can't they just try to NOT be cunts, just once?

About a half hour ago, I figured I would "just watch a quick episode of John Oliver's Last Week Tonight before bed" because I'm really tired. Obviously I didn't think that one through, because there's a 97% chance there will be at least one segment that will piss me off and make it hard to fall asleep. And boy did I underestimate just how much it would piss me off this week...because it's really fucking awful. I am still tired so I won't make my return to posting too long.

Here's the summary:

• According to a 2013 Natural Resources Defense Council report, 
• Around 49,100,000 Americans lived in food-insecure households, which is defined by the USDA as "consistent access to adequate food [that] is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year" or in other words, people who don't know how and if they are going to be able to eat at last once during the year.
• Between 33.3% and 40% of all food produced in America is never actually eaten
• America (growers, distributors vendors, consumers, etc.) throws away $165 billion with a b worth of food every year, which is enough to fill 730 football stadiums, and is the equivalent of about 20 lbs of food per person, per month.

• The primary reason for the waste (at least on the part of the companies instead of the individual consumer) is because it is expensive to distribute for charity. As JO pointed out, companies are not charities and shouldn't be expected to spend that much money out of the goodness of their hearts. Especially since they don't have hearts. I mean, corporations are people legally, just not anatomically.

• The government should offer tax incentives/breaks to companies that do spend the money to get all that extra food to the hungry people we have so many of in this country. And they do, but only for large corporations. We also do it for small companies, like local grocers or restaurants, but only on a temporary basis, so these companies don't know if they will receive a tax break until the end of the year and therefore have no financial incentive to donate that food because the distribution is too cost-prohibitive.

• In February 2015, HR 644 - The Fighting Hunger Incentive Act was introduced on the floor of the House which basically codifies the same tax incentives offered to large corporations who make charitable food donations (since they were just going to throw it out anyway) for smaller business entities. Small business owners get tax breaks and hungry people get food. Win-win, so this should be easy - but it's the government so of course it's not.

• The bill does pass through the House but only after getting a bunch of other crap added to it and a new name - the America Gives More Act of 2015. But the important part is that all the original language about rewarding small businesses for feeding hungry people instead of landfills was still in there, so still on track.

But then....but then the Senate happened. Specifically, Orrin-I'm-the-personification-of-a-conflict-of-interest-because-my-own-son-is-a-lobbyist-and-also-I'm-a-giant-piece-of-shit Hatch. So as JO pointed out, the Senate did something that he didn't even know they could do. I didn't know they could do it either, and it's quite possible it will come as a shock to you as well, BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY FUCKING BATSHIT THAT THIS IS LEGAL EVEN THOUGH IT PROBABLY ISN'T BUT THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT AND NO ONE WILL EVER STOP THEM.

• Some-fucking-how Hatch took out all that stuff about feeding people and the corresponding tax incentives for small businesses - and I do mean ALL of it because he took out the ENTIRE text of the bill - and that angry little taint replaced it with a bunch of shit about immigration and U.S.-Israel relations. Because you know, that's the same. 

• Then, just to be a totally crusty cunt, he changed the name of the bill to the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, because ya know, we wouldn't want all those hungry people to get confused and think they were getting food or some bullshit like that.

This is the kind of shit that makes me fucking insane. Our fucked up government barely functions as it is...and I'm not sure if I can even legally use the word "functions" to describe what they do. But my basic 5th grade knowledge of the legislative process is that if the House proposes a bill, they approve it and it gets over to the Senate, then the Senate should have to be voting on the same mother fucking bill!!! I don't know if Hatch is the first one to pull this bullshit (although I have to think there's been giant pieces of shit before him that thought of it) but this is clearly not what the system is designed to do. I have to go to bed now, but I seriously, seriously hope he fucking dies and I get to wake up to good news in the morning. And not just a regular, peaceful death in his sleep. I want him to die under some really embarrassing AND painful circumstances. If I wake up to an ORRIN HATCH CHOKES TO DEATH ON BRIGHT BLUE DONKEY DILDO I will definitely know there is a god and that he (or she) loves me very, very much.

disclaimer of sorts...

I suppose I should have done this earlier, but I suppose I will just have to file this under better late than never!!

If you know me well, you already know that I "swear like a truck driver" in everyday conversation, so my language is unlikely to faze you. There are those of you, however, who still read my posts but aren't necessarily accustomed to my propensity for the profane. This disclaimer is for you.

I swear a lot - you may have noticed - but I do not consider profanity to always have a negative connotation. Instead, I associate profanity more with emphasis than degradation, and I tend state my opinions rather emphatically. So although I use them often, I know it takes more than just a few f-bombs to substantiate any argument on any side of any issue.

I will offend some of you at some point. While that is certainly not my intention, it is inevitable and I accept that. However, I would rather it happen because of the opinions themselves and not how I chose to express them. Every person has the right to his or her own opinion - myself included - so I would never under any circumstances intentionally disrespect or disparage someone simply for exercising that right. Please don't let my excessive swearing lead you to believe that I don't respect differing opinions.

That being said, it is true that I will disparage some people - particularly public figures - but for different reasons. It's one thing for a person of notoriety using his or her position to express an opinion on a public stage, but it's quite another when a deliberate attempt is made to manipulate the opinions of others using false and/or misleading information solely for financial gain, without regard for the consequences for everyone involved. If an opinion is genuine, there is no need for deceit. But when someone is willing to prey on the good nature of others by masquerading as a person with values, that is someone for whom I have absolutely no respect and my disgust will be evident. But if that person feigns to have values that coincide with your own, it may feel as though an attack on them is an attack on you, but I assure you it is not. I respect your right to hold your own beliefs and opinions (as long as they are genuine and you are not a sociopath concerned only with personal gains) even if I don't agree with them.

Perhaps having an online blog (I hate that word, it sounds so douchey) instead of a private diary means I do seek personal gains, but if so, they are intellectual gains and not financial ones. I genuinely want feedback, especially from people with opinions that differ from my own. More than that, I want to know why you believe what you do. I don't expect to change your mind and I don't expect that you will change mine, but we aren't on different teams and shouldn't be keeping score. Instead, we can exchange of ideas just for the sake of understanding each other to keep us all grounded. Because after all, outside of the blog-world, we're kind of all on the same team...aren't we? :)

proud to be called liberal

When did being called liberal become such a bad thing?  According to dictionary.com, liberal (adj.) is defined as “favorable to progress or reform”, “favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties”, “free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant”, and “characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.”  Those all seem pretty awesome to me, and by these definitions, I would be honored to be called a liberal.  However, I can certainly see how Republicans would demonize liberalism as it is defined above, since all of those definitions are in stark contrast to what they stand for.  And I mean what they really stand for and not just what they say they stand for... because those are often very different.

Let’s break it down:  

• I would interpret “favorable to progress” as willing to learn from my mistakes.  Since Republicans are the party of American exceptionalism, they are unwilling to admit that they are even capable of making mistakes…so there is nothing to learn from, now is there?  We are exceptional because we are infallible.  And in the rare event that Republicans are forced to address actual facts and acknowledge that things are not perfect, they rely on the divide-and-conquer strategy.  By establishing an us and a them, they can simply blame all problems on them.  This allows us to absolve ourselves of any responsibility, and isn't that just easier? 
• Republicans claim to be the party of individual freedoms, but their actions say otherwise.  If they were so concerned with individual freedoms, why would they be so concerned with women's bodies?  I suppose in theory they would be "in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties", but that is only after they get to change the laws to protect the civil liberties for those who they deem worthy.  Namely, rich white men and fetuses.  Once that fetus becomes a baby, however, it can pretty much go fuck itself...unless it is born as a white man into a rich family of course.
• Do I even need to explain why they are not "free from prejudice or bigotry" or in any way "tolerant”?  Just in case you aren't swayed by polls that show Mitt Romney has the support of a whopping 0% of African Americans, consider the words of Republican poster boy Sen. Lindsey Graham.  "The demographics race we’re losing badly,” he laments. “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”  Wow.  This accidental moment of honesty shows just how "tolerant" and "free from prejudice and bigotry" his party is...not at all!! 
• It is the manipulation of last point in particular that has allowed Republicans to successfully demonize being "liberal."  In their political terms, being charitable is equivalent to an unjust redistribution of wealth where the evil government can't wait to take away what hard workers have earned just to hand it all over to a bunch of undeserving moochers.  For a large number of people who buy into this idea - although not all - the dividing line between hard-working and mooching is clearly drawn by race.  Regardless of which arbitrary indicator a person uses to measure worthiness, the measuring occurs within a definite us-v.-them framework where the believer is always part of the us, of course. Republicans have been extraordinarily successful in convincing people that the liberals (aka Democrats) certainly are characterized by a "willingness to give in large amounts”, so long as those large amounts are collected from us hard workers then handed out to them - the lazy liberals who are too busy hugging trees and killing babies to actually work for themselves.  Because of course, any redistribution to try to actually provide the equality of opportunity that we so proudly claim as American occurs in such a dramatic fashion.
  

What is particularly baffling to be is how the Republican party has been able to simultaneously sell the ideas that they are the God-fearing party (the Christian version of God, anyway) and that greed is good.  Of course, Republicans won't actually admit that "greed is good" is the true basis for their platform, but it's not hard to see once you're willing to open your eyes.  On what premise other than greed can the Republicans justify their attempts to thwart the EPA and the FDA from protecting public health and safety in the name of corporate profits, or their insistence on cutting taxes for the rich and corporations at the expense of everyone else under the guise of "job creation", or their willingness to let the country as a whole fail under Obama (aka the black guy) just for political gain??  I'm no Bible expert, but I am fairly certain those two ideas are diametrically opposed.  It is my understanding that charity and helping those less fortunate are kind of a big deal in said God's eyes.  It is also my understanding that God is the only one who gets to judge other people (something to the effect of "judge not, lest ye be judged", right?), so how do these so-called Christians get away with judging who is better and therefore entitled to earthly treasures?  Isn't the dogged pursuit of those riches also frowned upon??  

I really don't understand how generally good people can subscribe to such obvious bullshit...  I mean, you know it's not all that black-and-white (racially or otherwise), right?  Do federal programs need to be revamped?  Of course.  Should they be abolished?  Ummm..fuckin NO!!  Even just the perception of these programs are telling.  If you're a Republican, they're "entitlement" programs, and if you're a Democrat, they are "assistance" programs.  Can't we combine the two without a firestorm??  Can't all people be entitled to at least some assistance when necessary?  Rich people, huge corporations, and banks too big to fail do not need assistance.  And if a person is genuinely in need of assistance, they aren't entitled to an endless free ride.  That just seems logical to me.

As usual in this country, it all comes down to money.  Despite claiming to possess three of the four qualities that define a "liberal", Republicans have managed to manipulate the public perception of what it means to be liberal upon the basis that the redistribution of money is a grotesque violation of human rights.  That's just ridiculous.  At least I think it's ridiculous, but there are obviously a lot of people who don't.  And that is something I just can't wrap my brain around.  If you can give me more insight, I welcome it.  Because I can't understand this mentality on my own.

an average journey in the land of opportunity: the movie

Mitt Romney will have us believe that his hard work and dedication were the only necessary factors to propel him to such success, thus he is living proof that the American Dream is alive and well.  His running mate Paul Ryan mimics the story.  They paint pictures of being just every day guys who had the same opportunities as everyone else, and it is their experiences gleaned from lifetimes of hard work and overcoming adversity that qualify them to be the next President/VP team.  While I concede that they are very presidential looking, looks just won't cut it for such important jobs.  We aren’t casting a movie here – at least that’s what we’d like to think.  If Romney is elected with Ryan at his side, however, they’ll be working from a script alright…a script written by the super rich.  Here’s how it would go:

This is the story of an average American raised by regular parents, whose regular dad earned millions as the successful CEO of American Motors before he became the Governor of Michigan.  He spent his childhood in a regular suburb neighborhood and attended a regular private prep school.  He went to regular old Stanford for a year before he took a regular missionary trip to France, a trip that had absolutely nothing to do with the Vietnam War draft.  After 30 months overseas he desperately missed his girlfriend, so he bravely returned to the U.S., and was somewhat disappointed that his student deferments and late entry to the draft would prevent him from serving his country in Vietnam.  The regular student couple got married and endured regular hardships, as most college students do, such as selling stock given to him by his father to pay tuition and living expenses.  After getting his regular B.A., he attended regular Harvard in a regular program through both the Law School and Business School.  He needed a home for his growing family, since the couple now had one child with another on the way, so dad loaned the money to buy a home in an affluent suburb, as any regular college kid might expect.  As he continued his regular studies and she stayed home with the kids (as regular wives of regular college students do), but they continued their daily struggle to survive as they were forced to chip away at their endowment of stocks...you know, the usual. 

Then the regular guy got a regular job as a management consultant, and through hard work, he became very successful at telling other people what to do...and was paid accordingly.  He was so good at it that his boss offered him the regular opportunity of starting a regular private equity investment firm, which he accepted, but only after the partnership terms were regularly restructured to where he had no professional or financial risk.  The regular company made billions through leveraged buyouts (buying another existing company with primarily borrowed money obtained by using the newly acquired company's assets as the necessary collateral).  Despite having such an ordinary job, he always worked extraordinarily hard to stay focused on the company goal of maximizing returns for investors (including himself.  This wasn't always easy, since the opportunities for his company to collect fees and turn a profit were limited to the cases in which the restructuring of the acquisition was successful or if it was a failure. 

But despite all of his hard work, he faces the same problems that most regular people face, namely poor people.  How dare they whine about not being able to afford college, or losing their jobs after a private equity firm like his forced their company into bankruptcy, or being sick and not having the money for healthcare?  His success was earned, and had absolutely nothing to do with him being born a white male into a wealthy and prominent family.  So if these poor people were only willing to work harder, they could be successful too.  He doesn't want to live in a country where these moochers are just given money to survive without earning it...that scenario would just be obscene!  So he runs for president...

He is elected, not because he bought the election or because his party was able to enact legislation prohibiting his opponent's supporters from exercising their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote, but because he represents the average American.  He has convinced enough people that the economy is not stifled because the big banks and corporations are too greedy, but it's because they don't have enough money to create jobs.  He is able to garner votes from the fervently religious by professing his belief in God and Jesus without telling anyone that he believes God is an actual dude that speaks through a living prophet, or that Jesus was resurrected not only in Jerusalem but also in North America, or that there are special garments (aka magic underwear) that should be worn as protection against evil spirits. 

He believes that the best society is one that has a system to reward the best people in it, and he convinces a majority that they have the opportunity to be the best too. The "best" this country has to offer are the richest and most powerful (if they were anything but the best, they wouldn't be rich and powerful, obviously), so he rewards all their hard work by enacting policies that ensure they become even richer and more powerful.  They will pay little to no taxes, and economy-strangling organizations like the EPA or OSHA are abolished.  Job-creators shouldn't be saddled with the burden of providing healthcare for their minions, I mean employees.  They should just be thankful to have a job and take care of themselves.  Religious texts are sufficient to educate future generations, so public education is not required.  And if the people who are unwilling to work hard enough to earn what is necessary to cover a lifetime of healthcare costs for themselves and/or their families, well, it just demonstrates the system works.  He is on his way to achieving his goal of making a better America.  Better for the "hard workers" at least. 

The End.

Wow...what a horrific show that will be!  Look, I have no problem that Mitt had advantages as early as the second he was born.  He's white, he's a man, and his family was very well off.  He might not want to admit it, but those amount to a massive total advantage, as illustrated by mobility studies conducted by the (1) Center for American Progress and (2) Pew's Economic Mobility Project,

• 65% of African Americans are raised in the bottom quintile of the income distribution vs. 11% of white families (2)
• 57% of African Americans are raised in the bottom quintile of the income distribution vs. 14% of white families (2)
• For both family income and family wealth, 23% of whites are raised in the top quintile vs. 2% of African Americans (2)
• 43% of those raised in the bottom quintile of the income distribution will stay at the bottom as adults, and 70% will not rise above the middle (2)
• 40% in the top quintile of family income distribution stay there, and 63% stay above the middle (2)
• There is only a 4% chance of someone raised in the bottom quintile of the income distribution to make it to to the top quintile, and only a 1% chance of making it to the top 5%, while someone born in the top 5% has a 22% chance of earning an income that is also in the top 5% (1)
• African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile (1)
• Those with a college degree (the ability to attain which is largely influenced by family wealth and income levels) promotes those raised in the bottom quintiles to move up and prevents those in the higher quintiles from falling down for both wealth and income distributions (2)

So whether they admit it or not, it's pretty obvious that Romney and Ryan had a little more than hard work going for them.  And I don't even care that they were born with so many advantages...being born into his family is as much their fault as it is the fault of a black kid being born into a poor family - none at all.  But they should be faulted for lying about it, and more importantly, using his position to give himself an even larger undue advantage at the expense of others at a further disadvantage.  They are telling disadvantaged people that they can achieve success with hard work while supporting policies designed to prevent that very thing from occurring.

Romney has defended his paying an effective tax rate of approximately 14% on $42 million earned in 2010-2011 by saying, "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more.  I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes." OK, that may be true, but I also don't want a dirtbag who skirts through every tax loophole he can find, then get into office to create more.  Let's remember, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right.  If the median American household income is just over $50k and is taxed at 17%, does it seem right that someone making over 839 times that pays a lower tax rate?  Not to me it doesn't.  But if you think that's as bad as I do, don't worry...because it gets worse.  Under Ryan's tax plan, Romney would have been subject to a whopping 0.82% rate.

There's a difference between dealing with the devil and being the devil.  But what Romney and Ryan have planned would even make the devil say, "Whoa, that's fucked up."

 

the golden rule (u.s. edition)

Most everyone has heard the traditional Golden Rule in one form or another - Treat others as you wish to be treated.  But just as the U.S. refuses to adopt the metric system or learn more than one language, we have our own version of the Golden Rule as well.  Here, it goes something like this:

WHOMEVER HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES

What makes the American version so disturbing is its causal relationship.  Having gold, or more generally, wealth, certainly shouldn't preclude someone from a legislative position, but it shouldn't be a requirement either...and holy shit, is it EVER a requirement!  Then the purpose of any legislation can always be boiled down to two main goals:

1. Making the rich even richer (at any expense other than their own)

1. Keeping power in the hand of the rich (to ensure #1 is never threatened)

I am aware that using the word "rich" is taboo now, and the more appropriate way to phrase #1 would say something like, making the job creators even more job create-y ...but fuck you and your so-called "job creators".  The next person to use the phrase "job creator" without doing so in a nasally, mocking tone will experience the methodical annihilation of everything to be loved and cherished in life, until finally the only job creation that will occur will be when the crime scene clean-up crew is called to scrub your minimal amount of brain tissue off the sleazy motel walls after you've had your last meal: a self-served lead-and-despair sandwich.  I hate you.

You may also argue that there may be legislation aimed at something other than those two points - for example, laws made up by wrinkly old dicks that only have penises that regulate what a woman can or cannot do with her own vagina.  However, I argue that such a blatant and unnecessary overreach of legislative power is a perfect way to discourage at least 51% of the masses, hence supporting #2, which is required for #1.

Bottom line is that we will never win - "we" meaning those who are not independently wealthy as well as capable of independent thought.

I think Jon Stewart accurately described this vicious cycle as a wealth incumbency.  Rich people get into office, then they change the rules so they are not only making themselves richer and retaining their power positions, but they are also keep others from getting rich and/or into positions of power.  I would love an explanation on how this is supposed to be fair, or even legal...preferably from someone who is not one of the ones manipulating the system for personal gain.

If you don't believe me that rules are manipulated to benefit the rich, consider the new voter purging laws that have been cropping up.  Oh, excuse me, they are "voter ID" laws, and under the guise of preventing the very serious problem of in-person voter fraud, they will disenfranchise large numbers of primarily democratic voters, minorities and the poor in particular.  To justify such an egregious violation of the constitutional right to vote that is endowed to every citizen of the United States of America - especially one that happens to correlate with political affiliation, race, and economic status - voter ID fraud must be rampant nationwide, right?  It most certainly is!!  In fact, there have been a whopping 10 documented cases of in-person voter fraud since the year 2000!!!!!  I am a big fan of statistics, and 10 cases since 2000 is called - these are gonna be big words so get ready - statistically insignificant.  In other words, they don't fucking matter and can't possibly have any effect on the outcome of a state- and/or nationwide election EVER!!!!!


This is offensive regardless of circumstance, but when you consider the fact that Romney is currently garnering 0% of the African-American vote, it seems pretty obvious that this selective prevention of the constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote for minorities will have a serious impact.  Not serious like 10 cases in 12 years, I mean actually serious.

I think what is most disturbing of all is how blatantly wrong and one-sided these actions are.  Usually republicans will at least have the decency to make some shit up, but they aren't even trying anymore.  This time they aren't even denying it on any front. They are sticking with the actual number of 10 cases (any more than that and they'd have to take off their shoes to count, and that would be a hassle) and yet they are still able to convince the ape-people that this is a big deal and that violating the civil rights of U.S. citizens is justified.  It is certainly easier to support when it's not your rights being violated, isn't it, rich white guy?

Oh and I'm sure "this is in the best interest of the people", so long as you're using people to mean anyone who is not poor or black or Hispanic or old or young.  Rather than say all the ones we don't mean, let's just say what you do mean: white people.  And because America's nickname "land of opportunity" has historically only applied to white people, the wealth gap has only continued to grow even through to today.  In fact, the 2010 US Census showed that white families tend to have 22x the wealth of black families and 15x the wealth of Hispanic families.  So fortunately for white people (and very unfortunately for everyone else), minority families and poor families tend to be one in the same.  Why is this relevant to the conversation?  Because first the people with money and in power (white men, weird) make sure no one else can get any money, then they implement laws like this to make sure no one else has a vote.  Retaining the money and power... where does it end??

If voter ID laws disproportionately affect only one candidate, and it's the other candidate's party who is putting these laws into place, isn't that essentially cheating??  I would say so.  Take Pennsylvania for example.  PA pushed a law through despite fervent protests, and after it was enacted, then got the numbers where they found out that over 758,000 people do not have state issued photo ID, most of them poor and/or African American.  If you can't afford a car, and neither can any of your friends, why would you need a license?  Then, state house republican leader Mike Turzai said out loud , "Voter ID - which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done!" like he was all proud of himself for cheating.  Like I said, they don't even try to hide it anymore.  Worst part was, he got applause!!!  I know the crowd was other republicans, but if a guy on my team was bragging about cheating, I would be embarrassed, I wouldn't cheer for being a douchebag.  Fucking idiots.  (PA ID law article: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/161304725.html)

I would like to note that yes, I am aware I said republicans.  I realize that there are exceptions and I am sure there are democrats who are rich old racist white guys...but if you are going to identify yourself with a party, you will be generally labeled with its platform.  It is the republicans that are creating and implementing these voter purging laws to deliberately reduce democratic voter turnout.  Plus, it's the republicans that have become the 'daddy knows best' party, where daddy just happens to be a rich old white guy.  And he definitely doesn't know best.  He just thinks he does.
Please note that just because I think stacking the deck so the benefits are received most by those who need them the least is complete and utter BULLSHIT does not mean I am a communist.  And if you are even considering an argument that socialism is ruining America just fucking don't, because you obviously have no clue what the word "socialism" even means.  America is being ruined by the fucking ungrateful, shitty people in it.  For example:

The same people who will collect unemployment, eat foods with farm subsidized ingredients, and travel on public roads will also attend a rally held by the hate-spewing-fear-monger-of-the-week to protest against having this terrible socialized Obamacare that was "crammed down our throats" (that's what Fox "News" said so it must be true) by our Nazi-Muslim-Kenyan-terrorist-and-oh-dear-god-BLACK president (Nazis = universal healthcare...I totally see the connection)... and come to think of it, he isn't even really president since he wasn't born here, right?  If all 311,591,917 citizens of the U.S. didn't get to personally examine his "long-form" birth certificate, he must be a secret Kenyan-Muslim terrorist with a racist radical Christian preacher.

NEWS FLASH:  AMERICA IS BEING DESTROYED BY ASSHOLES, NOT HEALTHCARE!!!  Seriously, when the fuck have you ever even heard of a "long-form" birth certificate?  And if that's the only way to prove citizenship, go get your long-form birth certificate... and don't forget the super-official Donald Trump stamp of approval!  If you don't have one, we get to deport you.  Also, if your listed father & mother are also brother & sister, or you agreed with anything in the preceding example, you are a subpar species of half-human, half-ape, and obviously are not able to make reasonable decisions.  You will have the option to apply for temporary status, however you will be prohibited from freely speaking about anything, ever.  If you do wish to speak in public, or just in general, you will have to get express written consent from a human being who:

1. is NOT inbred
2. has MULTIPLE teeth
3. can read and write (10th grade level minimum)
4. answers the question "Do you believe in evolution?" with "Are you fucking kidding me?" and/or a slap in the mouth/kick to the crotch/etc.

**Note: consenting human being must meet ALL of the criteria listed above for valid speech exception.

I really have no problem with people accumulating wealth.  In fact, I hope to do it someday. :)  What I do have a problem with is when people with wealth try to prevent everyone else from having it too.  Or even having the chance  to get it.  Mitt Romney certainly didn't grow up in poverty, but he did accumulate most of his own wealth.  I'll talk about how shady he did so some other time, because that will take a while.  However, when recently asked about student loans, he suggested that people should "borrow money from your parents if you have to" or "just get as much education as you can afford"...or better yet, to join the military (http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012/08/20/714791/romney-sidesteps-students-question-about-mounting-student-loan-crisis/).  This is why having someone in charge that is so out of touch with the "real world" is so dangerous.  He doesn't know that most parents don't have tens of thousands of extra dollars to pay for their kids to go to school.  Yet someone who doesn't know ANYTHING about not having money could be in a position where he gets make laws that make it harder for people without any money to get it.  We've all heard how you need a college degree to have any real chance at getting a good job... so to make sure only the buddies in my club (rich white guys) can get them, let's make it so no one else even has a chance.

So much for opportunities, huh? 

why i am doing this

I used to think that since "America is the greatest country in the world" that its citizens, and the nation as a whole, was capable of great things.  I truly did not see it as a holier-than-thou mentality.  I simply figured that since we have a seemingly endless amount of resources, we could use some of them to just generally make things better - society, the world, anything.  I really used to believe it when I would tell myself that society would get better.  I thought it definitely couldn’t get any worse...right?!?

HAHAHAAAAAA - isn't that just adorable???

I'm not sure exactly when I lost the rose-colored glasses (and by lost I mean some fucking asshole ripped them off my face because he thought he could eat them, and when he realized he couldn't he decided to smash them with his 85 lb foot because if they didn't make him happy, they weren't going to make anyone else happy either, dammit!), but optimism seems like such a distant memory that my best guess is probably around the age of 8.  Ever since then I have been grappling with the grim reality that things will not get better, and in fact they will always get worse – much, much worse beyond my wildest imagination.

There isn't even the slightest chance of improvement when we live in a society that aggressively promotes consumerism over consideration, and individual gain without individualism.  Randomly pick any one of these fat, selfish, humanlike cheese puffs out of the general public, and chances are you’ve got someone who would stab you in the back without even a second thought in exchange for even the possibility of the smallest personal gain…if only it didn't require getting up during an episode of the Kardashians and walking all the way to the kitchen to get the knife – that’s exhausting!  But teaching these twats any manners, humility, common sense, or ANY OTHER desirable trait can only be done via a baseball-bat inspired lesson.  After all, it's the only way to be heard over all the chewing...but apparently that’s “illegal.”  Boo hiss!  Thus I’ve recently found myself struggling to accept the sheer futility of our situation.  When I think about just how fucked we really are, I feel like I'm going to stroke out.  Obviously I need an outlet, and since violence is not an option, I'll try this.  We'll see how long this works until I start smelling toast.