Freaky Friday rediscarnation

No Refunds

I have no idea why I always seems to find the weird stuff on Friday.
This is basically an update from on those Dutch Deathmobiles.

From Der Spiegel, an introduction to the very helpful Dr. Petra De Jong, director for Netherlands’ Right to Die-NL (NVVE) organization.

These are some of the reasons why de Jong has lobbied so hard to establish a euthanasia clinic. She recalls the case of a 28-year-old woman who had suffered from depression from an early age and had been in therapy for years. The woman asked her psychiatrist for help in ending her life, but he declined. She eventually pulled a plastic bag over her head and suffocated herself.

De Jong says the new clinic has also been created to fulfill the death wishes of individuals who are not terminally ill, as was the case with this woman. Of course, the doctor adds, the euthanasia clinic will evaluate each case on its own particular merits. During her career as a practicing physician, she has personally terminated the lives of 16 patients, adding that it has always been a difficult decision.

Assisted suicide that does not fall within euthanasia guidelines is still illegal in the Netherlands, but never fear, De Jong is on the case to change that!

The NVVE intends to continue fighting for the legalization of assisted suicide in the Netherlands. Thousands of people call the association’s office every year because they want to die and are looking for advice. NVVE staff members don’t try to talk any of them out of killing themselves. “It’s not our job,” de Jong says. “It would be paternalistic.”
Instead, the callers are provided with information on how to ensure that their suicide attempts succeed. Association members receive a password that allows them to access a list of death-inducing drugs on the NVVE website. However, these deadly substances are only available over-the-counter in other countries, such as neighboring Belgium.

I agree very much with the saying “Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.” I bet we all do. Most of the time despair does actually fade if you wait it out, or when you find out that the despair is actually a side-effect or symptom of a treatable physical condition. That’s been my experience, anyway.

There are cases when I think euthanasia is a kindness.  I don’t know if I trust it not to be abused if it is legalized. Regardless, I definitely think assisted suicide outside the parameters of euthanasia is sociopathic.

 

It’s hard out there for a pimp


Remember that guy who got ACORN in trouble with his heavily edited undercover videos where he posed as a pimp? He’s back in the news again:

James O’Keefe’s Panty-Stealing ‘Rape Barn’ Sex Scandal

It’s a right-wing rabble-rouser showdown! Jazz-handed pimp impersonator James O’Keefe is at “#WAR” with a former Project Veritas colleague who is now blogging an O’Keefe tell-all involving stolen panties, drugged beers, a “rape barn,” “taped intimate moments,” a $20K pay-off, and barbs about “black welfare queens.” James O’Keefe has graduated from creepy seductions to a full-blown sex scandal.

Harvard grad student Nadia Naffe recently filed a criminal harassment complaint against James. Citing insufficient evidence, a judge dismissed the case. Now Nadia is on a scorched earth cyber rampage. “If he wants a fight, bring it on. This is #WAR,” she tweeted last night, after retweeting outraged utterances from an unofficial Rubio4President account about James’ “rape barn.” On her personal blog, she is currently on part two of a sprawling anti-O’Keefe opus.


There’s a lot more and it’s all tawdry and sordid. If this woman is telling the truth it sounds like attempted rape. But even if he’s innocent he’s still a sleazebag.



Bill Maher is a cockroach


The pushback must be working because the cockroaches are scrambling for cover:

When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don’t like? In the last year, we’ve been shocked and appalled by the unbelievable insensitivity of Nike shoes, the Fighting Sioux, Hank Williams Jr., Cee Lo Green, Ashton Kutcher, Tracy Morgan, Don Imus, Kirk Cameron, Gilbert Gottfried, the Super Bowl halftime show and the ESPN guys who used the wrong cliché for Jeremy Lin after everyone else used all the others. Who can keep up?

[...]

If it weren’t for throwing conniption fits, we wouldn’t get any exercise at all.

I have a better idea. Let’s have an amnesty — from the left and the right — on every made-up, fake, totally insincere, playacted hurt, insult, slight and affront. Let’s make this Sunday the National Day of No Outrage. One day a year when you will not find some tiny thing someone did or said and pretend you can barely continue functioning until they apologize.

If that doesn’t work, what about this: If you see or hear something you don’t like in the media, just go on with your life. Turn the page or flip the dial or pick up your roll of quarters and leave the booth.

The answer to whenever another human being annoys you is not “make them go away forever.” We need to learn to coexist, and it’s actually pretty easy to do. For example, I find Rush Limbaugh obnoxious, but I’ve been able to coexist comfortably with him for 20 years by using this simple method: I never listen to his program. The only time I hear him is when I’m at a stoplight next to a pickup truck.

When the lady at Costco gives you a free sample of its new ham pudding and you don’t like it, you spit it into a napkin and keep shopping. You don’t declare a holy war on ham.


When the lady at Costco gives me a free sample that is contaminated with cockroach feces and it makes me sick to my stomach, I reserve the right to complain to management and the health department and if need be I might even file a lawsuit.

Let’s get a couple things straight. Bill Maher is not a comedian. Comedians are funny. There is nothing funny about calling women c*nts and twats. Maher is a shock jock. His schtick depends on being outrageous and offensive. It’s humor for the hate-filled.

Yes, there is a lot of posturing and fauxraging out there. Both sides look for excuses to pretend to be offended. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t valid reasons to get upset.

Both Maher and Rush Limbaugh are currently under fire for using misogynist epithets in referring to certain women. Both of them have long histories of doing similar things. These epithets are reserved for women on the “other side”. Maher goes after conservative women. Rush goes after liberal women. They both survive because of tribalism.

But if one or both of them were fired today they would be replaced tomorrow. That’s why I am less interested in focusing on these two obnoxious personalities than I am in changing the discourse.

The only epithet in the English language comparable to “c*nt” is “n*gger.” It may surprise you to learn that c*nt is older by nearly 200 years. One is the product of the patriarchy and the other is a product of slavery and Jim Crow racism. Both terms serve the purpose of designating sub-human status upon the people to whom they refer.

There is no doubt that if Rush Limbaugh publicly called President Obama a n*gger his broadcasting career would be over. No apology would suffice. The Republican party would abandon him to his well-deserved fate. But if Bill Maher referred to Justice Thomas, Condi Rice or some other black Republican using the same term he would be retired too.

That’s because we as a society have decided that the word “n*gger” is so toxic that it has no place in public discourse other than academic discussions. A number of synonyms for that word are also taboo.

So why can’t we agree to do the same with sexist epithets?

As the say in AA, “progress not perfection” is the goal. We won’t make the patriarchy go away overnight. But banning misogynist epithets is a doable goal. These words serve no good purpose. It’s hate speech that we would be better off without.

I’m not talking about government action. The first amendment protects misogynists as well as racists. But peer pressure is powerful. When I was a kid it was still socially acceptable to be openly racist in some parts of this country. That has changed.

Let’s work to make it socially unacceptable to be misogynist.


Women & The Year of Quitting

“The young women of today, free to study, to speak, to write, to choose their occupation, should remember that every inch of this freedom was bought for them at a great price… The debt that each generation owes to the past it must pay to the future.”

-Abigail Scott Duniway, suffrage organizer in the Pacific Northwest

The ladies take a seat this year.

The latest year of the woman quickly morphed into the year of quitting, didn’t it? I blame the neosexism I’ve written about before, that resurgence of masculine vengeance that rears its ugly head any time women try and succeed in making inroads into what are traditionally considered “boys’ clubs.” Politics certainly falls in that category, what with approximately 85% of the field being staked out by penised-Americans.

Journalism is no better and these two things are related. The media is the boxing ring in which many of these fights get aired. We certainly saw that with Hillary Clinton, and as with several other women, she is herself saying she’ll exit stage left at the end of this term. Though there has been a broad awakening of the feminine mind to the realities of sexist discourse and actions in our political arena, the effects of three solid years of unchained sexism and misogyny have had their effect: Women are quitting, or not even trying, in droves, which threatens the hard-won ground we women have already staked out for ourselves.

So who are these women and why did they quit? Is my thesis correct that it is the influence of sexism from powerful masculine constituencies that have driven them out? Or are we to take the gentler road to judgment and discuss the “personal choices” of these women? Let’s take a look at each case study to see if we can answer these and other questions.

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin is a trendsetter, there’s no doubt about that. So there’s little surprise that she was the first to give up in what I’m cheekily referring to as the year of the quitting. After priming the electoral pump for more than 2 years, she made it official in early October that she would not be running for president. Palin has been under sexist siege for as long as she’s been on the national stage, but she’s made quite a bit of money off it too. She has been able to insulate herself to a degree with this wealth, and really had nothing left to lose so far as the media was concerned.

So, having amassed a small fortune, built a powerful constituency, and learned the hazards of the media, she decided not to even get near the boxing ring? Why? And what message does this send to women not yet in sight of the ring? Is she hoping for a win down the road? Perhaps. But I can’t even begin to express the disappointment of women (and quite a few men) across the country who looked to her as a role model for fighting back against unfairness, for not letting the fools succeed in shutting her up, only to find, yes, they did succeed in shutting her up. And in the eyes of some, she let them. That’s a terrible blow to her image and to the more moderate branches of her fanbase. She’ll have to put real clout up next time if she is to succeed.

Michele Bachmann

Michelle Bachmann quit pretty early on in her presidential campaign, just after Iowa. Why? Could it be that she was hit with sexist attacks about her headaches, ridiculously calling into her question her ability to lead (as if no presidents ever had health problems–hell, Garfield was in a coma for two months and Wilson stroked out at the end of his presidency)? Or maybe it was the way she was rhetorically beat up for accurately reporting John Wayne’s Iowa connections, but which several men in the media deliberately misconstrued her meaning to apply to the serial killer John Wayne Gacy? Maybe it was the way the mostly male media hounded her for “gaffes” that were no worse than the “gaffes” of men in the race, which were not reported on as predominantly. Maybe it was the label “crazy eyes” and all the pictures those mostly male editors chose to post on every article of her that appeared. Or maybe it was just the way so many people, buying the media hype without thinking it through clearly, just accepted despite all evidence to the contrary that she was “stupid.”

This last may be the most offensive. Anytime a man wants to disempower a woman he has two immediate choices to make about the misogynistic arsenal strapped to his back: Do I call her crazy or stupid?

Gabrielle Giffords

I expect to take the most flack for including Gabrielle Giffords. The woman was shot in the head, after all, by a mentally deranged lunatic with no discernible political leanings. If anyone had a right to quit, it’s her, right? I mean, personal health in the wake of a tragedy like this is what “personal choice” is all about, yes? I’m willing to entertain that her decision was the best one for her and her family.

What I’m not willing to do is ignore the message this decision sends, because it sends a powerful one: that violence is all it takes to stop a woman in her tracks. (more…)

The face of Occupy?

Daniel Murphy is arrested in New York on March 17, 2012.


The Occupiers: A Liberal and a Radical Struggle for the Soul of a Movement

At 5:30 p.m. on January 16, Ben Zucker was in full planning mode. Zucker is a key organizer within Occupy DC in McPherson Square Park, which at that time was the movement’s largest and longest-running encampment, and Occupy Congress was his baby. Organizers had put out the call for thousands of supporters to come greet their elected officials and raise the public’s awareness of corporate influence in government. And after two and a half months of bad press and in-plain-sight hibernation, this was a chance for a fractured Occupy Wall Street to win back mainstream America.

“We are protesting the influence of the ‘one percent’ on our society and no better way to do it than take it right to the doorsteps of power,” Zucker said, wide-eyed and beaming. It had to be organic, symbolic, and structured, he thought, since it was disorganization, a muddled message, and clashes with police that had damaged the movement’s reputation and stunted its growth. His dark sweater and black jacket seemed too large for his frame, but along with his overgrown auburn beard, they helped protect him from the biting cold. The next day promised to be warmer.

At 23, Zucker has the organizing gene. He’s a fresh graduate of Tulane University, where he studied public health to get a foot in the door of social justice work, and his family lives in Silver Spring, Maryland, just inside the Beltway. He once spent a semester running a health program in Senegal, and upon his return, he got involved with a protest by dining services workers. Zucker, who was hooked after first swinging by McPherson in early October, represents the liberal side of the movement. He wants universal health care and federal takeovers of big banks, and he thinks Occupy Wall Street is a good way to make it all happen.

That’s a sharp contrast with Murphy, a Long Beach native who earned his high school diploma in 2004 but never graduated. At 17, he was sentenced to more than two years in the California Youth Authority for stabbing three people at a coffee shop after his friend was punched.

Murphy was released in February 2006, then enrolled at a local college and found work with United Parcel Service. Two years later, after transferring to another university, he landed an internship through the Panetta Institute for Public Policy in Representative Stark’s congressional office. It was a thankless position that allowed him to walk constituents through marble hallways during the day and then liven up with hotel parties at night.

After the internship, Murphy went back to UPS in California and stayed there until early 2011, when he set off for some travel. He first heard about Occupy Wall Street last fall when he was with his then-longtime girlfriend on Utila, the third-largest Bay Island off the coast of Honduras. He initially thought it was another leftist demonstration that wouldn’t go anywhere, but grew excited when he saw it lasting for months.

Two guys in their early twenties. Two rebels without a clue. Maybe we need a new rule that says don’t trust anyone under thirty.

Here’s the best part:

Zucker is planning smaller efforts around Washington, too, and acknowledged that regaining the momentum Occupy Wall Street had in October will be crucial to its future. “It’ll be hard to bring that sort of spontaneous, grassroots energy back to the movement,” he said. “It’s going to take energy and organizing and intention.”

Murphy has a different plan. In April, he’s heading out to Oakland; protesters there know how to have a good time and aren’t afraid of a little confrontation. But despite his frustrations, he thinks Occupy Wall Street is perfect right now — not too organized, not too destructive. “It’s above ground, it’s legal, it’s nonviolent. It’s the ideal front organization for a revolutionary movement,” he said. “You can filter in money to this place, you can get volunteers, you can start vetting people to make sure they’re not cops, all in a very above-ground manner.”

He won’t go into details, but he’s brainstorming. Something along the lines of a group, conceivably within Occupy Wall Street, organizing itself for actual regime change and using the demonstrations as a disguise. But should the movement sputter out, Murphy said he’d reluctantly find a college in New York and finish the last few credits of his political science degree, then get a job. He would again become part of the system that he intends to destroy. He would have no choice.


Murphy could go all-in and declare war on the United States. Then after robbing a few banks and setting off a few bombs he could go back to prison calling himself a freedom fighter and telling people he was a political prisoner.

All those “Free Mumia” people would have another martyr to adore. Maybe Bill Ayers would write a book about him. Matt Damon could play him in the movie.

Maybe he could even get his face on a line of T-shirts.



Fake


The first time I watched this video I was skeptical. The video sure is realistic, but I’ve read enough about aeronautics to know that human flight and bird flight are not the same thing.

Ever watch hang gliders taking off? They do it from hill tops, not level ground. The guy in the video lifts off from level ground with little or no wind. Look at the wings and the trees in the background – there is little or no movement.

As planes and gliders move forward (or face the wind) the air passing under the wings provides lift. The faster the velocity of the air relative to the wing, the more lift that is provided. But if the speed is being provided by a man running with the glider, as soon as the lift pulls his feet from the ground there is no more acceleration and drag causes the glider to slow down.

Gizmodo:

Update 2: Some glider pilots are weighing in with their expert opinion, like reader Orian Price:

As a hang glider pilot, I can tell you that this is not real.

Not even close. The roll stability and pitch stability mechanisms are not present to fly.

It takes 10hp for these to have powered flight and with that they can’t climb nearly as fast as that guy.

Another reader, who claims to be a pilot, provides another argument against it:

I’m an Airline pilot with 25 years Airline experience, 7 years Air Force experience, 8 years kiteboarding experience and a background in aeronautical engineering. It’s a fake. Just look at the wings. They’re not showing load at any time. The fabric from the old kiteboarding kite—that’s what the wings are made of—never loads up. If the wings were producing lift, the fabric would be tight, it would look like it was inflated. It never does. There are other signs too, but it doesn’t matter. Since the wings aren’t loaded, they aren’t producing lift. Not even the glide is real. It isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s simple fact. If the wings aren’t producing lift, this has to be a fake. Period. If the wings were producing lift, they would show that they were under load. They never show a load, so they never produce lift.

Update 3: Hang glider G.W. Meadows is also unimpressed with the validity of the video:

I’ve been flying hang gliders for 33 years, a Master Hang Glider Pilot for 23 years, past president of the United States Hang Gliding Association and a Gold Medal winner at the 2000 World Championships. To take the time to try to explain to you why this is so obvious to those of us who fly a nearly identical machine (that just doesn’t flap) that this is a fake would possibly just be too involved. Instead, take a minute and look at a few things that are just obvious to a casual viewer. Why would the people run away from the machine just before he tries to take off? Why is the guy running at the camera blocking the view of the pilot? Note after he gets airborne, his feet are behind him like superman. As a guy whose spent a couple of thousand hours hanging from a hang glider, I can tell you that you have to have a mechanism to hold your feet up like that.

Update 4: An engineer write us about his opinion on Updates 2 and 3, calling it poop:

While I must admit that something doesn’t quote look “right” about that video (mainly that the contraption sure seems to gain altitude mighty quickly after “takeoff” relative to the forward groundspeed speed, but I guess the pilot is very lightweight dude, and maybe there was a good strong headwind) it is also true that the over-confidently-made arguments of the “Airline pilot” & “G.W. Meadows” do not take into account the actual construction of the

This wing is NOT a simple flexible “rogallo” type wing as the Airline pilot & hang glider expert seem to think. In fact it has a semi-rigid main aerofoil section.
The unsupported fabric trailing edge does not appear to be loaded because it is not the main source of lift.


When birds flap their wings they don’t simply move up and down. If they did every time the wings moved up the bird would move down. When a bird takes off by flapping its wings there are a number of complex moves involved, and the wings don’t just provide lift, they provide thrust too.

Watch the video of the ornithopter below. You don’t see the actual take-off, but watch the cabin move up and down with each flap. The ornithopter flew for about 20 seconds in a straight line, never getting far off the ground. The motive power for the flapping was the pilot’s leg muscles.

Which brings me to my last point – the small electric motors used by Jarno Smeets are simply too small to provide the necessary torque. Not only that but a real bird’s wings make long full strokes. Smeet’s wings barely move.

In the age of Obama you just can’t believe everything you see.



When did progressives turn ugly?


Remember the old Hollywood westerns? The ones where the good guys were handsome and wore white hats, and the bad guys were ugly and wore black? Those were the days when truth, justice and the American way all went together. At least we thought they did.

As I got older I began to realize that America wasn’t quite as good and pure as it was pictured in John Wayne movies. But in my heart I still believed in the “good guys” and the “bad guys,” and I believed that liberals wore white hats and that Republican headquarters was located in Barad-dûr.

In 2008 I saw for the first time the ugliness of progressives. It started with Hillary and then moved on to Sarah Palin. This post by Bristol Plain contains the latest example:

Responding to the Viral Sensation, Loving my Brother

I’ve been totally blown away by the responses to my post below, which went viral beyond my wildest dreams. Hundreds of thousands of people have read the post, and it’s been shared – at the time I write this — 88,000 times. Thank you for reading, sharing, and commenting. I received over 1,700 comments, and I’d like to take a moment to respond to some of them. The comments basically fell into one of three categories:

Category 1: “I hate you.”

Example: “JLE” at 7:52 am on March 20:

Bristol Palin you have some nerve President Obama does not owe you anything your a nobody, a young loose cow with kid!!!!! You and your mom are true idiots your Alaskan Hillbillies so go back in your igloos stay out of the public eye we are tired of your UGLY FACED YOUR SON TOO& BROTHER TOO!!!!

At first, the Patheos moderators weren’t letting these types of comments through, but we decided to let you have at least a glimpse of the things people say about my family. (We still don’t approve the dozens and dozens of truly obscene rants. This is a family blog after all!) You can see that Bill Maher is not some lone comedian with a unique perspective on us. Rather, he taps into something evil and dark that resides in the hearts of many people who hate our family. Even after so many years, I’m still a little surprised when people make fun of my little brother. They, however, can’t silence me or my mom. In fact, they motivate the to keep speaking. Evil can’t win!


I don’t know who this “JLE” person is but those words did not come from a good place, they came from an ugly, hate-filled heart.

It would be easy to dismiss a single comment as the droppings of an internet troll, but they are typical of what you can find at far too many progressive blogs these days. Wonkette, Rumproast and Balloon Juice are easily the worst offenders, but scaled down versions of the same kind of hate speech can be found at every pro-Obama blog.

Progressives are supposed to be pro-feminist but I have seen some of the most vile expressions of misogyny at progressive blogs in the past four years. Some of it is truly sickening, and goes far beyond anything I ever heard in a locker room or army barracks.

Nothing good grows from a bad seed.



Palin Power:

A Front-Row Seat to Palin Power

In addition to regularly contributing to NRO’s excellent Home Front blog, my wife Nancy is the editor of the Patheos Faith and Family portal, a multi-faith website that thoughtfully explores, well, faith and family. Last week she added a young, single-mother blogger to the site, a person who could reach a wide audience and was experiencing life as a mother in the glare of unusually harsh publicity: Bristol Palin.

As an editor, Nancy often lives in the more mundane world of Internet punditry — posting blogs, correcting typos, monitoring traffic, and managing a group of talented and eclectic writers. But some days are less mundane than others.

Over the weekend, Bristol wrote a post that asked a simple question: “Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call?”

[...]

Nancy tweeted it to her few hundred followers (she and I have a rather pathetic contest for twitter followers; right now I’m barely in the lead with a whopping 776), and Bristol facebooked it. Within hours, it had been shared 8,000 times. Already it was taking off.

Then Sarah Palin tweeted.

Patheos’s server promptly melted down. One of the most-trafficked religious sites on the web, its server still spontaneously combusted. A small mushroom cloud was spotted over the server farm. Eleven additional servers had to be brought online to handle the traffic flow, and by the end of the day, 8,000 shares had turned into more than 85,000 (update: 100,000), and the story of Bristol’s challenge to the president had been reported not just in the political and mainstream media but also in the Hollywood media as well. Thousands of tweets, and tens of thousands more Facebook shares from Fox to the Huffington Post to the Hollywood Reporter took the post well beyond the familiar and comfortable enclaves of the conservative blogosphere.


For all the abuse heaped upon her since her mother first became famous, Bristol Palin has only been the target of a small percentage of the slime directed at Sarah. There is a reason for that. Despite what Obamanation says they fear Sarah Palin, and for good reason.

President Obama has a whole section of his staff devoted to politics and propaganda. They carefully plan his every word and move, and with the help of the Journolist media they try to sell the country the belief in his infallible greatness. He commands the bully pulpit.

Working from Alaska with little or no staff and using Twitter and Facebook, Sarah draws headlines and crowds. Obama spent over a billion dollars building and maintaining his image as an inspiring leader. Sarah didn’t spend a dime.  Obama is a poser.  Sarah is the real deal.

It’s no wonder they hate her.



The Real Mitt Romney Open Thread


What’s happening tonight?


It doesn’t matter


It doesn’t matter that Sandra Fluke is a Democrat. It doesn’t matter that Bristol and Sarah Palin are Republicans. And it doesn’t matter which parties Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher belong to either.

It doesn’t matter who has the larger audience, which one has been doing the longest or who is the funniest. It is irrelevant who started it or whether they are talking about public figures or private citizens. It doesn’t matter whether the person doing it is male or female.

SEXISM AND MISOGYNY ARE WRONG.

That’s what matters.

Stop doing it. Stop making excuses for it. Stop tolerating it.


TBogg is a misogynist pig

TBogg


So yesterday Bristol Palin put up a post at her new blog calling out President Obama for using a double standard and for taking money from professional misogynist Bill Maher:

But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung. Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family. He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.” (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past – very public — mistakes.)

If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.

But . . .

What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women . . . even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?


I have to take issue with Bristol calling Obama’s supporters “liberals” but other than that she was spot on.

Only a few of progressive bloggers acknowledged her post, but only TBogg wallowed in the misogyny:

Single Mom Waiting For Her Presidential Booty Call

Future grandmother-at-34 and mother of one or two kids depending upon whether you’re Andrew Sullivan, Bristol Palin has a blog now! And instead of posting funny LOLmoose pictures and 101 Uses For Ranch Dressing recipes (baby formula? why not!) she is putting up “writey things” which Palin family fans can then print out and keep until they meet someone who can read it to them while they clap their hands in childish delight. Then it gets scrapbooked for posterity.

[...]

Then Bristol talks about that mean Bill Maher man who is on that HBO channel that did that movie where they made her mom look dumb and, even worse, made Bristol looked fat, and that Obama should pay a million dollar fine. She also mentions SuperPacs which, until recently, Bristol thought were those large 60-piece tubs of Juicy Fruit, but apparently they’re like that bank account that her mom uses to pay for family vacations.

Anyway, the President should call Bristol, but not during the day because she will be at her job as the assistant skin exfoliater trainee at Merle Norman and her boss won’t let her take personal phones calls while she’s working because she’s a total bitch.


I know this will shock you but TBogg didn’t think too highly of Hillary Clinton either.


So, about that war on women…

If you thought the contraception debate was about expanding or protecting women’s existing right to reproductive health care, think again. If you were waiting for the other shoe to fall, congratulations. You are not blinded by your own bias and can see clearly and painfully exactly how much the left, especially the new Democratic constituencies attracted under Obama, care about the signature women’s issue according to left-centered feminists. Which is to say they do not care at all. Women, you have served your purpose, and it is time for reassignment back under the bus. Contraception coverage, decided and issued just over a month ago, is already up for review:

Taking a conciliatory tone and asking for a wide range of public comment, the Obama administration announced this afternoon new accommodations on a controversial mandate requiring contraceptive coverage in health care plans.

Coming after a month of continued opposition from the U.S. bishops to the mandate, which was first revised in early February to exempt certain religious organizations, today’s announced changes from the Department of Health and Human Services make a number of concessions, including allowing religious organizations that self-insure to be made exempt.

Note that they are asking for public comment. It would be irresponsible for organizations such as NOW, Emily’s List, and NARAL to remain silent on this. I expect to see a big fundraising push to raise awareness about this issue. There’s a war on women, for goodness sakes! And women must fight the good fight! I’m waiting for it. I’m just sure it’s going to happen…

But wait. There’s more!

About that new student rule, which Sandra Fluke fought so hard for, and for which she suffered so much indignity, may not be as permanent as she would like, or as immediate. The proposal suggests ways that universities can easily skirt the rules. It’s so nice of the Obama administration to publish the loopholes at taxpayer expense so that these universities don’t have to pay lawyers to figure it out themselves. Obots are right that Obama is like Jesus in one sense: The lord giveth and he taketh away.

News of the changes also came as a separate ruling on student health insurance coverage was announced by the Department of Health and Human Services this afternoon. Under that ruling, health care plans for students would be treated like those of employees of colleges and universities — meaning the colleges will have to provide contraceptive services to students without co-pay.

Religiously affiliated colleges and universities, however, would be shielded from this ruling, according to a statement from the HHS.

“In the same way that religious colleges and universities will not have to pay, arrange or refer for contraceptive coverage for their employees, they will not have to do so for their students who will get such coverage directly and separately from their insurer,” the statement said.

I’d be very curious to learn what Fluke’s opinion is of this specific issue, and the other reproductive health proposal (both linked in the article above) overall. If she or anyone else participating in the debate on the pro-contraception side can support this, it does raise some questions. Most notably: So, it’s okay (to segregate medical care by gender) if you’re a Democrat? I wonder if it will even be an issue, if any self-labelled feminist of the progressive/liberal persuasion will comment on it at all. I’m guessing not if the last three years are any indication. I mean, who cares if Obama’s health care plan segregates women’s reproductive health care, or if it rolls back EEOC rulings that have stood for 12+ years? He’s the coolest m*therf*cking feminist president evah!

Cross-posted from P&L.

I am horrified


For over forty years I have been a fan of the cult-classic television show Dark Shadows. Yeah, it was a cheesy combination of All My Children and Dracula with a dash of Ed Wood thrown in, but I was a little kid when it aired back in 1966-1971. Barnabas (played by Jonathan Frid) was the original good-guy vampire while the vampire/witch Angelique (played by Lara Parker) gave me thoughts I was too young to be having.

I should have expected that a film by Tim Burton and starring Johnny Depp would be a dark comedy, but this is a sacrilege! The cast includes Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Jackie Earle Haley and Chloë Grace Moretz as well as cameo appearances by original cast members Jonathan Frid, Lara Parker, David Selby and Kathryn Leigh Scott.

It is scheduled to be released on May 11th.

This is an open thread.


Sunday morning beeyootifull music


That’s Keifer and Shawna Thompson, a husband and wife duo better known as Thompson Square. Below is Taylor Swift and The Civil Wars (Joy Williams and John Paul White) singing Safe and Sound from the Hunger Games soundtrack.

This is an open thread.



Happy St. Patrick’s Day Open Thread


God bless the Irish. What else can you say about people that made drinking a national sport? They sure ain’t famous for their cuisine. I’m pretty sure I have Irish ancestors. Red hair, freckles and alcoholism all run in my family.

Here’s a few of my favorite Irish jokes:

Q: What’s the difference between an Irish wedding and an Irish wake?
A: One less drunk.

Q: What’s Irish and sits out in the rain?
A: Paddy O’Furniture

Q: Why wasn’t Jesus born in Ireland?
A: They couldn’t find 3 wise men and a virgin.

Q: What do call a Irish seven course dinner?
A: A potato and a six pack



Occupy Spring!


I kid thee not. Via Corrente, they’re back:

Weekly Marches on Wall Street Start Today! 2PM LIBERTY SQUARE

On Friday, March 16, 2012, at 2PM, Occupy Wall Street will converge in the streets once again and launch the first in a series of spring training marches from Liberty Square to Wall Street in preparation for May Day, a day of massive economic non-compliance and strike. These marches will occur weekly and will allow occupiers to practice various street tactics and theatrics. For the first march, participants are encouraged to wear athletic gear, don their game face, and prepare to make the 1% feel the burn!

Organizers say besides growing comfortable employing various tactics with each other in actions, the intention of these marches are to strengthen the community to make upcoming campaigns and efforts, like reoccupation, as successful as possible.

After organizing, training, learning, growing, and working together for the winter months, Occupy is returning back to the basics as done in September: accessible direct actions to strengthen our community and voice our grievances to the 1%. Crimes by Wall Street brought us here and the 99% will continue to drive the message home and make civil unrest tangible.


This time they have a plan:

1. Occupy public spaces

2. ???

3. Victory!


WE ARE THE 99%!


Truth will out


I learned a long time ago that telling the truth is easier than lying because you only have to remember what happened, not what you said.

So I was bored but couldn’t sleep when I ran across this article at Ace of Spades trying futilely to prove that Obama was and is a secret radical. The article linked to a repost of a 1990 interview of Barack Obama while he was still at Harvard Law School:

His boyhood friends in Indonesia were street peddlers, and his grandmother still lives in a mud-walled house in Kenya.

But Barack Obama is another world away, presiding over the Harvard Law Review as the first black president in the prestigious journal’s 103-year history.

The charismatic 28-year-old, ensconced in the halls where tradition reigns, is taking aim at another custom: Obama’s sights are set on the South Side of Chicago, not on a U.S. Supreme Court clerkship or a fast-track career with, a cushy firm.

“I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me. And I’m not interested in isolating myself,” Obama said in a recent interview. “I feel good when I’m engaged in what I think are the core issues of the society, and those core issues to me are what’s happening to poor folks in this society.”

His passion is rooted in his background. He was born in Hawaii, his father an Oxford and Harvard-educated economist from the African nation of Kenya, his mother a white anthropologist from Kansas.

Obama moved to Southeast Asia at age 2 when his parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian. Until the fifth grade. Obama attended Indonesian schools, where most of his friends were the sons of servants, street peddlers and farmers.

Concern for Obama’s education led his mother to return him to Hawaii, where he attended public schools through high school. In 1983, he graduated from Columbia University with a degree in political science.

At a recent meeting in a Harvard cafeteria, his affinity with the underdog was readily apparent. “I lived in a country where I saw extreme poverty at a very early age,” Obama said. “Parts of my family in Kenya remain very poor. My grandmother still lives in a mud-walled house with no running water or electricity.

“That’s who I am, that’s where I come from, not always literally, but at least emotionally.”

Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988, and through a combination of grades and a writing competition, was elected to head the law review this February. He succeeded Peter Yu, a first generation Chinese-American. Obama cautions against reading too much into his election.

“It’s crucial that people don’t see my election as somehow a symbol of progress in the broader sense, that we don’t sort of point to a Barack Obama any more than you point to a Bill Cosby or a Michael Jordan and say ‘Well, things are hunky dory,’” Obama said.

“There’s certainly racism here. There are certain burdens that are placed, more emotionally at this point than concretely,” Obama said.

“Professors may treat black students differently, sometimes by being, sort of, more dismissive, sometimes by being more, sort of, careful because they think, you know, they think that somehow we can’t cope in the classroom,” he said.

Obama sees the inner cities as the front lines of racism.

“It’s critical at this stage for people who want to see genuine change to focus locally. And it is crucial that we figure out how to rebuild the core of leadership and institutions in these communities,” he said.

For five years before law school, Obama took on that task in Chicago. As the director of a program that tried to bring South Side churches, unions and block associations together on projects, Obama was not trying to solve local problems, he said. Instead he sought to construct something more lasting — a forum for the community, “I’m interested in organizations, not movements, because movements dissipate and organizations don’t,” Obama said.

America suffered when the movements of the 1960s dissipated, he said. Those movements succeeded in raising doubts about harmful traditions of sexism and racism, but failed to offer a viable alternative.

“Hopefully, more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we’re going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous,” Obama said.

“I mean, I really hope to be part of a transformation of this country.”And the future of black people and of America generally? “It depends on how good I do my job,” he said.


The original article was written by Associated Press reporter Allison J. Pugh. It’s a reasonable assumption that the source of most or all of the information in the article was Obama himself. It’s a “tell me about yourself” puff piece. That’s why it’s so revealing – it’s evidence that Obama has a history of lying.

I’ll take these in the order they appear:

1. The article mentions Obama’s Kenyan grandmother twice, but never mentions that as of 1990 he had never met her and from all reports never gave her any financial assistance before her death in 2006. There is no mention of his other grandmother, the bank vice-president who raised him.

2. Obama may have set his sights on the South Side but after graduating he promptly sought a fast-track career position with a cushy politically-connected law firm. He also snagged a book deal and a sinecure as a part-time law professor. There is no record of him spending much time on the South Side since then, unless you want to count Hyde Park, which is the gentrified area where Obama owns a home (in the same neighborhood at Bill Ayers and Louis Farrakhan) or his attendance at Trinity United Church.

3. Obama moved to Indonesia when he was five, not two. Had he moved at the earlier age then his mother could never have received food stamps because they didn’t exist until 1965 when Obama turned four. If she did receive food stamps it was during the last year or so that she was finishing her degree at the University of Hawaii.

4. Obama requested to return to Hawaii when he was ten. He then lived with his well-to-do white grandparents while he attended Punahou School, a very exclusive private prep school.

5. The writing competition was eliminated the year Obama was selected to the Harvard Law Review. He was elected president of the law review at a meeting of all the members. He never published anything while on HLR.

None of these misstatements of fact are exactly earth shattering. But they fit a familiar pattern of Obama portraying his life as one of rags to riches. To paraphrase Ann Richards, he was born on third and keeps trying to convince people he hit a triple. They also show that this pattern started long before Obama started his political career.

The interview does not prove that Obama has radical roots. If anything it confirms that Obama is a political chameleon with no true ideology except self-advancement. When it was in his best interest to be a radical he blended in with the radical crowd but really never said or did anything that was particularly radical.

He’s never done anything to fight racism. Once he began rubbing elbows with machine politicians he abandoned his radical friends and adopted new ones like Tony Rezko. Then he went to Washington and remade himself again.



Obamamania vs. Palinpalooza


Sarah Palin:

During the ’08 campaign, the same media that reported breathlessly about an old used tanning bed I purchased to get some sun during the dark Alaskan winter, couldn’t be bothered to investigate Barack Obama’s associations, statements or even his voting record as a state senator. Suntans and what I wore on the campaign trail were more important than Obama’s political background. Unbelievable.

But when you come to think of it, the media didn’t investigate either of our actual political records very closely.

Barack Obama and I both served in political office in states with a serious corruption problem. Though there is a big difference between serving as the CEO of a city, then a state, and regulating domestic energy resources, and being a liberal Community Organizer, bear with me on the comparison. The difference between my record and Barack Obama’s is that I fought the corrupt political machine my entire career (and I have twenty years of scars to prove it) on the local, state, and national level. But Obama didn’t fight the corruption he encountered. He went along with it to advance his career. Graft, cronyism, and quid pro quo are the methods of the Chicago political machine from which he emerged.

You would think the media – those watchdogs of the public trust – would be interested in this. But they refused to vet Barack Obama. With tingles up their legs, they shielded him.

If the media had done their job of vetting him, we wouldn’t have been shocked that within days after Obama’s election, his close political associate Rod Blagojevich was caught trying to sell Obama’s vacant Senate seat.

If the media had done their job of vetting him, we wouldn’t be astonished to see all the billion dollar green energy kickbacks going to his campaign cronies as the nation heads towards bankruptcy.

If the media had done their job of vetting him, we wouldn’t be surprised that Obama brought these same Chicago “pay-to-play” practices to the White House.


One of the most amazing things about 2008 was seeing Obots claiming with straight faces that Sarah Palin wasn’t qualified to be President.


“I love abortion!”


Jessica DelBalzo at RH Reality Check

I Love Abortion: Implying Otherwise Accomplishes Nothing for Women’s Rights

I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion.

And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, “Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!” has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights.

Safe and legal are concepts I fully support, but rare is something I cannot abide. I understand the theoretical mindset: it is better for a woman to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to bear the physical and financial burden of an abortion. While my own abortion involved very little pain and a minimal financial expense, one which my ex-boyfriend was willing to share with me, even I can admit that using condoms or the pill is preferable to eight weeks of nausea and weight gain. Contraception is a valuable tool.

[...]

Suggesting that abortion be “safe, legal, and rare,” and crowing that “no one likes abortion,” accomplishes nothing for women’s rights. Pandering to the anti-choice movement by implying that we all find termination distasteful only fuels the fire against it. What good is common ground if it must be achieved at the expense of women who have had or will have abortions? Those women need advocates like us more than we need support from anti-abortionists. Rather than trying to cozy up to the forced-birth camp, women who value their freedom should be proud to say that they like abortion. In fact, they should venerate it whole-heartedly. Abortion is our last refuge, the one final, definitive instrument that secures our bodily autonomy. What’s not to love?


Digby should be happy. I don’t think this is a winning argument, however.

Like it or not, many people are morally and emotionally conflicted over the issue.

YMMV



The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend


So you’re out hiking in the woods and you find yourself being stalked by wolves. You try to flee but you find yourself cornered. You are alone and unarmed. As they close in suddenly a grizzly bear charges in and chases off the wolves. Is the bear your friend?

Only in a cartoon. In real life they would be fighting over who gets to eat you for dinner.

For the past month or so the dominant political issue has been contraception. But how did this current battle start?

Feminists have been warning for years that contraception was next on the conservative hit list; that the war on abortion would metastasize into a war on birth control.

On Friday President Obama handed conservatives the first victory in that war, marking off contraception as a special thing that could be legitimately denied on the basis of religious liberty. You would think that the people who have been warning against this for years would be alive to the danger. And some of us are. But a lot of folks aren’t getting it.

[...]

But with contraception, Obama has acknowledged that it’s a special thing that can be denied on the basis of religious liberty. He has carved it away from the rest of the pack of treatments and medications, and put it over in a special class.

A special class that has only one other member: abortion.

This is precisely what feminists have been warning about for years. It doesn’t matter that Obama has provided a practical workaround so that women can still get pills; the moral and legal ground has shifted. Female contraception has been marked, called out, made negotiable.

It’s important to understand that this is a move backwards. For the past 12 years the EEOC has been treating birth control as normal healthcare and insisting that employers—including Catholic institutions—cover it lest they be in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

But now, contraception is special. Now, contraception is negotiable. A matter of conscience, something employers in the public square can opt out of.


That’s right – Obama started it. So then the guys in beanies started making noise. Then Issa held a hearing and excluded Sandra Fluke. So Sandra Fluke spoke anyway at a special hearing. This upset Rush Limbaugh so much he had to spend three days ranting about sluts like a neanderthal Talibani. Then Move-On reacted to Rush, etc., etc.

Meanwhile, while our attention has been diverted there are a whole bunch of things we AREN’T talking about. But when the smoke clears, what will be different?

Best case scenario:

Women with medical insurance won’t have to pay extra for contraception and one or two rich misogynists will be unemployed. Obama and the Democrats will claim credit for a great victory and the wingnuts will be outraged. But there will still be plenty of misogynists out there and the religious right will keep looking for ways to nibble away at women’s reproductive rights.

Worst case scenario:

Some women with medical insurance will have to pay extra for contraception and a couple of rich misogynists will still be employed. Obama and the Democrats will claim credit for a great compromise and the wingnuts will be outraged. But there will still be plenty of misogynists out there and the religious right will keep looking for ways to nibble away at women’s reproductive rights.


Griswold v. Connecticut was decided in 1964. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Both are still good law. But the ERA didn’t pass and neither did the Paycheck Fairness Act. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder but gay marriage is only legal in a handful of states. Obama signed Executive Order 13535 restricting federal funds for abortion. MoveOn is out to get Rush Limbaugh but they are silent about Bill Maher.

Maybe it’s just me, but do you ever get the feeling that the Democrats don’t really want to win these battles?



“Game Change” draws big audience – sort of

Helping Barack Obama


WaPo:

“Game Change” draws highest ratings for original HBO movie in eight years

One massive marketing and GOP-undies-bunching campaign later, the unveiling of HBO’s Sarah Palin flick, “Game Change,”attracted 2.123 million viewers Saturday night at 9. HBO says that is its biggest original-movie opening crowd in about eight years.

To put the audience in perspective, that’s slightly fewer people than sat down the next afternoon at 2 to watch a rerun episode of History’s “Pawn Stars” (2.129 million viewers).


Big Hollywood:

‘Game Change’ Ratings Bust: Less than Half of ‘Sarah Palin’s Alaska’ Debut

HBO’s anti-Sarah Palin film “Game Change” scored some pretty impressive ratings over the weekend – 2.1 million viewers, according to numbers released today.

But while the cable network may be tempted to spike the football, it might want to do some digging on some other Palin-related data first.

TLC’s “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” debuted in 2010 to five million viewers, more than double the HBO figure. Now, TLC isn’t a pay channel like HBO, but the tally still undermines the narrative that audiences were clamoring to see a Palin takedown.

Plus, while HBO’s film got almost universally glowing reviews and all the media attention a title could muster, the TLC reality show debuted on a much less well known outlet sans universally positive press.

Even when one adds up the three “Game Change” airings on Saturday it still only comes to 3.6 million viewers, far less than the number of folks who caught Palin basking in her beloved Alaska two years ago.


That’s strange, I thought the viewers of the Bill Maher network liked fairy tales.

If you want to hear the stories of the people who were really there with Sarah, read this:

(more…)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 273 other followers