As he sowed

So: Kevin McCarthy now goes down in history as the first Speaker of the US House to be removed from office. Who could ever have seen that happening? I mean apart from everyone on the planet, of course. This was always going to be his only legacy: The worst Speaker of modern times, perhaps ever, created the path to his own inevitable demise from the very beginning. In the end, his ejection from the Speakership was exactly what he himself set the stage for.

McCarthy always came across as a cynical opportunist, willing to do whatever was necessary to get the Speaker’s gavel. He enabled and encouraged the lunatic fringe of his own party, and the worst excesses of the supposedly somewhat less-fringey rest of his caucus. He made his ejection inevitable by repeatedly worshiping at the feet of the party’s deified corrupt and indicted Dear Leader, a man so reviled by ordinary Americans that—mostly because of him and his clown car of sycophants in Congress—Democratic candidates in the elections of 2018, 2020, and 2022 exceeded expectations.

The realty is that in 2022 Republicans only won control of the US House because of gerrymandering in Republican-controlled states, something that the courts are now undoing. If it wasn’t for that gerrymandering, the Democrats would’ve retained the US House. And, of course, Democrats also retained control of the US Senate in what was supposed to be a good year for Republicans.

McCarthy didn’t seem to be too stupid to to see how all that pandering to the lunatics in his party would end. When the inevitable end neared, it was obvious and inevitable. There’s now a golden opportunity for true bipartisan, responsible action—which is precisely why it’ll never happen: The few relatively sane Republicans in the US House could join with Democrats to elect Hakeem Jeffries Speaker, then eject the Republican lunatics from their various committees, and allow the House to get back to actually doing its job again, not playing stupid extremist games, wasting the time and money of US taxpayers.

What will happen is that there will be a bitter Republican internal war as the lunatics demand a lunatic be made party leader and then Speaker. The few sane Republicans will—if they have any brains at all—oppose that. However, how long can that go on without causing even more trouble for the country—or even utter disaster? No one one knows, and the Republican lunatics couldn’t possibly care less. They’re too busy acting like 12 year olds.

Still there are two things we know for certain. The first is that the arrogance, stupidity, and hubris of the lunatic Republicans in the House, and also of the party’s deified multiple-indicted Dear Leader, will only increase ordinary people’s revulsion for Republicans generally, and that will cause the party lose more seats in 2024 than they otherwise might have if they had grownups running their party. The other thing we know is that all of this was inevitable. Kevin McCarthy has absolutely no one to blame but himself. He sowed the seeds of his own destruction, and he richly deserves that walloping he’s received.

Good riddance to the first Speaker to ever be removed from office: It took fifteen votes to install him, but only one to eject him. My only sympathy is for the American people who have to watch this Republican shit-show as the party’s lunatic clowns and morons continue to do absolutely nothing of any value to anyone. The sooner all of them join McCarthy in being forced out in disgrace, the better for everyone—especially the Republican Party—though it looks far more likely that it would take a new, sane conservative party to emerge in order to put grownups back in control of conservative politics, and to finally kick the lunatics out of power for good.

Hope springs eternal, and all that.

We’re very good actors

Here’s something that not everyone knows about grieving people: We become very good actors. We learn what to say, how not to say things, and how to present ourselves in a way that the people in our lives expect. We learn, in other words, how not to be real.

The thing about profound grief is that it’s not linear, and it has no timeline. How many times have I said that now? What most grieving people don’t talk about publicly is the extent to which we remain silent, or pretend things are different, because we know that’s what others expect of us. That changes absolutely nothing, that is, nothing except the extent to which we can be honest.

We learn pretty quickly that others have a pre-determined timeline for how long we’re allowed to grieve. Most everyone will give us six months—no real problem there. But folks get twitchy the longer our grief continues: Nine months? Some awkward foot shuffling. A year? Loud and long sighs. Any longer? Subject changes, silence, and/or disapproving frowns if we’re honest about where we’re at.

We see all that, and we learn the message: If we want to be around them, at some point we have to pretend everything’s fine—doesn’t have to be wonderful, just as long as it’s positive. And if we don’t feel positive? Fake it. We hear that, loud and clear.

We all hear your protests! “I’m not like that!” and maybe you’re not. But consider how even detachment and disinterest appears to us. Are we over-sensitive? Why the hell shouldn’t we be?! We’ve had a part of us ripped away, so do forgive us if we can’t read intent: We’re busy trying to deal with being a shadow of our former selves, and that takes up way too much energy to have any left to work out what various people intend.

The thing is, no one has to have to have the answers! They don’t even have to say anything, not really. But if they ask us how we’re doing, they really need to mean it—and if they truly care about us, then they should mean it. They should care about us and hear what we have to say, even if they feel uncomfortable. We can’t have an honest relationship if they can’t accept our reality.

There are some people, of course, who want to “fix” us, like if they don’t approve of how long our grief lasts. Those people don’t matter. We alone get to determine the course, shape, and duration of our grief journey—no one else gets a say. Anyone who can’t accept that should do us the courtesy of saying so and then back out of our lives because the reality is that we don’t really need people like that. Harsh? Nope. Truth.

I recently realised that sooner or later, dealing with profound grief becomes like living in the closet all over again: I feel like I can’t always talk honestly about where I’m at and what I’m feeling or going through, and instead I have to filter everything I say to match what people expect is “normal”. It’s exhausting.

The lesson in this is as simple as it is obvious: Never judge. Never dictate. Always know that you can never know what private war someone else is fighting, so just relax! It’s not your burden or responsibility to “fix” anyone. If someone else’s grief makes you feel uncomfortable, realise that’s about you, not them, and, again, relax. Thing is, most people, most of the time, find their way through and the only thing that matters from you is to make that journey easier. It’s never about being “right”, it’s about being there. That’s it!

People dealing with profound grief become very good actors. We learn what to say, how not to say it, and how to present ourselves in a way that the people in our lives expect. Others’ choices and behaviours can help us make the only real choice: To be real.

Frustration daze

The past two days have been frustrating, and even alarming. I ran errands yesterday, three stops and I was the only one who scanned-in using the Covid Tracer App (and the non-scanners didn’t sign in manually, either).

First stop, a computer store I often go to for stuff. They had the hard drive I went there for, but most of their shelves were empty (because such things come from China and it’s been hard to get stuff shipped here for about a year now). Customers were mostly good about physical distancing, and perfect at checkout.

I then went to a home centre store. Again, non-scanners didn’t sign-in manually. My frustration was that the *one* thing I went there for I couldn’t get because the relevant part of the aisle was closed off while they did stock-take. Customers mostly ignored physical distancing.

Then to a supermarket to pick up some stuff for the week. One non-scanner grabbed some hand sanitiser on the way in—but didn’t sign-in manually. Customers were pretty bad about physical distancing, but better than at the home centre.

Today I was supposed to get a delivery between 8am and noon, a time I booked last week. At 10:07 I got a text from the delivery company asking me to confirm my address. At 12:56pm I got another text telling me the item was “out for delivery”—56 minutes past the scheduled delivery time.

At 1:48, I got yet another text asking me to book delivery for a package. I hoped that meant that the order is coming on two separate days (I ordered two things), and not that they arbitrarily decided to re-schedule the delivery. I did as I was asked, and and that delivery is scheduled for Friday between 8am and Noon. Yeah, sure it is.

Well, it turned out the delivery company arbitrarily moved the delivery to Friday. No explanation, they just did it. I’m almost always home on Fridays, anyway, so if it really happens, it won’t inconvenience me.

However, once I get the delivery, I’m going to complain to the company I ordered from because of the appalling service from the delivery company they used, and also because it already wasn’t even close to the target delivery times stated when I ordered. It makes me wonder whether it’s worth it to order from them at all in teh future, and I know they’ll want to know that.

I obviously fully realise that my frustrations are “first world problems”, which, coincidentally, is the world I live in, but among all my annoyances and frustrations, the thing that bothered me wasn’t the challenges I faced, it’s that even now—EVEN now—people are still not following Level 2 rules. What the hell is wrong with those people? Do they *want* us to go to Level 3 lockdown like Auckland has three times now? Because they’re sure acting like it.

And that’s the thing about all this, and the point of my little tale of woe: The mounting frustrations put me in a bad-ish mood, BUT, I still followed all the Level 2 rules. No one has any excuse to not do the same. IMHO.

I have a feeling I’ll have more reasons to complain about such appallingly cavalier behaviour in the future, with or without any more frustrating days.

This is a revised and greatly expanded version of something I posted on my personal Facebook.

Quislings and traitors?

The “gay” Republican group Log Cabin Republicans recently announced they were endorsing the current occupant of the White House in the 2020 elections. As a result, they were called quislings, traitors to the LGBTQ community, and far worse things. Was the criticism justified? Of course it was. They really are quislings and traitors.

The first issue is the endorsement itself. Their whole thing reads like a love letter to their hero, as if none of the horrible things he’s done—not just his racism, his anti-semitism, his cryptofascism and cult of personality, no, they also excuse the current regime’s war on LGBT+ Americans (the only thing it can be called). Their lame, pathetic statement, “While we do not agree with every policy or platform position presented by the White House or the Republican Party…”, it’s immediately undone when they declare how they actually do agree because of ideology they admit they share with the party that is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the current occupant of the White House.

They never directly mention the current regime’s war on trans* people, not even when they declare, “we are committed to letting all qualified Americans serve in the military”. We know that doesn’t apply to trans* people because they then talked about how they supported an end to the infamous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that expelled LGBT+ people from the USA’s military. That was nice back then, but why are they such doormats now?

The group also highlights the current regime’s entirely fake “initiative to end the criminalization of homosexuality” in the 72 countries where it’s illegal. That was obviously a political stunt, and the current regime never had any intention whatsoever of doing anything even remotely similar to that. When the fake story broke, I pointed out the cynicism of the move, and I could have added that it was fake because the opposition of his fervent christofascist fans—and the current vice president—meant that there was no way this fake ”initiative” was ever going to happen.

The group swayed with ecstasy in declaring that the 2016 Republican Convention was so wonderful, and seeing their hero take the stage was “like a dream fulfilled” for “gay” Republicans. Pity they forgot their group’s own past about that very convention.

The group’s then-president sent an email to supporters telling them that their party had just “passed the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history,” and also, “This isn’t my GOP, and I know it’s not yours either.” But all that’s apparently forgiven by the current leaders of the group—including by that guy, actually.

Their current betrayal is also in stark contrast to the principled stand the group took in 2004 when it refused to endorse Bush the Second for election to a second term because of his support for a constitutional amendment to forever ban the freedom to marry. What happened to that kind of Log Cabin “gay” Republicans? When did they make betraying the LGBT+ community central to their idendentity?

All of that is the reason that the Log Cabin “gay” Republicans are rightly called quislings, a term for both a collaborator and a traitor. They’re giving cover to the current regime, “pinkwashing” it so it can pretend it gives a shit about LGBT+ people when they absolutely do not. The current occupant of the White House declared he was “very honored to receive [the endorsement]”, before adding, “I’ve done very well with that community. Some of my biggest supporters are of that community, and I think they—and I talk to them a lot about it. I think I’ve done really very well with that community.”

What they actual hell was that man talking about?!

The facts prove that the current occupant of the White House couldn’t possibly care less about the LGBT+ community, nor does it bother him at all that his regime is waging a Holy War against the community. It’s also fact that he did NOT win the vote of LGBT+ people.

So, when the “gay” Republicans pretend that this regime is so wonderful, it’s little wonder they’re called quislings—collaborators and traitors to the LGBT+ communities. Because, you know, well, they are.

One will want to suppose that the folks on that group’s Board of Directors aren’t really as stupid a their actions seem, nor that they’re as delusional as they sound, and if so, then something else must be going on. Naturally, I have some theories.

The group may be driven by their affinity for the current occupant himself: They support him because he’s one of them, that is, rich, classist, elitist, and even racist. People like the “gay” Republicans have always assumed their money and connections would protect them from any oppression faced by us mere peasants, and for a time, it does. But, sooner or later all authoritarian regimes turn on their rich, connected, elite, “gay” supporters. Always.

Evidence for their affinity for the current occupant is the leaders’ idiotic assertion:

The president’s tax cuts have benefited LGBTQ families and helped put food on their tables. His opportunity zones have helped create new LGBTQ-founded small businesses. The administration’s aggressive negotiations on trade deals have preserved LGBTQ jobs. His hard line on foreign policy has protected LGBTQ lives. What benefits all Americans benefits the LGBTQ community, as we cross every racial, socioeconomic, religious and cultural divide.

All of which is demonstrably false here in the reality-based world. We know that the regime’s tax cuts for the wealthy primarily benefitted corporations, the rich, the obscenely rich and, especially, the OMFG they’re rich. Any “benefits” that ordinary people got were temporary—only the rich elites will benefit long term. Aslo, the deficit is skyrocketing because of it, which isn’t a very Republican thing to do. Well, in the old days, when there were still real Republicans, back then it wasn’t okay.

Beyond that, there’s no specific evidence that the regime’s policies have “helped create” any LGBT+ small businesses, and it is a flat out lie that the regime’s trade wars have “preserved LGBTQ jobs”. To be fair, though, that may be true among the elites and trust fund babies the “gay” Republican group represents. The bit about foreign policy is also an outright lie.

The absolute ONLY thing in their entire fanboi letter that actually was unequivocally true is “What benefits all Americans benefits the LGBTQ community, as we cross every racial, socioeconomic, religious and cultural divide.” But the “gay” Republicans clearly have absolutely zero understanding of anyone not like them. That’s the only logical conclusion from reading their screed that ignores the very real issues faced by LGBT+ people who are black, Hispanic, trans*, poor, or just not rich enough, all in order to praise the man and regime who are the cause of so much suffering of, and growing oppression of, LGBT+ people.

As a result of the Log Cabin “gay” Republicans’ betrayal of LGBT+ Americans (LGBT+ Republicans in particular), the group is losing its supporters. One of them gave the best possible reaction to this.

Jennifer Horn, who resigned from the board of the “gay” Republican group, deserves the final word on this. She wrote, “There is no world where I can sit down at the dining room table and explain to my children that I just endorsed [the current occupant of the White House] for president. It is contrary to everything that I have ever taught them about what it means to be a good, decent, principled member of society.”

Indeed.

See also: “‘He gets it’: Evangelicals aren’t turned off by Trump’s first term” — Washington Post One of the things the current occupant “gets”, apparently, is that the rights of LGBT+ people must be rolled back

Idiot says idiotic things

Whenever the newsmedia talks about rigthwing Auckland Mayoral candidate John Tamihere, a single headline could always be used because it would always be appropriate: Idiot says idiotic things. That’s been true of his career for more than 14 years. Today he added yet another layer of utter stupidity to his deep well of it: He wants to privatise Auckland’s water supply company, Watercare. What. An. Idiot.

Tamihere is and ex-Labour Party MP and ex-cabinet minister who was forced out of the party under a cloud after, of course, saying idiotic things. Then he was a talkback radio host where he said more idiotic things. Now he’s currently performing the role of rightwing populist and, of course, saying idiotic things—and he deserves this rant.

His latest proposal is beyond idiotic, as all rational people know, but he’s just playing a cynical game, pandering to his base and the grumpy brigade who hate Auckland Council and/or how much they pay rates (similar to US property taxes). The Righwing, his base, absolutely loves the idea of transferring public assets like water to private hands so they can make enormous profits by using their monopoly to exploit people for shareholders’ enrichment. The rightwing political establishment is loaded with those who are loaded, and many of them would be getting a piece of the action if Watercare was sold, so their advocacy for privatisation is mostly motivated by greed.

There’s another faction that may support him, one made up of what I often call the Grumpy Brigade. They are people who seem to enjoy being grumpy, unable to see anything good about Auckland Council, and always imagining that things are worse now than they were before Auckland Council came into being in 2010. Whether their feelings are completely wrong, completely justified, or somewhere in between is beside they point, though, because what they seek is to drastically cut how much Council spends (except in there area, of course!!), and/or they want to shrink Council somehow. To such people, selling off Watercare would be be a way to stick it to the Council as much as anything else.

We know that Tamihere is merely playing games on this issue because it would be impossible to sell Watercare as long as Labour controls central government, and for a very simple reason: It would take new legislation to make it possible, and neither Labour nor the Greens would ever support that, and New Zealand First probably wouldn’t, either (they’re more like old-school populists, before the term became associated nearly exclusively with the far-right).

Under current legislation, ownership of Watercare is vested in Auckland Council. It is forbidden to return a dividend and must operate at the lowest cost. In other words, it supplies an essential public service and charges no more than it needs to in order to recover actual costs.

If Watercare was sold off, profits would then become the sole priority of the new private entity, because profits are the sole reason that companies exist, after all. That would mean soaring rates for all residential consumers—but, one would expect, not for businesses, who could even see rates lowered, subsidised by families in Auckland paying ever more.

How much more? Auckland’s current Mayor, Phil Goff, who is running for re-election, told Stuff, "I'd have to do the calculations, but it could be a 30, 40 or 50 per cent increase in water rates." That’s because, he said, that any company buying half of Watercare would want a return of around 7.5 per cent. That’s a completely different situation to the current one, in which Watercare pays no dividend and re-invests all monies back into the service rather than sending profits to shareholders, many or most of whom would probably be overseas.

Tamihere probably knows all that, one must assume. The best guess is that he’s saying it to get attention for himself, and talk of selling of publicly owned assets, like Watercare or the Ports of Auckland, are a sure-fire hit with both his base and the Grumpy Brigade—even though it’s impossible for him to deliver on.

But, he’s apparently not done making promises he can’t keep. When asked if he planned to sell off any more of assets owned by the people of Auckland, he answered, he didn’t "at this particular point in time." Yeah, right.

Aside from his cynical political games, one of the thing that’s most annoying about Tamihere is how much he lies. In the debate he said that there was interest from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) who, he claimed, wanted 50 per cent, adding, "Phil [Goff] knows it, the public needs to know it." The person who would, in fact, know is Mayor Goff who said he knew of no such bid. Odds are it exists only someone’s fevered imagination. It’s possible that one of his political advisers, or perhaps a National Party adviser, made it up for him. Who knows?

There was absolutely no way, no how that’d vote for Tamihere for anything; I lost respect for him back when he was being driven out fo the Labour Party, and his sexism and homophobia sealed the deal.

Most of the time I ignore him. He’s running a vanity campaign backed by the National Party, though not “officially” at the moment, and pandering to some of the worst elements in Auckland. The only thing outsiders need to know about him is simple: Idiot says idiotic things. That describes him every single day.

A food fail

There are times it’s a good idea to ignore a special food product, something a company offers for a limited time. Such things are almost always built on mere hype, with the “limited time” offering being a way to generate sales based on the declared scarcity of the product. Sometimes it really is a good idea to look away. I wish I had done that.

Recently, I was ordering in our groceries, and the front page of the grocery store’s website had a promotion for a Cadbury special chocolate bar, a “Dairy Milk Packed With Creme Egg Yum”. It sounded intriguing, so I ordered one. My sincerely held opinion: The hype greatly exceeded the reality.

It probably helps if one is a huge fan—and I mean a fanatical fan—of Cadbury Creme Eggs, and I’m not one. I’ve thought they were okay, but nothing I’d go out of my way to have again. However, to me, this bar was nothing like a Creme Egg. Instead, it was mostly nothing but sweet, far more so than it needed to be, and tasting vaguely of chocolate. It was pretty bad. It was so awful, in fact, that a week and a half later the bar's still not finished—and there are plenty of similarly sized chocolate bars (from other companies…) that wouldn’t last a day and a half in our household.

Cadbury, has been sliding in popularity in New Zealand for years, having frequently shot itself in the foot. In 2007, the company closed its Auckland factory, costing 200 jobs. In 2009, the company got complaints and harsh criticism for switching from cocoa butter to cheaper palm oil, which is a problem for many reasons. They switched some products back after the firestorm.

2009 was also the year that Cadbury was acquired by Kraft Foods, and things have gone downhill since then. That company is now known by it’s totally made-up name, Mondelēz International, and maybe that phoney name should have been an indicator?

In 2017, the company announced it was closing its Dunedin factory, costing 350 people their jobs so, the company could move production to Australia (the Dunedin factory wasn't making enough profit). Some iconic Kiwi brands were to be shifted to Australia, too, but since they’re Kiwi, not Aussie, no one expects that production to continue long term. This year, they announced that—yet again—they’re reducing the size of their “family size” chocolate blocks. That announcement came only a month after it was revealed that Cadbury had “butchered" their marshmallow Easter Eggs by cutting them in half—resulting in “New Zealand’s top five non-Cadbury marshmallow Easter eggs of 2019”. Good advice. As it happens, “This Easter no Cadbury chocolates will be Kiwi-made” for the first time in 89 years. Why do we still buy their stuff?

Oh, that’s right, marketing. And alluring packaging. I won’t make that mistake with their products again.

The products listed and their names are all registered trademarks, and are used here for purposes of description and clarity. No company or entity provided any support or payment for this blog post, and the product was purchased by me at normal retail prices. So, the opinions I expressed are my own genuinely held opinions, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the manufacturers, any retailer, or any known human being, alive or dead, real or corporate. Just so we’re clear. The chocolate bar I purchased was made in Australia.

Charlatans without shame

The charlatans and conmen in the “Christian” Right have ceased any pretence of trying to hide their partisanship: They are Republicans exclusively, and they want you to believe their god is, too, and if you don’t believe that, you’re damned. Well, they can say whatever they want—freedom of speech and all that—and, for the very same reason, I get to say what I honestly think of them, too. So, in my sincerely held opinion, they’re frauds and liars and Frank Graham is among the worst of the worst: Total fraud, liar, conman, and downright evil.

The graphic above is a post from Frank Graham, the scamvangelist who has done everything in his power to destroy whatever good feeling there once were for his now dead famous father, Billy Graham. Frank has long promoted rank bigotry, religious chauvinism, and christofascism. But the post above exposes the extent of his fraud: The ONLY thing he cares about is power through Republicans.

His post is filled with utter lies, and that can only be explained by two possibilities. First, he’s lying and knows it, but justifies it because, Jesus (and more power for him and his fellow scammers, just coincidentally). If true, this would prove he’s a fake Christian. Or, he really can’t see the criminality and immorality of the current occupant of the White House, in which case he’s so pathologically stupid one must worry for his well being. I’m betting on the first option.

Let’s correct his idiotic post, shall we? Yes, let’s!

“[The current occupant of the White House] has kept his promises to Christians, that he would protect religious freedoms and appoint conservative judges to the federal courts and to the Supreme Court.”

The current occupant and his Republican enablers in Congress have absolutely appointed extremist radical rightwing judges, but the current occupant couldn’t possibly are less about that—he’s outsourced it. Republicans and the “evangelical” charlatans care a lot about that because their agenda calls for taking away the right of women to control their own health decisions, for taking away the right to marry for gay couples—and outlawing our lives, and for increasing the power of corporations. So, yeah, yay Jesus! You know, the guy who, according the very stories that Frank must have heard at some point in his life, consorted with the outcasts and advocated for the poor and powerless—NOT people like Frank.

Let us never forget that “Religious Freedom” is Republican jargon which means “the right to tell fags to get the fuck out of my shop” and nothing more. Ever. Oddly enough, if an atheist refused to serve a Christian THEIR religious freedom would NEVER be defended by Frank and the scamvangelists. Funny, that!

But, our boy continues:

“And he has kept the promises he made to our country to create jobs, strengthen the military, lower taxes, and strengthen our borders.”

Every single thing is a lie. Already, jobs are being lost all over the Midwest because of the trade wars the idiot in the White House has started. Coal is dead—jobs have been lost since he took power. Strengthen the military? For WHAT?! To repress the civilians at home who DARE to disagree with the current regime? Lower taxes? Not unless you’re a corporation or obscenely rich. Strengthen borders? Don’t make me laugh more than I already do.

Frankie goes on:

“But for him to continue fulfilling the promises he made to the American people, he has to have a House and Senate that will work with him to bring positive change, regardless of party. The midterm elections are just 17 days away, and it is one of the most important in our lifetime. Pray before you vote, and don't let the media that is trying to divide our country, influence you. Look at the facts, do your research, pray, and vote.”

What. An. Asshole. He is flat out lying when he says “regardless of party”—that’s just a cynical sop to avoid endangering his tax-free status, and we all know he’s lying through his teeth: Democrats will not cooperate with this regime, nor should they ever. Everyone knows that. So, clearly Frankie wants people to vote for Republicans, and only Republicans. The media dividing us?! Is he fucking serious?!!! Has he not heard the lies and smears coming from his Dear Beloved Leader?!! Or the smears and lies from Republicans running for office? Or the cynical tricks they’re committing to get elected? Of course he has: Frank is an asshole, but he’s not stupid, and he knows damn well what a fraud the current occupant is and how Republicans say one thing and then do everything they can to help the rich and corporations and ONLY them, ordinary people be damned.

I’ll tell you what, Frankie: I don’t need to do any "research" or to "pray" to know what a fraud you and the other scamvangelists are. You don’t give a damn about anyone but yourselves and your ability to tell everyone else how they must live their lives—no, to order them how they must live their lives. To Frankie and his fellow scamvangelists, freedom ends at the nail on their bony, scolding finger wagging at us ALL disapprovingly.

So, no, Frankie, I will NOT vote for ANY Republican—not this year, not any year. Put that in your holier-than-thou scam bucket and drink deeply, Frankie! You attack me and those I love, and I will resist you. I will vote until your friends take that right away from me—as they will if they can. And if you think you win, you will be wrong. Truth, justice, freedom and liberty will never surrender to you and your scamvangelist buddies. EVER.

That’s the real truth. Not that Frankie and his scamvangelst friends have any idea what the truth actually is.

Groundhog Day

Today is Groundhog Day, which means absolutely nothing. I saw the news from the USA and it contained more stories of corruption, criminality, and possible treason by associates of the current occupant of the White House that we’ve seen for more than a year. Okay, that’s a reference to the film more than it’s reference to the day. But, that’s still a fact.

These days most things seem to repeat over and over again, especially the news from the USA. It’s one of the reason that other countries mock the USA so much these days: There’s story after story of stupidity and corruption from the current regime, nothing ever happens because of it, and the world thinks the USA is a sad, pathetic joke because of it.

It’s like every day the USA wakes up, sees the corruption and criminality (and probable treason) of the current regime, shrugs its shoulders, ignores it, then repeats that again the next day. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. (got the idea?)

The world is laughing at the USA. It’s disgusted by the current regime and its antics, its obvious corruption and criminality, and the stupidity and racism of those who unflinchingly support the regime, literally no matter what it says or does. But the fact an ignorant, illiterate clown is the leader of the USA? That’s pretty damn hilarious to the world.

Neither the supporters of the current regime, nor their Republican Party, care in the least what the world thinks, nor how much the world laughs at the USA. But they OUGHT to care that the world is moving on—to China. With the USA controlled by a largely criminal gang, and obviously not serious about engaging with the global community, countries are increasingly choosing to do business with China—the stable regime in the world, run by grown-ups. Pity about the lack of democracy, but is the USA really so very different in that regard when you consider Republicans’ voter suppression and gerrymandering? And what about the current occupant of the White House engaging in obstruction of justice? Or what about his stated goal of subverting the rule of law to transform the executive branch into a personal fiefdom? Is that really so very different from how authoritarian China operates?

Each day brings more of the same. The only way to break the endless repeat of days is to throw every Republican out of office. Will that happen? I doubt it. I hope I’m wrong. I’m sick of living the same day over and over and over again.

Las Vegas sure bet

I’d decided not to say anything about the shooting in Las Vegas. There’s nothing I can say—nothing I haven’t said many times before, and could easily say many times in the future. What’s the point? The one thing I know for certain is that nothing will change, and nothing can change.

I can think of a very good reason nothing will ever change—actually, I can think of 3,533,294 good reasons. That’s the amount that the NRA alone spent since 1998 to buy members of Congress who are still in office, according to the Washington Post. 49 out of 100 US Senators have been paid by the NRA, and 258 of 495 US Representatives. This doesn’t count the money spent by other pro-gun lobby groups, either in support of gun lobby-backed candidates or in opposition to candidates who support common sense gun legislation—or both.

And this is why no gun control legislation will get through Congress.

Even if the US Congress suddenly found the consciences they lost or regained the souls they sold to the gun lobby and actually passed some reforms, the current occupant of the White House would veto them so he could brag about it at his next weekly campaign rally.

And this is why no common sense gun control law will happen.

Unless Americans vote out the gun lobby’s bought-and-paid-for employees in Congress, nothing can ever or will ever change. It’s really that simple—and difficult, because American voters don’t generally vote against incumbent US Representatives, almost without exception, and no matter how much they deserve to be made unemployed.

So, there’s really no point in me talking about this. No one’s listening, no one’s actually doing anything that will actually change anything. Apparently, Americans are happy there’s a guaranteed right to own personal arsenal—but not a right to healthcare if you’re the victim of a mass shooting. There will be another mass shooting sooner rather than later, and we’ll again be ordered to not talk about gun control when that happens. Or after the one after that. Or the one after that. No matter how high the body count is, we can’t possibly discuss common sense gun law reform—it will always be “not the right time”.

America, to put it as it is so commonly expressed these days, is totally fucked up.

And that’s why I wasn’t going to say anything: It gets me too angry and despondent. Which is also why I needed to say something: I want the majority of Americans who want common sense gun legislation to prove me wrong. I want them to throw the bums out, to out fundraise the gun lobby, to take their country back from those who proudly profit from death and misery. But I really don’t think that will happen, so I probably won’t say anything after the next mass shooting.

There’s nothing I can say—nothing I haven’t said many times before, and could easily say many times in the future.

Julian loves Donald

This US presidential campaign has already been the most bizarre ever, something that belongs in a cheap e-book novel, not real life. Yet here we are, with the Republican candidate exhibiting severe narcissistic personality disorder, backed by the Russian dictator, and helped by a narcissistic, self-righteous Australian advancing his personal grudges. This is all far too bizarre to be real—but it is real, and it could all work to elect Donald.

Julian Assange who has been hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in order to avoid criminal prosecution for sexual assault, has long been arrogantly self-righteous, someone who—just like Donald—is convinced that he alone can save us all. Which means that, just like Donald, he’s delusional. By itself, those character flaws would be irrelevant, but they simply cannot be focused to do good things.

Julian hates Hillary Clinton—despises her, actually. He’s used a few ultra leftist buzzwords here and there, words and concepts the Far Left picked up from Karl Rove and the far right, where they originated. But buzzwords, slogans, propaganda, and feelings are not facts—they’re merely lame excuses he uses to try and justify his grudge against Clinton.

Julian hates Hillary because, he’s convinced himself, she pushed for him to be indicted over his role in the Manning leaks. I used to have sympathy for Julian, and at first I even wondered if the rape allegations against him could be political. I’ve come to realise over the years that Julian is just an arsehole, and he absolutely should face justice for the rape charges against him.

Julian’s WikiLeaks is grossly irresponsible in its actions. It doesn’t censor out purely personal information—“curating”, it’s called—putting innocent people in harm’s way. For example, the Democratic National Committee emails the Russia government hacked and gave to Julian contained personal information of donors, including credit card information, passport numbers, and social security numbers, making those people vulnerable to identity theft and forcing them to cancel their credit cards and all the hassles that go with that, all because Julian has a grudge against Hillary.

Moreover, Julian has never explained why a child’s voicemail is “vital” for voters to know about. It isn’t, of course, but he doesn’t care who he hurts or victimises in his personal grudge campaign.

Edward Snowden attempted to gently point out how irresponsible WikiLeaks has been. He Tweeted: “Democratizing information has never been more vital, and WikiLeaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.” Julian/WikiLeaks responded with typical arrogance: “Opportunism won't earn you a pardon from Clinton & curation is not censorship of ruling party cash flows”.

As reckless as Julian and WikiLeaks routinely are about the releasing the private information of innocent people, their recklessly cavalier attitude to the quality of the leaked information is even worse.

The Russians hacked the DNC because Putin wants Donald to win (Putin has interfered with the leadership campaigns in numerous countries, as has been well documented). Julian says that he doesn’t know the source of the leaked information because their systems are set up to make sure they don’t. Perhaps he’s telling the truth. But they made no effort to find out, nor did they make sure the emails weren’t altered in any way, and there’s apparently some evidence of tampering, at least.

Because Julian was blinded by his hatred of Hillary Clinton, he didn’t really care about the agenda of the state-sponsored criminals who stole the information, nor did he care if any of it was actually real or true: All that mattered to him is that it might damage someone he considers an enemy.

Julian’s group also released the names and identifying information of a Saudi Arabian gay man, rape victims, including male rape victims, putting their lives at risk in the brutally repressive Arab feudal society. Julian couldn’t possibly care less, or about any harm he does to innocent people.

Julian makes frequent trips down that road of ignominy.

He groomed and led Chelsea Manning into stealing and leaking secret information that Julian later released, and if Manning ends of spending he rest of her life rotting in a US military prison for it, well, Julian got some fame out of it, so it’s all good, right? What should Julian care what happens to anyone else?

Now, Julian claims he’s got more “damaging” stuff to leak, which, like the DNC leak, he’s trying to time so it causes maximum damage to Hillary Clinton. This isn’t “journalism”, it’s not “democratising information”, it’s cyberterrorism designed to “get” someone Julian considers an enemy in the hope it will get Donald elected president.

The DNC leaks were all a lot of nothing, though Julian still keeps trying to spin it as if it was some sort of “bombshell”. While perhaps his hatred of Hillary Clinton has led him to be blinded to reality, it’s more likely that he’s simply trying to sell his snakeoil and pretend it’s more than that.

However, the cold hard reality is that whatever he’s plotting to release next doesn’t actually have to be real or accurate or even relevant: There will be people who will be prepared to swallow the Russian bait hook, line, and sinker, and even if, like the DNC leak, it’s all a lot of hype and smoke and nothing more, the spin from Julian will nevertheless create doubt about Hillary Clinton, and that might even be enough to elect Donald, just like Putin and Julian clearly want to happen.

I have grown to have only contempt for Julian, and he did that all on his own. His arrogant narcissism has destroyed whatever good his WikiLeaks once did, and has turned what once a sort of noble-ish idea into something that’s now merely the tool of a vile, arrogant man out for personal revenge.

There’s a need for an honest broker, an entity that can receive leaked government information and release the relevant—curated—parts that are truly in the public interest. In the past, those honest brokers were called “journalists”, a word that Julian spits on. WikiLeaks is not and cannot be an honest broker because it’s the tool of a vindictive, arrogant narcissist out for personal revenge, a man who couldn’t possibly care less about the harm he causes to innocent people who get hurt in his vindictive, self-centred and self-righteous campaign of personal revenge.

Harsh realities

There’s a simple fact that some people will refuse to hear, but it doesn’t change the fact itself: Hillary Clinton will be the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, and there’s absolutely no chance that it will be Bernie Sanders. It’s time that people started to prepare for the battle in November. But, that’s not the only harsh reality some Democrats need to face up to.

Hillary Clinton needs fewer than a hundred delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. That means that she needs only 12% of the remaining available delegates, and no one could seriously argue that she won’t actually win far more than that percentage.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, would need to win every single delegate remaining, plus peel away a more than a hundred of Hillary’s superdelegates. Neither will happen. The odds of Bernie cobbling together some sort of hybrid—say, most of the remaining delegates and half of Hillary’s superdelegates—also won’t happen.

This isn’t about favouring one candidate or the other, it’s about arithmetic.

Bernie Sanders has done the best in caucuses and open primary states because both allow non-Democrats to participate. But, even that’s a relative thing: Bernie won the open primary in Indiana, but only got 44 delegates to Clinton’s 39—nowhere even remotely close to the percentage he’d need to score an upset in the final contests. In Oregon, Bernie won just under 60% of the delegates, which at this late stage is also far too low a percentage to give him any hope of a last minute upset.

So, it’s dishonest for Bernie’s campaign to lead supporters to think he could still win, and it makes them look silly when they repeat the meme. But in recent months Bernie’s most fervent fans have had a clear problem with facts.

Before the Oregon primary, my social media feeds were filled with declarations from Bernie’s most fervent fans that there was a “conspiracy” in Oregon to deny Sanders a victory, and the Democratic National Committee and the state government were in collusion. It was all delusional nonsense, based a complete lack of understanding of how Oregon’s system works. And, when Sanders won, not a single Sanders supporter admitted that they’d been wrong. Funny, that.

This paranoid fantasy that the DNC, state parties, and even state governments are all engaged in a conspiracy to deny Bernie the nomination is very concerning because it ignores all facts and reality that show what nonsense it truly is. The rules they so relentlessly attack were drawn up a very long time ago, before anyone—including Bernie—had announced their candidacy and those rules were—or should have been—well known to everyone before anyone announced. Not knowing or understanding the rules does NOT mean they were created to prevent Bernie from winning the nomination: His inability to win enough votes is the reason he won’t win the nomination, not the rules that were set out in way before the contest began.

There absolutely needs to be campaign reform, which is a huge topic in itself, but I have no desire to play a game of whack-a-mole with Bernie’s most fervent fans about why some arcane rule or other isn’t part of an imaginary conspiracy against Sanders.

Pretty much anyone paying attention to the campaign has heard the negative comments about Bernie’s most fervent fans, the “Bernie Bros” being chief among them. They’ve certainly dominated social media, but that doesn’t mean they represent all of Bernie’s supporters.

Bernie is attracting the “anti-Hillary” voters among Democrats and Independents. Because those voters are motivated primarily by anti-Hillary animosity, they’re highly likely to engage in inappropriate behaviour and rhetoric, thereby tarnishing ALL of Bernie’s supporters with tinges of sexism, racism, and even violence toward those who don’t support Bernie. I’m quite sure that those are not the people that Bernie himself thinks of when he thinks of his supporters, but neither can he utterly reject them, not if he really wants influence at the Democratic National Convention.

Bernie’s supporters claim that Hillary’s most fervent fans are “just as bad”, always a dangerous claim to make in politics, given the extreme reliance on the perceptions of people with an ideological dog in the fight. As with Bernie’s most fervent fans, I’ve also seen inappropriate behaviour and rhetoric from Hillary’s most fervent fans—but it’s been entirely different.

And that’s what concerns me the most about this: The battle lines between Bernie’s most fervent fans and supporters of Hillary are becoming not just fiery, but also quite toxic—much to Republicans’ glee. Every time one of Bernie’s most fervent fans says a Clinton supporter is “an idiot” or needs to be educated, or refers to Hillary as “$hillary” (and her supporters as “$hills”), or declares that Hillary is “just Trump with a vulva”—all of which I saw yesterday evening—they’re doing the Republicans’ work for them.

Today, I saw some of Hillary’s most fervent fans mocking Bernie’s supporters with language that was mostly ageist (calling them “Bernie Brats”, for example, or referring to Bernie as "grandpappy") and implying his supporters are too young and naïve to really understand the issues. But I didn’t see any of Hillary’s most fervent fans calling Bernie’s most fervent fans “an idiot”, or dismissing their apparently deeply held opinions as paid for by big corporations, or declaring that Bernie’s most fervent fans are all neo-conservatives. The only directly comparable thing I personally saw was when one of Hillary’s most fervent fans referred to one of Bernie’s most fervent fans as a “progressive”—with quote marks, just as Bernie’s most fervent fans do to Hillary’s.

And then there’s this: I have a personal, real-life friend who is a kind, compassionate, thoughtful, and very intelligent person who has taken down several posts talking about Hillary because Bernie’s most fervent fans took it as their mission to tell her how very wrong she is to support Hillary. Ironically, the most recent deleted post was a share of an article about why more people don’t openly support Hillary on social media.

My friend’s experience is with real people, not “bots” as the two sides sometimes dismissively call each other. What my own Facebook friends have posted have been almost exclusively in support of Bernie, often trashing Hillary, while the two or three people I know who post about anything positive about Hillary always do so with a compliment of some sort about Bernie. Hillary’s supporters simply don’t have the same freedom to express their support for their candidate as Bernie’s supporters do, and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.

But—and this is the most important thing I can say about this—SOCIAL MEDIA IS NOT REAL LIFE! Social media encourages people to be extreme and exclusionary, to denigrate and condescend to others rather than have a rational discussion. What happens in social media is NOT in any way transferrable to real life and doesn’t even remotely mirror the behaviour of the majority of people. Heck, I can’t even be sure that either candidate’s most fervent fans aren’t actually Republicans trying to sow division and animosity among Democrats.

So, while on social media this may seem like the most toxic Democratic primary election campaign we’ve ever seen, in the real world, it’s quite different.

A new poll from Gallup has found that 70% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the Democratic race is not harming the Democratic Party at all. Hillary’s supporters are somewhat more certain the process has not damaged the party than are Bernie’s supporters, which is interesting given the narrative that Hillary's supporters allegedly blame Bernie's supporters for wrecking the party's chances in November, but that difference is within the margin of error and may not be very significant.

What I worry about, however, is that it’s not merely the perception of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents that matters, but them combined with non-aligned Independents. No candidate can be elected president with the support of only Democrats or only Republicans, so the opinion of non-aligned independents matters. Does the ongoing fight for the Democratic nomination—especially since the end result is known—turn them off? We simply don’t know.

Still, the important thing in this poll is that the vast majority of Democrats clearly don't participate in or pay any attention whatsoever to Internet fights. Nor should any of us. It seems to me that the most fervent fans of both Bernie and Hillary would do us—and the country—a favour if they’d grow the fuck up and stop acting like spoiled children arguing in the schoolyard. The stakes are far too high for that childish nonsense. The Republicans will be united in November, and Democrats must be, too.

And that, too, is a harsh reality both sides’ most fervent fans must grasp.

The graphic up top is an Internet meme I spied this afternoon, though I have no idea who created it. It mocks the declaration of some of Bernie's most fervent fans that Hillary is the same as Trump, an utterly stupid idea, of course, so this struck me as funny.

Two clowns left

Well, well, well: Only two clowns are left in the Republican Presidential Campaign Circus. Today, after losing yet another primary, the religious extremist dominionist theocrat, the Canadian born US Senator Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz ended his losing presidential campaign. Good riddance to putrid rubbish.

But, the clowns left in the circus are no better.

One of the worst things about the Republican campaign this year was how truly awful ALL the candidates were: There wasn’t a single centrist among them. Instead, they were all extremists or pandering to those who are. Every single candidate was opposed to marriage equality, with most promising to overturn the Supreme Court decision legalising it. All but one (George “Who?” Pataki) were ardently opposed to choice in abortion, with most pledging to outlaw it and some even promising to make seeking an abortion a crime.

The Republican field this time was truly awful.

And now there are only two left: John Kasich and Donald Drumpf. Kasich is every bit as much a rightwing religious politician as Cruz and most of the others, but he does a much better job of hiding that behind spin and marketing.

Drumpf is, at the very least, a crypto-fascist—the jury is still out on whether he’s an actual fascist or just a self-promoting buffoon who plays like a fascist to win votes. Either way, he’s dangerous because he’ll say—and apparently do—anything to get and keep power. He’s already made the USA a joke around the world, but if he were to win in November, the consequences could be no laughing matter.

It’s good to see Cruz finally slither back down the sewer—or was that turn into a bat and fly away? One gets confused. At any rate, he ran a campaign as divisive and full of bigotry as Drumpf, but he did it using softer language, and then denying to the media he’d promoted bigotry. He thought that naming Carly Fiorina as his “running mate” would (somehow!) help him, but one of the worst CEOs in US corporate history brought no one to him, and only succeeded in making herself look as if nothing mattered to her but her own personal ambition. Or, as comedian and satirist Andy Borowitz put it on Facebook:

BREAKING: Fiorina Sets Personal Speed Record for Destroying Organization…

Cruz will now go back the US Senate, where no one can stand him, and bide his time until the voters in Texas toss him out of office. Which means he may be even more insufferable and arrogant for the next two years than he was in his first four. Still, tick, tick, tick—his time in office is running out.

As for the certain nominee of the Republican Party, I’ll have more to say about that trainwreck another time. Right now, I’m just glad the USA doesn’t have to worry about a dominionist theocrat being president.

See ya, Cruz: Don’t get an elbow in the face on the way out! (What? Too soon?)

Don’t tell me not to be glad

Society tells us it’s impolite to celebrate someone’s death. No matter how bitter the enmity, and no matter how strong the adversarial relationship, we are to say only nice things, or, if we can’t manage that, remain completely silent. Screw that!

US Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died, and I won’t pretend to be the least bit sorry he’s gone from the court he polluted for three long decades. I would have been perfectly happy for him to simply retire, but he was never going to do that, so this was the only possible way to see him leave the court.

So—to be abundantly clear about this—I’m not actually celebrating his death, because that's something about which I couldn’t possibly care less. Instead, I’m celebrating the fact that he’s gone from the Supreme Court, because that I care very much about.

Scalia was the scourge of all fair-minded Americans. He was focused on imposing his personal views of what the eighteenth century authors of the US Constitution meant when they wrote it—even though he was often demonstrably wrong (like about the Second Amendment, for example, about which he flip-flopped). But that wasn’t all he cared about: He sought to impose his extremist rightwing religious views onto everyone, too.

As a rightwing Roman Catholic, Scalia was fervently anti-abortion. He believed that not only did women not have the constitutional right to abortion as affirmed in Roe v. Wade, he thought no government could grant that right.

Scalia was also rabidly anti-gay. He wrote angry, bitter, and even vicious dissents attacking the human and civil rights of gay Americans, and he often used deeply bigoted language to mount such attacks. He also compared being gay to murder because he believed both are “immoral”. What his votes on the Supreme Court mean is that he believed gay people should be put in prison for having sex, and same-gender couples should not have the exact same legal rights and protections that their married heterosexual friends and family members take for granted as a birthright.

So, I completely disagreed with Scalia’s politics: He was wrong on abortion, he was wrong on the Second Amendment (after he flip-flopped), he was wrong on gay people’s right to privacy, and he was wrong about marriage equality.

I also utterly reject the nonsense that he was a “brilliant”: The man promoted a weird view of the Constitution, one that was forever entombed in a time when black people were mere property, women had no rights whatsoever, and gay people belonged in prison or being executed. That bizarre way of thinking can be called many things, but “brilliant” is absolutely not one of them.

Practically before Scalia’s body was even cold, Republicans announced that they plan to play their typical partisan games, blocking any nominee put forward by President Obama. That would be an utter abdication of their duty under the Constitution, and incredibly stupid politics: It would ensure Democrats re-take the US Senate.

What annoys me most about the Republicans’ partisan political games is this: Do Republicans seriously expect us to believe that blocking any nominee, no matter how qualified or good, thereby refusing to do their duty, would be about ANYTHING other than purely partisan politics?! Do they seriously expect us to think their partisan political games are reasonable? REALLY?!

So, if this had happened in George W. Bush’s last year, Republicans would have been completely okay if Democrats had done what Republicans now plan to do? Because we all know damn well that if the roles were reversed, Republicans would NEVER agree to wait for the next president. Mitch McConnell and his cabal clearly think we’re all far too stupid to see what they’re up to: The same old stupid partisan political games they always play.

If Republicans’ games succeed, there could be a 4-4 split in Supreme Court decisions, which would mean that the lower court decision would stand, but no precedent would be set. It would be as if the Court had never even considered the cases [for more about cases this could affect, both Think Progress and also Vox have listed cases and what could happen].

So, I’m not the least bit sorry that Scalia is gone from the Supreme Court, even though it took his death to happen. After all, he could have chosen to leave by retiring, but he didn’t. The fact that he’s gone from the court is the only thing that matters.

There’s been some moralising on the centre and left, tut-tutting those of us who are glad Scalia’s gone. They scold us for an imagined lack of grace, and for being inhuman. Putting aside that Scalia himself was inhuman toward LGBT people like me, I think this sort of self-righteous preaching is naïve.

The very moment that news of Scalia’s death was announced, the rightwing went into overdrive promoting the virtual sainthood of Scalia, as if everything he did and said was nearly divine, beyond reproach or dissent. Put another way, the rightwing immediately set about the task of shaping and forming public discourse about Scalia, and what his image and legacy would be. By remaining silent, those of us who were adversaries and critics during his lifetime would be contributing to the political canonisation of a man who was, to us, the very opposite of a saint.

Scalia’s family knows all this, and they’re well used to it: As a public figure, Scalia constantly faced criticism, so it’s absurd to suggest that critics should now suddenly remain silent—at the very moment the rightwing is asserting theirs as the only correct opinion and view of the man and is career. It is our duty to proclaim our dissent and repeat out criticism.

So, don’t anyone dare to tell me not to be glad Scalia’s gone from the Court, because I am glad. It’s his death itself that I couldn’t possibly care less about.

Update: Writing on The Advocate, Neal Broverman says "Dear Straight People: We're Entitled to Our Feelings on Scalia". I concur.

Stupidity attack

Ben Carson: Two words that together seem to be turning into a synonym for stupidity. The man may have been a good brain surgeon, but he’s an absolute moron when it comes to public policy, and nearly every day he says something so utterly batshit crazy that it proves that fact yet again.

There were, of course, his bizarre statements on guns, and especially about guns and the Holocaust. Experts have already demolished Ben’s utter idiocy on that point, though it didn’t stop one of the star contributors for Fox “News” from blaming Jews for the Holocaust. The American far right is really smart and classy bunch, isn't it?

Ben’s latest dumbassery came in a speech at a church in Gainseville, Georgia, where he preached:

“The pledge of allegiance to our flag says we are one nation under God. Many courtrooms in the land on the wall it says ‘In God We Trust.’ Every coin in our pocket, every bill in our wallet says ‘In God We Trust.’

“So if it’s in our founding documents, it’s in our pledges, in our courts and it’s on our money, but we’re not supposed to talk about it, what in the world is that? In medicine it’s called schizophrenia. And I, for one, am simply not willing to kick God to the curb.”

This is such basic, elementary stuff that it’s frankly embarrassing to have to debunk Ben, but duty calls.

“In God We Trust” wasn’t an official motto until 1956, and wasn’t added to US paper currency until October 1, 1957. The story of the pledge is even better.

In 1892—116 years after the Declaration of Independence—Francis Bellamy, a Socialiast Christian preacher, wrote the original pledge: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” No mention of any gods or goddesses of any kind.

Thirty-one years later, in 1923, words were added: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” STILL no mention of any gods or goddesses of any kind.

It wasn’t until 1954, in the midst of the Cold War anti-communist hysteria, that the words “under God” were added to the pledge. The motto “in God We Trust” was officially adopted a couple years later, because of the same hysteria, and it wasn’t added to paper currency until the following year.

References to any deity in the Declaration of Independence have to be understood in terms of The Enlightenment, especially the fact that most of the “Founding Fathers” weren’t even Christians—they were Deists.

The Declaration of Independence refers (in order) to: “…the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God…” (the only time the word God is used in the Declaration), “…they are endowed by their Creator…”, “…the Supreme Judge of the World…”, and “…with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence…” All of those references are to a Deist conception of a god, not the Christian one. At most, Ben could have claimed there were religious references, but even that’s pushing it.

It gets worse for Ben. While there’s no explicit reference to the Christian god in the Declaration, there’s absolutely NO reference to ANY god, by whatever name, in the US Constitution. In fact, the ONLY reference to religion in the Constitution itself is in Article VI: “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Obviously Ben thinks there should be a religious test.

Moreover, the only reference to religion in the Bill of Rights is in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, and that’s the only reference to religion in any of the Amendments to the Constitution.

The inconvenient truth denied by Ben and his friends is that the USA was founded as a nation in which church and state were meant to be totally separate. The US Constitution—which is the supreme law of the USA—clearly and unambiguously says that all power in the Constitution is derived from “We the people”, not some deity. Even the Declaration—the only founding document with any reference to a divine power of any kind—states that the Continental Congress declared the independence of the United States “in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies”, not in the name of some god or goddess.

All of this matters because it proves Ben’s fundamental ignorance of American history, of the founding of the USA in particular, and of the tradition of separation of church and state that is so vital to the functioning of a free society. Instead, Ben seems to be promoting a Christian theocracy, and that cannot be tolerated—EVER. People of conscience are required to defend liberty against those who would take it away, even those who seek to do it in the name of their religion.

And finally, I could attack Ben’s use of the word schizophrenia, which he used incorrectly, either deliberately or through ignorance, but—unlike Ben—I’ll stick with subjects I know a lot about and have actually studied. I’ll leave that debunking to experts in mental health.

If only Ben had paid more attention in high school, it wouldn’t be necessary to debunk nearly every single thing he says. Sadly, he leaves us no choice but to point out how utterly wrong he is about nearly everything he says. The stakes are too high to do anything else.

Update: Steve Benen at MSNBC points out that every time Ben says something outrageous, his poll ratings go up—just like Trump found out. Meanwhile, Kevin Drum says on Mother Jones that "Ben Carson is a paranoid nutcase."

The clowns perform

This weekend, the Republican Clown Bus came to a screeching halt so clowns could scramble off, horns honking, seltzer bottles spraying, and perform for their adoring audiences. And there are months more of this to come.

The Republican clowns candidates are currently fighting to see who can say the most outrageous thing to get attention from the media and to whip up the most frothing parts of the Republican Party base. All of which is why everyday Americans are raising their eyebrows and wondering what the hell has gotten into the Republican clowns candidates.

The Republicans aren’t talking to mainstream Americans at the moment—they don’t need to. Instead, they need media attention in order to have any hope of getting a seat in the Fox “News” candidate’s circus centre ring.

So, when Donald “I am the best human ever” Trump says outrageously racist things about Mexicans, he’s pandering to the frothing base of the Republican party who are racist and xenophobic. When he attacked John McCain’s military service, pundits declared he’d gone too far, and Lindsey Graham—currently second to last among the Republican clowns candidates—declared of Trump “You’re fired!” Ha, ha, ha, so very, very witty—and idiotic.

What none of the pundits or establishment Republican politicians seem to understand is that the frothing base of the Republican Party despises John McCain because they don’t think he’s conservative enough. Many of them call McCain a RINO, so when Trump, who got five deferments to make sure he didn’t have to go to Viet Nam, made fun of McCain’s service, the base will give at most a shrug. That base doesn’t think of McCain as a legitimate hero, which is how they justify tolerating attacks on an ex-military man when they normally would pretend they were about to beat up anyone who said a single unkind word about a military person.

Trump will continue to say outrageous things to fire up the frothing base he’s performing for, and the media will keep repeating it, ensuring the attention continues, thereby helping Trump all the more. Trump is a brilliant performer, and like all good actors, he knows how to give the audience what they want, and his poll ratings and amount of media attention show just how good a performer Trump is. The fact that there’s nothing more to him than his act is beside the point.

I did notice, however, how establishment Republicans and a few of his fellow clowns candidates were quick to dump on Trump for his McCain insult—yet responded slowly, if at all, to Trump’s blatant racism. Quite telling, really.

Of course Trump wasn’t the only clown performing this weekend. Ten of the Republican clowns candidates were at an event in Iowa hosted by some far-right religious extremists. Pandering to that crowd, each clown candidate was desperate to prove that he’s a bigger anti-gay bigot than the other clowns candidates by declaring that they’ll “fight” marriage equality! Well, somehow or other, you know, like with magic or something, and, like, um, hey! Did you know marriage equality is JUST LIKE slavery?! Well, sure, that sounds utterly absurd to normal people, but to the Republican clowns candidates pretending it’s the same gives them cover for so they can show their anti-gay bigotry all they want because, well, being against slavery proves they’re not bigots. Somehow. In the alternate universe that the USA’s radical anti-gay industry lives in.

Scott “Koch” Walker, meanwhile, said, golly gee, he has no idea whether being gay is a choice or not because, he assured the USA, “I don’t have an opinion on every single issue out there.” Whew! He also claimed he was “focused on representing all Americans, even ones who do not support his beliefs.” Just as long as they’re not gay and wanting to get married, of course. Or a worker who wants to join a union and bargain collectively. Or a poor person who thinks they ought to be able to get pasta sauce and spices with food stamps. Or—oh, heck, we should all just shut up and let Scott “Koch” Walker decide everything for us—even those issues he says he doesn’t have an opinion on!

Scott “Koch” Walker also tried to hide his anti-gay bigotry behind reasonable sounding words. He now says what he meant by opposing gay and bisexual adult leaders in the Boy Scouts of America is that “I just think it pulls scouting into a whole larger political and cultural debate.” Oh! We were wrong! He doesn’t hate gay people, he just hates the “politics” of people being gay! Quite how being gay is automatically “political” will mystify normal people, but the frothing Republican base understand the anti-gay wink-wink that Walker gave them. Besides, heterosexual religious extremists like Scott “Koch” Walker would never dream of forcing their politics on everyone else!

Rick “Oops!” Perry has no such reluctance. “I believe that scouting would be better off if they didn’t have openly gay Scout masters,” Rick said. He also said he stood by his 2008 declaration that “openly active gays, particularly advocates, present a problem. Because gay activism is central to their lives, it would unavoidably be a topic of conversation within a Scout troop.” Now, there are all sorts of ways that I could call Perry an idiot, though the fact that he’s an idiot is obvious, but if you take his statement and replace the word gay with Christian, you can see how Perry’s own words could be used to oppose him being a Scout leader, and it would be equally as stupid.

It’s hard to believe that it was just 2½ years ago that Bobby Jindal declared the Republican Party had to "stop being the stupid party". He and his fellow clowns have spent every waking moment trying to ensure THAT never happens, and this weekend was a great example of why they still are The Party Of Stupid™.

Oh well, at least some of the Republican clowns candidates will be gone by this time next month. That Republican Clown Bus has quite a few more stops to make before then, unfortunately.

The most dangerous clown of all

This week, the 15th so-called “major” candidate scrambled aboard the Republican Clown Bus, ready to join the party’s Hunger Games selection process. This one combines all the worst elements of all the other clowns candidates, and piles on whole new levels of true awfulness. He’s so awful, in fact, that it’s taken me many, many drafts of this post to tone down my rhetoric, something that hasn’t happened with any other Republican clown.

Scott Kevin Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, announced his candidacy on Twitter (image above) and in a moneybeg email informing us that his running for president is “God’s plan for me”. His god did not publicly comment on that claim.

In his speech later that day, Scott laid out his brand of radical conservatism, throwing in a dog-whistle to the new far-right talking point of again making it impossible for government to make the lives of everyday American workers better. Of course he did: That’s what his employers want.

Scott Walker is in office because the billionaire Koch brothers paid to get him elected, then paid to keep him from being recalled, and then paid again to have him re-elected. They’ve also pledged to spend a billion dollars to get a suitably far-right Republican elected president. Who better than their employee, Scott “Koch” Walker? And where the Kochs lead, the other oligarchs and plutocrats will follow.

Jeb (just don’t say) Bush has long been considered the odds-on favourite to win the nomination, but he’s struggling in polls of Republican voters. This hasn’t been helped by an inept start to his campaign, and his propensity for opening his mouth to remove one foot just so he can insert the other one. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has been deliberately stoking racist fires to get attention, and it’s worked: Trump’s been surging in polls of Republicans.

All of this matters because the proposed debate structure for the clowns candidates is that they will be selected based on averaging national polling. So, doing well in the early states—which used to make or break some campaigns—is now irrelevant: Getting national attention is all that matters. Jeb (just don’t say) Bush has name recognition (which is why we’re supposed to call him only “Jeb!”), and Trump has the patent on outrageous statements, so the rest, including newbie Scott “Koch” Walker, need to differentiate themselves.

So, Walker has ramped up his god and religion shtick in a blatant attempt to capture the far-right fundamentalist Christian vote, which makes up the strongest and most reliable part of the Republican base, the part that always turns out in party primary elections and caucuses. But all the Republican clowns candidates are opposed to marriage equality (and most want to enshrine in law the right to discriminate against LGBT people), and all but George Pataki oppose reproductive choice. So, how can Walker break through?

First and foremost, by doubling-down on the far-right’s “Christian” agenda. In that moneybeg, he bragged about signing into law new restrictions on access to abortion in Wisconsin, and he now declares he’ll somehow do the same if he becomes president. He’s actually long been opposed to reproductive choice, which has led him to all sorts of bizarre statements. He once said that doctors should lie to pregnant women to prevent abortions, and he famously declared that mandatory ultrasounds, such as the one in his anti-abortion bill, are "just a cool thing" for women.

Walker called the US Supreme Court’s decision establishing 50-state marriage equality a “grave mistake”, and immediately called for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. While talk of an amendment is merely pandering to the far-right, since it can’t happen, he’s also promised to nominate extreme rightwing Supreme Court justices, something that will be easy to do—and mandatory—if Republicans get a president elected and still control the US Senate.

Walker has talked proudly of his vote to enshrine marriage discrimination in the Wisconsin constitution, but his anti-LGBT animus is most obvious when, as governor, he tried to stop defending the state’s domestic partnership law that gave gay couples a handful of the rights and privileges of marriage, from which they were barred. The rights, few though they were, included hospital visitation, among other things, and were important to couples—but Walker thought they mustn’t be allowed. Wisconsin’s courts consistently disagreed with him, and federal rules mandate hospital visitation rights for LGBT people. But Walker’s enthusiasm for trying to ensure that same-gender couples had NO rights whatsoever show the depth of his anti-LGBT animus.

And he’s now also condemned the Boy Scouts of America for ending discrimination against gay adults because the discrimination “protected children”, he said. The anti-gay animus in that is so blatant there’s just no sugar-coating it, but ThinkProgress explained why Walker’s statement is so deeply offensive.

On just those two “social issues” alone, it’s obvious that Walker isn’t faking his far-right fundamentalist Christianity: He really is a religious extremist, and is not just playing one on TV.

Forcing his religious beliefs onto everyone else isn’t all Scott “Koch” Walker is about, of course: He’s also a radical conservative on economic issues, which makes sense, since he’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Koch Brothers, whose far-right agenda he’s gleefully promoted. From crushing unions (which he wants to do to the entire country), to gutting public education spending and so much more, Scott has proven himself a loyal employee of the Kochs. All of which is why, to everyday people, Walker’s been an utter disaster for Wisconsin (See also: “Scott Walker Wants To Run The Country. Here Is How He Ran Wisconsin.” from ThinkProgress).

The only area in which Walker disagrees with his masters is that Walker believes in “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” for even non-violent offenders convicted of minor crimes. His self-styled libertarian payroll masters, the Kochs, support sentencing reform. Pundits think Walker can’t adopt the Kochs’ position without being called a “flip-flopper”. Clearly, such pundits haven’t been paying attention: The Kochs can run ads everywhere praising their employee for what they’ll probably call his “courage” and maybe “maturity” in doing as they ordered him to do “evolving” on the issue. The Koch political machine has mastered manipulation of political messaging, so once they get into it, Scott’s abrupt shift will look like an angelic virtue, utterly beyond criticism.

On the other hand, if Walker sticks to his weird far-right views on criminal “justice”, the Kochs can spin that as being “proof” that Scott is “independent” of his paymasters. The point is, no matter what he does, Koch money will spin it and spin it and spin it until no one has any idea what the truth is any more—it’s what they do.

All of which assumes that the Kochs can buy the Republican nomination for their minion, and there they run into their biggest problem: Scott. He has so little charisma that they’ll have to bring industrial heaters to his rallies to keep the lack of warmth from freezing his audience, even in July and August. I kid, I kid—but not by much. Of course, the reality is that the Kochs' billions can fix even that, too, through ever more distraction and diversion.

But we just can’t get away from the other big metaphorical elephant in the rhetorical room (aside from his fealty to the Kochs): Walker’s theocratic bent and his determination to impose his particular brand of a subset of Christianity on the entire USA. In his moneybeg, he declared, “Our U.S. Constitution calls for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion,” and he couldn’t possibly be more wrong about that: Obviously freedom OF religion means absolutely nothing without freedom FROM religion—otherwise, all we have is a theocracy in which religion—specifically, Scott’s particular flavour of it—is mandatory. That should trouble all people, whether religious or not.

Scott “Koch” Walker is a dangerous man. He’s successfully rebranded his theocratic and plutocratic extremism as mere “conservatism”, though it’s nothing of the kind: It's merely extremism that co-opts the word conservative as a kinder, gentler marketing tool. To Scott, destroying the middle class to give more money to the oligarchs and plutocrats and forcing his personal religious views onto everyone else is mere “conservatism”. I know plenty of real conservatives who would strongly disagree with him on that.

Scott “Koch” Walker is the worst of the clowns candidates who might actually win the Republican nomination. If elected, he would be all the bad parts of all the worst of the other clowns candidates rolled into one, with a scoop of extra awfulness on top. None of the other creepy Republicans—Huckabee and Santorum in particular—could ever win the nomination. Most of the other completely awful clowns candidates don’t stand a chance, either. So, his real competition are the clowns candidates who are merely mostly awful.

But with billions and billions behind him, Scott “Koch” Walker has the chance to win the Republican nomination, and then the White House, and that’s something that should be enough to scare the shit out of anyone—including Republicans. I cannot stand the man and cannot say a single nice thing about him—obviously. And this is after I toned down what I was going to say!

So, given his truly awful record as governor, his far, FAR right extremist agenda, paid for by the billionaire Koch Brothers, and his determination to impose his religion on everyone in the USA, Scott “Koch” Walker, isn’t just another clown on the bus, he’s the most dangerous clown of all.

The basics: Scott “Koch” Walker is 47, replacing Chris Christie as the second-youngest Republican clown candidate so far (after Bobby Jindal, who is the youngest). On Inauguration Day, he’ll be 49 years, 80 days old. The oldest US President, Ronald Reagan, hallowed be his name, was 69 years, 349 days when he was sworn in.

As of today, there’s still 1 year, 3 months, 24 days until the US presidential election.