Archive for the ‘Wingnuts’ Category

Norman Rockwell scene at the Palins

Norman Rockwell scene at the Palin's

So, we know that Sarah Palin was letting Levi boink her daughter Bristol regularly in the family home. And we heard recently from Bristol that she was glad she didn’t get married, because it would never have worked out with Levi.

But now Sarah Palin is trotting out her daughter as a spokesperson for abstinence only. Which leads Matt Taibbi to ask, “Am I missing something? What does it take to get discredited as a right-wing ‘family values’ merchant these days?”

A lot, apparently.

The same party that brought us

  • promoting marriage through sex with prostitutes and diapers
  • voting for anti-gay legislation while using the wide stance in stalls
  • presenting the second wife, at the hospital with cancer, with divorce plans and marrying the third wife six months later

has used $100 million of taxpayer money per year since 2006 for the Healthy Marriage Initiative, much of which money goes to religious groups. And President Bait-and-Switch has agreed to continue spending money on it. Hell, what does separation of church and state matter when you’ve already chucked habeas corpus?

David Vitter: Champion for same-sex marriage.

David Vitter: Champion for same-sex marriage.

The impetus for this initiative came from conservatives who were “alarmed” by rising rates of out-of-wedlock births and lack of a father presence among poor and minority families. It was part of a wider effort by the Bush administration that included abstinence-only education.

Opponents have seen the marriage program as efforts to impose virtue rather than truly help people out of poverty, as its proponents claim. If they mean by “virtue” some kind of 50s throwback where femininity meant that women knew their place, I think they are correct. The initiative’s main feature on the Web, TwoOfUs.org, seems to define virtue in that way. As AlterNet points out, although the site seems aimed at women, “the discussion boards are, weirdly, dominated by men voicing disdain for marriage and women.”

A reader’s article, called “Why Men Won’t Marry,” is linked from the main page, and includes these gems:

Totally rewrite the divorce laws – that means no more untenable support payments . . . it would also mean that men will get full access to their children, and that any woman who has full custody and denies said access will be punished severely. Under this regime, the laws should also be rewritten so that women can’t commit legalized theft using divorce as a tool. …

Women have demanded equality, time to give it to them. Don’t like it, ladies? Tough noogies! Equality means taking the good with the bad – you can’t cherry-pick or gerrymander things to suit yourself anymore.

Rewrite DV (domestic violence) legislation so that men are not automatically assumed to be guilty and incarcerated if a woman files a DV complaint. Amend the laws so women are punished if they file a false complaint. . . . Women who live with truly abusive partners have a responsibility to themselves (and others) to leave. . . . If such women can’t or won’t leave, despite all possible help being offered to them, then they have effectively consented to the abuse and should be left alone.

End official state support for feminism, which has done more to destroy the institution of marriage than anything else. To paraphrase the words of Stalin, ‘we don’t allow hate movements like the KKK to exist, why should we allow feminism to exist?

Require public and private schools and colleges and universities to end their policy of teaching pro-feminist courses if they want federal or state funding . . .

The bottom line is that men have stopped marrying because they no longer feel safe about tying the knot. The extreme legal, financial and personal risks to which marriage exposes them has quite effectively deterred them from playing the game at all.

Ending laws like VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] and IMBRA [International Marriage Broker Regulation Act] would also be a good start. It’s not the state’s business where American men find their brides. If women at home don’t like the competition, then maybe it’s time for them to clean up their act and make themselves more attractive than foreign women.

The legal system . . . is buttered with the continued abuse of men.

Women, remember, keep that chastity belt on until you are married. Because if you get yourself pregnant, it is your fault and your financial responsibility. Of course, that holds if you are married as well. And if you do not display a properly submissive femininity, be aware that men will look abroad for their mates, and you will be an old maid, taking classes in feminist theory at your local college.

And there you have it. Another instance of New Ideas from the right!

You gotta give them credit: whatever shit they come up with, at least it’s consistent.

GOP consistency

GOP consistency


Read Full Post »

GQ magazine has discovered that Donald Rumsfeld had a bizarre habit of writing biblical passages on the cover pages of intelligence documents. He did this, apparently, to curry favor with George W. Bush. Or perhaps to manipulate him, as Olbermann and Richard Wolffe suggest.

For example, over an image of U.S. troops in the Iraqi desert on a cover document, Rumsfeld wrote a passage from Isaiah: “Their arrows are sharp, all their bows are strung; their horses’ hoofs seem like flint, their chariot wheels are like a whirlwind.”

This practice made intelligence officials uneasy. The article notes:

At least one Muslim analyst in the (Pentagon) building had been greatly offended. . . . Others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout — as one Pentagon staffer would later say — “would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.”

What the report failed to note was that Rumsfeld picked up the habit of using interesting quotes from President Bush. Except that Bush preferred to get his quotes from a different source:





Bush's practice makes Cat in the hat uneasy.

Bush's practice makes Cat in the hat uneasy.

Read Full Post »

Before he became head of the RNC, I only knew of Michael Steele as a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher. On the Annoying Guest Scale, he stood somewhere between David Frum and craphound Frank Luntz. But lately he has become much more entertaining.


Steele always works hard to identify with his audience. At a recent NRA conference, he showed a keen command of talking points and an uncanny ability to add together two premises that are so factually flawed that you have to clap your hands in wonder at the leap of logic it took to create the final sum.

Of course he repeated the NRA mantra that the government is going to take away their guns. Because you know it’s almost impossible to get your cold, dead hands on an AK-47 around here. But then he whipped his audience into a frenzy by showing them how the need for guns is more critical than ever. Echoing that brilliant statesman, Mitch McConnell, who said that Obama is going to let the Gitmo detainees–all 250 of them–run amok “in our neighborhoods,” Steele told them:

It is ironic, to say the least, that at the same time Democrats in Congress are threatening to deny Americans their second amendment right to own a firearm and defend their families and homes, they are considering bringing terrorists like 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Al Qaeda detainees to our communities once the President follows through on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay.

Bravo, Michael Steele! When those detainees come a’creeping into our yards in the wee hours of the morning, we will all be ready, thanks to you.


Read Full Post »

Dick Cheney has been “speaking out” all over the place since he left office. What a treat.

Aside from trying to frighten us all by gleefully anticipating the next terrorist attack to prove that Obama isn’t keeping us safe, Cheney is taunting us with the fact that he will never pay the price for his crimes.

An example of his mendacity, hypocrisy, and arrogance:

I think that we are stripping ourselves of some of the capabilities that we used in order to block, if you will, or disrupt activities by al Qaeda that would have led to additional attacks. I think that’s an important debate to have. I don’t think we should just roll over when the new administration says — accuses us of committing torture, which we did not, or somehow violating the law, which we did not. I think you need to stand up and respond to that, and that’s what I’ve done.

So what you’re saying, dick, is that Obama shouldn’t stop us from using torture, because it works. But you didn’t commit torture. And even if you did torture, it’s not against the law. Right. As Jonathan Turley said on Countdown, if all it took to get away with crimes was some lawyer writing a memo justifying them, then nothing would actually be against the law.

Maybe he should take up a hobby or some other interest to distract him, just to give us a break from his sneering mug.

He could drink a few beers and touch himself provocatively.

Or better yet, he could unite with his long-time love.

If he prefers outdoor activities, he could molest a few statues

or he could taunt us with funny insults.

He would probably enjoy becoming a Borg for fun and domination.

Maybe he could get himself arrested on some minor charge like shoplifting, just to give us the satisfaction of seeing him hauled off in handcuffs.

Now go and boil your bottoms, Dick. You don’t frighten us with your silly knees-bent running around advancing behavior!

Read Full Post »

There has been a lot of gum flapping about the secessionist “movement.” What a thoughtful, intelligent, community-oriented, and patriotic bunch those people are. And so diverse!

Digby describes their atavistic craziness in today’s blog:

. . . it’s an old old strain in American politics that asserts itself when the Conservative Southern Party shrinks to its essence.(Conservative isn’t really the right word, of course, but it’s the oxymoronic label most people now attach to this political rump. These people are radicals, always have been.)

DailyKos did a poll to find out who is most keen on the idea of secession. Turns out, it’s the people who have been screaming about liberals being the “hate America first” crowd who actually hate America first.

Would you approve or disapprove of the state that you live in leaving the United States?

Approve Disapprove Unsure

All 4 82 14
Northeast 1 94 5
South 8 63 29
Midwest 3 89 8
West 3 87 10

Approve Disapprove Unsure

All 4 82 14
Dem 2 95 3
Rep 9 63 28
Ind 3 83 14

So, among Southerners and Republicans, less than two-thirds disapprove of their state seceding. Would you miss them? Maybe the quiz below will help you answer that question. Identify the likely secessionist among the pairs pictured below.


Read Full Post »

Justice Scalia recently scoffed at the idea, at an Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference, that it is a problem when corporations and others can use technology to collect huge amounts of an individual’s personal information by following his or her online actions.

“I don’t find that particularly offensive,” he said. “I don’t find it a secret what I buy, unless it’s shameful.”

Fordham University Law Professor Joel Reidenberg, who teaches a class on Information Privacy Law, seems to have taken that as a challenge. To demonstrate the wealth of personal information available on the web, Reidenberg has made it a regular feature of his course to have students find everything they can about their professor online.

But this year he asked them to cast their web nets over Justice Scalia. His class collected a 15-page dossier on Scalia, including his home address, the value of his home, his phone number, his favorite movies and foods, his wife’s e-mail address, and family photos.

Well, now they’ve done it. Scalia is pissed. In Above the Law he expressed his displeasure:

It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg’s exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.

It’s no wonder he is so miffed. I would be, too, if pictures like these were unveiled to the world.





Read Full Post »

They're good enough, they're smart enough, and dogonnit, people like them.

They're good enough, they're smart enough, and doggonit, people like them.

Of course, it was the brilliant Michele Bachmann who said that Franklin Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression through the “Hoot-Smalley” tariffs. She should take her act on the road.

Here are some other memorable quotes from Rep. Bachmann:

“Little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and perhaps they should try it.”

“Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.”

“In some ways, to believe in evolution is almost like a following; a cult following — if you don’t believe in evolution, you’re considered completely backward. That seems to me very indicative of bias as well.”

“We’re running out of rich people in this country.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »