The GOP make awesome machine politicians; it's part of their nature. They organize well for specific purposes: the military, corporations, churches, etc. That allows them to organize well for other specific purposes such as elections.

This is not to be confused with the more individualist-minded conservative-libertarians who vote GOP.

In contrast the Democratic party was a camp for the refugees of GOP policy and realpolitik. It was a place for those who were without a voice to gather and combine their voices. It provided an organized structure but the lines between organized structures and machines is a thin one.

The attraction to Hillary is that she is a machine politician in the mold of Tammany Hall and Chicago. Since Bill's administration they have endeavored to engineer the structure of the Democratic party apparatus into a thing that doesn't represent Democratic voters as much as it serves their ambitions.

When the election approached the question was put before us: How do we plan to beat the GOP machine?

It's a fair question and it's a frightening prospect considering they made it through 8 years of Bush without ever having been held to account. They are formidable and to not be concerned about them would be foolhardy.

So, we were told the answer to their machine politicians was our own machine politician and that, naturally, was Hillary. Not that any other answer was possible because her machine was engineered only to produce that singular answer. And produce it, it has.

Heck, in the early days of the primary season her supporters even played her cronyism to corporate interests as a virtue. "Well, how else do you expect her to match GOP moneyed interests?" they sniffed.

But then came Trump. For all his barking baboon buffoonery he was one thing: Not a machine politician. In fact, it was his barking baboon buffoonery that showed him to not be a part of the machine. The GOP machine reviles him. Nobody thought he could clinch the nomination -- but he did.

Now we're stuck with a machine politician geared up to fight another machine politician except there's no machine for her to fight and what's worse is the Trump victory shows the electorate is in the mood to dismantle machines. The barking baboon is the monkey wrench the voters intend to throw into the machine. I'm not saying their choice of monkey wrench is good -- it may be effective but it definitely isn't good no matter how badly the machine needs to be dismantled.

So here we are.

We either back the machine, thus further entrenching it into our lives and political structure, ossifying it for the foreseeable future with its corporatism, wars of aggression, corruption, cronyism and disregard for the law or we stand by as a barking baboon riding a nihilistic wave anti-everything brings us God only knows what.

On what charge do you arrest them?

For years I labored under the assumption they were corrupt and nefarious. I was certain they had exploited, if not outright violated, election laws. I was convinced gross negligence had substantially contributed to 9/11. I was unwavering in my belief corporations profited illegally from wars, wars which were crimes in their own right. I believed law after law was brushed aside whenever it was deemed inconvenient, even laws designed to safeguard the security of the very nation they were exploiting.

I see now how wrong I was and for that I offer my deepest and sincerest apologies.

Obviously, since there never was or will be an indictment arising from any of their actions, let alone a conviction, this speaks to their personal innocence and who am I to impugn their innocence in the absence of a finding of guilt?

Bush and Cheney, by reasoning of the most astute minds in our midst, are innocent.


<== apparently I neglected to include this in the first draft

request, you can just log into her personal computer with its disabled security features and you won't even need a password.

It'll be like the ultimate self-imposed sunshine law.

Now, if only she would store the transcripts from her speaking engagements on the same computer.

I'll admit I've only been politically aware for about a decade now but I remember being drawn to the Democratic party because it was the party that wanted universal healthcare instead of war. It's like the whole, "Hey baby, we got a lot in common and you're the only girl for me" chat.

For 2 presidential elections and an equal number of mid-terms I went along with what I was being told. "He's kinda cute and he says he has a good job helping people," you tell yourself.

Now I'm being told UHC is too expensive and war is a thing to be shrugged off. "No, I can't make the payment on your Camaro again, I have to pay my college loans. Why don't you stop running to Vegas with your buddies? Your spending all this money and you're not even spending your time with me."

And then you find out that democracy isn't even that big a deal because purging voter rolls, voting irregularities and shutting down dissent are suddenly becoming commonplace. It seems to be a warning about control issues "Why are you going through my email, screening my calls and deleting messages? I need those for work!"

Then come the ugly name-calling. Then you find out they've been seeing someone else.

So what do you do with a relationship like that?

I like watching Lover Boy play his games but I found a title I like playing myself, Mirror's Edge. I really like the character and the game play.

After many years they're finally releasing a new game.

Supposedly, one of the arguments against Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws is that it allows a shooter to claim -- presumably falsely -- they felt threatened and thus acted in self-defense.

The survivor gets to tell whatever story they desire, the argument goes, while dead men tell no tales. Thus, the thinking goes, we must abolish SYG laws in favor of Duty to Retreat (DTR) laws.

Leave aside for the moment the fact that witnesses and physical evidence are still a factor but consider that a person who would lie about having stood their ground would be just as motivated to lie about having retreated.

Apart from eroding the right to self-defense itself I don't see the purpose of abolishing SYG.

would hold a lot more credence if the people making such claims didn't spend their every waking moment doing everything in their power to antagonize and inflame gun owners.

You can never tell when a gun owner will fly into a murderous rage, we're told. Sure, they might walk into a restaurant with their family just looking for a nice dinner but the least little thing could set them off and the next thing you know bodies would be everywhere so if you see a gun owner the advised course of action is to leave the restaurant in such a hurry that you probably won't have time to pay the bill.

Because, you know, those gun owners are such a volatile bunch.

So, obviously that necessitates making a point of frequently internet groups were gun owners frequent and doing everything in your power to goad them. Posting insulting pictures, use derogatory words, paint them as racists, make them out to be murderers. Do anything and everything to poke them with a rhetorical stick.

Because, you know, those gun owners are such a volatile bunch.

BUT I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING!

(NSFW)