Fuck "God/gods."

Yer ol' perfesser's gottsa warnya: Fuckabee's got the vapors again about "nasty" atheists.

But this god-blighted bible-babbler's ire is just as specious as his logic.

"Non-believers" such as I don't give a rotten, runny shit about your silly little god-delusions. No "god" ever did anything real.

What we atheists and others of a free-thinking disposition object to is the claim by/of "Believers" that their "Beliefs" are somehow endowed with PARTICULAR authority and are therefore ESPECIALLY deserving of particular attention in the public sphere. They base this claim on the basis of alleged, unprovable, specious, spurious relation TO such invisible, made-up "beings."

Theism-inspired 'beliefs' hold LESS water in the public sphere than those derived from science BECAUSE, by definition, 'faith-based' policies have no evidence to support their claims, other than their opinions, which have no substance at ALL in the 'real' world.

For the record: I FIRMLY believe ALL and ANY references to ANY and ALL 'deities' should be removed from ANY and ALL public observances of a civic nature. This would include the 'Pledge,' any sworn oaths, the currency, etc...

BUT I SWEAR: On my honor, I swear that from this day forth I shall never again speak another derogatory sentiment about God, the Church, the Bible, Preachers, Sin, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Satan or ANY of the rest of that happy horseshit...

On the sole proviso that I never have to HEAR or listen to another word about that crap.

Keep it home or in church. I don't care what you do there. Eat your babies for all of me.

Just don't bring it to the PUBLIC FORA as though it were somehow cosmically, or socially, or politically privileged, meaningful or significant.

The GOPhux/Righturds LOVE them some LowBarry!

Woody thinks you might get the impression from the Nooz, feeds, and the Netz that the GOP "hates" PrezLowbar. You MIGHT have noticed that NONE of what the GOPhux did since 2010 (see illustration) made a shittin' bit of difference in the elections? Hate him? Nothing could be further from the truth. They LOVE him! Prez. Shamwow F. Lowbar's the best thing to happen to the GOPhux since LBJ signed the Civil Right Act. Was there even ONE GOPhukkker defeated incumbent who was NOT beaten by ANOTHER, even bat-shit CRAZIER, GOPhux opponent?

Certainly there are no small number of GOPhux individuals/Saltine Americans who "hate" him, as you'd expect. Racism is one of the perpetual blights on GOPhux politix.

But the Party, as a whole, as an entity, love him, for the simple reason that he provides absolutely PERFECT cover for their REAL purpose, their long-term agenda, of undoing and eliminating popular sovereignty/democratic self-rule...

As the designated Party of the owners, oligarchs, elites, and aristos, the GOPhux are in fact dedicated to ending "democracy." LowBarry gives 'em the pretext and the target, and they can STILL deny their true intents.

It's gotten too expensive to maintain the pretense of 'democracy.'.

Everything the GOPhukkks have done since 2009 (well, since 1968, really; since 2009 they've just fast-tracked) has been bent to THAT end.

PrezLowbar gives them a way to disguise their efforts, because the GOPhux' constituents will forgive them almost ANYTHING as long as it makes that uppity NEGRO look bad, up to AND INCLUDING if that is the destruction of the whole idea of a "democratic polis."

A Face to Make an Orc Puke!

If for no other reason than to further highlight the nightmarish aspects of this fucker's desires and demeanors, this needs to be repeated... 

Yer ol' perfesser sternly admonishes you: These people--the Cruzes, the Gohmerts, the Inhofes, the Rubios, et al--are NOT as stupid as they sound (that should be obvious: NO ONE could be that stupid and still drive a car). They all know exactly what they are saying, every word. It's all part of the script of the National Kabuki Theatre on the Potomac. Every word, gesture, and event is blocked and scheduled like a theatrical premier.. 

What is more, they KNOW they are spewing arrant bullshit. And they do it HAPPILY, with no regard for the chaos and confusion they spread... 

But since there is no forum--and probably no vocabulary, either, given the constraints of "civility,"--for directly calling them on their professional bullshit, they keep ON saying spewing it for the "folks back home," wherever 'home' is, and the craven, lap-dog/courtier/CorpoRat press "reports" it, faithfully and accurately. Because, of course, that is their JOB, as ensured by the great corporate gobble-up of the media in the 80s and 90s--remember media consolidation? Ratified by CLENIS Clinton's Comm Act of '96. Not going back! Coup plotters ALWAYS take over the media, first. 

It would be useful if there were some way to confront them on such matters. Maybe an actual adversarial press? That was the kind of press that was deemed worthy of Constitutional protection by the founders, such that its preservation is enshrined in our founding document. 

But you won't see another one of those anytime soon...not in the USofA, ever again, probably.

Up-Date at BERNIE'S!

A Rhetorical Question?
Woody'll answer Bernie's (rhetorical) question with some rhetorical facts:
Because, with money and/or power, there is no such thing as "enough."
The wealthy have the means to ensure that their will to acquire more is in no way impeded by the likes of US (proles, like you and me). If you had a lot of money, it would be working FINE for you and you'd be delighted about it.
People say, well, go ahead, let 'em screw shit up more. They'll be screwed at NEXT election time.
Ummmmm, DERP!
What part of "We Just Had A Big-ass Election That The Fucktards WON, Overwhelmingly!" don't they understand?
They--the bosses, oligarchs, owners, elites, et al--ARE NOT, WERE NOT and DID NOT GET SCREWED. Maybe you noticed?
If they were gonna be "screwed," if the screwing of the totalitarian clones were gonna happen, they would have been 'screwed' by an outraged electoirate for their activities in the last 2, 4, and 6 years.
Wouldn't they? Attacks on women, infrastructure, safety nets, health care. SOME of that woulda/-SHOULDA-- stuck, innit?
But, they're NOT 'screwed.' They're fucking UNTOUCHED!
If anything, they're STRONGER for it.
So, let's get SOMETHING straight, folks:
The GOPhux can do ANYTHING, say anything, attack anything, destroy anything, AS LONG AS they sell it to the country as "fucking with the Negro": Making the NEGRO look bad, undermining the NEGRO's authority, wreaking havoc with the NEGRO's policies. ANYTHING is permissible if PrezLowbar can be made responsible.
They are NOT gonna be screwed by or for ANYTHING they do that they can lay at the feet of "fucking the uppity Nigra."
That's an electoral free pass, one that they'll cash in on for the next 15-20 years.

What's Next? Beer and Circuses

In yer ol' perfesser's oft-stated, yet still humble opinion, it was already too late when Prez Lowbar didn't push back against the (minority) GOPhux' framing and issues in 2009 in his first six months in office.
He gave ground WAAAAAY too readily, too easily, on Gitmo, public option, tax breaks, too much.
It is WAAAAAY tooo late for him to push back now.

He's weak. That's all there is to it. His own party fled from him (and lost, whether by doing so or not is moot)...

The GOPhux smell blood, and are just gonna send shovelsful of bills to him--nasty, mean-spirited, damaging, injurious, disabling bills--daring him to veto them. One pundit put it this way:

"Republican lawmakers will be eager to pass bills, but their efforts won't be aimed at forging compromises with the president. Their legislation will likely target Obamacare and slash spending for social programs. They can be expected to fiercely block presidential appointments, especially judges. They might try to enact restrictions on abortion, and they will certainly seek to gut environmental regulations and climate change policies. Oh yes, and they will push tax cuts for the well-to-do. Such an agenda will be predicated on more confrontation and obstruction."

Oh, and they're gonna impeach him, too. Did I mention that?

The only out is if the Dims in the Senate become as obstructionist as the GOPhux have been. Unfortunately, as I've stressed elsewhere, they do not have the 'status' to do it, being the "junior" (inferior) partners in the firm.
Besides, the Dims in the Senate don't have the cohesiveness, the party-line loyalty, of the GOPhux. A lot of Dims in the Senate STILL gotta/gonna be wary of being too close to "that damn Negro"...They'll break ranks, as the behavior of so many candidates this year showed.

So that's out.

Iow: He's fucked. As are we all...

Thump-Quack: It's Over

You see the problem, doncha?
Katerina VanDen Huevel, at the Nation, thinks that Prez Shamow. F. Lowbar NOW has to double down.
That's what she said: "Double Down!"
And THAT'S the problem.
He's not a "doublin' down" kinda guy. He's hardly a BETTING kinda guy, unless it's blowing up brown people on the other side of the world (then he's okay widdit, betting it's far enough away not to pose any immediate problem at home).
He NEEDS to be willing--even EAGER--to start to wield the VETO-PEN.
But he's not.
That's cuz PrezLowbar, who starts ALL sensitive negotiations by giving away his strongest points--remember "health insurance?"--is gonna feel called upon to 'deal responsibly" with these skeevy, reeking, racist motherfuckers in the GOPhux' Congress. Rather than mount a last-ditch defense of the remains of the FDR/LBJ 'great society,' he'll cave. It won't look like it, at first, but that will be the net effect.
Oh, he'll have the most logical and rational reasons for caving, but count on it: He'll collapse like a pup-tent in a tornado.
The ONLY hope for "liberal/progressive" policies is that PrezLowbar show some spine and wield a sharp and aggressive VETO pen. But he has NOT shown he's eager--ore even much willing--to risk his "reputation" as a conciliator, to save those programs or defend those policies. The "Legacy" of America's First Black president will require him to 'compromise' (really, to give away the progressive store)--but he wouldn't have been installed if that was NOT something he could/would do.
ThePrez's only vetoed two bills in almost six years, the least of ANY President pretty much ever. Gerry Ford, whose tenure was the shortest since Garfield, issued more vetoes (66) than any Chief Exec since Ike (66, including "pocket vetoes"). No one should plausibly expect Prez Shamwow to better, or even to approach, it.
And LowBarry's a gutless conciliator who is afraid of being labeled an "angry Black man," which he would be if he stood up for liberal/progressive principles. So he won't...The LEGACY is all important, now, and that does NOT include a chapter on LowBarry standing up to the GOPhux. The "legacy" does NOT include an "Angry Black Man" standing up to the racist Whites.
SO: We, dear friends, are truly and grossly FUCKED!

And let me add how MUCH I hope I am wrong, and that ThePrez will find some inner resources to defend the principles the people they thought he was already a defender of when they elected him....

TO Vote, or NOT To Vote?

Knowing this will not find anything like unanimous approval, still:
Yer ol' perfesser'z outlined this before, but on 'election eve,' it is even more important: 
For an "ethical person' confronted with choices for action which include ONLY different levels of vileness and evil, there is, arguendo, an ethical duty to support the choice that portends the LEAST harm to the GREATEST number. This is the "MiniMax" position familiar rto game therorists and advocated by America's best renowned ethicist, (the late) John Rawls, in his landmark treatise: "A Theory of Justice."
If we cannot prevent evil (and we cannot), we have the responsibility to diminish it to the extent possible for the greatest number of people.
I could see boycotting the vote only on the proviso that that were unambiguously understood to be an act of protest and resistance. 
But since already (approximately) 50% or more of the electorate will probably abstain for their own reasons, my (and YOUR) abstention would not create any greater effect than voting would; so I shall cast my ballot--tomorrow, in person... It impresses NO ONE to march into the polling place and declare: "Fuck you! I'm not VOTING!~"
John Oliver's correct, too, in stressing that the closer to 'your' home the person lives for whom you will vote, the more important it is that you cast your vote, because the smaller the pool of voters, the more likely a vote is to have an impact.
That is just me, prolly; YMMV.