GOP = Cavalcade of Misogynist Derpitude

The Republican misogynist cavalcade of ignorance continues. The guys really are ignorant cretins, and the women in the party who go along with the talking points are worse!

For instance, we have Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America who recently said in an interview:

The question before us now is how are the Democrats going to handle that issue, how are they going to appeal to women? Is it going to be the Sandra Fluke sort of message that women are only interested in free birth control or free stuff at that. The question is what message works and it is a message of victim-hood, that you need free stuff from the government to be able to be productive in society? Is this just about the idea that really all it takes to win a woman's vote is free birth control which, by the way, we know that WalMart offers it for $9 a month. I often think I'd like to say to Sandra Fluke that if you'd just had less beer in college, I think you probably could afford the birth control you wanted.

Yeah, that's the kind of stupidity you get when women take their talking points from misogynist men like Rush Limbaugh.

And that brings me to Ann "I Love You Women" Romney, who tried to give an interview in Iowa the other day but instead merely stonewalled on every question pertaining to women's issues:

Anchor David Nelson: "Do you believe that employer-provided health insurance should be required to cover birth control?"

Ann Romney: "Again, you're asking me questions that are not about what this election is going to be about. This election is going to be about the economy and jobs."

Anchor David Nelson: "Well, a Pew Research poll shows those issues are very important to women, ranking them either "important" or "very important."

Ann Romney: "You know, but I personally believe, and this is what I'm hearing from women all across the country that they are going to look for the guy that's going to pull them out of the weeds and get them job security and a brighter future for their children. That's the message.

No, ANN, we are not just "looking for some guy to pull us out of the weeds." Women are not a bunch of swooning weak moochers looking for white knight (or a white horse) to ride up and tell us how to save ourselves. We'd rather have a President who sees women as his equals who can make their own decisions. We don't need a bunch of theocrat daddies who want to go back to the "saint in the kitchen - slut in the bedroom" school of family life.



Ohio Congressman Buchy Never Considered What Women Want

An anti-abortion crusading Ohio Republican lawmaker, state Rep. Jim Buchy, was unable to deliver an intelligent answer to a reporter who asked him why a woman would actually want to get an abortion.

“What do you think makes a woman want to have an abortion?,” an Al Jazeera reporter asks Buchy, as this video from last night’s Rachel Maddow Show depicts.


“Well, there’s probably a lot of — I’m not a woman so I’m thinking, if I’m a woman, why would I want to get — some of it has to do with economics. A lot has to do with economics. I don’t know, I have never — It’s a question I have never thought about,” responds Rep. Buchy.
“It’s a question I have never thought about.”

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

TPM: Rep. Joe Walsh, D-IL Attacks Sandra Fluke

So at the Democratic Convention Wednesday night their first prime time speaker was Sandra Fluke — Fluke, Fluke, whatever her name is.

Think about this: a 31-32 year old law student who’s been a student for life, who gets up there in front of a national audience and tells the American people, “I want America to pay for my contraceptives.” You’re kidding me. Go get a job. Go get a job Sandra Fluke.

This is what, I was offended. We’ve got Americans who are struggling. We’ve got parents in this country who are struggling to buy sneakers that their kids can wear to school that just started. We’ve got parents up and down my district who are barely keeping their house. And, and, and, we have to be confronted by a woman, the Democratic Party this is what they stand for. Their going to put a woman in front of us who is complaining that the country — you, me and you — won’t pay the 9 dollars per month to pay for her contraceptives.

How crazy is this? In a way it’s not her fault, because we teach people this stuff. You go back to fairness, we teach young people this. Don’t worry, government will take care of you. You’re having trouble with your student loans? Don’t worry, government will be there for you.

We are raising the Sandra Flukes of the world. We’re raising Americans who don’t know how to take care of themselves, who feel entitled. This a woman who feels entitled that we all should pay for her contraceptives. This is what we are teaching Americans? That was embarrassing. That was embarrassing.

Sandra Fluke in Prime Time

Last night, women's advocate Sandra Fluke seemed to be missing in action at the Democratic National Convention. Turns out, the powers that be had made a wise decision and moved her speech to prime time.

As always, she was eloquent yet plainspoken about what's at stake for women in this election. And she drew a stark contrast between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.



Here's the Transcript:

Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception. In fact, on that panel, they didn't hear from a single woman, even though they were debating an issue that affects nearly every woman. Because it happened in Congress, people noticed. But it happens all the time. Many women are shut out and silenced. So while I'm honored to be standing at this podium, it easily could have been any one of you. I'm here because I spoke out, and this November, each of us must do the same.

During this campaign, we've heard about the two profoundly different futures that could await women—and how one of those futures looks like an offensive, obsolete relic of our past. Warnings of that future are not distractions. They're not imagined. That future could be real.



In that America, your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs. Who won't stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party. It would be an America in which you have a new vice president who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms. An America in which states humiliate women by forcing us to endure invasive ultrasounds we don't want and our doctors say we don't need. An America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it; in which politicians redefine rape so survivors are victimized all over again; in which someone decides which domestic violence victims deserve help, and which don't. We know what this America would look like. In a few short months, it's the America we could be. But it's not the America we should be. It's not who we are.

We've also seen another future we could choose. First of all, we'd have the right to choose. It's an America in which no one can charge us more than men for the exact same health insurance; in which no one can deny us affordable access to the cancer screenings that could save our lives; in which we decide when to start our families. An America in which our president, when he hears a young woman has been verbally attacked, thinks of his daughters—not his delegates or donors—and stands with all women. And strangers come together, reach out and lift her up. And then, instead of trying to silence her, you invite me here—and give me a microphone—to amplify our voice. That's the difference.


Over the last six months, I've seen what these two futures look like. And six months from now, we'll all be living in one, or the other. But only one. A country where our president either has our back or turns his back; a country that honors our foremothers by moving us forward, or one that forces our generation to re-fight the battles they already won; a country where we mean it when we talk about personal freedom, or one where that freedom doesn't apply to our bodies and our voices.

We talk often about choice. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to choose.

Limbaugh vs. Fluke ~ Guess Who is Winning?

Rush the big, fat pimp-brained wonder sounds jealous these days that Ms. Fluke is touring with a popular president, while he and his wayward followers are pushed to the side of the lunatic fringe.

That's the power of women, my friend. And Democrats.

How's that advertising thing going, Rush? Lost any radio stations lately? Yep:
Limbaugh Loses AM Station in Philadelphia

Limbaugh also wants to take credit for bringing "attention" to Fluke - yeah, right. Although it's a testament that she keeps her cool and keeps moving "forward" in spite of the bullying. When I listen to her, I think that Sandra Fluke might actually be President herself someday, while all Rush will be is a dusty footnote, an ugly big-headed statue pushed into the basement of the Missouri statehouse, and a symbol of hatred who drove the Republican Party straight into the ground.

Who wins? Ms. Fluke, of course.

Obama's out there today, he's at a fundraiser, and guess who is introducing him? Well-known contraception expert Sandra Fluke.
. . . When I say the name Sandra Fluke, what's the first thing that pops into your mind? The first thing that comes up is my name! ... I should be getting a finder's fee.
Rush Limbaugh 8-8-2012

I really think it's an interesting request to take credit for the voice of a woman you tried to silence. I don't think that's going to work out well.
. . . The women of America are speaking out about these policies not because of anything that Mr. Limbaugh has done but because they really care about access to the health care that they need, and they care about all of us having that health care.
~ Sandra Fluke on MSNBC's The Ed Show

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bigoted Is as Bigoted Does

I always warn people that I have strong opinions that many people may not want to hear. I'm as partisan as I can be, and unapologetic for that. And sometimes we just don't like public figures, and sometimes they say things that make us crazy.

But honestly, to me it matters not whether someone is from the left or the right - a bigot is a bigot, and an extremist is never going to win people over. Take a look at Rick Santorum if you don't believe me - oh wait, he's gone. Yes, he influenced an election and appealed to the 25% of extremists in this country, but most of us are not that person, no matter what party we are. Eventually he had to leave the stage. Paul Ryan was just attacked by the Catholic Church for being uncharitable and misinterpreting the Bible, and yet he believes he is the most devout and worthy member of that august institution.



On the Democratic side, we have our share of  religious opinions, and while Atheists want to be considered the  most opened-minded and enlightened people for rejecting organized religion, they can also be zealots. Try this - read the comments under any news story about religion and you will find a comment by some pompous jerk mocking people for belief in the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "imaginary being in the sky." Why is that enlightened? You are just attacking people for their beliefs, which is what some (not all) evangelical zealots do.



If you want people to listen to your point of view, just do something simple - be polite, think about your audience, think about the taste level. Just think. That's what President Obama does and he doesn't make many of these stupid mistakes. Don't use hate as a weapon all the time - it's doesn't work.

Please go read a List of Logical Fallacies and some of you might see what you've been wrong that gets you into trouble on the Internets.

Ad hominem (‘personal attack’; ‘poisoning the well’): L. "to the man;"
Def- attacking a person’s habits, personality, or reputation;
Ex- "His argument must be false because people say he’s a liar."

Bulverism: (named for C.S. Lewis’s imaginary character: Ezekiel Bulver) Def- attacking a person’s identity (race/gender/religion);
Ex- "You only think that because you’re a (man/woman; Black/White;
Catholic/Baptist; Democrat/Republican; Christian/Atheist; etc.)"

Straw Man (‘misrepresentation’):
Def- misrepresenting the opponent's argument; exaggerating or oversimplifying
Ex- "Einstein's theory must be false! It makes everything relative--even truth!"

3. Either/or (‘false dilemma’):
Def- limiting the possible answers to only two; oversimplification;
Ex- "If you think that, you must be either stupid or half-asleep."

We see all of those and more in political debate. The Mitt Romney Etch-A-Sketch joke is an ad hominem, but the twist is that Romney's own manager stated that erasing past statements was part of an election strategy. So the joke became a delicious irony that  tickled the humor of the public. However, when Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh attack President Obama or Sandra Fluke in vile language and spread lies about them, it's just not funny. Lies are not always jokes - sometimes they are just slurs, insults, and crazy-speech.

On many political forums, people make "sweeping generalities" - or what I call "throw out the baby with the bathwater" statements about other parts of the country they know little or nothing about. If Rick Perry in Texas makes some stupid remark about "wantin' to secede" because mean old Obama is forcing him to take medicaid funding (horrors) then some idiot will automatically write "Why do we need Texas anyway? Let them secede or merge with Mexico" as if every person in Texas is a Rick Perry clone. People don't realize how those statements bother Democrats who live in those states and fight for every vote. Rick Perry doesn't speak for the vast majority of Texans, and even the most right-leaning Texan would probably like to keep his United States Citizenship, don't you think? In most cases, the red states are split 50/50 so that conservatives win by very small margins, even in presidential races. Things are not cut and dried the way they seem on political forum or TV shows.



Let's recall it wasn't that long ago that the Dixie Chicks were lambasted and shunned for having the gall to say that not everyone from Texas was identical to George Bush. Obviously a false equivalency doesn't exist among "all the people down in Texas." Or in Tennessee where I live, or in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, or even South Carolina. The South has a diversity beyond a red-state status, just as the more liberal "blue states" actually have their share of card-carrying NRA members, evangelicals, tea partiers, and apocalypse-any-minute survivalists. There is no "one type" of person from any state, and to dismiss people based on geography is a rampant type of bigotry on the internet. Democrats are just as guilty of this as Republicans who think everyone in Massachusetts or New York is pro-abortion and loves President Obama.



Some people think that everyone south of the Mason Dixon line is automatically (a) a Christian or (b) a bigot. And the converse is true - there are those who say everyone north of Kentucky is automatically enlightened and immensely free of bigotry or prejudice of any kind. To anyone who believes that, I must ask if they've followed the careers of Michelle Bachman in Minnesota or Scott Walker in Wisconsin? 'Cause they are up there, you know - in a northerly direction. Sarah Palin was way up northerty-north in Alaska - where she saw Russia from her porch. Her husband belonged to a secessionist group, but that doesn't convince me that everyone in Alaska should be cut loose from the country due to Todd's extremism. Californians sometimes call themselves "Left Coasters" which is a cute tag-line, but that big blue state also gave us Ronald and Nancy Reagan, as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger. The United States is like that, even if we love to broad-brush the conversation.

Both sides of the political debate use Bulverism, Straw Man, and False dilemma every day because we are a divided society and people have become so extreme that real discourse is almost not possible. "You're either with me or agin' me, dadgummit!" And the internet makes it easy to throw down the gauntlet and "take a stand" as if your life depends on it, or as if our society will crumble if they don't. I think that's how the Civil War started, but never mind . . . That doesn't mean that either side is "right" in all cases. Many right-wingers will say that "all" Democrats are communists and baby killers, for instance, when most Democrats are actually just pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Many on the left will say that Christians are either Evangelicals or Tea Party members - ignoring the many Christians who work daily to re-elect President Obama.

It doesn't matter who is spewing this nonsense - it's not logical. Everyone starts to sound like Archie Bunker. A glance at any discussion about the Trayvon Martin case proves there is plenty of bigotry to go around on all sides. It's shocking.

I've always been both a Democrat and a Christian. That doesn't mean I believe that the Bible is correct about everything, but that also doesn't mean that Jesus was wrong about everything. I find the teachings of Jesus quite soothing after a day of reading insults to women, talk of cutting children out of food programs, and hate-filled screeds about shooting the President or anyone who gets in the way of gun rights. I don't think Jesus would have a chance of even getting on the radio in these days and times, and if he did the Left would say he was too "mild-mannered" and too bipartisan, while the Right would slam him for persecuting the money-lenders and saying that rich people aren't bound for glory.



Please go read some famous quotes from smart people in the past if you want your words to resonate:

"We must make a personal attack when there is no argumentative basis for our speech”
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

"A bigot delights in public ridicule, for he begins to think he is a martyr." ~ Sydney Smith

Bigot: One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.”
~ Ambrose Bierce

And to those I would add the old proverb: "Two wrongs don't make a right."



To me it's just as bad for Monica Crowley on Fox to attack Sandra Fluke with some homophobic slur as it is for anti-bullying gay activist Dan Savage to attack Christian teenagers as "pansy-aZZes" for walking out on his captive-audience diatribe against the Bible. I recently wasted a couple of days gathering their statements and public reaction on my other blog, Snark Amendment because I think it's good to archive this stuff, which is ephemeral and tends to get erased when no one is looking.

And these are just great examples of two-sides to the same coin (to be proverbial again).



Monica Crowley Becomes a Bigoted Internet Meme

Irony Lost on Dan Savage as He Bullies Christians (Now with Nearly Non-Apology Apology

I love the irony and the jokes, and of course twas ever thus that freedom of speech also means freedom to make a fool of yourself by acting like a mean little girl as the bitter Crowley did, or stepping in your own bulls****, to quote the ever-eloquent Savage (who seems to know only one unimaginative noun).

A blogger writing in near obscurity -- like me -- who expects that few people will ever read this post, can have a fixed point of view and maybe only offend someone about once a month, but when you have a large audience hanging on your every word, then you have to engage brain much more before putting mouth in gear. And also remember that the internet is forever. That is something Mitt Romney keeps forgetting as he rewrites his old opinions on everything from Student Loans to Osama Bin Laden. We remember this stuff, we really do. And we will call you out on it!

Limbaugh Spews at Fluke and Clinton

Rush Limbaugh must be feeling more confident in spite of the exodus of advertisers from his radio show a month ago. We knew it wouldn't be long before he started his attacks on women again.

Last week Rush Limbaugh attacked Law Student Sandra Fluke again:
From Huffington Post

Sandra Fluke is just a poor, uh, isolated, alone little college student worried about her contraception at Georgetown," he said. "But now she's represented by the flacks in the White House—Hilary Rosen, Anita Dunn—and they're coordinating with Obama, scaring students about the interest rates on their student loans."

Fluke responded on MSNBC's Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell:

Saying that Rush had become "confused by his own propaganda" she pointed out that he keeps referring to her as a "co-ed" when she is a graduate Law student.

But Limbaugh never lets the facts get in the way of a good insult.

This week Jabba the Rush is going after one of his favorite targets, Hillary Clinton.
From ThinkProgress:

Today, Limbaugh turned his attention to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Limabugh said that Clinton “has reached a pinnacle and all she is is a secretary,” adding that the left has “the strangest definition of success.” Limbaugh then said he was being prodded to talk about Clinton’s need to wear “Spanx,” but suggested she had a greater need for “Spankles.” Spanx are undergarments designed to reduce the visibility of body fat.

Yeah, right. A secretary. Only Secretary of State, Rush. Get it right!

And how in the world can someone with Rush's physique criticize Hillary? Of course, he only knows one type of attack - ad hominem. Or shall we say, "ad femina."

Of course, he's just an entertainer - isn't that what his supporters always say? Are we entertained yet? Not really. Not ever.