An Open Letter to the Voters of Minnesota's 6th District

Hellooooo Minnesota's 6th District!  Greeting from Upstate NY, home of filthy liberals and some conservatives as well.  (They do exist here!)

I wanted to drop by and ask:

What the HELL is wrong with you people?

Since 2007, you people have insisted on sending Michelle Bachmann back to Congress.  OK--I'll give you a pass on the first go round.  You didn't know.  You couldn't quite possibly suspect.  But for the last five terms--an entire decade--you people have sent this moron back to Congress to represent you.

Why?!?

Don't get me wrong--I am a "filthy liberal"--but this isn't a "red or blue" thing.  This is common-fucking-sense!  Or in Michelle's case, the lack thereof...

I have to wonder--is this a "goof?"  Is this 6th District of Minnesota populated by fatalists waiting for the next asteroid to slam into the Earth and end it all?  As you're waiting for "death from above," a few of you thought it might be funny to send Michelle to Congress??!?

Dude #1:  We're going to die bro...

Dude #2:  Yo--it won't be the fire that kills us, the force of impact alone will kill us!

Dude #1:  Y'know what would be really funny?  Sending Michelle to Congress...

Is that how it went?

Granted, Bachmann "eeked" past Jim Graves in 2012 with a less than 1% margin and 3,000 votes.  In my "happy place," I'm hoping that there was a flu or something going around that kept people home.

Of course, Michelle's $23 Million unprecedented war chest in a House race and 12 to 1 advantage in spending didn't hurt either.  Let's set aside the fact that to amass that war chest would require near constant fundraising.  Let's also set aside the fact that even though I'm questioning the 6th District's intelligence, I doubt even you folks are that dumb to hand her all that money.  Which means ol' Michelle is largely wondering the greater continental United States at fundraisers "representing" you--the 6th District.

...and make no mistake, Michelle proudly embraces you--her constituents--while fundraising out of state.  Again, this is not a red or blue thing, I just have to wonder:  Is she the only Republican Conservative in the 6th District? She can't be!!  The last election proved that.  Slightly more than half you district voted for her based on party lines--it had to be!  You certainly aren't voting for her based on "vision," "leadership," or legislation passed!

You've managed to continuously elect the Congressional equivalent of "Knock Knock Joke."  Aside from being a Congressional and National embarrassment, Bachmann's only contribution in the political process is being a rather uninformed "grenade-thrower."  She really doesn't know what she's talking about, often ad-libs and goes off script (much to her staff' and campaign manager's chagrin), and doesn't really seem to care about facts at all.

I'm sure you've heard them all--and more!  Whether it's Michelle likening herself to home town hero John Wayne (not "The Duke,"--John Wayne Gayce, the serial killer) or believing John Quincy Adams to be one of the Founding Fathers, or that filling out your Census forms might get you rounded up into an "internment camp," you've heard them.

C'mon 6th District!!  There are pages of this shit on line!  You couldn't have missed this!!

Okay...maybe you value her "eccentricities."  But do you pay attention to what this dim-wit puts up for legislation?  It's either hypocritical, self-serving, or ridiculous.  Michelle, who is no fan of the Federal Government, social services, or taxes, introduced "The School Choice for Foster Kids Act."  This bill would allow for funding for foster children to go to private schools with transportation included.  Now...can you think of anyone in your district who might...just might...have a substantial number of foster children who might benefit from such funding?  There was the "Minnesota Bridge Repair Act" of October 2007.  Take a wild guess what that was for!  Weird huh?!?  After all of Michelle's talk about "cutting spending," government waste, and pork-barrel projects, seems ol' Michelle went after some "pork" for you folks!  I don't fault her for this...this is what she should be doing!  But to turn around and act like some fiscal prude is just hypocritical.  Finally, we got to Michelle's signature piece of legislation:  "The Light bulb Freedom of Choice Act!"  I shit you not! 

How anti-government is Michelle?  Well when the U.S.A. decided that there was a longer lasting bulb that reduced our total carbon footprint, the USA adopted it changing the standards for bulbs for the first time in 50 years.  Ever the supposed libertarian, Michelle decided that anything that government tells us to do is anti-liberty...unless what the government is saying is more money for private schools for her...I mean foster children and some ear-mark pork barrel funding.  She even made this light bulb issue a cornerstone of her Presidential run saying, "With President Bachmann Americans can buy any light bulb they want."  Yep.  Even the toxic, less bright, and ultimately more expensive light bulbs.  "Liberty" at its finest eh?

Even beyond the idiotic bills that Michelle has sponsored, there are the numerous failed bills that Michelle--as an amazingly polarizing figure--can't even get support for!

Do you remember where you were June 3, 2008?  No?  That was when dear ol' Michelle finally got a resolution passed in the House to...wait for it...celebrate Minnesota's 150th Anniversary!!  June 3 might not ring any bells to you because the proclamation was signed three weeks after the actual anniversary date.  Michelle originally tried to get the ball rolling in December of 2007, but none of other Republican House Majority members gave a shit about it.  She then reintroduced the bill in January 2008 and it took her five months to get it approved and signed.  ...in a House filled with fellow Republicans!

If you're from Minnesota, you should be shocked, appalled, and embarrassed.  Granted you probably didn't know or even care that your state celebrated a 150th Anniversary.  Come to think of it, many of you can't be too bright considering you sent Bachmann back five times already...  But to be fair, I can't tell you how old New York is off the top my head either, but dates aren't the point here.  Keep in mind: This is one of two bills successfully authored by Bachmann in her six terms as your representative.  This cunt has the balls to constantly heckle the President about not correcting a faulty economy quick enough, not ending wars quick enough, not healing the housing market quick enough, and not reducing the deficit fast enough; yet it takes her five goddamn months to pass a feel-good trifle of a bill in a House full of Republicans?!?  Seriously--you or I could have got the billed passed faster.  The real "kicker" is that some of you fucking nitwits thought she'd make a great President!  She can't get her fellow Republicans to sign off on how old your fucking state is and you think she's going to tackle the deficit?!?  And just for more "chuckles," you sent this stupid cunt back to Washington!

She Couldn't Get Support for Him!

Did I mention that Michelle was a stupid cunt?  Well as much as I despise her, here is another piece of failed legislation that even I would sign off on:  "To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2168 7th Avenue in Anoka, Minnesota, as the "Richard K. Sorenson Post Office Building."  Sorenson, a Medal of Honor recipient, was a marine during World War II.  He threw himself on a live grenade to save five other marine's lives and lived to tell the tale!  Bachmann wanted to honor this hero by renaming the Post Office there in Anoka.  She couldn't get any support for the bill.  She could get any support for a Medal of Honor recipient's name to get plastered on a goofy Post Office.  ...and yet some of you foolishly thought she was going to be able to sway the Chinese as President!  She can't sway her fellow Republicans!!  How in the hell was she going to deal with the Chinese?  ...and you sent this stupid bitch back to Washington!

Maybe you're all masochists.  Maybe you are aware of some pending comet or asteroid and this is all a "goof."  Maybe you're terribly forgiving people and have long since decided "She means well,but..."

She really is a miserable bitch!   As the GOP Presidential convention struggled to arrange its convention in the path of Hurricane Irene, prominent Republican Governors like Rick Scott of Florida and Bobby Jindahl of Louisiana ran home to "mind the store."  What did former Presidential Candidate Bachman have to say:

"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here? Listen to the American people, because the American people are roaring right now, They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending."

 In case you forgot:  Hurricane Irene killed 20 people.  In Michelle's "wisdom," as her prominent GOP colleagues scattered to watch over their states, Michelle believes that "God" actually gives a fuck about the deficit of the United States of America.  And vengeful prick that He is, "God" isn't going to send a storm to Washington--no sir!  He's going to lash out at people who have absolutely nothing to do with the deficit and who, because of the storm, might actually be praying to this cocksucker that their home doesn't get destroyed.  I personally wonder if Michelle has asked for forgiveness from her Prick of a Spiritual Lord over the Minnesotan bridge and foster care nonsense.  I leave it to you to decide what in this is offensive.

Of course this wasn't the only time your representative has used the "God card." 

Bachmann's "Hand of God."

As recent as May 10 of this year, your representative has decided that 9/11 and the Benghazi embassy attack (also on 9/11, but 11 years later) was, "judgement" and "the Hand of God."  I'm guessing Michelle is an Old Testament Gal because whenever she brings up God, He's usually associated with 'smiting' people.  If we are to follow Michelle's bizarre logic, then Osama Bin Laden was carrying out God's will, when he planned the terrorist attacks.  As for Benghazi, well we can end all the hearings and the debates now!  God decided that four guys in an underfunded, under staffed embassy needed to die, because the rest of America wasn't kissing His ass enough.  Of course, there's only one thing that we can do:  Have a national day of prayer and grovel before our "Lord and Savior."

By my count, Michelle's high-maintenance "God" is responsible for over 3,000 deaths because he isn't getting enough "face time" and is disgruntled that we owe the Chinese money. Michelle's "God" can go suck a bag of dicks!

...and remember 6th District, she's YOUR representative!  She is supposedly indicative of what you believe, what you want, and what your values are.  Is this you?

You can put an end to this!  Only you.  The 2014 mid-terms are rapidly approaching and I'm going to let you in on a secret; a secret that might--just might--cost me dearly with the rest of the "coven of liberal elite socialists hell-bent on destroying your country:"  You can send another Conservative Republican to Washington instead of Michelle!  It's true.  This isn't about red or blue, liberal or conservative, or democrat or republican.  This is about crazy.  Crazy is what you've sent back to the House five times.  If you want to send a Democrat--awesome!  But if you are a red district, don't you want someone who is at least productive?

A little recap:  Your Representative Bachmann who chides the U.S. Government for being "ineffectual and wasteful," is herself ineffectual and wasteful.  She successfully passed two pieces of legislation one of them being a "fluff" piece to recognize your state's anniversary and even that she couldn't do on time.  She's railed against "pork" and "welfare," while authoring bills for pork and trying to create subsidies that would benefit herself.  She's thundered on about the economy and how bad it is.  Meanwhile she's managed to raise $11.5 million dollars per year to fight for re-election.  She's squawks about "leadership," meanwhile she hurls unfounded accusations of the Muslim infiltrations, un-American activities, and believes the Almight Lord to be a serial killer.  Why do you insist on paying this woman?

Now some of you nitwits--and there are nitwits as you managed to send her to Congress five times--might actually believe I'm part of some "group" to destabilize Michelle.  To that I would ask you sincerely:  You think this stupid bitch is "stable?!?"  Nothing could be further from the truth.  As a supposed "lib," as much as I despise Michelle, she's gold.  If you are a true conservative of the 6th District, I should be thanking you!  This woman can single-handily destroy a conservative talking point with but an utterance.  But as a regular guy, I think you and I can set politics aside for a moment and find common ground on the idea that the families of victims of terrorism ought not to feel as if "God" is punishing them.

The Ball is in your 6th District!

~Unless 
  

The Party That Cried "Wolf!"

Anyone remember the fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf?"  Short version:  The boy was sheep herder and decided it would be fun if he got the town's people riled up by yelling about a fictitious wolf attacking his sheep.  Repeatedly, the boy "cried wolf" and the town's people came running only to find the boy laughing at all the chaos he created.  This continued until an actual wolf showed up and when the boy shouted "wolf," no one came.

Enter The Republicans.

Since the Election Season of '08, I've lost track of the number of "conspiracies," "plots," "wait-and-see moments," "black helicopters / government helicopters," pending "socialist take-overs," and "wars on..." talking points the Conservatives have created, manufactured, and inflated.

I can't think of one thought, idea, policy, or piece of legislation that hasn't been the "thing" that is going to "destroy American," "ruin our country," and turn us all into Muslims and/or Communists.  If I didn't live in this country, all of this would be quite entertaining.

I got angry when the Conservatives mocked the "Occupy" movement and claimed that the poor "didn't have it so bad" because 99.7% of Americans had a refrigerator.  Silly me--I'm wondering how 0.3% of our country doesn't have a 'fridge in 21st Century America!  I laughed at the ridiculousness when the Conservatives decried the last Muppett's Movie as "liberal propaganda to indoctrinate children" and even dug up Captain Planet!  Captain--fucking--Planet, who was last on TV (now) 16 years ago and is viewed by Conservatives as "anti-capitalist."  ...Cause y'know...kids should like toxic waste and pollution.

I've reached a point now where anything uttered by this obviously desperate and lost party, I dismiss.  They've worn me out!  You've never heard a measured, civil, or rational reaction to anything coming from the Obama administration.  This administration isn't merely "short-sighted."  Conservatives don't simply have a "different view" or "another idea."  It's always some "plot."  Consequently, I've become tone deaf.

Today's "scandal" is the I.R.S. targeting Conservative groups when establishing their non-profit status.  As I type this, I'm hearing that the I.R.S. has admitted to this and the latest "witch hunt" is on.  Groups with the words "Tea Party" or "Patriot" or whose focus was on excessive government, or the Constitution were supposedly targeted by the I.R.S.

Oh...the horrors!

Imagine the "suffering" of these groups to be unfairly singled-out by the government.  To be victimized based on their name!  How they function!  Or what they believe...  Oh....to be 'victimized.'

I have to laugh at the "outrage" and the sheer irony of it all.  I wonder if these groups felt "targeted," in the way Treyvon Martin did; minding their own business with not a care in the world, only to be harassed unjustly.  Martin, who many of these Conservatives considered to be in the wrong place for being black, in the wrong place, wearing a "hoodie," and defying a gun-wielding nut job.  Lest we forget the Skittles!  I wonder if they feel as targeted as him, whom they ridiculed.

I wonder if these groups felt as frustrated with the undue attention of the I.R.S. in the way some gay kids feel at prom time, when inevitably some frustrated, tight-ass, Bible-thumper demands a "hetero-only" prom.  After all, these groups are who they are, how dare any entity deny them?!?

I would imagine that these Conservative groups felt humiliated at having their business dissected, perhaps in the way many women might feel when some bizarre "vaginal-measure" is introduced to try and curb abortion.

Maybe the felt marginalized and unfairly so; much like the millions of unemployed and those receiving welfare benefits might feel having to subject themselves to drug testing merely because they've fallen on hard times.  After all...if you aren't working or are receiving benefits "obviously" you must be a drug addict!  How unfair.

The list goes on, suffice to say with all the divisive fuss the Conservatives have kicked up over the years, I feel a little more than entitled to gloat at their "victimization."  Oh...the "horrors."

To be fair:  Even the "liberal-elite media" (MSNBC), whom Conservatives always accuse of "covering it up" ("It" being this week's "thing" that will destroy the country) has agreed that the I.R.S. is in the wrong.  Like it or not, the IRS can't target anyone or any group specifically by policy.

The enemy within for the Conservatives is that pesky little abomination called "Citizens United."  Folksy, noble, and seemingly altruistic, "Citizens United" allowed for corporations to give unlimited money to Political Action Committees.  In the 10 months after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, 80 political PACs were established and the numbers continued to grow--on both sides.

Now whether you're a Republican or Democrat there's very little good to say about SuperPACs.  There's no reason PAC money from San Francisco should be going to Minnesota to defeat Michelle Bachman and no reason Washington D.C. based PAC money should be going to the Montana State Attorney General race.  There was a time in this country when candidates needed to worry about the "money primary" and decide if they had the funds and appeal--nationally--to run for office.  Not anymore.  Now the likes of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich can stay in a national race long after their public appeal wanes and weaken the presumptive nominee.  To be fair, Santorum at least had the support on one rich guy, while Newt simply didn't pay any bills.

For the 2012 election, Conservatives were dead set to unseat Obama and win back the White House.  After all, "the country (was) being destroyed," and there were any number of supposed "plots" that were going to be "unleashed" during the second term.  Here's where it gets really fun!  During the election season, Romney economic "plan" called for changes--largely undisclosed changes" to the tax code.  Many suspected that these "changes" would come in the form of reduced tax deductions for the middle class.  Meanwhile, Michelle "Crazy Eyes" Bachmann demanded everyone pay at least $1.00 in taxes no matter what their income might be.  Both the Mittster and Michelle were in agreement that our country was dead broke!

There was also no shortage of PAC and SuperPACs being formed to wage the electoral war on each side.  It's pretty easy to create a SuperPAC!  Just ask Stephen Colbert.  No one has done more to spotlight how ridiculously unregulated these electoral abominations are that Colbert.  With help from his lawyer, Trevor Potter, who served as Chief Counsel for the McCain / Palin campaign, Colbert has proven time and again how ridiculous and innately corrupt PACs are. 

Let's set the stage for this conspiracy.  You have SuperPACs forming all over and raking in millions, tens of millions and even hundreds of millions of dollars and many of these PACs devoted to unseating Obama--so mostly conservative PACs.  At one point one of Romney's allied SuperPACs was pulling in $147,000 per hour.  You have Conservatives whining about the deficit and you have the IRS doing its job.  Granted, by their own by-laws, they did their job illegally--but I do understand their thinking.

This PAC thing is new and not everyone is playing by the rules.  Believe it or not, PACs are supposed to do more than shit up your prime time TV with the same political attack ad, or dot your drive home with sound bites on the radio, or shit up your neighborhood with the same sign.

But even though the IRS was doing its job, they weren't very bright about it.  They went after new PACs who barely had funding rather than the established PACs who were already breaking the rules.  Jenny Beth Martin a Tea Party PAC organizer from Texas felt her group was targeted.  With a budget of only $10,000, Jenny had enough problems printing out leaflets and paying the utilities.  This particular Tea Party PAC couldn't even afford to think about how to "misuse" their funds.  Martin raised a very good point and one that underscores the fact that not every PAC is following the rules. 

Martin stated that her lawyer forbade her group for using the term, "Obamacare."  In doing so, the PAC would violate it's own tax status.  Therefore her group referred to Obamacare as "The President's Health Care Plan" or "The Affordable Care Act."  Now just for moment, think back:  How many times did you hear the phrase "Obamacare" during the election season?  I'd say enough to warrant some investigation.

Since I began this particular entry, some "heads have rolled" over at the IRS and as well as they should.  This hasn't been enough for Conservatives who are still "outraged."  As of this afternoon, one of Limbaugh's callers was linking the IRS workers and the (wait for it) "unholy alliance" of unions and Democrats to the incident.  It kind of reminds of yet another desperate attempt to seek some sort of sympathy for their on-going victimization.  I reminded of Lois Griffith's brief mayor tenure and the talking points she used.

It's good for a laugh:

http://gocl.me/9vMx4k

 ~Unless

(or until the next "thing" that will "destroy" our country and turn us all into "socialists.")

  

Benghazi: Get Over It and Go to Hell

I don't know there is so much fuss over Benghazi.  Conservatives are losing their minds over Benghazi and I just don't get it.  If we step back--objectively--of course and look at Benghazi, one might think that the Conservatives would approve of what happened in Benghazi.  After all, there are a lot of similarities:

First, we have the off shoot group of Al-Queida in Syria.  Like Conservatives, they fancy themselves as "government in exile."  Both groups base and yet excuse their radical behaviors on a silly book of fables, calling it "religion."  They're not bad guys, they just a read a book...okay someone read it to them...  Al-Queida really loves guns, especially AK-47s and Conservatives are fond of "modern day muskets" or assault rifles.  Neither group is overly fond of the U.S. Government.  Just think of all the times you hear Conservatives talk about toppling our government or "watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants."

With all these commonalities, you'd think Conservatives would be praising Al-Queida and not upset that they attacked our embassy in Libya.  Okay, they really aren't upset over the "attack."  For the most part, Conservatives have taken issue with the subsequent death of four Americans.  To them, this is a "nationally tragedy."  We "turned out backs on American's in need!"

And Conservatives would know!  The same group that: mocked the "Occupy" protestors as "economic terrorists," labeled 49% of the country as 'takers,' has sought to force women to not abort dead babies, has cut funding for Meals-On-Wheels, has dismissed Gay Teen suicide, and is an avid supporter of the death penalty, would like you to believe that they actually give a shit about four guys.  Because y'know...they really do!  Honestly.

As Conservatives are looking for a "villain" in the Benghazi Debacle, they might want to take a look into the mirror.  They aren't without blame.  When the Arab Spring rose up in the Egypt, the Conservatives were quick to launch into their tirades of "failed foreign policies," "Obama's support of the Muslim Brotherhood," the inevitable incorporation of Muslim law into the U.S., our children sprouting cloven hooves like Satan, and any other number of unsubstantiated ridiculousness.  Obama was "doing nothing" about Egypt.  He wasn't bombing them!

When Libya presented, the Obama administration was still trying to figure out Egypt, but that wasn't good enough for the Conservatives.  "Civilians are dying in Libya!"  "Obama is supporting Khaddaffi!"  When the U.S. did decide to launch strategic airstrikes to protect Libyan civilians, the Conservatives changed their tune.  "Obama is dragging us into another war!"  They even complained about the cost of fuel for the planes!  They are sooo cheap!  And so, the U.S. handed off our leadership of those airstrikes and still the Conservatives whined, "Obama is squandering our leadership overseas!"  The Conservatives were simply contrary on every phase of Libya.  I wonder if it occurred to them, that if they simply shut-up, and let Libya "happen" those four guys would have never been there in the first place.

Given much of the Conservative "platform," I can't imagine why Conservatives are so upset.  From a certain prospective, much of what Al-Queda did, Conservatives have advocated!  The attackers in Libya were proud nationalists who are contemptuous of foreigners--especially those that would take from them.  They are proud gun-owners who weren't shackled by some silly "liberal" government.  They didn't have to obey any form of social graces or sissified "political correctness."  They viewed the Americans in their country as "undesirables" and in an almost "Texas-tough-guy" style they dealt with those "wet-back" Americans.  It was "liberty" for Al-Queda in its purest form.

Hell, if Conservatives had their way, they'd do this with Mexicans and gays.  What is the fuss?

But you know, Libya wasn't the first time service men and embassy officials have been killed overseas.  You might be surprised to read this, given the Conservatives rabid pursuit of Benghazi.  Conservatives should also check out:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.
   
If you're wondering how these series of fairly regular attacks have gone unnoticed and unmentioned, there's a small detail to consider:  Barrack Obama took office in January 20, 2009.  Still believe Conservatives care about four dead Americans?  If so, these Americans must have been really special because no one has asked one damn question about all the other Americans that have died.  And if Benghazi is evidence of a "failed foreign policy," what the fuck was the eight years of the Bush Administration?  I mean--if we're counting bodies and losses, let's count them all!

While we're on the topic of dead Americans, I find it interesting that many Conservatives view the Sandy Hook Massacre as a "hoax."  Some have no even gone so far as to say that the parents of the Sandy Hook children need to "get over it."  I think Conservatives should take their own advice and apply it to Benghazi.  After all, we can't get too choked up!  Conservatives wanted us to go to Libya to "spread Democracy!"  What's more "American" to Conservatives than a bunch of hateful miscreants hopped up on faith and armed to the teeth?  The Benghazi Debacle wasn't because of "poor planning," "failed foreign policies," or an "indifferent administration," it was mental health.  Hey--it's the running scapegoat for Newtown!

Mental health.  You see we don't need hearings or investigations, we need to put more resources towards mental health screenings.  Clearly.  I'm sure Conservatives will agree, as in the case of Newtown, that this whole Benghazi situation was due to "God (or in this Allah) not being in Al-Queda schools."  Or that we can "never predict evil--we can only be prepared."  Certainly, as with Newtown, Conservatives would agree that "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun."  They'd agree with that.  It didn't work in this situation, but they'd still agree with that. 

I'm certain that greater access to mental health services will be pouring in to both the U.S. and to Libya.  Conservatives will see to it!  You believe that right?  This is a party that doesn't even want to fund Meals-On-Wheels.  They resent concepts like school lunch.  During the GOP debates, their own supporters cheered and applauded at the idea of letting a dying man with no insurance die in a hospital rather than treat him.  Conservative icon and walking poster child for abortion, Rush Limbaugh is demonstrative of "conservative compassion."  His contribution to the discussion of the three women held hostage in Ohio, raped, and beaten over a 10 year period:  "it's a welfare scam."  Can't fool Rush!  Those women thought they were shrewd getting beaten and raped for 10 years.  Little did we know it was for some extra food stamps!  

Do you really have any belief that Conservatives are going to put together programs for people to lie on a couch and talk about their "feelings?"  Again--do you believe they give a shit about four guys who died in Libya?  Is it not clear that Conservatives only care about themselves and not even for their fellow Conservatives?  If this isn't clear, you're probably a Conservative.

And should you be Conservative and can't resolve or make peace with the Benghazi Debacle, I suggest you take the "advice" Bob Davies of Twin City New Talk 1130 AM had for the parents of the Newtown Children:  "Get Over It!" and "Go to Hell."

~Unless

Syria or Bust

Quick!  What would you do with $1.4 million dollars?  Travel the world?  Buy property?  Send the kids to college?  Invest?  Pepper the Syrian government's airport?  It's an option--hold on.

The conservatards have taken a break from whining about the economy.  The same economy that is so broke and can no longer afford Head Start, air traffic controllers, police, fire fighters, sanitation workers, Meals-On-Wheels, etc, etc, etc...  The list goes on.  As conseravtards tell it, the U.S. is so broke, we can't even afford to think about our own fellow citizens.

But Syrians?  Syrians conservatards love.  Let grandma starve!  If she's hungry she'll drag herself to one of those nifty soup-kitchens that are losing funding also. Remarkably, the same political mindset that views grandma as a "taker," gets remarkably protective and nurturing towards brown people.  Especially, if it means we might get a chance to blow some of them up! Despite their chronic whining about the economy and how we need to "reign in spending," somehow--someway--the U.S. is flush with cash if the military might be involved.

You might remember the GOP debates, wherein several of the candidates wanted our troops leaving Iraq to "turn around."  We had money for that.  When North Korea started "talking trash," the conservatards drooled at the prospect of some sort of armed conflict.  We had money for that.  And now, conservatards want to destroy the Syrian airport to take away the aerial superiority of the Syrian Government.

If you're wondering why we should destroy the airport of a sovereign nation that has been locked in a civil war for over two years, the conservatards are quick to point out the "humanitarian crisis" within Syria.  Isn't that a hoot!  Here in the States, the conservatards have embraced the idea that 49% of Americans are "takers" and non-contributors.  Overseas, they label it a "humanitarian crisis."  As if they give a rat's ass.

The Syrian Civil War has nothing to do with the U.S.  We're not involved--yet--and it's not for lack of trying on the conservatard's part.  The fear mongering has begun.  If we don't help the rebels something might get "free" from Syria and that--whatever that something is would be "bad" for the U.S.  So in the typical conservatard mind-set, we should totally launch tomahawk cruise missiles (economically priced at $1.4 million per missile) and "pepper" the Syrian airport!

This--THIS will prevent that something from getting out.

Details are still foggy on what that something is and why it--whatever it is--might be pointed at the U.S.  Buy why sweat the details?  ...well details are important.

Our country has yet to learn the numerous lessons of history.  I think back to the GOP debates where Dr. Ron Paul was "booed" for saying that 9/11 didn't happen because of our freedoms; it happened because of our foreign policy.  Paul was right.  Terrorist don't care that our women vote or that we have Freedom of the Press.  They care about our policies and presence in the Middle East.  For conservatives to understand this, they'd have to be willing to accept responsibility and have a dose of humility.  Neither is possible.

If there is something in Syria and it has a chance to "get out," I'm thinking it might get pointed at the U.S. because of our penchant of sticking our nose in other people's business.  As a nation, we're not very good at "intervening" and helping others. We decided to "help out" in Cuba by backing a guy named Castro against another guy named Batista.  Castro was victorious, but he wasn't willing to kiss our ass enough.  So we tried to kill him and we screwed that up.  Morons that we are, we've spent the last 50 years hating Castro who had the balls to be upset that we tried to kill him.  Go figure.

We decided to "help out" the Shah of Iran.  Anyone not understanding how that went?

During the '80s, we decided to "help out" the Afghans against the Soviets.  That worked will didn't it?

...and now we want to "help out" Syria. 


As soon as that cruise missile...  Did I say "cruise missile?"  Who am I kiddin'--we aren't just going to use one!  As soon as those cruise missiles leave the ship, we better hope the rebels win.  It's kind of hard to patch things up with a government after you've blown their airport off the map.  Then, if the rebels win it'll come down to the rebels embracing us--The U.S. or their Arabic / Muslim brothers.  Take a wild, wild, guess who they'll pick!  Hint:  It won't be the assholes launching cruise missiles indiscriminately.

...and so, our less than stellar track record of successful foreign interventions will continue and most likely escalate for no other reason than blue haired fearful old conservatives hate the "darkies" and need to feel relevant.  Make no mistake, there is no real concern for the "humanitarian crisis."  This is all about relevance or at least perceived relevance.  The cost is immaterial.  We have money for this!  ...supposedly.

But there is another cost and one that doesn't appear on spreadsheet and balance sheet and that is blood.  I've begun to wonder if the conservatives hate teenagers.  It's astonishing the speed, vehemence, and cavalier way with which we're willing to send our troops off to a conflict. 

In the past couple of months, I learned of two young men I know who have entered the service:  Rob ("Robbie") Rogers and Nicholas ("Nick") Chaput. Neither of these two young men are "angels."  Now in their 20s, for most of their lives these "boys" have grown up in a country at war.

To my knowledge, no studies have yet to be done about the effects of an extended war on our children, but I do have some observations of my own.  After 9/11 we all got caught up in the economy.  We worried about our jobs, our grocery bills, and our homes.  We made do with less.  The stress has impacted parents and they haven't been able to give as much to their children, whether that giving be time and attention or material things.  Our kids are resilient and they needed to be--the adults haven't exactly had their shit together!

Gas spikes, auto bailouts, crumbling housing markets, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the election of '08, the election of '12, and the endless petty squabbling that has gone in this country that has split this country virtually in half--hasn't exactly factored children into the equation.

Now neither Robbie or Nick is a "wimp," but I know both of these "boys" are more lovers than fighters.  While I haven't asked either of them why they decided to enlist, I have a very good idea:  a job and a code.

The military is hiring!  And there's some job security.  McDonald's and Wal-Mart can't touch that.  College isn't in the cards for these boys.  They're unwilling to sit through years of "higher education" listening to a professor drone on about his divorce, only be tens of thousands of dollars in debt in a weak job market.  It's also "good conservative thinking!"  Why if they went to school they'd be "indoctrinated into liberalism" (read:  get a clue).

Then there is that "code" thing.  That desire to understand one's role in the world and to be of value.  It's something we've stopped caring about and Heaven forbid if we ever put any money together to develop our youth--the conservatards would be nauseous! We adults have not lead the way.  We can't agree on what the facts are to some of our issues--but we're really worried about who is in the White House!

It's basic psychology:  Maslow's Hiearchy of Needs.  We all want to understand our own potential, but with options shrinking, higher education out of reach, a society polarized by partisanship, and a bleak uncertain job market the military is a sure way to find this out for one's self.

There's just that dismemberment, disfigurement, or death thing to worry about...

Too often our young men and women need to server rather than wanting to serve.  It is their only option.  The military gleefully welcomes them and why shouldn't they?  When you have a loud and obnoxious party like the GOP there seems no end to assortment of "villains" to send our children off against.

I just have to wonder at $1.4 million a cruise missile, how many kids might have access to college.  Or if we somehow sunk that money into a jobs program domestically.  Both of these idea are unthinkable to conservatards!  After all, there is a "humanitarian crisis" in a far away nation, that has not bothered us, that has never liked the U.S.--never will--and what better way to alleviate a "humanitarian crisis" than with bombs?!?

My own "humanitarian crisis" is young men accepting the fact that they may need to kill and/or be disfigured, dismembered, and killed themselves, for the opportunity for a paycheck and to understand their role in the world.  I have to wonder how many "Nicks" and "Robbies" could be sent off to school for $1.4 million.  I have to wonder how many future "Nicks" and "Robbies" will have to be sent off to future conflicts because the GOP was floundering for their identity.

It's unfair to say it, but I'm going to: I won't let the GOP pave their road to the White House with the blood of kids, drumming up more fear over yet another despotic Middle Eastern canker sore of a country, and labeling it "humanitarian."

So often with the GOP, we hear "American First!"  Fine.  Can we start by not sending our kids off to die?  Some of you assholes didn't want to put up Hurricane Sandy relief funds and you expect us to believe you care about Syria?  Get the fuck outta here!

Nick....Robbie..."luv ya"--No Homo!

~Unless 

You're Gay....Big Eff'in Deal...Who The Hell Cares?

I am not 'pro-gay.'  I'm not 'anti-gay' either.  The truth is:  I shit don't give a shit.  I could care less.  You could say I'm more 'anti-anti-gay' than anything.

I'm not prepared to watch prime time TV and see two dudes making out.  I have no desire to watch "Brokeback Mountain."  I don't want to have to explain to the young in the family why 'Johnny' has two mommies.  I'd rather not feel socially awkward addressing a gay couple and wondering if there is or isn't a "husband" or vaguely addressing the significant other as "your partner."

But these are my issues.  These are my insecurities.  It's my age--my generation--my own lacking and I accept that.  I'm not perfect, so who am I to thrust my insecurities on to others?

This week NBA Center Jason Collins "came out" and announced that he was "gay."  Much has been made  over this, despite the fact the female athletes have been "coming out" for years.  Still, I suppose it is "historic" for the first male athlete to come out, but again...I honestly don't care.  I'm not bothered by it.  It doesn't affect me. What does affect me is the almost non-stop analysis for what this otherwise meaningless announcement "means."  

So many people applauded Jodie Foster's "coming out" at the Oscars also.  Again I didn't care and neither should have you.  The only person who should care is John Hinkley, who shot President Reagan, trying to impress and 'woo' Jodie.

 

The "Gay Agenda"

I don't know if the "Gay Agenda" is a real thing or not.  I hope not!  I hope not, because if it is--it's a friggin' train wreck! Contrary to whacky conservative thinking, Democrats and/or Liberals aren't running into 8th grade sex ed classes trying to convince Timmy that he ought to try out some dick before he tries to get to "second base" with Sarah from Math class.  For the most part, Dems/Libs just don't make it habit to condemn people for their sexual orientation.  We can't.  We're usually trying to prevent sex ed from being cut by the whack conservatives.

However, if you are "bothered" by the gay community, somehow you're automatically a bad person.  In one of my more positive discussions with a true conservative (not one of these whacko Tea Partiers), the gentleman put forth a very fair assertion:  "I don't care about gays.  Doesn't bother me and I don't think they should be discriminated against.  But why do I have to approve of their lifestyle?  Why am I the "bad guy" because I don't think being gay is "great."  I don't think single-parent homes are ideal either--am I a "bad guy" for that too?"

He had a great point.

Real or not--one of the intangibles of the "gay agenda" is the expectation that we should all not only approve of homosexuality, we should indulge this lifestyle at every twist and turn.

 

The Root Word of "Equality" is Equal

To this day, I've yet to see news coverage of how George Clooney's flaming heterosexuality will affect us or what it "means."  What astounds me, is that for a demographic that feels so "downtrodden," slighted, and maligned; there is some work for gays to do to not bring some ridicule to their own doorstep.

I've yet to be made aware of a "Straight-Pride Parade."  I imagine we could incorporate different themes for the floats:  The Kama Sutra, 50 Shades of Gray, etc...  For whatever reasons, some of these Gay Pride parades are just ridiculous.  There's absolutely no reason to be "proud" about being half-naked in outlandish costumes.  There's nothing 'endearing' about seeing a 'butch biker guy' in leather dancing with a Judy Garland drag queen.  Sorry there isn't.  This isn't "empowering" of the gay community it's a goddamn spectacle which opens gays up to ridicule.  Ridicule, which is usually rejected by everyone because we all "have to" been nice to the gays, no matter how stupid they are acting.

More annoying are the "wave makers," those of the gay community who insist that we all wrap ourselves around their sexual orientation.  We not only have to accept their orientation, we must make accommodations for it.  One of the classic and more outlandish examples of this was the Maryland teen who suspended from school from wearing a skirt and effectively dressing in "drag."

A little back story on young Mr. Warren Evans of Maryland:  If memory serves Warren "came out" as a bi-sexual in his sophomore year of high school.  His parents knew.  His friends knew.  The community knew.  Warren was a relatively lucky guy.  No one cared.  His parents didn't throw him out of the house.  His friends didn't ostracize him.  He wasn't bullied.  Warren had a lot more going for him than most young gays.

Warren Evans

But in May of 2012, this happened.  Warren decided to head to school in his Olivia Newton-John / Grease inspired leather jacket & skirt, wig, and "fuck me" heels.  His school sent him home because he was a distraction.

Many were "shocked and appalled" at Warren's treatment.  It wasn't as if Warren typically dressed like this, he just woke up one morning and decided this was "ok."  To truly appreciate this train-wreck, you have to see the video of Warren "trotting" along in his "fuck me" heels for the camera while he coyly tosses and twirls his hair "absently" while on camera.  Because...y'know...the very day you slap a wig on is the day when you being to "absently" toss and twirl your hair.

Yet there was those that couldn't believe Warren's "treatment."  He's expressing himself.  He's exploring!  School is important and acceptance by his peers for his orientation is paramount!  Were just a few of the comments in Warren's defense.

Y'know what is important?  Fucking shaving your 'stache if you're going drag!  That's important.  Warren is one hairy bitch!  But NO!  I'm wrong on this.  Supposedly...  Y'see, I'm told that Warren fits some further sub-sect of homosexuality where gay men, wear women's clothes, yet preserve all their masculine features such as facial hair.  Gay community:  You're just making shit up at this point.

I know many might think me "cruel" for not approving or supporting Warren, but fuck Warren!  Warren had it better than easily 75% of other gay teens his age; teens who wanted nothing more than be accepted as gay and who would have been perfectly satisfied with that.  Not Warren--he's got to "kick it up a notch." 

In my opinion and for the record:  if you want equality, you need to be "ok" with equal.  No--you don't get to tramp around suddenly in a black leather skirt and wig at school because you feel like it.  You also don't get to dress up as Batman, Optimus Prime, or a circus clown and you don't get to ride a unicycle through the hallways while playing an accordion because you want your friends to "accept" this part of your life.

Gays, if you want true acceptance you need to learn that you're not all that special.  You're just as smart/stupid and capable/inept as the person next to you.  I will neither celebrate you, nor will I condemn you.  You're equal--so start acting like act.

Why I'm a "Bad" Person and "Coming Out" is Such an Event

In a perfect world, you too would probably readily agree, that Warren Evans is a hairy bitch and made himself out to be spectacle.  In this perfect world, we wouldn't care that Warren Evans was bisexual and we wouldn't feel forced to celebrate and defend Warren.  We would all be equals and wonder why Warren felt it necessary to be so selfish and suddenly outlandish.

But the world isn't perfect and far too many of us don't see gays as equal.  Far too many view gays as abominations, "sick," "perverted," mentally ill, and sinful.  For these people, simply not agreeing with homosexuality isn't enough.  They need to condemn gays.  Ostracize them.  Bully them.  And when that just simply isn't enough, these folks need to attack them.  For these folks, merely "beating up" a gay isn't enough!  No sir.  They need to savagely beat them.  Maim, disfigure, or even torture gays.  Far too many of us are simply okay with gays being dead and some of us have even acted on it.

I don't understand how or why some of us are threatened by gays.  It really doesn't affect us.  But that doesn't stop many of us from making life unlivable for gays.  Somehow our heterosexuality is threatened by their homosexuality, even though their homosexuality probably isn't threatened by our own heterosexuality.  Ironically, for all the things we "hate" about gays, it's our own hatred and frustration which gives the "gay agenda" power.

We wouldn't be analyzing Jason Collins's "coming out" and feel forced to celebrate it, if our society wasn't so hateful of gays.  Face it:  You really don't care.  If your son or daughter at the age of 11, 12, or 13 years old comes to you and announces they have a (hetero) boyfriend or girlfriend; you'd probably roll your eyes.

Your son or daughter wouldn't be "especially brave."  You wouldn't be "proud."  Celebrities would not take to Twitter to congratulate them and there would be no news coverage of what this "meant."     

Who REALLY Cares About Gays.

Christians.  Christians can't help themselves with gays.  Meet up with a person who disapproves of gays or thinks they should be dead and despite all that person's stammering & stuttering, they will--inevitably--bring up the stupid fucking Bible.  God says...blah blah blah

This miserable, passe, medieval, superstitious, hateful cult loses their fucking minds over gays.  They read one section in the Bible--a book that needed a rewrite because their "God" was such a prick--and ignore the rest of it and decide they know best.

In Sullivan County, Indiana a group of "concerned, caring (haha--that one always gets me) Christian" parents decided that homosexuality was "offensive" to them and that they should put together a "traditional prom" at their local church. 

...'cause...y'know...Church is kewl.

The parents decided this--not the kids.  Kids could give a fuck.  They don't share the biased and bigoted views older people have, but that didn't stop these Christians.  They decided the best way to launch our next generation of youth into adulthood was to be surrounded by intolerance, bigotry, and a dead guy tacked to a cross wearing a loin cloth.

While I don't agree that these parents need to "accept" homosexuals, it's pretty clear this plan was designed to punish them, for no other reason than that the gay kids were gay.  The parents didn't seem all that offended during the school year; the didn't remove their child from the school in fear that their child might "catch gay." 

Dale Evans, the Senior Minister of the Church where the initial meetings were held and "straight-only" prom was to happen, was quick to "distance" himself from the issue, saying that the church did not back a straight-only prom.

He didn't condemn a straight-only prom either.  He didn't come out and say that his "House of God" was open to anyone without discrimination.  In short:  When the public riled up against this nonsense, he jumped ship, when he was seemingly ready to be an accessory to all of this in the first place.  Swell guy!  Let's go talk to him about our marriage!

After spending 180+ days together in an academic setting, I don't know what these parents were worried about.  Did they think at the prom the gay kids were just going to "lose it?"  That four years of repressed homosexuality would erupt on the dance floor?  That lesbians would start "dyking-it-out" underneath the strobe lights?  What is the actual concerns besides being "offended?"

Much to Do About Nothing

We started this long road with Jason Collins.  Enter:  Chris Broussard, ESPN contributor and Christian.  Guess what he did...  Yep...he did that "Christian thing" and had to go on some rant about Collins.  Guess who is still in the news?  Yep...Collins.

What should never had been news worthy in the first place, was news worthy solely due to the hate and ridicule we place on gays.  Many of us lament the "growing gay culture," and yet we feed it with our intolerance and cause "coming outs" to be "special."

We really need to get over it and find ways to look past differences, because we're all entirely un-special and rather ordinary.  We're no better or worse than the next guy.

I Pledge Allegiance to....Barnie the Dinosaur?!?

I was told this weekend that if I were to ever run for office, even liberals would find me "too far left."  I had to laugh.  Yet, during my Saturday morning brunch, I found myself in the minority of opinion not necessarily because I'm a "power-liberal," but because as George Carlin would say, "I have this stupid thing I do, it's called thinking!"  

The first 'damning' piece of evidence in my "uber-left liberal conviction" was my thoughts on The Pledge of Allegiance. A buddy of mine has this belief that somehow our generation is somehow superior to today's generation of youth, solely because our generation used to recite the "Pledge."
He even went so far as to post the graphic to the left on his Facebook page.  I had to tease him about this because I was fairly certain that he wasn't rounding up his wife and newborn to recite the "Pledge" every morning himself.  

I don't "dislike" the Pledge.  In fact as a kid, being chosen to lead the class in the "Pledge" was very cool!  How many times are 7 year-olds "in charge" of...anything?  
But if we stop and think about it:  The Pledge is a really stupid thing.  There I said it!  I know!  I got same "gasps" and looks when I said it originally.  I might of well as said, "I like young boys!" and received a milder reaction.  But bear with me...

Some time ago, we actually had grade school children, youth, and teenagers recite a Pledge of "Allegiance."  Someone, some time ago, felt that kids in school needed to ratify their loyalty to their country--daily.  Maybe that person was fearful of some prepubescent insurrection.  Perhaps the feared the terroristic paper bag or juice box popping at lunch time.  They might have been worried about the misleading propaganda of who did or who didn't have "kooties."  Or maybe it was concerns about germ warfare from that one kid who never blew his or her nose and always had unsightly green nasal crustings.  (I think everyone had that kid in their school at one time!).  Whatever the thought process, one thing can be certain:  children in our schools were prone to sedition!  Apparently...

Hearing a first or second grader recite the Pledge is absolutely hysterical.  Here is a daily mantra they are to repeat chalked full of words they really don't know the meaning of, certainly can't spell, and can barely pronounce.  Every hear a first grader try to enunciate "indivisible?"  Eight out of ten times indivisible becomes "invisible."

"Fortunately," my generation did say the Pledge--daily.  Through the miracle of repetition of words we barely understood, eventually learned to spell and pronounce, we evolved into "superior" people than those that have come after us.  ...or so my buddy's logic goes.  Neither of us have recited the Pledge in over 25+ years.  Neither of us have planned a terroristic attack, however I am sure we have teased our nieces and nephews about having "kooties" at one point or another.  

I asked my buddy what it would mean for kids to start reciting the Pledge today.  Is this generation suddenly "healed?"  And if kids today start reciting a daily mantra of words they can't spell, don't understand the meaning too, and can't enunciate; are they suddenly "better" than us?

Being "better" than others is a real thing for all us these days.  Whether it's the economy, our on-going war on terror, job insecurity, etc...there seems to be no end to the ways we try an elevate ourselves over someone else so that we feel better.  There's not just a hypocrisy to this--there's a real arrogance to it.

Say the Pledge!  We used to!  That's what is wrong with this generation!  That's why they are messed up!  

Do something that we no longer do--because it doesn't really matter--for no other reason than I said so.  But if you start reciting the Pledge, you won't be "better" than me!

Is this the most stupid thing you've ever heard?

If we want to get serious about improving our society and bettering it--let's get serious.  First--leave the goddamn kids alone!  I think we're safe from paper bags popping, kooties, and that kid with the green snotty nose.  We're okay!

Let's have these jag-off who justify their armories of weapons by saying "The Tree of Liberty Must Be Watered With the Blood of Tyrant From Time to Time."  Y'know, these guys who "just know" that the government is going to turn on them and they plan on taking up arms against the government--some day.  Let's have them recite the goddamn Pledge!  I'm not worried about Mr. Harper's second grade class in Room 104, these other assholes scare the shit out of me!

It'll never happen, but I think there is a long list of demographics we could go through to ratify loyalty before Mr. Harper's class.

Why not just change the Pledge?  Both extremes of the political spectrum have completely bastardize the important words of the Pledge.  If the adults can't agree on what "liberty," "justice," and who exactly "for all" includes; do we really expect this to make a difference with the kids?  Who are we shitting?

I say we go with Barnie the Dinosaur's "I Love You--You Love Me" Song.  Think about it!  It's genius!!  We still get a short, easily repeatable mantra and we're not asking much of our students.  We'll foster love and family.  We won't have any gripes over "God" and "Republics" and no second grader will ever screw up the word "indivisible" again.  It's absolute genius.

But...if you want to be a "good American," even as an adult you still have to say the song--daily!  We can't have those children being 'better' than us!  Can we?





 

Liberals Are a Pain in the Ass

Let me talk about true liberals a bit. Not those "non-conservatives" or normal people that today's supposed conservatives rail on about; but true liberals. 

True liberals are a pain in the ass.  They're about as annoying as "conservatives," but just not as obnoxious.  Not every democrat is liberal.  In fact, some democrats are very conservative about certain issues.  (Don't tell the "conservatives."  It's a secret.)

Liberals are very well-meaning, generous, and want to heal the world.  They're also sorely misguided in my opinion.  These are the clods that decided that "behavior contracts," were more effective than swatting your kid on the ass when he or she acts up.  These are the folks that decided McDonald's should be wholesome eating and blame plastic toys in Happy Meals as a contributing factor of childhood obesity.  They are the "touchey-feeley" crowd that come up with a color and ribbon for every cause, disease, virus, and condition that is announced.  They're the moms that politely complain about the Halloween Party at school because their son or daughter doesn't "do well" with the color orange or try to interject some non-traditional obscure ritual to "expose" the children to...something...other than what a real Halloween Party is.  They are the parent that insists on signing their child up for every goofy "enrichment activity," other than those the child actually wants to do.

They have an excuse for almost every situation.  The tolerance is boundless and their generosity is unbridled.  Bless their daffy, misguided, moronic, hearts.

 The Sandy Hook Promise is trying to kill me.  They are.  They are trying to get me to stoke out or have an aneurism burst inside my skull.  They want my blood pressure to seethe in hopes of my heart exploding like a grenade!  They are trying to kill me.

I had high hopes for "The Promise," really I did.  Initially, I liked their approach in that they wanted to create a responsible discussion that touched on all the elements of the Sandy Hook massacre:  our media, our civil liberties, guns, mental health, dealing with conflicts and so much more.  I thought they could be a powerful organization, one that could be a counter-balance to the idiocy and of the NRA.

I was absolutely wrong.  They're a laughing stock.  Here are some of the "great deeds" and milestones of the Foundation:

(1) Two 13 year old Floridian brothers will perform 26 acts of kindness each as part of their bar mitvah project.  "26 Acts" is a campaign of "The Promise" to promote kindness and improve communities.  I bet the NRA can't sport two adolescent Jews as part of their repertoire!

(2) There has been a series of interviews and testimonies on the part of the parents of the Sandy Hook victims.  "The Promise" insists on referring to these parents as those "that lost their child."  I actually wrote "The Promise" to remind them that these children didn't get separated in the mall for a few minutes or "lost," they were murdered in their class room.

(3) A Sheriff K-9 officer entertains children outside of the school by dressing up as a stuffed duck and entertaining the children with puppets.

(4) There have been numerous fund-raisers and benefits, but to date, "The Promise" really hasn't talked about what this money is for or how it will be used.

(5) Songs have been written, by students, musicians, and even one of the victim's parents.  I'm not certain if anyone realizes that dead children can't hear music, but they're writing songs.

(6) A community in Maine constructed and delivered a 4' x 8' granite memorial.  I suppose that could be useful to hide behind in the event of another attack.

(7) Scholarships have been created in the names of the murdered children, useful--assuming that their surviving peers aren't subject to another attack and make it to graduation.

(8) There have been endless reminders and biographies of the dead.

(9) "The Promise" announced a 'picture book' of "hope and renewal" that was coming out in 2013.

(10) Some college kids did a book drive for a library. 

(11) Volunteers were sending "thank you" letters to an estimated 174,000 condolence letters.

Now I realize that this coming Thursday will only mark the three month anniversary of the massacre, but it is very important to recap the "assets" of those that would like to not see another Sandy Hook ever again.  On our side:  We have some songs, scholarships, a picture book, some used books, a 4' x 8' monument, two teen Jews from Florida and a sheriff's deputy dressed a duck with his hand up a puppets ass.

This is what we got.

Meanwhile at the Hall of Doom...

 Now let's take a look at what those, who couldn't care less about Sandy Hook or dead children have been up to:

(1) LaPierre has been constant in his attack.  He's waited for an event like this and Sandy Hook has plucked his soulless organization from the refuse bin of political obscurity.  His organization has probably received more than 174,000 letters and I'm guessing a good percentage had checks enclosed.

(2) The debate has been perverted.  It isn't about Sandy Hook.  It's been made to be about "The Constitution" and the supposed ridiculous crack down on "responsible gun owners." 

(3) Those of LaPierre's ilk have even been successful enough to spread the lie that the AR-15 assault rifle was left in the car, in an attempt to take the big guns off the table so to speak.

(4) School districts across the nation have passed resolutions for either armed guards, armed maintenance staff, or in the case of Texas to create a whole system of arming and training teachers.

(5) Rallies are being held all across the nation.  In New York, the up-swell reaction to Governor Cuomo's quick passage "SAFE" Act.

(6) Perpetrators of gun violence such as Harmon of Arizona, murderer and kidnapped Dykes of Florida, and most recently former L.A. cop and total nutcase Dorner, have either been held up as being "justified" in their use of gun violence or excused because of extenuating circumstances.

...and to think they did this all without the power of song.  Go figure!

 The Score Board

Obviously the pro-gun crowd is winning this debate...sadly.  They're winning for all the wrong reasons too.  I honestly don't know what The Sandy Hook Promise is doing or thinking.  On one hand, I feel overly critical for such a young organization.  On the other hand, I found myself laughing out loud the other night at the absurd stupidity and pointlessness of a deputy dressed as a duck with a puppet.

It's hard to also embrace the bellicose and obnoxious "screaming points" of the pro-gun crowd, but...it works. 

If "The Promise" is serious about preventing another Sandy Hook they need to change course.  Otherwise they'll become just another "throw-money-down-an-endless-well" non-profit.  Healing is necessary part of this tragedy, but "The Promise" needs to be a bold promise.  Puppets, picture books, and thank you letters won't prevent another Sandy Hook.

The pro-gun crowd are quick to seize upon the "liberal's exploitation of the children."  Maybe it is exploitation, maybe not, but we can't continue to use euphemisms about what happened that day.  Children weren't "lost," they were murdered--shot specifically.  I don't know why we "church it up" in our language.

This grass-roots, neighborly, "how-can-you-better-community," approach isn't working either.  "The Promise" needs to get tough.  The need to get front and Center to put forth their message.  I'm not even certain if the parents of these murdered (not lost) children are even "anti-gun."  Yet, aside from some testimony at a few hearings, I haven't seen any networking by "The Promise" to begin talking about mental health, violent influences in the media, or even to the "pro-gun" crowd.  Networking is not getting a 4' x 8' lump of stone from Maine.

Where is the advocacy?  Seriously!  "26 Acts of Kindness?"  Do they mean if I pick up litter in my local park I'll magically stop the next Sandy Hook?  How about instead of sending "thank you" letters to 174,000 people who mourned these children, they send out 174,000 letters to people who either don't give a shit about Sandy Hook or who have been hood-winked with the lie that the AR-15 wasn't used.  Apparently, there have been fund-raisers to afford the postage at this point.

Let's move beyond the biographies of the victims.  True--they do remind us of who they were and what they wanted to be--but to be honestly blunt, as each day passes, no one cares.  Let's talk about how they died.  Let's talk about what this has meant for the families involved.  Let's talk about what they want to see happen.

Sandy Hook has a voice and one that should be doing a lot more than just singing.