Makes My Brain Itch

Karma, Baby

2011-07-11T15:26:00.000-04:00

Yes... I know. All two people who read this blog think I've been abducted by aliens.

I haven't. Yet.

But this is going to be short. I'm busy, but I have a message I'd like to send.

Ahem...

To the dumbass who thought it would be a good idea to steal my debit card number and try to buy plane tickets (to Saudi Arabia, no less):

BWAHAHAHA! Nice job! That sucker wouldn't give you cab fare to the next block!

(I have never in my life been so perversely happy to be broke.)

That is all.

Tell CNN to let Gary Johnson debate!

2011-06-03T14:54:00.001-04:00

I just received another email from the Gary Johnson campaign.

(Heh. No, they didn't read my passionate diatribe about the debate and offer me a future cabinet position.)

From the email:

CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union Leader will host a presidential debate on Saturday, June 13th in Manchester. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul will participate. In addition, unannounced candidate Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum will also take part.

Gary Johnson, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited.

This morning, we learned along with the rest of world that CNN and the other debate sponsors have decided to exclude Governor Johnson from sharing your voice in the debate.

Apparently, the powers-that-be in the mainstream media do not want Americans to hear from the man who has been called “the most dangerous politician in America.”

In the latest Gallup poll, released one week ago, Governor Johnson’s level of support registered at 3% nationally. This is competitive with candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, both of whom have been invited to participate. In fact, I’m not aware of a poll in which Mr. Santorum has out-polled Governor Johnson nationally.

Nationally? Nope. Just with the evangelicals and fundamentalist social conservatives whose arses he continues to chap his lips upon.

To our shock, at about 6:30 this morning, we learned that Governor Johnson was not invited, he was not going to be invited, and he would not be allowed to participate.

Nonsense. Insulting, infuriating nonsense.

The Johnson campaign helpfully provided contact info for the folks behind this decision.

CNN
(404) 827-1500 or (202) 898-7900
Text: CNN (space) and your news tip to 772937 (don't forget the space after CNN). http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html
Twitter: @CNN or @teamCNN

WMUR
http://www.wmur.com/contact/index.html
(603) 669-9999
Twitter: @WMUR9

Union Leader
publisher@unionleader.com
http://www.unionleader.com/tip
(603) 668-4321 Twitter: @unionleader

Please place that action. When you’re done, make your most generous donation today. Let it be said that we did everything in our power to win the flight for liberty: donate.garyjohnson2012.com

Blow up their phones! Flood their inboxes! Get their attention!

I can promise you... mine is one email address they're going to get tired of seeing.

-------------
Related: GOV. JOHNSON... Clearly a bigger person

Gov. Gary Johnson - Clearly a bigger person

2011-06-03T12:52:00.002-04:00

A bigger person than... who?

Your ~~humble~~ insanely pissed off blogger, that's who.

So, I saw on Memeorandum that CNN had announced their debate line-up. I was pretty excited. I've made no secret of that fact that I'm a fan of Gary Johnson, and I felt he didn't have an opportunity to say enough at the First in the South debate.

I was hoping that maybe he'd get a chance to be in a more... what's the word?... traditional debate. You know. The kind where candidates aren't told to raise their hand to signify an answer (Never mind nuance or extenuating factors on the topic at hand. Yes or no, raise your hand! Nonsense.). Better yet, the kind of debate where aspirants to the highest office in the land aren't asked Miss Universe questions.

"Um... like... if you were on a reality show, what would it be? OK. Now, if you were a car, what kind of gas mileage might we expect?"

(Idiocy. Whoever came up with that reality show question is too vapid to be involved in political discourse. Go join a Jersey Shore chat room or the Octomom fan club or something.)

So. You might imagine I was beyond disappointed to see that Johnson wasn't included.

Disappointment gave way to fury, however, as I realized that that sanctimonious prig Rick Santorum is on the ticket. (NEWSFLASH - While the fundies may be all for a Santorum theocracy, there aren't enough of them to get him elected.) Also on the dais will be Newt Gingrich... because Newt and the media keep telling us he's a viable candidate. (NEWSFLASH 2 - People outside the incestuous beltway gang hate this guy. Right, left and middle.) Most of the rest of them I understand.

Are there any announced candidates besides Johnson who aren't invited?

Anyway, moments ago Johnson sent out a statement. Once again (and probably for every damn one I get) I'm posting the whole thing:

“I respect the right of CNN and the other sponsors of the June 13 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary debate to apply their own criteria and invite who they choose. It is, however, unfortunate that a significant segment of the Republican Party, and more importantly, millions of independent voters who might be Republican voters, will not have a voice on the stage in Manchester.

What will be missing is the voice of those who hold an undiluted view of individual liberty – those who believe that individual rights extend to women who face choices about abortion, Americans who happen to be gay, and those who don’t place other asterisks on freedom.

Likewise, there will be no voice for the growing number of Americans who see the hypocrisy and failure of drug laws that condone alcohol at White House Dinners while incarcerating millions of Americans, including our kids, who choose to smoke pot.

I wish the participants in the debate well. And I sympathize with the millions of Americans whose beliefs will not be on display in Manchester on June 13.

I look forward to participating in the July 10 debate in Las Vegas, sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform and the Daily Caller."

Johnson can "respect the right of CNN and the other sponsors" if he likes. I don't respect anything about it. In fact, I call bullshit.

I am sick to death of having to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two suck-fests. I've grown weary of having the media and political establishment tell me who is "electable". I hate that a major media (pffft) outlet would ignore the candidate with the single most impressive track record.

And CNN can cram their "criteria". They invited Trump, fergawdsake. (Who already took his ball and went home, may I remind you. He's proven he doesn't have the stuff.) They invited Palin, who isn't even a damn candidate! Ditto Guiliani and Huckabee.

But they'll ignore Johnson, who had the guts to declare months ago while most of the others were still playing "will-I-won't-I-exploratory-someone-beg-me-cuz-that's-what-my-ego-requires" foolishness.

I'm disgusted.

And at the same time, I back Gary Johnson MORE STRONGLY THAN EVER.

The CNN debate may be the first one I'll ever skip.

-------
Related: TELL CNN TO LET JOHNSON DEBATE!

The Tallywhacker Hacker

2011-05-31T00:02:00.000-04:00

OK, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-oh, that's too easy) has dominated Memeorandum all weekend, thanks to a merry prankster.

You've heard the story by now, right? Congressman's all minding his business, watching some hockey and thinking about tweeting about it. Suddenly, he notices a tweet... from him!... to a young woman!... showcasing someone's stiffy! With lightning reflexes, the Congressman deletes the tweet, deletes his entire photo collection, and manages to find the humor in this embarassing situation, sharing a little joke with his followers.

Ahhh... I love happy endings.

Except there's tons more to it. R S McCain has a pretty comprehensive roundup. Ace's Twitter stream from that weekend was hilarious, and has more links & info.

Go read the WeinerGate story there, if you've missed much (and it's still developing). I brought it up because I've found another story that - when looked at alongside the Weiner tweet - makes me want to scream CONSPIRACY! Or something else...

You see, this has happened to others. Yes, although it sounds hard to believe that even one politician would fall prey to hackers twittering his tweeter, it may be the first signs of

...dun...dun...DUNNNNNNN!

a new-style political activist that attempts to... well, I admit, motive makes this a toughie... are they trying to embarrass these guys? Get them dates? I dunno. Anyway, for whatever reason, they're on a mission to show the world the private parts of politicians (or a reasonable facsimile thereof, 'cause of course they cry "that's not my junk")!

Meet George Lepp, Canadian PC candidate. Mr. Lepp had his Blackberry stolen and a "graphic photo" tweeted from his account. (Guess what kind of graphic photo... Yup. That's it.) According to conflicting reports, it either was or was not recording in camera mode while in his pants pocket. (Though I ask you... would footage from your pocket show your bare body? Or just some white cotton and darkness?) Regardless, the tweet was discovered - by his son - and removed.

So, why do I bring this up? C'mon! Two of them?

This is clearly the work of an evil genius, probably connected somehow to Andrew Breitbart. (I don't know how. I just know that's what they scream. AaaiiirrgarblegarbleBREITBARTsnortmaddowsigh. Right?) Anyway, I suspect the DUfringe is incorrect. It's not a conspiracy. It's a lone wolf.

The Tallywhacker Hacker.

Special Delivery

2011-05-26T22:24:00.000-04:00

"Neither snow, or rain, or sleet, or dark of night, will keep us from our appointed rounds..."

Hell, even a good crap will only slow us down a little... or something.

A Portland mailman was caught with his pants down. Literally. Dropping off a package along his route.

Derfler had been waiting for his babysitter when he saw his mailman acting odd at his neighbor's house across the street. The postal worker then pulled down his pants and that's when Derfler began snapping pictures.

"To come on to our property and to defecate - it's just wrong."

No shit.

Big Brother is Tweeting?

2011-05-24T07:40:00.000-04:00

Huffington Post is happily announcing a new “job created” in the White House.

The Obama administration has created and staffed a new position tucked inside their communications shop for helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community.

What the hell?!

“Rapid response to unfavorable stories”? I could see something like that geared toward… oh, I dunno… inaccurate stories. Or even fabricated stories.

The President of the United States of America has finally created a damn job, and it’s a media hall-monitor who’ll respond rapidly to unfavorable (read: right-leaning) stories. AND he’ll further toady to, presumably leak to, and likely make journo-police out of the progressive (read: fringe left) online community.

Lovely.

This is creepy stuff.

Oh, sure… they’ll make fun of anyone who says as much. They already are. That’s part of why I find it so… well, creepy.

This administration genuinely sees nothing wrong with paying a federal minion to muck around in the formerly free exchange of ideas and information.

Ahem… Mr. President?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Now, nowhere in there does it say “But the President can just create an agent or agency who does things this article forbids, as long as he’s smart enough to slip it past the rubes!”

So. We have arrogance beyond anything we’ve previously guessed at, let alone experienced. We have a “Constitutional scholar” (my ass) who’s confused the writing in the margins of his Cliff’s Notes with imagined progressive amendments to our sacred document. And we have a NEW JOB CREATED!

(Actually, that part’s crap since dude already worked for the administration. So while Obama may have earned a prize for chutzpah, he doesn’t get any credit for job creation. Again.)

And ya know what else about it I don’t like? They think it’s funny. “Oh, Big Brother’s gonna getcha! You betcha! Oh-HAR-HAR-HAR!” That’s right. This violation of one of our most basic rights is hi-freaking-larious. Why, look at the tone they’ve started out with. As ~~@MINITRU~~ ~~@BaghdadBob~~ @jesseclee44, his first tweet was this:

Yeah, I’m amused.

One thing about it… If Obama had created this job, he’d have gotten extra credit for providing unparalleled job security. I mean, what could be more certain than a paycheck that’s guaranteed for as long as folks are unfavorable to Obama? Why, he’s set ’til… what?

2012.

-----
(h/t Memeorandum)

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Mitch Daniels out - IN Governor announces he won't run for President

2011-05-22T22:31:00.000-04:00

Governor Mitch Daniels has ruled out a run for President.

In a move that some might call disappointing, but none could call a surprise, Daniels cited his family as the reason he has decided not to join the fray.

In an email to supporters, Daniels wrote:

"In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry."

The Daniels family has made no secret of the fact that Mitch's wife Cheri does not prefer the glaring spotlight of life as a political wife. Then the story of their divorce and remarriage started trending as news, and many in the media and blogosphere speculated, or flatly stated, that their marital history was the reason for her media-shyness.

At the time, I linked Ben Smith:

And so Daniels, whose waiting game (in this theory) was effective family politics, if puzzling national politics, can now say, "Well, now it's out there. And now it's old news. No reason not to run."

...and gave my own two cents worth:

Uhh… no. If Daniels runs, Cheri will be subjected to everything from fashion critiques to parsing of her every spoken word. This is only the front edge of the storm.

Now today, DrewM at AOSHQ speculates:

There must be even more to the wife leaving-returning story than we see on the surface (and that's quite a bit already).

Uh... yeah. That, or her worst fears were proved correct. Mitch Daniels hadn't even decided whether to run, and we're climbing all over them with microscopes. And I remind you... "front edge of the storm". Had he announced a candidacy, the media - sharks already - would have been on her like sharks on steroids. Anyone running has to survive the press throughout the ugly primaries and the uglier general... before they have to be scrutinized like no others for four or eight years, with coverage of every move they make.

Not a comfortable situation for a private person. Which may describe Mitch Daniels as well. At the state GOP dinner, he said of running for President:

”My friends know it’s never been any intention of mine. I’d like to go to some quiet place where nobody could find me. Like Al Gore’s cable network."

He must be serious if he's considering hiding out with Gore.

Still, I respect and admire his decision... all the more because I suspect it wasn't an easy one, or one he'll ever stop hearing about. And while some might see this as a show of weakness, I disagree. This is a different kind of strength.

"Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more."

-----

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Conservative commenters picking on little girls?

2011-05-21T01:18:00.002-04:00

The 16-year-old high school girl who challenged Michelle Bachmann to a debate is claiming she's received threats of violence and rape.

I call bullshit.

Here's the deal: A week or so ago, Cherry Hill student Amy Myers challenged Bachmann to a debate on the Constitution. She threw down the gauntlet in a letter posted on CNN's iReport. The story made the news and blogs, Congresswoman Bachmann didn't respond, and attention wandered to other things as new stories replaced the challenge.

Now Ms. Myers and her father, Wayne, are in the news again... This time, they tell the Courier-Press they're alarmed about comments on conservative websites.

"A lot of them are calling me a whore"

They say commenters have threatened to publish their address, or commit violence or rape.

Here's why I'm not buying it.

First, they haven't shown proof. No screen captures, no links, nothing. These two are social-media-savvy enough to upload to iReport and run a Facebook page dedicated to this ~~publicity stunt~~ debate, but they didn't blog or otherwise document these heinous acts?

Second, the father claimed that the school had received threatening mail... but the school says the calls they've received were questions about whether Myers is a student, who wrote the letter to Bachmann, and similar inquiries.

Bastnagel said the district's security director told Wayne Myers none of the calls contained threats. He also assured Myers the district would investigate any threats.

Also, the father claims to have his mail carrier and a neighbor watching for suspicious activity. He says:

"I personally did not think there would be a reaction like actual stalking and the vitriol that's coming out."

But neither the story or the quoted police officers mention a stalker.

So already, this whole thing strikes me as shady. But it gets stranger.

Amy was set to give the C-P a video interview. The night before, "a somewhat panicked-sounding Wayne Myers phoned to cancel". His reason? The threats sent to the school. You know... the ones the school assured him didn't happen.

But he also mentioned it would be better for Amy if Bachmann couldn't study the videos.

"If she does the video interview, they might find certain weaknesses. We don't want to bring up what her debate strategy is going to be."

Good grief. This guy's a goof. And people are spreading this b.s. around like it's pinkeye - and escalating it. Already at least one message on the Facebook page is calling the mystery comments "death threats".

I repeat...

Bullshit.

-----
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

UPDATE: Linked in an excellent piece at WyBlog. Thank you, sir. Go read the whole thing:

What we have here is an unhinged liberal activist preaching to the choir. They expect Tea Partyers to be misogynistic haters because that is the stereotype they've created. But in reality I would stake my reputation on any actual threats being quickly and vehemently shouted down by folks from the Right. That's how we roll. We debate ideas, not personalities.

Nailed it in one.

Gary Johnson: Time's up in Libya, Mr. President

2011-05-20T14:57:00.000-04:00

Jake Tapper (via Memeorandum) is reminding President Obama that he's out of time where Libya's concerned.

The legal license President Obama used to justify U.S. military intervention in Libya expires today, and there's little sign the White House is working quickly to get it renewed.

And he's not the only one. I received the following press statement from the Gary Johnson campaign. (Since there's not enough serious coverage of Johnson and his ideas elsewhere, I'm printing the whole thing.)

Maybe, just maybe, they forgot. Or maybe they actually believe that what the U.S. is doing in Libya somehow doesn’t constitute the use of our armed forces -- $750 million worth of bombs and missiles notwithstanding. Whatever the reason, it is obvious that the President has no intention of complying with the War Powers Act with regard to our military intervention in Libya.

This blatant disregard for the law must not go unchallenged. As several Senators did this week, Congress must demand an explanation for the fact that, with no declaration of war, no authorization from Congress, and certainly no imminent threat to the U.S., our forces are today engaged in what is clearly a military conflict halfway around the world in Libya.

Specifically, the War Powers Act requires that the use of American forces in a conflict must be ended within 60 days of commencing – unless Congress expressly authorizes otherwise. In terms of our current engagement in Libya, Congress hasn’t authorized anything, nor has the President asked them to, and today, May 20, is the 60^th day.

Perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised and the President will stop our military’s involvement in Libya -- today, but I rather doubt it. The War Powers Act was enacted almost 40 years ago for a reason. After fighting two costly wars, Korea and Vietnam, with no formal declaration of war, Congress acted to limit the authority of the President to engage the military in “open-ended” conflicts with no clear congressional consent. It was carefully crafted to allow the Commander-in-Chief to respond to attacks and otherwise take whatever action necessary to protect us. At the same time, it was obviously crafted to limit precisely the kinds of ill-defined and costly uses of our military that we are witnessing in Libya right now.

To be fair, this President is certainly not the first to disregard the War Powers Act. Some have even questioned its constitutionality. But until the Courts or Congress deem otherwise, it is the law of the land – and in my opinion, a good one.

If there are compelling reasons, strategic, humanitarian or otherwise, to be doing what we are doing in Libya, then Congress will likely authorize it. If not, then perhaps we shouldn’t be firing those missiles and dropping those bombs – missiles and bombs financed with borrowed and printed money.

Either way, Mr. President, don’t treat today as just another deadline to ignore.

-----

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

The RNC gets a lesson in free markets

2011-05-20T14:07:00.002-04:00

The NYT (via Memeorandum) is reporting that the Democratic National Convention received twice the contributions in April that the Republican National Convention drew.

Democrats raised $12.4 million. The Republicans, by contrast, raised $6.1 million.

The Times credits massive fundraising by Obama - and Republican voter discontent over Michael Steele - for the difference.

I'm not convinced that's the case here.

Oh, Obama's raising cash. That part's correct. And Republican voters are discontent, that's also correct. But the idea that they're still irritated over Michael Steele? I don't think so... (Well, maybe they are. I just don't see that as the money problem.)

So what's going on?

I think Republican voters learned an important, albeit painful, lesson about the National Party in 2010 - starting with Charlie Crist. Also, let's not forget Newt Gingrich's candidate Dede Scozzafava. How about Arlen Specter?

Time and again, despite actual conservative candidates with grassroots support, the Republican establishment has chosen to ignore the will of the voters (read: DONORS, you fools) in favor of keeping it all in the club. And finally, it got to be more than non-establishment types could bear.

Michelle Malkin has multiple archived posts (in her link style: here, here, here, here, and here) demonstrating exactly how previous donors reacted to solicitations from the RNC. Some of those are hilarious, you should check 'em out. RS McCain has also covered the grassroots dissent, and linked the "Not One Red Cent" movement.

So now we have another Presidential election on the horizon... What'll happen? Will there be empty coffers for Republican candidates? Have the conservative voters disengaged?

No.

But they've learned.

They aren't going to send hard-earned money to a National Party that is more concerned with itself than the country or the voters. They're going to wait... choose their candidate... and send the cash directly to those campaigns.

I think it's a good thing. Let the Republican Party as an entity get a little taste of how the free market works. Maybe they'll learn a lesson, just like their voters have - the hard way.

-----
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Another funny Gary Johnson "Pothead for President" post

2011-05-19T23:36:00.000-04:00

Everybody's having a little harmless fun at Gary Johnson's expense.

See, Willie Nelson and The ~~Pothead~~ TeaPot Party endorsed him for President. Then they forgot. Or got the munchies. Or saw something shiny. And then Willie remembered he doesn't really know as much about politics as playing the guitar. Which is probably for the best.

Anyway, anytime Johnson's name comes up, it's a good time for pot jokes. And a lot of it's funny.

But there's nothing funny about this.

KFOR-TV reports an Oklahoma woman is serving a 12 year prison sentence. For $30 worth of pot.

Dee Starr, who was facing more serious charges, two felony counts for dealing drugs and for having drugs in front of children, got 30 years probation, again no jail time. Patricia Spottedcrow pleaded guilty to her crimes as well. She faced the very same two felony charges as her mother, Dee Starr. However, Spottedcrow got a 12 year prison sentence, no probation.

The four children are living with their grandmother. They'll be denied a mother for twelve years of their early lives. And I'm not hearing "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Twelve years in prison for what basically amounts to a few joints is barbaric. And how can you justify the costs?

This year Oklahoma taxpayers will pay about $40 a day for Patricia Spottedcrow's minimum-security incarceration, that's appoxirmately $14,000 a year.

So that's what...? $168,000 over the course of her sentence? Oh, wait... I'm not factoring in the raises in organized prison labor costs over that stretch. So the cost will come somewhere closer to... say... a gajillion dollars sound right?

But surely we're talking small numbers here, right? How many prisoners like this are we talking about?

Oklahoma leads the nation in the incarceration of women. We imprison women at a rate twice the national average. And the number one crime for which Oklahoma women are in prison is drugs.

It's time to have a grown-up conversation about our marijuana laws.

We can laugh together. And we should also be able to have a serious discussion. According to the WHO, 42% of Americans admit to having tried pot. As have the last three Presidents. And what, half the candidates or would-be's? Santorum, Palin, Gingrich, Daniels... Oh yeah, and Johnson.

It's time to stop acting hysterical (or laughing hysterically) every time the subject comes up. (And just by the way... if marijuana were truly a scourge, would we be making jokes in the first place?)

We need to talk about this, and we have one candidate willing to do so. Fortunately, that candidate also has an impressive record in both the private-sector and public office.

(h/t Reason)

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

On the road again... and under the bus

2011-05-19T13:59:00.000-04:00

Willie Nelson has un-endorsed Gov. Gary Johnson for President.

Has Johnson changed his positions since yesterday? No. But apparently Nelson has smoked more than enough of the substance he and Johnson want legalized to affect his thinking and judgement.

When asked by his own TeaPot Party to explain why he was for Gary Johnson before he was against Gary Johnson, Nelson offered the following:

“I know I said that... But I think I will wait and see where he stands on other things. My bad. Sorry. I still think he is a good guy but so Is Dennis [Kucinich] and if he decided to run I would personally vote for him. If it came down to either him or Gary I’m already committed to Dennis. They both have said they support legal pot.”

He went on to say (emphasis mine):

"If we back someone that’s us telling them how to vote. I’m not qualified."

I'm inclined to agree. In fact, if he can't stick to a decision from one day to the next, I'm not convinced he's qualified to vote, let alone endorse a candidate.

In truth, Nelson's endorsement would do more harm than good anyway. First, it offered itself as joke fodder for numerous bloggers and pundits. But more importantly, the TeaPot Party (as T pointed out) has "We lean a little to the left" as a portion of their motto. While I'd be happy to see a Republican candidate who can pick up moderates the way Obama did, the "lean left" and Nelson's efforts for farm subsidies would be held against Johnson.

So I'm not heartbroken that "my candidate" has lost his first endorsement. It comes, after all, from someone with so little understanding of politics that he thinks Kucinich has a shot at the White House. And as a Reason commenter mentioned, "If pot smoking aliens invaded tomorrow, Willie would endorse them."

No great loss.

-----
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Obama to announce aid for Middle East... forgets basic rule of survival

2011-05-18T22:59:00.001-04:00

According to the WSJ, President Obama is set to announce a new aid plan for North Africa and the Middle East including what could be billions of dollars in debt forgiveness and "direct aid", which I suspect is a euphemism for "hand 'em some cash".

We're facing a continuing economic ~~repression depression stagpression~~ struggle, no one's volunteering to forgive our debt, we're battling over cuts to our own budget...

And President Obama wants to dish out billions of dollars worth of ~~shameless buttkissing~~ aid to the Middle East. Money we do not have.

Mr. President, have you never flown commercial? You know, before it came with the complimentary happy ending massage? Every flier (even those who can't read - see below) knows that when the plane is going down, you put on your own oxygen mask first! If you don't save yourself, you can't save anybody else.

"There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?" (Airplane, 1980)

-----
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

A decision for Mitch and Cheri Daniels

2011-05-16T15:27:00.000-04:00

I spent the weekend thinking a lot about politics... and marriage.

I'm married myself. Like most marriages, I think, it's more often than not a happy one. Sure, there are the occasional flares of temper or clashes of personality... and more rarely there are the knock-down, drag-out, winner-take-all blowouts that are inevitable when two different people with two different minds each believe they are "right" and the other, therefore, "wrong".

Anyone who is in a successful marriage knows it's a balancing act. A balancing act done on a high wire, in hurricane gusts, with the audience occasionally throwing things at you while you pinwheel your arms in an effort to keep it all together and up in the air.

I realize that sounds negative. It shouldn't. It's just that marriage is work. A successful, happy marriage is even more work - and includes sacrifice, selflessness, and support.

So, allow me to admit right up front that I'm sympathetic to Cheri Daniels, before I get further into this.

It's no secret that Mitch Daniels is allowing his wife's (and daughters') feelings to play an enormous part in his decision whether to run for the Republican nomination. He compared running for President to bungee jumping... with your loved ones along for the ride.

"This is one where you have to strap a bunch of people, your family and others, along with you."

Now, I don't intend to touch on the actual gossip involved. It's all over the innerwebs - go look it up if that interests you. I don't care that they once divorced, I don't care who left who or why. I'm not even going to speculate about it for the simple reason that I wasn't there. (There are two sides to every story, especially between spouses, and it boils down to their business, in my opinion.)

What I consider relevant is that they are married now, and by all appearances want to remain that way. Mrs. Daniels clearly does not care for the role of "politician's wife" and the media scrutiny that entails. Mr. Daniels just as clearly does care about the impact of a Presidential run on his wife and family.

As he should.

I'll be honest... the reaction from many "pro-family" conservatives has surprised me.

Ace had a piece up at AOSHQ where he seemed to see this from the same angle I do... but unlike me, he realized ahead of time that others would see it very differently.

Here's the thing: That's what a husband is supposed to do, right? When women imagine dream husbands, that's the sort of thing they'd claim they really respected, right?
But I don't think people will respect this.

He notes in his post that some of his own commenters are going after Daniels. (Actually, savaging him might be a more apt description...)

When I wrote this post, I expected commenters to give Daniels a bit of a break. Turns out, not so much. It seems like even people who should be predisposed to giving him some space on this are looking for reasons to mock him. If the comments are a preview of the liberal media, then forget it.

The reality is this: In our era of "new civility", it doesn't even matter about the divorce and remarriage. The media, comedians, and Blogosphere will go after Cheri Daniels just because.

I'm no different. I have several posts about Michelle Obama that are not just uncomplimentary but actually kinda mean. (Though in comparison to some of what I've read, they're mild.) So why did I write them? Because she's fair game. (Lest you think this is a partisan thing for me, you can see where I've also called Olbermann's remarks about SE Cupp acceptable as well. And while I don't care for Glenn Beck, I found his remarks about Meghan McCain hilarious - and acceptable.)

A few years ago, while I was subjecting one of my offspring to a rant on politics, The Kid said, "You should run for office!" I replied, "Not at all. You couldn't give me the job." You see, unlike many Americans, I never want to be famous. The idea horrifies me. I've said it before:

See, this is America. In America, we ONLY put people on pedestals so we can watch them fall off. And if they don't cooperate and fall of on their own, we nudge them off. And sometimes we knock them right off like American gladiators jousting with those big styrofoam lances. Get the picture?

Is it nice? Well, no. But it's reality, which isn't always nice.

So I can understand where Cheri Daniels is coming from. And as someone who acknowledges that marriage is a team sport, I can understand where Mitch Daniels is coming from, too.

What I can not understand is the conservative reaction.

The media has portrayed the deference to Daniels's wife as "waiting for permission", although I've yet to see an actual "permission" quote attributed to either Daniels. And reader comments on various blogs (which I'm not linking, as I don't want to be held responsible for the ideas of my own commenters) have ranged from dismissive to downright brutal assertions that Daniels is "whipped", along with some sentiments that he should just tell the little lady how it's gonna be.

This from the pro-family side? Really? We should show we're pro-family by mocking him as a wimp who took back a runaway wife? Or by encouraging him to disregard her wishes? Or by demanding (like the spoiled brats such commenters sound like) that the Daniels marriage be damned, run because we say so?

Ben Smith wrote (basically) that if Cheri was afraid of the spotlight... well, she's in it anyway so problem solved.

Uhh... no. If Daniels runs, Cheri will be subjected to everything from fashion critiques to parsing of her every spoken word. This is only the front edge of the storm.

Perhaps the best take on this, in my opinion, comes from Moe Lane:

But if Gov. Daniels is well and truly not sure whether his family is ready for that, well, I would advise the governor then that he already knows the answer to the question “Should Mitch Daniels run?”

I agree. He knows the answer.

And so do we.

While Mitch and Cheri have not announced their decision, I've made mine.
Daniels can't run. And if he does, no genuine pro-family voter can support him.

We do not want a leader so callous that the feelings of the woman who shares his home and bed count for nothing. And if Cheri comes around under pressure, we do not want a leader who is (understandably) distracted from the job at hand because of marital strain that will happen when a hesitant spouse gets the treatment we must admit she will receive.

And do we want to bear partial responsibility if their marriage, after all it has survived, fails in the White House because we've pressured him to run and his wife to be compliant?

I don't judge either Daniels for the things they've come through together. And I don't think any of what I've learned from all this reflects on him as a candidate...

But his wife's concerns have merit, and although I certainly won't take a "Be nice to Cheri" pledge or suggest anyone else should, I won't pretend that I would subject my own family to the kind of scrutiny and criticisms she'd be sure to face.

And I'd like to suggest that some married (or wanna-be-married) conservatives try looking at this from the perspective of their own relationships. Isn't the mantra "God... Family... Country"? If you're going to start disregarding the "family" part of it in favor of "country",perhaps you've switched teams.

-----
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

I think I'm alright... Hell, yeah!

2011-05-14T18:18:00.000-04:00

Today's ear worm, courtesy of Todd Snider.

At least it's a song I like. A lot. And it reminds me of someone... ;)

You know just the other morning
I was hanging around in my house
I had that new book with pictures of Madonna naked
I was checkin' it out
Just then a friend of mine came through the door
Said she never pegged me for a scumbag before
She said she didn't ever want to see me any more
And I still don't know why

Chorus:
I think I'm am alright guy, I think I'm am alright guy
I just want to live until I've gotta die
I know I ain't perfect, but God knows I try
I think I'm an alright guy, I think I'm alright

Now maybe I'm dirty
And maybe I smoke a little dope
It ain't like I'm going on TV
And tearing up pictures of the Pope
I know I get wild and I know I get drunk
Well, it ain't like I got a bunch of bodies in my trunk
My old man used to call me a no good punk
And I still don't know why

(Chorus)

You know, just the other night
These cops pulled me over outside a bar
They turned on their lights
And they ordered me out of my car
Man, I was only kidding when I called them a couple of dicks
But still they made me do the stupid human tricks
Now I'm stuck in this jail with a bunch of dumb hicks
And I still don't know why

(Chorus)

(Neurotic note... The "alright" for "all right" is the artist's error, not the author's... just sayin'...)

The ONE car that could (maybe) make a hybrid driving hippie outta me...

2011-05-09T10:59:00.000-04:00

Zero to sixty in three seconds... top speed over 200 mpr... and fergawdssakes LOOK at it.

The Jaguar C-X75 concept car:

Sure it costs $1.1 to $1.7 MILLION...

But I'm about as likely to pay that for this baby as I am to pay forty-something grand for a Volt.

Just sayin'.

Thoughts on the GOP debate...

2011-05-06T11:58:00.001-04:00

So. The first GOP debate is a done deal.

I'm really troubled. I'll come back to it.

I thought it was Herman Cain's night. I like Cain. He's not my first preference, but I could get behind him.

I'm disappointed for Gary Johnson. Read that: for, not in. His problem is, he comes off as kind of a dork. He isn't a great public speaker, and he tends toward low-key. He's got some great ideas, and some remarkable accomplishments as Governor... but few conservatives on Twitter knew much about him (Their fault. If you don't know something, educate yourself before you form an opinion!) and judged him on presentation. It didn't go well.

Oh, dear... if only we could find a President who was eloquent... and photogenic... and could whip out a snappy soundbite! Oh. We've done that. I believe that's what we've been told about the last two Democrats in the Oval Office. President Rockstar has certainly worked out well.

It's a shame we couldn't have heard more about his record. As Governor, Johnson cut taxes fourteen times without ever raising them. He cut the size of government. He cut the growth of government. He privatized much of the prison system and did the same with highway construction. He fought for school choice. He was nicknamed Governor Veto because he vetoed over 750 pieces of legislation and used line-item veto on thousands more.

And, in fairness, he didn't get the same questions/face time as others. People on Twitter were calling him a whiner when he brought it up, but it isn't whining if it's the truth.

But it's early. I can hope. He is tenacious. And really, Herman Cain walked away a star because he is one. I'm not taking anything away from him. If he's the GOP pick, I'll back him.

What troubled me last night was the reaction to Rick Santorum. On Twitter, and in the Fox focus group.

They loved him.

I'm aghast. Literally, and I've never used that word before to describe myself. I'm concerned, and horrified, and disgusted, and as close to speechless as I get.

I understand social conservatism, even when I disagree with it. Or, I thought I did.

But Rick Santorum is a bigoted, hateful human being.

I'm not generalizing or stereotyping. Most of the so-cons I know from life and from blogging strike me as great people, sincere and remarkably tolerant of this admitted social-libertarian in their midst. I wasn't born an atheist, and I understand the faith behind the position most times. We've had differences of opinion, but for the most part it's been congenial and respectful from both sides...

Which is why I just don't get the slobbering over Santorum. More than that, I'm repulsed by it.

He's infamous for his "man on dog" nonsense, and went so far as to imply that accepting homosexuality would put us on a slippery slope to acceptance of incest and bestiality. As to gays in the military, he says "We have a volunteer army... they can un-volunteer, too." (Perhaps he'll enlist to replace them?) His thoughts on women make the Geico caveman look highly evolved (I covered an interview between him and a fawning SE Cupp here, where he implies that Sarah Palin would be distracted by "all those kids" she has if elected... never mind that he has a passel of his own kids, there's a wifey at home to tend them.) While I have little use for feminists, when it comes to Santorum they're right on the money.

He voted to stop big malpractice payouts... after his wife won her suit against a chiropractor. He's opposed to abortion... other than the one his wife had, of course. (In fact, when they met, Santorum's now-wife was living with the founder of the first abortion clinic in Pittsburgh. How pro-life is that?!)

And Santorum is a fan of Big Government. Not the website, the soul-crushing, liberty-stunting expansion of the federal government.

How about the fact the he purported to represent PA while living in a Virginia McMansion? (With apparently questionable financing? Very interesting article. If you support him, go read the whole thing.) And during that time, a local PA school had to fund his kids' cyber-schooling... in VA.

But what caused me the most consternation wasn't any of the many things about Santorum that already curl my hair. (Like his insistence that you can't have fiscal or any other stability without strong faith. How insulting! While I try to be accepting and tolerant of others' faith, apparently I'm not good enough for ol' Rick because I don't believe as he does. Guess he won't want my vote...)

No, what troubled me is the conservative reaction to this pompous ass.

If Rick Santorum is an example of what Republicans are looking for... well, I'm not sure I have any place among them. He's anathema to what I believe people should hope for and hope to be. He's a hateful, judgmental little man who COULDN'T WIN HIS OWN STATE!

And if the GOP runs this clown, they will also lose. Period. Four more years of Obama if this ass wins the nomination, bank on it. Not only will moderates and independents never back this arrogant prig, I'll be on a one-blog mission to convince every voter I can reach.

So please, so-cons... think carefully. I get that many of you will never set the pot issue aside long enough to learn something positive about Johnson. And I fully realize his stance on abortion is off-putting to many. (Odd that those same cons aren't bothered by Santorum's ok-for-my-wife-but-not-for-you philosophy...) While I'm a big fan of Gary Johnson, I get that my first choice probably won't make the cut. Fine. As I said, I sincerely like Cain also. Run him and you can count me in.

But Santorum? Never. I mean that. Never in this life.

And if the GOP primary goes to Santorum... I'll have to seriously consider whether I can be a part of conservatism in any form. And maybe that's for the best. If Santorum is what conservatism is all about, clearly my values and ideas are not valid or desired as part of the conversation anyway.

It makes me genuinely sad, as I fully back most of what conservatism stands for. I think I have something to add to the equation, and I certainly can't self-identify as liberal. But acceptance of Santorum effectively marginalizes me - and millions of other moderates.

For now, I'm going to take a "wait and see" approach. The way I feel this morning, I don't even care if I blog about politics for a while.

This might be the beginning of a blog vacation...

---
UPDATED to clarify:

After a private conversation about this post, I realize this bit didn't come across the way I meant it. Rather than change the body of the post, I'll just try to explain myself a little better...

And if the GOP runs this clown, they will also lose. Period. Four more years of Obama if this ass wins the nomination, bank on it. Not only will moderates and independents never back this arrogant prig, I'll be on a one-blog mission to convince every voter I can reach.

By that I do not mean that I'll support President Obama. I mean that if the fringe has their way and Santorum is nominated, the moderates and independents who've been looking to cash in that "Change" they got will flee the Republican candidate in droves. If you think they tacked left for a candidate they convinced themselves was moderate, wait 'til you see their response to a Santorum theocracy.

And while I'll take my blog down before I turn it into an Organizing for America offshoot, I will do everything in my admittedly limited power to remind folks why Santorum couldn't win his own state.

"He would like it to be clear that the crime of bestiality occurs everywhere"

2011-05-05T09:54:00.000-04:00

Sure it does...

But especially in West Virginia.

19 year old Mark Thompson was arrested and charged with kidnapping and killing a pygmy goat. Oh yeah, he also sexually assaulted it. He told officers he was high on bath salts, but the cops think he just really likes goats:

"The argument of bath salts is just an excuse... There had to be an underlying desire there somewhere, and maybe the bath salts decreased the inhibitions enough to make it happen, but the bath salts is a cop out."

Well, from the look of him, I'm thinking maybe the cops are onto something.


High on bath salts with yer dick in a goat is no way to go through life, son.

Maybe bath salts can explain the hair...?

NOW will you homeschool me?

2011-04-28T14:09:00.002-04:00

I've mentioned the six-year-old... You know, Michelle Obama's biggest fan. The one who dreams of taking over the world and remaking it to suit her whims.

She wants to be homeschooled.

Now homeschooling is a touchy subject at Casa De Scratch. One of the supposed grownups is all for it (can ya guess who?). One feels homeschooling would deprive them of socialization. (Bear in mind, three of my five are female. To me, socialization=boys, so I don't have a huge problem depriving them. Regardless...)

She asked if we'd homeschool her. To her credit, it's hard to argue with the logic she used:

"I already know more than any of the second graders (she's in first). And I can read books as high as they'll let me (to her utter frustration, school policy is that she can't take out books above her grade level). I could read your books, I bet!"

Aaahhh. Now she's getting cocky.

I turned to the bottom step, where I always have a pile of books, and shuffled through them. (I generally have books in almost every room, most with bookmarks where I left off. I read whichever is closest to where I perch, and usually have several going at once.)

I handed her Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mt. Everest Disaster. (I'm an Everest nut along with all my other uber-dorky qualities.)

So. She opens the book... clears her throat... looks at me like I'm a freakin' idiot for challenging her... and reads a passage. (Full disclosure: she stumbled over "carabiner" and "oxygenated". Not too shabby. She also got really upset that she couldn't make heads or tails of a few words... until I explained they aren't in English and she can't read a language she can't speak.)

I take the book, turn to another chapter, and return it.

With an even more blistering look, she reads another passage.

Then she looks me right in the eye and asks, "NOW will you homeschool me?"

Uh-oh.

"I then explained the obvious problem with his third eye being opened in public"

2011-04-28T11:28:00.002-04:00

Heh again. More Fark, more nekkid.

This time it's a vegan who ate some Taco Bell and blasted open his third eye.

C'mon... you've had Taco Bell. He's lucky his "third eye" is all that blasted open.

Oh. Did I mention he was a teacher who stripped at school after being fired? Kinda makes you wonder why he was fired, huh?

Don't worry. He'll be all right. In fact, he's still planning to teach:

"...on a new level, with hands in the earth, gathering the essence and learning how to love one another and fully appreciate the spiritual realm."

Taco Bell. Opening third eyes, and appreciating the spiritual realm. Nekkid.

"Are anyone else's nuts sticking to the mat?"

2011-04-28T11:22:00.002-04:00

Heh.

Saw this at Fark... and this kinda thing is exactly why I love Fark.

Nekkid yoga.

...my, uh ... you know, my things ... what happened is they got stuck in a painful, friction-related way against the rubber mat. From deep inside came a sound like this — "Eee-ee-eeeee" — as I frantically reached down to free my, uh, the boys.

Eee-ee-eeeee, indeed.

When the smoke clears... A closer look at Gary Johnson for President

2011-04-25T21:03:00.007-04:00

The current crop of Republican hopefuls leaves me feeling uninspired.

No, no... That's far too mild.

The list of Republicans being discussed as our "options" in the beltway and the media leave me with a hollow feeling in the pit of my stomach. It's something like despair. Or the intestinal flu. I want to ask "Is this really the best the GOP can do? Really? I have to hold my nose and vote for one of these people?"

(If I want to see Obama go home as a one-term President, that's exactly what I have to do.)

So I was really excited to see that Gary Johnson had announced he's running. I've long been an admirer. He has a proven record, an understanding of our situation (and don't dismiss that as unimportant - our current administration has no grasp whatsoever on the situation and that's why it keeps getting worse), and Johnson holds to the ideals of smaller government and personal liberty so dear to the conservative heart.

Yet most of what I've read about his announcement refers to him as "best known" or "famous" or "most recognized" for his stance on marijuana and the War on Drugs. And very little I've read gave him the most remote odds of winning.

Yes, Gary Johnson has some controversial views on the drug war, and marijuana in particular. But he's famously best known and most recognized for those views because the media (old and new) highlights the controversial. (What a surprise that he's viewed in the way he's repeatedly been depicted.)

But if conservatives would give Johnson a shot on the issues and not write him off as the stoner candidate, I believe they'd like what they see. So please, let's put his stance on drugs to the side a moment (we'll come back to it, and I believe you'll see it's perfectly in line with conservative principles) and look at what else he's about.

In other words, let's let the smoke clear and see what's really there...

As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson cut taxes fourteen times and left not only a balanced budget, but a surplus. He was responsible for New Mexico's longest ever stretch with no tax increase. He cut the size of state government and privatized part of the prison system. He cut government growth by half. He fought for a school choice program. He vetoed over 750 pieces of legislation, 200 of those in the first six months. He used the line item veto thousands of times, often to remove spending from bills. He reformed Medicaid, and got the state's costs under control. He hired private companies to build highways.

That's not what he's talked about or what he's promised us or what the polls tell him we want to hear. That's what he's done.

(As an aside, he's also climbed Mt. Everest... oh, and Mt. McKinley, Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Elbrus. He's also competed in multiple Ironman Triathlons. How's that sound after a coupla years of watching President Mom Jeans embarrass himself trying to act sporty?)

So that's a taste of what he's done. If elected President, what else would he like to do? A lot of what the grassroots conservatives are calling for.

Government spends too much because it does too much... We should start by reassessing the role of the federal government, and always asking the question: Should the government be doing this in the first place?

Johnson advocates balancing the budget. Immediately. With trillions in cuts across the board, and entitlement reforms. He also wants to eliminate the corporate income tax, thereby making it less expensive for a company to create jobs in America.

The problem is public education in America is now doing less with more. This is unsustainable for our pocketbooks and, most importantly, unfair to our children.

Johnson wants to abolish the Department of Education and return education decisions to the parents and local school systems.

So Johnson is right in line with some of the conservatives' major concerns. The economy, taxes, education, restricting government growth...

Now, about that marijuana thing.

Gary Johnson wants to end the drug war as we know it. He also wants to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. But that doesn't mean his campaign slogan is "Party hearty; Die high!"

On the contrary, although Johnson readily admits a personal history of pot smoking, it's not something he does now or thinks others should be doing. In a 2001 Reason interview, he said:

Marijuana is a handicap. So is alcohol... But in spite of being a handicap, it shouldn’t be criminal.

But if Gary Johnson doesn't want to change the law so he can toke up in the Oval Office, what's his motivation? Why push for an end to the drug war?

I’m a cost-benefit analysis person: What are we spending and what are we getting? My premise is the war in drugs is a miserable failure. I don’t know of a bigger problem in every single state, or a bigger expense that might actually have alternative solutions. Drugs account for half of law enforcement spending, half of prison spending, half of court spending. What are we getting for it? We are arresting 1.6 million people a year in this country on drug-related charges, and it’s a failure.

I can't see how any small government constitutional conservative can argue the point.

I consistently have... disagreements with conservatives who want smaller government but are perfectly fine continuing to fund the War on Drugs. While I believe that on some level they accept it because it feels like a war on sin, it goes against every conservative principle.

It's expensive. Enormously expensive. It's an abject failure that we keep throwing money at... similar to the failing public school system, but most conservatives are on board with an education shakeup. It's an affront to personal liberty and, frankly, smacks of the nanny-statism that usually sets conservative teeth on edge. And it has actually caused underground criminal enterprise, much as alcohol prohibition created and strengthened the original gang problems.

But I hope it's clearer... while Johnson definitely advocates major changes to our drug policy, he's not looking to be President Chong. He's coming at the issue from a small-government, common sense, conservative viewpoint.

I urge my fellow conservatives (That's inaccurate. This is nearly begging, but I'm fine with that. Looking at the other Republican wanna-runs, there's that feeling in my gut again.) to take another look at Gary Johnson... to wave away the clouds of smoke and actually learn something about the candidate.

Reason magazine offers excellent roundups here and here, and their 2001 interview is here. Race42012 collected Johnson's public answers to questions posed on Twitter, offering further insight. The Boston Globe wrote about his legalization ideas here. And his campaign site is here.

Johnson's biggest obstacle at the moment might be low name recognition. While I'm hoping to help correct that, it's not the end of the world. In my congressional district, an almost unknown candidate destroyed the Republican party's chosen candidate in the primary, then went on to close within single digits of the sitting Congressman with a huge war chest and major connections. In the age of the TEA Party, being a relative unknown isn't as much of a handicap it used to be.

So, please... have a look at Gary Johnson. And if he can't be accepted as the conservative candidate, someone explain to me why. With the notable exception of Herman Cain, he's the only candidate I can feel passionate about so far.

Now I just have to convince the rest of you...

---
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Also posted at Left Coast Rebel. Thanks!

Those Mysterious Independent Voters

2011-04-20T12:35:00.008-04:00

Are independent voters really so mysterious?

Why is it that our simple refusal to claim party affiliation leads supposedly intelligent political writers/bloggers to speculate wildly about what goes on in the mind of an independent? I posted about this before, back when David Brooks wondered "What independents want".

I've been an independent from the time I first registered to vote until the 2008 primaries. Did I suddenly see the wisdom of playing for a team? Uh, no. I changed my registration for the specific purpose of voting in the primary, a right otherwise denied me in my state. I do not self-identify as a Republican, and there's a very real possibility I'll switch to Democrat for the next primary, based on what happens with PA's redistricting. I'm a moderate conservative, social libertarian, and -- at heart and in my mind -- an independent still.

So I get annoyed by the folks like Brooks who wonder in print what it is we independents want. I stick by my common sense answer from the time -- Why not actually ask one?!

Seems maybe that's a little too much like work... why not just make shit up? And hey! The more insulting, the better!

Take, for example, "The Indy Conundrum" over at Mother Jones where Kevin Drum has the answer:

First: the vast, vast majority of independents don't really have any idea what Obama's plan to handle the deficit is. They just know that (a) the deficit is high and (b) Obama is president.

Aahhhhh. I see. We're stupid. Reminds me of Brooks. (Cue the flashback music and wavy graphics.)

"If I were a politician trying to win back independents, I’d say something like this: When I was a kid, I had a jigsaw puzzle of the U.S. Each state was a piece...."

Heh. That line still pisses me off.

Anyway, Drum wasn't finished. (Don't blame me for the interruption. It was Brooks.)

Beyond that, there are kids to get to school, laundry to be done, bosses to be pleased, and leaky faucets to be fixed. The details of the deficit debate are just a bit of partisan background noise that they haven't really parsed yet.

See that? Not only are we stupid, we apparently suffer from the world's first case of collective ADD.

"Don't bother me with Teh Poly-ticks right now, sonny! The dishwarsher's runnin', the dog needs put out and I gotta get to work! How many thoughts do you think my precious little head can hold all at once?!"

(As an aside, this might be the first valid reason I've ever seen to join a political party... Mussolini got the trains running on time, and apparently when you pick up that little "D" or "R", all the broken crap in your house is magically repaired so you can concentrate on toeing the party line! Yea! Where do I sign up? My dishwasher hasn't worked since the hippies screwed with the soap formula.)

Seriously, what the hell?

Drum's ~~brain fart~~ brilliant observations were provoked by a Washington Post piece on the new McClatchy-Marist poll. It shows that while independents tend to feel similar to Obama on tax hikes and Medicare/Medicaid cuts, they still don't approve of the job he's done on the deficit... or really, the job he's done overall.

Thus, it's a mystery! An enigma! A fer-gawds-sakes CONUNDRUM!

Except it isn't.

A lot of moderates and independents allowed themselves to be bamboozled into believing Obama was himself somewhat moderate. (Not this indy. I'd heard his little critique of the Constitution early on and was telling friends and family the man was a socialist before he ever ran across the football-tossing plumber.)

A lot of independents and moderates did want change. -- Until they got a taste of the kinds of change Obama had in mind. Ramming through unread, unwanted legislation... government takeover of the auto industry... the stimulus... TARP... czars... class warfare... public sector vs. private sector... redefining "opaque" as "transparent"...

Are you getting my point?

And yet, now that Obama is back in campaign mode, the liberal press/bloggers want to make it as if it's the independent voters with the problem and not the President. (Don't bother to comment or email that Brooks is a conservative. Bovine excrement. He's a conservative like I'm an Olympic athlete. Read: Not friggin' remotely.)

So, in the interest of saving these heavy thinkers some actual effort at their craft, please allow me to repeat what I wrote in response to Brooks barely a year after the election. And bear in mind, I can't speak for all independents. (We hate that! Something the two parties have never been able to figure out.) But it isn't that different from what my conservative friends think:

...THAT'S what independents want most. A government that listens to its people, and does what we want. A government that remembers American people have minds (some of them damn brilliant), and treats us accordingly. A government that serves us instead of ruling us. A government that protects us without controlling us. A government that provides the framework, and then gets the hell out of our way.

Mystery solved.

--------

Pre-Posting UPDATE:

I wrote this yesterday (Wed., April 20) and didn't get a chance to post it. (I had to take the rabbit to get neutered, and hooboy do you ever wanna read that post when it goes up. Or maybe you don't...)

Anyway, I'm glad life got in the way for a minute. It gave me a chance to go and read the McClatchy-Marist poll results myself. Which I should have done in the first place. Turns out, the independent numbers track pretty closely to the overall voter numbers.

So Independents aren't the problem. Obama is the problem.

And the only real mystery here is how Drum came to his (baseless) conclusions...

But don't be too rough on him. Maybe his dishwasher won't work with hippy soap either. Can't expect him to concentrate on that and make sound political judgements at the same time, right?

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Water Powered Jet Pack

2011-04-15T20:18:00.003-04:00

Dude.

WANT.

WBC Whackadoos Outnumbered... and Outclassed

2011-04-15T18:31:00.002-04:00

This is really cool.

The Phelps cult tried to put on another disgraceful performance, and ended up the focus of a bigger protest.

"It looks like we planned for what we got... The cooperation of the people here was phenomenal. Everyone that was here got to exercise their rights."

I hope this starts happening every time their bus pulls up.

Excellent.

SE Cupp responds to Olbermann, comes off looking worse than he did

2011-04-15T15:03:00.006-04:00

I'm really beginning to think this woman is a ninny.

I posted earlier about Olbermann's tweet heard 'round the world. (I obviously do not subscribe to the general conservative view on this.)

Anyway...

Not content to bask in the outraged support of her admirers (not to mention her mother), S E Cupp took to the airwaves to respond to Olbermann herself...

And came off sounding like a fool.

(Yeah, yeah. I know. But I ducked the rock, so better luck next time.)

Appearing on Beck's radio program (as covered by The Blaze), she said... well... she said some pretty stupid stuff.

Beginning with what I assume was a joke (albeit a bad one), she said of Olbermann's feelings toward her:

I don't recall ever turning down one of his sexual advances, so I don't know what his beef with me is...

Oh, heehee. Ain't I cute?

But then we move to melodrama.

When you get death threats and hate mail, you never get used to hearing that someone wishes you were dead.

Oh, give me a fuckin' break. While I believe she gets death threats and hate mail, I don't believe for a second you can reasonably compare KO's remarks to such. Come on. The guy's a tool, but he's also just a mouth and everyone knows it. Besides, he didn't wish her dead... he wished she'd never been born. Not the same thing.

No one is going to be surprised to learn that Keith Olbermann is incredibly misogynistic and has huge problems with women.

Noooo. But some folks might be surprised to learn that a supposed writer doesn't know that "has huge problems with women" is pretty much the definition of the word "misogynistic". Wonder if she knows the definition of "redundant"?

She goes on to lament that Olbermann would

...spew that kind of vile in a public forum...

I guess she needs the definition of "vile" as well. (Hint, punkin'... it ain't a noun.)

She also mentions her mother's defense, which most adults might be embarrassed by.

And it involved my mom, most importantly, who was kind enough to address a letter to him on the Blaze because I didn't really have the stomach for it yesterday. She had no problem, let me tell you.

Maybe she had no problem with it, but aren't you grown? As a supposedly mature, professional adult, is it appropriate to send a note from your mommy when things get all icky?

Back to the melodrama...

...it was really gross, and unfortunately a kind of a sad and scary moment...

Gross? Scary? My head hurts. But she keeps talking.

I'm just gonna put it out there - he better hope nothing happens to me in the next few days or else he's gonna get a wrath (rash?) of hell rained down upon him...

Oh, lady, are you shitting me?! If something happens to you... Give me a break. Are you almost finished?

Ooop. Turns out she is. Just this one last little tidbit to share.

It would be really nice if some groups like Planned Parenthood or NOW or some of the feminist groups would sort of come out and say that we reject this kind of invective...

WHY?! Why do you need liberal women's group to speak out? Would that make it less gross or scary? Who gives a shit where they stand? You know they don't stand for you!

I know... it's probably sarcasm. (Let's hope... but I suspect that might be giving her too much credit.) Still, why even go there?

My opinion?

She's gonna milk this sucker for all it's worth (which is already far more than it should have been), and stretch it into as much publicity as she can.

A more appropriate response would have been to shrug it off with a "consider the source" and a grin, while reminding all the concerned conservatives she's made of tougher stuff.

Unless she isn't.

In which case she should take her purse and go home.

Eeeeek! Yucky Meat Pictures!

2011-04-15T12:38:00.005-04:00

Oh, this is funny.

A vegan website has a rant up about VegNews magazine running pictures of... wait for it...

ZOMG MEAT!!!1!11!

Hooboy. My belly hurts from laughing.

Now, I've never treated the vegans with anything other than... ok, with mockery, disrespect and more mockery.

(In fact, I've gone farther than that on multiple occasions.)

But while I don't share their compunctions about animal-based protein, I could at least grasp why they choose to abstain from eating it.

But now they're too delicate to even look at it?

Oh, good grief.

The controversy stems from the fact that the magazine is photoshopping pictures of meat to make it look like meat-alternatives. (There's a gross euphemism for ya. "Meat alternative". Blech.)

Anyway, the vegans-with-the-vapors can't comprehend why a magazine (which relies heavily on attractive visuals, natch) wouldn't show actual vegan dishes.

Uh... I have a theory.

Maybe it's because while veggies look beautiful when fresh, whole and colorful... once you whup them up into a vegan meal, the result looks kinda like a bowl of vomit.

Just sayin'.

---
UPDATE: Oh fer cryin' out loud. Now this is big news, too?

Olbermann, Cupp, and the Necessity of Thicker Skin

2011-04-15T10:26:00.007-04:00

From the department of "Why is this news?"

No... nobody called Sarah Palin a vulgarism for female genitalia again. Yet.

But the situation - and the reaction - are similar, and it further demonstrates that not only are some conservatives guilty of reverse sexism, but that they need to get a grip.

Yesterday Keith Olbermann tweeted the following about conservative cutie-pie columnist SE Cupp:

On so many levels, she's a perfect example of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does. RT @meow_6 #wo... http://tl.gd/9rivj3

This morning, it's at the top of Memeorandum, with links to coverage all over the place. The Blaze, JWF, Mr. G's, Mediaite, Newsbusters, PajamasMedia, IOwnTheWorld...

See what I mean?

I repeat my question: Why is this news?

Reading the posts above, the general reaction seems to be two-part. First, who would ever say (tweet - whatever) such a thing?! And second, a whole lotta references to Ms. Cupp's gender and appearance.

Let's take 'em one at a time.

First, a lot of people say things like that. The Urban Dictionary defines "Abortion Poster Child" because it has entered the vernacular as an effective insult. (And interestingly, at least one commenter at the sites listed above made remarks along the lines that the best part of ol' Olby ran down his mom's leg. How is that remotely different from KO's snark?)

Is it tasteless? Sure. The best insults often are. But unheard of? Not hardly.

But I gotta say, the bigger deal to me is the second part of the conservative response...

In my humble opinion, conservatism is supposed to embrace true equality. Not the equality of liberalism, where to be "equal" you must be artificially elevated and protected, but actually treating people the same regardless of their group or gripe. No class warfare, no victim status, no special treatment for special groups...

So you'll have to forgive me if I think demanding kid gloves treatment for conservative women is damn nearly offensive.

The idea that Sarah Palin might be tough enough for public office and international affairs while still being such a delicate flower that she'll wilt in the presence of profanity is nonsense. (The very fact that grown adults are reduced to euphemisms like "the c-word" is also nonsense, but that's a whole 'nother post.)

Yet when it hit the news, even a lib I know fell back on "But she's someone's wife... daughter... mother...!"

Yeah? So?

She's also fair game.

So is Ms. Cupp.

Why would I write that? How could I be so callous and low? It's very, very simple.

This is America. I treasure the right to say what I think about the President (all of 'em, not just this one), Congress, the media, sports stars, the cast of Jersey Shore... you get the idea.

I refuse to set aside roughly half the population of the world as untouchable simply because they have breasts. Period.

Following the new rules, I can't even bash Pelosi anymore!

Oh, wait... I forgot something. The other bit of outrage (part 2b, if you will) is specific references to Ms. Cupp's physical appearance.

So, we can insult ugly liberal women? Is that the deal?

Nonsense.

If these women want to step on the public stage, they'd better be ready to give as good as they get. (In fairness, I did like Palin's reaction to Maher... a kind of "sticks and stones" mentality, while dishing it right back. Well done! Cupp not only seemed more affected, she actually dragged her mommy into the fight. If you ever catch me having my mother guest blog to defend me from the meanies, come slap the crap out of me. Seriously.)

And if conservatives want conservative women in office and the media to be taken seriously, they'd better stop pretending that those women are on a pedestal, above insult and innuendo. This is America, remember? If you're on the stage, you'd better learn to duck the occasional rotten tomato... because we're all critics here.

And that's exactly as it should be.

----

Cross-posted at RepublicanRedefined.

----
UPDATE: I ain't done.

Bad Day

2011-04-12T17:11:00.006-04:00

Today sucks.

I'm in a "Fuck You!" mood.

Suck day. Shit day. Thank whoever that I carry plenty of pissed off music on my MP3, so I had a portable soundtrack for my bad day....

"GIVE ME SOMETHIN' TO BREAK! HOW 'BOUT YOUR FUCKIN' FACE?!"

No? How 'bout this one?

"STILL FEEL IT ALL SLIPPING AWAY, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE! EVERYBODY'S STILL CHIPPING AWAY, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE!"

No?

Ah, well then... Fuck you, too.

I need a drink.

NRO - Not Reporting Objectively?

2011-04-08T14:50:00.009-04:00

Now Re-editing Outrageously?

Never Remember Offensiveness?

Nimrod Reporter Obfuscates?

Well, I thought NRO meant National Review Online.

Whatever it means, I believe from here forward I'll take anything they publish with a grain (or maybe a shaker) of salt.

Here's the deal:

On April 4, Robert Costa at NRO published an interview with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-evolting, SC) who wanted to clarify his utterly gawd-awful remarks on limiting free speech from the day before. You remember. He said:

"I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war."

And then he was shocked (shocked!) to realize that ordinary Americans were outraged at his lack of comprehension when it comes to the Constitution. So, apparently as ignorant of "The First Rule of Holes" as he is of basic American principles, Graham called Costa ~~to borrow a shovel~~ to clarify his remarks. He said (among other things):

"General Petraeus sent a statement out to all news organizations yesterday, urging our government to ban Koran burning. Free speech probably allows that, but I don’t like that."

This is where it gets interesting.

After being linked by several other sites, including Hot Air and Reason, Costa went back and changed his piece. Now the interview reads (emphasis mine):

General Petraeus sent a statement out to all news organizations yesterday, urging our government to [condemn] Koran burning. Free speech probably allows that, but I don’t like that.

Excuse me?

What the hell happened here?

Well, according to Costa, there was a transcription error. He was befuddled by the Senator's southern accent and misheard. He corrected his error by changing the word (and adding brackets - flashy!) and including this at the end of his piece:

"EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been amended since its original posting."

Now, I'm not a reporter. Hell, I don't even play one on TV. But I spend an inordinate amount of my time reading the news. I have never seen a "correction" handled in this fashion. Nevah!

In fact, the only times I've seen brackets within a quote is when the writers/editors are clarifying something... and in those cases the brackets specifically denote that the wording is not a direct quote. (For the record, I checked with an actual newspaper reporter of my acquaintance who concurs.)

I call bullshit.

And I'm not the only one. From the comments on the Reason article:

"Fishy. That's not plausibly a transcribing error, so either NRO intentionally misquoted him or they're covering his ass."

Nailed it in one.

I have a thing for accents. I love them, and it doesn't much matter what kind. (Except my own... which draws comments every time I speak to someone new. They always want to know what kind of accent it is. I dunno... hillbilly, I guess.) Anyway, I've listened intently to the music in others' speech all my life. I can not think of - or mimic - a single accent that turns "condemn" into "ban". Try it. Go on. Put on your best southern-fried and try it... No one can hear you. Probably.

The hard "d" in condemn wrecks it every time.

Furthermore, Graham's accent is mild. Here's the video of his original remarks to Bob Schieffer:

Are we seriously supposed to believe that that little bit o' nothin' twang is unintelligible?

At best, we can question NRO's correction policies, which is an amusing endeavor on its own. See, I searched the site for their correction policy. While I didn't find one, I did find a whole list of articles where they hammer other media outlets over sub par policy. That lovely list produced this little gem in a Donald Luskin piece celebrating the fact that NRO had succeeded in getting no less than the NYTimes to change their policy. Luskin rejoices:

No longer will the columnists be responsible for running their own corrections, appended as end-notes to their columns (or snuck into the main text so they don’t look like corrections at all).

Heh.

Mind you, that quote was about the NYT's editorial page. Maybe NRO doesn't think it's important to hold straight reporters to the same standards.

But I did say that was an "at best" assumption. There's also an "at worst".

Maybe Senator Graham misquoted General Petraeus and the National Review is engaged in a little butt-covering on the Senator's behalf.

It is decidedly strange that Costa would go back after his piece was posted - and linked! - and relisten to the interview. Shouldn't he have done that before putting his (and Graham's) words on the worldwide web? Does he not realize that the old carpenters' motto of "measure twice, cut once" applies to much of life?

Does he not know (as even a humble blogger does) that you don't attribute a quote you aren't 100% certain of? And that (as even the same humble blogger knows) you don't correct a misquote by putting it in brackets and then not mentioning the fact that you screwed up?!

His "correction" doesn't say that he misquoted Graham. It simply says the article was amended. That could mean anything.

I don't like this. It's so fishy I wish we still had a government website for fishiness. (OK, not really.) But something stinks.

Mr. Costa, release the damn tape. If you did make a transcription error, you owe Graham more than the half-assed "correction" you offered. You owe him an apology.

And if it wasn't a transcription error, you owe your readers an apology.

Until the recording (and a better explanation) is offered up, I'm going to view NRO's reporting about the same way I view Bat Boy reporting from the Weekly World News...

Which is to say, with extreme prejudice and a near-total lack of belief.

---
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined

Don't Shoot Shoot Shoot That Thing At Me

2011-04-05T14:52:00.003-04:00

Today's earworm, courtesy of the Violent Femmes.

No... not a bunch of pissed off drag queens. These guys:

During the last really bad storm (when the precipitation looked like the stuff in a Slush Puppy machine) it was wicked out. Absolutely treacherous. A semi jack-knifed right (like 50 feet) in front of me. It was the worst weather I can remember driving in.

Yet Spawn and I were on the roads. Sliding, spinning, laughing like escaped mental patients... and listening to "Add It Up" at top volume as we tempted the grim reaper.

Dunno why it's stuck in my head today. But it is.

Now I wanna do donuts.

WyBlog to acquire The New York Times in stock swap deal

2011-04-01T10:08:00.003-04:00

In a blogging move that makes the highly successful "Underpants Gnome Business Plan" look like amateur hour, Chris Wysocki of WyBlog has orchestrated a deal to acquire the now-languishing-behind-a-paywall New York Times in a stock trade.

Readers who've been put off by the NYT's newly enacted demand for money will be happy to learn that Wysocki has a better plan:

"Pay for my beer and I'll let you in behind the wall," Wysocki said. "Hell, pay for any right-of-center blogger's beer and you're in like Flynn."

And in addition to weeding out the entrenched liberal reporters ("I went down to the parking garage and fired everybody whose car had an Obama bumper sticker on it. And for the 20 or so cars with Kerry/Edwards stickers, those guys I shot on sight."), he's looking for new writing talent ("Everyone on my blogroll is encouraged to apply," Wysocki said. "You're pretty much guaranteed a job so long as you link this post.")

Head to WyBlog for the whole story, and congratulate him on this blogging coup.

We'll be able to say, "We knew him when..."

We're comin' ta take yer IRISH CARD, laddie!

2011-03-15T17:13:00.003-04:00

I'm Irish.

OK... I'm a mutt. Heh. But my genetic makeup draws heavily from the Emerald Isle. I've got more O's and Mc's and Fitz's in my family tree than you can shake a shillelagh at. (Shows, too. Pasty skin and lotsa red in my hair.)

And I'm self-aware Irish. (I neither posted or thought much about Bloomberg's remarks.) There are perfectly good reasons for some of the stereotypes about us. Many of us are superstitious, temperamental, drunk... Hell, some of us are all of the above.

So, with our Holiest Holy Day coming up, I was genuinely amused to read Kevin Myers' suggestion that Ireland do away with the "demeaning farce" of St. Patrick's Day.

"It should really be called St. Patrick's DNA, as across the world, Irishmen and women have shown in full and shameful manner how we cannot be trusted to celebrate the day without making drunken disgraces of ourselves."

Too right.

I rarely drink alcohol. Maybe a coupla times a year. But you can bet your green beer that one of those days is fast approaching. I'm only disappointed that it's on a Thursday. I figure, if we can put Columbus Day and Presidents Day on a Monday, year after year... well, we oughtta be able to make St. Paddy's the third Saturday of March!

Years back, I can remember a friend trying to make some St. Patrick's Day party arrangements. When I said I didn't know if I'd be drinking (another weeknight) my wise friend (with a Mc at the beginning of his name) gave me the following grave warning:

"Gah! You have to! I'm pretty sure it's a law. If you don't get ripped on St. Pat's, they'll take away your Irish Card!"

Well, you can't take foolish chances, right? Right. Not even aware until then that I'd been in possession of an Irish card, I've nevertheless done my duty and protected it all these years.

(Old friend... if by any chance you read this, you'll know very well who wrote it. Get in touch.)

Anyway, Myers' piece made me laugh. His indignation at Ireland's (and hyphenated, late generation Irish-blooded folk the world over) national past time embarrasses him. As does our lack of remorse.

"Yet far from being ashamed at this achievement, it forms the heart of a really perverse national characteristic."

Yeah, yeah. Except perversity is another trait we're known for.

I have a suggestion. Someone should go pick Kevin up Thursday night, take him to the pub, and pour Irish whiskey down his throat until he thinks he's being waterboarded. He'll see the light.

And if he fights...

Take away his Irish card.

THAT'S gonna leave a mark...

2011-03-15T13:53:00.004-04:00

Heh. Saw this at Fark.

(And this kinda stuff is exactly why I love Fark.)

"Snake Dies After Biting Orit Fox's Fake Boob!"

Supposedly, it died from silicone poisoning.

I don't know if it actually died, but the video is freakin' hilarious.

Somehow I don't think that snake's a Minchin fan. Or then again, maybe he is and that explains it.

Lubbly.

Harpies Travel In Flocks...

2011-03-14T11:55:00.007-04:00

An interesting few days 'round here. More traffic and comments than I'm used to. Heh.

So here's the story...

The other day, I was reading The Other McCain, clicking back and forth through a discussion of feminism. He managed to anger some conservative women who self-identify as feminists by arguing against the notion that conservative feminism exists. (See Barbara Kay piece on Sarah Palin and feminism to see where this started.)

McCain offered up the analogy: "Feminism is to women as Mafia is to Sicilians",and stated the opinion (which I happen to agree with) that men aren't welcomed as critics of feminism. He went on to lament the dearth of conservative women criticizing feminism.

He took snippets of a comment from one of the women, interspersed them through a paragraph of his own snark, and ended it with the statement

"Implied: Any woman who defends him is a right-brained ignoramus."

Well, anyone who reads this blog knows I have a perverse sense of humor. When I read that, I thought, "Heh. Guess that's me."

See, I've linked McCain in several posts about feminism. (I've even pointed out where he and Amanda Marcotte have an opinion in common.) He's one of the few men with the nerve to take on the femininnies who also has the skill to do it well -- and with humor, which may be what I enjoy most about it. The point is, I generally agree with him on the topic (not that he needs my defense... and my little blog probably doesn't even amount to a blip on his traffic) so when he writes something on the topic that gets my wheels turning, I post.

So, amused by the fact that doing so would label me -- in McCain's words -- a right-brained ignoramus, I agreed with the notion that Sarah Palin is not a feminist. (To my mind, she's not. I think it's a question of semantics, but I would never refer to her as a feminist.) And then I went on to talk about leftist feminism.

Hooboy.

I forgot two important facts. First, feminists (of any stripe apparently) brook no argument. There can be no dissent. Second, when dealing with women,regardless of what they say or what treatment they demand from men, not all women are equal. (More on that in a minute.)

Oh, wait... I forgot something else.

Harpies travel in flocks.

The first thing probably requires no explanation. I've posted before that I find it nearly impossible to have an exchange with radical feminists... not because I don't want to, but because they aren't interested in talking to anyone who doesn't already agree with them. I was actually told once "If you don't believe in rape culture, there can't be dialogue between us." (Never mind the obvious question, which is "How the hell can you convince anyone you're right if you won't talk to anyone who doesn't already think you're right?!") It's like trying to talk to a kindergartner who has their fingers in their ears yelling "Neener! Neener! I can't hear you!"

Well, unbeknownst to me, some "conservative feminists" are worse. They don't shout that they can't hear you... they want you to shut up, period. I haven't received a fraction of the venom and animosity from the leftists that the righties were eager to spew at me.

The second thing may be a surprise to some. Aren't feminists (liberal, conservative, Venusian, whatever...) about all women? Wouldn't it seem pointless, not to mention hypocritical, to demand that all men treat all women equally only to turn around and make value judgements against your fellow females?

Why, yes. Yes it would.

But it doesn't stop 'em. Indeed, the one shrieking the loudest about how she was wronged, taken out of context, mocked on the internet! has made some really questionable remarks.

For example, all the ruckus started because the quote that inspired my post came (loosely) from comments she'd made, filtered through the lens of McCain's brain. It wasn't her original words that prompted my post, but McCain's interpretation. Now, since I've been accused of being passive-aggressive and backpedaling, let me be clear... I don't care if that wording came to McCain in a goddamn dream. I wasn't interested in or attempting to quote the source of his inspiration for those words.

But since she claims I misrepresented her (and since she's called me passive-aggressive and a disingenuous bitch, fuck you very much), let's look at her words:

"A lot of left-brained, educated women are infuriated by Stacy’s line of reasoning – we know ourselves to be equal to men (Stacy’s line about equality implying interchangeability aside, because they really are not the same thing at all), and don’t see why the laws and our society should not reflect that."

Left-brained, educated women. The type she (and leftist feminists) believe are the pinnacle of enlightened womanhood. Way to speak for all your sisters! And... does that not imply exactly what McCain wrote? Who does disagree with you? (Other than me, I guess.)

McCain also wrote (another time):

Permit me to draw down upon myself the fury of every woman within reach of a keyboard by explaining what I think motivates bourgeois women writers to claim the “feminist” label:
When you say “feminist,” what you really mean to say is “intelligent, college-educated, career woman.”

Nailed it in one.

Another from the shrieker:

"The other thing is that I know plenty of babycake women - sweetie pies (not genuinely kind women) who have cute hair, cute nails, are smart-but-not-as-smart, and otherwise entirely non-threatening. They pretend that their brand of "ambition" and brains is the best that can be expected of women. Then they can't figure out why ambitious women condescend to them."

See that? Certain women are deserving of condescension. (And shockingly, it seems being not-as-smart and cute are factors in whether you get a taste of her derision. The lefties go after the same ones, by the way. Interesting, since brains and looks are traits we're born with -- or not -- and therefore shouldn't be used to determine worth...)

So, color me unimpressed with this version of "feminism" also.

The third thing I mentioned... about the harpies. Yeah. Did you ever see a group of chickens circle another chicken (which they've determined through henhouse logic to be an outsider) and peck it to death? They ring it in and, clucking like mad all the while, literally peck the offender apart, one beakful at a time.

That's basically what happens when you piss off a harpy. The entire flock charges in senseless, blind loyalty and attacks.

I inadvertently offended one of them, by linking a quote that wasn't even hers. And it didn't matter that I offered a good faith explanation that the first quote hadn't been my target. (Explaining yourself is passive-aggressive, doncha know?) It didn't even matter that the first commenter of the little group lied and falsely accused me of distorting her positions, when I never touched on her positions. (You still owe an apology, but I don't expect one. You're intellectually dishonest, and you know it.)

No... they were righteously indignant, and they were by-gawd gonna let me have it.

Well, let me be as clear as possible:

When I decide to be aggressive, there's nothing fucking passive about it. If it was about you, I'd have come at you. You don't intimidate me and, like Amanda Marcotte, you don't speak for me. I don't have to answer to you, and I could give a shit for your approval.

You comment on my blog that my discourse saddens you. Gimme a break. You ran out of anything intelligent to say, and started making yeast infection jokes! Yeah, that's debate! I'm so impressed.

You're like high school girls. Catty, cliquish, judgemental, and with an extremely overinflated sense of your own importance. Need proof? This is directed to me:

"Then you pull the passive-aggressive move of the century and tell the lovely woman who sticks up for me that she's getting bent out of shape over nothing.
Scratch, you made this war. The fact that the fallout makes a Japanese nuclear reactor look safe is a problem that rests at your own feet, with your own smarmy post."

A war!!!1!! Predicated by the passive-agressive move of the century, no less! (Which makes me wonder where you've been all your life. Seriously? My little blurb was historic?) And the fall-ass-over-teakettle-laughing best part?

The fallout makes a Japanese nuclear reactor look safe!

Oh me! Oh my! Oh goodness gracious!

BAHAHA!

Get over yourself, punkin. I put more worry into what I needed from the store Sunday than I have into this little dustup.

So.

Have I learned anything at all from this?

Well, yes, now that you mention it.

I've learned that some conservatives who call themselves feminists could give lessons in bitch to the leftist feminists. I've learned that some folks who'd like to consider themselves intellectuals aren't above genitalia jokes when they run out of substance. I've learned that explanations are passive-aggressive. I've learned that not everyone appreciates my sense of humor.

And I've learned that blogging is more dangerous than nuclear radiation.

All right. Ha. Couldn't write that last sentence with a straight face.

I've also learned to ignore what I read about blogging etiquette. See, a good while back, I read a piece about it, and -- since the blogger who wrote it is well-known and fairly respected -- I tried to learn and remember it. One of the things it touched upon was linking back to sources. Well, now that I've been excoriated and one of the excuses is "You linked my post!", I'm rethinking what I read back then. If you notice, I haven't linked anyone but RSM here. (The quotes I offered are in the comments sections from this blog and the one that linked to McCain and myself. Go look 'em up yourself.)

I'd like to add, however, that I find it a beautiful irony. The post I read on etiquette and try to adhere to when I blog was written by none other than the blogger who's pissed that I linked her.

And I find that fucking funny as well.

Right-Brained Ignoramus

2011-03-11T15:59:00.013-05:00

I've been following the back-and-forth between RSM and some female conservative bloggers on the topic of feminism and the difference between Sarah Palin feminism (if such a thing exists) and radical leftist feminism.

I've read the posts by Stacy and Little Miss Attila, as well as the Barbara Kay piece that started the discussion, thinking about where I come down on the issue.

Personally, I think it's a question of semantics.

To my mind, the word feminism refers only to the leftist movement which I consider to be not about the advancement of women, but the settling of grudges. I'm aware that Sarah Palin considers herself a feminist... and I happen to disagree with her.

But I do generally agree with McCain when he takes on feminists. And it was with great interest that I read his opinion on female conservative writers who've wanted to argue that their feminism is different, and that he does a disservice by not recognizing that fact. He quotes a comment by Roxanne De Luca as he defines the case against him:

"...I am doing a "disservice to the conservative movement"? Because my "line of reasoning" is allegedly offensive to "left-brained, educated women"? (Implied: Any woman who defends him is a right-brained ignoramus!)

Well... enter right-brained ignoramus.

That's right.

I. Am. A. Girl.

Rather, a woman. Whatever... I am the proud owner of my very own vagina.

Oh. And I also have a brain.

That's my problem with feminism. I have a mind of my own, and I don't need to be told I'm a victim. Or that society must change utterly for my convenience. Or that I need advocates in order to be just as good as any man.

In nearly forty years walking around on this planet, I have never felt oppressed. I have never felt as though I couldn't do anything a man might (with the exception of my inability to "write my name in the snow", which is kind of a bummer).

I'm an at-home mom with a busload of kids, and I don't feel that I've wasted my life or missed out on a career. Instead, like many women in my position, I have sacrificed things I consider of lesser value in order to do something I consider both important and rewarding.

The feminists won't recognize that. So they don't speak for me.

Now, I realize I'm probably not McCain's vision of the ideal conservative spokeswoman. I'm a social libertarian, and a scofflaw one at that. And since I have less education (formal or informal) on organized feminism and I tend to call them names (although I prefer femininny to feminazi), I probably qualify as a ranting, random ignoramus like he mentions in his post.

But I am a woman. And I believe feminism is a heinous movement which serves to divide the sexes and denigrate men. I believe the completely wrongheaded ideas of feminism are dangerous to women -- especially young women who buy into the notion that enough activism and sister solidarity will render the world a safe place to be a sheep.

McCain wrote:

"...I was born with a penis, and no one born with a penis can be permitted to write with authority as a critic of feminism."

All right then. I was not born with a penis. And while I'm not sure how much authority I project when writing, I am a critic of feminism.

I've never mentioned my gender on this blog. I didn't want it to be about me personally, but about what was on my mind at any given moment. Though I gotta say, I damn near posted it once... back when PunditMom accused me of "unsubstantiated mockery" and offered to defend me if the New York Times ever started mistreating men.

(Note to PM: On rereading that post, I still feel you're guilty of a silly overreaction and have no one to blame for getting pegged as a "mommy blogger".)

And I happen to agree with McCain wholeheartedly. We don't need conservative feminists. We don't need feminists, period. Rather than bemoan the young women lost to the left because conservatism doesn't embrace feminist nonsense, we should be counteracting the effects of leftist teachings by telling young women that feminism is a flawed concept that demands unequal treatment in the name of equality, and leaves no room for common sense.

Why this is a problem is a mystery to me. We don't have black conservatives arguing for affirmative action, reparations and a "reclaiming" of the NAACP. Instead, they are wise enough to know that an ideology of victimhood has been one of their greatest obstacles -- and they stand against it. Conservative women should take a similar view of feminism.

He may not get agreement from "conservative feminist" women who can't see past their own gender... but he's got this former-liberal, apatheist, socially libertarian, female right-brained ignoramus firmly in his corner. (On this subject, at least.)

--------------
Update:
Better than a link.
A whole post from the man himself! Thank you!
Welcome folks from The Other McCain!

Oh, gee. Another, from Little Miss Attila.
--------------
Update 2.0:
I'm not done.

Extremists to the left of me... Extremists to the right

2011-03-09T11:45:00.006-05:00

Yesterday, I attended dueling rallies at Jason Altmire's office... Planned Parenthood was there (in a bright pink bus), as was the Susan B Anthony group along with Lila Rose. Both sides wanted to address Altmire's vote on the Pence legislation which would cut funding to PP. Both sides were talking to an empty office, as the Congressman wasn't there.

I spent all evening thinking, and I'm still at a bit of a loss to describe how I feel.

(I'll say first that both groups behaved better than I expected. The single example of bad behavior I noticed was mild. A woman in a PP t-shirt was taking pictures of the SBA protesters... the incident I witnessed was this woman holding her camera phone about 10 inches from another woman's face, trying to take her picture. When the woman with the camera up her nose covered her face with her sign, the PP activist asked "You don't want me to take your picture?" The other woman responded "You can take my picture with my sign, but not just my face." At that point, the woman in pink wandered away. Guess she didn't want the shot after all...)

Anyway.

Planned Parenthood was up first. When the first speaker used the word "extremist" four times in a matter of moments, I was rolling my eyes. They focused solely on the healthcare aspects of PP, and I don't know that I even heard the word abortion. Instead, they tried to paint the picture that PP is the only health choice for many women. (One of the speakers, a college student, said PP is her primary care provider because her regular copays are too high.)

When the SBA bus arrived, about half of the PP crowd (around 30 at peak) had gone. The second crowd was a little bigger (still only 50 or so), and included Altmire's 2010 challenger Keith Rothfus.

Lila Rose...

I know I'm going to piss people off, she's done a lot of work to expose PP. But... well... I didn't enjoy listening to her. The problem wasn't what she said but how she said it. It was very breathy and dramatic and almost (I'm sorry, but it's my impression) cheerleaderish. It was a jarring disconnect from her words. Like the first time you actually see Rick Astley.

But that wasn't the biggest problem I had with the speakers. Another woman, a local woman, spoke about the pro-life tendencies of this district. (Even Altmire self-describes as pro-life.) But... but... BUT...

She went on. On to her views on birth control.

As she lectured on the evils of contraception (catch that? Not abortion... birth control), she told the audience:

"The reason you get married is procreation."

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I know that wasn't my top reason. Matter of fact, I don't think I know anyone who connected with their spouse by saying, "Hey! You've got some good genes there. Want to enter into a lifetime contract for the purpose of mingling our DNA at some future point?"

But she kept talking. Next subject? Rape. Specifically, whether a woman who is raped should be able to terminate a resulting pregnancy. And her take?

"Just because an act is evil doesn't mean we have the right to destroy a life."

Say what?!

Come on! I am no fan of abortion, but really?! I would never presume to tell the victim of an assault that she must incubate the child of her attacker. And while I think abortion as birth control is a disgusting concept, rape is different. It's one of the few times I believe a legal abortion should be not only available but safe and acceptable.

The most moving (and therefore influential) speaker, in my opinion, was a mother who had aborted two of her children. I spoke with her early on (when she was the lone counter-protester, standing quietly across from PP) because of her sign... which said "I recognize the dignity of my aborted children by giving them names", with the names of her babies at the bottom. Her story should have been the centerpiece of the SBA event.

But, all in all, I felt like I was between two crowds of extremists. One wanted to talk about the beneficial services PP provides, while completely ignoring the topic of abortion (although they provide them by the hundreds of thousands). The other began with abortion, but went on to include birth control and then to suggest that rape victims should just deal with it.

While I'm glad I went and listened to both sides, I left feeling like I didn't agree with either of them.

It's For The Children

2011-03-03T12:33:00.004-05:00

I saw this at Fark... (Mind you, the story is from England. But you'd better believe it'll come up here eventually.)

A Pentecostal Christian couple will not be allowed to take in foster children -- despite the fact that they have opened their home to foster kids in the past. The reason?

Because of their faith, they are not willing to tell little kids that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.

Owen Johns, the would-be foster father, said:

"All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents...

We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."

Where's the problem?

This probably seems a little odd, coming from me. I make no bones about the fact that I support equal treatment for homosexuals. I'm glad DADT has been repealed. I'd like to see DOMA die as well. I couldn't care less if gays get married (although I'm staunchly opposed to same-sex benefits without marriage - how is that equal?).

I also tend to heartily reject the idea of religious rule. (I'd fight to defend your faith, and in return I'd like you to keep your beliefs away from my Constitution thanks very much.) In the past, I've irritated some of my socially-conservative friends with my apa-theist ramblings.

But this story... This is nonsense. And blatant discrimination.

Mr. and Mrs. Johns are not willing to tell a small child that homosexuality is OK. I'm fine with that. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no need for Mr. and Mrs. Johns to have a discussion about any kind of sexuality with small children.

I have a five-year-old and a six-year-old. I can promise you that -- despite my personal feelings on the matter -- we've never discussed homosexuality and whether it's culturally acceptable or not. Why? Because I don't freaking discuss sex with children who are barely tall enough to reach a light switch!

And why should I? They're at an age where we focus on basic educational and life skills, not sex ed. Let us master shoe tying before we move on to lipstick lesbians and Billy's two dads.

I go out of my way to monitor what goes into their developing minds. I am the Master of the Remote Control. Television is limited to educational programming (of my choice), and harmless -- if mindless -- kids' shows for fun. There is no internet access without immediate, direct adult supervision, and it is only accessible (to children) from the main area of the house. MTV is strictly prohibited, as is 99% of prime time. We've even come to a point where sports are watched without children present, because of the erectile dysfunction commercials.

My kids are never exposed to explicit heterosexual activity. Why would I make an exception for homosexual activity? So, would the PC Police find me guilty as well? You betcha!

I'm just happy to know that the foster system in the UK isn't as overwhelmed as the one here in the states. Clearly, they have more than enough good, stable homes for these kids, right? I mean, they're turning away a mature, married couple with a track record of helping unfortunate kids. Oh... wait. As of August 2010, the system was "close to collapse", with not enough foster parents to go around. Very nice.

My favorite part of the story (and the part I think will be a fight in America soon) is the idea espoused by the Justices involved. They've decided that -- in the UK, at least -- laws protecting people from discrimination based on sexuality "should take precedence" over laws protecting people from discrimination based on religious belief.

Ahhhh... Discriminating discrimination!

It's for the children.

Going Buggy

2011-03-01T21:56:00.002-05:00

From the Department of "This Will Not End Well..."

Pennsylvania is pretty much ground zero for a certain alien invasion. No, I don't mean Mexicans. This is actually worse.

It's the brown marmorated stink bug.

I don't know if you're unlucky enough to have met these little buggers (heh. buggers.), but they give new meaning to the word "pest". Not only are they everywhere, but it takes special effort to get rid of them.

You can't just squish them like a normal bug. If you kill them, they give off a gawd-awful stench -- hence the name, right? You can't even suck them up with the sweeper... their little corpses will make the entire machine reek. You're reduced to a half-assed catch and release system.

So not only do I feel like a hippy, escorting some creepy-crawly out of the house when he more properly belongs on the bottom of my shoe, I do it knowing the smelly little bastard will probably have crawled through an invisible crack and back into the house by the time I close the door. He'll probably beat me back to the living room.

So why am I not overjoyed that the scientific community has decided to solve the pest problem?

Because I see where this is going.

See, the big brains at the USDA think they can curtail the stink bug population by introducing a new insect to the ecosystem. They're experimenting with teeny little Asian wasps that lay their eggs inside stink bug eggs, thus effectively aborting stink bugs in unold numbers.

What could go wrong? Right?

Hooboy. The mind boggles.

First, we need to give serious consideration to the wasps themselves. They're native to Asia. We haven't had a whole lot of good luck with imported Asian species. Whatever we bring in just kinda takes over the environment. Like kudzu. Or how about those asian carp? Remember snake heads? Godzilla?!

Or how about the damn stink bugs in the first place. Yeah.

But more importantly, if we do bring in the wasps to kill off the stink bugs... where does it end?

Remember the old lady who swallowed the fly? Huh?

First the fly. I don't know why. Then the spider. Then the bird. The cat. The dog. A goat. A cow. Finally, the horse, of course.

And how did that work out?

One dead old lady. A whole bunch of freaked-the-hell-out animals. And all for a fly who only had a 24 hour life span in the first place.

So if we follow this stink bug/wasp thing to its logical conclusion, what do we have?

Poisonous lizards? Tasmanian devils? Dingos?
ALLIGATORS?!

See what I'm saying?

I'd rather take my chances with DDT.

--------

I found this interesting...

I'd forgotten all the animals in the old lady song, so had to do a search. I found the lyrics on a National Institutes of Health website.

What the...?

Decisions... Decisions...

2011-02-28T12:09:00.003-05:00

OK... I'd appreciate some input, if anyone wants to fling some my way.

One of my offspring told me something interesting at the dinner table over the weekend.

Apparently, last week the teachers all showed up in red t-shirts. (Can ya guess where this is going?) When one of the students asked about the fashion statement, they answer the kids received is "We're wearing red to show support for the teachers in Wisconsin."

From what I gather, that was pretty much the end of the discussion.

Now I'm torn.

On the one hand, I'm pissed that the teachers would engage in a political statement at school. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to have been much preaching done, even when they were asked about it.

But why do it unless you expected to be asked? Why wear them at SCHOOL (My kids don't vote. Do yours?) instead of during off time around the community... say, grocery shopping after work? Who was the intended target of this message, if not the kids?

We don't necessarily have a consensus on the issue here at Casa de Scratch. One adult (can ya guess which?) would prefer to vocalize a little disapproval. One considers it over and basically harmless (since the kid in question didn't even know what's going on in Wisconsin until she told us about the t-shirts).

Since the ruckus in Wisconsin (and Ohio, and Indiana...) isn't over, I foresee more displays. I'm considering preemptive action. But... I freely admit, when my kids are directly involved I have no objectivity.

Decisions... decisions...

Insomnia

2011-02-28T11:58:00.002-05:00

...sigh...

Have I mentioned this problem?

I'm a chronic insomniac. More nights than not, I end up staring at the ceiling until the wee hours of the morning. Once I finally get to sleep, I can stay there no sweat. But falling asleep? Pffft.

And I gotta say, round about quarter to three (and mind you, the alarm goes off at 6:30), I find myself hating everyone who's sleeping peacefully. Which means most of the western hemisphere. (Yes... you, too.)

So now it's lunchtime, and I feel like an extra in a zombie flick. My skull weighs about 4,ooo pounds, and I can barely keep my eyelids up. I feel slow, stupid and -- most of all -- sleepy.

And ya know the real bitch of it?

Round about 10-11 tonight, it'll start to fade. I'll survive in a somnambulistic state until the house is quiet, then my eyes will pretty much spring wide open...

And it'll begin again.

...sigh...

Femininny Declares "All Women Are Fat!" or something...

2011-02-23T13:41:00.007-05:00

(Well, I agree on at least two counts... one of the women in this post is a fatass, and the other is a fathead...)

I recently started following some feminist bloggers, after the Assaunge rape allegations brought their shrieking back to the headlines. I mentioned at the time that I've successfully ignored these "wymyn" (or something) for most of my adult life. Now that they've caught my attention, I can't stop. It's like a train wreck that never ends... Every time you think you've dredged the depths of teh stoopid and whiny wanna-be-a-victim mentality (Yes, wanna. These people choose to see themselves as downtrodden, and therefore they are - in feminist fantasy land, at least.), they amaze me with something new.

This morning, femininny Amanda Marcotte put up a piece taking Rush Limbaugh to task. For calling Michelle Obama fat.

Marcotte actually writes:

"In a patriarchy, all women are "fat", i.e. they take up too much space and have physical bodies that are coded as Other and therefore disgusting."

Um... No.

Not all women are fat. None of the females who reside under my roof are fat, or even moderately overweight.

Michelle Obama, on the other hand, is thick indeed. While she's not morbidly obese, she's a biggun', all right. And the idea that only a man or a brainwashed victim of the patriarchy can see that is ludicrous.

I posted about my youngest daughter's reaction to the First Lady. A healthy, active, fit & trim child, she does not respond well at all to Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" campaign. The PSAs infuriate her. The very first time she saw the spot, my precocious one yelled at the television:

"Why don't you try it yourself, Fat Ass!"

During our discussion about it, she stuck to her guns. "Why is she telling me what to eat and what to do?! I'm not fat, she's fat!" ("Hypocrisy" may not be part of her vocabulary -- which I'll be sure to remedy -- but she certainly grasps the concept.)

Would this femininny honestly be willing to argue that my six-year-old is a part of the patriarchal oppressor society? Does that make my little girl "The Man"?

--As a side note, this child's stated goal for adulthood is world domination, with herself as supreme ruler of the universe. When she gets rolling about it at the dinner table, it's both hilarious and a little frightening. I can promise the femininnies, despite being born with female parts this girl is no one's victim. She's a badass. You whiners should take a lesson.--

Anyway... I'm not writing this to defend Limbaugh. I'm not really a fan. However, I might point out that while he's also large, he's not telling my kids what to eat.

No, I'm writing this because I am once again astounded by the contortions of logic the feminists are capable of. Admittedly, I'm not mentally limber enough to pull off some of the yoga-poses-of-rationality that Marcotte can accomplish... but her basic premise seems to be that Michelle Obama is a woman (womyn? pffft),and so she is fat because all women are fat because men need to suppress and oppress them and see them as disgusting... or something.

See? Fail. I can't even fake an understanding of this nonsense.

And speaking of mental gymnastics, I would also like to point out (because it amuses me to no end) that Marcotte closes her piece by agreeing with a man she no doubt considers a neaderthalish patriarchal oppressor.

Marcotte:

"A vulva is considered so desirable that entire magazines are dedicated just to showing it, but if it has a stray hair or labia that aren't the exact required size, it suddenly becomes culturally designated as disgusting and women are coached to feel so ashamed they should spend tons of money waxing it and even getting surgery to "fix" it."

Robert Stacy McCain:

(on surgery)

"Ouch. And, honestly, what a tragedy. I’m struggling to find a way to say this in a PG-13 way, so I’ll just say it: Lots of guys like that extra helping of cauliflower. IYKWIMAITYD.

More to the point, form follows function, natural is better, and it’s bizarre to think that women now fear being judged by the aesthetics of their genitalia."

(on waxing)

"I hadn't seen a Playboy magazine in a long time until a couple years ago when, by happenstance, I encountered someone's collection of recent issues and was stunned to discover that deforestation of the pubic delta had become de rigeur...

There is something bizarre (and arguably wrong) about glorifying an "ideal" that has no naturally-occurring example."

Heh. Now I have to figure out whether RSM is a femininny, or Marcotte is a patriarchal oppressor.

......
(Interestingly, in comment #6, Marcotte uses the term "butthurt", which would seem to put her in the "Rape Culture" camp she's always bitchin' about. It's official... she's a tool of the patriarchy. Pun intended.)

The So-Cons have Finally Gone TOO FAR!

2011-02-22T16:31:00.002-05:00

We've all seen the headlines.

Uproar over teh gayz at CPAC... A Governor who drew fire from his own party because he suggested a truce on social issues... Another Governor/Prez-hopeful who announced that if he's elected to the top spot he'll work to reinstate DADT... The suggestion that atheism is to blame for the Tuscon shootings... Or how about the very notion that a man who compared homosexuality to sex with animals might have a shot at the Republican nomination?

Yes, there have been disturbing signs that the social conservatives are getting out of control.

And now, via Memeorandum, I see that they're stepping it up. Once again, so-cons are trying to criminalize victimless interactions between consenting adults based on nothing more than some lame moral superiority complex.

So never mind that prostitution is the world's oldest paid profession. Never mind Nevada's long tradition of sin as business. And never mind minding your own beeswax. The so-cons won't be stopped. Their next big priority is making said oldest profession illegal in the last place it is legal!

Huh? Say what?

It's actually Harry Reid (D-umbass) who's proposing this?! In the name of jobs?!

Bwahaha! Hey, Reid... What about the prostitutes who'll be forced to join the Nevada unemployment rolls?

Seriously now. I'm a libertarian. I say legalize it everywhere. It's yours... if you wanna rent it out, I think that's yer business. I'm of the firm opinion that if the persons involved are over the age of consent, the government has no place in the discussion.

And I just have to laugh at this. I'm accustomed to my ideas not always flying with my friends on the right. I understand where their opinions come from on this, even when we disagree. I get why we disagree, if you see my point.

But this? Oh, no. I don't get it at all. Reid actually said:

"If we want to attract business to Nevada that puts people back to work, the time has come for us to outlaw prostitution."

Yeah! That's logic! Bring in jobs by making employed individuals into unemployed criminals!

Wait.

Maybe I do get it...

"Unemployed criminals"? Hmmm. When you add those folks to the organized workers, you've more or less accounted for the Democratic voting base, no?

Mystery solved!

Harry Reid is a genius!

Born to Blog?

2011-02-21T12:36:00.002-05:00

So... I've been expanding my horizons.

I decided to try something new. I started a blog because I love to write, and I'm always ranting about something anyway. Someone (who presumably got tired of listening to all those rants) suggested I - the Luddite - blog them. And here I am.

I didn't start a blog to make a million dollars. The idea never occurred to me until I read RSMs Underpants Gnome scheme. I started it to rant.

But, hey... We all gots bills, right?

The truth is, I'll probably never see a dime from this site. And that's cool. I don't have the discipline to become an aggregate site (wouldn't interest me if I did), and the circumstances of my real life will never let me be an in-the-field newsie (which also doesn't much interest me). And, if I'm being honest, I think most of the people who are going to make money blogging are already doing it.

But, still... there's those bills, right?

So I started writing some (I thought) straight pieces, and submitting them for web publication. (And pay, let's not forget that part.) It was a topic I'm interested in and knowledgeable about, and I'm at least relatively literate. I'm not too lazy to do actual research. Maybe I could make a buck or two doing something I love -- something I do even when nobody pays me. Great idea, no?

No.

I keep getting rejected. For being opinionated. Who'da thunk?

I took one piece in particular and picked it apart. I rewrote, reworded, and rethought it all until I was positive nobody could read it as anything but a straight, factual article, loaded with statistics and quotes and all that happy crappy. (Mind you, I did this like three friggin' times.)

I bounced back to me again. "This is a very well written and fact-based opinion piece." Which is unacceptable, and therefore rejected again.

Sigh... I give up.

Maybe I'm just born to blog. Apparently, I'm such an opinionated asshole that even when I think I'm writing plain, inarguable facts my opionated asshole self just shines right through.

Guess you're stuck with me...

Infected, Dejected... and Feeling Disrespected

2011-02-14T12:12:00.002-05:00

I hate computers.

Seriously, I've never pretended to be anything but a Luddite. Machines (especially computers) infuriate me. One of my favorite authors has ranted in numerous author's notes about what he calls "the perversity of the inanimate" - how machines and especially computers wait and watch for a chance to screw you over. I agree completely... they cause me frustration intentionally, I am convinced.

Anyway.

I got a virus. Or a trojan. (Funny... I thought trojans existed so you don't get viruses... whatever.) Either way, I got one of those fake viruses that scams you into buying the fake antivirus by popping up porn all over the computer. Left some really interesting shortcuts on the desktop, too.

As a side note - I hate you hackers. I hate you more than the viruses you create. Why don't you get the fuck out of your mom's basement, get a real job, and stop making my life more diificult?!

Anyway.

So I downloaded one of those zappers that's supposed to remove viruses. And, along with the virus or whatever, it appears to have zapped the hell out of every file that was infected. Or something. Now my registry is broken - or something - and I don't even remember having registered for anything.

Did I mention I have more than one computer? Yeah. And two of the three are now wonky. And I am woefully unqualified to do anything about it.

One of them may be toast. When nothing else worked, I attempted the Fonzie method of electronics repair. (Yes, that's right. I hit my computer really hard. Hard enough to hurt both of us. Would you believe it didn't work? Now it won't even turn on.)

The other (this one) seems capable of most tasks. It can blog anyway. (Yes... I blog on a computer that I don't know how to fix.) But I have no sound on YouTube (indeed, it no longer recognizes its own speakers are even connected) or anything else.

And I don't know how to fix it. Any of it. Grrrrr!

This is my punishment for hubris. You see, the third (and only working) computer crapped out on me last month. After much searching online, I found out all I could do was back up the hard drive and reinstall the OS. I found a tutorial, slaved that hard drive to one of the other (now broken) computers, and ta-daa! All fixed! (Well, there was more work and profanity involved than that, but you get the idea.)

And then I got all full of myself. Thought I was the local IT expert or something.

And life sent me a virus from hell to remind me that I'm not all that when it comes to these damnable contraptions.

I'm only writing this so that if you see a news story about it, you'll know it was me. It'll probably start something like this:

"Innocent victims say there was no warning before the monitor crashed to earth, taking out the mail man and followed by broken glass tumbling from the second story window. Screaming and profanity shocked the neighborhood. A second monitor narrowly missed the police, who were called in to subdue a homeowner gone mad."

So... if you see that, send money. I'll need help with bail.

Or leave me to rot. I'm guessing there are no computers in jail. Maybe I can get some peace.

Sexist Santorum and Clueless Cupp

2011-02-10T15:02:00.004-05:00

I caught the same Santorum headlines as the rest of the world... Rick Santorum making reportedly disparaging (does he make any other kind?) remarks about Sarah Palin and CPAC, and her comeback remarks.

Now, I have never been keen on Rick Santorum. I was unfortunate enough to have him as my Senator, and looked forward with glee to the day I could vote against him. (I hope you Republicans remember that in 2012. This asshole was voted out for good reasons. If you try to run him for the big job, not only will I personally vote against him, I'll get off my lazy ass and work to make sure others do as well.) I consider him arrogant and insufferable, and once blogged that he's a sanctimonious prig.

So when time permitted, I watched the interview with conservative darling S E Cupp to see for myself what he actually said. I intended to eviscerate him verbally (there's some new civility for ya) because... well, because he gave me an excuse. And I just don't like him.

I found a pretty good round-up of the continuing story at Caffeinated Thoughts, which includes Sarah Palin's rather amusing remark: "...I will not call him the knuckle dragging neanderthal that perhaps others would want to call him. I’ll let his wife call him that instead."

The piece ends with this statement:

In all of this I think the true winner is S.E. Cupp who received a lot of publicity for her first radio show.

Ugh. I couldn't possibly disagree more.

Oh, not about the publicity. I'm sure she'll get plenty of that. But, in my humble opinion, Cupp really shit the bed.

I'm no fan or proponent of feminism from a liberal standpoint. I believe I've made that clear enough. But I AM am firm believer in treating everyone equally.

So I was gobsmacked to watch a female journalist nod and grin and bob her little head through the following exchange about CPAC:

SEC - You wouldn't have turned it down.

RS - I wouldn't have turned it down. But you know I don't live in Alaska... and I'm not the mother to all these kids, and I don't have other responsibilities like she has...

SEC - (through RS statement) Yeah. Right. Right. Mm-hmm.

RS - ...and other opportunities that she has to... uh... for... uh... like I said, other business opportunities that may be in conflict with what she was asked to do.

SEC - Right. But I was looking over your schedule... (blah blah blah...) Do you just really like airline peanuts or is there a method to this madness?

Are you shitting me?

A former Senator, Presidential hopeful, pompous ass and FATHER OF SEVEN makes a remark about Sarah Palin being busy because she's "the mother to all these kids" and you let it slide? My personal hypocrisy meter damn near popped a spring, and the silly grin on your face didn't even flicker?

I realize S E is probably no more a feminist than I am. In fact, she once said "taxes affect my day-to-day life a lot more than reproductive rights do". But come on, girl! Were you so eagerly anticipating your little peanut joke that you didn't listen to the man's words?

I watched the clip of their interview expecting to come away pissed at Santorum. That's my usual response when sounds come out of his mouth. But I have to say, I think Cupp was the bigger disappointment. Really -- if a conservative woman can't be counted on to defend the equality of other conservative women, then who can? (Heh. Me, I guess.)

I looked back at other things Cupp has done to get an idea if she has any coherent stance on this topic. I found a clip where she pays very brief lip service to the mistreatment of women during the 2008 campaign... while doing her hair and makeup.

I dunno... I would hope that most conservative women - feminist or not - would disapprove of, nay... be insulted by Santorum's thoughtless and inherently sexist remark. If so, they should by extension be disapproving of and insulted by Cupp's failure to notice it and call him out for it.

I, for one, am less than impressed. Pfffft.

Searching For A Pregnant Man?

2011-02-03T10:03:00.003-05:00

OK... I gotta ask...

What the hell is going on?!

Almost year ago, I did a post about two pregnant (not) men.

Let me clarify. Pregnant? Yes. Men? No.

Anyway, for the last week, that post has been getting a strange amount of traffic.

Since she hit the blog in November 2009, the lovely Megan Fox has been one of my top traffic generators, pulling hits every day since she appeared here. I've gotten used to seeing her in the top or near-top position. (What that says about the draw of my writing as compared to the draw of boobies... Well, I'm not gonna put too much thought into that.)

Regardless, Ms. Megan has been bumped out of the top spot. Several days running. By pregnant men.

I can't figure it out for the life of me.

So somebody... anybody... If you ended up here by searching pregnant men, please enlighten me. Is there another dude due to deliver? Has a new man-mommy materialized?

Why the hell are you suddenly finding your way here? My curiosity is killing me!

Our Goalie's Nuts

2011-02-03T09:15:00.005-05:00

We don't often have sports posts round these here parts. Matter of fact, this might be the first and last...

But you know how it is.

I saw something. It reminded me of something else. I followed another train of thought down its winding, twisting track... and end up blogging.

Anyway, this morning I saw a clip of the Penguins goalie Brent Johnson doing his best impression of a heavyweight boxer. Heh. ONE hit:

Now, I didn't watch the actual game, so I missed it live. (I'm actually more of a Devils fan... but fer the luvva gawd, keep that under your hat. I live deep in the heart of Penguin country. Not coincidentally, that's also the heart of the "Stiller Nation", where I'm already a bit of a pariah because I'm not a Steelers fan and I don't "bleed black and gold". I rarely talk sports around here because... well... I'm not crazy. These people are deadly serious about their sports.)

Blah, blah, blah... Anyway, the video reminded me of a WDVE/Scott Paulsen classic written in 1997 and dedicated to the Flyers:

From the song:

Our defense sucks.
Our goalie's nuts.
And all our fans
Are drunks and sluts.

Now, when that was written, the Pens goalies were Tom Barrasso and Ken Wregget (my favorite Penguin goalie... and he was nuts), but although it's out of date, it's still the first thing that came to mind.

And whaddya know... Fifteen years later, the song still makes me grin.

Happy Groundhog's Day

2011-02-02T13:41:00.003-05:00

Whaddya know....? Phil didn't see his shadow.

Good answer, Phil. You live to see another February. Here's to ya.

Steve Burns and Steve Drozd (Flaming Lips) "Hog the Ground":

They're On To Me...

2011-01-31T16:38:00.004-05:00

Or, that was my first thought on reading this headline at GrassrootsPA:

STUFFED GROUNDHOG TO MAKE 2011 FORECAST...

Why a stuffed groundhog? Perhaps they're afraid someone's got an axe to grind with Phil. Maybe they're putting him in a protection program. You remember Phil, right?

Phil's the fat, furry bastard who's still on my list from this time last year. After shovelling my way back to the world, I was ready to do Ol' Phil some serious harm. I even went so far as to look up groundhog recipes. (And they exist. Who knew?)

Anyway... once again this year, my spouse has been trying to convince me to head up to Punxsutawney for the... uh... festivities. It's one hell of a sore spot. I'm willing to drive there, on the condition that when the rat does his thing, I be asleep and warm in the hotel -- no standing outside at the butt crack of dawn for me. (Especially in Pennsylvania. In February. Brrrr.) At least, not without a little "antifreeze" in my veins, if ya catch my drift. BUT, since it's a family event, and requires a drive home immediately after, getting tanked is not an option. Plus, alcohol would only serve to encourage my violent feelings towards Phil.

Long story a little shorter: It's a misleading headline. The link actually goes to this story, about different rodent in a different town. (And might I ask, exactly how many goddamn weather predicting rats does one state need?!)

Heh. And I thought maybe they'd gotten wind of my nefarious plot.

On a side note, we're waiting for a storm that's supposed to bring snow... then half an inch of ice... then more snow. Ol' Phil's due to do his thing in a coupla days... He'd better get it right this time.

Very loosely related: Hey You Dang groundhog!

Sarah Palin: Masturbation Material?

2011-01-28T15:34:00.006-05:00

OK...

(Puts on flame proof suit.)

I saw some stories today about Tracy Morgan. Rather, I saw the headlines of a few stories I didn't bother to read. Why? Well, I'm not a big fan, for starters. Plus, I figured it couldn't hurt to miss one more Hollywood dipstick knocking Sarah Palin. Seen one, seen 'em all, right?

Hmmmph. Well, now I've read the stories, and watched the TNT video at The Other McCain. I gotta ask:

That's it?! That's what all the uproar is about?!

Good grief.

Some folks are becoming waaaayyyy too sensitive where Ms. Sarah is concerned. I mean, what did he say? He agreed that she's an attractive woman. Then he went a tad bit farther.

This hardly qualifies as Palin Derangement Syndrome. Sexist? A bit. Harmful, or insulting? Not so much. Political? Oh, please.

Sarah Palin is an attractive woman. I can't say that I've ever personally drawn on her for "material", but I can see it. She's kinda got that whole sexy librarian thing going. So, since when it is a bad thing to be recognized as sexy - especially if you are?

In fact, my only real objection would be that I don't think they should discuss masturbation during sports because kids watch sports. Of course, with the very explicit ED commercials, even masturbation talk is tame in comparison.

Still, I think some of you need to get over this one. It's minor, and was intended (I believe) as a half-assed compliment.

(If ya'll aren't careful, you're going to find yourself on the same side of the argument as feminists. Heh. Palin Derangement Derangement Syndrome.)

So to everyone hyperventilating over this non-story:

Lighten up, Francis.

(Suit off. Let 'er rip.)

Guilty of felony for attempted abortion?!

2011-01-27T19:08:00.004-05:00

A New York woman pleaded guilty to a felony after a failed attempt at abortion.

But... but... abortion is legal in America! What happened?!

Well, you see, the ~~fetus~~ clump of cells didn't belong to her.

Kisha Jones, unhappy that another woman was pregnant with her husband's baby, decided to terminate the inconvenient pregnancy... by tricking the other woman into taking an abortion pill.

The ~~victim~~ hesitant patient was around 27 weeks at the time of the ~~assault~~ procedure. Instead of the intended abortion, the ~~victim~~ patient precipitated. The baby was premature but healthy.

Hmmmph.

What I'd like to know is, where are the feminists?

Seriously... why aren't they rallying around this woman in defense and support? Where are the signs, and the cute wire hanger art? After all, they've been known to opine that a ~~fetus~~ clump of cells isn't a person until it's actually been pushed out into the world. (For example, check out this post by femininny Amanda Marcotte on "Personhood Silliness".)

I'd love to see the feminists spin this one. Is it an attempted murder? Or is it now acceptable to just abort whatever ~~fetus~~ clump of cells you feel is inconvenient?

Faux Fax?

2011-01-27T12:42:00.001-05:00

I just saw this at Memeorandum...

According to ThinkProgress (a bastion of truth if there ever was one, right?) California Democrat Leland Yee has received a death threat by fax.

I call bullshit.

A few points:

1. Have you looked at this thing? It's a caricature. Pickup truck with a flag on the side, dragging a noose? Now answer honestly... which side believes that's an accurate representation of the right and Limbaugh fans?

2. It's not a death threat. Unless, of course, Lee is an admitted Marxist. The specific threat to Lee is an ass-kicking. Not exactly "new tone", but not a death threat either.

3. This is a fax. Which means that, although it doesn't appear in the image linked, there is information as to origin on that sucker somewhere. Who sent it?

I think this is a scam, sent by a liberal trying to stir the pot.

I admit... I could be wrong. And threats to Congress (or anyone else, they aren't special) should be treated seriously if they are serious threats. But it would take a real dumbass to send this, if the sender actually meant it.

If this turns out to be some righty, I'll admit I'm wrong and apologize.

Somehow I don't think that will happen. Keep your eyes on this one, folks. I predict it'll only get weirder.

The New Civility In Action

2011-01-27T10:18:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, the PA House decided to reflect the new tone of civility in politics... by channeling the Taiwanese parliament.

OK. So it wasn't really quite as bad as this:

But it was bad. And, to be blunt, I think both parties behaved shamefully. Check 'em out (fireworks start about 4 minutes in):

You can't even pick up the most colorful remarks in that video, but you get the gist.

So, what the hell is going on? Here's the deal...

The Republicans have seven reform bills they're trying to push. These bills were, for the most part, approved in the last session and not sent to the Governor.

The Democrats added 43 amendments to bills they'd already agreed upon. The Republicans viewed the numerous amendments as obstructionism, and decided to change House rules.

Majority Leader Mike Turzai said, “We’re not going to be having people doing this nuclear stuff. So if that’s how it’s going to be done, we’re going to make the needed changes..."

What changes? Well, for starters, the ability to table amendments without debate and without tabling the entire bill. Not too bad so far.

But the Republicans didn't stop there. They also want to change committee memberships, by reducing the number of Democrats on each committee.

Democrats reacted... well... loudly.

Reactions ranged from shouts of "Kangaroo court!" to "Welcome to the gulag!" to the ultra-blunt "This is bullshit!"

Basically, we have the Democrats apparently embracing the same kind of obstructionist, waste-of-time shenanigans that Republicans have been (rightly) accused of.

AND, we have Republicans trying to further reduce representation by the party already in the minority, the kind of arrogant power grab and "we won" attitude they complained of when the Democrats were doing it.

Mix it together and you get the kind of shouting and name calling usually found in cranky kindergartners.

If I may direct my remarks to the elected representatives of Pennsylvania.... Ahem:

What the hell is wrong with you idiots?! You're an embarrassment. ALL of you! If it was wrong when the other party did it (and it was wrong) don't you do it now that the situation has reversed! And fer the luvva gawd, can you learn to comport yourselves with some kind of dignity? Grow up!

One clear head, Republican Glen Grell, worried that "We're off to a very bad start, if this is the way its going to be."

Buddy, you said a mouthful.

I Won't Have Rahm Emanuel to Kick Around Anymore...

2011-01-25T13:37:00.007-05:00

The man who would be mayor of Chicago... WON'T be! Bwahahaha!

This is all over the web, but I'm linking Allah because he has the best title. "Rahm: I will kill any @#$!*% man who stands in my way".

So, why am I gloating? (And make no mistake, I am gloating.)

Because I have never been a fan. At one point, I advocated firing him. For what reason? Oh, any old thing would have done.

First of all, right or wrong, I'd like to see Rahm Emanuel fired for any legitimate reason we can come up with. Anything. The man repulses me on an almost primal level, on par with the liver-fluke man from the X-Files.

(Poor guy... Still not as creepy as Rahm.)

In retrospect, that's inaccurate. I'd have been just fine firing him for reasons... well... less than legitimate. For example, I'd have been perfectly cool firing him if some tabloid had run a story saying he fathered this thing:

(Also not as creepy as Rahm.)

Alas, it was not to be. I had to wait for his political ambitions to move him along. (Plus there's the fact that he alienated Obama's base and had to go. Hey, whatever works.)

I reminded readers that Emanuel had his creepy little lips at the President's ear. And that's not the only place he had those creepy lips.

(Now SHE'S every bit as creepy as Rahm.)

Ugh. There's a weight-loss aid if I've ever seen one. If your New Year's resolution was to drop a stone or two, just paste that sucker to the fridge... oughtta do the trick.

Anyway, I doubt it's over. Liberals have learned when they don't like election rules or election results, just sue. But for now, I am a happy camper.

Rahm's been denied something he felt he was entitled to. And (hopefully) he'll be out of politics for a minute.

Personally, I'd like to see him just go back where he came from.

(Come on, Rahm... You remember which one it was. Now just crawl back under there and let us get on with our business.)

Update:

--------

ACK! Celebrated too soon! I see via Memeorandum, he's still on the ballot while they sort this out! So we're supposed to believe if he wins the election and then loses his appeal they'll boot him?! Noooooooooooo!

I AM TJIC

2011-01-25T11:26:00.003-05:00

Last week, I posted my first (and probably last) drunk blog...

Which I stuffed down the memory hole first thing the next morning.

OK... I admit it. That was cowardly. Unlike some of my friends, who have the guts to let 'er rip and leave it stand, I caved. I took a good, long look at what I'd written, and decided in this day and age (and considering my typical luck) I wasn't willing to take a chance with how I was received.

What was so bad?

Well... heh.

I was getting frustrated with the various narratives on Jared Loughner. See, to my mind, he's crazy. Period. The only question of interest to me was "Which brand of crazy is he?" Schizophrenic (which to my mind, at least, means genuinely ill and not accountable)? Psychopathic (sane but evil, and therefore culpable)? I was insulted by both the rush from the left to blame Palin et al, and the delayed rush from the right to blame anything from atheism to conspiracy theories. To my mind, asking "Why?" of a crazy person is... well... crazy.

Anyway, I was trying to make a statement about jumping to conclusions about Loughner's motivations. So I did my little inebriated post, drawing parallels between Loughner and myself. I pointed out that (like Loughner) I'm an independent, I'm an atheist, I have a taste for music that ~~could~~ would be construed as violent, I distrust the government... I may or may not have thrown in a little something about marijuana. (It was in my mind, and in a draft I started on the subject another time... not sure if I included that part, and can't check now. Heh.) You get the gist.

And I included an invitation for DHS to come on over and pick me up for a chat.

Yeah. Smart move, that. Which was my entire motivation for stuffing that sucker down the pipes. I thought, in the days of a government that would dream up fishy.gov, should I even joke about sending the goon squad to my house?! Nope. Fluuuuussssshhhh! Away with that post.

Right after, that same morning, I read a frightening story about a blogger who was being harassed by the government. Travis Corcoran (TJIC from his blog Dispatches from TJICistan, now down the memory hole like my post) was actually more than harassed. Based on little more than a joke of questionable taste (“One down, 534 to go.”), he had his weapons, ammo and gun license taken away. And, let's be real, only the most naive among us don't realize he's also made at least some form of watch list.

And my reaction?

Whew! Glad I offloaded that sucker! Coulda been me making headlines instead of snarking about them!

Bad response. Selfish, stupid, gutless, enabling response.

Thankfully, other bloggers have done better. The Classic Liberal has a roundup of those who had the appropriate - and necessary - reaction: I AM TJIC. Check out Eternity Road, Coordinated Illumination and Borepatch for perfect examples of the correct response.

And while I may be late to the party, I'm here. And I picked up my guts on the way.

Because when I saw a blogger getting a dose of exactly what I'd been worried about, I shouldn't have felt relief that I changed my own post. I should have felt anger that we've come to this point. I should have felt the disgust that such blatant trampling of the Constitution deserves. I should have felt solidarity.

And I should have put the damn post right back on the blog, goon squad be damned.

I didn't do any of that... I blew it. But I'm not only an imperfect creature. I am also one that learns.

I am TJIC.

And whether you blog or not, you'd better be, too. Otherwise, we'll all be stifled.

(Sincere thanks to those listed above for getting it right, and for showing the way.)

Feminist stooge blames anti-abortion movement for Gosnell atrocities

2011-01-24T16:06:00.004-05:00

Last week, I set aside my misgivings and read the Grand Jury report on abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

Like many, I was sickened and horrified by the facts presented. I didn't post on it... I went and held my kids instead, a little bit of love therapy to hold against the heartbreak of what I'd seen. I remember thinking that no one -- not even the most staunch supporters of abortion -- could defend this monster.

Well, I was right... And wrong.

I forgot about the feminists.

They're all over this. I'm not going to get into each example (RSM has a great roundup). I learned the hard way that feminism is an echo chamber, where they aren't interested in hearing any side but their own. You simply can't have an argument, a debate, or even an exchange of ideas with someone who has their fingers in their ears going "Neener neener! I can't hear you!" But, never the less, they are jumping on the topic like fleas on a dog.

Amanda Marcotte, feminist ninny, has a piece up today about it. Actually, she's got a few posts on it around the innerwebs, but I'm referring specifically to this one: Philly Illegal Abortionist Exposes Anti-Choice Irresponsibility.

She's offering up a typical feminist bit of nonsense to explain what happened. You see, the dead mothers and babies aren't Gosnell's fault. Oh, noes! Perish the thought!

Responsibility for the women killed, sterilized, infected with VD or otherwise injured rests with the conservative anti-abortion movement. (Which, being a feminist, Marcotte cutely refers to as "anti-choice".) In a stunning example of intellectual dishonesty, she writes that when the report was released:

"The initial anti-choice reaction was elation."

That's nothing more than a disgusting lie.

I was afraid to read the damn Grand Jury report based solely on responses I'd read at conservative blogs. While the pieces I read around the web each urged me to "read the whole thing", it took me a day or so past the original stories to force myself to actually take their advice. (I'm both glad and sorry that I did. Sorry because those murdered babies will remain in my thoughts... Glad because I've long been ambivalent on the topic, falling into the "legal, safe and rare" trap that so many of us wish were the reality.)

What I can say is that, despite reading posts on many conservative sites, I did not see a single instance of elation. I saw pain, horror, folks who admitted being moved to tears, and prayers for the lost.

I defy Ms. Marcotte to provide a single example of elation. I challenge this woman - who purports to stand for the rights of other women - to prove her claim.

She won't. She can't. Nobody celebrated the discovery of a monster as a means to further their cause.

But that's to be expected from someone who has raised disingenuous statements to an art form. Try this one on for size:

"The politically mature response to this is to accept responsibility."

Now stop a minute. Make sure you've truly absorbed that little dab of feminist double-think.

For the conservative anti-abortion movement, it would be mature to accept responsibility.

Frankly, I'm astounded that Marcotte is familiar with the term "responsibility". It's certainly not something she generally supports or promotes as part of her feminist agenda.

Indeed, like most feminists, Marcotte is known for denying outright the concept of personal responsibility. Whether it be the responsibility to not get pregnant in the first place, or the responsibility of women to think before they get into a potentially dangerous situation, feminists absolve women entirely.

Pregnant with your fourth child (second to be aborted)? It's the responsibility of the state to provide you a little fetal-removal service. Victim of an avoidable assault because you used no common sense whatsoever before allowing a stranger into your locked apartment? It's the responsibility of a societal "rape culture", and your actions must never be questioned. Never mind that the next woman may learn something from your mistake and keep herself safer.

How about... wrote a scathing column about a rape that wasn't (Ahem... DUKE LACROSSE)? Insulted innocent men and everyone who defended them? Faced with a woman who demonstrably lied to authorities? Took a side based on genitalia, only to be proven wrong, wrong, wrong? Personal responsibility nuthin'. Ms. Marcotte was once assaulted and responded strangely, not only taking time to decide whether she wanted the "baggage" of reporting it but admitting that if she'd been confronted with her attacker's presence she "probably would have acted normally". Therefore, it's reasonable to extrapolate that other women behaving strangely after a purported rape should be believed without question.

It's stomach turning that Marcotte would attempt to use this Little Abortion Shop of Horrors as a stick with which to beat the anti-abortion crowd. Her blatant lie that there was elation at the news tells you everything you need to know about a person who is, at base, dishonest and more than willing to twist the narrative.

I stand by what I said before...

Feminists -- and Marcotte is just one of the loudest and snarkiest -- are a grave danger to women.

Go ahead. Push the idea that conservatives should remember responsibility. (Ironic, since conservatives are the group generally advocating personal responsibility for all Americans...) But absolve women of any responsibility whatsoever.

Pregnant (again) when you can't afford it? Not your fault. Choose to stay and be treated in a clinic full of moaning, doped patients with cat boxes in the corners and blood on the floors? Not your fault. Wait until your baby has every chance of surviving birth to get your procedure? Not your fault.

But the conservative anti-abortion folks?! Y'all better get some by-gawd responsibility going over there! Cuz it doesn't matter that abortion is legal despite your best efforts. This is your fault! And it doesn't matter that Gosnell broke every rule that other clinics manage to follow. This is your fault! And it's surely irrelevant that rules in PA were specifically set up to coddle abortion providers, which allowed someone like Gosnell to slip through the cracks. This is your fault!

(Heh. Oh wait. That's actually the fault of people just like Marcotte, who feel that too much oversight might make women feel icky about going into an abortion clinic.)

As long as the Gosnells among us have people like Marcotte to deflect their guilt, such atrocities will continue.

She can try to pin the responsibility on conservatism all she likes. Thankfully, most women aren't as weak and stupid as the feminists would have us believe. They know the monster in this story is Gosnell.

Marcotte is an accomplice.

And a liar.

Physician - Heal Thyself!

2011-01-19T12:20:00.005-05:00

So I saw a news story today speculating that Obama's rapid weight loss might be due to parasites.

The real reason behind PRESIDENT OBAMA's shocking weight loss - he's secretly battling stomach parasites, say sources.

OK... "news story" might be a bit of a stretch. It was in The Enquirer. But hey -- they broke the truth about Edwards before the real media got around to taking off the blinders, right?

(Wait a minute... Maybe it is news. It made Memeorandum and Althouse! Now if I can just get some linky-love off the deal...)

Anyway, my first reaction was, for me, predictable. The first thing I think of every time I see or hear the word parasite is this guy:

Wait. My bad. I thought I'd gotten over that. Heh.

I meant THIS guy:

Remember him? Poor fella was the star of the blog for a minute there.

Anyway, I read that Obama has parasites, and I had a flashback to our creepy old pal. That's reaction number one.

Reaction number two is more succinct: I call bullshit.

While defending President Obama is never easy, I can't let this go by. As a fellow member of the tribe of scrawny folk, I'd like to point out that Obama is - and always has been, near as I can tell - a textbook "ectomorph". When he was younger, he was slim to skinny. As a Senator, he looked nearly emaciated. And as President... well, you get the idea. And as to weight loss... I don't remember him gaining any to lose.

Maybe a headline like "Why Is Obama So Scary Skinny?" gets mileage because he is a minority. I'm not referencing his melanin levels. I'm saying that in the fattest country on the planet, the Ichabod Cranes among us stand out.

But I'm no doctor. Heck, my most intimate knowledge of parasites comes from an X-Files episode. And the Enquirer article did say there had been health warnings to Hawaiians about this dreaded parasite. So, I did a little googling. Not only did I find a health article about parasites in Hawaii from the time Obama may have been infected... I may have stumbled upon the solution to his woes!

Fecal transplantation.

Yes, you read that right. And it means exactly what you think it means.

A non-infected person brings in a fresh stool sample (mmmm-MMM! Always better fresh, right?). The doctor liquifies the stool, and then drips it into the colon of the infected person. And people pay for this. Ain't America great?

Anyway, the one drawback might be the risks.

Brandt insists on a list of tests to make sure the donor doesn't have diseases such as hepatitis or HIV, or intestinal parasites.

Regardless of how I feel about Obama's policies, he's our President. We can't expose him to diseases or infection with another parasite, right? And while the article states that the donor is usually a close relative or somesuch, we just can't take chances with a sitting President. We need to get our hands on some stool (heh) that can't possibly have any disease or microorganisms that are foreign to Obama's body.

Fortunately for us - not to mention Obama - we have a safe, ready, apparently endless supply of liquified shit:

His head.

Hell, he has a chance to be a hero here. After carefully observing him for the last coupla years, I believe he's got enough of a stockpile to cure everyone on the planet of this dreaded infection. He could personally eradicate this epidemic, and earn another Nobel Prize!

I'll get the turkey baster. You grab him by the ears.

He who is without sin... Or something

2011-01-12T11:43:00.004-05:00

Yesterday on Memeorandum, I saw this link to a Media Matters piece.

They link Erick Erickson, claiming he is trying top propose a link between atheism and Jared Loughner's actions. Or something. Now, I'm not a big fan of MMFA, but I read the post and followed the link back to Erick Erickson at Red State, thinking that (considering the source) it couldn't be as bad as it seemed.

Well, I've now read the Erickson piece half a dozen times between last night and today, and I gotta ask...

How is this not insulting?

Erickson writes:

Political rhetoric did not make Jared Loughner do what he did. His embrace of evil led him down a road down which we should be in constant prayer no others dare travel.

It's apparently part of a larger point he's trying to make. I guess his point is:

In all the discussions we’re having, let’s not forget that bad things have happened throughout history, but we are seeing more and more a pattern of violence from those who reject Christ and we are seeing the most extreme rhetoric from those who reject the only real truth while embracing every other historic fad and nonsense as variations of truth.

How is this helpful to the discussion? How on earth does a belief or disbelief in Jesus have anything whatsoever to do with the Giffords shooting?

I'm not a believer. Call me agnostic. Call me an atheist. Actually, if you want to be accurate, call me an apatheist. (Yes, I'm aware I just made that word up. If Sarah Palin can do it, so can I.) But apatheist would be closest to the truth. I don't know if there's a God, and - while I tend toward disbelief - I'm not much interested in debating the issue. I'm not looking for proof one way or the other. I'll find out one of these days, same as the rest of you.

But I have a great respect for the faith of others. I am tolerant and respectful. The times I've been told someone is praying for me, my response is "Thank you." I'm also the first to point out the ugliness that atheists can get up to when it comes to their intolerance of believers.

And I can't help but feel like I'm somehow being lumped in with a psychotic loner asshole murderer.

A lack of faith didn't cause Loughner to do what he did. He's insane. And for Erickson to decry the 'handwringing over the “tone” in the country and the “extremist rhetoric”' while happily setting up his own strawman strikes me as rank hypocrisy.

He went further, on Twitter:

Atheists are upset with me. But God is upset with them.

And how the hell do you know that, Erick? Got the direct line, do ya? Has God let you know whether he's pissed at me for my half-assed religious state of "meh"? Lemme know.

He tweeted again:

@fmaidment No clue. And yes, I did just compare Media Matters to the Westboro Baptist Church.

That's almost funny... Why? Because the first thing I thought of when I read Erick's piece is Fred Phelps and his band of hateful loonies. I can picture EE with a little sign that says "God Hates Atheists!"

I posted yesterday that clamping down on our freedom of speech isn't the answer. It wouldn't have prevented this shooting (which was motivated by teh crazy, not ideology), and it won't prevent the next.

Neither will proselytizing, or condemning someone who doesn't share your belief system.

So, Erick... while I respect your faith -- indeed, would defend it on your behalf -- please stuff your judgemental horseshit where the sun don't shine. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, it will do nothing to stop the next (probably) schizophrenic whackjob, and it divides us in a way that's completely unnecessary. You are, in my own opinion, no better than the fools who would point their finger at Sarah Palin.

Blame Game

2011-01-11T16:24:00.003-05:00

I was in the car for just 10 minutes, and Hannity was on.

(Now, I'm not a fan of Hannity... but I didn't change it because - as everywhere - the discussion was about Jared Loughner.)

I was not in the car long enough to catch his guests' names, other than Peter and Bob. And I don't really care who Peter and Bob are, to be honest. It's cold out there. Regardless.

They were looking for a place to put the blame for Loughner's actions. Unlike many, they were not talking about political speech, but about the all too clear fact that someone dropped the ball where this kid was concerned.

One of them wants to place blame on the sheriff, for not having a deputy on scene. Both seem to believe the college is at fault, since there was a clear record of outbursts by a deranged individual and the college did nothing to have him committed.

Do we need to play the blame game here? Do we need to pin someone (or something, in the case of the school) with responsibility for protecting the public from a very sick young man? Do we?

Then here's my question:

What about his freakin' parents?!

And don't give me any crap about it not being their responsibility. He lived with them. If anyone was aware of Loughner's issues, it was the people who raised him and who should have been paying attention.

I have kids. A bunch of them. And I know them. Therefore, I would be the very first to know if one of them jumped the rails. I would consider it my duty to get them whatever help was available.

And if they couldn't be helped, it would be my duty to have them put somewhere they could not hurt themselves or others.

Barring that, I would see it as my responsibility -- if I brought a monster into this world -- to remove that monster of my making.

So while everyone is looking around for someone to blame, let's not forget the prime suspects.

Their pain be damned. I could care less. They didn't do their job.

Fightin' Words

2011-01-11T15:35:00.003-05:00

Wow. I just watched former Senator Gary Hart make one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard.

Yes, even more stupid than "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored." heh.

Hart blogged at HuffPo about violent rhetoric. In an interview about the piece, he says "There is no use whatsoever for these military and violence related metaphors to be used in political discourse." (He's hardly the only one beating this drum. The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others has made this the internet topic right now.) On the blog, he wrote:

Candidates are "targeted". An opponent is "in the crosshairs". Liberals have to be "eliminated". Opponents are "enemies".

Here's the thing, Senator Follow Me... That's just how we talk.

Think about it. We use military and violence related metaphors for everything:

Killer headache. Backstabber. Shoot yourself in the foot. Thow 'em to the wolves (or under the bus). Having a blast. Blonde bombshell. Double-edged sword. In the trenches. On the front lines. Battle of the bulge. I got bombed/blasted. Under the gun. Bring out the big guns. ad infinitum.

I'm not even gonna get into sports. I don't have all week.

Even the government does it: War on Drugs. War on Terror. War on Hunger. Surely they don't mean they'll go randomly shooting or bombing to solve hunger. (Although if the tactics used in the War on Drugs are any indication...)

Regardless.

I (along with a majority of Americans polled) don't buy for a minute that Jared Loughner was incited by -- gasp -- VIOLENT VITRIOL!!!1!1!

Why? Because every aspect of our dialogue is filled with violent and war-related metaphors. If the only place such a thing occurred were politcal speech, there might be an argument for scaling back. Maybe.

PA's own Rep. Robert Brady (D-rama Queen) thinks it may be appropriate to make it a federal crime to "use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence" toward Congress or federal officials.

Could be perceived by whom? Hooboy. Waaaay too subjective, that.

No, our culture is steeped in violent language. And that's okay. Really, it is.

Despite the current hysteria and fingerpointing, and despite our violent language, the mentally ill are not just snapping willy-nilly and shooting people. Now, I'm not trying to downplay what happened to the victims in Arizona. But the reality is that last year only 15,241 people were murdered in America. (Yes, I realize that "only" and "murdered" don't go well together in a sentence. Bear with me, I have a point.)

The US Census population clock shows 311,874,613 of us, as of this writing. Last year, a little over fifteen thousand people were murdered. That includes those who were killed by family members or someone else they knew. When you discount for domestic violence, shooting during the commission of another crime, etc, there are actually very few "random" murders committed each year. Like a few thousand out of over 300 million people.

Meaning the odds are actually much against your (or my... OR a federal official) being murdered period, let alone being murdered over mere words.

So, yes... the Arizona shootings are a tragic crime. And, yes.. the mentally ill live among us. But the odds of an unhinged loner killing someone are actually incredibly low. Any given person stands a better chance of falling to their death than being murdered. You stand a greater chance of being attacked by your neighbor's dog.

Instead of panicking or regulating speech or legislating to the looniest common denomiator, let's all just take one step back - and one deep breath - and relax.

Because I, for one, am not going to start watching my every word. Nor should you.

And the odds are, no one will kill us for it.

Unintended Consequences

2010-12-30T18:20:00.004-05:00

I'm prone to ear worms.

Y'know... when a song gets stuck in your head, playing in a loop, until you think you'll go mad. I've mentioned this problem before.

Scientists think they could be caused by anything from brain tumors to schizophrenia to genius. (I'm going with genius. And if the other voices in my head don't pipe down about it, I'm gonna beat them into submission.)

Anyway.

I made a terrible error today. I posted that Minchin song.

When The Kid played it for me (not having seen my anti-feminist rants) it struck me as fate. That song HAD to go on the blog, right?

Yeah. Except now it's stuck in my head. For the last coupla hours, I keep breaking out randomly with, "Fuck, I love boobs, though!"

Some of you are laughing harder than others right now.

I gotta do something about this.

Lubbly.

They're all jubbly; They make me feel lubbly

2010-12-30T14:31:00.002-05:00

Heh.

My oldest just pointed me to something that, in theory, may have helped me overcome my total opposition to feminism and its destructive tenets. Thanks, Kid.

From Aussie ~~comedian~~ humanitarian guru Tim Minchin comes the haunting melody "Confessions". I've now seen the light regarding feminism, poor people and the environment.

We're just fucking monkeys in shoes.

Hey, you dang groundhog!

2010-12-30T10:03:00.002-05:00

Heh. THIS is my absolute favorite commercial:

"Hey, You dang woodchucks!"

OK. I freely admit to being an overgrown 7 year old. I swear I crack up every time I see that.

But you know what it reminds me of? Another famous rodent. One I'm not too keen on. One I still bear a grudge, nearly a year later.

Yes, Phil. I mean you, you fat bastard.

Now, I already posted about what I'd like to do to ol' Phil... complete with a link to the recipe. Imagine my surprise -- nay, my almost speechless shock -- when the one person who is supposed to know and love me best looked me right in the face yesterday and asked:

"Hey! I'm pretty sure I could get the time off, paid. Wanna go to Punxsutawney for Groundhog Day this year?"

No. No, I do not want to drive for hours so I can stand outside freezing my parts off in the pre-dawn chill to watch that overgrown rat pop up for eleventeen seconds. It's cold in PA in February! (Heh. I offered to drive to Punxsutawney, on the condition that I be warm in the hotel bed alseep during the "festivities".)

Except... I might like to see Phil. We have unfinished business from the blizzard, after all... Hmmmm.... Spit-roasted groundhog...

I'll keep you posted. If I go, it may end up newsworthy.

And then there's THIS guy...

2010-12-29T15:49:00.004-05:00

Keith Olbermann has his little segment where he features the "Worst Person", and in typical liberal hyperbolic fashion, it's usually someone who isn't doing actual harm -- Bristol Palin comes to mind. When I think "Worst Person", I think of the kind of people whose life mission seems to be spreading unhappiness and pain -- Keith Olbermann comes to mind. (Couldn't resist.)

And then there's THIS guy...

PA's own "Dirtbag of the Century" award is locked up.

Jody Lynn Bennett, 37, is accused of stealing. From a coffin, during funeral services.

Bradley David-McCombs Jr., who was 17, died in a car accident on Christmas Day. In his coffin during viewing were a couple of GameBoy consoles and a few tapes. Bennett stole all of it, and fled when confronted.

...sigh...

These poor people. Not only did they lose their son... they lost him on Christmas Day. That would be all the heartbreak any family needs.

And this asshole decided to give them just a little more.

I hope this guy gets caught. And after he's caught, I hope they throw the book at him -- or beat him to death with it. Short of that, it is my sincere wish that this no-good motherfucker gets absolutely brutalized in jail.

Jody Lynn Bennett. I hope his name becomes synonymous with shit. I hope by this time tomorrow, the entire world knows his name and face, and he can't find a rock to hide under.

Jody Lynn Bennett. May karma bring you exactly what's coming to you.

Feminists: Snake Oil Saleswomyn

2010-12-27T14:27:00.005-05:00

Well, I've certainly learned a lot in the last few days.

When I picked a name for this blog, I was trying to reflect what it is I wanted to write about. What "Makes My Brain Itch". By that, I meant the things I see or read or experience that stick in my head and buzz around in there, occasionally distracting me, but always sticking with me and demanding to be considered from one angle or another.

Well, feminism makes my brain itch. More than that, over the past week there've been moments I'm tempted to lay my head down beside the keyboard and pour a bottle of Drano in one ear. (Don't get your hopes up, I'm speaking metaphorically. Sorta.)

I've known for most of my adult life that I disagree with the basic tenets of feminism. That's because, to my mind, it's not about uplifting women to equal status but about knocking down men. When I saw a blogger I generally enjoy being set upon by feminists for remarks about the Assange rape accusations, I jumped in -- not because I'm a member of any RSM hallelujah choir, but because the attacks seemed unfair. (I've yet to meet a person I would consider a supporter of rape. It seemed, and still does, a disgusting remark to make about someone.)

Next thing I know, one of the feminists I linked is tweeting about me. (And, by the way, in case you didn't know... I'm an assface blogger. Are tolerant liberals sweet? And this from a blogger who prides herself on living "cruelty free"!) I wouldn't mind the tweet... if it wasn't bullshit. According to The Opinioness of the World:

Except I didn't write that. Nor did I imply such a thing. Go read what I wrote.

Getting an idea how they work yet? I am. Now.

An exchange with another feminist ended abruptly when I told her I don't believe in rape culture.

I don't believe in rape culture. Hadn't, in fact, heard of such a thing until I started following the tweets on #mooreandme #rapeinmedia and #rapeculture. But, in fairness, I went looking to learn more about it. (I was helped by this post at American Power, where Donald Douglas was apparently in a similar position. Interesting links... including this primer on Rape Culture 101.)

Turns out, the problem is me.

I once wrote about David Brooks, and his thoughts on the educated class versus the ignorant, uneducated yahoos like myself. Well, it turns out that the reason I can't grasp feminism - or rape culture - or patriarchal society - is also that I'm ignorant. That's right. Per Melissa McEwan:

"And just like how people who speak Arabic are better translators of Arabic than people who don't, people who have immersed themselves in the critical theories of gender are better translators of what is and is not sexism."

See that? I don't understand sexism because I didn't waste tens of thousands of my parents' dollars sitting through "Womyns' Studies" programs. Because I have not sufficiently immersed myself, I'm a piss-poor translator. Or something.

What horseshit.

I've been a living, breathing human being for several decades now. In that time, I've been an avid observer of my fellow humans. I'm pretty sure if I were actually living in a culture of oppression, I'd have noticed -- with or without a college degree.

And I'll tell ya something else: I don't need a college degree to know that twisting someone's words to portray them as saying something they didn't makes you a damn liar. (That's right, Opinioness. I'm talking to you.) I see now that it doesn't matter what Stacy McCain originally said. Why? Because it doesn't matter what I said. They misrepresent in an attempt to create a villain, because you can't have a victim without one.

These women have invested time and money into being taught to think like victims. But when you believe that the world is against you, when you buy into some cultural conspiracy to hold you back, you are creating a problem where there doesn't need to be one.

Assange himself, in a recent interview, said "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism." I gotta say, from my reading the last few days, everything about feminism is starting to look like a hornets' nest. And I'm learning that if you bump that nest, they'll try to sting you. (Ask Moe Tkacik.)

I'm going to wrap this up by reiterating a previous statement:

There is nothing wrong with women making wise choices. I'm not trying to bring women down by saying that they should be smart enough to asses their situation, that's a compliment. I clearly have more faith in individual women than your average feminist. You will never succeed in making the world a harmless place, so there is no shame in being aware of and cautious about real dangers. I tweeted (to zero replies):

"Does being a feminist mean you have to check your brain at the door?! Just because you SHOULDN'T be raped doesn't mean you WON'T be! Think!"

I stand by that. The feminists can chirp all they want about a rape culture, but it's the culture of willful blindness that's more dangerous to women. They know that. It's why they're reduced to lies and misrepresentations. Feminists are snake oil saleswomyn, and what they're selling is victimhood.

Feminists are more dangerous than Assange and McCain combined

2010-12-23T13:27:00.007-05:00

So, yesterday I put up a piece about fact that Julian Assange stands accused of rape (based on the loosest possible interpretation of the word), and yet RSM of The Other McCain is the one on trial. In my opinion, it's actually more of a witch hunt, but be that as it may...

I was so pissed by the feminazi responses to his posts (and the comments on their blogs) that I didn't really address the original statements that stirred up the trouble. McCain has "walked it back" a bit since his first remarks... but should he have?

I don't think so, anyway.

He's simply saying that:

"If you tumble into a random hook-up with no prior knowledge of the guy’s reputation and he turns out to be a selfish brute whose standard modus operandi is repulsive, dangerous or painful, in what sense are you a victim of anything except your own stupidity?"

Some activities carry inherent risk. Among them, getting into a private (even if not sexual), secluded situation with a near stranger. Sure, you have the right... But it is wise? Is it safe?

You have the right to live in a trailer in Texas. Odds are, you won't get sucked into a tornado. But, c'mon... you've seen The Weather Channel just like the rest of us -- unless your cable was out due to your "house" being stuck in a tree, that is. Your right to do something doesn't take away the risks, which you should plan for accordingly.

You have the right to scuba dive with -- and hand-feed -- sharks. But again, c'mon... you've seen Jaws. You probably won't be devoured even as you drown. But since Peta has been as yet unsuccessful in their effort to make sharks vegan, the possibility exists and should be accounted for.

So sure... You have the right to tumble into the sheets with someone you picked up on brief acquaintance. You probably haven't just locked yourself into an apartment with Ted Bundy's apprentice. Or a serial rapist. Or a raging case of herpes. But the risk is there. Period. And, as above, it should be accounted for in your plans.

If you don't know someone, you don't know what they're capable of. And if you put your safety and health in the hands of someone you don't know, you can't predict the outcome.

The feminists do not want to accept this as fact. They would cry out that women have the right to behave as men -- to sleep with whomever they please, in whatever situation they please. Their disgust with McCain is based on his assertions that such behaviors expose women to risk and possible abuse/exploitation. (Which is completely correct.) The problem with the feminist mindset on this is that it does not take into account basic biological facts.

Men are, in general, larger and stronger than women.

Instead of reminding women of this -- and teaching them to take their risks with this basic thought in mind -- they want to emasculate men so that women are safe to act without thinking and, therefore, without consequence. Women are now equal to men in all ways but biological, but instead of accepting what evolution has produced and encouraging women to plan accordingly, the feminists want to push that inconvenient issue aside and put everyone on a level field. Since they demand women should be able to act without consideration -- and they can't negate the risks by making women bigger and stronger -- they try another tactic:

The pussification of the American male. Feminism has brought about a generation of waxed, moisturized metrosexual men who aren't afraid to cry -- but who would be worthless to protect you from a mugger. (Funny, though... when it comes to "hookups" these soft, smooth, fashionable men are often thrown over in favor of "bad boys", further proving that at a base biological level, most women still desire actual men.)

So, if feminists can't acknowledge the possible risks in stranger hookups, where do they see danger? The following quote is from Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti, and is lifted from McCain's post:

“While right-wing groups certainly don’t come out in support of rape, they do promote an extremist ideology that enables rape and promotes a culture where sexual assault is tacitly accepted. The supposedly ‘pro-family’ marital structure, in which sex is exchanged for support and the woman’s identity is absorbed into her husband’s, reinforces the idea of women as property and as simple accoutrements to a man’s more fully realized existence.”

Never mind the idea that pro-family equals pro-rape. McCain addressed that. These advocates of "female sexual power" are under the impression that married women use sexual favors as a means to support themselves. Or rather, not themselves, because their selves are absorbed into the self of the husband.

Is there a single married woman in America that doesn't find this idea offensive? In a good marriage, sex isn't exchanged for anything. It's shared. Either these feminists are not married, or they don't know what happens in a good marriage. In their world, a loving husband is far more dangerous and sinister than some stranger picked up in a bar.

While the feminists rant about McCain and his (accurate) statements, they're actually guilty of doing more harm to women than all the McCains, Assanges and even Bundys of the world. By teaching women -- especially younger generations -- that the right to do something automatically makes it safe, they are creating a culture of carelessness... and all the danger that entails.

They want to equate McCain's remarks with the old "she was wearing a miniskirt so she was asking for it" nonsense. That's not what he said. I read his remarks more like this:

If you walk around the zoo wearing a blindfold and accidentally stumble into the lion's cage, perhaps you'd have been safer with your eyes uncovered and your brain turned on. Since you can't make the lion not prefer the taste of flesh, it's in your best interest to see where the cage is and walk around it.

Makes more sense than trying to make a sissy out of the lion so you can walk where you damn please.

____________
UPDATE 12/24: Welcome, readers of The Other McCain! A link from the man himself. Thanks!

While I'm not ungrateful, I'm a little puzzled that he chose to highlight this bit:

Makes My Brain Itch laments the “pussification” of American men. Actually, there’s something more complex at work.

It's the same line Tweeted by one of the feminists I wrote about above:

The Opinioness
…(@scratchermmbi) laments the "pussification" of men, thinks women & their risky behavior bring rape on themselves. #Mooreandme #rapeinmedia

I mentioned that as a side effect... and frankly, I thought it was the least of the points I was trying to make. I guess if that's what you took away from it, fine. I just didn't expect that line to be my thesis statement.

-And a belated thanks to Charles G. Hill at Dustbury, for the link. Welcome!

-------------------------
UPDATE 1/02/11: I see the feminists are popping in from the #mooreandme tag...

Well, since you're here -- and probably aren't going to like what you read anyway -- you may as well check out the rest of my posts on feminism here, here, and especially here. Cheers!

Assange accused of rape, but it's The Other McCain on trial

2010-12-21T19:45:00.007-05:00

I may be the only person on the innerwebs who hasn't chimed in on Julian Assange and Wikileaks. I wasn't going to touch it, for reasons of my own. I've followed the coverage of the leaks, the accusations of sexual misconduct and the general blogging on the topic with my mouth shut, so to speak.

But the mini blog war over it, now... That's bringing up some opinions that, frankly, piss me off.

Today at The Other McCain, RSM has a piece in which he responds to an unnamed Republican communication strategist who has sent him some rather pointed (pointless?) questions. The guy is getting hammered on this topic by a number of bloggers and pundits.

Now, let me state right here that I don't agree with everything Stacy McCain writes. He's a social conservative, whereas my own leanings are libertarian. I'm not amused by his stance on the repeal of DADT : "So we now approach the day when uniformed service personnel — including ranking officers — will march in the Gay Pride Parade next to Dykes on Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." I disagree with his theory as to why Kim Kardashian is unmarried: "Perhaps someone should share with Kim Kardashian that old-fashioned advice about “free milk and a cow.” (I'm inclined to think it's more that most men don't picture marrying some woman who got nailed on video tape - and all his friends have seen it...) Just two examples.

But I gotta say, on this Assange rape situation, I think he's right on the mark.

It’s a he-said/she-said situation, and how did Assange’s victims get themselves into that predicament? By hooking up with an asshole.

Actually, I think McCain's statements are almost mild. I'm going to go further, feminists and apologists be damned.

I think these women are probably full of shit.

Allow me to put on my fireproof suit and elaborate...

I went back and reread the Guardian piece about the police report and the actual accusations. I have several points that I find troublesome... but you want to know the number one problem I have with it?

Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

That's GOT to be the first time I've heard of a report of rape which included a value judgement on the quality of the sex.

Not only did he rape me, Your Honor, he sucked at it!

Rape is not sex. Rape is an act of dominance and violence. I find it impossible to believe that any woman who has been physically victimized in such a manner would equate it with sex, and then compare it to her other sexual experiences. It's certainly not SOP to ask rape victims whether they came, or whether their attacker was well hung. That little ditty bothers me more than the other tidbits...

Like this:

Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

She didn't want to go along, but she'd already gone along so she went a little further. But now it's a problem. Got that?

Here's another:

She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no.

Bovine excrement. A condom is noticeable. Period.

OK, last one:

Assange's Swedish lawyers have since suggested that Miss W's text messages – which the Guardian has not seen – show that she was thinking of contacting Expressen and that one of her friends told her she should get money for her story. However, police statements by the friend offer a more innocent explanation: they say these text messages were exchanged several days after the women had made their complaint. They followed an inquiry from a foreign newspaper and were meant jokingly, the friend stated to police.

So the "victim" was joking about the possibility of turning a profit from being raped? Hmmmph.

If these portrayals by The Guardian are accurate, these women have zero credibility.

Stacy McCain doesn't need me to defend him. (Pity him if he does, as I'm not always reliable.) But the attacks against him are a little alarming. He's been called a misogynist and someone who supports rape - pretty heavy accusations for a guy who even keeps his "cheesecake" posts PG-13. It strikes me as unnecessary and unfair. He says his main point is this:

Promiscuity makes women vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and disease. This is not my opinion, but a statement of fact.

There is nothing offensive about that statement. It's plain truth. These attacks on McCain for making them are not only not helpful, they're harmful. While nobody sane blames the victim in a rape, political correctness must not demand that we can't admit there are risk factors and teach women to avoid them.

As for me, I'm also not implying that Assange's accusers asked for or deserved it.

I'm flat out stating that there's something fishy about the whole damn thing, and the reported behavior of these women calls their objectives and actions into question.

So.

Them's my thinks on it.

Fireproof suit off and back on the hanger. Let 'er rip.

-----------------
Updated 12/23: I'm not done. Read on.

It Wasn't Me

2010-12-17T15:50:00.002-05:00

Heh. I just saw a news story about a guy who threatened to eat President Obama.

Considering the guy's from Pennsylvania, and I have made repeated threats to commit acts of cannibalism, I thought I should clarify.

It wasn't me.

See, I threatened to eat the militant vegans if they interfere with my carnivorous appetites. Barack Obama is not a vegan. (I've seen enough pictures of him chowing down to know.) So, while I'm mildly amused that someone would threaten to "cut [Obama's] meat from his bones and put them in the oven," then "sit down at the table and start eating," I repeat:

It wasn't me.

Though if he lets his tubby wife get carried away with her healthy eating kick and come after my bacon double-cheeseburger... well... they're both fair game, then.

Hippy Smokes

2010-12-17T15:12:00.003-05:00

From the department of What The Fuck...?!

I smoke. You knew that.

I smoke Camels. Regular ol' full-strength, unleaded Camel Filters.

Camels have been on sale. Which is a good thing, because at the rate they tax the damn things, my habit is now more expensive than addiction to crack.

So a sale is a great thing. Buck off a pack, and they have designs on them. Mine feature Sturgis. Pretty fuckin' tough, right?

...sigh... except they were out of regulars. So, with the economy what it is, I opted for a pack of Camel Lights at $1 off. (If I want it stronger, I'm not at all above cutting off half the filter.) Still, works out just fine, right? Right?

Wrong.

Presenting exhibit A:

There's a peace sign on my smokes.

I'm trying to figure out what the hell they're smoking over at RJReynolds. Whatever it is, they don't sell it - if ya get my drift. Why would a cigarette company want to honor a town that would outlaw the Happy Meal? How do you think they feel about smokes?!

Sheesh.

Reminds me of the truck.

Did I mention the truck? No?

One of my spawn drives a pickup. It's one bad little truck. Looks cool, sounds mean as hell, four wheel drive. I love the truck. I love to drive the truck.

Or, I did...

Last time I had the truck, I jumped in without looking closely. I wanted to get smokes (crazy coincidence, huh?) and was in a hurry. As I left the same gas station where I just bought my hippy smokes, I noticed something new about the truck.

She's plastered neon flowers and peace signs on the small windows behind the seats. (They go really well with the camo Army seat covers and steering wheel cover. /sarc. Teenagers are contrary.)

Anyway, I don't drive the truck anymore.

And next time, I'm paying the extra buck for normal cigarettes. Hippies and the economy be damned.

Jason Altmire - A Hooligan?

2010-12-17T12:36:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, T at Republican Redefined put up a pretty interesting link... It shows which politicians have requested what earmarks, and labels them "Heroes" or "Hooligans", based on their level of addiction.

So of course, I had to check out Jason Altmire. He's listed as a "hooligan".

I admit to being torn here. I didn't vote for the guy... BUT I could have. When Mary Beth Buchanan threw her hat into the primary ring, I admitted freely that if she won the nomination, I'd vote for Altmire. I ended up backing (and voting for) Keith Rothfus, because I wanted the most conservative candidate possible this cycle.

But the simple truth is -- Altmire's not that bad. He's reasonably centrist, has a good record on veteran's issues, pro-gun, anti-abortion. Someone I know referred to his voting record as "schizoid... this guy's all over the place." I guess that's accurate. But that's also how I vote, so I don't hold that against him either. He wasn't my preference, but I consider him tolerable.

And I'll tell you what I think: THAT'S why he won. Financial differences aside, his opponent made the tactical mistake of trying at every turn to paint him as a liberal. Despite my remarks to Rothfus that they were very similar (moreso than he'd like to admit - and the voters knew it), he attempted to portray Altmire as Pelosi's lap dog. And lost.

Mr. Rothfus... on the off chance you're reading this... I hope you do decide to run again. And I hope you're wise enough to acknowledge the similarities between the two of you while highlighting the differences. It's just smarter strategy.

Anyway, back to the earmarks.

I don't like earmarks, but not for the generally given reason about federal spending. Sometimes, federal spending is necessary and appropriate. My problem with earmarks is the way they're tucked into everything else. If the federal funds are appropriate and necessary, they should be able to pass as a stand-alone bill, no?

Still, I'm undecided on some of Altmire's requests. Examples? Advanced Lightweight Gunner Protection Kit for Lightweight MRAP Vehicle. Collagen-Based Wound Dressing. Transportable Renal Replacement Therapy for Battlefield Applications. These seem like positive things. And if it brings the work to this area? Well, someone has to do it, and this region is in a bad way.

Even this one: National Network of Digital Schools Management Foundation... While I ordinarily think federal intervention in education has been nothing but a negative, I can't get too worked up about this funding. We struggled and busted our butts to get out of a toilet of a town/school district. If I were still there, I'd be very happy to have the cyber schools option.

So, I admit it. I'm undecided on Altmire's requests. I'm open to thoughts, if anyone still reads this blog. Gimme some input.

I'm just not convinced Altmire is necessarily deserving of the title "hooligan".

Hell, half the time I'm not convinced he's deserving of the title "Democrat".

From the mouths of babes

2010-12-15T14:40:00.006-05:00

OK. I know I've mentioned I have kids... a whole passel of them. Have I also mentioned (do I need to?) that they're a pack of feisty, opinionated creatures?

Have I mentioned that they're trash mouths? No? Well... for good or bad, they speak much the way I do. Which means they can make a sailor blush. I take a very practical stance on their profanity: They curse to each other, but not at each other. Maybe some folks don't get the distinction. My own mother refers to us (myself, my spouse, my offspring) as the Osbourne Family.

Regardless, my kids are permitted to yell "Shit!" if they stub a toe, but are not allowed to direct their naughty words at their fellow human beings. (I think the harm is in the intent, not the word.) It's a rule that works for us.

So imagine my amused alarm when I had to correct the six year old for this. She was watching television, and Michelle Obama's anti-obesity/get moving PSA came on. (I can't find the one I mean online, or I'd share.) Anyway, this PSA infuriates her. It's almost funny, as the supposed-grown-up, to watch her completely blow her cool every time the thing comes on. But this story is about the first time she saw it.....

I hear, from the living room "Why don't you try it yourself, lady?!" Then some random grumbles. Then "FAT ASS!"

At this point, I get involved. "Honey, you're not allowed to call people ugly names. Who are you yelling at?"

And the response: "The President's wife! Why is she on TV anyway? And she's saying we shouldn't eat some foods and talking about fat. She's fat! Ugly old fat ass!"

My reply: "Whoa! Young lady! You are NOT allowed to talk like that!"

And her priceless reply: "But have you seen the size of her butt? Why is she on TV telling me what I should eat?! I'm not fat! She's fat!"

I couldn't come up with a single coherent argument. My daughter is right. While she happens to be thin and trim, there's this woman with... uh... extra rumpage telling her to eat better and move more. And interrupting the cartoons to do so.

I was reduced to granting her that yes, she may be correct... but no, she still isn't allowed to call people fat ass.

She now refers to the First Lady as "Mrs. Big Butt". I keep quiet.

That's my girl. She may not be big enough to speak her mind with impunity... but she knows a hypocrite when she sees one! I have hope for the future...

Updated 12/17 9:07pm:

I just shamelessly lifted this from JammieWearingFool (where Just A Grunt freely admits to shamelessly lifting it from a liberal site).

OK... let me admit right up front... I'm sick. Heh.

My six-year-old was nearby, and I called her over to have a look at the picture on JammieWearingFool. I asked, "Honey, do you know who that is?"

She replies with a sweet grin, "Mm-hmm. Michelle Obama."

And before I could utter another syllable, she points to the screen and says:

"Fat ass! See! Look at that big butt! What?! It's not my fault she's fat! She's got a big ass head, too! Look at head! Big butt, big head! She looks like a potato!"

I had to send her away from the computer so I wouldn't laugh my ass off in front of her.

A potato? Hoo boy.

You say it's your birthday...

2010-10-12T14:19:00.001-04:00

DanananaNANA

IT'S MY BIRTHDAY, TOO!

'K... I don't have any idea if it's your birthday.

But it is mine. :)

Send money.

Remember the dancing internet baby?

2010-10-11T17:07:00.004-04:00

Yeah. Me, too. He ain't on this post.

So... I'm reading DemocraticUnderground today. (That's me... dragging through the slime pits of the innerwebs so you don't have to. You're welcome.) I find a surprising, nay SHOCKING, discussion thread where a DU member is lamenting "dry humping" as a dance style.

Huh. Who knew the progressives had their share of self-righteous prigs?

ANYWAY, one of the responses had a link. To this.

Content warning: People with real morals and some basic sense of decency will probably be upset at the video. If you're not... don't read my blog anymore. I don't want your kind around here.

My question is:

IN WHAT FUCKING ALTERNATE REALITY IS THIS OK?!

Seriously. There are grown damn women in the video encouraging this... even bending down to let TODDLERS dry hump their asses.

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. Stuff like this makes me want to turn in my Membership Card from the human race. Ugh.

Go Fish

2010-10-01T10:16:00.005-04:00

Attention, pigmented people!

(Sorry. Let me specify. By "pigmented", I mean black, brown, yellow, red, cafe-au-lait, ochre, olive, beige... any of the range of shades that people come in other than "pasty", like myself.)

OK. Ahem. Once again...

Attention, pigmented people. I have a message from your melanin-deprived fellow humans. (Or rather, from the vast majority of us. I no more speak for all white folks than Jesse Jackson speaks for all not-white folks, "Rainbow Coalition" notwithstanding. But I'm reasonably comfortable speaking for most of us.) Here's our message:

GET OVER YOURSELF.

That's right. Drop it. Shut up about it. Move on.

See, here's the thing some of you just don't get. I (mostly we) don't care what color your skin happens to be. To me, you aren't the black corporate executive... you're just the boss. You aren't the Asian mail person... you're just the jerk who brings the light bill and never my check from Ed McMahon. You're not the Polynesian-American athlete... you're just the guy that dropped the ball. And you aren't the Latina Supreme Court Justice... you're just the new judge... or the younger judge... or, if we want to be crude, you're the fat one on the dais.

Race has always been a sensitive subject in America, but ever since Barack Obama threw his hat into the primary election ring, things have become markedly worse. It's come to the point where you can't even disagree with the President without it being racial division. (And never mind that if only the black people had voted for him he'd have lost -- since, being a minority group and all, there aren't enough black voters to elect anyone without white voters going along. That proves nothing in the new America.)

Now, we even have gajillionaire children whining that race plays a part in their unfair treatment. (That's right, LeBron. I'm calling you a child. A spoiled, immature, very rich brat.) I mean, it's clear that despite his fame, success and exorbitant wealth, LeBron James is a victim of the racist white man. (And by the way... I think it's racist that I don't have a multi-million dollar NBA contract. Forget for a minute that I smoke a pack a day, am relatively short, couldn't dunk a basketball if you put a gun to my head, and am creeping up on middle age faster than I'd prefer. I'm entitled, damn it.)

Or how about this idiot? There's a guy here in PA who is traumatized by a racist symbol he found at work. Ready for it?

Ooooooohhhhhhh! KKK! The bad ol' white man left a Klan Kut-out to send a message!

Except... wait a minute here... Klansmen aren't tapered at the bottom. And despite the victim's assertion that "whoever made it even colored in the eyes with red ink" (meaning, I guess, that they were thorough in their depiction), I don't ever remember reading that albinism was a qualification for being in the Klan. And I damn sure don't remember seeing news photos of Klansmen with red or bleeding eyes.

Well, huh. How do we explain this overt racist intimidation, then? What possible way to make sense of this obvious attempt to scare the black fella? How about...

IT'S ALMOST HALLOWEEN AND THAT'S A GHOST.

Good grief.

And then yesterday, I read a completely unbiased piece that explains everything that's wrong in the country. White America has lost its mind. Now, if you go read that, bear in mind that it's satire (which -- and I never knew this -- means being just as nasty, intellectually dishonest and insulting as you want, as long as you do it with a wink). So, if you're one of the paler members of society, don't waste time being offended by statements like: "White people have simply gone sheer f*cking insane."

I feel like I'm going sheer f*cking insane, all right. I'm being driven there... By unrelenting, unfounded accusations about my motivations, by "identity politics" and "social justice", by race baiters and assorted haters. And it's so unnecessary, really. I (like all Americans -- hell, like all humans) have been looking at various shades of people my whole life. One is the same as another. Want me to notice someone's skin color? Find me someone green. That will get my attention. For a minute. Although even the novelty of green would fade as soon as I saw a second green person, I believe.

Because I just don't care about skin tone. Most folks don't, it's as simple as that. (And for those of you would believe in your sick little hearts that I'm automatically a racist-in-denial based on my own skin tone... bite me. You're the problem.)

So please... PLEASE... can we get beyond this? Can ya just shut up about it, fer crying out loud? Stop assuming that because you have more tint than someone else, you're a victim. Stop thinking that because someone has less tint than you, they're an oppressor. I once had two cats at the same time, a brown one and a gray one. Neither one oppressed the other, neither one was a victim, and I fed them both from the same bowl. And ya know what? If I'd shaved the little suckers, underneath they'd have both been CAT. Get it?

The next time some troublemaking jackass plays the race card... just tell him to "Go Fish".

Obama: Yes We Can... borrow from those more creative than myself

2010-09-08T12:32:00.005-04:00

Heh. Just saw this at HotAir.

Apparently Obama may have lifted his latest whine about critics. From Jimi Hendrix.

Though Obama didn’t acknowledge it, the line was a verbatim quote from “Stone Free,” the first song Hendrix wrote after moving to England in 1966. “They talk about me like a dog,” the song says. “Talkin about the clothes I wear. But they don’t realize they’re the ones who’s square.”

Amusing? Oh, yeah. Surprising? Not even a little bit.

Allahpundit wrote that "The One does like to sneak pop-culture references into his political rhetoric from time to time..."

From time to time? Are you shitting me? This guy's entire POLITICAL IDENTITY is stolen.

What has been the single, no-thought-required mantra of his entire campaign and his Presidency? What is the slogan he chose to be remembered by? What is his message?

YES WE CAN!

And now, ladies and gentlemen... The Pointer Sisters:

And now... the lyrics:

Now's the time for all good men
to get together with one another.
We got to iron out our problems
and iron out our quarrels
and try to live as brothers.

And try to find a piece of land
without stepping on one another.
And do respect the women of the world.
Remember you all have mothers.

We got to make this land a better land
than the world in which we live.
And we got to help each man be a better man
with the kindness that we give.

I know we can make it.
I know darn well we can work it out.
Oh yes we can, I know we can can
Yes we can can, why can't we?
If we wanna get together we can work it out.

And we gotta take care of all the children,
the little children of the world.
'cause they're our strongest hope for the future,
the little bitty boys and girls.

We got to make this land a better land
than the world in which we live.
And we got to help each man be a better man
with the kindness that we give.

I know we can make it.
I know darn well we can work it out.
Oh yes we can, I know we can can
yes we can can, why can't we?
If we wanna, yes we can can.
------

I'm not convinced this ~~national embarassment~~ President has ever had an original thought. Gawd help us, we're being led by someone whose entire personal and political philosophy has been "borrowed" from pop culture. America has actually elected a President with less depth than Paris Hilton. If it weren't so sad it would be funny.

h/t to (of all things) Stephen King. That's right, Stephen King. And to Henry... who only wanted something mindless to block out the Grayboys.

See that? We're living in a horror novel. Or the 70's.
Either way....

My Thoughts On The Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-20T10:48:00.003-04:00

While the rest of the world ignores the topic, focusing instead on Snooki and steroids in baseball, I've been giving a lot of thought to the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque".

Yeah, right. This story is everywhere, and everyone is chiming in. When I opened my email this morning, no less than half of my new mail was somehow related to this topic. Either emailed news reports, or the always helpful and enlightening (/sarc) chain emails one gets from friends and family promoting their side of the hot-topic-du-jour.

For my part, I've been quietly turning the issue over in my mind. There are so many facets to this, and I'm one of those folks who tends to overthink anyway...

And now, my kids are asking about it. Turning to me for my opinion as compared to what they're seeing and hearing in the media and real life. I've had to organize my thoughts, and come up with my best answers for them. So... here's the result of my mental gymnastics, and the gist of how I handled it when I had to present a coherent and reasonable as possible viewpoint to the people who matter most to me. Ahem...

To my mind, there's no question whatsoever as to whether the developers of this would-be Islamic community center have the constitutional right to practice their faith. In fact, I've yet to see a single article stating that they don't. (Although I saw ONE comment on an article suggesting we ban the building of all mosques in America.) And personally, I'm that rare atheist who believes people of faith should be left alone to follow and practice their faith, regardless of the recipient of their prayers.

But... BUT... As many have said in the past weeks, having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. Take Fred Phelps. Or Code Pink, for that matter. These are people who disgust me with their views and actions. Yes, they have the constitutional right to their views and their displays. No, I would not advocate stifling them. But I do wish they would discover the concept of simple human decency and stop their hurtful behaviors.

Not gonna happen. Apparently, not in New York, either. Next argument.

While 9/11 was national - no... global - it was first (for New York) local. And I'll be frank, I don't know a single person who was lost on that day. While I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing and the fear of the moment, I did not suffer personal loss. I've never even been to New York. That makes it extremely difficult to put myself in the shoes of someone touched on a personal level by 9/11. But that's what I had to do, what we've all had to do.

After thinking about this, reading about this, hearing about this and finally, being asked by my most important audience about this, I've reverted to my initial gut reaction upon first learning about the proposed mosque/center/gym/national ass-ache.

THIS is the first thing that came to my mind. THIS is the mental picture that accompanied the news. And THIS is why I ultimately told my kids I think it's a bad thing... and that while I'm not a New Yorker, I don't think I'd want to deal with this mosque:

This is what happens when a brain dead bureaucrat schedules a photo-op involving a jet and New York. And this screams to me (as it did on the day this little gem first hit the news) that New Yorkers haven't healed. America hasn't healed.

It's the very first thing I thought of. And it's the image that returns to my mind every time I consider the mosque. I can't get past it. While I'm sure there are deeper considerations and subleties I haven't thought of, those frightened citizens running and screaming as their nightmare flies overhead sums up the entire issue for me.

Aussie Man Loses Chunks Of Flesh From Birth Defect

2010-07-13T19:47:00.003-04:00

A drunken Aussie lost chunks of flesh in a freak accident caused by complications from a birth defect.

What kind of horrific birth defect could cause a grown man to suddenly, painfully lose great gobbets of meat from his leg?

Ginormous balls.

........................................

In related news, Fatso the saltwater croc chomped an anonymous drunken ~~idiot~~ victim who climbed on his back for a ride. That's right. Climbed on his back for a ride.

The BBC reports that the 36-year-old man, who had already been thrown out of one drinking establishment for his... ahem... level of intoxication, climbed over a fence and sat on the croc.

"Fatso has taken offense to this and has spun around and bit this man on the right leg," Sgt Roger Haynes of Broome police told journalists.

The ~~moron~~ victim underwent surgery and is expected to survive. No word on the condition of his ginormous balls.

This Is OBSCENE!

2010-07-12T15:45:00.003-04:00

What is obscene?

Well... ~~It depends on your definition of what the word is is.~~

Sorry. Wrong bit of self-serving claptrap. But the legal definition of obscene isn't much clearer than that answer. It pretty much boils down to "Depends on who you ask." Nobody asked me, but I'm gonna give you my opinion anyway.

What I consider obscene is that in 2010, the federal government is still bothering to prosecute folks on obscenity charges.

I saw this at ReasonOnline. Did a bit of googling to see if there's other coverage, but the great bulk of it seems to be (understandably) in the adult video sites and forums. Some interesting search results, to put it mildly. Anyways...

John Stagliano is the owner of Evil Angel, which produces and distributes adult videos. You know... Porn.

And he's currently being prosecuted under federal obscenity laws.

Surely there's more to this, right? It can't be possible that in this day and age the federal government has nothing better to do than prosecute people for making dirty movies, right?

Maybe it's because he's exploiting children...? Nope. The movies star and are made for adults.

Maybe it's a violent snuff film...? Nope. Consenting participants.

Maybe, since obscenity is determined by community values, he had upstanding citizens complain to the feds...? Nope. The films were special ordered by the FBI and paid for by you & I.

So where's the problem?

The movies have been determined to be "yucky" by the standards of some self-righteous prig somewhere who happens to hold a gubment position. While I've not watched (Yeah, slacking in my journalistic credibility by not doing all my research), I think the titles were probably enough to set off the yucky-meter for some: "Milk Nymphos" and "Storm Squirters 2: Target Practice".

So... probably not to everybody's taste. I can't imagine my grandmother renting them - not that I'd judge her if she did, mind you - but obscene? Really? Worthy of FEDERAL prosecution?

I'm assuming the feds have balanced the budget. No? How about ended the wars? No again? Hmmm. Cured cancer then, at the very least?

I admit, I'm biased. I could give a damn less what consenting adults do (or watch) in their own homes. I don't see porn as the dire threat to morality that some claim it is. I believe sex addiction is horseshit, and any grown adult claiming they are a suffering victim is truly just a cad with no willpower who refuses to give their frontal lobe control over their brain. I think women who protest strip clubs as a danger to the community are in denial over where the true problem lies. And I think prostitution should be legal and regulated.

But I do find some thing obscene...

I find it obscene that with very real problems facing our country, and a serious economic condition, we're wasting time and tax dollars prosecuting someone for making dirty movies.

I find it obscene that small-minded individuals still want to mind other peoples' business.

And I find it obscene that something made by adults, with adults and for adults - with no acknowledged harm to anyone involved - is considered criminal activity in the first place.

Blah... Blah... BLOG...

2010-06-30T11:06:00.003-04:00

Did you ever take something you really, really enjoyed, and just fuck it up totally?

You know...? When you let it go from moderation to obsession? Or when you allow a slight change to snowball until you have something entirely different than you started with?

NO? Well, I did. My little blog here.

See, I'm kind of a politics and current events junkie. I love to pour a pot or two of coffee down my throat in the mornings, and surf the web. Originally, this blog was to be the repository for all the things I saw out there that made me scratch my head (or facepalm) and wonder "What the hell is wrong with people?"

I surfed without discriminating. I've spent as many hours reading DemocraticUnderground and DailyKos as I have The Other McCain and Hot Air. I've also ~~wasted~~ logged countless hours on such mindless drivel as TMZ and PopEater. I love to read - I'll literally read almost anything - and the internet is a vast source to read all manner of interesting and ridiculous stuff.

Somehow, I got caught up in conservative blogging. Now, I have nothing against conservative blogs or bloggers. Rather, I enjoy them... it just wasn't my original intention to join the ranks. I'm more libertarian than I am strictly conservative under most definitions anyway. (A notable exception would be the definition of conservatism I learned at The-Classic-Liberal, where the idea of true conservatism is a lot closer to libertarianism than the GOP might approve... The-CL is a blogger I admire a lot and have learned from. I most often finish his pieces feeling like I didn't know as much as I thought I knew, if ya follow.)

Anyway...

I got too caught up. I made something that had been fun into a drudge (no pun intended). I was starting to feel like Mickey Mouse, when he casts a spell to set the mops and brooms to working. Next thing you know, everything is out of control, and I'm avoiding the blog like I'd avoid a call from the boss on a Sunday afternoon when I'm supposed to be scheduled off.

Not even Peta has been able to draw me back lately. And the little things that amuse me that I wanted to capture have also lost their appeal. Even the Jaws-themed posts have jumped the shark. (See what I did there? heh.)

And politics has begun to annoy me.

I've always been more of a natural critic than a cheerleader anyway. I'm cynical, and rather than a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty type I've been more of a "Hey-somebody-took-half-my-freakin-water" person. And BOY, did somebody drain the cup this time!

The current administration sucks. The prospects to be offered by the "Other Party" don't look any better. Fer Gawds Sake, Rick Santorum wants to run. Depressing. Mitt Romney? Mike Huckabee? Yuck. And I'm sick of Sarah Palin. There - I said it.

I'm mailing out the papers today to change my registration back to Independent. That probably only matters to me. I switched because I would have otherwise been denied the chance to vote in the primary. But I'm feeling surly and disillusioned, and equally irritated by both parties. I've decided that I'll choose a party before each primary, and then go back to Indy before the general elections.

And I'm done trying to be a cheerleader. I don't have the legs for the little skirts anyway.

Will I lose readers? I dunno. I don't know if I have any readers. I haven't even looked at my traffic in months. I do know that I enjoyed blogging more when I didn't give a rip, so maybe that's the secret right there.

Mary Beth, Don't Go Away Mad... Mary Beth, Just GO AWAY!

2010-05-23T21:08:00.005-04:00

So...

Last Tuesday, Mary Beth Buchanan got... well... THUMPED here in PA4, and I haven't even been on to ~~gloat~~ celebrate.

I don't have an excuse. Demands on my time have, shall we say "evolved", and I'm still trying to adjust. But now that I have an extra minute or two, please allow me to say a respectful, sincere:

WOOHOO! ALL RIGHT! TOO SWEET! EXCELLENT!

OK. Got that out of my system. (Yeah, right. I was practically dancing a jig around the living room on election night, and have found myself giddy at odd moments ever since. And if you don't grasp why, go read my piece about her when she announced for the race. This is a victory in more ways than one.)

Now it's on to November, and nothing more will be heard from my less-than-favorite former U.S. Attorney. Hopefully. From PA2010's coverage:

After delivering a concession speech and thanking her supporters, Buchanan hugged her husband and told him she’d have a second glass of wine.

Yep. Pour me one, too, Sweetheart! I don't drink... but for THIS, I'll make an exception!

A special "Thank You" to anyone who responded to my post and helped (or just went to learn about) her opponent, Keith Rothfus. He's been called a "true Tea Party conservative", and his win has saved me from voting for Altmire in the fall. I don't agree with the guy on everything, but he was the better candidate, and I'm glad he won. By a 2-1 margin, no less.

Looking forward to November, and hoping we see similar upsets all over America!

-------------
UPDATED to apologize...

I don't know what the hell is going on with my fonts. I've edited three times, and it keeps coming out all wonky. (No, I didn't have that wine. We'll blame Blogger.)