web statisticsRealtime Web Statistics


I’m desperate and I feel compelled to send an urgent plea to republicans, since you are the only ones that can alleviate my current state of agitation. Without your help I, and the rest of America, are going to have to suffer through seventeen months of supersized stupid.

My plea is this; Please, for the love of God, sane republicans must find your voice! If you don’t rally your troops, Donald Trump is going debase you and your party, forcing you to have to deny that you’re republicans again.

Every presidential election cycle starts with one right wing whack job setting the bar of crazy that every other republican presidential hopeful must keep pace with. Aren’t sane republicans tired of being embarrassed in this way? Where the fuck are you? Why are you allowing the crazies to hijack your party, and the country’s conversation again?

Half of all republicans don’t believe that President Obama was born here. My question is, where the fuck are the other half? Is there something wrong with your throats? Speak up! Save us!

Democrats suck in eighteen million different ways (that I regularly point out) but they are good at muzzling their crazies. Can you imagine a 9/11 truther doing national interviews in which he/she hints at a presidential run? Honestly, can anyone conceive of that ever happening? Of course not! And thank God, because I would be loathe to let that kind of nutbaggery define liberalism.

And if you think I’m being unfair in drawing parallels between truthers and birthers, let me set you straight right now. Both groups show contempt for America in a way that is unparalleled by any foreign entity. The birthers have to believe that the American government is so fucking incompetent, that it can be hoodwinked by a couple of guys cooking up a plot from their huts in Kenya. The truthers are so goddamned cynical, that they believe that George W Bush is evil, competent, and powerful enough to orchestrate an attack on his own country. And he would have to be so beloved, that the hundreds of people that would have to be involved in pulling off this coup, will maintain their silence until they die. If you believe either of these things, it’s hard to imagine anyone that could hate America more than you do.

Back to my plea to sane republicans. Why are non-batshit crazy republicans letting the lunatics taint the whole party? Donald Trump is whackoing it up for attention, and he’s dragging all of you down with him. And when he surges in the polls among republicans by going all birther on us, all of you republicans get dragged into the gutter with him. Forget the pain that I will be forced to endure if you don’t stand up, you must speak out to save yourselves! Why would you allow yourselves to be dragged onto this kind of crazy?

Here’s the best part; Donald Trump is not a birther. Donald Trump is not a racist. Donald Trump isn’t even a republican. If you look at the totality of what he’s said over the past twenty years, you would have to conclude what I’ve concluded; Donald Trump is a vapid media whore that will say anything to get a camera pointed at him. Over the years, he’s referred to Jimmy Carter, George W Bush, and Barack Obama as “the worst president in US history”. He sang Obama’s praises until about a year and a half ago. He rarely ever shows up to vote. He obviously doesn’t give a shit about politics. Twenty-five years ago, when he released a book that no one was buying, he proclaimed that he was going to run for president. Book sales soared, and the Trump presidential campaign never materialized. He’s just recycling an old play in order to get more money out of NBC, who he’s in contract negotiations with to renew his reality show.

So all of you silent, sane republicans are letting your party slip into the gutter again so that Donald Trump can get an extra two million per episode. Is it worth it? Are you all good with being labeled nutjobs, just so that Trump can delay his third bankruptcy for a few months?

Please, speak up so that we can have primaries that are about ideas and ideology. Make it clear to future GOP whackos that the well is dry, and they need not apply. Let’s start off this election cycle with serious candidates that have an actual platform. I’m so fucking tired of having to suffer through lunacy before we get down to the meat of the hypocrisy. Can’t we just cut to the chase and go straight for the lies and distortions? Must we always become the laughing stock of the world first?


The Apple Did Not Fall Far From The Tree

I’m referring to Rand Paul. It’s barely been thirty six hours since he won the republican primary for the open senate seat in Kentucky. Since his victory, he’s said some things that make him seem a little bit racist.

Before I can share my opinions on Rand, I must first begin with Ron Paul. I do have to preface all of this by telling you that I do not believe in blaming the son for the sins of the father. I believe that doing so is unfair, and generally unfounded. When I bring up Ron Paul, I do so because I believe that it’s important to understand the ideology under which Rand Paul was raised.

Ron Paul first registered on my radar during the first debate for the republican primary in 2008. It became very clear in the first ten minutes of that debate, that Ron Paul was not your typical republican. He said a lot of things that made sense. I felt as if he was the republican counterpart to Dennis Kucinich in that, he was a conservative truth teller, impervious to party talking points and corporate interests. There were many points in which I vehemently disagreed with Ron Paul, but I definitely felt that he merited a closer look.

So I started to do some research. A few hours into my research, I came across the newsletters that Ron Paul published monthly from 1978 to 1999. I found this article about the newsletters from a January 2008 story in the New Republic. Let me short hand the article for you with some quotes from the newsletters;

“opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,”

“if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,”

He claimed that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.”

“Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day”

One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives.

But don’t worry blacks, you’re not alone in Ron Paul’s world of the unworthy;

In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine “who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.”

In an item titled, “The Pink House?” the author of a newsletter–again, presumably Paul–complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite “the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,” adding, “I miss the closet.” “Homosexuals,” it said, “not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

“Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals.”

Feeling left out, Jews? Don’t worry;

A 1987 issue of Paul’s Investment Letter called Israel “an aggressive, national socialist state,”

Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

I could go on and on, but you get the point. Being the skeptic that I am, I had to assume that the reporter on the New Republic story might have had an axe to grind with Ron Paul so I kept looking until I found actual copies of the newsletters. You can look at them here, here, and you can download one here.

I don’t want to keep going on and on about Ron because this post is about Rand, but if you want to know more about how Ron reacted to these revelations, just Google “Ron Paul” + newsletters.

Back to Rand. Here’s an interview that he did with Rachel Maddow last night;


And here’s part 2;


A few things struck me about Rand after having watched this interview.

The first thing is Paul’s cowardice. He lacks the courage of his convictions. If you truly believe something, it’s presumably because you think that your belief is the right thing. If that’s the case, there should be no need to evade directly answering questions about what you believe. The way he evaded answering the question tells me that he KNOWS that his views should be suppressed. If you know that you’re right or righteous, there’s no reason to obfuscate. You should believe that your correctness has the power to persuade others.

The next thing that struck me is his intellectual dishonesty in the gun example he brought up. A gun is something that you CARRY. You have the option of leaving it at home, and doing so won’t prevent you from going to a lunch counter.  You can’t leave your “blackness” home. It’s WHAT you are, not what you do. That equivocation was absurd.

There was also a comment on Wednesday. A reporter asked Rand if he was concerned that holding his victory party at a private country club would “send mixed messages”. Rand responded by saying, ““I think at one time people used to think of golf and golf courses and golf clubs as being exclusive. But I think in recent years now you see a lot of people playing golf. I think Tiger Woods has helped to broaden that in the sense that he’s brought golf to a lot of the cities and to city youth, and so no, I don’t think it’s nearly as exclusive as people once considered it to be.”

I thought that it was a little bit unusual that he interpreted the question to be about race. My interpretation would have been that the question was about populism, since he ran as an allegedly populist tea party candidate. The mixed message lies in having your victory party in a venue that appears to be elitist.

I am not a person that feels comfortable labeling people as racists. I have lived in the most liberal parts of this country so racism is not a natural concept for me to wrap my mind around. So when Rand made the Tiger Woods comment, I didn’t jump to a racist conclusion even though I knew how he was raised. I was not willing to combine a seemingly innocuous comment with the sins of the father to conclude that Rand Paul has racist views. When I look at the Maddow interview and silo it apart from everything else, my inclination is to view his comments as staunchly libertarian rather than inherently bigoted. His platform is after all, one of libertarianism.

But when I put the totality of the information about Rand Paul together, I can’t avoid the conclusion that he is a racist.

Here’s the problem with racism today; it’s subtle because it isn’t tolerated in mainstream society anymore. Overt racism isn’t socially acceptable anymore so racists have to go undercover. They have to be subtle. A great example of this is the birthers. Clinging onto the belief that our black president wasn’t born in America, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, is just a subtle way of saying that he’s not one of us.

I really resisted concluding that the apple didn’t fall far from the tree when it comes to Rand Paul, but I can’t avoid it any longer.