May, 2011 archive

The charge is the heresy of thinking that citizens should have access to affordable health care.

Amanda Marcotte, in the Guardian, muses on the macho posturing so popular in wingnut world. A nugget:

Unsurprisingly, one of the biggest enemies these Christian warriors are mentally undressing and oiling up to fight is the gay rights movement. Perkins even testified in Congress against Elena Kagan’s appointment to the US supreme court, invoking her supposed desire to foist “the sexual counter culture” on the military by repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

For all the posturing about toughness, the most salient aspect of this rightwing, over-the-top masculinity is how fragile it really is. The list of subversive threats that will topple redblooded American masculinity is mind-bogglingly long – and grows longer every day. A small sample: gay rights, women’s rights, reedy college professors teaching your kids non-propagandistic history, religious diversity, Democrats (especially of the non-white male variety) holding high office, responding to international tension with any tool other than invading a Muslim country, a social safety net that’s perceived as making it easier for women to avoid dependence on men … the list goes on.

Some days, you get the feeling that the American masculinity worshipped by those on the right could disappear if you blow on it too hard.

Hmmmm. Maybe this can help explain the gunnuttery, also. In the case of the symbolism of firearms, Freud was most likely correct.

Field takes my analogy for bankster hucksters and finds its application for racism hucksters. (No, I’m sure he doesn’t know it’s “my analogy”–I certainly don’t own it and I doubt he’s heard of me.)

I have to give it to the wingnuts, though, no one can work the three card monte like they can. While the governor of Indiana is declaring war on the women of this country, they choose to focus on an artist going to the White House for a damn poetry reading. Watch one hand while we f*&^ you with the other. That’s the wingnut way. Poor wingnuts, I guess they have to do something; O’s job approval is at 60% and they still can’t find a viable candidate to run against him 2012.

Jon Stewart also comments. Watch both if you can. If you can’t, watch the last two minutes of the second one:

Read more »

Libertarian, n:

A Republican unwilling to admit to polite company (or to himself) that he is a Republican. Frequently seen with a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution of the United States of America, which he will volunteer to misinterpret at the drop of an opinion.

Bob Cesca observes one in the wild.

Via Bob Cesca.

How can Republicans narrow their field?

XCurmudgeon spins the concept:

Here’s how it works. Each week, the aspiring nominees will be given a presidential task to complete. One week it might be reducing the deficit; the next it might be dealing with high gas prices, or taking out a wanted terrorist. After each task is completed, a panel of Republicans will decide which contender is fired. (Obviously, since Donald Trump is running–and believe us, he is–he can’t be the one making the judgments.) The panel will be assisted by voting (a la American Idol style) of the public, with the voting counting as 50% of the score.

Via Some Guy with a Website.

On my way to Drinking Liberally last night, at the intersection of Wesleyan and Northampton Boulevard, a bedraggled and undernourished looking gent was holding a sign that said

Several weeks ago, I mentioned Virginia Beach’s approach to homelessness: Out of sight is out of mind.

City Council is pursuing its plan to shuffle the homeless out of view, while simultaneously stuffing more money into the pockets of developers.

In a vain attempt to persuade Council to look at the plan more carefully, my friend Andrew Jackson wrote a letter to City Council before Tuesday’s meeting. Although the vote has been taken, I felt that the points he made were worthy of more visibility–not that I am all that visible, but my regular readers outnumber the usual attendance at City Council meetings. (Here is the local rag’s report on the meeting.)

You can download Andrew’s full letter (it’s about a page and a half) in *.pdf format. Here’s an excerpt:

Approval of the Light House project as presently planned makes no sense. It will serve no more than it presently has the capacity to serve. In fact, the truth be told, it only serves 60 -70 percent (on a good day) of it’s present capacity of 90. It will not reduce homeless numbers to any noticeable degree (if any), it will not serve the homeless city-wide, and the cost of the land which is now planned is nearly four (4) times it’s original value and with no land improvement.

The fact is, that the only purpose the expenditure of nearly $5M will accomplish is the removal of the present suitable facility so that a convention center hotel complex can be accommodated. This comes about because the city has on two previous occasions missed opportunities to rectify the situation.

While the city claims to be bringing a committee of citizens together to review the present options for this project, it is at the same time planning to vote on the budget for the project even before the committees have completed their work. It is obvious dishonesty to the highest degree toward the citizens of this city. A meeting of the committee is scheduled for tomorrow, yet the Council is voting this evening.

In a resort town, “Republican” and “Democrat” are not meaningful classifications. “In the pocket of developers” and “not in the pocket of developers” are.