SF is About to Explode

As the Giants stand poised to win the North American Series, baseball fans (a.k.a -- people with too much ADD to enjoy golf) are on the edge of their seats dressed in their Halloween colors and chanting things about "beards" and "freaks."  They aren't chanting about circuses or something homosexual, however.  This is the San Francisco Giants about to lay waste to the Texas Rangers.  And like most things, it is overshadowing the election, but ... it also serves as symbolic of what is going on in this country.

San Francisco.  Liberal.  Progressive. 

Texas.  Conservative.  Roll back.

If a game were to be decided by goodwill alone, the Giants would have it.  I lived near Philly when the Phillies went to the World Series many moons ago.  Philly has nothing on what is going on throughout Northern California.  You would think each individual Giants fan thinks he or she is solely responsible for the team getting as far as it did.  It's called pride, and if all these people were as hyped about the fucking election, it would send shivers of terror down the spines of politicians of all ilks.  Instead, the country can rest secure in the fact that most people take baseball far more seriously than something that can actually effect their lives.  Kind of like finding out you have some near-terminal disease, but instead focusing on what a great haircut you got.

The Texas Rangers only really have fans in Texas.  It makes sense.  After decades of telling the rest of the country not to mess with it, Texas isolated itself from the rest of the modern world.  It's symbolic Great Wall of Texas ensuring that it has fallen behind the rest of the country when it comes to things like civil rights, the death penalty, homosexuality and standards.  The average Texan is a beef-eater, wife beater and proud of it, Sir.  The average Californian loves sushi and isn't "skeeved out" by the site of men holding hands.

Frankly, I like my beef and sushi, but I'm not willing to go as far as Texans and declare ignorance my religion.

The Bush Boys showed up at the last game.  It was Halloween, and one couldn't tell if the Bushes were in costume or not.  I can only imagine that for them, watching their sacred Rangers sink deeper into defeat was a lot like watching Baby Bush's final years in the White House.  Father Bush, ever the ball-busting dick, turned to his son in the eighth inning and asked, "Seem familiar, son?"

Baby Bush could only answer with that Alfred E. Newman grin.  "What?  Me think?"

Enjoy the game, Baby.  Enjoy the game.

There is potentially one more game to go.  If SF wins, I imagine there will be a small percentage of men who ejaculate into their Lee's on the spot, and more than one woman will long for her husband to grow his hair.  Permasmiles will last only until they realize that winning really changed nothing.  It's not like it is a true World Series.  It's not like the SF city government will topple if the Giants fail to "bring it home."  In a month or less it will be like nothing happened.  At least until the distraction of the Super Bowl creeps in, with its promise of new advertising and Bud girls performing fellatio on condensation-dripping bottles.

I have nothing against baseball, really.  I'm not a Giants fan, and while I don't hate the team the way I do the Phillies, I do enjoy giving the SF team's fans a good ribbing now and then.  Quite frankly, the people I know who care about such things are proud of the team they love, and civilized about it.

It doesn't change the fact that an election is just a day away, and I can say I haven't heard but on Giants fan talk about it in any meaningful way.  Not to say they haven't -- I just haven't heard it.

Is that scary, or understandable since the Giants are about to enter the history books?  I guess it all depends on how you feel about baseball and life in general.  In the end, though, baseball is a game.  Nothing more or nothing less.  The financial fortunes won are not claimed by the fans (though the losses could be).  All those eager beavers get is a sense of pride and the right to say, "We did it."

You sure did.

Jack Kemp Is Dead

Jack Kemp (R) is dead. Served under Bush. Ran with Dole. 73 years old. Just reported now. Can't say I'm concerned. It's a politician. I'm sure his family is upset, though, so I feel for them. As far as Republicans go, Kemp wasn't the worst (Hell has reservation for the Bush klan), but as the Exploited sang, "I hate/You hate/We all hate/Politicians."

A Letter To Obama

Mr. President,

You've taken some heat lately for a handshake, a ritual done throughout the civilized world, with Chavez, a man whom many in this country think is another incarnation of Satan. Oddly enough, you haven't taken so much heat over not going after torturers and the men who gave them their orders, which includes most of the Bush administration.

How the hell are you going to discipline your girls when they hit the rebellious years? "But Dad, I'm just a half hour late. Bush caused people to die and he gets off scott-free while I lose use of the car for a month? How is that fair?" She's right.

You can't say torture is bad and then not do anything about it. You can't tell other countries that America is somehow different now under your regime, but not go after the people who started an illegal war. Bush and his people are war criminals by even the loosest of definitions. War criminals need to be tried for their crimes. You aren't even suggesting that. What kind of message does that send? Business as usual. Sure, you may not be ordering torture, but there's nothing stopping Cheney from serving in some future administration. You could help change that, but you aren't.

The men who actually did the torturing of hostages (and that's what a lot of them were)? They were just "following orders." Brilliant.

And people are upset about a handshake. A handshake! How is Chavez worse than Bush? Because Bush is a monster, but he's our monster? Chavez is a foreign monster? Chavez is so evil, he gave Obama a book! I know that the Fox demographic, which consists mainly of beer-swilling pedophiles, thinks books are learning tools and are therefore instruments of the devil, but come on. Obama likes to read. (Again, for the Fox crowd, reading is something you do with books.)

Obama, you, like Clinton and like Bush in many respects, take heat for all the wrong things. (Bush didn't take enough heat for his policies and actions, but the did get more than enough criticism for his vocabulary.) You need to do the right thing and go after our criminals, the ones still walking free in America. Just make sure you don't shake Bush's hand. You've already touched one too many "monsters" this month.

Leno Loves Obama

You can't miss the fact that Obama made "history" by appearing on "The Tonight Show." Why this is news or history is beyond me. No sitting president has ever appeared on "Attack of the Show," either. Who the fuck cares?

Leno, while not a political analyst, did ask a great question in regard to the financial destruction this country has faced. "Shouldn't someone go to jail?"

Yes. Lots of people.

Most of the Bush administration. A whole lot of CEOs and CFOs. Various politicians both in and out of office. Problem is, they won't go. Unfortunately, more attention is being paid to the president's comments about bowling and the Special Olympics.

Jesus, there's the problem with this country in a nutshell.

People should be in jail, but we don't discuss that in any serious manner. We don't debate it in the mass media on any level that matters. But the administration is forced to offer an apology on a remark that speaks for itself, but there is no press release regarding imprisonment. The news covers this apology with all the seriousness afforded to 9/11. The prison issue is passed over with a mere mention.

Bush should be in prison. Cheney should be in prison. Obama should be pushing to put them there. America should be pushing to put them there. And the rest should follow.

I make no apologies for my anarchist views. I believe in holding people responsible for their actions. I don't believe in prisons and jails, but as a society we seem to think this is okay, so I am asking society to follow through with its ideals and values. If some guy robbed a bank, and a jury found him guilty, he would go to jail. Why isn't America demanding the same thing of its political and business leaders? I don't think I'm being radical here. I think I'm being fair. If I ripped off people, if I conducted a home invasion (the mini version of Iraq), I'd be in jail. I'd be behind bars trading jokes for smokes.

Some mother fuckers need to be held responsible for this mess the country is in. No self-respecting Republican can disagree, either, since personal responsibility is such a big issue to them. (I often say that morals and values are a matter of convenience. I think the last eight years have proven this.)

When Americans are losing their homes at an alarming rate, when jobs bleed out like a slaughtered pig, when soldiers are fighting a war based on lies ... people need to be held responsible. You can't gloss over it and expect to maintain any sense of respect. You just can't.

If the justice system won't hold these people responsible, the people should. These people shop. They go out to eat. They go out on the town. People know who they are. Start to shame them. Start to shun them. Throw shoes. Demand they turn themselves in. Mock them. Make them feel like the scum they are.

If the justice system won't do it, the people need to. If they don't, it will happen again ... and they'll deserve it.

They Shoot Protesters Don't They?

"The Economist" June 28-July 4 issue. Bill Gates dominates the cover. "The Economist" isn't as important as the "Wall Street Journal" used to be, but it is read by business and world leaders, which means the magazine has to tell it like it is. It can't be Fox or CNN.

This particular issue has a piece in the Leaders section on Robert Mugabe. You may recognize him as the brutal leader of Zimbabwe. He has opposition, and their children, executed in some creative ways. "The Economist" doesn't like him, and it is calling on other countries (and Africa) to oust him. It says his leadership has weakened and that he needs to step aside for the good of the country. There is no mention of neoliberalism or any of the other usual stuff you would expect from "The Economist." That was refreshing on its own, but it was the last sentence in the article that really caught my eye.

"But most of all it needs its African neighbours to tell the tyrant unambiguously to go -- and to snuff him out if he refuses. It can be done."

I never thought I'd see "The Economist" call for assassination. It seems kind of bold. I don't disagree with it or anything even like that. I'm just surprised that would actually see print. It makes me want to reread all the Bush articles it has done.

Kudos to "The Economist." The call for Mugabe's removal had a wonderfully wicked tone to it at the end (almost as if written by a 1930s anarchist), and it made me smile. Now where are those Bush articles?

Obama is Coming ... The Werewolves Are Here!

It's just days away ... history. Racists everywhere are downing Schlitz and lamenting the death of America. Liberals look to their copy of the "Hope" propaganda poster (for shame, Sheppard) and pray that all will be different.

Don't misunderstand me. I realize the importance of Obama's presidency, and I know what it will do for our image throughout the world. At this point, however, even electing Jack from Jack in the Box would help our world standing. I don't think, however, that much will change here in America.

As I write this, I am listening to the "Free the West Memphis 3" benefit CD. We should all know the story. Three teens charged with murder by a jury that couldn't tell its collective ass from a hole in the ground in a state where lynching is just something to do on a Sunday. It seems that the three are innocent, but the South was never very good at letting facts get in the way. The music community, among others, have rallied to the men's defense. People still think, however, that if you wear black you worship the devil. (Priest and Raiders fans excluded, of course.)

And that's why I don't think things will change with Obama.

Our stupidity is deeply rooted in a history of hypocritical morals and a superior sense of self. That sort of thing can't be overcome with grand speeches and basketball courts. It takes the equivalent of a cultural inferno to wipe that off the map. Hell, there are still people out there who seriously think black and white people shouldn't marry each other. Obama is not going to change any minds. He'll be a "credit" to his "race," that's for sure, but let's face it -- many people will never accept the fact that a black man holds the highest office in the land.

The flip side of all this is that he is still part of the status quo. He's a slimy politician who got to where he is by being shrewd (with a dose of backstabbing). You can say Baby Bush stole the election the first time around, but Obama manipulated this one from day one. He is politics as usual, and his cabinet proves it.

But isn't a little better better than no better at all?

I've never been one to believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. I can't give in like that. I can say this, though. Obama was the less scary of the two men if only for foreign policy. I'll grant him that. And the fact that he scares certain segments of the public makes me giggle. But hope? I have none. He didn't come out of left field to wow the public. He trapped people and set the stage for the masses several years ago with an incredible speech at the Democratic Convention ... one that assured he'd be looked at by the left and middle.

Kudos to you, Obama. Where Baby Bush is as subtle as a hand grenade, you proved you are as slick as poison in the well.

Oh, and unless the economy really tanks, I think you have fooled the public well enough to enjoy another four years.

You know who our first black president should have been? One who would have really stirred shit up? Huey P. Newton. Still think Obama is that progressive? I didn't think so.

Respect?

Today I was told I was disrespectful to the president. Not only was I disrespectful, but so was the journalist who tossed his shoes at him. The person who told me this wasn't too suprised I was being "a pill," but she was upset that "some foreign guy" would do such a thing.

Granted, the president declared war on the "foreign" guy's country, but that shouldn't matter. Even victims of invaders should show some respect. All the president did was send in troops who shoot first, ask questions later. He didn't throw his damn shoes at anyone. The nerve!

I always thought presidents were fair targets, no pun intended. They need to be questioned, mocked and every once in a while get a shoe in the face. When a president, such as Bush, is in charge of a country that has gone so deep into the shitter and has totally lost the respect of the world, you would think he would be thankful it was just a shoe or two. Let's not mince words, either. The economy and the country's credibility is actually small potatoes compared to Bush's other transgressions. He's a war criminal. At the very least, prison should be in his future ... along with several of his cabinet members. But that will never happen. If shoes are disrespectful, prison is off the fucking radar.

The United States government has a long history of playing the hypocrite, bully, and might is right card. If the US or one of its client states does it, it's legal and morally sound. If a country the US doesn't happen to agree with does the same action, it's a crime. This, of course, never even makes it into polite discussion. This, of course, is never even mentioned by those who think I'm disrespectful.

Bush is not the only bad president we've ever had. Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and many of the presidents (if not all) before them have done some truly horrible things. I can't think of a single president who doesn't have some blood on his hands. And the past few of them have also qualified as war criminals.

So, yes, Virginia, I am disrespectful. So are a bunch of other people ... and they should be. Sometimes, when you're morally outraged, you have to do act. You have to make a stand. If throwing shoes at a president who lied to the world in order to wage an illegal war on a country that had already been crippled by sanctions is your solution to the problem, then I say toss away. If throwing shoes is your response to a president who has only been reactive to nearly every single major problem that has hit his own country (even when he had plenty of warning on the issues such as the economy and Hurrican Katrina), then start practicing your aim.

Be disrespectful America, and don't let Obama off any easier.