Welfare Queens, Republican Edition

This is a classic example of billionaire welfare queendom. The dude has $10 million in walking around money to air anti-Obama ads on behalf of his Ending Spending PAC (dedicated to ending wasteful government spending). But really really needs $150 million in taxpayer dollars to build his stadium, not to mention 35 years of tax vacation.  Time to cut off this guy’s food stamps.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/05/19/487214/meet-joe-ricketts-cubs/

He Made The Trains Run On Time Too

Just a reminder, folks, that if we are not currently discussing Hitler, DO NOT MENTION HITLER. Especially to give an attaboy to his energy policy. In fairness, this was 5 years ago. But it is still forehead slappingly dumb.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/one-thing-hitler-did-right-according-to-mitt-romn

Running With Scissors

Some thoughts on the story of Mitt’s jolly pranks fom his days in prep school.

First and foremost, politically speaking, the campaign’s reaction to this news bubble represents a tremendous missed opportunity. The primary discomfort people have with Romney is the suspicion that there is no “there” there. Answering these allegations honestly, adeptly and firmly would have gone a long way toward putting those concerns to rest. Instead, we got two days of this:

1. Nervous laughter when asked about the incident. I’m never voting for the guy and I was in full cringe when I heard it. Weak, awkward, painful.

2. A declaration that he doesn’t remember the incident, when every other person involved has been unable to erase it from memory. Which gives us two options in our assessment of Mitt Romney–he’s either a big fat liar, or he is so bloodless that he truly has no recollection of chasing a guy with scissors, holding him down, and forcibly cutting his hair off. This is not a wedgie we’re talking about, folks. Romney gathered a posse to go teach some effeminate long haired weirdo a lesson…and he doesn’t remember it at all? Why not just be honest? Even cherubic, angelic I had asshole tendencies as a teenager. I once kissed a boy I knew my best friend liked simply because, well, I have no idea. It seemed like a good idea and an ego boost at the time. But I did it and I still feel bad even though I’m sure she couldn’t care less anymore. There’s more of course, but I’ll let the WaPo dig it all up when I run for office someday.

The truth is that all teenagers are bubbling over with enormous asshole potential–which you KNOW if you are a teenager, have been a teenager, have seen a teenager, or have seen even one PBS documentary on the prefrontal cortex. Teenagers are the most evil, narcissistic all-id beings besides toddlers. We all know it. So why not just be a normal person and say you did some shitty things in high school, you could not be more regretful and more different now? I’ll tell you why: because as incompetent as Mitt is as a candidate, his campaign team is worse.

3. To defend Mitt, some blogs are rolling out the part of Obama’s book where he described shoving the only other black girl in his middle school class to prove to some taunting kids that she was not his girlfriend. With friends like these bloggers Mitt don’t need no enemies. So…we are equating a middle school shove that was documented by the shover, apologized for, and publicized openly in a book–to a 17 year old physically restraining another person as part of a pack and forcibly cutting his hair to teach him a lesson and then claiming no memory of the guy or the incident. Folks, if that’s the only defense you can muster, and you are promoting it with a straight face, then you have already lost this debate.

I know people are saying that “times were different” then. Which is why I’m judging Romney not on what he did then, but on what he’s doing about it now.

Haters Gonna Hate

The intertubes are all abuzz today in the aftermath of North Carolina’s banning of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it, marriage. It’s rich that the good people of NC are committed to the sanctity of marriage. Thank goodness no heterosexuals (cough! John Edwards!) have sullied the great institution of moral wedlock in that great state.

From a personal standpoint the result is distressing. From a political standpoint it is the least surprising thing to happen since Hillary trounced Obama by 40 points in West Virginia 2008. Decent folks fought the good fight in NC, but I’m trying to find even one political person who didn’t know defeat was on the menu. Why? Because it is North Carolina, folks. Had this been MA or NY it would have stopped presses. I lived in Georgia for several years, and it was one embarrassment after another in terms of the right wing voting that went on there. I was bummed but not surprised BECAUSE IT WAS GEORGIA. The essential fact of life in some of our states, unpopular as it is to say, is that religious-based bigotry is not only present but encouraged. I mean, think about it. There was no “gay marriage bill” currently in effect in NC. There were no imminent work stoppages or bus boycotts in favor of same sex marriages, threatening to rend the fabric of North Carolina’s moral or social infrastructure. This unnecessary action against gay families easily got placed on the ballot—and easily won. A very obvious solution to a nonexistent “problem.” Proving that haters are indeed gonna hate. In some states more than others.

North Carolina matters, of course, because it is a swing state. Which means that President Obama’s day just got worse by a factor of 1,000. Again, personally I want him off the fence and in the wedding party of two cute guys. But politically, I’m just not sure he can. Until, god willing, November 2012.

In the meantime, if your ass is sitting on the fence, just decide to jump on over to the side of marriage. Not gay marriage or civil unions or whatever. Just marriage. Between two consenting adults. It costs you zero money. It costs the precious taxpayer zero money. It changes your marriage not one bit. So what’s your problem, assuming you don’t have any electoral votes needed to win an election? Support marriage. Support families. Support equality for all Americans. And if you live in North Carolina, assuming you don’t want to move, dust yourself off, dry your tears, and then take the political fight to every last member of your legislature responsible for this loathsome law. This vote happened only because it was placed on the ballot, and that means, friends of equal marriage, that it is time to divorce your Speaker.

I Need A Xanax

Which I’m sure Rush Limbaugh will fully support my right to be prescribed and covered by insurance.

I realize I have blogged very little of late, and I’ll tell you why. This entire Republican primary spectacle has been just been so relentlessly depressing that I can’t fathom thinking about it more than I have to.

Oh, at first I was giddy with schadenfreude; pointing and laughing at these buffoons and charlatans who imagine themselves Commander In Chief of the greatest power in the world. And then I realized how many others are NOT mocking them but actually considering them worthy of the office. And that just gave me the straight up sads.

Actual candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America favor limiting poor people’s access to reproductive services. They favor limiting everyone’s access to reproductive services. They have yet to condemn a state bill (supported by a potential VP pick) that requires a woman seeking an abortion to undergo a penetrative vaginal exam. Because their God says that this LEGAL–and supposedly HIPAA mandated private–procedure is wrong. Does God think Viagra is wrong? Does God approve of vasectomies? I’m sure He doesn’t, which is why we should mandate an anal probe and public penis flaccidity check for any male seeking treatment in this regard. It sounds like outrageous nonsense, and yet we have no trouble with our emerging theocracy seeking to mandate equally monstrous physical indignities toward women. THAT, my friends, is the fucking outrage, multiplied by the impotent silence and acquiescence of the GOP candidates; cowards all. There is no debate to be had on this topic in 2012. Overturn Roe v. Wade if you hate abortion. Force women to undergo unwanted regime-mandated intimate procedures if you want to be a Nazi. Oh no she did NOT go there. Yes she did. This shit must be called out for what it is: an assault on human dignity.

And then the racism. The “Don’t ReNig in 2012″ bumper stickers, which the seller assures us is not racist, just funny. Flying off the shelves, apparently. In a country like ours, that site should fail from lack of interest or community outrage. But it thrives. You know, because you don’t agree with President (yes, he is) Obama’s policies or beliefs or plans for the economy. Riiiiiiiight. The day that site fails is the day I believe it. Until then, y’all can shut your Gingrichian pieholes about being “post racial.”. My ass, folks. My lily white ass. It seems the only definition of “racist” in today’s GOP is someone who points out that something is racist. To prove my point I’m going to walk around my town. In a hoodie, holding my 7-11 big gulp. Maybe I’ll run a little. Let’s see if I get shot. By Gingrich and Geraldo’s calculations, I’m as in danger as a black pre-teen boy.

And then the victimhood. For a party all about personal responsibility, the GOP spends a lot of time whining about the liberal media, Bill Maher, Gloria Allred, [insert name of lefty bogeyman here]. Bristol Palin awaits Obama’s call just as he called Sandra Fluke to commiserate on her terrible treatment. Sister, please. Can you see my eyes rolling? Sandra Fluke was not the teenaged pregnant daughter of an evangelical candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States. You did get some unfair shit thrown at you, but I notice that you now make up to $30,000 per appearance discussing teen pregnancy. And you had a reality show lined up that tanked only when Levi Johnston bailed. Oh, and lets not forget Dancing With The Stars. Yes, you poor poor dear, just trying to live as a private citizen and the mean old liberal media keeps pulling you into the spotlight. Sorry, honey. I’m out of shits to give on this one.

I guess what I’m deploring is the general level of outright stupid fuckery that is taken for legitimate political debate these days. Blame the media. Or whores. Or Blacks. Or Muslims. Or Socialists. Have they ever met a fucking socialist!? Please. Go live in a socialist country then come back and tell us all about it, you morons. Go live somewhere that they substitute “Jews” or “Catholics” for all the nastiness directed at Muslims. Then come back and tell us how you liked it. Rick Santorum and Romney both said that the United States “does not apologize.” Really? Really, assholes? Is this a high school locker room? Or are we a great and good nation in the world? A light unto the nations? Apparently not.

There is so much more on which I could rant, but I’ll leave it at this, courtesy of Abraham Lincoln:
Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.

This whole campaign–and every sorry contender in it–has gone wrong.

I Swear I Blog This For The Articles

The Oldest Profession

Which is, of course, using the airwaves to showcase your ignorance and misogyny. In any case, I’m considering changing the name of this blog to Slut Spangled Haggis in honor of all the sluts out there using birth control to facilitate their nonstop sexy times with all manner of….what’s the male equivalent of slut? Riiiight. There isn’t one.

First, folks. Let’s clear up the factual element of disgusting, libido-killing Rush Limbaugh’s argument: no one is asking the American taxpayer to fund contraception. The issue is the requirement for insurance companies to offer it and cover it. So please stop talking about how YOU are going to be paying for people to have sex. That’s nonsense reminiscent of Phyllis Schlafly convincing people that passing the ERA meant that men and women would be required to share public toilets. Only crazy people unencumbered by the need for facts believed that then and believe this now. Or, they are people, like Limbaugh, who seem excited by the prospect of paying for sex.

Now, let’s move on to Limbaugh’s words. “Slut, prostitute.” And then his creepy admonition that he wants to see the videos of any sex “he” is paying for. Gross, disrespectful, juvenile and the ultimate demonstration of incivility toward, mind you, a private citizen. Just as I slammed Bill Maher back in the day for calling Sarah Palin a C U Next Tuesday, I’m calling out Limbaugh for this foolery now.

What stuns me in all of this are the number of men behind Rush. Have these men always worn condoms? Or do they have multiple children with multiple women, beginning during their frat days in college? OR……did they perhaps, at some point, benefit from a woman being on the pill? Say it ain’t so! Slutty women are having sex with themselves, apparently, because I don’t see these guys admitting that sex-not-for-procreation benefited them in any way.

To Sandra Fluke’s point, the pill is prescribed for many,many reasons beyond those which make overweight conservative men tingly in their naughty bits. Personally speaking, I was prescribed the pill to stop absolutely mind- and soul-crushing post-transplant migraines. I have friends who take it for ovarian cysts. Now, does this mean that we also now have the opportunity to bed porcine radio hosts? Why, yes. But why do you care SINCE IT’S NOT YOUR DAMN BUSINESS anyway? Yes, Republicans, tell me all about your love for and fidelity to limited government, less regulation, and personal responsibility. Just as soon as you can stop governing and regulating my lady parts.

In the meantime, here is the real definition of prostitution from one of the funniest not-funny movies of all time:

Prostitution

Hebrew Nationalist

Hebrew Nationalist

To the point of my previous post, of course demonstrated in a far more awesome way by Jon Stewart.

Barack Don’t Bluff

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/

This links to an interview with President Obama regarding US-Israel relations.  It speaks directly to the Republican talking points that the President is soft on Israel, a charge I despise.  He has kept every single promise he made on the topic, ($3.1 billion isn’t a commitment?) but why let facts get in the way of a good political narrative, right?

Instead of being kneejerk (if he doesn’t say the words “I will bomb Iran tomorrow’” he doesn’t support Israel!!), let’s use our brains, our intellects, our capacity for reason to arrive at our conclusions.  There are reasons evangelical Christians want a war in the middle east, and they are not, I assure you, about the preservation of the Jews (see the book of Revelation).  There are reasons the hawks of the right want a war in the middle east, and it’s not because they plan on sending THEIR sons and daughters to fight it. The President rightly discusses the terrible consequences of giving Iran a reason to look like a victim when the pressure should be focused on disarming it so as to avoid an arms race in the most volatile region in the world.

The truth is that the President is accused of being soft on Israel simply because he doesn’t speak the AIPAC talking points and he and Netanyahu disagree on tactics. Well, if that makes him anti-Israel, then I guess I must be anti-Israel too. Along with tens of thousands of other American Jews. And all the actual Israelis who don’t agree with Netanyahu as well. Wow. So many Jews soft on Israel, if you apply GOP criteria to all of us and not just Barack Obama. OR…perhaps different people of good faith can hold differing opinions on a volatile topic, and that makes us nothing more than citizens of a free and democratic nation exercising our inalienable rights.

Rich Man, Poor Man

If you read this (nsfw language) article  you will learn a great deal about where my views and opinions come from. I hesitate to use the word “poor” to describe my upbringing because we weren’t homeless or on welfare. But we ate our share of government cheese and did our share of waiting for the next box of cereal when this one ran out. We didn’t immediately get new shoes just because we needed them until my mom had had a minute to run the numbers and see where footwear would impact the budget. I definitely knew we were working within tighter limits than most of my friends, and it definitely sometimes sucked, but for the most part I never felt ashamed of being, oh okay, “poor” because my parents both worked every day and didn’t take vacations or play the lottery with our gas money. So I guess we were what my former political self would have called the Working Poor, which means in GOP terms, “the good and noble kind.”

This rather funny article really brought to the fore a couple of things that have been irritating me lately, both (surprise) from the Murdoch-owned WSJ. A few weeks ago there was an article marveling at the dollar store phenomenon. I mean, don’t these people know that for just 3 dollars more they could get a brand name product in a larger size at a conventional store?! An article written by a person who has obviously always had an extra three dollars in her pocket, thereby entirely missing the point: The true appeal of dollar stores is that they are a godsend for people with zero discretionary income. For people who do not have that extra three dollars this week. And if not having three dollars to spare sounds ludicrous to you, then congratulations! You are almost fully qualified to work for the Wall Street Journal.

The second article that set my teeth on edge ran just this week, slamming the Obama administration for–and now, poor folks, stay with me here for the hilarious payoff–bringing down the hammer on check cashing/payday loan businesses. Oh yes, the WSJ is incensed that Barack Obama is denying poor people the opportunity to pay 24% interest on their own money! They even cite a survey (questions, margin of error, protocols not provided) in which “a majority” of people are “satisfied or somewhat satisfied” with the service they receive from their friendly neighborhood usurer. I’m pausing now to laugh derisively and bitterly at the total lack of sense and over abundance of giant, clueless BALLS it took to write that article. So I have an idea: if the editors of the WSJ think check cashing places are so awesome and beyond the reach of good government, I challenge every single member of the editorial board to have access to their paychecks for the next, say, 6 weeks ONLY via a payday advance loan. Oh, and they have to take the metro to Anacostia to pick it up. Minus that 24% of course…

My point is of course to bash the WSJ because I think it is a joke. I mean, Karl Rove on your OpEd page? At least make the EFFORT to look like you’re not shilling. Anyhow, my real point in this post is to highlight some ways in which people of means consistently misjudge those without.

Poor people are fat and lazy. Yeah, well how about you buy them a membership at your gym….with transportation to get there. Bambina’s school is starting a before-school activity and fitness program. Great! That should help teach our low income students about health and nutrition. Oh. Except it is $120 to participate–and transportation is on your own. Yes, I can see all those low income families getting involved. Not.

Or let me tell you about a place in which a community center was built by very generous people. Only, they failed to notice that it would of necessity sit unused (giving us all the chance to judge “these people” for not taking advantage of golden opportunities) because the neighborhood kids had to cross gang territory to reach it. If you have never considered whether your kid should play basketball at risk of being shot, then you need to tone down the judgment and turn up the compassion.

Poor people are “envious” of and therefore bitter toward people of high income status. News flash: no we ain’t. Good for you. Now how do I get there? How about loaning my small business venture some money? How about we just get honest and admit that starting off upper middle class makes achieving wealth–and good health–a little bit easier?

Poor people pay no taxes. Brothah, please. Once again, wealthier people focus their tax feelings on income tax, and have little idea why a poorer person might pay almost no taxes–because their federal income tax burden is offset by the Earned Income Tax Credit (via Ezra Klein: “The Earned Income Tax Credit, for instance, is an income-support program created by Richard Nixon and expanded by both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. The underlying idea came from legendary conservative economist Milton Friedman. So this is bipartisan stuff. And it was designed to run through the tax code rather than just send recipients a separate check.”) The purveyors of this canard fail to mention that 3/4 of all Americans pay more in payroll taxes (which fund Medicare and SS), and local and state taxes. So we can all just stop repeating this lie now that we have the facts.

And finally, Poor people like handouts. This is just straight-up disrespectful, because I have met very few people in my life who would prefer to be unemployed and living on assistance. Yes, a couple were poor and in favor of handouts. But a couple were from wealthy families and were more than happy to remain unemployed and “on assistance” (ie, you are above the age of 30 and one or more of your monthly bills are being paid by your parents). Are wealthy senior citizens sending back those social security checks? No? Well, then let’s retire the lie that poor people as a group love to sit around smoking crack and having crack babies while the mailman delivers your hard earned cash to their door.

What IS true about poor people? They are, we were, PEOPLE just like you. Just doing their best for their kids, trying to ensure the next generation does better than the one before. Working, living, loving, striving. Just like you. Which proves that, if you are honest, you KNOW that no one is “satisfied or somewhat satisfied” with losing 24% of their income sight unseen.