The Rich Man's Socialism

Rise up, my fellow oligarchs! Rejoice! The long-awaited day of our messiah is at hand! The work that those before us poured their labors into for centuries has finally begun to reap its benefits, and the fruits are more succulent and appetizing than we ever could have imagined.

The news for the last week has been unavoidable. Bailouts. Bailouts. Bailouts! To the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars! With seven hundred billion more to come.

$700,000,000,000.00! Never in our wildest dreams have we even concocted such a hefty sum.

I want you to stand up, wherever you are, right now, as you read this. Stand up at your plush executive chair, in the board room meeting on the hundreth floor, at the home office in your eigth vacation home on the coast. Stand up with me, brothers, and shout, "The Rich Man's Socialism has arrived!"


I am so glad that the charade can end. It has been truly difficult to play the game, to "free market" this and "consumer choice" that, to belittle the federal government as something that should ultimately be gutted. You, my friends, as well as anyone know just what kind of a rhetorical game of chess it takes to make common men and women support NAFTA as you move their manufactoring jobs to Guam. To make people support trickle-down economics all while inflation reduces their life savings to mere pittances.

Trickle-down. I thought it too harsh a pill to be swallowed, but thank God I was wrong.


Senator Bernie Sanders recently recalled our great harvests this season:

While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top 0.1 percent now earn more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president. In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers, police officers or nurses.

And now, the senator rages, McCain and Bush have the audacity to claim that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong."

You're damned right they're strong. $520 loafers strong, by my estimate. We'll be getting a free 700-billion-dollar check from Uncle Sam this Christmas.

And the icing is already on the cake. Now that we have the evangelical vote back in our pockets we can ensure that the policies which brought this great windfall upon us remain in place. McCain even wants to extend the same policies recently applied to banking to the health care industry:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

When I read that I nearly spit up my hundred-dollar glass of bourbon. Extending the same "privatize gains, socialize losses" mentality to health care has the potential to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, and deregulation coupled with the guarantee that the taxpayers will end up footing the bill means absolutely no risk of netting losses. As Senator Jim Bunning recently said, "The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America."

And not a moment too soon. I was becoming concerned, what with all of the talk of people wanting to go trust-busting again, people saying that if a company is "too large to fail" than it's "too large to exist." Thankfully we have such a handle on the media, congress, and presidential candidates that that kind of talk will never extend beyond the fringes, and if it does we can just have commentators denounce it as "left-wing hysterics" and remind the religious voters that the gays want to marry and steal their children. Everyone will fall in line and we'll be there to reap the inumerable benefits.

So remember, my fellow 1%-ers, keep playing the game. It's working! We are now almost to the point where everyone below the middle class line will be in constant debt, and with the precedent now being set we can be sure that even if they stop paying we'll have our losses covered by Uncle Sam. And if that's not the greatest economic upheaval since the Bolsheviks, I don't know what is!

"Your Batsh*t Crazy Preacher Said What?!" - Extended Edition

Nothing says "American political adventure" quite like a rousing game of "Your Batsh*t Crazy Preacher Said What?!", a game where we struggle to identify the most insensitive, intolerant, bigoted, hateful, and downright batshit insane comments and determine which of America's leading religious bullhorns had the gall to spew them.

It's America's favorite pastime, when we all gather around the TV and watch as the latest pasty white news anchor puts on his brown lipstick and tells us why we should feel infuriated at the latest partisan target. Keeping track of who said what and why we're supposed to feel so angry can sometimes be a daunting task, and while I feel bad giving you all a pop quiz with finals fast approaching, this is one that you can't afford to skip in order to play GTA4.

Instructions: Identify which inflammatory statement was boldly spewed from the pulpit of which radical religious figure. Bonus points may also be rewarded if you can identify why some of these statements have never been so much as mentioned on national television.

--

A. Jeremiah Wright (Sen. Obama's pastor; has not endorsed a candidate)
B. John Hagee (officially endorses Sen. McCain)
C. Jerry Falwell (deceased; is assumed to have endorsed McCain from his spot in Heaven or Hell)
D. Pat Robertson (originally endorsed Mayor Giuliani; no subsequent endorsements)
E. James Dobson (once said he would rather not vote than vote for McCain; now half-heartedly endorses McCain)
F. Rod Parsley (officially endorses Sen. McCain; McCain calls him a "spiritual guide")

--

1) __ "God Bless America? No, no, no, not 'God Bless America,' God Damn America!"

2) __ "Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church [cooperated] in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews."

3) __ "I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

4) __ "[The homosexual] agenda includes teaching pro-homosexual [sic] concepts in the public schools, redefining the family to represent 'any circle of people who love each other,' approval of homosexual adoption, legitimizing same-sex marriage, and securing special rights for those who identify themselves as gay. Those ideas must be opposed, even though to do so is to expose oneself to the charge of being "homophobic."

5) __ "(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

6) __ "Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up."

7) __ Believes that the US government is potentially responsible for using AIDS as a means to exterminate the Black population.

8) __ "That every single year, millions of our tax dollars are funding a national organization [Planned Parenthood] built upon that very goal -- their target: African Americans. That's right, the death toll: nearly fifteen hundred African Americans a day. The shocking truth of black genocide."

9) __ "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different."

10) __ "[In regards to 9/11] America's chickens are coming home to roost."

11) __ "[In regards to 9/11] I really believe that the pagans, the abortionists, the feminists, the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

12) __ "[In regards to previous statement] I totally concur."

13) __ Believes that a confrontation with Iran is a necessary precondition for the second coming of Christ, and that the US should pursue military action for that reason.

14) __ "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if [Hugo Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

15) __ "I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

--

Answer key:
1) A
2) B
3) B
4) E
5) D
6) D
7) A
8) F
9) D
10) A
11) C
12) D
13) B
14) C
15) F

Waiter, there's Evangelism in my politics!

Many have wondered how the more politically-minded of us find stories for our opinions. It involves a lot of anger, a lot of internet trolling, and the not-too-infrequent infusion of alcohol, which seems only to catalyze the two former actions. The result: a general muddling of issues and people and movements such that it all becomes one murky, purple soup inside of your head by the time you're done. It's sometimes hard to keep track of who you are supposed to be pissed off at and who you're supposed to send your money to. Often times it ends up being the same person, though that particular conundrum isn't too uncommon with evangelical Christians such as I.

He may be the Antichrist, sure, but at least he's not some goddamned hippie!

I figure that since this is the way it's always been since the beginning of REAL Christianity (i.e. 1979). So it shocked me to read in the Christian Post that many evangelical leaders believe "the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars."

The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for "using faith" to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

"That way faith loses its independence, Christians become `useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology," according to the draft.

News flash to the writers of this draft: this is America. And in America's political system, useful idiots make or break the election. Why do you hate America so much?

The authors also state that "all too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others while we have condoned our own sins," and they also claim that "we must reform our own behavior." Have any of these pastors ever read the Bible? What part of "love thy neighbor as thyself" don't they understand? If I truly love my neighbor, it is my sworn duty as a Bible-thumping Christian to forcibly correct every minute mistake he/she could possibly make with the hopes that their pitiful souls will one day rise into the Heavens to dwell with the saints!

Am I supposed to stand idly by while my neighbor sends his kids to public schools, where his daughter will without a doubt become sexually active, be told to have wild, unimaginable sex with anyone she can get her hands on, and then go have an abortion? Or am I supposed to de-fund public education, enforce abstinence-only education, picket/burn the abortion clinic, run the doctor out of town and declare his/her daughter a harlot? I think the good, Christian answer is obvious.

And I'm not alone in my fight against this injustice. Luckily the big players in the evangelical movement like Dr. James Dobson aren't signing on to this declaration. This ensures, as Phil Burress puts it, that "it's like throwing a pebble in the ocean" and will have almost no effect at all. And they say that the church can't handle dissent.

These churches no all too well how important the informed values voter is to America's survival, and make sure to remind all of us that God wishes for us to vote, and vote "our values". But what are those values?

It's okay if you don't know how a Christian ought to vote. You're not alone. That's why they the good people at Dobson's Focus on the Family ministries spend millions of dollars telling you how you need to vote on every single issue if you wish to avoid the impending wrath of The Almighty.

It's called CitizenLink, and it's FotF's unabashedly political arm (If Dobson were Goro it would be his upper left arm). These guys cover everything from local to international news, all with a unique Christian perspective unlike anything you've seen outside of FOX News. They're also major promoters of the National Day of Prayer, a holiday meant to celebrate all religious faiths which has been mercilessly hijacked by the religious Right just as President Truman and the Good Lord no doubt intended it to be. It's a holiday that people take so seriously they're willing to organize "prayer flights" over particularly heathen-y cities in efforts to cleanse them.

(Artist's rendition of alleged "prayer flight")

One particularly good section of this website is a weekly video produced by the Director of Digital Media, Stuart Shepard entitled Stoplight. He's one of my favorites, both for his snarky, "I-know-something-you-don't-know-why-are-you-so-dense-that-you-can't-figure-this-out-it's-simple-shit-people-come-on!" attitude, as well as for his unique ability to take complex, thought-provoking and intentionally discussion-inducing issues and manipulate them into "with me or against me" scenarios. Hey, if it's good enough for the DoD, it's good enough for everyone. And nothing brings out the "useful idiot" swing vote quite like a "vote for them and you're aligning yourself with Satan" social issue.

Here's a list of some of my favorites. Hopefully one day I will have the skills and wherewithal that Mr. Shepard has when it comes to breaking down the problems of our time. For instance, did you know:

• "Hate crimes legislation is not really about hate or crime. What it's really about is getting the federal government to grant civil rights status to a particular behavior, which is the offramp that leads to the end of marriage and family."
• Military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies serve the best interests of the military, because they ensure that men won't have to endure the troubling possibility of de-robing themselves in front of someone who may be sexually attracted to them, which is also why you will never see any military members at beaches, swimming pools, or any other public events where they may be noticed by another human being with anything but combat gear on. Also: "Gays in the military is to same sex marriage, as embryonic stem cell research is to pro life."
• If members of Congress don't support funding abstinence-only education in public schools, that means that they are "more concerned about vegetables, whales and extraterrestrials than the mental, physical and emotional health of young Americans." "How could anyone be against teaching children about moral purity," he asks. It's a no-brainer: "Healthy kids don't need liberals."
• A government study that shows abstinence-only education has literally no effect on the sexual practices of young adults PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that comprehensive sex ed is failing. (Bonus points if you can comprehend his brilliant analogy)

One wonders just what people are worrying about when they say things like we need to "go back to the root theological meaning of the term evangelical." I don't know about you, but that sounds like goddamn hippie talk to me.

This Article is Not for Gays

Every writer knows the feeling. When you wake up one afternoon (or evening) and feel the insatiable urge to create, to assuage your mind - that furious organ that, even in sleep, wrestles endlessly with innumerable thoughts and notions - by allowing it to overflow onto the virgin page. Yet despite your best efforts nothing seems to manifest.

When that occurs, I often find that I can reinvigorate my creative side by going back and reading from authors that have inspired me. Poets, playwrights, novelists, and Focus on the Family columnists. One of my personal idols is a man by name of Matt Kaufman, who has written quite frequently for the webzine Boundless. And let me tell you that one of his past articles has affected me greatly. I have felt the hand of God touch me in places I didn't even know could be touched. At least I assume it was God's hand.

The article is entitled Gays Vs. The Garden Guy, and it details the story of a Houston landscaping business that refused to do business with a couple. The reason: the family which runs the small business refuses to work for a homosexual couple.

Upon learning of the relationship when one of the men referred to his "partner," Todd decided to turn down the job. Sabrina wrote the potential clients a straightforward e-mail honestly explaining why. Its contents don't take long to read:

I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us. I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work with homosexuals.

Best of luck in finding someone else to fill your landscaping needs.

All my best,

Sabrina.

Needless to say, there was a bit of an internet scuffle, and Kaufman stepped in to let us all know just who was at fault.

Now in a free society, much less one that was historically Christian, this whole thing wouldn't have been a big deal. The Farbers' choice would be widely understood as perfectly legitimate.

Exactly. In a free society, people are free to choose who they do business with. If I own a restaurant, and someone, say, comes in without wearing shoes, or perhaps with darker skin than me, it's more than reasonable for me to simply refuse service. After all, it's my restaurant, isn't it?

But Todd Farber, the owner of Garden Guy, Inc., is definitely more of a man than me. As Kaufman notes, some Christians may have taken a different path, and decided to do business with them, and perhaps attempt to get them to change their sinful, heathen, God-and-America-hating ways before being sent to a fiery, painful, completely justified eternity in the bowels of Hell. That's, after all, is called being "tolerant".

In fact, Todd had worked for homosexual clients in the past. He stopped, his wife said, because he had grown increasingly "grieved" to see the lives they were living.

Believers can debate among themselves which course they would have taken in the same position. But the Farbers not only had a right to do as they did, they had a serious moral reason: They were trying not to confer acceptance on an inherently illegitimate relationship. For Christians, that's a responsibility — a matter of simple duty.

As a true Christian - that is, a right-wing evangelical Republican - I have often been remiss of my moral obligations. Often times I have tried to respect homosexuals by constantly informing them that their very existence on this earth makes them responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong for this country, including 9/11. But thanks to Kaufman's wisdom, I know now that it is my duty as a God-fearing American to regard them as not even worthy of normal human interaction.

[Gay activists] want society, via the state, to officially confer its stamp of approval. They want everyone else to recognize and honor that status in a host of other ways (benefits, "non-discrimination" laws, etc.).

Forget marriage benefits, and forget equal protection under the law. As Christians we must take it one step further: forget selling them homes, forget letting them live in our apartment complexes, forget letting them attend our schools, our churches, live in our neighborhoods, dine in our restaurants, use our laundromats, or interact with us in any way that may confer to them that their lifestyle is somehow "accepted". The problem isn't that secularists or the liberal media tells them that homosexuality is okay, but that we reinforce that notion by constantly interacting with them as if they were normal human beings.

In the spirit of this new perspective, I officially declare that gays are no longer allowed to read this blog. That's right. If you really desire to hear my opinion, go get yourself a trophy wife, divorce her, re-marry, get divorced again, and get married a third time like every other good Christian who respects the sanctity of marriage.

To ensure that this web blog remains free of gay readers, I will proceed to inundate it with a series of stimuli which, I believe, will so revile the homosexual reader that they will be unable to proceed any further:

If all that rough, grizzled, obscenely masculine patriotism doesn't keep them at bay, than I don't know what will.

Anonymous

Rarely have I seen such a chilling video as this. At least not since Giuliani attempted to make the nation collectively shit its pants with this stunning advertisement. Now I understand the fear of the tin foil wearers.

What terrifies me isn't so much the errie masses of Guy Fawkes masks lining the streets of Los Angeles, nor is it the fact that I sympathize greatly with the way the Scientologists conduct their business. It's the amorphousness of the organization that really grinds me the wrong way.

You see, I'm a patriotic American who values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their entirety. That's why I demand that my thoughts, values, and opinions be constantly dictated to me by a third party. I have a full load of college classes and a job to take care of, so I can't always be bothered to come up with reasonable, fact-based approaches to social issues and government policy. I try my best to think outside the box when I can, but at the end of the day unless a pundit agrees with me I'm pretty much lost.

I can't understand how an organization comprised of thousands upon thousands of people can organize a worldwide protest on multiple continents, much less have it all go down on the exact same day. There are no chapter leaders, nobody to officially demonize on the cable news show. How are we supposed to counter these people and their arguments? With facts to be presented on a level playing field, man-to-man? I'm no good at that!

At least with the Code Pinks and ANSWER's of the world, there are leaders to target, demonize, harass, and eventually arrest, and crazy people to laugh at. Police in Atlanta were completely baffled when they had no power structure they could effectively dismantle. The LAPD even resorted to being nice for a change. Just watching the video makes me ill:

More information on the Anonymous protests, as well as upcoming events, can be found at a number of different locations. Anonymous seems to be everywhere, so a simple Google search should get you what you want.

More information and commentary may come later in the day. In the mean time, enjoy the comments section. I have to go close my curtains and buy a dog.

The McCain Citizenship Controversy

Petty has taken a back seat this political season and let Asinine handle the steering. In a way it is humorous when the liberal MSM has no alternative but to start questioning someone's national origin in a desperate attempt to invalidate their campaign. Lord knows that the political climate is appaling when I have to start doing the opposition's work for them, but there have been a number of issues regarding McCain that could have sparked more controversy than this.

My article was frank, because that's what the issue requires. There's no story here. And even if there was, it would most likely end up backfiring in the Democrats' collective faces. Just because he's a foreigner he can't be President? Sure there's a Constitutional argument clearly made against it, but that rule is so archaic that penning up an amendment would actually be a rather progressive move. It would be a shame if the Democrats found themselves in an anti-immigrant stance simply because it would mean a Republican presidency.

Almost makes me wish they'd try it, just to watch them slowly implode as a party.

Yes, McCain was born in Panama on a military base. And contrary to popular belief, a foreign US military base is not US soil. Read the statute if you don't believe me (7 FAM 1116.1-4). Also take note when it states that "Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of 'the United States' for citizenship purposes. Thus there were varying interpretations. Guidance should be sought from the Department (CA/OCS) when such issues arise." This issue would end up in the State Department, who probably wouldn't really care all that much.

Personally - and I know a number of conservatives also feel this way - this scares me much more than an old white man being born in Panama to white parents:

Shocking.

Nobody cares where McCain and Obama were born

As Sen. John McCain clinches the Republican nomination, it is important to analyze issues regarding the Arizona senator, which, up until now, have gone largely overlooked. A little-known fact about John McCain is that he was, in fact, not born in Arizona. He was actually born in Panama, on a military base called Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 (yes, he is that old).

Why is this relevant to his presidential run? Because the Constitution makes a clear determination as to who is eligible for the highest office of the United States, and non-natural-born citizens need not apply. Unfortunately for McCain, the Panama Canal Zone has never been an official territory of the United States.

The fact that his father was a member of the U.S. military and he was born on a military base is irrelevant as well. Contrary to popular belief, foreign military bases are not considered to be U.S. soil, and those born there must become naturalized. This issue is addressed specifically by the State Department in 7 FAM 1111.2(c), which states that a child born on a military base overseas “does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

But allow me to be perfectly clear: His status as a United States citizen is not in question. The rights of natural-born and naturalized citizens are equal, as decided by the Supreme Court case of Schneider v. Rusk in 1964, and none of this would have any impact on his status as a senator. But it does raise questions as to his eligibility as a potential president.

McCain’s staff is confident that this is not going to be an issue. The senator ran for the office of president in 2000, losing the Republican nomination to Bush, and they are sure that the issue was satisfactorily investigated then. Theodore Olson, an adviser to the McCain campaign, said in a New York Times article titled “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out,” stated that he doesn’t “have much doubt about it,” but added that he would continue his research.

In the end, this should be the least of his issues. I have yet to see a poll in which “McCain’s citizenship” has been a major influence in how people are planning to cast their ballot come November.

Besides, issues such as national origin are antiquated, and aren’t seriously considered by us conservatives. That’s why we don’t care if McCain was born in Panama, or that Sen. Barack Obama spent four years growing up in Indonesia training to be a Manchurian candidate that will destroy us all.

We don’t reduce ourselves to such lows.