I am so disheartened and confused. For decades the GOP has wanted to get rid of some of bedrock most helpful and successful programs, headstart, Medicare, Medicade, Social Security. For Decades the democrats have stood up for these programs and the at risk people that they support. Until now.
One of the ways we beat GW was because of his ridiculous attempts to "privatize" and therefore Bankrupt Social Security.
And now, here we are- with a man we worked hard to elect, voluntarily offering up cuts to this program that helps our seniors quite literally survive in dignity in their final years. Who are we? Where do we go from here?
When the teabaggers took over their party I thought that we might be in a position to see a third party break off on the right... now I wonder if there is any place in the Democratic party for people that support the platform?
Democrats believe that a dignified retirement is central to the American Dream, and its foundation is built on two long-standing institutions charged with realizing that dream: Medicare and Social Security. These two institutions represent an unbreakable commitment to American workers, and for decades Democrats have fought to defend them.
In 1935, Democrats and President Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security. In 1965, Democrats and President Lyndon Johnson created Medicare. Ever since, Democrats have continually fought to defend these cornerstones of the American Dream in the face of attempts to dismantle or undermine both.
Where are the democrats that wrote that sentiment, where are the people who will fight for us in DC?
There's more...
Killed in Pakistan along with two men and one woman during a raid to capture him.
Unconfirmed reports say he has been buried at sea (so as not to give any followers a place to gather.)
Crowds of primarily Millennials were cheering and waving American Flags outside The White House Sunday evening, as President Obama spoke to the Nation.
What does creating a Model of the Solar System have to do with GNB still being alive?
Well, from one point of view, nothing at all. From another, everything.
Our writers have been up to stuff, see. From the usual being ill and recovering, to creating and selling software, starting businesses, working, writing and editing books and screenplays, doing radio broadcasts, writing for other publications, and All That Jazz...
Yes, we know there's an election. Meh. I just don't seem to care. Especially with the President's Press Secretary trashing the "Professional Liberal Left" and saying we should all go get drug tested. I'll take that drug test about the time President Obama keeps his fracking campaign promises.
Bush Lite at best. And in many cases, it's precisely what GWB would have done, just with a liberal face. Oh, I'm glad we got health care and yes, it looks as if with the Supreme Court confirmations we're going to manage to save SCOTUS from going over to the Dark Side for the next 40 years. Especially if Justice Ginsberg will allow President Obama to replace her, although I don't think that will happen unless he wins a second term -- and that isn't going to happen unless both he AND the economy shape the hell up.
None the less, as I said before the election, what really matters in the 2008 election more than anything else, is the Supreme Court. With two Justices now replaced with women (liberal) votes, this, truly more than ANYTHING that President Obama has done or will do in his entire first term of office, is what -- when I get angry at the difference between Candidate Obama and President Obama -- I reflect upon, and relax and am thankful, for indeed, we have saved the Supreme Court for another 20-30 years, a full generation.
As for GNB. Yes, we are here. I imagine that we'll pick up writing again at a faster pace again as summer comes to a close and fall begins. Right now, its much too damn hot to think of doing much of anything. All I want to do is sleep and read and watch old DVDs and take pain meds. However summer will end and the tempo of things will pick up. Right now life feels very "Doc Hollywood"ish... laid-back and just wanting to stay that way. "That's a fine pig you've got there Doc" and all, and summer festivels late in the evening as the sun finally goes down when its still 70 degrees at 9 pm and the teens and the old folks are dancing in the square with the dogs parking and kids running around. That's kinda what it's like at the moment. Writing a bunch when I could be sitting back and watching all the fun, well. I'd rather just sit here and make sure no one steals my pig.
*hugs to all* and hope you're having a fine summer
There's more...
I, Barack Obama, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in time of war, declare that all corporations within the confines of the United States are legally not persons and have no rights granted them by virtue of their alleged personhood. The rights of corporations are those specified by law and not any of those specified in the US Constitution.
All corporations shall mean each and every corporate entity which meets at least one of the following criteria:
is headquartered within the territory of the United States;
does business within the territory of the United States;
has bank accounts of any kind at any banking institution with a branch within the territory of the United States;
contributes to any political organization, PAC, political campaign, or other organization which spends money to influence elections or voting within the territory of the United States or of any corporation specified herein;
owns any real or intellectual property within the territory of the United States or registered with the US Government offices tasked with registering intellectual property;
owns any portion of any corporate entity described above
By virtue of their incorporeality, all corporations are not persons within the definitions of the Constitution and US Federal Law, and the rights of such corporations shall be limited to those specified by law explicitly describing their effect upon corporate entities and not physical human entities. Constitutional rights do not apply to corporations.
Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity and in defense of our democratic form of government, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this first day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand and ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred thirty-fourth.
The White House Office of the Press Secretary December 1, 2009
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Eisenhower Hall Theatre, United States Military Academy at West Point, West Point, New York
8:01 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.
But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.
We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)
As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.)
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)
Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
What I Trust Obama For (and why he gets NOTHING from me)
I don't remember if I contributed to Obama or not during the General election; I don't think I did but I may have, after the primary races were settled. Mostly my contributions went to key House and Senate races where I felt my money would have more of an impact.
I never kidded myself about Obama; it was always clear to me, and I always said to my readers at Group News Blog, even though it pissed off a solid 60-70% of them, that at best, Obama was a middle-of-the-road politician, that his campaign rhetoric was just that, slogans and feel-good imagery designed a) to get him elected (7.2% & 192 electoral points), and b) to let everyone place their own meaning on simple non-commitments without actually committing him or his future administration to any real positions. Further I said, the commitments he does make he will not interpret as actual promises but as declarations, as futures he intends to bring forth, but never as specific promises.
Therefore Obama speaks in Futures, in Declarations. Any promises he makes must always be understood, be listened to inside the possible futures Obama is bringing forth in this moment, and like all futures, Obama knows that Futures are Probabilities, not certainties. Some Futures may be more probable than others. Some Futures may be strongly more likely, almost dead-certain. But in a moment, everything can change due to an unexpected event from a change in the market to an assassination to war or peace breaking out to a natural disaster. There are moments when certain Futures are possible and other moments when those Futures are not...and these moments are not under the control of anyone. Life comes at us as it comes. We can prepare; we can be in the moment ready to act. But Life, she just happens.
Obama -- and any student of history -- knows this in their gut. Thus Obama is ready, always, to dance from one set of possible futures to another set of possible futures, and is never truly committed to any one specific set. Instead he is looking in every moment to bring forth, to produce what he considers the best, the most open (in his world, what he considers "best" and open"), the best possible set of futures which fit HIS standards, given the circumstances and politics, the resources and the economics, the weather and the world situation and all that jazz, of THIS moment. Ten days, ten hours, ten months from now, Obama will be working to produce a different -- yet clearly related -- set of futures, which is related not just by the way the world and the political, economic, and all that jazz circumstances have changed, but also which is clearly related by Obama's commitment to his own standards,e.g.: none of his possible futures will allow television advertising of cigarettes, some will have public option health insurance and some will not, and likely only in very few of them will Obama ever do more than give lip service to civil rights for gay marriage or anything Teh Gay.
Why? Because Obama doesn't give a flying fuck for Gay Rights. Regardless of the words which come out of his mouth, the futures he declares, the soaring words he speaks, he and his administration and the DNC have made ZERO ACTIONS consistent with these futures. Thus, bullshit. Bullshit across the board.
Here's the good thing. This bullshit means we can trust Obama in this domain. No longer any need to get crazy about it. Seriously.
I trust Rush about gay rights as well. I trust that Rush will absolutely, given the opportunity, fuck me, fuck my daughters and son, fuck my mother, fuck my friends, and fuck everything I and my family and colleagues stand for in the domain of rights for people who are GLBT. Rush is absolutely trustworthy in that he WILL fuck all of us over given any opportunity in this domain. Even more, Rush will go out of his way to CREATE opportunities to fuck us when it comes to gay civil rights. He's a scorpion; he stings. It is who he is; it is what he does. I am not upset about this; it does not freak me out. I don't waste any time being crazy wondering where Rush stands or damming the Gods that Rush is this way. Water is wet, rocks are hard, Rush fucks teh Gay, and this is how it is. *shrugs* I trust completely that Rush is out to fuck me and act accordingly without it getting in the way.
After Maine, after this week's Fall 2009 election, I now know how to trust Obama with respect to Gay Rights. I have for myself -- and others will have to do this (or at least can do this) for themselves -- clearly separated the Declarations of possible Futures Obama keeps making (his speaking), from the Actions (his doing) that he and the entities he is accountable keep making.
Obama -- just like Rush -- I say, is absolutely trustworthy. Obama is a) trustworthy not to screw us, that is, he won't fuck us over. This first part is fairly weak. He'd give this one up and actually screw us over if need be. So best not to rely on this one too strongly. None the less, at least for now, Obama is trustworthy to not actively screw us. More importantly, Obama is also b) trustworthy to do nothing. This is for what he can be primarily counted on. No matter what Obama says, no matter what promises Obama makes or futures he invents, proclaims, or declares beautifully, Obama's actions over time lead me to be certain what Obama is trustworthy to do and all Obama is trustworthy and count-on-able to do in the domain of GLBT civil rights is nothing. We can count on Obama and groups under his control, when it comes to gay civil rights, to do jack-shit. Obama is trustworthy for that. You and I do not need to suffer or worry about what the President and DNC will do; we now have sufficient history that we can trust them...they will do—nothing. Period. Full stop.
Seriously, it is good to know this. Truly. It means we don't need to suffer trying in vain to get them to do something. It means we don't get upset afterward due to unfilled expectation having thought the folks who claimed we could count on would do something (and then they did it poorly, not at all, or screwed it up so badly one might suspect they sold us out intentionally) or should have done something.
See, it is truly silly to be upset at someone for not doing something or expecting someone to do something, when the grounded interpretation/assessment about them is, they are trustworthy for doing nothing. *laughs* So they did nothing... well Duh... Nothing is PRECISELY what they were trusted to do. I would never be upset at Rush for doing nothing. (Or at a cow for shitting in its stall. Cows shit. Have you ever seen a big pile of cow shit? [Click on photo at link to enlarge. *grins*] People make enormous sums of money dealing with cow shit. But first (to make the big bucks) you have to accept that cow shit is natural for the cow and part of life for the rancher.) Obama (in the domain of civil rights for gay people) is trustworthy to do—nothing. Rush... Hell, I'd be happy if that fuck did nothing. Because what Rush is trustworthy for is to fuck us over.
Upsets come when from unfulfilled expectations, thwarted intentions, and undelivered communications. In this case we primarily have unfulfilled expectations (the expectation that Obama would do what he promised/declared), which when done would handle the intent (which is thwarted and now, continues to be.) But the intent is a secondary thing. Communications are being delivered just fine, but positively and negatively. The upset here comes from the unfulfilled expectation.
That there is an expectation at all is because we -- you, me, everyone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, has a family member, a friend or loved person, colleague, or is in any way committed to the success of the GLBT community -- have been expecting the Obama team to deliver. We have believed they were trustworthy in the declarations and promises they made. Now we know better.
Knowing Obama, the administration and the DNC are trustworthy to do nothing, means that if I expect anything to be done, I know it's going to be other entities -- perhaps even my daughters and I -- who get the job done, as just happened in Washington State where my daughter and her pals worked their asses off campaigning. And won! Go Kyle, go her buddies. Good fracking job!!! Most of all, I know NOT to give a fracking penny, dime or dollar to Obama or the DNC. Because I do not EVER fund people who don't have my back. Not funding people who fail to support my goals is simple common sense.
I stopped funding NOW when they backed that slimeball Joe L. for reelect in CN, those gunkies, as well as writing off the DNC who sucked his ass while he crapped all over them. (And look how well it paid off; he's about to take a big steaming dump on all of us with the Health Care bill. Well done, Democratic Leadership. Good work.)
Now I know also to not fund Obama, even if he is the leader of my Party, as well as still to keep not funding the DNC. Again, why? Because they don't have our backs; they look at me and mine as vending machines. Screw them and their corporate donors whose teats they suck. What is now clear is Obama, the administration and the DNC would rather dance with corporate donors and try to get religious conservatives to vote for them (who won't, ever) than keep their word given in battle to the heart and soul of the Democratic party. Believing we have nowhere else to go, they are trustworthy to write off GLBT people, their familes, and the people who support them. Writing us off is up to them.
This is what is up to us...
I am not going to waste my energy or emotions getting angry or mad. To do so would be to damage who I am. I'm stronger and wiser than to waste myself getting angry with Obama and the fools he has advising him how to sell out his soul. Instead of getting angry, I'm simply walking away from Obama, the administration, the DNC, and everyone associated with them. I am going to donate my money, my time, and organize and blog, campaign and write, and give as much of myself, my family, my resources and energies as possible to people who DO have our backs, to people who are trustworthy down in the trenches. *waves to Al Franken and Alan Grayson*
I'm also going to tell everyone precisely why Obama and the DNC are on my shit list... because they are trustworthy to promise one thing, while doing another. They say they support Teh Gay, but what they really want is Gay Money while doing jack-shit for civil rights for ALL Americans. Fuck that, fuck them, fuck this.
Obama and the DNC get NOTHING from me -- no cash, no support, no good press, no volunteering, nothing -- till they not only speak great declarative Futures (which they're great at doing) but until they cease the hypocrisy -- UNTIL THEIR ACTIONS ARE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THEIR DECLARATIONS, WHEN IT COMES TO GLBT CIVIL RIGHTS, OBAMA AND THE DNC GET NOTHING FROM ME.
*smiles sweetly*
Trust is an assessment, grounded in Competence and Sincerity.
Let me give you that again...
Trust is an assessment, grounded in Competence and Sincerity. The Obama administration's declarations (and promises) regarding gay civil rights are competent; they are not sincere nor were they made in sincerity. People and organizations who make declaration/promises from a place of competence while intentionally making insincere promises/declaring futures to which they are not committed, are assessed as CRIMINAL with respect to that domain of declaration and promises.
Why everyone is SO FREAKING PISSED at Obama regarding all this is simple. It is clear he and his team have intentionally used the Gay Community to raise campaign money for himself with no intention of fulfilling his campaign promise. This is a CRIMINAL act. Perhaps not legally (although perhaps), but absolutely socially. Barack Obama personally, and the Obama administration as a whole, have intentionally and deliberately violated, breached, betrayed their word, after already collecting -- repeatedly -- enormous campaign contributions which were given in exchange for the promise that Obama WOULD make gay civil rights a major priority, that he, Obama, would personally get this handled. And now we see it was all a lie. *sighs*
Obama took our community money and got himself elected. California was not possible, not possible without television commercials which would have cost (forced) Obama's campaign to (have to) pull TV spots and other major media buys from all over the country...which would have cost him electoral votes, and who knows what might have happened then without A-Gay Money and old-school Hollywood Support, hmmm? Plus every other GLBT flat-out breaking their piggy-banks open for Obama because he PROMISED a whole new world. He PROMISED.
We now know the Candidate, now President, made us a flat out CRIMINAL lie, a betrayal. (We won't get into parsing the other distinctions of how breaking a promise settles out. Just know that if someone is competent and insincere, linguistically people assess that kind of lie as CRIMINAL. Think Dick Cheney or Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon. Criminal betrayers, both of them. Competent liars, yet insincere in the promises/declarations they made.)
I trust the Obama Administration to do nothing for teh Gay. *shrugs* The made a cold-blooded determination it was less costly for them politically to take our money and do nothing than to take our money and keep their word. They lied and did so knowingly to over one-tenth of all Americans, said "Fuck You..." You're not even as valuable as 3/5ths of as an American. But please... we want your money and your vote.
It's a political calculus of the coldest kind. They figure we have nowhere else to go. Plus they've already got our money. Obama's already in office. What, they think, are we going to do? Throw a fit? Tell our Senators and Congresspeople to vote against the White House position on all the other bills we want? Piss on our own (well-tailored) shoes?
Obama thinks he's got our money and our votes and in addition, has managed to screw us over in broad daylight, thus gaining votes with middle America. (You know whose strategy this was. But Obama went along and he's the President, not Rahm.)
Until Obama, the administration, and the DNC stop talking about change and actually ACT on the change the promised, not one dime, not one bit of campaign support, nothing. We are DONE.
If they want me to trust them to something, they need to change their actions. But for right now, I trust them to do...
As a kid, I remember these cool, old IBM-sponsored commercials that ran during NFL football games, showing a slo-mo replay of a controversial moment in a game—some borderline-ish play that could be ruled one of two different ways, testing the layman viewer's knowledge of the sometimes arcane rules of pro ball. The bombastic NFL Films announcer John Facenda would diagram the dramatically scored play, freeze it at that pivotal moment and then boom from the TV “You...Make The Call!” You'd have some thirty seconds during which the sponsor's message would run until he'd return with his sonorously intoned, correct answer.
I've been thinking about those old spots a lot lately after all the idiotic faux-furor over President Obama's address to schoolkids not too long ago. You can almost hear the paraphrased voice-over about the aggrieved parties, “Idiots or Racists? You...make...THE CALL!” President Obama's message was a simple one, really—'Stay in school, pursue your dreams, achieve, achieve, achieve, and all that sort of usual Tuesday Assembly Day yadda-yadda, but the flaming-haired freakout among certain circles over the very idea of a message that innocuous is something we should take a good, long look at.
There were parents—ostensibly adults, so terribly aghast at the President's tapioca-ish words possibly getting to their children that they threatened their local school boards and mounted a goofball campaign to pull their kids from school for that period, and even more draconian-ly from school for the entire day in protest.
Their reasoning? Well there was the whole 'I don't want my kids exposed to his socialist / communist / anti-West-Bumfuck-Church-Of-The-Holy-Spirit-And-Lindsey-Graham's-Lip-Gloss propaganda' angle. Then there was the almost canny “Concerned Harper Valley PTA” member shpiel about curriculum protocols and the suddenly convenient 'Thar is rulez 'bout this kinda stuff, y'know. 'Spit-tooeeey!' obstructionist folderol. Best of all was the one uttered by Grade-Z Kansas City talk show host Chris Stigall, who railed “I wouldn’t let my next-door neighbor talk to my kid alone; I’m sure as hell not letting Barack Obama talk to him alone.”
Running the classic “child molester” standard up the ol' flagpole is always a nice touch, isn't it?
The state of Texas, home of playful truck-dragging to one's death, President George W. Bush (whenever he'd drunkenly misplace his whale-print pants and have to miss those Kennebunkport kegger weekends) and 'Dixie's Dr. Kinsey'—Sen. John “Box Turtle” Cornyn, surprised no one with its vehement shunning of the broadcast. People down there were quite literally howling and crying to anyone with a microphone about this “Gasp!” dastardly intrusion into the psyche of their little ones. Mike Lupica of the NY Daily News actually kind of surprised me with his unequivocal analysis of the phenomenon.
“If you want to get a sense of just how haywire the country has gone lately, in less than eight months of the Obama presidency, start here. Start with the crazy people you saw on television this weekend, women actually crying that Obama's plan is really to brainwash her children, like he's invading her kid's middle school because some other President already invaded Iraq.
Of course. Who would want to put their children at risk this way, listening to a success story like this President's, listening to him describe the possibilities of both education and America, talking to them about hard work? But then so much of this comes from the same mouth-breathers who look at a health care plan as some sort of Socialist manifesto, and see opposition to it as a call to arms.
Only in this kind of climate could a traditional speech like this, to be delivered on C-SPAN and via the White House Web site, be seen as a controversy, actually get parents to think they are putting their children at risk by sending them to school tomorrow.”
Now, the news media beyond Lupica for the most part has been pretty reluctant to look this stuff straight in the eye and call it for what it is, preferring to take the false equivocation / Sgt. Joe Friday “Just the facts...even if one side's 'facts' are clearly made-up bullshit” tack to cover their asses against I suppose...a Limbaugh-led boycott of sponsors...or some such nonsense.
They don't want to point out the big, scarlet-necked, angry elephant tearing the Goddamned room apart with its wild charges into the walls.
We have no such timidity here.
The overwhelming majority of these people are sore-loser, racist wingnuts. Plain and simple. They are still smarting badly over the fact that not only did a Republican not win last year's Presidential election, and not only did a Democrat actually win, but the kind of Democrat (ie. Dusky, Darkie, Ding-Dong-Dammit, He's Black!) they have been indoctrinated to believe would bring the end of the ever-lovin' world as they knew it won. The ones most up in arms are the direct ideological descendants of the original target audience of Richard Nixon's fabled and divisive “Southern Strategy”. So-called “Rule of Law” lovin', Black-hating, educat-urbanophobes'. The folks Barack Obama not-so-ironically caught holy hell over for noting their narrow-minded “bitterness” during the primary season. Fear and loathing has been the fuel for their electoral triumphs for decades, and heaven forbid when they don't win...for there is no exhaust for that powerful and dangerous engine of mischief. It comes apart violently with shrapnel flying every-which-way. This wacky outburst over the school speech is one such flaming chunk of that machine's having come undone.
I'm also kind of surprised that few have noted the phraseology these losers are tossing about in their venom towards President Obama. The cries...no...shrieks really—of “Commie” and “Socialist” are just retreads of the same, old silly “Duck and Cover” era fear-speak they threw at Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. back in the day when his mere presence on the public scene worried warm effluence down their legs. These words were the more polite way for the racially aggrieved to shout “nigger” without all those hard and angry “g's” in the word snagging on everything and pointing out what hateful lunatics they were. Barack Obama most certainly is not a Dr.King—but as a (in their minds) 'n*gg*r of influence that too many people respect', he might as well be. And as we've seen in recent years, as near-to-now as this last election cycle, this mind-locked crew really has nothing else to go to as they wore that “CommieHitlerFascistRadical” shpiel so threadbare that to call it a “throwback” would mean there was a shred of something left in their hands to throw—which there wasn't. 'One Trick Elephants', our wingnut pals are these days—put one pachydermic foot on the Fox News step-box, raise their trunks high and bellow...while taking a massive and messy dump all over the circus floor. First time's a shocker. Second and third time's maybe good for a scat-humor hoot.
It's gotten old quick, though.
What's unhinged them to where they've gone into 'Stage 3 Bigo-tourrette's Syndrome' is fear.
Fear...that this particular electoral choice for America means the end of the centuries-long, taboo-to-cite, skin-color privilege gravy train that has benefited them for just as long.
Fear...of justice / retribution—for the slights and injustices inflicted as that gravy train's wheels rolled over and sliced people of color into little, second-class citizen bits.
And the worst fear of all, and oddly enough—the one that actually makes a great deal of sense if you consider its sociological weight—is that their kids, their annoyingly-open-to-all-manner-of-richly-multicultural-things-anathema-to-NeHi-Mom-and-Nacsar-Dad, oh-so-impressionable kids—might possibly see this reasonable-seeming Black man on TV, who actually is the duly elected President of their United States, and having seen and heard what he has to say...possibly in that said annoying openness, not have the visceral, pathological problem with him that they the parents do. The steady watering-down of rabid, knee-jerk racism would hit a tipping point then, effectively time-locking those petrified, previous generations in a capsule welded shut with their own racial animus. It would relegate them and the four-hundred-plus years of awful, unjust ways they cherish to—if not the dustbin of history, at the very least, swept much closer to the base of it. Their own children being the harbinger of that change is so ironically devastating that it cannot be risked. Thus, the attempt to shut them away from the words of the President, a furtive and feeble trip down dat ol' river of De-nial.
So...you make the call. Are they idiots or racists?
Wait—before you answer that, add to this roux of insipid intolerance that wackadocious Republican representative from the proud, semi-Confederate state of South Carolina, (Insert rueful, syrupy Shelby Foote voice-over here: 'It seems some folks never have come back into the United States after our tragic mid-19th century internal conflict. Tsk-tsk”.) Joe Wilson. He of the braying, intemperate, down-home style j'accuse “You Lie!” on the night of President Obama's health care address to Congress. We've seen moments of partisan pissitude during State of The Union addresses and the like before. Grumbling. Overplayed silence. That sort of thing. But not since the incendiary congressional scenes from D.W. Griffiths' “Birth Of A Nation” have we seen so naked a public break with the well-known collegiality of the Congress during a Presdential address. It's all “Robert's Rules Of Order”—on steroids when you deal in the legislative arenas of Congress. In the back rooms? Well, that's a different story. You lean on (sometimes literally), you cajole, you pressure, you sometimes threaten, you deal-cut and horse-trade. But in public? “The distinguished gentleman / woman from blah-blah-blah”, “May I cede my minutes to the Senator from yadda-yadda?”, and “The floor will recognize Rep. Joe Blow” from the great state of I don't know.”
You get the picture.
Wilson, that sorry-assed clown—decided to simply freak the fuck out and scream at the President during his address. He knew Goddamned well it was wrong<, but he inexplicably did it anyway.
No. Hold on. That tantrum was explicable. Very explicable.
You sit there and tell me what made him think it was okay to go off like that in front of the eyes of not just his congressional colleagues, but the millions of people watching the event that night? What makes President Barack Obama so different from the presidents who've preceded him, that a deep-fried, “Dixie”-warbling nut log like Wilson was perfectly comfortable in shattering the debate / disagreement protocols that have otherwise been recognized for like...forever?
And at that confluence is a vehement and open hatred of what I will call “American Otherness”—in essence, if you do not look anywheres like the powder-wigged, silk legging-ed founding fathers in the old image of the signing of The Declaration Of Independence, your rights—and any authority you may have through an Alger-esque climb through the ranks, or election to office by the people can simply be denied by those who do resemble our rouge-cheeked founding fathers.
As bad as things were for Bill and Hillary Clinton during their brief, but brutal first-term run at health care reform (and they caught hell, make no mistake), there was still enough respect for the legislative process (pre-Lewinsky scandal, of course) where a stunt like Wilson's would have been considered far beyond the...well...far beyond the pale. Bill could still deflect fire with his “Bubba” shield of down-home bonhomie. At any given moment, he could still kind of, sort of be “one of them”, and that carried a lot of weight. Obama however, has no such shield or camouflage to dilute the bitter wine of irrational hatred—especially from supposed colleagues in government. And because of this, they have no problem with acting out as broadly as their hate allows. There is no subtlety, no wit or brain...no nuance at all to their disagreeing. Just raw, bulging-veined rage.
Mixed with a touch of the glee of the ignorantly evil to boot.
Witness the almost dancing-in-the-streets happiness of much of the right over Chicago's losing out in the 2016 Olympics sweepstakes. Never mind the fact that in a way it's probably a good thing the U.S. lost out bid-wise when you consider the money toilet Summer Olympiads have been, but even the mainstreampress noted the over-the-topness of the celebration of the “defeat” by the right wing.
'It's gonna be in Chicago? The place that gave us the accursed Obama? We hate it! Obama's lobbying for it? We really hate it! The IOC (International Olympic Committee) said “no” to Obama's Chicago? Yay! We love it! We LOVE it! WE LOVE IT! U--S-A—um...Obama loses! O-ba-ma LOSES!'
Question: What is the opposite of a “smart mob”? A “dumb” mob of course. And these folks are exactly that. The same sorts of mobs in our history who were known to celebrate with a smile the uncelebrate-able. Negativity. Ignorance. And yes, even worse... Smiling Faces...Sometimes...
How bent is this bunch? I can say this without fear—that there are many among them who would actually cheer a major terrorist attack on our soil, and would hope for at the least, 2978 American deaths—exactly one more than we suffered on September 11th under George W. Bush—just to have something to horrifically, desperately and most contrived-ly scream on Obama over. I sooooo wish I was wrong about that gut feeling, but I know I'm not. And if you truly consider the lunatic behavior of allegedly fellow Americans in fits of spiteful, hateful pique since last january 20th, I seriously doubt you'll feel much differently.
So, welcome to the full-tilt reality-show-ization of American political discourse, people. We were hanging at the Richard Hatch / Survivor-style for a good while. Fun little cliffhangers and gripping, if still contrived drama. But now? Politics' “Big Three Network Decorum” has been tossed aside for the raw, rancid meat of cable crazy post-January 20th 2009. 'I will embarrass myself for attention and spite. I shall stuff my ears, throw my own excrement AND SHOUT YOU DOWN! SHOUT YOU DOWN!' SHOUT YOU DOWN!''
Why are we here? Here, now?
What is so damned different than before?
Well...let's take a literal look...
History it turns out, is just as brilliant a teacher as it is a cruel one.
The defenders of Wilson, our country's non-Olympics celebrants, and those poor, myopic fools who lost their cookies and kept little Ethan and Kayla (Or Hunter and Brittany...Tyler and Caitlin...who-the-hell-ever...) on the day of the President's address will say nothing worse than maybe, just maybe these people are just a touch “misguided”. “Misinformed”, perhaps. Others more directly confronting the looniness but wishing still to not touch the third rail this hate train barrels along on will extend the diagnosis to include “inane” or “stupid”.
Which is a canny dodge for what the real deal is. Because it is simply far more palatable in America to be called an idiot...than a racist.
Bringing us back to the question up at the top. “You make the call. Are they idiots or racists?
It's a choice you don't really have to make. So, let's remove the sting of possibly being wrong...by being fair and equivocal then, shall we?
Because they're Icky. Gurl Parts. Moist and Gurrrrly. Ick.
Gays, Women, Privacy, Spying on Us'all... Tell me again; how is it Obama varies from Bush? He even captures people and does renditions to countries that do torture.
But oh yeah... Unlike Bush who hid all that, Obama's people will try really hard to follow up, sometime, eventually, most likely, to see that the bad countries didn't hurt the bad people too badly.
If they did, well... tough shit.
You could bring it up before a Federal Court of Appeals. If it weren't for the Obama Administration arguing that pesky State Secrets Act, precisely the same as Bush.
Yeah, there are some places things are different.
But if you're a girl, gimp, gay or just want some goddamn personal privacy... The United States holds (G.W.Bush,43,2001-2009;B.H.Obama,44,2009-?): Fuck Off. We Don't Care About You OR Anything About You Or Your Queer / Fucked-Up Pals. Seriously.
< Obama > It isn't even that you haven't paid your political dues. You faggots especially... I wouldn't have won California without you, or Hollywood, which means the kids would never have broken early for me, which means I'd never have been totally filling 25,000 person auditoriums in February with over-flow stretching around the auditorium for the money shot, leaving Hillary stuck in a quarter-empty 2,500 person union hall down by the docks with people leaving as soon as she's done while I'm back on stage for a 30 minute rope-line. EVERYONE wants to be with the winner and the gays of California without question fed me the money and the State and the media and Hollywood. When Hollywood comes out for you that's it. You get the kids and that's show-biz. The only question then is, can you ride the tiger or does she buck you? I had the best campaign team in the biz, we'd been preparing for years, and we rode her and won.
And in spite of all that, fuck the gays, fuck the gimps, and fuck the girls. And no privacy for anyone. For reals.
I know, gang. All of y'all expected me to handle your thing right now. *cracks up* Not gunna. Ain't happening. Not till the second term. IF there's a second term. So quit your goddamn bitching, get up off your ass, stop stabbing me in the back and HELP ME ON WHAT MATTERS which is a PUBLIC HEALTH CARE PLAN and THE ECONOMY. Because if BOTH of those doesn't pass in a version that fucking COUNTS, ain't none of us going to be here two and a half years from here (and we'll lose Congress in 14 months, which is what those Fuck Heads are trying to make happen.) If we do get Public Health Care and the Economy, THERE is my Second Term and then I can not only get girls, gimps and gays, we can get the environment for the next 80 years and fix social security. Plus handle hunger and destroy most diseases.
But right now, all there is, ain't nothing else, is Public Health Care and the Economy. All out, nothing held back, at a level that will HANDLE shit for everyone.
So work, dammit, work. Because nothing these fucking white crackers want more than to see me fail (except to see me die.) What... did you think just 'cause the Black man's in the Big House, that was it? We had it made? Fuck... Those cracker's are bringing ASSAULT rifles to my events. It used to be bad during the election. Now, it's a whole new thing...
I can't do this shit alone. I need your help. < / Obama talking >
K. This is Jesse again.
Obama -- as I wrote back at The News Blog -- received Secret Service protection way-the-fuck back long before any other candidate (excepting Hillary who lives inside the Bubble) because of the many and early no-kidding threats he was receiving. The Crackers hate the idea of a Black man in the White House. Hate, hate, if drives them fucking insane.
And now that Obama is no longer Barack for President but is President Obama, No. 44 with the formal portrait coming and already in the history books -- LM and I were there; it happened, two million people turned out and it was the most wonderful party EVAH. Yes, we were freezing our asses off and don't get me started about how badly the Capital Police and Capital planning folks from the Senate & House screwed things up. Totally typical Senate and House. They had their seats so screw everyone else -- but whatever. The thing is, those goddamn Republican LOSER Crackers just can NOT handle that someone who is not a White Man is POTUS.
Only four, no, five things could make it worse for the Crackers: If POTUS were
a woman
of color
and a big ol' bull-dyke (or even worse, trans)
and fat. Really no kidding, huge I'm talking BIG, and no issues with it either,
and not just a fat dyke of color, but a seriously practicing Muslim, whose father has multiple wives (and thus, obviously, is not a U.S. citizen -- although he does have a worker's visa as a Physician, which lets him take good American jobs away from good Americans. *laughs*)
My question is, if that were true...
Would the United States Congress as currently constituted even let such a President-elect ...(we're positing say, Case Orange, the 25th Amendment, or a literal act of Jebus, 'cause there's obviously no way the last three of five gets elected in the current U.S.)... does the current Congress let this President-elect I just made up take the Oath, or do they impeach her beforehand with the Senate voting her fat ass out of office the same day there's almost not enough time for the CIA to grab the bitch, slab a black bag over her head and rend her to some torture-lubbing land which will teach all fat Islamic dykes everywhere (U.S. citizens preparing to be sworn in a President especially) to stay the hell away from the U.S.A. 'cause ain't nothing gurls can do against real men.
Gurl parts = Yuck. And that's just the way it is.
There's more...
The recent media stunt with a bunch of guns near the President was organized by a right-wing media host with ties to a right-wing militia "that was convicted in the 1990s of conspiring to blow up federal buildings." (quote from the Rachel Maddow clip shown above.)
When the news broke about Dr. Henry Louis Gates' epiphanous detainment at the hands of Massachusetts' always fair Johnny Law, I had to kind of fight off some pre-conceived notions I'd had about ol' “Skip”. His nickname itself always rankled me, and many others as it fairly reeked of bourgie privilege and hard class distinction from the vast majority of Black Folks. It sounded like the moniker of someone prancing about a badminton court in Kennebunkport. The petit-mal knock-down / drag-outs between he and his considerably more proletariat counterpart in academia, Dr. Cornel West were always fun to watch—what with Gates' stiff formality and middle-of-the-road-ism versus West's “keep it real” hybrid of academic polish and “round-the-way”-speak. I found Dr. Gates tolerable at best, in that he did not espouse the Black Repug-think he seemed tracked for.
I fought off those notions out of fairness, and once I did and the facts of his arrest became fully known, it was in my mind the hard crystallization of an evil phenomenon people of color—particularly African Americans—contend with every damned day. The phenomenon of one having no rights that anyone who does not look like you has to respect. Further, that phenomenon allows for your very legitimacy to be questioned—your standing, your office, your personhood in general. We can at any given moment at the whim of a pissed-off person with bigotry in his or her heart be deemed a lesser being. Authority is automatically assumed by dint of skin color privilege—end of story.
In “arresting” Officer Crowley's case—knowing full well (after verification from Harvard itself that Gates was indeed the legal resident of the house) that whatever threat / possible misdeed / robbery was now null and void, he instead of choosing to maybe use some of the situation defusement skills allegedly taught at Police Academies, sought to continue the interaction and then end it on his own terms by goading Gates beyond his home's threshold, and then pettily arresting him for “disturbing the peace”
“While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me," Crowley said”
Moving me to say, “Um...you know what officer? You don''t get to arrest people because your dumb ass was confused. And if you're that easily confused—by the vocal displeasure of someone who had the right to be in his own home questioned, then Mistah Offisah, you are simply not bright enough to be allowed to carry a firearm about the state of fucking Massachusetts...or any state for that matter.” If Crowley was confused, then ladies and gentlemen, my Black ass is Edgar Winter.
If there was any confusion on his part, it was his being thrown by what appeared to be an elderly, bespectacled spook's not deferentially nodding and “Yassuh-ing” him out the door.
Aside from that, he knew exactly what he was doing.
Because he dared assume that his “place” in society trumped Crowley's twisted, but all-too-common sense of overarching privilege—borne of generations of White men with guns representing an extension of governmental authority—be they actually sanctioned, deputized or not. The sad dynamic in America is, that even the so-called “lowliest” of White folk can always pull the ultimate trump card of status...
“Hey...at least I ain't no n*gger.”
This unspoken piece of down-home Untouchable-ism is the great un-equalizer for us as a nation. It's the smack-down with four-hundred years of backswing behind it. There is an old joke, told amongst Black folk that hammers this home in a darkly comedic (“Chortle!!”) manner.
“When does a Black man turn into a n*gger? As soon as he leaves the room.”
It's rough humor, but it speaks to the Gates issue, as well as tying up quite nicely a confluence of “issues” we see roiling the waters of the body politic. And at that confluence is a vehement and open hatred of what I will call “American Otherness”—in essence, if you do not look anywheres like the powder-wigged, silk legging-ed founding fathers in the old image of the signing of The Declaration Of Independence, your rights—and any authority you may have through an Alger-esque climb through the ranks, or election to office by the people can simply be denied by those who do resemble our rouge-cheeked founding fathers.
Here, some eight months into the first Presidential term ever served by someone who doesn't look like those folks, we as a country find ourselves besieged by a triad of ˚Killer Bs”—The Bitchers, The Birthers and the Birchers.
The situation with Henry Louis Gates is not something new, mind you. But it''s an example writ large of the wave we see sweeping this country's frustrated, fearful class (Dare we include a fourth group in the “Bs”—“Bitter-ers”? Yeah...who didn't see that coming a year ago?) who can feel the ground shifting beneath their hair-topped feet. Gates has long been a Black man of means—easy to dismiss for years by those for whom the safety of skin color privilege still gave a sense (albeit unjustified) of confidence that all would remain as it always has for them—all unspoken connections intact, the barely camouflaged pipelines to power unbroken. But the meteoric ascent of a Barack Obama cast Gates, a certified “F.O.B.” (“Friend Of Barack's”) in a different light. This negro one could once dismiss as a bow-tied, patrician, noir anomaly was now something else again in the new context of American power and the access to it. Gates is one of maybe...the ten most prominent college professors in this country. And you would think that in a small town like Cambridge, typical cop-knowledge would prevail. That knowledge being, “Know your local skells and swells” It's a thing that's endemic to law enforcement. Once Crowley knew (and he did know in short order) that Gates was not a “skell” but rather, a “swell”, instead of extending to him the usual treatment accorded folks of his station (Imagine Gates' peer and fellow Harvard Professor Lawrence Summers—being treated as Gates was...), a certain vengefulness won out. A punishment well above and beyond the so-called offending “deed” had to be meted out, and Crowley saw to that with his baiting and subsequent no-cause arrest of Dr. Gates.
Crowley did what he did, because he was angry at Gates' rank impertinence—based on who Gates was, and because he knew he could get away with denying Gates' legitimacy based on who he (Crowley) was thanks to 400-plus years of socio-racial stratification in America.
It was an Eric Cartman-esque “Res-pect Mah Authori-taaaaaayyyyh!” moment come to life. And just as laughable, nutty and venomous as the South park character's 2D television rant—save for...you know, the actual cuffing, ride downtown and booking in a Cambridge police station, that is.
But it was one of a few Cartman “moments” manifesting themselves lately—and all of them are rooted to the same petty, thorny seed.
Take note of the so-called “Birthers”, the lunatic fringe on the right (and to be fair, also partially on the “bitter” racist moderate Dem side we saw during the ugly end of the last Presidential primary season.) who claim against all evidence otherwise that the duly elected President of The United States, vetted like nobody before is some sort of “furriner” Pinko plant not born here in the U.S.A., but rather in some Moo-slim Madrassa hovel with...I dunno, Osama Bin Laden's bloody hand still treasuring his umbilical cord scissors. There again is that knee-jerk denial of legitimacy. “He is not my President!” “He does not COUNT!” It took the better part of about seven months for this crowd's minds to totally curdle into clumps of fully-set racist stupid, but curdle they did as the realization that “Oh Noez! It'z reallee troo! A fuggng chocolate-fayce iz prez and iz in charge uv Myyyyyyy Amurrrrrika!” hit home like the wave of nausea you get after the initial sharp pain of a drop kick to the gonads. Lou Dobbs, that paragon of choice xenophobic political battles to pick and win, hopped on this “American Otherness” bandwagon like it was the last copter out of Saigon and is riding it for all it's stupidly worth—which is pretty much just huzzahs and dittoes from the scrape-knuckled fucktards who flock to him post-their mid-afternoon Limbaugh-lovin' refractory period. And this dim band is ultimately personified by Major Stefan Cook, the doofus “soldier” who deigned to not fulfill his obligation to go to war (Note how no GOP politicos or pundits dared call this act of defiance un-American) because he did not recognize Barack Obama as President due to his um...“doubts” about the legitimacy of his American birth.
Note again how this is another grumpy, White dude in uniform, an ersatz authority figure (licensed to carry a weapon) directly challenging a Black dude well above his station—just 'cuz.
Smartly though, the powers that be let this clown-ass get away with this bit of insolence, as a loser like this would have been a battlefield liability to the Nth power and a literal risk to everyone within ten feet of him. But also note how he felt perfectly comfortable running that lame-ass game to duck a responsibility, deny legitimacy and yes, lamely assert that authority thing again. He had no problem standing before the world and not only denouncing the Commander-in-Chief (which is well within his rights), but also pretty much saying “This particular Commander-in-Chief holds no power I am bound to respect.” What could inspire such raw hubris in a fellow pledged to protect his country at the behest of its elected leader? I can guaran-damn-tee you he would never have pulled such a stunt with the previous President—a documented draft dodger himself, layabout, and noted non-carer for the military in his charge. A look at the data in terms of who believes in this silliness and from whence they mostly hail is damned telling. What then, is the radical difference between the two men—making one automatically legitimate and the other suspect?
Birther, please.
This is HATE, people. Not the fun, titter-worthy “Hateration” you see in the merely envious, but a roiling, corrosive, capital H-A-T-fucking-E that these people are having extreme trouble filtering into something that can be still be occasionally called civil only because they know to actuallly utter the “N”-word spring-loaded just behind their front teeth in their anger would give the game away totally. They bleat bits from their new talk-radio ingested manifestos with the same nutty fervor as their civil rights era-forged forebears—the conspiracy-addled kooks from the old John Birch Society. All those hoary old “Communist!” and “Socialist!” yelps we're hearing over this stuff is classic “Bircher” bitching. What with all the newfound media fellating of the sixties hepness in “Mad Men”, it's kind of ironic that today's nutbars we're seeing at these town halls are the socio-political descendants of that era's proud, political, actual “Madmen”.
Basically, classic sore loser-ism dressed up as a political belief system.
I've written here about what happened in New York when David Dinkins became the city's first (and only, and it will stay that way for quite some time, thankyouverymuch) Black mayor. A large number of residents of the city's whitest borough, Staten Island voted to secede (Yee-hah.). And the loser of that election, Rudy Giuliani took it upon himself to stage an anti-administration rally near City Hall. A rally populated almost exclusively with “bitter” members of the city's police force. He whipped that armed and drunken bunch of thousands into a frothing frenzy—cursing to beat the band, and they went ballistic, overrunning lower Manhattan and of course, denying the legitimacy of the elected government...particularly Dinkins and Black members of New York's City Council...
And that day near City Hall, was an example of that strategy—writ two-ton jelly doughnut large. At that time, the NYPD was far whiter than it is today—which is to say it was closer to 85% White than it's present-day "egalitarian" 65-70%. And Rudy's rally that day appealed specifically to that very White element. The NYPD chafed under a Black mayor from jump—especially since that election gave Black folks a feeling that for once, the department would be held accountable for its legendary racist excesses. And worse still, Dinkins pushed for a residency law for the NYPD—forcing the officers to actually live in the five boroughs where they worked. This was waving a red cape before a coffee-and-bear-claw-stuffed bull.
Cops carried signs that said "Dump the Washroom Attendant," "Mayor, have you hugged your dealer today" and "Dinkins, We Know Your True-Color--Yellow Bellied." Drawings on their homemade posters depicted the mayor in a '60s Afro with giant lips, or engaged in kinky sex acts. They broke through police barricades and stormed the steps of City Hall, cheering "Take the Hall!" and banging on windows... They chanted "Rudy, Rudy," in thunderous rhythm, as he worked his way through the nearly all-white mob, beaming, backslapping, posing for photos, pumping his fist. WCBC-TV camerman John Haygood was called a n*gger. Una Clarke, a city councilwoman from Brooklyn, was stopped by an off-duty copy with a beer in his hand who said to his sidekick: "This n*gger says she's a member of the City Council."
Sound familiar?
Look now at the faces—flushed and spittle-flecked at these Health Care Town Halls. Take a good, long look at the so-called discourse. These people, like their helmet-haired GOP puppet-masters haven't the clue God gave a gnat about how to go about fixing health care. Their whole thing is about emptying the monkey cage of every gloppy turd at anyone who who tries to tend to the zoo. Where were these angry people during the eight years when their beloved Dubya hovered next to 'em, distracting by waving a war-blood stained right hand while they stood idly by as he left-hand filched every green piece of paper with a dead president on it from their pockets? When Denzel Washington's movie from '02, “John Q” came out—about the financially strapped father whose insurance would not cover his dying son's operation—where were these supremely upset people like the this year's unfortunate “Josephine The Plumber”, Katy Abram then? Telling everyone else who had a critical word to say during the Bush debacle years to “Shut Up And Sing”...that's what, if I recall correctly.
You almost want to chuckle at their response when the Black dude now in charge points out to them “Hey, you know how that dude was picking your pocket, right? I'm here to help.”
“Wha-what the hell are you lookin' at my pocket for, man? Thief! Thief!”
The chuckle urge falls away however when you read the reports about many of these yahoos showing up at these meetings toting guns, physically threatening people and spouting / sporting violence-filled rhetoric. We've come a long way from the winger-speak during the Clinton era of healthcare reform of “reducing government to the size where it can be dragged into the bathroom and drowned it in the bathtub”. That phraseology while violent wasn't as overtly aggressive. It smacked of a certain wonky benign-ness. The new “bitter” wingnut front line at these gatherings are a whole 'nother smoke. These aren't the “wonks”—those K Streeters lost out last November and have cannily ceded the grunt work to the whackjobs in their small but exceedingly dangerous base. Wannabe Mel Gibsons in “The Patriot” jiggling their musket balls while openly talking of feeding the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Drowning? They're about shanking, shelling, and shotgunning reform this time around. They have no problem whatsoever with playing the violence card with the people pushing the reform for its avatar, and again—challenging said avatar's authority with the unbridled happiness of their warm guns.
Experts who track hate groups across the U.S. are growing increasingly concerned over violent rhetoric targeted at President Obama, especially as the debate over health care intensifies and a pattern of threats emerges.
The Secret Service is investigating a Maryland man who held a sign reading “Death to Obama” and “Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids” outside a town hall meeting this week. And in New Hampshire, another man stood across the street from a Presidential town hall with his gun on full display.
Los Angeles police officers apprehended a man Thursday after a standoff with him inside a red Volkswagen Bug car in Westwood, CA – the latest disturbing case even though officials said the man had mental problems. Experts say a sharp growth in so-called militia groups that helped spawn a wave of domestic terrorism in the 1990s – and are now using YouTube, rock music and the Internet to recruit members and spread hate and fear—shouldn't be ignored.
“It's certainly a scary time,” said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, now an ABC News consultant. Garrett said the Secret Service “cannot afford to pass on anyone,” and he believes “they really do fear that something could happen to [Obama].”
“Why yes, that is a gun in his pocket...and no, he's NOT glad to see you.”
What the hell changed for all these frothing fools abut the health care debate? Did someone suddenly cancel all their insurance? Evidently not—as evidenced by the brilliantines who exposed their something other than dissatisfaction with health care animus in these classic exchanges...
“I (President Obama)got a letter the other day from a woman. She said, 'I don't want government-run health care. I don't want socialized medicine. And don't touch my Medicare.'”
At a town hall meeting held by Rep. Robert Inglis (R-SC):
Someone reportedly told Inglis, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare.” “I had to politely explain that, 'Actually, sir, your health care is being provided by the government,'” Inglis told the Post. “But he wasn't having any of it.”
Well, of course he wasn't having any of it, because these people who are in most instances more than okay are actually pissed off about something else entirely. What seems to be fueling this rage is a fear of the loss of authority—a changing of the guard. The idea that all that was—a system rooted in keeping one group ever up and one always down is no longer the case. The loss of absolute authority. There is a deep fear that should the Black dude manage to crack this tough nut (health care), then all bets are off on everything else. In other words, There'll be no keepin' 'em on the farm once they've tasted champagne in the big city”. The power paradigm shifts forever, and for those who've staked their futures (as most of their past achievements benefited from it as well) on the soft bigotry of a skewed system's benign continuance, it's very much a world-ender.
In the end, it seems it's always about dumb, grumpy clowns with guns and deep-seated authority / control issues.
And I'd love to be surprised about these crazies getting whipped up, but I just ain't. Forgive me.
There's a panic goin' on. A quiet riot in the minds of folks like Limbaugh and his drooling drones with their AM talk-radio i.v.'s on wide drip. Should things go the way they appear headed election-wise, you will hear talk of secession of this place and that from the United States, like New York's wingnut haven Staten Island wanted to do when the city dared elect a Black mayor. We already know Sarah and the rest of the “Whiter Shades of Palins” up north are down with that sort of lunacy. But most laughably, you will hear these poor, twisted souls cross up the talking points something fucking awful as their hate-fried synapses sputter and crackle wildly, like downed power lines on a wet street.
This is a thing that we (regular people beyond the media with a grasp on history taking place before MTV's “Real World”) have come to live with. Jaded? Not quite. Cautious? Yes indeed. Scared? That's what these bullies want to get their way and maintain an eternity's unfair status quo that benefits them. So, the answer is no.
But we will call these charlatans, rage-a-holics and paid disruptors out for what they are. Utah's Orrin Hatch, he of the most contrived-ly homogeneous state in the country rushed to work against the blowback his foot-stomping minions have stoked, defending them with gusto on Sunday, saying...
“the crowds are representative of people 'up in arms' over the plan.” He says the outrage is genuine.
And you know what? He's right. It is genuine—in the respect that they are not faking the feeling. It's as real as gravity. However, the stated impetus for said feeling being genuine? Ehhhh...not so much.
We know the deal. And they know that we know the deal. The game is to pretend like the deal is something else to those in a position to disseminate opinion to the masses in big, meaty chunks. The truth doesn't matter if the lie is what everyone is fixated upon. Thus, Officer Crowley's false confusion allowing him to force his will / cater to his whims in spite of the boundaries of the law...and thus the “Birthers” anecdote salad of “fact-ish” things to force their wills / cater to their whims in spite of an election that went wholly against their choice...and lastly, thus the Town Hall Terrors with their blind rage to the point of shutting down debate, forcing their wills / catering to their party masters' whims as to defeat an important and necessary policy and, annnnnnd, yes—damage a President we know a minute minority of them voted for—much less even considered. These are people for whom justice means—to flip the classic Richard Pryor line around—“Just Us”. And the holy, hot-ass hell with what anyone else feels about it.
Cartman's deranged screech had nothing to do with the acknowledgement of right and wrong. It had only to do with his own sense of fear, and loathing and insecurity.
Is it wrong to compare these flesh-and-blood people to a two-dimensional cartoon character?
Well...perhaps, so.
With that, I humbly extend my deepest apologies—to you, Mr. Eric Theodore Cartman—for deigning to compare the one-dimensional folk we're besieged with in reality to the much more emotionally complex and two-dimensional...you.
I am so disheartened and confused. For decades the GOP has wanted to get rid of some of bedrock most helpful and successful programs, headstart, Medicare, Medicade, Social Security. For Decades the democrats have stood up for these programs and the at risk people that they support. Until now.
