Election 2012! Who Won? Who Lost?

     My mother used to bum around the house in this ratty, faded old t-shirt.  The shirt read, "A woman's place is in the house...and Senate!"  You see, my folks weren't just from the 60s, they were OF the 60s.  I didn't see a lot of tye-dye shirts or batik tapestries growing up around our home, though there were plenty of Joan Baez, Bob Dylan and CSN (and sometimes Y) records.  My folks weren't hippies per se, at least not the dope smoking, Dead following, Woodstock going, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi loving kind.  They were political though, and they could sing all the words to "The Draft Dodger Rag" by Phil Ochs which is pretty damned cool.  There were campus buildings stormed and protests and the March on Washington.  As they grew older, there were jobs with the head-start program around Washington DC, college teaching and eventually both of my parents worked for or with unions.  What I'm saying is that I'm totally screwed, because the impulse that drives me to speak or write when I see something interesting, wrong, beautiful, or divisive and fight for what I believe in is not just in my blood...it is in the learned behavior from my parents as well.  I simply cannot stand back and say or do nothing.  I cannot be apolitical.  I've tried.
     So let us speak of the election.  Who lost last night?  Mitt Romney did, though his concession speech was outstanding and inspiring.  Who else lost last night:
The far right which would seek to subvert America with its own agenda along with people who think that rape and god are tied together and that abortion should be legislated accordingly.
'merica.
Independent voting and candidates.
Campaign reform.
Whitey and cracker-ass-crackers.
Debt reduction based on budget process restructuring.
Religious oppression.
People who can't define socialism and Marxism.
Those who seek to oppress women and see them as second class citizens.
Racists.
Birthers.
Donald fucking Trump.

So, who won?
Obama.
The United States of America.
Centrists and moderates.
Love and civil unions/marriage freedom.
Gerrymandering (Marylanders, fuck you very much for killing democracy!)
Religious freedom.
Affordable healthcare and people with pre-existing conditions.
Science.
Gaming concerns and gambling addicts.
Ethnic minorities.
Weed.
Big Bird. 

     There's many more on both lists, but you can figure it out.  Clownies be smart readers.
     The fact that so many of the races were very, very close goes to show that candidates on the far right and far left still have to fight very hard to win an election.  Thank god or the void or whatever that they usually lose.  Most of us live, work, think and believe somewhere in the center of possibilities and ideologies.  If you do not court this moderate center then you cannot win elections in most of the country.  Also, don't blow off, piss off or write off the ethnic minorities in this country if you want to hold office.  Take that bitchez!
     That's it I guess.  I'm still going to be around talking about stuff I love and stuff that pisses me off.  This was never meant to be a political blog.  I suppose that timing is everything.  So stay close people and I'll keep filling in your empty holes with information and saucy satire. 
'Nuff said.


Caustic the Clown

P the fuck. S. Now is the chance to abandon your party.  Do.  It.  Now.  Don't wait until the next election.  Go down to the post office this week and re-register as anything but a D or an R.  Seek out your future independent candidates and volunteer for their election bids.  Give them some money for crying out loud.  Call or email your elected officials and let them know you want to see Green party, Constitutional party and Independent candidates in future debates.  Encourage your local blogs, radio stations, news outlets all to do stories on these candidates.  Only then can we kill the two party system, and it damn well needs to die.

What is "Pro-Life"? A Redefinition.

Happy Halloween, Clownies!  I hope all of you survived Sandy with minimal destruction.

     I just read a killer op-ed piece in the NY Times by columnist Thomas Friedman.  He has some pretty choice questions for all of us to ask ourselves about what "pro-life" means.  You should click on the link and read that article now if you haven't already.  Don't worry.  I'll still be here when you get back.
     Now I'm not going to rehash the entire article, but in a minute we'll review some key points.  First, let me state that Tommy boy and I don't agree on all of his talking points.  Friedman considers New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to be the most "pro-life" politician in the country because of the nanny state he's created.  I noticed that Tom falls short of actually approving of Bloomberg's policies.  He simply notes that Bloomberg has earned the right to be called "pro-life"...really pro-life in the ways that are important to Friedman.  I think that Bloomberg's government interference in the diets of New Yorkers is absolutely sickening.  But then, you can't have it both ways.  You can't let people poison themselves voluntarily all their lives and then let them take advantage of medicare and medicaid later for the disastrous consequences of their life habits.  Alternatively, if you take away everyone's right to slowly kill themselves with food and cigarettes then you sure as shit better put into place some solid healthcare for those you have forced into playing by the rules.  But I digress.  This is about the definition of "pro-life", not about the role of government in our fatty or sugary diets...at least not entirely.
     So what does "pro-life" mean?  As far as I can tell, it means pro-fetus only to many conservatives.  "Pro-life" conservatives want to be able to dictate legally what happens to a unborn fetus until it is safely born.  Then, it's hands off.  Friedman calls people with this approach "pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative(s)".  This is an apt description.  If you want to believe that life begins at conception, and we can all pretty much believe that life ends with death then how can you stop being 'pro-life" at birth???  See what I'm saying here?  This is a serious WTF moment folks.  When you want to cut school meal programs, WIC (Women, Infants and Children supplemental nutrition program), welfare programs, government mandated insurance, and other programs that help people live, then how can you call yourselves "pro-life".
     Friedman goes on to address weapon ban legislation.  If you allow people to own weapons that go far beyond hunting and home protection, guns that are designed for military use in wartime, then how can you be "pro-life"?  These are weapons designed to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time.  There is nothing "pro-life" about them.  Now I'm leery of weapons bans myself.  I do think there is a place in home use for assault weapons.  If there is a chance that I have to defend myself against zombies (somewhat likely) or a tyrannical government (moderately likely) or a full country invasion by aliens or a foreign power (I think that is scheduled to happen later this week) then I want quick access to anything from a M16 to an RPG.  I don't own any weapons of that sort, but they sure do look like a lot of fun.  Of course, I haven't labled myself "pro-life".  Gun bans are a slippery slope and I lean towards private citizens having too much access to guns rather than not enough.  That's just me.
     The environment is another one of Thomas Friedman's writing points.  How can you limit, restrict or underfund the EPA and still call yourself "pro-life"?  Damn good question T-Fried!  You have to remember that the Republicans (and some Democrats...incl. Obama) devastatingly bypassed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and other environmental protections to promote natural gas production in 2005.  Is this "pro-life"?  How is eliminating health safeguards "pro-life".  It isn't.  It's "fuck-life".  So climate scientists overwhelmingly believe that the earth is warming.  There is a chance that by limiting greenhouse gasses and other pollutants we can slow or reverse that process.  Yet conservatives want less environmental restrictions on power industries.  That doesn't sound right, and it sure as shit doesn't sound "pro-life".
     One point Friedman misses a golden opportunity to discuss is the death penalty.  Folks, the word death is right the fuck in there.  Can you be "pro-life" and pro death penalty?  I.  Don't.  Think.  So.  Hey, now!  These people committed atrocities!  They threw away their rights when they went to the dark side!  Did they?  Why not leave them to rot in prison for awhile and save some money on long court cases and lengthy appeals.  And of course, our legal system is flawless, so there's no chance that we'll kill innocent people.  Right?  Nope.  Is killing innocent people "pro-life"?  Is killing guilty people?
   Here are some other dropped balls by Friedman.  What about selective service?  Is that "pro-life"?  Wars?  Is supporting US actions in foreign lands "pro-life"?  How many politicians have children in the military, fighting in the middle east and elsewhere?  What about adoption?  Where are all the adopted children from the "pro-life" people?  I know some who have adopted children, but not every one of them.  It is the ultimate hypocritical horseshit for someone to be "pro-life" and not to have adopted a single child.  That is the same NIMBY bullshit that gets liberals into trouble all the time.  You know why liberals are "pro-choice"?  Because they don't want a bunch of inner city kids running around their front yards and mooching their true-born children's college funds.  So they send tools to the city.  Most of those tools don't work well, but they can at least sleep at night.  Take some of their tax money and send it out of the suburbs to help the inner city poor and misguided as it is their consciences are clean.
     So here we are, with conservative voters and politicians willing to hang the "pro-life" label on themselves, but only as it relates to fetuses or unborn children as some like to call them.  In a world where we're discussing "legitimate rape" and the ability for a woman's body to shut down to avoid pregnancy, a world where voters may be for the death penalty, for assault weapon ownership, for gas and oil industry, anti-welfare, anti-insurance regulations and mandates, anti-EPA, anti-union, how can anybody, conservative or liberal, republican or democrat label themselves as "pro-life".  Thanks to Thomas Friedman for inspiring this entry.

Here's George Carlin's take on the same concept from many years back.

 If you like this article, don't forget to share it around the web!  There's a button for that down here somewhere...and please feel free to leave your comments in teh section below.  Go America!  Scratch that.  Let's reach across the color aisle here.  Go America!

Fo Reelz,  

Caustic the Clown

Not An Exciting Debate

G'Morning, Clownies! 
     Already I'm hearing from people this morning on how one candidate crushed the other.  I didn't see a lot of crushing.  I saw two well rehearsed and studied candidates, smug looks while waiting to speak, and a lot of agreement on what problems currently plague this country.
     Man.  Obama sure is a windbag.  I listened to his anniversary wishes to Michelle and then just tuned out!  No.  I didn't do that.  It was neat to watch Mitt realize as the debate wore on that if he didn't talk over Jim Lehrer, then he wasn't going to get to match Obama on time.  He stepped it up and stopped taking no for an answer.  Here's a nice story from FOX about how much Jim sucks.  I can't find a debate fact check page on their site.  Isn't that wack?  Yes.  Whatever that means.
     I would have loved to hear what the candidates said to each other as they walked out and shook hands cordially.  My tele was not up loud enough for that.  Sad.  I don't have the time for a blow by blow so here's some quick highlights:
     Romney busted Obama's chops for not being more aggressive with revising and then promoting Simpson-Bowles.  He was right to do so.  It isn't that Simpson-Bowles is a flawless cure-all plan to destroy the deficit, but that Obama could have been working harder to lower the deficit even in a down-turned economy.  We can discuss Congress' current lack of movement and whether or not Obama can reach across the aisle without totally watering down the effectiveness of any given bill or budget plan, but we're not going to.  Tough titties.
     Romney once again misrepresented the $716 billion dollar Medicare cut.  Can we drop this already?  The cut doesn't affect benefits for people that receive medicare.  Ok?  It doesn't.  Also, let us not forget that Paul Ryan has, in the past, promoted a similar cut to Medicare, but without Obamacare to keep the benefits stable.
     Obama took some hits on failed alternative energy companies like Solyndra.  We all understand that Bush II started the initiative that allowed for guaranteed loans to clean energy projects.  Right???  The Obama Stimulus Package also allowed for money to go to clean energy.  Congress approved that package.  The program, started by Bush, and maintained by Obama has been a success per the original aim and concept of the plan.  The House has investigated Solyndra for over a year and has turned up "no wrong doing".  Who controls the House again?  Nuff said.
     Both candidates want to cut the deficit.  Obama wants to use a balanced approach and Romney doesn't want to increase revenue.  Obama is right on this.  Taxes have to go up for the wealthy.  Romney and Obama both want to close loopholes in the tax codes, which is great, but what deductions does Mitt want to eliminate?  He didn't really get into that.  Which isn't great.  I like my deductions very much.
     The bottom line:
    The debate was light on zingers.  That is real classy, but sad.  I love zingers (pronounced New York style - zing-guz).  Both candidates conducted themselves professionally and civilly.  That is super classy, but boring as shit.  We got no meltdowns, no explosions, and no sweating through shirts.  We all know what the problems are, but the solutions we have either don't work, don't work fast enough, or are untested.  Last night I learned nothing that I didn't already know.  So, all things considered I would have rather been watching the new release of The Princess Bride on Blu-ray.

Here's some links for debate fact checking, because even though you smell funny, I respect you.  The lying and bullshit were minimal, but awesomely even from both candidates.  Well, almost awesomely even.

Here is a fact check list from npr.  Check it out.  There are other good ones around the web as well and most of them agree with each other.
Factcheck.org Dis one is super short, sweet and fair.
Politifact.com Dis one has real purty pichers.
Salon.com 
The Daily Beast 

Please feel free to leave your impressions on last night's debate in the comment area below.  Don't forget to share this page on Facebook and Twitter and get me more peeps to preach to!  Amen brothers and sisters!

Caustic the Clown

Calling All Trolls!

To the Clownie trolls in my entourage,

     The Tea Party Birthers are alive and well and creeping around the darkest corners of facebook...right...about...here.  See them?  Their ratty whiskers poke out from behind the wall just before their disease infested noses.  You can hear them scuttling behind the old drywall, feeding on the crumbs of propaganda and misinformation.  Please take some time each day to go on here, troll these douche bags and drop some facts on they asses.  Throw yourself down on the flaming sword of righteousness and you will then be an hero.

     While you're at it, go here and keep the liberals honest as well.  These people more than occasionally cross the lines of accuracy and good taste.  YOU can be the fact checker.  It's true.  Fact checking is what's for dinner and no organization with a political agenda should be immune to your appetite for scrutiny!!!

Viva La Revolucion,

Caustic the Clown