Archives for

Bugs, Drunks, and Undocumented Workers

Illegal immigration is the biggest problem facing the United States right now you guys. I have never seen any firsthand evidence of that, but the fact that it seems to be the only thing any of the candidates on the stage at the second Republican Presidential debate wanted to talk about must mean that it’s super important, right? The only subjects that came close, in terms of time spent on them during the debate, were Who Hates Planned Parenthood The Most and Who Will Be Quickest To Bomb Iran. The Republican frontrunner has made illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign and it’s lifted him to a wide lead over the rest of the field, so that means this is what Americans (or at least Republicans) are worried about, right?

People are coming from other countries and stealing American jobs! Even worse, they’re sponging off of the infrastructure and services that American tax dollars pay for without making any contribution themselves!

It’s a very serious problem, and the Republican candidates have a lot of Big Ideas about how best to handle it. Should we build a big giant gold-plated wall along the Mexican border? Should we spend $400 to $600 billion dollars to deport the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the country? Should we dig a really big hole in the middle of the desert and point an arrow-shaped sign reading “DRUGS AND FISH TACOS” at it and push them all in? Should we just nuke San Francisco?

I know what you’re saying: That’s not why we should nuke San Francisco!

Read More

Shut Up About Kim Davis


Can we stop with this Kim Davis thing? Please?

On the merits, I agree: the Rowan County, KY clerk who was recently jailed for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples is a bigot, and a hypocrite (she’s been married three times), and her fashion sense is appalling. She is clearly unfit to do her job and should be fired. I don’t see how anyone who doesn’t take the Bible literally could dispute any of that.

I have not followed the story closely, and by that I mean that I have not clicked on anything with her name or face on it. But this story has been inescapable enough that I have inferred the broad strokes, because this dullard has been coming through my social feeds roughly 7,000 times a day for the last two weeks, as all us Enlightened Liberals look down our noses at her and belittle her religious beliefs and her sister-wife outfit and chortle as Survivor sues her for using “Eye of the Tiger” without permission.

And that is exactly what she, and more precisely, all her supporters want: they want us to expose ourselves as Liberal Elitists who are persecuting Christians and hate religious freedom, in hopes of winning more moderate Christians over to their side. Read More

We’re All On The Ashley Madison List

A dating website that helps married people cheat has been hit by hackers who threatened to release information about millions of customers.

I should make this very clear up front: I don’t want to cheat on my wife.

I want to stay married, and I don’t want to hurt her. If I ever start to wonder if she’d really mind if I stepped out on her, I need only imagine the shoe on the other foot. Call me old-fashioned, but the thought of her cheating on me is painful, and that’s not something I would ever want to inflict on her, the best friend I’ve ever had. I’m a man, and I have eyes, and I have thoughts, and I have had an opportunity or two over the years (and I have no doubt that all those things are true for her as well), but I don’t want to hurt her, and I want to stay married. I don’t cheat, I won’t cheat, I can’t cheat.

Even if I wanted to, and found a woman who agreed to my conditions (I’m never leaving my wife, she must never know of this, you cannot have my phone number or any other contact information for me, if I ever see you in public I will pretend we’ve never met), it just doesn’t stand up to a cost-benefit analysis.

First of all, I’ve been with my wife, and only with my wife, since 1998. Maybe I should be more confident, but I feel like an encounter with a new person at this point would be so vanishingly brief that both parties would regret it immediately.

It seems likely that male vanity would then come into play: “I can’t have this person wandering around out in the world thinking I’m a two-pump chump,” I’d think to myself, which would compel me to try and see this person again so I could get another crack at breaking the five-second barrier. Now it’s not just one night, it’s an affair, and affairs threaten marriages.

We are not slavering beasts of the field, subject to imperatives we can’t control. We have developed a frontal lobe, and it can think a couple of moves ahead, past the immediate pleasures of the now. It can contemplate consequences and change course. What happens when I put my pants back on? How do I get out of here? Do I need to burn these clothes? She knows I’m not available, right? She’s not going to call, right? She’s not going to hit me up on Facebook, right? She’s not going to tag me on Instagram, right?

Cost-benefit analysis: Twenty Ten Three seconds of pleasure for weeks, maybe months, of sneaking around and diving for my phone and fake email addresses and general anxiety? The Board votes no.

Read More

Gentrifying Sesame Street

Screen Shot 2015-08-14 at 5.53.53 PMSome news stories are hard to joke about, like the explosions in China or the ongoing tensions in Ferguson, Missouri. Others, like the one this week that proto-kids’ show Sesame Street is moving to premium cable network HBO, are easy.

This week’s episode brought to you by the letters H, B, and O! You know nothing, Elmo! Or my favorite:


If you listen hard enough, you can almost hear all the people out there furiously trying to finish their Game of Thrones video mashup where they dub an alphabet lesson over one of the show’s famous ‘sexposition’ scenes.

A lot of people don’t seem to see it as a laughing matter, however. My social feeds are full of Class Warriors complaining that this move is emblematic of the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots, and that it’s hitting the kids who need Sesame Street the most, underprivileged kids — the very kids it was invented for — the hardest. A few quotes from the comments section under the New York Times article on the deal:

Must be true. Everyone and everything has a price. Once again OUR public dollars created Sesame Street and now the privateers are taking it over for personal gain. Welcome to 3rd world America where only the financial elite reap the benefits of society and government and the rest of us get the throwaways WE paid for with OUR consumer, 401k and tax dollars.. HBO will probably get the OUR government money to produce “children’s learning television”. What a joke. It’s getting harder and harder to love America – land taken over by insatiable greed with zero social conscience.

So I guess the options for my kids are:
1. I fork over $180 per year for an HBO subscription that I don’t need for anything else nor do I want my children to have access to for the largely explicit material shown on this channel. Or,
2. They watch a total of 4 re-hashed episodes on PBSkids since the shows won’t be available on Amazon or Netflix (I have subscriptions).
If I end up paying HBO, I guess PBS can kiss goodbye my contributions. If that’s the way others think, PBS will might no longer exist. I’m certainly not going to contribute in order to watch Downton Abbey.

Now that it’s on HBO, can the violence, profanity and nudity be far behind? (Though I guess most of the Muppets are already nude.)

Everybody calm down. Though it is a little depressing that PBS can’t afford to pay Big Bird’s salary all by itself, that’s been the case for quite a while. Sesame Street has been producing fewer and fewer episodes — before this deal, they were making 18 a year — and continued budget cuts from the federal government forced the show to rely on DVD sales for the lion’s (or the Snuffleuppagus’) share of its funding, and the streaming video revolution has parked that revenue stream right next to Oscar the Grouch.

Read More

Donald Trump Is Already In Charge


As everyone expected, the first of the 275 scheduled debates between Republican presidential candidates was a bit of a shitshow. Eager to come out swinging, to make an impression, and to out-conservative each other, several hopefuls staked out alarmingly extreme positions: Marco Rubio said he opposes abortion even in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Jeb Bush promised 4% growth (actually, Sustained Positive Economic Growth, a phrase he repeated several times) for every year of his presidency. Mike Huckabee proposed a consumption tax so we can finally make poor people pay their fair share. Most extreme of all, John Kasich suggested that we accept gay people for who they are.

But predictably, it’s sentient Internet comment Donald Trump who walked away with all the headlines, because Fox News anchorbot Megyn Kelly challenged him on his history of sexist statements:

Trump got snippy with Kelly during the debate, and then spent the rest of the night tweeting shit at her; then, in a phone interview with CNN, Trump suggested that she had pressed him on his ungallant statements not because they suggest an alarmingly retrograde if not outright misogynist disposition, but because she was on her period.

Because American news media is apparently unable to focus on more than one aspect of anything at a time, this became the one and only story coming out of the debate. That is unfortunate, because in addition to burnishing his reputation as a world-class shithead, Trump made the truest, most revealing statement I’ve ever heard in a political debate. (Close second: when Huckabee declared that the U.S. military’s mission is to “kill people and break things.”)

Read More

Sandra Bland’s Fake Mugshot


Eric Garner. Tamir Rice. Freddie Gray. Walter Scott. Sandra Bland. Now Samuel DuBose. It seems that we can’t even digest one of these horrific, senseless killings, before we’re confronted with the next one. At this point it wouldn’t be shocking if there’s another one to wipe Samuel DuBose off the front page before I’m finished writing this.

As people who die in police custody go, Sandra Bland is so last week, I know. But I am still thinking about her. Whether she committed suicide, as the official story has it, or she was murdered, as some people believe, or she was treated roughly enough by the cops that they accidentally killed her, as seems likeliest to me, it’s clear that there is a problem with law enforcement in this country.

At some point, it seems, the mandate for the police went from “protect and serve” to “intimidate and harass.” We went from knowing the cops by name and asking them for directions to getting really tense and scared when we see them, whether we’re criminals or not. We’ve gone from feeling like “that guy is on my side” to feeling like “that guy is watching my every move so he can give me a ticket, but I’d better smile and love that ticket because if I give any sign that I am going to do anything other than SUBMIT, he might kill me.”

Obviously, this distrust is more pronounced among the people who keep getting killed for no good reason. White boys like me can’t pretend to be as nervous that we are going to be murdered by the cops until a video of a white boy being murdered by the cops hits YouTube. But you certainly can’t blame black folks for feeling that way, and worse, for feeling like nobody cares. But how else are they to feel when social media erupts more over the killing of an African lion than an African American?

Sportswriter Bill Simmons once coined the term “The Tyson Zone” to mean the point in a story when the public would believe anything, no matter how insane. After a guy bites another guy’s ear off in the ring, and gets a face tattoo, pretty much all bets are off as far as believing what that guy would or would not do.

As these videos keep surfacing, and exposing more and more brazen abuses of power by the police, resulting in more and more black bodies, we have entered a kind of Tyson Zone with the cops. After you’ve seen video of a cop shooting a suspect “suspect” in the back and then trying to plant evidence to justify it, after you’ve seen a cop threaten to “light up” a woman for refusing to put out a cigarette, after you’ve seen a cop SHOOT SOMEONE IN THE HEAD because he tried to flee a front license plate ticket, well, you’ll believe pretty much anything.


So when the idea started circulating on Twitter that Sandra Bland was already dead when her mugshot was taken, a lot of people believed it, or at least didn’t disbelieve it. I didn’t disbelieve it. Though there is no evidence that the official story — that she hung herself in her cell the morning she was going to get out of jail — isn’t true, it also stretches credulity by more than a little: Bland was an activist who had spoken about police abuse of power, about the power of social media to expose those abuses, who was heard thanking the bystander who recorded her needlessly violent arrest for recording it, who planned to take the arresting officer to court, who had just started a new job. Does that sound like someone who would do herself in? I’m not so sure the cops killed her on purpose, that seems unlikely, but it’s not a huge stretch to imagine that they got a little too rough with her as they were taking her in (this part particularly is not hard to imagine, as it’s on video) and somehow accidentally killed her — maybe by triggering an epileptic seizure? I don’t know, I can only speculate. But the official story is fishy enough to suggest some kind of coverup. If they would pull her over for not signaling when she was getting out of their way, and if they would drag her out of her car for not putting out her cigarette, and if they would put a knee in her back for resisting being dragged out of the car, and if they would lie about how things got to that point (only to be contradicted by the video), sure, maybe they’d cover up her death, too. There’s no real logical inconsistency there.

Bland’s mugshot started making the rounds, and people started commenting that she looked like she was lying on the floor, rather than standing up. Her hair is hanging back, instead of down! The shadow is too close to the back of her head! You can see up her nose! Her cheeks look drawn! Why is she in prison scrubs, instead of the clothes they arrested her in? And look at her dead, lifeless eyes!

Reasonable people can disagree whether her eyes are “lifeless” or “angry” or just “over this bullshit,” but the story was crazy enough to that point that it didn’t seem completely crazy to imagine that once again, the cops were lying about what happened to her.


Then another version of that mugshot started going around, where Bland looked a lot more dead: her eyes rolled all the way back, the dark circles under her eyes a little more pronounced.

This was the moment my bullshit detector went off. I can believe that some powertripping cops forgot themselves, accidentally killed someone and then tried to cover it up. I’ll still listen if you suggest that they even tried to pass off a photo of a dead woman as a mugshot as part of the coverup. But now you want me to believe that the fellas at the Denton PD have the Photoshop skills to add convincing eyeballs where there were none? It’s a lot easier to take eyeballs out than it is to put them in, which suggests that someone spent some time doctoring that mugshot to “prove” that Bland was already dead when they took her mugshot.

WHY? How does that help? If you are outraged about what happened to Ms. Bland, I am with you. If you are hoping to draw more attention to the whole thing, I am here to help. But faking evidence to prove something, even if you’re 100% certain that it’s true, is bound to blow up in your face. Just ask Dan Rather.

When O.J. Simpson was on trial for murdering his ex-wife and her favorite waiter, his attorneys insisted that the wealth of incriminating evidence against him was the result of an elaborate frame-up by the LAPD. I followed the case pretty closely and while I never doubted that Simpson was guilty, there were a couple of weird details about some of the evidence that did kind of make it seem like maybe the detectives engaged in a little horseplay, just to seal the deal. Like they thought, well, there’s a blood trail here, and there’s blood on his car door, so let’s drop the bloody glove on the grounds and turn this layup into a slam dunk.

It didn’t work, because Simpson’s defense raised enough questions about some of the evidence — questions the LAPD didn’t have good answers for — that it put the whole case into question, and Simpson ended up being acquitted of a crime he could only have been more obviously guilty of if he had signed left a signed football at the scene.

Similarly, it’s pretty obvious that there’s more to what happened to Sandra Bland than the cops are saying. But when this dead-in-her-mugshot meme went viral, the Denton PD released a video of Bland’s intake, fingerprinting, and posing for her mugshot, and she does not appear to be deceased in any part of it.

So that answers one question: was she dead in her mugshot? No she was not. Does that mean that she did not suffer a grave injustice? Absolutely not. Even if the cops are telling the truth and she really hung herself in her cell with a garbage bag — and that’s a big, big if — her case is the clearest documented example of how far off course routine policing has gone from “protect and serve.” Or at least it was, until Samuel DuBose forgot his driver’s license.

But now that “our side” — the side that thinks the cops aren’t telling the whole truth about this — put fake evidence out there, the next piece of evidence is going to be viewed much more skeptically, if it’s viewed at all, so whoever faked this image has done a great disservice to their own cause — unless their cause was making the people who think there’s more to this story look like the crazy ones.

But if it wasn’t, and the person who circulated this image is reading this, do us all a favor and knock it off. You’re not part of the solution, which means you’re part of the problem.

HuffPo’s Imaginary High Ground


Last week everyone’s favorite news source for celebrity hookups, celebrity breakups, celebrity op-eds, and 72-point headlines announced that it will not cover Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as part of its political coverage. Instead, Huffington Post Editorial Director Ryan Shea and Washington Bureau Chief Ryan Grim wrote, Trump’s exploits will appear in the Entertainment section:

Our reason is simple: Trump’s campaign is a sideshow. We won’t take the bait. If you are interested in what The Donald has to say, you’ll find it next to our stories on the Kardashians and The Bachelorette.

This short, terse statement went viral pretty quickly — it showed up in my Twitter and Facebook feeds a good dozen times — and my fellow Lefties snorted approvingly at HuffPo’s principled stance and Trump’s buffoonery.

The problem is it’s not a principled stance at all, and it just underlines what a sordid shitrag the Huffington Post is and always has been.

Read More

I Don’t Want To Love Van Halen Anymore


I should have been excited: my favorite band is coming to my town. Their guitarist, who’s battled all manner of substance abuse problems, is finally clean and sober, for real this time. Their long-estranged singer is back in the fold, seemingly for good. They are playing at an outdoor venue by the beach in August.

But I wasn’t excited. I didn’t even look into what the tickets cost. I never imagined I might say this, but I feel like I might be done with Van Halen.

Read More

Rush Limbaugh is Running For President


After about a thousand years of teasing his Twitter feed about it, mostly by retweeting all the dullards out there who are begging him to run for president, real estate tycoon and bronzing test subject Donald Trump finally announced his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination a couple of weeks ago. Trump wasted no time before saying something wildly offensive:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Asked to apologize for those remarks, which are not rooted in any reality, Trump doubled down:

We are specifically keeping the best and brightest out. It is the dumb and dumbest that we are letting in. Let me rephrase that: It is the ill-educated and the uneducated that we are letting in. The VCs, college graduates, PhDs, you name it, from all over the world, they are limited. The number of people of that caliber — severely limited and tightly controlled.

Asked to clarify again, Trump added:

A sixteen-year-old girl at her homecoming dance was gang-raped and left for dead because the Democrats need more voters. We could save a lot of soul-searching about “our” violent culture if journalists didn’t hide the fact that gang rapes are generally committed by people who are not from our culture.

Hold on a second. I apologize, I’ve got my quotes mixed up. The first one is indeed what Donald Trump said at his campaign announcement on June 16. The second one is what radio personality and doctor-shopper Rush Limbaugh told his audience on July 1, 2010. And the third one is an excerpt from Ann Coulter’s brand-new bestseller, Adios America: The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole.

Read More

Rhymes with “Gay Jizzum”

Confederate flag for sale at Vermonster 4x4 Rally

I got into it with an old friend from high school on Facebook the other day about the Confederate flag. It’s funny, because I have not seen this person in about twenty years, and I have nothing but good memories of him. We weren’t best buddies, we never slept over or anything, but we ran in the same circles and I always liked him. He was a fun, funny guy who I was always happy to see when we showed up at the same parties, and there were a lot of those.

Other than being Facebook friends, we’ve had no contact at all in a million years, but through Facebook I was aware that he is married with kids in North Carolina and just a bit to my right politically. That’s fine by me — my whole family is to my right politically, and we don’t yell at Christmas dinner. To me a difference of opinion between friends is just that, and I remember this person as a friend, so I have no interest in fighting with him about matters I’ll never change his mind about, nor he mine.

I was on vacation in Grenada with my family when the shooting in Charleston happened. I was slow to read about the story because I was on vacation, consciously trying not to look at my phone every five minutes. We found out about it from a taxi driver, who was deeply upset about it, and over the next few days everywhere we went people asked us about it because, in a 99% black country, we stood out as obviously American.

These people were far more upset about it than, from what I could tell on social media, the average person in America was. When the national discussion turned to the Confederate flag, my old friend posted the following:


I didn’t reply to this post right away, but it stayed with me for a couple of days, on the plane back to Brooklyn, into the next night. He seemed to be angrily arguing against a straw man position. No one is blaming the flag, they’re suggesting that we stop poking African Americans in the eye with it. And by the way, while I’m sure that not all people who wave that flag are racist, let’s not pretend that when racists want a flag, it’s overwhelmingly the one they turn to.

Read More