The 3 R's in Mass.: Rights, Religion And Restroom Fixations

"After complaints that there was a man in the woman's bathroom, a bouncer approached her stall and asked Ms. [Khadijah] Farmer to leave. The masculine lesbian has now filed a lawsuit ... to stop "sex stereotyping in public accommodation." After all, the toilet should not see gender, but flush feces with fairness.

[I]f you dress like a dude and alter your appearance so you look like one, you run the risk of people taking you for something you're not." — Greg Gutfeld, host of FOX News' Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld

Yesterday the state of Massachusetts had public hearings again regarding their non discrimination bill covering "gender identity or gender expression" pending before the legislature. Numerous Trans community members and their family members testified (and a special kudos to Ellen Hurn for her courageous testimony!)

Nicknamed the "Tranny bill," the "Bathroom bill" and "an important part of the Homosexual Lobby's agenda," the bill in this "most liberal state" as Rep. Barney Frank denotes has gotten national attention from the 19th century-minded groups and their press vehicles.

The Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) has begun running radio ads warning mothers that they may no longer want to let their young daughters use public restrooms because "Beacon Hill is about to make it legal for men to use women's bathrooms."

"There's no restrictions in this bill as to what opposite gender can use the facility. We're not going to be able to police this," said Kris Mineau, president of MFI. "There's no pre-requirement of surgery or appearance or anything else."

Mineau said the bill would make it easier for the thousands of registered sex offenders in Massachusetts to gain access to children and women in public restrooms by claiming they are transgender.

Clearly there are a number of flaws in Mineau and MFI's convoluted logic. Foremost is that sexual predators tend to hang around where children congregate – places like parks and game rooms, the malls or adjacent to school grounds. Since when did America's daughters start hanging out at the public restrooms? Typically they are preyed upon when their defenses are down, and to do so, predators have to find situations that are sublime and seemingly innocent, such as being approached by the adult male in a park or near the school looking for a lost dog, or in a mall asking for directions to a store.

How sublime and disarming do they think it will be for their daughters to be approached by an adult male in a women's restroom and have him "get the drop on them?" Seriously?

Additionally, If they're felonious sexual predators, then being genteel about appropriate restrooms is the last thing weighing on their mind. If they're in the mood to commit such an act, then a "Ladies" sign or a female silhouette icon on the door won't be stopping their quest: Trans identity my ass! It'll be "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!"

If they're so concerned about sex-segregating the bathrooms to the Nth degree as per their birth certificates regardless of what gender someone presents as in public, then where does this end? Will we now need laws declaring male and female bathrooms in every home in America? We can't use the same restroom! Oh, that's right! It's family! There's no such thing as family incest or molestation, is there? Yeah, right!

And since it's the parks, game rooms and malls that attract both young daughters and those sex-offenders following them waiting for an opportunity, will sex-segrated malls be next? How about sex-segregating parks and playgrounds too? Don't want men around those places. There have even been infrequent incidences of daughters being molested or being preyed upon where people pray! As in churches! So should we also begin sex-segregating churches in order to keep daughters as far away from all men as possible? Lord knows there's a higher occurrence of these incidences from "men of the cloth" and Sunday School teachers than there are with Trans women. If it's a potential threat, segregate them all stringently beforehand – don't wait!

With all this segregation by the sexes, maybe the orthodox Sunnis in Saudi Arabia are onto something with that concept of "only men" and "only women" in various public functions. Perhaps America's family associations need to look to them for successful models to follow?

"Who is a hero? He who conquers his urges." — the Talmud

Another little kink in their seemingly impeccable logic on concerns of "men in restrooms" identifying as Trans women: we're on hormones! No, I'm not talking about crying jags or getting emotional ... think back for a minute. Back in the day, they used to prescribe estrogen as a kind of "chemical castration" for those who used to be convicted of first- or lesser offenses of sexual violations. The reason was simple: it greatly tamped down the male libido (as well as other feminizing side effects).

So now that there are male-to-female transsexuals and pre-ops who have self-castrated, chemically speaking, what is it these MFI types think we're going to get the notion to do in the public restrooms? Sex? From our over-nourished, female-hormoned "male" libidos? Really?

Instead they insist upon these female-appearing folks going into the men's room. Where their young sons may well be. That'll be an interesting conversation! At the same time, folks like Ethan St. Pierre (below) will be forced to use the women's room. Yep, this is what the conservatives want to push into the women's room with your daughters: take a peek at what this will look like!


Of course the Big Gay Man on the Hill, Barney Frank, isn't anywhere to be found on this bathroom discourse. He's not been very helpful to us on this subject in the past, and now that the current Congress is gearing up for Don't Ask, Don't Tell (and that touchy subject about shower usage amongst G.I.'s straight and gay, it's a subject he'll avoid at all costs about now.) But it begs the question: when sexual orientation discrimination was outlawed, was there a sudden surge in bathroom predators stalking kids in public restrooms? Nope? So much for that big fear about nothing ... maybe Trans rights will bring the same results, ya know?

"And you knew who you were then!
Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again!" — Those Were The Days (Theme Song for "All In The Family") sung by Jean Stapleton & Carroll O'Connor

Not to be outdone by restrooms, Timothy Tracey, a lawyer with the conservative Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, told members of the Committee on the Judiciary that the bill infringes on the religious rights of those who believe that men and women are different.

"The First Amendment mandates that no individual should be required to affirm, in act, word, or deed, that a man is a woman, or a woman is a man, against their sincerely held religious beliefs," Tracey said. "Yet this is precisely what (the bill) will do."

Mr. Tracey's obviously a sharp-eyed trial lawyer, but a crock of crap is still a crock of crap no matter who serves it up. There is nothing in this bill taking away his freedom of openly worshiping how he pleases, which is what the First Amendment covers. I'm unsure what religion it is that worships men being men and women being women, but rest assured that they will still be able to openly declare that they worship men being men and women being women after this bill is passed!

Meanwhile it will also ensure that those to don't believe in people who change gender or accepting them shall not abridge the beliefs and acts of other religions who, as Jesus noted to his disciples that "the call isn't for everyone" and, indeed, even eunuchs (both those born in the womb as so, and those castrati of that era) could follow the call – could follow Jesus. Some people actually believe in all of Jesus' teachings from the Four Gospels and wish to respect that, even if the folks Mr. Tracey represents wish to ignore and deny His words.

Some people believe in the Golden Rule: treating others as you would wish to be treated. Mr. Tracey represents folks who eschew that. No matter. It only means that the folks Mr. Tracey advocates for don't deny ability for others to worship and believe as they do, where everyone should be treated as equals without full considerations for a special group, and lesser considerations for the others left out. Mr. Tracey and others can continue defying the Golden Rule as per their religious beliefs.

This stuff really gets exasperating. It's amazing the lengths to which people will go to not only validate but to keep their irrational fears enshrined as the law of the land. Miscegenation, women as lesser humans, slavery, even mistrust of other different religions, all these things used to be controlled by laws of the land because of phobia: fear that those in power just cannot get beyond.

Let's hope this time that fears once again will not triumph over the courage of doing what's right. Lord knows that in this "most liberal state" in the Union, courage by even liberals in their own bastion has been in preciously short supply.

"If I were King of the Forest – not queen, not duke, not prince –
My regal robes of the forest would be satin, not cotton, not chintz.
I'd command each thing, be it fish or fowl....
Though my tail would lash, I would show compash
For every underling!
If I, if I ... were King!" — If I Were The King Of The Forest sung by Bert Lahr as the Cowardly Lion of the "Wizard of Oz"

"It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare." — Mark Twain

The Monsters Have Come To Maple Street … Or Creekside Park”

"Look at that street. It's nothing but candles. It's like going back into the Dark Ages or something." — the character Charlie from 'The Monsters Have Come To Maple Street' by Rod Serling

Well, since my original blog post yesterday got hijacked (read wiped out) by the 21-hour power outage due to yesterday's run-of-the-mill thunderstorm, I'm doing a different one instead.

Yesterday and especially last night was right out of Rod Serling for me, save for the meteor vs. space ship controversy, resulting paranoia and eventual, chaotic turning against ourselves. We had nothing but a typical thunderstorm with heavy rain and not even a notable amount of lightning strikes, but we couldn't explain nor determine why it required us a full day in the dark. The Monsters had come to Creekside Park Drive.

As night fell, it became obvious that our block was the only one left without power! Literally I could walk down to the main road, or over to the next street and see light, but then turn the corner onto our street and it was pitch dark! Literally there was one house with light and another with no power right next door!

It was kinda creepy being the only ones left in the dark for the night. Even though we were civil amongst ourselves, there was edgy frustration. No one was happy, and we were either sitting on porches or truck tailgates in driveways or restlessly wandering the streets.

It was as if the rest of the world was going on with their regular lives and we were left out and forgotten. Our street was singled out for the Dark Ages. Oddly it's how I felt: I had so much I needed to get done along with the blog and I was simply stuck in neutral with a fully wasted day!

So I began today inherently agitated. It also occurred to me the date: today is April 19th. This is the wack jobs nut-out and commit mass mayhem day. It's also a red-letter day for liberal-hating right-wing types as it's the anniversary of the siege at the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco. While his sect was deemed extremely controversial and referred to as a cult, the FBI raid and resulting violent immolation by David Koresh and his followers struck a nerve in neo-conservatives of the religiopolitical variety.

Extremist conservatives saw it as a catalytic date to strike back at the government. At the two-year anniversary, it was Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols who used the day to bomb the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Hopefully the day ends up with no incident, however the significance shouldn't be put out of mind with the current anti-government fervor by even more mainstream conservatives. To wit: the recent Teabaggers revolt. While the Teabag parties went on without incident on April 15, there was one incident in front of the White House where protesters tossed over a box of tea. In the post 9/11 world with America at war, it's no surprise that the Secret Service immediately seized upon the item and broke up the protest post-haste.

"Let me tell you: you're starting something here that ... that's what you should be frightened of! And as God is my witness, you're letting something begin here that's a nightmare!" — character Les Goodman from 'The Monsters Have Come To Maple Street' by Rod Serling


A number of articles looked at the tax day, teabag protests and seemed to note a lack of real message. It seems these are just protests of folks being angry just for the sake of being angry. And of course conservative politicians are taking every opportunity to be front and center, riding the wave of anger.

Brian Smith, a marketer from Greenville, S.C., in Washington on business who came by the rally stated his reasons for attending: "I love my country and I don't like what's going on. Government – to be honest with you, and this will probably be misquoted, but on 9/11, I think they hit the wrong building. They should have gone into the Capitol building, hit out, knocked out both sides of the aisle, we'd start from scratch, we'd be better off today." When the reporter from Salon pointed out that "they" did try to hit the Capitol, Smith replied "Yeah, I know, they missed. The wrong sequence. If someone had to go, it should have been the Capitol building. On that day I felt differently, but today that's the way I feel." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/16/tea_party/index1.html

Neo-patriotism: Love your country, but cheer on any terrorist that takes out the U.S. Government! And this is post 9/11, coming openly at a rally that nationally featured a who's who of conservative Republican America! I recall Pres. George W. Bush stating before his initial joint-session speech after the attacks that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." So now in 2009 you can be with both?

The Washington protest crowd cheered loudly when neo-con radio pundit Laura Ingraham said they were all "right-wing extremists," referring to a Homeland Security report warning of danger from disgruntled conservatives. Actually I don't think that's so far-fetched to be scoffed. These types of protests, full of older, 'rock-ribbed Republicans,' would be perfect cover for agents provocateur. Toss in a Posse Comitatus or a WTO anarchist type with an incendiary device and this could get ugly very quickly.

And the jammed messaging in heavy rotation is that "this is the tip of the iceberg!"

"I know who it is! I know who the monster is! I know who it is that doesn't belong among us!" — the character Charlie from 'The Monsters Have Come To Maple Street' by Rod Serling


Even Texas' own Gov. Perry's comments are being both picked apart and strongly defended by many of his conservative colleagues! Fox's Geraldo Rivera called him "grossly irresponsible" and ripe for impeachment, but good conservatives like the unimpeachable Tom DeLay called Perry a "righteous governor" who was "standing up for the sovereignty of his state." To that end, Texas House is pushing through HCR 50, a resolution establishing Texas' sovereignty from Federal Government mandates. The Guv is also still pushing forth that he will reject at least unemployment funding (though his rhetoric indicates he's rejecting stimulus money en toto).

To that end, with little debate, the House on a voice vote approved erasing 96 percent of the nearly $24 million that budget writers had recommended for Perry's office operation over the next two years. "That's the headline: 'Two days after governor says we ought to secede, House zeroes out the governor's budget,'" said Appropriations Committee vice chairman Richard Raymond, (D-Laredo) http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/041909dntexhousebudget.e4ed7a0a.html

Impact the state's budget and the state will impact yours!

"Here's something you can do, Charlie. You can keep your mouth shut! You can quit sitting there like a self-appointed hanging judge and climb into bed and forget it!" — character Steve Brand from 'The Monsters Have Come To Maple Street' by Rod Serling

Now some are trying to pull back a bit and explain Gov. Perry's secession commentary on Teabag day. Rep. John Culberson (R-Houston) explained that Gov. Perry just got "excited. Texans are the most patriotic of Americans. Gov. Perry's a patriot, he just got revved up."

After all of the created controversy during last year's presidential campaign about whether or not Barack Obama had refused to pledge allegiance to the flag, it's ironic that Gov. Perry, presumably a "patriotic" pledger would make such statements even in excitement, considering the pledge declares: "one nation, under God, *indivisible* ...." side note to Gov. Rick Perry: Pledging "indivisible" means not dividing states away from the union ... just in case the term wasn't understood. One wonders how "excited" one must get to allow and excuse unpatriotic commentary, Rep. Culberson?


All of this revolutionary hubbub is over, what exactly? They've called them, and people are showing up with blood in their eyes. But what exactly is their point? There's not a tax-hike as yet and taxes are as low as they've been since the 20's, so the paying "too much taxes" doesn't pan out as a sudden problem. Some note the government spending, but this has been going willy-nilly for eight years under a heavy GOP-laden government and no one uttered a peep. Bank bailouts? Those began under George W. Bush, and would've been worse if the House had just buckled under to Bush & Paulson's initial request of $700 billion with no strings attached, nor any accountability!

All we've got is the anger, and as so many of the gleeful anti-Obama pundits have continued the mantra: this is just the tip of the iceberg. With everyone scared and in the dark, and the frenzy the media pundits have inspired now, the monsters have come to America now. The only question is truly who are the monsters?

"Throw them into darkness for a few hours, then sit back and watch the pattern.... They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find; and it's themselves. All we need do is sit back and watch.... Their world is full of "Maple Streets." And we'll go from one to the other and let them destroy themselves." — the lead observer Alien from 'The Monsters Have Come To Maple Street' by Rod Serling

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." — Walt Kelly from the comic strip 'Pogo'

Texas Senate Slumber Party: How To Keep Trannies From Voting

“A man without a vote is a man without protection.” — former Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson

Texas Capitol building, very peaceful at 2AM ....

The Texas Legislature is pulling extraordinary measures to enact a law that will strip transitioning transsexuals right to vote. This is a violation of our voting rights to knowingly strip law-abiding, taxpaying citizens from the vote. And I fully encourage all trans people in transition to go vote, take along a witness to take notes, and the minute you are turned away after providing your photo ID (and per the new law, the election workers or election judge should do so), contact an excellent an aggressive attorney and file a federal lawsuit against both the State of Texas and Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay)

Shortly after I arrived back home from Austin this morning, the Texas Senate forced through a passage of a Voter Photo ID bill (SB 362) after nearly 24 hours of live testimony and senate debate. Sure, there were experts testifying from 5:45PM Tuesday until 7:45AM this morning. Yes, we all sat through an all night session virtually non-stop in the State Capitol’s Senate Chambers.

And those of us who signed up for public testimony Tuesday before 1PM finally saw our opportunity to testify before the entire Senate begin shortly before 8AM this morning! Ultimately, the fix was in. We shouldn’t have bothered wasting our energy.

The Senate undertook this one bill for the purpose of ferreting out only some potential fraud (not all) and additionally to find ways to disallow votes from people who may not bring both voter certificates and valid, matching photo IDs: elderly, the poor, the recently foreclosed homeless, minorities, the disabled of varying stripe and transitioning transsexuals – overwhelmingly people who are Democrats.

(And for those who don’t know, Texas is dominated on all three branches – with special thanks to Tom DeLay’s mid-term redistricting – by Republicans).

The Senate also suspended the normal protocol of working this through committee, and suspending the needed 2/3 vote for passage; so urgent was the need to deal with this potential voter fraud epidemic. This was highly unusual.

With this, and the potential for what this would do for trans community voters, I decided to make the trip to Austin to testify before the Senate.

“Identity Matters!” — TX State Sen, Florence Shapiro (R-Plano)

Both the transgender community and I couldn’t agree with the good senator more! For well over a decade, the transgender community has been pushing for passage of a name and gender change bill that would make the process much easier (alleviating the need for attorneys, courts, the idiosyncratic judges and their individual “discretion,” and especially the cost!) And for well over a decade, the legislature has ignored us. People transitioning, who have an ID in one gender but live as the other, will effectively be disallowed the vote per the Voter ID bill.

As Sen. Shapiro said in debate on the Senate floor, “we’re just trying to make sure everyone’s identification matches.” Sen. Fraser as well reiterated, declaring “I just want to make sure this person is who they say they are!” The trans community has been attempting to facilitate that with our own for years, and yet it’s these same partisans who’ve done nothing to attain that – zero. Therefore we have problems getting identification that matches our gender thanks to Texas’ Republicans and other Democrats running in fear of them – and yet also have to listen to the likes of Sen. Fraser complain about identities that don’t match!

"Sen. Wendy Davis (R) deposes (and is ignored by) Sen. Troy Fraser (L) during senate debate."

This especially impacts a couple friends of mine who are transitioning here in the Houston area. In both cases they are going through divorce, and per the judge’s decree, they are instructed by the court to not proceed with any change of name or gender until their divorce is final. We can’t fault the judges in this case: there is no such Voter ID law in effect at the time of their ruling, so they can’t be faulted for violating the voting rights of those in court before them.

However, the Texas Senate is fully aware. I testified openly to that fact to the whole of the Senate, with the bill’s author, Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), standing in front of me not forty feet away, staring me down as I testified. He heard every word – unless of course he considers me a woman. During his dismissive debate with freshman Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth), Sen. Fraser kept asking her to repeat herself, saying “I have problems hearing women’s voices.” My sympathies to his wife.

One thing that struck me as odd about Sen. Fraser is his apparent lack of knowledge of his own bill. During debate, Sen. Leticia VanDePutte asked him if his bill required having both the voter certificate and the photo ID, or just the photo ID?”

"Sen. Troy Fraser (R) responds to Sen. Leticia VanDePutte (L, opposite corner) during senate debate."

Sen. Fraser answered her: “I don’t know. I need to look at [the bill].” Odd, considering that he responded to Sen. Davis at one point that his bill was “not rocket science.” There’s actually a couple oddities in the bill that I noted that seem to open a back door to new fraud. I wouldn’t be surprised that Sen. Fraser hasn’t noticed this, but I won’t divulge at the moment – I need to get this to our House members and have them bring this to light.

Of the expert testimony, Hans von Spakovsky from the Heritage Foundation was one of the highlights. He gave glowing testament to passing the Voter ID bill including studies conducted while he was a career employee with the Bush Dept. of Justice (DOJ) on Georgia and Indiana, two previous states with the same statute. Next Sen. Elliot Shapliegh (D-El Paso) deconstructed the expert’s premise, noting numerous complaints from his tenure among DOJ employees for ignoring data and cherry-picking – as well as letters of criticism from sitting congressmembers. On one point, von Spakovsky noted one claim made against him was a lie – to which Sen. Shapleigh pressed him to admit the author of the letter was a “liar” in his words.

The author of that letter was then-Senator Barack Obama. I’m sure the President would be interested in that.

"Sen. Eliot Shapleigh(top far side) questions expert witness Hans von Spakovsky (at podium) during senate testimony."

Even though I was disappointed in my own testimony due to brain fatigue and too short of a time to speak to all the points I wanted to make, it at least had the attention of the Senate – including the Republicans like Sen. Dan Patrick, Sen. Steve Ogden, Sen. Fraser and my own Sen. Joan Huffman. Or at least they seemed to listen intently.

Once I walked out the door of the senate chamber, I was chased down by Sen. Shapiro and Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin) and gave me a big hug. After I got over the initial shock, both mentioned they were just discussing the courage of some of the public coming up to testify and by coincidence I then began my speech and caught their attention. It apparently went better than I’d thought for the two senators to make a special trip to come outside the chamber to visit with me.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst stands next to Sen. Fraser in the back. If you look really closely at the close on the back wall, you'll see it says 2:45 ... that's AM!

“Courageous” testimony aside, Sen. Shapiro voted for passing the Voter ID bill, knowing our situation and the potential for federal lawsuit for voter disenfranchisement. I’m sure much of this had to do with the Texas Senate’s version of the “barking police dog” keeping everyone in line – Sen. Dan Patrick. He’s the quintessential hyper-partisan and even a radio talk-show, Rush Limbaugh wannabe. He and Tommy Williams are Texas’ versions of Trent Lott and Tom DeLay – hammering all their party members in order to keep uber-discipline and ensure pure party line votes.

“One thing I do know is if you want to really mobilize voters, try to take away their right to vote! They’re going to be out and active in the next election and they will remember!” — unidentified woman giving public testimony before the Texas State Senate on 3/11/09

At least some good came from my trip to Austin for the senate testimony, besides scoring points with a couple senators. We better start seeing some serious push on the name and gender change bill as a result of their awareness of us. Otherwise, they’re active participants in disenfranchising us – not helpful when the federal lawsuits are filed.

Note to Phyllis Frye: we need to start pressing some folks like Senators Fraser, Shapiro, Huffman, Patrick, Ogden and Craig Estes.

On other legislation, I also managed to get the new bill number for the House expansion of Hate Crimes to include “gender identity or expression”: HB 2966. Additionally I also set an appointment during my testimony wait time with Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) and reminded him of our visit a decade earlier and the need to add the final categories to the Hate Crimes bill. He’s not sure what “gender expression” is, but I think I may have successfully impressed upon him that that term is a choice (something that was important to him). If he can agree on our existing wording, all the better!

Later I also visited with Rep. Senfronia Thompson’s staffer Brete Anderson (and personally let her know as well) that I’d gotten Rep. Chisum on a good day, and that we were ready to proceed with discussing bringing him on board. This makes it even better that we visited and brought on a few of the other Republicans in the House already. We even had such a nice visit that chatted about other things like our love for the old rock and roll music, why Lubbock’s GOP Rep. Delwin Jones’ office had Elvis paraphernalia and not Buddy Holly (Lubbock’s native son), and the differences between life in the Panhandle and life in Houston.


After his wife called and he had to leave, I even managed to grab a quick photo with him. I just realized, that may be a first … a photo with the Rep. in Warren Chisum’s office! Little victories ….

“The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice” — former Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson.

GOP Messaging Machine Cranks Up To Prepare For Partisan Congressional Session

“We’ve become a nation of whiners ….” — Phil Gramm on the McCain campaign trail in 2008

Watching the weekend political shows was a laugher again, and also hinting that this coming congressional session will be one of the most partisan, petty and politicized in about a decade – if not more so! Sen. Minority Leader, Mitch (the Bitch) McConnell did This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and the posturing and messaging are already in full bore, two weeks before Pres. Elect Barack Obama even gives the Oath!

Some of this stuff from Mitch “the Bitch”” is incredulous, like this gem: “I think everyone knows that half the American public is represented by a Republican senator.” Yes, he actually said that – can you believe it? ‘Everyone’ must be people in foreign countries with limited access to American media – or Americans who don’t have access to the news in any of its media.

Actually, he’s not being as ignorant as he appears to be with that statement. What this is, as we’ve observed over the Rove decade, is a concerted, uniform attempt (you will see this same ignorant soundbite repeated by all GOP folks with a media camera in their face) to “say it loudly enough and say it long enough to where it becomes the truth” – regardless of inaccuracy.

What we (and the Democratic Party, if they finally get a clue) must do is refute every hypocrisy, every inaccuracy and every attempt to divert attention via smokescreen. Such as this response to “half the public is represented by a Republican senator” garbage: First off, the GOP only has 41% of the elected Senators, no matter you slice it. Keep in mind that four years ago, when the GOP had 55% of the Senators and Dems had only 44%, the GOPers interpreted that as “a mandate” from the electorate. Mandate (not the Sen. Larry Craig “man date” variety, but as in power bestowed to act as the defacto representative). Now it’s the GOP with three fewer. Get a clue, “Bitch.”

Even if he wanted to whine about it being population instead of actual elected members, it still fails. If you take the estimated populations of each state, divide each into halves and award them to the senators elected in each, Democrats have roughly a 181,624,500 to 114,295,000 edge even without Sen. Al Franken being counted. That leaves Dems with 60.8% with the two independents who caucus with them, GOPs with 38.2% (and likely no more). Three out of five may be half to “Bitch” McConnell, but that’s pretty hinky ciphering there! That’s not the attention to detail I’d like from someone in charge of my money!

Ultimately though, this is what McConnell and all other Republicans are hoping for: bluffing their way into making themselves look bigger and stronger than they really are. It’s also an attempt to stomp on the gas, spin those wheels in the dust and create a smokescreen on what we’ve been experiencing under this Republican White House these past eight years. They actually expect to walk in as if brand new, looking innocent and clueless, in order to express mock outrage right off the bat. (Don’t look at their dirty hands in their pockets!)

It’s mind-blowing that after all of the past eight years – Wall Street scandals from Enron to AIG, no-bid contracts, the media/punditry/political browbeating of Dems wanting accountability, Rep. Craig Thomas holding a budget committee meeting while locking out the Democratic members of that committee, and the economic collapse and GOP giveaway to the banks – the GOP folks have zero contrition; nothing but hubris and bluster. Note to you GOPers: we don’t have ephemeral memories! Yeah … we remember….

And in their best feigned ‘bipartisanship’, The Mitch suggested, “I think, at least, hearings, and some kind of bipartisan considerations would be helpful.” Yeah, kinda like the GOP dominated senate did, right? Just demand an up-or-down vote, and point out the partisan obstructionism when that doesn’t occur! That’s the ticket!

Another McConnell gem: “Well, do we really want to create 20 percent of the jobs in the public sector? That would be 600,000 new government jobs.” Well, has anyone noticed that contrary to promises, his own President Bush-baby increased the size of government more than his Democratic predecessor, Clinton? Why suddenly question now, “Bitch?”

“We get lectured … all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings.” — DNC Chairman, Howard Dean

In fact, it’s ironic as hell that suddenly the $750 billion stimulus package to rebuild America’s infrastructure is an issue! The Mitch apparently forgot about the $700 billion we just gave away to America’s banks to help their balance sheets (and produce absolutely nothing else.) Oh, don’t forget “Bitch”, you voted for that! No whining about needing to see the details then, no concern about where it was going … just voting for it. Hmm.
“What I worry about, George, here is the haste with which this may be done. This is an enormous bill. It could be close to a $1 trillion spending bill. … I don't think that they even seriously can defend … I don't think my friend Dick Durbin was defending doing this without bipartisan consideration.”

Well ya know, “Bitch”, you might want to get in touch with the other Dick – Cheney this time. Ask him about something called “unitary executive powers.” You’ve been living under it for seven years, and never uttered a peep about it – it was all good when it was Bush calling all shots. Well, let it be all good when it’s Obama too!

If it’s so bad having the Obama stimulus package, what is it that McConnell suggested we do instead, which will change the course we’ve been on and hopefully correct the nation’s course? Sayeth McConnell: “We could do a middle-class tax cut immediately…. Republicans, by and large, think tax relief is a great way to get money to people immediately.”

A couple thoughts on that: How is that different than Bush-baby (who was all about the tax cuts)? So, we’re going to follow along that same Bush-y road, eh “Bitch”? One last thought … what exactly will tax relief do for the unemployed, previously middle class? How does that get “money to people immediately”?

And when asked about seating Sen. Burris from Illinois in Obama’s vacant senate seat, McConnell predictably said: “I think there ought to be a special election in Illinois. … The process is so tainted … [it’s] the only way to clear the air and to have a successor chosen in Illinois that everybody can have confidence in.”

Yeah, tell that to all the GOP authorities in charge of selecting successors when their elected officials resign. We had one recently with Houston / Harris County’s Tax Assessor (a GOPer) who waited until he was re-elected before announcing he was resigning. The replacement was appointed by a County Judge (another GOPer) who was – you guessed it – appointed to the position when his predecessor was re-elected and then immediately resigned!

Chutzpah trumps ethics every time Sen. “Bitch,” you ought to know that!

Besides, I thought you were concerned about budgets and where tax money was going, right? Wouldn’t a special election … um … cost a few million dollars? Remember that concern about spending money that wasn’t necessary?

Bottom line, there wasn’t really any specific policy that was a problem for ol’ Mitch the Bitch. It was more about flexing his puny little muscle and (a la Oliver Twist) demanding “more.” When asked if there was going to be a litmus test on his support for specific Dem policies, The Mitch countered: “No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying we want to be a part of the process

“All we're suggesting, here, is that we be a part of the process. … Nine appropriation bills from last year that have already been vetted, been looked at by both Democrats and Republicans, could pass, on a largely bipartisan basis, very quickly … I think if they pursue a fair process, in the Senate at least, where fairness is typically the rule, and give both sides an opportunity to have input, to have it – a true bipartisan stamp – he's likely to get significant support.” (Note the operative phrase “likely to” – not “will get … support.”)

See the patterns yet? They just want to be “part of the process” and have “bipartisan fairness.” What a refreshingly new concept! It’s too bad we couldn’t have had that in the old Republican days, eh?

Repeat after me, “Bitch”: “The Democrats have a mandate … Democrats have a mandate … Democrats have a mandate ….”

“Cry, baby, cry.
Make your mother sigh.
She's old enough to know better,
So cry baby cry.” — Cry Baby Cry, the Beatles

"We Hate The U.S.A.!"

“’Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.” — I’m Proud To Be An American, Lee Greenwood

I figured that title would get your attention. It’s the actual title of the new CD compiled and sent out to all the Republican National Committee (RNC) members by Chip Saltsman – I’m not making this up. The 41 song CD entitled “We Hate The USA!” by conservative satirist Paul Shanklin, a personal friend of Saltsman, was intended as an enticement for voting for Saltsman as chair of the RNC.

Most controversial for the press has been the inclusion of a song called “Barack The Magic Negro.” It drew the expected protests from Democrats, and also some of Republican leadership. Said RNC Chair, Mike Duncan, who is seeking reelection to his post and move the party to attracting more minority voters: “I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction.”

Funny thing is, it appears to be helping Saltsman’s campaign. A number of RNC members are standing firm with him on his CD choice.

“When I found out what this was about I had to ask, ‘Boy, what’s the big deal here?’ because there wasn’t any.” said Mark Ellis, the chairman of the Maine Republican Party.

Alabama Republican Committeeman Paul Reynolds said the fact the Saltsman sent him a CD with the song on it “didn’t bother me one bit. Chip probably could have thought it through a bit more, but he was doing everyone a favor by giving us a gift.”

“No big deal” … it was “a gift.” Even if they wanted to disregard the racial implications in the Barack song, they really want to send out to their membership a CD entitled “We Hate The USA”? So this is what it’s come down to for the GOP, now?

Keep in mind these are the same GOP folks that focused intently on the comment “putting lipstick on a pig” by then candidate Obama on the campaign trail. The same GOP who said “words have meaning.” Also the same GOP who, during time of war, were quick to cast doubt on people’s patriotism if there was anything even remotely close to being less than fully supportive of the President or the United States in all its endeavors. Literally, people who made such off-handed comments earlier in the Bush presidency were called in for visits with the Secret Service or had FBI pay a visit to their homes, regardless of how sardonic or unserious the intent was.

Has that all been forgotten?

Now it’s all right for these same folks to make jokes about hating the United States? It’s frivolous to focus attention on a political party who once epitomized hyper-patriotism, and whose candidates now support such insouciant commentary about their homeland?

And that says nothing about the too-blatant-to-be-overlooked dual standards. Can you say “hypocrisy?”

In this time of war (remember guys, we still have two ongoing wars and even a new hotspot on the horizon with Gaza and Israel going at it!), and in this time of dire economic straits the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Great Depression, this CD sent to the RNC members is the message they want to send out to the party and the rest of the nation? I guess these times just aren’t serious enough to merit a serious level of attention from the GOP. They have no problem with their message, supporting the gift of “We Hate The USA!” CD.

Then good for you and Godspeed you Grand Old Party. Party on Garth …

One parting thought: the Patriot Act that was enacted by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney … that’s still in effect. Remember all the stuff in there about taking commentary against our country and our president seriously? All the people who were brought in and questioned to see whether they were benign threats or something more serious? I’m sure many of them just thought they were joking too ….

Party on Wayne ….

“And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I won’t forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.” — I’m Proud To Be An American, Lee Greenwood

Yes On 8 Is A "No" On Common Decency

Ken Starr plays a little pocket pool while preparing for his next partisan fight ....

“I love being married. It's so great to find that one special person you want to annoy for the rest of your life.” — comedienne, Rita Rudner

Just a day after writing a blog in favor of giving a very conservative, anti-same sex marriage preacher a chance to not be discriminated against simply because of who he is, the very people he was supporting decided to … discriminate even further against GLBT couples in California because of who they are! Well, it's time to give some equal air to the other side.

Ya sure know how to undermine any civility, don’t ya Prop 8 proponents?

"Love is never wrong." — musician, Melissa Etheridge

News reports noted that the Yes on 8 campaign officially filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, which (per the report)( declares the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. What the brief reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

He has a point: it’s a brief law with no clauses, exceptions and exemptions. That also includes no clauses that retroactively remove those legal marriages that had previously been performed. Typical to conservatives though, they have no problems trying to create law by expansion that isn’t already in the law. When Democrats do that, conservatives scream “judicial activism” and “frivolous lawsuits.” Well, get ready to affix that judicial activist mantle squarely around Ken Starr’s neck while he pursues his frivolous lawsuit. It’s time for democrats to stand up now and demand that Republicans only follow the letter of the law.

The ironic part about all of this is how the big neo-con attempt to define marriage as not a right, but a privilege (as I wrote about in Mike Huckabee’s visit to Jon Stewart’s Daily Show). Of course, privileges are different than rights – they don’t get legislated (so you remove that body out of the equation). Following on this logic, privileges are granted. In California, for most of this past year, that privilege was extended to all couples, hetero- and same-sex couples alike by the California State Supreme Court, and the governor himself said it was the right decision. That privilege was given, period.

Now a group who just passed the above noted, statewide-voted law which their own attorney noted had “no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions,” wants to use this to remove privileges from other couples already married! Privileges that were granted to them. Privileges that are not in defiance of the law at that time, and are not superceded by any other subsequent law. What’s wrong with this picture?

How often do we see privileges removed from citizens who have broken no law? Sure, if there’s a compelling public interest (such as severe drought, requiring need for removing the privilege of watering your lawn, for instance), that occurs. But simply removing privileges from other law-abiding citizens for no other reason than it “offends” another group of citizens implies that one group of citizens is granted more consideration (dare I say, rights?) than another.

“Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.” — author, Emily Bronte

Further, if we use this precedent, then any group can collect signatures to remove privileges from other groups for the same reason – “it offends our group.” For the religiopolitical types, they’d better watch what they’re stepping into. Let’s say, someone is offended by seeing Christmas displays even on private property. So they collect enough signatures to remove Santa Clauses, and reindeers and Christmas trees from any display public or private – those are privileges, not rights.

Taking it further still, let’s say religious groups similarly collect enough signatures to remove all holiday displays from sight, even if religious. Sure there is the right to freedom of religion – worship. But displays aren’t worshipped. People worship inside churches. Displays aren’t allowed by right, but by privilege. How about removing the privilege of any public or private displays (which aren’t guaranteed by Constitution, but are privileges) simply because enough people of another group are offended.

In schoolyard logic, one shove typically draws back an equal and opposite shove. Elementary physics.

This whole exercise defies both common sense and common decency.

Ken Starr, of course, is the most partisan signal a Republican can send. It automatically conjures up the image of abuse of the court system to clog it up purely of hyper-partisan motivation.

Is this the road we wish to travel down? "Peace on earth, goodwill toward men … Ah, screw all that! I want mine -- just because!"

'Tis the season ....


“Your soul is an apalling dump heap overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable,
Mangled up in tangled up knots.” — You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch, from Dr. Seuss’ The Grinch Who Stole Christmas (TV version)

The Next Revolution On TV: Marriage!

........The Same-Sex Marriage Debate is viewed in Black & White
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was one of my two favorite shows from the days when I had cable and used to watch TV a bit more. Today I pulled it up online and watched his show featuring former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, half of which focused on gay marriage and the difference of opinions Stewart held on Huckabee’s opinions expressed in his most recent book: “Do The Right Thing.”


As an aside, I never previously noticed the delicious double entendre in that statement: Do the right thing a la Spike Lee’s movie, as in doing the correct thing, as opposed to a GOP take on do the right thing (which would obviously be exhorting one to do the devoutly conservative thing). They aren’t always mutually inclusive.

Ever an open and engaging interviewee, Governor Huck admitted he was disenchanted with the way the pro-life movement in America had conducted themselves. In a lot of ways, Huck is a renaissance type of Republican, not really given to the same red-meat, arrogant rhetoric of his party-mates, and even admitting that blind mantras of slashing government a la Grover (the muppet) Norquist. Heck, Huck even supports funding for the the arts! The heresy!

“The party of Lincoln should be reaching out to blacks, Hispanics, gays and so forth and so on.” — former Calif. Senate Candidate, Michael Huffington

“I guess this makes us so forth and so on ….” — National Transgender Advocacy Coalition President, Vanessa Edwards Foster

But it seems one point Huck won’t recant is the dogmatic homosexuals-are-the-unclean automatic myopia. One would have thought he’d be a little more circumspect than the rest of the red-meat crowd, and he is tamer rhetorically. But devout he is, and Stewart took him to task on it.
Some of the points of highlight from the Jon Stewart – Mike Huckabee exchange:

Jon: “you talk about how marriage is the bedrock of our society, why would you not want more couples [to marry] … why would you want that precluded for an entire group of people?”
“in your book, you write that it is corrosive to society to allow them have all the privileges that the rest in society enjoy.”
“Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality.”
“A loving financially secure gay marriage beats the hell out of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline any day.”

I couldn't have stated it any better. "Check and mate" Mr. Stewart

Mike: “The only way we can create the next generation is through a male-female relationship.”

Actually we know better than that. Remember the Test Tube baby anyone? In-vitro fertilization?

Mike: “Marriage is a privilege, it is not a divine right…. Marriage still means between a male and a female.”
“Words do matter. Definitions matter.”

Indeed, words and definitions do matter. As defined, privilege is a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; especially such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office. Privilege by its nature is not equal treatment, but special treatment. If marriage is a privilege, then who is the arbiter of this privilege in a non-theocratic (we’re still advertising we’re democratic here – freedom of religion and all) government and society? Marriage per Huckabee is then not a “legal or moral entitlement” decided by law. If marriage is not binding by law, then what is government doing being involved in enacting law against it for anyone, or even deciding who may be recognized as being married and able to claim next of kin, property inheritance, etc. It’s not law.

Mike: “Those who support gay marriage have a lot of work to do to convince the rest of us….”

As marriage is simply a privilege deigned upon us by some shadowy set of individuals, who is it specifically we’re having to work to convince? Keep in mind, not all marriages are church ceremonies. Clearly that means that just going to the church involved to convince them isn’t going to work uniformly. Some churches already support and will marry same-sex couples. That sounds arbitrary and privileged, doesn’t it?

Is this something that only people of certain monetary means should be privileged with? What impact does that have on impoverished individuals who get married every day – how do they manage to get this privilege? If it’s not a right or a law passed down from our elected leaders, who has to be paid or bribed (if that’s the case) in order to be married?

Yeah, everyone hearts Huckabee (except maybe Dustin Hoffman who’s wondering if this was his Ishtar II). But Mike, methinks you stepped in it here. As you said, marriage is a privilege … not a right. That means that if the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut have already passed their laws, it’s their responsibility to privilege their citizens thusly. And it will never be taken away by anything the federal government does because they are a legal body in a federalist nation that passes laws. Rights. Not privileges.

“We've got gays working there. If they can demonstrate long-term relationships, we make same-sex benefits available just as we do with common-law marriages. Gays are productive people. Some fly airplanes, some work in breweries.” — Pete Coors

Neo-cons in America are probably frothing at the mouth right now. They’re both furious and frenzied over this prospect (especially considering there is still a Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, ensuring that the law of the land passed in one state is recognized as such by the others). Then again, neo-cons are beatific at this revelation as well. Think of the phobia this will generate and the heavy-duty fundraising windfall this will produce!

Yes America, there is still one recession-proof industry that will always have job openings: neo-con, religiopolitical, gay-despising, red-meat political advocacy and lobbying organizations. Line up!

Putting an excellent final-point on this, Jon Stewart opined, “I think it’s a shame that they have forced gay people to have to make their case that they deserve the same rights as someone else.”

Indeed, why should some people in America accept the fact that we will never have the right to deserve equal consideration? Where was it I read that “all men are created equal”? Maybe someone should sue them for false advertisement.

One last observation on this (which will lead to my next blog) … note how the only rights discussed on The Daily Show, the point Jon Stewart used exclusively, was marriage? Why is marriage the only issue on TV which will make the gay community equal? [… to be continued]

“God did not create gays and lesbians so He could have something to hate!” — Rev. Troy Perry

More Random Thoughts As Winter Gloom Settles In

'A Christmas Carol' scene from central New Orleans as seen from the Omni Hotel
**************
**************

It turns out that I got pretty lucky last night (at least as far as we snow-phobic south Texans go): I ended up getting flurried with a few little snowflakes along with it. A mile north of me on my trip to the 99-cent Store (yes I shop there – or will shop there until later this month when they close the store due to not being profitable enough), I got to see snow falling. Real live flakes and noticeably falling in front of my headlights and in the parking lot. But we stayed one degree above freezing here, and my outdoor plants didn’t die (bonus!)

Canal Street Trolley in New Orleans

As it turns out, points up north had quite a bit of snow but little that stayed on the ground, but east … they got socked! From downtown Houston and further east, everyone got an inch and even inches (plural!) of snow on the ground! Dayton, a small town an hour northeast of downtown, had 4 inches! This sounds funny to folks up north, I’m sure. Keep in mind, we’re not snowbirds! We’re where the snowbirds go to escape the snow up north! This snowfall tied the record for the earliest snow ever in Houston. But in 1944, there was only a trace of snow. East Houston way surpassed that. This is historic.

This morning, the news showed a live shot from New Orleans. It looks like a freaking blizzard hitting town – they’re getting multiple inches! The Big Easy is the Big Freezy today. All this weather makes me long for the days back in the 70’s or 80’s when I lived in Corpus Christi, and we’d go out to the beach even as late as Christmas Eve when it would still be a warm, humid 88 or 89 degrees! What happened to those days?

Scenes from Mid-City New Orleans (above) and its suburb, Metairie LA (below)

The weather isn’t helping my mood. Winter already sucks due to the dark days, and the cold helps shut you in even more. As the mood turns sour, so does your outlook. So being unemployed (as I am) and sitting here in an ice box of a house (no budget for things like heat or A/C), reading about our “Economic Recovery” or “fundamentally strong economy” or whatever the hell Bush-baby wanted to term it all these years, this begins looking like the endless dark tunnel. Maybe it’s a black hole? At least when Bush-daddy left office, as bad as the economy was for most of his term, we were at least on a bit of an upswing.

Things in Houston are feeling like it did in 1986. About the only thing missing are the proliferation of crack dealers hanging out on the street corners. I’m noting the foreclosures nibbling around the edges of my neighborhood, and the spike in random and extreme violence and death here in my part of the world. Wild, wild west Houston indeed ….

Foreclosures apparently have ebbed a little this month, reducing by 7%. Gee, I wonder if the moratorium on them and the $300 billion pumped into the banks to abate this had anything to do with that? Then again, why only 7% for $300 big ones?

Meanwhile the auto industry bailout passed in the House. For the record, I was not a proponent of the Wall Street Welfare State Act (also known as the bank bailout), but now that we’ve officially tanked the nation’s budget and established the precedent, why stop now? The automakers CEO’s should all be canned and replaced with leaders with more vision (instead of buying the gas for those buying their guzzler-SUV-vehicles). But treating them differently than Wall Street folks makes as much sense as exonerating one person for murder, then putting a bullet in the head of the next one.

Oh, but GOP senators want to filibuster and sink the bill. Oddly, the most vocal of these are the senators from southern states … whose own automaking plants are all foreign-owned and healthy carmakers like Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes Benz, etc. Let’s kill off the Big 3 in northern states … and shift more business to the folks in their own. No personal interest in that, eh? Hey, how better to show how patriotic you are than being a senator from a southern (confederate) state making sure that we benefit carmakers who are based in Germany, Japan, Korea and ensure we once-and-for-all kill off those American-based carmakers!

After all, only unpatriotic scum would support American carmakers who actually offer careers for generations of American families, even retirement and health care! Better to shove all those gray-haired former autoworkers onto Social Security … which these same senators also want to privatize and do away with. Entitlements, ya know? Kinda like the entitlements these same senators will look forward to once they retire – oops, shhh! After all … it’s only another 2 million people out of work once it all goes away! We’ve already disemployed 2 million-plus this year … it’s not going to be that big a deal!

Meanwhile, the irascible pundit Bill O’Reilly of FOX (Faux) News promoting his memoir on yesterday’s NPR This Week. He was asked about a passage in which the social and political commentator describes people who think he himself is evil as he "puts themselves on the line." "Some people thought Jesus was evil; they nailed him to a cross," O'Reilly said in the interview.

That led to a question: Was he now comparing himself to Jesus Christ? "No, but I'm giving you an analogy that's vivid," O'Reilly answered. So O’Reilly’s persecution is vividly analogous to Jesus Christ’s, eh? Humble guy. Who wants to bet that the O’Reilly comparison to Jesus does not draw the same “album bonfire” protests by the religiopolitical types that John Lennon’s comments drew? Yeah … as O’Reilly himself said, he sees the world is just “good and evil,” and only self-declared good people can compare themselves to Christ.

Back to the subject of filibusters, it was interesting to note how conservative principle can be shifted in just a few short years. The below was from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) back in 2005 during the confirmation process for Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts:

"Republicans seek to right a wrong that has undermined 214 years of tradition …. The fact that the Senate rules theoretically allowed the filibuster of judicial nominations but were never used to that end is an important indicator of what is right, and why the precedent of allowing up-or-down votes is so well established. It is that precedent that has been attacked and which we seek to restore….

"My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President's nominees. To that I say, I don't think so, and even if true, I'm willing to give up that tool. It was never a power we thought we had in the past, and it is not one likely to be used in the future. I know some insist that we will someday want to block Democrat judges by filibuster. But I know my colleagues. I have heard them speak passionately, publicly and privately, about the injustice done to filibustered nominees. I think it highly unlikely that they will shift their views simply because the political worm has turned."

So three and a half years later, how does this same senator think of his principled stand stated above?

The Nov. 7 edition of the Triangle Business Journal reported that Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, put president-elect Barack Obama on warning that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal. “He believes in justices that have empathy,” said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix.

Earth to Sen. Kyl: remember when George W. Bush was re-elected with what he declared to be a “mandate”? And that mandate was to elect Supreme Court justices that followed his mold, as the electorate instructed? Well, guess what? We’ve recently had another mandate. No less than 57% of those who cast their votes for Obama stated that Supreme Court justices were an important reason why they cast their vote for him. Are you, the ever-so-principled conservative Sen. Kyl willing to openly defy the mandate of the people?

Not only is Kyl an astounding hypocrite, he’s not even a very clever one! How partisan is it when you make such statements mere days after an election, when the new electee hasn’t even been sworn in – much less have any nominees been named! Anyone who had an idea that Republicans were going to be anything but obstructionists out to ensure no bi-partisan common sense can put the last nail in that coffin and lay it to rest!

Let the neo-con obstructionism begin! (And yes, America, nothing will get done, the country will tank, and the red-meat folks will be laughing and wringing their hands while they watch the USA get flushed down the toilet)

This alone would normally nominate Kyl for Tool-Of-The-Day. But no … Joe The Plumber (yes, he’s back in the news) wins that one! Yep, Joe The Plumber’s Tool came out in the news saying he was “appalled” with Sen. John “My Friend” McCain, specifically for his reasons for voting for the Wall Street Welfare State (WSWS) Act (aka: the bank bailout). “I was angry," Wurzelbacher told conservative radio host Glenn Beck on Tuesday. "In fact, I wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him."

Interesting! There’s only one problem with this … why did he even get on the McCain “Straight People Talking” Bus in the first place when this occurred AFTER the WSWS Act passed and was signed by Bush-baby? Yeah, Plumber’s Tool, go ahead and use that as an excuse … when you didn’t even hit the TV airwaves until the night of the second presidential debate! Joe, do you make it a habit to put your name and face all over the media when you can’t stand the policy positions of the guy you’re shilling for? So how are we to ever believe you on anything when you can pull such straight-faced public deceit, you who stated publicly you want to run for political office against Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)! What a credible guy – NOT!

Meanwhile, the Plumber Tool had only praise for McCain’s running-mate, calling Sarah Palin “the real deal.

"It disgusts me on how often [the media] try to bash her just for her sincerity," he said. "She really wants to work for America." Yeah, I hear the paychecks are nice … and the clothing budgets are pretty cushy too!

I said it before, and I’ll say it again: if the neo-con base has their way, the future GOP ticket will be “Pit Bull With Lipstick” Palin and “Joe The Plumber’s Tool” Wurzelbacher. They’ve captured the minds of Republican America …. You betcha!

Lost Without A Clue

It was one month ago today when we elected our newest President-elect, Barack Obama. And of course, with only a month and a half left, it’s now time to review our outgoing president’s legacy. I just happened to come across some excerpts of an interview on Whitehouse.gov of the current President George W. Bush, by Doro Bush Koch (his sister) and commissioned by StoryCorps.

Admittedly these were softballs, as you can imagine (it’s his little sis, after all). But the answers have to be seen to be believed!

STORYCORPS: How do you want to be remembered, and what are you most proud of?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: … I surrounded myself with good people. I carefully considered the advice of smart, capable people and made tough decisions.

Yes, he did say that. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and of course, Donald Rumsfeld – all the good folks who gave us the lasting “victorious” legacy of the War in Iraq! Our decider continued ….

BUSH: I'd like to be a President (known) as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace; that focused on individuals rather than process … that helped elderly people get prescription drugs and Medicare as a part of the basic package; that came to Washington, D.C., with a set of political statements and worked as hard as I possibly could to do what I told the American people I would do.

… like reducing the size of government, reaching across the aisle and working in a bipartisan manner, not to engage America in nation-building or have a situation where two of America’s brigades were not ready for deployment (as under Bill Clinton), or capturing Osama bin Laden – dead or alive. Right ….

STORYCORPS: Mr. President, one of your education initiatives is the No Child Left Behind. Can you reflect on that a little bit?

BUSH: I think the No Child Left Behind Act is one of the significant achievements of my Administration because we said loud and clear to educators, parents, and children that we expect the best for every child, that we believe every child can learn, and that in return for Federal money we expect there to be an accountability system in place to determine whether every child is learning to read, write, and add and subtract.

But more importantly, it focused the country's attention on the fact that we had an achievement gap that – you know, white kids were reading better in the 4th grade than Latinos or African American kids. And I'm very proud of that accomplishment, and I appreciate all those here in Washington and around the country that have worked hard to see that the promise of No Child Left Behind has been fulfilled.

An unfunded mandate along with budget cuts to school systems across the country (thanks to the tax cuts), teachers giving up the profession in frustration and even schools being discredited and leaving students to crowd into to other still-open schools. Oh – high school drop out rates have risen too, can’t forget that! With all this, Bush’s promise has been fulfilled! Victory.

STORYCORPS: What role does faith play in your day-to-day life?

BUSH: I've been in the Bible every day since I've been the President ….

He’s been IN the Bible – must’ve missed those chapters. Yes, another instance of baffling President-speak.

BUSH: I would advise politicians, however, to be careful about faith in the public arena. ...In other words, politicians should not be judgmental people based upon their faith. They should recognize -- as least I have recognized I am a lowly sinner seeking redemption, and therefore have been very careful about saying (accept) my faith or you're bad. In other words, if you don't accept what I believe, you're a bad person.

And the greatness of America -- it really is -- is that you can worship or not worship and be equally American. And it doesn't matter how you choose to worship; you're equally American.

What country has he been living in? Just recently came the press note about an Egyptian-born physicist from Pittsburgh who was smeared by the Feds, lost his job and was jailed without ever seeing charges (which subsequently ended up being dropped), was then unable to find work in his profession and so now is moving with his American-born wife back to Egypt. A Muslim by faith, he was declared a security risk for unknown reasons and had his security risk stripped. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08336/931846-192.stm?cmpid=HBEHTML

According to a Boston physicist, also Muslim, who barely knew the scientist from Pittsburgh, he’s being questioned now.

Bush has stood by while anyone with an R next to their name have declared America being founded on “Christian principles” and made clear by actions if not words that all other faiths: whether Jewish or Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon or Muslim are treated as suspect and “lesser than” in this America where freedom of religion is supposed to be constitutional.

Presuming he’s not a pathological liar, how is it this guy can be so clueless and still have been President for the past eight years?

The above interview underscores the ABC News personal interview with Bush which was just as bat-shit crazy:

CHARLIE GIBSON: Mr. President, let's start with the economy because it's what's on everybody's mind. Your successor will inherit not just a troubled economy, but an economy in crisis. Did you miss any signals that this would –?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, we anticipated some issues revolving around Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and early in my administration called for a regulator…. I can remember sitting in the Roosevelt Room with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke and others, and they said to me that if we don't act boldly, Mr. President, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression.

GIBSON: When was that?

BUSH: That was, I would say, five weeks, four weeks after we began to deal with some -- like AIG. And that was right before we went to Congress for the $700 billion.

Did you catch that? Direct from the transcript of the show, the Shrubber Duckling claims he caught issues about the financial meltdown “early in my administriation” and when asked when: “five weeks, four weeks after we began to deal with some – like AIG”! Right before everyone’s eyes, just good old ‘aw shucks’ duplicity and smiles! Bush continued on his answer:

BUSH: And my attitude is, is that if that’s the case, this administration will do everything we can to safeguard the financial system. And that’s what we’ve been doing.

And I’m sorry it’s happening, of course. Obviously I don’t like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401Ks. On the other hand, the American people got to know that we will safeguard the system. …

And eventually, however, this economy will recover.

Bush kept repeating “on the other hand” in about half of his first six answers. He apparently had internal struggles between both hands, but it seems he was always listening to that “other hand.” It’s the other hand that seems to have gotten us in trouble.

GIBSON: But was there an "uh-oh" moment -- and I could probably use stronger language than that – when you thought this really could be bad –?

BUSH: … When you have the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed say, if we don't act boldly, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression, that's an "uh-oh" moment. But you got to understand, leading up to that we had been bailing water in this way: AIG was failing; other big houses on Wall Street needed to be merged, one failed –

GIBSON: When you add it all up, you've got about $7.5 trillion in funded and unfunded backing of securities now.

BUSH: Yes.

GIBSON: And that's about half of what our economy is in its whole. Does that scare the willikers out of you?

BUSH: What scared me is not doing anything, which would have caused there to be a huge financial meltdown and the conceivable scenario that we'd have been in a depression greater than the Great Depression.

On the other hand, a lot of the -- you know, these -- some of these are investments. I've got faith that the economy will recover. As a matter of fact, I'm confident it will recover. I can't tell you exactly the moment, but when it does recover, a lot of the assets now owned by the government will be sold. And I can't guarantee that we'll get all our money back, but it's conceivable we could.

There’s that other hand again. And whatever “willikers” are, yeah, they’re scared out of me ….

GIBSON: Do you feel in any way responsible for what's happening?

BUSH: You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President.

… And when people review the history of this administration, people will say that this administration tried hard to get a regulator.

Huh?

GIBSON: How high do you think unemployment will go?

BUSH: Too high. I mean, anybody unemployed is too much. And I – I'm not a very good economic forecaster.

Using some Bushian logic: on one hand, Bush-baby did accurately predict that we were going into a recession after only the one final negative quarter of Clinton’s presidency. Sure enough, after Bush’s first quarter, he was spot on that we were then officially in a recession. On the other hand, Bush was noting last December how our economy was “fundamentally strong” … and we know as of yesterday that our economy has officially been in a recession (after the fact) since last December. That troubling other hand ended up being right again!

BUSH: I do know that we are taking steps to make sure -- see, the most difficult thing about this is that a lot of people out there in Main Street wonder why the government is having to act because Wall Street went on a binge. And I'm one, frankly -- at first. …

And on the other hand, though, when you're the President and somebody says, we better move big, Mr. President, otherwise we could have a depression greater than the Great -- we're moving big. And it is hard for the average citizen to understand how frozen the system became and how over-leveraged the system became. And so what we're watching is the de-leveraging of our financial markets, which is obviously affecting the growth of the economy.

One wonders how “average” our C-student President is ….

GIBSON: What were you most unprepared for?

BUSH: Well, I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, "Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack." In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents -- one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen.

So sayeth the self-described “war president” after prosecuting the war on terror as per a blueprint drawn up in the mid-90’s by the Project for a New American Century (whose signateurs included folks like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and his own baby bubba, Jebby Bush). Who could’ve possibly foreseen that?

Well, in his presidential campaign against Al Gore in 2000, Bush-baby – ever the comedian – did utter this gem: “As President, I will protect America from America itself …from missiles and from blackmail.” Maybe that explains why he wasn’t prepared for an attack from outside the country. Seriously, he did say this. We elected him anyway!

But Bush did additionally pledge he’d, “protect American citizens and our allies from terrorism and attack,” as well as, “if they sponsor attacks against America our response will be devastating.” Iraq was indeed devastated. Too bad that it was Afghanistan that sponsored the attacks – sorry Iraq, mistaken identity. It’s what you get for hanging out in those bad sides of the globe next to the real sponsors … sometimes we retaliate against who’s closest, not the actual culprits.

GIBSON: You said you were not going to be in the business of nation-building. And so much of what you had to do was nation-building.

BUSH: Well, what I said was, in the course of a debate, I said the military shouldn't be used to build nations. In this case, it turns out the military, in my judgment, was needed to remove threats to our security, and after that removal, the military, as well as our diplomatic corps, needed to help rebuild after tyrannical situations.

GIBSON: That's the second time I've heard you use the word "joyful" about the presidency, and that might take people by surprise. Even in really tough times?

BUSH: Oh, yes. As I said, some times are happy, some not happy. I don't want people to misconstrue. It's not -- I don't feel joyful when somebody loses their life, nor do I feel joyful from somebody loses a job. That concerns me. And the President ends up carrying a lot of people's grief in his soul during a presidency. One of the things about the presidency is you deal with a lot of tragedy … and you spend time being the Comforter-in-Chief. But the idea of being able to serve a nation you love is -- has been joyful. In other words, my spirits have never been down. I have been sad, but the spirits are up.

“I’ve got a joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart, down in my heart …!” And next time I feel those really dark, depressing days come in, I’ll simply duck my head under my Bedspread-In-Chief and think of Bush-Baby. Comforting ….

GIBSON: Was the election in any way a repudiation of the Bush administration?

BUSH: I think it was a repudiation of Republicans. And I'm sure some people voted for Barack Obama because of me.

Well there’s a little bit of honesty! But note he mostly dodges the bullet and foists it on all those hapless fools willing to drink the Kool-Aid and devotedly follow him these past eight years! Beware who you devoutly trust in politics! There’s a bullet with your name on it too….

GIBSON: Given the fact that you did start campaigning for change, said you were going to change the ways of Washington, do you feel you did in any way? Or did 9/11 really stand in the way of doing it?

BUSH: No, you know -- actually, 9/11 unified the country, and that was a moment where Washington decided to work together. I think one of the big disappointments of the presidency has been the fact that the tone in Washington got worse, not better.

Having said that, there were some moments of strong bipartisanship. I mean, No Child Left Behind Act, for example, or eventually funding our troops. … I mean, there were moments of bipartisanship. But the tone was rough. And I was obviously partially responsible because I was the President, although I tried hard not to call people names and bring the office down during my presidency.

“You’re either with us or you’re against us.” While the President himself declared this in regards to countries around the world regarding our war on terror, it was also used widely by conservative politicians, their campaigns against Democrats and neo-conservative punditry alike to divide America into Toby Keith support-the-President-right-or-wrong vs. Dixie Chicks free-speech-about-when-wrong-making-it-right. He should’ve known that his own Turdblossom Rove would use it widely in the Tom DeLay / Republican America Forever mindset.

GIBSON: I guess the bottom-line question I'm asking you is, do you feel you were in any way able to change Washington? Or do you feel --

BUSH: I think we did. I think we brought a results-oriented government, and we insisted that people focus on results, not process, and on a variety of reforms ….

Yes, it’s really his quote. He’s as sharp as a bag of ball-peen hammers! Sometimes you can find humor in the most unexpected places!

GIBSON: As you leave, what do you think the country's feeling is about George W. Bush?

BUSH: I don't know. I hope they feel that this is a guy that came, didn't sell his soul for politics, had to make some tough decisions, and did so in a principled way. I'll be frank with you. I don't spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don't worry about long-term history, either, since I'm not going to be around to read it – (laughter) ….

Principled. So stealing from the poor and middle-class and giving to the rich wasn’t accident. This is a principled decision, and so what if everyone stops buying! Fundamentally strong economy ….

GIBSON: You've always said there's no do-overs as President. If you had one?

BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?

BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.

GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.

BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.

Yeah … why speculate over things that never crossed your mind in the first place? It’s not like there was ever a notion not to invade Iraq ….

GIBSON: Greatest accomplishment? The one thing you're proudest of?

BUSH: I keep recognizing we're in a war against ideological thugs and keeping America safe.

GIBSON: How do you mentally adjust for life after January 20th?

BUSH: … obviously this financial situation makes it really hard to think about what life's going to be when we get out of here, because I've spent a lot of time thinking about people who are losing work, or watching their 401Ks go down.

Yeah, this free market stuff of shipping American jobs out to get the rock-bottom labor prices worked only for a bit. It’s not so good once America stops buying things (because they can’t afford them any more!) Now it’s affecting businesses bottom lines because they can’t move their product, affecting those Wall Street 401Ks!

GIBSON: So what do you anticipate the feeling will be? I'm always wondering what's going through the mind of that -- it's always been a man -- walking down the Capitol steps, getting on the helicopter, flying out for the last flight on Air Force One, and suddenly realizing his life has just changed totally.

BUSH: Well, first of all, no one will be more relieved than my mother and dad, because one of the things I learned during his presidency is being the son of the President is a lot tougher than being the President. I mean, it is really agonizing to have somebody you truly love get banged around in the political process. It was hard. And so, no doubt they're going to be relieved to have their boy out of the limelight. And I bet a lot of our friends will be relieved, too.

That was a good belly laugh! It’s tougher being the son of the president than the President! Always thinking of others, isn’t he?

GIBSON: Is there one more deal in you? Is there one more thing you really want to achieve?

BUSH: That's an interesting question. I'm confident -- look, first of all, you don't get to be President unless you're a "Type A" personality who's driven to do things. And I am confident I'll be driven to do something; I just can't tell you what it is yet.

GIBSON: Is the President too much in a bubble?

BUSH: This idea about how the President doesn't understand this, that, or the other, just simply is not the case. I mean, there's a lot of information that comes through the White House.

Does anyone get the impression that George W. Bush understands anything but George W. Bush? Anyone???

GIBSON: One thing you'll miss most?

BUSH: … and it's going to sound strange to you -- I'll miss meeting with the families whose son or daughter have fallen in combat, because the meetings I've had with the families are so inspirational. They -- I mean, obviously, there's a lot of sadness, and we cry, and we hug, and we occasionally laugh.… But the Comforter-in-Chief is always the comforted person.

Believe it or not, I'll miss going to the hospitals as the Commander-in-Chief, and looking a kid in the eye, and have him say, heal me up, Mr. President, I want to go back in. And so, there will be a lot of these special moments that we'll miss.

That spoke for itself ….

GIBSON: And final question, just to finish the sentence: I will leave the presidency with a feeling of?

BUSH: I will leave the presidency with my head held high.

Well, you have to give Bush-Baby credit for this: he’s consistent. I’ve never seen anyone in leadership so out of touch with the day to day reality of America. It’s beyond comprehension how he managed to live such an insular life and still impress enough ideologues and independents to re-elect him (much less elect him in the first place) to lead the greatest superpower on the planet!

Maybe the drugs have somehow ruined his short-term memory – it’s the only explanation. Even during the Gibson interview, you could see Bush-Baby doing the coke-freak jaw grind, a little too conspicuously. The only thing I can surmise is that his memory has all the long-term retain of an Etch-A-Sketch.

The gates are down and the lights are flashing … but the train’s not coming.

“[His] presidency was rife with attempts to expand the president's power against enemy-run institutions. He held a world view in which confrontation with implacable enemies was both necessary and proper. He lacked serious respect for procedural democracy in the sense of permitting opposition to exist as a legitimate alternative to his own exercise of power.” — Conclusion of ‘Richard Nixon & The Imperial Presidency’ by Russell Renka