guantanamo prisoner torture outsourced to palau. pork legislation has nowhere to hide, now that we can hunt it in national parks. wait...what?

hey, look, i like obama as much as the next liberal progressive democrat, but i think it's time to face up to one big fact: he ain't as great as we think he is.

bottom line is, politicians are politicians, and now that campaign cycles begin the day after the most recent election (the only competition longer than the NBA playoffs. at this rate the 2010 season will start sometime in 2016), buckle up and prepare for a whole lot of idling in the garage until the US breaks down into independent, poverty stricken, war-torn stans, republics, and soviets, like the USSR. what? them again? no. us, this time.

and now that iraq has more money in the bank than we do, get ready for a 40 year run of aziz bond movies, in which an international militant of mystery repeatedly saves the world from total destruction at the hands of over-the-top american stereotype villains with cool scars over their eyes, all the while having tawdry affairs with conveniently named women like "skimpi burkha"; wooing them with lines like "let's liberate you from those wet clothes and rebuild you with a democratically elected interim shirley temple (no drinking there, and all)", "i've got an IED in my pants and i want you to drive your hummer over it", and "let's go back to my place, so you can occupy my former arab dick-tatorship".

"it's a good day to die, vice general greenspan, and it looks like it's time for you to cash out." oh my god, somebody make this movie!

wait...where was i?

oh yeah. less progress, more of the same. a good slogan for miller genuine draft, perhaps, but we're trying to run a country, here. so, what's new? or should i say, what's old? aside from the fact that this financial bailout is all happening with the same players and the same playbook as the bush administration's financial fumbleruski (again with the russians?), which is how we got in this mess in the first place (well, in the first place, we deregulated the banks, well before w got his grubby mitts on the country).

what's old is that obama, while making some strong and progressive moves, is no golden god, and it shows. don't get me wrong. i love the guy, partly because elmo would seem like a great president compared to w, and partly because he is making some strong moves toward a better US (that is just the opinion of this liberal progressive, however). but like i said, politicians are politicians, and at the end of the day, mr o is a politician.

let's discuss guantanamo bay, shall we? ok, so it's going to be closed. hip hip hurray! so what does that change? not a damn thing. all those prisoners are going to be sent to other prisons. look, the important thing about guantanamo is that we stop using it to hold prisoners without fair trial, and stop using it as a dungeon for sick and perverse modes of "information extraction". the prison itself isn't the problem. it's not like it's built on an old cuban revolutionary burial ground, and the ghosts of che's army are returning from the dead to torture people and refuse them due process. the important thing is not the empty gesture of closing the prison. the important thing is that we prove that we've learned our lessons. so we've stopped torturing (so i hear) and we are going to start putting these people through the court circuit (one would hope), so why do we need to start this argument about where to keep them, and whether or not regular, stateside maximum security prisons will be able to hold these super powered evil geniuses? just leave guantanamo open and stop treating it like thunderdome.

let's discuss progressive legislation. i don't know where everyone got the idea that, if elected, obama would legalize pot, and gay marriage, but apparently those ideas got out there in the ether, somehow. neither of those things is going to happen. look, obama said he wants equal rights for the lgbt community. but never did he say that, without following it with that fine print item: i believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. he may have said that he would be willing to open a discussion with the pro-pot folk, about the state of marijuana policy, but he never said he was even going to try to legalize it. in political speak, "open a discussion" could very well mean he invites them to stop by his office so he can tell them to fuck off, in person. but it's so deliciously vague, that it's pretty much assumed by the rubes that it means the flood gates are open and everything's coming up milhouse. we need to understand that there are going to be a lot of things that we thought obama was going to do, but unless he said it specifically (and in many cases, not even then) we're living in a fool's paradise (perhaps my 420 savvy readers are more comfortable with the term "pipe dream"? then again, maybe some of my lgbt readers are more comfortable with that phrase, too...).

let's talk fixing the mess we're in. i pointed out the non-progress of the financial bailout already, as well as the guantanamo affair. but what about the other turds w left on the white house lawn? we've renamed the mission in iraq, but the "exit strategy" is nothing of the sort, and in fact, aside from the name change, it's essentially the same plan w had laid out by the end of his term. so let's chalk that one up to another empty gesture. about GM... you know what? we've been over and over this. my problems with the GM plan were discussed explicitly in who needs capitalism... (06-01-09). about healthcare. somehow the terms universal, and socialized keep getting copy pasted to the front of his healthcare plan. this idea has a snowball's chance in hell of coming to fruition. which brings me to my next point.

mr pork slayer, mr lobby buster, mr transparent, himself. b to the o. transparent, maybe. he certainly seemed to be on tv a lot during the first months of his term, apologizing for things, taking the blame for things, swallowing his pride. so maybe he is transparent. but that's actually a call that history will have to make. as for mr lobby buster, i thought he had his justice league of filibuster proof superfriends to push all this shit through. what happened? every time obama talks about his new healthcare plan, he walks right up to the edge, then takes two steps back. i can just barely make out the health insurance lobbyists hiding behind the door, clearing their throats a little too loud, right before he disclaims the ways in which his new plan won't be universal healthcare, or socialized medicine. and what about mr pork slayer? i think this topic needs to be dealt with via a very sharp left turn, much like mr o did. when it was time to reform the credit industry, mr o sure showed those greedy fat cats and wall street slicksters who's boss. he passed a credit reform and regulation bill that allowed visitors to carry concealed weapons in national parks. shocked and a little thrown off? i was, too. so there goes mr pork slayer, right?

but with those filibuster proof superfriends behind him, at least most of the pork (after this gun thing) will be in the best interest of the progressives out there, right? i can't believe i am about to agree with (gulp) joe scarborough. too many people representing either party is a not a good thing. like bill burr says, humans are not meant to live alone, because when you live alone there's nobody to walk in and catch you doing stupid things, and tell you to put your pants back on and put the scissors away...after you've cleaned them. in a system with occasionally questionable checks and balances, the best way to make sure we don't run right off the edge of the left or the right, is to allow an open forum comprised of a good sampling of all those being represented (remember how we need to add a hispanic woman to the supreme court?). i'm about to agree with scarborough again here (super gulp). the problem is not that there are too many republicans in the government, peeing in the soup. the problem is that there are too many idiots in the government farting on the omelet bar. it just so happens that, at the moment, the republicans are in the majority when it comes to idiot production (i am still in agreement with scarborough at this point...where is this bizzaro joe hiding? you ask. certainly not on morning joe. you have to get waaaaaay deep, to find this joborough. you have to get tavis smiley deep. don't worry, the circus is here to do that for you). the term republican has grown to be synonymous with brain dead ass hat, but in reality, republican doesn't have to be a four letter word. in fact, republican is just that: a word. republicans can be whomever they wish to be, and they don't all have to act the same (dems can do this too). its perfectly ok for a person, regardless of their political affiliation, to use their own brain, instead of borrowing the collective brain that most people plug into when they choose sides. in fact, conservative doesn't, by definition, mean bigoted, whitebread, mississippi mudflappin', truck driving, gun nut (sweet virgin jesus mother mary theresa, joborough, why aren't you this intelligent and introspective on starbucks presents: moaning joe?). this is where me and scarborough go our separate ways, however. joe believes that republican stands for the obtuse idea of conservatism (this i agree with), and that conservatism is a good thing (not always).

i think that it is important to try to keep the intent of the founding fathers in mind (keep in mind, the founding fathers also had a serious discussion over the idea that the constitution they were writing should be rewritten every 19 years, even if it's rewritten word for word, to be a more contemporary, and appropriate document, imagine what an amazing country we would live in...). so if that is conservative, than i am conservative on that point. but as for clinging to their expressed written ideas? i think that we need to keep in mind that the world is a place that is itself progressive (as some of the founding fathers obviously knew), in that it is always changing, with or without us.

to look back at a document written during a time of revolution, building, and rebuilding of a small rogue state, a document that states, "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and only see the part that says "the right to keep and bear arms" is ignorant. the world has progressed past that place. even if you wanted to look at that amendment literally, it does not give the right to keep and bear arms to random people who like to go out back and shoot stuff. it provides the right of people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. we've got one of those. it's called the US military, and those people have every right to keep and bear arms. if you're not part of the maintenance of our well regulated militia, then you have no right, or reason, to bear arms. if you plan on starting your own militia to overthrow the government, don't expect to be sanctioned or sponsored by the government you plan on overthrowing. rather, expect to receive sanctions (it's different) and subpoenas from that government. if you're planning on building a people's militia to overthrow the government, and you think you will have the legal support of that government, i don't predict your revolution will go well for you.

nevertheless, mr pork slayer, mr lobby buster, mr liberal progressive, the great and powerful mr o, has deemed it necessary toward wrangling the immoral practices of the credit industry, to allow the expressed legal consent of carrying concealed weapons in state parks. why? in case we come across a creditor while we're hiking Half Dome, and want to shoot them in the face?

pink clouds? face transplants? come on, people, we're trying to have a civilization, here!

when i heard that san francisco district 8 supervisor, bevan dufty (not a stage name) had rehashed the idea of creating a giant pink cloud over the intersection of castro and market streets in san francisco, i went through a range of emotions.

first i thought, enough already. i get it castro. gay people live here. we all get it. can't we all just go about living our lives already? besides which, this just reeks of artistic failure. i couldn't quite imagine a way in which this thing turns out looking good.

but as an artist, i mulled over some concepts in my mind, and started to really think they could pull off something cool with this idea. i thought, well, as a tribute to harvey milk, i suppose they ought to do something in the neighborhood in his memory, and you know, i do really love random public art. the painted hearts around the city, the giant bow and arrow on the embarcadero, the cows in davis, the enormous drafter's eraser in seattle, that freaky, possessed ragdoll statue on california street in palo alto, graffiti in general. and i love art deco stuff way more than any straight man should. so i think that i could actually really enjoy a giant pink cloud erected over a major intersection in san francisco, and this particular intersection is a primo spot for some aesthetic shenanigans.

then i heard, $9,500 feasibility study, and suddenly i was back outside. $9,500 feasibility study? i can tell you the results of that study right now: it's feasible. for pete rose, people, we put a monkey in space, we put a monkey heart in a man, we put a man on the moon, and we put a perpetual motion research and analysis robot on mars. i think we might be able to erect a giant sculpture of a pink cloud.

i'm just imagining the scenario that these people are scared of. some artist in a darkened room sitting at a drafting table, taking belts of whiskey straight from the bottle, a big pile of crumpled up designs and proposals all around him, "pink cloud? pink cloud?! what does that even look like?!!! clouds are white, you stupid government bean counters! i'm just a man! what do you want from me?!"

then, way way down at the end of the article, they got around to the questionably feasible part: they aren't erecting a giant pink art deco cloud sculpture, they are attempting to create a permanent, "natural" pink cloud by erecting steam exhaust pipes that will be lit with pink lights, around a very busy, intersection, in a very windy and foggy city, that is enveloped in daylight approximately half of the day.

first of all, do we really need to be using the money, water, and energy to be creating a giant steam cloud in the castro? think of the hair that will be frizzied, think of the mascara that will run. secondly, that cloud is just going to blow right the fuck down market street, pissing people off and unwrinkling all those hipsters' shirts. third, it's hard enough to drive in the city, let alone down market street, let alone when it's foggy, let alone when there's an additional giant cloud of pink steam obstructing one of the larger intersections. fourth, what about when the novelty wears off, and people just want to walk down the street to work, or to the corner store, or whatever, and all of a sudden, ew gross, hot moist cloud all over your body! if i wanted a warm, slimy memory of harvey milk all over me, there's plenty of ways to get that done in the castro, already, and if i wanted to walk through an obnoxiously painted, gay, tourist neighborhood, engulfed in hot, humid air, i'd move to miami. and fifth, its going to be lit with pink lights, eh? you know, part of the nature of light is that it's kind of hard to see when its being out-shined by larger, more powerful light sources, say for example, that other giant ball of brightly colored gas over the castro, the sun.

i guess i'm not so appalled at the limits of human achievement conjured up by this story, as i am with the limits of common sense (as larry david says, "common sense really isn't that common"). i mean, at first i thought, pink cloud sculpture? hey, we invented aerospace technology, and the internet (well, al gore invented the internet...), i think we can handle a little pink cloud sculpture. but now i'm more on the side of, hey, look, we really screwed things up for that face transplant lady, maybe we should be taking smaller steps toward unnecessarily attempting to recreate nature.

i don't know about you guys, but i really feel like, same as there must be a few city planners out there who are thinking, "pink steam cloud? pull your heads out of your asses!", there have got to be at least a few doctors out there who could have done a better job with face transplant lady. i mean, look at her, how did they get her nose and lips done so well, but manage to screw up her jowls which she didn't really seem to have a problem with in the first place? was it a matter of pride between the organ transplant doctors and the plastic surgeons? because i have got to tell you, i think we let the plastic surgeons have this one. it's not quite the same principle as swapping out a kidney or a heart. you don't just stitch it on and hope for the best. it's as though cosmetic surgery is a rubik's cube that the medical world has been working on for decades, and they just have this one move to make to finish it, one move and cosmetic surgery becomes a legitimate field of medicine. and while trying to make that last move, they instead fumbled the cube off the roof of a forty story building where it plummeted toward the street and hit some lady in the face. then they fucked up her reconstructive surgery. damn it! so close!

such is the castro. for decades it has been a great neighborhood; alive and active with people simultaneously living with purpose and abandon. making a place for an important culture both locally and the world over, all while trying to build a reputation, not of novelty and kitsch, but of respect and regard. now they have this chance to put a little cherry on top, to mark their territory with something that the city is willing to foot the bill for, and support the development of, something that says, we are legit and we are here to stay, and they come up with giant pink steam cloud?

let's just dial it back a bit here, people. when you're one step from the finish line, and two from the edge of the cliff, try to avoid taking any huge leaps forward.

facial reconstructive surgery? sounds plausible. botched face transplant? out of the frying pan, and into the fire. giant cloud statue? i'm in. giant fake steam cloud? sounds like a whole lot of, guess who's never going to the castro again.

the circus says human rights were over rated anyway. the government isn't called human servants, they're called civil servants, you whiny humans.

you may notice that my last post was inspired by the gay marriage ruling, but didn't speak on why i'm upset about the california ruling on same sex marriage, or why, specifically, i think it went down they way it did. i guess i'm just over it. as i've pointed out in an earlier post, there really was no way california could have redeemed itself to me. i'm embarrassed, on this front, to be a part of this place.

more importantly, i am embarrassed to be part of a country and, quite honestly, a civilization that has allowed civil rights, civil law, and human rights to get muddled up into one another until the latter finally got snuffed out by the two former.

and yes there is a difference between these things.

there is one fundamental human right, it's in the goddamn declaration of independence: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. or, to put it more simply, the right to live.

a law is something that is supposed to protect the basic human right to life. for example it is my right to get blasted on vodka if i want to, but if i were to try to drive my car while drunk, i could very well put a sudden and painful stop to someone else's right to live. so there are laws against that kind of behavior.

a civil right is something that needed to be created in post, because we as humans have created a system that infringes upon that one basic human right. a civil right is a woman's right to vote; a citizen's right to medical care; things that all fall under the human right to life. laws and amendments and such are put in place to protect these rights, because, apparently, otherwise we might forget.

it makes me wonder what the hebrews behaved like before moses came down from the mount with the ten commandments...

oh, thou shall not kill? well, it's a good thing you told me. i was about to finish this guy off then go fuck his wife.

amendments 13, 14, 15, and 19 to the US constitution, for example, are not necessary. not because they were not important decisions that needed to be made, but because the abuse (or absence) of the rights that they address is not specified earlier in the constitution. what i mean to say is, nowhere in the constitution does it say, "all men are created equal except black ones, and women shall get in the kitchen and make me a goddamn sandwhich, and shall give me no sass. it's not like we're giving them the right to vote or anything". it's amendments like the aforementioned that simply point out how quickly we would devolve into an abusive and immoral wasteland if someone wasn't always watching our asses at all times. but i guess we're too stupid to figure that out.

bunch of microcephalous idiots, we are.

suggested reading:

1. the constitution

           *please try to at least read this one. i think it's too important that we all finally take some time to sit down and have a good read of this document that we live under every moment of our lives.

2. the declaration of independance

3. don't know much about history kenneth c. davis or a people's history of the united states howard zinn

4. why we can't wait martin luther king jr

*no fun stuff this time, but hey, there was no homework last time, so it all evens out.

california calls "no homo", the circus calls california "pretty gay".

alright, california, tough love time.

you think you're so cool, don't you?

well i got news for you, buddy boy: you ain't.

but i'll give you a bit of a break. you're from a large, unorthodox family. i mean number 31 of 50 kids? after the first 13, let's face it, your folks were pretty much phoning it in. you can see it in the name, i mean at first it was like, new york you're named after mom, new hampshire you're named after mom. by the time they got to us it was like, uh, you're named after some amazon person or place...thing. p.s. puerto rico is now called superbowl island.

and lets talk about your folks. all dads, weren't they?

funny that. just sayin'.

i never heard about any founding mothers.

so here we are, a middle child from a large, motherless, religious family... acting out for attention.

if the US were a sitcom, it would be full house, and california would be stephanie. sure she's the hot one now, but stephanie? come on, we can do better than that. shit, in the popularity polls we're running neck and neck with kimmy gibbler, who, for all intents and purposes is, lets say, canada, our annoying neighbor to the north.

i can see them now, ruining our garden party by letting their pet ostrich loose in the yard. 

gibbler, you hoser! get this bird out of michigan and take your stoner boyfriend with you!

and if american history were a sitcom, california is the season where they go on a trip to disneyland. that crap season right between the midwest, where the audience starts to flag, and that last season, where they totally retool, bring in alaska, that weird cousin they never mentioned before, and they all go to hawaii and jump the shark.

everyone hates our season! the disneyland season sucks!

sure uncle jessie and aunt becky share a magical kiss in front of sleeping beauty's castle, while the fireworks go off. but eventually we all go to disneyland and realize, sleeping beauty's castle is like the size of my apartment, there's fireworks every night, and this churro cost me $12.50! this isn't magical at all.

the point is, california's mystique is sort of an illusion.

everyone talks about how great we are for american politics, but oddly enough, no one ever says, "hey asshole, thanks for the reagan administration!" or "you know, nixon really sucked!"

we were a huge part of the political careers of (arguably) two of the worst presidents of all time.

we also get a lot of credit for pioneering environmental standards. but, while we did champion CAFE in the nineties, we also basically threw it out as soon as the auto and petroleum industries puffed out their chests (then coughed up a lung all over LA).

the world thinks we, california, are some kind of gay mecca.

untrue.

perhaps the bay area, but more likely just san francisco, is a gay mecca. on this fact we seem to have a selective understanding of how the world works.

granted we are home to gay mecca. we also do have a large population of open minded, progressive liberals; democrat, republican, or other. but california is a massive place, and disparately diverse in comparison to every other state. we have more people, more cars, more money, and mo' problems than any state in the union. if the bay area was a separate state, do you have any doubt that same sex marriage would have been legalized years, if not decades ago? what about pot? if soCal and norCal were separate entities, norCal's economy would be far less than half what it is now. we also wouldn't have immigration issues with mexico, and soCal probably wouldn't have marijuana policy issues. if the central valley seceded, the rest of us would have to import most of our produce and livestock. if everything south of ventura county suddenly became the people's republic of los angeles, no one would be flocking to bakersfield for the women. i never heard anyone say, "long beach...it's the cheese" or "the hip hop scene in monterey is off the hook." the skiing in san jose is terrible, and you can't find decent network reception in south shore, let alone a booming tech industry.

we've got a lot of stuff going on out here on the left coast (not to be confused with left leaning). when we present ourselves to the world, we pick and choose the things we put on our resumé. let's put it this way: within california, if the dodgers won the world series, you can believe that giants fans wouldn't go around bragging that california has the best team in baseball. and outside of california there are plenty of people who want to be big hollywood movie stars, but odds are, it ain't gonna happen if you move to fresno, or yreka (it's a place). 

so it doesn't surprise me when something like prop8 happens. most of california is not exactly a poppin' lgbt dating scene, and even less of california is generally accepting of that lifestyle at all.

to put that in political terms, more districts came in for mccain in 2008 (24 of 53), than came in against prop8 (19). 

basically, we just tell the world whatever they want to hear about california, like if you move to california you can have a same sex wedding at your sprawling beach front estate, and brangelina and robert downy jr will be there, and everyone will be smoking pot and driving cars that run on unicorn farts, and emit rainbows.

but this isn't any more true than saying, if i just aim my car east eventually harvard will issue me an honorary degree in red sox studies, and i'll eat clam chowder every morning while i ride the subway through central park to my job at the white house.

so if the jig wasn't up on california before, it is now. its a hoax, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

come on over if you want, but we're not enjoying it as much as the rest of the country thinks, that's just our laugh track you're hearing, and most of those people are dead by now.

*no homework tonight.

the circus doesn't know which one opposite marriage is. how do i know if i'm for it or against it? either way, miss california is a moron.

the other day when vermont and iowa legalized gay marriage, a friend of mine noted that she was proud of those states and wanted her home state of california to follow suit, so that she could be proud of us as well.

cut to sunday, when yet another person representing california stuck their head up their ass and blurted out whatever asinine anti-gay opinion they found up there (an ironic place to find opinions on gay rights, to be sure).

at this point there is nothing california can do in the way of same sex marriage that could make me proud of how we are behaving on this issue.

in case you missed it, miss california publicly announced on sunday that she shares the same opinion on same sex marriage as the two politicians who most powerfully represent california either directly or indirectly (schwarzenegger, obama) essentially that they want 100% equal rights for the lgbt community, but don't believe that marriage counts as a right, since marriage only includes straight people. isn't it so cute how the queers want to play house like us straight people? thats all i hear when these people talk, anyway.

i can only hope that no one takes this woman seriously, as she grew up in the hooters of political districts (san diego) and is studying special ed at a creationist school. just what we need, someone teaching kids with learning disabilities that the answer to everything is, as long as there are no faggy follow up questions, jesus did it.

on the subject of giving retards a leg up, obnoxious hollywood talking dog, perez hilton (and you thought i was going to say george lopez), is still getting work? perez hilton. a man who thinks that changing your name to perez hilton, starring in a spoof movie called "another gay sequel: gays

gone wild", and judging the televised objectification of women is the most intelligent way to represent a civil rights issue. in that case call me linwood lohan and greenlight my time traveling senior citizen porn script already! i'll promote the hell out of gay rights. but here's a hard hitting question for perez hilton: where the fuck were you when the no on prop 8 movement needed some much needed LA county votes? probably talking about what britney's vagina looks like (smooth and kind of puffy). but, more important than notable world's best ape-in-a-human-costume contest winner perez hilton, was LA county itself. you don't agree with same sex marriage? i don't mean any disrespect by stereotyping here, but where would hollywood be without their hairdressers, fashion consultants, assistants, dog groomers, bloggers, ellen degeneri, and lindsay lohan*?

*lohan reference only valid when being gay was accepted by hollywood/she was pretending to be gay

i guess the old adage i made up not that oldy ago is true, you don't make friends and money at the same time.

meanwhile, back at headquarters, the supreme court says all same sex marriages that occurred during the "window of common sense" (my wording) are legal, but none post prop 8 will be accepted. how does this make sense to anyone?

first of all, just because you work in sacramento, does not mean you are in the business of religious sacraments, so why is the government even concerned with marriage? its a money issue, i get it, everything is a money issue. but if thats all it is, then not legalizing gay marriage is a bad business model, since marriage would bring much needed income to a state that issued i.o.u.s to its taxpaying public earlier this year. i guess i shouldn't be surprised that we can't see the forrest for the trees considering the GOVERNMENT ISSUED I.O.U.S to its taxpayers earlier this year. that plan never seems to work out when i owe the government money, but i guess thats why i'm not a politician, they have the expensive educations needed to work out the particulars of that kind of plan.

secondarily, if its a simple issue of writing legislation based on outdated modes of thought (bigotry) then either same sex marriages are legal, or they aren't. if the marriages issued before prop 8 are legal, then same sex marriage is legal. thats how logic works. my parents don't go driving around totally shitfaced just because they got their drivers licenses before the BAC limit was hard-lined at .08%. so which is it? same sex marriage is legal or it isn't?

one last plea: please tell me no one believes the JCLDS claim that if same sex marriage is legalized, our children will be forced to watch gay people gettin' bizzay on their teachers desks during mandatory gay bootcamp. thats the gist of their claim, anyway. they don't want to fuck on your couch, people, they just want to feel that their love is just as valid as anyone elses. if you truly know what it feels like to love someone, you understand. don't you?

so the verdict is in with this useless bag of internet opinion: due to blatant disregard for common sense, steadfast belief in antiquated notions (aka bigotry), self-entitled "celebrity", failure to stand up for what is right, waffling representation, the fact that we are now officially less progressive than fucking iowa for the love of l ron mahatmuhammed, and a government that apparently makes all the important decisions at church socials, on this issue i am embarrassed to be a californian.