I feel sorry for David Pecker, the owner of the National Enquirer, I really do. I’m sure he had kids making fun of his name in school and beyond.
But damn, it’s just so much fun to make bad puns today after the announcement that he was given immunity to testify against Trump.
So I challenged my Facebook readers to come up with appropriate headlines. Here are my suggestions, followed by some of my favorites:
- Trump Has Problems with Pecker
- Trump Loses Pecker
- Trump cannot get Pecker to Cooperate
- Many of Trump’s Problems Have Originated with Pecker
- Trump Would Like to Strangle Pecker
- Pecker Fails Trump At Crucial Moment (Brenda W. Clough)
- Trump Has No Control Over Pecker (Patti Wigington)
- Pecker Will No Longer Stand Up for Trump (Trent Direnna)
- POTUS Panics As Pecker On The Loose (Tony J. Fyler)
- Trump Unable to Secure Pecker (Terri Lynn Coop)
- Pecker Causes Presidential Embarrassment (Becky Kyle)
- Trump Betrayed by Pecker in Porn Star Rub (Liam Colleran)
- Pecker Starting to Leak (Carl Davies)
- Trump Dismayed by DOJ’s Huge Pecker Reveal (Thomas Nackid)
- Trump’s Small Pecker Problem (Simonne Grant)
- Pecker Unloads on Trump (Dean Herrmann)
- Trump Rubs Pecker the Wrong Way (James Palmer)
Also, if you’re not a Facebook friend and want to be, send a friend request along with a note so I know you’re not a robot or a Trump supporter. And you can also follow me on Twitter but mostly that just echoes what I post on Facebook.
Back in the late 70s, when I was going to Virginia Commonwealth University, the ERA was constantly in the news and being debated. I obviously supported it, especially since at that time there were still many laws that discriminated on the basis of sex.
That’s me wearing my ERA YES button with my old band The Naughty Bits around 1979 or so. Back when I had hair.
It failed to get enough states by the deadline and it died. However, the Supreme Court and Congress basically passed laws and decisions which outlawed most kinds of discrimination over those years, so the question remains: Do we still need it?
After all, the courts have held that the 14th Amendment protects the rights of “people” — aren’t women people? The Supreme Court recently held that gays are protected under the 14th (at least where marriage is concerned).
Then again, even with many laws prohibiting discrimination, the Supreme Court has upheld different treatment, especially concerning the military.
The ERA is in the news again because there is a movement in the Senate to open it back up again for passage — and then it will only need one more state to ratify it.
Here’s why that should happen: All the decisions in the world don’t matter when a new court full of Republican appointees decides that women aren’t “people” and rolls back previous decisions. All the laws Congress passes can be revoked and changed as well.
So yes, I support adding this amendment, even now. I’d support it even more if it included “sexual orientation” as well.
But that will be the next big fight.
Yeah, it’s the first time I think I have ever been called that on social media, and it was because I had the gall to say that the nazis have the right to speak and march.
I stand by my statement. I believe in defending all political speech, and especially speech we hate. Speech we all agree with doesn’t need protecting.
“But all nazis are bad guys” is the general response, although usually cloaked in better words than that. But who but who gets to decide that? The government? This government? The one whose current leader thinks there are nazis who are “good people”?
Once you open that door, it will be next to impossible to close it again. You give the government the power to declare that all nazis are bad guys and therefore their 1st Amendment rights are null and void, and you know that the next step will be Muslims, and then gays, and then atheists, and then liberals…
Now, don’t get confused: Actual, real, immediate threats can always be stopped whether they come from the right or the left. Inciting a riot is a crime no matter what you may be saying. That is not the same thing as prior restraint on the speech. If nazis are causing violence, you arrest their sorry asses and punish them according to the law just like you should do with anyone like that, because you’re punishing their actions and not their speech.
But the 1st Amendment is meaningless if we only apply it to speech we all agree with.
“When they go low, we go high,” Michelle Obama said.
Well, that didn’t work.
Liberals and progressives are now mad and are refusing to “take the high road” and look the other way. We’re fighting back. And it’s about time.
Bullies will continue to bully you unless you fight back. You have to be willing to be just as aggressive as they are.
We’re not used to thinking like that. We liberals tend to want to work with others, and try to understand others. It’s due to the empathy we have that most conservatives are missing.
And that’s how conservatives have won over the years — by pushing their way in, by bullying, by demeaning anyone they disagree with, and by cheating (through gerrymandering, blocking legislation and appointments, and — let’s face it — by breaking the law). I am not advocating that we do these things at all. I am saying we have to stop allowing them to get away with it.
And we’re moving in that direction. We’re fighting back. We’re punching nazis. We’re staging counter protests. Recently, the alt-right’s rally in Washington DC turned out to have only about two dozen participants, facing off against hundreds of counter-protesters. The organizers of the march said some of their members did not attend because they didn’t want the confrontation, because, like all bullies, they can dish it out but they can’t take it.
Being nice only allows those who are not nice to take advantage of us. It’s how con men operate and it’s how the bad guys win. Wars are not won by “going high when they go low.”
Get angry. Fight back.