It’s been more than a month since Governor French Laundry signed a new California bill that revoked the state’s ban on taxpayer-funded travel to the Lands of the Deplorables (26 horrible states).
Hate is now okay, in other words? Not exactly. The new bill says that California taxpayers’ money will be used to eliminate hate in the 26 bad states via advertising: “creates a new public awareness project that will consult with community leaders to promote California’s values of acceptance and inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community across the country” (press release)
The marketing geniuses behind Target and Bud Light famously failed this summer at their stated goals of getting more Americans to embrace the 2SLGBTQQIA+ lifestyle or, at least, celebrate the 2SLGBTQQIA+ lifestyle. The bureaucrats in Sacramento imagined that they will be more successful than the world’s highest-paid advertising experts.
Readers who live in formerly banned states: have you been reached by California’s public awareness project? If you were a hater, were you persuaded to stop hating?
Separately, I’m wondering if the ban revocation was timed to allow California elites to travel (on the taxpayers’ dime) to Austin, Texas for today’s Formula One race. Who’s watching the race on TV or in person? It might be fun to be a Formula One fan here in Florida if the organizers would schedule the Miami race for February or March rather than May (a time when a person should be paid to sit outdoors all afternoon, not pay $2,000 for the experience).
Separately, a Facebook friend in Maskachusetts is an attorney with a passion for Constitutional rights (which is why he continues to reside in a lockdown state?). He recently represented a woman who was attacked and ultimately sued by her wealthy suburban Boston neighbors for thoughtcrime. An excerpt from her lawsuit defense:
[one lawn sign displayed by the defendant] shows the words “PRIDEMONTH” and then the letters on each side of “PRIDEMONTH” fade out, to “PRIDEMONTH” to finally “DEMON” and on the last line, it says “Makes sense now.”
The judge was hostile to the Deplorable lady, and she told the defendant to stop sharing her political views, but ultimately couldn’t find a basis to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
Feels like the return to office mandates are really intended to get Calif*’s electoral college votes back.
1. My favorite plane is the mig-15 or as NATO calls it Faggot!. 2. As for the F1 racing, my vote would be to skip it and just watch the netflix series next year. 3. The blog post about the lawsuit seems interesting but I didn’t really understand it. Perhaps you could elaborate about it more.
“Faggots are meatballs made from minced off-cuts and offal (especially pork, and traditionally pig’s heart, liver, and fatty belly meat or bacon) mixed with herbs and sometimes bread crumbs.[1] It is a traditional dish in the United Kingdom,[2][3] especially South and Mid Wales and the English Midlands.[1][4][5]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(food)
See no resemblance with MIG-15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15
I love faggots, fagots and fags!
TS: I do wish you’d stop adding words that Google’s algorithms won’t like to this site.
What was the lawsuit about? A lady in Maskachusetts decided to post her political views on a lawn sign, as has become conventional. They were not, however, correct political views.
Since you asked nice okay I will try! I can’t guarantee I will never say a forbidden word but I will try. Does the first amendment still apply in Maskachusetts? I don’t understand how a lawsuit could even begin over a political sign. Is there an antislapp law in Maskachusetts?