It's too bad Republicans didn't take Scotland's heed and refuse to let 45 (I won't type its name anymore unless there is no other way to report on the issues) run as their nominee. Instead they invited in the devil to further their agenda and all of us are suffering for it—even the ones who don't realize it yet. But I'm digressing...
According to The Irish Times, 45 accused Scottish politician Patrick Harvie of blasphemy after Harvie posted a tweet regarding 45 that he didn't like. Blasphemy. Let me repeat that: he accused the politician of blasphemy. "The Scottish blasphemy law was last enforced in 1843 but, under parliament rules, an investigation had to be launched," wrote journalist Peter Geoghegan. "The case was dismissed, making Harvie the only Scottish parliamentarian ever to be formally cleared of blasphemy."
I've posted a quick video (and humorous recap!) from Samantha Bee's show because it puts the blasphemy case into perspective alongside what was going on in Scotland at the time this event occurred. Nevertheless, I highly suggest reading The Irish Times piece for an altogether different reason. Namely, the division and hostility 45 created in Scotland amongst ordinary citizens is eerily similar to the state of being that is, as Time magazine so aptly dubbed it, the current Divided States of America.
Unfortunately, online proclamations such as this one are not uncommon:
click to enlarge
Not to be outdone, Putin has his own worshippers:
The man who ordered the murder of 400,000 Russians is the Defender of Christianity?
Orthodox Russians have elevated Putin to the same god-emperor status that Evangelicals have deified Donald Trump. If that doesn't frighten you, especially given both of their unrepentant perversions of morality, it should.
According to The Jerusalem Post, Arye Deri—Israel's Shas Chairman and Interior Minister—was quoted as saying, “If such a miracle like this can happen we have already reached the days of the Messiah, therefore we are really in the era of the birth pangs of the Messiah."
The illegal occupation and annexation of Palestine continues to sharply divide Israel; roughly half of Israelis are pro-annexation while half believe it is past time for Israel to comply with the 1967 agreement and withdraw. In the pro-annexation camp, most supporters do not believe Palestinians should be given equal rights as citizens, which would usher in a US sanctioned apartheid—if not the outright genocide of Palestinians—in a one-nation Israel.
A mural in Vilnius, Lithuania. Photo credit: The New Yorker
I've been watching the words and deeds of vets and active military personnel pretty closely over the last 16 months... and every day my view of them as a collective whole grows warier. I don't want to distrust the people who are supposed to be fighting for our freedom, but the loudest ones are making it difficult not to.
After news broke yesterday of the CIA's confirmation that Russia interfered in the 2016 electionwith the intention of getting Trump elected, a thinking person would believe such a massive revelation would give the military pause. It hasn't. If anything, they have dug their cyber heels in deeper, going so far as to voice pro-Russia sentiments. This leaves me no choice but to ask, just who the fuck's side is the US military on anymore? If it's the American people's, I sure can't tell.
The level of misguided hostility toward Hillary Clinton coupled with a nonsensical devotion toward Trump is brain-ache worthy. Just what kind of "training" goes on in bootcamps these days? I don't know that we'll ever have that mystery solved. What I do know is there are two arenas which, once explored, fuel more questions than they provide answers: the three retired generals Trump may or may not appoint to his cabinet and the massive cognitive dissonance between what many vets/military say is important versus how they voted. First, lets look at the basic ticking points on those three retired generals.
None of the three generals come without massive amounts of baggage. Petraeus, frighteningly enough, is the least scary of the unholy trio. Give him some head and he'll give you classified info—yet still he's preferable to General Frick and General Frack. Which brings me to point #2...
If the military is sooooo outraged by Hillary Clinton's email server because potential classified documents could have "compromised soldiers" (they didn't) then why the hell are they okay with General Happy Pants being in a position of massive power? The truth is this: not a single one of them can articulate a reasonable argument that explains the cognitive dissonance on display here. They throw shade, sputter, and shout "commie" at you for asking, but that's as persuasive as their (cough) arguments get.
Again, I ask, whose side are soldiers on?
Before the 2016 election, there were certain absolutes within the ethos of military culture we could count on. If for no other reason than not giving a soldier with a different background/race/etc from your own a reason to not have your back when you most need it, the absolutes were few but sacred.
Always show the utmost respect to Gold Star families.
Before the Trump Virus infected US politics, that golden rule was one only the dumbest of soldiers would dare break. Since we never heard stories about the Gold Star Family rule being tossed aside pre-Trump, we can probably safely assume any scant incidents of it were quickly stamped out by fellow soldiers or their superiors. Fast forward to the post-Trump world we now live in and it's as if that ethos never existed at all. I cannot count how many insults against Mr. and Mrs. Khan—especially against the former—I have personally seen with my own two eyes since the grieving father delivered his now historic speech at the Democratic National Convention:
Rather than defend the Khans when Trump attacked them, I watched members of the military defame and mock grieving parents. I saw posts from self-proclaimed soldiers in which they shamefully disseminated falsehoods about the Khans' faith, claiming they were supporters of Sharia Law when the opposite is true. Again I ask, whose side is the military on?
POWs Are Off-Limits
Before Trump, you would be hard-pressed to find any American, much less a veteran or active duty soldier, who would cast a vote for a presidential candidate that mocked John McCain's status as a former POW. You would also have difficulty finding a candidate who could make it to the primaries much less survive them after spouting such an insult, but that's another story.
This election has brought about many firsts, none of which have been good. We have gone from being a people with normal relational issues amongst ourselves—for the most part—to a people firmly and perhaps irrevocably divided. Trump did that... and many vocal members of the military both past and present helped him bring us to this place.
Active military personnel are supposed to be publicly apolitical, but I saw little evidence of that during this election. Perhaps the worst, most vile spewers of online hatred have been the nasty ass, racist, venomous wives of these men. It's difficult to argue a soldier is apolitical when his own spouse is filling up Twitter with repugnant hatred, pro-Trump propaganda, and little else. More than a handful of these women also sport the frog logo on their Twitter bios; frogs might have been associated with Navy Seals in the past, but on Twitter today they represent the alt-right, Neo-Nazi, white nationalist movement.
And so I ask all members of the military for the last time, whose side are you on? You might want to figure that out before the black/Muslim/Hispanic wife of a soldier of color you depend on to have your back gets word that it's reasonable to assume you don't have his.
If for some unfathomable reason you still need more proof that the crazies have been emboldened by Trump's electoral college presidency to be, well, look no further.
Actress Sofia Vergara is being sued by her frozen embryos for denying them the right to life. She's no longer with her former partner and hasn't been for 2+ years, but hey, what has logic and personal choice ever had to do with rightwing thinking? (Rhetorical question.)
Although Ms. Vergara's frozen embryos have been cryopreserved in California, her ex is suing from Louisiana where frozen embryos hold equal rights to actual people.
A word of warning to any (read: all) men who masturbate: it's just a matter of time before choking the chicken becomes a questionable legal right. After all, you kill tens of thousands of potential offspring every single time you rub one out. You brutal serial killers need to think about THAT the next time you watch the make-sexy-time channel. Your hand belongs to the state.
Attention Angry White Men: You lost the non-hypocritical ability to make fun of any woman's "safe space" the moment you decided to turn the USA into one YUGE therapy blanket. Feeling triggered by the little old hijab-wearing lady down the street? Does the Special Snowflake have a mental boo-boo? Awww. I'd say to find a liberal who cares, but yeah... we don't. Our bleeding hearts have turned to ice where Republicons are concerned.
