Monthly Archives: February 2008

Karma Police

Not to be obsessing over this or anything, but I went to see Hillary today and there were boys outside with signs.  Signs that they used to stand in the middle of the street and demand people to honk for Obama.  When several cars refused to honk for Obama or, heaven forbid, shouted support for us Hillary supporters waiting patiently in line on the other side of the street, these boys would scream insults and flip middle fingers to the drivers.

However, it gets worse – one of their signs read “Bro’s before ho’s [sic].”   They held a sign with a blatantly misogynistic word and intent outside a political campaign event for someone who is a respected international leader, Senator, former First Lady, and human being.  These boys preferred to boycott a woman who has fought for decades for what she’s believed in.  They found it necessary to hurl insults at her and her supporters and to use horrendously awful language to humiliate us and deride our political decision.

I have never, ever seen a Hillary campaigner or supporter go to an Obama event to protest.  And even more telling, I have never seen or heard of a Hillary supporter using racist language in order to denigrate Mr. Obama’s career.  The fact that these boys were not only allowed to hold this sign but we’re cheered on by other boys infuriated me.  They even had a middle aged woman wear the sign, which physically sickened many of us in line.

This is why so many of us HRC supporters can not support the campaign of Obama.  His camp has been vicious to us and me on several occasions and his supporters’ obsession with him has bordered on cultish.  HRC has never been racist towards him, but his backers and the media itself has repeatedly been overtly misogynistic and hateful to her.

Shame on you, America.  Shame on all of you.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bitch is the new black.

Tina Fey is obviously the shit. There is so much that could be said about how amazing she is and the points she brings up in this clip, but I’ll just let her speak for herself. Phenomenal.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

No, But Seriously…

Has anyone really discussed how much Chris Matthews hates Hillary Clinton? What about how he’s turned his channel into one long intellectual orgy, minus the actual discussion of policy or clear cut solutions, over Barack Obama? What are you supposed to think about journalistic integrity when THIS shows up after Hillary’s win in NH?

How is it that MSNBC has allowed one of their main talking heads become so biased, so partisan, so subjective, so anti-journalism as to be, in my opinion, worse than Fox News? Chris Matthews seriously needs to stop spewing the Hillary hate and the overwhelming love for Obama and just stick to the news itself. Videos like this are completely inexcusable.

It’s frustrating when a network like MSNBC that has prided itself as the opposite of Fox for so long now begins to pander to someone who is just as obnoxious and insufferable as Bill O’Reilly.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Barack Obama Gave You a Puppy

Every day I am completely and utterly fascinated that more and more people are falling prey to the concept of what I like to call “Noun, verb, change.” The Obama Fog is spreading throughout the Democratic party and a man who refuses to discuss a specific platform and has turned down five separate invitations to debate suddenly has the upper hand. A man who promises hope and change in America but takes an endorsement from Ted Kennedy and spent almost $700,000 contributing to the campaigns of superdelegates in order to win votes is 69 delegates ahead of Hillary Clinton. It’s incredibly easy to make speeches and not have to really hold up to any media scrutiny. When you run a campaign like you live in USA High School and shill out empty promises and print the prettiest posters, success apparently comes rather quickly. At last, the tide is beginning to change, at least in some papers and magazines, but it’s most likely too little too late.

In the past week or so, as people like Chris Matthews have amped up their public hatred of Hillary slash overwhelming bias towards Barack, papers like the Post and the NY Times are beginning to turn on this blind following of what Matthews has referred to as “The New Testament” (see Charles Krauthammer).  The Cult of Obama is finally having some scrutiny applied to it and the results aren’t too pretty. Here are some excerpts from recent op-ed pieces concerning the rampant fever of that man from Illinois.

“Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?”

“The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media — preoccupied with the political “horse race” — have treated his invocation of “change” as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation’s major problems when, so far, he isn’t.”

“And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign…Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”

“Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He’s going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can’t possibly redeem.”

“I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.”

I think the articles speak for themselves. My faith in the objective integrity and downright intelligence to see through the smoke and mirrors of the media bullshit has all but been torn to shreds. I only hope that the truth can win out in Texas and Ohio and the rightful nominee can pursue the office of President in November.

If you listen to O-bots, the senator from Illinois can and will beat McCain in a national election, but the opposite is glaringly apparent. Not only does Obama have a lot to answer to that hasn’t been addressed nationally, but the Republicans are notoriously vicious in their campaign attacks. Obama will have to respond to the true allegations of his cocaine and marijuana use and, in some cases, dealing. He will have to defeat the story that no one but the Chicago Tribune seems to care about – his bankrolling by the likes of Tony Rezko. He will have to discuss his shady track record of voting present instead of for or against major issues. Obama will, when facing McCain, have to address the fact that he listed Reagan as a hero, or that in 2004, he pulled down his speech against Iraq off of his personal website and said that he basically had no problem with the agenda or policy of Bush. When it was popular to support Bush, Obama was all for it; now that the pressure has significantly shifted, he aggressively shakes that speech in front of the nation over and over again, as if it was the only thing he ever accomplished. It’s as if being against the war in Iraq before he was ever voted into the Senate is some sort of major accomplishment in itself.

Speaking of “accomplishments,” I leave you with something that I feel encapsulates the campaign of Barack Obama. I only find it ironic that the man who almost cried in response to the concept of Obama losing (youtube it, seriously) is the one who attacked the Obama supporter. This exchange is laughable in every possible way.

Below are the articles referenced with each excerpt. Please feel free to read them:,8599,1710721,00.html

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Concept of a Redneck Explained

Somehow, I found this particularly relevant as I had to fly down to Nashvegas last weekend to attend a visitation day for students who were accepted into one of the Masters programs for which I had applied. I had been reading this book, How the Scots Invented the Modern World, for over a month now, but graduate school applications and full-blown Oscar season had put a bit of a hamper over my reading time. But on the flight from Atlanta to Nashville, I came upon this passage, discussing the diaspora of Scottish folk to the Colonies and how they spread out through the mid-Atlantic and the South.

“Placenames and language reflected their northern Irish or southern Lowlands origins. They said “whar” for “where,” “thar” for “there,” “critter” for “creature,” “nekkid” for “naked,” “widder” for “widow,” and “young-uns” for “young ones.” They were always “fixin'” to do something, or go “sparkin'” instead of “courting,” and the young ‘uns “growed up” instead of “grew up.” As David Hackett Fisher has suggested, these were the first utterings of the American dialect of Appalachian mountaineers, cowboys, truck drivers, and backcountry politicians. The language was also shamelessly intimate and earthy: passersby were addressed as “honey” and children as “little shits.” They dubbed local landmarks Gallows Branch or Cutthroat Gap or Shitbritches Creek (in North Carolina). In Lunenberg County, Virginia, they even named two local streams Tickle Cunt Branch and Fucking Creek.

Neighbors, including the Indians, soon learned to treat them with respect, not to say fear. One Englishman described an Ulster Scot neighbor: “His look spoke out that he would not fear the devil, should he meet him face to face.” They did not bear much resemblance to their compatriot, Francis Hutcheson. Instead Ulster Scots were quick-tempered, inclined to hard work followed by bouts of boisterous leisure and heavy drinking (they were the first distillers of whisky in the New World, employing native corn and rye instead of Scottish barley), and easy to provoke into fighting. The term used to describe them was rednecks, a Scots border term meaning Presbyterians. Another was cracker, from the Scots word craik for “talk,” meaning a loud talker or braggart. Both words became permanent parts of the American language, and a permanent identity of the Deep South the Ulster Scots created.

So there you go. A mystery explained and a culture clarified. The book itself is highly fascinating and I suggest it to anyone interested in sociology, American culture, European history, or really much of anything that happened in the past 300 years or so.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized