Check it out...

So... I hear that despite the voice of the people in Iowa, the Ayatollah Bin Bachmann is apparently not a factor in the Race for the GOP Nomination. It looks like it's Perry vs. Romney.  Actually, it's not surprising that the GOP would't blatantloy discout the will of the people, nor that they would marginalize one of there, given that she is of the fairer sex.

Anyway there was an interesting picture of Rick and Mitt there next to link on homepage that went to the article and it got me thinking...  I don't think The Separatist from Texas is any more electable than Loony Bin Bachman.  He might seem that way to the Right, given that Bachmann's an idiot and all. (Where do the Right find these bimbos, anyway? Palin, O'Donnell, Bachmann... I swear if my entire sample size of women came for those on the Right, I probably think all women were pretty fucking stupid as well!) But anyway... HERE's why I don't think General Robert E. Perry can win:

(And you're welcome to copy the picture but it's MINE, so make sure to let 'em know where you found it!)

OK, so the last one isn't really relevant. (Well, it is to OBAMA, but not to Perry.)  Anyway, strang how easy it was to connect one ignorant Texes shitheel to another. Thought I'd share.

Cheers!

-------------------------------

NOTE (added later, ~11:PM): So I'm checking back in and the ad-bot is showing ads for Rick Perry. *head-slap*

Do the Right’s Thing

A couple posts ago, I mentioned how I felt that the best parallel to what President Obama has done in the past two years with regards to his negotiations on economic policy, health care and other issues was Henry Clay, brokering compromises with the Slave States to preserve the Nation at the expense of preserving a great evil. And, of course, as history went on to show, this is impossible. It’s a contradiction. And the ability to compromise is only to your credit if your opposite’s position has some merit and both sides give something up and both sides gain something. I suppose it could be argued that Clay’s compromises failed only the first test, but it beyond any doubt that Obama’s have failed both. And this is evidence of a larger trend that goes way beyond merely Obama, as I would include both Clintons, Reid, Bauchus, Nelson and possibly quite a few other Democrats, and the Party as a whole, in the following statements:

As the Republicans have moved farther and farther to the RIGHT, the Democrats hacve responded by moving to the Right.

And this is a dangerous phenomenon, for than just the obvious reasons of… well… the fact that the Right is inherently dangerous. It is worth remembering that before the Civil Rights movement, it was the Democrats who dominated the Southeast and were the Social Conservatives, while the Republicans dominated the Northeast and were the fiscal Conservatives. (For what it’s worth the Mid-West has always been a battle ground, the Mountains have always been Republican, and the West Coast was also mostly Republican, at least at the Presidential level, up until the early 1990’s.) Anyway, the great switch happened after the Civil Rights Act: Noreasters became Democrats, while Rednecks started voting Republican. And while there was a great shift in Party affililation, each party still had its Conservative and Liberal wings. And thus there remained some Democrats that were to the Right of some Republicans (the last of the Dixiecrats and the last of the Yankee Republicans, for example) and vice-versa. So while the Civil Rights Act changed the geographic political landscape, I do not necessarily mark it as the moment when our currently toxic political environment began to form. It gave the Right an opportunity, but it would be another decade and a half before someone would finally seize on it:

RONALD W. REAGAN.

It was Ronald W. Reagan that cobbled together the Republican Coalition that lives on to this day of Libertarians, Funny-Mentalists and Chicken-Hawks – three groups that basically had mutually exclusive agendas, at leats before the first two sold out. (Also, I read somewhere recently where someone pointed out that Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pots and have sex. I KNEW there was a reason I could tolerate the Libertarians! LOL). And it was Regan who stamped out all the intra-Party bickering and forged the iron-clad lock-step Republican unity that live on to this day. “Do not speak badly of your fellow Republican” was his mantra, and his victory in 1980, followed by the 2nd biggest landslide in history in 1984 showed them the wisdom of this.

The Republicans moved to the Right, and the Democrats figured it might be a good idea to follow suit.

Now, the one thing about the politics of ideologues, about those who hold their ideology as sacred, is that there is a constant need to differentiate oneself for the opposition. To the one who is the farthest to the Right, in this case, goes the prize. So as the Democrats moved to the Right, the Republicans had to respond by moving even farther to the Right!

See how that works?

The Republicans PULL the Democrats to the Right, and each time this happens the Democrats then PUSH the Republicans farter to the right! Where does it end? Well, in complete and utter insanity for one thing. Only it doesn’t END there: It perpetuates there. And this was on full display listening to the latest brand of Corporate Nationalists on dis play last night in Iowa.

For example, Michelle Bachman saying she stuck to her “principles” and opposed raising the debt ceiling. Apparently her “principles” include not paying her bills. Maybe I should stop paying my mortgage out of “principle,” what do you think? And here she is, saying she’s opposed to the fact that President (1) caved to Republicans on (2) an issue entirely create whole-cloth out of nothing, in order that (3) our country to do something as basic as fulfill its existing obligations to its creditors and the public.

She’s OPPOSED to that.

Well… so am I, I guess! I mean… Obama never should have let the Republicans make an issue out of this in the first place. But somehow I doubt that my objections and those of the Crazy Congresswoman from Minnesota have anything in common.

She went on to criticize Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (not very Reaganesque of you, Michelle!) for endorsing “Cap-and-Trade,” another Republican idea that was invented to oppose the once Liberal policy of “Cap,” and then again for endorsing the individual mandate in “Obama-care.”

Pawlenty for his part deflected, calling it “Obomney-care” and saying he opposed it and then turned to the former Massachusetts Sellout, Mitt Romney.

Romney then insisted that there were “significant differences” between what they did in Massachusetts and what Obama did.

Yeah: For one thing? “Obama-care” includes things that eliminate some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry – denial of coverage, preexisting conditions, dropping people, etc… So the most glaring difference between the two? Are the things that most people actually LIKE about “Obama-care.” Another difference? In Massachusetts there were subsidies lined up to assist people who couldn’t afford it. In “Obama-care” we’re apparently going to use “markets.”

See what they did there? Obama moved to the Right, and the Right had to respond by moving farther to the Right!

How far to the Right does Obama really want to push these people anyway?

And how much farther are the Democrats willing to be pulled?

A few facts to consider:

1) Congress historically gets a below 50% approval rating from the public. And this has only been trending worse and worse and worse over the past few decades.

2) While Americans generally self-identify as “Conservative,” issue polls have shown that the bulk of Americans, typically over 60% favor the position which is represented by the Liberals.

Now… Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, people’s general dissatisfaction with Congress have anything to do with a growing feeling, as both parties move to the Right of the General Public that they don’t feel like they have adequate representation? Or ANY? That their Candidate or their Representative doesn’t fight for polices that will actually help them? Or benefit them?

Well gee…

I would say that, in a country that wants the Liberal Position 60% of the time, and the “new-Liberalism,” according to this mythical “Liberal Media” that I keep hearing about, includes:

1) Taking Republican ideas on Health Care

2) Taking Republican ideas on Taxes

3) Taking Republican ideas on Entitlements

4) Taking Republican ideas on Environmental Protection

5) Taking Republican ideas on Foreign Policy

And the “new Conservative” involves rejecting these ideas as being “too liberal” and finding a new position even farther to the Right?

Well… It’s no surprise to me that people don’t feel well represented. It’s no surprise to me that Congress gets increasing negative approval ratings as they keep drifting to the Right. We’ve gotten to the point that their absurdly chosen poster child for Liberalism is actually to the Right of most of America! And it’s no surprise to me that there is no end in sight. But moving farther to the Right is not, can not be and has never been the answer to the problem. That we have BOTH parties moving farther and farther to the Right IS the problem!

And maybe it’s coming time for us to have a Tea-Party of our own.

Maybe tell the Right that they’ve Taken Enough Already!

(*sigh* If only the media would report something that generally resembled reality)

I’ll end with one more example of this, from the Iowa Debate…

Mitt Romney said that “he wouldn’t eat the dog food Obama was serving,” in reference to the “debate” about the debt ceiling and the “deal” that was finally worked out. See what he did there? I mean, just as with Loony Bin Bachman, I AGREE that it was ‘dog food.’ BUT, it’s only because Obama never should have given the Republicans the time of day on it! If caving into Republican demands and letting them frame the issue and dominate the debate and giving them everything they want in exchange for what amounts to routine housekeeping is the “new liberal?” Where does that leave the Republicans to go?

Note to Obama: The Right will always seek to distinguish itself from the Left. And, accurately or not, the Democrats will continue to be labeled as the Left. So you will not get the Republicans to stop running to the Right by chasing them there! You are embracing their insanity and only making them more crazy! If you want to “bridge the partisan divide” try using a ROPE, like in a tug-of-war, and try PULLING ON IT for a change! Right now? You’re chasing a moving target who, right or wrong, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to be anywhere near you! And the closer you get, the faster they run! You can’t go on trying to be just like someone who will only, ever seek to differentiate themselves from you! You will never achieve that, nor will you ever get them to stop! So stop chasing them! Stop PUSHING them farther to the Right! The Republicans have only, EVER shown a desire to Negotiate with Democrats when the Democrats actually OPPOSE them! SO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COUTNRY AND PROGRESS, PLEASE: START PULLING!

Before there’s nothing Left!

Worst Democrat since Andrew Johnson.

Four Levels of Conservative Reasoning

This week has had something in common with pretty much EVERY week since 1/20/09: Just when we think Rush Limbaugh can't stoop any lower or Glen Beck can't possibly get any more insane, the Right once again prooves us wrong, and shames us for underestimating them so.  At first, I was thinking that the lies, spin, slander and insanity that's come out in the past week (too much to even elaborate on - check out MMFA, and pick ANY ITEM at random for a perfect example) was somehow unique, somehow WORSE than it's ever been.  THEN I realized just how often it was that I've felt that way over the past 18 months!

So to help anyone out who just can't understand it anymore, I've identified four degrees of conservative reasoning.  Four levels that can help you gauge the exact level of insanity we've reached on any given issue or discussion...

Level One: Bill O’Rielly / John Boehner - Mitch McConnell

Person A tries to argue a conservative position. Person B refutes their argument with facts, research, evidence, reason and logic.

The liberal concludes that person A is wrong.

The conservative concludes that person B is liberal.


Level Two: Sean Hannity / Trent Lott - Tom DeLay

Person A, in attempting to defend the conservative position, is caught in a demonstrable lie by person B.

The liberal concludes that, as the argument was predicated on a falsehood, person A must be wrong.

The conservative concludes that since person A is conservative, person B must be wrong.


Level Three: Rush Limbaugh / James Inhofe - Jim Bunning

Person B further presents person A with strong, scientific evidence that his (conservative) position is wrong.

The liberal concludes that the conservative position is weak because it’s not supported by evidence

The conservative concludes that the evidence is weak, since it doesn’t support the conservative position.


Level 4: Glenn Beck / Michelle Bachman - Sarah Palin

Person A continues to spout falsehoods and starts displaying hypocritical, faux outrage over non-stories, made up allegations and paranoid nonsense. Person B continues to demonstrate that each point, in turn is becoming increasingly desperate and absurd.

The liberal wonders why anyone is still listening to person A.

The conservative wonders why person B hates his country so much.

10 Chicks that are DANGEROUS and 10 Women I admire

"Idiot wind, blowin' every time you move your teeth. You're a idiot, babe. It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe." ~Bob Dylan


Not much more of an intro needed.   I will say this, however: Some of the language I use in the first section is a bit stronger than my typical vernacular when refering to women.  Should any female readers wish to take me to task for that, I will grant you that it's fair, but I will not apologize for it.  The difference between me and some mysoginistic jackass?  What pisses me off the MOST about these ten is not only just how much damage they've not only done to this country in general, but women in particular, and the women's movement and the quest for gender equality.  All the same, I know I'm going to get in trouble for some of what follows.  (Particularly my attitude towards porn and softball.)  In any case I hope that you consider the entirity of the picture I'm painting, as well as appreciate why each woman is HERE, and not get too hung up on the smaller details.  But yes, as always I'm keen to discuss whatever strikes you as worthwhile.

So, without further ado, here are ten chicks that I see as nothing but DANGEROUS:

Sarah Palin: If you don’t know why Palin is dangerous yet, you’re definitely in the wrong place. (Not to mention the wrong PLANET.) (I can see Russia from my house! Tee-hee!) I was struck by the recklessness of her recent speech at the tea-bagger convention, in which she put the administration in the position of either appearing weak on terrorism, or having to release classified intel (thus rendering this crucial intel worthless) in order to refute her. She puts party ahead of country and self ahead of party. This country (not to mention the women’s movement) dies a little more every time Caribou Barbie appears in public.

Michelle Bachman: See above. We don’t need the media giving prominence to politician’s who advocate for investigations into members of congress who are “anti-America." We tried that once and, except from the misguided POV of the genetic defectives on this list, it was one of the darkest periods in this country’s political history. She’s an ovarian cancer on the U.S. political system, and would have been well served to try actually reading the Constituion that she swore to uphold when she took office.

Michelle Malkin: She’s almost too stupid to be dangerous, but anyone of Asian decent who thinks that the U.S. putting foreigners or American’s or foreign (non-white) descent into concentration camps without trial is either an acceptable practice or one that could never punish “innocent citizens” shows an ignorance to history and willingness to believe whatever she’s told to such an extent that, given her prominence in the media and blogosphere, qualifies her as truly dangerous.

Ann Coulter: About as friendly as a Hissing Cobra. Like Malkin, almost too stupid to pose any threat. Yet, somehow, the media and the market keep rewarding her hansomely for doing nothing but spewing bile. I’m not sure what ANYONE sees in this walking justification for violence against women, but she just keeps raking in the money, and she just keeps getting more of a platform to spew her filth from. (And, now that I’ve once again mentioned her in my blog, we’ll probably see some more ads for her book or website appearing here. Google has rules against me saying this (so don’t take it seriously) but if you see any, CLICK THE SHIT OUT OF THEM! I love the idea that that bitch’s money will actually be used to sponsor this site! LOL)

Dana Perino: She covered for George W. Bush. That would basically be enough, but she actually appears to believe everthing she said, after lying with every breath she drew. I’m not sure how else you explain the fact that she’s STILL covering for that Texas Shit-Kicker, even off the payroll, and still advocating for his failed policies. And that what makes her dangerous: As a contemporary Bush apologist, she works against establishing the legacy of George W. Bush as an abject failure. She works to keep his policies alive, and his legacy redeemable.

Megyn Kelly: The Blonde Bimbo on Fox news. Puts a pretty face on Fox’s Republican, Corporatist Propaganda. And for some reason there seems to be a positive correlation between how far right of center you are and how glossy-eyed you become at the site of an attractive female. Not that any of these men actually take here seriously. But as long as she keeps doing what she’s told, and doesn’t worry her pretty little head about anything, they’ll keep coming back for more.

Laura Ingraham: Kind of a toned down version of Malkin. And that makes here even more dangerous. Since her rhetoric is less obnoxious than Malkin’s, it’s easier to mistake her for an objective analyst or moderate commentator. Seeing as how she’s presenting the same flawed rationale for the same failed policies of the Right, I’d say that the more moderate demeanor is like a predator's camouflage: it serves to lull the "undecideds" into a sense of complacency, where they will be more open to these ideas.

Phyllis Schlafly: Old news, and really no longer relevant except that her progeny seeks to redefine what knowledge is, how research should be done, and even seeks to change the “unchanging” word of God. Both by proxy and in person, few women have done as much damage to this country in general and to women in particular, than Phyllis Schlafly.  (I mean, she actually campaigned AGAINST equal rights for women!  How fucked up is that?!)

Michelle Duggar: I don’t care how many kids you have. I really don’t. But if you’re having them because God wants lots of Christian soldiers for the upcoming war, then YOU’RE DANGEROUS. And if you don’t believe me, just Google the Quiverfull Movement, of which her family are perhaps the most prominent subscribers. (And of course, which they completely gloss over on that fertility-fest that passes for a television show.)  If your children are nothing more than arrows in God’s quiver? You shouldn’t have ANY. In fact, you should be on meds.

Jenny McCarthy: By pushing phony fears about vaccines, starting with their fraudulent link to Autism, as evidenced by the now discredited Andrew Wakefield, and moving on to nebulous unfounded fears that aren’t even fully articulated, let alone supported by science, McCarthy is the public face of the anti-vaxxer movement that is responsible for a significant reduction in the number of children getting vaccinated against deadly and contagious diseases. This reduction has caused outbreaks of diseases, such as measles, which had been unheard of for decades.  And these outbreaks have lead to the deaths of children. I would be going WAY out on a limb (bein absurd, actually) to put the blood of dead children on the hands of ANY of these other women, but McCarthy is crimson-red up to her elbows. She’s so dangerous, she’s actually caused children to die. All in a superstitious attempt to protect them. As if a professional bimbo can do that better than DOCTORS.


And to give a fuller understanding of who I really am, here are ten women I truly admire:

Professor Temple Grandin: Truly one of my all-time heroes. You learn a LOT about Professor Grandin when you raise children with Autism, as I do. Temple Grandin not only overcame her childhood autism, to the point of achieving a PhD, but used her unique powers of perception to help revolutionize how cattle processors design their shoots, such that the animals would feel less stress going though. To be slaughtered, yes, but in feeling less stress, and thus resisting less, the need for less humane measures to get them though are needed. Since the animals will go through willingly, not only can they be treated more humanly, but the process is actually more efficient. Imagine that! Being considerate to animal rights actually INCREASES the output of the beef industry! At present her designs are used by about 75% of the cattle processing industry. She didn’t just achieve something impressive “considering her disability.” She actually USED her “disability” to completely revolutionize and industry! 

Rachael Maddow: The witty host of the Rachael Maddow Show, which follows Countdown on MSNBC. The epitome of the way things should be done, Maddow manages to give challenging, pointed interviews without appearing abrasive or demeaning in doing so. Like a mainstream media version of John Stewart, she’s displayed a gift for utterly skewering her opponents, all the while exuding none of the acidic tone and rhetoric that comes from the likes of Coulter or Ingraham.

Sarah Haskins:  The host of the Target:Women section on Infomania.  Arguably the funniest, and most enlightening feminist I've ever seen.  This lady just gets it.  Her main focus is on products, advertising, and media aimed at women that all tend to lag about 20 years behind the times, and have little to offer a woman who wants something more out of life than just taking care of the man that takes care of her.  She's funny as hell, and her feminist message rings both so loud and so true that I don't know whetehr to laugh or cry.  (Well, yeah I do, I can't stop laughing at the way she absolutely skewers the way [so many] members of my gender view the members of hers.

Eri Yoshida: I’m guessing most people don’t know about Yoshida. She’s the first woman to ever play professional baseball in Japan. She throws a sidearm knuckleball with a velocity comparable to Red Sox star Pitcher Tim Wakefield’s.  Now... you have to understand… I HATE Softball. To me Softball is an abomination of a great game. It’s Baseball that’s been dumbed-down so that it wouldn't be too hard for the girls. Now… I’ll grant you: The girls took the “easy game” and MADE it hard! I once dated a girl with an underhand fastball that I had NO CHANCE of connecting with. We never measured, but I’d be willing to bet that her underhand fastball was easily within 5 mph of my overhand fastball, and possibly faster. But that only proves my point, that there is no reason for softball to even exist. GIRLS SHOULD PLAY BASEBALL! And they should play of the same field as the boys. Not AGAINST the boys, necessarily, but if someone like Yosida can make the majors, either in Japan or over here, then maybe more girls might realize that there's no reason to keep playing the bastardized version.

Rumiko Takahashi: Another Japanese name that many of you will not be familiar with. Takahashi is a Mangaka – an author and writer of Manga, or Japanese Comic books. The reason that she’s here, beside the fact that I’m a HUGE Anime fan, is that she’s produced three separate franchises over the years that have reached the 100+ episode mark in their runs as Anime: Maison Ikkoku, Ranma ½ and InuYasha. All three are considered classics by amine fans in their respective genres: Romantic Comedy, Martial Arts/Harem Comedy, and Fantasy/Medieval Action. But what is most impressive to me is that she achieved this level of a success as a female, writing for a male dominated market, in a male-dominated industry, in a male-dominated country and culture! Way to show ‘em! You GO girl! Takahashi’s success no doubt also played some role in paving the way for companies like the all-female production house, Clamp, and other successful female mangaka who followed.

Arianna Huffington: Personally, I am not a huge fan of the Huffington Post. Although an important source of political information and opinon, and not afraid to even host an occasional conservative voice or two, IMHO it has far too much celebrity fluff, relative to it's serious content. But one cannot deny the web-presence she’s achieved, nor the overall media presence she’s parleyed that into. Depending on your preferred semantics, Huffington has either redefined blogging or merely brought it into prominence. But she was one of the first to show, in an undeniable way that cannot be ignored or dismissed, that the ‘Net can be be a powerful political tool for more than just muckraking Drudgery.

Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins: Two Republican Senators, both from Maine (probably not coincidently,) who still actually remember what the Republican party once stood for. Both moderates constantly top every Righty’s RINO list, and they may be the last two, that haven’t already defected, that have shown a willingness to engage President Obama and negotiate with the Democrats and participate in the legislative process with them. If the Republican party had more members like Snowe and Collins, this COUNTRY (not to mention the Republican Party) would be in much better shape.

Sasha Gray: Yes, a porn actress. And no, I’m not *ahem* familiar with her work. (Seriously, I’m not! LOL) Now granted... Porn is not something that gets much support from ANY quarter. The conservatives find it an easy “family values” targets, while the liberals go after it for “objectifying women” and (their word’s, not mine) “encouraging sexual violence against women.” Personally? I think Larry Flynt is the greatest defender of free speech that we’ve had since James Madison. And no, I’m not *ahem* familiar with his work either. (Seriously, I’m not! LOL) But recently I read an interview she did with Rolling Stone awhile back (link is not to the full interview, sorry) and I was struck by her ATTITUDE about sex in general and towards her craft in particular. Despite her chosen profession, and to some extent maybe becuase of it, I found it positively enlightened. Now… I’m not saying that every woman should act like a porn actress in the bedroom. (Seriously, I’m not! LOL) But I DO think that every woman should follow her OWN path regarding her sexuality and not let society tell her what’s what, all the while giving the men a free pass to be themselves and largely do as they please. (Go figure: “Society” is a bunch of arbitrary rules, written by men, meant to keep women in line!) More than anyone I can think off, Gray has cast off society's arbitrary baggage when it comes to women's sexuality, and is calling her own shots - even in an industry infamous for being exploitative to the women who work in it. Although very few may admire the choices she’s made, everybody should admire the fact that she’s made her own choices.

Meg Whitman: I don’t know if she’s the first CEO to reach a certain level of success, or where she ranks among female CEO’s all time, blah, blah… I really don’t know. And I don’t feel like looking it up right now. What I DO know is that she was the Vice President of Strategic Planning at Disney during their 1990’s renaissance, and they haven’t produced dick since she left… to take the reigns at eBay and turn it from merely an interesting idea into one of the most successful internet power-houses of all time. We may not all LIKE eBay (although personally I’ve had nothing but good experiences using it), but nobody can deny what it represents for the internet, e-business and entrepreneurs everywhere, not to mention what her undeniable success means for aspiring young women everywhere. She’s living proof that you don’t need stodgy old men to run a company, and in fact that the day of the stodgy old man might in fact be OVER.

So there you go. Ten women that no human being should follow at all, and ten women that I think all people should see as role models.