The Puke Blog
Mark Sieve

Actor, producer, and director Mark Sieve is the co-creator of the Renaissance Vaudeville team Puke & Snot, the longest-running two-man comedy duo in the country and a headline show at festivals and comedy clubs throughout North America since 1974.

He lives in Minneapolis with his wife and cat. This blog is where you can find out what's on his mind and occasionally meet some writers he reads and likes. Enjoy!

Search

September 2nd, 6:47pm 0 comments

Man Already Knows Everything He Needs To Know About Muslims

Gentries made a conscious decision to stop learning anything new about the Muslim faith on May 22, 2005

 

SALINA, KS—Local man Scott Gentries told reporters Wednesday that his deliberately limited grasp of Islamic history and culture was still more than sufficient to shape his views of the entire Muslim world.

Gentries, 48, said he had absolutely no interest in exposing himself to further knowledge of Islamic civilization or putting his sweeping opinions into a broader context of any kind, and confirmed he was "perfectly happy" to make a handful of emotionally charged words the basis of his mistrust toward all members of the world's second-largest religion.

"I learned all that really matters about the Muslim faith on 9/11," Gentries said in reference to the terrorist attacks on the United States undertaken by 19 of Islam's approximately 1.6 billion practitioners. "What more do I need to know to stigmatize Muslims everywhere as inherently violent radicals?"

"And now they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero," continued Gentries, eliminating any distinction between the 9/11 hijackers and Muslims in general. "No, I won't examine the accuracy of that statement, but yes, I will allow myself to be outraged by it and use it as evidence of these people's universal callousness toward Americans who lost loved ones when the Twin Towers fell."

"Even though I am not one of those people," he added.

When told that the proposed "Ground Zero mosque" is actually a community center two blocks north of the site that would include, in addition to a public prayer space, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant, and athletic facilities, Gentries shook his head and said, "I know all I'm going to let myself know."

Gentries explained that it "didn't take long" to find out as much about the tenets of Islam as he needed to. He said he knew Muslims stoned their women for committing adultery, trained for terrorist attacks at fundamentalist madrassas, and believed in jihad, which Gentries described as the thing they used to justify killing infidels.

"All Muslims are at war with America, and I will resist any attempt to challenge that assertion with potentially illuminating facts," said Gentries, who threatened to leave the room if presented with the number of Muslims who live peacefully in the United States, serve in the country's armed forces, or were victims themselves of the 9/11 attacks. "Period."

"If you don't believe me, wait until they put your wife in a burka," Gentries continued in reference to the face-and-body-covering worn by a small minority of Muslim women and banned in the universities of Turkey, Tunisia, and Syria. "Or worse, a rape camp. That's right: For reasons I am content being totally unable to articulate, I am choosing to associate Muslims with rape camps."

Over the past decade, Gentries said he has taken pains to avoid personal interactions or media that might have the potential to compromise his point of view. He told reporters that the closest he had come to confronting a contrary standpoint was tuning in to the first few seconds of an interview with a moderate Muslim cleric before hastily turning off the television.

"I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn't want to hear," Gentries said. "But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of 'other' to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities."

Added Gentries, "That really put things back into perspective." 
Posted
August 29th, 9:42pm 0 comments

Grass Roots? No. Astro-turf? Definitely.

One of the best and most informed political columnists working is Frank Rich of the New York Times. His recent summary of Tea Party funding and the historical echoes of conservative efforts to defeat democratic presidents and liberal agendas from Roosevelt to Obama are detailed below. Makes for enlightening reading for anybody who still is deluded enough to think that the Teabaggers "Movement" is a spontaneous uprising of "concerned citizens" who only want their country back. Back from whom is a question they can't answer. Rich gives us an idea who really owns it.

The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party

by Frank Rich - New York Times

ANOTHER weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who. Last Sunday the site was Lower Manhattan, where 
they jeered the “ground zero mosque.” This weekend, the scene shifted to Washington, where the avatars of oppressed white Tea Party America, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, were slated to “reclaim the civil rights movement” (Beck’s words) on the same spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had his dream exactly 47 years earlier.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Frank Rich

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Vive la révolution!

There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.

Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power, and given the recession-battered electorate’s unchecked anger and the Obama White House’s unfocused political strategy, they might.

All three tycoons are the latest incarnation of what the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president.

Only the fat cats change — not their methods and not their pet bugaboos (taxes, corporate regulation, organized labor, and government “handouts” to the poor, unemployed, ill and elderly). Even the sources of their fortunes remain fairly constant. Koch Industries beganwith oil in the 1930s and now also spews an array of industrial products, from Dixie cups to Lycra, not unlike DuPont’s portfolio of paint and plastics. Sometimes the biological DNA persists as well. The Koch brothers’ father, Fred, was among the select group chosen to serve on the Birch Society’s top governing body. In a recorded 1963 speech that survives in a University of Michigan archive, he can be heard warning of “a takeover” of America in which Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the president is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.” That rant could be delivered as is at any Tea Party rally today.

Last week the Kochs were shoved unwillingly into the spotlight by the most comprehensive journalistic portrait of them yet, written by Jane Mayer of The New Yorker. Her article caused a stir among those in Manhattan’s liberal elite who didn’t know that David Koch, widely celebrated for his cultural philanthropy, is not merely another rich conservative Republican but the founder of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which, as Mayer writes with some understatement, “has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement’s inception.” To New Yorkers who associate the David H. Koch Theater at Lincoln Center with the New York City Ballet, it’s startling to learn that the Texas branch of that foundation’s political arm, known simply as Americans for Prosperity, gave its Blogger of the Year Award to an activist who had called President Obama “cokehead in chief.”

The other major sponsor of the Tea Party movement is Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, which, like Americans for Prosperity, is promoting events in Washington this weekend. Under its original name, Citizens for a Sound Economy, FreedomWorks received $12 million of its own from Koch family foundations. Using tax records, Mayer found that Koch-controlled foundations gave out $196 million from 1998 to 2008, much of it to conservative causes and institutions. That figure doesn’t include $50 million in Koch Industries lobbying and $4.8 million in campaign contributions by its political action committee, putting it first among energy company peers like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Since tax law permits anonymous personal donations to nonprofit political groups, these figures may understate the case. The Kochs surely match the in-kind donations the Tea Party receives in free promotion 24/7 from Murdoch’s Fox News, where both Beck and Palin are on the payroll.

The New Yorker article stirred up the right, too. Some of Mayer’s blogging detractors unwittingly upheld the premise of her article (titled “Covert Operations”) by conceding that they have been Koch grantees. None of them found any factual errors in her 10,000 words. Many of them tried to change the subject to George Soros, the billionaire backer of liberal causes. But Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes.

This is hardly true of the Kochs. When David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (it polled 1 percent), his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes. He hasn’t changed. As Mayer details, Koch-supported lobbyists, foundations and political operatives are at the center of climate-science denial — a cause that forestalls threats to Koch Industries’ vast fossil fuel business. While Koch foundations donate to cancer hospitals like Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York, Koch Industries has been lobbying to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from classifying another product important to its bottom line, formaldehyde, as a “known carcinogen” in humans (which it is).

Tea Partiers may share the Kochs’ detestation of taxes, big government and Obama. But there’s a difference between mainstream conservatism and a fringe agenda that tilts completely toward big business, whether on Wall Street or in the Gulf of Mexico, while dismantling fundamental government safety nets designed to protect the unemployed, public health, workplace safety and the subsistence of the elderly.

Yet inexorably the Koch agenda is morphing into the G.O.P. agenda, as articulated by current Republican members of Congress, including the putative next speaker of the House, John Boehner, and Tea Party Senate candidates like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, and the new kid on the block, Alaska’s anti-Medicaid, anti-unemployment insurance Palin protégé, Joe Miller. Their program opposes a federal deficit, but has no objection to running up trillions in red ink in tax cuts to corporations and the superrich; apologizes to corporate malefactors like BP and derides money put in escrow for oil spill victims as a “slush fund”; opposes the extension of unemployment benefits; and calls for a freeze on federal regulations in an era when abuses in the oil, financial, mining, pharmaceutical and even egg industries (among others) have been outrageous.

The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests. And surely Murdoch is snickering at those protesting the “ground zero mosque.” Last week on “Fox and Friends,” the Bush administration flacks Dan Senor and Dana Perino attacked a supposedly terrorism-tainted Saudi prince whose foundation might contribute to the Islamic center. But as “The Daily Show” keeps pointing out, these Fox bloviators never acknowledge that the evil prince they’re bashing, Walid bin Talal, is not only the biggest non-Murdoch shareholder in Fox News’s parent company (he owns 7 percent of News Corporation) and the recipient of Murdoch mammoth investments in Saudi Arabia but also the subject of lionization elsewhere on Fox.

No less a Murdoch factotum than Neil Cavuto slobbered over bin Talal in a Fox Business Channel interview as recently as January, with nary a question about his supposed terrorist ties. Instead, bin Talal praised Obama’s stance on terrorism and even endorsed the Democrats’ goal of universal health insurance. Do any of the Fox-watching protestors at the “ground zero mosque” know that Fox’s profits are flowing to a Obama-sympathizing Saudi billionaire in bed with Murdoch? As Jon Stewart summed it up, the protestors who want “to cut off funding to the ‘terror mosque’ ” are aiding that funding by watching Fox and enhancing bin Talal’s News Corp. holdings.

When wolves of Murdoch’s ingenuity and the Kochs’ stealth have been at the door of our democracy in the past, Democrats have fought back fiercely. Franklin Roosevelt’s triumphant 1936 re-election campaign pummeled the Liberty League as a Republican ally eager to “squeeze the worker dry in his old age and cast him like an orange rind into the refuse pail.” When John Kennedy’s patriotism was assailed by Birchers calling for impeachment, he gave a major speech denouncing their “crusades of suspicion.”

And Obama? So far, sadly, this question answers itself.

Posted
August 27th, 8:10pm 0 comments

I Have A Nightmare/I Have A Scheme

I wrote in my recent---ahem---award-winning memoir CALL ME PUKE about my slow awakening to the civil rights movement in the early 60s, and the two black college ball players I had just spent a couple of days working out with in general tryouts for the Central Illinois Collegiate League. They had to leave Lincoln, Illinois and their dreams of playing semi-pro baseball that summer of 1963. They had to leave town. They had to go home because they couldn't buy gas at local gas stations. No one would serve them in restaurants or grocery stores.

That was---let me repeat---LINCOLN, Illinois. There was a large statue of Abraham Lincoln in the park. 

I was ruminating on those days this afternoon and trying to decide how disgusted and sad this blog entry would be.

Tomorrow, Saturday, Aug. 28, will mark the 47th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream Speech." Glenn Beck has chosen this day to deliver his own speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Glenn Beck. 

The guy who called President Obama a racist. The guy who weeps openly on his Fox TV show because he just "loves [his] country so much." The guy who's made $32 million selling price-jacked gold coins to his unsuspecting fans. The guy who concocts intricate conspiracy theories every day and "explains" them to us in exhaustingly painful blackboard lectures. The guy who's admitted he's "only in it for the money." The guy whose top ten ridiculous, paranoid and insane utterances you'll find on the August 12th post on this blog.

If the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, he would have been on Glenn Beck's blackboard many times. That's because Martin Luther King Jr. was clearly a Social Justice Christian -- the term and people that Beck constantly derides. If the Christians of King's era had listened to Beck, they would have been forced to walk out on King's "I Have a Dream" speech. If they were to heed his advice to turn in social justice pastors to the church authorities, they all would have had to turn in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

So what to say about this latest right wing jimcrackery taking place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial? I decided to feature Chris Matthews and his HARDBALL "Let Me Finish" segment from today's broadcast. He summarizes my feelings pretty well. And because comedy is what we all live for, and people like Beck are truly low-hanging fruit ripe for good satire, Jon Stewart's segment on Beck from last night's Daily Show demonstrates in living color EXACTLY who Beck is in his own words. In case you weren't sure.

Enjoy.

 

I Have A Nightmare by Chris Matthews
 From a Martin Luther King, Jr. speech of 1963:  “But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.” Dr. King was talking about the founding place of the KKK, Stone Mountain, the site of the Scottsboro Boys trial, Lookout Mountain. This was 1963, never forget. The civil rights bill was a year away. Lunch counters and gas station rest rooms were still for whites only; so were hotels and restaurants throughout the south. I remember seeing those "white only" signs along the highway heading south for spring break. I remember seeing one still there when I went to rural Louisiana to train for the Peace Corps.
There was a hard divide in this country back then.
On one side stood the people who believed in the power of the federal government to do the right thing - especially when state governments, local governments and local businesses persisted in doing the wrong thing - or doing nothing. It was a time when governors like Ross Barnett of Mississippi and George Wallace of Alabama stood up to keep their universities white-only, a time when people used terms like "nullification" and "interposition," who claimed the right to obstruct the federal government to act even when Congress passed the law.
Today, we hear the echoes of those voices, people calling for "nullification." Even "secession" gets a call-out from those who just don't like the federal government and certainly don't like the man leading it. Tomorrow, those who thrill to such words are heading to Washington. They're heading directly to the Lincoln Memorial, site of the Martin Luther King speech. The main speaker is the man who said this about this country's first African-American president: “This guy is, I believe, a racist. Look at the things that he has been surrounded by!” That is the man who comes to Lincoln's feet to claim the mantle of Martin Luther King. Can we imagine if King were physically here today - were he to reappear tomorrow on the very steps of the Lincoln Memorial?
"I have a nightmare. That one day, a right-wing talk show host will come to this spot, his people's lips dripping with the words of 'interposition' and 'nullification' - little right-wing boys and little right-wing girls joining hands and singing their praise for Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. I have a nightmare."
Many talk today about a religious center near Ground Zero being a desecration. What do you call this?
I Have A Scheme - by Jon Stewart

 

 

 

Posted
August 23rd, 5:28pm 0 comments

The Doctor Is Out

It's a light news week. The Iraq War is over, the Great Mosque Construction War is being waged in the media, Bret Favre returned to the Vikings just in time to get body-slammed by the 49ers, and a minor radio personality got caught with her racism down. I heard Dr. Laura Schlessinger's recent string of racial slurs during a call on her radio show with an African-American caller. Dr. Laura told the caller, who expressed concern over her white husband's friends being racist, that if she's that "hypersensitive about color" and doesn't "have a sense of humor" then "don't marry out of your race." This came after Dr. Laura said the N-word 11 times in a shocking string of obscenities.  

It reminded me of a particularly good scene in an episode of The West Wing in 2007, when a symbolic Dr. Laura was elegantly destroyed by President Josiah Bartlet. A couple of clicks on YouTube later, I found it. Check out this little four minute scene and watch when good writing meets good acting meets rational thought, and another (albeit fictional) hateful bigot is exposed. 

Dr. Laura has apparently quit her radio show. As Stephen Colbert observed, she probably wants to spend more time saying the n-word with her family.
Posted
August 20th, 7:54pm 0 comments

Damn. It's hot...

There are some subjects that cry out for satire, none more than the dark and disturbing issue of global warming. The denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough dou
bt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." 
In times like this, satire can be the only rational response. Once again, one of the best wordsmiths in the country, Mark Morford, deftly nails it.


Thank God global warming is a hoax - by Mark Morford, SFGate columnist - August 18, 2010

I mean, right? You know? Because gosh Jesus in angry apocalyptic heaven, wouldn't it be just terrible if it were all true?

Wouldn't it be horrible if all this stunning, insanely mounting, irrefutable evidence -- death, floods, fires, heat waves, the worst this and the most violent that in 1,000 years -- were some sort of surefire, cumulative sign that we have, if not directly caused, then wildly accelerated and amplified the imminent implosion of this planet?

But we didn't! And we haven't! And we aren't! I mean, whew.

I am delighted to remember that hardcore science has lied, misguided, misnomered and whatever else weird science does to confuse the world about the real impact humanity has had on global ecosystems. All those thousands of highly trained scientists educated at the finest universities, learning the most difficult and fraught information of our age, all in universal agreement that humankind's actions directly affect climate change, and they are all totally full of it because they are clearly in cahoots with Nazi Liberal Jesus, the solar panel manufacturers and the hippies who want me to compost my KFC Double Down wrapper.

I am delighted to be reassured by the fringe right wing that the piles of dead bodies, millions of lost homes, and even the very sun itself are part of a vast conspiracy, a plot to form an evil one-world government, a lefty liberal charade even in places that don't understand or care what the hell a liberal is. See? Do you understand how powerful the lie? Amazing.

Because otherwise, wow, what sort of hell is this? Pakistan, Russia, China, Greenland, Niger and on and on it goes. Unprecedented heat waves, scorched crops, giant icebergs, savage droughts, dire emergencies, thousands dead here and 10,000 more over there and nothing like these events in the history of the world, ever.

Even the U.N. secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, is in on it, coming back from Pakistan stunned and shaken by the epic flooding he witnessed there. "The magnitude of the problem; the world has never seen such a disaster. It's much beyond anybody's imagination," he said, putting out the urgent call for more international aid. I mean, sure global warming is happening -- even some of the more ignorant climate change deniers have had to reverse course on that -- but humanity had nothing to do with it, OK? We don't need to change our behavior one iota. If God wants another Ice Age or whatever, who are we to argue?

Heathen book-learners and their ridiculous studies, that's who! Scientists are saying that all these severe weather patterns fit in exactly with what they've been predicting all along. Not only that, but they say it's increasingly likely that we've waited too long to change our behaviors, cut emissions, reduce consumption and other such liberal gibberish, and now it might be too late to do anything about it. Increasingly extreme, violent weather will now be the norm, and the devastation, disease and death will only increase.

Good news! If I blink a few times while clicking the mouse, it all goes away. Hey look, Lindsay Lohan's mom is all up in it! Snooki is so wasted! All is as it should be. Thank you, Interweb.

But dammit, their godless eco-agenda just won't stop. 2010, they say, is not being very nice, is setting all sorts of unpleasant records. Already, the most national extreme heat records in a single year (17). Already, the hottest half-year on record in planetary history. Already, the five warmest months in tropical Atlantic history, possibly resulting in more hurricanes. Already, millions of people sensing, deep down, that Something Is Very Wrong Indeed. Good thing their calmly intuitive souls are full of crap.

I mean, please. Isn't it like this every year? Always with the floods and fires. Always with the hurricanes, earthquakes and numbing body counts. Is this year, this decade really that different? I'm sorry, I can't hear you, I just turned up this Glenn Beck podcast. Here is your big lesson: Do not listen to people who actually know things. Only listen to people who react, negatively and whiningly, to people who actually know things. It's the American way.

Have you seen the photos from the Gulf of Mexico, all shiny and clear thanks to toxic chemical dispersants, the miracle of ocean currents and armies of PR people who smell like hate? What happened to all the oil? It's all gone, even though it's really not! Absorbed into the planetary bloodstream like magic! Even the president is there, splashing around in waters that, not a month ago, had hundreds of million of gallons of crude oil and chemicals floating in it.

Just more proof that God's favorite creatures can cause no lasting harm. We're innocent as pie. And guns. And Corexit 9500. I'm dumping some used motor oil into this city sewer right now, in celebration.

I just read the flooding in Pakistan has already caused more devastation than the 2004 tsunami in Asia, worse than the Haiti earthquake. One quarter of the country is underwater. They say Pakistan also just broke a record for the single highest temperature ever recorded on the Asian continent, at 128 degrees (16 other nations also met or broke heat records this year, too). That record was set in a city. Where people live. But not for very much longer, because they do not have giant air conditioners and pallets of Fiji water from Costco like we do, so they probably won't survive.

Yes, it's tragic. It's unprecedented. It's never happened like this before. Heck, even here in the eco-terrorist homeland of San Francisco, they say the change in ocean temperatures will soon mean Fog City will be entirely fog bound, edge to edge, nearly year round. But I repeat: It's not our fault. Seven billion rapacious, industrialized bipeds have the impact of a feather. All this destruction and death? It's just God's will -- except for those places that don't believe in a Christian God. Serves them right, doesn't it?

By the way, there's an obvious solution to many of these horrors -- to the Russian heat waves, the violent droughts in Niger, the dead bodies floating in Pakistan, the floods in China: Do not go there. Do not go to these terrible, hot, messy places. It's so easy!

I mean, so what if giant icebergs four times the size of Manhattan are suddenly breaking off in Greenland? That's happening way, way up there. I'm overconsuming energy and blocking out inconvenient truths way, way down here. There is no cause/effect, no connection whatsoever, never mind that dark, nagging sense of self-wrought doom, deep in my bones. I know that's just a liberal lie, an implant, completely futile -- just like those failed climate talks in Copenhagen, and the soon-to-be-failed ones coming up shortly in Mexico. I mean, whew.

Posted
August 18th, 9:36pm 0 comments

GET SERIOUS, PEOPLE! THERE ARE REAL ISSUES TO TALK ABOUT

So I've been reading and watching the daily breathless reports of the impending construction of a----community center-----in Lower Manhattan. That's correct, a community center. It's not a "mosque at Ground Zero," it's a community center in Lower Manhattan. Does anybody remember "Freedom Fries?" And how just about everybody who decided that changing their menus so the word "French" was erased and replaced with "freedom" would show those stupid Frenchies how real Americans felt about their failure to get behind our president in his little war of choice against Iraq. And how those menus slowly changed back again when no WMDs were found and the body count started piling up. 

I remember walking into my favorite ice cream shop in Sarasota, only to find the tub of French Vanilla had been re-labeled "Freedom Vanilla." The owner asked me how he could help, I told him I was disappointed because I came in for some French Vanilla but they didn't have it. He said, "Sure we do, it's right there." I replied, "No, that's Freedom Vanilla, not the same, but I'm pretty sure Kilwin's across the street has it, I'll just get it over there. Thanks." As I walked out the door, he said "Funny, real funny." I said "No, it's just sad."
I get the "funny" feeling that it's deja vu---the little right wing tempest that conveniently ignores the Constitution one more time when it doesn't agree with its insatiable need to stir up hate and fear is at it again, and it won't be long before we're all more than a little embarrassed by this latest childish "issue du jour."
Reg Henry gets it just about right in his column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 

NO ONE BUT BIGOTS WOULD NOTICE "MOSQUE" by Reg Henry, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - August 18th, 2010

When the great Monty Python team wanted to switch to something different in their TV show, Graham Chapman would come on dressed as a British colonel and officiously move everyone along because the skit had become "far too silly."

Where is Graham Chapman when we need him? Things have become far too silly. I went away on vacation and when I came back the right to religious freedom for all Americans had gained an asterisk: *No Muslims Need Apply. I cannot tell whether someone had dusted off and recast the old asterisks, the ones that said "No Catholics Need Apply" or "No Jews Need Apply," but the effect is pretty much the same -- at least as far as the Muslims who want to build a mosque in lower Manhattan "at the World Trade Center site" are concerned.

Actually, it is not at the World Trade Center site. (It is a couple of blocks away) And it is not a mosque as that term is generally understood. It is a community center with space reserved for prayer but also a swimming pool. Imams are not likely to climb to the top of minarets and call the faithful to prayer. Heck, the site is near Wall Street. The only way to get anyone's attention would be to read stock tips.

In truth, you probably would not notice the Cordoba House in the cultural kaleidoscope of New York if the likes of Fox News weren't so eager to alert you to the alleged horror. On my vacation, I briefly visited New York City. It is the most diverse place in America, where nobody bats an eyelid at anything. In this melting pot of America, it is no surprise that local officials overwhelmingly approved the community center/mosque. Better a center that practices a moderate brand of the Muslim religion and wants to be a good neighbor than an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory.

You would think, if you were not a silly person, that if the plan was good enough for those who were the very neighbors of the 9/11 atrocity, it would be good enough for most everybody in America. But, unfortunately, America is full of people seething with resentments and looking for the political means to express them. And what better than this? They are -- splutter, splutter, shudder -- Muslims. They are all the same, you know, just as back in the woeful day the Catholics were all the same, and the Jews were all the same, before we knew better -- before we knew how stupid and destructive such group thinking was. So to honor the dead, we must insult the intelligence of the living by insisting that these Muslims, no matter how different they are from the extremists who are the real terrorists, must not pray to their God "in the shadow of the World Trade Center."

Unfortunately for the purveyors of this piety, the New York Dolls Gentlemen's Club is also in the same shadowy area. But apparently a mosque/community center defiles the memory of the 9/11 dead while ogling of nude women does not. Nor does the worship of mammon, which is what the Wall Street area is all about.

Now the political class seems to think that this will be the decisive issue in the mid-term election. Not the economy, the deficit, health care, Afghanistan, or anything non-silly you can think of. The mosque. Could we become any sillier as a people short of putting on clown noses and wearing outsized shoes?

In the face of this, President Obama made an eloquent defense of freedom of religion for Muslims and then afterward shamefully backtracked to say he was only speaking about the broad principle. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with a tough re-election fight in Nevada, cravenly threw in his lot with the fear mongers. (Calling all Democrats: If you have any spare backbones, please mail them to your leaders in Washington, D.C. In the meantime, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for president. He has been a brave voice of reason on this issue -- it doesn't take a pretend British colonel to resist silliness.)

But "far too silly" doesn't quite express the emotions of the moment. That suggests a juvenile naivete. Far too sinister is more like it. More than 900 years ago, Christian forces launched the first of a series of crusades against Muslims in the Holy Land. Osama bin Laden harps upon this invasion to this day, constantly promoting the idea that in resisting Muslim extremists, we are engaged in a crusade against all Muslims.

So what do some fearful Americans want us to do? Take a leaf out of bin Laden's playbook and treat Muslims as all the same, even the ones who just want to swim and pray. Lord (or Allah) help us.

 

The Final Word - August 23 - SALON

Jeff Merkley, the Democratic junior senator from Oregon, joins the list of heroes making the obvious and surprisingly rare case for the construction of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, a minor piece of New York real estate news that has become a depressing national debate on the apparent limits of our religious tolerance.

In The Oregonian, Merkley asks, "what makes a mosque near ground zero offensive?" He points out that the premise that a mosque near the World Trader Center site is insensitive makes sense only if we hold American Muslims in some way responsible for foreign terrorists.

Such an association is a profound error. Muslim Americans are our fellow citizens, not our enemies. Muslim Americans were among the victims who died at the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks. Muslim American first responders risked their lives to save their fellow citizens that day. Many of our Muslim neighbors, including thousands of Oregon citizens, serve our country in war zones abroad and our communities at home with dedication and distinction.

 

There you have it, a junior senator from Oregon with more guts than almost every Democrat in New York. Senator Schumer, no one would mind if you cribbed from Merkley's argument for an editorial of your own. 

 

August 24

The Latest News Flash From Fox News: "Who's Behind The Funding For This Mosque?" Watch as Jon Stewart and The Daily Show reveal the sublime idiocy (or is it the staggeringly evil genius?) of the Fox News Talking Heads as they self-immolate yet again in front of a giggling nation. Keep this clip foremost in your mind the next time you find yourself watching Rupert Murdoch's fun bunch trying desperately to stay "fair and balanced."


 

 

Posted
August 12th, 1:40pm 0 comments

The Top Ten Craziest Glenn Beck Quotes of All Time

Oh these are good. These are special. And best of all, these are happening every day and you can watch them happen with a flip of your remote to Fox. Be patient, I know, you might have to wait a few moments, but eventually, like a wildlife photographer poised at the cave entrance, you will be rewarded with the sight of a truly amazing animal emerging into daylight in the form of another stunning Beckian verbal Bird of Paradise. Which of course is the best argument for making sure Beck and the bleating right wing Cassandras of Fox keep their microphones and cameras and appear regularly, if only to remind us just how free speech works. In the cold light of day and reasoned argument, these entertaining asshats are allowed to demonstrate daily that the best way to deal with zealots is to let them talk. Besides, they're so much fun, it's like an all day Disney pass to Sillyville. 

"Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking." --Jon Stewart on Glenn Beck, The Daily Show.
 "Satan's mentally challenged younger brother." - Stephen King on Glenn Beck, writing in 'Entertainment Weekly.'

Ridiculous, Paranoid and Insane Utterances By Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck

1. "This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture...I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." - on President Obama, sparking an advertiser exodus from his Fox News show, July 28, 2009.

2. "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm thinking about killing him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. He could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus---band--Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore, or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure." - responding to the question "What would people do for $50 million?", The Glenn Beck Program, May 17, 2005.

3. "When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up,' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." - The Glenn Beck Program, September 9, 2005.

4. "The only Katrina victims we're seeing on television are the scumbags." - The Glenn Beck Program, September 9, 2005.

5. "I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today." - on why people who lost their homes in forest fires in California had it coming, The Glenn Beck Program,  October 22, 2007.

6. "I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies...and I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." - interviewing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, Glenn Beck's show on CNN's Headline News, November 14, 2006.

7. "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization...and you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing.]" - The Glenn Beck Program, May 1, 2007.

8. "So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research...eugenics. In case you didn't know what eugenics led us to: The Final Solution. A Master Race! A perfect person...the stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening." - The Glenn Beck Program, March 9, 2009.

9. "You have the artwork of Mussolini there, here in New York at Rockefeller Plaza." - analyzing the artwork decorating Rockefeller Plaza, which he said contained a hammer and sickle, The Glenn Beck Show on Fox News Channel,  September 2, 2009.

10. "O-L-I-G-A-R-H-Y." - misspelling "oligarchy" on his chalkboard while claiming he had deciphered a secret code that he said was proof that President Obama was trying to create an "oligarhy," August 27, 2009, Glenn Beck Show on Fox News Channel.
Posted
August 6th, 9:40pm 0 comments

Gay Marriage Is A Question of Love

Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness. So reasons Keith Olbermann in a special comment on his show on Nov. 10, 2008, as he disagrees with the passage of Proposition 8 in California and urges people to accept love between people of the same sex. With the legal takedown of this pernicious referendum and its unconstitutionality firmly established, a re-visiting of Olbermann's argument seems appropriate. 

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8.  And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble.  You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling.  With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."
Posted
August 4th, 8:34pm 0 comments

Love Beats Hate

On the "Fox Forum" at FoxNews.com, law professor Gerald Bradley tried to smear Judge Vaughn Walker for bias, with a really novel argument: he wasn't saying Walker, a Reagan appointee, was biased because "he's openly gay," it was because "he might wish or even expect to wed should same-sex marriage become legally available in California." Did you follow that? Not because he's gay, but because he might avail himself of the right to a same-sex marriage? But hey, it's a kind of progress when Fox commentators do their gay bashing, but try to deny it's gay bashing. That means they know it won't work with most of the country anymore. Back in 1967 when the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage, 70 percent of Americans opposed interracial marriage. 

Expect to see this news alert soon on Fox "News": OBAMA TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGES AT GROUND ZERO MOSQUE 

 

Prop 8 OVERTURNED: Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down in California

In a major victory for gay rights activists, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that a voter initiative banning same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution's equal protection and due process rights clauses. 

After a five-month wait, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker offered a 136-page decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, firmly rejecting Proposition 8, which was passed by voters in November 2008.

"Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect," Walker ruled.

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."

The judgment was the first offered by a federal court with respect to laws banning gay marriage at the state level and it promises to have massive reverberations across the political and judicial landscape. The decision is now expected to head to the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, also based in San Francisco, for appeal, and from there to the Supreme Court. (Gay marriages will not resume immediately in California; the decision has been stayed until August 6 to consider arguments regarding an appeal.)

In the interim, however, Walker's ruling gave gay-rights activists a second occasion to rejoice in less than a month. In July, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as one man and one woman, was also unconstitutional.

"Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statement.

A White House official emailed reporters, "The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans."

"It is not only a home run, it is a grand slam," said Jon Davidson the legal director at Lambda Legal, the country's largest and oldest LBGT legal organization. "This decisions is not going to be the end of this fight, the proponents have already said they will appeal. But I think the factual findings that the judge has made and his clear and detailed analysis will be important to frame the case as it goes up on appeal."

"This is part of an educational process that is going on in this country. When judges look outside of the political process and they go through the evidence and treat arguments as more than just sound bites they come to the conclusion that withholding marriage from same sex couples hurts them and their families and doesn't help anyone. That helps move the conversation."

Wednesday's decision came after lengthy, substantive, and at times provocative legal deliberations in which an odd-couple pairing of lawyers took on the cause of overturning the same-sex marriage ban. Theodore Olson and David Boies -- direct adversaries in the 2000 Supreme Court presidential recount battle -- made the case that Prop 8 violated both the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. The law, the two argued, was discriminatory on the basis of both sexual orientation and on the basis of sex in addition to violating the principle that marriage was a personal liberty.

"The Supreme Court has said that marriage is the most important relation in life. Now that's being withheld from the plaintiffs," Olson said in his closing argument. "Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, spirituality and autonomy."

Representing the defense, another Washington-based lawyer, Charles Cooper leaned heavily on the social impact of codifying gay marriage, arguing that "marriage is to channel the sexual behavior between men and women into a procreative union."

In deciding the case, Walker offered a variety of findings that may be as important as the ruling itself. Among them were the following:

                  "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

                  "Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.""Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."

      "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

      "Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

      "The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

      "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

 Perhaps the most important political finding that Walker made was his conclusion that the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

The Huffington Post - August 4, '10
Posted
July 29th, 12:58pm 0 comments

Faceless in Minneapolis

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.             Woody Allen 

So... early in the 21st century and late in my life I have realized with dawning horror--like Socrates must have felt while the hemlock made its slow and fatal journey to his heart--that communications technology used with impunity can be a dangerous two-edged sword, just as likely to carve off a valued piece of your psyche as it is to vanquish a supposed enemy.

Facebook is an incredible tool, employed by millions to alert the world to anything the user feels the world must be alerted to at that moment in time, including what he had for breakfast, how he feels about Rachel Maddow, and what new song just made him cry. It can be used to drum up support for candidates and causes or to shame and condemn the powerful. And like most well-designed tools, the results are completely dependent on the skill of the user. In my brief experience with Facebook, I have re-connected with long lost friends, argued vehemently with friends of friends whom I've never met, bragged to no one in particular about my minor successes in theater and publishing, posted cogent political positions on subjects of absolutely no interest to anyone I know, and nearly ended relationships with real friends and family members over trifling differences which, if aired face to face over a soothing cup of Jamaican light roast, would likely have been handled with a laugh and a "Let's move on---need a refill?" 

As a result of an encounter on Faceless, a term I believe describes it more accurately, I have lain awake at 3 in the morning, hypnotically staring at  my twirling faux cherry-wood ceiling fan, weighing the consequences of what I'd just spent two hours composing and sending to someone I barely know so that he might be enlightened by my newly acquired knowledge of the intricacies of the federal reserve. I have looked down from my keyboard and noticed that my stomach is expanding like a parade balloon, noticeably larger than it was before I discovered the sedentary joys of Faceless. I roll out of my chair, scuffle to the garage, and I see dust on my bicycle seat. I remember that it's almost August and I have yet to walk even once around one of the many stunning lakes in my Northern jewel of a city.

Something is wrong here. Give me a minute. Should be as simple as the theory of the evolution of critical density: as the universe of Faceless expands, the density of the matter inside it decreases. Ergo: the more I use Faceless, the dumber I get. Yes. Makes sense, even to an English major.

The first day I discovered Faceless, I saw that in order to use it properly I needed some friends. The first friend I "friended"---there's that revolting Faceless requirement to turn nouns into verbs--- was my son. His immediate response on his wall: "Uh oh, my father is exploring outside his generational purview." I laughed. But the joke's on me. The kid was right. Some tools are best left to those who know how to use them. 

When my sewer drain is clogged, I call the guy who's brilliant with the snake. When my lawn mower doesn't mow, I lug it to the small engine guys on Cedar, who work miracles with a needle-nosed pliers. I know how to communicate without Faceless! I can do this! There's my phone....I can actually drive to my friend Kelly's house and knock on his door....you can't call a friend a moron on Faceless if he can't see the look in your eye when you do it. 

I realize, of course, this means I have to BE THERE. That's another hurdle, just have to change some patterns and make some time.

With the resolve of an addict determined to rejoin the sober community, I will be checking in on Faceless very rarely from now on, once a week for a few minutes to see if I'm missing an event in someone's life I might truly enjoy. I'll use it occasionally to let the world know that my son is releasing another album and to GET IT NOW. I may even throw up a photo if it looks like someone else should see it and enjoy it. But I'll be spending a lot more time in my front yard looking for the hawk that hunts songbird hors d'oeuvres in our lilac bushes. And there will be no more casual, anonymous Faceless involvement in other people's lives, no more bait tossed out in shallow water in hopes of reeling in some trophy fish that I'd just toss back in the water anyway.

Damn. This feels good. Like Scrooge on Christmas morning. Wonder if I can still do 12 miles around the lakes on my Raleigh in an hour?

  

 

Posted