One of the many stories reporting on this
In case you've been living under a rock and haven't heard, the lovely Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, recently took her family on down to New York city. This is a special occasion because not only does it allow the Palin the opportunity to crawl outside of her hate cave and bask in the sun, it also allows for her to get some much needed media attention. See, Palin isn't a "real" political figure. She's not someone like Nancy Pelosi where the media constantly ask her opinion on issues occurring in congress or just in general (I don't mean to imply that Pelosi is a "better" representative, simply that the media and people and general seek her out for comment). No, Palin is very much a political figure in the Anne Coulter model, where she's basically off the news and off peoples radar unless she's saying something that is A) Inflammatory B) Hateful C) Mindblowingly stupid D) All of the above. Only during these times of fervor does anyone even know she exists, and Palin wasn't about to pass up the opportunity to make New York one of those times.
But how? How do you manage to make news out of nothing? For you or I it may seem impossible but not for someone with handlers as talented as Mrs. Palin. A comment made by David Letterman of "David Letterman's increasingly unfunny show" was the key. During his standard monologue Letterman talked about the trip and the family attending a Yankee's game noting, "There was one awkward moment during the seventh inning stretch. Her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez". Any rational human being would figure he must be talking about Bristol Palin, Sarah's 18 year old daughter, gangster partier and unwed mother. But not Sarah Palin! Oh no, she saw right through that obvious joke about her knocked up and unwed daughter and clearly found Letterman's intended target, her 14 year old daughter Willow!
Again, you or I may sit back and go, "why on earth would you assume Letterman was talking about her 14 year old daughter and not her 18 year old daughter who's already been pregnant?" Well, because making something inflammatory is one of Palin's four ways of getting news and boy, she was in rare form about it. Palin claimed that Letterman's comments caused everything from teen image problems (I'm sure a ton of teens have gone, "I'm too fat, if I don't lose weight A-Rod is gonna knock me up!") to statutory rape. Palin says Letterman should be ashamed and that this is an example of the double standard set by media.
Palin wants to claim when Obama said, "leave my family out of this" everyone bowed to his will, but they surely couldn't do that to the republican's. Yeah, the evil media knocked your daughter up, drug her baby's dad (and then fiance) to the Republican National Convention, then made him not marry her and then made Bristol come out and say abstinence may not work (side note: DUH!). What exactly would the media have done if they went after the Obama family? His kids aren't even both teenagers yet. You'd look like a hell of a crack reporter hanging out by an elementary school, seeing how many milks a kid drank.
While we're on the topic of the "double standard" let's talk about Palin's comment that, "It would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman". This could be read several ways, however, when Palin was on the Today Show and that comment was read, she delivered what can only be called "The Palin Smirk". I'm sure you've seen it. It's not her "smile for the camera" face. It's the "I just said something that my writers told me was really witty and I feel so smart" face. Here's a couple of examples (1) (2) (3). Those aren't the best but pretty much watch anytime she's on TV it'll happen at least once and it's usually after something that's A) insulting B) Super Folksy C)Really awkward out of her mouth D) All of those. Anyhow, that little smirk made the intention perfectly clear and that was, "I just made a joke about David Letterman trying to rape my daughter, tee-he". Not only does this CONTINUE her misunderstanding of the original joke, but it also makes her just as bad (if not worse) than she claims David Letterman is. So, it's wrong for someone to make a joke about your 18 year old, daughter who has a kid but it's okay for you to insinuate that a 62 year old married man with a son, is a statutory rapist?
Double standard ineed.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Newt should know better....
Some original content
So, if you haven't heard by now, at some point, at some time Supreme Court Justice nominee (and god willing appointee [omg, I'm biased!]) Sonia Sotomayor said something along the lines of, "I feel my experience as a Latino Woman, can lead to me being a better judge than a white male". I'm sure she had no idea the shit storm that would ensue after that.
Everyone with an ounce of pull in that old, bitter, republican corpse jumped to life and screamed that this woman must be racist. Well...Everyone who didn't have an elected position. Newt Gingrich (former speaker of the House and all around douche) offered this insight, "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism". Yes Newt, let's imagine. Let's imagine a world where for years and years the decisions impacting peoples everyday lives were left to white males. A situation where white males decided on racial discrimination, immigration, abortion and a number of other issues they've never dealt with first hand. Oh wait, that's a majority of America's Supreme Court for the entirety of its existence.
Old, white males are the ones who seem to believe they know the most about abortion, gay rights, even immigration. Until recently, old, white, men were also our only presidents. White guys had/have a monopoly on our laws, our elections and our judicial process. By refusing anyone else the right to take place in that process you're basically saying, "a white guy knows best". Maybe, Newt and Rush and all those other dicks are too scared to say it but by bringing up such a petty quote by Sotomayor highlights that you got nothing else to cling to but your petty racist ideals. For decades the practice has been "whitey knows best" now someone even proposes the theory that someone might know better than a white male and they're called a racist.
But then again, maybe I'm misreading it. I mean, if whitey knows best, they don't come any more white, male or scared to death of minorities than Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh...They must be like the all knowing gods of their world.
So, if you haven't heard by now, at some point, at some time Supreme Court Justice nominee (and god willing appointee [omg, I'm biased!]) Sonia Sotomayor said something along the lines of, "I feel my experience as a Latino Woman, can lead to me being a better judge than a white male". I'm sure she had no idea the shit storm that would ensue after that.
Everyone with an ounce of pull in that old, bitter, republican corpse jumped to life and screamed that this woman must be racist. Well...Everyone who didn't have an elected position. Newt Gingrich (former speaker of the House and all around douche) offered this insight, "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism". Yes Newt, let's imagine. Let's imagine a world where for years and years the decisions impacting peoples everyday lives were left to white males. A situation where white males decided on racial discrimination, immigration, abortion and a number of other issues they've never dealt with first hand. Oh wait, that's a majority of America's Supreme Court for the entirety of its existence.
Old, white males are the ones who seem to believe they know the most about abortion, gay rights, even immigration. Until recently, old, white, men were also our only presidents. White guys had/have a monopoly on our laws, our elections and our judicial process. By refusing anyone else the right to take place in that process you're basically saying, "a white guy knows best". Maybe, Newt and Rush and all those other dicks are too scared to say it but by bringing up such a petty quote by Sotomayor highlights that you got nothing else to cling to but your petty racist ideals. For decades the practice has been "whitey knows best" now someone even proposes the theory that someone might know better than a white male and they're called a racist.
But then again, maybe I'm misreading it. I mean, if whitey knows best, they don't come any more white, male or scared to death of minorities than Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh...They must be like the all knowing gods of their world.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
It may be separate, but it's equal...right?
The original release
In a move that should surprise nobody, the California Supreme Court pulled what can only go down in history as "the ultimate bitch move". The court managed to fail both supporters of proposition 8 and rational, logical people who don't feed on hate. The court decided to uphold Prop. 8 (basically saying that a good 52% of the California population are smart enough to make laws) and allow the gay marriages that took place before the passing of Prop. 8 to stand (basically saying, "it's cool to be gay, as long as you act swiftly").
But saying, "gay marriage isn't okay, but it is," is really only the beginning of this cop out. In the offical release regarding the decision the court noted , "that the scope of Proposition 8 is narrow, limited solely to restricting the use of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples, while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples described in its earlier opinion in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757." Hey Brown, listen, this is just education we're talking about. It's one aspect of your life, it's not the whole thing. Besides you got this whole separate, but equal school over here that you can go to.
Apparently, the California Supreme Court feels that it's okay to discriminate against a minority group, as long as a majority of the population feels the same way. However, both sides swear this is not the end of their war and promise to meet their ultimate goal of either eliminating segregation or "killing all them thar queers". In the meantime, thank god that we have a bevy of 50/50 successful straight marriages to fall back on.
In a move that should surprise nobody, the California Supreme Court pulled what can only go down in history as "the ultimate bitch move". The court managed to fail both supporters of proposition 8 and rational, logical people who don't feed on hate. The court decided to uphold Prop. 8 (basically saying that a good 52% of the California population are smart enough to make laws) and allow the gay marriages that took place before the passing of Prop. 8 to stand (basically saying, "it's cool to be gay, as long as you act swiftly").
But saying, "gay marriage isn't okay, but it is," is really only the beginning of this cop out. In the offical release regarding the decision the court noted , "that the scope of Proposition 8 is narrow, limited solely to restricting the use of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples, while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples described in its earlier opinion in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757." Hey Brown, listen, this is just education we're talking about. It's one aspect of your life, it's not the whole thing. Besides you got this whole separate, but equal school over here that you can go to.
Apparently, the California Supreme Court feels that it's okay to discriminate against a minority group, as long as a majority of the population feels the same way. However, both sides swear this is not the end of their war and promise to meet their ultimate goal of either eliminating segregation or "killing all them thar queers". In the meantime, thank god that we have a bevy of 50/50 successful straight marriages to fall back on.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
If I get shot in a park, I'm blaming this fucker.
Bit of the original story
When was the last time you've been in a national park and thought, "man, my credit card rate is insane AND I wish I could carry a loaded Desert Eagle in my waistband..right now!" Unless you bank at that backwater shit shed featured in Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine, probably never. However, that's exactly what Senator Tom Coburn must have been thinking when he championed tying a bill that allows the carrying of a loaded and concealed weapon inside of U.S. National parks to the amazingly popular credit card reform measure.
Just so you're clear, one piece panders to gun lobbyist (one of the oldest and scariest lobbies) and one panders to many American's who have had their rates unfairly raised by credit card companies. One, "forbids rate increases on existing balances unless consumers are at least 60 days late paying their bill or the initial rate was a promotional rate that has expired, and requires 45 days' notice to raise rates". The other, allows you to take your Glock into Jellystone incase anyone fucks with your pick'a'nic basket.
While they were voted on separately in the senate both were bound together when they were put before President Obama, who has already said he'll sign the credit card bill with the attached gun measure. While this is a huge disappointment for a candidate who ran on gun reform, it's also an understandable political move. If he refused to sign the bill because of the gun provision, Obama would be stalling an action that many Americans are looking for. Even people who support gun control would probably press the issue, simply because the credit card bill is so central right now.
Of course, all this leaves those of us with good credit and a fear of getting shot by a hillbilly river rafter, out in the cold.
When was the last time you've been in a national park and thought, "man, my credit card rate is insane AND I wish I could carry a loaded Desert Eagle in my waistband..right now!" Unless you bank at that backwater shit shed featured in Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine, probably never. However, that's exactly what Senator Tom Coburn must have been thinking when he championed tying a bill that allows the carrying of a loaded and concealed weapon inside of U.S. National parks to the amazingly popular credit card reform measure.
Just so you're clear, one piece panders to gun lobbyist (one of the oldest and scariest lobbies) and one panders to many American's who have had their rates unfairly raised by credit card companies. One, "forbids rate increases on existing balances unless consumers are at least 60 days late paying their bill or the initial rate was a promotional rate that has expired, and requires 45 days' notice to raise rates". The other, allows you to take your Glock into Jellystone incase anyone fucks with your pick'a'nic basket.
While they were voted on separately in the senate both were bound together when they were put before President Obama, who has already said he'll sign the credit card bill with the attached gun measure. While this is a huge disappointment for a candidate who ran on gun reform, it's also an understandable political move. If he refused to sign the bill because of the gun provision, Obama would be stalling an action that many Americans are looking for. Even people who support gun control would probably press the issue, simply because the credit card bill is so central right now.
Of course, all this leaves those of us with good credit and a fear of getting shot by a hillbilly river rafter, out in the cold.
At least there wasn't any swearing.
The original story
Apparently, it's a great time to live in the US. In a time of great economic prosperity, a surplus of funding for our public schools and health care so comprehensive every single citizen of the United States is covered for life, the Republican part has little more to pass petty, partisan resolutions regarding their opposing parties moniker. There is so little to actually do, that it seems like a good idea to actively peruse a resolution changing the name of the Democratic Party to the "Democrat Socialist Party".
That's right people. In a party that has stalled out on momentum and is currently residing on the sloth and short sightedness of it's far right base, it seems like a good idea to waste valuable time and energy trying to implement a scare tacit on the dominant party's name. Imagine the outrage that would have spurred up if even 4 years ago it was suggest we change the name to "The Republican Fascist Party" (even though imprisoning people for undetermined lengths for undefined crimes, warrant less wiretapping and baseless wars bordering on genocide are more in keeping with fascism than feeding and clothing your population are with socialism). Is this the "change" Michael Steele dared bolster and gloat about? Is this the Republican Party that's going to redefine politics and motivate America?
We're in the grips of one of the worst economic recessions in history with unemployment over 11% in some areas and all you can do is get together and go, "Those Democrats are stinky ol' socialists. We should change their name to the Democratic Socialist Party"? While you're at it, make sure to push Nancy Pelosi off the swings and throw James Clyburn's sandwich in the tanbark.
P.S. Oh, in the same meeting they decided to honor someone who helped start Reganomics and help spread the broad deregulation that got us in this economic shit sandwich. Way to go!
Apparently, it's a great time to live in the US. In a time of great economic prosperity, a surplus of funding for our public schools and health care so comprehensive every single citizen of the United States is covered for life, the Republican part has little more to pass petty, partisan resolutions regarding their opposing parties moniker. There is so little to actually do, that it seems like a good idea to actively peruse a resolution changing the name of the Democratic Party to the "Democrat Socialist Party".
That's right people. In a party that has stalled out on momentum and is currently residing on the sloth and short sightedness of it's far right base, it seems like a good idea to waste valuable time and energy trying to implement a scare tacit on the dominant party's name. Imagine the outrage that would have spurred up if even 4 years ago it was suggest we change the name to "The Republican Fascist Party" (even though imprisoning people for undetermined lengths for undefined crimes, warrant less wiretapping and baseless wars bordering on genocide are more in keeping with fascism than feeding and clothing your population are with socialism). Is this the "change" Michael Steele dared bolster and gloat about? Is this the Republican Party that's going to redefine politics and motivate America?
We're in the grips of one of the worst economic recessions in history with unemployment over 11% in some areas and all you can do is get together and go, "Those Democrats are stinky ol' socialists. We should change their name to the Democratic Socialist Party"? While you're at it, make sure to push Nancy Pelosi off the swings and throw James Clyburn's sandwich in the tanbark.
P.S. Oh, in the same meeting they decided to honor someone who helped start Reganomics and help spread the broad deregulation that got us in this economic shit sandwich. Way to go!
Monday, May 18, 2009
Obama's sweeping abortion reform
After facing many hostile pro-lifer's at his recent commencement speech for Notre Dame, President Obama has seen the light. In what Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is calling, "the most sweeping reform since Roe v. Wade", President Obama has devised a plan this is sure to "meet the moral demands of all those who respect the rights of America's unborn". Gibbs explained, "After seeing the passion and compassion demonstrated by the protesters, the President realized how much this issue meant to them and thus, decided to make a law that would meet all of their demands, in a way that would directly impact their constituency".
That's why the President is swiftly passing an executive order making it illegal for white males to obtain abortions. "We believe that if they feel so strongly about this issue, the government has no place to stand in their way, " Gibbs explained, "and hopefully this will put all those elderly, white men at ease".
However, the White House isn't foolhardy enough to forget about female pro-lifers, such as right wing support Ann Coulter. This has lead to the push of a future initiative that would also ban abortions for all women who are well past the age of menopause. Gibbs touched on the matter noting, "Hey, if a woman who physically can't get pregnant doesn't want to have the option of an abortion, why should we force it down' her throat?"
There is currently no word yet on plans to limit abortions for people who are unable to get pregnant due to sex changes or for people who are too unattractive to conceive.
That's why the President is swiftly passing an executive order making it illegal for white males to obtain abortions. "We believe that if they feel so strongly about this issue, the government has no place to stand in their way, " Gibbs explained, "and hopefully this will put all those elderly, white men at ease".
However, the White House isn't foolhardy enough to forget about female pro-lifers, such as right wing support Ann Coulter. This has lead to the push of a future initiative that would also ban abortions for all women who are well past the age of menopause. Gibbs touched on the matter noting, "Hey, if a woman who physically can't get pregnant doesn't want to have the option of an abortion, why should we force it down' her throat?"
There is currently no word yet on plans to limit abortions for people who are unable to get pregnant due to sex changes or for people who are too unattractive to conceive.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Well as long as it's really important...
So, unless you live in a world devoid of pop-culture (in which case I envy you) you've heard about Miss California, Carrie Prejean. During the Miss USA or Miss America or Miss Future Bang Box for Donald Trump (I don't recall which) Prejean was asked by judge, and tabloid blogger, Perez Hilton what she thought about gay marriage. This inspired a 10 minute long series of long winded explanations that basically stated, "I'm not for it". It's a fair question. This woman is supposed to be "Miss America" and represent our country and a lot of folks in our country are gay and probably don't want to be represented by someone who thinks they're less than human.
Understandably, she didn't win (who the fuck do you think watches beatuy pagents? Single dudes hanging out in bars? No, it's old bitter women who just pick appart the contestants and old queens, who do the same thing). That's the story, right? NO! It was just getting started. Christains claim she was chastized for having moral views, and the media (some say the liberal media) seemed to go on an all out witch hunt for this woman. Pictures of her in questionable outfits were posted, her family history revealed and Republican masturbator fodder Ann Coulter posted this letter, which in more than one place comes off as a little...well, gay.
In all of this people seem to be forgetting that this is over a god damn beauty pageant entry. She isn't deciding public policy, she's not going to teach your children and now she's not even going to represent America as the Donald Trump approved beauty queen. Everyone needs to get over this. To her supporters, she was going for a title that basically only means anything to dead inside middle America housewives, which is why she got as far as she did with the "no gay marriage" thing as she did (it's also why I'd imagine a good amount of politicians feel the same way, a small group of stupid but dedicated voters goes a long way, look at the NRA). To her critics, she didn't win. And even if she did, would we be any worse for the wear? Leave this girl alone, criticizing her only draws a more dedicated base of nuts, remember the unknown Alaskan Governor of '08?
Understandably, she didn't win (who the fuck do you think watches beatuy pagents? Single dudes hanging out in bars? No, it's old bitter women who just pick appart the contestants and old queens, who do the same thing). That's the story, right? NO! It was just getting started. Christains claim she was chastized for having moral views, and the media (some say the liberal media) seemed to go on an all out witch hunt for this woman. Pictures of her in questionable outfits were posted, her family history revealed and Republican masturbator fodder Ann Coulter posted this letter, which in more than one place comes off as a little...well, gay.
In all of this people seem to be forgetting that this is over a god damn beauty pageant entry. She isn't deciding public policy, she's not going to teach your children and now she's not even going to represent America as the Donald Trump approved beauty queen. Everyone needs to get over this. To her supporters, she was going for a title that basically only means anything to dead inside middle America housewives, which is why she got as far as she did with the "no gay marriage" thing as she did (it's also why I'd imagine a good amount of politicians feel the same way, a small group of stupid but dedicated voters goes a long way, look at the NRA). To her critics, she didn't win. And even if she did, would we be any worse for the wear? Leave this girl alone, criticizing her only draws a more dedicated base of nuts, remember the unknown Alaskan Governor of '08?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)