A Cat of a Different Coat or a Whole Separate Animal?

From an interview with Alfie Allen, who plays Theon Greyjoy in HBO’s Game of Thrones, on season six action:

And we’re running through and we come to a river and Sansa is just too scared basically to get into the river. So I get in. Don’t believe the press shots! It looks like she’s trying to get me out of the river, when I’m actually trying to be the strong one and get her in the river.

*reads the interview calmly*  *re-reads the above line*  *face palms*  *slams head off desk several times*  *longs for the halcyon days of season three when I thought Game of Thrones was the best possible adaptation A Song of Ice and Fire could ever get.*  *cancels HBO*

If there are any English majors around, may I ask a question?  While I am aware that nothing (excepting an example of visual irony I believe) in Alanis Morissette’s hit song “Ironic” is actual ironic, how’s this for an example?

George R. R. Martin, an author who is an outspoken critic of fan fiction, signs off on a adaptation of his masterpiece, the epic series A Song of Ice and Fire, to be adapted for the small screen by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss for HBO, only to see it change from a fairly faithful adaptation to pure, “chaos is a ladder” fan fiction that ignores more of his themes and characterizations than it acknowledges?

Is that ironic?

*sigh*  And yet I am sure it will set viewing records for HBO this season as well.

(And just to cut off an argument I get much too often, no, they are not going their own way apart from the books because they ran out of material.  They spent 2 seasons (3 and 4) adapting the third book in the series, A Storm of Swords.  Then, instead of adapting the next two huge novels in the series, they instead changed every single plot line significantly for no reason other than they wanted to.  I wonder what the reaction would have been if halfway through the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson killed off Legolas, had Gimli start molesting hobbits, made Aragorn rape Éowyn, and changed the ending to have Frodo kill Smeagol after Gollum kills Sam, and then throw the ring into Mount Doom himself in order to make him look more heroic to the viewers?)

Worth Reading at Salon

As much as I bitch about Salon posting ridiculous clickbait articles, they do still publish articles that are worth the click at times.  Such as this article on the shit ex-porn actress Bree Olsen has to deal with now contrasted with the rape-allegation proof popularity of James Deen.

I’m not saying that I agree with every word that comes out of Bree Olsen’s mouth.  If I was personally choosing a spokeswoman to rally against the shit these women have to deal with in their everyday lives I would pick Gauge, who has already had a Salon piece written on the subject about her back in 2013.  But just because I don’t always agree with her doesn’t mean she should be slut-shamed endlessly and treated as if she was less than human.  Gauge pointed out the double standard beautifully:

Although the hospital eventually issued Gauge an apology, she felt both wounded and perplexed by the experience. “I’m thinking, why isn’t anybody asking [the anesthesia tech] how he recognized me?” she says. “OK, so what – I’m the provider, you’re the freaking consumer. Why is what I did so much more wrong than what you did?”

Exactly.  Why is it acceptable to watch porn, but moral death to perform?

Look, I know that the porn industry has problems.  Degrading porn is way too common.  (I do not include BDSM porn that makes it very clear that there is enthusiastic consent involved and that all parties participating are enjoying themselves as degrading porn. )  Some of the performers, especially in “amateur porn” or foreign porn may only be doing porn because they are desperate or possibly forced into it.  But actresses such as Gauge, Sensi Pearl, Mia Kalifia, and yes, Bree Olsen entered the profession because they wanted to.  Because it offered very nice compensation.  And yes, because they enjoy sex.  The old stereotype of all porn actresses having “daddy issues” isn’t just wrong, it is misogynistic.  We could have a week long debate on how to fix the industry, and no, I don’t have the answers.  It is very hard to vote with your wallet when so much porn is pirated or watched for free on various tube sites.  And, as sad as it is, there is obviously an audience for the worst of the worst.  The rape allegations James Deen was hit with, that would have tanked his career if he was a mainstream actor, possibly earned him fans, as disgusting as that sounds.  Sure, some people (such as myself) will never watch another scene he performs in, and many performers will never work with him again, but obviously there are others to take our places.

Anyway, go to Salon and read the article.  And remember:  If you recognize a porn star in “real life,” you aren’t standing on any moral high ground that you can look down on them from.

Justice Antonin Scalia, RIP

Rest in peace, Justice Scalia.

My original idea for this post was to quote the old saying “if you can’t say some thing nice about someone, then don’t say anything at all,” followed by a page of nothingness.   However, great minds think alike, as they say (or obvious jokes are obvious), and Mock, Paper, Scissors had it up and posted before I could even open my browser.  Good show Tengrain.  Good show.

So having lost my planned commentary on Antonin Scalia’s death, I was left with a choice.  I could make the same joke as I originally intended to make while linking to MPS and congratulating them on beating me to the punch, I could post absolutely nothing on the subject, or I could turn my brain on and actually write something about the passing of a Supreme Court Justice.  The first option was out immediately.  Sloppy, lazy, and no matter the truth, it would appear as if I simply stole tengrain’s joke and called it a day.  The second choice is exactly what I am trying to get away from by relaunching the blog.  No, I was going to post something about the news.  Ignoring it was really not an option.  So it seems now, as I drink a cup of Peet’s and breath out a immense cloud of nicotine spiked vapor that I must remember where the “on” switch is located for my brain.  I promise the following will be a bit more substantial than my tweet of “ding dong, the witch is dead.”  Also, unless otherwise noted, the factual information in the following comes from Wikipedia.


Antonin Scalia, born March 11, 1936 in Trenton, New Jersey, was one of the most divisive figures in American government.  After attending Georgetown University for his undergraduate degree, he went on to Harvard Law.  At both schools, he was an exceptional student, according to Wikipedia:

In 1953, Scalia enrolled at Georgetown University, where he graduated valedictorian and summa cum laude in 1957 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history. While in college, he was a champion collegiate debater in Georgetown’s Philodemic Society and a critically praised thespian.[20] He took his junior year abroad at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.[13] Scalia studied law at Harvard Law School, where he was a Notes Editor for the Harvard Law Review.[21] He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law in 1960, becoming a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University: The fellowship allowed him to travel throughout Europe during 1960–1961.[22]

After six years in a Cleveland law firm, Scalia became a law professor at the University of Virginia, sacrificing a chance at becoming a partner in the firm to follow his desire to teach.  In 1971, after 4 years teaching, President Nixon drafted Scalia into public service, appointing him as General Counsel for the Office of Telecommunications Policy.  His virginity thus ended, Scalia would continue in public service until President Carter’s victory left him unemployed.

  • General Counsel for the Office of Telecommunications Policy, 1971
  • Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States, 1972-74
  • Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, 1974-76

During the Ford presidency, Scalia appeared to spend most of his energy arguing for executive privilege, testifying several times before Congress in support of President Ford’s desire to not turn over certain documents.  He took a key role in arguing for a presidential veto of a bill amending the Freedom of Information Act that greatly widened the scope of the act, a position that was successful partially, as Ford did indeed veto the bill, only to see his veto overridden.  In 1976’s case Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, Scalia had his first opportunity to argue a case before the US Supreme Court and was successful.  Also successful was Jimmy Carter’s attempt to win the White House, resulting in Scalia returning to the private sector.  He first spent a few months with the American Enterprise Institute, a well-known conservative think tank.  He then went back to teaching, this time at the University of Chicago Law School, as well as spending a year as a visiting professor at Stanford.

After Reagan took control of the White House in 1980, everything seemed set for Scalia to return to public service.  It seemed to take longer than expected, however, as his first desired position went to another candidate, and then he declined an offered position, preferring to wait for something more consequential.  This paid off in 1982 when he was offered, and accepted, a position on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  While serving in the DC circuit, Scalia built up an impressive conservative record and quickly rose to Pres. Reagan’s short list for the Supreme Court, along with Robert Bork.  Then in 1986, Chief Justice Burger announced his retirement and Pres. Reagan first nominated Justice Rehnquist to fill the position of Chief Justice, and then Antonin Scalia to fill Rehnquist’s Associate Justice role.

Looking back on the confirmation proceedings, it is easy to just assume that nominees were just rubber stamped back then when you notice that Scalia faced no opposition and was confirmed with a 98-0 vote.  Things really are not that cut and dried, however, as Scalia’s confirmation hearings took place soon after the divisive fight over Renhquist becoming Chief Justice.  Yes, Presidential nominees were met with less knee-jerk opposition at the time, but some think that a large part of why Scalia flew through the proceedings untouched was due to the Judiciary committee having no taste for a second fight, along with a reluctance to hold up the potential first Italian-American Supreme Court Justice.  While Scalia was approved 98-0, the vote for Renhquist to become Chief Justice was a much tighter 65-33.  No matter the confirmation process, on September 26, 1986, Scalia became Justice Antonin Scalia, the first Italian-American to sit on the nation’s top court.

To say Antonin Scalia was a divisive figure on the Supreme Court would be an understatement on par with saying the GOP controlled Congress that Pres. Obama must work with is a little bit obstructionist.  His Originalism did not always mean he fell on the conservative side of decisions.  He was a strong defender of the Confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, protecting the right’s of defendants to confront their accuser, including lab technicians in drug cases, as well as the Sixth Amendment’s promise of a trial by jury, striking down a judge’s ability to increase the sentence of a convict if the judge felt the crime was motivated by hate in Apprendi v. New Jersey.  In Blakely v. Washington, and then United States v. Booker Scalia took down mandatory sentencing guidelines, turning them into suggestions rather than ranges set in stone.  Fans of the Fourth Amendment could also find opinions by Scalia to like; in Kyllo v. United States he found that Han and Leia’s son was indeed guilty of murdering his fa…wait.  Sorry, that’s Kyllo, not Kylo.  Sorry.  ahem, in Kyllo v. United States he wrote the majority opinion finding that thermal imaging of a home was an illegal search, and dissented in the 1991 case County of Riverside v. McLaughlin that found it was legal to hold someone arrested without a warrant for 48 hours before seeing a magistrate.  In 1990 he wrote the Court’s opinion striking down a hate speech law in St. Paul, admirably protecting the First Amendment.  (Sorry fellow liberals, if you support hate speech laws you may want to reexamine the reasons why.  Hate speech needs to be confronted and defeated in the marketplace of ideas, not outlawed and suppressed.)  Unfortunately, while more than I expected to write in this section, that is about it when it comes to praising his decisions.

I am not going to spend a lot of words detailing his opinions progressives would find noxious.  There really isn’t a need, as most liberals know exactly who Antonin Scalia is and what his beliefs are, because he made them no secret.  He was outspoken, at times rude, at times condescending with those who disagreed with his views.  Life truly is black and white, good and evil to Justice Scalia, as anyone who saw him turn on an interviewer who seemed incredulous at his belief in a literal Devil:

Soon afterwards Senior brought the conversation to the afterlife asking, “You believe in heaven and hell?” to which the Justice responded, ‘Oh, of course I do. Don’t you believe in heaven and hell?’

Turns out Ms. Senior does not – to which Scalia tsked, ‘Oh, my.’

In a reflection on salvation that seemed to be comparing Judas Iscariot to gay people, Scalia was unwilling to speculate if Senior’s disbelief indicates that she will wind up in hell. However, just as Senior was ready to move on to Scalia’s drafting process, the Justice leaded forward and told her:

“I even believe in the Devil.”

Go on..

Q: So what’s he doing now?

A: What he’s doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way.

But as the questioning continued Scalia appears to have gotten irate saying:

You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil!

 

While a devout Roman Catholic, Antonin Scalia was pro-life only in relation to the unborn, supporting the death penalty fully.  His support for the death penalty included killing those who offended at 15 and 16 years of age, as well as the mentally retarded, using his originalism as justification in the latter case.  He firmly believed that the Constitution did not include a right to abortion, urging his fellow justices to overturn Roe V. Wade at any possible opportunity.  In Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000, Scalia dissented from the Courts decision to overturn Nebraska’s ban on “partial-birth abortions” due to the lack of an exception for the health of the mother, comparing the Court’s decision to Dred Scott and Korematsu.  In 2007, Scalia joined with the four other Catholics on the Court in Gonzales v. Carhart  to uphold a federal ban on the procedure, a decision that faced blazing criticism on First Amendment grounds.  From Wikipedia:

University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey R. Stone, a former colleague of Scalia’s, criticized Gonzales, stating that religion had influenced the outcome as all five justices in the majority were Catholic, whereas the dissenters were Protestant or Jewish.[68] This angered Scalia to such an extent that he stated he would not speak at the University of Chicago as long as Stone is there.[69]

Ahem.  Me thinks the esteemed juror doth protest too much.  Scalia was firmly against affirmative action, voting against it every chance he got, and was similarly skeptical of laws that sought equality of the sexes.  Recently Scalia allowed his hatred of affirmative action to get the best of him in Fisher v. University of Texas, either revealing his own racism or simply giving the appearance of racism.  As Mother Jones reported:

During oral arguments in a pivotal affirmative action case on Wednesday morning, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia raised the suggestion that African American students might belong at less rigorous schools than their white peers, and that perhaps the University of Texas should have fewer black students in its ranks.

Scalia’s comments came during arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case over whether the university’s use of race in a sliver of its admissions decisions is constitutional.

He said:

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.

He went on to say, “I’m just not impressed by the fact the University of Texas may have fewer [blacks]. Maybe it ought to have fewer. I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.”

Even more than affirmative action however, Justice Scalia saved his worst vitriol for the gay and lesbian community.  In 1996 Scalia dissented from the majorities opinion in Romer v. Evans, a ruling that effectively ended the 1986 ruling that permitted states to make homosexual sodomy illegal, Bowers v. Hardwick.  Quoting from Wiki once again:

Scalia later said of Romer, “And the Supreme Court said, ‘Yes, it is unconstitutional.’ On the basis of—I don’t know, the Sexual Preference Clause of the Bill of Rights, presumably. And the liberals loved it, and the conservatives gnashed their teeth.”[78]

In 2003 Lawrence v. Texas formally reversed Bowers, a case that Scalia not only dissented from, but practically made a mockery of himself over.

According to Mark V. Tushnet in his survey of the Rehnquist Court, during the oral argument in the case, Scalia seemed so intent on making the state’s argument for it that the Chief Justice intervened.[79] According to his biographer, Joan Biskupic, Scalia “ridiculed” the majority in his dissent for being so ready to cast aside Bowers when many of the same justices had refused to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[80] In March 2009, openly gay Congressman Barney Frank described him as a “homophobe”.[81]Maureen Dowd described Scalia in a 2003 column as “Archie Bunker in a high-backed chair”.[82] In an op-ed for The New York Times, federal appeals judge Richard Posner and Georgia State University law professor Eric Segall described as radical Scalia’s positions on homosexuality, reflecting an apparent belief that the religious stances supposedly held by the majority of US citizens should take precedence over the Constitution and characterizing Scalia’s “political ideal as verg[ing] on majoritariantheocracy.”[83]

Scalia was a supporter of the 2nd Amendment as well, and I really don’t think I need to tell you how he voted in regards to marriage equality.

As disgusting as I find many of the man’s beliefs, it can not be said that he was not a brilliant legal mind.  He was a man of conviction who seemed to love life, taking his role on the Court seriously while never losing his sense of humor.  For such a conservative firebrand, it may come as a surprise to find his closest friend on the Court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a progressive hero.  The two shared a love for the opera, ”  even appearing together onstage as supernumeraries in Washington National Opera‘s 1994 production of Ariadne auf Naxos.[103] Ginsburg was a colleague of Scalia’s on the D.C. Circuit, and the Scalias and Ginsburgs had dinner together every New Year’s Eve.[141]”

I am not going to lie.  I feel the nation is much better off with Scalia off the Supreme Court.  Even if the US Senate succeeds in obstructing Obama’s nominee to replace him, even if a Republican wins the White House this year, I find it unlikely that they can get a nominee approved who is as dependable of a conservative vote as Scalia was in his time on the bench.  I believe he used his originalism as an excuse to hide his religious motivations behind, with the Court’s 5-4 ruling along religious lines in Gonzales v. Carhart being one of the low points in the history of the Court, making mockery out of JFK’s famous speech allaying fears of his Catholicism.  His belief in a literal Satan as an actual force in reality, while possibly shared by a large portion the the population, is none the less terrifying coming from a man with his level of education and power.  That being said, I wish I was celebrating his removal from the Court because he retired; not due to his death.  I wish nothing but the best to his family and friends in this difficult time.  As a person, I know the pain that his death has caused his loved ones.

Yet as a public figure, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, I am nothing but glad to see him go.

 


I have oral surgery later today, so this will be the last post of the day.  I hope to have a post detailing what Scalia’s death means to the 2016 Presidential campaign tomorrow.

This Election is Like Fentanyl

For a political junkie, that is.  For someone who simply cares about the future of this country, this election is nothing short of terrifying, but for a political junkie, this mess is like fetanyl to an opiate junkie.  Fetanyl, for those fortunate enough not to know, is an incredibly potent (from wiki:” Fentanyl is approximately 80 to 100 times more potent than morphine and roughly 40 to 50 times more potent than pharmaceutical grade {100% pure} heroin“) prescription painkiller.  For a addict accustomed to heroin or more common prescription opiates, fetanyl (or many of its analogs) provides a surprisingly intense rush, and as such is usually highly valued.  Unfortunately, the very thing that draws addicts to fetanyl is also its worst drawback.  Fetanyl’s strength makes it incredibly dangerous as a street drug.  Anecdotally, I know of several overdoses caused by prescription fetanyl patches (and unless I state otherwise, all overdoses are caused by misuse and/or abuse of said drug.  I definitely believe fetanyl should be available to people who need it for pain reduction), and my own past experiences taught me to be very careful with fetanyl patches.  When you get into bags of heroin that contain fetanyl or an analog, you are getting into really scary territory.

This election is fascinating.  It is ludicrously long,  and completely unbalanced, yet both sides still have an amazing amount of drama unfolding.  The Democrats have been playing second fiddle, partially by the design of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s failed plan to make damn sure no one saw a Democratic primary debate this year, and partially due just to the sheer amount of crazy on the opposite side, but the story currently unfolding is incredible.  After losing to then Senator Obama in 2008, this was finally supposed to be HRC’s year.  Joe Biden gave her a bit of a scare before deciding not to run, but in the end the Democratic party mainly agreed that she would be the nominee.  Hell, her main competition wasn’t even a Democrat, he was a self proclaimed socialist Senator from Vermont.  The above mentioned chair of the Democratic party seemingly scheduled the debates to fly under the radar and insure that HRC would get through the primary season fresh and ready for the general election, while the GOP nominee would be limping in after a crowded primary fight.  Flash forward to today.   Sure, HRC “won” Iowa.  Sure, everyone already knew Bernie would do well in New Hampshire.  But if you are a HRC supporter you can not tell me you aren’t feeling the “here we go again” taste of 2008 right now.  I still feel that HRC will eventually secure the nomination, but I’m starting to come around to the idea that the previously unthinkable is possible as well.

This isn’t a normal election.  Just look at the other side for all the proof of that you’ll ever need.

I feel sorry for Jeb Bush.  Don’t read any of this as an endorsement, of course.  I still think his policy ideas are evil, it’s just a benign evil.  He’s not trying to be evil, that’s just the way he was raised.  He’s a Bush.  I don’t vote based on who I would like to have a beer with, but Jeb seems like a nice enough guy.  I wouldn’t mind having a drink with him, as long as we didn’t talk about politics or religion.  It’s hard not to feel sorry for the man when you see him bear hug a stranger who mentioned Bush could conceivably swing his vote, or quietly plead with a crowd to applaud his applause line.  Perhaps the memory of his brother’s time in office doomed Jeb’s chanced no matter what happened, but we’ll never know.  The crowded GOP field at first appeared as pins set up for Jeb to strike down.  Following his brother’s approach, he raised a ton of money before anyone else even knew there was an election coming up, giving himself the appearance of the eventual nominee.  Oh what sweet summer children we were back then.

If I would have told you, at this point last year, that 2016 would begin with Donald Trump finishing 2nd in Iowa before winning New Hampshire convincingly, you would have rolled your eyes and moved on to the next post or the next blog.  I never thought this was an impossible situation, but I admit I found it incredibly unlikely.  Like everyone else (well, almost.  Brad Friedman at Bradblog took him seriously the whole time) I thought Trump would fizzle out and one of the establishment candidates would take control.  Instead we have a complete revolt against the national GOP by the angry “base” they created over the past decades.  After Iowa it appeared as if perhaps Marco Rubio would be the establishment’s hail mary, saving the GOP from either Trump or Cruz.  That hope seems a bit further fetched now after Chris Christie finally justified his presence in the race by short circuiting Marco’s programming at the last debate.  Mr. Rubio finished back of Jeb and was shut out from delegates in New Hampshire.  Let me say that again.  He lost to Jeb.

Sure, Kasich came in second, but he isn’t a legitimate establishment choice.  He is far too moderate for the “base” that controls so many red states.  (And seriously, look at Kasich’s positions and realize how scary it is that he is considered too moderate.)  The GOP race seriously seems like it could come down to Ted Cruz v Donald Trump, and if that happens, what does the national party do?  If it was anyone else, the answer would be throw everything possible against Trump and hope for the best, but I can not see them siding with Cruz, a candidate many of them actively hate.

And yet, as fascinating as it all is, as much as you want to see what happens in the next debate, in the next primary, the dangers lurk below the surface.  The GOP’s Trump problem was hilarious until it wasn’t.  As long as any path Trump had to the GOP nomination ended in a general election defeat, it was all in fun.  As long as we knew Ted Cruz would lose in a landslide, it was a game.  “It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye.”  What happens if we do lose an eye?

They don’t even have to win to do damage.

But with the revolution in the Democratic party unlikely to end soon, it becomes increasingly more likely that instead of the GOP nominee emerging from a bitter primary fight to find an untouched HRC with a full war chest and the whole Democratic party behind her, they find they have to face either a self-proclaimed socialist in Sanders or HRC, both having just finished an equally grueling primary fight.  And then the “what ifs” begin.  If the nominee is HRC, what if Sanders voters stay home?  If it’s Sanders, does he cause establishment wing Democrats to stay home?  Can a “socialist” win a general election in the United States?  (Fwiw, I consider myself a socialist mainly.)  If it’s HRC, did Bernie hit her on the e-mails?  Did it hurt?  Is there a terrorist attack preceding the election?  (I find this to be incredibly likely.  Terrorism is normally intended to force a response.  ISIS wants an apocalyptic ground war on their territory.  They have to know that they are much more likely to get their war with a GOP president, and that a terror attack will push votes to the GOP candidate.  They aren’t stupid.  I hope our anti-terrorism forces are on the ball.)

As I said, the “what ifs”.

With fetanyl, the danger is overdose, always lurking in the shadows, waiting for you to get sloppy.  With this election cycle, it is President Cruz or President Trump.  Catastrophic results to a fascinating ride.

For those of you who don’t love politics, I apologize.  All you get is a possible Trump or Cruz presidency.  You don’t even get to enjoy the high.

 

Crossword Puzzle HELP!!!

I can get a little more in depth here.  I’m kinda sorta addicted to crossword puzzles, and today’s either contains an error or my brain broke:

crossword

The clue in question is 34 across.  I believe the puzzle creator mixed up Alan Alda with Alan Arkin, who actually appeared in Catch-22.  I went through the cast list and can not find anyone to fit in that slot.

Here’s the same puzzle partially filled in so you can see what I’m talking about:

crossword1

 

Help?

My Thanksgiving Tradition

 

Third graders holding hands Indians
And Pilgrims celebrating newfound lands
They tried to teach me that at school
Make the white man look superior, it’s always been their rule
Now I can’t believe we celebrate Thanksgiving as a holiday of unity and peace
If I had my way, we’d all dress in black
And Daddy would serve up the white meat
‘Cause genocide is nothing to celebrate, extinction doesn’t deserve a parade
And we perpetuate these lies with the turkeys that we buy
I tried explaining to my mom but she’s too afraid to admit to herself
That her race is a killing machine
Take a look around your town and who do you see?
The Native American is surprisingly absent in his own indigenous land
Do you want to know why? It’s ’cause we killed them all
It’s not that hard to understand, yeah
So I go to college and you know what I learned?
That 80 million people were killed by my grandpa,
Your grandpa and all of their friends
They bleached out our continent but that’s not the end
The last full blooded Aborigine died a century ago
If it’s possible there’s a place in the southern hemisphere
With a history even worse than our own
No one finds it peculiar
That a tropical island is full of people just like you and me
But Australia’s a piece of shit floating in the Pacific
Buoyed by the blood of the Aborigine.
Buoyed by the blood of the Aborigine.

Dear Anti-Hillary People….

I’m not Nicole Arbour, I get it.  Bill Clinton was a great President, for a Republican.  Hillary is far from a true liberal or progressive, she’s just more of the same old big money swill the major parties forces us to choose from.  If you asked me to name the top 50 people I would install as President of the United States with no concern for reality, Hillary wouldn’t even make the list.  I’ve read your clickbaity Salon articles, I’ve heard the arguments, and I feel ya, I really do.

You have local, state and federal candidates who want to change the system, point them out, I’ll vote for em.  I’ll march in the parade to get money out of politics.  I’ll collect signatures to get rid of gerrymandering and single representative districts.    You’ll get zero argument from me that the system is broken.

I just really want to know what the actual alternative is to voting for Hillary in the general election, assuming the Democrats nominate her.  The above linked article suggests writing Bernie Sanders in during the general election.  I’m sure that will go great for you.

This ideological purity bullshit is what turned the Republican party into the joke it is today.  I would much prefer the Democratic nominee for President to be as progressive as possible, but I’m also not willing to watch 2000 happen all over again to make some protest vote against the Democratic party moving towards the center to pick up moderates the GOP keeps abandoning.  Yes, I will fight to move the party to the left and work to get the party to nominate progressive candidates, but there is no way I am letting any of these GOP candidates win the Presidency with possible control over both houses of Congress without one hell of a fight.   After each of President Obama’s election wins we’ve heard the far right say that they lost because their candidate wasn’t conservative enough.  That evangelicals stayed home rather than vote for a moderate Republican.  Do we really need our own group taking their votes and going home when the candidate isn’t ideologically pure enough?

Our political system is broken.  Two party systems are a damn joke when half the electorate treats it like sports.  We need some major fucking reforms, and it is going to take time and effort to force the changes.  And yes, sometimes voting does boil down to the lesser of two evils.

I probably don’t have any say in who gets the Democratic nomination.  By the time I vote in PA, a candidate normally has things sewn up.  I’m honestly not sure who I would vote for if it ends up mattering this cycle.  But if next November Hillary is indeed the Democratic nominee, I will vote for her.  Hell, I’ll probably be doing poll work for the campaign.  If you really can not bring yourself to vote for her because she isn’t liberal enough or even just enough of an improvement over the alternative, then I understand.

I’ll still blame you if she loses, but I will understand.