Tag Archives: conservatives

I Don’t Get It

10 Feb

Just…wut? I can’t put my finger on why right this second, but this column gives me the serious creeps. Part of it is probably the fact that he talks about “Sugar Bear’s” mother being a “mentally ill prostitute” when she was a victim of incest–er, oh, sorry, I mean “having had a sexual relationship” with her father.  Actually, maybe that’s exactly the reason, though I’m sure I will realize there are more once I recover from the effects of the cider I’ve consumed.

George Will is a creepy ass creepy creeper creep. Ew.

Huh. It Is a Mystery.

3 Feb

Anybody have any idea why the majority of reporting in the “mainstream media” (how I hate that term) fails to mention that the Senior Vice President for Public Policy at Susan G. Komen is adamantly anti-choice? Their initial stance wasn’t just “caving into pressure”–it was evidence of rot from within.

What the fuck kind of “women’s health” organization hires a policy director who is, like, you know, anti-women’s health??? And why is SGK’s backpedaling not being reported for the fucking horeshit that it is?

Must be because all those elitist librul Islamofascist baby-hating feminazis run everything.

Debate Genius Doesn’t Understand the Concept of the First Amendment

24 Jan

Newt Gingrich is a free speech crusader and a defender of downtrodden academics, business leaders, and ambassadors.  He is willing to sacrifice precious time he’d spend making well-reasoned arguments such as “Obama is a food stamp president” on national television to allow grown adults to clap whenever they damn well please. Do you know what a sacrifice this is for an egotistical blowhard articulate debater like Speaker Ginrich?

He is such an inspiration that I’m going to yell and applaud at inappropriate times during a  movie and I won’t “allow” anyone to ask me to stop. The movie theaters don’t control free speech!

LOL @ Yr GOP, America

22 Jan

Was it the unwashable stank of sanity? The magic underwear (like Jesus-eaters have room to talk)? The “open marriage”? Because seriously, South Carolina Republicans, I just cannot believe that you think that Newt Gingrich has the ability to “beat Obama,” as you mouth-breathing, sociopath-worshiping, dogwhistle-blowing fucks like to say.

Furthermore, I can’t believe that anybody, even conservatives, think that a guy who made shutting down the fucking government a thing* and was forced to resign as Speaker of the House in disgrace is a good choice for President.

Okay, I guess I can, but I really would rather not.

*My favorite (opposite day!) thing about Republicans is their strategy of electing people who make it their mission to ensure that the government doesn’t function. I’m not sure what these people think they’re going to do when the baby’s small enough to be drowned in the bathtub, but I’d imagine it has something to do with sucking on the teat of the kleptocrats who got them into office in the first place. Good luck with that, kiddos. Most of you are destined for the Thunderdome like the rest of us where being a bombastic prick whose only skill is to fuck shit up won’t get you very far.

Oh, I’ll Judge, Motherfucker. I’ll Judge Good.

12 Jan

Oh, hey! Mittens likes to threaten single pregnant ladies with hell and excommunication if they don’t give up their babies. At Pandagon, Amanda Marcotte discusses the religious obsession with controlling women’s sexuality, which is, of course, completely applicable and true, as is the practice of using single mothers as incubators to provide babies to “deserving” couples.

But there’s another element to this story I want to talk about. The interesting (and by interesting, I mean especially fucked up) thing is that the “sin” of extramarital sex had already been committed, but she wasn’t being (formally) chastised and threatened with excommunication for that. Instead, she was in trouble for not following church doctrine and keeping the physical evidence of her “sin” in her life. The policy of requiring women to give up children born out of wedlock for adoption strikes me more as an attempt to keep up appearances than anything else. I’m sure that that the Mormon church would argue that children need two parents, or that women who lack the moral character to refrain from having sex outside of marriage aren’t qualified to raise kids, but really, does anyone doubt that this is about destroying the evidence of the sins of congregation members using the most “moral” means possible?

Many religious communities aren’t built on personal accountability or integrity. They’re built on appearances. It’s more important to look righteous than it is to be righteous. When he was training for the ministry, my father said that he wouldn’t perform a wedding ceremony for a couple who had been living together “for propriety’s sake.” Did he believe in virginity tests or interrogating couples about their sexual relationship if they didn’t live together? Of course not. It wasn’t important that they didn’t have pre-marital sex; it was important that he could pretend they didn’t. The “argument” that queer people can be queer all they want as long as they don’t practice their queerness (ie, love and fuck the people they want to love and fuck) is similar—you can “sin” in your heart all you want, as long as you don’t show physical evidence of your icky, icky gayness.

Obviously, the idea that extramarital sex is a sin is founded on controlling women’s sexuality. But the emphasis on propriety and appearances is just as harmful. It creates deception and prevents people from being authentic. It perpetuates all sorts of abuse. It exacerbates the obsession with control over women’s bodies by encouraging church members to appear scandalized enough to prove themselves to be upright Christians. It’s the reason why the term “tightly-knit community” gives me hives.

It also explains why, as Erin Gloria Ryan writes, Romney’s “views are so wildly inconsistent that I’m beginning to think that Mitt Romney is actually two conflicted souls trapped in the same body, like Gollum from Lord of the Rings.” It’s clear that Romney only gives a fuck about Romney, and while he may have some tendencies toward being a reasonable, thinking human being, he’ll throw them away if he has a chance to make himself look better. He’ll threaten a woman with excommunication and hell if it protects the church’s appearance and, more importantly, preserves his place in its hierarchy. His community, his party, and his religion encourage it.

Like Having Sex With a Republican

11 Jan

Want to feel intense boredom and self-hatred at the same time?

Call Ron Paul a racist on Twitter and then engage in “conversation” with the Paulbots who come out of the woodwork to defend him.

They’re RELENTLESS and, I swear, they have a script. The same dumb, dumb, entitled white dude script.  I’d compare them to Mormons, but that seems unfair. Mormons are a LOT more entertaining.

Your False Equivalency Orgy of the Day

10 Jan

Some dude from The Weekly Standard and another guy from the Washington Post discuss the value of political fact checking on Talk of the Nation. The highlight comes from the Weekly Standard dude who is, like, all anti-fact checking and shit:

HEMINGWAY: Well, there’s a number of reasons why I arrived at that conclusion. One of the facts I pointed out in the piece was that the University of Minnesota School of Public Affairs had actually done a survey of PolitiFact, and they evaluated all 500 statements that PolitiFact had rated from January of 2010 to January of 2011.

And they found that of the 98 statements that PolitiFact had rated false, 74 of them were by Republicans. Now, I can think of a number of reasons why you might cite one party over the other more, in terms of, you know, who was telling the truth and who wasn’t. But doing that at a rate of three to one strikes me as awfully suspicious, particularly when, if you delve into the specifics of the statements that they cited, there’s all kinds of problematic things contained there, whereas they are, you know, like you’re mentioned, they’re often fact-checking opinions and providing counter-arguments to, you know, stated opinions.

Huh. Well, Mark, maybe the problem isn’t the fact-checking methodology, but the fact that YOUR PARTY FUCKING LIES ALL THE FUCKING TIME???

Of course, this is the same dude who later said that Sarah Palin’s claim of death panels wasn’t technically a lie, so I think it’s clear that he technically lives in a different universe than the rest of us.

Oh, Thank God

17 Nov

Like most Americans, I don’t stay up late at night worrying about paying my bills or finding a good job. My insomnia is brought on by the oppression I feel due to my inability to legally carry concealed weapons across state lines.

Republicans. What would we do without them???

Enablers

11 Nov

Yesterday, in response to John Derbyshire’s earlier assertion that sexual harassment isn’t a “real thing”, Feminist Law Professors posted a small list of (horrifying) sexual harassment cases that have come to court in the last ten years.

The problem with this is that the issue with Derbs isn’t his ignorance regarding the degree and frequency of sexual harassment women experience. Rather, Derbs has a personal investment in sustaining the culture that leads to and allows sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and rape.

This is the same dude who wrote that teenage girls were more fuckable than older women (women past the age of 20, apparently), and thus, more rapeable. I tend to look askance at any man past the age of 25 or so (I’m fucking charitable) who thinks that teenage girls are hotter than full-grown women, but a middle-aged man who does that and conflates sexual predation with sexual attraction? GROSS.

However, in a culture where men are allowed to harass, terrorize, abuse, and rape women and children on a regular basis without a peep, Derbs isn’t that bad of a guy for saying that it’s too bad bitches can’t take a joke or even that girls who are his daughter’s age are in their “salad days”. In a normal, functioning society, this guy would be shunned by decent people, even conservatives. He has to support and minimize rape culture if he wants to continue to think of himself as a good, upstanding person. He holds fucked-up views because of his own personal fuckedupness, and things like “facts” and “human decency” aren’t going to change those views.

Compare and contrast this with the observation that DougJ from Balloon Juice made last night about the conservative reaction to the Penn State child rape case. Conservatives are personally invested in the concept that orders and hierarchies are Good, and anything that brings that concept into question is shocking and even disturbing. It’s not just a political view; it’s a deep, personal, emotional belief that shapes the way they perceive the world. That’s why you see people like Ross Douthat and Kathryn Lopez minimizing and dismissing child abuse in the Catholic Church. It’s also why, when Derbs waves away sexual harassment, conservatives are prone to agreeing with him, even if they aren’t creeps like he is. Bosses are More Than other people, and women are Less Than men, and to question that is to question everything their beliefs are built upon.

Occasionally, something so heinous pierces through that worldview that they can’t explain it away and they at least have the decency to acknowledge it exists. However, they aren’t going to make the connection between what happened and their worldview, much less let go of it. Penn State is an isolated incident, not an example of how the fetishization of authority and order enables the culture of silence surrounding sexual abuse. They can’t let go of the hierarchy and their places within it.

I’m not sure which case is worse. Either way, you’re encouraging suffering for your own personal benefit. Then again, that’s pretty much the conservative ethos in a nutshell.

FYIGM

9 Nov

I’ve seen brief discussions of the huge gap in wealth between young and old at a couple of other blogs, but I thought I’d weigh in because I Write Shit Sometimes. Occasionally.

As a cusp-y Gen Xer and politically-aware pessimist, I’ve been aware for some time that the traditional American Dream was probably going to be unachievable for me, even though I’m middle class and white. I figured that if people ten years older than me were being called “slackers” because they weren’t going to be as financially successful as their parents, the “you’re fucked” ball was already rolling and it was going to be difficult to stop, especially since demographics aren’t on our side.  What infuriates me is that people my age and younger have had FUCK ALL TO DO WITH creating the  policies and economic conditions that have created such a large wealth gap between younger and older people.

People 65 and older established their careers and bought homes during times when pensions, strong unions, cheap higher education, and affordable housing actually existed. These same people (along with Baby Boomers*) elected Ronald Reagan the year that I was born, setting off a cascade of lower taxes and deregulation, effectively destroying the conditions that allowed them to obtain steady jobs with living wages at the beginning of their careers. They reaped all of the benefits of lower taxes without any of the risks.

Now that they’re older, they still support “small government” and the “free market” and lower taxes EXCEPT when it comes to Medicare and Social Security. I’m anti-throwing Granny out on the street (I love my granny!), but that level of self-absorption is fucking breathtaking, especially when we’re being told to suck it up and pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.**

I don’t dispute that older people have worked hard for what they have. I don’t feel entitled to anything. I don’t envy their wealth. I do, however, envy their opportunities–opportunities that aren’t available to me, my cousins, my brothers, and my friends because of the shithole banana repbulic they’ve helped to create.

 

*I have quite a bit resentment towards Baby Boomers, too (take up all the cultural air much, fuckers?), but at least they aren’t content to let the world burn and they do let us live in their basements.

**Some of the comments on the stories I’ve read are typical conservative kids get off my lawn bullshit, but my favorite was something about how we shouldn’t have bought designer sneakers and McMansions. Anecdote ain’t data, but I can say confidently that I don’t know anyone with a designer sneaker collection. Also, despite being well out of college and acquainted mostly with people from areas where housing is relatively cheap, I know hardly anybody my age who owns their own home, much less a fucking McMansion. Most of them do have color TVs and cell phones, though, and may occasionally eat t-bone steaks.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.