The GOP and voter intimidation and disenfranchisement

Dear GOP,

You, who are so concerned about "voter fraud" that you've enacted restrictive voting laws harkening back to Jim Crow... You have the balls, the unmitigated gall, the cajones, the chutzpah to "require" your primary voters to sign a pledge that they will vote Republican in the general election? What. The. Fuck.

This strikes at the very heart of free elections. Something our democracy is based on. What gives you the legal right to force a citizen to vote for any candidate? If this were happening in the elections in Iraq, Egypt, or any other middle east nation, you would be crying foul, and rightfully so.

Whether there is any legal way to actually enforce this forced pledge, other than through intimidation (uhh, illegal) is unclear to me. But to deny a citizen the right to vote in a primary unless they commit to a particular party for the general election has got to be illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and im-, il-, and un- everything else.

I understand that the parties set the rules at the state level for primaries, and I have no problem with that in theory, assuming that the rules set forth are freaking constitutional.

US Department of Justice - I call on you to investigate this practice and put a stop to it!

So, GOP, how do I spell GOP?

H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.S.Y.

You have created voter ID laws in many states, under the guise of "stopping voter fraud", when indeed, there are so few cases of voter fraud in the US that your obvious goal of disenfranchising any voter likely to vote against your party becomes glaringly obvious. Whether this is motivated by greed, desire for power, simple and outright fear that your base is itself becoming disenfranchised from your ever-increasingly extremist message, or all three does not matter. What does matter, is that you are forcing honest, law-abiding US citizens out of their constitutional right to vote. People who traditionally vote Democratic. The elderly, students (who apparently only vote liberal), minorities and the poor - all who may, due to socioeceonomic and other factors, may have a more difficult time getting an approved voter ID.

And yet, in the Iowa caucuses, you are not requiring voters to show ID. Huh. I wonder why that is? Could it be that you are confident that all GOP voters in the caucuses will vote GOP, so then, no need to force their hand? Apparently, you aren't so confident in Virginia.

If only you would step away from your desperate grab for more power, more money, more, More, MOAR!!! You might see that you were elected to represent ALL the people in your district - not just the ones who voted for you or are likely to vote for you again. You would see that people are hurting, and forcing them to take time off of a job in order to obtain "proper" voting ID might cause them to lose said job. But of course, those people are just deadbeats anyway, so what do we care if they lose their job?

Constitution 101, just in case you've forgotten some of these...
Article XV
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Article XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Amendment XXIV
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment XXVI
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Word. Oh, George, how I miss you.

Words can't express how much I miss George Carlin. He hits the nail on the head every time, no more so than here. Yes, Pro-Life IS Anti-Woman.

Disclaimer: this is George Carlin. Profanity is a given. If the use of the F word multiple times is offensive to you, please stop now. If not, listen to Carlin tell it like it is. And so well.

Dear .@MittRomney, guess what $10,000 gets the 99%?

Oh, Mittens. Really? Truly?

You have the chutzpah to just throw a $10,000 bet out there in a presidential debate on national TV just to prove you're not a flip-flopper?  Really? Ok then. And then you defend yourself by saying you had to poop in a bucket on your Mormon mission? *shakes head* Mitt, Mitt, Mitt.

You gave this ammo to the DNC before the bet was even declined, in the only bright thing that Rick Perry has ever done in his adult life.




Lots of folks are sharing #what10Kbuys, just to help you understand why we're all so annoyed with you.

For me? It would pay off my credit card debt - the one incurred because my teacher husband and I, while both working full time, come up short about $250 every single month in keeping a roof over our heads in Southern California, paying for gas to get us to our jobs (since there is no public transportation system where we live), feeding our two teenage boys (and yes, Newt, the older one even has a job!), clothing them, and saving for college so we aren't, you know, an absurdity.

Once again, I'm forced to say to a Republican presidential candidate: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Until you've walked in my shoes, don't talk about how great I have it and how I'm a deliberate drain on the system. Don't talk about how my teacher husband, who goes to work at 7:00 and comes home at 4:30 without a lunch break, and works at least one weekend day each weekend, works part time. We're part of the group that keeps this economy going. You know... the MIDDLE CLASS. I buy in the stores. I pay to the colleges. I actually pay my taxes, even though I may not like how the government uses most of that money.

[Oh, and side note. Newt? Simply because I don't like a law like having to pay my taxes when the government is screwing it all up, doesn't mean that I get to disregard it. Cause if I could? Yeah, you wouldn't be getting a dime of my tax money. Except guess what? I would go to jail for that. So think about how the little people feel when you want to disregard laws or judicial rulings simply because you don't like them.]

Oh, and also? The second that Ann Coulter, the bitchiest, cruelest, nastiest woman person thing in America endorsed you, Mitt? Yeah, you gave up any hope.

What does $10K buy? Apparently, when Mitt pays it, it buys a second term for President Obama.

What would $10,000 buy you?

Again I ask, Why do you guys always call us racist?

I've tried to curtail my ranting in deference to my blood pressure, but the past couple days have brought some just awful stories in the news. For example, I've kept my mouth shut as Rick Santorum threw himself back into the limelight with a vengeance, creating several Santorum is an Ass moments.

However, in response to the age old question that the Tea Party and Republicans keep asking about why people would ever think they're racist, I just couldn't keep my mouth shut any longer...

The Patriot Freedom Alliance Tea Party of Hutchinson, Kansas posted on its home page a picture of a skunk with the following text:

The skunk has replaced the eagle as the new symbol for the president. It is half black, half white, and almost everything it does, stinks.

In yet another version of "I know you are, but what am I?", they have defended their position by saying that Sarah Palin has been called worse.

Then, there's good ol' Rush Limbaugh, the king of the racists. Laughing about Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, and the President.


I think Bill Maher summed it up perfectly in his New Rules.

Oh yes. And then there's the campaign to rid all advertising from All-American Muslim. The Florida Family Association has run a campaign to get all advertisers to back out of the show, claiming it's Muslim propaganda. Lowe's has apparently succumbed to the pressure. Because we all know that the retirees in Florida are spending their retirement dollars at Lowe's. Pretty sure that if Home Depot wanted to get a leg up, they should advertise on TLC right about now.

The irony is, of course, that the show seeks to reach out and teach understanding of Muslims and their faith to good old fashioned Americans. Ok then.

It's just another act that proves the point that corporate America is in the pockets of the far right. And yes, that's a huge generalization. But lately, I haven't seen a whole lot about corporations doing a lot to promote peace, tranquility, and prosperity for the little guy. Please feel free to point out all the wonderful corporations that are out there doing the right thing. I'd love to send my money their way.

The war on women goes Southern Fried Chicken

I saw this on the news yesterday (ok, not the "real" news, but the only news that's reporting anything remotely offensive that the far right is doing - that would be the official "fake news", The Daily Show.

It seems everyone is rallying around poor woman-harasser Herman Cain. From Rush Limbaugh's disgusting slurpy sounds and desire for women to wear burkhas so men aren't tempted up to Huckabee's Southern fried chicken. This was our moment of Zen last night:



Huckabee would do well to remember the EEOC's definition of sexual harassment. And from the FCC's website:
Examples of actions that may create sexual hostile environment harassment include:

• Leering, i.e., staring in a sexually suggestive manner
• Making offensive remarks about looks, clothing, body parts
• Touching in a way that may make an employee feel uncomfortable, such as patting, pinching or intentional brushing against another’s body
• Telling sexual or lewd jokes, hanging sexual posters, making sexual gestures, etc.
• Sending, forwarding or soliciting sexually suggestive letters, notes, emails, or images

It sure seems to me that what Sharon Bialeck has claimed - that Cain stuck his hand up her skirt and grabbed her genitals while pushing her head toward his lap - meets that definition. Add in the "You want a job, right?" line, and I think that Cain's face actually appears in the dictionary next to the definition.

Now, having someone in a service environment call you sweetie or honey is annoying. I'm the first to admit it. Personally, I hate it when someone, especially someone several years younger than me, says, "What can I get for you, hon?" Ugh. Is that annoying? Yes. Is that harassment? No. It might be if I was required to deliver napkins to a restaurant every single day, and every day that girl said, "That shirt looks nice on you, babe." And I told her that made me uncomfortable. And she continued anyway. And I was required to interact with her FOR MY JOB. Not because I felt like filling my fat ass with fried chicken that day at lunch.

This level of backlash is the EXACT reason that most women don't report sexual harassment in the workplace. Or rape. Because of the fear or retaliation (and make no mistake - this is retaliation) or retribution is huge.

The facts are that the National Restaurant Association settled two cases against Cain in the 1990s. So why didn't these women didn't come forward sooner? Perhaps it was because of the gag order on them, written into the settlements.

The level of hatred for women that the far right continues to show is simply appalling. From laws restricting our rights, and attempts to undermine our health and well being, and sexually harassing us, and calling our leaders "princess", they continue to show disdain for the majority of the population.

So sorry that I wasn't born with a dick. I'll be happy to get one if that would make you happy.

Oh wait. You don't like that either.

Keeping it classy, Cain

So, Herman Cain's PAC had this post up. I can't tell if they are trying to get him elected or trying to get Obama re-elected. Either way, I'll not even mention the misogynistic, victim-blaming asshatery going on here.

I'll simply point out that it's not the victim who's the horse's ass.

The title of the post: Herman Cain Accuser Karen Kraushaar works for Obama and she's ugly.

Pictured: woman with a horse.
Caption: Just to be clear, Karen Kraushaar is the one on the left.

That's what I love about the GOP these days. They know how to class up a room.

Mixed news in Mississippi

In excellent news, yesterday Mississippi soundly voted down initiative 26, the Personhood Amendment. Finally! A victory in one battle in the war on women.

The idea that a zygote should have the same rights in the courts as a living, breathing, human being was crazy, especially with all the additional implications, such as making IVF and contraception illegal, and making it illegal to abort an ectopic pregnancy - the outcome of which is almost assuredly death for the mother if not terminated. (In an interesting twist, the author of the initiative was himself a beneficiary of IVF. His response to everyone else? The Mississippi equivalent of "tough shit for you!")

However, at the same time, Mississippi approved Initiative 27, the Voter ID law, requiring voters to have a government issued photo ID in order to vote. And we all know how well that's turning out in places like Tennessee.

I guess not enough zygotes had the proper photo ID to vote in this election.

No, really. How come you guys call us racist?

Oh, Ann Coulter. How you irk my shit. You really are the most ugly, mean-spirited, horridest person EVAR.

Nobody is out to get Herman Cain. He does a fine job of that all on his own.



Our blacks are better than their blacks? A black blacker than Obama?

Oh, and if I recall correctly, when you say that Democrats in the White House wouldn't protect Blacks, are you perchance referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson? You know, the dude who signed the Civil Rights Act into law? Just askin'.

And Donald Trump, you have the chutzpah to call Jon Stewart racist? Dude, he's just talking fact. You know, stuff that can be proven? Like the National Restaurant Association settled 2 sexual harrassment cases against Herman Cain? That's not racist. That is a fact. And in case you weren't quite sure what a fact is...



And in response to Trump? The Daily Show... NAILED it!

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

License to Bully? Michigan's "it's ok to bully" law

Oh dear God, really?

Under the guise of anti-bullying legislation, the Michigan State Senate passed a "license to bully" bill yesterday, which basically offers legal protection for bullying. Period.

SB 137 (as originally introduced), previously known as the Matt's Safe Schools Law, was named for Matt Epling, who committed suicide after being assaulted as a "welcome to high school", now has this clause in it:

This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.

This basically tells us that it's ok to bully, as long as you believe you're morally superior, oh, and you're religious. Um, excuse me?

Now, I'm not in school any longer, and I live in California, so why should I care? Aside from the obvious, of course?

Well, uh, Michigan? My son just applied to Michigan State University, in East Lansing, the city in which Matt Epling went to school. Choosing a college is an exciting time for us. My son was excited, very interested, and it wouldn't surprise me if MSU was the top school on his list after speaking to the recruiter who appeared at our high school's college night. Yes, he was that good.

We have been pretty encouraging. Seems the recruiter did a great job on us, too.

However, I'm not really sure that I want to pay my OUT OF STATE tuition costs to you now. That's approximately $160,000 that you might not get from me. All because you are telling people it's ok to bully. As long as you are religious (which I take to mean Christian, and please do correct me if I'm wrong. *crickets*). Michigan is hurting economically, maybe even moreso than much of the country, and I know you could use my out of state dollars. But I need to think on this.

What if some jerk decides his religion is better than my Jewish son's, and bullies him out of a 'sincerely held religious belief' that Jews suck and he's 'morally' superior? Do I really want to hear that that's ok?

Umm, I'm thinking... no.

Senate Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer, who incidentally represents East Lansing, had this to say on the bill's passage:


Matt Epling's father, Kevin, issued this statement:

"I am ashamed that this could be Michigan's bill on anti-bullying when in fact it is a 'bullying is OK in Michigan' law."

The Michigan Education Association released a statement as well, which in part states:

As passed, the bill provides no real protection against bullying. It allows bullying comments which stem from religious beliefs; it lists no protections for homosexual or disabled students; and it excludes cyber-bullying.

So why even vote on it and pass it? Because it sure doesn't protect children from bullying. All the items noted by the MEA are the basis of school bullying. These are the reasons why and avenues in which kids get bullied. So it seems the citizens of Michigan owe a great big Thanks for Nothing to the Michigan State Senate.

Michigan Senate Democrats issued this press release blasting the bill, which was voted on completely along party lines - which means yes, every single Republican voted that it is ok to bully as long as you really believe in it.

Michigan Republicans, looks like you've spent far too many hours listening to this idiot.

Congressional field trip

"We are teaching the world the great truth that Governments do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion Flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government. "

~ James Madison
(emphasis mine)



Therefore, iwe are NOT a Christian nation. Certainly not one at the behest of the government.

The House's Heavy Schedule - be careful not to break a nail!

So, the House has released its schedule for 2012. And wow, I sure hope they don't tax themselves too much. (Didja catch that clever little double entendre? Huh? Didja?)

Apparently that isn't going to be a problem in either case. Well, the obvious being that they're rich, so of course they won't tax themselves! But really, where I was going with this is that they are working less than 30% of the year.

Huh. It brings up a few issues for me.

1. The House has a crapton of work to do, given that they are so busy restricting women's rights and not creating jobs and all.
2. Also, the House is dying to remove all those pesky labor laws that keep businesses from paying their workers a living wage and not working children into the ground and not having a 7 day work week.
3. The House members (and you know who you are!) accuse the working middle class and poor in the US of being lazy. Hmmm....

OK then. When pressed on the issue, Eric Cantor's comeback was that since 1990, the House has averaged only 112 days per year. Like that makes it all ok. Forget that we were in an economic boom for that decade (thank you, President Clinton) and that, well, when the Dems ruled the House, they only worked 108 days. HA! Oh, and forget that three wrongs don't make a right.

Can you imagine a world where the workers got together and decided their working conditions? Oh, wait. The unions are unconstitutional, too.

OK, backtrack. Can you imagine a world where the workers got together and told their boss that they were only going to work less than 1/3 of the year? I'll try if you will, too! Yeah, I thought not.

But hello! There's a ton of work to be done. I get it that the GOP is planning to do absolutely nothing in order to stall the economy and make the President look bad come election day. And really, I TOTES sympathize. But if they had to actually, you know, answer to their boss (that would be, uh, US) the way that we have to be accountable to our bosses, then we might get better than the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Oh, wait. We do have that. It's called elections.

Please. VOTE.

The immigration/food supply/public assistance problem

So... apparently, Alabama, like Georgia before it, is realizing that their farm crops are going to go bad, and as a result, the consumer price for produce are skyrocketing, especially when combined with the effects of nonexistent global warming and climate change.

Why, oh why is this happening?

Oh, that's right. It's a crime to be a hard working immigrant, even if you didn't cross into the USA legally.

Unfortunately, these people aren't taking jobs away from hardworking Americans (read: prisoners), because apparently hardworking Americans don't want those jobs. They're just too hard.

Stephen Colbert, as usual ... nailed it!

I hope that the GOP in these states and in Congress is willing to deal with the economic and political consequences/fallout of food that's priced too high for so many Americans to pay for it. And then, as a result, many farmers that will have to go out of business in their states, potentially placing more and more folks on the public assistance rolls. And we all know that public assistance is taboo. Because needing help in times of strife is a huge sign of weakness. Vicious little cycle, isn't it?

Congressional field trip

to the founding fathers...

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.

~~ Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 11, 1777

Congressional field trip number 355

In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.

~~ John Adams, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1797

Voter ID laws, anyone?

Alan Grayson (former Rep D-FL) explains #OWS movement perfectly

For all those who really wonder what people are so upset about? It's this.



Well said.

Nuff said.

(via SmartBitches)

Quote Unquote

Phil Mitsch (State Senate candidate R-NJ) is quite the ladies man, apparently. He has the secret to success for women and he's not afraid to share it. And share it, he did.

"Women, you increase your odds of keeping your men by being faithful, a lady in the living room and a whore in the bedroom #quote Mitsch"

I'm constantly amazed at what we will accept in political leaders. Because, of course, while men cheat on their wives and that is just fine, a woman should be faithful to her husband at all costs. And if only you were a whore, maybe I wouldn't have to visit whores all the time instead of being faithful and a gentleman.

Men, you increase your odds of keeping your women by not being a douche.

NJ women, Oh, how I urge you be nuns in the bedroom until this election is over.

Congressional field trip number 972

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men

~~ John Adams, 1776

Just sayin.

And in today's war on women... the internet

It never seems to end, does it?

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) injected an amendment into the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that would prohibit women and doctors from discussing abortion over the internet.

The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman's health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care. Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors.

What the everloving fuck?!

Yes, he injected this into a freaking agriculture bill. And yes, he had the balls to actually suggest this.

The House has had more votes on anti-choice measures just this year, making it the most ever since 2000.

Tell me again how the GOPs in Congress are only trying to push jobs. I dare you.

Rick Santorum wants you to have children until your uterus falls out

Rick Santorum would like to not only defund all abortion coverage, but all contraception coverage as well. Because, you see, we should only "do eeeet" when we're married and only to have children. And, oh yeah, if you happen to get a little pleasure out of it, well goody for you. But really, pleasure isn't what it's all about.

Opening doors up again for marital rape, because if she doesn't want it and she doesn't get pleasure out of it, well then, if hubby wants kids, then shut up and take it.


(move forward to 17:50 for the discussion)

Someone might have forgotten to tell the cavemen, and the ancient peoples, and the medieval peoples, and, well, freaking every civilization that ever walked the face of the earth, because people have been having sex for pleasure (and outside marriage) for as long as there have been people.

Dooood, wake up and smell the crazy! You are an ass.

Religion...

Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one.
It's fine to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my children's throats.

Taken from Keith Olbermann's page on Facebook. Original source unknown.

It's really not Santorum's fault. Really.

Poor misunderstood Rick Santorum. He knows that the woes in this country are really the fault of all the single mothers out there. If only they would stop getting help from the government (like they ALL do!) and if only they would stop voting, or at least find a man to boss them around fix their lives for them, all of our lives would be that much better. Why, oh, why can't the rest of us understand that?

"Look at the political base of the Democratic Party: it is single mothers who run a household. Why? Because it's so tough economically that they look to the government for help and therefore they’re going to vote. So if you want to reduce the Democratic advantage, what you want to do is build two parent families, you eliminate that desire for government."

Like Rick says, a two parent family should be encouraged and nurtured by government and leaders. Hmm... maybe we should make it illegal to divorce your wife while she's recovering from a horrible car accident. Or while she's dying of cancer in the hospital. Or when she's diagnosed with a chronic illness. Unless you're doing it for America.

Oh, wait maybe it's not the women's fault. Maybe it's the gay's fault. I know, he's such a devoted American. And gays are the biggest problem - but he can fix it. Just like a modern day Abraham Lincoln. Phew. We've been waiting for Lincoln to fix our gay problem.

"I have been a long-time advocate for states' rights. However, I believe as Abraham Lincoln did — that states don't have the rights to legalize moral wrongs."

And if that weren't enough for poor Rick to handle, those meanies over at Saturday Night Live are making fun of him!! And bullying him! *GASP*



See?!




Here are some words of advice for Santorum.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or grow a thicker skin. Or whatever 'suck it up, pull up your big boy undies and act like a man' analogy you want to make.

Presidents are mocked on every late night show before, during, and after their presidency. If you're going to whine like a little baby every time someone makes fun of you, then perhaps this isn't the job for you.

(Oh, are you listening Rick & Anita Perry? Perhaps this isn't the job for you, either.)

Children see what adults can't

What an amazing speech. It should shame everyone at that UN conference that there were that many empty seats.

And please note: this was 20 years ago. 1992.

Congressional field trip: Dear #FoxNews

"A printer publishes a lie: for which he ought to stand in the pillory, for the people believe in and act upon it."

~~ George Clymer of Pennsylvania, one of only six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

He's talking to you, Fox News...

I know you are, but what am I?

I am so disheartened, disillusioned, angered, and frustrated by our government that if one of them approached me to ask my opinion right this minute, all I could likely get out would be, "You're a f*cking asshole."

I guess I know where I stand... the Let Women Die Act

Congress actually made me cry last night, and I'm sure that they are crowing in unholy glee at that fact.

I am 45 years old. I live in California. I have voted in every local, state, and federal election since I was 18, with the exception of the years that I was in Colorado for college. In all those years, I have gotten angry, I have applauded, I have been saddened by Congressional action. Never before has a Congressional bill actually made me cry. Except last night, I cried on my husband's shoulder. Honestly, I did.

I am peri-menopausal (yes, I can even admit that!), and my husband has had a vasectomy. We have two teenaged sons. I've had my children and am not looking to have more. Being pregnant at this stage of my life would not only be undesirable, but would put me in a very high risk group. But the only way that I am likely to get pregnant is - god-forbid - a rape.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 358, the "Protect Life Act", which is total bullshit because it doesn't protect anything. It's been dubbed the "Let Women Die" Act, because it allows any entity to refuse to perform an abortion on any woman, including one necessary to save the life of the mother. To put it bluntly, a hospital, physician, or other licensed medical professional person or service can watch a woman die on the floor rather than perform an abortion to save her life.

Of course the irony here is that if the mother dies, so does the unborn fetus they are trying so hard to protect. Also, this does nothing to protect life. The 'pro-life' party once again shows that it is the anti-choice party; not in the slightest bit pro-life. Someone please explain to me how intentionally letting a woman die on your emergency room gurney is pro-life. You'd better try really hard, because I don't think you can possibly justify that.

Unless, you're Rick Santorum. We should make an exception for Rick Santorum's wife. Because she, above all others, is needed as a mother for her other children who might have been left behind. Not another woman in this country would have that same situation. She's special.

I feel terrible for her, honestly I do. She had a much wanted (I assume) pregnancy, and a problem with the fetus left her with a life-threatening infection. In her 20th week of pregnancy, labor was artificially induced in order to expel the fetus and save her life.

I approve. It was their choice to do this. They were given the options, and made their decision. As it should be.

Now, other women will no longer have that choice, and with Rick Santorum's full blessing. According to him, doctors who perform life-saving abortion procedures should be criminally charged, and the rape victim would just undergo another "trauma" should she choose to abort a pregnancy resulting from said rape (poor thing, we should make her decision for her, she's so traumatized). According to him, we need to preserve the sanctity and dignity of every human life. Except any woman who is not his wife.

From Keith Olbermann's Facebook
fan page. Original source unknown.

Once again, the party of jobs, jobs, jobs has shown that we can set aside the jobs agenda to stick the long arm of the government that should be getting out of our personal lives up inside my uterus. They have shown once again that, in their esteemed opinions, women are the lowest life form on the planet.

H.R. 358 was co-sponsored by 9 women, one of them a presidential candidate (and it kills me to call her that). 16 women voted AYE. 5 women did not vote, including Michele Bachmann (a co-sponsor) and Gabrielle Giffords, who IMO, is the only one with a possible excuse not to be there. 15 Democrats (all men) voted AYE.  The vote in the House was 251-172.

This bill will likely not affect me personally, and by that I mean my personal body, but I have a sister and 2 sisters-in-law. I have 3 nieces. I have many female cousins who are of childbearing age and who are not yet of childbearing age. I will someday have 2 daughters-in-law. I have 2 nephews who will eventually marry women who will have children. I have a multitude of female friends, many of whom have daughters, and if they don't, they have nieces, sisters, mothers, or daughters-in-law or future daughters-in-law. As I'm sure all those members of the House who voted yesterday do.

I'm not an intentionally cruel person, and I truly don't wish this horrid event on anyone. But all I can say is that if somehow this bill gets past the Senate and the White House, after I move to another country, I hope that the funeral I'm attending for the woman who died while medical staff sat and did nothing is not for one of my loved ones, but a loved one of someone who voted Aye.

Quote Unquote

Saw this floating around Facebook and felt the need to share it. (am happy to share the source, but it's a private person and I doubt he'd want his name plastered on the interwebz)

I can't verify its authenticity until I catch up on all my DVR'd episodes of The Colbert Report, but it's certainly appropriate.

The war on women continues...

What the ever-loving fuck?

Comparing abortion to the Holocaust is outrageous for so many reasons I can't even begin to enumerate them. And, I believe they are so obvious that I don't need to. Everyone knows why this isn't the case. But let me point out a not so obvious reason that this isn't true.

The Holocaust significantly targeted Jews, as well as other minority groups, both ethnic and social. But focusing on Jews for the moment, since they were the primary target... uh, Jewish law commands that abortion be performed in order to save the life of the mother. The Mishnah states: "If a woman has [life-threatening] difficulty in childbirth, one dismembers the embryo within her, limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life."

Additionally, Jewish law does not establish that the fetus is a viable person. In fact, just the opposite. From the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards, Adopted on November 21, 1983

Jewish tradition ... sanctions abortion under some circumstances because it does not regard the fetus as an autonomous person. This is based partly on the Bible (Exodus 21:22-23), which prescribes monetary damages when a person injures a pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage. The Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6) explicitly indicates that one is to abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the mother.

So, my question is this. If you are going to compare a mastermind of mass-murder of an entire race, religion or social group to a medical procedure, don't you think the main group to whom you are making the analogy should agree with your ideology?

And in other news, the Congress takes up HR 358; the "Let Her Die" bill, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds to refuse to perform lifesaving pregnancy termination for any reason they choose, including in order to save the life of the mother.

And last for today, but certainly not least...

The city of Topeka, Kansas has repealed in a 7-3 vote, the law against domestic violence. Seven to three! It wasn't even close. Their reason? Yeah, it was expensive to prosecute all these cases, so we'd rather just let men beat up their wives. It makes life a whole lot easier on the budget.

Although domestic battery remains illegal in the State of Kansas, the city council has made it clear symbolically that they couldn't care less if a dude wants to beat the shit out of his partner.

"We opted out of the state statue [sic] last night which says municipalities should prosecute these crimes," said Mayor Bunten. "That was done so that it couldn't be thrown into our laps." (emphasis mine)

Could they make it any clearer that they want nothing to do with taking care of their citizens? OK, let me rephrase... their women and children (since they are typically the victims of domestic violence).

I don't know about you, but I'm damn scared to be a woman in the US today. Seriously scared.

I am, indeed, the 99%

As the GOP tries to justify its desire to decrease or remove altogether corporate and millionaire tax rates, the rest of the country is desperately trying to make ends meet.

Both my husband and I are fully employed. We are incredibly fortunate. However, that does not give the government the right to take advantage of us.

 In the past 3 years, my husband, a *gasp* teacher and a *bigger gasp* member of his local and California teacher's union, has seen his insurance deductible triple. Among other cutbacks, his insurance contribution per month tripled this year and benefits decreased, and the addition of furlough days has essentially cut his salary.

Over the past several years, we've seen our tax responsibility go up at both the state and federal level. We consider ourselves to be good citizens. We give to charity. When we can't donate cash, we donate goods - clothing, supplies, etc, and we donate to our local food bank to help those less fortunate than us. We've tried to instill these same values in our children.

Now, in order to help millionaires keep even more of their money, the GOP would like to see us pay even more, while at the same time trying to claim that Americans should take care of each other, rather than rely on the government. Let's be honest. The GOP is claiming that the actual dollar amount that the uber-upper class will have to pay is greater than the dollar amount the rest of us will have to pay, and in that, yes - they are likely correct. But we're talking percentages of income here, not actual dollar amounts. Because our tax code is all about percentages. And the average wealthy American (and corporation) pays a far lower percentage of their income than does a non-wealthy American. The government's responsibility is to take care of the people over which it governs. It even says so in the Constitution of the United States.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If, as the GOP proposes, the government increases taxes on the majority of the citizens of the country, that means that we have less income not only to spend, but to care for those less fortunate. I know Ron Paul suggests that the churches will take this on, but where does he think the churches receive their money? How does the GOP propose we manage both of those items at the same time? Just curious. Because I'm guessing that they don't expect the wealthy to bankroll their local charities, especially when they don't really get anything out of it (except of course, another tax break). (Help those less fortunate?! Blasphemy!)

Also, the hypocrisy of the GOP who fully supported the Tea Party movement as patriotic is now calling the OWS movement un-American, unpatriotic mobs, and morons. Nice to see how they support the democratic process and our constitutional right to assemble. And to see how, once again, if it supports their ideology they love it and it's patriotic, but if it doesn't jive with their politics, it's unconstitutional, unpatriotic, and mob behavior. Uh-huh.

Prime example:

Buying beer, tobacco, and unneeded gadgets while on public assistance is an argument that has been made by many a GOP politician, which is why Minnesota State House Republicans introduced HF 171 and other bills to limit poor people's access to cash. And yes, I think we all agree, that there are abusers of the system. But they are the severe exception, not the rule. And of course, we all know that everyone on welfare or public assistance must be drug abusers, too. However, the vast, overwhelming majority of people on public assistance are simply trying to keep their heads above water while they look for employment or better employment. Also, I'm saying it again - the party of Christians is once again rearing its incredibly un-Christian head.

We also have the duty to educate our people. Many presidents have made this a priority (though none have done a good job of it, IMO). However, according to Glenn Beck, these protesters should just stop whining about the fact that the a) can't afford college and b) can't get a job after college. Now that's just lovely, considering NCLB and RTTP pretty much ensure everyone is on a college track just in order to graduate high school. We now expect every child to go to college, force them to be college ready, have taken away almost all vocational tracks in schools, and have raised the price of college tuition such that it is out of the range of many Americans. We've increased the difficulty to graduate high school on this college track we've forced, thus making many students scrape by with a C average, yet the average GPA to get into college has increased, as have the SAT or ACT minimums. So how do we propose to college-educate all these students that we've forced to get onto the college track, who can now not afford nor actually get into college, and can't get a job without a college degree?

I don't have the right to not pay taxes because I don't agree with the way they are being spent. I also don't have the right to not follow laws that I don't agree with, darn it. Oh, how I wish that were so! However, these are exactly what Newt Gingrich proposed in an interview - that he wouldn't follow the federal court's rulings on cases he didn't agree with. Hello - impeachable offense, anyone? And it's also exactly what Rep Bobby Franklin said that Georgia should do in referencing Roe v Wade in HB 1. In addition to being a blatant disregard for the constitution they all claim to love so much, this is exactly what the checks and balances system is for. Wait. Is checks and balances a constitutional principle? Naaaaaah. Couldn't be.

When we begin electing officials who publicly voice their plans to directly violate the law and the constitution and do not hold them accountable, what are we teaching our children? When we impose standards on our citizens that are impossible to meet, what are we doing? What does that say about us as a society? Or the future of our country?

If I could take the time off of work, I would be protesting along with everyone else. As it is, I must do it from the pulpit of my blog.

I am the 99%, and I support those sitting in protest 100%.

Those rich white male landowners strike again

Holy crap!!!

I know, let's return America to the time when only rich white male landowners were allowed to vote. It's Steve King's (R-IA) wildest and most cherished dream.

Because those people who don't pay taxes have no stake, no "skin in the game". Uh, perhaps the people who are unemployed or who don't work for money (like, say, housewives) or college students or even those lowlife socialist freeloaders who don't make enough money to meet the tax burden (IOW, enough to freaking live on - which BTW will be a lot more folks once you all repeal the minimum wage law like you want) might have some thoughts on that.

Just one question for the Congressman from Iowa.

Just how big an elitist asshole are you really? 

Yeah, what.ever.

SCOTUS and the 1st amendment

I've tried to chill out, really. But when the Supreme Court is in such disarray and so partisan, how can we stay silent?

Antonin Scalia has noted that religion is more important than law. Isn't this the point in time when you say, "Gee, my religious beliefs are so strong, I can no longer be an impartial judge of law"?

Apparently not.

“Our educational establishment these days, while so tolerant of and even insistent upon diversity in all other aspects of life, seems bent on eliminating diversity of moral judgment – particularly moral judgment based on religious views,” Scalia noted in a speech at Duquesne University.

“I hope this place will not yield – as some Catholic institutions have – to this politically correct insistence upon suppression of moral judgment, to this distorted view of what diversity in America means.”

Really, Mr. Supreme Court Justice? What does diversity in America mean? Equal rights for all citizens? The right to an education for all citizens? Religious freedom for all? Or is it that as long as the folks appearing before the Supreme Court believe the same as you, then they're diverse enough?

Never, to my knowledge, has the Supreme Court been so partisan and so obviously biased. And, gee, it was also my understanding, if I recall my elementary school education correctly, that the SCOTUS is supposed to be impartial and unbiased. Given that, you know, they're deciding law for generations to come.

Also showing suspect behavior is Clarence Thomas, who refuses to disclose or claim the six-figures a year earned by his wife at the hands of the Tea Party organization that she founded, or the gifts and donations he's received by companies and lobbyists with a direct interest in the outcome of cases before the court.

While it's lovely and all that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, if they don't live up to the strict ethical standards required, there should be a mechanism for forcing their withdrawal from the court.

What's that you say? There is? Oh. Yes. Didn't we impeach that Clinton guy for getting a blow job? Imagine if he'd also actually done something, you know, illegal.

Scalia and Thomas should be forced to resign from the SCOTUS or be impeached.

The breakdown of civilized society

Seriously, I don't even know where to start with this one. I noted (on my personal blog - sorry, no link) how appalled I was at the celebration of Bin Laden's death. Yes, I definitely felt a sense of relief, and even gladness that the world had been rid of such an awful person. And incredible pride in our military servicemen and women - especially the SEALs, but truly, all of them. But I also commented on how uncomfortable I was with the idea of celebrating someone's death in the streets (because isn't that just what the terrorists do? And if so, what does that make us?). And I wasn't sure how to explain such a scene to my two teenaged children.

Then I noted here how awful I though it was that the Simi Valley audience clapped and cheered at Rick Perry's 234 executions in Texas, and yet all these folks still call themselves "pro-life".. And yet again at how awful it was that nobody said a word as an audience at a presidential debate yelled "Let him die! Yes!" at the idea of an uninsured critically ill man who had put his time and money into the system, but was now hard on his luck.

Even Jimmy Carter has gotten involved in the capital punishment discussion, saying he hopes "this [Troy Davis] tragedy will spur us as a nation toward the total rejection of capital punishment." And adding, "if one of our fellow citizens can be executed with so much doubt surrounding his guilt, then the death penalty system in our country is unjust and outdated."

Now, I'll say this, and I've said it before. I'm not sure that I approve of capital punishment, unless perhaps there is incredibly strong, indisputable physical evidence (such as DNA) PLUS the accused/convicted's confession, PLUS, oh, I don't know what else would convince me. Likely nothing, now. But it's sure not a man who proclaimed himself innocent even as the needle was going in his arm, and in that case where 7 of the 9 witnesses recanted their testimony, and where there was really no physical evidence at all. But, yes, Troy Davis was executed by the State of Georgia at 11:08 pm last night.

And the inappropriate celebratory reaction to this execution is what made me even angrier.

I give you Ann Coulter (and please, take her!):

I am so disgusted by her today - yes, even more than I usually am - and that's saying something. I truly have no words for this. I'm sure I'll come up with them later, but for now? I got nuthin.

Thoughts on bullying... and RIP Jamie Rodemeyer

That piece of genius right there is California Christian Coalition head Robert Newman.

"I hardly think bullying is a real issue in schools." He noted that bullying is "part of the maturational [sic] process" and that "there's no reason to have a special bill for, say, three percent of the population, period." He noted, "I hardly think bullying is a real issue in schools."

I'm thinking folks may have made similar arguments against the Civil Rights Act, asking 'why we need to have a special bill protecting a minority (I've inferred the rest) that's so far beneath us lofty super rich white men'.

Well, Mr. Newman, it's called a democracy. And the idea that we are ALL created equally and entitled to equal protection under the law. I'm thinking if someone was bullying your own sweet child, you wouldn't be so quick to just brush it off as "part of the maturational process." Especially if that bullying caused your poor sweet child to commit suicide.

Today, much of the US is mourning the death of Jamey Rodemeyer, a 14-year-old high school freshman in Buffalo, N.Y. He had made the following It Gets Better video, talking about how he decided to accept he was gay, and talking bravely about that process. He didn't deserve to be ridiculed, bullied, and derided. He should have been praised for his bravery.

And now we have the chance to do that again, sadly, posthumously.



Here's the news story from last night, with an interview with his parents. It's heartbreaking. But I love that the news station gave out information on how to get support as wellas simply telling the story. It would have been great if they addressed the issue of the school's responsibility in this, but I am so appreciative of what they did do.




On a personal note, we dealt with bullying this year. I can tell you, bullying is indeed a problem in schools. My son's girlfriend was being bullied horribly on Facebook. A common theme. People were posting horiffic things about this sweet girl, and it made my stomach turn. I sent an email with screen shots to the middle school principal last year, and on to the high school principal this year. We also happen to know the director of secondary education (my husband is a teacher), so sent an email to him as well. The school took it very seriously, going so far as to file a police report once they saw the extent of the rhetoric being flung about. I'm damn happy that there were laws in place to protect her, and that the school didn't treat it as "part of the maturational process." And I'm happy to say that as a result of the school intervening and the laws in place to protect her, the person was identified and dealt with.

I urge you to do all you can to stop bullying in your neck of the woods and nationally.

Rocking it in Massachusetts

Now we totally have proof why Elizabeth Warren was thwarted in her efforts to head the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Cause she rocks, and likely scares the hell out of those elitists in Washington who wish not to give consumers any protections. Cause us little people? Yeah, we're nobodies.



Transcription:
I hear all this, oh this is class warfare. No! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Look out Washington - you pissed off the wrong woman. She is going to kick your ass.

Personhood?

So there is this "Personhood" petition going around in each and every state that claims that life begins at conception, and that the fertilized egg is a person, due full "God-given and constitutional rights". And I love that Personhood USA relies on science for their argument (heh - I thought they didn't believe in science!)

From personhoodusa.com:

If the Court considers the humanity of the pre-born child, for which there is overwhelming scientific evidence, it could restore the legal protections of person-hood to the pre-born under the 14th Amendment as Blackmun foretold, stopping abortion in a few and then in all fifty states!

Oooooh!!!! So now we want the 14th amendment! I thought we were going to repeal it!

<gratuitous editorial commentary> The GOP does love to use the constitution when it suits them (2nd, 14th amendment, anyone?) and disavow it when it doesn't suit them (4th, 14th, etc). Wait - I listed the 14th amendment on both sides of my argument. Huh. </gratuitous editorial commentary>

Now, Mike Huckabee really pissed me off in this video. By claiming this isn't about women's rights, but about making money. Screw you, Huckabee.

Hmmm. Well, aside from the obvious idiocy of both Huckabee's and Personhood USA's positions (and yes, it's my blog and if I think it's idiotic, I get to say that), there is the whole religion aspect that the personhood amendment is based upon. Because we all know that God intended women to die in order to birth a child - women are far less important than the fetus, as evidenced by the numerous bills floating around the states that disallow abortion, even when the mother's health is at risk. (I can't be arsed to link to them all; there are far too many)

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked, Christianity is based upon Judaism, correct? Hence the whole Judeo-Christian thing. And I totally get how tied to Israel they all feel - they luurrrve the Jewish state above all else. OK, so what does Judaism say about abortion?

Per The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism:

The Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards takes the view that an abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm, or when the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective. The fetus is a life in the process of development, and the decision to abort should never be taken lightly. Before reaching her final decision, the mother should consult with the father, other members of her family, her physician, her spiritual leader and any other person who can help her in assessing the many grave legal and moral issues involved.

Note that it does not say anywhere that she should consult with her local or federal lawmaker.

Furthermore, they go so far as to make it their official position that there should be no weakening of Roe v Wade, or in medical coverage for women who have abortions.

Here is the resolution passed in 1991, in full:
United Synagogue Resolution on Abortion, Passed at the 1991 Biennial Convention

As the preceding information and the following resolution indicate clearly, Judaism does not provide a blanket pro-abortion stance. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism nevertheless supports legislation maintaining the legality and accessibility of abortion so that in those cases where our religious authorities determine that an abortion is warranted halakhically, obtaining that abortion will not be hindered by our civil law.
WHEREAS, Jewish tradition cherishes the sanctity of life, even the potential of life which a pregnant woman carries within her; and
WHEREAS, under certain unfortunate circumstances, such as when the life or health of the mother are in jeopardy, Judaism sanctions, even mandates, abortion, although Judaism does not condone or permit abortion for contraceptive purposes; and
WHEREAS, Judaism does not believe that personhood and human rights begin with conception (the premise that personhood begins with conception is founded on a religious position which is not identical with Jewish tradition); and
WHEREAS, under special circumstances, Judaism chooses and requires abortion as an act which affirms and protects the life, well being and health of the mother; and
WHEREAS, to deny a Jewish woman and her family the ability to obtain a safe, legal abortion when so mandated by Jewish tradition, is to deprive Jews of their fundamental right of religious freedom;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism continues to affirm its strong opposition to any further weakening, limitation, or withdrawal of the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision and the efforts of the U.S. government to limit the choices available to most Americans, must be diligent in the efforts to safeguard and preserve the full personal and religious freedom given to the American people; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism opposes any legislative attempt through constitutional amendments, the deprivation of Medicaid, family services and/or other current welfare services, to weaken the force of the United States Supreme Court's decision permitting choice; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism encourages the various provinces of Canada and the Canadian government to preserve the rights of all women to legal abortions.

(italics all mine, bolding is part of the resolution)

Even more... Jewish law mandates that a woman receive an abortion if there is something gravely wrong with the fetus, whether the mother's life is in danger or not (not sure I agree with the mandate, but would agree that she should be allowed to have one in that circumstance). The Mishnah states: "If a woman has [life-threatening] difficulty in childbirth, one dismembers the embryo within her, limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life. However, once its head (or its "greater part") has emerged, it may not be touched, for we do not set aside one life for another". (emphasis mine)

Therefore, according to Jewish law, life begins when the head emerges from the birth canal; not a moment earlier.

In Jewish law, a baby attains becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial life."

There is biblical reference to this as well, from Exodus 21:22-23:

"If two men are fighting and wound a pregnant woman so that the pregnancy is lost, but no 'great harm' occurs, he will be fined as much as her husband assesses, and the matter will be placed before a court." [And also...] "If 'great harm' does occur, it is a case of nefesh tahat nefesh, 'life for life.' "

So Torah notes a critical difference: causing the miscarriage of a fetus is a civil wrong resulting in monetary compensation (implying the fetus is not a person), while killing the mother is considered to be homicide.

From the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards, Adopted on November 21, 1983

Jewish tradition ... sanctions abortion under some circumstances because it does not regard the fetus as an autonomous person. This is based partly on the Bible (Exodus 21:22-23), which prescribes monetary damages when a person injures a pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage. The Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6) explicitly indicates that one is to abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the mother. (emphasis mine)

And I love this: "Politically the issue is not advocacy of the correctness of abortion, but, rather, preservation of the freedom to consult and follow an individual's personal moral code and religious tradition when making this difficult decision."

YES! This!

Take THAT, Marie Claire

Last October, when Marie Claire unapologetically published Maura Kelly's article disparaging Melissa McCarthy and Billy Gardell, stars of Mike and Molly, it drew the outrage of people everywhere. With statements like, "I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything," and pulling the "some of my best friends are..." card with this: "I have a few friends who could be called plump," Kelly showed her insensitivity and frankly, prejudice against people who are overweight. Many responded that they liked seeing couples that looked like them. And loved the idea that you didn't have to be a pretzel to have love. Overwhelmingly in the comments and in the media, she was derided for her blatant sizeism.

Well, last night at the Emmy's, the television industry gave Marie Claire the proverbial middle finger, and the Emmy went to Melissa McCarthy for best actress in a comedy.

Apparently, America is ready to see a show about people who, yes, are overweight, and yes, while a bit wacky, represent a growing percentage of the population.

So take that, Marie Claire, for your nasty, intolerant, snooty point of view. I believe you were just smoked.

(And congratulations to Melissa McCarthy for helping make Mike and Molly a hit show).

More on crony capitalism and blatant unapologetic lying

So, Michele Bachmann came out with this campaign ad today. It looks like she taped it in her basement and sounds like it was taped in her bathroom. Great acoustics for music and singing. For campaigning? Not so much.

Anyway, she blatantly lies about the effects of the HPV vaccine, apparently figuring her 3 children won't ever be sexually active and need protection against cervical cancer. And why does the number of children she has vary with the situation? Just sayin. In the debates, she was a mother of 5 biological children and 23 foster children, all of whom needed jobs. Now it's 3 children (I assume she means daughters) who will never ever do that nasty, horrible thing that she had to do under Marcus Bachmann while thinking of the queen that might get them an STD, so they will never need protection against cervical cancer. Whatever.

Here's the ad.


Now people on both the left and the right are calling her out on the claim that the vaccine causes mental retardation. You know when Rush Limbaugh is calling you out, that you've really pissed off your base.

So should she apologize for completely lying to her constiuency (most of whom I would guess will take her completely at her word and believe it til the day they die)? A simple "Oops, didn't mean to convey that was proven, just that a woman was concerned, but no worries. I set her straight". Nope. She went the other route. "I'm not a doctor, I just play one on TV."

Bachmann said, "I didn't make any statements that would indicate I'm a doctor, I'm a scientist, or making any conclusions about the drug one way or the other." Nope, you didn't. You just implied a lie was medical fact to a bunch of people who likely take your word as law.


Oh, hey - look! She's leaving what looks like a house in the same clothes she made the ad in. Maybe she did tape it in her basement!

Anywho... back to the campaign ad:
She also once again invokes the new term "crony capitalism", one of the GOP's euphamisms designed to blame democrats for the stuff the GOP has been doing for... well, forever...

So poor Michele, she is a victim of crony capitalism just like all the rest of us poor Americans. She tells us in her oh so teachery way, "What that means is someone in a position of power who does special favors for people who've given political donations to that candidate."

Oh, I get it. Kind of like Clarence Thomas taking $15,000 in gifts from an organization with a brief pending before the court. Hmmm. Wonder if he recused himself. No? Then I wonder how he ruled on that one.

Oh, and kind of like taking 10s of thousands of dollars from the Koch PAC meant there were no expectations in return. Those Koch brothers. Giving all that money simply out of the goodness of their hearts. *sniff* I'm all verklempt.

Suuuuure.

Just like I never claimed to be an expert on Michele Bachmann or her "sex having to do that horrible nasty thing that her 3 children wiould never ever do" life, so I can say whatever I want about it.

Dear Republicans,

Underserved is not interchangeable with undeserved.
Just sayin.

Dodger blues

When is enough enough? Like everyone else in LA, I've been glued (or at least paid attention) to the Frank & Jamie McCourt divorce as it relates to the future of the Dodgers. Pretty much all of LA agrees that we want McCourt out of Dodger management.

But that's about the Dodgers, not about them personally.

Before I begin, I freely admit I have done absolutely no research on this matter. I only know what is reported on the radio or the TV news. I'm making a very broad assumption that what's reported is somewhat close to remotely accurate in a kinda-sorta kind of way.

But the story I heard this morning made me spew my coffee all over my windshield on the way to work. The headline? Jamie McCourt fighting to Keep Her Spousal Support.

That's enough to make you sit up and pay attention, right? That poor woman! Not so fast. You see, it seems Frank was asking for his spousal support to be reduced from $625,000 a month to $500,000 a month. And Jamie, poor little rich girl, just can't live on that pittance. She has, after all, 6 houses to maintain, plus a lifestyle to which she's become accustomed to maintain.

My response to that? Boo-fricken-hoo.

Judge Scott Gordon ordered today that McCourt continue paying his ex-wife $225,000 a month in spousal support pending a trial in November. He also ordered that Jamie McCourt sell all six remaining properties the couple shares (the seventh has already been sold for $1.1 million).

Seriously, I get that there are traditional ways that spousal support is usually determined. And yes, it's important to maintain the integrity of that determination. But with so many unemployed and so many underpaid in their current jobs, and really, a fucking Recession To End All Recessions going on, do either of these people really expect anyone to have any sympathy for them? To me, they both seem like a couple of babies. Greedy-ass babies. Who are fighting over more money in a month than I make in years.

So my advice to Frank and Jamie is this: take a big honking dose of Shut The Fuck Up and quit your whining and your complaining. Because soon enough, I'm going to sue you both for support. Lord knows, I need it to support my ONE house and my two children.

Crony capitalism

The new "it's the worsest thing ever in the whole history of our country to ever hit our poor, unsuspecting, sad little nation" watchword of Michele Bachmann (and even the non*cough*-GOP-candidates).

Which I find interesting, since the entire party platform as well as every single candidate's campaign and lifestyle is built on crony capitalism.

Just a thought for the day...

And in other compassionate conservative news...

And here we go...


The GOP in the senate has blocked a disaster relief bill.

Over the last month or two, Eric Cantor has been extremely vocal about not supporting any disaster relief unless it can be offset by other spending cuts. Yesterday, the Senate voted down the disaster relief bill that would have seen assistance for millions of Americans who have been affected by fire, flood, hurricane, and earthquake.

Never before has the government refused to give disaster relief to those in need. I'm sure that had those Americans planned ahead for disaster (like the east coast planning ahead for a large earthquake, because that happens there so often), that they could have paid to rebuild their homes and towns themselves, but not all of us are as healthy, wealthy and wise as our wonderful GOP representatives in Congress.

And now Cantor has said that he's going to attach a disaster relief package to a "must-pass" piece of legislation. Way to tie our hands, dude. If the dems don't go along with whatever anti-humanitarian bill you want to pass now, you'll paint them as the bad guys in not passing disaster relief. This bill should be a stand alone piece of emergency legislation, not tied up in the political wrangling and the debacle that has become our government. Get these people the help that they need. Without tying it to anything else.

Not even sure what to say about this, except that What. The. Fuck. is the matter with these people? Yes, we plan as best we can. Yes, we try to budget as best we can. But guess what? Shit happens.

And you're there in Washington to help us deal with this particular piece of shit. Except I'm thinking the disasters aren't necessarily what I should be calling pieces of shit right about now.

ETA: As of 3:00 PT, the senate just overcame the GOP filibuster, and the bill now heads to the House. OK, Cantor. It's up to you. Much of that disaster relief is for your own district. Hmmm... Is it an election year for you?

Just when you think it can't get any worse...

What on earth? How cruel and hateful have we become in this society? The GOP debates have certainly enlightened me.

I haven't been too thrilled with President Obama the last year or so. I believe that in his desire to show he's the bigger man who can compromise, he's given away far too much. Plus, that kind of assumption that the citizens of this country will "get" that you're being the bigger man? Yeah, they just don't. I'm struck by how many uneducated, mean-spirited, un-Christian people there are in this country. I honestly thought that the tea party was just a few total whack jobs. But man, they've gotten the attention of the media (yes, including the "lamestream media" tht they claim only panders to those "liberals"). And the media has given them a tremendous voice.

Why does this appall me? You mean aside from the obvious?

Here's the thing. In the last 2 GOP debates, we've seen audiences applaud and cheer at the fact a governor has put 234 people to death in his 10 year tenure - even those where there was a question of innocence. Why? Because "there's a very thoughtful process in place in Texas for review." And who is he to question the courts when they make a ruling? We'll just avoid any discussion of the unbelievable hypocrisy inherent in that statement, shall we? Because we all know that Perry (and yes, all the other radical right wingers) only believes in the sanctity of the judiciary when it agrees with him.

I thought that was truly awful. But last night? Holy wowza. Do these people even hear what they sound like? Cheering and screaming "YES!" when asked if an uninsured 30 year old man should just be allowed to die because he doesn't have health insurance?



Now, I'm not saying that Paul said that. No, he skirted that by saying that the man made a choice, and he should have taken responsibility and purchased major medical.

Sooooo, let me get this straight. We should let a young man who needs intensive care die because he doesn't have insurance. OK then. Let's buy it for a minute.

How do these same people call themselves pro-life? Because they sure don't feel like the government should pay for helping to keep people alive. And they don't believe that the government should help support those that they've forced to be alive. This, I repeat, is not pro-life.

Unless, of course, it falls in line with their message of the day, which is that a man can't choose to let his persistently vegetative wife die with some dignity.

One question for all these folks: Who was paying for Terri Schiavo's care? You know, the same woman who you tried to pass legislation to protect (in a bill focused only on that one single person?)? Was it their amazing health insurance, purchased on the free market? Was it Michael Schiavo's wonderful "nest egg" that they saved (because they were personally responsible people)? Was it Terri Schiavo's parents? Uh... nope. It was Medicaid. Yes, that nasty entitlement program that we should all be rid of. Once the malpractice settlement ran out, Medicaid picked up the tab. Oh, but it's ok as long as it suits our purposes, which is denying a woman the right to die with dignity.

Now, I'm certain that Ron Paul would have agreed that her care shouldn't be paid for by the government. In fact, in Sept 2007, his answer was no to the following question:
Would you support legislation that would protect the cognitively disabled & vulnerable people from having their food & water taken away?

But in this article from 2005, he argues the pro-life stance. Hello! Hypocritical!

There is one line that stands out to me from his article, however. "Morality is inherent in law, no matter what the secularists might say. But morality is not inherent in politics."

And having said that, let's be honest. The morality discussion in our country has become all about politics. The laws are inherently moral, by treating people fairly and equally. It's the politicians that seek to be immoral under the guise of being pro-life.

Say what you will about Ron Paul (and I will - he's freaking loony!), but he doesn't change his loonytunes views to satisfy anyone. At least he's consistent.

So... my takeaways?

When a governor who is running for president can answer questions like "Do you support gun control?" with the following: "Yeah, I support gun control. Use two hands.", and when that same governor gets applause and cheers for putting possible innocent people to death, and even those who may not have been innocent, to the tune of an average 23.4 per year, and we can cheer the idea of letting a 30 year old man die because he didn't have insurance... it's not just the politics that have become immoral.

It's all of us.

Rick Perry: Use two hands