This link contains one of the best collection of relevant thoughts about today's unfortunate political situation that I have read. There is, however, one point the author makes with which I couldn't disagree more: Among his short list of "American Heroes," he includes Malcolm X. Just what persuaded him to include this purveyor of venom and hate in the same category with people like Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King is beyond my comprehension.
However, notwithstanding this colossal exception, the remainder of the author's points are magnificently incisive, particularly his full frontal assault on the wishy washiness of today's Democrats and their pathetically foolish attempts to achieve "bipartisanship" in the current atmosphere. Are you listening, Mr.President?
IMHO, the best line of the entire article (directed at Democratic legislators who fecklessly seek to engage in "harmony" with their Republican counterparts) is the one I chose for the title of this post. Here's the rest, penned by Mr. John Cory at Reader Supported News:
"I am angry.
I'm tired of pundits and know-nothing media gasbags. I'm tired of snarky "inside politics" programming. I am sick of the bigotry and hatred of 'birthers' and faux patriotic cranks and their GOP puppet masters. And I'm really pissed at the Democratic Party that confuses having a plate of limp noodles with having a spine.
I'm going to vomit if I hear the word "bipartisanship' one more time.
It was 'bipartisanship" that gave us this activist conservative Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that says money is free speech and corporations are persons except when real people try to hold them accountable for their greed and poisonous ways.
'Bipartisanship' gave us the Patriot Act and FISA and illegal wiretaps and two wars and "free speech zones" and "no fly" lists. God bless bipartisan America.
I get nauseated every time the Senate explains how it takes a super majority to do anything for the American people. Tell you what Senate Bozos, if it takes 60 votes to pass legislation than it should take 60% of the popular vote to get you elected.
When some Tea Party crank says, 'I want my country back,' I respond, 'No madam, you want your country backward.'
When a deficit-mongering politician says, "How do we pay for this?" Why not ask, "What did you Republicans do with the surplus we Democrats left you?"
When a compassionate conservative says, "Health care reform is socialism," why not answer, "No, sir it is the moral and American way to care for people."
Yes, I can hear it now: "You are naïve and simplistic. These are complicated matters and require sophisticated solutions. Democrats are a big tent and strive for balance. But Republicans block our path at every turn. We are thinking and considering new ways to work in harmony with everyone."
Bite me.
The only thing you get with "harmony" is a Barbershop Quartet.
Democrats stop being Republican Lite. Stop whining about that mean GOP and their nasty messaging. Grow a pair, get a message, get a bumper sticker and hang it out there. Get some strong vivid talking points.
G-O-P = Greed Over People.
Greed Kills - jobs, people and the economy.
Terrorism is Viagra for Republicans: The more fear - the more excited they get.
When a soldier dies for America, who dares ask if they were gay or straight?
Don't act so shocked, Democratic Party. Have you looked around lately?
You're losing the young vote that showed up to elect Obama. You're losing those old enough to remember real Democrats. Why? Because you don't talk to them any more than you talk to me. You talk at me. You talk around me. You talk down to me. You talk about me. You don't talk with me. And you don't inspire and you don't champion and without that you are nothing more than an arbitrator of compromise and abdication.
You are facing a bully. Deal with it!
Republicans want the country backwards. They champion superstition over science because it entrenches ignorance and bigotry and captures the easily frightened.
Republicans treat the Constitution the way they treat the Bible, with selective interpretation and selective application to others while exempting themselves from judgment and accountability.
Republicans preach the gospel of fear because fear is darkness and darkness covers their theft of civil liberties and Constitutional principles.
For thirty years the Republican Party has claimed the mantel of law and order but now quake in dread of the American judicial system when putting terrorists on trial. How criminal is that?
Torture is illegal. Period. John Wayne and Jack Bauer were not our Founding Fathers - only in the make-believe world of Republican drugstore-patriots.
DADT needs to be repealed. Now. It is unconscionable, immoral, and disgusting.
Empathy, compassion and equality are not pejoratives. They are American values proven again and again throughout our history.
Republicans believe that bake-sales and cookies for chemotherapy best determine the value of life and health care because life is a preexisting condition and the 'free market' should not have to take on such a high risk - after all, no one gets out alive, so why should the corporation be left holding the bag? Unless of course the price is right.
Republicans believe that government should keep its hands off health care but should put its hands inside a woman's body.
Republicans believe in small government - small enough to hold the "right" people and small enough to be owned and operated by the "right" people. And who are the "right" people? Them. Not you.
Democratic Party, DNC, DLCC, DSCC or whatever your acronym - I have only one question for you: Really?
You can't win against these guys? You can't get your message out against these guys? You can't give America leadership against these guys?
Really?"
Finally, here are a few memorable aphorisms that were included, along with some of the author's choices of "American Heroes" -
American Heroes
Cesar Chavez, Barbara Jordan, Angela Davis, Fannie Lou Hamer, Eugene V. Debs, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, John Brown, Joe Hill, Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Leonard Peltier, Margaret Sanger
Quote
It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.
Oscar Wilde
More Heroes
Susan B. Anthony, Morris Dees, Sojourner Truth
Quote
If you're in trouble, or hurt or need - go to the poor people. They're the only ones that'll help - the only ones.
John Steinbeck
Still More Heroes
Sam Houston, Lenny Bruce, Clarence Darrow
Quote
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority.
Molly Ivins
Even More Heroes
Martin Luther King, Woody Guthrie, Roger Williams
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. Steven Weinberg
Ted McLaughlin
Job didn't seem to have much use for his anger, but this old hippie certainly does!
Freedom From Religion
It's too bad the Bible doesn't teach better morals, since some people actually try and derive their morality from it. --Daniel Florien
The Out Campaign: Scarlet Letter of Atheism
I don't follow the word of the Bible which condemns homosexuality, the eating of shellfish,and the mixing of fibers in a fabric while condoning hebephilia, genocide, and slavery. I'm simply thunderstruck that such a book could be used as a moral absolute for anyone. --Kylyssa Shay"
http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2010/03/listen-up-democrats.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Flhav+%28jobsanger%29
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
There Might Be a Lower Form of Life and More Dishonest Piece of Crap Than Newt Gingrich. I Just Haven't Found Him Yet.
The following is my response to the Eye of Newt's latest reprehensible canard about the President (that he shouldn't have made his Final Four predictions while crises in Japan and Libya are in progress) that may be found at: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/gingrich-on-libya-thankfully-french-not-distracted-by-brackets.php#disqus_thread .............
"Newt's reasoning is as impeccable as ever. A Republican President would NEVER have allowed himself to be distracted by sports when dangerous international situations were occurring.
For example, George W. Bush would never have ignored the warning he was given in August of 2001 that al Qaeda was getting ready to launch an attack on our soil with airplanes.
Nor would he have filmed a spot warning of the dangers of terrorism, concluded with the words, "Now, watch this drive," and then approached the nearest tee. (BTW, was this the beginning of the Tea Party?)
Newt, maybe you should return to your favorite canard about Obama's body being inhabited by the anti colonialist spirit of his dead, African warrior grandfather. Only an arrogant, condescending scum bag could possibly think he could make up the most ridiculous, outrageous crap imaginable and yet convince the American people to believe it.
You want to know the real reason why Obama made his Final Four predictions even though crises in Libya and Japan were in progress? I can tell you why. I happen to know the exact reason:
Because Barack Obama loves this country so much that he must have been working too hard and had a lapse of judgment.
However, at least the President's lapse didn't make him commit adultery while his wife was lying in a hospital bed with cancer.
Newt."
"Newt's reasoning is as impeccable as ever. A Republican President would NEVER have allowed himself to be distracted by sports when dangerous international situations were occurring.
For example, George W. Bush would never have ignored the warning he was given in August of 2001 that al Qaeda was getting ready to launch an attack on our soil with airplanes.
Nor would he have filmed a spot warning of the dangers of terrorism, concluded with the words, "Now, watch this drive," and then approached the nearest tee. (BTW, was this the beginning of the Tea Party?)
Newt, maybe you should return to your favorite canard about Obama's body being inhabited by the anti colonialist spirit of his dead, African warrior grandfather. Only an arrogant, condescending scum bag could possibly think he could make up the most ridiculous, outrageous crap imaginable and yet convince the American people to believe it.
You want to know the real reason why Obama made his Final Four predictions even though crises in Libya and Japan were in progress? I can tell you why. I happen to know the exact reason:
Because Barack Obama loves this country so much that he must have been working too hard and had a lapse of judgment.
However, at least the President's lapse didn't make him commit adultery while his wife was lying in a hospital bed with cancer.
Newt."
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Latest Republican Assault on the Right to Vote
Let's see. Republicans routinely intimidate minorities at the polls. They send phony letters to Democrats containing the wrong addresses of their polling places. One of their larger contributors provides the voting machines to numerous states. They shut down one of the Democrats' most successful voter registration organizations (ACORN) by fraudulently altering a videotape to manufacture a crime that never happened.
They are assiduously trying to destroy the unions, which coincidentally happen to be the largest source of reliably Democratic voters in the country. And now they're trying to dissuade young people, who tend to overwhelmingly vote Democratic, from going to the polls?? (See link below.)
Hmm. Are we beginning to detect a pattern here? I mean, what could possibly be more un-American than discouraging, intimidating, and out and out lying to people to prevent them from exercising their "inalienable" right to elect their representatives?
Wait a moment. I thought Republicans had cornered the market on patriotism. Don't tell me that the GOP is guilty of hypocrisy?? Say it ain't so.
The "Party of Lincoln" would undoubtedly love to resurrect the requirement of passing an IQ test before one could vote, but they don't dare because they know that the vast majority of Tea Baggers would flunk it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-pelosi/gop-to-young-voters-dont_b_833149.html
They are assiduously trying to destroy the unions, which coincidentally happen to be the largest source of reliably Democratic voters in the country. And now they're trying to dissuade young people, who tend to overwhelmingly vote Democratic, from going to the polls?? (See link below.)
Hmm. Are we beginning to detect a pattern here? I mean, what could possibly be more un-American than discouraging, intimidating, and out and out lying to people to prevent them from exercising their "inalienable" right to elect their representatives?
Wait a moment. I thought Republicans had cornered the market on patriotism. Don't tell me that the GOP is guilty of hypocrisy?? Say it ain't so.
The "Party of Lincoln" would undoubtedly love to resurrect the requirement of passing an IQ test before one could vote, but they don't dare because they know that the vast majority of Tea Baggers would flunk it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-pelosi/gop-to-young-voters-dont_b_833149.html
VERY URGENT - JAMES O'KEEFE IS AT IT AGAIN. THIS TIME HE MUST BE STOPPED BECAUSE HE PRESENTS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO LIBERALISM IN THIS COUNTRY
THIS is urgent! VERY URGENT!!!
That lowest of all scumbags, James O'Keefe, is at it again ruining the lives of anyone who dares to work for a left leaning organization. Having put ACORN out of business, he has now set his sights on NPR. Later in the day, I will describe what he did to them in some detail. It can also be found on this link:
Here are the main points:
(1) Many states have laws that criminalize the surreptitious taping of a conversation without the consent of all parties unless law enforcement is involved. Let's see if we can get this guy back into jail which is obviously, precisely where he belongs.
(2) Last May, he pled guilty to an offense involving the break in at Sen. Mary Landrieu's office where he planned to perpetrate more execrable dirty tricks. I doubt I'll ever know why he got off so easy in that case, but I would imagine he's a least on probation for it, and, if so, one of the express conditions should be that he not engage in any more of this sneaky, lizard-like crap.
So someone should report him to the court where he is (hopefully) on probation. If the judge agrees that he's in violation, he could be sent to jail for quite awhile without even having a trial.
(3) At a minimum, there is absolutely no reason why the DNC or George Soros or someone like that couldn't hire private investigators to watch this slime ball around the clock.
That way, they could well catch him as he engages in criminal conduct in which case they will probably be able to hand the local prosecutor a ready made case to prosecute on a silver platter.
And secondarily, if PIs are tailing this putz around the clock, the least they should be able to accomplish is to spot, and then warn, his next intended victim before more left leaning companies go out of business and more employees of those companies lose their jobs and see their lives ruined.
This asshole is exceedingly dangerous, and I fail to see how the Democrats can possibly neglect to take every necessary step to catch this guy and put him out of business once and for all.
Unfortunately, we have learned the hard way about just how docile the Democrats, led by our President, have been for a long time. But this time, hopefully the courage of those Wisconsinites and the Wisconsin 14 will rub off enough to convince them to display a little backbone. The very existence of the party and of liberalism in this country might well be at stake. This time, the Democrats simply cannot afford to be docile and capitulate preemptively.
Again.
That lowest of all scumbags, James O'Keefe, is at it again ruining the lives of anyone who dares to work for a left leaning organization. Having put ACORN out of business, he has now set his sights on NPR. Later in the day, I will describe what he did to them in some detail. It can also be found on this link:
Here are the main points:
(1) Many states have laws that criminalize the surreptitious taping of a conversation without the consent of all parties unless law enforcement is involved. Let's see if we can get this guy back into jail which is obviously, precisely where he belongs.
(2) Last May, he pled guilty to an offense involving the break in at Sen. Mary Landrieu's office where he planned to perpetrate more execrable dirty tricks. I doubt I'll ever know why he got off so easy in that case, but I would imagine he's a least on probation for it, and, if so, one of the express conditions should be that he not engage in any more of this sneaky, lizard-like crap.So someone should report him to the court where he is (hopefully) on probation. If the judge agrees that he's in violation, he could be sent to jail for quite awhile without even having a trial.
(3) At a minimum, there is absolutely no reason why the DNC or George Soros or someone like that couldn't hire private investigators to watch this slime ball around the clock.
That way, they could well catch him as he engages in criminal conduct in which case they will probably be able to hand the local prosecutor a ready made case to prosecute on a silver platter.
And secondarily, if PIs are tailing this putz around the clock, the least they should be able to accomplish is to spot, and then warn, his next intended victim before more left leaning companies go out of business and more employees of those companies lose their jobs and see their lives ruined.
This asshole is exceedingly dangerous, and I fail to see how the Democrats can possibly neglect to take every necessary step to catch this guy and put him out of business once and for all.
Unfortunately, we have learned the hard way about just how docile the Democrats, led by our President, have been for a long time. But this time, hopefully the courage of those Wisconsinites and the Wisconsin 14 will rub off enough to convince them to display a little backbone. The very existence of the party and of liberalism in this country might well be at stake. This time, the Democrats simply cannot afford to be docile and capitulate preemptively.
Again.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
My Response to a Discussion About People's Favorite MSNBC Commentators and Whether They Miss Keith
I know it's more interesting to have right wing guests once in awhile to stir up the pot and make the shows more interesting, but Ann Coulter? Ann F--king Coulter?
I'm sorry, but Lawrence went down a couple of notches in my book when I turned on the show one night 2 or 3 weeks ago, and his guest was ... Ann F--king Coulter!
Sorry for the repetition, but I just can't quite get over it. Ann Coulter, the same creature who referred to the 9/11 widows as greedy charlatans or something like that?
I'm surprised that she hasn't joined the Westboro Baptist Church. (She hasn't, has she?)
There's also one thing about Keith that no one has mentioned. Were it not for Keith, MSNBC wouldn't have either Rachel or Lawrence as commentators. It might well not have Ed or Cenk either because they only arrived after Keith had singlehandedly converted MSNBC into a bastion of liberalism. (Remember when one of their daily hosts was Michael Savage?)
I prefer Cenk now for the purely selfish reason that I happen to agree with virtually everything he says, particularly when he gets pissed off at the administration and congressional Democrats (which he does every day) for being such spineless capitulators to the fanatical right wing mendacity machine.
I completely agree with whoever wrote that Rachel is great when she's serious, but she can really be annoying when she tries to be cutesy.
I'm also a huge fan of Chris' because I had the privilege of meeting him once, and he was very friendly, genuine, and easy to talk to. No phony airs about him at all, although, needless to say, I did not survive the conversation without getting interrupted.
But I really do miss Keith a lot. He is so clever, and the show was so well produced, and the worst persons segment was absolutely hilarious.
So that's my take, FWIW.
Ann F--king Coulter??? ...
I'm sorry, but Lawrence went down a couple of notches in my book when I turned on the show one night 2 or 3 weeks ago, and his guest was ... Ann F--king Coulter!
Sorry for the repetition, but I just can't quite get over it. Ann Coulter, the same creature who referred to the 9/11 widows as greedy charlatans or something like that?
I'm surprised that she hasn't joined the Westboro Baptist Church. (She hasn't, has she?)
There's also one thing about Keith that no one has mentioned. Were it not for Keith, MSNBC wouldn't have either Rachel or Lawrence as commentators. It might well not have Ed or Cenk either because they only arrived after Keith had singlehandedly converted MSNBC into a bastion of liberalism. (Remember when one of their daily hosts was Michael Savage?)
I prefer Cenk now for the purely selfish reason that I happen to agree with virtually everything he says, particularly when he gets pissed off at the administration and congressional Democrats (which he does every day) for being such spineless capitulators to the fanatical right wing mendacity machine.
I completely agree with whoever wrote that Rachel is great when she's serious, but she can really be annoying when she tries to be cutesy.
I'm also a huge fan of Chris' because I had the privilege of meeting him once, and he was very friendly, genuine, and easy to talk to. No phony airs about him at all, although, needless to say, I did not survive the conversation without getting interrupted.
But I really do miss Keith a lot. He is so clever, and the show was so well produced, and the worst persons segment was absolutely hilarious.
So that's my take, FWIW.
Ann F--king Coulter??? ...
Wisconsin Statutes Governing Recall Elections
No home should be without a set of these ...
"9.10
9.10 Recall .
9.10(1) (1) Right to recall ; petition signatures.
9.10(1)(a) (a) The qualified electors of the state, of any county, city, village, or town, of any congressional, legislative, judicial, town sanitary, or school district, or of any prosecutorial unit may petition for the recall of any incumbent elective official by filing a petition with the same official or agency with whom nomination papers or declarations of candidacy for the office are filed demanding the recall of the officeholder.
9.10(1)(b)
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), a petition for recall of an officer shall be signed by electors equal to at least 25% of the vote cast for the office of governor at the last election within the same district or territory as that of the officeholder being recalled.
9.10(1)(c)
(c) If no statistics are available to calculate the required number of signatures on a petition for recall of an officer, the number of signatures shall be determined as follows:
9.10(1)(c)1.
1. The area of the district in square miles shall be divided by the area of the municipality in square miles in which it lies.
9.10(1)(c)2.
2. The vote for governor at the last general election in the municipality within which the district lies shall be multiplied by 25% of the quotient determined under subd. 1. to determine the required number of signatures.
9.10(1)(c)3.
3. If a district is in more than one municipality, the method of determination under subds. 1. and 2. shall be used for each part of the district which constitutes only a fractional part of any area for which election statistics are kept.
9.10(1)(d)
(d) The official or agency with whom declarations of candidacy are filed for each office shall determine and certify to any interested person the number of signatures required on a recall petition for that office.
9.10(2)
(2) Petition requirements.
9.10(2)(a)
(a) Every recall petition shall have on the face at the top in bold print the words "RECALL PETITION". Other requirements as to preparation and form of the petition shall be governed by s. 8.40.
9.10(2)(b)
(b) A recall petition for a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district office shall contain a statement of a reason for the recall which is related to the official responsibilities of the official for whom removal is sought.
9.10(2)(c)
(c) A petition requesting the recall of each elected officer shall be prepared and filed separately.
9.10(2)(d)
(d) No petition may be offered for filing for the recall of an officer unless the petitioner first files a registration statement under s. 11.05 (1) or (2) with the filing officer with whom the petition is filed. The petitioner shall append to the registration a statement indicating his or her intent to circulate a recall petition, the name of the officer for whom recall is sought and, in the case of a petition for the recall of a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district officer, a statement of a reason for the recall which is related to the official responsibilities of the official for whom removal is sought. No petitioner may circulate a petition for the recall of an officer prior to completing registration. The last date that a petition for the recall of an officer may be offered for filing is 5 p.m. on the 60th day commencing after registration. After the recall petition has been offered for filing, no name may be added or removed. No signature may be counted unless the date of the signature is within the period provided in this paragraph.
9.10(2)(e)
(e) An individual signature on a petition sheet may not be counted if:
9.10(2)(e)1.
1. The signature is not dated.
9.10(2)(e)2.
2. The signature is dated outside the circulation period.
9.10(2)(e)3.
3. The signature is dated after the date of the certification contained on the petition sheet.
9.10(2)(e)4.
4. The residency of the signer of the petition sheet cannot be determined by the address given.
9.10(2)(e)5.
5. The signature is that of an individual who is not a resident of the jurisdiction or district from which the elective official being recalled is elected.
9.10(2)(e)6.
6. The signer has been adjudicated not to be a qualified elector on grounds of incompetency or limited incompetency as provided in s. 6.03 (3).
9.10(2)(e)7.
7. The signer is not a qualified elector by reason of age.
9.10(2)(e)8.
8. The circulator knew or should have known that the signer, for any other reason, was not a qualified elector.
9.10(2)(em)
(em) No signature on a petition sheet may be counted if:
9.10(2)(em)1.
1. The circulator fails to sign the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(em)2.
2. The circulator is not a qualified circulator.
9.10(2)(f)
(f) The filing officer or agency shall review a verified challenge to a recall petition if it is made prior to certification.
9.10(2)(g)
(g) The burden of proof for any challenge rests with the individual bringing the challenge.
9.10(2)(h)
(h) Any challenge to the validity of signatures on the petition shall be presented by affidavit or other supporting evidence demonstrating a failure to comply with statutory requirements.
9.10(2)(i)
(i) If a challenger can establish that a person signed the recall petition more than once, the 2nd and subsequent signatures may not be counted.
9.10(2)(j)
(j) If a challenger demonstrates that someone other than the elector signed for the elector, the signature may not be counted, unless the elector is unable to sign due to physical disability and authorized another individual to sign in his or her behalf.
9.10(2)(k)
(k) If a challenger demonstrates that the date of a signature is altered and the alteration changes the validity of the signature, the signature may not be counted.
9.10(2)(L)
(L) If a challenger establishes that an individual is ineligible to sign the petition, the signature may not be counted.
9.10(2)(m)
(m) No signature may be stricken on the basis that the elector was not aware of the purpose of the petition, unless the purpose was misrepresented by the circulator.
9.10(2)(n)
(n) No signature may be stricken if the circulator fails to date the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(p)
(p) If a signature on a petition sheet is crossed out by the petitioner before the sheet is offered for filing, the elimination of the signature does not affect the validity of other signatures on the petition sheet.
9.10(2)(q)
(q) Challenges are not limited to the categories set forth in pars. (i) to (L).
9.10(2)(r)
(r) A petitioner may file affidavits or other proof correcting insufficiencies, including but not limited to:
9.10(2)(r)4.
4. Failure of the circulator to sign the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(r)5.
5. Failure of the circulator to include all necessary information.
9.10(2)(s)
(s) No petition for recall of an officer may be offered for filing prior to the expiration of one year after commencement of the term of office for which the officer is elected.
9.10(3)
(3) State, county, congressional, legislative and judicial offices.
9.10(3)(a)
(a) This subsection applies to the recall of all elective officials other than city, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district officials. City, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district officials are recalled under sub. (4).
9.10(3)(b)
(b) Within 10 days after the petition is offered for filing, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a written challenge with the official, specifying any alleged insufficiency. If a challenge is filed, the petitioner may file a written rebuttal to the challenge with the official within 5 days after the challenge is filed. If a rebuttal is filed, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a reply to any new matter raised in the rebuttal within 2 days after the rebuttal is filed. Within 14 days after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a reply to a rebuttal, the official shall file the certificate or an amended certificate. Within 31 days after the petition is offered for filing, the official with whom the petition is offered for filing shall determine by careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient and so state in a certificate attached to the petition. If the official finds that the amended petition is sufficient, the official shall file the petition and call a recall election to be held on the Tuesday of the 6th week commencing after the date of filing of the petition. If Tuesday is a legal holiday, the recall election shall be held on the first day after Tuesday which is not a legal holiday. If the official finds that the petition is insufficient, the certificate shall state the particulars creating the insufficiency. The petition may be amended to correct any insufficiency within 5 days following the affixing of the original certificate. Within 5 days after the offering of the amended petition for filing, the official with whom the petition is filed shall again carefully examine the face of the petition to determine sufficiency and shall attach a certificate stating the findings. Upon showing of good cause, the circuit court for the county in which the petition is offered for filing may grant an extension of any of the time periods provided in this paragraph.
9.10(3)(bm)
(bm) Within 7 days after an official makes a final determination of sufficiency or insufficiency of a recall petition under par. (b), the petitioner or the officer against whom the recall petition is filed may file a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with the circuit court for the county where the recall petition is offered for filing. Upon filing of such a petition, the only matter before the court shall be whether the recall petition is sufficient. The court may stay the effect of the official's order while the petition is under advisement and may order the official to revise the election schedule contained in the order if a revised schedule is necessitated by judicial review. Whenever the recall petitioner files a petition under this paragraph, the officer against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a party to the proceeding. The court shall give the matter precedence over other matters not accorded similar precedence by law.
9.10(3)(c)
(c) The official against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a candidate at the recall election without nomination unless the official resigns within 10 days after the original filing of the petition. Candidates for the office may be nominated under the usual procedure of nomination for a special election by filing nomination papers not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Tuesday preceding the election and have their names placed on the ballot at the recall election.
9.10(3)(d)
(d) If more than 2 persons compete for a nonpartisan office, a recall primary shall be held. The names of the 2 persons receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary shall be certified to appear on the ballot in the recall election, but if any person receives a majority of the total number of votes cast in the recall primary, a recall election shall not be held. If the incumbent receives a majority of the votes cast, the incumbent shall be retained in office for the remainder of the term. If another candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, that candidate shall be elected to serve for the residue of the unexpired term of the incumbent. Write-in votes are permitted only at a recall primary or at a recall election in which no primary is held.
9.10(3)(e)
(e) For any partisan office, a recall primary shall be held for each political party which is entitled to a separate ballot under s. 5.62 (1) (b) or (2) and from which more than one candidate competes for the party's nomination in the recall election. The primary ballot shall be prepared in accordance with s. 5.62, insofar as applicable. The person receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary for each political party shall be that party's candidate in the recall election. Independent candidates shall be shown on the ballot for the recall election only.
9.10(3)(f)
(f) If a recall primary is required, the date specified under par. (b) shall be the date of the recall primary and the recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 4th week commencing after the recall primary or, if that Tuesday is a legal holiday, on the first day after that Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)
(4) City, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district offices.
9.10(4)(a)
(a) Within 10 days after a petition for the recall of a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district official, is offered for filing, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a written challenge with the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners or school district clerk with whom it is filed, specifying any alleged insufficiency. If a challenge is filed, the petitioner may file a written rebuttal to the challenge with the clerk or board of election commissioners within 5 days after the challenge is filed. If a rebuttal is filed, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a reply to any new matter raised in the rebuttal within 2 days after the rebuttal is filed. Within 14 days after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a reply to a rebuttal, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall file the certificate or an amended certificate. Within 31 days after the petition is offered for filing, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall determine by careful examination of the face of the petition whether the petition is sufficient and shall so state in a certificate attached to the petition. If the petition is found to be insufficient, the certificate shall state the particulars creating the insufficiency. The petition may be amended to correct any insufficiency within 5 days following the affixing of the original certificate. Within 2 days after the offering of the amended petition for filing, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall again carefully examine the face of the petition to determine sufficiency and shall attach to the petition a certificate stating the findings. Immediately upon finding an original or amended petition sufficient, except in cities over 500,000 population, the municipal clerk or school district clerk shall transmit the petition to the governing body or to the school board. Immediately upon finding an original or amended petition sufficient, in cities over 500,000 population, the board of election commissioners shall file the petition in its office.
9.10(4)(d)
(d) Promptly upon receipt of a certificate under par. (a), the governing body, school board, or board of election commissioners shall call a recall election. The recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 6th week commencing after the date on which the certificate is filed, except that if Tuesday is a legal holiday the recall election shall be held on the first day after Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)(e)
(e) The official against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a candidate at the recall election without nomination unless the official resigns within 10 days after the date of the certificate. Candidates for the office may be nominated under the usual procedure of nomination for a special election by filing nomination papers or declarations of candidacy not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Tuesday preceding the election and have their names placed on the ballot at the recall election.
9.10(4)(f)
(f) If more than 2 persons compete for an office, a recall primary shall be held. The names of the 2 persons receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary shall be certified to appear on the ballot in the recall election, but if any person receives a majority of the total number of votes cast in the recall primary, a recall election shall not be held. If the incumbent receives a majority of the votes cast, the incumbent shall be retained in office for the remainder of the term. If another candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, that candidate shall be elected to serve for the residue of the unexpired term of the incumbent. Write-in votes are permitted only at a recall primary or at a recall election in which no primary is held.
9.10(4)(g)
(g) If a recall primary is required, the date specified under par. (d) shall be the date of the recall primary and the recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 4th week commencing after the recall primary or, if that Tuesday is a legal holiday, on the first day after that Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)(h)
(h) All candidates for any village, town, and town sanitary district office, other than the official against whom the recall petition is filed, shall file nomination papers, regardless of the method of nomination of candidates for town or village office under s. 8.05.
9.10(5)
(5) Voting method; election results.
9.10(5)(a)
(a) The recall primary or election of more than one official may be held on the same day. If more than one official of the same office designation elected at large for the same term from the same district or territory is the subject of a recall petition, there shall be a separate election contest for the position held by each official. Candidates shall designate which position they are seeking on their nomination papers. Instructions shall appear on the ballot to electors to vote for each position separately.
9.10(5)(b)
(b) The official against whom a recall petition has been filed shall continue to perform the duties of his or her office until a certificate of election is issued to his or her successor. The person receiving a plurality of votes at the recall election or a majority of votes at a primary when authorized under sub. (3) (d) or (4) (f) shall be declared elected for the remainder of the term. If the incumbent receives the required number of votes he or she shall continue in office. Except as provided in sub. (4) (f), if another person receives the required number of votes that person shall succeed the incumbent if he or she qualifies within 10 days after receiving a certificate of election.
9.10(6)
(6) Limitation on recall elections. After one recall petition and recall election, no further recall petition may be filed against the same official during the term for which he or she was elected.
9.10(7)
(7) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to facilitate the operation of article XIII, section 12, of the constitution and to extend the same rights to electors of cities, villages, towns, town sanitary districts, and school districts."
"9.10
9.10 Recall .
9.10(1) (1) Right to recall ; petition signatures.
9.10(1)(a) (a) The qualified electors of the state, of any county, city, village, or town, of any congressional, legislative, judicial, town sanitary, or school district, or of any prosecutorial unit may petition for the recall of any incumbent elective official by filing a petition with the same official or agency with whom nomination papers or declarations of candidacy for the office are filed demanding the recall of the officeholder.
9.10(1)(b)
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), a petition for recall of an officer shall be signed by electors equal to at least 25% of the vote cast for the office of governor at the last election within the same district or territory as that of the officeholder being recalled.
9.10(1)(c)
(c) If no statistics are available to calculate the required number of signatures on a petition for recall of an officer, the number of signatures shall be determined as follows:
9.10(1)(c)1.
1. The area of the district in square miles shall be divided by the area of the municipality in square miles in which it lies.
9.10(1)(c)2.
2. The vote for governor at the last general election in the municipality within which the district lies shall be multiplied by 25% of the quotient determined under subd. 1. to determine the required number of signatures.
9.10(1)(c)3.
3. If a district is in more than one municipality, the method of determination under subds. 1. and 2. shall be used for each part of the district which constitutes only a fractional part of any area for which election statistics are kept.
9.10(1)(d)
(d) The official or agency with whom declarations of candidacy are filed for each office shall determine and certify to any interested person the number of signatures required on a recall petition for that office.
9.10(2)
(2) Petition requirements.
9.10(2)(a)
(a) Every recall petition shall have on the face at the top in bold print the words "RECALL PETITION". Other requirements as to preparation and form of the petition shall be governed by s. 8.40.
9.10(2)(b)
(b) A recall petition for a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district office shall contain a statement of a reason for the recall which is related to the official responsibilities of the official for whom removal is sought.
9.10(2)(c)
(c) A petition requesting the recall of each elected officer shall be prepared and filed separately.
9.10(2)(d)
(d) No petition may be offered for filing for the recall of an officer unless the petitioner first files a registration statement under s. 11.05 (1) or (2) with the filing officer with whom the petition is filed. The petitioner shall append to the registration a statement indicating his or her intent to circulate a recall petition, the name of the officer for whom recall is sought and, in the case of a petition for the recall of a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district officer, a statement of a reason for the recall which is related to the official responsibilities of the official for whom removal is sought. No petitioner may circulate a petition for the recall of an officer prior to completing registration. The last date that a petition for the recall of an officer may be offered for filing is 5 p.m. on the 60th day commencing after registration. After the recall petition has been offered for filing, no name may be added or removed. No signature may be counted unless the date of the signature is within the period provided in this paragraph.
9.10(2)(e)
(e) An individual signature on a petition sheet may not be counted if:
9.10(2)(e)1.
1. The signature is not dated.
9.10(2)(e)2.
2. The signature is dated outside the circulation period.
9.10(2)(e)3.
3. The signature is dated after the date of the certification contained on the petition sheet.
9.10(2)(e)4.
4. The residency of the signer of the petition sheet cannot be determined by the address given.
9.10(2)(e)5.
5. The signature is that of an individual who is not a resident of the jurisdiction or district from which the elective official being recalled is elected.
9.10(2)(e)6.
6. The signer has been adjudicated not to be a qualified elector on grounds of incompetency or limited incompetency as provided in s. 6.03 (3).
9.10(2)(e)7.
7. The signer is not a qualified elector by reason of age.
9.10(2)(e)8.
8. The circulator knew or should have known that the signer, for any other reason, was not a qualified elector.
9.10(2)(em)
(em) No signature on a petition sheet may be counted if:
9.10(2)(em)1.
1. The circulator fails to sign the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(em)2.
2. The circulator is not a qualified circulator.
9.10(2)(f)
(f) The filing officer or agency shall review a verified challenge to a recall petition if it is made prior to certification.
9.10(2)(g)
(g) The burden of proof for any challenge rests with the individual bringing the challenge.
9.10(2)(h)
(h) Any challenge to the validity of signatures on the petition shall be presented by affidavit or other supporting evidence demonstrating a failure to comply with statutory requirements.
9.10(2)(i)
(i) If a challenger can establish that a person signed the recall petition more than once, the 2nd and subsequent signatures may not be counted.
9.10(2)(j)
(j) If a challenger demonstrates that someone other than the elector signed for the elector, the signature may not be counted, unless the elector is unable to sign due to physical disability and authorized another individual to sign in his or her behalf.
9.10(2)(k)
(k) If a challenger demonstrates that the date of a signature is altered and the alteration changes the validity of the signature, the signature may not be counted.
9.10(2)(L)
(L) If a challenger establishes that an individual is ineligible to sign the petition, the signature may not be counted.
9.10(2)(m)
(m) No signature may be stricken on the basis that the elector was not aware of the purpose of the petition, unless the purpose was misrepresented by the circulator.
9.10(2)(n)
(n) No signature may be stricken if the circulator fails to date the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(p)
(p) If a signature on a petition sheet is crossed out by the petitioner before the sheet is offered for filing, the elimination of the signature does not affect the validity of other signatures on the petition sheet.
9.10(2)(q)
(q) Challenges are not limited to the categories set forth in pars. (i) to (L).
9.10(2)(r)
(r) A petitioner may file affidavits or other proof correcting insufficiencies, including but not limited to:
9.10(2)(r)4.
4. Failure of the circulator to sign the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(r)5.
5. Failure of the circulator to include all necessary information.
9.10(2)(s)
(s) No petition for recall of an officer may be offered for filing prior to the expiration of one year after commencement of the term of office for which the officer is elected.
9.10(3)
(3) State, county, congressional, legislative and judicial offices.
9.10(3)(a)
(a) This subsection applies to the recall of all elective officials other than city, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district officials. City, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district officials are recalled under sub. (4).
9.10(3)(b)
(b) Within 10 days after the petition is offered for filing, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a written challenge with the official, specifying any alleged insufficiency. If a challenge is filed, the petitioner may file a written rebuttal to the challenge with the official within 5 days after the challenge is filed. If a rebuttal is filed, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a reply to any new matter raised in the rebuttal within 2 days after the rebuttal is filed. Within 14 days after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a reply to a rebuttal, the official shall file the certificate or an amended certificate. Within 31 days after the petition is offered for filing, the official with whom the petition is offered for filing shall determine by careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient and so state in a certificate attached to the petition. If the official finds that the amended petition is sufficient, the official shall file the petition and call a recall election to be held on the Tuesday of the 6th week commencing after the date of filing of the petition. If Tuesday is a legal holiday, the recall election shall be held on the first day after Tuesday which is not a legal holiday. If the official finds that the petition is insufficient, the certificate shall state the particulars creating the insufficiency. The petition may be amended to correct any insufficiency within 5 days following the affixing of the original certificate. Within 5 days after the offering of the amended petition for filing, the official with whom the petition is filed shall again carefully examine the face of the petition to determine sufficiency and shall attach a certificate stating the findings. Upon showing of good cause, the circuit court for the county in which the petition is offered for filing may grant an extension of any of the time periods provided in this paragraph.
9.10(3)(bm)
(bm) Within 7 days after an official makes a final determination of sufficiency or insufficiency of a recall petition under par. (b), the petitioner or the officer against whom the recall petition is filed may file a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with the circuit court for the county where the recall petition is offered for filing. Upon filing of such a petition, the only matter before the court shall be whether the recall petition is sufficient. The court may stay the effect of the official's order while the petition is under advisement and may order the official to revise the election schedule contained in the order if a revised schedule is necessitated by judicial review. Whenever the recall petitioner files a petition under this paragraph, the officer against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a party to the proceeding. The court shall give the matter precedence over other matters not accorded similar precedence by law.
9.10(3)(c)
(c) The official against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a candidate at the recall election without nomination unless the official resigns within 10 days after the original filing of the petition. Candidates for the office may be nominated under the usual procedure of nomination for a special election by filing nomination papers not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Tuesday preceding the election and have their names placed on the ballot at the recall election.
9.10(3)(d)
(d) If more than 2 persons compete for a nonpartisan office, a recall primary shall be held. The names of the 2 persons receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary shall be certified to appear on the ballot in the recall election, but if any person receives a majority of the total number of votes cast in the recall primary, a recall election shall not be held. If the incumbent receives a majority of the votes cast, the incumbent shall be retained in office for the remainder of the term. If another candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, that candidate shall be elected to serve for the residue of the unexpired term of the incumbent. Write-in votes are permitted only at a recall primary or at a recall election in which no primary is held.
9.10(3)(e)
(e) For any partisan office, a recall primary shall be held for each political party which is entitled to a separate ballot under s. 5.62 (1) (b) or (2) and from which more than one candidate competes for the party's nomination in the recall election. The primary ballot shall be prepared in accordance with s. 5.62, insofar as applicable. The person receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary for each political party shall be that party's candidate in the recall election. Independent candidates shall be shown on the ballot for the recall election only.
9.10(3)(f)
(f) If a recall primary is required, the date specified under par. (b) shall be the date of the recall primary and the recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 4th week commencing after the recall primary or, if that Tuesday is a legal holiday, on the first day after that Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)
(4) City, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district offices.
9.10(4)(a)
(a) Within 10 days after a petition for the recall of a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district official, is offered for filing, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a written challenge with the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners or school district clerk with whom it is filed, specifying any alleged insufficiency. If a challenge is filed, the petitioner may file a written rebuttal to the challenge with the clerk or board of election commissioners within 5 days after the challenge is filed. If a rebuttal is filed, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a reply to any new matter raised in the rebuttal within 2 days after the rebuttal is filed. Within 14 days after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a reply to a rebuttal, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall file the certificate or an amended certificate. Within 31 days after the petition is offered for filing, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall determine by careful examination of the face of the petition whether the petition is sufficient and shall so state in a certificate attached to the petition. If the petition is found to be insufficient, the certificate shall state the particulars creating the insufficiency. The petition may be amended to correct any insufficiency within 5 days following the affixing of the original certificate. Within 2 days after the offering of the amended petition for filing, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall again carefully examine the face of the petition to determine sufficiency and shall attach to the petition a certificate stating the findings. Immediately upon finding an original or amended petition sufficient, except in cities over 500,000 population, the municipal clerk or school district clerk shall transmit the petition to the governing body or to the school board. Immediately upon finding an original or amended petition sufficient, in cities over 500,000 population, the board of election commissioners shall file the petition in its office.
9.10(4)(d)
(d) Promptly upon receipt of a certificate under par. (a), the governing body, school board, or board of election commissioners shall call a recall election. The recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 6th week commencing after the date on which the certificate is filed, except that if Tuesday is a legal holiday the recall election shall be held on the first day after Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)(e)
(e) The official against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a candidate at the recall election without nomination unless the official resigns within 10 days after the date of the certificate. Candidates for the office may be nominated under the usual procedure of nomination for a special election by filing nomination papers or declarations of candidacy not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Tuesday preceding the election and have their names placed on the ballot at the recall election.
9.10(4)(f)
(f) If more than 2 persons compete for an office, a recall primary shall be held. The names of the 2 persons receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary shall be certified to appear on the ballot in the recall election, but if any person receives a majority of the total number of votes cast in the recall primary, a recall election shall not be held. If the incumbent receives a majority of the votes cast, the incumbent shall be retained in office for the remainder of the term. If another candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, that candidate shall be elected to serve for the residue of the unexpired term of the incumbent. Write-in votes are permitted only at a recall primary or at a recall election in which no primary is held.
9.10(4)(g)
(g) If a recall primary is required, the date specified under par. (d) shall be the date of the recall primary and the recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 4th week commencing after the recall primary or, if that Tuesday is a legal holiday, on the first day after that Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)(h)
(h) All candidates for any village, town, and town sanitary district office, other than the official against whom the recall petition is filed, shall file nomination papers, regardless of the method of nomination of candidates for town or village office under s. 8.05.
9.10(5)
(5) Voting method; election results.
9.10(5)(a)
(a) The recall primary or election of more than one official may be held on the same day. If more than one official of the same office designation elected at large for the same term from the same district or territory is the subject of a recall petition, there shall be a separate election contest for the position held by each official. Candidates shall designate which position they are seeking on their nomination papers. Instructions shall appear on the ballot to electors to vote for each position separately.
9.10(5)(b)
(b) The official against whom a recall petition has been filed shall continue to perform the duties of his or her office until a certificate of election is issued to his or her successor. The person receiving a plurality of votes at the recall election or a majority of votes at a primary when authorized under sub. (3) (d) or (4) (f) shall be declared elected for the remainder of the term. If the incumbent receives the required number of votes he or she shall continue in office. Except as provided in sub. (4) (f), if another person receives the required number of votes that person shall succeed the incumbent if he or she qualifies within 10 days after receiving a certificate of election.
9.10(6)
(6) Limitation on recall elections. After one recall petition and recall election, no further recall petition may be filed against the same official during the term for which he or she was elected.
9.10(7)
(7) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to facilitate the operation of article XIII, section 12, of the constitution and to extend the same rights to electors of cities, villages, towns, town sanitary districts, and school districts."
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
FLOP of the Month Contest Rules
From now on, this blog will be giving out an award for the lowest Form of Life On the Planet at the end of each month. Here are the basic rules of the contest as well as descriptions of some recent award winners:
Rules:
(1) Anyone can nominate their "favorite" candidate(s) for each month's award. Nominations may be made by posting the candidate's name either on this blog or on my Facebook page.
(2) There is a limit of five (5) nominations per person per month.
(3) The deadline for posting a nomination is 12:00 midnight Pacific Standard Time on the last day of each month.
(4) Candidates should be unusually awful human beings. Some of the characteristics which tend to qualify "worthy" candidates include, but are not limited to: (1) Hypocrisy; (2) Dishonesty; (3) Corruption; (4) Greed; (5) Selfishness, (6) Cruelty, (7) Dismissiveness of Others, (8) Remarkable Stupidity and/or Ignorance, and (9) General Douche Baggery.
(5) Notwithstanding the logical inferences to be drawn from the above listed characteristics, contestants need not be members of the Republican Party in order to qualify for the award (although membership in the GOP will certainly not hinder an applicant's chances).
(6) Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will not be eligible for the award in any month for the following reason: In view of her steadfast refusal to release readily available and relatively minimal funds to pay for what would be lifesaving operations for 96 desperate Arizonans who are currently on the waiting list for organ transplants (there were 98, but Governor Brewer has already murdered two of them), she would "win" the award by acclamation every month. Therefore, Governor Brewer has been granted senior, emeritus status as the lowest Form of Life On the Planet for the entire 21st Century. Consequently, if she were regarded as an eligible candidate, the outcome of east month's contest would be preordained.
(7) Four contestants are such uniquely qualified douche bags that they will automatically be eligible for each month's contest even if they do not receive a specific nomination that month. This rarefied group includes the following:
A. Unapologetic Racist; Mean-Spirited Purveyor of Slander; Despicable Bully; Daily Spouter of Unfunny Attempts at Humor; and Self Appointed Vanguard of the Far Right, who wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up to him and introduced itself, Rush Limbaugh;
B. Unvarnished Idiot and Proud Displayer of Shocking Ignorance ("The Founding Fathers Eradicated Slavery??"), an I.Q. Beneath the Speed Limit (in school zones); and Unparalleled Delusions of Grandeur (when she has so much to be humble about), Michele Bachmann;
C. Escaped Mental Patient, Delusional Conspiracy Theorist, Notorious Caliphate Enthusiast, and Internationally Renowned Nazi Memorabilia Expert, Glenn Beck; and
D. Pied Piper of Ignorance, Russian Foreign Policy Wonk, Country of Africa Expert, Reader of All Magazines, Unapologetic Gratuitous Violence Advocate, Possessor of Insatiable Greed, Quitter Emeritus, and Megalomaniac Extraordinaire, Sarah Palin.
(8) With the exception of these four uniquely qualified candidates, only those persons who are expressly nominated during a given month will be considered for that month’s award.
(9) Each nomination should be accompanied by a brief description of the candidate’s statement(s) or conduct that is alleged to qualify them for consideration as that month's lowest form of life on the planet (FLOP).
Recent Examples:
The following are representative examples from previous contests:
A. Our maiden FLOP of the year (2009) Award went to Republican Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis who opposed subsidizing school lunches for low income children during summer months with this remarkable comment: "HUNGER CAN BE A POSITIVE MOTIVATOR."
(The following link contains an unforgettable salute to her by Stephen Colbert) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/colbert-tells-viewers-to_n_224628.html
B. We began the FLOP of the Month contest last November with Jan Brewer as our inaugural recipient for obvious reasons previously stated (before she attained senior status).
C. At December's end, we gave out our Second Annual FLOP of the Year Award to a rare non-political contestant: an Ohio woman by the name of Jennifer Petkov who taunted a 7-year-old neighbor girl suffering from a terminal illness by posting pictures on Facebook of the child with a skull and crossbones and of the child's mother (who had recently died from the same disease) hugging the grim reaper, and who also parked a homemade coffin in front of their home.
Lovely.
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/10/jennifer_lyn_petkov_taunts_7-y.php
D. Our January, 2011, FLOP of the Month Award went to Sarah Palin, not because of her "cross hairs" post which arguably set the tone of politically violent and vitriolic rhetoric shortly before the tragedy in Tucson that claimed the lives of six people and wounded 13 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).
No, Palin was the recipient of January's award because of her reaction to the horrific incident in which she ignored the actual victims of the gunman's rampage and tried to make the entire discussion about herself.
She also made that ghastly "blood libel" remark. But, worst of all, within seconds of complaining that Democrats were unfairly trying to lay some of the blame for the tragedy at her feet, Palin actually said that the gunman appeared to be "apolitical OR PERHAPS EVEN LEFT-LEANING!"
http://www.thewrap.com/television/column-post/hannity-palin-defends-blood-libel-remark-says-suspect-apolitical-or-perhaps-e
Okay. I hope the rules and qualifications for the contest have been adequately explained. The next post will contain a list of February’s contestants followed by the award "winner."
Rules:
(1) Anyone can nominate their "favorite" candidate(s) for each month's award. Nominations may be made by posting the candidate's name either on this blog or on my Facebook page.
(2) There is a limit of five (5) nominations per person per month.
(3) The deadline for posting a nomination is 12:00 midnight Pacific Standard Time on the last day of each month.
(4) Candidates should be unusually awful human beings. Some of the characteristics which tend to qualify "worthy" candidates include, but are not limited to: (1) Hypocrisy; (2) Dishonesty; (3) Corruption; (4) Greed; (5) Selfishness, (6) Cruelty, (7) Dismissiveness of Others, (8) Remarkable Stupidity and/or Ignorance, and (9) General Douche Baggery.
(5) Notwithstanding the logical inferences to be drawn from the above listed characteristics, contestants need not be members of the Republican Party in order to qualify for the award (although membership in the GOP will certainly not hinder an applicant's chances).
(6) Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will not be eligible for the award in any month for the following reason: In view of her steadfast refusal to release readily available and relatively minimal funds to pay for what would be lifesaving operations for 96 desperate Arizonans who are currently on the waiting list for organ transplants (there were 98, but Governor Brewer has already murdered two of them), she would "win" the award by acclamation every month. Therefore, Governor Brewer has been granted senior, emeritus status as the lowest Form of Life On the Planet for the entire 21st Century. Consequently, if she were regarded as an eligible candidate, the outcome of east month's contest would be preordained.
(7) Four contestants are such uniquely qualified douche bags that they will automatically be eligible for each month's contest even if they do not receive a specific nomination that month. This rarefied group includes the following:
A. Unapologetic Racist; Mean-Spirited Purveyor of Slander; Despicable Bully; Daily Spouter of Unfunny Attempts at Humor; and Self Appointed Vanguard of the Far Right, who wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up to him and introduced itself, Rush Limbaugh;
B. Unvarnished Idiot and Proud Displayer of Shocking Ignorance ("The Founding Fathers Eradicated Slavery??"), an I.Q. Beneath the Speed Limit (in school zones); and Unparalleled Delusions of Grandeur (when she has so much to be humble about), Michele Bachmann;
C. Escaped Mental Patient, Delusional Conspiracy Theorist, Notorious Caliphate Enthusiast, and Internationally Renowned Nazi Memorabilia Expert, Glenn Beck; and
D. Pied Piper of Ignorance, Russian Foreign Policy Wonk, Country of Africa Expert, Reader of All Magazines, Unapologetic Gratuitous Violence Advocate, Possessor of Insatiable Greed, Quitter Emeritus, and Megalomaniac Extraordinaire, Sarah Palin.
(8) With the exception of these four uniquely qualified candidates, only those persons who are expressly nominated during a given month will be considered for that month’s award.
(9) Each nomination should be accompanied by a brief description of the candidate’s statement(s) or conduct that is alleged to qualify them for consideration as that month's lowest form of life on the planet (FLOP).
Recent Examples:
The following are representative examples from previous contests:
A. Our maiden FLOP of the year (2009) Award went to Republican Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis who opposed subsidizing school lunches for low income children during summer months with this remarkable comment: "HUNGER CAN BE A POSITIVE MOTIVATOR."
(The following link contains an unforgettable salute to her by Stephen Colbert) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/colbert-tells-viewers-to_n_224628.html
B. We began the FLOP of the Month contest last November with Jan Brewer as our inaugural recipient for obvious reasons previously stated (before she attained senior status).
C. At December's end, we gave out our Second Annual FLOP of the Year Award to a rare non-political contestant: an Ohio woman by the name of Jennifer Petkov who taunted a 7-year-old neighbor girl suffering from a terminal illness by posting pictures on Facebook of the child with a skull and crossbones and of the child's mother (who had recently died from the same disease) hugging the grim reaper, and who also parked a homemade coffin in front of their home.
Lovely.
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/10/jennifer_lyn_petkov_taunts_7-y.php
D. Our January, 2011, FLOP of the Month Award went to Sarah Palin, not because of her "cross hairs" post which arguably set the tone of politically violent and vitriolic rhetoric shortly before the tragedy in Tucson that claimed the lives of six people and wounded 13 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).
No, Palin was the recipient of January's award because of her reaction to the horrific incident in which she ignored the actual victims of the gunman's rampage and tried to make the entire discussion about herself.
She also made that ghastly "blood libel" remark. But, worst of all, within seconds of complaining that Democrats were unfairly trying to lay some of the blame for the tragedy at her feet, Palin actually said that the gunman appeared to be "apolitical OR PERHAPS EVEN LEFT-LEANING!"
http://www.thewrap.com/television/column-post/hannity-palin-defends-blood-libel-remark-says-suspect-apolitical-or-perhaps-e
Okay. I hope the rules and qualifications for the contest have been adequately explained. The next post will contain a list of February’s contestants followed by the award "winner."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)