Melissa Lee Williams, who lives four doors down from her estranged husband, knocked on his door. He had a friend visiting him, and requested that one of them eat her pussy. When the husband refused, that might have been a good clue to the friend to not offer to honor the request, but some people are kind of thick. Especially when they are drunk, as everybody seems to be in this story. Melissa dropped her pants, whereupon the ex-husband's friend made ready to go at it.
Here comes the sickening part-
While Danny Williams “declined said invitation,” the other man, Adam Watson, told cops that he “agreed to perform at her request.” However, as Watson approached Williams, “he became overwhelmed by horrible vaginal odor emitting from Melissa Williams.” Watson, understandably, “declined to proceed any further.”
And here's where it gets scary. Melissa produced a knife and told her husband that "somebody's going to eat my pussy or I'm going to cut your fucking throat!"
The police came and found her naked from the waist down, holding the knife, and took her into custody.
And the rest is history. If you want to read the police report, you can find it at The Smoking Gun page linked above.
My question is, is it possible that what made her so desperate is the same thing responsible for the smell? And what was that? I can't get the thought out of my head and can't think of a point of comparison, because I myself have experienced this, and believe me, there are few if any things more repulsive.
Think in terms of a jar of spoiled milk mixed with equal parts cat urine and rancid diarrhea shit from eating spoiled beef left out in the sun for a fucking week, and you start to get the idea.
So why did I feel compelled to share this? I don't know, I guess I needed to get it out of my system. It's just nice to know I'm not the only person to have gone through this. Just be glad this post isn't a scratch and sniff. Because you know you would just love to, wouldn't you?
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
When You Need Expert Testimony, Who Better To Call Than A Hollywood Actor?
Today, Tuesday November 9th, there will be a public hearing in Anchorage Alaska due to objections from environmental and Native American groups to plans to develop the area involved in a 2008 petroleum lease sale in Alaska's Chukchi Sea.
The former Minerals Management Service-now called the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement-sold leases totaling 2.7 billion dollars, mostly to Shell Oil, in February 2008. The leases involved are in the Chukchi off Alaska's northwest coast.
A subsidiary of Shell had planned to drill exploratory wells in the Chukchi in summer 2010, but that's been put on hold now due to a decision applied by a federal judge, who in siding with Oceanus said that "environmental information was lacking".
Therefore, the hearing scheduled for today will involve The BOEMRE "collecting testimony on the effect of possible natural gas development and whether missing information is essential", while Oceanus is determined to block any further plans for development. Their secret weapon-an expert Hollywood witness.
In this case the "expert" witness is actor Ted Danson of Cheers and Three Men And A Baby fame, and a few other offerings, most of which is even more forgettable than the aforementioned movie. The proof of that being-I've forgotten them. Well, he did portray a curmudgeonly and politically incorrect doctor who smoked and insulted everybody. I think the name of it was "Please Watch My Show, I Know I'm A Leftist Nut But I Promise My Character Isn't".
Recently though he's been in Alaska filming a movie called Everybody Loves Whales, starring Drew Barrymore. Now bear in mind that any actor worth his salt researches every aspect of his role. He doesn't just learn his lines, he learns about the character and situation the character is in, along with every aspect of the personality of the role, to the point that he literally becomes the character he is portraying. This in a very real way tends to make him an expert on every subject involved in his performances.
Ted Danson then happens to be an authentic, expert Bostonian alcoholic ex-baseball player and womanizing bar owner, baby-sitter, diaper changing, chain-smoking, cursing doctor who is politically incorrect and a curmudgeonly devotee of mediocre actresses, whales, and the ocean.
Who better for Oceanus to call to testify at an open public hearing involving the future of oil leases, with potentially billions of dollars at stake.
What will be the basis of Danson's testimony?
Oceana attorney Mike LeVine said Danson's testimony will focus on the lack of basic scientific information about the Chukchi Sea ecosystem.
Well, he is an expert on not knowing jack shit, so maybe he's on pretty solid ground there after all.
The former Minerals Management Service-now called the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement-sold leases totaling 2.7 billion dollars, mostly to Shell Oil, in February 2008. The leases involved are in the Chukchi off Alaska's northwest coast.
A subsidiary of Shell had planned to drill exploratory wells in the Chukchi in summer 2010, but that's been put on hold now due to a decision applied by a federal judge, who in siding with Oceanus said that "environmental information was lacking".
Therefore, the hearing scheduled for today will involve The BOEMRE "collecting testimony on the effect of possible natural gas development and whether missing information is essential", while Oceanus is determined to block any further plans for development. Their secret weapon-an expert Hollywood witness.
In this case the "expert" witness is actor Ted Danson of Cheers and Three Men And A Baby fame, and a few other offerings, most of which is even more forgettable than the aforementioned movie. The proof of that being-I've forgotten them. Well, he did portray a curmudgeonly and politically incorrect doctor who smoked and insulted everybody. I think the name of it was "Please Watch My Show, I Know I'm A Leftist Nut But I Promise My Character Isn't".
Recently though he's been in Alaska filming a movie called Everybody Loves Whales, starring Drew Barrymore. Now bear in mind that any actor worth his salt researches every aspect of his role. He doesn't just learn his lines, he learns about the character and situation the character is in, along with every aspect of the personality of the role, to the point that he literally becomes the character he is portraying. This in a very real way tends to make him an expert on every subject involved in his performances.
Ted Danson then happens to be an authentic, expert Bostonian alcoholic ex-baseball player and womanizing bar owner, baby-sitter, diaper changing, chain-smoking, cursing doctor who is politically incorrect and a curmudgeonly devotee of mediocre actresses, whales, and the ocean.
Who better for Oceanus to call to testify at an open public hearing involving the future of oil leases, with potentially billions of dollars at stake.
What will be the basis of Danson's testimony?
Oceana attorney Mike LeVine said Danson's testimony will focus on the lack of basic scientific information about the Chukchi Sea ecosystem.
Well, he is an expert on not knowing jack shit, so maybe he's on pretty solid ground there after all.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Almost One Third Of Gay Voters Voted Republican
It was a pleasant surprise to learn the GOP pulled 31% of the gay vote in the last election. When you consider that not all gay people might be open with their orientation, even with pollsters, the numbers might be more, or less, or roughly the same, but no matter how you slice it, such numbers are an obvious sign of growth. It's even more surprising when you consider the rap on Republicans and the criticisms aimed at them, some of which are not without merit.
One example is the failed GOP Senate candidate from Colorado, Ken Buck. When I heard him say, on Meet The Press, that being gay is a choice, I waited for a follow-up, some kind of explanation that would put the statement in context. When none was forthcoming, I almost came to the conclusion that Buck was being blackmailed to throw the election.
You don't have to be gay to realize how nutty such a statement sounds. All it takes is an exercise in logic. I am straight, and I imagine I came to be straight in the same manner every other straight person came to be straight. One day, I got a full blown erection-over a woman. In my case it was an incidental woman model in an old Matt Helm movie. She uttered no lines in the film, I don't recall her name, she was just a model in what if I remember correctly was see-through lingerie.
There was no choice involved. I didn't sit there thinking, you know I think I'd better make a decision. Do I want to experience sexual desire over Dean Martin, or over this random female bit player without a speaking part who just happens to look hot?
Some time after this, I experienced my first wet dream, involving a female classmate at my elementary school. The strange thing about that was, this was a girl with whom I was friendly, but not all that close, nor was I particularly attracted to her consciously. My subconscious mind was probably telling me, this is available to you if you just make your move. Unfortunately, I was not sufficiently skilled in the art of dream interpretation, or for that matter much of anything else, and before long that window of opportunity slipped away. I just forgot about it, and her, as she slipped more into the background of my school life-such as it was.
For whatever reason which I no longer remember clearly, I chose not to pursue the matter. But the initial attraction, at least, had nothing to do with choice. And that brings me back to Ken Buck.
I think what Buck really meant was not that people choose whether or not to become gay, they choose as to whether or not to act on those impulses. If that is what he meant, he should have said so, but of course, even this stance brings with it a load of questions as to the ability of any given person to be a fair and impartial representative of their constituencies and their issues and concerns.
Republicans should really avoid this political hot potato, because no matter what they say or do they are going to offend somebody. They either come across like they are pandering to one group or the other, or they sound like a would-be theocrat, one who is ruled more by their religious philosophy than an adherent to any kind of coherent policy view.
To say the states should deal with the issue of gay marriage may sound to some like an exercise in avoiding a tough issue, but in reality that is the legitimate federalist approach. There is no excuse to allow for yet more federal government intrusion into what should be a state prerogative. Sure, you can infer a constitutional right to gay marriage, as easily as you can infer a "right to life" for the unborn, but its nebulous at best.
Bear in mind, although 31% of gays voted Republican, this has got to be seen as a national average. What do you want to bet that in Colorado, the numbers weren't quite so good for Ken Buck? Now I'm not suggesting that the GOP simply pander to prospective gay voters in the hopes of improving their share of that voter demographic. For one thing, the fact that they got 31% to begin with proves that is unnecessary.
Still, there are some things they can and should do. The Defense of Marriage Act is a cynical piece of legislation that should be repealed, as it is just one more federal intrusion on the prerogative of the states no better or worse than any similar measure from the other end of the spectrum. By the same token, any kind of federal law mandating the states provide for gay marriage rights, or any such decree by judicial fiat, is similarly inadvisable, and frankly unacceptable.
A simple party platform affirming the rights of gay Americans as equal citizens, with rights neither inferior nor superior to other Americans, as predicated by any simple reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, entitled to all the rights and protections of other Americans, should suffice. This would not have to imply a support for gay marriage or adoption, things that, again, should be decided at the state level.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid even this relatively minor move would be met with howls of protest by many of the rank-and-file traditional Republican voters, so its probably never going to happen. In addition, some of the more radical gay activists would view it as a transparent attempt to gain support, a paper tiger with no teeth and with bleeding gums. So what else is there?
DADT is something where there can and should be room for honest and open debate, with each side of the equation receiving a fair hearing. A person's sexuality should not be an impediment to promotion in rank nor should it be a consideration of job security, but on the other hand any changes in policy should be approached with caution and respect. My own feeling is the military brass should set their own rules, with some civilian oversight. I'm reasonably sure it would turn out better than some heavy handed decree from the civilian authorities which would then be turned into a political football on both sides. It would probably come down to a ban on fraternization, which is in place anyway in general terms, and that would be the extent of it.
There are other things, but no matter what policy you approach, its going to encounter storms of protest and discontent. There's nothing you can do about that, but people should remember, gay rights and homosexuality was never an issue or a controversy until gay activists made it so. I'm sure there are many who would question that, but remember this-most of the laws against homosexuality were in place from a time when one could be prosecuted for having sex with a married woman, or for having sex out of wedlock, or for engaging in interracial sex. They were put in place during a time and place when morals and ethics were decreed by a relatively small cabal of social leaders, and those who acted against their mores were strictly stigmatized. It wasn't just gays, it was a lot of different actions that could get you ostracized by your local communities and society at large. Back in those days, if a woman or a younger girl had a child out of wedlock, she was automatically considered a whore, a tramp, and even her innocent child was considered a bastard, not quite good enough to associate with the children from the "good families".
You could also be prosecuted for engaging in anal or oral sex-even with the person with whom you were married.
So when you look at it in that context, its quite understandable there would also be laws against homosexuality. The major difference here is, not many people gave it much thought. Gays pretty much kept to themselves and kept their lifestyles secret. For one thing, they had no legal outlet such as marriage, and for another, they knew they would be despised by society at large, who out of ignorance looked at them as insane, or debauched, or in some cases possessed by unclean and malignant spirits. Homosexuality as an issue was always way, way, way back in the public consciousness-in fact it was all but nonexistent-for the simple fact gays themselves were not a part of the public consciousness. At most, they were seen as a relative handful of individuals afflicted by a sickness that led them to engage in a shameful act. In some cases it was a point of amusement. It was not all that long ago that the worse insult one man could say to another was "suck my dick" or in the case where the two parties were aware of another man's or boy's homosexual tendencies, to call the other person that gay person's name.
It's not so surprising then that when gays finally came out of the closet in the beginning, they did so with an explosive force that took no prisoners. That was certainly understandable, but there's been no letup from some quarters, and who have been the main target of their outrage? Of course, that would be the purveyors of what they see as the traditional values that have always scapegoated them as at worse evil proponents of a sick sub-culture, and at best as victims of some evil spiritual soul-destroying sickness. It's no surprise then that they haven't been inclined to support the Republican Party, whom they see as the champions of the same system that has maligned and marginalized them throughout history.
If the latest election numbers are any indication, however, they are starting to some degree to see the Democrats as cynical opportunists who are using them for their votes, but not really willing to do much beyond lip-service in the way of redressing their grievances. This is in no small part due to the fact that many of their stated aims are impractical, and also because their tactics are to many reprehensible enough it would amount to trading two votes for one in the name of justice, which is never going to happen.
But in the interim along the way to this awakening, many gays have come to see that, social considerations aside, they have as much to gain by supporting Republicans, maybe in some cases more, than they do by sticking with the Democrats. A large percentage of gays are of above average intellect and income, and like everyone else are susceptible to the allure of a lower tax rate, especially when they see how Washington has wasted money. Many as well are attracted to the more libertarian aspects of basic conservative philosophy-live and let live, another philosophy that gets little beyond lip service from the Democrats. And how can they not be attracted to the prospect of a smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government. It's one thing to look toward government as the guarantor of civil rights and equal protections under the law. It's another thing all together to want the government sticking its nose into every aspect of your life, both public and private, to the point where you are or at least feel dependent on their good graces for everything from the roof over your head to the food you eat and even the air you breathe. And this is all the more true if you are a business person or a professional of some sort who suddenly finds that a good portion of your working life is spent adhering to some mandated obligation to fill out forms, making sure every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed-a service that in reality you provide to them, and for which you yourself must pay, not just with the time you spend doing it, but with your own hard-earned tax dollars as well.
The question then becomes not why are so many gays suddenly supporting Republicans, but why wouldn't they?
It's now up to the Ken Bucks of the Republican Party to realize that, sometimes, its best to keep your personal beliefs to yourself, in at least some regards. This wouldn't make them any more hypocritical than the person who refrains from stating that consuming alcohol is a sin, or that the blood of Christ is the only way to salvation. You can believe that all you want, but the minute you state that in public, in the course of a run for electoral office, you run the risk of broadcasting the appearance of making a policy statement. You shouldn't be too surprised at that point if the neighborhood Hindu family decides to sit the election out, or maybe even go to the trouble to vote against you.
That's not to say you should hide your beliefs, just that you should be circumspect in how you express them, while making clear that as a public figure you have an obligation to respect and defend the constitutional rights of all your constituents, regardless of race, sex, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and that, as a Republican, you intend to do so in strict adherence to a literal reading of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That won't be enough to win over the folks at GLAAD or any other advocates of the so-called LGBT community. It is way too easy though to look askance at the antics of the Folsom Street Fair or various other Gay Pride Parades, some of which seem purposely designed to shock the sensitivities of the traditionalists among us. We can laugh or shake our heads in dismay at the activities of groups that demand that script changes be made to movies and otherwise threaten boycotts if such demands are not met, or who purposely devote time and resources to outing closeted gays who only want to live their lives in peace and a minimum of drama, just for political effect.
When we see them acting out in outrageous ways, all but copulating in public in some cases, engaging in acts of masturbation and other lewd behaviors, while simultaneously demanding that they be accepted in our neighborhoods and communities with respect and even deference, demanding the right to marry and adopt, its easy to dismiss them as just another arm of the leftist lunatic fringe, which is in truth what they are.
But we should never make the mistake of assuming that these people speak for all gay people. The people of GOProud might now represent a minority among those gay people who are politically active, but they do represent a sizable portion of a gay community that is conservative, responsible, respectable, and deserving of our support, just as they themselves supported many Republican candidates, including Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. In some cases, their support for Republican candidates might have been enough to contribute to their victories.
By accepting them in turn, and gay people in more general terms, however, we make it clear we don't do so as just another hyphenated American interest group, but as American citizens, who just happen to be gay, yet who we recognize and affirm as having the same rights and responsibilities as any other American citizen-no more or no less.
That should be enough to make progress among not just gays, but truthfully among any demographic group who truly wants what is best for himself, his family, community, and his country.
Everything else in the way of specific policy proposals geared toward them is for the most part, with very few exceptions, mere Democrat window dressing meant to promote controversy with an aim to divide and conquer.
One example is the failed GOP Senate candidate from Colorado, Ken Buck. When I heard him say, on Meet The Press, that being gay is a choice, I waited for a follow-up, some kind of explanation that would put the statement in context. When none was forthcoming, I almost came to the conclusion that Buck was being blackmailed to throw the election.
You don't have to be gay to realize how nutty such a statement sounds. All it takes is an exercise in logic. I am straight, and I imagine I came to be straight in the same manner every other straight person came to be straight. One day, I got a full blown erection-over a woman. In my case it was an incidental woman model in an old Matt Helm movie. She uttered no lines in the film, I don't recall her name, she was just a model in what if I remember correctly was see-through lingerie.
There was no choice involved. I didn't sit there thinking, you know I think I'd better make a decision. Do I want to experience sexual desire over Dean Martin, or over this random female bit player without a speaking part who just happens to look hot?
Some time after this, I experienced my first wet dream, involving a female classmate at my elementary school. The strange thing about that was, this was a girl with whom I was friendly, but not all that close, nor was I particularly attracted to her consciously. My subconscious mind was probably telling me, this is available to you if you just make your move. Unfortunately, I was not sufficiently skilled in the art of dream interpretation, or for that matter much of anything else, and before long that window of opportunity slipped away. I just forgot about it, and her, as she slipped more into the background of my school life-such as it was.
For whatever reason which I no longer remember clearly, I chose not to pursue the matter. But the initial attraction, at least, had nothing to do with choice. And that brings me back to Ken Buck.
I think what Buck really meant was not that people choose whether or not to become gay, they choose as to whether or not to act on those impulses. If that is what he meant, he should have said so, but of course, even this stance brings with it a load of questions as to the ability of any given person to be a fair and impartial representative of their constituencies and their issues and concerns.
Republicans should really avoid this political hot potato, because no matter what they say or do they are going to offend somebody. They either come across like they are pandering to one group or the other, or they sound like a would-be theocrat, one who is ruled more by their religious philosophy than an adherent to any kind of coherent policy view.
To say the states should deal with the issue of gay marriage may sound to some like an exercise in avoiding a tough issue, but in reality that is the legitimate federalist approach. There is no excuse to allow for yet more federal government intrusion into what should be a state prerogative. Sure, you can infer a constitutional right to gay marriage, as easily as you can infer a "right to life" for the unborn, but its nebulous at best.
Bear in mind, although 31% of gays voted Republican, this has got to be seen as a national average. What do you want to bet that in Colorado, the numbers weren't quite so good for Ken Buck? Now I'm not suggesting that the GOP simply pander to prospective gay voters in the hopes of improving their share of that voter demographic. For one thing, the fact that they got 31% to begin with proves that is unnecessary.
Still, there are some things they can and should do. The Defense of Marriage Act is a cynical piece of legislation that should be repealed, as it is just one more federal intrusion on the prerogative of the states no better or worse than any similar measure from the other end of the spectrum. By the same token, any kind of federal law mandating the states provide for gay marriage rights, or any such decree by judicial fiat, is similarly inadvisable, and frankly unacceptable.
A simple party platform affirming the rights of gay Americans as equal citizens, with rights neither inferior nor superior to other Americans, as predicated by any simple reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, entitled to all the rights and protections of other Americans, should suffice. This would not have to imply a support for gay marriage or adoption, things that, again, should be decided at the state level.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid even this relatively minor move would be met with howls of protest by many of the rank-and-file traditional Republican voters, so its probably never going to happen. In addition, some of the more radical gay activists would view it as a transparent attempt to gain support, a paper tiger with no teeth and with bleeding gums. So what else is there?
DADT is something where there can and should be room for honest and open debate, with each side of the equation receiving a fair hearing. A person's sexuality should not be an impediment to promotion in rank nor should it be a consideration of job security, but on the other hand any changes in policy should be approached with caution and respect. My own feeling is the military brass should set their own rules, with some civilian oversight. I'm reasonably sure it would turn out better than some heavy handed decree from the civilian authorities which would then be turned into a political football on both sides. It would probably come down to a ban on fraternization, which is in place anyway in general terms, and that would be the extent of it.
There are other things, but no matter what policy you approach, its going to encounter storms of protest and discontent. There's nothing you can do about that, but people should remember, gay rights and homosexuality was never an issue or a controversy until gay activists made it so. I'm sure there are many who would question that, but remember this-most of the laws against homosexuality were in place from a time when one could be prosecuted for having sex with a married woman, or for having sex out of wedlock, or for engaging in interracial sex. They were put in place during a time and place when morals and ethics were decreed by a relatively small cabal of social leaders, and those who acted against their mores were strictly stigmatized. It wasn't just gays, it was a lot of different actions that could get you ostracized by your local communities and society at large. Back in those days, if a woman or a younger girl had a child out of wedlock, she was automatically considered a whore, a tramp, and even her innocent child was considered a bastard, not quite good enough to associate with the children from the "good families".
You could also be prosecuted for engaging in anal or oral sex-even with the person with whom you were married.
So when you look at it in that context, its quite understandable there would also be laws against homosexuality. The major difference here is, not many people gave it much thought. Gays pretty much kept to themselves and kept their lifestyles secret. For one thing, they had no legal outlet such as marriage, and for another, they knew they would be despised by society at large, who out of ignorance looked at them as insane, or debauched, or in some cases possessed by unclean and malignant spirits. Homosexuality as an issue was always way, way, way back in the public consciousness-in fact it was all but nonexistent-for the simple fact gays themselves were not a part of the public consciousness. At most, they were seen as a relative handful of individuals afflicted by a sickness that led them to engage in a shameful act. In some cases it was a point of amusement. It was not all that long ago that the worse insult one man could say to another was "suck my dick" or in the case where the two parties were aware of another man's or boy's homosexual tendencies, to call the other person that gay person's name.
It's not so surprising then that when gays finally came out of the closet in the beginning, they did so with an explosive force that took no prisoners. That was certainly understandable, but there's been no letup from some quarters, and who have been the main target of their outrage? Of course, that would be the purveyors of what they see as the traditional values that have always scapegoated them as at worse evil proponents of a sick sub-culture, and at best as victims of some evil spiritual soul-destroying sickness. It's no surprise then that they haven't been inclined to support the Republican Party, whom they see as the champions of the same system that has maligned and marginalized them throughout history.
If the latest election numbers are any indication, however, they are starting to some degree to see the Democrats as cynical opportunists who are using them for their votes, but not really willing to do much beyond lip-service in the way of redressing their grievances. This is in no small part due to the fact that many of their stated aims are impractical, and also because their tactics are to many reprehensible enough it would amount to trading two votes for one in the name of justice, which is never going to happen.
But in the interim along the way to this awakening, many gays have come to see that, social considerations aside, they have as much to gain by supporting Republicans, maybe in some cases more, than they do by sticking with the Democrats. A large percentage of gays are of above average intellect and income, and like everyone else are susceptible to the allure of a lower tax rate, especially when they see how Washington has wasted money. Many as well are attracted to the more libertarian aspects of basic conservative philosophy-live and let live, another philosophy that gets little beyond lip service from the Democrats. And how can they not be attracted to the prospect of a smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government. It's one thing to look toward government as the guarantor of civil rights and equal protections under the law. It's another thing all together to want the government sticking its nose into every aspect of your life, both public and private, to the point where you are or at least feel dependent on their good graces for everything from the roof over your head to the food you eat and even the air you breathe. And this is all the more true if you are a business person or a professional of some sort who suddenly finds that a good portion of your working life is spent adhering to some mandated obligation to fill out forms, making sure every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed-a service that in reality you provide to them, and for which you yourself must pay, not just with the time you spend doing it, but with your own hard-earned tax dollars as well.
The question then becomes not why are so many gays suddenly supporting Republicans, but why wouldn't they?
It's now up to the Ken Bucks of the Republican Party to realize that, sometimes, its best to keep your personal beliefs to yourself, in at least some regards. This wouldn't make them any more hypocritical than the person who refrains from stating that consuming alcohol is a sin, or that the blood of Christ is the only way to salvation. You can believe that all you want, but the minute you state that in public, in the course of a run for electoral office, you run the risk of broadcasting the appearance of making a policy statement. You shouldn't be too surprised at that point if the neighborhood Hindu family decides to sit the election out, or maybe even go to the trouble to vote against you.
That's not to say you should hide your beliefs, just that you should be circumspect in how you express them, while making clear that as a public figure you have an obligation to respect and defend the constitutional rights of all your constituents, regardless of race, sex, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and that, as a Republican, you intend to do so in strict adherence to a literal reading of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That won't be enough to win over the folks at GLAAD or any other advocates of the so-called LGBT community. It is way too easy though to look askance at the antics of the Folsom Street Fair or various other Gay Pride Parades, some of which seem purposely designed to shock the sensitivities of the traditionalists among us. We can laugh or shake our heads in dismay at the activities of groups that demand that script changes be made to movies and otherwise threaten boycotts if such demands are not met, or who purposely devote time and resources to outing closeted gays who only want to live their lives in peace and a minimum of drama, just for political effect.
When we see them acting out in outrageous ways, all but copulating in public in some cases, engaging in acts of masturbation and other lewd behaviors, while simultaneously demanding that they be accepted in our neighborhoods and communities with respect and even deference, demanding the right to marry and adopt, its easy to dismiss them as just another arm of the leftist lunatic fringe, which is in truth what they are.
But we should never make the mistake of assuming that these people speak for all gay people. The people of GOProud might now represent a minority among those gay people who are politically active, but they do represent a sizable portion of a gay community that is conservative, responsible, respectable, and deserving of our support, just as they themselves supported many Republican candidates, including Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. In some cases, their support for Republican candidates might have been enough to contribute to their victories.
By accepting them in turn, and gay people in more general terms, however, we make it clear we don't do so as just another hyphenated American interest group, but as American citizens, who just happen to be gay, yet who we recognize and affirm as having the same rights and responsibilities as any other American citizen-no more or no less.
That should be enough to make progress among not just gays, but truthfully among any demographic group who truly wants what is best for himself, his family, community, and his country.
Everything else in the way of specific policy proposals geared toward them is for the most part, with very few exceptions, mere Democrat window dressing meant to promote controversy with an aim to divide and conquer.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Surprise Surprise-Olbermann Will Return
Well, well, well, guess who's going to be returning to MSNBC after all. Yes, Keith Olbermann has completed what might be the shortest indefinite suspension without pay in the annals of recorded history, and he's going to be back on the air as early as Tuesday.
I'm not surprised in the least, nor am I disappointed. In fact, I'm quite pleased. Let's face it, Olbermann is a perfect example of what the left is really all about, and as such he does provide a service.
And let's be real here, this is all the whole brouhaha was about anyway. Olbermann is one of these kinds of guys that are just one step from sliding completely over the edge at any given time, given just the right push. It hasn't been that long ago that he took a two-week vacation because Tucker Carlson, of all people, was making sport of him.
The fool can't even take criticism from me. FROM ME! Yes, he blocked me from following his Twitter account, and when that didn't stop me from fucking with him, he BLOCKED ME FROM EVEN READING HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bragging. I'm just pointing out-who the fuck am I that he should worry what I think?
I was fairly sure Olbermann wasn't really indefinitely suspended. He was just given a few days off, to give him a chance to cool off, calm down, and recover from the disappointment of the election results, as otherwise, he probably would have gone completely off the rails.
If he seems somewhat more subdued than usual by the time he returns, I think we can just assume he must have had his meds adjusted. If MSNBC was smart, though, they'd give him his typical two weeks. You just never can tell when you're dealing with these excitable Type A personality types, especially when they really start to come unhinged.
I'm not surprised in the least, nor am I disappointed. In fact, I'm quite pleased. Let's face it, Olbermann is a perfect example of what the left is really all about, and as such he does provide a service.
And let's be real here, this is all the whole brouhaha was about anyway. Olbermann is one of these kinds of guys that are just one step from sliding completely over the edge at any given time, given just the right push. It hasn't been that long ago that he took a two-week vacation because Tucker Carlson, of all people, was making sport of him.
The fool can't even take criticism from me. FROM ME! Yes, he blocked me from following his Twitter account, and when that didn't stop me from fucking with him, he BLOCKED ME FROM EVEN READING HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bragging. I'm just pointing out-who the fuck am I that he should worry what I think?
I was fairly sure Olbermann wasn't really indefinitely suspended. He was just given a few days off, to give him a chance to cool off, calm down, and recover from the disappointment of the election results, as otherwise, he probably would have gone completely off the rails.
If he seems somewhat more subdued than usual by the time he returns, I think we can just assume he must have had his meds adjusted. If MSNBC was smart, though, they'd give him his typical two weeks. You just never can tell when you're dealing with these excitable Type A personality types, especially when they really start to come unhinged.
The Momma Bama Might Be On To A Way To Cut The Deficit
Although the Administration denies it, the current trip to Mumbai India has been estimated to cost close to 200 million dollars a day. No word if this is the cost for the entirety of the ten day Asian trip, but if it is that would make the total cost a staggering two billion dollars. No word from the White House as to the actual cost, but the Indian past of the visit would have to be considerable. The President's contingent is so huge, presidential entourage is reportedly not only renting the entirety of the Taj Mahal hotel, but many rooms from two other luxury hotels as well. Then there are the automobiles, as many as forty-five of them, in addition to an air fleet that includes two jumbo jets and a couple of attack jets in addition to Air Force One. There have even been reports that a number of ships will be stationed outside the Mumbai ports, due to concerns over potential terrorist attacks from off the Indian coast.
This is more than just a diplomatic mission, although Obama will address the Indian parliament. It is a business trip, one which has been arranged by the American and Indian wing of-wait for it-
The Chamber of Commerce. The trip was almost derailed due to criticisms of the Chamber's donations to Republican candidates, but it was brought back on track. This trip was just considered too vital to allow politics to get in its way.
It's ostensibly an effort to get India, and other Asian countries, to allow more American products to be imported. Of course, first he has to convince American manufacturers to produce such goods, which they will only do if there is a cost-effective way to produce and then to export such products with any hopes of adding to their companies profit margins.
In other words, whatever the cost of the trip, it is probably a waste of time and resources, given the Obama addiction to tax and regulation. But at least Obama, when he visits the Gandhi Museum, will have the benefit of a bomb-proof air-conditioned above ground tunnel to make sure he can go to and fro the museum in relative comfort and security.
And, just to be on the extra safe side, coconuts will be removed from trees along the routes listed on the President's itinerary. Can't take the chance of one of those things falling on the presidential noggin, you see.
Yet, for all the obvious terrorist concerns, with the related and incredibly extreme measures taken to insure the President's security, he does not see fit otherwise to even acknowledge the very real terrorist problems faced by Mumbai, or greater India, nor will he visit the site of the last major terrorist attack which resulted in the loss of dozens of lives.
And, one other note that even further illustrates the lack of any kind of sense of irony-First Lady Michelle, at the encouragement of an NGO, is slated to visit Mumbai's oldest red-light district, where she will meet with commercial sex workers.
Well, that might be one way to help defray some of the cost of the trip. I'm not sure what the rate of exchange is these days, but she might actually want to consider working for rupees as opposed to American dollars. For that matter the Obamas might possibly even encourage what remains of the Congressional Democrats to join in and make this a regular thing. They should take their cue from history, and follow the precedent set by the Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula.
Think of it as Pay To Play. This might well be an opportunity for the Obamas to lead by example. If the President is amenable, and the Momma Bama is willing to put herself out to this extent, surely the Democratic members of Congress would be willing to follow suit, with their wives and husbands too. Since Nancy Pelosi is so determined to remain the Democratic Minority Leader, she could take on the role of Congressional Whore House Madam. Since Barbara Boxer would probably object to such a title, we'll just call her Senator Whore. Henry Waxman could be in charge of prosecuting any Democratic member who fails to show up with wife in tow and ready to put out for the team. Barney Frank could play a role as well, as this is something with which he has past experience.
Let's face it, since your policies have brought the national debt to a staggering fourteen trillion dollars, and you are responsible for running trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, it might not be enough for Democrats to demand higher taxes on the rich and productive members of society-not in this political climate.
Since the Daily Mail has stated that the expense of this Mumbai trip is as grandiose as anything ever exhibited by the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman Emperors, you should take your cue from the Momma Bama. Don't allow her to take this responsibility on all by herself. We know you are all whores anyway. Since you will never set an example of austerity, and you've already fucked us good, at least allow us to return the favor.
This is more than just a diplomatic mission, although Obama will address the Indian parliament. It is a business trip, one which has been arranged by the American and Indian wing of-wait for it-
The Chamber of Commerce. The trip was almost derailed due to criticisms of the Chamber's donations to Republican candidates, but it was brought back on track. This trip was just considered too vital to allow politics to get in its way.
It's ostensibly an effort to get India, and other Asian countries, to allow more American products to be imported. Of course, first he has to convince American manufacturers to produce such goods, which they will only do if there is a cost-effective way to produce and then to export such products with any hopes of adding to their companies profit margins.
In other words, whatever the cost of the trip, it is probably a waste of time and resources, given the Obama addiction to tax and regulation. But at least Obama, when he visits the Gandhi Museum, will have the benefit of a bomb-proof air-conditioned above ground tunnel to make sure he can go to and fro the museum in relative comfort and security.
And, just to be on the extra safe side, coconuts will be removed from trees along the routes listed on the President's itinerary. Can't take the chance of one of those things falling on the presidential noggin, you see.
Yet, for all the obvious terrorist concerns, with the related and incredibly extreme measures taken to insure the President's security, he does not see fit otherwise to even acknowledge the very real terrorist problems faced by Mumbai, or greater India, nor will he visit the site of the last major terrorist attack which resulted in the loss of dozens of lives.
And, one other note that even further illustrates the lack of any kind of sense of irony-First Lady Michelle, at the encouragement of an NGO, is slated to visit Mumbai's oldest red-light district, where she will meet with commercial sex workers.
Well, that might be one way to help defray some of the cost of the trip. I'm not sure what the rate of exchange is these days, but she might actually want to consider working for rupees as opposed to American dollars. For that matter the Obamas might possibly even encourage what remains of the Congressional Democrats to join in and make this a regular thing. They should take their cue from history, and follow the precedent set by the Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula.
Think of it as Pay To Play. This might well be an opportunity for the Obamas to lead by example. If the President is amenable, and the Momma Bama is willing to put herself out to this extent, surely the Democratic members of Congress would be willing to follow suit, with their wives and husbands too. Since Nancy Pelosi is so determined to remain the Democratic Minority Leader, she could take on the role of Congressional Whore House Madam. Since Barbara Boxer would probably object to such a title, we'll just call her Senator Whore. Henry Waxman could be in charge of prosecuting any Democratic member who fails to show up with wife in tow and ready to put out for the team. Barney Frank could play a role as well, as this is something with which he has past experience.
Let's face it, since your policies have brought the national debt to a staggering fourteen trillion dollars, and you are responsible for running trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, it might not be enough for Democrats to demand higher taxes on the rich and productive members of society-not in this political climate.
Since the Daily Mail has stated that the expense of this Mumbai trip is as grandiose as anything ever exhibited by the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman Emperors, you should take your cue from the Momma Bama. Don't allow her to take this responsibility on all by herself. We know you are all whores anyway. Since you will never set an example of austerity, and you've already fucked us good, at least allow us to return the favor.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Keith Olbermann-Worst Person In The Cable News World Gets The Axe
I know its tempting to draw parallels between NPR's firing of Juan Williams and MSNBC's sacking of Keith Olbermann, but the similarities on the surface don't immediately speak to the very real differences.
Here's the major difference, as I see it. Juan Williams was fired because certain influential patrons and donors to NPR had wanted him gone for a long, long time. In Olbermann's case, he was fired not to appease MSNBC's supporters, but their critics, who had over the years acquired a multitude of mostly good reasons to come to despise this shill.
I can't feel sorry for him. He was a hypocrite who lambasted his critics, stifled dissent, criticized Fox News for their own advocacy and support for the right while never allowing the opposite side nearly a third as much rebuttal time as Fox or any other competitor allowed its own ideological opponents, was due to his own ego and arrogance impossible to get along with according to those who worked with him and would know him best, and finally-and here's maybe the main point-he involved himself in hiring and personnel decisions to the point that he had people fired from the network if he did not agree with their own point of view or they did not tow his ideological line.
Do I think MSNBC should have fired the jerk? No, really I don't, but that's their call. I just wish they'd be a little more honest and forthcoming as to their real reasons, which probably had more to do with the up-and-coming acquisition of NBC by Comcast than it did to any amount of air time or donations he gave to Raul Grijalva or to Jack Conway. There is also the little uncomfortable fact that his ratings were in the ditch. That was acceptable for a while, as over the last few years the network had little to no chance to supplant Bill O'Reilly in that time slot. They had to field somebody, and it would appear to be a judgment call that Keith Olbermann could at least staunch the bleeding.
But after so long it got to the point that he was such an albatross around the network that he was dragging the entire enterprise down the tubes with him. That's what happens in a train wreck. When one car goes off the rails it tends to drag most of the others off with it and in the end derails the entire system. On the night of the election, Keith Olbermann's antics, along with those of his compatriots involved in the coverage, were in fact akin to a train wreck. If you happened to be driving past, you couldn't help but crane your neck in a perverse need to see the blood. It wasn't a pretty sight. But in reality, this was a long time coming. This last election, with all its implications, insured the need of a sacrificial victim to appease the ratings gods. Keith Olbermann was the obvious victim to place upon that sacrificial altar.
All that being said, I will miss Olbermann, assuming it is true that he will not be coming back. So will many others on the right. One could not help but appreciate the spectacle of Olbermann as the perfect illustration of the kind of thought process employed by the left laid bare for all to see, warts and all, with no pretense of impartiality, or for that matter any kind of rational thought process to speak of. Olbermann was the left, a true personification of all of its nuttiness-ordinarily a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. But in his case, the insanity blazed forth with a kind of perverse pride and demanded not just recognition, but vindication, much like the insane uncle you keep locked up in the attic because you know if he ever gets out, it won't be long before he does the same thing that made you lock him away to begin with.
This has probably been coming for a long time, in reality. NBC was probably just waiting for the right excuse and thanks to Politico, they were able to finally make that break. They had their opportunities at various times in the past. After all, this is a man who, as a journalist, has a tendency to rely on the kind of disreputable sources that make the Weekly World News seem like the Weekly Standard.
Naturally, he was not a real journalist, he was a pundit. And as such, he has always had his proponents, advocates, staunch defenders who will still rally to his cause, and who are in fact supporting him now and demanding he be reinstated.
Maybe they will successfully plead his case and this too will blow over. After all, its pretty obvious that the stated reason for Olbermann's suspension is not a reason, but a mere pretext.
Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that a new day has dawned. If Olbermann does return, what you might well see is the cable news version of a chemical castration.
Here's the major difference, as I see it. Juan Williams was fired because certain influential patrons and donors to NPR had wanted him gone for a long, long time. In Olbermann's case, he was fired not to appease MSNBC's supporters, but their critics, who had over the years acquired a multitude of mostly good reasons to come to despise this shill.
I can't feel sorry for him. He was a hypocrite who lambasted his critics, stifled dissent, criticized Fox News for their own advocacy and support for the right while never allowing the opposite side nearly a third as much rebuttal time as Fox or any other competitor allowed its own ideological opponents, was due to his own ego and arrogance impossible to get along with according to those who worked with him and would know him best, and finally-and here's maybe the main point-he involved himself in hiring and personnel decisions to the point that he had people fired from the network if he did not agree with their own point of view or they did not tow his ideological line.
Do I think MSNBC should have fired the jerk? No, really I don't, but that's their call. I just wish they'd be a little more honest and forthcoming as to their real reasons, which probably had more to do with the up-and-coming acquisition of NBC by Comcast than it did to any amount of air time or donations he gave to Raul Grijalva or to Jack Conway. There is also the little uncomfortable fact that his ratings were in the ditch. That was acceptable for a while, as over the last few years the network had little to no chance to supplant Bill O'Reilly in that time slot. They had to field somebody, and it would appear to be a judgment call that Keith Olbermann could at least staunch the bleeding.
But after so long it got to the point that he was such an albatross around the network that he was dragging the entire enterprise down the tubes with him. That's what happens in a train wreck. When one car goes off the rails it tends to drag most of the others off with it and in the end derails the entire system. On the night of the election, Keith Olbermann's antics, along with those of his compatriots involved in the coverage, were in fact akin to a train wreck. If you happened to be driving past, you couldn't help but crane your neck in a perverse need to see the blood. It wasn't a pretty sight. But in reality, this was a long time coming. This last election, with all its implications, insured the need of a sacrificial victim to appease the ratings gods. Keith Olbermann was the obvious victim to place upon that sacrificial altar.
All that being said, I will miss Olbermann, assuming it is true that he will not be coming back. So will many others on the right. One could not help but appreciate the spectacle of Olbermann as the perfect illustration of the kind of thought process employed by the left laid bare for all to see, warts and all, with no pretense of impartiality, or for that matter any kind of rational thought process to speak of. Olbermann was the left, a true personification of all of its nuttiness-ordinarily a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. But in his case, the insanity blazed forth with a kind of perverse pride and demanded not just recognition, but vindication, much like the insane uncle you keep locked up in the attic because you know if he ever gets out, it won't be long before he does the same thing that made you lock him away to begin with.
This has probably been coming for a long time, in reality. NBC was probably just waiting for the right excuse and thanks to Politico, they were able to finally make that break. They had their opportunities at various times in the past. After all, this is a man who, as a journalist, has a tendency to rely on the kind of disreputable sources that make the Weekly World News seem like the Weekly Standard.
Naturally, he was not a real journalist, he was a pundit. And as such, he has always had his proponents, advocates, staunch defenders who will still rally to his cause, and who are in fact supporting him now and demanding he be reinstated.
Maybe they will successfully plead his case and this too will blow over. After all, its pretty obvious that the stated reason for Olbermann's suspension is not a reason, but a mere pretext.
Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that a new day has dawned. If Olbermann does return, what you might well see is the cable news version of a chemical castration.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
The Banking Queen
UPDATE: The Boston Herald Responds, saying "Frank's road rage acceptance speech was an out-of-body experience".
"Sorry, Barney Frank, but you can't be trusted."
So you think you are a victim? What better time to raise hell about it than in the course of your victory speech?
When I saw reports from people on certain blogs insisting that Barney Frank was in trouble, I had a strong idea that they might be getting a little carried away. Actually, a whole hell of a lot carried away, to the point they seemed as though they might be on the verge of becoming modern day berserkers. Unfortunately, their zeal was infectious, and I too started to ponder the impossible, and actually hoped it might be true. I even tried to write the outline of a potential campaign advertisement, probably way too late for it to be produced, and probably far too risque for a New England campaign spot in any event.
I also did a tarot reading for the race, and drew the Seven of Swords. Of course you have to understand, Tarot is subjective as hell. It's neither wrong nor right, its merely a means of focusing the unconscious mind to the discernment of trends and of probable though by no means definite outcomes. Of course, you still have to interpret the card. In this case, the Seven of Swords is a card that entails the need for diplomacy, but in the sense of a low-class, conniving individual who uses his intellect to subvert and to gain by way of cunning tactics and strategy what he could never accomplish by direct, straightforward effort. That describes Barney Frank to a "T". Sure, he's combative in debate or on committee, but that's a different story. His arrogance and combativeness is as much of a diversion, a guise, as much as a spirited defense or assertion of his values, such as they are.
I should have called him as the probable winner, but could not bring myself to do it. That's because I had, like so many others, unrealistic hopes as to Franks imminent political demise.
Well, I was wrong to entertain such hopes, though actually I wasn't wrong enough to think they were valid. In the meantime, I thought I should share a comment I received in response to a comment I made on the socialist blog Thoughtstreaming, from Ducky, who is from Massachusetts and presumably from Frank's district.
Pagan, under Reagan there was a massive upward shift of wealth. Now it's happening again and they are going to do you raw. Get ready, because Rand is going to shove a plank up your ass.
What does Jimmy Carter have to do with this? The fact is that there has not been progressive government in America for quite some time.
I take a little comfort in the election in Massachusetts. Some little ex-marine with a Wharton MBA started talking supply side trash in a race against Barney Frank. Even started on about gerrymandering in Barney's district which made the Glenn Beck show.
This guy Bielat was touted as the Republican renaissance in Massachusetts. Tip of the spear an barney kicked his fucking teeth in. Wiped the floor with him and the entire Republican challenge went down.
Then in his victory speech Frank kept pounding and gave the little fool a history of the district and how the redrawing in the 60's resulted in a Republican rep for a few elections. Then called him a liar and told him he was an ass to think people wanted SS privatized. Leveled him, left him with nothing.
I'd like to see more progressives like that instead of this crop of clowns who invite fucking Rick Warren a bigoted piece of filth to speak at the inauguration. Bipartisan solutions. The good news is that the blue dog dems got absolutely pounded. Mst of their useless asses got kicked to the curb.
Maybe what we have that can still pass for progressive will do the right thing and when the time comes that people like Baby Doc have completely fucked things up they will be able to say we were against this and voted that way, this is what we stand for and we have the voting history to prove it.
It will take a while but it can be done. Meanwhile, for you, it's the Full Ayn Rand and they WILL do you raw.
That is probably an all too typical attitude from a Massachusetts voter toward Frank, and in fact, is a typically partisan attitude. Its the precise reason certain politicians and office-holders will retain their office as though it were ordained from on high, no matter how corrupt or even incompetent they might be in any given case.
In this case, never mind that Barney Frank ran a gay brothel out of his own apartment, one which was very likely set up in order to facilitate blackmail and coercion of closeted influential gays (I refuse to believe a sitting Congressman would run a gay or for that matter any kind of brothel out of his house just to supplement his income, or for simple fun and games).
Never mind that Barney Frank is one of the major architects of the housing bubble and resultant mortgage mess and financial and banking meltdowns.
All that matters is Frank is a progressive politician who wants to raise taxes on the rich and on big business, and is otherwise a reliable supporter and staunch advocate of the progressive agenda. Nothing else matters at all.
That is why it is my staunch hope that when the new House of Representatives is sworn in, there will soon after be a subpoena issued to Barney Frank, and for a good many others as well. They should go over his life with a fine toothed comb, though of course only as it pertains to his political career. They should not, out of the absurd fear of being called homophobic, shy away from investigating his sexual relationships with men who have benefited from his congressional authority and influence.
But mainly, he should be brought to account for his role in the collapse of the banking and housing markets.
This is a right-of-center country which a couple of nights ago took another step just a little farther to the right than usual. They were sent there to, in the oft-repeated phrase that is almost by now a cliche', "drain the swamp".
There are some inhabitants of that swamp who will unfortunately be dispatched in no other manner, but go they must. Barney Frank is one of the ones who must go. If the people of Massachusetts can't see fit to vote him out, then we can simply demand he be investigated, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and at a bare minimum censured by the House.
Hopefully, though, there is a good long prison term in Barney Frank's future. But like everything else in this politically correct and corrupt Washingtonian culture, the people will have to rise up and demand it.
"Sorry, Barney Frank, but you can't be trusted."
So you think you are a victim? What better time to raise hell about it than in the course of your victory speech?
When I saw reports from people on certain blogs insisting that Barney Frank was in trouble, I had a strong idea that they might be getting a little carried away. Actually, a whole hell of a lot carried away, to the point they seemed as though they might be on the verge of becoming modern day berserkers. Unfortunately, their zeal was infectious, and I too started to ponder the impossible, and actually hoped it might be true. I even tried to write the outline of a potential campaign advertisement, probably way too late for it to be produced, and probably far too risque for a New England campaign spot in any event.
I also did a tarot reading for the race, and drew the Seven of Swords. Of course you have to understand, Tarot is subjective as hell. It's neither wrong nor right, its merely a means of focusing the unconscious mind to the discernment of trends and of probable though by no means definite outcomes. Of course, you still have to interpret the card. In this case, the Seven of Swords is a card that entails the need for diplomacy, but in the sense of a low-class, conniving individual who uses his intellect to subvert and to gain by way of cunning tactics and strategy what he could never accomplish by direct, straightforward effort. That describes Barney Frank to a "T". Sure, he's combative in debate or on committee, but that's a different story. His arrogance and combativeness is as much of a diversion, a guise, as much as a spirited defense or assertion of his values, such as they are.
I should have called him as the probable winner, but could not bring myself to do it. That's because I had, like so many others, unrealistic hopes as to Franks imminent political demise.
Well, I was wrong to entertain such hopes, though actually I wasn't wrong enough to think they were valid. In the meantime, I thought I should share a comment I received in response to a comment I made on the socialist blog Thoughtstreaming, from Ducky, who is from Massachusetts and presumably from Frank's district.
Pagan, under Reagan there was a massive upward shift of wealth. Now it's happening again and they are going to do you raw. Get ready, because Rand is going to shove a plank up your ass.
What does Jimmy Carter have to do with this? The fact is that there has not been progressive government in America for quite some time.
I take a little comfort in the election in Massachusetts. Some little ex-marine with a Wharton MBA started talking supply side trash in a race against Barney Frank. Even started on about gerrymandering in Barney's district which made the Glenn Beck show.
This guy Bielat was touted as the Republican renaissance in Massachusetts. Tip of the spear an barney kicked his fucking teeth in. Wiped the floor with him and the entire Republican challenge went down.
Then in his victory speech Frank kept pounding and gave the little fool a history of the district and how the redrawing in the 60's resulted in a Republican rep for a few elections. Then called him a liar and told him he was an ass to think people wanted SS privatized. Leveled him, left him with nothing.
I'd like to see more progressives like that instead of this crop of clowns who invite fucking Rick Warren a bigoted piece of filth to speak at the inauguration. Bipartisan solutions. The good news is that the blue dog dems got absolutely pounded. Mst of their useless asses got kicked to the curb.
Maybe what we have that can still pass for progressive will do the right thing and when the time comes that people like Baby Doc have completely fucked things up they will be able to say we were against this and voted that way, this is what we stand for and we have the voting history to prove it.
It will take a while but it can be done. Meanwhile, for you, it's the Full Ayn Rand and they WILL do you raw.
That is probably an all too typical attitude from a Massachusetts voter toward Frank, and in fact, is a typically partisan attitude. Its the precise reason certain politicians and office-holders will retain their office as though it were ordained from on high, no matter how corrupt or even incompetent they might be in any given case.
In this case, never mind that Barney Frank ran a gay brothel out of his own apartment, one which was very likely set up in order to facilitate blackmail and coercion of closeted influential gays (I refuse to believe a sitting Congressman would run a gay or for that matter any kind of brothel out of his house just to supplement his income, or for simple fun and games).
Never mind that Barney Frank is one of the major architects of the housing bubble and resultant mortgage mess and financial and banking meltdowns.
All that matters is Frank is a progressive politician who wants to raise taxes on the rich and on big business, and is otherwise a reliable supporter and staunch advocate of the progressive agenda. Nothing else matters at all.
That is why it is my staunch hope that when the new House of Representatives is sworn in, there will soon after be a subpoena issued to Barney Frank, and for a good many others as well. They should go over his life with a fine toothed comb, though of course only as it pertains to his political career. They should not, out of the absurd fear of being called homophobic, shy away from investigating his sexual relationships with men who have benefited from his congressional authority and influence.
But mainly, he should be brought to account for his role in the collapse of the banking and housing markets.
This is a right-of-center country which a couple of nights ago took another step just a little farther to the right than usual. They were sent there to, in the oft-repeated phrase that is almost by now a cliche', "drain the swamp".
There are some inhabitants of that swamp who will unfortunately be dispatched in no other manner, but go they must. Barney Frank is one of the ones who must go. If the people of Massachusetts can't see fit to vote him out, then we can simply demand he be investigated, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and at a bare minimum censured by the House.
Hopefully, though, there is a good long prison term in Barney Frank's future. But like everything else in this politically correct and corrupt Washingtonian culture, the people will have to rise up and demand it.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Tarot Reading The Democratic Party, Republican Party, And-The Tea Party!
The first of hopefully many Republican victories has just been called, and I have a new Senator-Rand Paul. So much for the crying I was supposed to be doing tonight, according to somebody who I imagine will be drinking himself to sleep tonight. In the meantime, I'm going to let this be my cue to give my generalized reading, first for the Democratic Party.
Now at first glance, I'll admit this doesn't seem to make much sense in the context of a party of losers, but then again, that's exactly what you have to do, look at it in context. What it means is, a good many Democrats are going to be packing their bags and going off into the sunset. The only bad thing about it is, the implication here is they are going to be enjoying their retirement from public life, and in their private lives they will while away their golden years. I would prefer to see them suffer like they have made so many of the rest of us suffer with their ill-advised, arrogant, and stubborn policies.
But, they are gone, or will be. I'll take that. The other implication might be even better. Many Democrats might well decide to take an early retirement-get out while the getting's good, so to speak-rather than run for re-election two years from now.
That might be more of a strategy like many Democrats actually followed this year. The execrable Chris Dodd of Connecticut comes to mind. Get out and make room for fresh faces that don't hold the same old baggage. But the problem is, they will be carrying precisely the same old baggage of arrogance, elitism, and adherence to the ideology of failed leftist policies.
Democrats won't rest, will never surrender, until they transform America into a European style socialist democracy, and Republicans can't afford to let up for a minute.
As for the GOP-
They need to bear in mind, the American people are not enthralled with them so much as they are just disgusted with Democrats. I remember in 2006, I voted Democratic out of a very naive, borderline retarded belief that enough Blue Dog Democrats would enable the moderate wing of the party to bring it back towards the center.
It wasn't long before I realized that wasn't going to happen, and that I had made a drastic miscalculation. In fact, it wouldn't have made but precious little difference if I had been right in a good many regards. Democrats, even the moderate wing of that party, just have a belief in government as the central force for positive change, and as such, want to give it too much power, over too much of American society. That isn't going to change.
But the Republicans shouldn't take that as a blank check. Show us the plan. But if that plan involves a watered down version of Democrat policies, we'll show you the door as well. It happened to you once. It can and will happen again. We didn't bring you to the dance so you could go off in some dark corner on the upper floors and fuck the maid and then sneak back down and act like everything's peachy.
You know what you were elected for. Do that, and nothing else.
That brings us to the real heroes of this election-the Tea Parties!
We are going to be confronted by the spectacle of people rising to the top with the intention of being the leader of the pack. And certainly, there will be some leaders. Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and a host of others.
What they, and we should remember, is that we aren't really looking for THE ONE! That kind of shit is what Democratic Party wet dreams are made of. We aren't looking for a messiah. We already have our holy writ, as it were, and its called the Constitution. Just like we see it as it is written, unlike Democrats who need to look for hidden meanings behind every article and clause, so we also don't need so much as a leader, but a follower, one who will be our voice, our representative, our expression of fidelity to the founder's document.
Together, we can overcome anything, if we hold fast to those principles, and not let anything divert us from that course.
Now at first glance, I'll admit this doesn't seem to make much sense in the context of a party of losers, but then again, that's exactly what you have to do, look at it in context. What it means is, a good many Democrats are going to be packing their bags and going off into the sunset. The only bad thing about it is, the implication here is they are going to be enjoying their retirement from public life, and in their private lives they will while away their golden years. I would prefer to see them suffer like they have made so many of the rest of us suffer with their ill-advised, arrogant, and stubborn policies.
But, they are gone, or will be. I'll take that. The other implication might be even better. Many Democrats might well decide to take an early retirement-get out while the getting's good, so to speak-rather than run for re-election two years from now.
That might be more of a strategy like many Democrats actually followed this year. The execrable Chris Dodd of Connecticut comes to mind. Get out and make room for fresh faces that don't hold the same old baggage. But the problem is, they will be carrying precisely the same old baggage of arrogance, elitism, and adherence to the ideology of failed leftist policies.
Democrats won't rest, will never surrender, until they transform America into a European style socialist democracy, and Republicans can't afford to let up for a minute.
As for the GOP-
They need to bear in mind, the American people are not enthralled with them so much as they are just disgusted with Democrats. I remember in 2006, I voted Democratic out of a very naive, borderline retarded belief that enough Blue Dog Democrats would enable the moderate wing of the party to bring it back towards the center.
It wasn't long before I realized that wasn't going to happen, and that I had made a drastic miscalculation. In fact, it wouldn't have made but precious little difference if I had been right in a good many regards. Democrats, even the moderate wing of that party, just have a belief in government as the central force for positive change, and as such, want to give it too much power, over too much of American society. That isn't going to change.
But the Republicans shouldn't take that as a blank check. Show us the plan. But if that plan involves a watered down version of Democrat policies, we'll show you the door as well. It happened to you once. It can and will happen again. We didn't bring you to the dance so you could go off in some dark corner on the upper floors and fuck the maid and then sneak back down and act like everything's peachy.
You know what you were elected for. Do that, and nothing else.
That brings us to the real heroes of this election-the Tea Parties!
We are going to be confronted by the spectacle of people rising to the top with the intention of being the leader of the pack. And certainly, there will be some leaders. Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and a host of others.
What they, and we should remember, is that we aren't really looking for THE ONE! That kind of shit is what Democratic Party wet dreams are made of. We aren't looking for a messiah. We already have our holy writ, as it were, and its called the Constitution. Just like we see it as it is written, unlike Democrats who need to look for hidden meanings behind every article and clause, so we also don't need so much as a leader, but a follower, one who will be our voice, our representative, our expression of fidelity to the founder's document.
Together, we can overcome anything, if we hold fast to those principles, and not let anything divert us from that course.
Oh I'm Such A RAAAAACIIIIIST!
Yo, why would anybody want to vote against the Democrats? Just look here at a sample of some of the great folks who support the Democrats. Bask in their wisdom. Then ask yourself-who could possibly vote against the Democrats and their policies?
Me, that's fucking who?
Me, that's fucking who?
Tarot Reading The Kentucky Senate Race
As Jay Bookman of The Atlanta Journal Constitution might imagine, when Rand Paul wins tonight, I am going to be celebrating. But that doesn't mean I am not going to be watching, and listening, and otherwise paying attention to what he says and more importantly what he does.
Not too long ago, Kentucky's senior Senator, the hopefully soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, made the statement regarding the Tea Party something to the effect that "these people are nuts. They need to be reigned in". That is a paraphrase, but close enough for me to wonder if maybe McConnell as Majority Leader might be such a great idea. He seems to be supportive of Paul, even though Paul defeated his chosen candidate, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, in the GOP primary to replace departing Senator Jim Bunning, who is retiring, and with whom McConnell did not get along.
The Page of Cups in reverse state is a reminder to Paul's supporters, especially in the Tea-Party, that Washington politics is a rough sport, a dirty, nasty, and even a dangerous business. Paul will be pulled and influenced by forces like he could never have imagined, even though his own father has been a long-time Congressman from Texas. Yes, that will help, but word of mouth is only good for so much. You can empathize with a person you see suffering a debilitating wound, but no matter how close you are to that person, you can never appreciate the dire agony they are undergoing until you experience it yourself.
Paul is going to be beset with all manner of proposed deals and compromises. Some he will go along with, and some he hopefully will not. It's up to those of us who put him in there to remember that he is up there to represent us, and when it becomes necessary, to remind him of that fact.
But for now, let's just get ready to celebrate. Yes, Paul will win, and he will win handily, maybe by double digit margins. Thank you, oh wise and beneficent Aqua Buddha.
But really, lest we too forget, the real reason Paul is going to win this thing running away-
Tarot Reading The Nevada Senate Race
Whoops. Does this mean Harry Reid is going to steal the election. There's certainly been all kinds of allegations of voting irregularities involving the unions, especially the SEIU. This card would seem to make that suggestion. But does that necessarily mean it would be a successful effort? If Reid wins, I don't see a clear path to a Republican takeover of the Senate, unless O'Donnell pulls off an upset in Delaware or McMahon pulls one off in Connecticut. Even then, the GOP would also have to win California and Washington, hold Alaska, and win all the other races deemed as toss-up. Granted, in this environment anything is possible.
Its been one nasty race, that's for sure. One newspaper opinion piece even goes so far as to say Nevadans shouldn't show the world they are stupid by voting for Sharon Angle.
That is a typical Democrat ploy. Such arrogant elitism, like Obama stressing that people are voting against Democrats because they are afraid, or confused, or just don't understand or have all the facts, is one reason so many voters can't get to the polls to vote Republican quickly enough. And lately you've got John Kerry saying America is going through a period of "Know-Nothingness".
Well, EXCUUUUUUSE my Fwench but is it ever so slightly possible we know all too well what the fuck is going on, and the problem is, we just don't fucking like it? Of course, what do we know? We are just American citizens, and voters, who don't know enough sometimes to not vote against our own best interests. But sometimes we do know better, and what would be better for us right now would be for the slimy, smarmy Harry Reid to be shown the door and voted out on his ass.
Unfortunately, Harry Reid has a lot of power and influence in Washington, and in Nevada. I don't know exactly how they cast their votes in the state, but hey-what's a few missing ballots here and there? I mean, its not like they would be missed, right?
I Think Fiorina Will Win After All
UPDATE-Yep, I know I called this for Boxer, but on second thought, and this is not JUST wishful thinking, I can see how the card applies to Fiorina emerging victorious. She will be a Republican who ran as a conservative in a bad year for Democrats, trying to represent a state that is overwhelmingly Democratic. As such, if she does win, she will find herself having to thread the needle quite a few times.
Plus, this is going to be a big Republican year, maybe the biggest in recent (and maybe not so recent) memory. It's going to be a tough call to make, but I'm reversing myself here. I do however still maintain that Moonbeam is going to win the governor's race. That might be good for Fiorina. Maybe Moonbeam will provide a sterling example as to why Californians might want to rethink this whole Democrat thing.
-End of Update-
I hate to think this, but I'm calling this for Boxer. I just don't see how Fiorina pulls it out. That's too bad, but the Two Of Swords, reversed, would seem to apply more to Boxer. This is the first real contest she's ever faced-ever, in her life, I am inclined to believe. If she were a Senator from any other state, she would probably be long gone-well, except for New York, Vermont, or Massachusetts. Her arrogance is almost Kennedyesque.
(Video removed due to technical loading problems)
She is nothing, absolutely nothing, but a leftist hack politico. But hacks do have this advantage-they have people who are heavily invested in keeping them in their place, and towing the line. In Boxer's case, that is not only an easy job description to fulfill, its her natural calling.
It might be close, but I think Boxer wins, thanks in part also to Meg Whitman's candidacy for governor dragging Fiorina down.
Tarot Reading The Illinois Senate Race
Yes we can! Vote against the Obama agenda that is. This year, its the Republicans who are "fired up"! Democrats-yeeeah, not so much. Republicans win the Senate, and the governor's race as well. Rahm Emmanuel might not have such an easy time winning that Chicago mayor's race after all. This race in particular is going to be a big embarrassment for "The Won".
Tarot Reading The Delaware Senate Race
Dare I hope? No, I don't. This five of wands might signify a long election night, and that it will be close, and hard fought down to the last vote cast. But, if it is that close, can't that just as easily forecast a victory for Christine O'Donnell.
I look at it this way. Thanks to all the national media exposure, and the blatant unfairness of the coverage against her, she might have a shot. To say nothing of the admirable way she has conducted herself in the debates. She looked reasoned, knowledgeable, poised, and intelligent. Her opponent, Coons, just looked like an ass.
The people of Delaware might come to the ironic conclusion that if they really want to elect a fool and an idiot to the Senate, somebody that will make the first state of the Union look like a laughingstock, they should elect Chris Coons.
However, if they want to elect an independent voice and a person of integrity who will represent them and their state to the best of her ability, which come to find out is considerable after all, they should elect O'Donnell. It's just a matter of whether or not Christine can overcome the incredibly unfair negatives heaped on her by a complicit leftist media, Democrats, and by the elites of her own party.
Another thing that has to be said is that her supporters are dedicated. Coons base of support is non-existent. All he has-ALL he has-is people who habitually vote Democratic, when they are in the mood to go to the polls. This year, polls notwithstanding, they might not be.
There is a path to victory here for Christine O'Donnell, but its going to be a long, hard road.
Tarot Reading The Pennsylvania Senate Race
Pennsylvania is another one Dems might as well say fare thee well to. What have they got here? Republicans don't want to permanently extend unemployment benefits with no end in sight. Granted, that's probably the only reason its going to be as close as it will be, but that's just not enough. Pennsylvania is one of the hardest hit states in the union in terms of job loss, loss of manufacturing, and business closings.
People there are finding it hard to listen to Democrats talk about how they're the party of the working man and woman and "the little guy" and keep a straight face.
Put this one securely in the Republicans column.
Tarot Reading Wisconsin Senate Race
How sweet it is. Feingold is going to get hammered hard. I could be conservative and say he'll get beat by four or five points, but I think this is going to be a double digit rout.
Tarot Reading The Lexington Mayor's Race
The Lexington Mayor's race is typically billed as non-partisan, but nobody buys that. They just don't run as Democrats or Republicans. But there is no doubt as to which is which in this race. Jim Newberry, the current Mayor, is a Republican running for re-election against the current Vice-Mayor Jim Gray, who is almost certainly a Democrat. Newberry has his problems and might lose this thing. If he does-and I am calling it for Grey-it will probably be because of objections to the water rate hike imposed by a foreign company who brought the lake and water system.
There are also questionable expenditures involving city contracts, and some disagreement as to how much money was wasted. Newberry says one certain project was under budget and that Gray voted against controlling costs. Gray says however, in a very effective ad, that due to cost overruns involving the paving of South Limestone by a company with connections to Newberry, the paving of one particular road ran to seven thousand dollars a foot. There have also been scandals involving public funds at Bluegrass Airport and the City Library, and Gray has attempted to lay these at the doorstep of Newberry.
Gray is accused of hiring illegal immigrants for his construction business, which he denies. And so it goes-accusations, denials, and counter-attacks. I think its going to come down to the water rates, which at 37 percent are significant.
For now, I'm calling this for Gray. I just have this sense that his campaign is making connections with the public while Newberry is mainly playing defense. We'll see.
And, sure enough, here's a poll that shows Gray leading in the polls by four points.
Tarot Reading The Kentucky Sixth District
One of the hottest races this election,and one of the closest, is one that has been flying under most people's radar screens, but its important, for it involves one of the most reliably Blue Dog Democrats in the Congress, Ben Chandler, locked in a tight race against attorney Andy Barr, the Republican who Chandler has tried to tie to the corrupt administration of former Kentucky Republican governor Ernie Fletcher. Chandler has even attempted to paint Barr as a convicted criminal. In reality, Barr was caught with a fake id when he was a college student, something he didn't mention when filling out a job application because he thought it was so minor it wasn't important enough to mention. However, it is telling that in all the ads Chandler runs, he never mentions the nature of the crime, just that Barr is a convicted criminal. In one ad, one I have so far been unable to dig up, and which hasn't run now in quite some time, the narrator, a woman, says of Barr, and I paraphrase here-"criminal charges are usually how politicians end their careers, not start them".
I always said, if I absolutely were forced to vote for one Democrat this year, and could do so for any one anywhere in the country, Chandler would be the Democrat I would vote for. He has been good on some things, like Second Amendment rights and border security/illegal immigration, and he voted against Obamacare. But, at the same time, he voted for the stimulus bill, and for Cap And Trade. So even this best of possible Democrats is a mixed bag.
If I could vote in his race, I would vote for Barr, who I am tentatively calling this race for. The Five Of Caps looks like Chandler morosely saying goodbye to his congressional career.
Tarot Reading The Massachusetts Sixth District
A lot of people have been making noise about Sean Bielat's bid to unseat Barney Frank, noise that I used to see as wishful thinking. Lately though I don't know, I'm starting to think there might actually be something to it. Or could be, if Frankor his allies don't figure out a way to steal the election, which would be my first interpretation of the above card, the Seven of Swords.
But, there could be a better interpretation for Sean Bielat, one that sees him as a clever campaigner who has made Frank look like an idiot, as well as one of the most corrupt bastard in Congress, while not getting personal, and even going about his campaign with good humor and grace.
I would have preferred he got in Barney face, just enough to make Barney lose it and show his true face to his constituents and the world, the face that is barely below the surface as it is.
But it would have been fun to see Franks reaction to charges that he has used his power and influence to help first one gay lover after another. Sure, he would have been charged with homophobia, but who cares? If Frank had female lovers, what would be the difference? Of course, this is Massachusetts were talking about, so maybe Bielat made the right call.
I would at least like somebody to point out how Frank's involvement with a gay brothel, run out of his own Washington home, was probably more about blackmail than fun and games, or making money through prostitution. After all, why would a sitting congressman take that kind of chance for anything other than compiling a list of potential extortion targets? This, and many many other things, is something the coming Congress needs to look into, provided Frank is re-elected. Or for that matter, even if he is not.
In the meantime, let's hope this ad by Sean Bielat does the trick.
Tarot Reading The Maryland Fifth-Will Steny's World Turn Upside Down?
I know this is almost definitely too good to be true, but what if its not? Hoyer is considered so safe no real polling has been done in the fifth district. The last time he ran he won more than seventy.
But, his opponent, Charles Lollar, another black conservative Republican, is running an intelligent, energetic campaign. He got on Hoyer's nerves so badly Hoyer, sometime during a break in a debate the two were having, took him off to the side and punched him in the back-twice. He then told Lollar, ""I'm coming after you".
Unfortunately, Lollar didn't press this, probably because it was not caught on tape or video, so there is no proof, as there were no witnesses-well, that is, other than the one reporter who questioned Lollar, who affirmed it happened.
Hoyer also got some bad news from some of his constituents during the course of a glad handing trip to the district, in which a couple of business owners told him things were by no means improving for them, and questioning his assessment of things.
Steny's district has a large black population. They might possibly be a majority, and Lollar is black. Granted, he's by no means the typical liberal Democratic plantation straw boss they are used to having shoved in their faces, but is he persuasive enough to convince a sizable number of them its time to escape their bonds and make their way into the twenty-first century? Are there enough business people, black and white, who are sick of Hoyer's arrogance and sense of entitlement to send a clear message to Washington?
Like I said, it sounds almost too good to be true. But one things for sure, the card of The World reversed will almost definitely come true for Hoyer in one way.
His days as the House Majority Leader are about to come to a screeching halt.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Tarot Reading The 22nd District Florida House Race
The House race in Florida between Republican and Tea Party favorite Allen West and Democratic incumbent Congressman Ron Klein might well be the most fascinating race of the election. Right now, it looks like West is slightly ahead, and Klein is desperate to keep his seat. So desperate, in fact, that he recently came out with the following over the top campaign ad.
The basis for this is that West at one time wrote articles for a biker oriented magazine called Wheels On The Road, which Klein says is affiliated with the Outlaws motorcycle gang, a criminal organization.
It is actually a one man operation, run by a man called Miami Mike, who has threatened to kick Klein's ass, wherefore Klein has filed a criminal complaint against him. Personally, I hope Miami Mike eventually makes good on his threat, but hey, that's just me.
The real importance of this race is that it could signal the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party's stranglehold on black voters, which is facilitated by their seeming domination of qualified black candidates and office-holders at the national level. Of course, the true qualification is that they meet the seal of approval of such groups as the NAACP, National Action Network, and Operation Rainbow Push. Because West does not run in those circles, and because he is a conservative as well as a Republican, you can cue the Uncle Tom accusations in 3, 2, 1-
But for now let's just content ourselves with smearing this decorated retired Marine Corps Colonel by tying him in with one of the most vicious criminal gangs in the history of the country, based on not even flimsy evidence, but on actually nothing but the most ephemeral of associations.
Now if West wins, which I think it will, that would be Justice. This is especially true in that he might be one of many up-and-coming Republican black conservatives in the US Congress. Yes, they are running all over the place this year, including against Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's in Maryland. I have already posted as to how Hoyer got so angry at his opponent during a debate, he met him offstage and punched him in the back, telling him "I'm coming after you".
There is another black candidate in Illinois, a female, whom Democrats have tried repeatedly to exclude from the ballot.
Although that last one did make at least one national news broadcast, the vast majority of the other conservative Republican candidates have been ignored by the media, as though they didn't exist. After all, that would be going against the narrative of the Democratic Party as the party that supposedly protects the rights of minorities.
If this year is as big a Republican year as most now seem to think it will be, you might have a phenomenon similar to 1992's "Year of the Woman". 2010 could well turn out to be "The Year Of The Black Conservative Republican".
If the Congressional Black Caucus ended up being dominated by conservatives, or eclipsed in power and influence by "The Congressional Conservative Black Caucus", that could only be good, for blacks and for the country as a whole. But it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. After all, it won't be the first time Republicans have freed black folks from Democrat slavery.
Tarot Reading The New York Governor's Race
I know this probably seems like a waste of time, but I'm not really trying to "predict" the outcome so much as trying to gauge the possible long-term effects, and to ask-why? New York should have been in play for Republicans this year, but unfortunately New York is one of those few places in the country where the state and national Democratic Party working in tandem set the agenda and control the narrative.
Because they have such a lock, they have succeeded in setting New York in the direction of the same fiscal ditch that contains the rotting carcasses of the state of California, and the city of Detroit.
Andrew Cuoma, the all-but anointed future governor of the state, at first had some potential competition from Carl Paladino. But after some criticism in the national press due mainly to him temper, he was effectively neutered, and then avoided. By the time of the so-called debates, Paladino was effectively shut up. That's too bad. It would have been must-see tv had Paladino told Cuomo "I'll take you out".
In fact, that would be one hell of a campaign slogan.
Or he could have told Cuomo "no good father would want to bring his children anywhere near you."
Does anybody doubt that this would have been all over the news, nationally, and that Paladino would have gotten more attention and, yes, support? Would that have been a bad thing? Let's face it, Carl Paladino is a perfect reflection of the way most Americans feel right now about smug, elitist bastards, like Cuomo, and for good reason.
But like I said, Paladino was effectively neutered, and the debate descended to the level of bad comedy, with the candidate that should have commanded the stage being upstaged by some vague third party candidate of the "The Rent Is Too Damn High" party, who it turned out in fact doesn't pay rent anywhere.
How did it come to this, that the Republican Party is so weak in such an important, vitally important state, which is controlled by a party and legislature that seems hell bent on ruining it? Oh sure, people will point to Giuliani, but never forget, he made his name as a DA first, and that was the horse he rode to the mayor of New York City's office. Bloomberg, never really a Republican, just came along afterward and hitched a ride on his coattails.
But Giuliani has long since lost the taste for politics. He refused to run against Hillary, and he refused to face off against Cuomo. Unfortunately, neither he nor any national Republicans saw fit to give Paladino the support he deserved, or even the benefit of their friendly advice, so far as I know.
What's worse, there are two Senate races in New York, one being a special election of sorts for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton. The other one is nothing but the inevitable re-election of Chuck the Schmuck Schumer. I don't even know who's running against either one of them. I don't really care. Why should I? The national party doesn't. Had Palladino not come across for a while like an old time mob boss, thereby drawing the attention of a media starved for evidence of Tea-Party nuttiness, I wouldn't know who he was either.
The Two of Pentacles (the first card to turn up twice in this set of readings) then signifies a basic truth. If the GOP is going to be a factor in New York outside of a small handful of congressional districts, they are going to have to rebuild the state party from the ground up. And the only way they are going to do that is by funding candidates like Paladino, and giving them the resources they need to defend themselves, and further standing by them in the face of unfair assaults by an in-the-tank press, as opposed to running as far away from them as possible, which only serves to make them even more defensive because they are on their own-which looks even worse for all concerned.
Granted, Paladino isn't the kind of Republican New Yorkers are accustomed to, which is why they are so marginalized, in my opinion. It goes to prove the veracity of that old saying-give the people a choice between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican and most of the time they'll choose the liberal Democrat. Again, Rudy was an exception that proves the rule-a socially liberal Republican who was tough on crime while being an economic conservative.
But Rudy is now gone, and what has he left? A personal legacy that can not be passed on, because it was based on the force of his own personality, not on any kind of value or philosophy that offered anything in the way of a viable alternative to the status quo-which is what people hunger for, not just in New York, but everywhere. Hell, that's why we have a two-party system to begin with. So we have a choice. But New Yorkers have not reaped the benefits of that system for decades now. While Giuliani gave them a brief taste of that potential, for what it was worth, I wonder how much longer its going to be now before New York City once again descends into the gutter of crime and desperation that once held it in thrall for so long no one could have ever imagined it would pull its way out.
But before that happens, the state itself will probably be the first to fall into default. It's only a matter of time. It is governed by a legislature that is dominated by Democrats, and will soon be governed by a guy who was, along with Senator Gillibrand, knee-deep in the mortgage and housing fiasco that has wrecked the nation. Just watch the following video recorded during the time of Cuomos tenure as Clinton's Secretary of HUD.
Just for this reason, this guy should not be defeated, for the simple fact he should never be allowed to run for any kind of public office, or for that matter allowed anywhere near one.
And if that were not enough, this man openly bragged that, if he couldn't get a gun-control law that would pass constitutional muster, he would sue the gun makers in the courts until he bankrupted them.
He, along with the states Democratic legislature, and the state's two US Senators-one of whom, Gillibrand, was, it beards repeating, also involved in the mortgage meltdown-are all a lock to acquire or to hold their offices, for no other reason than the Republican Party can't see fit to invest in building their resume in the state of New York beyond a few token RINOs. It's unfathomable.
Tarot Reading Connecticut Senate Race
Good news, if you believe in internal polls. According to Linda McMahon, she's running almost even with Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. As much as I would like to see this turd wagon get body slammed on election night, I find it hard to believe, but its possible. Just slightly. I have to take it with a grain of salt though since all other reputable polls show Blumenthal leading McMahon, the former CEO of the WWE, by anywhere from nine points to on up in double digit territory.
What happened? At one point McMahon was surging and was knocking at the door of the margin of error, and then-something let the air out. She went off offense, and Blumenthal's numbers went up. So much for how much everybody hates negative ads.
I'm going to be blunt here. Linda McMahon was probably the wrong person in the wrong race in the wrong state. Her history with the WWF is questionable, especially the allegations of steroid use among wrestlers, something that she, as CEO, is somewhat responsible for. After all, if this has been such a systemic problem-and I have little doubt that it is-she would almost have to have been aware of it.
Then of course there's the whole wrestling deal in general. There are those who think it sets a bad example to youth and all that crap, and I can't imagine the general populace of Connecticut feels much differently.
Add to these problems the simple fact that McMahon is, let's be honest, not very likable. This all adds up to a big problem. If you are going to run as a Republican in a state as blue as Connecticut, you had damn well better be likable.
Now personally, I'm sure Linda McMahon is a fine person. Hell, I'd do her. But she doesn't have the right personality for this.
Having said all this, Blumenthal is by no means a prize, and if anybody deserves to be tossed from the top of the turnbuckle and hit over the skull with a folding chair-preferably a real one-its him. He's smarmy, arrogant, and an all-around son-of-a-bitch who has gone out of his way to prosecute small businesses for the smallest infractions, and even lied about his military service, falsely claiming to be a Vietnam veteran, a charge which still surfaces from time to time.
I hope I'm wrong in this reading. Maybe the six of cups signifies a sense of nostalgia among enough voters for the good old days of the WWF and WWE, or maybe even a longing for the way things were in general terms-which if it is true, would mean that older, more conservative voters might put McMahon over the top, depending on what the GOTV effort looks like for both sides.
Unfortunately, I'm very much afraid that if anything it signifies that McMahon is going to quickly go back to her old life very quickly. It's going to be a painful loss, if lose she does, because that means that ass Blumenthal will be in the Senate.
Which, when you stop to think about it, is a big inducement for Connecticut voters-to get his ass out of the states AG office. Maybe then, Connecticut business people can breathe a little easier.
At any rate, the way things look, I'm going to have to very reluctantly, and with a heavy heart, call this for Blumenthal, whom I suspect will win handily, by at least five or six points.
I guess that's a respectable enough showing for a first time candidate running as a Republican in blue-state Connecticut, even for one who has invested a lot of her own fortune in the race-something that might also give some voters pause.
I only hope she isn't trounced too badly, for the simple fact that it might not bode well for down ticket Republican candidates if her defeat ends up looking similar to this-
Tarot Reading The West Virginia Senate Race
Joe Manchin is about to be rewarded for all his years of service to the people of West Virginia, and for the bang-up job he has been doing as governor of the state. Unfortunately for him, the reward is not exactly what he had in mind. He is going to get to keep his current job by way of losing his current race to replace the late Robert Byrd in the Senate.
Sarah Palin has been pushing this meme, calling Manchin a good governor and telling voters at a recent rally for Manchin's opponent, Republican John Raese, to keep Manchin as their governor and send Raese to the Senate. It's a clever argument, and I think it will work.
Manchin however is desperate to win, so desperate in fact that he distances himself from the Obama Administration as often and completely as he can, such as in the following ad, in which he shores up his Second Amendment credentials at the expense of Cap And Trade.
This is yet another race that has see-sawed back and forth in the polls, with the advantage going to first one and then another. As such, due to the closeness of the polls, it would behoove Republicans to remember where they are-West By God Virginie-and keep their eyes open and their ears to the ground. The Democrats are so entrenched here, they, like Manchin, will pull out all stops to win.
In other words, expect hi-jinx. If Manchin wins this one, in all likelihood it will be because it was stolen.
Even with this in mind, I nevertheless call this one for John Raese.
Tarot Reading the 7th District Arizona House Race
This is an easy one to call for Republican Ruth McClung. She's run a good campaign against an opponent who is so unbelievably stupid he advocated a boycott against his own state. Seriously, how can you conceivably get any more stupid than that? That is like something you would expect to see from a Saturday Night Live skit. He also signed a letter requesting diplomatic courtesies be extended to members of Code Pink during a visit to Iraq where the group engaged in delivering aid and comfort to the enemy. He also is an advocate for open borders. He also is a rubber stamp for everything on the Obama-Pelosi agenda. And, he also faked a terrorist threat against his office when his campaign was caught red-handed in a voting fraud scam. There's so many "alsos" with this guy he should actually be barred from seeking public office, and whether he wins or loses this race he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
A lot of people want this guy out of office, including Arizona Senator John McCain, who is now sharing office space with Ruth McClung and is actually putting ads out against Grijalva. When you can't get along with John McCain you are pretty much on everybody's enemies list.
This is a race between two opponents, one of whom is a rocket scientist, the other one of whom is most decidedly anything but that.
The Two of Pentacles is a good card. I see McClung as a sure winner. Oh, it will be close. It certainly won't be a blow-out. But it will be a firm defeat with no legitimate need nor excuse for a recount.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Tarot Reading Washington Senate Race
I'm not calling this race for Dino Rossi solely because of the masculine nature of the card above, though I am calling it for him tentatively, with much reservation. Patty Murray has been in the Senate just long enough to grow deep tentacles reaching down into the entrenched interests that want to keep her there. That means mucho money has come her way, in addition to foot soldiers courtesy of the SEIU and the Washington Teacher's Unions, and Gods only know who and what else.
But this is a Republican year, and the GOP has a decided edge when it comes to the money game. That's why Murray, the Democratic incumbent whom Anne Coulter calls the stupidest person in the Senate has been on the ropes this campaign season, with the advantage see-sawing first to and away from her and back to Rossi. At one point Murray seemed to be surging, but at last count, Rossi was maintaining a slim lead.
The money game. What would politics be without it?
Advantage Rossi, albeit barely, but just enough for me to call it for him. But, it's gonna be a long night.
Tarot Reading The California Senate Race
I hate to think this, but I'm calling this for Boxer. I just don't see how Fiorina pulls it out. That's too bad, but the Two Of Swords, reversed, would seem to apply more to Boxer. This is the first real contest she's ever faced-ever, in her life, I am inclined to believe. If she were a Senator from any other state, she would probably be long gone-well, except for New York, Vermont, or Massachusetts. Her arrogance is almost Kennedyesque.
Call Me Senator from RightChange on Vimeo.
She is nothing, absolutely nothing, but a leftist hack politico. But hacks do have this advantage-they have people who are heavily invested in keeping them in their place, and towing the line. In Boxer's case, that is not only an easy job description to fulfill, its her natural calling.
It might be close, but I think Boxer wins, thanks in part also to Meg Whitman's candidacy for governor dragging Fiorina down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)