Everyone is freaking out about Romney’s video, about what a big scary jerk he is for saying something that, hey, not only needed to be said but has been said repeatedly in the comfort of many living rooms all over this nation.   At least Romney had enough balls to admit to it (even if it was to a roomful of rich elitist cunts).

Are there people who leach off the system?  Yep.  Do those people vote?  Yep.  Who do they generally vote for?  The ones who promise to keep that nipple shoved right in their greedy, entitlement-riddled mouths.   And who, exactly, are those promise keepers?  The ones who espouse big government and who continue to sell the snake-oil-soaked myth that government is there to help people.

I say, anyone who believes that the intention of government, big or small, is to help people are fooling themselves.

Hasn’t the welfare state shown beyond any doubt that it provides absolutely no incentives whatsoever to recoil from that poisoned breast?

Oh, and in case you were wondering – it should also be clear that the intention of government is to grow the government.  Period.  For these pukes in suits, it’s about job security.  Power.  Control.  Self-importance.  They have ideas that they want to propagate through the womb of democracy.   Oh well, good for them.  Penn Jillette said it best: “I don’t know what’s best for everybody.  I don’t even know what’s best for myself!”

I’m sure you’ve heard some equivalent of the following: “If we just elect the right people, everything will be okay.”  What utter self-deluding bullshit!

The irony about the Repugs and their high-and-mighty condemnations of big government is that they themselves are part of the problem.   On the other side of the aisle, the problem with the Republicrats (how quickly people forget that the U. S. of A. is a republic and not a true democracy in any sense of that word) is that they are just as guilty of the high-and-mightiness of which they accuse their Repug counterparts.  They should all be leaving people the fuck alone to screw up their lives any way they see fit.  (The ban in NYC on large sugary drinks comes to mind — more on this in a future post.  Sorry I’m all over the place — I’m just out of practice.)

I actually find Romney’s after-the-fact hemming and hawing to be much more offensive, that he’s not willing to fully own what he said in what was probably one of the most honest moments the man has had in his career.  If you’re a politician running for the highest office in the country, you have to be willing to say to an entire nation what you would say to a roomful of like-minded assholes.  Oh, but wait – politics is all about wearing many faces to many people.  Dishonesty.  That’s precisely why I don’t even participate in the democratic process anymore.

i.e.  I don’t vote.

There has been no candidate worthy of my support.  (The only reason I voted for Obama in 2008 — which, incidentally, was the very last time I voted — is because he wasn’t McCain/Palin.  When the only choice is, most often, the lesser of evils, how can a system like this sustain itself?)  The fact that this man Romney, and Obama, and the many men (and some women) like them, want to assert some authority over me, tell me what I can or cannot do, think, say, and then dare to tell me that it’s all in service to my better interests — that’s reason enough for me to suspect them and to suspend any trust in their leadership skills.

If I wanted to willingly submit to that kind of bullshit, I’d start going to church.

There has been a fierce debate in my state of Maine lately, about – what else? – gay marriage.  Our Guvna recently signed into law the equality in marriage that our gay neighbors deserve, and then the bible-thumpers got enough sheep to sign their little petitions to present the following referendum question on next month’s ballot:

Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?

The “yes on 1” people have turned this into a scare-tactic fest, with warnings of “teaching homosexuality in the schools” if the law stands.  What the fuck are these people smoking?

If you’re a regular to this blog, then you already know how I feel about gay marriage.   But I’ve been thinking about these Yes on 1 wackos quite a lot lately, as they infiltrate my living room with the slime oozing out from my TV set.

Let me get this straight, good Christians – you believe that every human being has a soul and, depending on how one conducts their life, the soul will leave one’s physical body and go to heaven or to hell.  One of the motivations you have as good Christians in this gay marriage debate is to save these poor, sinful homos from themselves and try to help them see the error of their despicable ways.  Man shall not lie down with man, blah blah blah.

Each of us is born as either male or female (or sometimes a little of both).   If I understand the Christian way of thinking (Christian thinking, now there’s an oxymoron for you) then the soul of each person is also either male or female.  (Must be so – why else would these religious wackos have their knickers in such a twist?)  So, good Christians, riddle me this – what about those people who have a sex change operation?  What about a woman who lives her life as a lesbian, then has a sex change operation to become a man and then marries a woman?  I personally know one such person for whom this has been life’s lot.   Did this person change the gender of their soul?  Could one argue that this woman saw the sinfulness of her ways living as a lesbian and decided to become a heterosexual man?  Is this person going to heaven or hell when he/she dies?  And will the soul of this person be as it was from birth, or at the time of death?   If the physical and the spiritual are separate, then fornication and other such activities of human genitalia are of no importance, or they shouldn’t be.

It’s ridiculous, ain’t it?  Ah yes, just another of the myriad ways in which we can all see how silly and ignorant and backwards it is that we have allowed government to be more important than love.  So let’s keep Big Brother and his bible out of the bedroom already, alright?

Nobel Shnobel.

October 12, 2009

Everyone’s asking, “Does Obama deserve the Nobel?” to which I say, “Who gives a shit?”

Deserve?  How should I know?  The Nobel award is bestowed upon those who show potential for creating change towards a more peaceful world.  Oh yeah, you mean people like Yasser Arafat?  Give me a fucking break.

The Nobel is like the Grammy Awards.  It’s not really based on merit – it’s a fucking popularity contest.

If you really want to know, I think Obama shouldn’t have gotten it.  In fact, I think it would have been funny if he had refused it and cleared his golden throat and said, “Listen.. no offense, fellas, but I think I’ve got enough going on here.  Just let me do my fucking job, as difficult as that already is.”

I mean, come on, enough with the Obama savior worship already!  The Nobel is just another huge weight to put on his shoulders.  With everything else on his plate, does he need the title of “Nobel Laureate” to live up to as well?

Up here in Maine, there will be a legislative session on April 28th to deal with a bill that would legalize gay marriage in this state.  There was a big hearing this week at the Augusta Civic Center, where supporters of the bill were all dressed in red (to symbolize love?  out for blood? who knows..).

On the local news after the hearing, I heard an old man step up to the microphone and say, “Well, I don’t mean any harm to these people, but, no.. marriage is for a man and a woman.”

I know I’ve written about this before, but I really can’t understand the logic of not allowing gays the right to marry.

Would someone please logically explain to me why gay people shouldn’t be able to marry one another.  Don’t say it’s because they can’t procreate.  Fuck that argument.  That would be akin to telling post-menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies, and any and all infertile heterosexuals that they can’t get married, either.   So that argument is out the window.

So, it’s because the bible says it’s wrong?  Some friggin’ book? Where does it actually say that?  I think that whole bit in Leviticus is taken out of context.  Think about it.  When those words were scribed, disease was rampant – personal hygiene was nearly impossible in the searing hot desert, with everyone living in close quarters with other humans, with animals, with unrefrigerated meat.  Anal sex was frowned on, as was eating the flesh of certain animals – not because, I don’t think, because of any moral implications, but simply because it was literally unclean.  They were trying to preserve human life by cutting down on the spread of disease as much as they could.  Makes sense.  So, in the sanitized 21st century, I think we can safely do without the puritanical witch-hunts.  Another argument fucked!

Some say it makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.  And how, exactly, does this occur?  How does the gay couple, paying their taxes and cleaning the garage and mowing the lawn and having sex and eating dinner and watching TV, living next door to a straight couple doing all the same shit make a bit of difference to the institution of marriage?  Oh yeah, the “building block of civilization” argument.  Hey, not everyone gets married just to have kids.  Some people get married because *GASP* they love each other and want to build a life together, in whatever form that takes.  Some have kids.  Some don’t.  Some work together.  Some start a business together.  Some love their pets.  I don’t need to belabor the point.  The institution of marriage is different for every married couple.  So fuck that argument, too.

And let’s drop the “gay agenda” and “recruitment” arguments, too.  If anyone has an agenda, it’s the religious nutcases, who want have a monopoly on all things pertaining to human sexuality and morality – basically, they wanna control your every movement and tell you what to think and when to think it, in exchange for a tenth of your income.  Talk about an agenda!

And definitely FUCK the argument that says, “We gotta keep the gays away from kids, because they’ll molest them.”  If I could legally put bullets in the heads of the assholes who believe this kind of shit, I might consider it.

Let’s be honest – it’s all about genitalia, isn’t it?  Come on now.  Penises and pussies.  That’s what this WHOLE friggin’ debate is about – what are people doing with their genitals?  Bunch of fucking voyeurs that we are.  I can’t imagine a more grotesque invasion of privacy than a collective, societal fixation on the goings-on of the individual human’s genitalia.  You, opponent of gay marriage, say you can’t understand how one man could want to fuck another man?  Well, they just as equally can’t understand why you would wanna fuck some woman.  Me, I don’t give two shits about what Adam and Bruce are doing next door in their bedroom.  Why should anyone give a damn?  It’s their business, not anyone else’s.

What should we uphold – a committed gay relationship, or a couple of drunk straight twenty-somethings who get married on a whim by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas?  I mean, come on.

Shit, let ’em marry.  Then they can grow to resent one another, withhold sex and be miserable like all the other married people I know.

I don’t know whether it’s the extremes we’ve been having in the weather up here in the Northeast that have been fucking with me or if the Republican mind-fuck is working it’s magic on me, but I have completely had it up to here with billion dollar bailouts and stimuli.

$780,000,000,000.  That’s a lot of fucking scratch, folks.  This “money” is supposed to stimulate the economy. Yeah, maybe right now, but what about our grandkids?  How are they going to feel inheriting this kind of debt?  I’ve known plenty of people who live their lives like this.  It’s called living beyond your means.  Being house poor.  Living on credit.  Having lots of shit around – nice car, nice house, nice clothes, nice everything – but not really owning any of it.

Do I feel sad that people are getting their homes taken from them?  Well, quite honestly, it depends.  Were you honestly making your payments every month without fail and then your spouse died or the factory closed and you are really stuck?  Then yes, I feel sad and would agree that you got dealt a lousy hand.  But – did you get in over your head in debt because you were too busy sucking at the teat of the promise and euphoric wonder of “the American Dream” to read the fine print on the contract that the predatory broker convinced you to sign?  Then no, I don’t feel quite as sad.  Does that make me a bastard?  Perhaps, but hey – I own my home, don’t carry any credit card debt, car payment, or school loans.  Debt free, baby.  And I’ve got money saved.  Call me un-American – but that’s how this mind chooses to roll.  And I wasn’t born into money.  I had to work my ass off to get to where I’m at.  But I wasn’t born into any sense of entitlement, either.  Just because I’m an American doesn’t mean I’m entitled to a piece of the American dream.  I gotta work for it.  I’m a frugal Maine-iac.  If there’s some little trinket that I want that I can’t afford, I save until I can.  If I ran my checkbook the way this country does, I’d be in white collar prison.

Even little ol’ Maine is supposed to get nearly a billion dollars out of this stimulus deal.  Sure, some roads and bridges that badly need it will get fixed, and a few schools won’t have to have as many bake sales.  But then what?  Seriously, THEN WHAT?  Everyone’s lives will suddenly be better?  Jobs will miraculously be created?  Why?  Oh yeah, to start generating tax revenue in some feeble attempt to pay back a trillion dollars in debt.  Obama et al seem to suffer from a distinct strain of Democratitis, the kind that leads people to believe that if you throw money at something, then it will get better.  Sure, maybe right now, but what are the LONG TERM side effects of a stimulus package like this?  And isn’t this forcing us all to put a tremendous amount of faith in the government to help us?  I don’t know about you, but I don’t trust the government to do what’s best for me.  I really don’t.  Supporters say it’s a lot better than doing nothing.  Is it?  I just heard on NPR that despite all this money wrangling, unemployment is still expected to rise to as much as 8.5 to 8.8 percent!!  That’s unacceptable!  So yeah, let’s throw a bunch of borrowed money at the problem and let’s see if that works.  I’ll admit that the Republicans are too quick to poo-poo the entire idea (save the 2 “moderates” from my own state) but I almost have to agree with them.  Are we really thinking this through?  What if you or I lived like this, constantly borrowing money and living on credit?  There is always a day of reckoning, and I fear the same will happen on a national scale with the package that is being implemented now.

But what the fuck do I know?  I am just one of many middle class stiffs who are footing the fucking bill.

… the state senator from Utah, Chris Buttars.

Direct quote: “What is the morals of a gay person? You can’t answer that because anything goes.”  (He must have been in the same English grammar class as Dubya.)

This prick is saying that gays pose the greatest threat to America.

Yeah, never mind Iran or Tehran or North Korea or China.  We should be more worried about Bruce and Trevor and their immoral butt sex.

Give me a fucking break.

Does this prick have the right to state his opinion?  Absolutely.  Should he apologize?  Well, as a state senator, he should be speaking on behalf of his constituency.   If every single person within his charge feels exactly the way he does, then OK, he can say those things.  But, chances are, not every one of them is living in the biblical dark ages like he is.  (Well, we are talking about Utah here.  Heh, sorry Mark.)

So, Chris?  Go fuck yourself.  Or better yet, go fuck one of your dashing young pages.  We know you types really want to, deep down.

Although it’s been mentioned elsewhere recently, I want to put in another $.02 worth on the issue of abortion.

Specifically, I want to hear from the pro-lifers on this:

The pro-lifer’s worldview says that abortion is murder.  Period.  How many times have we all heard that?  “It’s the murder of unborn children”, etc etc ad nauseum.  You know the drill.

In an ideal universe, from the pro-lifer’s point of view, Roe v. Wade would be overturned and abortion would be illegal, making it more difficult for women to get one.  (Which wouldn’t change anything, really, because women who want to get an abortion will find a way.)

So my question is simply this – if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and since, to the pro-lifer’s mind, abortion is murder (murder, of course, being a crime), then to what extent should these women and doctors be punished?  How much jail time should a woman or doctor receive for taking part in this illegal act of murder?

I am not being flippant – this is a legitimate question.

I am pro-choice, but I don’t think, and certainly no pro-choice person that I’ve ever encountered thinks that abortion is this wonderful, joyous thing.  It’s never a “good thing”.  It’s almost always a belated response to a lack of responsibility in regards to sexual conduct.  It’s a big “whoopsy daisy!”   Certainly, there are fetuses that would have grown into children with severe disabilities and deformities that are aborted by mothers who wanted to forestall the child’s (and their own) suffering.  But let’s get real.  A lot of women who get abortions are women who just had a little too much unprotected fun and don’t want to be a mother as a consequence.  But hey, that’s OK with me.  I’d rather that every child that comes into this crazy world is wanted in the first place, not begrudgingly given its existence because of some religious guilt trip.

But no, not the pro-lifers.  They scream that it’s MURDER MURDER MURDER to abort that baby!  They want Roe v. Wade thrown out so that it’s illegal.

So, you big murder-screaming pro-life religious nutcases – what’s the minimum mandatory sentence going to be, then, for receiving or performing an abortion?  And who should get the stiffer sentence?  The doctor?  Because he/she actually did the murdering?  Or the woman?  Is she the real murderer because she  premeditated the whole thing?  Who is the murderer and who is the accomplice to the murder?  Or are they both equally guilty of the same offense?  Should the doctor be considered a serial murderer and receive consecutive life sentences?  And would there be officers working undercover to catch these women and these doctors?  Can you imagine the courts being clogged with this kind of nonsense?

I know, I know, the pro-lifers say: “It’s between a woman and god”.  OK, then fine.  So why does abortion have to be illegal, then?  The answer is – there is no reason.  The pro-life camp are  just a bunch of people who think, “Oh, look at the cute little baby” and “children are a gift from god” and they’re just thinking with their emotions and not with their intellect.

Once again, I really am not being flippant when I ask these questions.  I am merely trying to follow the pro-lifer’s logic and quickly realizing that there is no logic to follow at all.