The Brute Tells Jokes (with a tantrum)

From my Twitter feed:

The UTSA Jobbank. Offering graduates minimum wage-$10/hour since 1999. You're welcome.

The UTSA Jobbank. Where part-time is the new full-time.

The economy. Keeping 30-year-olds at home since they started college.

UTSA. Desolation comes standard.

UTSA. Where the only answer is grad school. Somewhere else.

UTSA. Withholding reach-arounds since 1969.

How the fringe GOP is shanking your future.

Sully [L&R] has it:

No one in the Congressional Limbaugh-run GOP will back anything this president does. Not only that; they will assault him, race-bait him and insult him in a continuous reel of populist bile.

It seems to me that the GOP was once recognizable as a human personality.

What you have now is just the rage at the world and its confounding trade-offs and compromises. The knowledge of the Rove right's total failure in the last eight years has only made the far right more fervent in its theo-ideology. Do they have a plan to balance the budget? To salvage or cut losses in Afghanistan? To integrate illegal immigrants rather than use their lives as political fodder? To get the working middle classes reliable healthcare insurance? Not that I can see beyond utopian platitudes. 

But they do know that anything this president does is a threat to them. And the noise they can make and violence they can foment is out of all proportion to their numbers.

From Reverent Wright to the birther movement to the town hall crashers to the 9/12 protesters (and that's not counting the people in office!)--it all signifies to me that there is a section of our population that refuses to even recognize our president's humanity, let alone his office.

I know what some of you may be thinking: that W. got put through the same ringer, so why complain? This argument has credence, but let me remind you of this: W. spent years in office before being villified as an abuser of executive privilege and that was after he usurped an election before our very eyes. On the flipside, Obama has been dodging mud on even the shakiest of grounds (remember the "sexist" lipstick-on-a-pig comment?) since he beat Senator Clinton in Iowa.

Understand that my goal is not to out-matyr Obama against all past presidents. My goal is to point out that the obstruction Obama is facing is unprecedented in a time when we are desperate for an effective president. This is a time when we're seeing what is (hopefully) the last dregs of an old society, that is hell bent on stopping progress, going kicking, screaming, biting, and stabbing. We cannot wait for these people to die out. If you're politically active, you know what to do. But if you're an idler who knows better, your time to act is now.

Westboro in San Antonio

The Westboro Baptist Church are paying a visit to my city. For the ten or so of you who don't know who they are, read all about their colossal dickish-ness here. It turns out they are picketing some places I didn't expect, such as Christian churches and even Cornerstone, the center of the religious right in San Antonio. That's right, they think Pastor John Hagee is a Jew-sympathizing, baby-eater, whatever that means.

Some photos (courtesy of Jordan Ghawi, who went out to visit):

One.

Two.

Three.

Why so Socialist?

As indicated to me by Andrew Sullivan:

These posters are popping up around Los Angeles. Yet another movement against the president (and all Democrats, really) with a meaningless thesis. The Joker (especially Heather Ledger's rendition) is an anarchist, not a socialist. A more appropriate subject for this poster would be Mitt Romney, who wants to shut down the IRS. Anyway, someone wanted to attach President Obama's face to a recognizable villain and it reminds me of the dialogue dynamic that plagues U.S. politics. (Warning: Mass generalization that is subject to many exceptions ahead.)

I don't understand why Republicans, radical or otherwise, don't criticise Democrats for things they're actually doing wrong. Remember when the President joked about "putting lipstick on a pig"? The McCain campaign accused Obama of sexism because Sarah Palin had recently made a joke about hockey moms and pit bulls. The ploy was such a stretch that everyone but the fringe, Talk Radio Republicans moved on in a day or two. One could argue that the McCain campaign was attacking him on every issue and needed something new, but what about now? Fox and Friends recently linked the president's choice of beer to France and criticised him for not supporting the U.S. (see video).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
White House Beer Simulation
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Seriously, is this best they could do? For all of the President Obama's rhetoric on change, he sure has stayed on track with many Bush-era policies. The rights of enemy combatants remain unchanged. The president's stance on warrant-less wire tapping is murky. And his rejiggering of lobbies in the White House has resulted in its own set of logistical problems. Indeed, I had to track down a New York Times correspondent on NPR in order to actually get some legit criticism of the current administration today.

What gives? I know the left does its share of jumping on controversy, but in many cases, the events in question are actually true. I'll be the first to say that the current administration isn't perfect and I know just where they have fallen short. Why the hell do you think conservatives need to make things up?

Staying Focused

So a reporter asks the President how he feels about a controversial arrest and nothing that was said the previous hour even matters (it was healthcare). F*ck you, Media, especially for pretending that the firestorm is always happening somewhere else.

And now the President is sorry for what he said. Precious ink, paper, money, and time, people. Ink, paper, money, and time....

Soto-Mania!

From Stepanie Mencimer, of Mother Jones:

Graham's cross-exam was quite nasty (I take back what I said yesterday about his Southern manners.) At one point, he cattily instructed Sotomayor, "Don't become a speechwriter if this law thing doesn’t work out." Later, he said, 'I like you, for whatever that matters"— then called her a bully and quoted unflattering comments about her from anonymous lawyers. Sotomayor offered that the complaints may have been made by attorneys who may have found the Second Circuit's unique procedural rules difficult and challenging. Graham shot back, "Lawyers find you difficult and challenging. Do you think you have a temperament problem?" His unsolicited advice: "Maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection." It’s hard to imagine a senator being so thoroughly patronizing to Roberts or Alito.

From John Dickerson, of Slate:

Republicans talk about President Obama and the standards he applied to Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. They've also talked about Miguel Estrada, who never made it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Democrats remind the audience how Roberts said he was going to call balls and strikes as a judge, then say that he turned into an activist once he became chief justice.

Both sides benefit from the narrative of Supreme Court as liberating crazy house where judges finally get to embrace the secret activism they've been kindling secretly in their hearts. Democrats say that's what Roberts did, and Republicans are saying that's what they fear Sotomayor will do. Sessions put it this way: "On the Supreme Court … checks on judicial power will be removed, and the judge's philosophy will be allowed to reach full bloom."

Round and round we go. Each side uses the other's arguments from previous confirmations.

From The Associated Press, via MSNBC:

Coburn observed at one point that the 55-year-old appeals court judge would have "lots of splainin" to do if she were to get a gun and shoot him — words that evoked memories of the 1950s TV show "I Love Lucy" featuring a Cuban-American bandleader and his madcap wife.

Note: I actually watched the video of this and I think it's one of few moments when someone wasn't talking down to the nominee.

From Dahlia Lithwick, of Slate:

I believe we are seeing quite a different Sotomayor today than we saw yesterday. When Cornyn confronted her about the "wise Latina" remark, she didn't flee from it like she did yesterday. Instead, she said,My rhetorical flourishes can't be read literally. She did that thing where she apologized for the fact that it was misunderstood but not for having said it: "My message was different than I understand my words have been understood by some." Tangled syntax? Yes. But repentant? Not really. She wouldn't even retreat on her claim that "physiological differences" may affect judging. In fact, she pushed back at Cornyn, saying it's better to ask these sorts of hard questions. "Ignoring them isn't the answer."

The Sotomayor I have seen so far this morning is far more confident and less deferential than the automaton we met yesterday. Her message today is also clearer:I am human, my background makes a difference. I am not sorry for exploring whether and how it makes a difference, but when I apply the law to the facts—if you look at my record—the law always wins.

From Andrew Sullivan's blog:

I've written all this before, but let me make what I think is a fairly obvious point: There's absolutely nothing wrong, much less "arch," about criticizing Sarah Palin for being an anti-intellectual demagogue while simultaneously demanding respect for Sonia Sotomayor.Palin's whole shtick is that she's an ordinary American with ordinary American concerns.Which is completely fine. But I'm of the mind that our leaders should be exceptional people -- hard-working Type-A meritocrats with actual expertise -- and I think Sotomayor is one of those people. (Palin, not so much.) That's my preference, of course, and not necessarily the country's.

Why would I cover such nonsense? Because you want to read it, silly. But also, these quotes distract us from something far more important: Sotomayor's confirmation boils down to a vote that is likely already decided. In other words, Sotomayor isn't being vetted; she's being initiated. I understand that the process is constitutionally bound, but we all know that the hearings wouldn't be as divisive if the candidate were a white male.

Furthermore, Republicans keep pressing Sotomayor for a promise to vote beyond her background while Democrats keep pointing to her judicial record (where a nun scratching her knee seems pornographic by comparison). Talk about hogwash. No judge has sat on the Supreme Court and not voted their background because the court doesn't exist in a vacuum. That's precisely why there is a need for a diverse body. Neither Sotomayor nor any other nominee--whether brown, white, or chartruese--should have to apologize for where they came from. And no politician should have to prove how white her voting record is.

Is voting by the letter of the law important? Absolutely. But in the past, we've often looked to the Supreme Court to actually make us better at following the law. Brown Vs. The Board of Education, anyone? It's hypocritical to act as if Sotomayor might actually ruin some precedent. In fact, she might improve one. 

Ultimately, the initiation of Sonia Sotomayor is one more example of how we go on being racist c*nts even when we've sworn off the hate juice. The 24-hour cable news networks did it to Obama when there was a chance he was in the same room as a racist black man (and I use "racist" very loosely). You'd think Idi Amin was the Democratic nominee last year, not the male Oprah. Here's Sotomayor with a judicial record that is yellow with its middle-of-the-roadness and, because she struck common ground with some fellow Latin Americans, she's forced to pretend that her skin and reproductive tool kit won't keep her from voting like Pat Buchanan. It's this sort of embarassing circus act we call U.S. Politics that tells me we have to elect officials like Sotomayor and Obama--to force the John Cornyns and Lindsey Grahams to be just slightly smaller assholes.

White and Page: Fuddy-Duddies

How lame is this? Two of my favorite musicians are dissing Guitar Hero and Rock Band (from NME).

'It's depressing to have a label come and tell you that ['Guitar Hero'] is how kids are learning about music and experiencing music,' White said. He added that although he doesn't try to dictate 'which format people should get their music in...if you have to be in a video game to get in front of them, that's a little sad.'

Page added that he can't imagine that people are really learning anything significant about playing instruments by playing video games.

'You think of the drum part that John Bonahm did on Led Zeppelin's first track on the first album, 'Good Times Bad Times',' he said. 'How many drummers in the world can play that part, let alone on Christmas morning?'

Far be it from this blogger to call anybody uncool, but how are two of the most original musicians around coming off on this? If anything, I've watched Rock Band and Guitar Hero introduce great rock n' roll to game geeks who would otherwise spend their lives listening to Puffy Ami Yumi. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with White and Page disliking video games (or admitting that Guitar Hero doesn't equal guitar playing), but one would hope that these two vagabond musicians might be a little more open minded. Page, don't you play guitar on songs about being a woman's "back door man?" White, isn't your ex-wife your sister now? Congrats fellas, you're now fit to join my old man on the back porch to sip bad beer and dis the youts'.

Defining "Reverse Racism"

From Huma Kahn and Jake Tapper, of ABC News:

Just a day after President Obama announced he was nominating appellate court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the battle over her confirmation has begun with former House speaker Newt Gingrich branding her a racist and saying she should withdraw.

Gingrich today joined the chorus of conservatives such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, who called Sotomayor a "reverse racist."

So let's dig into this right quick (I need to prove the worth of this here English degree anyway). First, the quote that provoked such an accusation (from a transcript posted by the New York Times):

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Eeho. That's pretty rough if you're Anglo-American; that is, some minority telling you that because they're smart and not white, they've got an edge on you. Technically, this fits the www.dictionary.com definition of "Racism." To any of my fair-skinned readers who were wounded by this rhetorical rocket, jeez, I'm sorry. And to think, if the cards had fallen slightly differently, it could have been you that dealt with this sort of thing for four centuries. Thank the Lard for small favors.

But, just because you've got the time to be reading this blog, let's view Sotomayor's quotation in a slightly larger context, just so we know for sure that she's a "reverse racist":

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. [POW! PAIN OFFICIALLY BROUGHT!]

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. [Wait, do what?] Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

So in other words, Justice Sotomayor--I like to say "Sawduhmayer", because I'm a little more "here" than "there" regarding my Chicano background--doesn't necessarily feel like an Anglo-American can't understand where she's coming from. In fact, she admits that those very people have been the original architects of change. More:

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Others simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

And honestly, if you've been raised a certain race, learning a certain history regarding that race, and soaking in a stereo-type entrenched media all your life, maybe Justice Sotomayor has got a point. Actually, there's no "maybe". This nation's history, for better or for worse, makes us all painfully aware of our skin color and, yet, we remain ignorant to its impact on occasion. We worry when we're on a side of town where we stand out, but maybe don't realize it when someone of one race/gender is quietly promoted over others at our workplace. This is especially true in workplaces with few white people.

Anyway, Newt Ging-Grinch needs to stop putting so much cauc in caucasian. Anyone who thinks he didn't get that quote without carefully combing the entire speech (and understanding its greater meaning) should hold their breath and never stop. It's clear, from a broad perspective, that Sotomayor doesn't believe herself to be better than anyone on account of her race. She just believes that she's more in tune to people who share her enthno-identity, and who the hell is willing to argue that point? The next Anglo-American who tells me they know what it's like to be Mexican-American gets a Brute in the face.

Furthermore, let's discuss the accusation of "Reverse Racism". Personally, I love this term (so...new and CHARGED) and I think Urban Dictionary gets it all wrong. When the Gingrichs and Coulters of the world, like snipers on Adderol, cry "Reverse Racism!", they're really calling out what they interpret as plain racism. Out of context, Sotomayor's comments could be interpreted as her believing herself to be inherently better than a white counterpart. In that regard, there's nothing unusual about it (except that it wouldn't be cool). But because the Gingrichs and Coulters need to feel special or something, they invent a new term. And this term is broken.

You see, when you modify a term meaning "To think oneself is inherently superior to others because of race" with another term meaning "opposite or contrary in position", the implication is that someone below the yeller of the term is trying to be racist upwards. Better put, Gingrich (the white dude) sounds like he's riled that someone he sees as beneath him (the NewYorican) is acting better than him. To quote my old man, "That just don't make no sense."

And, with that, I have proven the worth of an education in English. Read it and weep (for those racists still in power).

Another Bigot is Falling

The hits just keep on coming for Carrie Prejean (from Huffington Post). She spoke out against gay marriage, took up the cause for NOM and then the bottom dropped out. First, we found that her breasts were bought on the pageantry dime and then we learned that she lied about her past to compete. Now her claim that she only took one topless photo has been debunked as well. In other words, when Carrie opens her mouth, she sh*ts herself.

Don't get me wrong here. I find the implant "controversy" a little contrived and I don't care whether she violated pageant code by taking semi-nude photos (it's a living). And I also don't give a capped tooth about the hypocrisy of her lifestyle coupled with her brand of Christianity (the kind that loves their women hot, stupid and scared). But I do have a problem with someone so comfortable with her own sexuality acting as if others can't act the same way. With any luck, she'll be asking me if I need any salt, pepper, or ketchup with my order very soon.

CNN gets "street"?

Directed at me from Alex Leo, of the Huffington Post:

Note Kyra Phillips' hip-hop gestures and insistence on the fist bump at the end. Meanwhile, the subject matter centers around black culture being "more open and inclusive" and we're seeing that in the president's "swagga'". Is this supposed to be complimentary and progressive, this segment with a forty-something white woman pretending to "kick it" with her black co-anchor? Even positive mass generalizations about race are still mass generalizations. This is why I glare at people who like to tell me Mexican-Americans are hard-working and resourceful. F*ck off.

Abstinence, Rape, over Prevention, Murder

So this is nothing new (from the AP, via MSNBC), but bear with me:

About 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV, according to UNAIDS. In 2007, three-quarters of all AIDS deaths worldwide were there, as well as two-thirds of all people living with HIV.

Rebecca Hodes with the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa said if the pope was serious about preventing new HIV infections, he would focus on promoting wide access to condoms and spreading information on how best to use them.

"Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans," said Hodes, head of policy, communication and research for the organization.

I don't know if I could have said it better myself. In other news, courtesy of the AAP and Yahoo Australia, a Brazilian Cleric excommunicated a rape victim, her family, and a group of doctors for carrying out an abortion. The victim, a nine-year-old girl raped by her stepfather, could have died from trying to carry a set of twin fetuses to term making the abortion unfortunately necessary, according to the doctors.

"God's law is above any human law. So when a human law ... is contrary to God's law, this human law has no value," [Regional Archbishop Jose] Cardoso had said.

He also said the accused stepfather would not be expelled from the church. Although the man allegedly committed "a heinous crime ... the abortion - the elimination of an innocent life - was more serious".

You've got to be sh*tting me. Both of these reports, bearing both non-utilitarian allegiance to dogma and uncompromising sexism, are exactly why I have left the Catholic church and remain skeptical of any religious institution and the tenants therein.

I understand my skepticism does a disservice to politically realistic, yet religious citizens, particularly those who live far away from where these atrocities happen, but your actions beg the question: What role do you play in this thing want to be a part of? If you believe in the divinity of Christ and his teachings (or other religious foundations) and you take your membership in your group seriously, then you either endorse these atrocities or condemn them. What are you doing about it? Furthermore, if you're cavalier about your membership and believe that excuses you from doing anything, then stop kidding yourself, drop the label, and do something about it anyway. Your fellow humans need you.

Boehner: GOP to communicate, not legislate

Dear lord (Nico Pitney, of Huffington Post, reports).

This makes me worry we might see another one of these.

Rep. Zach Wamp: Health Care is a Privilege

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This is Rep. Zach Wamp (R), of Tennessee, speaking out against health care reform under the Obama administration. It's difficult to know where to start here: is it Wamp's insistence that health care "will be completey turned over to the government" (im-f*cking-possible, no U.S. politician is proposing this) or his belief that "gobs" of illegal immigrants are "getting our healthcare" (someone find me the data supporting this, especially when hospitals are happy to hold balances, interest-free, for years on end)? How about the "provisions" he's attributing to Obama, such as financing health care on revoked Medicare benefits and deductions to small businesses? When exactly did Barack Obama start crushing up a**hole pills into his black-forest berry iced tea?

But Wamp's most offensive and dated rhetoric is his belief that Health Care is a privilege, not a right. In the post-prescription lobby world, you damn well believe health care has become a right. Just the rising of cost of prescription meds (always ahead of inflation) has sent too many seniors back to work, to say nothing of those losing their houses or simply going "nekkid" (as Wamp put it) to stay financially afloat. Furthermore, if we learned nothing else from the Great Depression, it's that a government that provides "entitlements" (roads, schools, etc.) generally improves the state of the union.

Above all, what is a Democratic Republic that won't keep its citizenry from getting sick? Where participation equals representation we all have to be well, not bogged down by complicated tax incentives. Wamp knows that lower-middle class parents will mostly be too distracted by work/family/not losing their house to participate in his healthcare solutions. Funny thing, those families are generally more "diverse" than his wealthy political brethren.

Jon Stewart Slams CNBC

Yeah, I know it's everywhere. Some days I'm a trailblazer. Today, I follow.

EGM's Honesty Their Downfall?

John "Hunter" D. Norman (nice anime reference there), of Die Hard Gamer discusses one major reason why EGM closed:

Ubisoft used to be one of EGM’s biggest advertisers. In December 2007 alone they purchased eight pages of advertisements. By January 2008 they were no longer advertising in EGM. What changed in that issue? EGM gave Assassin’s Creed an aggregate score of 5.83 out of 10, one of Ubisoft’s biggest games of the year. It is said that Ubisoft was actively pushing magazines for positive scores, both threatening to pull advertising from media outlets that did not give high marks, and only allowing media outlets with positive scores to break the review embargo date. EGM would not give in to Ubisoft and in turn Ubisoft would never advertise in EGM again. Talk about holding a grudge. EGM would at least have the satisfaction of blasting another one of Ubisoft’s high profile flops, Haze, with a D+ score and a “Shame of the Month” award.

As subscriber to the bitter end (they still owe me five issues!), this development happened right under my nose. And Ubisoft was one of the smaller companies. Norman goes on to discuss the ad bullying of companies like Capcom, Konami and Nintendo (NINTENDO!). The world has gone mad, I tell you.

Governor Perry will turn away stimulus money

Did I not predict this?

“I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up,” Mr. Perry wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama last week.

Translation: "I don't want to take this money because then we'll have to change the way we do things around here. I don't care if the current system is ruining lives. I don't want to help people."

My open letter to Governor Perry: "You're a jerkoff."

Translation: "You're a jerkoff."

So, wait, what was the hold up?

Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear, of the New York Times, discuss the G.O.P.'s panty-bunching over the stimulus. But you knew about that already. Here's what really matters:

After initially saying they might reject any federal aid, several conservative governors said in interviews over the weekend that they were likely to reject only the money for expanded unemployment compensation because of federal strings that could require them to provide relief to part-time workers who lose jobs as well as to full-time workers. Many other states already provide such aid.

So despite all the bill waving, bill slamming and ranting that "America's best days are behind her", opponents of the stimulus and can accept and decline what's in the bill as they see fit? Well f*ck me, then what exactly was all the deliberation about just a few weeks ago? *cough* Ideological warfare on the taxpayer dime.*cough* Furthermore, because of outlandish Oscar coverage or some other nonsense in the news, you can bet we're only going to get generalizations about where the money's going.

God, are you're there? It's me, The Brute. Please thump the heads of the G.O.P. with your righteous middle finger and save this economy.

And, yes, I am aware of the irony of this post.

Stop Ken Starr From Undoing Gay Marriages

More info here. Sign the petition and pass it on. And for Christ's sake, Kenneth Starr, act like Jesus for a change.

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Academy "Acknowledges" Moore Controversy

According to AntsMarching.org writer Jake Vigliotti, the video tribute was likely made well in advance of the its airing, indicating Moore was never intended to be featured. The Academy press release confirms this notion.

I confess, as a lover of Dave Matthews Band and fan of LeRoi Moore, that I'm not terribly annoyed with the Academy for such a snub. But it is weird that they left out someone they nominated so many times. Ah, well. We love you, Roi!

Sorry, LeRoi.

So the Grammy's also did a tribute to fallen musicians of last year and they managed to forget someone...who they nominated 12 times.