3 weird sisters

Rick Perry fights a losing battle with Adam's Little Soldier

Courtesy of Gen. JC Christian.

When you are courting the votes of homophobes while battling rumors of your own homosexuality, corndogs probably aren't the best option on the menu for you

Alternate porn-y title:  “Rick Perry gives his all as he wrestles a giant foot-long into submission.”

You gotta admit, he looks like he really knows his way around that thing.

Well, it’s official now:  the GOP has the obligatory dumb Texan candidate for the presidency; this one gets bonus points for conspicuously aping the last dumb Texan to run in both diction and physical gesture.

In keeping with my long tradition of trying to help out GOP candidates whenever possible, I’ve put together a few bumperstickers for Mr. Perry:

If it weren’t for the rapidly-approaching ground, this stupid debt ceiling impasse free-fall we’re in could be quite entertaining, because the cracks are beginning to show.

In what sounds like a “we can do it, yes we can!” pep rally for House Republicans, there’s this oddity reported by the Washington Post:

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the party’s vote counter, began his talk by showing a clip from the movie, “The Town”, trying to forge a sense of unity among the independent-minded caucus.

One character asks his friend: “I need your help. I can’t tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later.”

“Whose car are we gonna take,” the character says.

After showing the clip, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), one of the most outspoken critics of leadership among the 87 freshmen, stood up to speak, according to GOP aides.

“I’m ready to drive the car,” West replied, surprising many Republicans by giving his full -throated support for the plan.

Then today, there’s this from Politico:

Well, I have … it was this scene:

Or perhaps this one:

In any case, I predict we’ll be here by Saturday at the latest:

That’s Boehner in the role of Piggy; Eric Cantor is portrayed by the kid with the modified jewfro who levers the huge boulder off the cliff, while the other fools on the hill represent the Teabag Caucus.

There’s that old back-handed curse about living in interesting times; I don’t think this qualifies.  I think we’re suffering under the much more pernicious curse of living in stupid times.

As the saying goes, there’s nothing new under the sun.  While navigating through this Republican-created debt ceiling “crisis”, we find this satisfying example of how our medieval forebears dealt with the political intransigence of the College of Cardinals in selecting a new pope:

They tore the roof off the sucker

Palazzo dei Papi

Located in the attractive Piazza San Lorenzo, the Palazzo dei Papi or Palazzo Papale (Papal Palace) is a striking reminder of this town’s former importance. Built between 1255 and 1267 to house the popes who had sought refuge in Viterbo, its most striking feature is an elegant seven-arched loggia. The small courtyard behind these interlocking arches is also pretty, with a lion-bedecked fountain and views out towards the city walls.

One of the best stories about the Viterbo popes is of an election for the papacy in 1268. 18 cardinals dutifully assembled in the bishop’s palace, but after a year and a half they still hadn’t managed to choose between candidates. The Viterbesi, exasperated, locked the cardinals in their conclave (the word comes from the Latin ‘with key’), reduced them to bread and water rations and even removed the roof of the palace. Eventually the cardinals made their decision, but it had taken nearly three years – the longest ever conclave.

It seems worth a try – just peel back the roof of the House and let them all sit in there and bake until they’re ready to do something.  I’d like to embellish the plan, though, with the option to throw poop on them through the open roof.

Have you noticed that none of your bullshit is showing up in the comments? 

Feel free to continue wasting your time.  As for “last one to utilize this,” all you are “utilizing” is our spam filter.

I orginally posted this last year for Independence Day, but after reviewing it and deciding there wasn’t anything I would say differently now, decided to put it back at the top of the page again for the holiday – particularly in view of the fact that some still need reminding what it is that constitutes not only a nation, but love of it (see next post down).  I hope your 4th is a happy one!

So it’s July 4th again, our nation’s birthday.  A day for dressing up in tail coats, breeches, stockings, wigs and tri-corner hats and screeching about how the founders would have totally given BP a free pass to do as they please, no backsies, if you’re of a certain persuasion; a day for drinking beer, cooking on the grill, and setting off illegal fireworks if you’re most of us.  The point being that “independence day” means different things to different people, just as the words “freedom” and “liberty” and “patriotism” do.

Results of a survey released just this week showed that 26% of Americans surveyed didn’t know exactly who it was that we declared independence from way back in 1776.  Among the responses:  France, Spain, Mexico, Japan, and China.  Which brings to mind the rhetorical question asked by the Jules character in Pulp Fiction, played by Samuel L. Jackson:  “English, motherfucker!  Do you speak it?”  It seems that anyone who can answer that question should have an inkling as to which country was our parent nation.  I’m tempted to think that the 26% who answered “don’t know” or named one of these other nations were just fucking with the pollsters; then I’m reminded that George W. Bush left office with a 28% approval rating, a similar number believe our president was born in Kenya because “someone on the internet said so”, and a not-insignificant portion of the population believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on the earth at the same time and The Flintstones was a documentary.  The sad fact is that something between 1/4 and 1/3 of our population are the hard-core stupid/insane, which continually depresses me though it shouldn’t, since the inescapable mathematical fact is that one half of all people are of below-average intelligence.

Besides, I feel I should give a little credit to the folks who responded with “China”, particularly if they are young – how are they supposed to know that we weren’t always owned by the Chinese?

But back to the topic at hand:  “freedom,” “liberty,” and “patriotism” – what do they mean?  IMHO, these words have been so shamelessly co-opted to mean “shut up, that’s why!” that for many of us, they have very little meaning at all.  For all the saccharine sentiment behind America’s Redneck National Anthem:

…it’s essentially a song completely empty of meaning.  I mean, the guy’s “proud to be an American” because “at least I know I’m free.”  But “free” from what?  Soviet-style repression?  We’re not alone in being “free” from that.  At the same time, we’re notably less free from corporate predation and economic security than the citizens of many of those faggy elitist “socialist” European democracies.  Then there’s the line about how he “won’t forget the men who died who gave that right to me.”  Well, I haven’t forgotten the brave men of the Revolution, or 1812, or the Civil War, or WWII either, but let’s face it:  many more men have died in service to this country’s imperialism than have because of any existential threat we faced.  I do not denigrate their service; when they were called to duty, they answered the call – but those making the call have all too often had less-than-pure motives.  Pretending otherwise doesn’t make you a better or more patriotic American; it makes you a more dangerous one, more likely to go along with wasting other men’s lives needlessly.

And then there’s that whole concept of “freedom”, which more and more these days I’m thinking comports most closely with the meaning assigned it by Kris Kristofferson, as famously sung by Janis Joplin:

…”freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”  Because, let’s face it, we’ve lost a lot over these past 50 years.  The concepts of fair play, of fair pay for an honest day’s work, of protecting the little guy against the abuses of corporate giants.  The people of this country, even those who show up in Revolutionary-style drag to protest against protections for themselves, have lost an awful lot during my lifetime, and there’s no sign that the tide has turned or will turn on that any time soon. 

Which brings us to the concept of “patriotism,” which I believe is the crux of the issue here.

There are a lot of people running around in this country who believe that Lee Greenwood’s blather about God blessing the USA sending a shiver down their spine, singing the national anthem loudly, screaming out the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, or slapping a flag on their car antenna proves they’re “patriots”.  It’s all about the symbols for them.  But symbols do not a nation make; nations are made up of people united in a common cause or destiny.  “Patriotism” has nothing to do with attachment to a particular piece of real estate or a fetish for a flag or other symbol, and everything to do with caring about your fellow citizens.  If they aren’t strong and healthy, then neither is the nation.  You’d think that the Lee Greenwood lovers would know this; the church-going folk have no excuse for not being aware of this concept of “nation” because as their Bible makes quite clear, the nation of Israel was comprised of the people, not the land they lived on.  They remained the “nation of Israel” through bondage in Egypt, through the Babylonian conquest, through Roman domination and through the diaspora.  That’s what a nation is – a connection to a group of people, not fealty to a scrap of cloth of a certain design or a patch of land.

And that’s what we’ve lost, if indeed we ever had it.  Those who most loudly proclaim their “patriotism” these days are those who are also most likely to bitch and moan about how it’s unfair that their fellow citizens should enjoy the same rights and privileges they enjoy, about how their “freedom” is being encroached upon when they are asked to pay their fair share of what it costs to live in a civilized society, about how in a truly “free” nation it would be every man for himself – never seeing the contradiction inherent in that belief, that there is no need for a “nation” if we adopt the mantra of every man for himself.  It’s what defines Sarah Palin, Our Lady of Perpetual Butthurt, as an anti-patriot, every time she opens her mouth and a whole lot of stupid about the “real America” falls out. 

Lincoln famously noted that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”  That holds as true today as it did in his time, as it has in all times.  You cannot simultaneously “love your nation” while hating most of the people who comprise it.  Over these past 20 or 30 years, we have as a nation been increasingly encouraged by those who lay claim to “leadership” to hate one another over differences of race, religion, and political viewpoint.  Those who have encouraged this schism have all too often wrapped themselves in the flag and proclaimed that their view is the patriotic one – which means by definition, any who disagree are unpatriotic.  I would submit that, like all others, they have an agenda – but that agenda is not “what’s best for the nation,” because no one who wants what’s best for the nation would seek to turn citizen against citizen over these types of differences.  That way leads to nothing but hatred and strife and ultimately, dissolution of the nation itself.  It is the exact opposite of patriotism or love of nation.

You cannot be a “patriot” while hating your fellow citizens.

So however you choose to enjoy this Independence Day, whether it be in colonial drag whilst waving a placard proclaiming that our president is a Hitler-Stalin usurper, or whether it be on the back patio grilling for family and friends, I wish you a happy one, and for those who need it, a deeper understanding of what it means to “love your country.”  Take a day off from the butthurt and ponder on what it really means to be a part of a nation.  You can get back to hating everyone in it tomorrow.

Great American, John Wayne Gacy

The clown show that is the Republican race for the nomination continues apace, with many delightful revelations, gaffes, and missteps.  Just a couple of days ago, Michelle Bachmann was in Waterloo, Iowa, talking about how one of her favorite Americans, John Wayne, hailed from the small burg.

 The only problem is, the John Wayne who grew up once lived in Waterloo was John Wayne Gacy, serial murderer and crawlspace-burier of several dozen young men - not the manly he-man actor.  Bonus points:  Gacy liked dressing up as a clown, and did a lot of clown portraits as a prison artist, which ties in nicely with the clown-car vibe that pervades the race.

Throw in Sarah Palin, and you'd have Snowbilly and the Seven Dwarves

Other candidates, other gaffes: man-of-the-people Newt Gingrich was revealed to have a half-million dollar credit line at Tiffany’s, which makes you wonder if he’s working on the replacement for wife #3. Other WIN in the Gingrich campaign: a couple of weeks ago, virtually his entire campaign staff quit, stating that Gingrich’s crafted-by-Madame Tussaud wife, Callista, was stepping all over campaign scheduling by foregoing same in favor of the couple’s grifting events. I guess you have to keep the cash flowing if you want to pay off your credit line at Tiffany’s.

Then there’s Romney, who was presented an origami-folded dollar bill by a young boy as a luck token at a campaign event. Wanting to prevent the visual of a multi-millionaire taking money from a child, Romney went into his wallet to trade another dollar bill to the boy, only to find he had nothing smaller than $100 bills – thereby generating the visual that he’s just like you and me, except he walks around with stacks of hundreds and wears magic underpants. Ironically, Romney’s grotesque wealth and Mormonism aren’t the biggest hurdles he faces; he’s still begging the Republican base to forgive his most successful policy achievement as governor of Massachusetts – universal health care.

Things aren’t much better for the rest of the field. Cain presents as insanely out-of-his-depth (as well as possibly insane); do we really want a man who can’t even make a decent pizza running the show? Ron Paul also comes off loony toons, Pawlenty has already been dismissed as both too wimpy and too white-bread, and newly-announced candidate Jon Huntsman is both dull and wears the magic underwear like Romney. Rounding out the field is Rick Santorum, whose surname has become synonymous with a by-product of anal sex. No candidate is ever going to overcome something like that.

Well, that's ONE possible explanation...

Buzz over the past few weeks is that Bachmann will be the likely winner.  That sounds nuts, because she’s a crazy lady but…really, what is there to choose from in this field?  Republicans can’t risk losing the teabaggers, and Bachmann is their hands-down favorite.

Understandably, the party leadership is shitting its collective pants over this, and has floated the names of various saviors, hoping and praying that someone, anyone, will swoop in and save them from the incipient disaster. 

 Among the straws they’ve grasped at:  Mitch Daniels, current governor of Indiana and former Bush budget director, which uniquely qualifies him to deal with an out-of-control deficit that was largely his design.  Daniels put the kibosh to those hopes weeks ago.  Flavor-the-week Texas governor Rick Perry’s name was floated out there about a week ago, with the usual booshwah about how he has “executive experience” running “one of the largest states in the country.”  Problem is, too many voters have yet to forget the unmitigated disaster that was the last Texas governor elected to the White House.  Also, Perry’s charisma is often put in the shade by that of his hair, Beauregard.  It’s impossible to imagine Perry choosing anyone other than his hair as his running mate, such is the awesome power of The Dry Look.  Stunts such as calling for a day of prayer to deal with his state’s extreme drought do not exactly confidence inspire, either.

More and more, the hopes of the party are coming to rest on their Great White Whale Hope, governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.  Not only have the media adopted the porcine governor as their newest GOP crush, but he also brings to the table that unique combination of girth, hypocrisy, and sociopathy the party has, up until now, only been able to find in combination in the person of Rush Limbaugh.  He’s ultimate Base Man, satisfying the average GOP voter’s desire for arrogant dismissiveness of the electorate and contempt for poor and working people.

Thus far Christie has resisted the siren song urging him to join the race for the nomination.  But with the party facing such grim prospects, he might be convinced to change his mind. 

In the event Christie enters the race, I’ve put together a few campaign posters, just to help him get up to speed and overcome his late entry.  As you know, I’m always happy to help our Republican friends out with creative ideas, and I hope that at least one of these images will be of use to the Christie campaign in creating an iconic theme:

To be honest, I’m not sure which is my favorite.  While the one on the right does a better job of illustrating Christie’s width, I’m really enamored of the Dr. Evil vibe I’m getting from the tux he’s wearing in the one on the left.  Somehow it seems to better symbolize the gluttony that lies at the heart of today’s Republican party.  Let me know which one YOU like best, and feel free to borrow as needed, though a credit is always appreciated.

Why, it’s our friend Mr. Brooks.

When God put ears on this man's head, he ruined a perfectly good dick

Let’s see what he’s serving up today:  who caused the housing meltdown?  Fannie Mae and brown people.

Seriously, I’m not making this up.  He specifically cites ACORN and the Congressional Black & Hispanic Caucuses, and throws in Barney Frank for good measure.

All of this has been debunked already, so I’m not going to painstakingly go through and debunk it again – you should go read it for yourself.  But before you do, here are the facts you need to know:

1.  Bobo’s lying about the timeline, blaming the housing meltdown on affordable housing policies adopted in the 1990s, none of which stipulated that Fannie Mae was required to pick up more sub-prime loans.   In fact, at the height of the subprime lending orgy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s overall share of sub-prime loans sold into the secondary mortgage market decreased by 50%.

2.  Bobo’s gratuitous swipe at Frank is in reference to a former partner of Frank’s, Herb Moses, who was an executive at Fannie Mae from 1991  – 1998, the year the two amicably separated…well before Fannie Mae became entangled in the subprime meltdown.  But, having already checked the boxes for “poor” and ”brown”, I guess Bobo figured he should check the box for “gay” as well, to make sure all the usual suspects were demonized.

3.  At the height of subprime lending in 2006, private lenders issued 84% of the subprime loans.  That’s individual loans, not dollar amount.  Keep in mind that low-income borrowers take out much smaller loans, and are the borrowers most likely to be offered a subprime loan (again, thanks to having lower incomes).  In that same year, 83% of subprime loans to low and moderate income buyers were made by private lenders.

4.  Is it reasonable to blame the meltdown of the entire financial system on 16 or 17% of the lending activity (actually less than that in dollar terms – see #3 above) in the housing market?  No.  No, it isn’t.  And in fact, those subprime loans that were securitized by Fannie and Freddie – and keep in mind, we’re only talking about 1/6th of them - have featured default rates less than half of the default rate of subprime mortgages issued by private lenders.

Again, Bobo knows all this.  He’s not a stupid man; he’s a huge prick.  I’m just pointing out for the umpteenth time that he’s a lying sack of shit because I have some friends who still cling to a belief that he’s a reasonable person.  I guess that’s possible, if you consider it “reasonable” to pull things out of your ass to support whatever bigoted or reactionary point of view you want to reinforce.  Personally, I don’t think it’s reasonable to cling to and defend ideas that can’t be defended without lying.

If Brooks keeps this up, they’re going to have to build a bigger Dickipedia.