NOT!

So I’m listening to NPR on the way to work this week, and I hear Steve Inskeep talking to the Chinese ambassador about the riots and violence in Tibet over the past few weeks. I was floored. The ambassador (Zhou, I think his name was) consistently ignored Inskeep, who repeated the same question at least three times that I recall.

Zhou claimed that the Dalai Lama is not looking for autonomy or socio-cultural preservation, but an independent state. He characterized the attacks not as a riot or the culmination of many problems bubbling beneath the surface, but as violent criminal acts without reason or provocation. He said there was no evidence of ethnic conflict and that they were only doing this to disrupt the 2008 Olympics.

The question Inskeep repeatedly asked was something along the lines of,”Do you think the rioting happened because of legitimate concerns about Tibetan autonomy/grievances with the Chinese?” Zhou ignored it every time until the end, where he finally said (to paraphrase),”no, it’s not about autonomy, it’s not about ethnic conflict, these people are nothing but criminals.”

When Steve pointed out that the Chinese were ignoring the four days of peaceful protests before that, or that the fact that Chinese- and Muslim-owned businesses were targeted specifically indicates ethnic conflict, he was again ignored.

Shitty.

Listening to the Chinese ambassador speak was an exercise in patience. It mirrors the frustration I feel when I see the current administration dodging or ignoring important questions or completely stonewalling investigations. We may bark about how China is communistic while preaching the evils of communism, but if we do we will miss the similarities to what our government has been up to in recent years.

Now is a great time to inventory of all the ways our government has been running an authoritarian regime, for it is not Communism that makes the Chinese oppressive, but authoritarianism. Forced integration with Tibet, state-run media, tightly controlling what foreign journalists are allowed to see, throwing dissenters in prison, excessive use of execution. These aren’t Communist principles, they’re the outcome of authoritarian governing.

Dictionary.com defines the word “authoritarian” as follows:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an /????r??t??ri?n, ????r-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-] –adjective

1.	favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

2.	of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

3.	exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

–noun

4.	a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

This is one of those rare cases where every definition seems to apply. Let’s start with number one: Obedience and subjugation to authority. In the United States, this can pretty much be summed up with Cheney’s recent answer to the figures that show 2/3rds of Americans oppose the Iraq war: “So?”

I think more than anything this shows the natural attitude of resentment that those with authority can have towards those without. “I’m in charge here, you’re under me, you’re supposed to obey me, I know what’s best.” It’s my will over your will.

Other examples can be observed through the actions of President Bush. Telling Joe Lieberman that the reason we should trust his decision to go to war with Iraq, the reason we’ll succeed, is because of his instincts rather than because of actionable intelligence or a reviewed case by experts and advisors. This is typical of the arrogance that often accompanies authoritarian policy: we believe we’re right no matter what.

Another example is the administration’s treatment of the press. Certain questions dealing with serious or otherwise important matters are considered unacceptable and are usually not answered. One grievance of the press is the administration’s intentional lack of availability. At a press conference during John McCain’s recent publicized visit to the White House, at the end of the session one reporter demanded weekly press conferences with the president or White House spokesperson. In response, Bush ignored the question and instead chided the group for their bad behavior. It’s the media’s job to report, and the administration is telling them what is and is not acceptable in a society where freedom of the press is a guaranteed right.

China may run the media and control what gets inside Chinese borders or what gets beyond, but our officials ignore reporters, deny them access, attempt to cover up their activities and do their best to hinder any kinds of investigations or investigative reporting.

The 9/11 Commission is a good example. Bush and Cheney, after intially opposing the panel being created, finally agreed to be interviewed–but not by the whole panel. Instead, they’d meet with the panel’s top two officials and limit the questioning, if that is indeed what took place, to a mere hour. The meeting took place in private at the White House, neither Bush nor Cheney were under oath and no recordings were allowed–no media was allowed. No camera, no pictures, no transcript. Cheney, whom many see as some kind of evil puppeteer for Dubya, was with him the entire time. Condoleeza Rice also refused to publicly testify.

There’s an old adage in Washington that goes “if you have nothing to hide, don’t act like you do.” Remember all those 9/11 conspiracies gaining popularity a few years back? Ever wonder how people come up with them?

Other less-benign examples include the quashing of protests ahead of the 2004 Republican National Convention. The story linked here is pretty long, but definitely worth the read. In short, a large group of people were peacefully marching down 16th Street in NYC and were trapped as the police blocked off the entire block with orange construction netting, arrested, hauled away in busses, put in what was described as parking garages for hours and hours before being taken to a jail for many more hours. Last I checked, it’s illegal to hold someone for over 24 hours without being charged. But it wasn’t only the protesters. Some people just happened to be passing by, or saw the commotion and were curious, or were coming out of shops and diners. Some were journalists. Everyone on the block was arrested and harassed, and some were even assaulted by what appeared to be random selection.

It settles any and all debate over the Bush administration’s unconstitutional and authoritarian tactics. But of course, supporters will call the writer a liar and attack his credibility rather than the merits of the story, which are myriad. But then again, if one must see it to believe it, the article has photos, audio and video. Go ahead and click the last link I posted. Then watch the rest of the videos. Suffice it to say, China isn’t the only country that suppresses protest. What the NYPD did was violate the Constitutional First Amendment right to assembly and the Fourth Amendment protection against being arrested for no god damn reason. I’ve linked to the wikipedia entries in case you Conservatives out there, who love misquoting the Constitution and claim to uphold and defend it, get confused.

I wouldn’t be surprised if any Republicans arrested in that incident were Democrats by the time the day was over. Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised if they just accepted being abused like that and blamed it on the protesters. Sigh. Naturally, the mainstream media didn’t devote much attention to it, as it wasn’t yet stylish to publicly criticize the administration on important things like accountability, moral or legal. They were content with making fun of Bushspeak.

The PATRIOT Act, government-sanctioned police brutality, just about any Act or Law having to do with Homeland Security or domestic terror written since 2001… The list goes on and on.

Number two: centralization of authority and lack of constitutional accountability to the people. The examples in this case are plentiful and many are common knowledge, and many fall into both categories: suspension of habeas corpus, torture, the lack of Executive Branch accountability to Congress or the Judicial branch, getting away with direct disobedience to Congress, abuse of Executive privilege, using “National Security” as an excuse to completely obfuscate any matter of public record, blatant abuse of personal information for political purposes, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Number three: Excercising complete control of others’ will. I should just say “Fox News —> Conservatives” and leave it at that, but while the current administration is pro-Fox, Fox isn’t the government. For this, I’ll simply make a passing reference to certain police “compliance” tactics and, the big one, Bush’s leash on the DoJ, as evidenced by Alberto Gonzales’ protect-at-any-cost policy with the Bush administration, as well as the subsequent refusal by Michael Mukasey to enforce Congressional contempt charges against White House staff. Suffice it to say when the president (or vice president) wants something, it’s carried out or else. For evidence, one need look no further than the Iraq War commanders who’ve resigned after criticizing Bush’s policy. Heh, number four could be summed up as “Neo-Conservatives and Bush supporters.” But really, many of these examples fit into multiple definitions.

However, when observing the government’s trend in authoritarian policies it is important to acknowledge that it did not start with George W. Bush, nor will it end with him. In terms of the police, more hardline tactics were used under Janet Reno than any that come to mind when I think of Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey. Waco, Elian Gonzales, numerous cases of brutality, etc.. You don’t have to be a right-winger to be a bastard.

It was Benjamin Franklin who remarked about the Constitution and the government it describes,”…this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” Seems Mr. Franklin sees the historic pattern. And now, in the way he predicted, we’re approaching the end of the cycle. If nothing else, shouldn’t this be a cause to look at mistakes of past governments and learn something from them? Jingoist reasoning won’t suffice; “That won’t happen, this is ‘merica” is not a valid argument.

While listening to the Chinese ambassador explain his country’s actions in response to the rioting in Tibet, I thought the similarities were astounding. We’ve a way to go before we catch up to the Chinese government in terms of magnitude, but we have a hell of a good start and a mindset and determination to get there. We haven’t had our own Tienanmen Square yet, we don’t persecute the religious, and we don’t jail our journalists for doing their jobs… oh wait, yes we do.

Strange… the left is supposed to be comprised of “Commies,” yet it’s the right-wingers with business interests who buddy up to China and kiss their ass. Oh, that whole human rights/Communism thing? It gets swept under the rug.

Yet, who are the ones proposing a boycott of the Summer 2008 Olympics in Beijing? Could it be the stalwart champions of democracy, those unrelenting routers of Communism, the Conservative Republicans? From all their talk, I’d think it would have to be, wouldn’t you? Well, we’d be wrong. Instead, it’s the same group of so-called Anti-American liberals who are protesting about Darfur and Tibet, those liberal Hollywood actors, dubious organizations such as UNICEF, Reporters Without Borders, the Genocide Intervention Network, along with Nobel Peace Prize winners and various news organizations.

I wonder, is Fox News among them? They’d have to be, since they’re all about fighting the liberals and their pro-Communism ideology, right? Nope. Wrong again. I guess I’m just not with it today. The International Olympic Committee, who must certainly be dedicated to the spirit of brotherhood and world peace as symbolized by the Olympics? Nope. As David Kilgour points out, the IOC stands to gain tremendous profits off the games. Really, though, listen to the audio. The IOC committee member gets her ass handed to her on a platter.

The end result of all this? Not only is our government coming closer to mimicking China’s policy on human rights while offering a weak rhetorical slap on the wrist over it, we’re now abetting it by participating in the games and muting our criticism. I offer a different proposal: in the spirit of the Olympics, how about the rest of the world unites… elsewhere? We can have the Olympics still. In the spirit of peace, we could hold our protest event at one of the many Olympic stadiums that have served the games in the past, all around the world. China thinks it can use U.S. business interests as leverage in asking us to tolerate their disregard for humanity. But if the rest of the world (or at least most of it) locks arms in protest, maybe the greedy corporations will realize that they can take their business elsewhere. Maybe it will send that message to any government in the world: play by the rules or be left behind, because when it comes right down to it, either we accept their policies and abet their crimes or we don’t.

How about it, world?

I knew I was taking a gamble by defending Pastor Wright a few weeks ago. I knew that until I saw the video, I wouldn’t have an informed opinion or a solid defense of the man. I also knew that Obama is a reasonable, intelligent man. I know that when people preach messages of hate, the few listen, not the many.

I knew what would happen. It’s what usually happens: I was right.

It also proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the blatant bias, divisiveness and lies of the Fox News Network and any Rupert Murdoch production. It proves my accusations of knee-jerk nationalism by the Right as well as the absurdity of their hateful, uninformed views. Since these videos have been around for at least a week and so-called Conservatives are still preaching the same old lie, it proves my point about their self-imposed, willful ignorance and closed-mindedness.

America’s chickens may be coming home to roost, but my ducks are neatly in a row. I can’t help but say it: I told you so.

Thanks to Grandma’s Attic for alerting me to the existence of these videos on YouTube. I’ll embed these videos within this blog, knowing they’ll probably not be viewed and even if they are, most Conservatives will stubbornly refuse to accept defeat and resort to straw-man arguments, ad hominem and hairsplitting to defend their ignorance. Chances are, I’m right about that too.

Enjoy:

http://x-entertainment.com/messages/435.html

Bahahaha!

—-

In other news, Vonster’s new favorite word is “hyperbole,” since he’s apparently too pretentious to say “exaggeration” or “embellishment,” or maybe can’t spell them.

I’ll have more of the good fight coming later today.

—-

EDIT - For real, guys. If anyone knows where I can find that movie, let me know.

UPDATE!! - a big kudos to Michael Legel for finding it! It really is as bad as they say. It’s as if they went to some public access TV studio and used every shitty effect they had in a 3-4 minute video. This is possibly the worst shit I’ve ever seen. Ed Wood, eat your heart out:

I, _____________________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution to the State of Illinois, and the territory, institutions and facilities thereof, both public and private, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I, nor have I been a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this State by force or violence, and that during such time as I am affiliated with the (organization redacted), I will not advocate nor become a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this State by force or violence.

Signature: _______________________
Witness: _______________________

—

I read the oath again and again, feeling out my thoughts and conscience for an answer. The training session was almost over and volunteers were lining up to collect the forms.

“..didn’t see that one coming,” I thought to myself as the man at the front of the room made his closing statements. There’s something peculiar about a civilian volunteer force having to take an oath such as this before being allowed to sign up. I say the pledge of allegiance, isn’t that enough?

No, that wasn’t it. At that point I was only kidding myself–I knew the reason why I was confused, but didn’t want to face the reality of it: it was an oath I couldn’t take. I couldn’t bring myself to sign it. I just couldn’t figure out why.

I folded the application between the pages of my training manual and shuffled towards the door.

—

“Did you forget to turn in your form?” On the way home, my wife had been flipping through the manual with casual interest and discovered my dirty little secret.

“Oh, that. Yeah, I think I need some more time to think it over.” Not a lie, just a way of postponing it. Both my wife and my in-laws are involved and want me to join. They were happy enough that I showed interest in the training course tonight, but I suspect they might hope for just a little bit more. The advanced class next, perhaps, then full-fledged membership. It’s not that they’re pressing it, or even thinking about it for that matter, just that the subject is bound to come up at some point.

“Why didn’t you join?” they’d eventually ask. I didn’t have an answer I thought they’d understand.

What was so hard about signing the dotted line, anyway? Why not just fork it over? No conflict, no guilt, no conundrum. Any possible family expectation concerning the matter would be satisfied, I’d have a volunteer service to list on my resume and, hey, it could be lots of fun. Besides, I’m sure this is one of those standard, required forms that gets filed with all the rest.

Still, something didn’t feel right about signing it.

I read over the oath page again, looking over each section. Defend the U.S. Constitution. Check. I do that every chance I get. Defend the State Constitution. Sure. It could use a little tweaking given the traditionally corrupt state of politics in Illinois, but hey. Defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. You betcha. No mental reservations. Check.

“And I do further swear,” I continued to read aloud,”that I do not advocate, nor am I, nor have I been a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or this State by force or violence.”

Bingo. No mental reservations: uncheck.

“I will not advocate nor become a member of any political party or organization that advocates…” I was getting the picture.

Insert thought bubble here.

It’s not as if I was in favor of overthrowing the government, nor was I harboring any fantasies that I could if I tried. On the contrary, I’ve been actively working to change the government and make the country a better place for all. Sure, we have an imperfect system, but is it truly beyond repair? Why was this so hard for me?

Imagine a light-bulb appearing over my head as I sat, searching for reasons why I would ever find myself in a situation where I was trying to overthrow the government by force. Two words made their way into my mind, and when they did they brought with them a mingled sense of curiosity and fear: “What if?”

What if the government’s spiraling trend towards some sort of nightmare police state continued? What if it were amplified and accelerated by some unforeseen event? What if organizations who opposed it became outlawed and oppressed? These were all symptoms of a much more basic question:

What if defending the Constitution meant overthrowing the government by force?

It asks to defend against all enemies “foreign and domestic.” Hey, even with the current trend in fascist policies and secretive decision-making, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility, though it won’t get to that point for a long time. Suppose, however, that we have another 9/11 type of event. And another.

Just like last time, we’d huddle together out of fear, screaming for the blood of the perpetrators while condemning the government for failing to protect us. “There should have been some way to stop this,” we’ll claim,”you didn’t do enough to keep it from happening!”

Again, we’ll willingly surrender more and more of our rights in exchange for feeling safe again. The Right Wing will boast of how they knew, all along, that this would happen if the Liberals were in power.

Forget that terrorism is, by its very nature, random and unpredictable. Nobody expects someone to walk into a football stadium and blow themselves up, taking with them as many people as they can. We’re also stumped for ideas of how to prevent such a tragedy, yet we knowingly turn a blind eye to the kinds of policies that have pushed people to such depths of desperation.

“That’s what this is about, isn’t it?” I knew the answer before I asked the question.

What would it be like if I were on the receiving end of this oppression? I tried to imagine myself getting to the point where I was desperate enough for change that I’d be willing to do anything to get it.

It forced me to visit the darkest depths of my mind as I imagined my family being taken away from me, never to be heard from again. I thought of being held in a dirty cell for months at a time, being beaten and shocked, starved and mocked daily for some of the things I’ve said on this very blog.

I imagine losing my dignity to those who were incapable of giving a fuck about you or your problems. They’re the patriots, right? You’re just some luckless shit that happened to be in their path.

Would regaining my Constitutional rights to be protected from this kind of situation be worth such a fight? Would it be worth dying for? I think it would.

The government would brand me a terrorist while claiming to uphold American values and vowing to protect them from the likes of me. People like me, who only want their lives back. People like me, who speak out and are labeled traitors by their jingoist countrymen.

Who am I kidding? This is already happening.

Even now, the imperialists and the fascists within our own government are working day and night to ensure that power is centralized in a way that could make all of this possible. While they’re doing it, they turn on the charm and smile before the cameras while selling us on the same old insipid lines: “We’ll protect the values of this great nation.” “We’re behind the average Joe.” “We want everyone to live the American Dream.” “It’s time to get tough on crime.” “We’re the freest, greatest nation on earth.”

We ritually misquote the founding fathers for political gain. We insult your intelligence. We lie.

These days, the domestic threats are more of a danger than foreign ones.

Even so, I pondered, could I ever imagine myself walking into a subway and pressing a button that I know will result in the death of every man, woman and child on that train? I’d like to think I’d have the sense to target those responsible rather than people whose death will only fuel their rhetoric. I haven’t experienced anything as painful as what has led so many people to believe this is the only way. Maybe after a certain point, desperation turns into apathy. I don’t know. However, I’m certain that if it ever did get to that point, it wouldn’t be about change; it would be about revenge.

“No,” I thought to myself,”I’d never get to that point.” I’m satisfied enough with my own answer, though I hope never to experience the kind of oppression that would lead me there. Yet still, I found it harder than ever to take such an oath upon myself.

It sits in front of me as I type this, causing me to wonder how a pile of words could get me so worked up. Why not just sign it and forget about it. I’m probably just reading into it too much. Jeez, it’s not like I’m signing over my soul. On the other hand…

No, I don’t think I will sign it, because if push comes to shove, I’ll have to make a choice between being a good German and doing what I’m told, or standing up for what I believe in regardless of the cost. I’m sticking with my principles on this one.

Thank you for reading.

HAHA I SO PUNNY. I heard about this place awhile back and saw it as we were pulling away from H&R Block today (durn taxes). I asked my wife to stop the car so we could check it out. She said okay.

Holy crap. I’d seen a picture of two amethyst pillars somewhere (They were still there. I just might buy ‘em), but I wasn’t prepared for what I found. The place has so much awesome stuff. I was surprised to find that a good deal of it was museum-caliber. Actually, I’m also surprised how hard it was for me to blog about them and give ‘em a well-deserved plug. This is the kind of place you want to keep a secret, hoping nobody buys that Jade carving you’re making eyes at, or that giant framed flying stick bug, or the exotic collection of butterflies, or maybe that petrified fish or trilobyte.

The place is awesome. It makes the St. Louis natural history museum’s rock shop looks like a muddy gravel pit.

We decided to buy a bamboo wind chime from Indonesia. They all sounded great and I eventually had to flip a coin to make a decision. Then, I saw the chessboard.

See, we didn’t really plan on buying anything. I just wanted to check the place out. So I see this gorgeous chess set in a velvety blue box. I asked how often they come across items like that, and he told me that this particular one was made by a man from Pakistan who owned a marble/tiling business. Unfortunately, the guy died, so for all he knew this was the last one. I had to get it. I asked my wife, since she had the money today. “Go for it.”

The pieces are hand-carved. If I were to guess, I’d say that some kind of rotating sanding tool was used to craft them. I can also make out marks from a file of sorts on the top of the non-pawn pieces. I’d imagine they were polished by hand because of the complex shape. The board and pieces are made of green and white onyx. Total price for the chimes and chess set: about $160, and well worth it. Here are some pictures:

I guess you could say I’m proud of it, heh. Anyway, the staff was great, the selection was jaw-dropping. I will definitely be back to round out my collection. Check ‘em out.

My wife and I were discussing this the other night. My son has been chattering a lot more these days. To give you a bit of a background, my son just turned 8 months old and while it’s been some time since he’s discovered he can use his voice for things other than screaming for his bottle or letting us know he’s ready to wake up in the morning, he’s just started expressing himself vocally.

While we were holding him one night, he went from making “GAH GAH GAH GAH GAH” sounds to “AHK AHK AHK.” Then, out of nowhere, he says the word “cock” with perfect clarity. I laughed my ass off and my wife tried explaining that he’d actually said “gock,” with a G, not “cock” with a C. I tried taking advantage of the situation by getting him to use the phonetic “AHK” sound to form “Barack.”

Tonight, while my wife was volunteering to help me test my sparkly new microphone that may or may not be used for a podcast hosted at blargen.com, (¬_¬ ) I was able to capture him saying it again while recording! He started with the “AHK” stuff again, so I tried, for the second time, to get him to say “Barack.” Hey, might as well start ‘em young. Then, instead, he said cock.

So I submit for your perusal an mp3 of the event in question. I didn’t cut anything out in the middle of this clip, so it runs from when I hit the record button until the word in question happens. The setting was casual and completely unplanned, so I’m not exactly using a radio voice or any other pretense, be warned. The file is about 2.1 MB and runs for 2 minutes and 11 seconds.

Let me know what you guys think! What was my son’s first word: Gock or Cock?

To Vonster.

I don’t agree with all he says. In fact, I agree with very little of what he says but I still check him out from time to time just to see what kind of crazy crap comes out of his mind next.

Anyway, here’s to Vonster, who is at least willing to shoot the shit knowing full well that he’s likely to become a convenient punching bag for the rest of us.

Cheers.

From the Associated Press:

Stingray kills sunbathing woman in Fla.

MARATHON, Fla. (AP) — Officials say a Michigan woman died after a stingray jumped out of the water and struck her in the upper body in the Florida Keys.

Wildlife officials say the spotted eagle ray hit the 55-year-old woman in the face or neck while she was in a boat with her family Thursday. Her name and hometown aren’t being released yet.

Officials say it’s not clear whether the animal’s barb struck her, or if the impact killed her. It’s also not clear how big it was.

Spotted eagle rays can grow up to 17 feet in length, weigh up to 500 pounds and have a wingspan of up to 10 feet.

They are known to occasionally jump out of the water but are not aggressive and use the venomous tip at the end of their tail as a defense mechanism.

Can we file this under religion? Because this is basically a case study in what happens when God or whatever you believe in decides it’s time for you to die.

Update: Apparently the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission agrees with me that the chances are ridiculously slim:

“It’s just as freakish of an accident as I have heard,” said Jorge Pino of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “The chances of this occurring are so remote that most of us are completely astonished that this happened.”

Or “NIGCER.” The NIGCER is a loose association of prominent Conservatives coalescing to destroy the image that Conservatives and Republicans are racists.

“It’s not the kind of image we want,” says Chairman I.M. White,”We want everyone to know that we’re not racists, and that we have black friends.”

Indeed, Alan Keyes, the only African American member of the organization has had a prominent role in the group’s promotion. His picture and likeness have been used on every single one of the Institutes’ billboards, commercials as well as its internet and magazine ads.

Board member Ivory Blanco claims she has been using this strategy for years during party events,”When we have a campaign rally, we instruct the camera crews to zoom in on any dark faces in the crowd. The strategy has really been quite successful in making black Americans think that we care.” When asked if Americans can truly believe that the Republicans care in this modern day and age, Ms. Blanco replied,”Of course. We care about getting every vote we can!”

After the furor that broke out over the confusion of their name, President Lynch made it clear that the “G” was silent. Referring to the proper pronunciation of the now-notorious acronym “NIGCER,” Lynch remarked,”Can’t we all just be nicer to eachother?”

“I know what this is about,” Lynch said while addressing the press earlier this week,”yet again, this is about the liberal hatred that consumes people so much that they believe everybody is racist, which Conservatives aren’t!”

When it was pointed out that Rush Limbaugh made basically the exact same comment during a monologue about a speech made by Senator Barack Obama, he coincidentally gave the exact same answer all conservatives seem to give when told that they’ve quoted Limbaugh verbatim,”I don’t listen to Rush. I agree with most of what he says, but not all of it.” Then exited the room with the song “My City Was Gone” playing from the overhead speakers.

This follows a previous charge of racism by groups such as the ACLU and the NAACP over a slogan used by the group which says,”I’m not racist, I own a colored T.V.!”

“We thought it would be better received, you know, like a joke,” admitted the council.

“We are being charged with something that hasn’t existed for half a century! The Civil Rights movement already happened, so race is no longer an issue,” said Chairman White in response to the allegations, citing a common perception by Conservatives across the nation,”Liberals benefit from racism because it helps their cause!”

After acknowledging that those words also “may or may not have been used” by Limbaugh, he went on to talk about how racism in America is raging against whites these days. “Affirmative Blacktion and welfare are a direct assault on the values of this country, and are clearly aimed at making white people scared to leave their homes and afraid that they’ll lose their jobs to someone because he’s black. Only by abolishing these things, which are the sole cause of the racial divide, can we go back to the way things used to be before blacks were given special treatment for everything.”

Asked by a young black reporter what this had to do with dispelling the myth that Republicans are hostile to African American interests, he replied,”Look, Puffy G Dogg or whatever your name is, if you people care about America, you’ll stop demanding everything and see things the way we see them. Bang! No more racial divide!” He then asked security to remove the “thug” because he was feeling “threatened.”

The NIGCER has recently declared its support of John McCain, who said he was “proud to be supported by a group that promotes diversity and understanding between races.” McCain, at the suggestion of board member Ivory Blanco, is currently in Nebraska posing with black families for photo opportunities.

Chairman White expressed concern,”Uh, well we didn’t say anything about diversity. We just want to make sure they understand us.”

Consistently, I see polls that show smart people supporting Obama and, well, not stupid people, but less educated ones supporting Clinton. To wit:

Clinton continues to lead among women, whites, voters older than 45 and those without college degrees. Obama leads among men, blacks, voters with college degrees and those under 45.

Old. White. Feminists. That’s where Clinton leads. Just priceless.

After beginning to read through Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father,” I’ve really begun to put a more human face on the superstar Senator. This book makes him more knowable and I highly recommend it so far. Up to this point it has talked about race, but it isn’t preachy or guilt-ridden like some other books I’ve read.

The reason I’ve decided to blog is to address, yet again, the Clintonian brand of hypocrisy that causes me to wonder why anyone can take her seriously.

Earlier this month I went on about how Hillary remarked that this is one of the most positive campaigns she’s ever participated in. When I see that, I see head games being played with the rest of us. Not merely “do one thing and say another,” but acting as if what you say is more real than what you’ve actually done. It is very reminiscent of what we’ve seen during the Bush administration. Bush claiming the economy is great and working how it’s supposed to, yet people are losing their homes left and right while individuals and businesses with flawless credit are being flatly denied for loans they’re fully capable of repaying. Among others, far too many for me to list here while keeping on-topic.

Part of what I’ve seen from the Clinton camp has been a kind of immaturity. Thinking back to my childhood, I remember how all the petty arguments between playmates seemed to go. “You’re stupid!” “Nuh uh! You’re stupid!!” “Nuh uh!! You are!!!” One thing I’ve observed on several occasions is the Clinton campaign pulling a “Nuh uh! You are!”

Take, for instance, the blatant refusal of Hillary Clinton to distance herself from Geraldine Ferraro after her racially charged comments concerning Senator Obama. Her denunciation of those remarks was lukewarm at best. She didn’t ask Ferraro to leave, at least publicly, and only mildly criticized statements that required a strong, decisive response.

Then, through some super-human act of contortion, Ferraro turned it around to claim that the entire fiasco–over statements she made–was somehow the fault of Barack Obama. Somehow, drawing anger from people for suggesting that the only reason Obama is where he is is because he’s black means that people are being racist towards you because you’re white? How does that even make sense? How, in any way, could this be blamed on Obama?

The response from the Clinton campaign? Silence.  I wouldn’t characterize the Clintons as racists, but it’s pretty shameful that they’re still willing to exploit the issue for power.

For the tepid reaction, prominent figures from around the country made their disdain heard. Keith Olbermann and many others accused Hillary of campaigning against Obama by acting as if he were the Democrat, and she were the Republican.

What did the Clinton campaign have to say about this? “Nuh uh, he is!” It was perhaps a week ago when I saw this claim by Clinton’s campaign manager. Do they just copy what the other side says every time they want to make a comeback?

It gets me every time how Clinton gets all high and mighty over the matter of ethics. On the matter of such she says she’s been fully vetted, thus making “vetted” the latest buzzword amongst the news crowd. Because she has been fully vetted, it is argued, she is the most electable candidate. The overtones are obvious in this one: Barack Obama hasn’t been looked into like I have, and therefore has undisclosed baggage of the ethical variety.

Is that so? Senator Obama has released his tax returns and openly addressed controversies surrounding his dealings with Tony Rezko, who is under investigation for corruption charges, as well as the controversial statements of his pastor. As a response to the claim that he hasn’t been given the rubber glove treatment by the media, the Obama camp demanded that Clinton release records of her tax returns as well as a list of financiers for the Clinton library. For this, Obama is compared to Ken Starr–a name reviled by numerous Democrats–special prosecutor whose report eventually led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

So she hasn’t been fully vetted after all. Looks like she does, in fact, have something to hide. One can only wonder how much they cook the books for her tax returns and list of donors to her husbands library before finally releasing them.

The troubling part is not that she has something to hide–the Clintons have been hiding crap for years, we expect that. It’s the sheer hypocrisy of it all. How dare Barack Obama question Hillary Clinton’s integrity, yet she does the same thing by suggesting he’s got enough skeletons in his closet to cost him the general election? Then goes on record perpetuating myths against him with statements like “(he’s not a Muslim) as far as I know” yet expects us to buy her victim facade as her campaign releases unflattering photos and digs up dirt wherever they can get it, all while claiming that the media has given him a free pass?

Where does the madness end? Does anybody really buy this shit? Oh, that’s right, she’s attracted the uneducated majority. No wonder they keep falling for it. I guess I’ve answered my own question.