I've mentioned the six-year-old... You know, Michelle Obama's biggest fan. The one who dreams of taking over the world and remaking it to suit her whims.
She wants to be homeschooled.
Now homeschooling is a touchy subject at Casa De Scratch. One of the supposed grownups is all for it (can ya guess who?). One feels homeschooling would deprive them of socialization. (Bear in mind, three of my five are female. To me, socialization=boys, so I don't have a huge problem depriving them. Regardless...)
She asked if we'd homeschool her. To her credit, it's hard to argue with the logic she used:
"I already know more than any of the second graders (she's in first). And I can read books as high as they'll let me (to her utter frustration, school policy is that she can't take out books above her grade level). I could read your books, I bet!"
Aaahhh. Now she's getting cocky.
I turned to the bottom step, where I always have a pile of books, and shuffled through them. (I generally have books in almost every room, most with bookmarks where I left off. I read whichever is closest to where I perch, and usually have several going at once.)
I handed her Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mt. Everest Disaster. (I'm an Everest nut along with all my other uber-dorky qualities.)
So. She opens the book... clears her throat... looks at me like I'm a freakin' idiot for challenging her... and reads a passage. (Full disclosure: she stumbled over "carabiner" and "oxygenated". Not too shabby. She also got really upset that she couldn't make heads or tails of a few words... until I explained they aren't in English and she can't read a language she can't speak.)
I take the book, turn to another chapter, and return it.
With an even more blistering look, she reads another passage.
Then she looks me right in the eye and asks, "NOW will you homeschool me?"
Uh-oh.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
"I then explained the obvious problem with his third eye being opened in public"
Heh again. More Fark, more nekkid.
This time it's a vegan who ate some Taco Bell and blasted open his third eye.
C'mon... you've had Taco Bell. He's lucky his "third eye" is all that blasted open.
Oh. Did I mention he was a teacher who stripped at school after being fired? Kinda makes you wonder why he was fired, huh?
Don't worry. He'll be all right. In fact, he's still planning to teach:
This time it's a vegan who ate some Taco Bell and blasted open his third eye.
C'mon... you've had Taco Bell. He's lucky his "third eye" is all that blasted open.
Oh. Did I mention he was a teacher who stripped at school after being fired? Kinda makes you wonder why he was fired, huh?
Don't worry. He'll be all right. In fact, he's still planning to teach:
"...on a new level, with hands in the earth, gathering the essence and learning how to love one another and fully appreciate the spiritual realm."Taco Bell. Opening third eyes, and appreciating the spiritual realm. Nekkid.
"Are anyone else's nuts sticking to the mat?"
Heh.
Saw this at Fark... and this kinda thing is exactly why I love Fark.
Nekkid yoga.
Saw this at Fark... and this kinda thing is exactly why I love Fark.
Nekkid yoga.
...my, uh ... you know, my things ... what happened is they got stuck in a painful, friction-related way against the rubber mat. From deep inside came a sound like this — "Eee-ee-eeeee" — as I frantically reached down to free my, uh, the boys.Eee-ee-eeeee, indeed.
Monday, April 25, 2011
When the smoke clears... A closer look at Gary Johnson for President
The current crop of Republican hopefuls leaves me feeling uninspired.
No, no... That's far too mild.
The list of Republicans being discussed as our "options" in the beltway and the media leave me with a hollow feeling in the pit of my stomach. It's something like despair. Or the intestinal flu. I want to ask "Is this really the best the GOP can do? Really? I have to hold my nose and vote for one of these people?"
(If I want to see Obama go home as a one-term President, that's exactly what I have to do.)
So I was really excited to see that Gary Johnson had announced he's running. I've long been an admirer. He has a proven record, an understanding of our situation (and don't dismiss that as unimportant - our current administration has no grasp whatsoever on the situation and that's why it keeps getting worse), and Johnson holds to the ideals of smaller government and personal liberty so dear to the conservative heart.
Yet most of what I've read about his announcement refers to him as "best known" or "famous" or "most recognized" for his stance on marijuana and the War on Drugs. And very little I've read gave him the most remote odds of winning.
Yes, Gary Johnson has some controversial views on the drug war, and marijuana in particular. But he's famously best known and most recognized for those views because the media (old and new) highlights the controversial. (What a surprise that he's viewed in the way he's repeatedly been depicted.)
But if conservatives would give Johnson a shot on the issues and not write him off as the stoner candidate, I believe they'd like what they see. So please, let's put his stance on drugs to the side a moment (we'll come back to it, and I believe you'll see it's perfectly in line with conservative principles) and look at what else he's about.
In other words, let's let the smoke clear and see what's really there...
As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson cut taxes fourteen times and left not only a balanced budget, but a surplus. He was responsible for New Mexico's longest ever stretch with no tax increase. He cut the size of state government and privatized part of the prison system. He cut government growth by half. He fought for a school choice program. He vetoed over 750 pieces of legislation, 200 of those in the first six months. He used the line item veto thousands of times, often to remove spending from bills. He reformed Medicaid, and got the state's costs under control. He hired private companies to build highways.
That's not what he's talked about or what he's promised us or what the polls tell him we want to hear. That's what he's done.
(As an aside, he's also climbed Mt. Everest... oh, and Mt. McKinley, Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Elbrus. He's also competed in multiple Ironman Triathlons. How's that sound after a coupla years of watching President Mom Jeans embarrass himself trying to act sporty?)
So that's a taste of what he's done. If elected President, what else would he like to do? A lot of what the grassroots conservatives are calling for.
So Johnson is right in line with some of the conservatives' major concerns. The economy, taxes, education, restricting government growth...
Now, about that marijuana thing.
Gary Johnson wants to end the drug war as we know it. He also wants to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. But that doesn't mean his campaign slogan is "Party hearty; Die high!"
On the contrary, although Johnson readily admits a personal history of pot smoking, it's not something he does now or thinks others should be doing. In a 2001 Reason interview, he said:
I consistently have... disagreements with conservatives who want smaller government but are perfectly fine continuing to fund the War on Drugs. While I believe that on some level they accept it because it feels like a war on sin, it goes against every conservative principle.
It's expensive. Enormously expensive. It's an abject failure that we keep throwing money at... similar to the failing public school system, but most conservatives are on board with an education shakeup. It's an affront to personal liberty and, frankly, smacks of the nanny-statism that usually sets conservative teeth on edge. And it has actually caused underground criminal enterprise, much as alcohol prohibition created and strengthened the original gang problems.
But I hope it's clearer... while Johnson definitely advocates major changes to our drug policy, he's not looking to be President Chong. He's coming at the issue from a small-government, common sense, conservative viewpoint.
I urge my fellow conservatives (That's inaccurate. This is nearly begging, but I'm fine with that. Looking at the other Republican wanna-runs, there's that feeling in my gut again.) to take another look at Gary Johnson... to wave away the clouds of smoke and actually learn something about the candidate.
Reason magazine offers excellent roundups here and here, and their 2001 interview is here. Race42012 collected Johnson's public answers to questions posed on Twitter, offering further insight. The Boston Globe wrote about his legalization ideas here. And his campaign site is here.
Johnson's biggest obstacle at the moment might be low name recognition. While I'm hoping to help correct that, it's not the end of the world. In my congressional district, an almost unknown candidate destroyed the Republican party's chosen candidate in the primary, then went on to close within single digits of the sitting Congressman with a huge war chest and major connections. In the age of the TEA Party, being a relative unknown isn't as much of a handicap it used to be.
So, please... have a look at Gary Johnson. And if he can't be accepted as the conservative candidate, someone explain to me why. With the notable exception of Herman Cain, he's the only candidate I can feel passionate about so far.
Now I just have to convince the rest of you...
---
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.
Also posted at Left Coast Rebel. Thanks!
No, no... That's far too mild.
The list of Republicans being discussed as our "options" in the beltway and the media leave me with a hollow feeling in the pit of my stomach. It's something like despair. Or the intestinal flu. I want to ask "Is this really the best the GOP can do? Really? I have to hold my nose and vote for one of these people?"
(If I want to see Obama go home as a one-term President, that's exactly what I have to do.)
So I was really excited to see that Gary Johnson had announced he's running. I've long been an admirer. He has a proven record, an understanding of our situation (and don't dismiss that as unimportant - our current administration has no grasp whatsoever on the situation and that's why it keeps getting worse), and Johnson holds to the ideals of smaller government and personal liberty so dear to the conservative heart.
Yet most of what I've read about his announcement refers to him as "best known" or "famous" or "most recognized" for his stance on marijuana and the War on Drugs. And very little I've read gave him the most remote odds of winning.
Yes, Gary Johnson has some controversial views on the drug war, and marijuana in particular. But he's famously best known and most recognized for those views because the media (old and new) highlights the controversial. (What a surprise that he's viewed in the way he's repeatedly been depicted.)
But if conservatives would give Johnson a shot on the issues and not write him off as the stoner candidate, I believe they'd like what they see. So please, let's put his stance on drugs to the side a moment (we'll come back to it, and I believe you'll see it's perfectly in line with conservative principles) and look at what else he's about.
In other words, let's let the smoke clear and see what's really there...
As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson cut taxes fourteen times and left not only a balanced budget, but a surplus. He was responsible for New Mexico's longest ever stretch with no tax increase. He cut the size of state government and privatized part of the prison system. He cut government growth by half. He fought for a school choice program. He vetoed over 750 pieces of legislation, 200 of those in the first six months. He used the line item veto thousands of times, often to remove spending from bills. He reformed Medicaid, and got the state's costs under control. He hired private companies to build highways.
That's not what he's talked about or what he's promised us or what the polls tell him we want to hear. That's what he's done.
(As an aside, he's also climbed Mt. Everest... oh, and Mt. McKinley, Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Elbrus. He's also competed in multiple Ironman Triathlons. How's that sound after a coupla years of watching President Mom Jeans embarrass himself trying to act sporty?)
So that's a taste of what he's done. If elected President, what else would he like to do? A lot of what the grassroots conservatives are calling for.
Government spends too much because it does too much... We should start by reassessing the role of the federal government, and always asking the question: Should the government be doing this in the first place?Johnson advocates balancing the budget. Immediately. With trillions in cuts across the board, and entitlement reforms. He also wants to eliminate the corporate income tax, thereby making it less expensive for a company to create jobs in America.
The problem is public education in America is now doing less with more. This is unsustainable for our pocketbooks and, most importantly, unfair to our children.Johnson wants to abolish the Department of Education and return education decisions to the parents and local school systems.
So Johnson is right in line with some of the conservatives' major concerns. The economy, taxes, education, restricting government growth...
Now, about that marijuana thing.
Gary Johnson wants to end the drug war as we know it. He also wants to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. But that doesn't mean his campaign slogan is "Party hearty; Die high!"
On the contrary, although Johnson readily admits a personal history of pot smoking, it's not something he does now or thinks others should be doing. In a 2001 Reason interview, he said:
Marijuana is a handicap. So is alcohol... But in spite of being a handicap, it shouldn’t be criminal.But if Gary Johnson doesn't want to change the law so he can toke up in the Oval Office, what's his motivation? Why push for an end to the drug war?
I’m a cost-benefit analysis person: What are we spending and what are we getting? My premise is the war in drugs is a miserable failure. I don’t know of a bigger problem in every single state, or a bigger expense that might actually have alternative solutions. Drugs account for half of law enforcement spending, half of prison spending, half of court spending. What are we getting for it? We are arresting 1.6 million people a year in this country on drug-related charges, and it’s a failure.I can't see how any small government constitutional conservative can argue the point.
I consistently have... disagreements with conservatives who want smaller government but are perfectly fine continuing to fund the War on Drugs. While I believe that on some level they accept it because it feels like a war on sin, it goes against every conservative principle.
It's expensive. Enormously expensive. It's an abject failure that we keep throwing money at... similar to the failing public school system, but most conservatives are on board with an education shakeup. It's an affront to personal liberty and, frankly, smacks of the nanny-statism that usually sets conservative teeth on edge. And it has actually caused underground criminal enterprise, much as alcohol prohibition created and strengthened the original gang problems.
But I hope it's clearer... while Johnson definitely advocates major changes to our drug policy, he's not looking to be President Chong. He's coming at the issue from a small-government, common sense, conservative viewpoint.
I urge my fellow conservatives (That's inaccurate. This is nearly begging, but I'm fine with that. Looking at the other Republican wanna-runs, there's that feeling in my gut again.) to take another look at Gary Johnson... to wave away the clouds of smoke and actually learn something about the candidate.
Reason magazine offers excellent roundups here and here, and their 2001 interview is here. Race42012 collected Johnson's public answers to questions posed on Twitter, offering further insight. The Boston Globe wrote about his legalization ideas here. And his campaign site is here.
Johnson's biggest obstacle at the moment might be low name recognition. While I'm hoping to help correct that, it's not the end of the world. In my congressional district, an almost unknown candidate destroyed the Republican party's chosen candidate in the primary, then went on to close within single digits of the sitting Congressman with a huge war chest and major connections. In the age of the TEA Party, being a relative unknown isn't as much of a handicap it used to be.
So, please... have a look at Gary Johnson. And if he can't be accepted as the conservative candidate, someone explain to me why. With the notable exception of Herman Cain, he's the only candidate I can feel passionate about so far.
Now I just have to convince the rest of you...
---
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.
Also posted at Left Coast Rebel. Thanks!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Those Mysterious Independent Voters
Are independent voters really so mysterious?
Why is it that our simple refusal to claim party affiliation leads supposedly intelligent political writers/bloggers to speculate wildly about what goes on in the mind of an independent? I posted about this before, back when David Brooks wondered "What independents want".
I've been an independent from the time I first registered to vote until the 2008 primaries. Did I suddenly see the wisdom of playing for a team? Uh, no. I changed my registration for the specific purpose of voting in the primary, a right otherwise denied me in my state. I do not self-identify as a Republican, and there's a very real possibility I'll switch to Democrat for the next primary, based on what happens with PA's redistricting. I'm a moderate conservative, social libertarian, and -- at heart and in my mind -- an independent still.
So I get annoyed by the folks like Brooks who wonder in print what it is we independents want. I stick by my common sense answer from the time -- Why not actually ask one?!
Seems maybe that's a little too much like work... why not just make shit up? And hey! The more insulting, the better!
Take, for example, "The Indy Conundrum" over at Mother Jones where Kevin Drum has the answer:
Anyway, Drum wasn't finished. (Don't blame me for the interruption. It was Brooks.)
"Don't bother me with Teh Poly-ticks right now, sonny! The dishwarsher's runnin', the dog needs put out and I gotta get to work! How many thoughts do you think my precious little head can hold all at once?!"
(As an aside, this might be the first valid reason I've ever seen to join a political party... Mussolini got the trains running on time, and apparently when you pick up that little "D" or "R", all the broken crap in your house is magically repaired so you can concentrate on toeing the party line! Yea! Where do I sign up? My dishwasher hasn't worked since the hippies screwed with the soap formula.)
Seriously, what the hell?
Drum'sbrain fart brilliant observations were provoked by a Washington Post piece on the new McClatchy-Marist poll. It shows that while independents tend to feel similar to Obama on tax hikes and Medicare/Medicaid cuts, they still don't approve of the job he's done on the deficit... or really, the job he's done overall.
Thus, it's a mystery! An enigma! A fer-gawds-sakes CONUNDRUM!
Except it isn't.
A lot of moderates and independents allowed themselves to be bamboozled into believing Obama was himself somewhat moderate. (Not this indy. I'd heard his little critique of the Constitution early on and was telling friends and family the man was a socialist before he ever ran across the football-tossing plumber.)
A lot of independents and moderates did want change. -- Until they got a taste of the kinds of change Obama had in mind. Ramming through unread, unwanted legislation... government takeover of the auto industry... the stimulus... TARP... czars... class warfare... public sector vs. private sector... redefining "opaque" as "transparent"...
Are you getting my point?
And yet, now that Obama is back in campaign mode, the liberal press/bloggers want to make it as if it's the independent voters with the problem and not the President. (Don't bother to comment or email that Brooks is a conservative. Bovine excrement. He's a conservative like I'm an Olympic athlete. Read: Not friggin' remotely.)
So, in the interest of saving these heavy thinkers some actual effort at their craft, please allow me to repeat what I wrote in response to Brooks barely a year after the election. And bear in mind, I can't speak for all independents. (We hate that! Something the two parties have never been able to figure out.) But it isn't that different from what my conservative friends think:
--------
Pre-Posting UPDATE:
I wrote this yesterday (Wed., April 20) and didn't get a chance to post it. (I had to take the rabbit to get neutered, and hooboy do you ever wanna read that post when it goes up. Or maybe you don't...)
Anyway, I'm glad life got in the way for a minute. It gave me a chance to go and read the McClatchy-Marist poll results myself. Which I should have done in the first place. Turns out, the independent numbers track pretty closely to the overall voter numbers.
So Independents aren't the problem. Obama is the problem.
And the only real mystery here is how Drum came to his (baseless) conclusions...
But don't be too rough on him. Maybe his dishwasher won't work with hippy soap either. Can't expect him to concentrate on that and make sound political judgements at the same time, right?
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.
Why is it that our simple refusal to claim party affiliation leads supposedly intelligent political writers/bloggers to speculate wildly about what goes on in the mind of an independent? I posted about this before, back when David Brooks wondered "What independents want".
I've been an independent from the time I first registered to vote until the 2008 primaries. Did I suddenly see the wisdom of playing for a team? Uh, no. I changed my registration for the specific purpose of voting in the primary, a right otherwise denied me in my state. I do not self-identify as a Republican, and there's a very real possibility I'll switch to Democrat for the next primary, based on what happens with PA's redistricting. I'm a moderate conservative, social libertarian, and -- at heart and in my mind -- an independent still.
So I get annoyed by the folks like Brooks who wonder in print what it is we independents want. I stick by my common sense answer from the time -- Why not actually ask one?!
Seems maybe that's a little too much like work... why not just make shit up? And hey! The more insulting, the better!
Take, for example, "The Indy Conundrum" over at Mother Jones where Kevin Drum has the answer:
First: the vast, vast majority of independents don't really have any idea what Obama's plan to handle the deficit is. They just know that (a) the deficit is high and (b) Obama is president.Aahhhhh. I see. We're stupid. Reminds me of Brooks. (Cue the flashback music and wavy graphics.)
"If I were a politician trying to win back independents, I’d say something like this: When I was a kid, I had a jigsaw puzzle of the U.S. Each state was a piece...."Heh. That line still pisses me off.
Anyway, Drum wasn't finished. (Don't blame me for the interruption. It was Brooks.)
Beyond that, there are kids to get to school, laundry to be done, bosses to be pleased, and leaky faucets to be fixed. The details of the deficit debate are just a bit of partisan background noise that they haven't really parsed yet.See that? Not only are we stupid, we apparently suffer from the world's first case of collective ADD.
"Don't bother me with Teh Poly-ticks right now, sonny! The dishwarsher's runnin', the dog needs put out and I gotta get to work! How many thoughts do you think my precious little head can hold all at once?!"
(As an aside, this might be the first valid reason I've ever seen to join a political party... Mussolini got the trains running on time, and apparently when you pick up that little "D" or "R", all the broken crap in your house is magically repaired so you can concentrate on toeing the party line! Yea! Where do I sign up? My dishwasher hasn't worked since the hippies screwed with the soap formula.)
Seriously, what the hell?
Drum's
Thus, it's a mystery! An enigma! A fer-gawds-sakes CONUNDRUM!
Except it isn't.
A lot of moderates and independents allowed themselves to be bamboozled into believing Obama was himself somewhat moderate. (Not this indy. I'd heard his little critique of the Constitution early on and was telling friends and family the man was a socialist before he ever ran across the football-tossing plumber.)
A lot of independents and moderates did want change. -- Until they got a taste of the kinds of change Obama had in mind. Ramming through unread, unwanted legislation... government takeover of the auto industry... the stimulus... TARP... czars... class warfare... public sector vs. private sector... redefining "opaque" as "transparent"...
Are you getting my point?
And yet, now that Obama is back in campaign mode, the liberal press/bloggers want to make it as if it's the independent voters with the problem and not the President. (Don't bother to comment or email that Brooks is a conservative. Bovine excrement. He's a conservative like I'm an Olympic athlete. Read: Not friggin' remotely.)
So, in the interest of saving these heavy thinkers some actual effort at their craft, please allow me to repeat what I wrote in response to Brooks barely a year after the election. And bear in mind, I can't speak for all independents. (We hate that! Something the two parties have never been able to figure out.) But it isn't that different from what my conservative friends think:
...THAT'S what independents want most. A government that listens to its people, and does what we want. A government that remembers American people have minds (some of them damn brilliant), and treats us accordingly. A government that serves us instead of ruling us. A government that protects us without controlling us. A government that provides the framework, and then gets the hell out of our way.Mystery solved.
--------
Pre-Posting UPDATE:
I wrote this yesterday (Wed., April 20) and didn't get a chance to post it. (I had to take the rabbit to get neutered, and hooboy do you ever wanna read that post when it goes up. Or maybe you don't...)
Anyway, I'm glad life got in the way for a minute. It gave me a chance to go and read the McClatchy-Marist poll results myself. Which I should have done in the first place. Turns out, the independent numbers track pretty closely to the overall voter numbers.
So Independents aren't the problem. Obama is the problem.
And the only real mystery here is how Drum came to his (baseless) conclusions...
But don't be too rough on him. Maybe his dishwasher won't work with hippy soap either. Can't expect him to concentrate on that and make sound political judgements at the same time, right?
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.
Friday, April 15, 2011
WBC Whackadoos Outnumbered... and Outclassed
This is really cool.
The Phelps cult tried to put on another disgraceful performance, and ended up the focus of a bigger protest.
Excellent.
The Phelps cult tried to put on another disgraceful performance, and ended up the focus of a bigger protest.
"It looks like we planned for what we got... The cooperation of the people here was phenomenal. Everyone that was here got to exercise their rights."I hope this starts happening every time their bus pulls up.
Excellent.
SE Cupp responds to Olbermann, comes off looking worse than he did
I'm really beginning to think this woman is a ninny.
I posted earlier about Olbermann's tweet heard 'round the world. (I obviously do not subscribe to the general conservative view on this.)
Anyway...
Not content to bask in the outraged support of her admirers (not to mention her mother), S E Cupp took to the airwaves to respond to Olbermann herself...
And came off sounding like a fool.
(Yeah, yeah. I know. But I ducked the rock, so better luck next time.)
Appearing on Beck's radio program (as covered by The Blaze), she said... well... she said some pretty stupid stuff.
Beginning with what I assume was a joke (albeit a bad one), she said of Olbermann's feelings toward her:
But then we move to melodrama.
She goes on to lament that Olbermann would
She also mentions her mother's defense, which most adults might be embarrassed by.
Back to the melodrama...
Ooop. Turns out she is. Just this one last little tidbit to share.
I know... it's probably sarcasm. (Let's hope... but I suspect that might be giving her too much credit.) Still, why even go there?
My opinion?
She's gonna milk this sucker for all it's worth (which is already far more than it should have been), and stretch it into as much publicity as she can.
A more appropriate response would have been to shrug it off with a "consider the source" and a grin, while reminding all the concerned conservatives she's made of tougher stuff.
Unless she isn't.
In which case she should take her purse and go home.
I posted earlier about Olbermann's tweet heard 'round the world. (I obviously do not subscribe to the general conservative view on this.)
Anyway...
Not content to bask in the outraged support of her admirers (not to mention her mother), S E Cupp took to the airwaves to respond to Olbermann herself...
And came off sounding like a fool.
(Yeah, yeah. I know. But I ducked the rock, so better luck next time.)
Appearing on Beck's radio program (as covered by The Blaze), she said... well... she said some pretty stupid stuff.
Beginning with what I assume was a joke (albeit a bad one), she said of Olbermann's feelings toward her:
I don't recall ever turning down one of his sexual advances, so I don't know what his beef with me is...Oh, heehee. Ain't I cute?
But then we move to melodrama.
When you get death threats and hate mail, you never get used to hearing that someone wishes you were dead.Oh, give me a fuckin' break. While I believe she gets death threats and hate mail, I don't believe for a second you can reasonably compare KO's remarks to such. Come on. The guy's a tool, but he's also just a mouth and everyone knows it. Besides, he didn't wish her dead... he wished she'd never been born. Not the same thing.
No one is going to be surprised to learn that Keith Olbermann is incredibly misogynistic and has huge problems with women.Noooo. But some folks might be surprised to learn that a supposed writer doesn't know that "has huge problems with women" is pretty much the definition of the word "misogynistic". Wonder if she knows the definition of "redundant"?
She goes on to lament that Olbermann would
...spew that kind of vile in a public forum...I guess she needs the definition of "vile" as well. (Hint, punkin'... it ain't a noun.)
She also mentions her mother's defense, which most adults might be embarrassed by.
And it involved my mom, most importantly, who was kind enough to address a letter to him on the Blaze because I didn't really have the stomach for it yesterday. She had no problem, let me tell you.Maybe she had no problem with it, but aren't you grown? As a supposedly mature, professional adult, is it appropriate to send a note from your mommy when things get all icky?
Back to the melodrama...
...it was really gross, and unfortunately a kind of a sad and scary moment...Gross? Scary? My head hurts. But she keeps talking.
I'm just gonna put it out there - he better hope nothing happens to me in the next few days or else he's gonna get a wrath (rash?) of hell rained down upon him...Oh, lady, are you shitting me?! If something happens to you... Give me a break. Are you almost finished?
Ooop. Turns out she is. Just this one last little tidbit to share.
It would be really nice if some groups like Planned Parenthood or NOW or some of the feminist groups would sort of come out and say that we reject this kind of invective...WHY?! Why do you need liberal women's group to speak out? Would that make it less gross or scary? Who gives a shit where they stand? You know they don't stand for you!
I know... it's probably sarcasm. (Let's hope... but I suspect that might be giving her too much credit.) Still, why even go there?
My opinion?
She's gonna milk this sucker for all it's worth (which is already far more than it should have been), and stretch it into as much publicity as she can.
A more appropriate response would have been to shrug it off with a "consider the source" and a grin, while reminding all the concerned conservatives she's made of tougher stuff.
Unless she isn't.
In which case she should take her purse and go home.
Eeeeek! Yucky Meat Pictures!
Oh, this is funny.
A vegan website has a rant up about VegNews magazine running pictures of... wait for it...
ZOMG MEAT!!!1!11!
Hooboy. My belly hurts from laughing.
Now, I've never treated the vegans with anything other than... ok, with mockery, disrespect and more mockery.
(In fact, I've gone farther than that on multiple occasions.)
But while I don't share their compunctions about animal-based protein, I could at least grasp why they choose to abstain from eating it.
But now they're too delicate to even look at it?
Oh, good grief.
The controversy stems from the fact that the magazine is photoshopping pictures of meat to make it look like meat-alternatives. (There's a gross euphemism for ya. "Meat alternative". Blech.)
Anyway, the vegans-with-the-vapors can't comprehend why a magazine (which relies heavily on attractive visuals, natch) wouldn't show actual vegan dishes.
Uh... I have a theory.
Maybe it's because while veggies look beautiful when fresh, whole and colorful... once you whup them up into a vegan meal, the result looks kinda like a bowl of vomit.
Just sayin'.
---
UPDATE: Oh fer cryin' out loud. Now this is big news, too?
A vegan website has a rant up about VegNews magazine running pictures of... wait for it...
ZOMG MEAT!!!1!11!
Hooboy. My belly hurts from laughing.
Now, I've never treated the vegans with anything other than... ok, with mockery, disrespect and more mockery.
(In fact, I've gone farther than that on multiple occasions.)
But while I don't share their compunctions about animal-based protein, I could at least grasp why they choose to abstain from eating it.
But now they're too delicate to even look at it?
Oh, good grief.
The controversy stems from the fact that the magazine is photoshopping pictures of meat to make it look like meat-alternatives. (There's a gross euphemism for ya. "Meat alternative". Blech.)
Anyway, the vegans-with-the-vapors can't comprehend why a magazine (which relies heavily on attractive visuals, natch) wouldn't show actual vegan dishes.
Uh... I have a theory.
Maybe it's because while veggies look beautiful when fresh, whole and colorful... once you whup them up into a vegan meal, the result looks kinda like a bowl of vomit.
Just sayin'.
---
UPDATE: Oh fer cryin' out loud. Now this is big news, too?
Olbermann, Cupp, and the Necessity of Thicker Skin
From the department of "Why is this news?"
No... nobody called Sarah Palin a vulgarism for female genitalia again. Yet.
But the situation - and the reaction - are similar, and it further demonstrates that not only are some conservatives guilty of reverse sexism, but that they need to get a grip.
Yesterday Keith Olbermann tweeted the following about conservative cutie-pie columnist SE Cupp:
This morning, it's at the top of Memeorandum, with links to coverage all over the place. The Blaze, JWF, Mr. G's, Mediaite, Newsbusters, PajamasMedia, IOwnTheWorld...
See what I mean?
I repeat my question: Why is this news?
Reading the posts above, the general reaction seems to be two-part. First, who would ever say (tweet - whatever) such a thing?! And second, a whole lotta references to Ms. Cupp's gender and appearance.
Let's take 'em one at a time.
First, a lot of people say things like that. The Urban Dictionary defines "Abortion Poster Child" because it has entered the vernacular as an effective insult. (And interestingly, at least one commenter at the sites listed above made remarks along the lines that the best part of ol' Olby ran down his mom's leg. How is that remotely different from KO's snark?)
Is it tasteless? Sure. The best insults often are. But unheard of? Not hardly.
But I gotta say, the bigger deal to me is the second part of the conservative response...
In my humble opinion, conservatism is supposed to embrace true equality. Not the equality of liberalism, where to be "equal" you must be artificially elevated and protected, but actually treating people the same regardless of their group or gripe. No class warfare, no victim status, no special treatment for special groups...
So you'll have to forgive me if I think demanding kid gloves treatment for conservative women is damn nearly offensive.
The idea that Sarah Palin might be tough enough for public office and international affairs while still being such a delicate flower that she'll wilt in the presence of profanity is nonsense. (The very fact that grown adults are reduced to euphemisms like "the c-word" is also nonsense, but that's a whole 'nother post.)
Yet when it hit the news, even a lib I know fell back on "But she's someone's wife... daughter... mother...!"
Yeah? So?
She's also fair game.
So is Ms. Cupp.
Why would I write that? How could I be so callous and low? It's very, very simple.
This is America. I treasure the right to say what I think about the President (all of 'em, not just this one), Congress, the media, sports stars, the cast of Jersey Shore... you get the idea.
I refuse to set aside roughly half the population of the world as untouchable simply because they have breasts. Period.
Following the new rules, I can't even bash Pelosi anymore!
Oh, wait... I forgot something. The other bit of outrage (part 2b, if you will) is specific references to Ms. Cupp's physical appearance.
So, we can insult ugly liberal women? Is that the deal?
Nonsense.
If these women want to step on the public stage, they'd better be ready to give as good as they get. (In fairness, I did like Palin's reaction to Maher... a kind of "sticks and stones" mentality, while dishing it right back. Well done! Cupp not only seemed more affected, she actually dragged her mommy into the fight. If you ever catch me having my mother guest blog to defend me from the meanies, come slap the crap out of me. Seriously.)
And if conservatives want conservative women in office and the media to be taken seriously, they'd better stop pretending that those women are on a pedestal, above insult and innuendo. This is America, remember? If you're on the stage, you'd better learn to duck the occasional rotten tomato... because we're all critics here.
And that's exactly as it should be.
----
Cross-posted at RepublicanRedefined.
----
UPDATE: I ain't done.
No... nobody called Sarah Palin a vulgarism for female genitalia again. Yet.
But the situation - and the reaction - are similar, and it further demonstrates that not only are some conservatives guilty of reverse sexism, but that they need to get a grip.
Yesterday Keith Olbermann tweeted the following about conservative cutie-pie columnist SE Cupp:
On so many levels, she's a perfect example of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does. RT @meow_6 #wo... http://tl.gd/9rivj3
This morning, it's at the top of Memeorandum, with links to coverage all over the place. The Blaze, JWF, Mr. G's, Mediaite, Newsbusters, PajamasMedia, IOwnTheWorld...
See what I mean?
I repeat my question: Why is this news?
Reading the posts above, the general reaction seems to be two-part. First, who would ever say (tweet - whatever) such a thing?! And second, a whole lotta references to Ms. Cupp's gender and appearance.
Let's take 'em one at a time.
First, a lot of people say things like that. The Urban Dictionary defines "Abortion Poster Child" because it has entered the vernacular as an effective insult. (And interestingly, at least one commenter at the sites listed above made remarks along the lines that the best part of ol' Olby ran down his mom's leg. How is that remotely different from KO's snark?)
Is it tasteless? Sure. The best insults often are. But unheard of? Not hardly.
But I gotta say, the bigger deal to me is the second part of the conservative response...
In my humble opinion, conservatism is supposed to embrace true equality. Not the equality of liberalism, where to be "equal" you must be artificially elevated and protected, but actually treating people the same regardless of their group or gripe. No class warfare, no victim status, no special treatment for special groups...
So you'll have to forgive me if I think demanding kid gloves treatment for conservative women is damn nearly offensive.
The idea that Sarah Palin might be tough enough for public office and international affairs while still being such a delicate flower that she'll wilt in the presence of profanity is nonsense. (The very fact that grown adults are reduced to euphemisms like "the c-word" is also nonsense, but that's a whole 'nother post.)
Yet when it hit the news, even a lib I know fell back on "But she's someone's wife... daughter... mother...!"
Yeah? So?
She's also fair game.
So is Ms. Cupp.
Why would I write that? How could I be so callous and low? It's very, very simple.
This is America. I treasure the right to say what I think about the President (all of 'em, not just this one), Congress, the media, sports stars, the cast of Jersey Shore... you get the idea.
I refuse to set aside roughly half the population of the world as untouchable simply because they have breasts. Period.
Following the new rules, I can't even bash Pelosi anymore!
Oh, wait... I forgot something. The other bit of outrage (part 2b, if you will) is specific references to Ms. Cupp's physical appearance.
So, we can insult ugly liberal women? Is that the deal?
Nonsense.
If these women want to step on the public stage, they'd better be ready to give as good as they get. (In fairness, I did like Palin's reaction to Maher... a kind of "sticks and stones" mentality, while dishing it right back. Well done! Cupp not only seemed more affected, she actually dragged her mommy into the fight. If you ever catch me having my mother guest blog to defend me from the meanies, come slap the crap out of me. Seriously.)
And if conservatives want conservative women in office and the media to be taken seriously, they'd better stop pretending that those women are on a pedestal, above insult and innuendo. This is America, remember? If you're on the stage, you'd better learn to duck the occasional rotten tomato... because we're all critics here.
And that's exactly as it should be.
----
Cross-posted at RepublicanRedefined.
----
UPDATE: I ain't done.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Bad Day
Today sucks.
I'm in a "Fuck You!" mood.
Suck day. Shit day. Thank whoever that I carry plenty of pissed off music on my MP3, so I had a portable soundtrack for my bad day....
"GIVE ME SOMETHIN' TO BREAK! HOW 'BOUT YOUR FUCKIN' FACE?!"
No? How 'bout this one?
"STILL FEEL IT ALL SLIPPING AWAY, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE! EVERYBODY'S STILL CHIPPING AWAY, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE!"
I'm in a "Fuck You!" mood.
Suck day. Shit day. Thank whoever that I carry plenty of pissed off music on my MP3, so I had a portable soundtrack for my bad day....
"GIVE ME SOMETHIN' TO BREAK! HOW 'BOUT YOUR FUCKIN' FACE?!"
No? How 'bout this one?
"STILL FEEL IT ALL SLIPPING AWAY, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE! EVERYBODY'S STILL CHIPPING AWAY, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE!"
No?
Ah, well then... Fuck you, too.
I need a drink.
Friday, April 8, 2011
NRO - Not Reporting Objectively?
Now Re-editing Outrageously?
Never Remember Offensiveness?
Nimrod Reporter Obfuscates?
Well, I thought NRO meant National Review Online.
Whatever it means, I believe from here forward I'll take anything they publish with a grain (or maybe a shaker) of salt.
Here's the deal:
On April 4, Robert Costa at NRO published an interview with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-evolting, SC) who wanted to clarify his utterly gawd-awful remarks on limiting free speech from the day before. You remember. He said:
to borrow a shovel to clarify his remarks. He said (among other things):
This is where it gets interesting.
After being linked by several other sites, including Hot Air and Reason, Costa went back and changed his piece. Now the interview reads (emphasis mine):
Excuse me?
What the hell happened here?
Well, according to Costa, there was a transcription error. He was befuddled by the Senator's southern accent and misheard. He corrected his error by changing the word (and adding brackets - flashy!) and including this at the end of his piece:
Now, I'm not a reporter. Hell, I don't even play one on TV. But I spend an inordinate amount of my time reading the news. I have never seen a "correction" handled in this fashion. Nevah!
In fact, the only times I've seen brackets within a quote is when the writers/editors are clarifying something... and in those cases the brackets specifically denote that the wording is not a direct quote. (For the record, I checked with an actual newspaper reporter of my acquaintance who concurs.)
I call bullshit.
And I'm not the only one. From the comments on the Reason article:
Nailed it in one.
I have a thing for accents. I love them, and it doesn't much matter what kind. (Except my own... which draws comments every time I speak to someone new. They always want to know what kind of accent it is. I dunno... hillbilly, I guess.) Anyway, I've listened intently to the music in others' speech all my life. I can not think of - or mimic - a single accent that turns "condemn" into "ban". Try it. Go on. Put on your best southern-fried and try it... No one can hear you. Probably.
The hard "d" in condemn wrecks it every time.
Furthermore, Graham's accent is mild. Here's the video of his original remarks to Bob Schieffer:
Are we seriously supposed to believe that that little bit o' nothin' twang is unintelligible?
At best, we can question NRO's correction policies, which is an amusing endeavor on its own. See, I searched the site for their correction policy. While I didn't find one, I did find a whole list of articles where they hammer other media outlets over sub par policy. That lovely list produced this little gem in a Donald Luskin piece celebrating the fact that NRO had succeeded in getting no less than the NYTimes to change their policy. Luskin rejoices:
Heh.
Mind you, that quote was about the NYT's editorial page. Maybe NRO doesn't think it's important to hold straight reporters to the same standards.
But I did say that was an "at best" assumption. There's also an "at worst".
Maybe Senator Graham misquoted General Petraeus and the National Review is engaged in a little butt-covering on the Senator's behalf.
It is decidedly strange that Costa would go back after his piece was posted - and linked! - and relisten to the interview. Shouldn't he have done that before putting his (and Graham's) words on the worldwide web? Does he not realize that the old carpenters' motto of "measure twice, cut once" applies to much of life?
Does he not know (as even a humble blogger does) that you don't attribute a quote you aren't 100% certain of? And that (as even the same humble blogger knows) you don't correct a misquote by putting it in brackets and then not mentioning the fact that you screwed up?!
His "correction" doesn't say that he misquoted Graham. It simply says the article was amended. That could mean anything.
I don't like this. It's so fishy I wish we still had a government website for fishiness. (OK, not really.) But something stinks.
Mr. Costa, release the damn tape. If you did make a transcription error, you owe Graham more than the half-assed "correction" you offered. You owe him an apology.
And if it wasn't a transcription error, you owe your readers an apology.
Until the recording (and a better explanation) is offered up, I'm going to view NRO's reporting about the same way I view Bat Boy reporting from the Weekly World News...
Which is to say, with extreme prejudice and a near-total lack of belief.
---
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined
Never Remember Offensiveness?
Nimrod Reporter Obfuscates?
Well, I thought NRO meant National Review Online.
Whatever it means, I believe from here forward I'll take anything they publish with a grain (or maybe a shaker) of salt.
Here's the deal:
On April 4, Robert Costa at NRO published an interview with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-evolting, SC) who wanted to clarify his utterly gawd-awful remarks on limiting free speech from the day before. You remember. He said:
"I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war."And then he was shocked (shocked!) to realize that ordinary Americans were outraged at his lack of comprehension when it comes to the Constitution. So, apparently as ignorant of "The First Rule of Holes" as he is of basic American principles, Graham called Costa
"General Petraeus sent a statement out to all news organizations yesterday, urging our government to ban Koran burning. Free speech probably allows that, but I don’t like that."
This is where it gets interesting.
After being linked by several other sites, including Hot Air and Reason, Costa went back and changed his piece. Now the interview reads (emphasis mine):
General Petraeus sent a statement out to all news organizations yesterday, urging our government to [condemn] Koran burning. Free speech probably allows that, but I don’t like that.
Excuse me?
What the hell happened here?
Well, according to Costa, there was a transcription error. He was befuddled by the Senator's southern accent and misheard. He corrected his error by changing the word (and adding brackets - flashy!) and including this at the end of his piece:
"EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been amended since its original posting."
Now, I'm not a reporter. Hell, I don't even play one on TV. But I spend an inordinate amount of my time reading the news. I have never seen a "correction" handled in this fashion. Nevah!
In fact, the only times I've seen brackets within a quote is when the writers/editors are clarifying something... and in those cases the brackets specifically denote that the wording is not a direct quote. (For the record, I checked with an actual newspaper reporter of my acquaintance who concurs.)
I call bullshit.
And I'm not the only one. From the comments on the Reason article:
"Fishy. That's not plausibly a transcribing error, so either NRO intentionally misquoted him or they're covering his ass."
Nailed it in one.
I have a thing for accents. I love them, and it doesn't much matter what kind. (Except my own... which draws comments every time I speak to someone new. They always want to know what kind of accent it is. I dunno... hillbilly, I guess.) Anyway, I've listened intently to the music in others' speech all my life. I can not think of - or mimic - a single accent that turns "condemn" into "ban". Try it. Go on. Put on your best southern-fried and try it... No one can hear you. Probably.
The hard "d" in condemn wrecks it every time.
Furthermore, Graham's accent is mild. Here's the video of his original remarks to Bob Schieffer:
Are we seriously supposed to believe that that little bit o' nothin' twang is unintelligible?
At best, we can question NRO's correction policies, which is an amusing endeavor on its own. See, I searched the site for their correction policy. While I didn't find one, I did find a whole list of articles where they hammer other media outlets over sub par policy. That lovely list produced this little gem in a Donald Luskin piece celebrating the fact that NRO had succeeded in getting no less than the NYTimes to change their policy. Luskin rejoices:
No longer will the columnists be responsible for running their own corrections, appended as end-notes to their columns (or snuck into the main text so they don’t look like corrections at all).
Heh.
Mind you, that quote was about the NYT's editorial page. Maybe NRO doesn't think it's important to hold straight reporters to the same standards.
But I did say that was an "at best" assumption. There's also an "at worst".
Maybe Senator Graham misquoted General Petraeus and the National Review is engaged in a little butt-covering on the Senator's behalf.
It is decidedly strange that Costa would go back after his piece was posted - and linked! - and relisten to the interview. Shouldn't he have done that before putting his (and Graham's) words on the worldwide web? Does he not realize that the old carpenters' motto of "measure twice, cut once" applies to much of life?
Does he not know (as even a humble blogger does) that you don't attribute a quote you aren't 100% certain of? And that (as even the same humble blogger knows) you don't correct a misquote by putting it in brackets and then not mentioning the fact that you screwed up?!
His "correction" doesn't say that he misquoted Graham. It simply says the article was amended. That could mean anything.
I don't like this. It's so fishy I wish we still had a government website for fishiness. (OK, not really.) But something stinks.
Mr. Costa, release the damn tape. If you did make a transcription error, you owe Graham more than the half-assed "correction" you offered. You owe him an apology.
And if it wasn't a transcription error, you owe your readers an apology.
Until the recording (and a better explanation) is offered up, I'm going to view NRO's reporting about the same way I view Bat Boy reporting from the Weekly World News...
Which is to say, with extreme prejudice and a near-total lack of belief.
---
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Don't Shoot Shoot Shoot That Thing At Me
Today's earworm, courtesy of the Violent Femmes.
No... not a bunch of pissed off drag queens. These guys:
During the last really bad storm (when the precipitation looked like the stuff in a Slush Puppy machine) it was wicked out. Absolutely treacherous. A semi jack-knifed right (like 50 feet) in front of me. It was the worst weather I can remember driving in.
Yet Spawn and I were on the roads. Sliding, spinning, laughing like escaped mental patients... and listening to "Add It Up" at top volume as we tempted the grim reaper.
Dunno why it's stuck in my head today. But it is.
Now I wanna do donuts.
No... not a bunch of pissed off drag queens. These guys:
During the last really bad storm (when the precipitation looked like the stuff in a Slush Puppy machine) it was wicked out. Absolutely treacherous. A semi jack-knifed right (like 50 feet) in front of me. It was the worst weather I can remember driving in.
Yet Spawn and I were on the roads. Sliding, spinning, laughing like escaped mental patients... and listening to "Add It Up" at top volume as we tempted the grim reaper.
Dunno why it's stuck in my head today. But it is.
Now I wanna do donuts.
Friday, April 1, 2011
WyBlog to acquire The New York Times in stock swap deal
In a blogging move that makes the highly successful "Underpants Gnome Business Plan" look like amateur hour, Chris Wysocki of WyBlog has orchestrated a deal to acquire the now-languishing-behind-a-paywall New York Times in a stock trade.
Readers who've been put off by the NYT's newly enacted demand for money will be happy to learn that Wysocki has a better plan:
Head to WyBlog for the whole story, and congratulate him on this blogging coup.
We'll be able to say, "We knew him when..."
Readers who've been put off by the NYT's newly enacted demand for money will be happy to learn that Wysocki has a better plan:
"Pay for my beer and I'll let you in behind the wall," Wysocki said. "Hell, pay for any right-of-center blogger's beer and you're in like Flynn."And in addition to weeding out the entrenched liberal reporters ("I went down to the parking garage and fired everybody whose car had an Obama bumper sticker on it. And for the 20 or so cars with Kerry/Edwards stickers, those guys I shot on sight."), he's looking for new writing talent ("Everyone on my blogroll is encouraged to apply," Wysocki said. "You're pretty much guaranteed a job so long as you link this post.")
Head to WyBlog for the whole story, and congratulate him on this blogging coup.
We'll be able to say, "We knew him when..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
