Now, this would explain a lot. They put high fructose corn syrup in every damned thing. I don't know why they do, but they do. How do I know? Because I've been on a slightly modified version of the Atkins Diet most of the time (with wagon falls) over the last five or six years. When you start reading nutritional information, and start wondering, why does this salad have 15,742 grams of carbs? You realize they've pumped everything full of "corn sugar." Yes, they really call it that now. Time was, food producers were scared of the word "sugar." Super Sugar Crisp became Golden Crisp (after a journey through Super Honey Crisp and probably others, with a mascot formerly called Sugar Bear!). But when you have an unnatural product like HFCS that you desperately want to seem "natural," you call it sugar.
So, now that much of America looks like People of Wal-Mart, and those people have decided to be arch-conservative tea baggers, you have to wonder where that all comes from. Corn sugar! It's making them stupid! It all makes so much sense now.
[Excerpt]
High fructose corn syrup might make you stupid
Eating too much sugar can eat away at your brainpower, according to US scientists who published a study Tuesday showing how a steady diet of high-fructose corn syrup sapped lab rats' memories. . .
I started this blog almost five years ago after extreme Bush fatigue. Plus FOX "News" and the whole right-wing noise machine, really. At that point, I was a semi-regular commenter and a constant reader of John Aravosis' AmericaBlog.com. I refreshed the home page of that site many times on any given day. In the haze of Karl Rove-brewed alternate reality, I'd found a place that made me feel sane. So, I was inspired to become a blogger myself. Not a full-time career blogger like Aravosis of course, but at least it gave me an outlet. He's sort of my blogfather (a term I wish I invented, alas I did not).
After Obama was elected, the tone at AmericaBlog got a little strident for my taste. Being gay like me--but much more of an actual activist--Aravosis' focus could sometimes stray deep into the gay weeds. The stories rubbed me the wrong way a bit of the time, but the comments section ran me out. It was all, "Obama doesn't care about gay people!" and "we're not voting for him, he's not going fast enough," and when I'd try to comment on the futility of that, I was run out as a "concern troll." It left me a little bitter.
But I got over it. The site seemed to become a little less strident. I still read it several times a week, even if I don't check it every hour any more. I mostly stay out of the comments section. And I still have a thing for Aravosis, a man who I respect, despite my for-a-time disagreement. He started it all for me, and he's still a heck of a writer. Witness. . .
[Excerpt]
John Aravosis, image from bartnagel.com
Why Gays Did President Obama a Favor by Pushing Him on Gay Marriage
“Black voters will freak.” That’s what the chattering class kept warning those of us pushing President Obama to endorse same-sex marriage. He’ll lose the black vote and energize evangelicals all the way to defeat this November, they told us. And, of course, it would be the fault of the gay community for making such an unreasonable demand. . .
All day Thursday, there has been buzz that the New York State Senate may pass (or fail to pass) legalized same-sex marriage. At almost the same time, President Obama held a fundraiser with GLBT folks. Awkward! Why? Because for good or ill, Obama and his administration--while openly supportive of gay rights--has been dancing up to the line in regards to marriage equality. Apparently they just can't go all the way to "yes, I support same sex marriage." He has to fall all over himself, (rightfully) touting the things that have been accomplished toward gay rights during his term, and reaffirm his belief that gays and lesbians should have equal rights. As far as full equality regarding marriage (which conveys rights), they're hedging: Obama is "evolving" on that issue.
Many people, myself included, think that Obama actually does support marriage equality, he just can't say so unless he gets reelected. And I kind of get that. Except that I'm irritated that we acknowledge and accept that our political leaders--all of them--lie to us as a matter of course, for political expediency. Yes, politicians have always had the reputation for lying, but here is lying that we wink-wink, nudge-nudge, tolerate. Anyway, commenting on all of this is Ron Reagan, Jr. (a personal favorite) filling in for Chris Matthews on Hardball, and my "blogfather" John Aravosis, my main inspiration for starting this blog.
Ever get stuck between political reality, and political idealism? That's where I am with the Obama Administration and the whole topic of gay rights, same-sex marriage, and all that has to do with the LGBTQXYZ community. While I think the administration is a bit too timid and behind-the-curve on the American public's acceptance of the subject, I also recognize political realities and perceptions. Other left-wing and pro-gay bloggers (and what have you) web sites are not so forgiving. In fact, they are openly hostile to the President and his spokespeople.
I'm a bit--maybe a LOT--more forgiving. I'm frankly sick and tired of even my very favorite liberal/progressive/Democratic advocates trashing and thrashing Obama on every goddamn little thing that doesn't line up 100% with their ideals. For f**k's sake, the other side is so odious, so sometimes evil, so 180-degree opposite from everything I want/need/desire/require, they are out of the running from the get-go. I don't consider myself an Obama-bot. I am also not a defender of everything Democrats do, or a proponent of every prominent liberal.
Right now, the President and his spokespeople are tippy-toeing over his past comments on same-sex marriage. The topic is a political landmine field (though it by all rights shouldn't be). Most of us know that Obama probably doesn't give a rip if gay people get married. He's probably either indifferent or supportive. But our political climate doesn't allow that acknowledgement, either from a liberal, or a conservative. Obama is in effect forced to lie, or waffle. Divisive topics force both sides to lie to appease their base. This sucks, and is very frustrating for the reality-based community.
You see evidence of these sort of things on countless political and/or news programs. You'll get the "official" quote from a politician, and then endless discussion of what "he really meant." It sucks. I've said that already, but it bears repeating. There is so much artifice in this process--on both sides, it again bears repeating--that it just freaking sucks. So, newbie politicians give their honest opinions to survey questions, and then that same politician--years later--has to give a more measured, nuanced, poll-tested and squishy answer later. He has spokespeople sprinkle some half-assed back peddling answers to his contradictions. And then people who should be allies shit all over him for it.
I started this blog due in large part to my admiration for John Aravosis' AmericaBlog, Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post and Markos Moulitsas' Daily Kos. But it's really pissing me off that much of what is coming from these progressive sites is an automatic nuclear attack on Obama, for any transgression. It is self-defeating. It is possible to be critical while also being constructive. What I'm reading seems to be destructive, right out of the gate. I quite simply don't get it.
[Excerpt]
NETROOTS: White House Rep Denies Obama "Filled Out" 1996 Marriage Pledge
In an interview conducted in front of an audience at the Netroots Nation blogger conference early Friday in Minneapolis, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer claimed a 1996 questionnaire favoring gay marriage, which bears Barack Obama's signature, was "actually filled out by someone else. . ."
Wow. Remember how Republicans snickered at Hillary Clinton when she said that there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy?" Maybe they were laughing because they knew that she was right, but that nobody would believe her. The article excerpted below (which also excerpts from other sources) is must reading, if you've been following the anti-union, pro-business actions of the new batch of GOP state governors across the country. Sure, you've heard FOX "News" and Rush Limbaugh spinning the "official" story about how these measures are needed to shore up state budgets. But read on, and tell me how that squares with this melding of the state and the corporate combining efforts in secret.
[Excerpt]
What's the source of these anti-union measures? Meet ALEC, a right-wing group that writes state laws for Republicans
If it seems that all of this state-by-state union-stripping legislation is coordinated ... that's because it is coordinated. Also pre-written, gift-wrapped and hand-delivered.
Meet ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a national right-wing group that writes "model" legislation for its members. Who are it's members? Republican state legislators and private organizations (think ExxonMobil). . .
I found this at AmericaBlog, and had to pass it on. I'm frankly a little surprised to see Teddy Roosevelt slammed by FOX "News." One of my conservative friends hails TR as a personal hero. I wonder what he thinks about this?
John Aravosis' AmericaBlog was one of the first blogs I ever read (back during the Jeff Gannon story, 'member that one?), and was part of my inspiration for blogging myself. So, I'm always glad to see when Aravosis appears on one of the cable news shows, especially when it is in the arena of gay rights. I have no self-delusions either that this blog compares to John's, nor that I'd make a very good TV pundit. But it's nice to see a blogger I like get some exposure. I mean, if it isn't on TV, it didn't happen, right?
This post from AmericaBlog just cracked me up. Only in right-wing world is Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher worthy of endorsing candidates. And only in right-wing world are Karl Rove, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich moderates. Unbelievable. But the point about Sharron Angle is on the money.
[Excerpt]
Joe the Plumber running ads in support of Teabagger in MO Senate race; says Newt and Rove too 'moderate'
Some people seriously don't know when their time is up. Having said that, this can't bode well for Roy Blunt.
Yes, his opponent, teabagging state Sen. Chuck Purgason, is way behind Blunt in the polls, but so was GOP nutjob Sharron Angle in Nevada. . .
I'm exceptionally busy with my various projects, which is why the blog has been a little thin the last few days. Still, I'd like to keep the blog current, so I'm just going to post a couple of quickies, with not much commentary. I usually like to add my own spin, often with a lengthy (windy) dissertation. Tonight though, just some cut and paste jobs (with attribution, of course).
I found this at AmericaBlog, where Sarah Palin has been dubbed "stupid" for falling for this prank. Far be it for me to argue with my blogfather, John Aravosis, but this doesn't make her stupid. This makes her ignorant. But she's stupid too, so, po-tay-to/po-tah-to.
I feel uneasy when it comes to criticizing President Obama on gay rights issues. On one hand, he's said more about gay rights, and made more promises to the LGBTQIetc. community than any other President ever has. On the other hand, there was a deplorable defense of DOMA (the ludicrously named Defense of Marriage Act) by Obama's Justice Department, and little actual action. Soldiers are still being regularly discharged, even if nobody should have asked, and they didn't want to tell.
One of my favorite blogs (and an inspiration for this one) is John Aravosis' AmericaBlog. It's one of the first blogs I read every day. Over there, their attitude is white hot against Obama's gay rights achievements, and a complete skepticism that he'll follow through on anything. I can see their point, to a degree. In the speech below, there is little that is different--and little progress made since--from his campaign speeches. Aravosis, his associates and most of the commenters are giving Obama both barrels, with a huge amount of hostility.
Guys, the President of the United States has loudly and clearly stated that he wants to see an end to DADT (Dont' Ask, Don't Tell) and DOMA, in addition to wanting progress in other areas on gay rights issues. I share your frustration, I still don't understand that DOMA defense, and I wish this moved a lot faster. I also think that logically speaking, ending DOMA and DADT should be done right the hell now, when there is no major election to worry about. But damn, why the hell would Obama push any harder when we're taking a peeing on his shoes? It just seems out of scale to me.
This map sure does look inspiring after the sea of red we've endured over the last dreary string of years. Of course, it means little if the Democrats we elected last fall don't grow a spine and get some stuff done.
After posting the video of AmericaBlog's John Aravosis on CBS News, I found this article he wrote for Salon yesterday. It's great, so here' you go. . .
[Excerpt]
President Obama betrays the gay community
Team Obama keeps telling lesbian and gay Americans like me to be patient. If we just wait a little longer, administration officials whisper to us lovingly (and out of earshot of the media), after the White House finishes with healthcare reform and getting the troops out of Iraq, your time will come. In the meantime, cheer up -- we put a gay band in the inaugural parade! . . .
AmericaBlog's John Aravosis was one of my inspirations for starting this blog, and he continues to blaze a trail at his site. Right now, one of the biggest stories on AmericaBlog is the dust up created by President Obama's Justice Department writing a pretty horrible brief defending DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). Were it not for Aravosis, the issue might not have even hit the mainstream. Anyway, he was on CBS today, so here is the clip.
Sometimes, I plug away on the blog, and walk away feeling a little pride in my work. Then, I'll read a post on one of the real blogs and feel inadequate.
AmericaBlog was one of the first blogs I ever read, back when I wondered--much like I do today about FaceBook and Twitter--what all this fuss was about blogs. It was one of my inspirations for starting this blog almost two years ago. To me, this is just a hobby. I don't pretend to be in the big leagues. So I guess I shouldn't feel like I ought to be as good as those who do this for a living.
The short post excerpted below is really not so different from what I do, I suppose. It takes the issue of political hypocrisy to task, showing Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity to only be concerned about the Constitution and freedom when the "opposition party" is in control. It's an important point, one I've attempted to make before. But John Aravosis is a pro, and something about his writing sums it up better than I have.
[Excerpt]
After 8 years of Republicans trashing the Constitution and illegally spying on Americans, now the GOP is suddenly worried about "rights"
. . .Funny that Gingrich and Hannity sure didn't care when their Republican buddies in the White House and Congress spent the last eight years trashing the US Constitution and the rights of our citizens, all for the "greater good." That was okay. But trying to pass legislation to make it easier to forestall a depression, that's dictatorship. . .
Ya know, we libruls sometimes are too hard on Sarah Palin, what with her folksy ways, and hockey mom gestures also. She's just a regular person from up in Alaska, and the American people relate to that also. So how does a Maverick from main street rear her head to compete with a Warshington insider like "Say it ain't so" Joe Biden? Well, this handy-dandy flow chart may go a ways toward explainin' that. Also.
Tina Fey did a great job on Saturday Night Live this weekend, channeling Sarah Palin. She had the rambling "sentence to nowhere" patter down perfectly. What I didn't realize the first time I saw it, was that--at least at first--Fey was quoting Palin, almost word for word. . .and getting laughs! It is funny, until you realize how scary it is. Study hard, Sarah. . .
