Double click to insert body text here ...


SQUAWK-OP is a news and opinion place.

It squawks in words and cartoons about male dominance, silly religions, right-wing politicians, good or excessive or criminal sex, dumb sports, serious books, arts, and other 21st century human flights and foibles. It leans left--except when it doesn't.


Nobody. Nobody writing today
can beat political/economic truths
into English-language submission
better than




W.W. Norton, 2018

MH 6/16/18

MH: PROUD MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRACY MOB! The Social Security Mob! The Healthcare Mob! The Education Mob! The Equality Mob! The Environment Mob! THE CIVILIZATION MOB!


Double click to insert body text here ...


People who wish to preserve the liberal-democratic practice of. . .


may have to lean hard left and. . .


MH November 28, 2017


Dear American Reporters:

Haven't you had enough abuse?

I propose that you set aside one day in the near future for an orgy of name-calling.

On that day, you may forget the President's given name and report his every utterance with your favorite disparaging nickname. (The man loves to give them to you and to others; and it is past time to return the gift.)

Go ahead. Get down in the muck. Verbally slosh around with childish, schoolyard meanness. (I'm sorry, children. You really don't deserve that.)

You sloshers could start with the President's physical deficits. (He likes other people's physical deficits--real and imagined.):

"Pot-bellied orange baboon" is good. But how about...
"President Lumpy-face"
"Blonde Bomb-dud"
"Beloved Turkey-neck"
"Old Beady Eyes"
"Small-hand Kook"

[Use arrows to cont.]

Then, there are his mental deficits. How about...
"Donald Doofus"
"Brain-Dead Boopsy"
"FFZ (Fact-Free-Zone")
"Floozy Famous Ignoramous"

[Use arrows to continue]

Then, there are his POW (predator on women) habits:
"Bottom Feeder"
"Sex piggy"
"Pussy Presser"
"Body Snatcher"


You reporters are word-people. You will be able to create some much better zingers than these.

Have a go-go, folks! Have a one-day verbal catharsis! The next day you can return to civilization refreshed. (Don't forget to shower.)

NEXT U.S. PRESIDENT If there exists a brainy, left-wing Democrat who dares to admit that US citizens have the right to know who enters their country--and dares to admit that our representatives have the right to regulate the process... he or she will be elected President! MH 2018-2019

MH November 29, 2017



Well, maybe.

As of this date...

Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Charlie Rose, John Conyers, Matt Lauer,

...and a number of others have lost opportunities for using their worldly power to indulge their sexual impulses.

(At this writing, teen-predator Roy Moore and pussy-groper Donald Trump are still at large.)

Yet, it is heartening to think that these past few weeks may mark the beginning of the end of culturally accepted sexual piggishness. Women may come to own the integrity of their own bodies. Imagine that!

There was a time in prehistory when human survival depended a lot on the physical strength of the human male. He was, indeed, a superior creature, and we women thank him for his exertions and his protection. We submitted.

There may have been a silent scream,


but we submitted to survive.

[Use arrows to cont.]

In modern life, it is intelligence, health, courage, energy, etc. that mark human "superiority"--human survival; and women are equally endowed. Culture must catch up with that reality.


Many (most?) males must cope with an apparently almost irresistible, inborn need to ejaculate. To ask them to rein in the biological impulse with willpower is probably a losing battle.

Religions have certainly tried and failed. To lessen temptation, some have tried forcing their females to cover their bodies (head to toe--especially their sexy, obscene hair).

Further, they have basically confined females to their male-dominated homes. Other cultures/religions have gone the opposite way, providing multiple "wives" or bevies of concubines, or slaves and prostitutes to solve the problem.

Clearly, what is needed is pharmaceutical. We need a pill. We need a pill that parents put in the pabulum of their male offspring to ease the biological imperative.

Beyond the pill is the need for an earth-shaking change in cultural norms. It must no longer be socially acceptable to paw female bodies or pressure them for sex in the workplace--or any other place.

Without explicit consent, males must no longer have access to female bodies for fun and games. Cultural norms must make a permanent commitment to that principal.

Do I dream? Perhaps.

Related issue: Have you noticed? There are too many people on this planet. Why is that?

"In God we trust" ?

Don't be silly. Never trust a babe who gives you cancers, beheadings, slow, painful deaths, AIDS, wife-beaters, George Bush for eight years, etc., etc.,--then demands to be worshipped!

She even created a planet on which, in order to survive, every living thing has to kill and eat other living things. (Yeah, vegans, even plants are alive--or were until you ate them.)

Even though the 2011 Congress keeps insisting that "In God We Trust," I wouldn't trust her with my lip gloss.
  MH [Nov. 2011]


MH March 26, 2016

Geez. Nowadays, almost everyone is calling almost everyone else a bigot. The accusation has become more damning than yelling "rapist!" or "murderer!" It's the latest thing among the Politically Perfect. (PP is the new PC.)

Conspicuously immune from the charge is a huge cohort of human bigots: male supremacists.

Everyone knows that these people (and I use the term loosely) denigrate and trash fifty-one percent of the world's population, not only with impunity, but with lots of giggles, leering and

[Use arrows to cont.]

cheering, and sometimes with pricky-sticky moral superiority and rape. They are the B-word; though that word is seldom bestowed upon them in polite company.

Some of them live in gangs, cultures, or religions that institutionalize their crime. Why is no one calling them "bigots?

Probably it is PP to let certain unpleasant realities pass without remark.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

MH March, 2016

From this day forth, any American who utters the word "awesome" will be arrested, fined $1,000, and tossed into the drunk tank.

"At-the-end-of-the-day" utterers (that means YOU, politicians and pundits) will be fined, fired, impeached, tarred and feathered.

Likewise for "going forward" utterers.

All fine-proceeds will be donated to the Society for the Prevention of English Language Nausea, a non-profit whose members get to carry out the tarring and feathering.


Not bigoted (cartoon)


MH May 4, 2013

If you only listen to my fellow Dems, you will conclude that, among the famous 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, there are no drug dealers, murderers, sex traffickers, religiously protected wife-beaters, child-genital-mutilators, rapists, bomb-builders, thieves, or plain-old lazy bums. NO, NO! (And if there are, we don't mention them.) There are only "hard-working families looking for a better life."

[Use arrows to cont.]

Come on Dems. The amnesty push looks like a cynical ploy to accumulate a few more Democratic majorities.

Acquired thus, we don't need them. We are already on the side on justice and fairness. Let's not join the Republican orgy of dishonesty.

Fix the law; but purge the infamous "path to citizenship."

Immigrants? Yes, Yes! Legal only.

Illegal Immigration and the Liberal Left

MH June 4, 2016
Bernie Sanders and Zephyr Teachout make perfect sense about almost everything--except illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to interpret their immigration policies except to conclude that they favor leaky borders and/or serial amnesties.

Anyone watching recent European woes will have grasped the consequences of open and/or leaky borders. Wish to emulate? Probably not.

In a well-intentioned attempt to be "liberal," truly tolerant, and kind to

[Use arrows to cont.]

children, Bernie, Hillary and Zephyr are not thinking ahead to the survival of democracies and to the survival of Western Civilization. They don't seem to have noticed that a theocratic, anti-democratic culture is sweeping the world. (The demographics of theocratic Islam indicate that its populations are exploding, while the populations of all other religions and cultiures are diminishing. Go ahead, check Pew Research.)

Theocracy is irrational, though it can be strategic. How long will it be before democratic rights and princlples will be used to vote away democracies?

Furthermore, adherents of cultures that engage in--and institutionalize--the subjugation of women need to be firmly resisted, not welcomed, coddled, and invited to become U.S. citizens--no matter how "holier than thou" it makes us feel.

Generalizations about cultures always risk bigotry--or the appearance thereof; but two generalizations about Islam seem to be unquestionable.
1) Islamic males subjugate women.
2) Islam is theocratic. By definition, its populations oppose democracy.

(Here, I am not even addressing the radical wing of Islam with its savage atrocities.)

Don't we wish we had "generalized" about--and abjured WWII authoritarian cultures much sooner than we did? This time it is not "over there." It is a world-wide issue. It's here.

One might conclude that the immediate policy-solution is tight borders and carefully crafted and enforced immigration law--law that preserves true "liberal" values.

Yes, I know. How to do it fairly and constitutionally is extremely difficult. Sorting immmigrants by behaviors rather than beliefs, even though the beliefs are guiding the behaviors, is tough, but not impossible. Long term, the alternative appears to be cultural suicide, the slow death of Western Civilization.

After doing the "extremely difficult," there may be time for President Bernie or President Hillary to send Barack out into the world to gently, rationally lure its populations leftward. A Supreme Court Zephyr wouldn't hurt either.


MH March 31, 2016

Back on December 6, 2016 I asked, "Where is my political party?" (See the column to your left, which has white words surrounded by Bernie-blue.)

Except for one issue, Bernie is my party! (Please read "Where Is MY Political Party?," consult his site--and then vote for him.)

The one issue: open borders.

June 20, 2014,

"...arguments that have been proved
wrong, should be dead, but keep
shambling along because they serve
a political purpose."

Paul Krugman

Oh my! It's the Republican platform!


MH 6/25/13
If a middle eastern (or other) male who is applying for U.S. citizenship 1) beats his wife weekly, or 2) cuts the clitoris out of each of his female children, 3) sells his eleven-year-old daughter into marriage with a 55-year-old-man, or 4) arrests a raped woman for having sex outside of marriage...

will the so-called "background check" discover these crimes and bar him from this country?

If not, why not?

Where Is MY Political Party?

MH December 6, 2015.

My liberal/socialistic side favors New-Deal style government programs tailored for the 21st century: a job for anyone who wants one; zero homelessness and zero hunger; Medicare for all; etc. It demands a shrinking of the income gap with tough

[Use arrows to cont.]

legislation including very high taxation on the rich and increased taxation on
the middle class. (It includes legislation limiting highest income in

[Use arrows to cont.]

some specific, reasonable proportion, to average income.) It likes tight regulation of banks and other corporations; it favors tough protections for the environment and real-life acceptance of women, homosexuals, and people of color; it

[Use arrows to cont.]

favors furtherance of science and learning and rejection of religious nonsense. It opposes theocracy, dictatorship, and oligarchy.

[Use arrows to cont.]


My conservative side believes

(Use arrows to continue)

passionately in the superiority of Western Civilization to all other existing cultures. No multi-culturist, I. (Even with its flaws, Western Civilization is the best hope for healthy, decent lives for my grandchildren and theirs.) That requires vigorous attention and resources to U.S. military and maintenance of U.S. technological superiority for defending it. It requires tough immigration standards that bar from the nation individuals steeped in seriously anti-democratic, misogynistic, and violent cultures. It requires national education standards including immersion in Enlightenment history and values--or is all that actually..."liberal"?

And so I've come full circle. Where is my political party?

Abercrombie and the Muslim Scarf

MH June 3, 2015

What? What? What! Is the Supreme Court really suggesting that businesses will be forced to hire walking advertisements for particular religions?

If Abercrombie and Fitch and other businesses are required to hire Muslim women who insist upon wearing "the scarf" to work, that will be the law.

On June 1, 2015 the NYTimes reported that the Muslim woman who sued Abercrombie & Fitch is likely to prevail.

Surely the U.S. Constitution does not demand that businesses proselytize for the individual religions of their employees.

Tolerance is a virtue. That is, until it becomes so bloated and perverted that we find ourselves "tolerating," even promoting obvious anti-democratic principles.


"PC" Hulks Incrediby into "Probably Coo-coo"

. MH August 2015
Over recent decades, the social pressure of political correctness has been somewhat effective in nudging American culture toward sanity. Especially for women, I think. Even a bit against racism. Yes, language matters. But let's not get ridiculous.

Although Donald Trump is my idea of not-president--and though all women ought to shun him into lifelong celibacy--in his current forum (Republican candidate for supreme leader) he is probably harmless--or not.

[Use arrows to cont.]

To cluck-cluck about how "offensive" he is may be getting silly. (It's those sober guys, reeking of right wing dignity and serious legislative misogyny that scare me. You know the ones. The Rubios and the Walkers who would joyfully murder a woman to save the zygote, a human-to-be that they would studiously ignore everafter its birth.)

Anyway, sometimes PC can send a person retching to the first amendment.

In the September 2015 Atlantic, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt ("The Coddling of the American Mind") cite a number of absurd PC examples from the college collection.

PC sometimes hulks goofy, sometimes "incredibly."



And it's in the air again. Legislation is coming, so I dragged out and updated a 2011 essay.

MH April 2011
Revised 1/21/13

This writer is a such a Rachel-Maddow-lefty, liberal, redistribute-the-wealth, gay rights, don't-you-dare-tell-women-they-can't-have an abortion, racial equality, corporation-regulating, pale pinko-type person, how did I get on the other side of immigration?

Maybe I'm an immigration Scrooge; but it looks to me as if there are only three choices:

1) We carefully control which individuals enter and become citizens of this country, or
2) We stay border-loose and offer serial amnesties--every decade or so --allowing to slip through...criminals, disease carriers, sex traffickers, gang rapists, religionists (who

[Use arrows to cont.]

enslave and/or stone their women to death, or throw acid in their faces), drug merchants, psychopaths, bomb placers, and, of course, those famous "hard working, decent folk looking for a better life.")
3) We open the borders to all (including criminals, disease carriers, sex traffickers, etc., etc.)
[Use arrows to cont.]

(If you are a person who likes to cavil about the word "amnesty," just insert the word "near" in front of it from here on.)

I can't fathom the logic of open borders or serial amnesties. Legal imigrants, of course! Illegals, no. In spite of corporation creep (globalization), we are still a nation and probably will remain so for a while. Lots of health, safety, and economic advantages and freedoms that we hold as a nation are worth protecting.

Even my hero Rachel Maddow talks only about "immigrants." Rachel! There are no such real-life persons as "immigrants." There are only legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. (Honoring this distinction does not make anyone a racist.) The word "immigrant," sans adjective, abuses logic, and tolerates silly, dangerous and craven, vote-seeking policies.

Is there any sense in a policy of pretend-borders coupled with amnesties every twenty or so years? No.

We tried the amnesty thing in the '80s. (Didn't that just work beautifully?) Some people, including President Obama, want to do it again. Serial amnesties would seem to encourage those panting at the borders to give illegal entry a try. Sure! Come on in! You'll be "in the shadows" for a while, but all your kids will be legal, and sooner or later another amnesty will come along.

Commentators love to toss around the eleven million figure, suggesting that "we can't deport them all." Yet they seem to think we can locate them all, extract various fees and taxes from all of them, and knock on all their doors to see if they are doing their English homework! Ridiculous? Uh-huh.

Not easy, but simpler than the above: 1) Strengthen the borders. 2) Carefully screen all applicants. (include the barring of all religionists with gender violence or enslavement behaviors in their backgrounds!) 3) Prosecute all employers who hire illegals. 4) Locate and deport the few who remain. (Few will remain without jobs.) 5) Revise immigration laws (or enforce?) to attract the brains and brawn our economy needs. 6) Find a compassionate route for persons brought here illegally as children and brought up as Americans. (And all their relatives? Naw.)
[Use arrows to cont.]

Item 4 is what some clever Romney speech writer named "self-deportation." Wow. It's legal; folks make the decision themselves; it incurs less administration; it can work, as opposed to serial amnesties, which cannot work!

"Self-deport" the man said. Dems simply load the phrase with self-righteous contempt--and offer zero supporting arguments for themselves.

Come on. Aren't we the reasoning party?

(Amazing. Romney got one thing right.)

Rachel Maddow: Style and Method

  MH [June 2011]

Watching the style and method of Rachel Maddow on her nightly television show (9pm, MSNBC) is an education in persuasion. She begins by collecting you with a warm, direct gaze--at once penetrating and unthreatening, open and personal. The smile is girlish, almost shy. You, the viewer, are confirmed in your personhood—as opposed to your Nielsen statistic.
  [Use arrows to cont.]
The best of her shows are miracles of fact-assemblage. Facts are spread out, connected, and illuminated in such a way that there is only one conclusion. Hers. In those shows the reasoning is so tight, the research so encompassing, the connections so solid that there is nowhere else to go. (Is that research her own? Or the collective wisdom of a crack staff? Or both?) Her shows are never a rehash of Associated Press and everyone else’s talk show.

Conservatives mostly haven’t the guts to face her. If they do, and if anyone tends to get up on their right-wing high-horse, she is likely to pet its nose and gently, logically lead it off to the left. One on one, she is always polite and respectful as mommy must have taught her—though she’s not averse to bloodying their positions later with snappy ridicule!

    [Use arrows to cont.]

She wears her homosexuality with ease, letting it be out there without much rah, rah. It is noticeable perhaps when she is the only talk show to feature an extended chat with the gay candidate for president of the United States. Or has as a repeat guest a gay man whose obvious intelligence, loyalty, and education convinces you that some crazy person or policy has expelled him from the military.

Her joy in confronting the issues comes bursting out with giggles and hand-clapping reminiscent of a girl at her fifth birthday party. I wonder why I smile and enjoy it. Either she is for-real or she is the best actress since Meryl Streep! “For-real,” I think.

When she gets serious, watch out. The question to a guest is shaped so that the answer will either confirm her position or expose an egregious error in the guest's thinking.

Like most liberals, Rachel assumes that facts and reason are probably enough for her audiences. However, of late, she has adopted a mode from the right-wing playbook: Repetition! Repetition! Repetition! For example, in a couple of recent shows, the facts lead one to a heavy suspicion that Mitt Romney has been voting fraudulently, pretending to be a resident of Massachusetts while actually living in one of his other mansions in California or New Hampshire. (The Massachusetts election law is very specific. To vote, you must “dwell” there. Massachusetts must be the center of your social and civic life!) Rachel tells us--and tells us, and tells us—that Mitt says he was “dwelling” in his son’s unfinished basement, in his son’s unfinished basement, in his son’s unfinished basement!

It’s relentless—and effective. Democrats, take note! Common political wisdom suggests that more people are persuaded by repetition than by fact and reason. Why don’t we Dems do it?

You are illogical about immigration, Rachel. Illogical about immigration. Illogical about immigration.
  [See also IMMIGRATION on the
    MH June 2011]

You are viewing the text version of this site.

To view the full version please install the Adobe Flash Player and ensure your web browser has JavaScript enabled.

Need help? check the requirements page.

Get Flash Player