What's Wrong With This Picture?

A dozen major Division 1 football programs have been investigated and/or punished just in the past few months for scandals involving prostitutes, illegal gifts and cash from boosters. There are literally hundreds of complaints of sexual misconduct brought against Division I athletes, coaches and staff every year, and hundreds more criminal complaints of other types.

UT is probably better than most big time programs in dealing with these issues, but I personally know of three recent cases where women complaining of being assaulted, raped, not harassed, 2 by UT football players, 1 by a UT basketball player, that were "settled" with cash payments to the women from boosters. I know of another recent case where a female UT athlete transferred when her complaints weren't taken seriously. In all of these cases the athletic department looked the other way.

I'm a sports fan, but the problem is endemic to our culture of glorifying sports, nowhere more inappropriate than in higher education. The massive amounts of television money - a BILION dollars in the case of Penn State football - and fervid boosterism has turned college football into a religion. And, as we've seen with the Catholic Church, True Believers will all too often act to protect their beloved institution, not the innocent victims of heinous crimes.

It's easy to blame JoPa and the "leaders" at Penn State who did nothing as little boys were anally raped for 14 years. And they deserve it. It's not quite as easy to acknowledge our own role in this farce. This is a much bigger problem than Penn State. As long as we, as a society, elevate college sports to a religion, we, as a society will continue to see these terrible tragedies and we, as a society, will bear some of the blame.

The Anatomy of Stupidity - Why Nothing Ever Dies In the Wingnut Blogosphere

Nothing ever dies in the wingnutosphere, no matter how stupid or absurd. Case in point: Mark Schatzker, a humor columnist for the Toronto Globe & Mail, wrote a satirical piece about Occupy Toronto. The piece, which included bogus  "quotes" from non-existent OWS protestors, including a particularly outlandish "quote" from a guy named "Jeremy," was clearly labeled as satire, with "Satire" appearing in bold face at the top of the article.

“It’s weird protesting on Bay Street. You get there at 9 a.m. and the rich bankers who you want to hurl insults at and change their worldview have been at work for two hours already. And then when it's time to go, they're still there. I guess that's why they call them the one per cent. I mean, who wants to work those kinds of hours? That's the power of greed.” – Jeremy, 38

Pretty darn obvious it's a joke, right? Not to the wingnutosphere and the denizens of Lower Wingnuttia.

The wingnut blogoshphere jumped on the fake quote in the piece as if it was real. The bogus quote quickly spread through Lower Wingnuttia from wingnut inbox to wingnut inbox, eventually landing in the inbox of wingnut GOP candidate Rick Perry, who repeated the quote as if it wasn't total BS...

Don’t believe everything you read, particularly when it’s satire.

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry learned this the hard way, after he poked fun of the Occupy Wall Street movement by citing an outlandish quote he received from his son from an Occupy Toronto protester named “Jeremy.” While speaking in Concord, N.H. on Friday, Mr. Perry chuckled after paraphrasing what “Jeremy” said:
...
The trouble is “Jeremy” isn’t real. He’s the creation of Globe and Mail contributor Mark Schatzker, who wrote this humorous piece, clearly labelled “satire,” published on Oct. 22.
...
Mr. Schatzker says he first discovered that bloggers critical of the Occupy movement were taking his characters’ words at face value about a week ago. But with Mr. Perry joining them, his spoof piece has taken a life of its own.

“It’s just hilarious. It’s thrilling in a way, just because it’s just so incredibly out of context that a guy from Texas running for the president of the United States is quoting a satirical piece that appeared in a city section of a Canadian paper,” he says.

Despite being informed that the quotes are entirely bogus, and ridiculed for being a gullible idiot, Perry is *still* spouting this bogus quote as if it were something other than made up happy horse poop. Here's video of Perry repeating the bogus quote just yesterday...

The gob smacking stupidity and gullibility of Perry and the wingnutosphere so ticked the fancy of Schatzker that he has since penned a follow-up piece where "Jeremy" responds to Perry and the wingnuts, also clearly labeled as "*SATIRE*" not just in bold face, but this time in ALL CAPS and with asterisks, to boot, so even idiots like Perry might realize it's a fake. Again, from the Globe & Mail...

Texas governor Rick Perry made headlines when he recently cited a quote from "Jeremy", a supposed 38-year-old protester at Occupy Toronto.

The reason for the controversy? "Jeremy" exists only in the mind of writer Mark Schatzker, who contributes a weekly satire column for The Globe and Mail. But we won't let that stand in the way of a good tale. So here is Jeremy, back by popular demand, reflecting on his new found infamy.

The sad part is there are many tea bagging wingnuts stupid enough and gullible enough to fall for this hilarious happy horse poop, which is why Perry is *still* spouting this nonsense. The bogus quote is still being passed around Lower Wingnuttia. Gullible idiots are still becoming outraged by... nothing whatsoever. These morons so want this ridiculous BS to be true that they've convinced themselves it has to be true, to hell with reality. Of course, it doesn't take much to convince a moron of something.

This is why once something hits the wingnutosphere, no matter how stupid or obviously false, no matter how well labeled as satire or fiction, no matter how absurd or impossible, it never dies. Tea baggers and wingnuts don't bother to update their asinine beliefs when readily available contradictory facts are presented to them, as do most upright ambulators. But it's not really their fault. They can't update the story. They're just too effing stupid.

Double Dumb - Victoria Jackson OWS Video Makes Victoria Jackson Look Like An Imbecile.

Victoria Jackson Visits Occupy Wall Street, Hilarity Ensues...

When Victoria Jackson was a playing ditzy, bubble-headed, completely clueless blond dimbo on SNL, few people knew she wasn't acting. More recently it's become painfully obvious that she really is a dumb blond. These days Jackson is a darling of tea baggers everywhere and something of a spokesperson for the Christo-fascist ignorant buffoon wing of the tea bagger movement, which is to say the majority of tea baggers.

Jackson's latest devolution into idiocy came today, when, for reasons only an imbecile could imagine, she posted a video of her weekend visit to Occupy Wall Street. If her intention was to make someone look like a dunderheaded babbling imbecile, mission accomplished. Thing is, that someone is Victoria Jackson.

The 15 minute video, posted under the auspices of the Koch brothers funded fake grass roots tea bagger organization PatriotUpdate.com, is a running gag reel of idiocy. The more Jackson spouts ignorant tea bagger nonsense about Obama the racist, marxist, foerign, anti-American anti-Christ, the more she spouts nonsense tea bagger paranoid BS about Van Jones and the Black Panthers - scary black people! - the more reasoned and factual the responses to her babbling boobery.

Again and again Jackson tries to formulate "gotcha" questions that not only backfire on her, but backfire so completely as to be utterly humiliating. The protesters she engages refuse to take the partisan bait and answer her rabid moran idiocy with facts, patiently explained, as if talking to a not very bright small child, which, in her case, is an overly generous assessment.

The only real question this video brings up is why in the world would Victoria Jackson post a video that so completely makes a giant hairy ass of... Victoria Jackson? The inescapable answer is she, like so many tea baggers, is simply not smart enough to know she's simply not smart enough. The only possibility is she's blissfully unaware of just how blissfully unaware she truly is.

Watch it for yourself. It's comédie vérité that's at least as funny as anything she ever did on SNL, if unintentionally so.

The Reality of Jefferson and Bogus Quotes...

Lately I've seen a lot of progressives passing around a Jefferson quote about the banking system on social media to back up the OWS protests. Because I support the OWS protests and know something of Jefferson, this bothers me a bit. First off, the quote is bogus. It was fabricated in 1937 by conservative Republicans out to kill the New Deal. There is no record of Jefferson ever saying any such thing. In fact, as to the issuance of currency, Jefferson said exactly the opposite. Jefferson made clear his support for federal control of currency in a letter to John Wayles Eppes in June of 1813...

"The States should be applied to, to transfer the right of issuing circulating paper to Congress exclusively, in perpetuum, if possible, but during the war at least, with a saving of charter rights."

Even quoting Jefferson accurately is meaningless, as Jefferson was a walking contradiction. Jefferson didn't agree with Jefferson. Nor can he be dragged him out of his time and effectively used as a weapon in an ideological fight today. In addition to losing all context, most of his ideas simply do not stand up. In fact, most of them didn't survive even in his own day.

Today few people know much of the true Jefferson. Instead, the know the legend, most of which is simply not true. Jefferson has become something of a cottage industry in the world of historians, and especially historians who write for public consumption. The vast majority of biographies and histories out there either glorify Jefferson for current partisan gain or demonize him for the same reason. There's no question that Jefferson was a brilliant man in many ways, but there's also no question that he was a deeply, deeply flawed man in at least as many ways. He comes down to us as a true hero of the Revolution and a giant among the Founding Fathers not because he merits such hagiographic praise, but because his reputation was carefully rehabilitated by rabid partisans, much as the GOP has turned the disastrous presidency of St. Ronnie of Drool into a legend and as they're trying to do now with Shrub.

Jefferson was a walking bag of mostly water and self contradictions, which is why one can find a Jefferson quote to back up - or oppose - virtually any ideology or political position. Jefferson didn't even agree with Jefferson. For example, while it is true that Jefferson criticized Hamilton's banking system, he did so as a partisan, not out of ideology. Jefferson was more than happy to use the very system he had opposed to finance the Louisiana Purchase.

The Louisiana Purchase provides another window into Jefferson's hypocrisy. Not only did he use the very system he had opposed for his own ends, the Louisiana Purchase was very probably the single most extra-constitutional, imperial power grab by any American president. Strange coming from a man who espoused the proto-libertarian idea of a nation of self governing enlightened individuals with no central authority where power was "diffused." This is what we might today call a flip-flop, and one characteristic of Jefferson.

Quoting Jefferson on economics, finance or banking? By his own admission, Jefferson was an economic illiterate. He couldn't even manage his own finances. Because of his lifelong profligate spending, Jefferson's family had to watch while everything he had inherited and everything he had ever owned - including his beloved Monticello - was auctioned off by the sheriff to pay his massive debts. And it still wasn't enough. Jefferson's debt wouldn't be paid off until many years after his death, and then by his progeny. Jefferson knew he was an abysmal financial failure. It was a source of anguish for him. He didn't live to see the embarrassing end. He died just before the auction.

As a president, Jefferson was ineffective, to put it mildly. The successes of his first term, often cited as one of the most successful first terms ever, were thanks to a series of events and policies that had nothing to do with Jefferson and were in fact a direct product of the Adams and Washington administrations Jefferson had so strongly opposed. His first term success was more than offset by the abject failures of his disastrous second term, which were entirely Jefferson's doing. Through both terms Jefferson clung tightly to overriding executive power, anathema to his own beliefs.

Nor was Jefferson in any real sense a "Founding Father." His one and only accomplishment of note in the revolutionary era was the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, at the time considered an unimportant task and so assigned to the least experienced, least influential, most junior member of a Virginia delegation to the Continental Congress that included revolutionary luminaries like Patrick Henry and George Washington himself. Most of Jefferson's peculiar ideas never made it into the final draft. When our country really was constituted, he was in France and had nothing whatsoever to with the drafting or adoption of the Constitution. In fact he opposed the whole idea of a constitutional federal republic. He favored continuing under the Articles of Confederation, which had already proven hopelessly unworkable.

Jefferson was also entirely untrustworthy. As Washington's Secretary of State he did nothing but try in every way possible to undermine Washington's administration. He actively opposed the president he was ostensibly serving on every possible point. And he did it behind Washington's back, mostly through surrogates. He demonstrated this same type of disloyalty when he turned on his close friend John Adams.
In his long correspondence with Adams, a close friend who Jefferson had cynically libeled to gain the presidency, Jefferson admitted he had been wrong about, well, pretty much everything. Jefferson had hired a hatchet man to shower Adams with vicious personal attacks on his honor using the basest of lies and calumny. Later, Jefferson reaped what he had sown. The very same hatchet man he'd hired to slander Adams later, seeing Jefferson's rank hypocrisy for what it was, was the original source of the Sally Hemming scandal. The difference was everything Jefferson paid to be said about Adams was a lie. The Sally Hemming story was true.

Is this really the guy we want to hold up as representative of anything progressive? If anyone should be quoting Jefferson, it's the GOP or tea baggers. For all of his hogwash about abhorring politics, Jefferson was the original win at all costs, take no prisoners partisan in an age when "party," as in any political party, was a dirty word. He also favored state's rights, which even in his time meant slavery, and mistrusted government in general, a distinctive hallmark of modern conservatism.

For those that are interested in a more balanced view of the true Thomas Jefferson, one not colored by ideology, one that doesn't try to stuff him into a modern box, one of the best of the biographies accessible to the casual reader is 'American Sphinx - The Character of Thomas Jefferson' by Joseph Ellis. Read it. In the meantime, I'd advise caution using Jefferson quotes to support or oppose anything. They're likely to come back and bite you on the ass, just as they did Jefferson.

An Open Letter To Occupy Austin...

I offer up these observations and comments not as criticism of Occupy Austin leaders or participants, but as a strategic and tactical analysis and suggestions from a veteran of the successful culture wars of the '60's and '70's. I hope they are taken in that spirit. A quick look around the rest of my blog should be enough to see I'm an ally, not an adversary. I am unable to directly participate in the Occupy protests for reasons that are irrelevant to my point. For all I know, all of these ideas have been discussed and are either in the pipeline or have been considered and rejected for good reasons of which I am unaware. As always, I welcome comments, observations, agreements, disagreements and communication in general.

Austin is blessed with a plethora of bright, dedicated, experienced warriors for the American Dream. This is an invaluable resource Occupy Austin should tap. As someone who was active in street protests during the Civil Rights, Women's rights and Vietnam era, I'm a bit confused by some of the Occupy protests. Occupy Wall Street makes perfect sense. It's about time we stand up and protest greed and inequity and the corrupting influence of corporate money on our political system. To protest at the epicenter of American greed - Wall Street - makes perfect sense. I strongly support the Occupy Wall Street protests, I'm glad they're spreading and I encourage everyone to get involved.

Here in Austin, however, the Occupy movement has manifested itself as Occupy City Hall. What, exactly, did the Austin city government have to do with the Wall Street caused financial meltdown? Who are the "Masters of the Universe" that work at City Hall? In what way is City Hall the epicenter of American greed? How can one "occupy" a public space specifically and officially designated "as a gathering place for public discourse and community collaboration... for any public purpose or free speech assembly."

Am I missing something? This seems a bit like holding a sit-in to protest a lack of access to some specific site at a public park open to all. It's like protesting arbitrary rules and requirements by carefully abiding by the arbitrary rules and requirements. Protest? Not in any sense of the word as I know it and have experienced it. The most successful protests are all about harnessing civil disobedience in service of a just cause, not cramming the cause into an authority delineated box of civil obedience.

I stopped by Occupy City Hall yesterday (Friday) afternoon. I was heartened to see so many young people take to the streets - or, as in this case, the officially designated free speech assembly area, complete with porta-potties. But I couldn't help noticing that about half of the signs were held by our cast of regular local activists using Occupy to flog their pet local issues. Not that these activists or their pet local issues aren't worthy of attention. But they have little to do with the primary issue.

The other thing I noticed was it was more of a party than a protest. In typical Austin fashion, there was music, dancing, drumming and more than a bit of sweet smelling smoke wafting over the crowd, with APD watching benevolently from the sidelines. I enjoy all of these things as much as the next aging hippie, but once again none of this has anything to do with the point. In fact it takes focus away from the point and plays into the mostly false media narrative that it's just a bunch of dope smoking hippie kids playing bongos and having fun. There's nothing wrong with playing bongos and having fun. Unless it becomes your primary identifying characteristic.

I poked around a bit and found out a few things. The Occupy protests are ostensibly headless, grass roots uprisings, but there's always leadership, even in a headless movement. Most of the main organizers of Occupy City Hall are college kids. Nothing wrong with that. Again, I think it's great that young people - who traditionally participate in our political system at far lower levels than any other demographic - are getting involved. However, it's always a good idea to seek out advice from the experienced.

So, as an experienced warrior in the culture wars of the '60's and '70's - wars we won, BTW - I offer up some unsolicited advice to the Occupy Austin folks. First, choose your targets carefully. Here in Austin, were I organizing Occupy protests against greed, inequity and corporate influence, I'd advise targeting for occupation, say, the McCombs School of Business at UT. Not only are college campuses a great place to protest - lots of exposure and in general tolerant to expressions of free speech - but here in Texas the McCombs school is the primary training grounds for the very "Masters of the Universe" OWS is protesting.

How about occupying The Domain? Not only is The Domain a tangible symbol of greed and excess, it received many millions of dollars in public money to the benefit the wealthy few. The "Masters of the Universe" may not be centered at The Domain, but their wives are. Send them a message and it's a sure bet they'll take that message home. Some of them, maybe many of them,  will even embrace the message. Hit 'em where they live.

How about marching on the Chamber of Commerce? Here's a target not only worthy as the local home of "Masters" and "Master" wannabes, it's rich in Austin-centric symbolism. The Chamber is headquartered at the ugly office tower that now sits on the land once occupied by the legendary Armadillo. I can think of dozens of other worthy local targets. Every major bank has a presence here. Why not occupy Bank of America or Chase? The big banksters really are responsible for much of the current mess.

A small, short march, like the one on BofA on Friday, is a good start, but it's not enough. As statistics guru Nate Silver points out, the Occupy Wall Street protests got basically zip in major media coverage until the cops got involved.

...the protests in Manhattan, now in their third week, and in other parts of the country, have found two ways to draw attention to their cause. First, keep at it. And second, wait for confrontations with the police.

In the early days of the protests, which began on Sept. 17, coverage was all but nonexistent in the mainstream news media.
...
Coverage spiked after an incident on Sept. 24, however, when three protesters were hit with pepper spray by the police despite, apparently, posing no imminent threat.
...
It (coverage) then shot up again after mass arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge on Oct. 1.
...
The number rose again on Thursday, Oct. 6... This followed further clashes between protesters and police officers on Oct. 5, when there were 28 arrests and police were videotaped using batons and pepper spray.

Make them respond. The whole point of a protest is to elicit a response. The lesson is make the cops get involved and you get a response that generates more exposure. Be dedicated to nonviolence, but raise hell. Instead of a couple of dozen people chanting and holding signs for an hour, mobilize the many Occupy supporters and actually occupy the target of the day for the entire day. Make them drag you out. I guarantee you, you'll get exposure. With exposure comes growth. With growth comes power. With power comes change.

I offer up these suggestions because I believe the Occupy moment can be a true turning point in our political discourse. I believe it can and should be the start of something big. This is the kind of thing that comes along once in a generation, if then. I believe it would border on criminal to waste such an extraordinary opportunity. Fight. Fight for the right. But know that as in any battle, it's strategy and tactics that carry the day. And logistics. Never forget logistics.

Let's keep the focus on the bad players, not on us, not on a bazillion different unrelated issues. If we are united, we can do anything. We changed the world in the '60's and '70's. We can do it again. Well done, Occupy Austin. Beginnings are important. Now it's time to move on to the next logical step.

If you wish to contact me directly, the easiest way is through my Facebook page...

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001760784049

Or you can email me at...

john (dot) avignone (at) gmail (dot) com

Stupid Squared - Hank, Jr. Quits... After Being Fired - Spouts Stupid About "1st Ammendment"

Oh, fer chrissakes... As if anyone had any doubts that Hank Williams, Jr. is a drunken bumbling imbecile, today he released a statement telling his toothless fans he was quitting Monday Night Football because ESPN violated is 1st Amendment rights. This isn't just stupid, this is stupid squared.

First off, how pathetically STUPID must one be before one thinks one can quit when one's stupid goober ass has already been FIRED. Early this morning ESPN released the following statement...

“We have decided to part ways with Hank Williams, Jr. We appreciate his contributions over the past years,” read a network statement, released Thursday morning. “The success of Monday Night Football has always been about the games and that will continue.”

Later this afternoon, Hank, Jr. responded...

“After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision,” Williams said in a statement. “You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It’s been a great run.”

Your decision? You were tossed out on your fat stupid ass, Hank. Putting aside how thoroughly asinine whiny Hank looks trying to quit when he's already been fired, no, Hank, your "First Amendment Freedom of Speech" was most certainly not "stepped on." Or in any other way impeded. You see, you ignorant Neanderthal buffoon, the 1st does NOT say you are immune to criticism when you say something stupid. The 1st does NOT say you can't be fired for being a drunken obnoxious stupid asshole publicly farting nonsense. The 1st does NOT say ESPN - or any other private entity of any kind, anywhere - can't control content on their own damn PRIVATE network.

What the 1st does say about free speech is, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This has been broadly interpreted to mean no government entities of any kind can abridge freedom of speech or a free press. FYI, Hank, you moran, ESPN is not, repeat, you stupid motherbleeper, NOT "Congress." Or any other branch of the government. Ergo, you stupid motherbleeper, the asinine nonsense you and your goiter infested, cousin humping, booger eating fans believe aside, this entire episode has precisely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the First Amendment or the right of freedom of speech.

Nothing, nada, niente, nunca, zip, zero, zed, zatch, nix, nil, goose eggs, bupkes... Not one damn thing. As CBS Sports columnist Mike Freeman put it...

OK, one thing, Hank.

The First Amendment protects speech from government intrusion. As a private entity, ESPN can fire Williams if it desires. Williams has the right to be an idiot and ESPN has a right to fire him.

What's the confusion here?

Hey, what can you expect from a guy named Randall who used his dad's name to become a “Hank Williams impersonator," a guy tagged by his dad as "Bocepus" after a ventriloquist's dummy? And how surprising to find he's a big fan of the Snowbilly Grifter and Batshit Bachmann! Why, who'da thunk it!?

The truly sad thing here isn't how bleeping stupid, ignorant and nuts Hank, Jr. is. The truly sad thing here is how many ignorant goobers out there "think" Hank's right. Stupid, stupid, stupid... So, you're, "OUT OF HERE," are you, Hank, Jr.? Well, don't let the door hit your fat stupid ass on the way out.