truckers to shut down america

Posted on September 23, 2013 by greg

I love a good protest. There’s nothing more American than a protest (except maybe guns or football — you know what would be SO COOL? If they played a football game on a field surrounded by trucks filled with guns). I’m a huge fan of the right to assemble freely and openly, to speak out against…well, almost any damned thing. It always makes me proud, even if the protest is something I disagree with. Even if the protest is stupid and pointless. And you guys, this IS that protest.

A million truck drivers are planning to show up in Washington, CD in their trucks and shut down America.

They’re not going to shut America down forever, of course. They’re only going to shut it down for three days in October. Just long enough to prove their point. And just what IS their point? I’m glad you asked.

According to RidefortheConstitution.org, “There are so many reasons we need to rise up.” SO MANY REASONS, you guys. And they listed a few of them, including:

Fuel prices are unnecessarily high. Every American is now paying $4-$5 per gallon because the rich say so. The USA can drill for oil TOMORROW and bring the price of gasoline and diesel under $1.00 a gallon but we are slaves to a bunch of Saudi’s.

We now support Al Qaeda. This must end immediately.

Obama must be impeached for the crimes he has committed while in office. Period. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact. The only reason why he has not been impeached is because Congress refuses to.

The US Constitution is being torn apart. We must arrest and try all legislators who violate the US Constitution.

There are so many cover-ups it is almost impossible to list them here. Benghazi, Seal Team 6 Six, Osama Bin Laden death, drug running (CIA) and gun running by the US Justice Department.

There you go. The truckers just want the US to drill for oil tomorrow so we can stop being slaves to the Saudis. Is that so unreasonable? Also, they want the US to stop supporting al Qaeda and impeach President Obama (which is totally NOT a conspiracy theory — or any sort of theory at all, but mostly not a conspiracy theory). The truckers also want us to know the only reason Obama hasn’t been impeached yet is because Congress hasn’t impeached him yet. So clearly, the truckers think Congress ought to be arrested for violating the Constitution by not impeaching Obama yet.

Also Benghazi (clearly we don’t know the whole truth there on account of Hilary Clinton isn’t in prison). And Seal Team Six (I guess Obama made their helicopter crash, which is totally an impeachable offense). And Osama bin Laden (who, it seems, died ten years ago and his body is being kept in liquid nitrogen so it can be used as a propaganda tool at a future politically expedient time — frozen Osama, you guys). Plus some other very serious issues, all of which can be dealt with by driving 1,000,000 trucks into the District of Columbia.

The truckers want your support in their effort to shut down America. You, the ordinary non-al Qaeda-supporting citizens of America. They not only want your support, they demand it.

If you are a fed, a member of the US Military, a law enforcement official, or a member of the judicial system, you have sworn an oath. You will either join us in upholding you oath, or you will immediately be considered our domestic enemy. The choice is yours.

We want a peaceful resolution. We don’t even want this event to take place. If on October 10th, all congressman and senators agree to follow the US Constitution and the law, the event is not necessary. If they REFUSE to do so, they will be personally responsible for collapsing our system of commerce. The choice is theirs.

They’re really going to do it, all those truckers. They don’t want to, but they’re being forced to because nobody else will enforce the Constitution. So it’s up to truck drivers to deal with it.

It’s totally going to happen. They’re absolutely no-shit going to shut down America. I know this for a fact because somebody told this guy it was going to happen. And this guy, who I’ve never met or heard of, has never lied to me before.

So if you’re like me — if you love a good protest — then you won’t want to miss it when one million trucks jam themselves into downtown DC. Or maybe not a full million. I mean, there are only about 3.5 million truckers in the entire United States, and fewer that 400,000 of them are independent truckers. The rest drive for trucking companies. But I’m sure those companies will be willing to give their drivers a couple days off, and pay for the fuel to get their trucks to DC and back again. They’ll be proud to give up those profits because that’s the American way. And no doubt all those independent truckers will be delighted to give up a couple of days of their time and drive their own trucks to DC at their own expense.

And when they do, they’ll totally shut down America. Because…you know, freedom. It’s what Chuck Norris would want.

that’s why everybody does everything

Posted on September 17, 2013 by greg

Last week we almost had a U.S. Science Laureate. You know, an American scientist who’d travel around the nation talking to folks, giving interviews, speaking at schools, fostering a greater understanding of science and the scientific process, trying to inspire more young people to enter the sciences. It would have been an honorary position, like the U.S. Poet Laureate. Well, mostly honorary. The Science Laureate would have received a stipend of US$35,000, which is also the amount provided to the Poet Laureate. In fact, this is possibly the only time in U.S. history when a poet earned as much as a scientist.

Anyway, we almost had one of those. The Science Laureate bill was on the fast track because members of both parties considered it innocuous. Everybody expected it would pass easily.

But no. Congressional Republicans decided to quietly pull the bill creating the Science Laureate position. Why? Because some conservative Republicans thought President Obama might appoint somebody…

“…who will share his view that science should serve political ends on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases…. [It’s] a needless addition to the long list of presidential appointments.”

In other words, Republicans had two concerns. First, there was the danger that a Science Laureate might deliberately and willfully talk to people about actual science. Second, it was necessary to kill the position because Obama wanted it.

There’s a third reason Republicans opposed creating a U.S. Science Laureate:

explain this to me

Posted on September 16, 2013 by greg

Explain something to me. A couple of guys in Wisconsin decided to sling their AR-15s over their shoulders, strap sidearms to their belts, and then stroll down to the Appleton, Wisconsin farmer’s market. The farmer’s market, for fucks sake. Where the biggest threat they’d likely have to face would be a smoothie made with kale.

But that’s not what I want you to explain to me.

Even before these yahoos got to the farmer’s market, concerned citizens were dialing 911 to report them. That’s what you do if you see a couple of armed guys approaching a crowded public venue. Why? Because of the mass murder of movie-goers in Aurora, Colorado. Because of the mass murder of first graders in Newtown, Connecticut. Because of the mass murder at a Congresswoman’s meet-and-greet in a supermarket parking lot in Tucson, Arizona. Because of what’s happening right now at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC.

You call the police because people carrying guns are likely to be fucking nuts. And the police, if they’re smart and cautious, will respond with weapons drawn — because they know that people carrying guns are likely to be fucking nuts. And that’s what the Appleton police did. They stopped the two guys at gunpoint, handcuffed them, and detained them. Eventually the guys were released, and their weapons were returned.

But that’s not what I want you to explain to me either.

Legal to openly carry in Appleton, Wisconsin

Why would these guys tote weapons to the farmer’s market? Because they’re dicks. Because they were looking to cause a fuss. Because that’s how dicks behave. One of the men, Charles Branstom, said:

“We never did it to prove a point, I carry every day for my safety.”

For his safety. In Appleton, Wisconsin. Where there’s been one murder in the last five years, and only about a hundred robberies. In five years. Yeah, he and his buddy are carrying two weapons each for their safety. Oh, and he’s videotaping the entire thing as well…but no, he’s not trying to prove a point, of course not.

But that’s not what I want explained to me.

On the video you can hear one of the responding police officers explain why these two dolts were stopped.

“I get what you guys are trying to do. … But when you grow up a little bit and you’re a parent and have kids at an event like this and you see someone walk through with guns strapped to their back, your first inclination is going to be, ‘All right, what’s this guy up to? Is my child going to be safe?'”

These two guys are upset, of course. Because the police pointed guns at them. One of them is talking about suing the police department.

“I’m still kind of shaken. I was one nervous twitch away from having a bullet put in me.”

Gun rights advocates all over the Intertubes are horrified that any professional police officer might see a couple of heavily-armed white guys heading toward a public event as some sort of threat. Had they been, say, wearing hoodies or black…well, you know you can’t be too careful. Had they looked Middle Eastern or maybe like somebody from the Indian subcontinent — like, say, Miss America — then sure, the police would have to respond; it might be a terrorist situation. But these guys were white.

But that isn’t what I want explained.

This incident has nothing to do with the right to bear arms; it has everything to do with being a dick. And of course they were trying to prove a point. And hey, they succeeded. The law in Wisconsin (and almost everywhere else in the United States) allows fuckwits like this to openly carry their weapons.

But even that isn’t what I want explained to me.

Illegal to openly carry in Appleton, Wisconsin

You know what they don’t have the right to carry in public? A Hello Kitty AR-15. No, I’m not making this up. Appleton, Wisconsin has a municipal ordinance that states:

No person may carry or display a facsimile firearm in a manner that could reasonably be expected to alarm, intimidate, threaten or terrify another person.

There. That’s it. Somebody, please, explain that to me.

UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that the Hello Kitty AR is actually a real weapon, not a toy. So hey, good news — you could legally carry it over your shoulder in Appleton, Wisconsin.

served with pride

Posted on September 14, 2013 by greg

So this morning, in an effort to avoid doing the work I really need to be doing, I decided to wade through rabidly conservative FreeRepublic.com again. I usually do this once a week or so.

A lot of my friends think I’m masochistic to read FreeRepublic, but I don’t think so. It’s true that I often find myself offended, or even pissed off, by what I read. And sometimes I find the comments funny in a ‘holy shit, can people really be this stupid’ sort of way. But I should also say that every time I read that site, I find a few people who make logical and valid points. I almost always disagree with those points, but it’s sort of comforting to know that even on FreeRepublic there are rational conservatives.

Sadly, that wasn’t the case this morning. I was most discouraged by a discussion thread grounded in an article in The Guardian: Gay marine bids farewell with show of support from colleagues. I fully expected to find anti-gay comments and slurs in the discussion, but the universal depth of the hatred surprised me. Here are some of the comments:

I support heterosexual troops only. maddog55

The site of that flag dishonored in that way, makes me want to throat punch this homosexual. svcw

You can’t be gay and a Marine. It’s an Oxymoron. It’s like saying you can be a Homosexual and be a Christian. Sorry, direct opposites. Just because the deviant-in-Chief, and his sycophants have (hopefully) temporarily allowed it, does not make it right, correct, or good. SoConPubbie

This is actually a desecration of the flag. You might as well have the queer stripes on our national flag! Disgrace and dishonor. Viennacon

Gay marine bids farewell with show of support from ~~colleagues~~ fellow faggots… Chode

Probably glad to get this c**ks***er out of their unit. Well, he is isn’t he! Ruy Dias de Bivar

United States Maureens. twister881

Fag. servo1969

i wanna puke but working here in faggotland, my puke levels have reached the bottom. americana

Another daily reminder of what a sick, utterly deviant country this has become. A disgraceful abomination. greene66

I’m a veteran. I served four long full years as a medic. I come from a Marine Corps family (I was the only member of my family NOT to serve in the Marines). I may not always like what the military does, or how they do it — but anybody who puts on a uniform and serves the nation deserves a certain amount of respect.

Bryan Eberly, U.S. Marine

Not to get dramatic, but there are occupations in which you have to rely on your comrades. Police officers, firefighters, military troops. You don’t have to like the person you’re working with, you don’t have to agree with them, you don’t need to be friends with them, but you goddamn better be able to rely on them. And they goddamn better be able to rely on you. Religion doesn’t matter, sexual orientation doesn’t matter, race doesn’t matter, gender doesn’t matter — not when you need a hand. When you need a hand and that hand is extended, you grab hold. When somebody else needs a hand, you extend yours and you hang on tight. It’s just that simple.

The military depends on unit cohesion. Bigots like maddog55 or SoConPubbie argue that openly gay troops are a threat to unit cohesion. The fact is, they are the threat. If you’re unwilling to extend your hand to help somebody because of some immutable aspect of that person’s being, then you make the unit weak.

The marine in the article, Bryan Eberly, needed courage and trust in order to come out as gay. That’s what you look for, courage and trust. I’d much rather serve in a unit with Bryan Eberly than any of the so-called ‘patriots’ above, who apparently believe only certain people deserve respect.

Addendum: And just to prove my earlier point about FreeRepublic.com, there’s this new comment in the discussion thread:

I’m grateful for his service. onona

The odds are I probably wouldn’t agree with onona on many issues, but he now has my respect. I’d extend my hand to him. Hell, I’d even extend my hand to maddog55 — but I wouldn’t trust the hateful bastard to extend his to me.

straight to the heart

Posted on September 10, 2013 by greg

A little over a year ago, while taking a walk along the river, I noticed a sketch of a woman’s face on a bridge abutment. To my surprise, it turned out to be a sketch of Louise Brooks.

Sketch of Louise Brooks — August 15, 2012

Last Thursday I found myself walking along that same stretch of river again. I’d walked by that bridge abutment several times over the last year, but it was almost always inaccessible. In the winter, ice made that part of the riverwalk unsafe, and it was blocked off. Then for several weeks in the spring, the area was flooded and much of the riverwalk was under water. At one point the river covered half the balustrade. The area was also closed much of the summer to complete the final phase of the multi-year riverwalk redevelopment project.

Ice, flooding, weather, construction work — it seemed unlikely the sketch would have survived the events of last year. But it did. Barely.

Sketch of Louise Brooks — September 5, 2013

All that remained was a faint trace of the original sketch. Just the suggestion of eyes and lips, just a hint of the shape of her hair — that distinctive flapper bob. It would be easy to overlook the sketch, if you didn’t know it was there.

I was ridiculously pleased to see it again. It’s not just that I’m fond of the sketch, though I am. It’s that I feel some sort of strange connection with whoever made the sketch. I’ve no idea what prompted that person to make a portrait of a once-famous figure on the abutment of that bridge, but I can’t help feeling as if I was the intended audience. Not me specifically, of course, but surely the artist must have hoped somebody would see the sketch and recognize that face and appreciate it.

It’s all so improbable. Improbable that somebody would sketch a portrait of Louise Brooks on the side of a bridge in Des Moines, Iowa. Improbable that I’d recognize her face. Improbable that Louise Brooks lived the life she did. Improbable that the sketch would still be there after a year.

It’s all so improbable — and it’s so perfectly poetic. In 1989, four years after her death, biographer Barry Paris wrote this about Louise Brooks:

Nobody burned more bridges than Louise Brooks, or left prettier blazes on two continents. People around her scrambled for cover, but she watched the flames with a child’s pyromaniacal glee…. With the advent of talkies, her name would largely disappear, but her face would not: a girl in a Prince Valiant bob, with electrifying eyes that drilled straight to the heart from the silent screen and left you weak when you met their gaze. Eyes that beckoned not so much ‘come hither’ as ‘I’ll come to you.’

Her name would largely disappear, but her face would not. Barry Paris was right. It’s still there, fading gradually.

Louise Brooks

damn that obama

Posted on September 5, 2013 by greg

If there was any humor to be found in the Syrian situation (and really, there isn’t) it would come from congressional Republicans. Let’s hear from ~~North Texas~~ Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe (the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee) back on May 9th:

“At stake for U.S. national security, our partners in the region and for the future of the Syrian people are over 1,000 tons of chemical weapons that could end up in the hands of terrorists…. A solution to Syria will not be easy. Enforcing a no-fly zone, even a limited no fly zone, has many risks including ineffectiveness against low flying attack aircraft, misidentifying civilian aircraft, and the potential for escalation. Boots on the ground could accelerate the growth of extremist influence and create more support for Assad rather than hasten his removal. But just because the choices before us are hard doesn’t mean the United States has the luxury of sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing.

It’s more important now than ever that President Obama step up and exhibit the leadership required of the commander in chief. It’s time he clearly articulate a plan to help stem the violence, lead the international community, and demonstrate to Assad that his barbaric actions have consequences. Continued inaction by the president, after establishing a clear red line, will embolden Assad and his benefactors in Tehran to continue their brutal assault against the Syrian people…. Doing nothing encourages bad actors to take larger gambles in an unstable region. Assad, and the rest of the world, must clearly understand that crossing an American red line has consequences”

Damn that Obama, he just won’t step up to protect Syrian civilians and do what’s necessary for freedom.

Senator James Inhofe, Pro-Intervention Republican

Then, of course, President Obama started exhibiting “the leadership required of the commander in chief” just like Inhofe demanded. And since Obama was for intervention, then it clearly had to be not only the wrong thing to do, but also a reckless, dangerous, anti-freedom thing to do. Here’s Inhofe yesterday:

“We know that an attack on Syria could have repercussions on Israel, but no one is talking about the decimation of our military. Today, we can afford to launch 30 cruise missiles into Syria, but we cannot ignore that such an attack on another country is an act of war. The state of our military today cannot afford another war.”

Damn that Obama, he’s not willing to protect our fragile military and do what’s necessary for freedom.

Senator James Inhofe, Anti-Intervention Republican

Anybody can change their mind, of course. Sometimes, after consideration and reflection, a person might realize that their earlier position was flawed. So maybe Senator Inhofe simply had a change of heart; maybe his response wasn’t just a partisan attack on the president.

Senator James Inhofe, Uncomfortably Confused Republican

But nope. After supporting some sort of military action, Inhofe now opposes some sort of military action…except that he believes we have a responsibility to engage in some sort of military action.

“As a superpower, we have a responsibility to follow through on what we say and ensure the security of our allies and partners. We must also ensure our military has the means to fulfill those responsibilities. Our president has failed to live up to those responsibilities.”

Damn that Obama, he’s…he’s…damn him.

There are principled arguments to make against any military strike in Syria. There are principles arguments to make in favor of it as well. Then there’s the modern Republican argument, which makes up in passion what it lacks in principle. They are fervently, ardently, zealously opposed to anything Obama is for.

happy birthday molly

Posted on August 31, 2013 by greg

Today is the birthday of the late, great Molly Ivins. ‘Late’ on account of she’s been dead since 2007, which is far too long. ‘Great’ on account of she was the smartest and wittiest and sharpest political writer since the invention of political writering.

Laughing Molly Ivins

I don’t recall the first time I came across Molly’s writing, but I’d been a fan for quite a long time before I ever saw her speak. I only saw her speak the one time. I was a grad student at the American University back in 1990 or 91, and I heard she was going to be interviewed at some local event. So I put on a sport coat and a tie and took myself to some grand Washingtonian venue and joined the other couple hundred folks who’d come to hear Molly speak.

I don’t know what I was expecting, but it wasn’t the tall (in her cowboy boots she had to be over six feet tall), awkward-looking woman with the unfortunate haircut (it looked like she’d cut her own hair…with pinking sheers) who walked onto the stage. Then she sort of dropped herself into a wing-backed chair and grinned — and there was so much joy and delight and orneriness in that grin that I completely fell in love with her. She grinned like a pirate.

I couldn’t tell you what she talked about. I just don’t recall. What I do recall is that she was charming and clever and thoughtful and uproariously funny. I don’t know if she was exaggerating her drawl or if she was moderating it, but there was no doubt Molly Ivins was from Texas. And laugh…lawdy, that woman could bring a laugh. Nothing demure about it; she laughed all the way down to her boots.

Young Molly Ivins

It was the breast cancer that killed her. One more reason to hate cancer and donate money to kick its ass.

“Having breast cancer is massive amounts of no fun. First they mutilate you; then they poison you; then they burn you. I have been on blind dates better than that.”

That was Molly Ivins. She’d bring you the Truth in all its ugliness. And she’d make you laugh about it. She didn’t make light of it, she didn’t want you to ignore the ugliness; she wanted you to feel the sting of the ugly. But she didn’t want you to forget to laugh. She didn’t want you to forget that having fun isn’t just how we tolerate the ugly. It’s how we defeat it.

A few of my favorite lines from our Molly:

[W]e’ve bounced back from this same mistake before—the mistake of thinking that we can make ourselves safer if we just make ourselves less free. We get so scared of something—scared of communism or crime or drugs or illegal aliens—that we think we can make ourselves safer by sacrificing freedom. Never works. It’s still true: the only thing to fear is fear itself.

I don’t have an agenda, I don’t have a program. I’m not a communist or a socialist. I guess I’m a left-libertarian and a populist, and I believe in the Bill of Rights the way some folks believe in the Bible.

A populist is someone who is for the people and against the powerful, and so a populist is generally the same as a liberal—except we tend to have more fun.

In Texas, we do not hold high expectations for the [Governor’s] office; it’s mostly been occupied by crooks, dorks and the comatose.

I dearly love the state of Texas, but I consider that a harmless perversion on my part, and discuss it only with consenting adults.

I have been attacked by Rush Limbaugh on the air, an experience somewhat akin to being gummed by a newt. It doesn’t actually hurt, but it leaves you with slimy stuff on your ankle.

So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.

Aw lawdy, that was a woman. They say the good die young. I don’t know about that. What I do know is this: the great die too soon.

The late, great, beautiful Molly Ivins

Happy birthday, Molly Ivins. We miss you.

okay, we have to do something about syria

Posted on August 29, 2013 by greg

187

“We HAVE to do something about Syria!”
“Okay. Why?”
“Because the Syrian government used chemical weapons against their own people!”
“Okay. But hasn’t the Syrian government been killing their own people for a couple of years now?”
“Yes. But this time they used chemical weapons!”
“Okay. Do chemical weapons kill their victims deader than conventional weapons?”
“You don’t understand! Chemical weapons are indiscriminate!”
“Okay. But when the Syrian government shelled neighborhoods where insurgents were suspected of hiding, wasn’t that also indiscriminate?”
“The chemical weapons killed noncombatants! Women! Children! Old people!”
“Okay. Didn’t the shelling also kill women and children and old…”
“We have to do something to stop the killing of innocents!”
“Okay. What do you suggest?”
“Launch missles! Drop smart bombs!”
“Okay. And you can guarantee that won’t kill innocents?”
“There is always collateral damage! But we have to stop Syrian President Assad from using chemical weapons!”
“Okay. So we should destroy his chemical weapons facilities?”
“No! That would contaminate the area!”
“Okay, so we should drop bombs and launch missiles at Assad? We should kill him?”
“No! He’s the only one we can negotiate with! And he’s not a radical Islamist!”
“Okay. So who do we fire these missiles at? Who do we drop the bombs on?”
“Airfields! Command and control centers! Military installations!”
“Okay. But that’ll just kill a bunch of mid-level officers and support staff, won’t it?”
“Yes, that’s correct!”
“Okay. If we destroy a bunch of military installations and kill those people, will that prevent the Syrian government from deploying chemical weapons?”
“No! Chemical weapons can be fired from any artillery piece!”
“Okay. So we’d have to destroy all the Syrian government’s artillery. Can we do that?”
“No! Many of them are deployed in areas inhabited by civilians!”
“Okay. So what should we do? Send in ground troops?”
“Are you fucking crazy? We can’t send in ground troops!”
“Okay. So we can’t kill Assad, right?”
“Correct!”
“Okay, and we can’t target the places where the chemical weapons are created, right?”
“Correct!”
“Okay, and we can’t target the individual weapon systems that actually fire the weapons, right?”
“Correct!”
“Okay, and we can’t send in ground forces, right?”
“Are you fucking crazy?!”
“Okay. So basically, we can’t actually prevent Assad and his government from using chemical weapons against their own rebellious citizens.”
“Correct! But we HAVE to do something, or America will be blamed and people will hate us!”
“Okay. You’re saying if the U.S. does nothing, we’ll be blamed and people will hate us?”
“Yes, that’s correct!”
“Okay. But if we do something and it doesn’t work, won’t we still be blamed and won’t people still hate us?”
“Yes, that’s correct!”
“Okay. But even if we did something and somehow whatever we did magically worked, wouldn’t we be blamed for not acting sooner?”
“Yes, that’s correct!”
“Okay. So the United States is going to be blamed regardless. Won’t people hate us anyway?”
“Yes, that’s correct!”
“Okay. Okay, so to summarize, regardless of what we do or don’t do, the Assad government will be able to use chemical weapons against their own people and the United States will be blamed and hated regardless. And regardless of what we do or don’t do, civilians will continue to be killed at random.”
“Yes, that’s correct!”
“Okay. So we’re fucked.”
“Yes, that’s correct!”
“Okay. And the Assad government is fucked.”
“Yes, that’s correct!”
“Okay. And the Syrian people are fucked.”
“Yes, that’s correct! Massively fucked! Fucked all around!”
“Okay. And knowing all that, your position is…?”
“We HAVE to do something about Syria!”

gregfallis.com

it's this or get a real job