More stupid from The Land That Time Forgot

Yeah, I'll be talking about the rise of The Stupid in America on Blast Off! Radio tonight, but just to whet your appetite, I found some choice examples in (unsurprisingly) the Northwest Florida Daily News, and specifically the letters to the editor there. The NFDN, which touts itself as "A Freedom Newspaper," proudly proclaims its batshit-crazy wingnuttery ... but, to give credit where credit is due, at least they know their audience.

Two members of that audience had letters published in today's paper. In the first, titled "Race isn't an issue," Patti Thornhill of Crestview argues that if we claim that the ubiquitous (but poorly attended) tea parties are racist because the protesters aren't taking Drunky McStagger to task, well, then we're all wet.

I resent the insinuation of the letter writer (“Late to the party,” Sept. 19) who wondered where the tea party patriots were during the Bush administration. He wrote: “What kind of people are you? I think I know.” If he is implying we’re racists, he is deeply wrong and should apologize.

The fact is, many signs at the D.C. protest denounced George W. Bush as well, including a couple of him with the infamous Joker makeup. I know. I was there.

I assume Ms. Thornhill is referring to the 9/12 fisting party Beckgasm protests in Washington, which she presumably attended. Well, I wasn't there myself (although I had to laugh this weekend when a friend of a friend, who also wasn't there, swore that 1.7 million people attended, rather than the 70,000 reported by D.C. authorities ... if there were that many, why weren't roads and the Metro jammed beyond capacity ... like, say, at the Obama inauguration?), but I did search the Internets for pictures from tea parties criticizing Drunky and -- guess what? -- I couldn't find any. Sure, there may have been one or two ... even "many" (which I guess would be, what, five?) ... but (a) I doubt there were any at all and (b) even if they were, that doesn't negate the inference that most teabaggers are just mad that there's a Scary Black Man in the White House. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to think that a few isolated signs that you can't even prove exist would support the argument that most teabaggers are NOT racists? Ah, wingnut logic ...

Unfortunately, the second letter I want to share with you, titled "A lazy majority" and written (I use that term loosely) by one William J. Roberts of Fort Walton Beach, isn't available online. But I'll transcribe for your entertainment just the opening paragraph, so you get a taste of the kind of stupid on display here:

The writer of "It's not an option" (letter, Sept. 13) wrote that because the Declaration of Independence delineates the right to enjoy life/health, there exists a right to health care. Why, then, aren't food, clothing, shelter and transportation rights? Surely there are more immediate requisites as one pursues liberty and happiness.

Well, Mr. Roberts, let me answer your question as simply as I can: health care is critical to life and must be provided to people by others, unlike food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. Food? You can grow your own, hunt, whatever ... clothing -- not necessary to life ... shelter -- again, create your own ... transportation -- also not necessary to life. Jeebus, is it that difficult to figure out? You selfish bastards are so bent on refusing to help your fellow man (didn't I read something about that in the Bible?) that you have to do these logical contortions just to preserve your twisted, insurance-company-enriching status quo. This kind of stupid makes my head hurt.

Besides, we don't look to the Declaration of Independence for any of our rights. Those come from the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the federal government should "promote the general welfare" ... and that undoubtedly includes health care, particularly for those who cannot secure it themselves.

But, you know, I should learn not to argue facts and logic with radical rightists. They'll never learn.

(More to come on tonight's Blast Off! Radio at 7pm Eastern.)

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 8 — Ignorance reigns supreme

Remember that long post I said I wanted to write? Well, this is it ... and it still doesn't cover everything I wanted to address.

If you've been following the Pace High School prayer story since its inception (and if you haven't, you can catch up here, scrolling past this current post), you know that public opinion out of Santa Rosa County and the greater Pensacola area has been strongly in favor of the illegal actions of Pace High principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman. To me, this shows nothing more than (1) people around here don't care much about the law, and (2) supporters of the two men essentially are ignorant.

Don't get me wrong: if they want to throw money away contributing to Lay's soon-to-be-unsuccessful legal defense, more power to them. The problem here is not that they want to support their friend/colleague/fellow Jesus-worshipper, but rather the overriding attitude that their worship of Jesus somehow puts them (and Lay) above the law.

"We feel what Frank Lay has done echoes the conscience of the community," said [Lay's friend, insurance salesman Robert] Smith, a former Santa Rosa county commissioner and, more recently, the leader of an unsuccessful charge to keep liquor sales out of the county.

"Our school district in Santa Rosa County is so unique. We continue to excel academically. There's something going on over here that's right, and we think this is part of it."

The Rev. Ted Traylor, pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, also is lending a hand by promoting the legal-defense fund on his blog. Lay is an 11-year member of Olive Baptist and a deacon there.

Traylor, who writes his personal views every Tuesday and Friday, said Lay and Freeman shouldn't face charges for asking a blessing.

"To quote the Commander in Chief on another issue: this is acting stupidly," he wrote. "But, this is the America we live in today. Socialism is next. Then comes communism. If we do not stand with Frank, they will come and take us away next."

Oh, come on, Rev. Traylor! They'll be far too busy taking away your guns and your hard-earned money to come and take you away! Seriously, though, you see what I mean? These people place the "conscience of the community" above the U.S. Constitution!

Smith is even producing T-shirts (shown at right, courtesy of WALA Fox10 News) that completely (and, I imagine, intentionally) misrepresent the issue, asserting that the very institution of prayer is under assault here (whereas, as has been stated repeatedly here and elsewhere until I'm blue in the face, no one seriously is contending that the students can't pray -- even in school! It's merely prayer organized and led or approved by public school personnel that is proscribed by law!).

But, unfortunately, such ignorance is not just limited to Lay's friends. Check out the craziness that has appeared in recent letters to the editor in the Pensacola News Journal:

August 11:

The name may be Frank Lay, but everything I have seen in the man is "stand-up." Meanwhile, the un-American Casualty of Liberties Union is attempting to take away the very liberties they purportedly are trying to protect.

Most men lie down at the first sign of real adversity; not Frank Lay. This man has spent his career educating our youth, instilling professionalism in students and teachers alike, molding discipline and character. Lay, in my opinion, has the intellect to manage at the highest corporate level but he chose to be a servant and give instead of take; a man of integrity; a man of courage to speak his mind; a man who actually lives the faith that harbors his soul.

As I look around and see the decadence and immorality cascading to levels unseen, I am overwhelmed that we still have great American men who take a stand to protect what our forefathers forged more than 200 years ago.

— Carl F. King II

Hey, I think it's great that Frank Lay is a man of faith. He should feel free to practice his faith in church, at home, even in a public forum ... but not in a place where his professional authority is conferred by the government. As for "protect[ing] what our forefathers forged more than 200 years ago," I'm not sure what Mr. King thinks was "forged" back then, but it definitely was not the ability to foist one's particular faith onto others with the backing of the government. Religious freedom means not only practicing whatever religion you wish (or none at all), but also freedom from governmental establishment of religion. More on that below ...

Also from August 11:

In my opinion I think U. S. District Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers should be ashamed of herself for instigating these charges against Mr. Lay.

In God We Trust.

— Carol Alfonsin Boyle

Setting aside for the moment the fact that "instigating" doesn't mean what Ms. Boyle apparently thinks it means, Judge Rodgers is sworn to uphold the law, which in this case means enforcing the consent decree she approved, one to which the Santa Rosa County School District agreed. Lay and Freeman violated the decree; that is contempt of court under the law. The real shame is that Ms. Boyle deigns to tell a federal judge how to do her job.

August 14:

While wackos kill innocent folks in gyms and schools, murdering commandos kill a Beulah couple, lunatics, robbers, rapists, illegals, gangs and drug dealers roam our land at will, we're wasting money we don't have and manpower we can't afford prosecuting two revered school teachers who are widely credited for helping turn out the best-educated students in Florida for the federal criminal offense of praying before a meal. Where is the ACLU when their rights are trampled?

If Frank Lay and Robert Freeman are dubbed criminals, this surely will end as a tragedy we will see as a weakened school system. If this is the sorry thanks we give to two good men who have dedicated their lives to bettering our children, then fewer good men will volunteer.

In a play off a statement made by our first lady, I am finally ashamed of our country.

— Sandy Wyatt, Pace

[...]

I have grandchildren coming up in this world. I wish there were something I could do to stop this insanity. Why are "they" so afraid of God? I pray that this mess will be straightened out and with a happy ending.

— Devona Willis, Laurel Hill

Ms. Wyatt, why do you hate America? The only weakening of the (public) school system would be if school officials were permitted to impose their Christian beliefs on the students, some of whom are not Christian and likely some of whom do not believe in God. If a parent wants Christian education, there are plenty of private schools that would be more than willing to accept Pace's students. To put it simply: religious indoctrination has no place in public school.

By the way, Ms. Wyatt, the criminal offense wasn't "praying before a meal;" it was violating a temporary injunction against school activities that violate the U.S. Constitution -- violations Santa Rosa County school officials previously were more than willing to commit. But nice strawman argument anyway ...

And Ms. Willis, I would respond by asking why "you" are so afraid of the law and the Constitution? This isn't insanity; no one is being told they can't pray (or they shouldn't be told that) -- just that they can't have prayer led by public school officials. Big difference ...

August 18:

I believe civil disobedience (for Christians) is justified when God's principles are opposed.

There is only one God, the one who enjoys Frank Lay's allegiance! Lay is a man of God, not ashamed of His Master! America needs more like him, like most of our founding fathers. This mother of a Pace High graduate was grateful he was in that environment.

If every "Christian" in the educational system took a stand for God, we could take back our public schools and our beloved country from Satan's bunch. The ACLU would get a run for its money.

Liberal judges need to know the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, before it's too late. We'll all stand before the Judge of Judges one day.

Our School Board should never have signed the "consent decree." I wasn't surprised at the member who reported the incident. She opposed the elective Bible course offered years ago. Thank God for Chuck Norris and his wife who researched the legality thereof.

God bless you all as only he can.

— Chrys Holley, Milton

This letter practically defines the "whackjob Christianist" genre. Ms. Holley seems to think only Christians have a right to civil disobedience -- this in a country founded on the right to worship as one wishes, or not at all. It would be difficult to be more wrong (in light of settled American law and jurisprudence) than this letter ...

I think it's great, Ms. Holley, how happy you are for your son having graduated from Pace High. But how should the students from Jewish families or Muslim families or atheist families react to that? See, Ms. Holley, you don't have the right to push your beliefs on others in a public school. That's the bottom line. And if you don't like it, you're free to try to repeal that part of the First Amendment. Good luck with that.

August 19:

We have a constitutional right to free speech, not to be protected from what we don't want to hear. All of us have to listen to things we do not like, such as the vitriol launched against those who believe in prayer.

It is wrong for a few unbelievers to tyrannize and prevent the free speech of the majority and to prevent the free speech of student leaders because of what they might say. No one is forced to join in.

Congress prays. The Constitutional Convention in June of 1787, stymied by its members' disagreements, began to pray daily at the suggestion of Ben Franklin. National days of prayer and fasting were commonly declared in the early days of our nation.

It is not prayer that is the problem in this country today; it is the lack of it and the denial to God of His proper place in our lives that are.

— Carolyn Hinton, Pensacola

Where did you earn your law degree, Ms. Hinton? Free speech is not absolute -- American courts, including the Supreme Court, long have recognized limits to free speech. These limits include certain restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech and limits on free speech in public schools. Religious indoctrination simply is not permitted in public schools, and it shouldn't be permitted now.

You may be surprised to learn that the Constitution does not exist to ensure the rights of the majority, Ms. Hinton; rather, it serves to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If we followed your rules, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't have the right to vote. Fortunately on both counts, that's not the case. As for "no one is forced to join in," that's just bullshit and everyone knows it. What constitutes "forced" in your opinion, Ms. Hinton? If a Jewish child doesn't want to pray to the Christian God, do you think he or she will feel free to decline in a Santa Rosa County public school and, more to the point, that said child won't be ostracized for failing to pray?

Sure, Congress prays. But there are limits to the prayers, the prayers are offered by various denominations including Jewish rabbis and Muslim clerics, and the members of Congress are adults who are capable of declining to pray or not deriding others who choose not to pray. This isn't a freedom of speech issue -- it's an issue of freedom from the establishment of religion, which is expressly provided by the First Amendment.

Get over yourself, Ms. Hinton. Your attitude sucks.

But the very best example of this kind of stark raving Christianist lunacy comes from one Dorothy Jacobs of Pensacola, who brilliantly argued in a letter published on August 20 (page 2 at link), "Wake up, America! The Constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Will we soon be called the United Soviet Socialist States of America?" Precisely wrong, Ms. Jacobs, as the First Amendment provides for both freedom of and freedom from religion. And what this has to do with socialism -- an economic theory -- I have absolutely no idea. She's probably just railing against that eeeeeevil black man in the White House ....

I know this was a long post, but I think it was necessary for you to understand exactly what we reality-based people have to face in northwest Florida. The News Journal runs letters at least two-to-one in favor of Lay and Freeman; whether that's reflective of their own bias or the number of letters they're getting, I don't know. Either way, it's frightening to see the lack of respect for the Constitution around here.

I've generally opposed the idea of jail time for Lay and Freeman, who will face their criminal contempt charges in a September 17 hearing ... but if giving the two wrongdoers a little time behind bars will wake up the Christianists to the reality that they can't impose their fundamentalist "values" in a public school setting, then maybe locking them up for a bit is the right way to go.

(More discussion on this tonight on Blast Off! Radio at a special time, 7:00 pm Eastern .... details to come show details are here.)

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in south Florida anymore! (part 2 of an irregular series)

I don't mean to suggest that the condition of being batshit crazy in any way is confined merely to northwest Florida. But I must admit: there's a distressing preponderance of it here.

Take, for example, this letter to the editor from today's Pensacola News Journal. The stupid, it well and truly burns.

Rush Limbaugh did not say he wanted the president to fail ("Politics of destruction," Letters Feb. 5). Quite the contrary, he stated that he didn't want the president to fail, he wanted his socialistic policies to fail.

All Americans who care about their country should want this. If you don't, I suggest you read some history of countries such as Russia and China. Rush speaks the truth.

President Obama said change was coming. We see it in his cabinet nominees. If this is the best, I can't wait. At this rate, his nominees can pay off the National Debt.

The situation our economy is in is a direct result of President Carter and President Clinton, Barney Frank and company. Their policies have bankrupted this country. All attempts by Republicans to stop the waste and fraud were stopped by the Democrats and not allowed to even get out of committee for a vote. The Democrats are responsible for this mess. Man up and own up.

If Obama's socialistic policies are successful, our country as we know it is doomed and you can depend on it.

Edwin Leach
Pensacola

First of all, Rush Limbaugh, the infamous bloated drug addict of Palm Beach County, did say he hopes President Obama fails. Or did you conveniently forget the quote, Mr. Leach? Here's a reminder: "I hope he fails." Not "I hope his policies fail" or "I hope his administration fails." Nope, Rushbo clearly said "I hope he fails." Remedial reading, Mr. Leach -- you might look into it.

But that's not the truly stupid part, the part that really makes Edwin Leach too stupid to breathe. Like most of the deluded wingnuts (sorry ... I know that's redundant) hereabouts, Mr. Leach manages to blame Democrats, dating back more than three decades, for the nation's present-day economic woes. Perhaps Mr. Leach was so busy reading (or, more likely, coloring) history books about Russia and China that he completely neglected history books about his own country. That would explain why he doesn't remember the historic spending spree of Ronald Reagan, whose contribution to the national debt still plagues us.

Nor does he recall more recent history, like how Drunky McStagger turned a large budget surplus left to him by his predecessor, that nefarious rascal Bill Clinton, into a record budget deficit. He didn't do that by exercising fiscal restraint, Mr. Leach. This isn't merely partisan rhetoric, Mr. Leach -- it's documented, verifiable fact. But, naturally, wingnuts are congenitally immune to facts ... except for the fact that Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office. Horrors!!

I would like to invite Mr. Leach to, as he so succinctly put it, "man up and own up" to his own shortcomings and recognize that his "argument," such as it is, lacks even the most basic connection to truth. Then again, if you think Rush Limbaugh "speaks the truth," well, you're probably too far gone to realize your delusions.

Laughable letters to the editor

There were a couple of doozies today in the Palm Beach Post, my local fishwrap.

For example, enjoy this gem from Dr. Donald W. McKinnon, who hastens to remind us that although he's from Riviera Beach, he's from the Singer Island (i.e., the wealthy and predominately white) part of Riviera Beach. Thanks for emphasizing that for us, Doc ...

When did this become a godless country? Why did the "In God We Trust" disappear from the new dollar coin, and now the new one-cent coin? Why are we doing nothing about this?

Is there no accountability left in our government? Regardless of the religion, be it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or any other of the numerous faiths in our country, they all acknowledge a god. This country was founded on the principles of religion. Who had the authority to change the coinage to eliminate the "In God We Trust?" The time has come to pinpoint accountability, and stand up for what we hold precious.

DR. DONALD W. McKINNON
Riviera Beach (Singer Island)

When did this become a godless country, you ask? Oh, around 1788, I'd say.

Don't scoff, Dr. McKinnon! It's common knowledge that the vast majority of the Founders were not Christians, and indeed, several were deists or just didn't believe in a "higher power" of any kind. Ever heard of Thomas Jefferson? Yep -- not a Christian.

See, the Constitution they drafted (yes, I understand you right-wing idiots don't follow the Constitution anymore, but just bear with me for the sake of argument) expressly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...." In other words ... we've always been godless, at least as a nation. Thanks to the rest of that clause, "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," you can worship as you wish. But it's true -- America is godless. Suck. On. That.

Oh, and "this country was founded on principles of religion?" Where did you read that? Guideposts? There's not a shred of truth in that. Yes, there are ethical principles in our form of government (or were, before your heroes in the Bush crime syndicate took office) that are derived from or have cognates in Judeo-Christian beliefs, but to say the United States of America was "founded on principles of religion" is to ignore all responsible and respectable scholarship -- including first-hand accounts -- of the creation of our nation.

Thank you, Dr. McKinnon ... please drive through.

The next nugget comes from Charles Lyday of Boca Raton, who criticizes Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.) for some recent discrepancies concerning his residence:

U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney's residency issues sound like another politician's recent sorry story. Did Rep. Mahoney, D-Palm Beach Gardens, learn the same dignity, ethics, honor and values as Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach?

Mr. Lyday, for the sake of our country and the 16th District of Florida, I hope the answer to your question is a resounding yes. If Mahoney and others learned from the example of Robert Wexler, one of the most forceful, vigilant, and honorable liberals in Congress*, then I'd be delighted.

Where do they find these morons to write such drivel?

---

* Rep. Wexler's disappointing vote for the massive government bailout of big business notwithstanding ...

We get e-mail

A week ago, I satirized a wingnut letter to the editor by Richard Charles Antolinez of Port St. Lucie, who claimed that Huggy Bear wasn't extreme-batshit-right enough for him. (Okay, he didn't say that exactly but, in calling Huggy and others like Giuliani "RINOs," he might as well have.)

Well, when I urged Mr. Antolinez not to give up on Huggy so quickly, he apparently missed the sarcastic tone and thought I was really supporting the dessicated, goiter-ridden near-corpse. So, he emailed me yesterday (shown here verbatim):

Subject: You got me wrong.

The Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr is a good choice, I am sorry you think I should vote for McBush like those groups recommend.

These groups are run by political operatives of the current administration.

But, do go ahead and join the log cabin Republicans and vote for McBush.

For me I would prefer not to stay the coarse.

Richard Charles Antolinez

Reading comprehension and spelling obviously are not our friend's strong points.

I replied to Mr. Antolinez to explain that I'd be supporting Barack Obama in the election, thank you very much, but that he was free to vote for Barr in November, since every vote for Barr, especially in Florida, is as good as a vote for Obama. I added that, not being gay nor Republican, I wouldn't be joining the Log Cabin Republicans, but I appreciated the invitation.

Was I too civil?

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: the wingnutosphere

An infamous quote by Houston oilman and Huggy Bear supporter Clayton Williams, who said about rape, "As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it," comes to mind when seeing the Republicans' attitude about the almost certain Democratic landslide this fall. I think they've resigned themselves to finding the silver lining in the perceived cloud of Democratic victory -- which really means they're trying to come to terms with the fact that the country finally is going to reject their brand of Fascist totalitarianism, hopefully for good.

As an example, take a look at the letter to the editor in today's Palm Beach Post written by one Richard Charles Antolinez, who resides in that noted bastion of wingnuttery, Port St. Lucie, Fla. The poor, poor man is laboring under some rather intense illusions (letter #5 at link) that the Republican heroes of 2008 are nothing but sheep in wolves' clothing:

I am opposed to a Barack Obama presidency. But I can name a good thing that Sen. Obama will bring if elected.

An Obama presidency with Democrats in Congress will cause the Republican Party to reexamine itself. Republicans will purge themselves of politicians such as Sen. John McCain. The Republican National Committee usually lends support to incumbent members in a primary election, even if their beliefs are outside the Republican platform and are Republican in name only (RINO), such as Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani and Lincoln Chafee. In 2007, Lincoln Chafee changed to Independent and since has endorsed Sen. Obama for president, the rationale being the incumbent is more valuable to the party than the newcomer. Conservatives contend that it is better for the party to lose the seat, rather than retain a RINO.

The Republican Party also can purge itself of the influence of groups such as: the Republican Main Street Partnership, Republicans For Choice, the Log Cabin Republicans, the Wish List, the Republican Majority for Choice, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the Ripon Society and It's My Party Too.

I would hope an Obama presidency with Democrats in full control of Congress would convince the GOP to cut out the cancerous practice of supporting RINO candidates. The Republican Party has lost its base. What will it take for the GOP to realize that the party is over and it's time to take down the big tent? I'm voting for a conservative, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr.

But remember, folks, according to the mainstream corporate media, it's the Democrats who are fractured and divisive. Yeah, right. (Rudy Giuliani is a "RINO?" I'll have what you're smoking, dude.)

Loook, don't let the constant drumbeat of right-wing rhetoric from the media fool you. Most Republicans are pissed -- pissed -- that Huggy Bear is their candidate. Not that they agreed on who should be the candidate, mind you -- after all, that's how Huggy managed to win the nomination: by process of elimination. No, they can't stand Huggy because they think he's moderate, which, as those of us in the reality-based community know, is utterly absurd.

Please don't fret, Mr. Antolinez. Huggy Bear has supported your hero, Drunky McStagger, about 95% of the time in the Senate. He's at least as much of a warmonger and torture-lover as you are, and what's more, he's just as eager to destroy the environment, give preferential treatment to big business, and lie, cheat, and steal to get his way as any Republican is. And Huggy's just as dedicated to your veiled racist, misogynistic positions as you are ("time to take down the big tent?" Come on, pal -- just say "kick out the womenfolk, fags, and brown people" -- it would be more accurate). You shouldn't give up so quickly, Mr. Antolinez. All I am saying, is give Huggy a chance.

Hmmm ....

On second thought, don't. You go vote for Bob Barr, and tell all your friends to do so, too. Yeah, that's the ticket. No, no, I don't have ulterior motives at all. I applaud your devotion to insane whackjob conservative values. You go, Dick! (May I call you Dick?)

Meanwhile, isn't it fun to watch wingnuts' heads explode? Oh, and while you wingnuts are cleaning up the mess, maybe you'll appreciate this little recognition, because today's Daily Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Hey, as long as it's inevitable, wingnuts, you might as well lie back and enjoy it ...

Finally mad enough

Well, it finally happened. I finally got angry enough about a moronic letter to the editor that I wrote a response. Who knows if it'll get published, but I did my best ...

Here's the winning letter from today's Palm Beach Post (fourth letter at link), titled "Two-faced Democrats thrive on double standard:"

The Democrats never cease to amaze me. When someone blows the whistle on Democratic administrations, as in the recent Vanity Fair Bill Clinton piece or the shady Cabinet members in his administration, or the Chinese arms deals, or the women victims he left behind, the Democrats come out of the woodwork to defend themselves. "He's a scumbag," they say, or James Carville's famous "Drag a dollar through a trailer park and there's no telling what you'll find," etc. etc. There is no end to the vilification of these people. But let a Republican such as Scott McClellan say something negative about the Bush administration in like manner, and the Democrats will call them very honest: "They were in the inside and know what their [sic] talking about"; "These are real decent people and are only speaking the truth." What rot.

JOHN DARCY

West Palm Beach

Yeah, I know -- too stupid to breathe, right? I do hope the "their/they're" mixup was a direct quote and not an editing issue -- it would be a fitting reflection of the intellectual power of the letter writer.

Anyway, here's my response, sent in this morning:

In response to the June 28 letter "Two-faced Democrats thrive on double standard," while I appreciate the letter writer's strawman, his clumsy comparison simply doesn't hold water. The writer criticizes Democrats for what he perceives as hypocrisy by congratulating Scott McClellan for blowing the whistle on Bush White House misdeeds while defending "Democratic administrations." But, like all Republican apologists and sycophants, the writer can point only to Bill Clinton as an example of "shady" Democrats.

The difference, of course, is that while Bill Clinton certainly committed some personal transgressions while president, his mistakes did not lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqi citizens. Clinton's errors were personal and individual, while the corruption of the Bush administration is pervasive and endemic. Bill Clinton continues to repair his image with humanitarian outreach and a charming, ingratiating demeanor, while George W. Bush's image of incompetence and malapropisms is irreparably destroyed and Dick Cheney uses anger and intimidation to achieve his nefarious goals.

The letter writer concluded, as to the Democrats, "What rot." But, as all observant Americans can see, it is the Bush administration that is rotten to the core.

Okay, maybe I was a little more complimentary than necessary of Mr. Clinton. And maybe it'll get published, maybe not. But even if it doesn't, it would be nice if Mr. Darcy saw this sometime ...

Sometimes, stupid people write letters

What is it about people? I mean, I've had the occasional letter to the editor published in various newspapers over the years, but I consider myself at least marginally sentient and rational. Unlike, say, Dorothy Mervine of West Palm Beach, whose laughable letter was published in today's Palm Beach Post (last letter at link):

What's the story with Wright's disappearing act?

What happened to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? He seems to have disappeared after Sen. Barack Obama finally "distanced" himself following his recent appearance at various events. Did they tie him up and put him in a closet? I find it difficult to believe that he is no longer newsworthy. How in the world did they hush him up? I guess the Obama campaign wouldn't stand for such nonsense. Never mind "where in the world is Matt Lauer." I want to know "where in the world is the Rev. Wright?" There's an investigative opportunity if ever I saw one.

Um, no, Ms. Mervine. The reason you don't hear about Rev. Wright anymore is that IT'S NEVER BEEN NEWSWORTHY. Only because of the rabid dogs who run the right-wing corporate media in this country was it ever a story to begin with, and it certainly wasn't critical to determining who our next president will be. Should we assume that batshit crazy pastors like John Hagee and Rod Parsley (who endorsed Huggy Bear before they unendorsed him) speak for Huggy and the Republicans?

Seriously, lady, what's so important about what someone's pastor says? How about we take a look at all your friends, all your associates, your worship leader if you have one, your teachers, your family, and we'll impute anything they say to you? Do you think that's fair?

Well, it's not. And if you think it is, you're dumber than your letter makes you look.

They walk among us

Every so often, even in a land of relative sanity like Palm Beach County (yeah, I know, but remember, I lived in batshit-crazy wingnutty Brevard County before this, so it's all truly relative), you find people who have no fucking clue. One of them got a letter to the editor published in today's Palm Beach Post.

President needs principles, not just speaking skills

After following the too-long presidential campaign, I wish that November would get here quickly. Having read, listened and watched many hours, I think I can summarize the candidates as follows:

Sen. Barack Obama? A man who speaks extremely well, but has little to show in experience to back up all his claims of being a man of change. Can anyone tell me anything significant that he has ever done? The presidency is not a place for on-the-job training. Every time I think of him in charge of this great country, I have a strange feeling in the pit of my stomach, similar to how I feel just before I look for the Pepto Bismol bottle.

Sen. Hillary Clinton? A woman with a plastic smile who is carrying more baggage than a skycap at an airport. She will say and do anything to be president. To think of another Clinton sitting behind the "sacred" desk gives me the same upset stomach I get with Sen. Obama.

Sen. John McCain? Not a great speaker, with kind of a goofy smile, but someone who has the experience to lead our country. In spite of any questions that we have about how he would perform as president, he has had enough principle to vote as he sees best for the country and not be swayed by his own political party or special interest groups.

My only hope for this election is that those who care about the future of this country will vote not based on oratory or a promise of change or who promises to pad their wallet, but vote based on the principles this country was founded on and for the one best qualified to carry out those principles.

JIM OLSEN
Hobe Sound

Yeah, I know that I joke about having voted for John Edwards in the Florida Democratic primary because I couldn't decide whether to be racist or sexist, so I chose both ... but here's a guy who really is both racist and sexist.

Mr. Olsen, I can tell you one "significant" thing right off the bat that Sen. Obama has done: he is a United States Senator -- same as your hero Huggy Bear, in fact. Not significant, eh? And get a load of the description Mr. Olsen uses for Sen. Clinton: "A woman with a plastic smile who is carrying more baggage than a skycap at an airport." Well, Mr. Olsen, aren't you the pithy little douchebag? As a good friend of mine says, had there been an actual joke here, you would have heard laughter.

Naturally, Mr. Olsen, you are free to support whomever you like in the fall election. But just keep in mind that your hero's "experience" includes a long history of sacrificing integrity for political expediency. A victim of torture himself, Huggy gleefully supports the torture of "enemy combatants" today. After being trashed by Drunky McStagger and Karl Rove in the 2000 presidential campaign, he hugged him in 2004 and continues to embrace his disastrous legacy today. He took advantage of his family connections to stay on as a fighter pilot after destroying five planes, something that would have relegated a less well-connected man to a desk job in some godforsaken outpost.

And as for "not be[ing] swayed by his own political party or special interest groups," that's demonstrably false on several levels. We've already seen Huggy do or say anything in support of what his Republican handlers tell him is the party line. As for special interests, do you remember the name Vicki Iseman? I do ... and I'm sure Huggy does, too, even if the mainstream corporate media seems to have forgotten.

Sorry, Mr. Olsen, but Sens. Obama and Clinton each have more integrity and honesty in their little fingers than Huggy Bear has in his entire dessicated, goiter-ridden near-corpse. Get ready for a change in November ... and learn to appreciate the fact that most Americans have more sense than you do.

They write letters

It's been a while since we've had a Letters to the Editor review here at Blast Off!, but there are a couple of choice nuggets to examine from today's Palm Beach Post.

First, this gem (second letter at the link) from Richard Dunn of Jupiter:

Don Wright's Jan. 4 cartoon in The Palm Beach Post depicted President Bush as a very dumb guy. This seems to be the consensus of the "left" as well as some on the "right."

But this view raises a question.

Why has this "dumb guy" beaten the "smart guys" of the Democratic Party in four straight elections, two for governor and two for president? He also seems to defeat the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate as they slander him on a daily basis.

Somehow the "dumb guy" comes out on top and his antagonists' reputations sink lower and lower. They all must be dumber than he is.

Okay, Dick (may I call you "Dick?" 'Cause I'm going to anyway) ... first thing you need to remember is that Drunky McStagger didn't win the elections. He definitely didn't win in 2000 and probably not in 2004, either. But, even if you assume for the sake of batshit crazy argument that he actually garnered more votes than his Democratic opponents, it simply doesn't matter how smart or dumb one is ... it matters who's running your campaign and who's packaging your message. Drunky is clearly a moron, but he surrounded himself with (I grudgingly admit) "smart" people, in the sense that they knew how to take advantage of the vast right-wing stupidity that exists in America today.

As for "defeating" the Democratic leadership in Congress, this one's multiple-choice:

1. The Democratic leadership isn't putting up much of a fight.
2. I'm not sure he's doing a lot of "defeating" in the first place.
3. The Democratic leadership in Congress is dumb, too.
4. All of the above.

As for the "antagonists' reputations sink[ing] lower and lower," got a link? Heh.

Let's move on ... next one is from C. Williams of Lake Worth (third letter):

I heard Monday that President Bush was notifying Congress that he has offered Saudi Arabia the chance to purchase sophisticated "smart bomb" technology from the United States that would give Saudi Arabia highly accurate targeting abilities. The sale was to be part of a weapons package to Saudi Arabia totaling approximately $20 billion.

Uh, does President Bush not recall that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Saudi Arabian citizens?

Oh, he recalls all right, C. It's just that he doesn't give a shit.

Finally, this offering from Frank Babin of Riviera Beach (fifth letter):

One of my saddest experiences has been watching the killing of Americans and Iraqis, and the "killing" of America's domestic stability and its world status by President Bush and his administration. I cannot believe that in America this is simply allowed to happen.

The president condemns other nations for living under tyranny, prides himself on "staying the course" regardless of the consequences and meets only with certain world leaders. During his seven years in office, I can't think of one significant decision the president and his administration have made that was not wrong. Can you?

Those who voted for Mr. Bush must carry the guilt. Let's not make that mistake again.

I think that one just stands on its own. Thanks for saying what all sensible people are thinking, Mr. Babin.

Memo to letter writer: Get over it

In the tradition of Justice Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia, I want to send a special "Get over it" greeting out to Ms. Ilean Guthartz of West Palm Beach, whose hands undoubtedly were sore from wringing them when she wrote a letter to the editor published in today's Palm Beach Post.

It seems Ms. Guthartz was offended by a recent article about a woman who sued a local restaurant after she was asked to leave for breastfeeding her baby. This obviously wounded the delicate sensibilities of Ms. Guthartz, who wrote:

I think it's appalling that Simone Bertucci took time from her supposedly busy schedule to call La Leche League to inquire about laws regarding breast-feeding and to hire a lawyer to sue the restaurant where she was breast-feeding her baby ("Nursing mom sues eatery over ejection," June 14). Apparently, the issue isn't being ejected; the issue is how much money can she extract from Houston's because the restaurant staff offended her by asking her to leave.

I think it was commendable that the vice president of Houston's wrote to the Bertuccis' attorney to apologize and invite them back to the restaurant, on top of sending the family a reimbursement check for $155. Mrs. Bertucci refused their offer, stating that she thought the whole thing was rude. Well, I think she was rude in not accepting the offer and in suing. If the owner or manager of a restaurant feels that a patron may be doing something that some people might find offensive, he should have the right to ask that person to leave.

Ah, yes, it's the old "some people" defense again ... you know, "some people say," "some countries have women presidents," "the discomfort some blacks have with Obama," "some people might find offensive." Ms. Guthartz, with all due respect (which honestly isn't very much), in whose opinion should the offensiveness of a behavior be determined? Let's say an atheist sees you praying or saying Grace before your meal. Should that atheist, finding your actions offensive, be allowed to complain to the manager? What if the manager him- or herself is an atheist (or at least an "atheist sympathizer") and, seeing your prayer and feeling that "some people" might find it offensive, he or she takes the initiative without patron complaint to eject you?

Truly, the logic (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) of the pearl-clutching whiners (or perhaps I should say some pearl-clutching whiners) never ceases to amaze me.