Hundred Day Assesment

Today is Barack Obama's 100th day as President of the United States. Much has been accomplished in a short time, and the era of Bush seems like such a distant past. President Obama has ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay, banned the practice of water boarding (torture), passed a much needed stimulus bill against the will of the vocal minority, and rallied moderates to secure a filibuster-proof senate. He also has completely changed the tone of the presidency from a secretive office full of backroom meetings and lobbyist handjobs, to a more open sense of governance. Obama, to date, has held more press conferences and made more public appearances than Bush did in his entire first term. You remember, the term where we were attacked by terrorists and started two wars.

It is clear that Obama is interested in bringing the American people along on his presidential journey. He wants to be clear about his agenda and get it across to people that feel left out of the fold in American Politics. He has made appearances on the Tonight Show and ESPN to reach out to an audience that may not be inclined to watch a press conference or read a policy report but that certainly have a stake in the success of his platform. You don't have to agree with him, but most of the country does, and at least you can't criticize him for being inaccessible or clandestine.

The shell of the Republican Party that is left after the 2008 election is in a state of sad disarray. They had been downgraded to a regional party, namely the South, where most of the stupid people live. In search for leadership, they have handed the party over to the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world. Sure, they have an audience. Limbaugh boasts an audience of about 15 million listeners a week. It sounds like a lot, but to put it in perspective it is only 13% of the people that voted in the last presidential election. With 13% of the electorate at your beck and call you can stage a lot of "teabagging" protests. You can also bitch and moan on Fox News, badmouth the president, and rant about how we are becoming a "socialist nation," but you can't win elections. That 13-20% percent of the electorate represents the far right wing of the party that has taken over and dominated the GOP over the last three months. Like moderate Muslims trapped by Taliban leadership, moderate Republicans have no voice, although they exist in larger number than you would expect.

It feels like George W. Bush is light years away. He bought a mansion in Dallas and rode off into the sunset. Good for him. He is doing and acting exactly the way a wildly unpopular ex president should. He is working on his memoirs, which should be out as soon as he can figure out how to spin it into something positive.

Other former elected leaders are not extending us this courtesy. Dick Cheney has been quite vocal about certain national security policy changes. Seriously, who the fuck cares what the most unpopular vice president thinks about anything? Does the right wing think that by parading Cheney around the different news shows criticizing the Obama administration that they are going to make any converts? It's about as effective as the Britney Spears instructional video Secrets to a Happy Marriage and Effective Child Rearing. This is what Cheney has to offer the country.

When I was growing up my father's favorite response to inquiry was "No." That is because "no" is easy. It requires little effort to vocalize and can be said in a variety of ways without offering an alternative. The Republican Party has become the party of "no". No health care, Nobama, no taxes, no gay marriage, no reproductive rights, no economic stimulus, and no fun. Ever. But also no definable alternative that has a chance in hell of becoming a reality in the current political climate, either.

Obama has just completed a stellar first 100 days in the White House. However, the hard work will continue for the next 1,360 days left in the first term of his presidency. The Republican Party better get on board and start the work of the minority party. This means that you work toward concessions that you can live with within a larger policy agenda that you don't necessarily like. You lost the election. Suck it up and move forward with a positive outlook. Senator Specter defected yesterday and he might not be the last. The 2010 midterm election campaigning and posturing is going to begin in about six months, and you don't want to be the party of "no" against a majority whose president has a 68% approval rating. Show us that you would like to win some elections again.

Underestimating Large Groups of Stupid People

The conservative movement has run into some semantic issues recently that I feel a duty to point out and correct.

When I plop my balls in your mouth, or brush them against your chin, or bounce them ever so slightly atop your forehead, I am "teabagging" you. It is a sexual act that only a man can perform on another person. Nothing else. However, the new wave of conservatives protesting the president's new tax code are using the term to refer to sending him tea bags in the mail as a symbolic act of solidarity with the Boston Tea Party-ers.

To all you conservatives out there participating in such "tea parties" on April 15th, please stop saying that you are "teabagging" the White House. It's actually quite funny and a bit clever, but us liberals have serious questions about your sanity and intelligence and we don't know whether to laugh with you (for coming up with a Daily Show style pun) or laugh at you (because you have no idea what "teabagging" actually refers to).

I tend to gravitate towards the latter response and here's why: major GOP party leaders are using the term, as well as all the pundits on Fox News. When I heard Ann Coulter talking about "teabagging" the president I had two thoughts: 1)anatomically impossible, and 2) I hope that my parents aren't talking to all of their friends about how they just can't wait to teabag President Obama. I actually sent them this email today due to my concern:

Hope you guys had a nice Easter. I got your little package in the mail yesterday. The pictures are super cute. I'll scan them into my facebook when I get a chance.

Also, I don't know if you guys have any plans to attend one of these infamous "tea parties" I keep hearing Fox News talk about on April 15th, but if you do please refrain from using the term "teabagging" to refer to them. "Teabagging" is the slang term used for when you put your scrotum on someone's face. Always has been and always will be. When I heard Ann Coulter say that she was going to "teabag" the White House I was concerned that perhaps you might be going around talking about "teabagging" the President. Yikes.

Just looking out for ya,

Andrew

I do my duty to my family, what can I say.

However, regardless of whether or not Ann Coulter and Greta Van Susteren plan on filling Obama's mouth with their huge teabags, there is a larger, historical issue here. Any student of history knows that the Boston Tea Party of 1773 was an event planned by revolutionary colonists to spur a violent response by the British and to protest the idea of "taxation without representation" in regards to the Crown's exorbitant tariff placed on tea in the colonies. Rather than return the tea to Britain, which other colonies had done, the Bostonians chose to destroy the tea in the ocean. Great Britain responded with the Coercive Acts, which essentially closed commerce in Boston harbor and prompted the convening of the First Continental Congress. The congress passed a series of provisions that demanded certain legislative action by the British and blah, blah, blah, the Revolutionary War started.

The parallels with the current tea parties, which Republicans think are so clever, pretty much stop with dumping tea into the water. However the act of protest at the Boston Tea Party was that the tea was never paid for. That was the revolutionary act. That was what made the British so angry. The only creatures getting angry here are the fish, who's palates are not yet refined enough to appreciate Lipton's brew. Are you beginning to understand why we think you're with stupid?

The other order of semantic business refers to my last blog post and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Apparently many, many people have weighed in on their fear-fuck-fest ad that is all over the internet and on the tele in certain inbred communities. In response to all the negative attention, the NOM has announced a new initiative called "Two Million for Marriage." But, in order to connect with the texting, twittering, facebooking, culture out there, NOM has shortened the name of the program to the text friendly 2M4M.

Please google "M4M." I don't expect straight people to really know what it means, but I do expect for the National Organization for Marriage to know their enemy. At least know what you think is so intolerable. Please open wide while I drop my balls in your mouth. I like them gently sucked and generously licked. And a little ass play never hurt anyone, either.

The Impending Storm

There's a storm a'brewing. Apparently it is a storm of butt plugs, anal lube, cock sucking, nipple clamps, and lesbian scissoring. Sounds like a good, hearty storm to me, like the ones I am used to growing up in West Texas, but the religious right is not so pleased.

This television ad is currently running in many 'battleground' states as the GOP prepares the ground of the 2010 midterm elections; one they cannot afford to go as poorly as the last. Granted, the ad is a little campy, a little low budget, a little hokey. Considering the source, my only surprise is that Kirk Cameron didn't pop out to share the Gospel with me at the end.

The National Organization for Marriage is a recently established Political Action Committee (PAC) that is carrying on the war against homosexuals from being included in the institution of marriage. I would encourage you to go to their website and check it out at . It's boats loads of fun for the whole family.

Given their name you would think the organization would be committed to tackling divorce rates and curbing domestic violence. But that is simply not so. It is an old dog with a new trick. The election of President Obama has mobilized the new minority to take off their traditional garb of white sheet with matching hood and don a more modern apparel. The ad even suggests that equal rights for gay and lesbian couples are OK, but that somehow the "homosexual agenda" wants more. They want to impede on the rights of the religious to wallow in their ignorance and xenophobia.

I immediately noticed how vague the impeding clusterfuck of a threat is. I kept waiting for the punch line, but it never came. Just manufactured, intangible fear of change (or improvement). There is no resolution as to why the medical doctor would have to choose between her professional career and her faith if gay marriage became a reality. It just states the hypothetical threat, while a backdrop of brooding clouds gains behind her, and moves on. No explanation or elaboration, which I can only assume means there is not one. And it uses the same MO multiple times in the 60 second spot.

It is a little surprising that the Republican Party is still using the gay issue to divide voters and motivate their base. That's so 2004. However, chances are that you haven't seen this ad running on TV in your area. It is for a very select audience, and is only appealing to those who have never visited a major city or lack an internet connection. But, thanks to my internet connection, I have seen it and can now share it with you. Nothing is secret and no audience is select.

My initial concern is that the American people have not learned their lesson soon enough. That there are still people in the middle of the country that roll around in this catnip to make a political difference. It is the same tactic that worked in 2002 and 2004 regarding our "War on Terror," and the impending threat of whatever benefited the administration's agenda. Now I am the enemy waging war against my parents, my childhood friends, their families, my brother, and God. Will it ever end?

My real concern, however, is that they are on to us. It's true. We won't stop until every man, woman and child is gay, gay, and gay. I could go on and on, but tonight is Thursday and it's my shift to strap on my angel wings and pull on the skin tight speedo for recruiting. So, tootles, straight people, I'm gonna go make one of your children gay tonight. Snap.

Stepping back from the inflammatory tone of the ad and the personal nature of the attack at hand, I would like to take you on a little walk into the future. Ten years from now, when gay marriage is legal nationwide, and no one thinks about it anymore. This ad will still exist and be easy to recall online. As will Pat Buchanan's 1992 Republican National Convention speech(youtube it)and clips from Pat Robertson's 700 Club. These people represent the conservative movement and Christianity in our times. What is to become of them, their movement, or Christianity as a whole, when recent history will dictate they were wrong. Who is to trust them, or their faith, about matters as weighty as spiritual leadership and enlightenment? Who wants the guidance of their senile grandparents as they contort in disbelief every time they see our black president? A generation or two can make a world of difference, and a person's continued respect and legitimacy requires that you end up on the right side of history.

The impending storm may not be the one that you think. It might be self created. And it just might be the tsunami that snaps the cross in half and leaves two thousand years of spiritual oppression laying desolate in its wake. Good luck, Christians.

Our Pontiff Predicament

The Catholic Church has been around for a long time. There are currently about 68 million Catholics living in North America. My family, on my mother's side, is riddled with them. The church has brought us such gems of history as the crusades, witch hunting, and prepubescent boy fucking.

I narrowly escaped a Roman Catholic upbringing thanks to my mother's collegiate rebellion to Evangelical Christianity, saving me from having to go to mass once a week. Being raised Christian certainly carries its own set of thorns to continuously jab at your secret desires. But, I escaped Catholicism. For this I am eternally grateful. However, I am familiar enough with Catholicism as an observing apostate at family reunions to realize most of its bells and whistles. Its special brand of guilty nuance, as it were.

Pope Benedict XVI recently graced the continent of Africa with a papal visit. If it's one thing that an impoverished, war torn land needs, its a visit from an ex-nazi, sith lord impersonator with an imaginary friend. A papal visit to Africa makes a bit of sense considering Africa is home to about 135 million Catholics. Shell shocked and mal-educated prepares the ground perfectly for Catholic seed.

The pope, at the sprightly age of 81, seemed to take the visit a bit more seriously than a typical papal visit. Usually it's rife with all the customary niceties of talking about world peace, shaking the hands of elected leaders, waving at adoring fans, and otherwise shutting the fuck up. Instead, the Vatican took the opportunity to take a continental health policy stance about condom use and to reaffirm the Roman Catholic belief on birth control. His exact words to the Associated Press during his trip were, "You can't resolve it (HIV transmission) with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem." Monogamy within marriage, says the pope, is the only way to tackle this problem. This was his message before heads of governments, who would rather ignore the AIDS crisis, and before common laymen who are the unwilling and unknowing breeding ground for new infections.

As a volunteer for the Aids Alliance, and perhaps more importantly as a gay man, I know better. Get into a monogamous relationship with someone who is HIV positive and take the pope's advice. It may not work out to your liking. 22 million people in Africa are HIV positive, and those are just the cases that have been tested and reported to international health organizations. Approximately 800 people die every day due to AIDS related complications on the continent without lifesaving drugs that are commonplace and taken for granted in the West. It is a constant struggle between the international community and the governments of certain African nations, namely Zambia and South Africa, where the transmission rates are highest, to get safe sex education into the country. Then the pope shows up, all white and shiny and Jesusy, and fucks things up further.

In uplifting news, pretty much everyone else in the world responded to the pope by suggesting that he might be spinning on his pointy hat. If you want to be Catholic, fine. If you aspire to be pope, fine. If your imaginary friend walks with you, and talks with you, and tells you that you are his own, fine. But please leave the health advice to the health care professionals. They know more than you, they believe in "science," and they care more about actual results rather than scoring points for a fictitious deity. Shouldn't you be diligently working towards expanding the amount of human guilt on the planet, anyway?

Yes, I'm biased. I think Catholicism is for the weak of mind. Clearly. But, I also care deeply about the HIV crisis. It is something that affects my community disproportionately in this country, and that I have given my time and energy to try to make a difference. The innocent people of Africa deserve better from their leaders. Especially the leaders that should know better.

Pope Benedict XVI can suck my condom-sheathed cock. I hope he chokes on it.