Home / Culture and Society / Who’s Going To Hell Faster: Our Christians Or Our Republicans?

Who’s Going To Hell Faster: Our Christians Or Our Republicans?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Here are two recent statements, one from a leading Christian bigot and another from a leading Republican bigot.

“I think the president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name … He has renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus. That’s what he has said he has done. I cannot say that he hasn’t, so I just have to believe the president is what he has said … But the confusion is because his father is a Muslim, he was born a Muslim. The Islamic world sees the president as one of theirs, that’s why Qaddafi calls him his son. They see him as a Muslim. But, of course, the president says he is a Christian and we just have to accept it as that … “

That’s the first one. Here’s the second one:

“The folks who want to build this mosque — who are really radical Islamists who want to triumphally prove that they can build a mosque right next to a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by radical Islamists — those folks don’t have any interest in reaching out to the community. They’re trying to make a case about supremacy. That’s why they won’t go anywhere else, that’s why they won’t accept any other offer … And I think we ought to be honest about the fact that we have a right — and this happens all the time in America. You know, Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”

The first statement was said to CNN’s John King by the Reverend Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son. Now I know Billy had to apologize for sharing some anti-Semitic moments with Richard Nixon, but his son has taken flight on wings of extremely muscle-bound bigotry, like David Duke on steroids. What’s more, on the evidence of this claptrap, Franklin is not only a flat-out bigot, he’s a very dumb flat-out bigot. Jeez, if this is what leading Christians are up to these days, all the prophets who ever lived are spinning in their hereafter graves like Bolshoi ballerinas on crystal meth. The Reverend Franklin Graham is to Christianity what Satan is to Faust. What the Joker is to Batman. What Hamlet’s uncle is to Hamlet. Franklin is like some absurd reincarnation of a crusader (the crusaders sang hymns while they burned Jews alive; at one point they roasted Muslim babies). Franklin has to be lower than the scum in the pond in the backyard of a BP Board Member or a Goldman Sachs CEO. He not only degrades the second largest religion in the world, with 1.57 billion members (most of whom are not even Arab Muslims, and who, like Mr Graham, are stuck in the 13th century), he also degrades its seven million American devotees. And the Reverend is espousing a really weird form of evolution, in which a seed of religion gets passed on like some DNA riding one’s genetic code the way John Travolta rode that mechanical bull in Urban Cowboy. This is Darwinism by way of Patrick Star in SpongeBob SquarePants. It’s beyond satire: as if Swift wrote A Modest Proposal not about snacking on Irish babies, but about what happens to a Christian woman if she lets a Muslim impregnate her. It’s like the insanity that betook Christianity when they were so uncomfortable about gender, they called women “witches” and burned them. It’s not like Jesus, that’s for sure.

The second statement was made on Fox News by Newt Gingrich, who is trying to position himself for a presidential run in 2012, because the other GOP contenders are lamer than vegetarian lamb cutlets. Newt is often referred to as a Major Brain of the Republicans. If New Gingrich is a brain of the Republican Party, then the GOP needs not a brain transplant, but a butt transplant. Why? Because Newt Gingrich sucks the two or three ideas he’s had all his life out of his butt.

(1) Cut taxes and cut the deficit. Translation: cognitive chaos. Or: cut taxes for the rich, cut spending on the poor. It was VP Dickhead Cheney who assured us: “Deficits don’t matter.” And hey, we have to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich — after all, it means we have to borrow only a piddling $830 billion from the Chinese to pass on to our rich people; that’s peanuts — anyway, we can always carve it out of your Social Security.

(2) Less government and more freedom. Translation: I don’t mind when Reagan and Bush expand the government, I just mind when Clinton shrinks it. Here’s the translation of more freedom: privatize social security so Wall Street can be free to play with your retirement money, especially bearing in mind that the Dow Jones industrial average started the decade at around 11,500 and last Friday closed at 10,213 (that’s the kind of robust growth that Republicans like to promote); give corporations the freedom to bust unions and outsource jobs and buy Congress and the president (most Democrats agree with that one); let hedge fund kings have the freedom to pay 15% tax while their secretaries pay more; give the middle class the freedom to go bankrupt when they get sick, because we want the healthcare industry to have the freedom to do that to us; give banks the freedom to gouge us with 30% credit card penalty interest; and give the middle class the freedom to work harder and longer and more productively for the same money they made in 1973. Moreover, people should have the personal freedom to not be protected by government; such protection would be socialism. Citizens should have the freedom to be suckered by the tricks of Wall Street … that’s what personal freedom is for, so smart people can get rich, and dumb people can get ripped off. If we’re too dependent on government to look out for us, we’ll lose our initiative and become as useless as Europe. (Never mind that Germany out-exports us per capita, or that Denmark beats us in green energy exports, or that France, with five to eight weeks vacation, works the least hours of any nation on earth but is more productive than Americans by about $0.50 GDP/capita/hour. At #18 in GDP/per capita, the French live better and work smarter than uweAmerican workaholic corporate victim slave dupe assholes. But hey, bray on, bray on about how America is better than anywhere else. Aren’t Americans having the greatest time ever at this very moment? Aren’t you glad you don’t live in Canada, where the banks didn’t melt down and where it costs a tourist $50 to see a doctor?)

(3) We need a strong military to keep us secure, in case Canada or Grenada or Mexico or Iraq or Iran or North Korea invade us. They are all massive threats to the American way of life, which is why we should spend 23% of our budget on the military (more than on Social Security), which is about 45% of what the rest of the world, i.e. 96% of the world’s people, spends on their militaries. How paranoid and shit-scared are we? About 20,000 times more than Bhutan. To use a non-PC world, we Americans are the biggest sissies the universe has ever known. We are so scared, we only feel secure if we can fight the entire world and win. We feel more threatened than the rest of the world combined. No sirree, we can’t spend any less than almost the rest of the world combined, because then the world might see that our dicks are no bigger than theirs and then they will stop cowering before us, although many of them have stopped doing that already: hey, it must be the fault of our black president who bows in front of foreigners instead of flashing his dick like Bush-Cheney did with their big hetero big macho big bully big manly attitude: here, you damn foreigners, say hello to our double-dick-in-your-face!

Jeez, we’re pathetic. We’re as pathetic as a vampire in sunlight, as a tourist in Mexico who’s diarrheaing himself 24/7, as Mel Gibson shouting at his Russian paramour whose teeth he dislocated: “Before you do anything, your job is to fuck me first!” To work even harder at being pathetic, the GOP believes we should give our taxes to no-bid military contractors like Halliburton so they can continue to electrocute our soldiers in their showers with their shoddy work. We like giving work to corporations who kill our soldiers. The more soldiers they kill, the more work we give them. And by the way, we should spend billions on the people of Afghanistan. Their welfare comes first, before the welfare of American kids whose education will end up making them less competitive than the kids of Albania.

This is such a lame, dumbfuck, riddled-with-hypocrisy and drama-queen-acting-out agenda of a sissy-plus-bully combo, and it brought us such ruin under Bush-Cheney, which started with tax cuts for the rich and got us in two wars and gave us Enron and Worldcom and Terri Schiavo and torture and Abu Graib and turned the Clinton surplus into a deficit and led to the financial meltdown and the Bush administration bailout of megabillions to Wall Street, and the Fed’s megatrillions to Wall Street, and now Goldman Sachs and other assorted Wall Street swine with their snouts in our pockets are back in the saddle, making millions in bonuses off our taxes … that one can hardly believe the GOP is running the same playbook again. After this disaster wrought by the GOP, a disaster started by Ronald Reagan and concluded by Bush-Cheney, which left Obama, a corporate butt-sucker at the best of times, stuck with the biggest mess since the crapola that Adenauer inherited from Adolf … after all this, Newt should really crawl under a rock with all the other newts and leave us alone.

All I can say is this: thank your personal god that President Bush got nowhere with privatizing social security. But of course, that effort is not going to stop. The superrich ex-private equity Wall Street bastard of bastards, Peter Peterson, has spent a billion bucks on a campaign to gut Social Security. Mister Gilded-Skunk-in-a-Business-Suit bankrolls America Speaks, an astroturf outfit that’s hosting meetings in 20 cities and eliciting responses from the citizenry. As Dean Baker has pointed out, this shell game for taking down Social Security has been structured so that, among the many innocent points covered, the questions about Social Security are framed in such a way as to lead participants to come to the conclusion that “reform” is necessary. Then America Speaks is going to present its “findings” to Barack “Are-You-Rich?-Let-Me-Bend-Over” Obama’s Catfood Commission, er, Deficit Commission. Meanwhile, Social Security is fully funded till 2037 or 2042 or 2050 depending on how you figure it, with a surplus of over $2.4 trillion at the end of 2008. But for the GOP this is a problem. The problem is twofold: one, why isn’t all that money in the hands of Wall Street so they can play with it? And two, how dare all that money go to regular folks when it belongs to rich people? One thing you can say about our Wall Street predators and their poodles, the GOP: ever since FDR hogtied the banksters, they haven’t given up on getting deregulated, and they finally succeeded in full measure under that idiot asshole Bill “I-screw-bimbos-with-big-hair-so-what” Clinton. The Wall Street banksters are not going to give up on getting all that Social Security money to play with either, or killing Social Security so that the money can come to them and not to us. Their big goal in life is to make sure they can get at our money and nobody can get at their money. That’s why 52,000 of them have their soiled lucre in Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes like the rest of us regular folks. Rich people don’t need an America where people can have a comfortable retirement. All the money in America is THEIR money, not ours. At this point the top 1% of Americans own 40% to 50% of all our wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95% — that’s you and me. A decade ago, at the start of the Bush-Cheney era, the top 1% owned 33% of the wealth. They’ve been moving up, and we’ve been moving down and out of our jobs and our houses, while the Washington-enabled 1% of Americans keep making a fortune on Wall Street as the Fed prints money for them to gamble with. Are we Americans the world’s biggest suckers or what? You decide.

Years ago I asked the Arab American who ran the corner deli near my apartment who he was going to vote for. “Democrat,” he said. “Why?” I asked. He replied: “The Republican Party is for rich people.” It’s amazing that this Middle Eastern immigrant wised up faster than at least half of us native-born Americans. Coming from an Arab country, his BS detector was more honed.

Getting back to Gingrich: now I know one mustn’t be too hard on Newt. After all, he’s known to have asked his next wife to marry him while he was still married to his current one. Old Newt is in such a hurry to get remarried, he makes sure he’s got it in the bag before he tells his wife he wants a divorce. Now you might say that’s just good planning. Or it poignantly reveals the moving depths of Newt’s really classy side. But I’ve always judged a man by how he treats the ladies. And Newt is in the habit of treating his wives who are soon to be ex-wives worse than a Cossack treats a peasant, or a Saudi Prince treats his people. In other words, like shit. It’s a lack of respect that shows up in how Newt treats the American voters — as if they’re total dumbfucks. When others stoop as low as their toes, Newt stoops even lower. My advice: when you find yourself falling for Newt’s crap, just imagine being one of his wives, sigh, and move on.

Where do these guys come from? It used to be that Christians were Albert Schweitzer and Florence Nightingale. Now they’re Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and the Pope, who shielded a known boy fucker. It used to be that Republicans were Eisenhower and Rockefeller. Now they’re Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, a serial wife deceiver.

What the hell happened?

In the case of the Christians, I’ll tell you what happened. Evangelists like Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart found out they could make big money out of homophobia. Down south in the Bible Belt, they used to hate and fear blacks (up north they did too, but they blanketed it under mounds of hypocrisy). As this hatred became unfashionable, the leading Christians hit on a far safer bigotry — fearing and hating homos. And it’s a very deep-seated fear and hate, because it’s based on visceral disgust. Your basic American homophobe, from South Carolina to California, can’t stand the fact that a certain percentage of men like to suck on each other’s dicks and bang each other up the bunghole. In the minds of these people, the butthole is for your crap, not for your winkie. Dropping a turd out of your posterior is natural. Taking Mister Napoleon up your hindquarters is unnatural. And it’s disgusting, like eating maggots off a zombie’s head. Physical disgust: that’s where your homophobia comes from. Would you like your son to be taught by a guy who had a cock up his dock the night before? Would you like your daughter to be taught by a guy who stuck his bulging, splooge-sputtering organ up another guy’s Hershey tunnel that morning? No. Hell, no. Please, stop, I can’t take it anymore. NO! NO! NO! It’s harping on this disgust — without mentioning the actual gruesome details — that’s made Pat Robertson and his many ilks such big millionaires many times over. Your evangelical Christian leaders know how to milk tithes from their dupes. Throw ’em some red meat about homos taking over, and watch those greenbacks roll in. There’s gold in them thar glory holes. There’s no sucker like a Christian sucker; they’re born every second. No wonder Nigerian scammers are targeting them bigtime.

This kind of bigotry means that 28% of Americans — that’s how many gay-hating Evangelicals there are — are going straight to hell. But not before they give us all hell. Like they did in the Bush-Cheney years — remember? Terri Schiavo and all that? Wasn’t that real important? Like more important than the Iraq War? Some dude in Florida wants to pull the plug on his braindead wife, and that becomes a HUGE HUGE HUGE issue. An issue of life and death. A Christian issue. Meanwhile Wall Street is setting us up for the Great Recession, but who cares, let the braindead chick live! It’s a decision we Christians must make, not her husband! Save Terri! If we all pray for her, she’ll wake up and sing Hallelujah!

Never forget: that’s the kind of crap our MSM will be running if the Evangelical Christians have their way with us again.

Which brings us to our consideration of the case of the Republicans. A painful, pathetic undertaking, but someone has to prick this nasty, pustular boil growing bigger every day on some tick-infested rodent’s heinie.

This is what happened to the GOP. LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill, one of the best things any president has ever done, and he said he knew he was losing the south for a generation. That’s when the GOP’s Southern strategy began. The Dixiecrats came over to the GOP — to a bigoted man and woman. The GOP lost the black vote forever, but they got the votes of all the Southern racists.

Ever since, they’ve been inventing new groups to fear and hate. Gays. Abortionists. Mexican immigrants. Muslims. You name it, they hate it, and they’re going to make enough Americans scared of it to vote for them so they can ruin those voters by diverting their tax dollars to the already rich, and then blame all that “big spending” on the “socialist” Democrats who are meddling with “our freedom.”

What happened was, Ronald Reagan … who screwed America for good when he cut the top marginal tax rate from 60% to 28%, and ran up deficits and started deregulating, and set in motion the bubble economy we didn’t have for 50 years after FDR hogtied Wall Street, but we’re now stuck with, because Obama doesn’t have the balls to put a stop to it … this Ronnie Hollywood, the genial puppet poodle of the rich, their little mascot, their little cowboy elf who resided in their posteriors, this supreme acme of assholicity, this Ronnie McPhony with his good hair and his avuncular smile, this snake in cowboy clothing, well, he charmed all sorts into his big tent, including Reagan Democrats and the Evangelicals. Bonzo the chimp’s best friend, who was not the best Dad or the best Christian, must’ve thought the Evangelicals were very useful idiots.

Problem was, as soon as the evangelicals got a taste for politics, they worked like crazy to get on local school boards and get their politicians into power. When Bush Senior ran for president, George W. Bush was his connection to these crazies, because GWB, a long-time drunk (and reputed coke fiend) had seen the light, become a born-again Christian and a good husband. Now Bush is a religious wingnut, all right, but not quite as nuts as his heirs, today’s Republicans. Proof: despite being the worst president in centuries, Bush did not hate Hispanics, was not a racist, gave unwavering support to the anti-AIDS cause in Africa, has not mouthed off at Obama like Dick Crybaby Cheney, and told Americans NOT to demonize Muslims (the Bush family is very pally with the Saudi royals).

Today, the Christian tail is wagging the GOP dog, and you get loonies like Sharron Angle claiming that God chose her to unseat Harry Reid (she’s like a rapper who thanks God for giving him this great MTV reward when his raps are about sticking his Glock to hos and thugs).

Also, Lee Atwater happened, followed by Roger Ailes and Karl Rove, a new breed of GOP political operative. Lee Atwater apologized for his sins on his deathbed, but don’t expect Ailes or Rove to go there. These guys discovered you could get votes by lying weird. Not that lying was any great invention: politicians have always lied, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, whether they’re Presidents or State Senators. It’s job #1 for pols: lie. But the Atwater-Ailes-Rove lies were different: they were flame-broiled to a weirdness beyond weird: so absurd, opponents didn’t know how to fight back. When George W. Bush ran against Ann Richards for governor of Texas, Karl Rove spread the lie that she was a lesbian — and Bush won. When Bush ran against McCain in the primary, Rove spread the lie that McCain had an illegitimate black child — and McCain lost. When Bush ran against Kerry, there was the lie that Kerry wasn’t a war hero. Etcetera.

These days the lies are orchestrated by GOP operatives or internet conservatives, then spread by the internet, then they become “news” on Fox News, and then they’re reported by the MSM.

You know these BS memes. There’s a long line of them, mostly because a large slice of white Americans have a problem with there being a black family in the White House, but dare not say that out loud, so they’ve found other ways to express their I-want-my-white-country-back discomfort:

Obama wasn’t born in America.

Obama’s a socialist. (Yeah, the man who gives Goldman Sachs a pass is a socialist; he’s no socialist, he’s a goddam Wall Street capitalist puppet, for chrissake — get your slurs straight, people.)

Obama’s a Muslim. (The GOP’s latest election strategy is simple: “Get The Darkie.” When Mitch McConnell says he “takes the President’s word for it” that the President is a Christian, instead of saying it’s utterly wacko to call Obama a Muslim, Mitch is taking a rehearsed and focus-group-tested line straight off the GOP script of “Get The Darkie.” Let me be clear, folks: the GOP is running a flat-out 100% dinkum five-star all-in disgusting racist election campaign.)

And the “Ground Zero Mosque” is being built by Muslim extremists who are sticking their Muslim fingers in the eyes of all all-American Americans. Newt and company have just fucked General Petraeus two ways from Sunday back to Wednesday. The hapless General is trying to convince Afghanistan’s Muslims that we’re on their side, and now we’re talking major smack about the Muslims, and protesting at mosques from sea to shining sea. Heck, we’ve saved Bin Laden the trouble of having to shoot his videos. All he has to do is download Newt from the net, as well as selected Faux News folks, and hand the tapes to Al Jazeera. Al Qaeda couldn’t do it any better themselves, now that they have Faux News working for them.

Here’s the truth that Newt and Faux News and the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal are not man enough to tell you. What these lying wuzzes and wimps and cowards and pond scum from a BP oil spill haven’t mentioned is that this “mosque” is actually a cultural center with a basketball court and a pool and an auditorium and stuff to which they want to invite Jews and Christians (who sit on the center’s board), which also contains a prayer space (you know, like those shrines that New Age chicks have in a corner of their apartments, where they have to meditate for five minutes before they’re ready to fuck you).

In other words, Park51 is a kind of YMCA for Muslims and their Jewish and Christian friends. The developer says he wants to build “a world-class community center with the facilities all of New York can benefit from.” The center’s people have been advised by Jewish rabbi Joy Levitt and was inspired by — and is modeled on — the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, a Jewish cultural center. Calling Park51 a mosque is like calling a YMCA a cathedral.

The big worry that Rabbi Levitt shared with Muslim organizer Daisy Khan was this: would there be enough stroller space and shoe space? No wonder the plans were approved by the local community board. Furthermore, you can’t see this building from Ground Zero unless you have Superman eyes, because it’s two blocks away, and the New York Dolls Gentlemen’s Club, where chicks stick their nipples in your eyeballs, is a block closer. I guess it’s OK to have lapdancing a block away from Ground Zero, because having a chick grind her labia against your erect trouser snake honors the victims of 9/11 more than playing a friendly game of basketball with some American Muslim dudes. Hey, there might be a dirty bomb in the ball or something. Apparently the shuttered Burlington Coat Factory where the center is to be built is hallowed ground because a bit of plane fell on it. Well, I lived two miles from Ground Zero in 2001, and some 9/11 ash fell on my dick and my ass, and I invite Newt to come and kiss my hallowed ground.

What is this unbelievable crap the conservatives — those who serve the con — have come up with now? Why are Americans so stupid? It’s the Terri Schiavo circus all over again, except in this case the Hitchcock McGuffin is not a braindead woman but a basketball court with a prayer room attached. The center will be run by Kuwaiti-born Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his Indian architect wife Daisy Khan. Back in 2009, Daisy Khan was interviewed about the center by one of Faux News’ vocal blondes (I think it was Laura Ingraham) who told Daisy that she liked what Daisy was trying to do. No outrage then; there wasn’t an election imminent. Glenn Beck once sat down with Imam Rauf on TV, and acted all pally-wally with the Imam, and Becked his Glenn off about the beauty of the Muslim religion. Imam Rauf used to be employed by the State Department under Bush for outreach to Muslims overseas. The Imam and his wife are just the perfect sort of perfect Muslim leaders that right-wing pundits have perfect circle jerks over. This picture-book American Muslim couple are moderates who openly condemn Al Qaeda. They’re the kind of “peaceful Muslims” whom Sarah Palin asked to “refudiate” the “Ground Zero Mosque” (at this point Mama-Grizzly-in-Armani has a Giant Sequoia Tree’s worth of planks in her beautiful cranium). One of Rauf’s books is called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America. Rauf is a Sufi, like America’s favorite poet, Rumi. To my mind, the Sufis are Islam’s coolest folks — its most mystical branch. Demonizing this Imam of all Imams plays right into Al Qaeda’s propaganda that the West hates Islam and wants to destroy it. Newt Gingrich and his ilk are helping Al Qaeda’s propaganda come true.

But here’s the saddest thing about this anti-Muslim fear-and-hate-mongering: it really works. We have become a nation of dumbfucks who have forgotten our own constitution. We’re all adhering to the unwritten 28th amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no laws constraining or abridging the American people and their representatives from acting like the biggest dumbfucks on earth for all eternity.”

We are indulging a maximum dumbfuck like Sarah Palin in the national conversation because she’s shrewd and very beautiful (if she looked like Margaret Rutherford, she’d still be gutting fish in Wasilla). No matter that Mama Grizzly has the intellectual depth of the butt on a Ken doll. According to a poll last week, 68% of Americans don’t want this “mosque” built, and only 29% do. 68% Americans have fallen for out-and-out bigotry. With freedom of religion enshrined in our constitution, a majority of Americans are ready to demonize a religion followed by millions of Americans.

Very sad. Very pathetic. Very un-American.

I saw some bigot on TV who was very excited because he was hitting all his talking points. He said something like this: “We fully accept the right of Muslims to build the mosque there. It’s in the constitution. But this is not about their right. This is about showing sensitivity to the feelings of Americans.”

No, this is about showing sensitivity to Republicans trolling for votes in the worst way. It’s all of a piece with Andrew Breitbart “proving” that the NAACP is racist, or Glenn Back saying Obama “hates white culture” and is “the worst kind of racist.” Even President Obama said that although Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque wherever they want, he won’t comment on the wisdom of the move. That’s the most comment-laden no-comment I ever heard in my life. What a coward. Even Howard Dean wants a conversation with the anti-“Ground Zero Mosque” people. What a triangulating asshole. Even Democratic Party Senate Leader Harry Reid has joined the chorus of people who want to put all our mosques out to sea on BP oil rigs, because loony Sharron Angle is after his seat. Harry is such a fuckup, he’s threatened — and about to be beaten — by an idiot. He’s kowtowing to a prime grade A moron. What a spineless excuse for a human is Harry; I guess, being a Democrat, his lack of backbone is to be expected. (If Harry loses, it can only help the Democrats. Perhaps the next Democratic Senate Leader will grow the balls of a Nancy Pelosi, who has more balls than three Newts, two Bachmanns and one John McCain. And hey, with Michele Bachmann in the House, we’re still short a wacko in the Senate, a role that Sharron Angle can play with all the dignity of Lizzie “Forty Whacks” Borden.)

At least there’s one Republican with integrity who stands up for the “mosque”: Ron Paul. I don’t agree with him on much, but I admire him immensely for his reason-based slamming of the Iraq War and now for his libertarian-based slamming of the bigots in his party. Ron Paul is a man of honor, gonads and integrity, and one wonders what he’s doing in a party that lacks all three.

Which brings us to the media blowhards who lack these three qualities, plus a few other human peculiarities that differentiate us from bedbugs, like honesty, civility and morality. The bizarre irony about Glenn “Faux Tears” Beck’s job on Faux News is that it’s all about enriching a Muslim Saudi Prince, Prince Alwaweed bin Talai, the second biggest shareholder in Fox after the Murdoch family. That’s why Glenn Beck exists: to make a rich Saudi Muslim Prince richer.

The Prince’s uncle is King Abdullah, who runs an authoritarian dictatorship built on oil that practices strict Sharia law, oppresses women, exports its extreme Wahhabi strain of Islam to other countries, whose rich people (who are rich because we and other nations buy Saudi oil) send money abroad to support terrorism, and whose citizens used the 9/11 planes as missiles. Beck and O’Reilly and Hannity are the poodles of a Saudi Prince. How American is that? Isn’t that just a little insensitive to the American people? Isn’t that just a little venal and treacherous to make a Saudi royal laugh all the way to the bank? Isn’t that just a little unpatriotic to support a dude from a country that supports madrassas in other countries where the Taliban get their education? Isn’t that just a little Benedict Arnold-like to give your daily sweat and blood for a guy whose fellow nationals gave us 9/11? Aren’t Beck and O’Reilly and Hannity just a little too cozy with our enemies? Glenn Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity — aren’t they in bed with radical Islamic terrorists?

Just asking.

Let’s face it: the once Grand Old Party has morphed into the Grand Asshole Party: a party of assholes for assholes by assholes.

And our Evangelical Christians of a certain strain have become a religion of dumbfucks for dumbfucks by dumbfucks.

Remarkably, all this has happened in the land of the brave and the free. Makes you realize: we Americans are indeed very free. Free to make obnoxious fools of ourselves. Free to have the world laugh at us.

But where are the sane Christian and Republican voices crying shame and “refudiating” these bigots? There are only a few feeble echoes lost in the storm of bigotry.

Which leads us to a rather sad conclusion. We Americans are wimps on top of being chumps — indeed, not very brave at all.

Powered by

About Adam Ash

  • A little long winded, but good stuff, Adam — and only one sentence this time about Goldman Sachs, most recently your favorite villain.

    The mosque nonsense originated with some Orly-Taitz-level idiot nutcase named Pam Geller. She’s the one spreading the [completely unsupported] lie that this is a “victory monument” rather than a community center.

    Rachel Maddow refers to these serial lies, distortions and conspiracy theories as “Stories to Scare White People With” [along with 14th-Amendment-Anchor-Babies, our Secret Muslim President, and the Scary Evil ACORN]. And that is of course why opportunists like Gingrich and Palin latch on to them.

  • Clavos

    Anchor babies aren’t exactly a “lie,” handy. They ARE automatically US citizens and DO ensure their parents won’t be deported, even if that wasn’t the original intent of the parents in having them.

    Just sayin’

  • Wow! What a roller-coaster ride! Well done, Adam and except for Teri Shivo RIP I almost gave you a standing ovation.

    Wish it was a satire…

  • zingzing

    but what about the terrorist anchor babies, clavos? the ones that are born here, then whisked off into terrorist camps and trained for jihad for 20-30 years, then unleashed stateside to fulfill their parents’ murderous, death to america, yiyiyiyiyi plans? now that’s thinking ahead. only in texas.

  • “A little long winded,” says commenter #2. You can’t be serious! It’s only 5,529 words sprawled across 12 pages. How could a Blogcritics article be any more turgid and undisciplined than this? And all to prove the profoundly insightful point that, “We have become a nation of dumbfucks who have forgotten our own constitution.”

  • @ #6

    It’s better writing than yours, more creative

    you asked…

  • Adam Ash

    Dear Alan:
    Sorry about your attention span. I guess you grew up on “Saved By The Bell.”
    Dr Seuss is great, but it’s time to move on to chapter books, lad. Those are the ones without the pictures.

    Adam Ash

  • Clavos


  • The parents of the “anchor babies” have to wait until the kids are 21 for the kids to be able to help with the parents’ status. It’s not instantaneous. [The kids have to have an income also.]

  • Adam Ash (#9), I apologize. Completely misunderstood. Thought you were writing an Internet article here. Didn’t realize that you’d posted a “chapter book,” whatever the hell that is.

  • Clavos

    Not exactly, handy. If the government wants to deport the parents for being illegals, they cannot separate parents from child, nor can they force the child, a US citizen, to leave the country.

    Hence the reason for calling them anchor babies.

  • Handyguy,

    That’s interesting…it’s not immediate?

  • Whatever they are called, making these innocent babies a wedge issue will cost many votes in the next national election.

  • So, Clavos, you want to join the parade to amend the 14th amendment then?

    Anyhow, according to Wikipedia [please feel free to correct if wrong]:

    Approximately 88,000 legal immigrant parents of US citizen children have been deported in the past ten years for what were described as “minor criminal convictions” now classified as aggravated felonies, including nonviolent drug offenses, simple assaults, and drunk driving.

    Federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service or Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.

  • Those pesky, amendments…can’t throw em out…change em!

  • Clavos

    yeah, I am, handy.

    Btw, in your quote from Wiki: which are they? Legal or illegal? Both terms are there.

    Most Mexican illegals have no interest in becoming US citizens anyway. They usually return to Mexico after a few years, when they’ve accumulated enough money for a grub stake. Once they’ve got some money, life there is much more pleasant than here.

    And they are right; Mexico is a far freer (albeit poorer) country than the US is these days; life there is much better than here, that I also know — from personal experience.

    When I’m ready to stop working I, too, will go back home one day.

  • Zedd


    I would LOVE to get your comments about the contents of the article.

  • I wondered about the Wikipedia quote too, Clavos. Apparently the first sentence means even legal immigrants who are parents of citizen kids can be deported if convicted of a crime. The second sentence says the courts have upheld the refusal of the INS to stay deportations on the grounds of having citizen kids.

    Changing the constitution is, or should be, a big deal. The number of people affected by this “problem,” and the amount of economic activity affected, have been exaggerated for rhetorical effect by “immigration reductionists.” No amendment is likely, and it’s all about stirring up the base for the midterms.

  • Arch Conservative

    When did Adam become an editor?

    He writes twelve pages of bullshit about how Conservatives are going to hel and my comments are removed?

    Looks like the thought police are at it again.

  • Adam, before you knock Alan in reference to the length of this piece, you might want to wait until someone states what a great point you made on page 9. There’s no proof that the majority of commentors have made it that far at this point.

    I have yet to hear a good reason why illegal immigrants can show up, have a baby here, and the kid is automatically a U.S. citizen

  • Arch Conservative

    Page 9?

    I didn’t make it past the dumbass title.

    Page 9.


  • Arch Conservative

    There’s nothing speacial about you Adam.

    You’re just another left wing [edited] dilletante with an overinflated ego and too much time on your hands.

  • Zedd


    Enjoyed the rant. Thank you!!! Please keep being relentless!

    I remember as a late teen in the late eighties when I would listen to Christian radio, this stuff was brewing heavily. It felt like I was in the twilight zone. The bigotry and craziness was based on utter stupidity (nothing else). They were all so dumb but so earnest. They believed deeply thought they were being good.

    A few years earlier when Reagan was in office, they were delirious with worship. I remember conversations my parents had with their evangelical friends. We’d sit at dinner stunned (and secretly chuckling at the unbelievably stupid nature of what they believed) They dubbed Reagan a Believer and were almost drunk with gratitude for having a man who is born again, at the helm. The idiocy. Reagan was not a religious man, but because he was so (pretend) patriotic, they believed that he must love the Lord. They also took it for granted that my folks were Republicans, because they were Christians. It was all so sad yet innocent and frustratingly stupid.

    Newt and the rest watched all of the stupidity and heard choirs singing up above. It was a gift. Sheep out for slaughter. Jerry Falwell and the like were encouraged and formed The Moral Majority. Rove took notes and everything went down hill from there.

    Stupid is now king.

  • Jordan Richardson


    Was this your Google Word of the Day, Arch? Nice pull.

  • Adam Ash

    I apologize. I didn’t mean to stretch your mind so much it hurts. You’re like a guy who’s been going out with women five feet tall, and when you meet one who is 5′ 6″, you lose your erection. Listen, if the shock and pain persist, stay in bed tomorrow and read Little Lulu comics.

    Arch Conservative:
    I just love it when you get personal. I have two kids to look after, another album to record, a book to finish, a blog piece to finish this weekend for another blog where my pieces run 8,000 to 17,000 words, a one-man show to rehearse, and I’m also a caregiver to someone who needs me. What are you doing with your special life?

    Adam Ash

  • Arch ConscienceStain

    When did Adam become an editor?

    He writes twelve pages of bullshit about how Conservatives are going to hel and my comments are removed?

    One more comment and maybe they will make you editor-in-chief.

  • Arch Conservative

    You have two kids? Are you planning on passing your hatred of the world’s largest religion to them?

    Am I supposed to be impressed that you’re working on an album and writing a book? As if there wasn’t already enough bad music and literature in the world.

  • Hah! And they accuse me of making snotty comments? #25 is a classic of puerile witlessness.

  • Adam Ash

    Arch Conservative:
    The kids don’t seem interested in any religion. The closest thing they have to a religion is Pokemon.

    Arch, calm down, OK? You’re filling me with compassion. Stress is bad for you, dude. Take your meds and get a good rest tonight. You’ll feel better in the morning.

    Adam Ash

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Adam –

    I can relate – we take care of medically-fragile kids and we’re (still) trying to open an adult family home for the elderly who’ve no place else to go.

    Ever notice how caregivers such as thee and me tend to be liberal?

  • Clavos

    Not all caregivers, Glenn…

  • Clavos

    Another one of your unsustainable, ludicrous observations…

  • Arch Conservative

    I just think it’s ironic that a leftist will have the knee jerk reaction of calling a conservative who is critical of not the entire religion of islam but the more radical elements an islamophobe but then turn around and claim that anyone who’s ever picked up a bible is some kind of christian fundamentalist hell bent on creating a Christian theocracy in the US.

  • Clavos

    I have yet to hear a good reason why illegal immigrants can show up, have a baby here, and the kid is automatically a U.S. citizen.

    That’s because there isn’t one, EB.

  • Adam Ash

    Glenn Contrarian:
    It’s people like you who make the world go round for people who would otherwise suffer more than they already do.
    I take my hat off to you.
    I’m sure there are conservatives who are caregivers though. But somehow I doubt you’ll find them on this thread. People who get so angry in a comments section probably lack the normal quotient of empathy genes. Or their ideological blinders tune out the empathy.
    I often feel I ought to pat them on the head and tuck them in to make them feel better. They always act like their dog died an hour ago.

    Adam Ash

  • Clavos

    But somehow I doubt you’ll find them on this thread.


  • Adam Ash

    Sorry, Clavos. Wrong is wrong. Didn’t mean to impugn caregivers. Only pissy conservatives who get personal in lieu of debating. It’s odd how they lose their minds so double-quick. Somebody should write a book, “Yoga for Touchy Conservatives.”

    Adam Ash

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Another one of your unsustainable, ludicrous observations…

    Is it now? I agree wholeheartedly that there are conservative caregivers…but allow me to prove the likelihood of my claim. I think you must agree that the vast majority of caregivers are women, correct? Yes. And minorities are significantly more strongly represented among caregivers, right? Yes. And women are more likely to be liberal than men, right? Yes.

    Add to this the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act that the Obama Administration passed in May, and the endorsement Obama received from the American Nurses Association during the election…. Okay, sure. Are there hard-and-fast numbers that prove my claim beyond a reasonable doubt? No. BUT the demographics strongly indicate that the majority of caregivers are liberal…and the demographics DO matter. They’re crucial, in fact – just ask the Hispanic Republicans who came out against the Arizona illegal-immigrant law.

    Clavos, it’s as if to you, the only thing that matters is your own opinion – just like when you claimed that real Libertarians don’t vote Republican or Democrat, and I showed you that 98% of them did exactly that in the 2008 election.

    But if you’re willing to ignore all evidence, then no one will ever be able to prove anything to you.

  • zingzing

    archie: “Page 9? I didn’t make it past the dumbass title.”

    “He writes twelve pages of bullshit about how Conservatives are going to hel (sic)…”

    how do you know it’s bullshit? and how do you know that’s what it’s about? oh, you read the title. you should read “the sound and the fury.” it’s loud and angry.

  • To be honest, I don’t know if I should comment here. I didn’t make it past page 2. While it’s great to be a “caregiver” (whatever that really means) and while there’s no real difference between someone who is one and someone who might be one some day (or has been but is no longer), I’m not sure there’s a point in bringing it up in the comment section of a political article (or “chapter book”, if you will).

    While the small print says “Personal attacks are NOT allowed”, that’s just about all that goes on in this comment thread. While the article (as far as I read at least) opens up to just about only that, instead of structured political debate, it’s still not allowed, and I see a lot of competent writers here (yes, that includes you, mr.Ash) that are sinking to that level – a level we should really all try and stay above. The occasional snide phrasing to indicate that our level of discontent with the text’s writer’s opinions is higher than normal might be okay, but beyond that, I don’t think so.

    Maybe it’s just me.

    I may not be a caregiver (any more), and I may not have read the whole twelve pages of the article in question, but I do know, just from the two pages that I’ve read so far that I won’t be clicking on any more of mr.Ash’s articles. There’s nothing here that presents anything to challenge my wits or peak my interest in the issues it revolves around. And I am actually, genuinely sorry to see that, and say it.

  • Adam Ash

    Sommerfeldt has the right idea. If my writing bugs you, don’t read it. There are enough BC people who enjoy reading it and whose attention span is longer than a 4-year-old’s.

    Maybe there are some conservatives who want to engage with the substance of the article, thpugh they haven’t appeared yet. Or maybe they are there, but they can’t think of any counter-arguments.

    Anyway, thank you, Sommerfeldt.
    (BTW, the expression is “pique my interest” not “peak my interest.” If you want to comment in English, write proper English, dude.)

    Adam Ash

  • “Clavos, it’s as if to you, the only thing that matters is your own opinion …”

    Glen, not to pick a fight with you, but you should hear yourself at times. To presume that of a person is to impugn on their integrity or accuse them of close-mindedness. And in this particular instance, your “description” of Clavos is more applicable to you more than to him. It is you who offered this rather off-the-cuff observation – only to score a lousy political point – and he, quite rightly, challenged your home-grown theory.

    So it is you, Glen, not Clavos, who seem to full of opinions which you aren’t ready to let go because they support your liberal dogma.

    We’ve been over this before, but I guess I’m going to have to say it again. If “liberalism” is a better idea, argue for it in terms of ideas. But if you need “facts” to make you believe in it, especially half-baked facts, or to shut down your opponents, then your belief is a shallow one indeed and on a very shaky grounds. Which is why “liberalism” and its exponents are such an easy target, because however right the emotion, they’re delinquent when it comes to thinking.

    Ideas must be fought with ideas, Glen, not with “facts” which can be readily disputed. It’s the ideas that make impress on the mind, and compared to that, facts are just trivia.

  • Adam,

    Are you being a bit defensive here? You’ve got to admit that a twelve-page article is overlong for an Internet blog site, and it’s got nothing to do with anyone’s attention span. Of one thing I can assure you, if I were your editor, I would insist on breaking your “chapter” into parts, or else. Of course, it wasn’t my call.

    We’ve got some very fine minds here, which fact you’d surely notice were you to take part in some of the conversations which transpire here on a regular basis in connection with other articles. I don’t blame you, of course, because all serious writers are busy with their own stuff to be paying attention to such foolishness. The only point I’m making, since you obviously haven’t been paying attention, you shouldn’t be resorting to such cheap-shot retorts as “the attention span.”

    Lastly, some of your vitriolic responses to your critics don’t really speak well of your self-confidence as a writer. I would work on that if I were you.


  • @Ash
    “BTW, the expression is “pique my interest” not “peak my interest.” If you want to comment in English, write proper English, dude.”

    Whoops. Sorry, “dude”. I’ll keep that in mind. That said, what other language would I comment in? I actually do think that my English is as good as the English most people write, and better than the English some other people write, but thanks for pointing that out – it’s important to be open to constructive criticism.

    Now, I think you may have referred to my attention span as that of a four-year-old up there, but that doesn’t really matter. I read what I like, and I usually like what I write too, without the need to insult people who don’t agree with my opinions in general, or my opinion that what I write is mostly likable.

    I’m sharing Roger’s (comment #43) opinion that some of your rather insulting comments to the critics show a lack of that self confidence he speaks of.

    It would be nice to have comments stay on topic and out of the insults, but with your attitude towards others, that’s hard.

  • Parents with children born in the U.S. can and have been deported; thousands. Their “anchor” babies may only begin the family reunification process at age 21. And yes that does mean sometimes babies are separated from their parents, just as in the days of slavery.

  • Mr. Ash: I want to print this out and eat it for dinner, it’s just so buttery and delicious.

    Those who didn’t finish the article (and then admitted it):
    Really? No matter what you put in your comment, all I see is, “I also bought a house sight-unseen and then complained about the mold.” The article was 5k+ words, not pages or minutes or miles to trek. If it would’ve taken you more than 30 minutes to get through it, there’s something really wrong that needs some kind of professional assistance. If you didn’t have 30 minutes to spend on it, how did you have time to comment – some of you again and again? Tell me how you prioritize your time such that reading the entire article wasn’t on your to-do list (but commenting about an article you haven’t read is) and I’ll tell you how one of your priorities is talking out of your ass – right before I sell you a house.

  • Adam Ash

    Compare these two responses and tell me who’d you rather have a beer with.

    Here’s Arch Conservative:
    “You have two kids? Are you planning on passing your hatred of the world’s largest religion to them?
    “Am I supposed to be impressed that you’re working on an album and writing a book? As if there wasn’t already enough bad music and literature in the world.”

    Here’s Adam Ash:
    “The kids don’t seem interested in any religion. The closest thing they have to a religion is Pokemon.
    Arch, calm down, OK? You’re filling me with compassion. Stress is bad for you, dude. Take your meds and get a good rest tonight. You’ll feel better in the morning.”

    And I’m the one being vitriolic? Really? Arch is spewing the old acid like a vomiting volcano, and I’m trying to be funny. What planet are you critiquing from, Roger? These guys are taking time out to spew their crap at me when they’re read two pages of the article. Yeah, I should’ve had sub-headlines, I forgot this time, and I apologize for that. I screwed up. But I don’t go around using other people’s kids for my venom.

    I try to kid and tease and put down my critics with a wink and a smile, and these “critics” are just plain angry and insulting with not the slightest attempt at any banter. I react to other people’s idiocy with humor, and you say I’m vitriolic.

    Your false equivalence between their shitty venom and my kidding around with them is as stoopid as the false equivalence a rapist makes between himself and his victim. Spare me, Roger.

    Adam Ash

  • Huh.
    That’s fascinating. In one comment, where you try to come off as the good guy, you’ve managed to call those who criticize your article idiots (“I react to other people’s idiocy with humor”), shitty and venomous (“their shitty venom and my kidding around”), stupid (you use “stoopid”, which is a nonstandard, emphatic form, but still – try and use proper English if you’re going to comment in English, dude), in need of medication (“Take your meds and get a good rest”) and likened your critics to rapists (“as stoopid as the false equivalence a rapist makes between himself and his victim”).

    You know what, I at least would rather have a beer with Arch.

  • Adam Ash

    Brilliant. Thank you.

    I see I double posted. Sorry, it’s the fault of my short attention span.

    I apologize to all my critics who couldn’t read more than two pages of my article, but can spend days on the comment thread attacking what they think the rest of the article says.

    They’re obviously not short on attention span. Just long on stupidity. Oy vey, there I’ve done it again, gone and been vitriolic. Apologies, my touchy little venom spewers. As FDR said, I welcome your hatred. To paraphrase Pat Benatar, come on, hit me with your best spew.

    Roger, since you’re so concerned about my self-confidence as a writer, I urge you to google my internet article “The World Cup, My White Afrikaner Skin, My Fascist Parents, Mandela, Obama and Forgiveness” where you’ll learn all about me.

    Only problem: it’s 17,000 words. Thousands have read it, though. It’s got lots of handy sub-heads. If you don’t want to read it, that’s OK. Just thought I should mention it. I wouldn’t want you to worry too much about my self-confidence, or waste your time patronizing me from your high perch somewhere above Mount Valhalla. Ickiness does not become you.

    On the other hand, it would be great to have you as an enemy. You’d be a worthy one compared to the midgets on this thread. Damn, there I’ve gone and been vitriolic again. Sorry, all you sensitive conservatives. Wink, wink, smile, smile.

    Adam Ash

  • Archie has his good and bad moments, Adam. He’s just as concerned about the course this country is taking as you are – and mostly for the same reasons, I would say. You would know that if you were to follow the discussion on some of the threads.

    Archie’s problem is – all too often he strikes at the wrong kind of target – the liberals, the Left, Obama, etc. He knows better of course, he knows that the problems we’re facing are systemic and endemic. It’s just that oftentimes he can’t help it, and he’s lashing out.

  • Not concerned about your self-confidence as a writer, Adam; it’s your problem, if it is a problem, not mine.

    I was only going by your apparent need to resort to cheap shots and the like when responding to some of the critics (however unseemly their behavior).

    You could have simply ignored it. The fact that you’re engaging in these food fights, especially over what I consider a valid complaint, such as the length of your article, is what tells me you have a confidence problem (which is different, BTW, from the quality of one’s writing).

    And no, I couldn’t get through your article either, but let me assure you: I don’t suffer from any ADO.

  • Adam Ash

    I don’t know what it is, but I seem to cause a lot of bad moments for Arch. I mean, he came out of the gate full-throttle on this thread, and he didn’t even read the piece. What am I to do — go easy on that?

    I ratchet up my response to the level of the attack, and I try to be funny at the same time, though not always. Maybe others don’t see the chuckle behind my vitriol, but I’ve always got a gleeful smile on my face when I write my responses. But some of the conservative critics are so relentlessly grumpy. It’s like having that bad uncle at Thanksgiving who spoils all the fun at his end of the table.

    Got to take the kids to the park. Back later.

    Adam Ash

  • Adam,

    No matter what critic I have given your, politics, I hope you are not including me in comments #47, #48.

    I do read the articles before blasting off or giving MO.

    I myself am sick of being portrayed as the moral police, when I defend others or myself.

    Why are these individuals allowed to troll around, deliberately attacking the writers the commenters, anyone they feel like attacking, even, Eric and his family?

    I have watched as new authors submit their hard work for Free to, “There I said It!” only to be shot down by this , inferior, small-minded little pest who happens to write.

    I would love to start writing here again, but in the corner of my mind is a little hesitation, and I’m not alone.

    : [

  • Critic? no that’s not right…oh well Mox nix.

  • Archie ain’t that bad, Adam. Just got to give him a chance. For one thing, he speaks from the heart. And he isn’t as conservative as most people are making him out to be (although he doesn’t quite know it yet).

    Of course it’s difficult to be dealing with his caustic comments when he attacks your article, because it’s hard not to take it personally.

  • Roger,

    Why are you defending these actions?

    You would think that at least the people who read your articles would be treated with enough respect to address in the threads.

  • I’d just like to say that I spent twelve minutes of my life reading your 12 pages of… whatever it is.

    Ranting, profanity, dirt slinging and nonsensical rambling on about something I’m not sure you even know anything about (yes, even after 12 pages of writing about it).

    Weird comparisons, factual errors and enough non-proper English to astound anyone – and you even found the time to include a few mathematical errors. I’m impressed.

    I sure hope you keep a more civil tongue with those to whom you are the “caregiver”.

    Sorry. I read your whole article at least – be happy about that. Dude.

  • Sommerfeldt,

    Scanning skeletons? I need a break, bye 🙁

  • Jeannie, I don’t believe I’m on the defensive on my own threads, nor do I believe in exchanging insults on my or any other threads. All I addressed is the length of Adam’s article and his responses to criticism – not the content. So I really don’t see what your complaint is.

  • Rogrer,
    Why are you right there to placate anyone who speaks up and out on these threads…you may not *exchange insults*, but you sure sit back and watch them fly.

  • Adam Ash

    Sommerfeldt says:
    I sure hope you keep a more civil tongue with those to whom you are the “caregiver”.

    Roger, it’s stuff like this comment from Sommerfeldt that I object to. It speaks not only to his differences with me politically — and he has not yet taken on a single argument of mine — and to his confusion between “pique”and “peak”, and to his lack of a sense of humor, but also to his failure as a human being. If this is how he speaks about genuine suffering, he is not worth engaging with on any level by anyone. Arch did the same thing about the kids in my life. You’re cutting these moral dwarves too much slack. In my home language we have an expression: mix yourself with pig fodder and the pigs will eat you.

    I don’ think a complaint about length has any validity at all whatsoever. Either you’re going to read a piece or not. It’s a free country. Don’t read it and move on. But to attack an article that you haven’t read, and then complain about its length … where is the logic in that? It’s a little like killing your parents and pleading for mercy because you’re an orphan.

    When people use your kids or your caregiving as attack tools, then you have to question not only their politics, but their basic humanity and morality. That’s exactly what my piece is about. And here come Arch and Sommerfeldt to prove my point. Kind of funny. They’re sort of like Newt Gingrich and Franklin Graham, but writ much smaller.

    Or maybe I’ve got it all wrong, and Arch and Sommerfeldt are both scripted by Monte Python. Perhaps it’s best to think of it like that. Andy Borowitz is writing satire for BC’s comment threads, and messing with our minds.

    Adam Ash

  • Apparently, you’re in a fighting mode, Jeannie, and I don’t care to participate.

    Have a good day.

  • right, bye bye now, Roger

  • Fair enough, Adam. I won’t comment about the length of the piece. Good luck.

  • Clavos

    I read the whole thing — I had to, I published it.

    But I wouldn’t have if I had merely been reading it for myself — not because of its length,but because of the offensive language, which I found to be gratuitous and of little purpose.

    Chacun à son goût.

  • how do you know that’s what it’s about? oh, you read the title. you should read “the sound and the fury.” it’s loud and angry.

    zing, perhaps Archie should read Virginia Woolf’s Orlando too. He’ll like it. It’s about the fun capital of Florida.

  • zingzing

    “zing, perhaps Archie should read Virginia Woolf’s Orlando too. He’ll like it. It’s about the fun capital of Florida.”

    and “the catcher in the rye!” the descriptions of farming, triple-a baseball and how to craft rye whiskey are the best!

  • Adam Ash

    My girlfriend just read the thread and she agrees with you — I come off defensive. She used some stronger language: “you’re being childish, you shouldn’t engage with people on such a low level.” So sorry, Arch and Sommerfeldt, it was fun while it lasted, but the missus has warned me off you. Still, feel free to get as personal as you like.

    There were one or two typos. Were they yours or mine? Thanks, I thought it was an excellent job. I get “gratuitous” all the time, along with “bravo.” Maybe it’s a matter of taste, maybe not.

    That “sound and fury” crack of yours really made my day. Very, very funny.

    Adam Ash

  • @Ash – I tried long and hard to keep the thread on topic, until I posted comment #49. After that, you’re pretty much fair game in my opinion.

    I took to heart your complaint that people who hadn’t even read your article commented here, and I took the time and put in the effort to read all of it. I still didn’t like it, but for so many more reasons that I had in the beginning.

    I don’t know where you get your opinion of my comments from, but if you look back over the comments, I messed up one word and hadn’t read the whole of your article. You attacked me on both those points, never mind what I said about the article. One I can’t do anything about – I won’t screw up those again, thanks to you, so that’s good, but the other is amended.

    I don’t think it was me that got personal – but I can see that there’s no getting into any constructive argument with you.
    I’m glad I at least learned one thing from all this – not to write “peak” when I mean “pique”. I don’t think you learned anything at all, and that’s a little sad.

    Have fun.

  • @Jeannie;
    Yes, well… I find that more interesting than 1930’s French bisexual poets and their erotic frustrations.
    I respect your fancy, maybe you should respect mine.

  • Arch Conservative

    Adam writes an article of which the title Intimates that all Conservatives and Republicans are going to hell and then has the nerve to get his panties in a bunch when conservatives use language he finds “vitriolic.”

    Pot meet kettle.

    When it comes to blogs civility is overrated, as long as there is something of substance to go along with all of the “vitriole.” Say what you will about my posts but they pretty much never consist of just insults. I always make a concerted effort to address the topic at hand in some meaningful way.

    Most of the people on here are way too politically correct and way too thin skinned. The internet’s relative anonymity allows one the comfort of being completely honest. I have a genuine loathing for the far left ideology and that comes out in pretty much every one of my posts. [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor] But despite the fact that I despise the leftist world view and those who espouse it I never call for them to be censored which is more than I can say for some [edited]

  • @Sommerfeldt;

    I was interested in learning more about that skeletal ex-ray…maybe you read more into my comment than you should have, and Anias wasn’t frustrated. You obviously have never read her or Henry, have you?

  • The internet’s relative anonymity allows one the comfort of being completely honest.

    Oh, really? That’s all? Just honest, and not barbaric or crude?

  • Archie, you also have a genuine loathing for the far-right ideology, though you’re not quite ready to admit it.

    As to internet anonymity, it’s a double-edged sword. And while it does allow you to be “brutally honest,” it’s also a coward’s way of being “brutally honest” when you think about it. Some of the things not only you but others as well say online would result in bashed heads, and you well know it. Besides, it’s not really what human, personal communications ought to be about – which has more to do with relating than with anything else, with reaching points of agreement, however minimal common ground.

    In short, if all you’re interested in expressing your own opinion and venting, then yes, I suppose it serves your purpose. But even venting has its limits. And you are misusing even the internet if that’s all you want to accomplish. You might as well punch a hole in the wall to the same effect, and I can assure you – it’ll make you feel much better.

  • John Wilson

    I enjoyed the article, although one could complain it’s a bit uneven, it was condemning on all sides and left no sacred cows.

    Best of all, it had a sort of ribald humor and was literate.

    Sure, it’s basically leftist, but it has no reluctance to attack the left, too.

    Best of all, it was fun. Why is it that no rightist is this much fun? Is it because they must pull-up before attacking their own?

  • @jeannie;
    If I misunderstood, I’m sorry. This thread got me on the defensive too, I guess.

    Anyway, I always thought of Nin’s relationship with June – or the lack of such – as a frustration for her, also seeing what Nin would sacrifice for her, and that it never actually led to anything.

    I may be way off though. 🙂

  • Sommerfeldt,

    You are if you watched that Hollywood crap, read the books. 🙂

    Thanks, now I have to explain this by-sexual remark! LOL

  • Jeannie, you’re welcome. 😉
    Alright, I admit to having watched Hollywood crap, and not read enough (read some, but evidently not enough).
    I promise I’ll hit the books instead of Hollywood crap. 😀

  • Clavos

    John Wilson #75:

    It’s because we’re all stodgy and humorless and take ourselves far too seriously…

  • Neil Madden

    Excellent post.

  • askduane

    The title of this article defines the intelligence. All mankind will die some day and cease to exist, there is no firey hell, that’s a myth. All die and go back to the ground where he came from.

    How do you spot a false preacher/teacher of God’s Word the Bible? One who’s into politics and political parties.

    Jesus clearly said: I’m no part of this world, my Kingdom is not from here. And my followers are no part of this world either.

    True Christians are followers of Jesus they don’t get involved in political debates with this government. When you see one doing it, he’s a false Christ, or antichrist, meaning he’s really against Christ. I heard a Preacher promoting Conservatism in his sermons on tv. this man is a antichrist. He’s not a follower of Jesus the Christ, he’s following “traditions of men” in the name of Christianity. Hell is nothing but the grave where we all go when we die. And knowone goes to Heaven unless Jesus approves you from the Father. The Pope and Catholic Priests don’t want people to read the Bible on there own. why? because they will find the truth and catholic religion was built on a lie, they added to the word of God and took away from the word of God. That’s why they are having problems today, The True God is slowly shutting them down, exposing who they really are.

  • @#81;
    You know, I don’t think you’ve read the Bible, “askduane”. If you had, you would know what it says about politics and governments, and you know what? Its views is something completely different than yours.

  • Zedd


    This was article said some really important things. Why are you diminishing it’s relevance by going on and on about nothing? Very typical of liberals. Just don’t know how to win.

  • Zedd

    Besides, Mercury has been in retrograde.

    Thought I’d give the libs an out. :o)

  • Zedd,

    Are you complaining about the comment thread or Adam?

    🙂 ?

  • Zedd

    Not a complaint really. Adam has permanent cool points. My comment is addressing the thread and yes, his comments.

  • Points, Zedd, which are fairly obvious to any thinking person, points besides which we hear over and over again. Writing a piece for BC, IMO, should do more than allow one to express his or her frustration. The comments section is a better forum for that.

    The worst sin of all, this lengthy piece could be reduced to three pages and produce a far greater effect.

  • Adam Ash

    I’m not commenting again. This is my last comment on this thread.

    In hindsight, I never should have commented. On some other articles I wrote, like the one about Shirley Sherrod, many substantitive issues were lustily debated, but on this article people just got weird after they read one or two pages instead of reading the whole thing. And then they complained it was too long, like Roger is complaining here.

    I don’t see how I could’ve written about the bigotry of the Republican agenda and the Evangelical agenda, the fraudulent Republican election agenda, the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy, the cowardice of Obama, Howard Dean and Harry Reid, the anti-gay agenda, etc. etc, in a traditional length. It was basically six or seven articles in one, too much for many to take.

    When you deal with literary agents, you have to watch out for one big thing: whether the agent wants you to write the book the agent would have written, or wants you to write the book you want to write. I think something like this operated here. The breaking of a tradition will always freak out traditionalists.

    From now on I will only weigh in on substance. Not one comment on this thread, in over 80 comments, either from the left or the right, has been about substance. I am open to correction, but that’s the way I remember it. There was a comment early on describing evangelists thinking Reagan was a devout Christian that I found very instructive, and taught me something I never knew before,

    As far as my food fights with Arch and Sommerfeldt go, I am sorry I engaged and I’m ashamed of myself. I apologize deeply for that. It won’t happen again.

    Adam Ash

  • Adam, I never disagreed with you about the substance. There’s bigotry on both sides of the aisle, as you maintain. I just think you took too much upon yourself in this single article, trying to cover that many instances and examples.

    So perhaps in the final analysis you’re right – it has got to do with the attention span. For myself, I didn’t need any convincing, which is why, perhaps, I wasn’t as enthused about this article as I might have been.

    A bullet-points approach, nice and sweet, would have been much more effective for an article of this size and scope.

  • And don’t forget the name of this site, Blogcritics.

    It’s not for nothing, for we surely do live up to that name, don’t we?

    Speaking for myself, I’ve surely improved some of my skills as a writer as a result of some constructive, however biting, criticism. In any case, I had no other ulterior motive in mind other than tell you what I really think.

  • Which brings us full circle back to my comment #5: the writing in this article is undisciplined. And for saying that, I got condescended to by this snotty author.

    Dear Alan:
    Sorry about your attention span. I guess you grew up on “Saved By The Bell.”
    Dr Seuss is great, but it’s time to move on to chapter books, lad. Those are the ones without the pictures.

    To which the wise and all-knowing Clavos added, “Cute.”

    Yeah, great thread alright. But tell me, who set the tone?

  • Clavos

    To which the wise and all-knowing Clavos added, “Cute.”

    Too bad you didn’t see the sarcasm in that, Alan, perhaps it was hidden from you by your obvious inferiority complex.

    I’m sure everyone else, including Adam, did.

  • John Wilson

    Too many BC threads degenerate into substance-less food fights. Very uninteresting.

  • Calling Howard Dean a coward because you disagree with him on one issue [the Islamic Community Center] is hyperbolic.

    Howard ain’t no coward!

  • Too bad you didn’t see the sarcasm in that, Alan, perhaps it was hidden from you by your obvious inferiority complex. – Clavos (#92)

    Cute, Clavos. Say, by the way, why don’t you explain to everyone again how you did such a fabulous job of “editing” this article. I didn’t quite follow that the first time around. Do you mean to say it was more than 12 pages of turgid incoherence before you “edited” it?

  • Zedd


    The beauty of the Internet is that it gives us so much freedom.

    It is certainly a work-around to the disservice that is brought by the MSM.

    Under normal circumstances I would agree with you on the length of the article. When Sane Dan writes his articles, I immediately feel tired. As much as i appreciate his way of thinking (whether I agree with him or not), I often don’t have the time to read his stuff then comment cogently. However, what Adam said (Im calling it a rant) so needs to be said. We’ve heard all sort of angry lies from the right. We need a passionate yet truthful and relevant rebuttal.

  • I don’t feel I need to dispute the Right. It’s a wasted effort. I just ignore it. As to freedom, I have no lesser freedom in personal communications.

    Of course, what I say and how I say it is always directed at a particular person, according to my estimate of them. But then again, I follow pretty much the same MO online.

  • Republicans