White men behaving (very) badly

Presenting the 2012 Off-Guard awards for the worst of a dismal yaer

Hell of a year: Santorum's nausea, Mitt's sketchy run, Clint's chair chat, Newt's plans to colonize the moon, and Trump tweets.

Could it be — the worst year ever?

I keep asking. And every time the Offies come around, I find myself boggled yet again. Our awards for the very worst — the dumbest, the most tasteless, the most truly offensive acts of the year past — keep sinking lower and lower.

But what can we do? There are still Republicans, and this year a lot of them ran for high office, and every single one made a fool of himself. There are still politicians who think you can run for San Francisco supervisor even if you live in Walnut Creek, and elected leaders who find the courage deep in themselves to prevent a bunch of old men from walking around with their sagging asses and limp dicks out.

There are still entertainers who punch psychics, and gun nuts who blame mass murder on TV sex, and ... well, a whole lot of people who have made this a banner year for the Offies.



The audience at a Republican presidential primary debate booed a gay solider who called in from Iraq with a question about don't ask, don't tell.



Rush Limbaugh attacked law student Sandra Fluke, calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she testified that health-care plans should cover contraceptives.



Mitt Romney said he really liked Michigan because the trees were all the right height.



Herman Cain proclaimed that for every woman who claimed he sexually harassed her, there were a thousand others who didn't.



An American Airlines pilot kicked a woman off a flight for wearing a shirt that said "if I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a senator."



Rick Perry proclaimed in a debate that he was going to do away with three agencies of the federal government, but after listing Commerce and Education, he couldn't remember what the third one was, identifying it only as "oops."



Rick Santorum said that he'd listened to John F. Kennedy's speech on the separation of church and state and it made him want to throw up.



Donald Trump, mistakenly believing Romney won the popular vote but lost the election, called the election "a sham and travesty" and called for "revolution."



Romney insulted the British by saying the nation didn't appear ready to host the Olympics.



More than 50 thousand people signed a White House petition asking for permission for Texas to secede.



Although (unless I missed it) you omitted Romney's attribution of "welfare queen" status to 47% of the population.

Of course, given that the 1% pay half of all taxes, it goes to show just how useful the rich are, because they more than pay enough tax to support those 47%.

And in your crowing about the Democrat victories in November, it's probably as well to bear in mind that Obama only won the popular vote by 51-49; hardly the mandate that some like to claim for higher taxes which, as of yesterday, we now have.

And the GOP consolidated their hold on the House, which will limit Obama's policy options, as we also saw yesterday.

But I do find myself wondering what kind of 2013 would make you happy? you somehow always manage to come across as happier when you're miserable and complaining. Neat trick that.

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 10:48 am

Romney only got 47% of the vote and lost by over 4.5M votes. I don't know how one defines mandate, but Obama certainly kicked Romney's ass.

The GOP consolidated their hold on the house... yet didn't win more votes than Dems did, and lost seats. Keep on consolidatin', boys!

And they lost seats in the Senate, where they had such an easy path to pick up a few.

I'm all far calling Tim (or anyone else) out on their bullshit (really, not a single mention of any "progressive" doing anything unseemly at all in 2013??), but at least lets have honest arguments

Posted by guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 1:49 pm

electoral college margin of victory was very flattering to Obama, and a relatively small swing to Romney in a few key States would have had a huge impact. Obama won but the nation remains deeply divided and that shows in the deal cobbled together on the fiscal cliff - the Dem's would NEVER have come up with that themselves.

And, as you note, the GOP consolidated their hold on the House, which is easily the most democratic part of our government, since the electoral college is a crapshoot dependent on just a few marginal States, and the Senate is 2 seats per State regardless of population. The House is pure proportional representative and best reflects the popular vote.

And yeah, It's hard to imagine how Tim could be more biased if he set out to which, nevertheless, he always does.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 2:05 pm

If we had proportional representation, we wouldn't have a House where 100% of the members come from a "choice" of two capitalist, imperialist parties.

Even within the narrow framework of debate that the American political system allows, the party that got the most votes got fewer seats. How the hell is that representative of anything... except the fact that we don't live in a democracy?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 4:47 pm

sense. If it were more liike, say, the EU parliament in Brussels then we would have small numbers of various fringe parties, such as the Green's and the Nazi's.

I am less clear on why that would be better, and the EU is still dominated by two major groups of parties - one more conservative and one more liberal. It's not that different from here.

But my comment was more that the House is more democratic and proportional than either the Senate or the Presidency. So you can't reasonably ignore it just because, right now, it is controlled by the one of the two parties that you favor less.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 6:33 pm

There's nothing proportional in any way shape or form about the party getting fewer votes winning the most seats.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 10:43 pm

But it is more related to voting populations than the Senate and so, by implication, the electoral college.

And if the Dem's controlled the House with less total votes, you'd be sanguine about that, I feel sure.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 6:41 am

words that some others might find distasteful?

And yet the fact that blacks (12% of the US population) are responsible for committing more than 50% of the violent crimes in the nation isn't even worthy of a mention?

Ideological skew, perhaps? Or just an over-developed sense of political correctness?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 1:59 pm

evictions, wage theft, outsourcing, offshoring and deportations, in your crime statistics. Where do you get your numbers from? Unfortunately, violent crime perpetrated by the US outside its borders (ie, war) continues unabated.

Consider your comment noted as it doesn't change the rankings in your racial hierarchy.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 5:05 pm

violent crimes are committed by the 12% of the US population who are black.

I made no comment about non-violent crimes, let alone things whose only criminlaity is that Eddie doesn't personally like them, like evictions and foreclosures which, to many people, are necessary events.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 6:35 pm

Here's mine from the FBI: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html, which breaks out arrests by race. Your percentage appears to be too high.

Why comment on an attempted humorous article that has almost nothing to do with crime with inflammatory exaggerated racial statistics about crime?

Maybe you could share some stupid remarks by public figures you don't like.
Instead, you try to drag the conversation down to the lowest depths.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 9:07 pm

is that if you read something that is disturbing it can be dismissed pretty much out of hand. Don't ever underestimate the troll's facility with utter falsehoods; they are a specialty.

Noted also that Eddie provided statistics for arrests, not convictions.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 9:50 pm

make a habit out of stirring up discord amongst the brothers and sisters of the progressive movement with their outlandish statements and wild claims. It's straight from COINTELPRO 101. Ignore this troll - he raises the red flag to oppose the red flag.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 10:06 pm

His posts are even more extreme and ridiculous than Marcos, who usually sets the bar here for nonsense and bias.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 6:44 am

make a habit out of stirring up discord amongst the brothers and sisters of the progressive movement with their outlandish statements and wild claims. It's straight from COINTELPRO 101. Ignore this troll - he raises the red flag to oppose the red flag.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 10:08 pm

Your persona does not engage in the automatic ideological gainsaying that characterizes the troll contingent.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 10:46 pm

She's just another breed of the same Anrandian species with different coloration.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:30 am

The Lucretia persona is not as knee jerk as the troll personae. The issue is not one of ideological conformity rather of persistent disruption via automatic gainsaying.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:56 am

diverse viewpoints are not welcome here?

Posted by anon on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 11:59 am


Libertarian viewpoints are not diverse, they are very narrow and we've heard it all over and again through every corporate news outlet. We need a safe space to discuss politics and economics that are not overrun by libertarian capitalists.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 12:07 pm

her name and that's just as much respect as the fucked old crone has any right to.

Anrandian n. -- Characterized by the dimwitted and anti-social, self-comforting jack-assery of Ayn Rand and her creepy disciples.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 12:13 pm

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't want a diverse and balanced debate here? And that only toady, card-carrying socialists should post here?

I'd like to think that Tim etc. welcomes critical commentary here, as SFBG's moderation policy certainly appears to welcome all and not just those brainwashed a certain way.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 12:19 pm

since only convictions matter.

We can quibble over the exact percentages since they can be compiled in different ways. But whichever way you look at it, blacks commit far more crimes, and yet Tim wants to focus instead on verbal misdemeanors rather than vicious felonies.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 6:43 am

don't provide evidence to back up your claims. The best information that I could find were the arrest statistics from the FBI, which clearly show that whites commit more crimes than blacks. I'm done digressing on this topic, but let me reiterate that you provide no evidence for your statement, which is par for the course.

Still waiting for evidence that all airline pilots carry firearms.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 7:56 am

if only because there are five times as many of them. To get a meaningful comparison, you need to pro-rate the numbers per capita. When ou do that, most figures I've seen show the conviction stats for blacks are much worse, and for inter-racial crimes staggeringly worse.

I don't think pilots usually carry arms but there is an emergency pack on larger civil airliners which routinely have a firearm in them, along with various other things.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 8:32 am

arrested for crimes. I didn't find numbers on convictions and didn't spend much time researching.

Modern capitalism is organized crime.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 8:14 am

Of course, if you think that running a business is a crime against humanity, then you're so far out there that a meaningful debate may prove to be impossible. I'm talking convicted felonies not speculative and extreme political interpretations.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 8:33 am

if you don't provide evidence to back up your claims. However you may characterize my viewpoints, I try to provide proof for my arguments. You apparently do not because this is your third or fourth comment about crime rates (in this thread,) and your only evidence is your uncorroborated statement.

And you consistently criticize people for "playing the race card" while doing it yourself, especially if that card is aimed at black and hispanic (latino) people for whom you exhibit a pathological hatred.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 9:03 am

criminals? And that that is much worse than being a mugger, rapist or murderer?

You don't even follow your own rules, so why should I? If you want to rpetend that blacks don't have a higher crime rate then fine - you won't believe anything anyone says to the contrary anyway. But try visiting a prison and let me know if only 12% of the inmates are black.

This is a forum for expressing opinions. I expressed mine and no proof is required for me any more than it is for you.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 9:38 am

your opinions, I will try to disregard them, especially when you cite imaginary statistics.

Issues of crime and punishment are so much more complex than race. There are issues of poverty; discrimination in defining crime, enforcement, sentencing, etc.; access to the positive parts of society, like education, healthcare, food, etc. Almost everybody recognizes these complexities; apparently, you don't because you focus exclusively on race.

I'm sorry I made a general statement about capitalism as it has allowed you to shift focus from your racist views on crime that you brought into the discussion. But capitalism's fundamental existence dpends on exploiting labor and the earth in order to accumulate surplus value. Therefore, capitalists are stealing from workers.

I don't want to fall into name calling, but you consistently drag down the discussion on this site to its lowest depths and make unsubstantiated claims.

It's an open site, but I think many others would prefer if you would bring you race-baiting hatred elsewhere. Maybe try sociopaths.com.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:04 am

commit far more crimes than, say, whites, then you are disagreeing with many black leaders who themselves lament the high crime rate that incarcerates or kills os many young black men.

Why would you do that? Denying a problem prevents you from seeking solutions.

On capitalism, I don't see it as exploiting people so much as providing opportunities for them. Maybe back in the industrial revolution or the time of the robber barons, you might have had a point. But most americans now have IRA's or mutual funds and are directly invested in the very system that you claims impoverishes them.

Another disconnect, surely?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:23 am

Concern troll.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:31 am

I provided statistics that show that black people are arrested in numbers disproportionate to their percentage of population.

As you always say, correlation is not causation. Criminality is not caused by one's race.

Besides proving your hatred towards blacks and hispanics/latinos, your commentary here doesn't show you to be much of a thinker, deep or otherwise.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:42 am

Desperate poverty causes crime, race correlates with poverty and the cops are racist.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:51 am

some rich people do. Clearly the answer goes deeper than that

Posted by anon on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 11:57 am

The only valid statistics are those which Eddie cited from the FBI. Arrests might -- or might not -- be in sych with convictions.

Honestly, I didn't mean to give the trolls fodder for their jawing. And the reason they've latched on to the unfortunate mention of race is the headline, but the text is the real protein here:


1. Divine providence rape (Rick Santorum): "The right approach is to accept this horribly created .. gift of life, accept what God is giving to you."

2. Honest Rape (Ron Paul): "If it was an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room."

3. Forcible Rape (Paul Ryan): Federal law should prevent abortion except in the case of "forcible rape."

4. Emergency Rape (Linda McMahon): "It was really an issue about a Catholic Church being forced to issue those pills if a person came in with an emergency rape."

5. Legitimate Rape: (Todd Akin): "If it was a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 9:09 am

in his title. And he made no attempt at balance by citing terrible things that blacks and hispanics have done. So I make no apology for calling him out on his race baiting.

If as a result of this thread being hijacked by the race issue, it's main purpose is thwarted, then so be it. Perhaps next time Tim will be more circumspect with his race-based stereotypes.

And that goes for any white liberal here who seeks to assuage their "guilt" by pandering to people based on their skin color. Shame on you, because that is the real racism in modern America.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 9:41 am

The only real problem with the headline is that it gave you an excuse to prattle on impertinently, but you would have find another in any case. Metaphorically-speaking, you are a very smelly person.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:08 am

Especially since (I will bet) almost everyone who posts here is themselves a white male?

Even the SFBG is happy to take cheap shots at the Asian power bloc in San Francisco. Nor does it hold back when criticizing a powerful black like Wille Brown.

So can't we just keep race out of these pieces, regardless of whether they are attempts at wit and whimsy (as Tim now claims, having seen the reaction) or serious racial stereotypes?

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:27 am

Read the text of the story.

It's a story folks on your side of the political spectrum talking and acting like proper ass-hats, it is not a race- or gender- based collection, but rather "white males" is a metaphor for the country's power elite.

Don't forget, for instance, the Herman Cain quote -- who, if I recall, identifies as "black."

That said, I find discussion of race distasteful. We should speak about ethnicity rather than race, since the latter concept is not only unscientific but dull-witted. Ethnicity encompass far more (and far less) than the incredible notion of skin-color-based classification.

... Of course, the only reason society can't dispense with talk of race is because of racists. A Catch 22.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 12:11 pm

establishment when our President is black (or, at least, half black). Of course, some would claim he is acting like a white, but then the term "white" becomes meaningless.

I actually agree with you that race should not be an issue here. But then why frame the piece that way? If Tim has given the same quotes but not stereotypes the utterers as "white males" then they could all have been white males and nobody would have complained.

Labels don't help.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 12:24 pm

Racist troll.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:15 am

At least change your style a little so you don't give it away that easily.

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:28 am


Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:50 am


Posted by anon on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 11:58 am

Racist troll.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:55 am


Posted by marcos on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 9:33 am

Racist troll.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 9:34 am

Racist troll.

Posted by anon on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 11:58 am

Not bad for a crappy year, huh?

Nasdaq was up "only" 12% but, heck, I'll take it.

Champagne, anyone?

Posted by Ted on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 3:05 pm