by Nicole Powers

You’ve Been Trumped documents the David and Goliath battle between the dignified and humble residents of a tiny Scottish hamlet and Donald Trump, who is arguably the world’s least dignified and humble property developer.

The battle lines are drawn when The Donald decides to build what he modestly claims will be the world’s best golf course on the Menie Estate in Scotland, a site that – until Trump’s bulldozers moved in – was home to some of the world’s best sand dunes. Indeed, the Menie sand sheet was called the “jewel in the crown” of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the UK by Scottish Natural Heritage, an advisory body set up by the government to oversee such conservation designations.

However, seduced by Trump’s false promises of investment and jobs, the Scottish Government disregarded the environmental advice of its own advisory body, made a mockery of the hard to come by SSSI designation, overruled the local authority – which had denied planning permission – and trampled on the wishes of local residents in order to give Trump the green light to build his exclusive playground on land of such extraordinary natural beauty if was immortalized in the 1983 film Local Hero.

Though documenting a geographically specific dispute, the tale You’ve Been Trumped tells is in many ways archetypical of our times. The film vividly shows what happens when the 1% are allowed to run rampant in the wilderness at the expense of both the environment and the 99%, while the politicians and police “protect and serve” their megabucks masters and the media is too distracted by celebrity to report the truth.

I caught up with You’ve Been Trumped’s director Anthony Baxter on the morning of the film’s opening in The Donald’s hometown…

Nicole Powers: It’s a big day for you isn’t it? Being the first day of You’ve Been Trumped’s theatrical run in New York City, virtually in the shadow of the Trump Tower.

Anthony Baxter: Exactly. It is exciting. It’s taken a lot of effort obviously to get here and it just feels like the right thing to be doing – taking You’ve Been Trumped to Trump essentially.

NP: You say it’s been a long journey, how did it start? What’s your background?

AB: Well, I’m a journalist filmmaker, but this is the first feature film I’ve made. I’ve worked as a journalist for the BBC and ITN and various other organizations since 1989. Then, when I moved to Scotland ten years ago, I moved to a town called Montrose, which is just down the road from where Donald Trump announced he was going to be building a golf course. As a journalist filmmaker living locally, I was very aware of the story, and was struck very much by the fact that the local newspaper in Aberdeen just seemed to completely ignore any environmental issues raised by the development. They just said that this was a great thing for the area. They whipped up a media frenzy, essentially, about anybody who objected to the development.

For example, the local authority first of all blocked the Trump development, and then the local newspaper, the Evening Express, ran a headline “Traitors” with a picture of the councillors who had objected to the development. Those people who were objecting were doing so on very heartfelt and strong environmental grounds. They just felt it was the wrong thing. Also, I felt that the local residents were just not being given a voice at all. The people living on the footprint of the development were effectively being threatened with eviction through the British eminent domain, which was extraordinary.

When the Scottish government gave Mr. Trump the green light to go ahead, which it did after calling in the application saying it was in the national interest because of all these ludicrous claims that jobs were going to be created, I just felt it was a really important story to document. So I went to speak to the local residents and found them to be an extraordinary group of people, very dignified, very caring for the land on which they lived. These dunes are scientifically very, very important. They were supposed to be protected as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, yet the government decided to overthrow those concerns in favor of Mr. Trump’s development.

NP: Right. Trump managed to bulldoze not only through the local council’s rejection of planning permission, but also a special site designation.

AB: Yeah, exactly – and that’s unprecedented. It’s an incredibly worrying precedent because these sites are designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest for very good reason. It takes a lot for a site to be designated in that way. It’s done so in order to protect it from development. For example, those dunes are key to understanding the interaction between the North Sea and the coast there. They’re used by scientists to study global warming. They’re also an incredibly important wilderness. That stretch of sand dunes is one of the last coastal wildernesses of its type in Europe.

If you or I wanted to build a shack on that land, we wouldn’t be allowed to do so. One of the local residents tried to alter her chimney. She’d applied for planning permission several times and had it refused. Yet Mr. Trump comes along and says that he wants to build two championship golf courses, a skyscraper hotel, a 450 bed hostel for workers, 1500 houses, and timeshare apartments, and was given the green light to do so. All the environmental groups were bitterly opposed. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that Scotland’s green policy had been sold down the river. There was not one credible environmental group who supported the development. All of the groups opposed it for very good reason.

NP: The media seemed to be so busy fawning over Trump’s celebrity that they completely ignored the valid objections to this development. Indeed, you were forced to self-fund this movie.

AB: Yeah. When I did a pitch for the film at the Edinburgh International Film Festival maybe three years ago now, I made a trailer and I stood in front of a group of commissioning editors from the BBC, from independent television, from the arts agencies in Scotland, from international broadcasters, and I explained why I thought this story was very, very important to tell. All of them commended me on the pitch but refused to fund the film in any shape or form. One American executive said, “I hope you’ve got a good lawyer.” It seemed to me as if the media was almost afraid of taking on a tycoon such as Donald Trump because of the fear of litigation.

I just felt very, very strongly that we shouldn’t allow those kinds of fears get in the way of telling this important story. Particularly, as you point out, because the local newspapers had effectively blacked out any opposition to this development. It’s hard to explain sometimes to people outside of the area just what a stranglehold those newspapers have on the agenda in that area. The Press And Journal and the Evening Express newspapers very much set the editorial agenda. They had refused to reflect any of the opposition apart from the spat between Michael Forbes, the farmer [who’d stalwartly refused to give up his property in exchange for an offer of cash, a job, and a lifetime golf club membership – really!], and Donald Trump. Michael was painted as this guy standing in the way of development, and nobody ever bothered to go speak to any of the other local residents who were affected, and I just felt that it was extraordinary.

For example, I went to speak to Susan Munro, one of the local residents whose house now looks over a concrete car park where the dunes used to lie. Not one reporter from the local newspaper had ever bothered to go and speak to her over the several years that this has been running on as a local planning dispute. I just felt it was really, really important for journalism that we try to tell that story as best we can. And when we were faced with no funding, obviously, I had to decide whether or not to continue. So we mortgaged the house and then we went on the internet through IndieGoGo, a crowd funding website, to raise the rest of the money in order to finish the film.

NP: It doesn’t surprise me that money talks in today’s climate, but it was really shocking way Trump treated the locals. The names he called them very publicly and the contempt with which he treated their property rights was appalling. These were ancient property lines that had been set in stone that he just decided, because he was Donald Trump, he could change at will. You even have footage of him literally digging up garden fences and moving them to where he felt they should be.

AB: Exactly. But there’s one rule for tycoons with money and one rule for everybody else. The fact is, if you move and you’ve got a new neighbor, you would try and get on with your neighbors as best you can. But Donald Trump’s response to neighbors who didn’t want to sell him their properties was to brand their homes pigsties and them as pigs for living in these houses which have gone back generations.

NP: Right, he’s repeatedly called Michael Forbes “a pig” who lives in “a slum.”

AB: Yeah, it represents in a way a cultural chasm between, not Americans, but Donald Trump. I don’t think the people on the Menie Estate in these properties think that Mr. Trump is a typical American at all. They’ve been very moved by the comments that have comes from Americans all over this country who have written to them and supported them. But what he does represent very much is the ultimate one percenter. He thinks he can manipulate the media, manipulate the government, manipulate even the police…

[The locals] would call the police to complain about the excessive security measures being taken when they want access to their homes for example. One resident, Susan Munro, was told to spread eagle on the bonnet of her car by Mr. Trump’s security workers. They felt very much that there was one rule for Mr. Trump, who would come in with fleets of Range Rovers with blacked out windows, and there were some startling stories that emerged.

People used to be able to walk freely on those dunes. One horse rider was stunned to find vehicles “almost chasing after her,” was how she was reported it, startling the horse. I mean, this is a wilderness, it’s supposed to be a place in Scotland where you can roam freely. You have a right to roam in Scotland, and yet this was being turned into a gated community around the residents under their noses. Essentially, they were feeling incredibly powerless. They would call the local authorities and say, “Look there’s a big bank of earth being built next to my house that’s not on the plans – what are going to do about it?” And nobody did anything about it…

NP: One of the things that you show very vividly is how the police protected and served the 1% and not the 99%. There’s a scene in the movie where you’re talking to camera on someone’s private property, on a driveway, not causing trouble to anyone, and the police actually trespass onto that property to arrest you. You’re not doing anything wrong. You’re in a place you’ve been invited to.

AB: Exactly. That’s right. We’re on the property of Susan Munro, one of the local residents. We’ve just done an interview with one of Mr. Trump’s workers and we’re on private property. Then the police come on to Susan’s land and start wrestling the camera from me, without explaining to us what was going on at all, putting me up against the car and handcuffing me in a very brutal way.

This was essentially two journalists following a story and trying to hold power to account, which is the whole point of journalism as the National Union of Journalists recognized when it complained to the Chief Constable about the incident, saying that it was unprecedented, that it raised very serious questions about press freedoms in the UK, and that the police were completely out of order. The Chief Constable refused to bring any kind of independent inquiry into this incident at all. The Herald Newspaper did an investigation into the relationship between Donald Trump and the local police, which raised many alarm bells, and had to use Freedom of Information [requests] to get details of that relationship…

People are completely fed up with this whole kind of situation, being up against this stranglehold on the people who are supposedly representing them – in this case the First Minister of Scotland. These people are in his constituency. Alex Salmond, who is the local MSP [Member of the Scottish Parliament] for these people, he has not once bothered to go and visit them, and refuses to see the film. He is as accountable in this whole sorry saga as Donald Trump and the local police are.

NP: That’s the thing, in the film you see crimes against the environment, you see the blatant theft of property and land, you see Mr. Trump slander of the locals, we see you being improperly arrested – yet none of you really have any recourse. Donald Trump has unlimited funds to fight in court; it’s almost pointless even trying to go up against him.

AB: Yeah, for example, Molly Forbes, the elderly lady who felt so passionately about this area and that the decision to build houses and hotels on this land was wrong…She did what she thought was the right thing to do, which was to take out legal action through the Court of Session in Edinburgh [Scotland’s supreme civil court]. She lost that case and then the Trump Organization announced it was going to sue her for $50,000 in legal costs. Now that’s a drop in the ocean for the Trump Organization, but for a lady who is just trying to do the right thing and hoping that she can raise awareness in the public on this thing which was getting no press at all, it’s utterly appalling…

NP: The other issue too is that in order to get planning permission to make this golf course happen, the quid pro quo was supposed to be jobs and investment. But it appears that Trump lied about the investment, lied about the number of jobs, and the labor that he has brought in has been by and large from outside the community.

AB: Yeah, the jobs that were promised were 6,000 jobs, and this was an utterly ludicrous projection. It was based on people running a luxury hotel, which in most communities in Scotland are run by people from overseas because the local people cannot afford to take those jobs. The terrible pay offered is often bang on the minimum wage, and they are not the kind of jobs that people aspire to. Now that’s even if there were jobs there, but those jobs have not materialized at all. There’s a temporary clubhouse, there’s one golf course, so there’s a few people serving drinks to wealthy golfers, a few people caddying bags around and mowing the grass, but a few dozen people is not 6,000. That projection was utterly ludicrous and was found out to be by the London School of Economics who poured over the figures that we gave them that had been presented to all those at the Scottish Government inquiry by the Trump Organization. It took the London School of Economics no time at all to say these numbers don’t add up.

Essentially, this is what’s happening all over the world. People are blinded by the ludicrous claims and projections of jobs and economic prosperity for an area in order to rip it up and start building – and, on the way, inflate the prices of the land because the planning permission is given to the land and not the person. Donald Trump could – and the local residents believe he will – sell up all the property that he has there with the planning permission for 1,500 houses, and, as the London School of Economics says, benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars probably just for the planning permission for the land. There are people lining their pockets and making big cash out of these green field sites that are supposed to be protected, while the local people who recognize the importance of these sites, and recognize the value for generations to come, are left powerless on the sidelines to do anything about it.

NP: And the value of their properties is vastly reduced because they’ve got bloody great car parks and mountains of dirt outside their windows.

AB: That’s absolutely right. Susan Munro’s property when I first visited was right by the dunes. She had lived there with her family peacefully for years. There used to be another lady who had an old railway carriage which she lived in…The first thing that happened when Trump bought the land was that was pulled up onto the back of a truck and taken away. Susan had watched this from her back garden aghast. Then she finds a car park being rolled out overnight almost. She’s at the bottom of her garden, tarmac is being piled down on to the dunes over concrete, and she is left there, utterly powerless, calling the local authority saying, “What’s happening? This isn’t supposed to come so close to my property is it?” And they’re saying, “Oh well, I’m sure everything’s happening according to the plans.” As you say, her house is being deeply devalued by the fact that you can’t walk out of her garden onto the dunes. She’s now got a massive fence being put up in front of her house.

Mr. Trump’s executive, Michael Cohen, visited Susan Munro’s property recently. When she voiced to him the deep concerns she had about the security forces roaming around the property, Mr. Cohen’s response to Susan was, “Well, don’t worry, you’ll soon have a security pass to access your property.” That is not what she lives there for and why she decided to move to the dunes. For somebody with the power and money and resources of Donald Trump to take that sort of stance with his neighbors is absolutely appalling, and deeply worrying I think for audiences who see the film. They are startled and shocked by that…

NP: The genius of the film is that you don’t really need to editorialize Trump. He’s hoisted on his own petard. The stuff that he says is utterly, utterly appalling on every level. You just have to roll the cameras and present the footage.

AB: One thing that I’ve always said is I went to start documenting what was happening…What you see on the screen is what came into the camera lens over the course of 18 months to two years. That is the fact. Now, people may not like what Mr. Trump says, and that’s for them to make up their own mind, but the fact of the matter is that what you see on the screen is what came into the camera lens. It is cut together as a film has to be, because you can’t have 300 hours of footage on the screen, and what you see is Donald Trump having probably the most screen time in the whole film. It represents, I think, a cultural chasm between the way that Mr. Trump may be used to speaking to people in New York City and the way the local people in a rural Scottish wilderness feel is the right way to behave and the right way to interact with their neighbors. They were brought up to say “please” and “thank you,” and to do their best to get on with people who live next door. Whereas Mr. Trump’s answer to becoming a new neighbor was to brand their homes “pigsties” and “slums.”

NP: And I think he honestly can’t comprehend why someone wouldn’t be thrilled to live in a gated community and have a security pass to get to their own property.

AB: The thing about him is that he has not in any way recognized the wrongs that he’s responsible for…People essentially are saying “where are the lawyers in all of this?” The local people are incredibly dignified, they’re incredibly patient – this has been going on for years. They are people who when the news crews come around and ask them for sound bites, they have great eloquence, dignity, and a deep respect for their environment, and their choice of words is so restrained.

We did two screenings at the Scottish Parliament itself to which we invited the First Minister and he refused to come. The local residents, who came there…they win hearts and minds wherever they go…These people were only branded the other day by the Trump Organization in a statement released to the Daily News here in New York, as “a national embarrassment for Scotland.” Well I say, come and see the film and make up your own mind about it.

NP: I’m not left in any doubt who is the national embarrassment here – and it’s not anyone from Scotland.

AB: The thing is, the people there, they didn’t ask for this, to have the media spotlight thrown on to their homes…They didn’t ask for the media to come knocking on their doors. They just ask to live peacefully on the dunes. They are people who have a great deal of respect for the environment and for each other, and have been brought together by this struggle. In a way, one thing that’s come out of this is that the community has really come together, as you see in the films when hundreds of people march through the dunes to one of the resident’s homes, Michael Forbes’, to support him.

NP: This film is helping shine a spotlight on an international level on something that otherwise would be a very local issue. What are your plans for it in America?

AB: We felt that it was very, very important to take You’ve Been Trumped to Trump, to take it to New York City, so that people can see for themselves what has been happening in Scotland, and bring those events here to his own backyard essentially. Because the story is not a local story, it’s an international story. I started the film before the Occupy movement started, but people have said to me it is a film for the Occupy generation because it captures the deep frustrations that people are feeling everywhere…

I think people need to know and see stories around the world which show communities in those situations feeling utterly powerless. And although the film is not meant to, and could not ever on it’s own be something which changes things, it educates and informs people to make decisions and to say, look, we need to change the way that we live…

So we’ve been screening it across Scotland. We’ve had great difficulties in getting the film out in the UK. The British Film Institute in London refused to support the release of the film. It has millions of pounds of lottery funded money to try and bring films to cinema audiences, and the only money that exchanged hands between us and the BFI was us paying to show the film to a few executives at its West End headquarters.

NP: And this is a film that’s gone on to win 10 awards so far.

AB: That’s right, exactly. It’s just been nominated for a Grierson Award, which is the British documentary Oscars essentially. We’ve found everywhere we have turned closed doors from organizations who are supposed to support us. So what we have done is we’ve hit the internet four times and raised money from hundreds of people around the world who also agree that this is an important film that needs to be seen. We put it in the cinemas of Scotland, where the reaction has been shock, and also in as many cinemas as we can around London and in England – although not nearly as many as we would’ve liked.

We want to get it into cinemas because we feel that audiences seeing it collectively feel that it’s a powerful film. It needs to be seen in that kind of an environment at this stage I think. Also, as we know from the last few days here in New York, if you release a film on a cinema screen it gets a lot more attention in the media than it does if you just pop it up on YouTube…Bill Moyers said very generously in his PBS interview that many, many people should see it because of its importance.

What we have at the moment is a media obsessed with celebrity who will often say to journalists and filmmakers, we’d like a film on Donald Trump if you’ve got access. If you can fly around the world on his 757, then that’s fine, we’ll commission you to make a film. But this film is more important than that because it’s giving the ordinary people and our planet a voice, which is so stifled in this media environment we’re in. Despite the huge number of channels, we can’t even get a story out about ordinary people being bulldozed in their lives and on their properties. It just seems utterly lopsided and completely wrong to us. That’s why I was prepared to re-mortgage the house and to take these steps, because I just think if nobody else is prepared to support us, then we have to go out and do what we think is right.

NP: My hope too is that in future when local authorities are considering planning permission requests for similar projects that government officials – and the press – will be a bit more cynical about the numbers that they’re being bamboozled with. One of the myths that you dispel is this idea that it would take a billion dollars of investment to build a golf course. Isn’t it $6 million that’s actually been spent on essentially a large grass lawn with a few holes in it?

AB: Exactly. What we have here is a very, very worrying situation where figures are bandied around by the Trump Organization, which are then printed as fact. This was originally a £1billion development. Then overnight it dropped to £750 million one day, and all the press reported that as if nothing had happened. Then, suddenly, we had it reported in the news that Donald Trump had opened this golf course and that it’s a $100 million development, and one golf course has cost that amount of money – and it is wrong. We know that the figures lodged with Company’s House show that, according to a leading land rights expert in Scotland who has done some serious investigation into this, the amount that has been spent is to the tune of around £6 million – that’s around $10 million.

NP: And that was out of £1 billion promised.

AB: Yeah, exactly…In the interviews in the film Mr. Trump says to me that we’re about to start the Marram grass planting project. He said that’s a very big job, hundreds of people are going to be planting the grass. Well, thanks to a screening at the Scottish Parliament, there was a Sunday Herald journalist there, an environment editor, who then did some research and under Freedom of Information got hold figures which showed that 12 unskilled laborers had planted the Marram grass. Mr. Trump is used to bandying these ludicrous figures around which are then printed as fact. Like his claim that 93% of people in Scotland were behind the development. We know, because the BBC did an investigation into that number, that the poll that he referred to was never actually done. And yet that figure was bandied around by the local newspapers constantly as being proof that this development was supported.

NP: I very much hope that your documentary will help stop things like this from happening in the future, but it really saddens me that as a result of Trump’s efforts to build the “world’s best golf course” we’ve actually lost some of the world’s best sand dunes.

AB: That is a tragedy, we can’t turn back the clock. Once these things are done, they’re done. Even though the locals feel and hope one day that nature will take its quiet vengeance and reclaim what is its, the fact is that we have lost this wilderness. It has been destroyed and we can’t turn back the clock. When you move biblical amounts of sand around a site with fleets of bulldozers, it’s very difficult to allow nature to take its course…

The only hope I have is that people will look at the film and think, how many times can we allow the planet to afford these kinds of decisions?…And I think the communities are so tired of this stuff. The ordinary people who are out there in their masses are sick and tired of it, and they want to see a change. The tycoons and the rich and powerful, who are used to getting their way, and having this huge amount of influence with their money and power, should listen to what the masses are saying – listen to the voices of those ordinary people who just have to be heard. I think that’s the whole point of what we’ve been trying to do.

You’ve Been Trumped opens at Laemmle’s Town Centre 5 in Encino on Friday, August 17 and can be seen at the Art Theatre of Long Beach on Sunday, August 19 and 16. For more information visit: youvebeentrumped.com

by Jen Friel

Don’t know about you, but I can’t stand social media experts, ninjas or gurus. They’re always trying to one up each other, establishing dominance, and you can’t EVER just get the real deal from them on what you need to know. I am here today to humbly say that in my non-expert opinion, these are the 5 main ways to not suck at social media. Let’s cut out the BS and just get to the bottom line, shall we…

1. Do not, ever, sync your social media accounts together

I CRINGE every time I see Facebook and Twitter still synced in my Facebook news feed. You’ve seen it before too via third party services like Hootsuite, Ping, or Tweetdeck. Twitter and Facebook are entirely different mediums and need to be dealt with accordingly. Twitter offers more open access to the global consciousness while Facebook is more for spreading info to your current network.

To more efficiently market a post on Twitter you should implement relevant hashtags into the message. I even do it on my site (TalkNerdyToMeLover.com) directly. This allows for new people who may not be following you to be able to easily discover the message via the hashtag. Additionally, anytime it gets RTed by other people, even more people will be able to access the message. Of course, this genuinely also worked with my branding (being nerdy and all) but it’s SUPER helpful and DEFINITELY helped grow my brand so quickly.

For Facebook, pictures work. I don’t know why or how, but every single time I post a picture with a short message and a link my numbers shoot up three times more than if I’d simply posted a standard link with the populated thumbnail.

The way our eyes absorb content on the platforms are SUPER different, so please, unsync the accounts. It’s okay, I promise there is life after it.

2. Be human

I can’t tell you how many people in my feed literally sound like they’re reading toaster instructions. There’s no personality or passion in their message, just very simple words followed by whatever link they are promoting. That shit is so boring and no one is paying attention to it. Trust me, I used to do it! I spent so long being so prim and proper, and it got me ABSOLUTELY nowhere. My writing style is definitely unique – as is my improper use of punctuation at all times. But it’s my jam! I write like I talk, and I communicate with people not like they are students sitting in a classroom, but rather as if we’re buddies grabbing a beer at a bar. People like this kind of intimacy, and people respond to it. So do it!!!

3. Don’t just RT other people’s tweets – have an opinion

I REFUSE to follow people on Twitter who only RT other people’s tweets. Do they not have a SINGLE thought of their own?? Your Twitter feed is an expression of who you are. Have an opinion! Have a voice!! When I started on Twitter in June of 2009 (I’m not an early adopter), I used my feed as a place to express all the thoughts in my head. Literally no one was listening since my following was miniscule, but gradually, by implementing hashtags and by expressing SOME SORT OF OPINION ON SOMETHING, people began RTing me and slowly but surely my following grew. There’s no right or wrong way to admin your Twitter feed. You just have to be you. Get all Madonna circa 1989 and Express Yourself!!

4. Get rid of the cartoon avatar, and be you!

People with cartoon avatars scare the bejesus out of me (unless of course it’s your business logo). There is something UNBELIEVABLY creepy about a guy who has a picture of a frog, or Bugs Bunny as his avatar. Your social media avatar is a representation of you. What’s with the cartoon? All you’re projecting to friends and/or potential mates is a serious image issue. Be you, be awesome, and no matter what you’ve got going down – rock that shit! I’ve been asked out on Twitter by COUNTLESS dudes with cartoon avatars and have yet to say yes to a single one for this very reason. You might as well just be walking around with “issues” stamped on your forehead. Quit it!!!

5. Leave the passive aggressiveness and negativity at the door.

No one likes a Debbie or Doug Downer. If you’re having a bad day, start a private blog. I’m ALL about venting these things to the universe, but people actually check their social feeds and will actually see what you are saying. Yes, you might be sitting behind your monitor in your room all alone, but the SECOND you blast something out into social media it is then indexed in perpetuity. Create an anonymous Tumblr account – some sort of something – just keep ALLLLLLL of that Negative Ned or Nelly-ness off of social sites. Your friends and followers will thank you later.

Happy social media-ing everyone!!

Jen Friel is a lifecaster and corporate sponsored minimalist. She went out on over 103 dates in 9 months while couch surfing for a year building her website and bartering social media to live. Consequently, she’s an accidental expert on online dating. You can read all about her ongoing adventures on OKCupid at TalkNerdyToMeLover.com and follow them on Twitter.

Related Posts

Talk Nerdy To Me Lover…And Worship My Feet While You’re At It: How Exploring The Fetish World Is Helping Me Find My Voice
TalkNerdyToMeLover: Tips For Guys From A Nerdy Girl On How To Optimize Your OKCupid Profile
Talk Nerdy To Me Lover: Mirror Mirror On The Web…

by Nicole Powers

A column which highlights Suicide Girls and their fave groups.

This week Kurosune tells us why she’s drawn to SG’s Hentai Group.

Members: 1,804 / Comments: 8,517

WHY DO YOU LOVE IT?: What’s not to like about a group that discusses tentacles, furries, chicks growing massive dicks (stay away from Bible Black – it’s NOT for the faint of heart), bukkake, maids who punish their male employers in acts of BDSM, anti-demon slaying ninjas who wind up the prisoners of giant orges…or even just the adorable, moe-like girl who is bold enough to make the move and give up her cherished virginity to the wonderful, dreamy, all-round good guy in school who just happens to be her second period math teacher.

DISCUSSION TIP: We loooooove pictures of your particular “yum” – and remember, you ARE in a group that discusses yaoi (boy x boy), yuri (girl x girl) and furries. My personal motto is that you should never “yuck” someone’s “yum.” Don’t be shy (you’re among freaky friends!). Participate often, don’t be an asshole, and everyone should get along just fine. We especially love the ladies here. Contrary to popular belief, women watch hentai too. We love it!

BMOST HEATED DISCUSSION THREAD: Hands down, it’s a tie between the “Favorite Images” and “What’s Your Favorite Hentai Artist.” I ALWAYS love reading those. Hentai is really visual, so pictures posted (be they silly, hot, funny, disturbing or whatever) usually manage to brighten someone’s day. And I love seeing what hentai people love. My faves are, hands down, Taimanin Asagi, Stringendo & Accelerando, and Sensual Pornograph – my first and favorite yaoi!!!

BEST RANDOM QUOTE: “Tentacles? In MY vagina???”

WHO’S WELCOME TO JOIN?: It’s a private group, so you have to request to join. Only those who have at least some blog/comment activity will be allowed in, but basically anyone who jumps in pure joy at the words “hentai,” “yaoi,” “yuri,” “bukkake,” or “virgins in high school uniforms” is welcome. 


[..]

by Laurelin

“Those guys, they just want to fuck you,” Jason had said, his finger jabbing into my shoulder again and again. I was so mad I could have broken it clean off.

“You don’t even know them,” I hissed back, making him even angrier. He scared me when he was angry, but he never hit me, although as the years went by I would come to find out that he would hit others that came after me. But even standing my ground he scared me; he had this power over me and for some strange reason, I couldn’t stand the thought of losing him. He kept me close, like a dog chained in a dirt yard on a run, allowed to run sometimes but ultimately, never allowed to leave the yard.

He made me feel like the luckiest girl in the world, and I remember thinking that I could die right there in his arms and be happy with everything I never did. But there was always the issue of my friends. While I was in college I became closer with all the men in the fraternity up the street, some even more so than my own sorority sisters. In the beginning of my relationship they were happy for me – I talked about Jason and I glowed, and they were shocked that someone had finally tamed me. Jason didn’t feel the same way about the guys I called my brothers. He knew how wild we all were, and he was convinced they all had ulterior motives.

“Those guys are NOT your friends, Laurelin. They want to have sex with you. Get it through your head, you are NOT spending anymore time with them,” he had said, and while I always fought back I eventually quieted, and instead of driving back home I always stayed with Jason. Soon my friends started calling, each call or text making Jason angry. They missed me, was I ever coming home? Why was I ignoring their calls? When could they meet Jason? But he wouldn’t meet them; a firm believer that guys and girls could never be just friends.

In the end, Jason didn’t last, thank god. When I finally broke away from him my friends were so glad, and I saw what it was like when a relationship takes over and a girl turns a blind eye to friendships in favor of a man. All these years later these boys are still my brothers, platonic, the best friends I have ever had through thick and thin, and Jason’s name hardly ever crosses my lips.

One of my closest friends in Boston is also a guy; he’s usually the first person I talk to in the morning and the last person I talk to at night before I fall asleep around 5 AM. We go to dinner, get drinks, go to movies, he thinks my last boyfriend was the dumbest guy on the face of the planet and when I was having trouble getting over it no one helped like he did:

“Laurelin, the kid is a loser. Do you really want people meeting your guys to be like, ‘Man, that chick is the coolest girl ever, but her boyfriend is a fucking tool.’ Stop crying, Jesus, pull it together.”

My friends and co-workers seem to think otherwise.

“You’re going to marry him,” they tease, and I think of Jason, his mouth set in a line, always so angry at the preposterous idea that not every guy just wants to bang me. I’ve quit trying to explain to everyone that sometimes, just sometimes…we really are just friends.

[..]

by Steven Whitney

During the past week, Republicans have fervently fanned the flames of our ongoing culture wars in order to distract, deflect, divide, and conquer. And, once again, it’s just in time to muddy the minds of an already half-hapless electorate just prior to a national election.

This time the battleground is Chick-fil-A – a chicken joint started in 1946, a time when taxes were high and small business start-ups flourished across the country. A few weeks ago, its President, Dan Cathy, publicly supported “the biblical definition of the family unit” and warned ominously that supporting same-sex marriage invites “God’s judgment on our nation.”

While I myself believe God looks very favorably on any marriage and family built on love and devotion, Mr. Cathy seems to think we’re in store for an apocalyptic display of His considerable wrath, not unlike Pat Robertson implying that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for legalized abortion.

Cathy’s comments caused a backlash among fair-minded consumers, which then created predictable blowback from the Religious Right. A successful “Kiss-In” was held by GLBT organizers while Mike Huckabee orchestrated an equally successful “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” in response.

In a curious instance of parallel opposites, the last time fast food servers were in a big-time Human Rights skirmish was in 1960, when four young Black students began a sit-in at the local Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, spurring a nationwide challenge to racial inequality in the South. So a question must be asked: if he could fly back in time, would Mr. Huckabee have organized a “Segregated Lunch Counter Appreciation Day?”

At this point everyone on both sides has acted within the rights granted them by the First Amendment. And while some observers may seethe, as a nation we will stand tall or fall mightily on our protection and preservation of these primary rights.

Yet the most legally and morally troubling aspect of this brouhaha comes from two surprising sources: a handful of the nation’s mayors and The Huffington Post.

The only limitation in the First Amendment is that the government – local, state, or national – cannot restrict any of the rights granted within it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But as if on cue, just when a small Chick-fil-A crisis was about to pass almost unnoticed into history, mayors from Boston, Chicago, D.C., San Francisco, and other cities shoved it into the spotlight by grandstanding pro-GLBT platforms and actually threatening the chicken franchise with bans of various sorts. While politicos generally pander to the electorate, this time they made things worse, not only by igniting a firestorm, but by changing the conversation. Now, instead of having to defend the indefensible – homophobia – Chick-fil-A has been pushed into the more just position of defending its First Amendment rights. From the big bully on the block, the mayors transformed both Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A into martyrs to the cause of “traditional” marriage – hence, the veritable firestorm.

Rather than abuse political pressure, the mayors would be better advised to launch municipal investigations to determine if Chick-fil-A practices discrimination in hiring or any other areas of its business…and to advocate for legislation favoring all human rights, including passage of Gay Marriage acts. That is a legitimate use of political power. Remember, everything has a flip side – if government can punish a chicken joint for speaking out today, it can punish you for expressing opposite opinions tomorrow. That is why the First Amendment is inviolate.

The second troubling aspect of this ruckus was Noah Michelson’s misguided piece in The Huffington Post, one of our most influential political website. If he was just an independent blogger, I’d pass on commenting, but Mr. Michelson is listed as the editor of their Gay Voices section, so when he’s wrong, a lot of readers walk away misinformed.

In his article, Mr. Michelson states that Chick-fil-A‘s stance is not a First Amendment issue because it makes a lot of money and then donates millions to anti-gay causes. But I would imagine that Mr. Michelson also donates money he makes from his employment to pro-GLBT advocacy groups…and that is his right, just as it is the right of a private business and those who work for it to donate a portion of their earnings to charitable or political causes they believe in, as wrong-headed as they may be.

Secondly, Mr. Michelson more or less makes the ages-old argument that Chick-fil-A’s speech is too terrible to be protected. In support of that, he urges readers to link to selected sites, gaze at photos of beaten and murdered GLBTs, and read the tragic stories that accompany them. While only sociopaths could not be saddened and outraged by his examples, he’s still dead wrong, understandably reacting only with his emotions. (In trials of heinous crimes, certain photos are deemed inadmissible because of the inherently prejudicial nature they would provoke on jurors’ emotions.)

Mr. Michelson states that he is “in love with the First Amendment.” But it’s a dubious claim from someone who obviously does not fully understand it.

Freedom of speech – indeed, the entire First Amendment – applies equally to the best, most moral people and the worst, most indecent racist, homophobic, pedophiliac motherfuckers under American jurisdiction.

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), as odious a group that has ever existed, marched 50,000 hooded members down Pennsylvania Avenue in our nation’s capital, protected by the First Amendment. Their supporters donated money to their evil brotherhood and the stories and photos of their torture, lynchings, and murders would turn the stomach of Hannibal Lechter.

An offshoot of George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi movement planned a parade in Skokie, Illinois, home to a large community of Holocaust survivors. Yes, there was outrage – the reports and photos of the murder of six million were almost incomprehensible – but, as documented in When the Nazis Came to Skokie, the swastika-bearing marchers won support from the ACLU, the Supreme Court (citing First Amendment rights), and, surprisingly, leaders of Skokie’s Jewish community. Apparently, refugees from a totalitarian state knew more than anyone the importance of free speech.

If any group’s speech was ever too terrible to be considered free, I’d put the KKK and Nazi-wannabes at the top of the list. And yet, they still held that right because they were Americans, and in America we let everyone have their say and hope that facts, common sense, and decency prevails – that is who we are, or at least who we are supposed to be, as a nation. Rightly or wrongly, a democracy ultimately believes in its people.

Journalists who make a difference are those who act, not whine or threaten to jump out of the window if they hear one more reference to their opponent’s rights. Especially when bullies, cowards – and, in this case, chicken shits – hide behind a First Amendment cloak. Over the last thirty years, the GLBT movement has engineered the smartest, most admirable and effective campaign for human rights anywhere in the world. They did it by being aggressive – by showing solidarity in boycotts and expressing their First Amendment rights to protest through outrage and ridicule – not by crying when somebody said bad things about them. Gay Pride was and is pure genius and its effect has been positively felt in every part of the globe. Yes, there are still many battles to win, but if any group can truly overcome, I’d bet on the GLBTs. And I’d also wager they’ll do it without impeding the rights of those who are hell-bent on denying theirs.

Related Posts:
The Vagina Solution
Fighting Back Part 4: The Big Liar, Intimidation And Revenge
Fighting Back Part 3: Fighting Fire With Fire
When The Past Is Prologue
Fighting Back Part 2: Defining Rovian Politics
Fighting Back
The Electoral Scam
Being Fair
Occupy Reality
Giving. . . And Taking Back
A Tale Of Two Grovers
A Last Pitch For Truth
America: Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.
Gotcha!

by Steven Whitney

A few weeks ago, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in Michigan sought to force into law some of the most restrictive anti-choice legislation in our country – placing onerous regulations on abortion providers and banning all abortions after 20 weeks.

Rep. Lisa Brown objected on religious grounds, arguing that her Jewish faith allowed for therapeutic abortions when the mother’s life is in danger, without regard to the length of pregnancy. And, during a heated debate on women’s reproductive health, she actually uttered the word “vagina.”

The reaction was swift – Republicans were so shocked by the word that Brown was banned from speaking on the floor for “violating the decorum of the House.”

“What she said was offensive,” said Republican Mike Callton. “It was so disgusting, so vile, I don’t even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company.”

In the next day’s Detroit Free Press, Brown retorted: “If they are going to legislate my anatomy, I see no reason why I can’t mention it. After all, it is the medically correct term.”

If I were a woman I’d ask myself how anyone who thinks the word vagina is “vile and disgusting” could cast an unbiased vote on issues relating to women’s health care. But I’m not, and since these squeamish Republicans seem caught in a Peter Pan syndrome that forbids them from ever growing up, they need help in finding a word sufficiently acceptable for – well, you know – that thing…down there. Otherwise, the ages old Battle between the Sexes might just become a full-blown GOP War on Women.

Obviously, the c-word isn’t suitable. First of all, Republicans believe the c-word is compromise and, secondly, if vagina offends them, the actual c-word would give these pussies cardiac arrest.

Browsing through several online and hard copy thesauruses, there are literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of street synonyms listed for vagina, some complimentary – slang like sugar, honey pot, sweet spot, tunnel of love – and others too vulgar to print in a family column. Some are neither naughty nor nice, but none really fill the bill, especially considering the unwanted trans-vaginal ultrasounds the GOP intends to force on women who want abortions – calling them trans-poontang scans would be a hard sell.

There’s less good news in the second most spoken language in America. The Spanish word for vagina is…la vagina. The same damn word, with the added insult of a feminine article preceding it. Feminine words in the esteemed halls of Congress – you must be kidding.

Of course, there are hundreds of Spanish street expressions, but just like in English there are none that fit every woman. While I can indeed envision Sarah Palin referring to her chocha, especially during one of those wild voodoo dance ceremonies which exorcises demons, I cannot see the more distinguished Senator Olympia Snowe calling hers a hoo-hoo.

So synonyms in either language fall short of our goal.

What if we used a symbolic representation – perhaps… a flower? Certainly not a Venus Fly Trap – Republicans are already too scared to even say the v-word, much less picture themselves devoured by it. We need something less threatening – say, an American Rose. It’s beautiful and opens wide in the morning sun. What more could any Republican want? But alas, a rose by any other name is still a rose. So that’s a wash.

Something from the internet? How about a yahoo? No, that’s what most Republicans shout when they finally get into a vagina…with the noted exception of the K Street mob. Or google? Sorry, but that would inalterably change the whole meaning of “googling” someone before a first date.

Maybe the art world has the answer. Like calling it an O’Keefe – or perhaps just a Georgia – as tribute to the woman who painted so much flora resembling the object of our attention. Then again, when Republicans actually look at her work, they find it “disturbing.”

A Picasso might be good, but he lived in France too long and we know the GOP considers all things French to be tres vulgaire. A Klimt sounds almost right – not many Republicans know what a real Klimt is anyway. Unfortunately, he was Viennese and the GOP probably wants its v-word moniker to sound American. Besides, another Viennese – Sigmund Freud – messed up their heads with all that dirty sex stuff when they were kids.

Since none of these suffice, perhaps the best possible solution is to rename the vagina after an esteemed servant of the people – like calling a hundred dollar bill a Benji because Benjamin Franklin’s picture adorns it.

Wait a second, I think we’re onto something…I’ve got it! A true eureka moment!

Eric Cantor!!

His last name is short and flexible and he’s undoubtedly the biggest actual c-word in Congressional history. Republicans everywhere could now speak openly about a woman’s cantor, even their infections (cantoritis) or cantoral discharges without fear of – as Rick Santorum would say – throwing up all over themselves in abject disgust. And, you have to admit, even trans-cantoral ultrasounds has a certain je ne sais quoi ring to it.

Eric Cantor himself should be proud. Examining his record and agenda, it’s clear that he has long aimed to become the public face of the c-word…and now it’s within his grasp. And how could any other Republican object? More than half the people on earth have one of these things and now it’s going to be rebranded as a cantor, in honor of one of their own.

It’s the perfect vagina solution.

Related Posts:
Fighting Back Part 4: The Big Liar, Intimidation And Revenge
Fighting Back Part 3: Fighting Fire With Fire
When The Past Is Prologue
Fighting Back Part 2: Defining Rovian Politics
Fighting Back
The Electoral Scam
Being Fair
Occupy Reality
Giving. . . And Taking Back
A Tale Of Two Grovers
A Last Pitch For Truth
America: Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.
Gotcha!

by Steven Whitney

[The Fighting Back series began with a simple question: given their minority status for most of the last 80 years, why is the GOP so successful at winning elections? Exploring one answer, the series has first focused on Karl Rove’s free adaptation of Joseph Goebbels doctrines of Propaganda – Indoctrination, Intimidation and Revenge, Distraction and Disinformation, and Divide and Conquer. In coming weeks, we’ll seek more answers in a myriad fields and offer solutions aimed at turning the tables on the party that favors corporations and the 1% over the vast majority of Americans.]

Through Fox News and other media outlets, Karl Rove has inculcated a false world view for the past dozen years through indoctrination tactics perfected by Joseph Goebbels, the former Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for Germany’s Third Reich.

How has he gotten away with it for so long? His resume reveals the answer: by intimidation and revenge – the true standards of “win at any cost” politics.

Certainly, part of the blame falls to those who were cajoled or browbeaten into compliance. As children, we’re taught to stand up to bullies, especially since they are essentially cowards…so it’s disheartening when elected officials fold their values under pressure (and, like the post-1994 Republican Congress, even became bullies themselves). But to be fair, Rove and his henchmen dish out frighteningly more punishment than a bloody nose.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, drug kingpin Pablo Escobar employed a simple tactic that led Forbes magazine to list him as the world’s first narco–billionaire. Escobar would approach someone from whom he wanted something and offer them either silver (plata) or lead (plomo), meaning he would either make them very rich (silver) or riddle their body with bullets (lead). His plata o plomo strategy was copied quite literally by every subsequent cartel…and figuratively by Karl Rove, who adjusted it a notch for the American political arena.

As one White House aide put it: “Karl operates under the rule that if you fuck with us, we’ll fuck you over.”

In 1994, Rove-backed candidate Harold See ran for a Supreme Court seat in Alabama against Democrat Mark Kennedy, who had honorably served as president of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect and whose commercials included a shot of him holding hands with at-risk children his group had literally saved. Enter Rove, who started a particularly malicious whispering campaign smearing Kennedy as a pedophile. The Atlantic Monthly’s Joshua Green correctly described the incident: “What Rove does is try and make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship.”

That same year, George W. Bush ran for governor of Texas against incumbent Ann Richards, widely admired for the diversity of her administration. Soon, persistent rumors spread across the Lone Star state that Richards was a lesbian, several steps too far diversity-wise for Texans to venture at the time. Journalist Lou Dubose spotted a common Rove tactic: “Identify your opponent’s strength, and attack it so relentlessly that it becomes a liability.”

In 1991, while visiting one of Mother Theresa’s orphanages in Bangladesh, Cindy McCain spotted two sickly infants who, frankly, weren’t going to make it. On the spot, she decided to take them back home for medical treatment that saved both their lives. Two years later, John and Cindy McCain officially adopted one of the girls, Bridget, and arranged for the adoption of the other (Mickey) by the family of McCain aide Wes Gullet. For many, these were heroic acts of kindness and compassion…but to Karl Rove, they served merely as an opportunity to smear someone who stood in his way.

In 2000, Sen. McCain squared off against the Rove-controlled Bush in the Republican Presidential primaries. After McCain’s 18 point victory in New Hampshire, the smart money was on the Senator to win the nomination, especially as he held a 5 point lead heading into South Carolina. Rove cut into that margin with TV attacks implying that McCain’s days as a POW had left him mentally scarred (a real-life Manchurian candidate) and that Cindy was a drug addict. But then, asserted another White House aide, Rove devised the coup de grace – a fiendishly damaging question to ask Southerners via a phony poll: “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” Since McCain was barnstorming the state with Bridget, his dark-skinned daughter from Bangladesh, voters in this Old South state quickly began marching to the darkest of Rove’s tunes. Bush won South Carolina by a healthy margin and the race was essentially over.

Following his formula of hammering his opponent’s perceived strength, Rove had taken McCain’s admirable sense of character and turned it into a racist affront. It was a strategy so depraved only Rove could have stooped so low as to implement it – as noted by Meghan McCain: “Karl Rove is a pathetic excuse for a human being.”

Rove’s tactics in these scenarios incorporated the Big Lie, but he could bully with the truth, too – when he needed to.

In 2002, with America already at war in Afghanistan, the Bush administration tried desperately to produce even the flimsiest rationales for invading Iraq. Tipped to an unsubstantiated rumor that Niger had supplied Saddam Hussein with yellowcake uranium, the CIA asked former Ambassador to Iraq and 23 year Foreign Service veteran Joseph Wilson to investigate. After more than a week in Niger interviewing key players and examining technical information (including forged memos), Wilson correctly reported that the rumor was “highly unlikely.” Months went by and he thought the rumor had been discarded…until Bush cited it again in early 2003 as a compelling reason to invade Iraq. Wilson countered by writing an OpEd in the New York Times stating unequivocally that the yellowcake connection was highly suspect.

Almost immediately, Rove leaked to reporters Matt Cooper and Robert Novak that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was in fact a covert CIA agent specializing in WMD. It was the truth, of course, and once her cover was blown, Plame’s career was kaput. Never mind that Plame’s clandestine colleagues across the globe were put in grave danger and America lost its most effective nuclear intelligence operative. Bush got his “revenge” war (Hussein had put out a contract on W.’s father years before) and Rove got his revenge on Wilson, a man who refused to shade the truth for administration purposes. The cost was thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and more than a trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war.

Of course, Rove’s actions were actionably treasonous in this case – the FBI even believed they had him nailed. But for some reason never adequately explained, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald failed to prosecute Rove.

When pop-recording stars the Dixie Chicks publicly voiced their opposition to the Bush 2003 invasion of Iraq on stage, Karl went to work with his “Southern Strategy” friends. Soon, the Dixie Chicks were not only demonized and persona non grata at many venues and media outlets, with concerts cancelled and radio play diminished, they were even accused of treason via the underground rumor mill that Rove had long relied upon.

Rove’s hostile invective was even aimed to discredit whole countries. Just like in our own Revolutionary War, the French were our greatest allies in the War in Afghanistan. But they rightly wanted no part of Iraq; As bad as he was, they argued, Hussein did not attack the U.S. and there was no reliable evidence that he posed “a clear and present danger” to anyone, much less to the Western allies. France did not believe a country had the moral right to go to war just because its President wanted to, which pretty much sums up the Bush Doctrine. But by this time, Rove had convinced Bush he was “a war President,” and needed perpetual war (shades of 1984), so all things French became nearly traitorous (down to the absurd renaming of French Fries to Freedom Fries in the Senate cafeteria), and the build-up to Iraq II continued unabated.

When Senator John Kerry posed a credible threat to Bush’s re-election in 2004, Rove went after Kerry’s most obvious political asset by swiftboating his admirable Vietnam service. From a legitimate war hero, Kerry was turned into something akin to a Timothy McVey serial killer, while Bush, who went AWOL for about a year during the same era, literally strutted around in a flight suit with Commander-in-Chief emblazoned on its breast. Like a cherry atop an ice cream sundae, there was even widespread talk that Kerry somehow “looked French.”

Even the press was not immune to Rove’s intimidation tactics. First there were the wildly illegal wiretaps and surveillance by which the administration tracked “suspect” reporters. If any of the White House press corps still didn’t toe the line, Rove reduced their access to White House personnel in stages until they either came around or had no access at all and were necessarily replaced by their media employer. The message came through loud and clear – play Rove’s game or lose your job.

Rove is not going to change, and neither will his modus operandi. His inestimably low character and slimy strategies have been too successful (in the worst sense of the word) to alter.

But we can change. Politicians and journalists must be made of sterner stuff than we have seen in the last decade. We must start not only standing up to his intimidation tactics, but begin an all-out offensive against him – harsh, unyielding, and repeated endlessly, shouted from every media outlet and whispered in every dark corner of every American community. We must bloodlessly attack every particle of his loathsome being until he is thoroughly discredited and utterly destroyed. Until no one – not corporations, not his super rich amigos, no one – can afford to have anything to do with him. We must stomp on him until his reputation and his GOP architecture is dead. Then we must set fire to the remains to ensure that nothing arises from the ashes.

It’s plata o plomo without the silver, just the lead – the same game he plays but with one huge difference. Instead of spinning Big Lies, we have only to divulge and spread the truth – relentlessly, with a vengeance heretofore unimagined by liberal and progressive wusses. And repeat those truths over and over and over. We cannot rest until Karl Rove, and the willfully deceitful tactics he employs, are permanently interred in the graveyard of modern American politics.

Related Posts:
Fighting Back Part 3: Fighting Fire With Fire
When The Past Is Prologue
Fighting Back Part 2: Defining Rovian Politics
Fighting Back
The Electoral Scam
Being Fair
Occupy Reality
Giving. . . And Taking Back
A Tale Of Two Grovers
A Last Pitch For Truth
America: Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.
Gotcha!