have some illness and you need help to cover costs? Fuck you, you're on your own."

Not only is this third-world status of caring for a nation's citizens, this is capitalism in its ugliest expression. How can anyone say that we have the world's best health care system and have a straight face while saying it?

If after all the evidence presented you still don't believe that our health care system needs to be reformed, here's an ugly story about how an insurance company cut a patient's coverage because he has HIV.

(Reuters) - In May, 2002, Jerome Mitchell, a 17-year old college freshman from rural South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. The news, of course, was devastating, but Mitchell believed that he had one thing going for him: On his own initiative, in anticipation of his first year in college, he had purchased his own health insurance.

Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, revoked his policy. Mitchell was told that without further treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would most likely die within two years after that.

So he hired an attorney -- not because he wanted to sue anyone; on the contrary, the shy African-American teenager expected his insurance was canceled by mistake and would be reinstated once he set the company straight.

But Fortis, now known as Assurant Health, ignored his attorney's letters, as they had earlier inquiries from a case worker at a local clinic who was helping him. So Mitchell sued.

Thankfully, Mitchell won his case, but the courts discovered it wasn't just Mitchell who had been dropped before for his medical condition.

Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell's case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.

Capitalism at its best, folks! [/snark]
The current healthcare bill in Congress is far from perfect. There's no public option to keep the insurance companies honest and provide competition, among other complaints. But it is a first step on the road to obtaining universal coverage. We've been debating about this for decades and this is the closest we've ever been. To me, it doesn't make sense to go against a bill that will cover 30 million more people who really need it.

Right-wing racists say the darndest things

This was posted on Banned and Dangerous yesterday, and I wanted to post this on here.

WHY BLACKS HATE THE US CONSTITUTION? read on
The Founders were all White, Brilliant and smart. They created a Constitution for the White Children of Adam. There were no black founders. Our Founders considered Blacks beasts of burden.
If they had intended to include blacks they would have included blacks at the Constitutional Convention. In fact, they declared blacks as sub-human in the Constitution itself.

The US Constitution says Blacks are only 2/5 human. The Founders knew long ago that Blacks are Sub- Human apes..I say nothing. The US Constitution does.
Questions:
Are we trying to make Humans out of Apes?
Why do we allow them a Black Caucus?
Why are they in Congress or in Higher Offices?
Why are they in Law Enforcement?
Why are we allow they to have Black History Month?
Why are we allowing them to get away with Affirmative Action?
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AFFIRMS BLACKS ARE 100% INFERIOR TO WHITES INTELLECTUALLY.
THEIR RIDE ENDS NOW!!!

Comment: This idiot also realizes that whites that were not well-educated and did not own land also joined slaves and women as people who could not vote, or were lower on the ladder in the eyes of the Founding Fathers in the early years of the United States, right?
He also realizes that, along with slaves and women, the people barred from attending the Constituitonal Convention were significant portions of his own race - i.e. poorly educated, non land-owning whites - the Founding Fathers supposedly made for their caucasion brethern. Only those who were rich, owned slaves, had land, and were highly educated attended. You know, the same people who wrote the freaking document!
By his rhetoric, me, ET, the Count, and this idiot would all be in the same boat: no represntation of any sort. And lets not forget that in the year 2010, whites are still the majority ethnicity group in the U.S. Somehow, its us "sub-human apes" that are taking everything away from Whitey.

News flash, white boy: you're not losing shit, so shut the fuck up!

Taylor Swift - the voice of a generation!? Bullshit!!!!

When Taylor Swift performed with Fleetwood Mac at the Grammys on Sunday, she - for all intentional purposes - sucked.



Now, she's taking heat for it, as she should - it wasn't a good performance at all. In comes Swift's record company, dubbing her, the "voice of a generation."

“I think [the critics] are missing the whole voice of a generation that is happening right in front of them. Maybe they are jealous or can’t understand that,” Borchetta said, “but obviously the people that she talks to are engaged with her. No one is perfect on any given day. Maybe in that moment we didn’t have the best night, but in the same breath, maybe we did,”

Voice of a generation?
Voice of a generation!?
Bullshit!!!!!!

Radiohead, U2, Coldplay, Eminem, Springsteen, Jay-Z, etc.....those are bands and artists who spoke to me and many others in this generation! Taylor Swift was fortunate to have Kanye West act like his dickish self and make her America's Sweetheart overnight! It's the main reason why she won Album of the Year! Without the outburst, she's just another tweener-bopper with a hit record.

Don't elevate this flavor-of-the-month garbage with that of Bob Dylan, or John Lennon, or The Boss, or Thom Yorke.....real artists who changed the face of music as we know it.

Dear Kanye West

Dear Kanye,

When you lashed out on poor country-pop superstar Taylor Swift at the MTV VMA's last year, you had pretty much cemented yourself as the world's biggest jackass. Like an uncle we expect to get drunk and make a scene at Thanksgiving dinner every year, your proclamation that "Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time!" was somewhat expected, because if you don't win for something (or in this case, the person you were pulling for doesn't win something), the world must stop for you and listen to how royally rat-fucked....again.

Then again, when you've made three critically acclaimed rap albums (The College Dropout, Late Registration, and my personal favorite Graduation), and earned your place as one of the best MC's to rock a microphone, then I guess you have every right to bitch and moan about how you've become music's version of Scorsese (let's be honest, you did get screwed over the last few years). Still, we all believed that your latest temper tantrum was the latest in people telling you to keep your ego in check and to shut the fuck up, and no harm would come from this.

That was, until last night, when Swift won sympathy votes from the Grammy voters for your outburst, and picked up the ultimate prize: Album of the Year.

Kanye, this could have all been avoided: your no-show at the Grammys this year, your dumbassery to steal the spotlight from Ms. Swift last year, the President of the United States himself calling you a jackass - all of this could have been avoided, if you had just kept your mouth shut. If you hadn't tried to make Taylor feel like crap onstage and make her America's sweetheart overnight, your girl Beyonce would have walked away with AOTY for I Am...Sasha Fierce. Now, we're stuck with this lovely, but awful live singer (let it be known that Swift and Fleetwood Mac don't mix).

Music today has become polluted with balls-less artists, marginally-talented teen queens and endless dance-club pop/hip-hop records, and I still consider you one of the best musical artists to come around in the new century. But you just gave Grammy the go-ahead to announce what we already knew to be the truth: huge record sales and mediocre talent talk, artists who put out quality work that pushes the genre and the industry as a whole can go straight to hell.

Thanks, Kanye.

Sincerly,
Jonathan Holmes

Shameless...utterly shameless.

The images, the reports, and the stories we are hearing out of Haiti are shocking, heartbreaking, and astounding. Reports are that over 100,000 Haitians are dead because of the 7.0 earthquake that hit. The Presidential Palace in Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti, has completely collapsed. Bodies are scattered across the streets, and its people are devastated or wandering aimlessly, looking for survivors, family members, or a safe haven. There's even talk that unless serious humanitarian aid isn't reached quickly, the county could fall into chaos.

These kinds of descriptions and images that capture an international tragedy would shake the hardest of hearts to give sympathy to those suffering.

That is, if you're televangelist Pat Robertson, who couldn't pass up an opportunity to spit into the faces of the Haitians who are struggling to survive tonight.

And, you know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French." True story. And so, the devil said, "OK, it's a deal."

Pat Robertson should know all about making a pact with the devil. He and his non-profit outfit Operation Blessing made a similar pact with African dictator Mobuto Sese Seko during the Rwandan genocide.

Far from the media's gaze, Robertson has used the tax-exempt, nonprofit Operation Blessing as a front for his shadowy financial schemes, while exerting his influence within the GOP to cover his tracks. In 1994 he made an emotional plea on The 700 Club for cash donations to Operation Blessing to support airlifts of refugees from the Rwandan civil war to Zaire (now Congo). Reporter Bill Sizemore of The Virginian Pilot later discovered that Operation Blessing's planes were transporting diamond-mining equipment for the African Development Corporation, a Robertson-owned venture initiated with the cooperation of Zaire's then-dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.

Robertson's dealings didn't stop with Seko. The article also states that he also was in business with Lybia dictator Charles Taylor.

Absolved of his sins, Robertson dug his heels back in African soil. In 1999 he signed an $8 million agreement with Liberian tyrant Charles Taylor that guaranteed Robertson's Freedom Gold Ltd.--an offshore company registered to the same address as his Christian Broadcasting Network--mining rights in Liberia, and gave Taylor a 10 percent stake in the company. When the United States intervened in Liberia in 2003, forcing Taylor and the Al Qaeda operatives he was harboring to flee, Robertson accused President Bush of "undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country."

Pat Robertson's comments today are anything but compassionate, and his further business deals with Taylor and Seko are nowhere near Christian teaching. He is a charlatan of the first order, a bastard willing to step over his religion and the suffering of other people to make a buck or to push his hateful agenda. I just hope that, if there is a Hell, there is a reserved space for Pat Robertson.