brainiac conspiracy

Anal Intercourse

Got your attention, no? Okay, the point of this post is that there's nothing inherently demeaning or degrading about the act; there are plenty of people--homo and hetero--- who really like it! But the fact that people like this guy think it is an act of humiliation by default . . . well, he's certainly not alone in his little corner of the universe, but the point is that people with such warped and distorted views of human sexuality used to be called, rightly, "perverts". But that was in a more innocent time. Thanks to publications like the Post, we can now accurately refer to them "credible news sources".

---Baron V

Random Thought II

I really wish I could be consistently wrong about everything since it seems to be the most proven and reliable road to success if you're a bloviator/pundit type like your humble blogger. Heck, I might even be able to land a weekly op-ed column at a respectable media outlet, where I could argue that the reason why homo marriage is so icky is because homos can't have children, and when homo marriages are recognized by society as legitimate, then childlessness will be legitimized, too, which means that all the married heteros will want to stop having children because childlessness is now a groovy thing and we're all gonna die.

Snark aside, I've never been to figure out this obsessive desire to sublimate the manufacture of little humans to the bonds of matrimony when throughout most of our history as a species, the exact opposite has been our nature. Then again, I guess that's what it means to be consistently wrong about everything.

---Baron V

Random Thought

I'll admit that Team Democrat comes in for some pretty rough handling on this blog, but one thing I'm always mindful of---and a reason why I'm still a reluctant member of the team---is that for all their shortcomings, in many important ways they're simply not like the other team. Which is to say, not sex-obsessed perverts.

---Baron V

When Did They Stop Being Evil?

Guess it's been easy to overlook given our myriad financial/ecological meltdowns, but I have to admit it's really been amazing just how quickly the looming threat of Teh Evil Gayz has all but vanquished from the culture-war battlefield over the last year or two. I realize the country's becoming more socially inclusive, but I'm not sure that alone explains why public sentiment seems to have turned so quickly. Maybe it's just because there are now enough states across the country that have legislated marriage equality that people can see for themselves that the Republic is not going to go to hell in a handbasket if homos are allowed to tie the knot, and that all the conservative fear-mongering over it was nothing but baseless bullshit. Since nearly all conservative fear-mongering is nothing but baseless bullshit---and since there's not much of a political price to pay for pushing back on it anymore---perhaps the members of Team Democrat would be mindful of that when formulating policy in the future. Just a thought.

---Baron V

Sometimes They Has Dreamy Male Fantasies

Not that's there's anything wrong with that.

---Vitelius

In My Tribe

Does anyone else find this rather, uh, distasteful coming today?

Her achievements as a woman and as a scientist and as an astronaut and as a brilliant, principled investigator of NASA's screw-ups will always stand, and vastly outshine any flaws. But the truth remains: she had a chance to expand people's horizons and young lesbians' hope and self-esteem, and she chose not to.

She was the absent heroine.

When did it become de rigeur for every prominent gay man or woman in this country to out themselves? When did it become a Betrayal of The Cause™ for one to insist on personal privacy, free from judgment? Or is this just as case of tribalism---the unconscious desire to claim persons of distinction as "one of our own"? Perhaps it would be wise to ponder the influence that the male-dominated profession in which she worked may have exerted on her, and/or the fact that the culture at a place like NASA probably wasn't too terribly gay-friendly during the time she spent there. Also too, for some reason our astronauts have tended to be rather retiring types who generally shun the spotlight and keep a low public profile after their careers in space exploration are over. I can't think of any of them who ever called much attention to themselves outside a spacecraft besides John Glenn and Frank Borman, and maybe Buzz Aldrin.

In other words, there are numerous reasons why some people choose to stay in the closet, and not all of the closeted necessarily do it out of shame, self-loathing, or a desire to conceal. In Sally Ride's case, it may just have been that she was simply very guarded about her privacy, which frankly doesn't make her much different than someone like Neil Armstrong.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: While it's certainly true that the closet can be a type of prison for some gay people, for others it's a safe haven, and however they choose to live their lives, the choice is theirs to make and it should be respected, particularly if we are discussing a respectable individual who lived an exemplary life.

As far as I'm concerned, the only people who deserve to be outed are the Ted Haggards of our world. Everyone else should be free to come out as they like, or not, and remain free from snotty scoldings like this one.

---Vitelius

Small-Government Conservatives

There's something seriously wrong with these people:

Tennessee teachers can no longer condone so-called "gateway sexual activity" such as touching genitals under a new law that critics say is too vague and could hamper discussion about safe sexual behavior.

Governor Bill Haslam's office Friday confirmed that he had signed the bill, which stirred up controversy nationwide and even was lampooned by comedian Stephen Colbert.

"Kissing and hugging are the last stop before reaching Groin Central Station, so it's important to ban all the things that lead to the things that lead to sex," he said on the "Colbert Report" television show.

I'm willing to bet dollars to douche bags that this clown, or one of his buddies in the legislature who co-authored this nonsense, eventually gets caught banging some 16-year-old girl. Or a 13-year-old boy. It's why they waste their time obsessing over stuff like this.

---Vitelius

Why He Did It

Okay, making history on a historic day and all that. Obviously wins the daily news cycle also. Less cynically:

1. The White House recognizes it has a "dispirited base" problem on its hands, and badly needs to offer up a rallying cry to reenergize the President's supporters. Millions of jobs for unemployed young people aren't happening, ditto single payer or climate-change legislation. Marriage equality, while not as effective as some other proposals might have been (e.g., WPA 2.0), should at least act as a balm for restive progressives and remind them of what the political stakes are for the fall. Our love affair with the President may be over, but considering the opposition, a loveless marriage is clearly preferable to our only other available alternative.

2. The White House recognizes it has a potential fund-rasing problem on its hands, and is acting because, well, because its hand has more or less been forced.

3. The White House has come to the realization that it will be more fondly remembered by history for being a one-term administration that at least went down swinging for the cause of human rights than as a one-term administration that will be mostly remembered for its crappy health-care law, timid bank reforms, and preoccupation with deficits when not enough people had jobs or money to help pay down the deficit.

Don't know which reason brought about the President's final "evolving" step on marriage equality---perhaps it was a combination of the three---but it's a positive development either way, and contrary to some liberal fears, I don't see it hurting him in the election. More stuff like this, however, will.

---Vitelius

Should've Been a No-Brainer

A long time ago.

I mean, it's not as though the President ever figured to pick up a sizable chunk of the Religious Homophobe voter demographic, but then again, perhaps the White House figured they could just rely on their loyal LGBT voter base to stick with them on the tacit promise that the President would be more attentive to their concerns in a second term. Looks like they guessed wrong.

On the subject, now that we're agreed that gay people should have the same marriage rights as straight people, can we agree that gay people should have the same workplace rights as straight people too? Just an idea.

----Vitelius

Funny How That Works Out

As it happens, my position on who to vote for in November is evolving too.

---Vitelius

Cancel My Reservation

It's bad enough to be one of the world's shittiest airlines, with chronic flight delays and a reputation for lost baggage (I've only lost my luggage twice in over a million miles flown over the past ten years, and these assholes were responsible both times), but to be one of the world's shittiest airlines that's run by a bunch of bigots is cause for a little Limbaugh Therapy. Spread the news and let's get our boycott on.

---Vitelius

Catholic Discipline

Their leaders could sure stand a little:

It was the Bishops, for example, who decided to no longer provide adoption and foster care services in states that permitted same-sex adoption. The states did not reject their services, the law merely required them to serve lesbian and gay couples with the same rights and dignity afforded to straight couples. What's more, contracts from the Department of Health and Human Services to Catholic organizations have increased during the Obama administration over the Bush administration by $100 million, hardly grounds for claiming mistreatment. (In fact, many Americans probably wonder why their tax dollars are supporting groups who actively oppose equal rights for all citizens.)

I will donate money to, and volunteer to work for, any candidate for office in this country---Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, it matters not---who will advocate canceling all of the contracts our government has with these assholes, and revoking their tax-exempt status. They're just another right-wing lobbying firm trying to influence policy at this point. They should pay for the privilege like everyone else.

---Vitelius

If Ashley Madison Isn't Your Cup of Tea

You could always hit up Rentboy.

---Vitelius

Welfare Queens

They have dozens of different names, and as many different addresses, and they make millions of dollars a year from nonexistent corporate sponsors:

“I wish more of the grassroots knew the reality that this wasn’t Rush or Sean or Beck saying these things out of the goodness of their hearts,” said the leader of one group who inquired about ads on various radio shows, but decided they were both too expensive and ethically suspect. “If the grassroots found out that these guys were getting paid seven figures a year to say this stuff, it might leave a bad taste in their mouth.”

No it wouldn't. The falangist grassroots that listens to Rush and Hannity and Beck don't give a shit about anything other than pissing off liberals and satisfying their more sadistic urges to vilify Soros, sluts, illegals, or whatever bete noire they're being told to loathe today. Besides, American-style conservatism is an authoritarian political philosophy which needs, well, authority figures to acts as its spokesmodels, and in that sense, the right-wing think tanks are only filling a market demand.

More curious to me is the fact that these wingnut-welfare organizations are all registered non-profits. Which, you know, seems rather odd since most companies that operate on a not-for-profit basis---even many of the bigger ones---typically don't have tens of millions of excess dollars floating around in their budget every year that they can use for everyday nationwide ad buys. When was the last time you heard a radio commercial for the ACLU or the Sierra Club, for instance? Maybe someone at our FCC would consider asking where the money comes from, and why it should be tax-exempt?

---Vitelius

Quantifying the Crazy

Q: What makes the Baggers so, well, baggy?

[T]he mid-1950s were among the prosperous years in American history; the economy grew at rates equivalent to China’s today. This is no longer the case, obviously enough. And yet the attitudes Hofstadter recorded are still with us and attached, often, to the same emotions—nostalgia for an earlier, better America, unthreatened by ethnic diversity or by the rise of educated “technocrats.” In their interviews, Skocpol and Williamson note,

Tea Party members rarely stressed economic concerns to us—and they never blamed business or the superrich for America’s troubles. The nightmare of societal decline is usually painted in cultural hues, and the villains in the picture are freeloading social groups, liberal politicians, bossy professionals, big government, and the mainstream media.

Illegal immigration is a particular anxiety—not because employers give low-wage jobs to illegals or outsource them to China and India, but because those who slip over the border, or their children, crowd schools and hospitals. They are the “undeserving,” who drain the federal treasury and imperil the benefits due to birthright citizens.

A: Darkies, hebes and wetbacks. And I guess we can add Arabs too, and anyone else whose presence challenges the continued cultural hegemony of Christian white folks. All of their libertarian-light chatter about "small government" and "entitlement reform" are really just masking devices: what gets these people salivating more than anything is the issue of race, followed in order by religion, gender, and class.

I guess some of us---present company included---were more than a bit naive to assume that we'd crossed some great collective threshold four years ago when we installed an African-American in the White House, i.e., that we'd somehow managed to conquer our racist past and closed the book on one of the nation's ugliest chapters. Not to say we haven't made some genuine progress---the simple reality of nearly 70 million Americans casting their vote for a black man (with an Afro-Muslim name!) to be their next President is something that could not have happened, say, 50 years ago. But in hindsight we all should have seen the race-based cultural backlash coming. And if Barack Obama should be re-elected President, we should expect to see even more of it for the next four years. The culture-war zanies could be easily marginalized within their own party after the Goldwater debacle, but things are a lot different in our era: they've got a self-sustaining, 24-hour, high-wattage nationwide propaganda operation that the Birchers and YAF'ers couldn't have dreamt of, and with no shortage of well-meaning moderate voices like Tom Friedman and David Brooks around to apply a veneer of respectability to their paranoid rants by reminding liberals of their eternal need to address the crackpots' good-faith concerns and to seek centrist consensus with them, the Birchers of today are beyond marginalization---they are the Republican mainstream. That simple fact should scare the hell out of everyone.

---Vitelius

The Making of a Wingnut

Lenny Bruce had it right: it's all because of poor toilet training.

---Vitelius

All About the Hokey-Pokey

It always has been. At least of the uterine variety.

Meanwhile, Tea Party Patriots.

There's nothing more wholesome and uplifting than sharing your love of God and country with some of your fellow convention-goers, no?

---Vitelius

How to Win Friends & Influence People

Nothing says "I love you" like giving her a sermon at the local gun club:

1.”How do you make them feel comfortable? You talk about their weaknesses,” Elise said. One audience member chimed in with a good one liner to lighten the mood: “I’m Rush Limbaugh’s drug dealer.”

2. On dates, “try to outlaw questions,” Elise said, prompting some quizzical looks from participants. “Say ‘I’m not going to do any questions, I’m going to make statements.’ Why? Because statements say something about you.”

3. Here’s a tip: “When you walk up and you’re talking to the cute girl in a group dont just talk to the girl. Bring other people in.” In a related tactic, should you see a hot girl in a bar do not approach---instead befriend a less attractive group and then recruit them to help you seduce her.

4. Good date idea? “Tell her you want to take a polaroid camera, walk around Soho in New York or somewhere comparable here, Georgetown maybe, and take pictures together---that’s a fun date.” But one Republican consultant from Sag Harbor, New York had a better one. “A gun club works really well for that thing,” he said. “It’s conservative, its fun, most women haven’t done that before…you get to look like you know what you’re doing.”

Then, of course, there's the no-nonsense approach.

Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

---Vitelius

Worst. Political Analysis. Ever

Where else?

As the tea party movement surged in 2010, it was often dismissed by liberal critics as an anti-intellectual force led by figures such as Sarah Palin, who has dismissed the importance of answering reporters’ questions or learning the nuances of policy. At times, Cain and Perry seem to have embraced this caricature of the tea party.

But this is a serious misreading of the aims and goals of tea party activists. While it’s still not clear who will capture their vote, one thing is obvious: Playing dumb isn’t the way to win it. One person who understands that well happens to be Gingrich, the candidate now rising in the polls.

Rebuttal outsourced to former Republican Congressional staffer:

It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant.

To a former Republican administration official:

[C]onservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto.

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting.

And to a Tory conservative, who should take a couple of Post reporters---and their boss in the newsroom---to the woodshed for even pretending to apply an intellectual veneer to the rantings of zanies:

[T]he current GOP . . can only think in doctrines, because the alternative is living in a complicated, global, modern world they both do not understand and also despise. Taxes are therefore always bad. Government is never good. Foreign enemies must be pre-emptively attacked. Islam is not a religion. Climate change is an elite conspiracy to impoverish America. Terror suspects are terrorists. When Americans torture, it is not torture. When Christians murder, they are not Christians. And if you change your mind on any of these issues, you are a liberal, an apostate, and will be attacked.

If your view of conservatism is one rooted in an instinctual, but agile, defense of tradition, in a belief in practical wisdom that alters constantly with circumstance, in moderation and the defense of the middle class as the stabilizing ballast of democracy, in limited but strong government ... then the GOP is no longer your party (or mine).

Religion has replaced all of this, reordered it, and imbued the entire political-economic-religious package with zeal. And the zealous never compromise. They don't even listen.

Think of Michele Bachmann's wide-eyed, Stepford stare as she waits for a questioner to finish before providing another pre-cooked doctrinal nugget. My fear---and it has building for a decade and a half, because I've seen this movement up-close from within and also on the front lines of the marriage wars---is that once one party becomes a church with unchangeable doctrines, and once it has supplanted respect for institutions and civility with the radical pursuit of timeless doctrines and hatred of governing institutions, then our democracy is in grave danger.

Memo to Perry Bacon and Nia-Malika Henderson: Anti-intellectualism---rejecting the rigors of science and reason in favor of unbending dogma and unquestioning faith---isn't a caricature of the Tea Party. It is the ideological foundation on which the Tea Party is based. And the Tea Party is simply the latest brand name that Republican Party activists have given themselves. It scarcely matters whether their presidential candidates are rank ignoramuses like Cain and Bachmann, or merely pandering to ignoramuses like Romney and Newt. The Republican Party as it currently exists is dedicated to the elevation and sanctification of ignorance. Is this concept really so difficult to grasp?

Also too, compulsive liars.

---Vitelius

Just Win, Baby

K-Thug asks: how is it that so many right-wing political figures can behave like besotted swine and suffer no repercussions from their supporters? Part of the answer, I think, is theological: for a certain strata of Christian fundamentalists, the concepts of temptation, sin, forgiveness and redemption are just dry philosophical constructs unless you occasionally give in to temptation and sin like mad every now and then. How else, then, are you ever going to know God's grace except by, you know, cheating on your ex-wife when she's undergoing chemotherapy, or recruiting the local madam to change your adult diapers?

There's also always the possibility that many right-wing political figures are simply full of shit, and just spew out the Christian boilerplate as a means to fleecing the credulous flock of their money and votes. But that would naturally imply that many right-wing political figures are dishonest and dissembling, utterly bereft of morals, obsessed with monopolizing power by any means necessary, and cover their tracks by accusing their opponents of committing their own worst offenses. Whether they're being sincere or cynical, I guess we'll never really know.

Also too, let's not forget that roughly a quarter of the voting-age population in this country is now stark raving nuts and willing to believe virtually anything a right-wing political leader tells them. The reasons for this are several and span generations, but obviously, when you are convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that any Democrat President is going to kill all your leaders, convert them to Islam, confiscate your weapons and confine you in forced-labor camps, you'll gladly overlook your leaders' peccadilloes if they'll come to your aid and slay the godless infidel.

---Vitelius