Washington Post Style Reporter: The Peasants Are Revolting! And Badly Dressed.

Robin Givhan: At Health-Care Reform Gatherings, Clothes Speak Loudly, Too – washingtonpost.com

By and large, the shouters are dressed in a way that underscores their Average Guy — or Gal — bona fides. They are wearing T-shirts, baseball caps, promotional polo shirts and sundresses with bra straps sliding down their arm. They wear fuchsia bandannas and American-flag hankies wrapped around their skulls like sweatbands. A lot of them look as though they could be attending a sporting event and, as it turns out, the congressman is the opposing player they have decided to heckle. If not for the prohibition on signs and banners inside these meetings, one could well expect to see some of these volatile worker bees wearing face paint and foam fingers, albeit the highlighted digit would be one expressing foul displeasure rather than competitive rank or skill level.

As usual Robin finds that ordinary people in general and conservatives in particular do not live up to her exacting standards.

You recall her shocked sermon on the way the Supreme Court Justice John Roberts family was dressed at his swearing in.

I can’t seem to find the column where she gave us her judgment on either Bush protesters or ACORN “organizers”.

Just an oversight, I’m sure.

But wasn’t it Nancy Pelosi that pointed out that the Health Care protesters were “too well dressed”?

Commenters

On the KGW Channel 8 in Portland’s website there is a comment who recently started showing up in the comments section to various news stories. He is very good.

He writes in the style of the extreme left commenter but if you read his comments closely they resemble Frank J’s “In My World” series which is one of the great satirical series of the Internet.

For example, here is the comment he left on a story regarding the protests againsst Prop 8 in Portland.

Once again this site is overloaded with the Reich-Wing hate from the Judaic/Christian playbook sponsored by the RepubliKKKan monsters who were thankfully cashiered by the enlightened electorate on November 4th.

But then the joyous celebration stopped.

With the exception of Massachusetts and Connecticut, the rest of the country continues to elect the right people, but then does a 180 degree turn and rolls back the clock to the dark days of Jim Crow, Poll taxes, separate toilets and water fountains, and jingoistic patriotic Irving Berlin songs.

What will it take for these homophobic parasites to realize that marriage, as well as morality, is an individual choice fully recognized in our once beloved Constitution?

Only when we can stand proudly before the bar of United Nations approval,and realize that the institution of marriage,like every other racist and deluded idea held so highly by the Neo-Cons who regulate Christianity,is meant to be defined and shared among any person or group that wishes to partake,

If a transgendered person wants to marry him/herself- then who are these brutal Bush/Reagan plutocrats who dare attempt to force their bestial pious will on such a lovely person?

If three, four or eleven people regardless of sexual orientation, want to collectively marry each other, then the Newt Gingrich/Sean Hannity warped view of monogamy must stand aside and make room for the peaceful and beautiful future designed to be shared under the large and colorful rainbow tent of tolerance and diversity.

As I previously stated in other similar posts on this subject, the Courts of California once addressed this travesty by invalidating the RepubliKKKan forced ballot of 2000 where these myopic, merciless and bigoted citizens shamelessly voted 3-1 to cruelly define marriage as between one man and one woman.

I personally would think that such archaic and totalitarian ideas would have disappeared from our culture at the same time that JFK freed the slaves.

Now, covering itself again with disgrace, California, like their progressive brothers and sisters in Florida, pulled the lever once again to ban gay marriage and totally overturn what the Courts had once deemed unconstitutional.

Are we somehow to think that because the majority of voters choose something as immoral as banning gay marriage,that our courts are now rendered prostate and impotent?

It is the duty of the courts to legislate from the bench when the majority has clearly taken a pigheaded path that the members of the minority community don’t agree.

I can only continue to offer my daily chants to His Holiness the Dalai Lama in his retreat in far away Dharamsala, that he will provide the wisdom to President Obama to issue an Executive Order on January 20, 2009 which immediately terminates these notorious and discriminatory ballot measure such as we saw with California’s Measure 8.

What is really hilarious is how many other commenters take him at face value. It’s hard to satirze a bunch of nuts.

Here’s a link to his comments. I think Frank J ought to get him to write a column.

Why We Need More Justices Like Roberts

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE KENNEDY joins, dissenting from denial of certiorari(application/pdf Object)

North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three dollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.

Devlin spotted him: a lone man on the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up the buyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office.

That was not good enough for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Frank J. Has Obtained Justice Scalia’s First Draft Of The Heller Decision

Frank J. must have a mole in the Supreme Court. Or someone who empties the trash. He has obtained the first draft of Justice Scalia’s majority decision in “Heller.”

Heller Decision

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., FLAMING HOMO, dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

Having basic reading comprehension and not having our heads shoved up our asses, we agree with the latter. Furthermore, we have determined that anyone who agrees with the D.C. law is a little preening little nancy and should be beaten or shot for being a pinko. See Findings on the Tiny Penises of Gun Haters. More specifically, everyone in D.C. should immediately be given a gun, and anyone who protests should be shot in the groin, shot in the face, and then shot in the groin once more for good measure. Then their houses should be burned down. We’ll make a weekend of it. I’ll bring beer. See video from last year’s Supreme Kegger.