The Mean Little Column—“Shit Fucking Anal Monkeys!”

By The Mean Little Man

The Mean Little ManBack in the 80’s when your pointy-haired liege was decrying the hawkish stylings of Reagan and the xenophobic America firsters, all the while having to continually listen to baby-boomers’ circle-jerk nostalgia of war protests and granola toe-jam music, I used to make the joke of rebellion. The boomers went flower-child feminized free-love liberalism in response to the oppressive conservative culture they were born to. But what would their children rebel against? I used to joke that I saw a generation of Jesus-loving right-wingers looking to reclaim America from the damage their drugged up amoral parents wrought upon the land. A shift to conservatism.

I hate it when I get it right. Its no surprise being that I’m both smart and pretty, but c’mon! This is fucking ridiculous. But the right wing took strong notes from the methods of activism, and drilled it down to the populace from the ground up.

It was highly inevitable though. How many of the people in this country really could be described as embracing liberalism in the 60’s? Not every young person was a hippy. Not everyone decried against the war. But there were legitimate needs to change the laws that allowed for bigotry and sexual and racial enslavement. Our culture was in need of a kick in the ass, and if 1/3 of its populace rejecting outdated mores norms and precepts wasn’t enough, then the extremisms had to prevail, if at least for a time. But I digress.

People vote with their hearts. More to say, their emotions. What are the most basic emotions, but the need to feel secure, feel belonging? So we vote on someone who makes us feel more secure, feel we belong.

I can’t stand President Snorty. I swore we were in for an American Reich when he took office. But between the near-fascist divisiveness throughout America, the Gestapo-esque domestic legislation that now exists and the support of pre-emptive aggression globally, I see the Twin Towers as an American Reichstag.

Lets look closer. We are divided. Right wing people, or Red-staters, decry liberal agenda and demand rights for localized changes to everything from education, to law. Removal of Evolution from text books? Inclusion of a divine plan? The continual fight of the Christian right to legislate what they call morality, but what would manifest as a populist strong-arming of America to a Christian agenda? In a classroom of diversity it gets scary to think of mandated ‘silent time’ or prayer. The mere concept of being told “you don’t have to pray to my god, but you do have to shut your mouth” gives me the shakes so bad I was mistaken for Knick Nolte on step 12. Schools have never told students they can’t pray. But to do so on their own time.

Gay marriage, abortion, and other rallying cries spring from a xenophobic mouth of white middle-America. God help it if you are different. You simply aren’t saved. You don’t love Jesus enough. Translation? Different means you have chosen to be less worthy of God’s love. And hell, if you’re less worthy of God’s love, why should you be worthy of your neighbor’s? Or your judge’s?

Government exists to provide an environment of liberty within which people are free to exercise self-determination to the best of their abilities. We are all born equal and should have the freedom to distinguish ourselves as unequal, and individuals, based on nothing more than what we do with our life. What is an environment of liberty? It is an environment devoid of the pressure upon the individual to comply to non-shared ideas, mores, or acts through direct or implied threats both internally and externally to the basic needs.

To put it simply liberty = NO BULLIES.

It is why murder and theft are illegal, but being different is not. Murder and theft are prime means governments and mobs use to get people who disagree to capitulate. Being different may make people uneasy, but that’s usually because people are told that people who are different want to rape, rob, and kill you.

How do you legislate a morality? What is the distinction between a social imperative and a moral one? A social imperative is something clean-cut that a society must institute in order for liberty to be afforded. Murder is illegal because a society that allows it crumbles to the rule of brute force. Theft is illegal because a society that permits it dissolves the sanctity of personal accomplishment and sanctity of home.

But how is a moral different? A moral is a personal belief that is enriching spiritually and socially to an individual or a group. What’s the litmus test? If the inclusion or absence of a mandate of this behavior neither improves nor degrades a society’s ability to provide liberty, it is a moral.

One thing the right and the left have never been able to get through their slogan-spewing heads is you cannot legislate people away from being an asshole. And there are plenty of them. You cannot mandate people to not offend you. There’s always gonna be someone out there who makes your colon clench. The tighter wound you are, the higher the likelihood of it. But you really have only three options when someone doesn’t conform with what you think is right and wrong in manners and behavior outside of what is legislated by law.

1) Become self-abusive and drink yourself stupid and become a masochistic idiot. Remember to plug the toaster in before bathing with it.

2) Become an abusive, cruel, intolerant person and decry the lives and existence of others. Be sure to dross-reference the word hypocrite. Don’t forget to utilize the children’s protection as your psycho-smoke-screen to cover up that you are a sour human bereft of an ability to save yourself, let alone the world. (Tell you what. If you’re so moral I’m sure you’ll put feeding every human on the planet as a pretty Jesus-happy thing to do. You accomplish that and I’ll be happy to bat for your team. Nothing sadder than watching a sour twat step over a hungry kid on her way to shoot an abortion doctor. GET SOME FUCKING PRIORITIES!)

3) Get over it. Chill out, and live by quiet example. Don’t lie cheat or steal, and abide by no one that does. And the rest of the time, have a lot of laughs.

This is why the Founding Fathers separated church from state and stayed as far away from legislating morality as possible. Because they knew that for the most part individual morality could only be enforced at the expense of liberty. Now if someone has a morality where it’s ok to steal, rape, and kill, then yes, hopefully the laws protect us from this sad prick. But this guy or chick simply has to be in the minority.

Now many would say, aren’t we legislating morality by making theft and murder illegal? C’mon. That’s a bullshit argument. Murder, as seen in the courts, is the act of one citizen depriving another citizen of their life. It is a tool of stamping liberty. The mere threat of murder will get most people to do just about anything. But if these red-staters were really so fucking moral they’d be forgiving black men in Texas, taking them into their homes and doing as Jesus did: teaching them to fish, turning the other cheek and sparing the rod.

Nah. Red-states, with Texas out in front like a red-neck Nascar star, fries ‘em at weekly clip. So don’t talk to me about forgiveness and Christian values. You actually mean white suburban values where your children are perfect little angels that don’t give you an instance of worry and where anyone who might give them a dissenting thought, for good or ill, is shunned out of the picture through force, community pressure, legislation or down-right bigotry.

But its scary when someone with God on their side decides God’s will is to wreak havoc and fear on anyone who doesn’t agree 100%.

So what do you have when you have a candidate aligned with an ideal, that ideal being Christian morality and compassionate conservatism (I think this means quiet and painless lethal injection rather than messy lynchings)? Someone who aligns themselves as America’s compass?

To disagree is not to dissent with a person, but to cast invalidity on an idea at the base of many people’s lives. Talk about making people feel they’re under siege. To be for Bush is to be one with Bush. To have Bush dissented is to have you invalidated.

What fodder for the political machine! This administration has no problems playing on people’s fears. The reality doesn’t matter so long as you can unite one group by its fear of another. According to them, “The liberals want to make it legal for a brown person to come from another country, take your job, rape your wife and poke you with a stick, but only after taking away your guns and your God who would protect you.”

Gotta laugh that Bush was elected for the feeling that he would control the flood of foreigners coming here to take our jobs. He did. By sending the jobs to them!

That’s just the ideological divide. These legislatives focus primarily at the poor. Actually they bend the poor over like George Michael at Mardi Gras. But they play the God card with the white poor so their sense of belonging with the President is never in jeopardy. But what about internally?

Ok, I’ve made a lot of jokes in exaggeration. This is an exaggeration, but not done jokingly. We are in a current state where a coup could easily happen. And without us knowing. The precepts of it all?

1) The Ministry of Homeland Security. A government agency who’s sole purpose is to protect us from terrorism, primarily through the use of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to conduct sweeping monitoring and espionage of those they think might be thinking about committing a terrorist act.

2) The ability for the government to accuse someone of being a terrorist, lock them up and deny them due process, charge them with a crime for extended periods of time, while at the same time interrogating them.

3) Creating sweeping changes that push to allow the CIA to operate within the boundaries of the United States, thus giving the President his own private secret police.

Nixon was forced to resign from office for doing his own flavors of all the above. Now the government can spy on its own citizens and lock them up for what they have ability to do, regardless of their intentions to do so, for simply possessing information that could empower them to cause a destructive act regardless of whether or not they do anything. Or for espousing ideas that could be construed as those of a terrorist.

In a nutshell? They can lock you away without contact and interrogate you for suspicion of interest in a future act.

And I’m worried that all the above exist at a time where the poorly managed military has cannibalized its national guard brigades throughout the country, so that there are less than 15% that have any level of integrity to stand guard.

The nightmare scenario? The election goes shitty. Perhaps in conjunction of a terrorist incident. The new national espionage powers immediately round up the usual suspects being those that would oppose a bullshit outcome in the presidential election. No states have the ability to back up their dissent of a stolen election due to their decimated national guard platoons. And Snorty McFuckup is President again. Who would stand up to him at that point when the people were powerless against the government or their neighbors to speak out?

t may sound crazy, but we’re in an era as constrictive as McCarthyism. Have you seen any movies out lately by anyone who speaks against Bush whose name isn’t Moore? Seen the Dixie Chicks around lately?

Just as with McCarthyism, those that run against the herd wind up having their livelihood taken from them. If your livelihood is the mainstream you better goose-step in unison. Otherwise you better be fortunate to enjoy non-mainstream support like Moore. Or, you best be satisfied like me to dissent economically. But I’m still at risk. Someone attacks me through the press because of the content of this site and it’s taken down immediately. I’m gagged because I don’t happen to own a news network and I’m derided as anti-patriotic, obscene and down right smelly. Like I’d keep my day job.

But that’s the problem. And how does the government exact power over a ‘liberal’ media? By appointing the head of the FCC to regulate free speech. And the rule is you no longer have to say something obscene to have said something obscene. If someone out there feels that medical terms, or the idea behind what on the surface is innocent is actually offensive, then it is obscene. It is obscene if someone out there feels it is obscene, not it the words or intent are obscene.

To that I say Shit Fucking Anal Monkeys!

By the way. Do guys in the CIA wear black suits and sunglasses with ear-piece thingies? Some of them just pulled up in a van.

Hugs and Smooches,
The Mean Little Man on 10-25-04

For music, yelling, spiked hair and strange dress, visit The Mean Little Man at his official shrine on the web! (