Imperial Stars, Fuck You

Band PR FAIL

There's this band, Imperial Stars. They had a meeting 2 weeks ago with their PR team that probably went something like this:

IS:So what's the next big stunt, the next big thing?

PR-Co.: Okay, follow me here. You've got that song Traffic Jam 101

IS: Yeah, cause we, like, party like rock stars every chance we get, like even in a traffic jam, holmes.

PR: Right, so it's Traffic Jam 101. So you "cause" a traffic jam on the 101, but it's really like a free show and - BAM! - it's a free concert flash mob all rolled into one!

IS: Bomb diggidy. We'll send you a check.

So these asshats drove up the 101 in their big ol' Imperial Stars truck this morning and around Sunset Blvd. pulled a sideways stop, blocking 3 lanes, and started performing their song, Traffic Jam 101.

If anyone has had the unfortunate experience of driving the 101 in LA, any time day or night it's a goddamned mess, a powder keg ready to explode. And these guys took it to a standstill. It's a good thing the cops showed up because they'd probably be dead. And all this to sing a shitty song about partying all the time. Earth to Imperial Stars: Lots of things happen on the 101 - swearing, smoking, horn-honking, sweating, brief pit-stops - but none of those things is partying.

For their next PR gig, the Imperial Stars will make every line in every Starbucks 8 people longer all the time, extend the pain of kidney stones to the entire body, and make rape 50% more humiliating.

I can't even imagine the people who might've lost a job or missed an interview or wasn't there to pick up their kid.

Imperial Stars: FUCK YOU.

Oh, and if you're so morbidly curious that you must - absolutely must - see their video, here it is for you in all its misery. I suggest NO, but I know you will. But really: don't.



Seriously: this isn't something put together by the Dick in a Box folks? This is a real band? Deplorable.

Bigot Me This...

We knew the gay-hatin' would come out (hehe) with a vengeance today and I was not disappointed. My usual 1 email from right wingy nutters was up to 5 by 3:30, all with one aim: "We want to keep marriage as a bigoted, limited, fairy-tale definition so give us money!"

National Organization for Marriage sent this drivel entitled "Keep Marriage Marriage":

An openly gay judge in San Francisco ruled that the votes and values of over 7 million Californians were to be thrown in the dustbin like so many pieces of dirty paper, that his imperial will trumps the voice of the people.

We expected this outcome, because Judge Walker has telegraphed his bias loud and clear. But the sheer audacity, the sheer ego mania of the decision is startling. One judge versus all of the voters of California, plus the 30 other states that have voted directly to protect marriage. One judge against the simple common sense notion that it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage. And he thinks that this will be the end of it...

But he's wrong. Very wrong. We will fight back, and we will win! This case is no doubt going to the Supreme Court and the National Organization for Marriage will continue to give generously to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund. We've already given $100,000. We were the largest single donor to Proposition 8 and the successful efforts in Maine, New York and New Jersey to protect marriage. But now we're in the fight of our lives.

And here's the $10,000 question: If the judge was straight and ruled to uphold Prop 8, would you have raged that of course, he was straight, and should have recused himself? Of course not. You damn fraud.

Who's the damn fraud? Why that nice email even gave me a handy target. I even included his pic because he kinda looks like a douchebag.



Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
2029 K Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
bbrown@nationformarriage.org



So, Brian, riddle me this: If the case is certainly going to the SCOTUS, then what's all the hubbub about? Your dirty bigot money doesn't have much of any influence in those chambers and, ideally, it's really just an issue of constitutionality at that point (I know, I know, split down party lines and for this one with the same hate you have in your heart).

I realize it's a silly question, but for the kids in the back, let's answer it out loud. You and your organization are using this event and hate and fear-mongering to scare the bejesus out of all those other Americans who can't stand to see them dirty fags gettin' murried. That way they'll dump money into your coffers, your bank account.

And if the Supreme Court makes the rational, moral, and right decision on this one? Why I'm sure you'll stuff my box again claiming you know just how to take this fight to the real top. Because it's not the Constitution you're all that worried about, is it? It's how you and your loyal followers can keep those icky gays from ruining your fairy tale.

Spoiler alert, Brian: The ending's kinda gay.

Brad Goehring is a Liar & Typical Rightie

Brad Goehring sent me an email today through GOPUSA's email list (yes, I'm a subscriber) and the subject title was "It's Liberal Hunting Season."

Ah, yes, you nod, now you remember Brad Goehring; he's the California Republican running for a House position that's catching flack for the hunting and gun references when describing what's going on in our country.

And so he's outright capitalizing on that absurd fame. "It's Liberal Hunting Season*
Time to Load Up* Conservative Candidates' Bank Accounts" and "PULL THE TRIGGER* FOR A TRUE CONSERVATIVE" adorn his funding letter. The asterisk? *Note to The Politically Correct Liberal Police (Specifically Keith Olbermann): The above sentences with asterisks are metaphors.

Like most Republicans, Brad does not understand how language works. Yes, Brad, those would fall into the category of "metaphor." Green check-mark on the grammar. But because something is a metaphor does not make it innocuous. What's a metaphor exactly? "A figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity."

To Brad:
Do you understand the function of a metaphor now? Do you understand that by making those statements, the intent - by function of the linguistic device - is to create a similarity between putting money in your campaign account and the physical act of killing liberals with a firearm.

And that's your right. You can go ahead and use that because it riles up the libs and the righties love it and, all-in-all, it probably benefits your campaign to follow that line. But don't - for just one second - pretend you don't know what you're doing with an aw shucks shrug.


Sidenote:
Brad-Brad's website home page, save for the address buried in the lower right, is oddly void of any reference to the state of California. Isn't he proud of the state he's working to represent? Yet no graphic, no mention. I'd suggest this is intentional; capitalize on the notoriety of the gun metaphors without that pesky obvious reminder that most of the right-wing, riled-up goonery is not actually from Cali and might think twice if they were overtly confronted with the fact.


Final note: Anyone who openly agrees with the idea the the Democrats are purposefully trying to deconstruct the country and turn it into a welfare state is out of their damn mind and lying to scare the bejeezus out of their base. Frightened constituency is always more giving, after all.


Okay, just one more note: You can follow Brad Goehrning on Twitter too! As of this posting, he's following 0 and being followed by 8. Note to Brad: You're doing it wrong.