Cheap Hitler Comparisons? Maybe Not So Much...

Sometimes you just have to say it...

If there wasn't so much at stake in November, it would be downright funny the way 'Bagger candidates like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul seem to get more popular the less they speak. It's like folks are so desperate for a break from the 'business as usual' pols that they'll vote for anybody else - until they speak and even the dimmest voters start getting the crazy vibe off them.

Supporting a 'Bagger candidate is a lot like getting pissed off with Pep Boys and taking your car to some random guy across the street to get it fixed instead. He promises a way sweeter deal and says "yeh, stick it to the man... screw those big guys!" But then you pick your car up and realize your exhaust's been replaced with a vacuum cleaner hose and the whole engine's f*cked because the dude dropped acid and filled your gas tank with jello. Yup. The 'Baggers may seduce those who are jaded with 'business as usual'. But jumping from 'business as usual' to 'clueless lunacy' isn't really the way to go.

But watching 'Bagger candidates pop up on the news spouting ridiculous ideas gives me that same feeling I used to have about Bush: They seem dumb as rocks. But you don't get elected if you're dumb. So there must be smart guys arranging the rocks in Satan's Zen garden. With Bush, it was the Neocons and the American imperialist agenda. With the 'Baggers, it's the corporate aristocracy and their 1890s style robber baron fascism. Just as Bush was the Neocons' useful idiot, so the 'Bagger candidates are the Koch brothers' useful idiots.

So whenever you see Christine O'Donnell or Sharron Angle running away from the press like celebs fleeing the Hollywood Paparazzi, it would seem fairly reasonable to assume they've been told by their puppet masters to shut up. You can bet those egomaniacal loons would love nothing more than to rant all day long to anyone willing to listen... but they've been told to "keep schtum"... and that cute Germanism brings me right along to...

You know who else didn't like speaking too much to unscreened audiences? Yup. Said Raymond Gram Swing, a news commentator for the Mutual Broadcasting System network back in the 1930s:

“It’s well to bear in mind that Hitler never speaks at the microphone without the background of a frenzied audience. He never tries to talk quietly and persuasively to an individual listener. He talks to crowds who must give a crowds response. This is an essential of the totalitarian leadership."

Again, I'm not one for mindless Hitler comparisons. I'm not one for cheap Jeffrey Dahmer comparisons either... but if you were caught with a fridge full of brains, people would be forgiven a Dahmer reference. And there is an unmistakable whiff of Nazi M.O. about the 'Baggers. Sucks but it's true. The Nazis, just like the Tea Party, leveraged popular frustration with government and sold themselves as a fresh, new alternative. And they also carefully kept a lid on the crazy just long enough to get elected by a conservatively inclined nation not known for its love of extremists. In this respect, Sharron Angle couldn't look more Hitler-ish if she grew a mustache and had that 'one big bang in the middle of the forehead' thing going on... Cheap Nazi comparison? I'd say not so much.

A Nation of A**holes: Habitat For Inhumanity

The case of the guy in Tennessee whose house burned down because he forgot to pay some local surcharge got me thinking again about how far we've sunk. The fire crew turn out and stand by watching as the guy's house burns with three dogs and a cat inside... When this can happen, and a c*nt like Glenn Beck can come on the air and mocks the guy, there really is something broken. We truly have become a nation of a**holes. So when did the c*ntservatives who applauded this inhumane travesty finally get their way? When did common standards of decency and humanity lose their 'common' and become arguable?

Another example of us becoming a nation of a**holes who've forgotten what it is to be human: "Authorities have found the bodies of 252 illegal immigrants in the Arizona desert this year, an all-time high—even though the number of people crossing illegally is down." Thanks to those humane conservative types who obsess over 'border security' and block humanitarian efforts to provide water and shade for 'illegals'. Nice. You want to cross illegally? You die. Men. Women. Children. Conservatives don't care. Says the first commenter:

"Good-we are making progress. Maybe the next batch of them will think twice before breaking in to the country!"

Like I said, that's men, women and children dying agonizing deaths in the desert as their brains overheat and their subcutaneous fat boils... and a perfectly respectable American a**hole says good. Probably the same kind of a**hole who'd support KY libertard Rand Paul when he dribbles about wanting to screw old folks with a $2,000 Medicare deductible. Probably the same kind of guy who'd vote for a callous bitch like Sharron Angle who probably plans on harvesting the poor as Soylent Green.

Why? Why have we become a nation of a**holes? Why have so many of us been overtaken by the urge to say f*ck you to everyone else? I'm not that old, but I remember when times were better than this.

You Couldn't Make This Up...

Most times when people write "you couldn't make this up", you usually could. But this..? Are you ready for Christine O'Donnell's "Bozogate"?

Seems the nuttiest wingnut in the Tea Party fruitcake really is the daughter of Bozo The Clown:

The O'Donnell family's past claims that her father Daniel O'Donnell had worked as Bozo sparked an uprising of online commenters who insisted that no, Daniel O'Donnell was not listed on Wikipedia as having been one of the many regionally licensed Bozo the Clown TV hosts... But now [Mark Leibovich at the New York Times] has sorted things out -- Daniel O'Donnell was an occasional understudy Bozo, not a full-time holder of the Bozo mantle.

If you ain't ROTFLYAO right now at the thought that Christine O'Donnell's pa wasn't even a proper Bozo The Clown but a sub, you're probably going to vote for her. Unless you succumb to some disease contracted by licking windows that'll keep you home on election day.

Democrat Spinelessness

Jack Conway, Kentucky Democrat Senatorial candidate, running on a platform of "whatever the other guy says".

Rand Paul is running for the Senate in Kentucky on a raft of fiscally suicidal ideas that could only make sense if you wear tin foil hats and like to direct invisible traffic in the street. His Democrat challenger is thus faced with two options:

1. Do you point out the obvious absurdity of Rand Paul's positions and offer voters rational alternatives that wouldn't bankrupt the country in five minutes flat and turn us into a medieval fiefdom?

or...

2. Do you ditch your own principles and start offering the same crazy ideas as your opponent like you're Target trying to match WalMart's low, low prices across the street?

No prizes for guessing which way Jack Conway jumped.

As a species, Democrat candidates are mostly invertebrates. But Democrat candidates are also closely related to chameleons and are able to change their appearances to blend with any background. In Kentucky, for instance, Jack Conway hides himself by turning a shade of deep red and starts pushing for the extension of Bush tax cuts for everybody - even the mega-rich.

When Obama's busy asking progressives to suck it up and fight for "Democrat values", it doesn't send a particularly helpful message if Democrat candidates themselves can't even be bothered to stand up for "Democrat values".

Instead of presenting an antidote to conservatism, pussyish f*cks like Jack Conway offer only a non-brand, knock-off version of the same poison. God help us.

One Nation Getting Bigger...

C&L talk about the One Nation March:

Preliminary satellite estimates put the crowd size at 175,000 to 200,000 at about noon EST. By the calculations of Bachman/Beck, et al., that would mean at least 1,000,000, non?

If I were Glenn Beck, I'd also worry that around 260,000 people have already RSVP'd for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's rally. Ha!

One Nation Rally

Laziness, geography and general sulkiness directed at the liberal establishment stopped me attending the One Nation rally today. But I'd sure love to have seen George Clinton, surrounded by Americans of all creeds and colors, wind up the event with "One Nation Under a Groove". That must be a hell of a memory to keep. (Ted Nugent cranking out 'Cat Scratch Fever' surrounded by fat white teabaggers on scooters? Not so much...)

But, sad to say, I had the exact same pea-brained partisan thoughts about the march as Right Pundits: What are the scores? How many people turned up for the One Nation rally? Say they:

"Unlike Glenn Beck’s rally where over 500,000 people gathered to hear from speakers like Sarah Palin, about 150,000 appear to have assembled to bash Capitalism and advocate more gun control."

Good news no doubt for progressives. How so? Because Right Pundits claim half a million for Glenn Beck's 9-12 do when reality estimates only 60-70,000. So even if they are somehow right about the One Nation rally numbers, we have them beat by a margin of 50 - 60%.

Yeh, I know, it's pretty childish to bicker and compete about crowd numbers. But they started it!

Finding Common Ground

Ohio Tea Party candidate Tom Ganley. It ain't pretty...

I was just reading about the spectacularly corrupt Tea Party candidate for the 13th District of Ohio, Tom Ganley:

Ganley has been accused of sexually assaulting a supporter he met at a tea party rally (he's been sued over 400 times for ethics and business violations).

That's some impressive weaselry from a guy who makes out like he's one of them "new brooms" sent by God to sweep clean DC. Got me wondering whether thoroughly unredeemable sh*ts like Ganley would get anywhere at all if voters paid more attention and didn't let anger distract them. Then I got to wondering how much 'baggers and progressives have in common these days: we're both lashing out blindly and letting anger get the better of us. I'm not usually very charitable to conservatives, particularly of the 'bagger variety. But I'm in a rare mood of equanimity today so here goes...

Sure, I hate what the Tea Party represents: a bunch of rich f*cks like the Koch brothers hoodwinking chickens into voting for Colonel Sanders. But deep down, I know most 'baggers are just regular folks who are genuinely sick and tired of the bullsh*t in DC. Most of them, unlike the special interests laying down the astroturf, are not motivated by white supremacism or the corporatist agenda of shrinking government/omnipotent business. They're just angry people who want change. Hell, to that extent, I'm with them 100%. That's where we libs and progs were in 2008. That's where many of us are again. I'm mad as hell too!

Really, progressives and conservatives have much in common right now. We're both so mad we're ready to lash out at our respective parties and exercise the only real power we have: withholding our support. Conservatives want to kill off the GOP status quo, liberals want to kill off the Dem status quo. Conservatives want to replace the old GOP'ers with new radicals, liberals want to replace the old Dems with... erm... anything with a pulse and a pair of balls. But let's just calm down, let's take a few deep breaths and look at the reality.

Anger is the slutty mom of bad decisions. Anger gives conservtives political beer goggles so that losers like Christine O'Donnell and Carl Paladino start looking like attractive candidates. Anger makes progressives want to take down their own party for betraying us without even pondering the horrors of the alternative. So in short, anger is not a good motivator for deciding the future of the country. Don't vote angry.

Dear 'baggers, think instead: Recognize that voting for Tea Party crazies may be tempting, it might seem like a cathartic way to get back at those cynical, establishment buffoons who've let you down (hell, as a progressive, I can dig that). But following through and actually electing these idiots to office would be tantamount to a suicide bid - just as much as progressives dumping Obama and handing back power to the Reps by default would be suicidal.

Electing Tea Party candidates to clean up? That'd be like releasing rabid raccoons into your house to get rid of mice. So, again, let's all take a time out and think. Enough with the anger already.

Bye Ricky...

That didn't take so long. CNN don't play... now Rick Sanchez is probably the dumbest guy who used to be on TV.

But what sucks majorly is that Sanchez gets fired faster than a scoutmaster in a NAMBLA t-shirt for taking a poke at that ol' "Jew media". But who's firing Limbaugh, Becky and all the other racist clowns who make Sanchez's amateurish anti semitism seem warm and cuddly by comparison?

Is Rick Sanchez The Dumbest Man On TV?

CNN's Rick Sanchez could be a genius. I don't know. He might be a moron. Again, I don't know. But he definitely plays one well on TV. So well that even King übertard Glenn Beck recently called Sanchez "the dumbest man ever on television." Like... wow.

Here's some dumb highlights: Remember when Sanchez got all pissed with a scientist who was talking about a "9-meter drop in ocean levels"? Sanchez asked him what a meter was "in English". Remember when Sanchez called Barack Obama the "cotton-picking president of the United States"? Remember too how Sanchez thought the Galapagos Islands were Hawaii and that Icelend was too cold to have volcanoes?

But Sanchez is sensitive too. He gets ticked off when people like Jon Stewart poke fun at him - as Stewart so often does. On Peter Dominick's radio show yesterday, Sanchez protested Jon Stewart's "bigotry" against him and claimed "[People like Stewart] minimize you, and treat you like you don't matter... I am a complex human being. I am not some moron."

Sanchez then arced into some weird "Protocols of The Elders of Zion" sh*t when Dominick inferred that Stewart's being Jewish precluded him from being a bigot:

I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah.

I'd guess Rick Sanchez should avoid watching The Daily Show on Monday after that. I can't imagine CNN will be best pleased either. Way to prove you're no moron, Ricky!

US Says Sorry For Giving Guatemala The Clap

Says Fox:

The U.S. government apologized Friday for "unethical" and "reprehensible" research conducted in Guatemala more than 60 years ago, after a professor documented how U.S. scientists intentionally infected people in the country with sexually transmitted diseases.

Thought I'd take a walk on the wild side and trawl Fox News' comments section for the most obnoxious response to that story. Enjoy:

"I knew it would be a womyn's studies "professor" who would want to bring this old hash up; these vaginas are good for three things: bashing men; bashing the united states; and bashing western civilization."

It's weird how women piss off so many conserva-goons like that commenter and how almost any situation can be interpreted as a 'battle of the sexes' episode. Damn, can't a guy go round spreading syphilis and ghonnorea without the "vaginas" getting all bent out of shape about it?

Weird...

The European Union Court of Justice has ruled that working fathers in Spain are entitled to two "breastfeeding" breaks throughout the day, just like mothers. What they'll do during these breaks is anyone's guess.

Guns, C*cks N' Texas

Here's a weird but predictable story from Texas:

A Texas bank has created a new rule allowing concealed-handgun owners in the building... "No damn Yankee is going to tell us what to do," said [bank president Ed] Smith. "I got to thinking we have a right to bear arms," said Smith. "People who have a conceal carry license are welcome here with their pistols." The premise is boldly stated on the front door. "Management recognizes the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution," the sign reads.

If you're a "damn Yankee" or any other kinda foreigner, you might think a bank inviting its customers to carry concealed weapons is a little odd. From a common-sense perspective, there isn't much. So what could drive a guy to want to override the natural laws of self-preservation and bring in this crazy rule? How does it make sense?

First off, don't worry, I'm not going to go all anti-gun. There's a clear distinction between gun owners and gun nuts and I recognize that. It's just that some people take things too far into weird and leave you wondering what underlying psychological problem drives their obsession. I know it's corny, but I often wonder if gun crazies secretly like c*ck. There. I said it.

Don't you ever wonder how much sublimated gayness abounds amongst the gun fetishists like the NRA who take the whole thing way out of proportion? How gay-for-guns, how literally queer are guys like Ed Smith? Sorry, but you can't get away from it: Guns are recognized by psychologists as "potent penis symbols". And there are few things a gay guy, closeted or not, likes more than a big, powerful c*ck. Calvin S. Hall writes in "A Cognitive Theory of Dream Symbols":

All of the referents are concrete things, people, or activities, and similarly all of the symbols, as gun for penis, bag for vagina, ploughing for coitus, playing the piano for masturbating, queen for mother, king for father, apple for breast, etc., are concrete things, people, or activities. In short, something concrete, the symbol, is substituted for something else concrete, the referent.

Sure, you can own guns, you can shoot guns, you can even keep them on your nightstand for protection if that makes you sleep easier. That doesn't make you Richard Simmonds in redneck drag. But all them bubbas who talk about little else and spend hour upon hour cleaning and maintaining their guns with loving, masturbatory indulgence? You got to wonder sometimes.

Like, for example, I was reading about "Bohemenian Rhapsody"  yesterday after I wondered idly what the hell that long-ass song was supposed to be about. Interesting trivia fact: some psychologists interpret the song as a metaphorical narrative about Freddie Mercury struggling with and coming to terms with his own sexuality - all told in a suitably flamboyant operatic format:

The narrator explains to his mother that he has "just killed a man", with "a gun against his head" and with that act thrown his life away... Highlighting the phallic nature of guns, Judith Peraino [Cornell University Music Professor] suggests that the song is a "melodrama of homoeroticism".

Like I said, it's corny, but I'm sure some guys play with guns because they can't play with c*cks and they really, really want to. Ain't that a "melodrama of homoeroticism" right there?

If you own a gun and you don't agree with my gay-for-guns theory, maybe laugh a little or call me a liberal douche... fine. But if you own a gun and just the merest suggestion that you could be overcompensating for something makes you want to kill me, just ask yourself if you shouldn't just switch off Fox, go suck a d*ck and be happy. Might make the world a much safer and happier place for both of us.