“I love it when a plan comes together”

Komen blinked first:

“We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not. Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

We’ll just all wink eye and ignore the pegging that our bullshit detectors get when this statement is read. Of course it done for political reasons. There are strong anti-choice forces within the Komen Foundation, and they were given control of the foundation by Karen Handel, Komen’s new VP for Public Policy. Handel has a long anti-choice history, and she turned the Komen Foundation into a tool for wingnuts to further their political agenda.

Handel and her lackeys were playing politics with breast cancer. That’s despicable.

And of course you all know who’s to blame for shaming Komen into doing the morally correct thing.

You are.

You who organized yourselves online.
You who contacted Komen corporate sponsors and voiced your outrage.
You who donated money for breast cancer screenings directly to Planned Parenthood. (I take back half of all the bad things I’ve ever thought about Michael Bloomberg.)
You who called and wrote Komen and raised hell with them about their political blunderings.

You made that plan come together. Take a bow.

Published in: on 3 February 2012 at 19:45  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , ,

A savage look at Newtonian hypocrisy

I really shouldn’t quote Savage Love letters in their entireties, but this one‘s just too delicious to pass up.

Congrats, Dan. It looks like you’ve got your first high-profile “monogamish” public figure: Newt Gingrich. You must be so proud.

Dan Savage

For anyone who spent last week under a rock: Newt Gingrich, brave defender of traditional marriage, was still married to his second wife—and still fucking the consecrated host out of his “devout Catholic” mistress—when he asked his second wife to agree to an open marriage. Newt had been fucking Callista, his devoutly Catholic mistress, for six years when he made the big ask. Newt’s second wife wouldn’t agree to an open marriage, according to Newt’s second wife, which is how she became Newt’s second ex-wife and Newt’s mistress—the devoutly Catholic Callista—became Newt’s third wife.

That’s not monogamish, SCUM. That’s CPOSish. And lumping honest nonmonogamists—people who don’t lie or cheat—in with the likes of the Gingriches and Schwarzeneggers of the world, which whiny and insecure monogamists (who are not to be confused with reasonable and secure monogamists) are always doing, is simply unfair. Newt, like Arnold before him, didn’t succeed at nonmonogamy, he failed at monogamy.

Newton Gingrich

Zooming out for a moment: The Gingrich campaign has presented the holesome story of Newt and Callista’s courtship as a redemption narrative: Newt is a better man today thanks to Callista, he’s better suited to be president thanks to Callista, and he’s better prepared to defend traditional marriage thanks to Callista. She’s been described as a “devout Catholic” in every profile written about her—so devout that her love brought Newt to the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, and ever-more-rabidly anti-gay church. So it seems to me that it’s fair to ask if Callista knew in advance that Newt was proposing an open marriage to his then-wife and approved of the arrangement. (It might be more accurate to say that Newt informed his second wife that she was already in an open marriage and asked if she wanted to remain in it.) Did Callista know about Newt’s open marriage proposal? Did Newt bounce the idea off his devoutly Catholic mistress first? Maybe right after he finished bouncing himself off his devoutly Catholic mistress?

Would the devout Catholic still be Newt’s mistress today if the second Mrs. Gingrich had agreed to remain in the marriage that Newt had already opened?

Callista Gingrich

This news alters the redemption narrative that the Gingrich camp set before the voters. So questioning Callista about the open marriage proposal—what did the mistress know and when did she know it?—seems like an entirely legit line of inquiry to me.

Callista Gingrich, like her vile husband, doesn’t believe that gays and lesbians should be equal under the law because, as a good Catholic, she believes that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should remain celibate. Well, the Catholic Church considers adultery, divorce, and birth control sinful, too. Someone in the liberal media really ought to ask Callista to explain why her faith should place limits on my sexual expression but not her own. (emphasis mine)

And let’s not forget that Newton did the same damned thing to wife #1, except that he kinda left out the “can I cheat on you with your blessing?” part.

Published in: on 31 January 2012 at 17:43  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,

“Yes, I wrote that.” “Well, I didn’t write it, but it’s okay.” “I didn’t write that, and I’ve never heard of it.” “No, I didn’t write that one, either.”

What is it with Ron Paul?

First he published a series of newsletters in the ’80s and ’90s that contained racist, homophobic, and wild-eyed conspiracy spew.

Then he sorta denied that he’d written the inflammatory material but tried to defend it.

Now he denies that he even knew the hate material even existed, and has walked out of media interviews for what he terms “badgering” about the issue. This, despite his inability or lack of interest in who would say such things under his signature.

And then he claimed that there were “only” a few bad sentences in the material.

These are big red flags, folks.

(If you want to see excerpts from those newsletters in hourly snippets, look here.)

In the latest segment of this Who-the-Hell-Is-Steering-the-Paul-Boat saga, his Twitter account tweeted Jon Huntsman last night and mocked Huntsman’s campaign in Iowa:

“@jonhuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he’s in Linn precint (sic) 5 you might want to call him and say thanks…”

Now Paul claims he didn’t write the jibe.

Just who the hell is managing your campaign and social outlets, Mr. Paul? It’s obvious that you do not have your hands on the wheel, and who wants a chief executive who doesn’t manage well?

Published in: on 4 January 2012 at 11:17  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Ron Paul — homophobic, racist liar

And he’s not even clever enough to hide it:

Ron Paul -- BUS-ted

  1. Paul’s Iowa state campaign director serves as chairman of the board of an SPLC-designated hate group.
  2. Paul wrote and sponsored newsletters filled with racism, homophobia, and xenophobia in the 1990s. Then he defended those statements. Now he denies he ever knew anything about anything. (If you’d like to read some of his fear-choked ravings, look here.) Lew Rockwell, the person who likely co-wrote the worst of those statements, is the founder and chairman of the Mises Foundation, a group that supposedly supports free markets and capitalism.
  3. Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  4. And Social Security. And Medicare.
  5. And paper money.
Published in: on 27 December 2011 at 22:23  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , ,

“It’s all about the money”

The Family Leader, known for its infamous Marriage Vow (signed by several Republican presidential candidates), has been caught red-handed. Again.

Bob Vander Plaats -- not exactly your political mastermind

Bob Vander Plaats, the FL’s leader, apparently asked Frothy Mix’s campaign for upwards of $1 million in return for an official endorsement for Rick Santorum. Campaign staffers claim that Vander Plaats wants the money for additional advertising.

Right. I bet he’d love a cabinet post while they’re at it.

It no longer seems a coincidence that Vander Plaats suggested earlier this month to Crazy Eyes Bachmann that she drop out of the race. It sounds now as if Bachmann’s campaign wouldn’t (or couldn’t) afford the FL’s price tag.

And now it’s been revealed that Vander Plaats pulled the same trick with the Romney campaign in 2008. Romney refused, and the FL’s endorsement went to Mike Huckabee.

If you can’t win the race, buy it, I always say.

Published in: on 23 December 2011 at 15:18  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Plus les choses changent, plus elles restent les mêmes.

During the war of words between the Franklin Roosevelt administration and newspaper publisher William Randolph Herst, there was a particularly telling exchange. From the Roosevelt camp:

“The American people will not permit their attention to be diverted from real issues to fake issues which no patriotic, honorable, decent citizen would purposefully inject into American affairs.”

Herst’s response, in a signed newspaper editorial:

“Let me say that I have not stated at any time whether the President willingly or unwillingly received the support of the Karl Marx Socialists, the Frankfurter radicals, communists and anarchists, the Tugwell bolsheviks, and the Richberg revolutionists which constitute the bulk of his following…I have simply said and shown that he does receive the support of these enemies of the American system of government, and that he has done his best to deserve the support of all such disturbing and destructive elements.”

Fast-forward 75 years. From David Frum’s recent article in New York Magazine:

“Some liberals suspect that the conservative changes of mind since 2008 are opportunistic and cynical. It’s true that cynicism is never entirely absent from politics: I won’t soon forget the lupine smile that played about the lips of the leader of one prominent conservative institution as he told me, ‘Our donors truly think the apocalypse has arrived.’ Yet conscious cynicism is much rarer than you might suppose. Few of us have the self-knowledge and emotional discipline to say one thing while meaning another. If we say something often enough, we come to believe it. We don’t usually delude others until after we have first deluded ourselves. Some of the smartest and most sophisticated people I know—canny investors, erudite authors—sincerely and passionately believe that President Barack Obama has gone far beyond conventional American liberalism and is willfully and relentlessly driving the United States down the road to socialism.” (emphasis mine)

Frum’s article is the most concise, hit-the-nail-on-the-head article about conservatism I’ve read in a long time. Do yourself a favor and read it.

Perhaps there are sane conservatives out there.

Published in: on 15 December 2011 at 16:38  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , ,

“She isn’t young enough or pretty enough to be the President’s wife.”

Immortal words, Newton Gingrich. Immortal words.

People used to call Ronald Reagan the Teflon president. No matter what bad political steps he made (Iran/Contra, his terrible verbal gaffes, and his oncoming dementia), he managed to politically survive it all.

Newton’s been channeling Reagan, it would seem:

Click to embiggen.

One wonders how many more moral gaffes he can survive and still be a viable candidate.

Time and the internet will tell, because the media and the Republican Party sure as hell aren’t.

Published in: on 12 December 2011 at 14:40  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Towering towers of pure, unadulterated, grade-A, all-American bullshit

Every so often you hear something from a politician’s mouth that makes you think that politics wants to square-off mano a mano with organized religion in some sort of “I can stack bullshit higher than YOU can” competition.

This from Michele Bachmann, when she was asked about her viewpoints on economics:

“… the late Milton Friedman as well as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. “I’m also an Art Laffer fiend—we’re very close,” she adds. “And [Ludwig] von Mises. I love von Mises…when I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises.”

Anyone ever read von Mises? Anybody who

  • thinks that one fretful mother’s opinion on the side-effects of Gardasil, despite mountains of objective material to the contrary, should control U.S. medical policy,
  • lies about not receiving farm subsidies when her tax returns say she does, and
  • compares Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 economic policy with the Christianist Number of the Beast

could not begin to grasp von Mises’ work.

She needs to quit getting ideas from the backs of milk cartoon, Saturday morning cartoons, and video games.

Published in: on 29 November 2011 at 19:31  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

So you really don’t believe the media is manipulating you?

Time Magazine’s cover for the U.S. market for 5 December 2011:

Time Magazine’s cover for the rest of the world for 5 December 2011:

Now, is anxiety really that big a news item that it takes the cover away from the latest Arab Spring happenings in Syria and Yemen? Is anxiety big enough a showstopper as to bump news about the EU financial meltdown? the Occupy movement in the U.S.? the interminable idiocy of the Republican presidential candidate pool? the changes in climate and rainfall that are causing food prices to spiral upward?

Are the American people shallow enough that they’re rather see “features” rather than news that is knocking on the door, and knocking loudly?

Or is the media that manipulative that they fear giving Americans notions for change?

(Thanks to Leslie for the tip.)
Published in: on 26 November 2011 at 10:11  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Did anyone notice…

…that the very first thing out of Mitt Romney’s mouth at tonight’s national security debate was a lie?

…that every candidate erroneously put her/his hand over her/his heart during the National Anthem?

…Herman Cain can’t remember what Libya is, but can use Newspeak: “targeted identifcation” instead of “racial profiling”?

…that Michele Bachmann doesn’t respect legal process? She claims that the underwear bomber should not have had his Miranda rights read to him.

…that Mitt Romney didn’t apologize for his latest campaign ad in which he claims a statement from a McCain campaigner was made by Obama?

…the “audience questions” that Blitzer asked for came the likes of Mike Gonzales (the communication director of the Heritage Foundation — one of this debate’s sponsors)? that another “audience question” came from an American Enterprise Institute (the other sponsor) scholar by the name of Danielle Pletka? and another “audience question” was from Paul Wolfowitz? This is nothing but a right-wing handled event, and CNN is playing right along.

…Jon Huntsman‘s warning about “listening to the generals” about Afghanistan that could cause another Vietnam?

~~~

Welcome to another managed Republican debate, deftly attempting to lull the public into complacency. And welcome to CNN, yet another corporate meatpuppet.

Fuck you, CNN. Fuck you very much.

Published in: on 22 November 2011 at 20:05  Comments (2)  
Tags: , ,

“Choco ration’s going up!”

When Parsons announces this rumor Winston Smith in 1984, he neatly illustrates the Orwellian concept of Newspeak. Later that day Smith’s work at the Ministry of Records requires him to edit past editions of the news so that the “current” ration becomes 20 grammes rather than the real ration of 30 grammes.

When the official news announces at the communal meal that the ration is “going up” to 25 grammes, everyone applauds.

Republican policymakers have learned that lesson quite well.

The secret here is to take a grain of truth, spin an elaborate lie about, say it often enough to make a talking point out of it, and then it takes on a “truth” of its own.

 

Published in: on 22 October 2011 at 21:06  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , ,

“What do the simple folk do?”

This song title, from Camelot, is a musing by the king and queen as to what poor folk do with their time and money.

Republican presidential nominees don’t seem as curious.

~~~

Herman Cain:

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has been touting his “new” tax plan as a way to get the U.S. economy moving again. He calls it the 9-9-9 plan, and its main components are a 9% personal federal tax rate, a 9% corporate federal tax rate, and a 9% national sales tax.

Cain claims this plan will straighten out the economy and stimulate job creation, although when pressed he cannot begin to tell anyone exactly how it will do that.

That’s okay, Herman, The Tax Policy Center has done your work for you. Here’s the result of the changes in the individual federal tax structure, broken down by income level:

Note that two charts are required to show the magnitude of the tax cut for the very wealthy.

Under this tax plan, those making less than $200,000/year will see a moderate tax increase, while those in the $200,000-$1 million bracket will see a substantial tax decrease. Those making more than $1 million/year will see an average savings of over $400,000. Must be nice, being rich.

~~~

Mitt Romney:

Governor Romney’s tax plan is this niftykeen idea to eliminate all taxes on capital gains. The Tax Policy Center has done the numbers on that one as well:

So, an average household making $50,000 would get a $54 tax break if capital gains taxes were eliminated (0.1%). Those who make a $1 million would see $141,005 (14.1%).

Compare this to one of President Obama’s suggested tax relief programs, reviled by Romney as a “temporary band-aid”, that would give middle-class households a tax break of $800-$1000.

~~~

Michele Bachmann:

In her own words:

“In my perfect world, we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax.”

In other words, enrich corporations and the rich, and to hell with everyone else. ‘Nuff said.

~~~

Rick Perry:

In his own words:

“We’re dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay any income tax.”

That’s true. A family of four with a $30,000/year income pays no net federal taxes due to the tax structure. However, such a family does pay state income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes on gasoline and liquor, and (most importantly) payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security. Perry proposes to increase federal taxes so that everyone pays them, but he balks at increasing any taxes for the rich:

“Spreading the wealth’ punishes success while setting America on course for greater dependency on government…”

~~~

The Republican pack running for their party’s nomination are all aiming at the target of raising taxes for the poor and middle-class, while attempting to lower taxes for their rich corporate masters.

Gee, I guess taxes aren’t as hard to figure out as it seems as long as you know what your goals are — the further enrichment of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Published in: on 19 October 2011 at 10:52  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

“We fight, because we believe.”

The Spouse is so smart. She finds cool things for me to post and grouse about.

From U.S. Representative Peter King, the gentleman who spent some time earlier this year channeling Joe McCarthy with his Islamophobic witchhunts and repeated accusations of class warfare on the part of the middle class, referring to the Occupy movement:

“[W]e have to be careful not to allow this to get any legitimacy…I’m taking this seriously in that I’m old enough to remember what happened in the 1960s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy…We can’t allow that to happen.”

That statement, bundled with King’s retelling of rumors (“I don’t have facts to back this up, but…”), prompted this gem:

So per Representative King, the people have no business taking action that might shape national policy.

That sounds rather oligarchical.

Doesn’t it?

Published in: on 8 October 2011 at 21:43  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

“Back to the power looms, Little Timmy!”

Thanks for the tip, Andy, Richard, and Barry.

Published in: on 3 October 2011 at 8:31  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

“Now that we’re done with civics for the day, it’s unreasoned homophobia quiz time!”

Apple is rather obnoxiously picky about how an app gets included into the iTunes Store.

However, the Android app store needs to pick up a little more pickiness. There is an app out there, in the “20 Questions” neighborhood, that is supposed to show whether or not your son is gay.

No, really. Here are the questions, along with the answers my parents would have given:

  • Before he was born, did you wish for a girl? (no, my parents didn’t)
  • Has he ever been in a fight? (no)
  • Does he read the sports page in he newspaper? (no)
  • Is his best friend a girl? (yes)
  • Does he like team sports? (no!)
  • Is he modest? (yes)
  • Is he a fan of divas (Madonna, Britney Spears)? (not really)
  • Does he spend a long time in the bathroom? (inordinate amounts of time)
  • Does he have piercings in his tongue, nose or ears? (no)
  • Do you wonder about your son’s sexual orientation? (yes)
  • Are you divorced? (no)
  • Does he like musical comedies? (hate ‘em)
  • Has he ever introduced you to a girlfriend? (yes)
  • Is his father a very authoritarian person? (yes!)
  • Within your family, is the father absent at all? (yes, somewhat)
  • During his childhood, was he timid or discreet? (yes)
  • Does he have a complicated relationship with his father? (yes)
  • Does he take a long time to do his hair? (yes)
  • Does he like to dress well: is he very careful when choosing his outfits and selecting brands? (no)
  • Does he like football? (no!)

(I flunked 13 out of 20. That doesn’t make me gay — and I’m not.)

The saddest thing about this pitiful attempt to determine a son’s sexual orientation is not that it helps parents avoid the personal, trusting relationship that would allow open communication about a child’s preferences. It’s also not the childishly inept attempt to classify sexual preference based on clumsy, inexact, meaningless questions that perpetuate stereotypes and promote unreasoned fear about whether a son likes or dislikes something as meaningless as football (FFS!).

The saddest thing about the app is this picture of the mother that comes bundled with the app:

"The horror! The...horror!"

Note the carefully staged photography, showing a terrified mother on the brink of a horrible discovery about her son. Her expression is that of someone who’s about to open the closet door and find her child performing some morally bankrupt ritual such as…admiring the shiny bedspreads in the Sears catalog.

What utter bullshit.

Whoever paid for and spearheaded this app’s creation richly deserves the Dumbass of the Day Award.

Published in: on 28 September 2011 at 14:12  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,
« Older Entries