The Running of the Gays

Scott Beck
President & Chief Executive Officer
Salt Lake Convention & Visitors Bureau

President Thomas S. Monson
Prophet, Seer, and Revelator
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Dear Presidents Beck and Monson

We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. Heck, I'm actually surprised it took this long for the Church to revise its promise not to clamp down on unapproved speech on the block of prime real estate the city gave the Church for a song. But now it's happened. The Church Security Apparatus roughed up and arrested a pair of love criminals for the offense of holding hands and cheek pecking.

So where does it go from here? The gay and their allies have already held one kiss-in. No doubt there will be many others in the future. How are you going to stop them, water hoses and attack dogs? That ain't going to help tourism.

Let's all take a deep breath and try to look at it objectively. It's a problem of geography, really. The Church's pedestrian mall, the Main Street Plaza, is roughly sandwiched between the Avenues and the Gallivan Center. Think about that for a minute. It's a recipe for disaster.

The Gallivan center is a kind of artsy place with outdoor concerts, art shows, theater etc--just the types of things that attract the gay. The Avenues is a part of the city where Bob and Steve or Molly and Patty can find a grand old house to fix up and decorate. It's like a magnate for the gay. And then there's Temple Square and Main Street Plaza serving as a kind of the gay freeway between the two.

You're not going to change that without moving the Gallivan Center or the Avenues, and let's be realistic, that ain't going to happen. So maybe it would be better to turn the whole thing to your advantage.

President Kimball, let's be frank. Asking 19 and 20 year old men to forsake women and pair up and live in far away places to serve on missions is perhaps not the best way encourage heterosexuality. I mean, hey, is there anyone hornier than a 20 year old guy? You deny him the companionship of ladies and lock him in a room with another young guy and you're just asking them to slip each other the ol' urim and thummim.

Wouldn't it be great if you could test them before you sent them into the mission field? Well, Main Street Plaza is the perfect place to do just that. Think about it. Homosexuality's siren song is strong. They have that homomojo thing they do with their manly bulges that's nearly impossible to resist. That's why you've poured millions into the fight against the gay marriage. Why not test your prospective missionaries by having them line up on both sides of Main Street Plaza to observe the migration of the gay between the Gallivan Center and the Avenues. You're bound to find a few of the weaker ones succumbing to the siren song and attempting to do "the beast with two backs" right there with one of the pedestrians. Then it's just a matter of hauling him off to BYU for a little aversion therapy.

And Mr. Beck, I hope you're seeing the tourism possibilities here. This could become a huge attraction. Set up a few loudspeakers playing a driving techno beat as Orson Scott Card does a dramatic reading from his "call to war against marriage equality" and you've got one heck of a recurring event. All it needs is a great name.

I'm thinking, "The Running of the Gays."

What do you think?

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Come the Teabag Revolution

Sorry for the late post. We spent the day at the hospital battling Ofjoshua's hernia demons. In the parking lot, I saw this mural painted on what I assume must be a patriot's command vehicle. I think it tells a story we're all very familiar with.

Reading from right to left, it says chicks are really impressed by our big, powerful assault rifles, and they're gonna plant our tomatoes after we rid the skies of black helicopters.

I'm sure this resonates with you in the same way it does for me. We've all dreamed this dream. It's why we're always talking about secession and revolution. We're gonna all finally have sex with real women.

Achieving the perfect orderliness of a soylent green society

After seeing Dennis Kucinich make a mockery of Free Market Jesus by causing David Gratzer to stutter and sputter, I decided I'd better review Gratzer's latest book, The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. Here's my review.

I'm not the book's first admirer. A couple of other fine Teabagger-Americans have already written incredibly fawning reviews. Perhaps I'm biased, but I think mine is much better. If you agree, please give it your vote as the "most helpful review" so it can be listed as the "most positive review." I'm starting late and was 48 votes behind when I published, so if you're inclined, evangelize your freinds and ask them to cast their votes for the one true review as well.

Achieving the perfect orderliness of a soylent green society, July 12, 2009

By	Gen. JC Christian, patriot (Tremonton, UT United States) - See all my reviews

David Gratzer's The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care is perhaps greatest paen ever written to the one true religion: laissez-faire capitalism. It's a celebration of the triumph of the bottom line, an adoration of profit, and a joyous prayer of hope for the perfect orderliness of a soylent green society.

Over the last 30 years, we've stood in awe as we've witnessed unregulated capitalism's transformative powers. Where once our edible ecology lacked such keystone species as E.coli and salmonella, our meat, fruit, vegetables, and water have become veritable Edens for those precious pathogens. Where once financial regulation checked glorious greed and encouraged the unbearable ennui that comes with stability, our new, deregulated, economic environment has brought excitement to investing and incredible profits to those few deserving oligarchs who were most prepared with the connections to exploit the system to their advantage.

Now, David Gratzer and the insurance industry wants to do the same for health care. He's heard the complaints. He's read studies like the 2004 Commonwealth Fund report which looked at satisfaction in five nations. He saw that they found that U.S. Americans were by far the most dissatisfied with their health care system (over twice as dissatisfied as Canadians)and less likely to receive care because of cost (17% of Canadians vs 40% of U.S. Americans).

Yes, he's studied it thoroughly and has decided that the problem with the U.S. system is that it is not capitalistic enough. It needs to be deregulated like the food and banking industries. The problem isn't lack of access, it's about deciding who deserves what level of care--it's about rationing health care by one's ability to pay.

Even more importantly, it's not a matter of whether someone can receive the care they need, but whether society will allow him or her to access a free market solution to pay for that service. Is our society advanced enough to provide a patient's loved ones an opportunity to sell their organs to pay for needed health care? Have we achieved that level of compassionate capitalism yet? Do the poor and working classes care enough about life to make sacrifices to preserve it? If not, do they really deserve all of the benefits of life?

These are the fundamental questions to which Gratzer alludes, but, unfortunately, fails to fully address in his book. That's a shame, because these are the questions that must be answered if we are ever to fully achieve the libertarian society he envisions.

That said, Gratzer does honor un-fettered capitalism with the blind worship that it deserves as the answer to everything (along with lower taxes and drilling in the ANWR). That's why I'm giving his book four stars.

BTW, I've added a share widget to the bottom of each post so you can easily share these post via Digg, Fark, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

Corporate America, Corporatizing America

_{Image © Austin Cline
Click for full-sized Image
More Propaganda Posters}

There's a case about to be argued before the Supreme Court - for a second time, which is significant - which has the potential of substantially rewriting the very nature of the American political system. I recognize that there many cases every year which seem to be like this because it is, after all, the Supreme Court. This case, however, is potentially much worse than most: what if American corporations were permitted to donate money directly to political candidates, bound only by the restrictions already in place for individuals or perhaps without any restrictions at all?



Strange Behavior at the Supreme Court

No one saw this case coming because this isn't an issue that the Supreme Court was ever supposed to rule on. The justices were supposed to rule narrowly on whether a book about Hillary Clinton qualified as a corporate-funded political message that had to be held back until after an election or if it were just another book that could be published like any other.

Instead, the Court took the highly unusual move of holding the case over and having the lawyers come back in to make entirely new arguments — not arguments over whether the book constitutes political advocacy, but over whether the Supreme Court should overturn the 1990 decision which established the precedent that political advocacy by corporations could be restricted in the first place.

What's more, the Court insisted that the new arguments be made quickly, even before the next term starts. This gives little time for the lawyers to prepare or for advocacy groups to submit their own briefs. It almost seems as if the justices involved have already reached at least a preliminary decision and are rushing the process so that a final verdict can be handed down before others have a chance to sway them — or realize what's going on.



Corporate Sponsored Politicians

Perhaps this doesn't sound like it's necessarily a major change from what we have now. After all, don't industries and corporations already practically buy politicians on a regular basis? In fact, one might even suspect that a change might be good: currently the layers (lobbying groups, political action committees) between politicians and corporations makes it harder to tie votes to donated money, so allowing more direct donations will also allow citizens to see more clearly the connection between donated money and paid-for voting.

As cynical as that is, it's hard not to be sympathetic; but if allowed to get a foothold this sort of system would make American politics far more corrupt than it already is. Politicians would know that the more money they divert to corporations — not just general industries or industrial sectors, but specific corporations — whether directly as in bailouts or indirectly as in tax breaks, the more they may be able to receive directly back in campaign donations.

Banks receiving billions in bailouts could donate hundreds of thousands to the politicians who voted for bailouts to ensure they stay in office. A coal company that's allowed to destroy mountains in Appalachia could donate massive amounts of money directly to sympathetic politicians to keep them in office. Health insurance corporations could give hundreds of thousands directly to politicians on both the state and federal level to ensure that the people never benefit from a just, fair, and reasonably priced health care system.



Stressing and Changing the System

The only potential upside to such a situation is a step beyond the cynicism mentioned above: if the system becomes obviously corrupt enough, perhaps that will inspire enough people to want enough change that there will be real support for fundamental reform of the system. It's a sad fact that people tend to be scared of big changes, so no matter how corrupt and unjust a system is, many will tend to accept it just so long as the corruption isn't too obvious and the injustice doesn't become too personally invasive.

So people are more willing to support change when the system itself collapses, appears to be on the verge of collapse, or becomes so riddled with corruption that the risk of change becomes less than the risk of staying put. That isn't currently the case with campaign financing. Plenty of people recognize that there are serious problems with campaign financing in American politics and recognize that money is a hugely corrupting factor, but they are unable to do anything more than nibble at the edges without affecting the fundamental problems.

There are currently too many people with a vested interest in keeping things just the way they are and not enough support for significant reform among the voters. If the Supreme Court actually goes so far as to hand corporations the golden key to political financing, though, that might be enough to tip things in favor of corruption and thus also towards real reform — though, I fear, it will take a while for that momentum to build up sufficiently. In the interim, we'll suffer through a lot more corruption, a lot more bad laws, and a lot more infringements on our rights as free citizens.



Changing the Supreme Court

One interesting thought is how such a ruling might impact the Supreme Court itself. It would be easy to direct a bit of voter anger towards the Supreme Court and portray the justices voting in favor of corporate-funded politicians as renegades, radicals, and untrustworthy. Combined with already-existing arguments for reforming the Supreme Court and we could see significant changes there as well, like term limits or more justices.

The last time politics entered the Supreme Court in such a way, it was more threat than reality. President Roosevelt was able to threaten the Court with additional justices and thereby got them to stop blocking his economic reforms. This time, though, it would probably be too late for threats because the damage would already be done and the Court wouldn't be able to reverse that damage before they have consequences imposed on them.

Interest in reforming the Supreme Court is even lower currently than interest in reforming campaign financing, so this could make the Court itself the only force capable of making its own reform a realistic possibility.

Department of Book Reports: A Better View of Paradise

Here's some more Hawaii! A Better View of Paradise by Randy Sue Coburn (Ballentine Books, $25.00) 36 year old landscape architect Stevie, has just completed a park in Chicago, but a broken pump has flooded the fountain and grounds and critics are ruthless in their reviews of the design. On the heels of this career set-back, her boyfriend dumps her and she decides a return to her childhood home on Kaua'i will put her back in tune with the nature she brings to her garden designs. Facing her argumentative father is the part she dreads, but learning he is dying forces Stevie to come to an understanding of her relationship with him and her stiff upper lip British mother. Family secrets are revealed and Stevie learns much as she finds a new life for herself among the natural splendor that is Hawaii.

If you can't get away for a vacation this summer, this is a book to make you feel you have spent the day at the beach. The legends of the islands are vividly drawn on here.

A Better View of Paradise is available at Jackson Street Books. The book's release date is Bastille Day, which coincidentally is Stevie's birthday. This fact tickles me to no end.


I'd like to invite everyone to attend the movie, A Soldier's Peace, tonight in Second Life. You can read much more about it in Progressive Witness' dailykos diary.
Netroots Nation in Second Life and Virtually Speaking are very proud to host the SL premiere of Marshall and Kristen Thompson's documentary A Soldier's Peace, the remarkable chronicle of one veteran's 500-mile journey into activism, which follows former Army journalist Marshall Thompson, an Iraq war veteran, as he walks the entire length of his home state of Utah, talking to people along the way about war and peace.

Please join us at Netroots Nation Arena for this simple yet powerful film, followed by an interview with Marshall Thompson.

The Opinuary Column

The Opinion You can't always get what you want has died after contracting objectivistilla randosa nervosa, a not very rare but truly crippling disorder that confuses its victims into believing that if everybody would just do as they say the manifested Universe would be just as it should be. Additionally, and in point of contradictory fact, you can always get what you want if only people would just admit to the superior nature and reasoning faculties of their betters. Would it kill us to just lay down and assume the position? Of course not!

The Opinion, which often captivates the fevered minds of youth only to eventually corrode the measured apprehensions of age, leaves in its wake an ocean of madly drowning and flailing egos, all slapping hard and cursing at the vapidity of a world that does not embrace them and their radiance. Mimicking the Objectivist's gospel one must say Hallelujah! to every brass ring dangled, every casino advertisement proffered, every financial junkie's fix as an invitation to lordship over the material world. And, with the morphine of detachment guiding them, we can devour it all, absent engagement in that same world--we shall be safe from life while exploiting life, for there is where the circle of petulant desire goes round and round! To the victors go the losers!

Had the Opinion lived perhaps our nation would experience a continuing perfection of boundless egoism, and obscenely wealthy people would be rising like a Phoenix above the churning seas this very day, an event we all would watch with jaws agape as our betters take what they want when they want it, ramifications be damned. Burn the oil, invade the country, kill the messenger, bow to the banker, deny the lover, rape the mountain, push the pills and wag the dog: come to all things as the conqueror, the victor, the avatar! Be like gods who take what they please, and justify it as only the gods know how: it simply must be so for we have said it thusly!

The Opinion leaves behind a son You Get What You Need who wishes to thank the public for their outpouring of affection and for their glorious lust for riches and power. In lieu of flowers the family asks that you all endeavor to get what you want so that none of us can get what we need.

++++

The Opinion appears Friday afternoons at Jesus' General.

++++

She's still like Ann Coulter without the values

Our old friend Jillian Bandes turns her attention away from the Glorious War to Resubjugate the Brown to take Jane Hamsher to task for having cancer and supporting eating.

Ensign to put off wearing "big boy pants" until he reaches 60

I've spent a lot of time arguing with myself about whether I should publish this letter from Sen. John Ensign to his parents. It's a private letter and publishing it feels a bit voyeuristic. But the Senator wants people to understand what happened, and he's asked me, as one of the leaders of the Teabag Revolution, to publish it here, so, I'll respect his wishes.

Dear Mumsy and Dadsy,

I'm in a little bit of trouble and I need your help. You see, I have a mistress I need to pay off and and I can't quite swing it. It's just $100K.

I know I said I'd put on my big boy pants and take care of these things myself when I hit 50, but this was really unexpected. How was I to know that being a minority senator would be so much less lucrative. You help me get through this and I'll put on my big boy pants at 60. I promise.

Yes, I know that's eight years away, but I think I may need to resign if anyone learns about this affair. If I do, I'll blame the vicious left wing media for making me do it, and say it's like a point guard passing off the ball to help the team. OK, yes, I know what you're thinking. No one is stupid enough to believe that. But really, it's all I have. I've got to try it.

And that's why I'm going to delay putting on my big boy pants until I reach 60. I like being a senator, so if I resign, I'm going to need you to pay me to be a pretend senator for awhile--at least until I win the presidency.

And I'll still need your help then. George Bush never had to put on big boy pants. I shouldn't have to either.

I love you both very much.

Holding my breath until I see a check.

Your son,

Sen. John Ensign

Let's put a little white chocolate Lester Maddox in next year's Easter basket

Dr. John G Duesler, Jr.
President, The Valley Swim Club
Director of Marketing, Professional Disc Golf Association.
Owner, The Chocolate Squad

Dear Dr. Duesler,

I commend you sir for taking a stand for traditional confederate values and throwing those 60 black kids out of your pool. I know it ain't easy for you. It seems like everywhere I look someone's calling you a racist and a bigot. And you know it's only going to get worse as more and more people hear about it. If I were you, I'd ask the Lord to cause Debbie Rowe to punch Katherine Jackson very hard in the face very soon. It's really your only hope right now.

Hopefully you will find some comfort in the knowledge that you were right when you said allowing black kids to swim would "change the complexion" of the club. It's true. I've seen the photos at your website. Your club rivals the the LDS Institute building on the BYU-Idaho campus in Rexburg, Idaho as the whitest spot in all of North America. Heck, your members make the Pillsbury Doughboy look like Rico Suave in comparison. I mean good golly, man, Pat Boone would probably kick his own melanin-challenged ass out of the Valley Swim club pool so as to not darken its hue.

But after looking at your other website--the one touting the health benefits of a chocolate diet--I have to wonder just how committed you are to the Confederate-American lifestyle. Damn, that is one brown website. Why no white chocolate? Are you some kind of milk chocolate miscegenist?

You know your story has to have gotten Lou Dobbs's attention. How do you think he'll react to seeing this second site? It'll break his heart. Same goes for Tucker Carlson. He's going to think you can't govern your own business if you don't put a little more white on that page. Please get some white chocolate up before they have a chance to see it.

Better yet, how about featuring a line white chocolate segregationists on that site. Wouldn't it be great to give the kids a white chocolate Lester Maddox, Bull Connor, or Jeff Sessions for Easter rather than some suspiciously-hued milk chocolate bunny?

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot