- Start from a position that assumes a) yes, she means it; b) yes, she’s qualified to be onstage both in the limited sense (she filed her paperwork) and the larger sense (years as a superconservative activist, law degree, several years of elected office, influential caucus leader).
- Criticize her policies, record, and interpretation of history without attacking her for or insinuating that she should hold certain opinions because she is a woman. If she doesn’t have policies, a record, or interpretation of history dealing with a particular matter, then don’t insinuate she doesn’t have them because she’s a woman.
- Avoid falling into common sexist canards such as calling her ‘screechy’ or ‘shrill’ or ‘a bitch’ and attacking her appearance for any reason whatsoever.
Hire me, assholes. Low, low rates!
BONUS JOKE: Did you hear they’re making a new Air Bud movie where the dog drops out of sports and gets a new job investigating reader complaints at a major metropolitan newspaper? It’s called… Air Bud: Om-Buds-man
Additionally! Don’t call her a stepford wife.
President Obama isn’t going to talk one way or another about gay marriage because it hurts his re-election chances. I know people are upset about it, but shit is not going well right now and if this is the one time Obama punted on an issue until after 2012, I’d be thrilled. There’s just too much going on. You have Libya, the economy, and the fact that Democrats aren’t exactly showing backbone at any level of leadership. State governments are trying to squeeze Planned Parenthood out and effectively ban abortions. Liberal bloggers are disinterested and everyone is trying to figure out how to deal with Michele Bachmann without being a sexist asshole.
On my completely realistic and well-calculated estimation, there’s a 75% chance the Democrats lose the Senate next year and a 40% chance they lose the Presidency. Everyone around here is grossly underestimating Republicans right now and hoping that if we laugh at crazy people enough, everything will be fine.
With time running short to reach a deal to avoid a government default, President Barack Obama met privately Monday with Senate leaders in hopes of resolving an impasse over whether to include tax increases in a deficit-reduction agreement.
The White House argued that the deficit can’t be significantly cut without eliminating tax breaks for certain wealthy individuals and companies, while Republicans said doing so would cripple the economy.
“Democrats and Republicans don’t have to look hard to find common ground—we only have to be willing to admit it when we see it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said after his meeting with the president.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), before meeting privately with Mr. Obama, said all Americans would recoil at the prospect of tax increases, especially during a weak recovery. “Not only are they counterproductive from the standpoint of an economic recovery, they’re also politically impossible,” he told the Senate.” —unnnnnnnngggggghhhhhh
I started this blog in an attempt to have a better political discussion, but it’s discouraging sometimes. It’s like when I wrote an angry screed about Julia Allison a long time ago and everyone was like YES but I felt gross afterwards because who really gives a shit about Julia Allison? I could write something vicious about Sarah Palin and if it hit the right spots it would get a bunch of eyes to this blog and I’d have more than my friends here, and that would be great! But I don’t want to write about Sarah Palin. I’m more concerned about redirecting focus to something more substantial. Sarah Palin doesn’t run Wisconsin and she doesn’t decide what happens with taxes and the budget. It’s also boring, but whatever.
It’s a constant dick measuring contest here. You have guys like Brooklynmutt caring more about having fellow MSM media bloggers follow him or you have STFU blogs lecturing stupid people from Facebook and blurring their names. The curators of the #politics tag on tumblr are wringing their hands over how liberal or conservative the feed is. Everything is about Jon Stewart-style “evisceration” of your political opponents, even though you’re not Jon Stewart and you don’t have his staff of fact checkers and really just stop trying already.
But hey, look! While we were messing around on tumblr, the DREAM Act was pushed by executive memo a week and a half ago. Nobody I follow mentioned a thing about it. The MSM hasn’t really talked about it. The only reason I knew about it early on is because conservatives started throwing a shit fit over it last week. That’s right, I found out about an important legal move from those know-nothing, hillbilly tea party idiots who just happened to be herp-derping their way through ICE memos.
This is huge and I’m not really sure why nobody here was talking about it, after all the debate late last year on the DREAM Act. Maybe it’s because there are hints of the same questionable legality that hounded GWB when he pushed executive memos through. But still, it’s baffling that nobody I follow mentioned this. And telling. Because it was ten days ago when the DREAM memo was pushed and just last Monday I was hearing about it from Hot Air and other conservative blogs. Today, FINALLY, Mother Jones and Politico have caught up, presumably because some conservative blogger yelled at them on Twitter about ignoring the story. I’m still trying to find more information about the kid who inspired ICE to push this through, but it’s been lost in the shuffle. If I find it I’ll link it up.
The one mention of the DREAM Act that I’ve noticed on tumblr? How it’s dead in the water and won’t pass because of “cuntastic ass-elbowed spit-twiddling bigots”. Not only is it factually incorrect, but now the cuntastic ass-elbowed spit-twiddling bigots who oppose the DREAM Act are offended about being called cuntastic ass-elbowed spit-twiddling bigots and subsequently, the reblog discussion has entered a deep, damp hole of people on both sides being terrible.
Why do I mention all of this? Because I think liberals have been so depressed from a combination of bad news from the Obama administration and an unyielding supply of stupid people to make fun of that they don’t even notice something good happening (DREAM) unless it slaps them in the face (NY gay marriage). Angrier is better. Bill Maher once capped a year in review by saying how he was worried that with George Bush out of office, he wouldn’t have anyone to make jokes about. After eight years out of office, what could Democrats and liberals talk about after winning it all?
As turns out, a lot of things: the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Sharron Angle, crazy racists from Arizona, Jon Stewart eviscerations, the Fox News morning crew, Dick Cheney and his daughter, Alex Jones, that guy in Florida who wanted to burn a Koran, the Westboro church, etc. etc. etc. If you search long enough, you can find lots of things to be miserable about.
In retrospect, how insane is it that we spent 40% of our election conversations on Christine O’Donnell, all because she’s an idiot?
- Amy Poehler for Planned Parenthood (via numnumsbylaura)
Blowing it hard during stump speeches is a time honored American tradition and that’s why nobody gives a shit. If you care about it you are the kind of idiot loser who posts on TPM or Thinkprogress or something. Go outside man geez.
I’m telling you guys, it’s all about putting a face to a story. If your face is Dan Savage on Youtube telling kids that it gets better, you’re good. If your face is Lt. Dan Choi, an intelligent man who is passionate about serving the country, you’re good.
If your face is some asshole dumping a pile of glitter on Newt Gingrich? GOOD LUCK, GUYS.
You’re dealing with people who sometimes don’t know any gay people. I don’t think my mother knew any gay people before my sister-in-law’s brother came out, and it’s fine. He’s a great kid who tells my mom that she looks lovely whenever he sees her. He makes me look terrible. He and his friends got the crowd going at the wedding reception and I’m 100% sure that by the end of it, every single person there was like “you know what? I don’t think the world would end if we let them get married to whoever they love.”
And now, a story from the NY Times about an undocumented worker whose mother brought him to the U.S. when he was a kid and yet he could be deported for writing this story. He’s a Pulitzer Prize winner. He’s also gay, and tells his story of coming out to his family. It’s a tearjerker.
No more glitter bombing.
WAVES ARMS FRANTICALLY
Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, says of the Drake case, “The government wants this to be about unlawfully retained information. The defense, meanwhile, is painting a picture of a public-interested whistle-blower who struggled to bring attention to what he saw as multibillion-dollar mismanagement.” Because Drake is not a spy, Aftergood says, the case will “test whether intelligence officers can be convicted of violating the Espionage Act even if their intent is pure.” He believes that the trial may also test whether the nation’s expanding secret intelligence bureaucracy is beyond meaningful accountability. “It’s a much larger debate than whether a piece of paper was at a certain place at a certain time,” he says.
Jack Balkin, a liberal law professor at Yale, agrees that the increase in leak prosecutions is part of a larger transformation. “We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national-surveillance state,” he says. In his view, zealous leak prosecutions are consonant with other political shifts since 9/11: the emergence of a vast new security bureaucracy, in which at least two and a half million people hold confidential, secret, or top-secret clearances; huge expenditures on electronic monitoring, along with a reinterpretation of the law in order to sanction it; and corporate partnerships with the government that have transformed the counterterrorism industry into a powerful lobbying force. Obama, Balkin says, has “systematically adopted policies consistent with the second term of the Bush Administration.”” —New Yorker
In April 2005, Pamela Arnold wanted to talk to her state senator, Michele Bachmann, who was then running for Congress. A 46-year-old who worked at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, Arnold lived with her partner, the famed Arctic explorer Ann Bancroft, on a farm in Scandia, Minnesota. Bachmann was then leading the fight against gay marriage in the state. She’d recently been in the news for hiding in the bushes to observe a gay rights rally at the Capitol. So when members of the Scandia gay community decided to attend one of Bachmann’s constituent forums, Arnold, wanting to make herself visible to her representative, joined them.
A few dozen people showed up at the town hall for the April 9 event, and Bachmann greeted them warmly. But when, during the question and answer session, the topic turned to gay marriage, Bachmann ended the meeting 20 minutes early and rushed to the bathroom. Hoping to speak to her, Arnold and another middle-aged woman, a former nun, followed her. As Bachmann washed her hands and Arnold looked on, the ex-nun tried to talk to her about theology. Suddenly, after less than a minute, Bachmann let out a shriek. “Help!” she screamed. “Help! I’m being held against my will!”” —Michelle Goldberg
For those of us who are involved in the various “content” industries I suspect that after the leak of The AOL Way, this piece confirms a lot of our ‘I Told You So’s.
There are quite a few
successful profitable content networks that made their name ripping other people’s videos, slapping their logo on them, and then reuploading them to their own players. The industry press seem to think that this kind of thing begins and ends with AOL and Gawker but forget that (fuck)eBaums pioneered this nearly a decade ago. Media buyers and investors see their viewcounts and eCPMs and think “wow, they understand online video!” For someone who who only sees video as ad inventory, this is entirely true.
But the content networks are just performing arbitrage — taking advantage of a loophole until the rest of the online video industry settles into place. The bigger money is (potentially) in the branding and licensing of original content, but the costs associated with production are astronomical compared to the price of an flv ripper, Vegas Studio, and an intern.
Sorry, I just can’t do it anymore. I spend way too much time culling through various publications, some of which have limited access. I’ve gotten to the point of linking things just because they’re of serious value, and yet all I do is link, read, and forget about it. I’d rather focus on the issues that are important to me, and I think I can do that through linking individually. We’ll see how it goes.
BTW, The Atlantic’s latest issue is online and there are tons of great articles and it’s a pain in the ass. Go get it. I’ll be linking as I read through.
Everyone is talking about how it makes no sense for Weiner to resign, sex scandals are dumb, etc. After all, David Vitter is still around! Well, Vitter has friends who will back him up and Weiner doesn’t. It’s really as simple as that.
There’s a lot of history here, and it’s entirely possible that we were wrong about Anthony Weiner. On the bright side, his replacement might serve his constituents better. We’re talking about a solidly Democratic district here.
Who can liberals be excited about in 2012?
Pawlenty dug himself a hole this week. If he didn’t mention “Obamneycare” at all, it wouldn’t be an issue, but he did, and then he wussed out at the debate. It piles on the image of him being Minnesota Nice Guy, and Republicans don’t want a wuss.
I dunno man, it’s too early to tell. Are they really anointing Romney as the guy to beat? Who are these people excited about Romney?
Slow week! At least we get an interview with David Carr, the one famous person who follows me on Twitter. I still have no idea why. #humblebrag
Dan Harmon discusses the second season of Community with AV Club -I haven’t watched any of the second season, but for those who have, here’s a four part discussion on the show.
Still don’t think she’ll win the nomination. Maybe a good VP candidate? Who knows!
(except Charlie Rangel, which, ummm…)