Someone please tell me this is a Poe.
So sorry to miss this, hat tip to Mock, Paper, Scissors for this one.
Someone please tell me this is a Poe.
So sorry to miss this, hat tip to Mock, Paper, Scissors for this one.
Normally I tend to shy away from the line, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Personally seeing something isn’t the best reason for belief, honestly, once you have an adequate understanding of how the human brain operates. Let’s just say that if I saw a ghost or an alien spaceship, it wouldn’t necessarily result in me believing in ghosts and/or alien spaceships. A preponderance of evidence is much more important to my acceptance of somethings existence than personal experience. I hike/backpack quite often, and yes, I have seen and heard several things that could have possibly been sasquatchi. (Fight the man! Help make “Sasquatchi” the proper plural form of “Sasquatch.” Fuck “Sasquatches.” No, not literally. Well, I guess if you find one, if that is what you are into, and the Sasquatch consents, then take my comment as literally as you wish. Who am I to stand in the way of consenting human/Sasquatch love? Just make sure the Sasquatch consents, Bobo.) They also could have been bears, bucks during the rut, or a myriad amount of animals so extensive that I refuse to list them all. I could go around saying that I saw or heard Bigfoot, but reality and the preponderance of evidence suggest one of the other possible explanations are exponentially more likely. Was that thing I saw in Wildwood Cemetery a ghost, a demon, or light reflecting from a car’s headlights? Is that an alien spaceship, or am I misinterpreting something in the sky? I can come up with a nice sized list of reasons to doubt what you personally witness before even bringing hallucinations into the discussion. So yeah, I’ll accept/believe something not when I see it, but when I see a preponderance of evidence.
All of that being said, there are still a few things that I truly will only believe when I see it. This election season seems to be the genesis of most of them. One of them, that one of the two major political parties in the United States would actually nominate Biggest Loser contestant( I know it is the wrong reality show, but tell me it doesn’t fit), horrific hairstyle model, wannabe dictator, bankruptcy claiming con artist, xenophobic misogynist, fascism tinged populist who claims to have way more money than he actually has, who espoused fairly run of the mill liberal political positions up until a couple years ago Donald “Not Joking” Trump as their Presidential candidate, was witnessed yesterday when, anticlimactically, enough unbound delegates to put him over the top expressed their intentions to vote for Donald “The Death of Serious Politics” Trump, thereby saving any of the remaining states and territories the horrible distinction of being the one that clinched him the nomination. Yep, I admit it completely. Even with my low opinion of the Republican base, I would have bet a seriously large amount of cash against him. I mean, sure, I knew the racism and xenophobia, along with his faux populist message was going to play well, sadly, among the white working class. But I was positive a combination of evangelical Christians along side horrified moderates (well….those that still exist in the GOP) and embarrassed movement conservatives would find some way to stop his campaign. I mean, I don’t believe in a religious test for office to be sure, but Evangelicals sure as hell do, and Trump is about as Christian as I am. No, I take that back. I could fake it much better than he could since I’ve read the Bible and studied apologetics. There is no way they believed his religious pandering, especially with Ted Cruz, a man so wrapped in the faith that the Westboro Baptist Church thought he should tone it down a bit (I kid….Or do I?), running against him for comparison.
I was wrong. So were quite a few Evangelical candidates. All those years the GOP spent pounding the Bible while carefully playing their racist dog whistles and it turns out the equation for victory was simply exchanging the Bible pounding for half-assed pandering and the dog whistle for outright bigotry. Who knew?
“That’s okay,” I thought. Even if Donald “Goodbye, America’s Reputation” Trump manages to use insanely unrealistic campaign promises along with the bigotry the GOP’s been seeding with the “Southern Strategy” for decades now to somehow win the nomination, all that means is at least 4 more years with a Democratic President. I mean, you heard these high ranking members of the GOP during the campaign. Trump’s middle name may as well be “Not Qualified for the Office of President.” Fox News used the first debate and Megyn Kelly to try and take him down. The National Review dedicated a whole issue to #NeverTrump. The last GOP nominee was practically begging someone, anyone, else to get in the race. The base may make him the nominee, but the elite members of the party realized that not only would a Trump presidency be a national nightmare, but even being associated with him would be an asterisk after their names in the history book. Sure, it would cost them the White House, but they could come back stronger in 2020 and they would have the added admiration from independents and moderates for standing up against Donald “Not Qualified for the Office of President” Trump.
Did you see Megyn Kelly’s softball interview with Donald “She had blood coming out of her…..wherever” Trump? She was harder on the Duggar’s. Anyone else having fun watching people who insisted he wasn’t anywhere near qualified for the Presidency endorse him? For as much of a jackass as he is, I really thought more of Chris Christie, and yet there he was, the first to cross the line. I mean sure, there are a few members of the GOP who are more concerned with their personal integrity than victory. Last I checked George Will was still writing anti-Trump columns. I don’t see endorsements coming anytime soon from Romney or anyone named Bush. Senator Ben Sasse has drawn the ire of his own state’s GOP leadership with his anti-Trump stance. The communications chair of the Young Republican National Federation, Katrina Elaine Jorgensen, resigned over his nomination. And the Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, skipped out on Trump’s rally in her state the other day, and was vocal about skipping the convention until she realized her position as chairwoman of the Republican Governors Association kind of obligates her to be in attendance. I doubt Glenn Beck is planning on jumping on the Trump train, and I believe at least one influential right wing news site is still #NeverTrump.
Other than that? Watch them fall in line. Anyone really expect Paul Ryan isn’t going to endorse Donald “nice tits, no brain” Trump? A bit of advice for all the #NeverTrumpers now stampeding their way to his campaign? Don’t neglect the balls. If you do, he will fire you. And don’t forget to toss the salad, although I would skip that on days he pandered to Hispanics by eating taco salad.
So what’s left this year for me to believe when I see?
I’ll only believe their are enough white men in this country to elect Donald “The Man Who Single-Handedly Caused the Entire World to Reevaluate Their Foreign and Economic Policies Towards the United States” Trump when I see …… Okay, scratch this one. Thanks to 100% unverifiable touchscreen voting machines, I will never believe this one, no matter what happens. (Are you stunned at the thought of 100% unverifiable voting machines? Yeah, I was as well. Go to The Brad Blog and follow his reporting. Our elections are so shady they make corrupt dictators look honest. )
I’ll only believe people in the United States are fucking stupid enough to either outright elect Trump, or come close enough that our rotten election system, through honest errors or malicious hacking, is able to tilt the count in his favor when I see the final election results, with 100% reporting.
I’ll believe the Justice Department is going to indict Hillary Clinton over those emails when I see her do the perp walk live on the network news.
And finally, and just as unlikely as the two above, I will believe Bernie Sanders is enough of a selfish fuck to give Donald “Pocahontas” Trump the priceless Christmas in June present of a televised debate when the only realistic chance Sanders has of winning the Democratic nomination is the previously mentioned extremely unlikely indictment of HRC, resulting in the only possible beneficiary of such a debate being Donald “that low life” Trump as he commiserates with Bernie over how rigged the Democratic nominating system is as he actively courts Sanders supporters, all the while saving any negative thing Sanders says about HRC for future campaign ads, when I fucking see it on my television screen.
Sorry. I still have too much respect for Bernie to actually think he would go through with this horrid idea. I’ve been wrong before, and if I am, believe me, I will be back to tear into Mr. Sanders with all the vitriol I can muster, but until then, I’ll chalk it up to a joke gone awry.
Maybe Republicans should debate with Democrats during the primary season. Sanders floated that idea at the beginning of it all, and it is an interesting one to think about. That debate should definitely not be between one parties Presidential nominee and the other parties second place finisher.
No matter how much it could raise for charity.
I love politics. Love it. I’m addicted. It is just about all I read about. Politics and ASOIAF. Hell, half the reason I love ASOIAF so much is the political wrangling in the series. But this particular election is getting hard to watch, and therefore, hard to write about. My 80 year old mother, who largely ignores politics, is openly scared over this. This 4’11, 93lbs little old lady brought up Hitler in comparison during a conversation yesterday. I laughed and told her about Godwin’s Law, which made me think: Is Godwin’s Law harmful in some instances? If something really is Hitler like, then shouldn’t we be able to go with the comparison that makes the most sense without instantly losing the argument and being seen as a crank? I’m not saying that Trump wants to kill all the Muslims and Mexicans. He just wants to evict them from the country. Which is how Hitler started with the Jews, by the way. He didn’t start with gas chambers.
I am not saying that Trump could become a Hitler. The United States isn’t suffering under an unfair treaty imposed upon us after a war that killed an entire generation. We aren’t going to invade Canada. There are never going to be death camps gassing Muslims and Hispanics. In 2020, Trump is not going to declare martial law and put an end to free elections, declaring himself President for life, no matter how many right wing nut jobs were convinced Obama was going to do that by now.
I am saying, however, that there may be comparisons to be made and lessons to be learned that can only be discovered by scrapping Godwin’s Law for a period of time. Perhaps I just found something to write about.
All I know for sure is this: If you aren’t at all concerned about the wave of xenophobic bigotry and hate that Trump is currently riding, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Quick stop at Salon (I know, I have a problem…), massive case of the eye rolls.
First we’ve got:
A liberal case for Donald Trump: The lesser of two evils is not at all clear in 2016
followed closely by:
Please, FBI — you’re our last hope: The Democratic Party’s future rests upon your probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails
Let’s quickly begin with Walker Bragman……wait, seriously? *returns to Salon and clicks around his author page.* Hmm, “Hillary is only Republican lite”,….ah, here’s “Fine, give the GOP four years,” wonder if he just expects all the Supreme Court justices to be fine and stay in office until 2020 or if he just doesn’t care? Oh, wait. I missed “Hillary supporters present a false choice.” Hmm. Oh god, sorry about that. I got lost in his Salon history consisting of nothing but Hillary hit pieces. Anyway, yeah, his name appears to be Walker Bragman and his is “a liberal case for Donald Trump“:
That said, now that the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is effectively over, with the former secretary of state essentially guaranteed the nomination, many liberals and progressives are preparing, once again, to vote for the lesser of two evils. The choice may not be as clear as some Democrats believe — especially if Democrats can take back the Senate and assure themselves of a check on a GOP House.
Why the living fuck would we be expecting the Democrats to take back the Senate if the Presidential election results in a Donald Trump victory?
Like it or not, the Supreme Court needs to count for much more than anyone willing to concede 4 years to a GOP president is counting it. GOP presidents have had a much stronger hand in shaping the present court, and that court has been horrible for those wish for a political system they can trust. It isn’t all about reproductive rights, although if you honestly think we aren’t one judge away from allowing states to outlaw abortion, and if you really believe that they would stop at just abortion once they won that battle, then I envy you your ignorance supported bliss. The current court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Citizen’s United was their decision. Union cases sit at 4-4 currently. The Supreme Court matters. It may be the most important result of the upcoming election. Yet all of these “Sanders or Bust” or “HRC over my dead body” columns act like it’s no big thing. I don’t get it. Do they just think all the liberal justices are in perfect health? Misogyny based on the ignorant belief that the only reason progressives care about the court is abortion access? Forgetting that a Bernie Sanders presidency would more than likely see the Supreme Court rule every second move he made unconstitutional? Refusing to believe in the third branch of government? I just don’t get it.
Anyway, since any conceivable Trump presidential victory would result in the GOP retaining the House and Senate, I really don’t see the need to read any further. Feel free if you want though. When you’re done, join the rest of us below…..
As we mock H.A. Goodman’s open letter to the FBI. (I’m serious. That’s what it is.) The letter starts right off raising the stakes super high for us readers:
“Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi. You’re my only hope.“
Wait, sorry, wrong letter.
To the Honorable James B. Comey, Jr. and all the good people at the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Yeah, that’s all I can bring myself to quote. I’m sorry, it’s kinda embarrassing, like that time Fonzie got roped into performing a water ski trick over a large fish. The “TL;DR” version? It’s a Bernie supporter who finally realized that the only way Sanders is going to get the Democratic nomination this year is if the FBI indicts Hillary before the convention, so he goes to the FBI, telling them how everyone else thinks they are total jokes who will never move out of their parents basements or get a date, but he respects the FBI as a proud, patriotic, professional organization with VERY LARGE PENISES who should be held up as everything that’s right with America, and oh by the way if you would PLEASE INDICT HILLARY OMG PLEASE PLEASE I’M BEGGING YOU PLEASE!!!!
The saddest thing is that those of you who decide not to read the whole letter will never realize exactly how close my “TL;DR” summary actually is to the original.
I’ve bitched in the past about idiotic click-bait articles posted at Salon. (Nope, not linking Salon. You can find it if you want.) And that made me examine articles a bit more before deciding to write about them here. It is more than idiotic click-bait now, however. Other than Amanda Marcotte, who I respect tremendously from her days at RH Reality Check (now Rewire), it now seems that half the featured articles are now hit pieces against Hillary Clinton. Aww. Did Bernie get beat in New York? Must be that damned closed primary. Did HRC win big in the south? Damn black voters. Is HRC attending victory fund events where both she and down ticket Democrats benefit? It’s a corrupt system!!!
Look, I get it. I felt the Bern. Until seeing the way his campaign reacted to the New York defeat, I was planning on voting for Sanders in the PA primary. No longer. Sorry. No, independents weren’t allowed to vote in the Democratic (or Republican) primary in New York. Their votes weren’t suppressed. They chose to register as independents. I was once a registered Independent as well. I changed my registration in order to vote for Obama in the 2008 primary. Yeah, I’ve recently bitched about the closed primaries for US House and the state House, but those are races where the GOP winner will run unopposed. If I cared more about which right winger won the primary than who the Democrats nominate for president, then I was free to change my registration once again. I also understand the reasoning behind closed primaries. Why should a non-Republican get to choose who the Republicans run for office? As for HRC running up the score in the “conservative South?” Yeah, I’m sure all those white Christian conservatives were lining up to vote in the Democratic primary. How about just say it? She won in the South because of black voters and that pisses you off? And fuck Bernie, why don’t you get Susan Sarandon to host you a victory fund gala? Is it because then you couldn’t bitch about George Clooney, or is it because you don’t give a flying fuck about down ticket Dems?
Jesus fuck. There was a time that I thought Sanders was great for this election cycle. Last fucking week I was planning on voting for him. There was also a time where I read Salon daily and was interested in what they posted.
Monday I made a comment about the Mirror’s article covering the Shuster V. Halvorson debate, suggesting that it seemed like ” a very amusing write up in the Altoona Mirror as a conservative newspaper attempted to perform simultaneous fellatio on two candidates.” While I stand by the humor content of the statement, upon further review of the article in question I have decided that it doesn’t really describe the article justly and I feel that I owe the Altoona Mirror an apology. There are more than enough legitimate gripes I could make about the Mirror. The above quote was a cheap shot. I am sorry. I no longer believe the Mirror instructed the author of the piece to avoid offending either candidate in any way.
I just think the author of the piece is a horrible writer.
What changed my mind? Yet another Republican debate, this time between the candidates for state House in the 79th district; incumbent John McGinnis and challenger (not from the far right?….*faints*) Pete Starr, and the accompanying write up in the Mirror by the same reporter who covered the previous debate. (No, I’m not going to slam him by name. Click the link and check the byline if you really want to know. I feel bad enough complaining about a local newspaper reporter without causing this post to pop up every time he is Googled.) Candidate Starr is a strange challenger for this area, where the Tea Party has a major presence in the local GOP and breaking with conservative ideology is political suicide. As the candidates for the US House keep running so far to the right I expect them to circle back again, Pete Starr seems to be basing his candidacy on his actual beliefs, even if they earn him the “RINO” label. I mean, can you believe the following is attributed to a Republican candidate?
Starr favors unions, saying the state doesn’t have enough jobs to handle much in-migration, that if an applicant doesn’t want to join a union, he or she should avoid applying to union firms
Wait, what? Does he want to win this race? Or how about the following:
On the budget impasse, McGinnis blamed Gov. Tom Wolf and credited lawmakers for holding firm.
Starr placed blame all around and suggested none of the responsible parties should get paid if it happens again, until they reach a resolution.
Putting all the blame on Gov. Wolf for the budget crisis PA is still kinda dealing with is one of the worst lies I’ve seen yet this season. Oh yes, the poor, brave GOP lawmakers stood up to the evil, mean Governor, protecting their poor constituent’s bank accounts. Never mind the fact that the way Pennsylvania’s congressional districts are currently drawn practically guarantees large Republican majorities in both the state House and Senate while the majority of voters statewide pull the Democratic lever. Never mind how Gov. Wolf campaigned on his budget ideas and won 54.9% of the vote, making Corbett the first PA governor in the modern era to lose reelection, during an election year that the Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats all across the nation. Ignore the compromise that the Governor forged with PA’s congressional Republican leadership only to see the far right Republicans stomp their feet, hold their breath, and insist that compromise is for Democrats and losers, infuriating most of the state as they blocked the deal and allowed the state to continue along without a budget. Gov. Wolf is not totally innocent here, as especially after the compromise deal was derailed he seemed to take a more hard line stance, but I really have trouble blaming him. If the situation were reversed, and the Democrats, holding a large state congressional majority, were blocking tax cuts that a Republican governor, who was just elected with 55% of the vote, had campaigned on, the GOP would be screaming about a “mandate from the voters” and how the Democrats were blocking the “will of the people.”
You have to love this line from McGinnis though, making the conservative dick waving that GOP primaries have become plain as day.
“Which of us is more Republican?” McGinnis asked rhetorically.
I would write a bit more about this debate and the article describing it, but I honestly am having trouble giving a shit. The article is just more of the incomprehensible attempt at repeating the debate, word for word if possible, just like the previous article on the Shuster/Halvorson debate. Rather than recapping each candidates major points and perhaps highlighting an important exchange or two, the author alternates between the two candidate’s views each paragraph. Starr says this, but McGinnis said this, then Starr said “Nuh Uh, ” but McGinnis said “Uh Huh!,” causing Starr to claim he was rubber while McGinnis was glue, to which McGinnis responded with a vicious “I know you are, but what am I,” which is when Starr called McGinnis a “doody-head,” to which a visibly upset McGinnis yelled at him to “take it back or my brother is going to kick your ass so hard,” causing Starr to claim that his sister could beat up McGinnis, his brother, and his father, all without breaking a sweat, which caused the moderator to exclaim “oh come on, your sister could not beat up all those people without sweating,” at which point McGinnis, through visible tears, called Starr’s sister a “freak afflicted with cooties,” at which point Starr’s sister stood up in the audience and shouted for McGinnis to “take it back or I’ll step on a crack and fuck your mother right up,” at which caused the whole crowd to stand up and yell “Oh no, she didn’t!!!!,” causing McGinnis to take his ball and go home, ending all hope of a post debate kickball game.
At least that’s what I think I read. It was a bit all over the place.
The other reason I can’t bring myself to care? Well, I’m a resident of the 80th district for one. Second, it’s a closed primary so where I live doesn’t change the power of my vote. And when the general election comes around, whoever won the GOP primary is going to destroy the sacrificial Democratic candidate, if they even bother running one. So tell me. Why should I care? I can’t even care about my own district, cause my far right representative is unopposed in the primary, unopposed in the general. That election should be thrilling.
Ah, don’t ya love American democracy? So good to know that I have a voice, and that my vote matters.
And people wonder why some people don’t bother voting. Some years I wonder why I bother.
(For those who are wondering, the last Democrat to represent the 79th was in 1979. The 80th is worse. From the birth of the district in 1969, one Democrat served one two year term, beginning in 1977. <Hey, if anyone reading knows why W. William Wilt lost his reelection bid in 1976 I would love to hear why. Something tells me there is a story in Michael E. Cassidy’s victory begging me to write it. Youngest PA state Rep in history. Turned 21 two months prior to being sworn in. Anyone who knows anything about that election, please let me know.>)
Wake up, fellow Pennsylvanians, you are not dreaming. No, for some strange reason your vote in the presidential primary this year will actually (gasp) matter! I know, who would have ever thunk it.
Since today was crazy busy and I ran out of time to post anything before the start of the weekend, I thought I would throw a quick voting guide together for my friends on both sides of the aisle.
GOP Presidential Primary
then you should vote for Ohio Governor John Kasich. He may be a misogynist, but don’t worry, the mainstream media, you know, that you keep calling liberal?, they will make him out to be a sane, moderate choice that everyone can get behind. Nominate Kasich and after the mainstream media turns him into a uniting force for America, you have the presidency. Of course, he’s only won the state he is governor of, and if they give him the nomination at the convention over two candidates with far more popular support Cleveland is going to burn. And a bunch of Trump and Cruz supporters will probably stay home. Wow, maybe Kasich as the nominee would grab moderates after the media lies to them that Kasich is a moderate, yet still lose the election because of a conservative revolt? Shit, you guys are fucked. Sorry.
then you should vote for Texas Senator Ted Cruz. And maybe get yourself some help.
then you should vote for short fingered vulgarian Donald Trump.
The Democratic Presidential Primary:
then you should vote for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Then you should vote for former Secretary of State and Senator Hillary Clinton.
A few things quick. There are a few points in the Sanders column that are negatives. Needless to say, I do not believe every Bernie voter is a misogynistic Democrat or ideological purists who refuse to compromise. Unfortunately, some times you need to call a spade a spade, and this election is definitely one of those times with so much outright bigotry on the GOP side. There are some Democrats who are voting for Sanders because HRC has a vagina. Hopefully it is a very small amount, but their are some out there. It also seems that some Sanders supporters think the extreme ideological purity and refusal to compromise shown by the House Freedom Caucus and other Tea Party members is something to envy and foster on the left. This is straight up painful to me. There are things about the Tea Party that we should emulate. They showed that it is possible to move the positions of your party, and that the threat of a primary opponent is incredible leverage once they realize the threat is not hollow. They also were quickly astroturfed over and guided by the nose by some *cough*Koch*cough* mysterious force, and the uncompromising nature of the House Freedom Caucus provides a great example of how to know when you are doing it wrong. Like it or not, our system of government demands compromise.
Anyway, just because I wrote a bad reason under Sanders, don’t think I believe all his voters have the same reasons. Hell, I still may be voting for Sanders in the primary. I’m leaning HRC, and I honestly believe she is the most qualified, but voting a message to the party is mighty tempting to push her as far to the left as I can. And no matter what, either of them get my vote immediately in the general.
Oh, and FBVI? Federal Bureau of Vaginal Investigations. Duh.
Calling the Confederate flag an “insensitive symbol” that he finds offensive, NASCAR chairman Brian France said the sport will be aggressive in disassociating it from its events.
“We want everybody in this country to be a NASCAR fan, and you can’t do that by being insensitive in any one area.“
How brave. Good for you, Mr. France. I’m glad to see you are standing up to the bigots who are fans of your sport. (I was planning on putting “sport” in quotes in that sentence, but then I remember how difficult it is to drive a race car at those speeds surrounded by other cars inches away. Yeah, as much as I detest the sport, “yawn, did they turn left again?”, it is a sport.) I wonder if he has blasted North Carolina yet for their bigot bill? It is so great when someone “gets it.”
Why are you looking at me like that? What happened at the latest race in Texas? It couldn’t be that bad. It’s not like they’d have the Duck Commander give the invocation or anything, right?
A “Duck Dynasty” star delivered an unusual invocation before a NASCAR race at Texas Motor Speedway over the weekend, praying that “we put a Jesus man in the White House.”
Phil Robertson, who stars in the reality TV show along with other members of his family, has endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for the Republican nomination for president while his son, Willie, has spoken out in support of Donald Trump.
“All right, Texas, we got here via Bibles and guns, I’m fixin’ to pray to the one who made that possible,” the Duck Commander prayed before the Duck Commander 500. “Father, thank you for founding our nation. I pray, Father, that we don’t forget who brought us — You. Our faith in the blood of Jesus and his resurrection. Help us, Father, to get back to that. Help us, dear God, to understand that the men and women on my right are the U.S. military. On my right and on my left. Our faith in the U.S. military is the reason we are still here. I pray, Father, that we put a Jesus man in the White House. Help us do that and help us all to repent, to do what is right, to love you more and to love each other. In the name of Jesus, I pray. Amen.”
Well, at the end he did say that we should all love each other. That’s a plus, right? The president of the Texas Motor Speedway was quick to defend Mr. Robertson’s right to be a bigot and tell everyone about it, comparing his invocation to The Boss canceling a concert:
TMS President Eddie Gossage defended Robertson on Saturday, pointing out that Bruce Springsteen canceled a concert in North Carolina to protest the state’s new law banning anti-discrimination ordinances. “He said what he felt and believed and there are a lot of people that agree with him and a lot that disagree with him,” Gossage said (via Star-Telegram.com). “Nowadays, you cannot say what you think because of political correctness. So I guess everyone has a right to free speech or nobody does.
“Bruce Springsteen cancels his show in North Carolina on his viewpoints and a lot of people agreed with him and a lot of people disagree with him. I defend Bruce Springsteen’s rights to take his position and, if you do that, then you’ve got to defend everybody else’s, too.”
I’ll take “missing the point” for 1000$, Alex. No one (rational) is arguing against Mr. Robertson’s right to say whatever he wants to say. NASCAR is a private entity, so a prayer before the race doesn’t carry with it the disturbing church/state issues that prayers before, say, high school football games does. If Phil wants to spend the entire invocation explaining how he got the idea for his first duck call while he was fellating a Fulvous whistling duck, and how he never intended anyone to ever kill the ducks they called with his products, how he was just trying to make it easier for fellow duck fetishists to get that sweet, sweet duck semen (allegedly), then that is perfectly fine. Three cheers, speak your mind, tell us all what you believe to be the truth!
The point is something the religious right seems to have a very difficult time with: freedom of speech doesn’t protect you from criticism. He can say whatever he wants, we can call him a bigot and give NASCAR the old side-eye for providing him the stage to air his outdated, historically inaccurate opinions.
I get the position Brian France is in here. NASCAR is probably the only major sport (okay, men’s golf I guess as well) where appeasing the bigots at the expense of everyone else may be in the sports best interest. After the pro-bigot flag backlash he suffered after his earlier attempt at inclusivity, I would hate to see the shit-storm he would face if he spoke out against the Robertson’s religious inspired bigotry. Add in the fact that I kinda think he would be lying if he did speak out against it, and I’m just left completely confused as to why he even made the bigot flag comments. Remember when you read people criticizing NASCAR and Robertson that NASCAR is the one that went with the “We want everybody in this country to be a NASCAR fan, and you can’t do that by being insensitive in any one area” line. They weren’t pushed into it, the bigot flag was a battle they chose themselves. It seems like Brian France really thinks he is ushering a new era of diversity to NASCAR. I just don’t get it.
The France family, which owns the series, has long welcomed political candidates at their events and has a history of making public endorsements. NASCAR founder Bill France Sr. endorsed George Wallace for president. Brian France last month endorsed Trump, and even recruited a handful of drivers to attend a Trump rally in Georgia.
The Trump endorsement was met with significant backlash and France said he was disappointed that his record on promoting diversity had suddenly been called into question. He has spent at least the last decade trying to help his family business shed its image as a sport for intolerant rednecks, but there is no away around it: His Trump endorsement put those efforts at risk.
Then came the Robertson commentary on Saturday night, which Texas Motor Speedway officials said Monday they did not know was coming.
“I can’t believe you! Jews are always welcome in my theater and I have several Jewish friends, why should it matter that I endorsed Adolf?” *rolls eyes*
Seriously, what is going on in this guys head? I would love to hear any thoughts on his strategic thinking.
Its Gordon Klingenschmitt. You know, Dr. Chaps! From those tireless folks over at Right Wing Watch:
We have noted several times before that there seems to be no activist who is too extreme to be embraced by Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, so we were not particularly surprised when the Texas senator recently announced that infamous demon-hunting, anti-gay exorcist/state legislator Gordon Klingenschmitt would be part of his Colorado leadership team.
“I am honored to have the support of so many courageous conservatives in Colorado,” Cruz said in a press release celebrating the formation of “his Colorado Leadership Team with the endorsement of 25 current and former elected officials and key grassroots leaders,” including Klingenschmitt.
How extreme is good ole Dr. Chaps? Well….
Klingenschmitt is a viciously anti-gay theocrat who brags of having once tried to rid a woman of the “foul spirit of lesbianism” through an exorcism and believes that gay people “want your soul” and may sexually abuse their own children, which is why he says that they should face government discrimination since only people who are going to heaven are entitled to equal treatment by the government.
Klingenschmitt is a man who wrote a book arguing that President Obama is ruled by multiple “demonic spirits” and once even tried to exorcise the White House, claims that “Obamacare causes cancer,” that the Bible commands people to own guns in order to “defend themselves against left wing crazies” and that the FCC is allowing demonic spirits to “molest and visually rape your children“.
I could go on, but I won’t. Instead, go on over to Right Wing Watch, read some more of his bigotry and watch the videos of him saying this shit, proudly, out loud.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it often at least until the convention, but the only two words that scare me more than “President Trump” are “President Cruz.”
Did you know that Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt hosts a show called “Gun Owners News Hour”? Neither did I! I wonder what they talk about on that show? I bet it is about new products the gun industry is bringing out for law abiding, responsible gun owners, such as handguns that can fire legal armor piercing rounds, new triggers to make your AR-15 practically fully automatic (since the evil government has overreached and attempted to stop sales of the ARFA kit to make it full auto. Thanks, Obama.), 30 round handgun clips (for self-defense. duh.), youth rifles that come in pink, and children’s books such as “101 Things to Do in the Backseat with Mom’s Handgun.” (Okay, I made the book up. I was actually going to make up 4 or 5 crazy gun related products, but I kept finding real ones. Sigh.) Anyway, let’s see what the show is all about!
Conservative activist Jesse Lee Peterson appeared on the “Gun Owners News Hour” with Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt last weekend, where he repeated the thesis of his most recent book , which is that racism in America does not exist, but rather is a myth perpetuated by people like President Obama who was raised to hate white people and is incapable of feeling love.
Peterson told Pratt that once Americans “dispel that notion that racism exists,” liberals will lose power because “their father the Devil” feeds on such lies.
The two then, for some reason, started comparing and contrasting Dr. Ben Carson, the former Republican presidential candidate, with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor who became a right-wing lightning rod during Obama’s first presidential campaign.
Peterson told Pratt that African American voters didn’t support Carson’s presidential bid because they’re in an “evil state” and “prefer evil over good.”
“And yet, in their fallen state of anger, most blacks see Dr. Carson as the enemy and they see Jeremiah Wright as the good guy,” he said. “And even though Jeremiah Wright speaks evil, he is evil, but because they’re in that evil state, they identify with him over a good, decent man like Dr. Ben Carson. And blacks would never vote for him, the majority would never vote for him because any time a person who’s good like that, they see them as a sell-out, they don’t accept good, they prefer evil over good and they call evil good and they call good evil.”
So blacks who vote Democratic are in an “evil state?” OMG! If you add a “n”, it becomes the Demoncratic party! Why didn’t I ever see that before! The horror, the horror!
Earlier in the program, Peterson expounded on his theory that President Obama has been sympathetic toward the Black Lives Matter movement because he was raised by a mother who “hated her own race” and grew up without his father so “he doesn’t feel love, he has nothing but anger in his heart.”
Pratt evidently thought this was very perceptive and said that the president “has developed a very cold shell to cover that with and when I see him, it’s almost like looking at a robot, the lack of human emotion that’s on display.” Meanwhile, he said, the president has a “Mt. Vesuvius” of anger bubbling underneath.
Peterson agreed that “Obama is evil, he’s cold-hearted, he doesn’t care about anyone but Obama” but voters have never really understood “how wicked this man is.”
You know, as a 40 year old white man, I’m going to refrain from making the obvious point about who really “hated her(his) own race” and instead just wonder what the fuck any of this had to do with guns. Oh, yeah. I forgot. Obama is coming to take away our guns. Run for the hills. Hide your weapons (and your white women). The bad black President is coming to take them all away.
The answer isn’t good news for rational minded Wisconsin residents, that’s for sure. Rebecca Bradley earned herself a 10 year term on the bench yesterday, more than likely thanks to the extra 100,000 or so Republicans who turned out for the hotly contested GOP primary. As to why a state Supreme Court election was held during the primary election instead of at later date when all Wisconsin citizens would have equal incentive to make it to the polls, say, in November perhaps, during the general election? (Seriously. I mean, I vote in every election held in Pennsylvania, but everyone knows we don’t have the best history with voter turnout in this nation. Why elect a judge to the Supreme Court in April, during the presidential primary?)
So why is Bradley so objectionable? How about her earlier published viewpoints?
In a column that appeared soon after Clinton was elected, she wrote: “Either you condone drug use, homosexuality, AIDS-producing sex, adultery and murder and are therefore a bad person, or you didn’t know that he supports abortion on demand and socialism, which means you are dumb. Have I offended anyone? Good — some of you really need to wake up.”
Calling Clinton a murderer because of his support for abortion rights, she wrote that anyone who voted for him was “obviously immoral.”
The column and letters to the editor include these statements:
■ “Perhaps AIDS Awareness should seek to educate us with their misdirected compassion for the degenerates who basically commit suicide through their behavior.”
■ “But the homosexuals and drug addicts who do essentially kill themselves and others through their own behavior deservedly receive none of my sympathy.”
■ “This brings me to my next point — why is a student government on a Catholic campus attempting to bring legitimacy to an abnormal sexual preference?”
■ “Heterosexual sex is very healthy in a loving martial relationship. Homosexual sex, however, kills.”
■ “I will certainly characterize whomever transferred their infected blood (to a transfusion recipient) a homosexual or drug-addicted degenerate and a murderer.”
■ “We’ve just had an election (in 1992) which proves the majority of voters are either totally stupid or entirely evil.”
■ Clinton “supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which will allow women to mutilate and dismember their helpless children through their ninth month of pregnancy. Anyone who could consciously vote for such a murderer is obviously immoral.”
Now I know that all looks bad, but I’m sure she doesn’t have the same opinions now. I mean, Scott Walker says she obviously has changed her views. And she has been apologizing for her past writings as well.
“To those offended by comments I made as a young college student, I apologize, and assure you that those comments are not reflective of my worldview,” her statement said. “These comments have nothing to do with who I am as a person or a jurist, and they have nothing to do with the issues facing the voters of this state.”
See! Nothing to worry about. She’s totally redeemed. Forgiven. I’m sure she will be a fair, impartial jurist. Moving on...
In another article by Bradley, she argued in favor of personhood and compared abortion to slavery and to the Holocaust:
“I recall a time in history when blacks were treated as something less than human for convenience and financial reasons. I recall a time in history when Jews were treated as non-humans and tortured and murdered. Now, at this point in our sad history, we are perpetrating similar slaughter, only we are killing babies,” Bradley wrote in a 1992 column for the Marquette Tribune.
Unlike her comments regarding homosexuals and drug addicts, she cannot back peddle from this. She wrote another column in 2006 repeating similar arguments in favor of allowing pharmacists to deny birth control pills.
It was also revealed this week that Bradley sympathized with Camille Paglia, who had blamed rape victims for the crimes committed against them. On top of that, Bradley had a few choice words about feminists which revealed just how deep her hate goes:
“I intend to expose the feminist movement as largely composed of angry, militant, man-hating lesbians who abhor the traditional family,” Bradley wrote, arguing that the feminist movement had been hijacked by the political left, abandoning its role as a defender of women’s rights.
Well, gee, isn’t that the writing of a well-balanced, impartial judge to be?
Ick. And defending a pharmacist’s “right” to refuse to fill a woman’s birth control prescription because it is murder in 2006? Damn. But she apologized, right?!?
Still, these columns were written decades ago. Unlike some, I don’t think her hate speech from 1992 is an automatic disqualifier. I believe people deserve second chances, former felons and former letter-to-the-editor zealots alike. What bugs me today is the hollowness of Bradley’s apologies.
“I wrote opinion pieces 24 years ago on a variety of issues, and they are opinions that some people may agree with, some people might disagree with,” said Bradley in an interview with The Capital Times.
“To those offended by comments I made as a young college student, I apologize, and assure you that those comments are not reflective of my worldview,” said Bradley in a press statement.
I cannot judge what is in Rebecca Bradley’s heart, but these read to me like the apologies of someone who feels bad their past caught up with them, not the apologies of someone truly regretful. ‘To those offended’ makes it sound like she feels bad for offending potential voters, not for having written the column in the first place.
Even her best defense thus far has some problems.
“As a judge on the Milwaukee children’s court, I presided over adoptions for gay couples who were adopting children and providing loving, safe homes for them,” said Bradley.
While this is a good statement on its surface, it just means she no longer thinks that all homosexuals are bad people. That’s not exactly an apology for her statements on HIV and AIDS. She is okay with monogamous couples adopting children. That’s not even saying she accepts LGBT people; she’s saying she accepts LGBT couples who have adopted a lifestyle she approves of.
She further dilutes her own apology by saying her own views are not relevant.
“At the end of the day, I am called upon to apply the law regardless of how I feel about the law. It is our job to apply the law and follow the law regardless of how we feel about the outcome,” Bradley said.
Those sound like the words of someone who wants to minimize her transgressions, not atone for them. 1992’s Rebecca Bradley isn’t up for election, but 2016’s Rebecca Bradley is — and her wishy-washy apologies don’t reflect the traits I want to see on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
But see her on the Supreme Court is the fate we are all stuck with, for at least the next ten years.