4/25/12 - Ann Romney Just Doesn't Get It

Photo of Ann Romney at the Reagan Dinner in Des Moines on October 27, 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And the Romney Gaffe Train just keeps on rolling.

Ann Romney has been riding high on the "War on Moms" idiocy being pushed by Republicans ever since Hillary Rosen criticized Ann Romney for weighing in on labor issues when "she has never worked a day in her life." Since then, she and the GOP have been pretending that Rosen's criticism was an attack on her being a stay-at-home-mother, instead of questioning her authority on workplace-related political issues, and taking every possible chance to remind people that she and Mitt squeezed out five kids, because Republicans love large families with lots of kids (as long as they aren't poor black families, mind you).

In her latest "I'm a Mom" interview, Ann started espousing the greatness that is her, and attempted to translate that into a knowledge of how the rest of the country exists, a sore spot for the Romney clan. Sure enough, instead of just keeping the point short and simple, Ann kept rattling in and blurted out this little gem:

“My hats off to the men in this room too that are raising kids — I love that, and I love the fact that there are also women out there that don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids.”

Ignoring the ludicrous implication that Ann Romney just LOVES the idea that some women are forced by economic hardship to both work full time and raise their children, one has to wonder if her LOVE of full-time employed men and women raising their children extends to single parents, whom the GOP has been attacking lately both verbally and politically, going as far as to propose legislation that would categorize single-parent households as a form of child abuse. Maybe she's just in LOVE with the romantic notion of a devoted parent having to work full-time in order to support their family while also raising it, but that more or less underlines the fact that the reason she might LOVE such a romanticized ideal of the working parent is that she's never actually had to be one herself.

How could somebody say such a ludicrous thing, that the LOVE the idea that people are working twice as hard to make ends meet? By the same logic, you might respond to criticism about having never suffered through chemotherapy yourself by saying that you LOVE that there are people out there fighting cancer. That can't be right, can it? Maybe we can give Ann the benefit of the doubt and just assume that she isn't really pandering to her husband's political base with every breath she takes. Then again, considering her track record of gaffes and unfortunate quotes, it's easier to assume that Ann is just as emotionally unattached as Mitt is to the real world that the majority of Americans live in.

The entire "War on Moms," of course, is a huge fabrication. The Republicans have spent months fighting back against the "War on Women" they were accused of waging, and accusation backed by their continued attempts to roll back abortion rights by demanding vaginal ultrasounds for potential patients, prevent medical coverage of contraception, and block legislation designed to ensure equal pay in the workforce. Their attempt to push the label back on the Dems in a classic "I'm Rubber/You're Glue" defense failed miserable

The key human element that the Romneys seem to be missing is humility. Any person with an ounce or two of humility or self awareness would know how to handle the growing implications that they are too rich to be in touch with Middle America. When confronted with this "Class Gap," Ann, for example, could have answered questions about their wealth as a barrier between them and Middle America by admitting that yes, they are extremely wealthy, but that they still have the same concerns about the government's policies that middle and lower class families have, and even though they haven't faced the same struggles as others having during this lengthy recession, they are still aware of these problems and want to solve them. Instead, she blurts out the inane rationalization "You know, we can be poor in spirit. I don't even consider myself as wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow." You can also be poor in basic comprehension of how you sound to others, which seems to be a malady shared by both Ann and Mitt, as they continue to whine to a population caught in stagnating wages and plummeting real estate values about hard it is to be so wealthy that you forget how many homes you own and need to have a costly elevator installed in your garage to accommodate your wife's fleet of Cadillacs. Life can be so hard, can't it?

Instead, they and other Republicans keep attempting to claim victim status, arguing that rich people are a minority being persecuted and discriminated against by the Occupy Movement and news coverage focusing on the wealthy. This defense must have sounded completely rational when it was brainstormed around a big conference table by people with six and seven-figure salaries, but it ignores the fact that persecution and discrimination are typically power-based actions leveled against the powerless by the powerful, so claiming that a minority of the population that owns a majority of the nation's wealth and resources is being victimized rings a bit hollow, especially when heard by people who have actually had to struggle against institutionalized persecution and discrimination throughout their lives.

Maybe that's why Ann LOVES working mothers and doesn't consider herself rich: because like Rosen pointed out, she hasn't had to work a single day in her life, and has no idea how hard it is to work full time and raise a family when money isn't an endless commodity for you.

Ann Romney Talks Motherhood, 'Emotionally Draining' Campaign:

'via Blog this'

Related articles

• Ann Romney: 'I Love The Fact That There Are Women Out There Who Don't Have A Choice' And 'Must Go To Work'
• "Life Isn't Easy for Any of Us": Ann Romney's Speech Raises Peril for Both Sides
• Rosen Attack On Ann Romney Not About Motherhood, But About Actual Jobs
• Romney: Welfare Moms Need 'Dignity of Work'
• "So Much For The Phony Outrage": Ann Romney Says Rosen's Attack Was A 'Gift,' 'I Loved It'

3/30/12 - Republicans Defend Racism and Trayvon Martin's Murder

Opposition poster for the 1866 election. Geary's opponent, Hiester Clymer, ran on a white supremacy platform. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So here we are again. As the old saying goes "The more things change, the more things stay the same." We are now living in a world most would have thought impossible a mere few decades ago, in which a black man holds the highest office in the land, the Presidency of the United States. It feels as if a new era is being ushered into American history, one that might be seen by Americans centuries from now as the dividing line between our racist, exploitative past and the enlightened legacy we invariably left behind.

But then an unarmed black teenager is shot dead by a non-black gun owner and law enforcement enthusiast, and Republicans immediately dust off their black canes and top hats and leap into their well-choreographed "It ain't us, it's them" song-and-dance routine. It's almost like they can't help themselves.

It's hard to explain or rationalize. There seems to be this inherent inability on the Right to be able to admit that racism exists anywhere in the country, in any form whatsoever. What's even more bizarre is that they always attempt to argue against the existence of racism by claiming that those who disagree with them are racist, proving once again that Republicans seem to inherently lack any real sense of irony.

Portrait of U.S. Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Take, for example, the comments by Tea Party favorite Rep. Joe 
Walsh (R-Ill.) in response to the controversy surrounding Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) appearing on the House floor in a Hoodie and quoting bible passages. Rush was speaking out in regards to what is now seen by many as the travesty of justice involving the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a young black man whose death was not fully investigated by police at the time, supposedly because the white man who shot him claimed self-defense, despite reasonable evidence to the contrary.

I will grant you that the House floor is technically not the place for activism. I say technically, because the House (and Senate, let's be fair) is regularly populated by whorish politicians who eagerly take the floor to push personal agendas motivated by either ideological biases or lobbyist dollars, often in defiance of public opinion and public interest. Rush's only real mistake in this case was incorporating a prop into his act that defied some dress code that Republicans will no doubt claim is mentioned somewhere in the constitution.

Now... it's bad enough that the Republican presiding over the chamber at the moment (Rep. Gregg Harper of Mississippi) had Rush removed from the floor despite the fact that he was reading quotes from the bible, something Republicans are usually all fighting for the right to do in government buildings. Angrily shouting down a fellow Representative for speaking out against the death of an innocent black child doesn't exactly help the GOP's public image when it comes to race relations. But then, just to make it clear that the Trayvon Martin incident isn't about race,

"I hope Congressman Rush will be as outraged with all of the black on black crime going on in the city of Chicago weekend after weekend," Walsh said. "This is where our outrage has got to be as well."

It's understandable that Walsh might try to indirectly defend the fatal shooting of children, considering how distasteful he seems to find paying the $117,000 he currently owes in late child support payments. It is quite possibly that Walsh actually hates all children, and not just his own. So it's feasible that this Republican Tea Party candidate (two groups not wholly unused to accusations of racism) wasn't even aware of how racist his argument against  Rush truly was.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It's a Republican argument (supposedly based in unshakable logic ) that has been around ever since Reagan's apocryphal (and racist) "Welfare Queens" argument that welfare needed to be eliminated not because they don't care about poor black people, but that poor black people are merely lazy freeloaders taking advantage of the white middle-class taxpayers who unwillingly pay into the Welfare System.

Now, Reagan didn't phrase it exactly that way; I'm merely translating what is obvious to anyone not self-deluded enough to see through the forced logic. The narrative the Republicans are constantly struggling to maintain is that there is no racism left in the world. That way, they can back racist legislation without having to explain how racist it really isn't, even though it is. If they admit that racism is still alive and well, for example, they will invariably have to also admit that disenfranchising black voters is actually a racist act, and not just an attempt to prevent voter fraud.

But the problem is that when you are trying to support a racist ideal is that your logic comes out all eschewed and invariably becomes racist itself. What Rep. Joe "Deadbeat Dad" Walsh is saying here is that his black colleague is out of line because he doesn't speak out against black-on-black violence. The implication here is that he is a hypocrite for singling out this case of a violent white man, because blacks are WAY more violent. He's also implying that a white man killing a black teenager shouldn't be such a big deal because black men kill black teenagers all the time, although in the case of the latter the police tend to actually investigate the incident.

Now, if you think I'm being unfair to Walsh (about his black-on-black violence comment, not the fact that he stiffed his ex-wife and children) and am merely twisting his words to make them sound illogical, try this: the next time a white person is killed by a black person, argue that it's not a big deal, because white-on-white violence happens all of the time. Doesn't work, does it? You know why? Because the outrage isn't about the random color of the two people involved. In the case of Trayvon Martin, the outrage is not that a white man chased down and shot an unarmed black teenager ostensibly because he looked "suspicious" (ie: Black), but that the shooting was not properly investigated by either the police or the media until nearly a month of grass-roots activism helped the case gain national attention. It is about a case of grave injustice that left a teenager dead and his killer uninvestigated or prosecuted. To reduce it to being just about a white-on-black killing is... wait for it... racist.

This "Don't blame us, blacks are even worse" argument comes full circle with the inevitable cries of "Reverse Racism." In this case, the white Republican complains that blacks aren't oppressed or persecuted at all, but instead it is those poor defenseless whites who own the majority of American wealth and control the majority of American power who are constantly discriminated against for being white. To put it another way, they defend their argument that there is no real racism in America anymore by claiming that they are the victims of racism. Makes perfect sense, no?

Hoodie (Photo credit: jollyUK)

Instead of taking apart this flawed logic (which is a lengthy enough argument in it's own right), look at the term they have dubbed this incessant whining about being discriminated against: "Reverse Racism." This term that the Right has coined exposes their blindness to the inherent racism involved in their argument. The word Racism does not mean "whites prejudice against black," it means a hatred or intolerance of another race. Doesn't matter what that race is, hating it for being just that is racism. "Reverse Racism," therefore, would actually be a lack of racism, or rather, loving somebody because of their race. With this in mind, tell me how these "There is no Racism in America" Republicans can make such a claim when they don't even know what the word Racism means? Or, to put it another way, believing that racism is just about blacks is... wait for it... racist.

Now, if you're a Republican reading this (the thought just made me giggle), save your indignation for someone who cares. Launching into the predictable "Oh Yeah, well Liberals blah blah blah" defense is a complete waste of time, and don't cry to me that I've unfairly branded you as a racist just because you're a Republican. Suck it up, call me a Reverse Racist, and go back to applauding Newt Gingrich for saying that child labor laws should be lifted so that underage black children can work as janitors in their own schools and learn how to be productive members of society. Besides, if you're really that offended, I can switch back to talking about how much Republicans hate women. There's plenty of supporting evidence there as well.

Related articles

• Why the Trayvon Martin killing isnt racist, its the truth. (youngliberalandfat.wordpress.com)
• On Trayvon. On the state of race in America (eturner7215.wordpress.com)
• Breitbart.com Commenters Spew Racist Hatred at Trayvon Martin (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Conservatives, Trying to Feel Better About Their Racism (crooksandliars.com)
• The Hooded Effect (com4609a.wordpress.com)

3/19/12 - Young Voters, Political Blogging, ASAP, and the War on Women

HUffpost: Mitt Romney Doesn't See How Young Voters 'Could Vote For A Democrat'

So, Mitt can't even begin to conceive how a young person in this day and age could consider voting for a Democratic Candidate. And you know what? I have to agree with him. Let's face it, the Democrats are completely out of touch with America's modern youth to such an extent that it is practically inconceivable that a young adult of voting age would somehow feel that the Democrats have their best interests in mind. That is, of course, unless that young person can't afford health care because of skyrocketing insurance premiums, can't afford to go to college due to skyrocketing tuition costs, has recently been called a slut an a whore by a GOP mouthpiece for using birth control, wants to retain their reproductive rights, is gay or has a friend or parent who is gay, masturbates to pornography, are non-Christian or Muslim, believes in Evolution, knows somebody who is unemployed, are still living with their parents, or has a family member or friend who is currently dependent on one of the many social programs that Republicans keep trying to abolish. But really, what are the odds of that?

*

In the past, I've done my best not too spend too much time on only politics. This is partly because this is not a political blog, and partly because I have so many interests other than politics. However, it is getting harder and harder to focus on anything else these days. Not only are we in a very politically volatile moment in our country's history (due in no small part to the biggest recession since the Great Depression while orchestrating wars in multiple countries with no clear strategy to speak of), but we are also in a weird era in which politics is rapidly becoming a parody itself. Honestly, how can an rational human being watch such jaw-dropping theatrics and not pause to remark on them? The Republican Party has decided to double down on its efforts to take back the White House by adopting political platforms that sound like Archie Bunker Soliloquies, while the Democratic White House spends most of its time doing its best to not look too liberal, which is no small feat in of itself.

Seriously, how am I expected not to comment on this stuff?

*

And now, a few words from Lee Camp.

*

If you use the term ASAP, be it in an email or on a post-it note, no matter what the circumstances, you are a complete and utter douche. Stop it.

*

The GOP has become an exercise in how not to carry on a logical debate. Take what many people are starting to frame as the Republican War on Women. Republican lawmakers have been stirring up their minority base of angry white men this election cycle (and attempting to distract from the slowly losing economic arguments against Obama) by focusing on anti-women legislation that feels like a retread of everything we've already gone through during the first half of the twentieth century. If they aren't demanding that women receive medically unnecessary ultrasounds before being allowed to have legally protected abortions in order to show them the error of their ways, they're fighting for the right of their employers to decide whether or not their medical insurance should include birth control coverage, and telling them to keep their legs closed if they don't like it.

Then, a law student who was blocked from testifying at a Republican-run Dog & Pony Show that birth control coverage is necessary by sharing a personal anecdote in which a fellow student died from her inability to afford prescription birth control medicines was called a slutty little whore who should film her sexual escapades for men to leer at if she expects them to pay for her sex pills by Republican mouth piece Rush Limbaugh. Needless to say, this (and the refusal of any Republican candidates or politicians to openly repudiate Rush's comments) proved to be the final straw for a lot of people who hadn't yet been drawn into the argument.

Naturally, the resulting claims that the GOP is waging a "War on Women" began to irritate the Right, and so they responded to the justified and wholly demonstrable label the same way that they always do: single out a Democrat who has done something vaguely similar and cry "But they did it, too!" Of course, it's kind of hard to find a Democratic politician who acts like a stereotypical misogynist from the 1940's, so the closest they could come was to complain that controversial political comedian Bill Maher, who recently donated one million dollars to the Democratic Campaign, called Sarah Palin naughty words not once, but twice!

Ignoring the fact that Maher's name-calling and Limbaugh's slander are incomparable (mainly because explaining the logic of this to Limbaugh Ditto-heads and Right Wing Loyalists is both exhausting and pointless), it's also plain to see that hanging their defense of a systematic attack on Women's Rights that have already been fought for and won in the past century on one comedian's foul mouth is a rather flimsy defense. So, what does the GOP do? They double-down on it in hopes of winning back female voters.

There! The Democrat Party is the true enemy of the lady folk! Bill Maher called Sarah Palin names and then donated money them, and somebody called Obama's White House a Boy's Club! That's far worse then our attempts to systematically erode a women's right to make decisions regarding her body without the government or her employer giving her permission to do so! Honest!

This is the kind of defense that only makes sense to you if you are desperate to find validation for your indefensible views.

Related articles

• David Axelrod To Erin Burnett: Maher Doesn't Play Same Role As GOP 'De Facto Boss' Rush Limbaugh (mediaite.com)
• CNN's Erin Burnett criticizes RNC ad (politico.com)
• The Bogus Rush Limbaugh / Bill Maher Comparison (polentical.com)

2/13: Duck Sauce, Paper Routes, Doppelgangers and Google

duck sauce SQ (Photo credit: wintersoul1)

While trading instant messages back and forth with my fellow employees the other day, I made a startling discovery upon sending the message "I'll take car of it, I'm all over it like Duck Sauce." Apparently, the 'U' and 'I' keys are far closer together than I previously suspected.

*

I received a reminder last week of just how desperate I had been to find an alternative to my previous job. A call came in on my cell while at my new job: it was from the Morning Call (a local newspaper), asking if I was still interested in a paper delivery route.

Have I mentioned that I love my new job?

*

I've decided to run for Mayor. I am going to run as two separate candidates, one Democrat, the other Republican. For one I will appear clean shaven and use my proper name; for the other, I will wear a large fake mustache and goatee, and reverse the order of my first and last names. Print advertising will be plentiful, and I will call impromptu press conferences frequently, during which I will always make slanderous accusations of my rival and openly challenge him to a public debate.

When canvasing towns for votes, I will go through a neighborhood ringing doorbells and answering questions as one candidate, then immediately circle through the same streets as the other and demand to know what attacks my opponent has been leveling at me. Whenever anybody points out that we look alike, I will take great offense and go on a lengthy diatribe about my opponents unsavory facial features and personal grooming habits.

On the night of the election, I will immediately call for a recount, claim rampant voter fraud, and immediately concede in disgust, vowing to never run again. Unless my opponent throws his hat into the ring again, of course.

*

I refuse to click the Google logo anymore. I don't need this kind of entertaining distraction when I'm running a search for the latest nude celebrity photos at three in the morning.

Related articles

• 12 Adorable Google Doodles for Valentine's Day (mashable.com)
• 9 Great Gifts For Beardy Guys (bellasugar.com)
• Female burglar hid behind fake mustache (upi.com)

Intellectual Elitism, or Just Plain Smarter Than You?

Cover of Smart People

This country took a strange path over the past couple of decades, a road leading towards an inherent distrust in what many like to refer to as "Intellectual Elitism." Slowly, gradually, an ever-increasing number of Americans have become more and more wary of those who claim advance knowledge in specific fields of study. In short, more and more people are afraid of smart people.

Why could this possibly be? We could blame the politicians who sell this fear, or the news media that helps support it, or even the entertainment industry for turning ignorance into a noble character trait. But what it really comes down to is that many Americans fear smart people simply because they are, themselves, rather stupid.

Of course, this isn't the kind of thing you're supposed to say. It upsets people because they instantly assume that you are referring to them specifically, and lends support to the claims of Intellectual Elitism by the arrogant and snobbish nature of the statement. "You can't really mean that, can you? I guess you think you're smarter than most people." Actually, I do. Considering that the Average IQ of the American citizen rests between 90 and 100 (depending on who you ask), I feel very comfortable with the assumption that I am smarter than most of the people I come in contact with on a daily basis. It isn't smug elitism, just simple math. As a wise man once suggested, if you imagine how stupid the average person is, then realize that statistically half of the population is even dumber than that, you can get a real sense of how smart the majority truly is.

Does this mean I think I'm better than most people? Of course not. That's the same arrogance that allows some people to estimate their worth as an individual based on how much money they earn, or how big their house is, or how strong they are. At 6'4" I am also taller than most people, but that statement doesn't enrage people as much. Except really short people, of course.

The problem with this anti-intellectual attitude is that it has slowly made its way into the public discourse, and has taken over topics that in the past have been reserved for more intelligent consideration. With the growing amount of available media streaming into our eyes and ears, debates and discussions on serious issues of grave importance are being pondered and discussed by people with no real credentials. Some of the biggest names in talk radio, for example, spend hours discussing advanced political, economic and legal issues while having never obtained a college degree of any kind. Now, does not having a college degree make someone stupid? No, people are more than capable than obtaining knowledge on their own. However, most people prefer to get medical advice from a certified doctor with framed degrees on the wall, and not just a nice guy with a well-worn library card.

This acceptance of the untrained and unqualified as experts worth listening to has had a negative effect on the way matters of importance are considered. Take, for example, the state of political discourse in America today. Spend enough time reading the posts and messages of your average politically active individual (or, God forbid, get stuck in a conversation with one), and you will be utterly amazed at how ridiculous the most outspoken of them sound. if this is truly a nation of intelligent people, then why do most people with anything even remotely resembling a political agenda seem unable to engage in a cogent and logical argument? Follow any news site message board, and you'll be convinced that you are eavesdropping on schoolyard during recess. People spend more time defending individuals and organizations than they do ideas or philosophies, and most of the debate degenerates into labeling and name-calling.

Actually, the real reason I'm dragging politics into this is that this year's Republican Primaries stand as a perfect example of this strange reluctance to accept wisdom from the wise. The Republican Party has spent the last decade or two espousing financial success as the indicator of personal greatness, while simultaneously discrediting intelligent people scientists and college professors (who also just happen to regularly speak out against Republican policies) as "out of touch" and "too smart for their own good." The end result turns out to be a Presidential Primary composed entirely of extremely rich candidates who appear to be collectively dumber than a box of hammers.

Yeah, I know, it was hilarious when we got to poke fun at Sarah Palin for being stupid. But you could always blame her participation in the election process on John McCain's self-destructive flight of fancy, and at least she had enough common sense (barely, it seems) to drop out of public office altogether and rake in that sweet, sweet political pundit cash. But now there's nobody to blame. We're stuck with debate after debate featuring a stage full of disgustingly rich successful businessmen who repeatedly prove themselves to be less intellectually adept than a teenage Denny's waitress. The object of these debates has ceased to be deciding which candidate is best equipped to lead a nation, and is now nothing more than a sad game of seeing who can say the least amount of stupid shit in a specific time frame. What's even worse, the audiences keep upstaging the idiots in the spotlight by periodically applauding government-sanctioned murder, cheering the death of an uninsured man, booing an American soldier for

Maybe I'm being harsh, but I'm slowly resigning myself to living in a country in which a candidate for the role of Supreme Leader (more or less) declares a to have created a list of three important items that need to be addressed, fails to remember what the third item was, and doesn't immediately drop out of the race in shame. Rick Perry hasn't been the only one taking pride in ignorance, either. The historical mistakes, policy blunders and poorly phrased sentences exposing an increasing insular existence have been a daily occurrence, with each painful error brushed of or explained away by the candidates as the results of strenuous campaigning or "gotchya questions" served up by a hostile press. If these are the results of gotchya questions, the least the telejournalists could do is point and laugh when they finally trip somebody up with difficult brain teasers such as "What do you read?"

Where am I going with all of this? I'm not sure, really. If I had any kind of solution or overall explanation is to why Mike Judge's Idiocracy keeps looking more and more like a grim eventuality, this is where I'd lay it all out. I guess I don't have all of the answers after all. Hey, I said I was smart. I didn't say I was THAT smart.

Related articles

• How political affiliation can influence intelligence analysis (iago18335.wordpress.com)
• The Stupid Party (thedailybeast.com)
• The Myth of the American Political Intelligence Gap (esquire.com)

2/1/12: New Post, New Job, New Sale, New Chair, Same Old Mitt

Been light on the blogging lately, but with very good excuses, the main one among them being a new job which came out of the blue about a month ago.

There I was, slumped over the desk at my depressing, soul-sucking nightmare of a job, wondering exactly what I could do to extricate myself from my hopefully temporary vocation, when a random call from an old friend dropped the solution to all my problems right in my lap. There's nothing more boring than listening to someone describe their good fortune in great detail, so all I'll say is that I am now working from home and earning more doing so, and seem to be back in the employment of a business owner that actually looks at his employees as something more than an unfortunate expense. So far, the year is off to a great start!

*

Sold another short story. I'll post more details once I receive confirmation that the contracts have been accepted. Another good start to the year.

*

Since I'm going to be working from home, which will mean sitting at my personal desk for eight to ten hours a day, I decided that I needed to drop a bit of cash on a real chair. Don't get me wrong, I love the creaky wooden desk chair I picked up at a yard sale last year for $20, but the odds were clearly in favor of me picking the splintered remnants of  a rapidly deteriorating piece of furniture within the first thousand hours of usage. So, I ordered the biggest god-damned desk chair I could find. It's not a luxurious leather sink-into-it-and-sleep ego-stroker, but it is a massive chair: 350lb weight limit, 24" wide seat, and a back rest that actually reaches the back of the head of my 6'4" frame. I feel like Lily Tomlin's Edith Ann every time I swing my legs over to take a call, and I have to reach over to touch the arm rest. I could have company over in this damn thing. I'm telling you, this is one big chair.

Now I need a bigger desk.

*

Mitt Romney actually trying to appeal to the 99% Occupy Wall Street crowd? He's got a funny way of doing it:

"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

You know he's trying to gain support from the growing 99% movement, but apparently the Rich Elitist in Mitt couldn't allow him to do so without adding that he's "...not concerned about the very poor." When asked to comment on his lack of concern for those living in abject poverty by CNN's Soledad O'Brien, Mitt explained that he wasn't worried because "We have a very ample safety net..." He explained that "...we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor."

Of course, Soledad didn't follow up by pointing out that all of those "ample" programs have become increasing underfunded with the increase in usage by America's growing percentage of impoverished citizens, or asking how he feels about the constant push by his fellow GOP members to cut funding for these programs. Mitt's talking about "fixing the holes" in the safety net while his fellow Republicans are voicing their concern about the "Safety Net" turning into a "Safety Hammock," as Paul Ryan so dickishly put in his state of the Union response last year.

Let's be fair, Mitt sounds like he's trying to appeal to the 99%, but all he's doing is pandering to the usual middle class conservatives that the GOP constantly scares with threats that the poor are coming to steal their money via socialist government programs, while attempting to dress it up with the current anti-plutocracy catchphrases making the rounds in the ever-increasing rebellion against our government being run by people like Romney.

So, you can give Mitt some credit for trying to sound sensitive to the plight of whatever he thinks the middle class is, but you still have to add "I'm not concerned about the very poor" to the list of Things Rich-Guy Romney Just Doesn't Get, right along with "Let [the foreclosure process] run its course and hit the bottom," and "I like being able to fire people."

*

New favorite commercial ever. My vote is for the Pizza Curtains.

*

It's been such a busy month, I never got the chance to design custom labels for the new Wilson Compound Winery release, a nice Coffee Port. Just as well, as the person who modeled for the Christmas Port backed out at the last minute. And I was so close to have an official spokesperson! Luckily, this batch came with pre-printed labels that aren't too shabby. Too make up for the transgression, however, I am already working on the label design for the Occupy Orange Sangria currently fermenting. Should be nice.

Related articles

• Mitt Romney: 'I'm not concerned with the very poor' (dailykos.com)
• Romney tells CNN's Soledad O'Brien that America's very poor and very rich are fine (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Compassionless? Vote Romney- He's Your Man (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

12/19/2011: Avarice, Unemployment Anniversary, Lee Camp

Image by dingler1109 via Flickr

These GOP presidential candidate hopefuls like Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann enjoy preaching to their religious base about the inherent sins of homosexuality. They smile and wave as they insist that they have nothing against gays themselves, but that allowing gay marriage or gays in the military would only weaken the sacred institutions of marriage and international warfare by allowing a level of acceptance to leak into society's collective consciousness.

As much as I don't agree with these judgement, I want to approach this under the assumption that I actually agree with and understand their desire to prevent sin from gaining a foothold in the hearts and minds of Americans everywhere. Because (and I think this is very important) if we are going to be concerning ourselves with major sins that decay the soul from within, then why are none of the Religious Right's avid pundits raising a clarion call against Avarice?

That's right, Avarice is a sin. Not only is it a sin, but it's a fairly topical one. The unfettered lust for greed and wealth has been running rampant through our culture for decades now, and has played no small part in the near destruction of our economic stability. The US population's income disparity has become so vast that even the Cable News channels are bothering to mention it now and then in between their hour-long masturbatory editorial programs, and Occupy protest have sprung up all over the country to deliver a clear and unyielding challenge to the exploitation of the many by the few that reporters and politicians are unanimously pretending not to understand.

Clearly, Avarice is what you might call a "Hot Button" topic right now. Just the kind of thing that political speech-writers like to jump on to make their clients seem less elitist and out of touch with the general populace. So why don't I hear Perry or Bachmann or Gingrich speaking out about the sin of Avarice?

You know the reason as well as I do. Because these candidates are all sinners. A blind, unyielding urge to accumulate wealth and power beyond their need is sewn into the very fabric of their beings. These people aren't devoted civic leaders or dedicated political activists; they are CEOs and businessmen, power brokers looking to increase their negotiable value in their endless pursuit of even more wealth and power. The Presidency isn't a goal or achievement to them. Rather, it is merely a means to an end, a stepping stone on the way to their ultimate goal: accumulating more wealth.

Because that's the other reason the word Avarice will never leave their lips: they are beholden to those who seek wealth and power. They ca not speak out against the greedy and corrupt, for it is they who pay their bills, fill their war chests, and secure their post-presidency positions. At the end of the day, it is the sin of Avarice signs their paychecks, the love that dare not speak its name in the halls of power.

So the next time Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann call homosexuality a sin, just remember that they are back a far greater evil. In their eyes, a man screwing another man is an abomination in the eyes of God, but a board of executives screwing over thousands of workers is just something you do in between mistresses and gold outings. Avarice, thine name is Government.

*

This Christmas marks the third anniversary of employer of fifteen years laying me off due to his inability to plan ahead for an economic downturn. Not only a great example of company loyalty, but an inventive way around those pesky Christmas bonuses, no?

*

Related articles

• Riches, Wealth, Avarice, Power, Abuse and Vice: An Occupy Wall Street redux (warmsouthernbreeze.wordpress.com)
• The GOP Is Stuck In The Past (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
• Newt Gingrich's war on the judiciary is proof positive that God still rocks the GOP (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Serial adulterer Newt Gingrich vows fidelity, affirms opposition to gay marriage (goodolewoody.wordpress.com)

Rachel Maddow Tears Into Mitt Romney, Does Epic Segment From 'Man Cave' (VIDEO)

Maddow's rant runs the risk of feeling a bit like an overreacti­on. Until, that is, you remember that state Rep. Scott Randolph was actually chastised by the Florida GOP earlier this year for uttering the word "uterus" on the house floor.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Related articles

• Mitt Romney: Welcome To The Man Cave, Where Rachel Maddow Will Teach You How A Uterus Works (mediaite.com)
• Anti-Nanny of the Month: Florida State GOP Representative Ritch Workman (doubleplusundead.com)
• Florida GOP To Move Up Presidential Primary, Defying National Party (npr.org)

Rick Perry is a Dirty, Stinking Coward

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeThat's right, Perry. You heard me right. I'm callin' you out. You ain't nothin' but a cheap, dirty, rotten, stinkin', lousy, no-good, gutless, yellow-bellied coward.

Where did I get such an idea? The Huffington Post:

During a stop in New Hampshire on Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry raised skepticism about the theory of evolution. 

"How old do I think the earth is? You know what, I don't have any idea," said the Texas governor when asked about his position on the issue by a woman and her son. "I know it's pretty old so it goes back a long long way. I'm not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how long, how old the earth is." 

Perry regarded evolution as "a theory that's out there" and one that's "got some gas in it." He added that in the Lone Star State both creationism and evolution are taught to students in public schools. He explained, "I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."

Now, I'll ignore the fact that Perry was factually incorrect when he stated that Texas schools teach both creationism and evolution. I'm not even going to imply that he knowingly lied about it. To be honest, I have no doubt that Perry is as ignorant about public school curricula in Texas as the average Texan student is about what a High School Diploma looks like. Besides, facts rarely get in the way of political posturing. Perry gets a pass on that one, because we simply don't expect anything better.

But what's with the wishy-washy answer to the evolution question? This is the man who asked the citizens of Texas to pray for rain! The pistol-packing jogger who defied non-Christians all over the state by hosting a "National Prayer Rally" and threatened to "get ugly" all over Federal Reserve Chairman Geithner. This is not a man who minces words, or even gives much thought to what they mean when strung together as sentences.

Yet what does he do when asked about his views on Evolution? It's "a theory that's out there" that's "got some gas in it?" What's this mamby-pampy nonsense? I don't think there is a rational human being within earshot of a political ad campaign who doubts that Perry is firmly entrenched in the Creationism camp. We all know it. Why is he suddenly so shy about praising his belief in God's hand in all things? Who's he afraid of? Pagans? Hippie Atheists? Secular Progressives? The man who shot a coyote in its sleep just for snoring isn't supposed to fear anything. But suddenly, and without any real discernible reason, Perry has sprouted a yellow streak a mile wide when confronted with questions regarding his own beliefs regarding that quaint little evolution theory thing.

That's right. Rick Perry is a coward. He's afraid to stand up for his God's miraculous worth, scared to declare his disdain for scientific research that actually provides empirical evidence of a gradual change in the physical properties of animal species.

I'm callin' you out, cowboy. Show me what you got.

Related articles

• Rick Perry, Typical Anti-Science GOP Candidate (baconeatingatheistjew.blogspot.com)
• Note to Rick Perry: Teaching Creationism in Public Schools is Illegal (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Kids in Texas must be very Intelligent.... (diglotting.com)
• The Missing Link.... (tagg-lines.com)

Allen West: I Am The Modern-Day Harriet Tubman

Is it just me, or have the Republican­s fully adopted the Rush Limbaugh/A­nn Coulter promotiona­l strategy of purposely making stupid/ins­ane/contro­versial statements in order to ensure constant media coverage? There has been so much stupid/cra­zy flying out of the Right Wing this past week alone that it almost seems intentional. Between Mr. Tubman Mark II, Wild-Eyes Bachmann and Drone Over Mexico Perry, it's getting harder and harder to catch a breath between laughter,

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Related articles

• West: I'll lead you off 'plantation' (politico.com)
• Wednesday Wonderful Women: Harriet Tubman (confoundingthewise.wordpress.com)
• Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters Are 'Overseers of 21st Century Plantation' (huffingtonpost.com)

Republican Scare Tactics - Scaring Away Big Business

Image via WikipediaI spent five minutes or so listening to Pat Buchanan defend the Republican struggle against any kind of tax increases for big businesses on Morning Joe this morning, and it really did the trick to snap me out of the lazy, relaxed mindset of a long holiday weekend and launch me head first into the frustrations of the real world that is the work week.

First of all, any debate regarding the Debt Ceiling is meaningless. The Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling 19 times while Bush was in office, so there really isn't any logical argument as to why they would suddenly be so against doing so now that isn't purely politically manipulative. They're just trying to screw with Obama, and they're using the threat of completely shit-canning the global economy as leverage to get their way.

The regular voting public doesn't really know enough about the debt ceiling, which is more economic theory than anything else, so how do they sell the voters on their anti-tax tantrum? By going on pseudo-news shows and holding press conferences claiming that any kind of increase in the disgustingly low tax rates on big businesses and corporations will drive all of these companies overseas to countries that aren't as gun-shy about slave wages and child labor as us stupid, greedy Americans. Their threat to the American public is simple and straight forward: Tax the rich people who pay us, and we'll take away your jobs.

The argument, or at least the threat, is completely invalid. You can give all the tax cuts you want to the few manufacturers we have left in this country of Wal-Mart Greeters and K-Mart Shoppers, it will still be cheaper for them to move their operations to countries that don't keep them from paying employees $10 a week. This was never a huge problem in the past, but ever since the US has virtually eliminated all tariffs on imported goods, there's really no cost incentive whatsoever for manufacturers to stay local.

This is why the Republicans are lying when they say that tax increases will drive companies overseas, and it is the same reason they are lying when they say tax cuts for these same companies will create new jobs. And when Pat Buchanan tells the Morning Joe audience, of which I was briefly a member of this morning, that taxing the corporate jet manufacturers will destroy jobs and weaken the economy, he is stunningly full of shit. Marketplace opportunism that manipulated trade regulations and tax policies, the unwavering greed that drove government officials to create a system in which companies and corporations could squeeze as much profits as possible out of a rigged system that will eventually collapse like the pyramid-scheme that it is, that is what has already destroyed jobs and crippled the economy. What could be more Republican, or even American, than that?

What a great way to start the week.

Related articles

• House Republicans Decry Tactics That Put Republicans In House (theawl.com)
• What Do Americans Understand About the US Debt? (robertlindsay.wordpress.com)
• GOP Releases Scary Medicare Ad After Republicans Decry 'MediScare' Tactics (huffingtonpost.com)
• The Republican Con (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
• Buchanan on Obama facing down GOP over debt ceiling: 'He doesn't have the cajones!' (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Gingrich Accuses Obama of 'Dishonest Scare Tactics,' Calls for New GOP 'Contract' for 2012 (foxnews.com)
• The Debt Ceiling Vote: Understanding the "TARP Dilemma" (swampland.time.com)

Stephen LaRoque Hires More Unemployed Workers To Clean Up His Yard

This has always been the overall attitude of the Republican Party: People who fall upon financial hardships are just lazy and greedy, and should be thankful for any menial low-wage jobs they are offered; especially if it is a whopping $.75 above minimum wage! Rich political power brokers chastising struggling families trying to survive during an economic recession for not working at McDonald's­. No wonder we have so many illegal aliens in this country, what with so many snobby Americans unwilling to accept jobs that keep them living below the poverty line.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Related articles

• Peter D. Rosenstein: The Seven Dwarfs and Sleazy Is In the Lead (huffingtonpost.com)
• How Much Does McDonalds Make? (celebritynetworth.com)
• UK sees minimum wage rise across the board (career-advice.monster.co.uk)

Paul Ryan's Response - Far From Scrumdidilyumptious

Image via WikipediaPresident Obama gave his State of the Union Address this past Tuesday. As is usually the case, it was quickly followed with countless voices screaming "You Lie!" into the void of white noise that is our News Media, with the occasional whining complaint of "I'm bored." (Yes, I'm looking at you, Joe).

As a self-confessed masochist, I spent some time reading the rebuttals, and the rebuttals of the rebuttals, and so on and so forth, and  Ieventually made my way to the transcript of Paul Ryan's GOP response to the SOTU (as we political savvy folks enjoy typing). It was near the end of his predictable list of reasons why Obama is so horribly and hopelessly wrong that I ran across this little gem:

"This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodie­d people into lives of complacency and dependency."

The first thing that came to mind was how much Republican love come up with these clever little catchphrases. Granted, this might not be the first time it has been used, but it's the first time I've really noticed it. Bumper Sticker Wisdom always prevails over any real intelligent communication, and I have no doubt that "Safety Nets becoming Hammocks" will soon take its place alongside such tired phrases as "Cadillac Benefits," "Tax and Spend" and "Limousine Liberals." I'd list more, but it hurts my brain to cram too many of these into one sitting.

The inanity of this obsession with witty quips in serious political speeches distracted me so much that it took a couple of seconds to realize that I had just been insulted. You see, I didn't actually watch the SOTU, or the official Paul Ryan and (hilarious) unofficial Michele Bachmann responses. I was busy taking notes in a late-night Biology class. Like many other Americans, I've had a tough couple of years. I lost my job - no, my career - of fifteen years when the recession first turned ugly at the end of 2008. I spent two years on unemployment desperately trying to replace my former lively hood in a job market more competitive than a runway model reality show, and am now working two low-paying part-time jobs with no benefits in a desperate attempt to make ends meet, while simultaneously attending school full-time in an attempt to enter a new career path.

Now, why am I whining about my own problems? Not to apologize for being unemployed - I could honestly care less what an anonymous person reading my blog thinks about me. No offense. But the point is that there is a story of struggle and hardship behind every unemployment check I received, and my story is far from unique, and nowhere near as tragic as other ones out there. Millions - MILLIONS - of people across the country are still dealing with the dark realities of this crippling recession as you read this, wondering every day how long they'll be able to last, how long until their luck will run out, hoping they can find some form of employment that will allow them to both feed their children AND make the mortgage payment.

So what does Paul Ryan do? Compare Unemployment Benefits - which you have to PAY INTO in order to RECEIVE, by the way, so Entitlement my ass - to reclining in the shade on a summer afternoon, cold drink in hand. Granted, he didn't actually mention Unemployment benefits, but considering that Unemployment is itself one of the top issues of the moment, I find it hard to believe he's attacking welfare. Besides, he's a Republican, so a hatred of Welfare recipients is almost implied. I don't see any other way to take this; Paul Ryan just implied that I'm a lazy bitch, and that anyone else in my position is just sitting back and letting others do the work for them. There's an appropriate response to this kind of slur, but I'm trying to cut back on my excessive cursing, which is harder than you might think when politics is the point of discussion.

As I mentioned with Welfare, this resentment of "Safety Net" programs is an ongoing theme in the Republican Dialogue. Conservatives actually get red in the face when they think of people cashing Welfare and Unemployment checks, or receiving subsidies or free college tuitions or, Lord have Mercy, free health care! There's this constant obsession with people receiving something they didn't earn, this overwhelming need to raise a ruckus whenever someone else gets something for free that they didn't. They are the hall monitors of the adult world, self-obsessed watchdogs on a constant search for anyone not living up to their high standards. They don't get free money from the government. Why should you? That's not fair! And get off my lawn!

Which brings me to the film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (not Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Tim Burton's self-absorbed abomination). Whenever I hear a Republican rant and rave about these "leeches" that are "draining society" by "living off MY taxes," my mind always flashes back to the Everlasting Gobstopper scene, in which Veruca Salt gets all bent out of shape because she thinks Violet Beauregarde got two Gobstopper, while she only received one.

These Republicans and Conservatives, who always seem so obsessed with anyone getting a "Free Ride" or "Something for Nothing," are the Veruca Salt of the world. Always concerned that someone is getting something they don't have, always making everything about them. The similarities don't end there, of course. In the true spirit of Free Market Capitalism, Veruca's father "earns" her Golden Ticket for by reaping the benefits of the hard work of his underpaid employees, offering a measly ten-pound bonus to the worker who finds the ticket, all of them receiving only slave wages for their diligent work while Veruca runs off to Candy Land with the results of that hard labor. And what better anthem could there be, for the party obsessed with the accumulation of wealth at any cost, than Veruca Salt's little "I Want It Now" song and dance number?

Do I think all Republicans are representative of childhood cinema's favorite Greedy Little Bitch? No, just the ones who act like it. In truth, I believe that there are only a small minority of Conservatives who think like this. Unfortunately, most of them act as spokespersons for the party, and the scream louder than the ones who actually care about their fellow man. And unfortunately, unlike the movie, the Veruca Salts of the world don't get sucked into the furnace by the Educated Eggdicater. In the real world, Veruca's father nails Wonka on a zoming violation and eventually acquires the Wonka factory in a hostile corporate takeover, Golden Geese and all.

And what happens to the majority of Americans, the meek Charlie Buckets who just want to live comfortably, want what's best for everyone, but are unwilling to sell anyone else out in order to obtain that dream? They'll just have to get used to stale bread for dinner, constant disappointment, and looking at chocolate bars through  storefront windows. Wishing they had that Everlasting Gobstopper to suck on, and waiting for that safety net to start feeling like a hammock.

Related articles

• Willy Wonka Fantasy Gum About To Be A Reality! (thefrisky.com)
• Rep. Paul Ryan's Rebuttal: Keep Social Safety Net From Becoming Hammock. Because We're So Lazy, Right? (crooksandliars.com)
• Video: Bachmann's unofficial SOTU response (hotair.com)
• No shouting - Quietly, Wilson watches Obama (politico.com)
• How GOP Cuts Could Cause the Second Great Depression (alternet.org)