Fuck you, North Carolina

Well, I guess I can add North Carolina to the list of states where I'm not welcome.

Apparently the big political issue there is how much atheists suck. Here's Elizabeth Dole's attack ad on Kay Hagan.



In keeping with the way people always do these things, I ask you to replace atheists in that ad with Jews, or Christians, or Zoroastrians, or whatever belief system it is you follow.

If we use Judaism, it would go something like this:

Scary Voiceover: "A leader of the Jewish Americans PAC recently held a secret fundraiser in Kay Hagan's honor."

Jewish Lady: "Jesus was just a man. Not the son of God."

Scenes of Bill O'Reilly asking Jewish man if he accepts Christ's divinity, to which Jewish man responds "no".

Scary voiceover: "Jewish Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras. Took Jewish money. What did Hagan promise in return?"

Mystery voice: "I'm a Jew!"

Yeah, that wouldn't make it to air.

Nor would it make it to air if they used Christians. It might make it to air if they used Muslims, but would probably get a lot of criticism.

But hey, attacking atheists is fine! Kay Hagan doesn't even seem to have a problem with it, she just doesn't want our dirty godless cooties rubbing off on her.



Gee, thanks Kay. That "bearing false witness against fellow Christians" thing sure sucks.

Hey, you know what else sucks? Bearing false witness against anybody!

It would have been really nice if Hagan had had the strength of character to point out that there's nothing wrong with atheists. That we're citizens and we vote and there's absolutely nothing wrong with hanging out with us or taking our "godless money".

You know, sort of like how Colin Powell's pointed out that there's nothing wrong with being Muslim. It shouldn't be a smear to be called a Muslim, nor should it be a smear to be called an atheist.

It's also worth noting that atheists in this country outnumber Jews and Muslims put together. We may not be the best group to piss off if you want votes.

Fuck it, I'm going to go watch that bikini video again.

Kurt Hayes' Stealth Agenda

Kurt Hayes is a Republican running for State Rep. in the 37th Middlesex district (which includes parts or all of Shirley, Lunenburg, Lancaster, Harvard, Boxborough, and Acton).

He has a terrible website. Also, for awhile I thought his name was "Kurt Haves" due to some poor design choices on his campaign signs. What more is there to say about him?

Quite a bit, actually. Though I suspect he would prefer it remain quiet.

See, there's a funny thing that happens to Republican candidates in Massachusetts. Since we're among the bluest of the blue states, Republicans have a difficult time getting elected. So they pretend to be "bipartisan" or downplay their conservative views, or run as independents, or try to appear more liberal than they are, or just simply lie. See Mitt Romney for examples of most of the above.

To be fair, Democrats running in red states do a lot of the same kinds of things. But they're not my concern at the moment.

My concern is this Kurt Hayes fellow, his seedy backers, and what he stands for (but doesn't want you to know he stands for).

A few weeks ago I got an email from Jamie Eldridge, the former holder of the seat for which Hayes is running (against Jen Benson). Eldridge is running for State Senate instead. By most accounts, he's a good guy.

It was an interesting email, which I oddly can't find on Eldridge's website. You can see the bulk of it quoted here. I'm not on Eldridge's mailing list, so I guess this was part of an effort to inform area bloggers. I also had a local tipster mention the same thing to me, so mission accomplished!

If you didn't bother to read it, the memo from Eldridge basically goes over how Hayes (and two other Republican candidates) are funded in large part by the despicable MIPAC.

Here's how MIPAC describes itself:

Massachusetts Independent PAC for Working Families, or MIPAC, is dedicated to helping elect candidates at the state legislative level who support pro-family positions, particularly candidates who support traditional marriage and the right of the Massachusetts citizens to vote on this vital issue.

What the hell do "working families" have to do with gay marriage? Beats me!

The important part to note is that MIPAC's entire reason for existing is to promote "pro-family" (more commonly known as "anti-gay") candidates, and to try to get gay marriage banned in Massachusetts. They do this by giving money to candidates, natch. But it's not just through the PAC that they give money (there's a $500 limit for that), as Eldridge pointed out in a nifty chart, the donors to MIPAC also give independently to these candidates. To such a degree that nearly 40% of Hayes' donations come from these out-of-district jerkasses whose defining quality is that they don't like gay people.



It's worth looking over the list of MIPAC expenditures, by the way. You'll find a number of familiar names. Brian Knuuttila, for instance. Guess that was wasted money. You'll also find Dennis Rosa and Guy Glodis on there. It's a handy little list of candidates who MIPAC believes will support their discriminatory agenda.

Of course MIPAC could be wrong to support some of these people, right? Maybe they're actually all very progressive candidates that MIPAC is just hoping to sway with the power of the purse.

Maybe, but that's not the case with Hayes. Hayes filled out a questionnaire for the Massachusetts Family Institute, another anti-gay (also anti-gambling, anti-stem-cell, anti-first-amendment, anti-porn, etc., etc.) group. You can see his responses in pdf form here. I don't recommend it, though, since the morons scanned it upside down.

Here they are flipped over and in image form. Click to embiggen.



The MFI also have a voter guide (also pdf) which boils down those longer responses. Obviously the MFI has more varied concerns than MIPAC, which is pretty straightforward about just being anti-gay. But the first question is the really telling one (though all Hayes' responses are straight along social conservative lines).

If you can't make it out, that first question is:

Should legislators vote yes to allow Massachusetts citizens to vote on a Constitutional Amendment that would define future marriages as between one man and one woman?

... to which Hayes answered "YES" without any further comment.

Of course, what that convoluted question is really asking is "do you oppose gay marriage?" It's just easier to ask it this way, where the respondents can pretend it's about voters' rights or some such bullshit. It's not. It's about whether or not they'll waste everyone's time fighting gay marriage.

So what's the problem? MIPAC can donate to whomever they want. Supporters of their cause can do the same thing. They don't have to live in Hayes' district to support his agenda, after all.

But Hayes' website makes no mention of his massive backing from anti-gay activists. In fact, I couldn't even find a mention of gay marriage anywhere on the site. If you went to his site not knowing his party affiliation, it would probably take you a little while to even figure out he's a Republican. But not only is he a Republican, he's a Republican who toes the conservative line on most social issues. Just another shill.

If that's what you're into, go ahead and vote for the guy (also, if that's what you're into why the hell are you here?). Knock yourself out. But he should at least have the decency to be upfront about his agenda.

I guess it's a good thing he intends to keep his day job even if elected, because I can't imagine people being happy if they voted him in, only to later find out what he's really all about. Better that they just hear it now, isn't it?

So yeah, if you live in that district, consider giving Jen Benson a vote.

Discussions to Avoid

In the wake of unpleasant revelations about DeSalvatore's bigotry, I find myself wondering how the DeSalvatore supporters (and Ted himself) will respond. How will they defend the indefensible?

Luckily, there's a long history of blind supporters defending any and all stupid things their candidate does, and they do it in a few very predictable ways. Let's examine them, so we know whether to bother even talking to these people.

Defense #1: "It's not true!"
This is a very effective defense if indeed the thing in question isn't true, but a really horrible one if it is.

This is usually the first defense used by candidates who are accused of something bad. If the accusation is true it's highly risky (not to mention totally dishonest) to say it's not. There's often corroborating evidence that comes out after a denial. It sounds like there are plenty of people who can corroborate the charges against Ted, and a denial tends to bring those people out.

Of course, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, some candidates will always hold to the lie. And some hardcore supporters will support their guy no matter what, even going so far as to internalize the lie. Like the people who still believe there are WMDs in Iraq (they're just well-hidden!), these people are not worth talking to.

Defense #2: Refuse to comment.
When used by a candidate it's like Defense #1. Except it's for people who are certain they'll be caught if they lie. The only reason to use this defense is if you don't dare tell the truth, since everyone's going to assume the worst anyway. So you just hope it'll go away. If the press is anemic enough, maybe you can even get away with it.

Supporters only use this in a disingenuous manner, generally pontificating at length about how they refuse to talk about the thing they're actually talking about. This is the "I won't dignify that with a response" passive-aggressive technique. It doesn't work, because everyone realizes it just means they have no defense.

Defense #3: "Even if true, it's no big deal."
Do I even need to discuss this? People who say this simply prove that they're just as big an asshole as the candidate they support. Just write them off as lost causes.

Defense #4: Attacking the messenger.
This is a very common one. It's an obvious favorite of DeSalvatore's supporters, who've already been attacking Rachel for pretty much anything they could think of.

In addition to being a sleazy thing to do, it's intellectually bankrupt. There's absolutely no relationship between the truth of a statement and the person telling it.

Sure, if someone's a well-known liar you may have reason to dig deeper before believing them, and you should always try to get corroboration for things like this anyway. But attacking the messenger is really just a thinly-veiled attempt to get people to ignore the message.

I'm sure some people will say that Rachel made this up because she doesn't like Ted. There's no reason to believe that, though. Making shit up and presenting it as fact opens you to libel charges, which nobody wants to subject themselves to. Telling the truth is a perfect defense against such charges.

Anyway, could it be that perhaps the person who used to be the director of Ted's "Back Streets Association" doesn't like him anymore because he called her a "crazy kike"? Yeah, that'd turn me against someone real quick too!

So anyway, that's another pointless defense. Truth exists independently of those who tell it, and attacking the messenger is just a smokescreen.

Defense #5: Talking about "negativity".
This is actually the one I want to get into the most, since it comes up so often in campaigns. Usually it's brought up by people who support a candidate that does a lot of negative things. It's also something I'm quite certain will come up in response to the revelations about DeSalvatore.

First, let's just write off the people who accuse the actual mayoral candidates here of negative campaigning. They're talking out their asses.

None of the mayoral candidates have really engaged in negative campaigning, at least on a personal level. Sure, DeSalvatore "focus[es] on what's bad" about the town, but he's managed not to launch personal attacks on the other candidates (at least in public). The other three candidates have been more positive about the town, and have also basically kept their mouths shut about their opponents. Overall, it's been a pretty civil campaign. If there's negative campaigning, I haven't seen it.

The charges of negativity are more appropriately leveled against people like me who write about what's going on in town. In my case it's accurate. I'm pretty damn negative at times, and it's not always tongue-in-cheek. The No To DeSalvo guy can be accused of the same (hell, it's an inherently negative name). And Rachel's statement is about something negative, though her actual blog stays positive.

But so what? Why shouldn't people writing about local events be negative at times? We're writing about negative things! If someone running for Mayor is spouting racial epithets then it's not being negative to talk about it, it's being honest!

What would these people who are so keen on positivity have us do? Ignore what's going on because it's inconvenient to their preconceptions? No thank you! I think I'll just stick to telling the truth.

Funny bit about this: The people who harp on "negativity" are asserting that negativity is a bad (aka negative) thing. They then attribute this negative thing to somebody else. So they're being what they're accusing others of being by the very act of making the accusation! Ouch!

Let's not delude ourselves, though. They don't really give a shit about negativity. They only care if it's directed at the guy they support. Given the same information about an opponent, they'd be the first people to pounce on it. But when they learn something negative about their guy, they'll start with the moralizing bullshit.

These people are idiots who can be safely ignored.


So that's just a few of them. There are certainly other defenses that get used, and they're almost universally dishonest. The only acceptable response from DeSalvatore in this situation would be a truthful one, which I don't really expect to get. (Just as I no longer expect to get an answer to the question of where he teaches.)

As for his stalwart supporters, maybe they'll realize at some point that there's a reason we call some things "indefensible." In the meantime, I suggest just ignoring them. These arguments have no merit.

Ted DeSalvatore, Bigot

If you haven't seen it, you should go read ReallyRachel's statement that's been posted over at Say No to DeSalvo.

I don't know Rachel outside of her commenting and an occasional email here and there, but I can think of no reason why she would lie about this. She's already been demonized by every Ted-supporting nutbag out there without even having done anything, and this will just make them madder. I'm sure that's attention she could happily live without. Kudos to her for having the guts to come forward!

Sadly, the revelations in the post don't really surprise me given what we already knew about Ted. It is a little shocking to see how blatant his bigotry can be, but it's always been pretty obvious this is the way he thinks. Still, even the biggest bigots usually have more sense than to go saying this sort of shit out loud.

Anyway, there's not much I can add to this. Please, just go read the statement here.