I Am Not Swooning On Cue

Organizing For Action has been emailing me non-stop to get me to donate and entered in a contest to meet the President. They are apparently flummoxed that I'm not pissing myself with excitement:

Cloudbuster --

What's stopping you?

It's free. It's easy. It's, um ... meeting the President.

Come on, you know you want to toss your name in the hat by midnight tonight:

http://my.barackobama.com/Go-Backstage-with-President-Obama

Good luck,

Organizing for Action

P.S. -- Deadline to enter is midnight tonight. Get your name in right here, right now.

It's, um ... meeting the President! Oh. My. God! For reals!

This is really disgusting and condescending.

Who Should Have Guns? Answered By Obama's Actions

Mexican drug cartels? Islamic fanatics and terrorists in Libya, Egypt and Syria?
YES! No background checks required! Fully-automatic assault weapons! Full-capacity magazines! Grenade and Rocket launchers. Fighter Jets! Can we throw in suitcases of cash aid, too?

Law-Abiding American Citizens?
Not without a background check. And magazine capacity limits. And assault weapons bans, even though they're only semi-automatic rifles just like any other.

And a private American citizen with a rocket launcher? Don't make us laugh!

LGBTQ -- They've Added Another Initial: Frickin' Hilarious

There was a time when it was just "Gay Pride." Then the lesbians got upset or something. I've always been confused by this. Aren't lesbians gay? And I don't remember bisexuals getting upset. Maybe they're always upset. They sort of get treated like traitors by the "L" and "G" types because Bi women sometimes love them some penis, and Bi men aren't terrified of vaginas, so you know that there is something wrong with them. Anyway, it was clear to them that "Gay" just wasn't good enough, so they came up with LGB. It wasn't long before all the transgendered folk got butt-hurt (Yeah. I know.),  because, you know, they're not really gay or lesbian or bisexual, they're just men-trapped-in-women's-bodies or women-trapped-in-men's-bodies.

Basically, they are gay men who like getting screwed with a penis so much they want a vagina to get screwed in (I totally understand this, because, hey, if I was a guy getting fucked with a penis on a regular basis, I'd want someplace other than my ass for him to put it, too!), and lesbian women who like playing with girls' pussies so much they want a dick to do it with.

Imagine Chaz Bono's shock when she got her* man body and her girlfriend discovered "Whoa, Chaz, this is really awkward, but I'm a lesbian, and not at all interested in having a some fat, creepy guy stick his dick in me!" Should have seen that coming!

* Deliberate use of politically-incorrect pronoun. Deal with it.

Sure. So they added T. LGBT. This had the happy effect of appeasing Transexuals, Transgendereds and Transvestites all at once, because they could all pretend that T was just for them!

Lately I've been seeing Q. This seems to be pretty new. And it's not, as one might think "Queer." Duh, that would be redundant. Like the LG isn't already redundant, but, whatever. It's "Questioning." You may think it's odd for a crowd that pretty much takes it as an article of faith that your "sexual orientation" isn't a choice, but apparently it's OK to be Questioning as long as what you're Questioning is your straightness.

Here's the answer to your Question: If you are a guy and you think the idea of sucking a guy's dick or having him stick it in your ass is pretty cool, you are at least "Bi." If you are a girl who thinks rubbing or licking naughty bits with another girl is cool, you're probably just a drunk sorority girl trying to get the frat boys hot. What? You're sober and not in a sorority? OK, you may be a little bit bi.

I think, from what I can tell, if you're questioning your Gayness, Lesbianness, Transexualness, Transgenderdness or Transvestiteness, the correct answer to the question is "You are being influenced by the repressive, heteronormative mainstream, conservative, Bible-beating neanderthal culture! Engage in more LGBT behavior and your questions will disappear!" But if, say, you are a woman and your desire for dick just won't go away, you may, at the worst, have to downgrade yourself to bisexual (told you those fuckers were traitors!). Gay people DO NOT turn straight. Don't even think about saying shit like that in public!

Before this initial thing gets really out of hand (I'm pretending it's not already frickin' ridiculous), maybe they should just go with "Not Straight." But they'll never do that, because that would be "defining themselves by the terms of the heteronormative paradigm" or some such crap.

Anyway, see you at the next S Pride Parade.

Speak Truth To Power!

"...no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

YEAH! That's telling them! Obama should listen to this guy!

Who is that guy? Oh ... it was Obama. In 2007.

Apparently There Really Is No Such Thing As Being Too Paranoid

NSA collecting phone records of millions daily, court order reveals
Exclusive: Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama

Of course this makes me furious. Then I read the reader comments and I get sobered right up. Being the Guardian, the readership immediately thinks the Arab Spring would be a good example to follow:

• Maybe our leaders would be less happy with an 'Arab Spring' on their own doorstep.
• You mean like the gigantic protest before the Iraq war? With so many people you couldn't see the end of it? Yeah. They don't care. Maybe it's time for an American Spring. [Me: Really? The Iraq invasion was hugely popular with the American people at the time. I was there. However many protestors there were, they were not representative of the American people.]
• Yes. I was there. And that's exactly what I mean. The difference between the Arabs and us is that we packed up and left when they stayed. Some of them have ousted their tyrants as a direct result. Why did we give in so easily? If the intent was to stop war, why did we stop when it started? That is a question that haunts me (even though I haven't stopped protesting). [Me: I wonder if this guy spent last year at an Occupy Wall Street camp. Probably. Yeah, those are the people I trust to run things!]

I see comments like this and I wonder: do they really think people in Egypt are better off now than they were under Mubarak? Persecution of Coptic Christians has moved into official public policy and women who dare walk the streets uncovered are tormented, attacked, even raped. The entire economy has crashed and repressive Islamist thugs hold the reigns of power.

Yes, rebellion has no innate moral value. It matters what you are rebelling against and what you do once you have power. Anyone who glorifies the "Arab Spring" is clearly not someone to trust with power.

Furthermore, we already have the most enlightened constitution and governmental system in the history of the world. We don't need to rebel against it as an institution, we just need to restore it. Once  you've accepted that mob action is justified, you've unleashed a beast that no one can control. I strongly doubt the "American street" is high-minded enough at this stage to stop at restoring the republic.

Fortunately, I don't think we're that close to fulfilling the dreams of the sort of lefty-anarchists who frequent the Guardian. I know a lot of Tea Party types and I don't think any of them are really spoiling for a peoples' revolution. I think most would just like to see honesty and restraint in our government.

It's kind of funny -- we have one of the most leftist presidents and lawless administrations in the history of the republic, and it only makes the leftist posters at the Guardian want to tear the system down even more.

Update: Hell just froze over. I find myself in the position of agreeing with Al Gore about something:

Former vice president Al Gore called the order “obscenely outrageous.” In a tweet posted Wednesday night, he said: “In digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?”

I think it's possible that the folks who said they'd vote for Obama rather than vote for a RINO like McCain or Romney were right -- only by giving the left what they wanted could the fruits of this path really come out. Republicans and Democrats have been equally culpable, but only by preventing the left from being able to hide behind the charge of "It's the evil Republicans' fault!" Can we bring this out in the open and possibly change it. It's not partisan, anymore. The left and the right are equally outraged, I think. That's good.

Will it make a difference? I hope so.

Eternal War

The War on Terrorism is the perfect war for the growing State. It will never end, thus the infringements on liberty made in its name will never need to be rescinded. Like the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs" the "War on Terrorism" acquires new targets, new actors and new motives to match the times. Because it is a war not on some specific enemy, but on a fundamental facet of human nature, there is no danger of it ever ending. There has always been terrorism, as long as there have been people to terrorize. And there always will be terrorism. The more power the State has and the more liberties it takes in order to fight terrorism, the more it guarantees that there will be terrorists.

Decades from now, it will be no different.

As the line from 1984 goes, "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

Terrorism is our Eastasia. As are drugs and poverty.

Very Important Article About Corporate Rights

From Reason: The Citizens United Backlash Threatens Basic Rights