Syndicate and Hague

I can’t help but feel that there is something in the collective atmosphere linking arbitrary things (like astrology) to the candidates, the election, and their poll numbers. I did this in a different way last week, but I’m digging the concept of HuffPollstrology, which mocks polls by combining them with the candidates’ horoscopes, the weather, and internet betting odds on the campaign. By the way, what’s with all the Geminis and Virgos?

In other news, Giuliani gets PWND by the NY Times in their lukewarm endorsement of McCain (the least bad - that’s the gist of it). I danced with glee.

Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

I’m so glad they called him out on that. It’s about damn time.

I have to tell you, I still don’t know who I want for president. I’m still irritated with Obama over the Reagan comment.

However, you really should watch this speech. The religious thing makes me a little uncomfortable, but that’s not entirely relevant to the message. It’s worth the 34 minutes of your time.

So hey…did you guys know that there’s no difference between Al Gore and George Bush?

Ah, remember back then? Remember when Ralph Nader was going to lead the Greens to 5% and create a viable 3rd party? Back when Al Gore was gutted by the press…

For instance, remember the oft-repeated “Al Gore says he invented the Internet.” Follow that with lots of derisive laughter.

Thing is: he never said that he invented the Internet. Thing is: Al Gore was instrumental in developing the Internet as we know it. From Snopes:

[H]e sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic)he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic)

In a time before people had any idea what the Internet would become, he was a driving force. Take that.

Back to Nader, however.

Angie and I have joked that Ron Paul could “Naderize” the Republicans this year. (Her term).

Naderize, v., “To sway an election by adding a spoiler candidate.”

Anyway, the formerly useful consumer advocate who has been overtaken with self-importance over the last ten years announced today that he is going to run for president this year.

He said, this morning, that

I’d go after Bush even more vigorously as we are in the next few months in ways that the Democrats can’t possibly do because they’re too cautious and too unimaginative, but they can pick up the vulnerabilities and the failures of the Bush administration that we point out.

This worked much better the first time around, Ralph. Why go after Bush? He’s out. That whole “two terms” deal. This time, we should be more sensible–you are a megalomaniac. A narcissistic, egotistic asshole. This isn’t about choice or expanding the conversation, this is about you. Fuck you.

So, today is Blog for Choice Day and…well…I’m blogging for choice. (Confession: I wrote this yesterday, but I knew I wouldn’t have time to write a thoughtful post today.)

I could rail against Mike Huckabee for his radical views on abortion.

I could attack the predatory Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which manipulative anti-choicers are setting up next to Planned Parenthoods (coming to you soon at the Highland Park one in St. Paul, by the way) in order to confuse women trying to go to PP.

I could talk about the violence against Planned Parenthood clinics, abstinence only education, which promotes falsehoods about sex, including: view the cited sources

• Do condoms make sexual activity moral? Legal? Healthy?
• AIDS can be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact.
• A young man’s natural desire for sex is already strong due to testosterone…females are becoming culturally conditioned to fantasize about sex as well.
• A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts?

But I think this last choice sums it up best: “Abortion is not the best choice…because it unfairly penalizes the baby for the bad decision the baby’s parents made.”

The crusade against a woman’s right to choose isn’t about saving babies. It’s structured on a paradigm of punishment and misogyny. An unplanned pregnancy is punishment for a slut. Women are victims and only acquiesce to the potency of male desire. Women are unable to understand their choices; abortion is too weighty a decision for a woman to make.

This is the crux of it.

And, you know, it boggles my mind that many straight women don’t view this battle as more crucial. Sans something terrible happening, I’m never going to get pregnant by accident. On a completely personal level, and without any thought to the larger scheme of things, it doesn’t matter for my body whether or not abortion is legal.

However, this issue isn’t about unplanned pregnancy. It’s about control of women and our lives. The same legislators who rant about abstinence-only education and how abortion should be illegal are ones who vote against social safety-net programs that help children after they’re born. It’s such a simple and blatant form of hypocrisy that I’m surprised people don’t see it.

What’s more, the personal opposition often takes a back seat to the realities of life. The NY Times took a look at real women, many of whom oppose the right to choose, who still chose to terminate pregnancy. It’s a great article. Under din of abortion debate…

Anyway, finally, take a look at this video that asks people whether women should go to jail for having abortions.

My talented friend over at Kinemapoetics, posted a well-argued piece about the problem of non-profit administrators drinking the Kool-Aid of “our staff does important work, so they should expect less pay.”

He sums it up better than I ever have and I give him mad props. Read All pigs are created equal but some are more equal, and other pigs work for nonprofits where they aren’t paid the value of their labor.

I adore my friends. I am so lucky to have such thoughtful, smart people in my life.

Defamer has the creepy Tom Cruise Scientology video up on their site for the time being. Go watch it before he sues them and they have to take it down.

It’s funny, because with the Scientology craziness, I’d always said that my hunch was that he was more like his character in Magnolia than any other he’d played — which is why it was so convincing. Watching that video totally confirmed that hypothesis.

WTF Obama? Reagan? Seriously? Optimism? What? Government grown and grown and no responsibility? Clarity? A return to the dynamism and entrepreneurship of the Reagan era?

Good god, I’m in shock. I’m. Yeah. Shock.

I’m not saying you have to put devil horns on Reagan, but the guy was one of the worst things to happen to labor in the last fifty years AND he did nothing about the AIDS epidemic because it was a gay disease. He was the kind of guy who if you wrote him individually, maybe he’d write you a personal check to help you (it happened), but he never looked beyond an individual towards the big picture of how to help those who need it in our society.

Best comment pulled from Wonkette is below the video.

So, just to be clear here, unprecedented budget deficits + giving weapons to dictatorships + sitting on your ass for eight years and not doing anything productive = government accountability.

(psst Obama, Republicans aren’t allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries)

You think they could come up with something original. But, no, Huckabee is following in the tired footsteps of irrational homophobes everywhere. Let’s call it taking the Santorum path.

From an interview on Beliefnet (a religion-oriented website) via TPM:

QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

This is too tired a topic to drag on with, but it should be mentioned to bring Huckabee’s extremism into focus.

By the way, my favorite smasher to come out of this is:

1. a politician running for the Republican nomination for president
2. sex with animals

Answer: Huckabeastiality

Ahahahahaha. God that’s funny.

I hate you so much, Bachmann. Via Think Progress. When I can find a video/transcript of the press conference (if I have time), I’ll post it.

At a press conference today unveiling the stimulus proposal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) justified the conservative plan to give tax breaks to corporations — instead of working Americans — by arguing that people actually like working long hours:

“I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We’re the workingest state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs.”

I’ve developed a new morbid addiction. The Ron Paul Survival Report is an awesome site that is essentially devoted to showing what is wrong with Ron Paul. The blogger is thorough as hell. Every time I’ve checked his sources to make sure he was accurate (I try to vet the people I quote, you know), he’s been right on.

Most recently, Ron Paul is doing another one of his “money bombs” on MLK day. Ignoring his history of racist statements and affiliations, the general philosophies of extreme free market economics he espouses (which disenfranchise the vast majority of us), and the plethora of white supremacists who have flocked to his campaign (seriously)…RP is reinforcing his status as racist by actually speaking at Bob Jones University tonight at 5 p.m. It’s currently on his website (I checked).

So. Do you folks know about Bob Jones University? Well…let me enlighten you. Back in 2000, candidate George Bush spoke at Bob Jones, which set of a firestorm even from some of the most ridiculously conservative folks around (Bill Kristol, I’m looking at you). Why? From the Salon.com archives.

The school refused to admit any African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, most unmarried African-American applicants were denied admission, presumably to prevent interracial dating. After 1975, the school — under court order — began admitting unmarried African-American students, though according to the U.S. government, it rejected “any applicant known to be a partner in an interracial marriage.”

After the 1975 court order, Bob Jones administrators established rules requiring expulsion for any student who married or dated outside his or her race or belonged to an organization that advocated or encouraged others to marry or date outside his or her race.

In 2000, this was still the policy. After the controversy stirred up by Bush’s visit, they subsequently dropped the policy. In 2000. Eight years ago.

Now, you could argue: “But they changed the policy!” Despite the fact that I think that’s crap, I still think a candidate (or anyone) should not speak somewhere that is this misogynistic. From the Bob Jones website:

Dress Code for Women

Classroom/general dress consists of a dress or top and skirt; however, pants may be worn for some recreational activities. Shorts may never be worn outside the residence halls and fitness center.

Pants

• Loose-fitting pants may be worn between women’s residence halls, for athletic events, and to homes in the area.
• Loose-fitting jeans may be worn in and between women’s residence halls and when participating in activities where the durability of the fabric is important, such as skiing and ice-skating.
• Low-riders are not permitted.
• Shorts may be worn only inside the residence halls and fitness center

Other

• Combat boots, hiking boots or shoes that give this appearance are not permitted. Leather sandals, including those with a strap between the toes, will be permitted at times when women are not required to wear hose. Flip flops made of rubber, plastic, etc., are not permitted in public.
• Hairstyles should be neat, orderly, and feminine. Avoid cutting-edge fads and cuts so short that they take on a masculine look.

For some added hilariousness:

Abercrombie & Fitch and its subsidiary Hollister have shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions. In protest, we will not allow articles displaying their logos to be worn, carried, or displayed (even if covered or masked in some way).

Anyway, so, whatever. I’m not worried that RP is going to win the Republican nomination, much less the general election, but I do feel concerned that a certain segment of people respond to his rhetoric. It’s isolationist, self-interested, and generally loathsome. Anyone who believes we shouldn’t be funding public education is setting up a situation in which the poor remain poor and the rich get richer. From his website:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

Yeah. Um. Hello? If schooling is funded by local taxes, poor areas will not have competitive schools. I see no way in which this doesn’t disproportionately (moreso than now) advantage people who already have money and power. If your local tax base is small, where is money coming from to fund education?

Here’s the thing. This whole “personal liberty”/”I know what’s best to do with my money”/”personal responsibility” argument is just one thing: extreme selfishness. We live in a society, which is like being part of a household. A household has expenses. Let’s say we each need to put in 50% of our incomes so that we can pay our bills and improve things. Great. I’m a contributing member of the household. I’m willing to do what I need to in order for this to be a good place to live.

Now here comes along someone who says “This is ridiculous! Why should I put in 50% of my hard-earned money? You don’t do things right. You waste money on things I don’t think we should bother with. Let’s just leave it up to each individual to pay for each thing as it comes.”

You’d never live with someone like that unless you are a fool. You’d think they were supremely selfish and wonder how they expected to be part of a household when they obviously placed no value on it.

Anyway.

The images below are from the Ron Paul Chalk Flickr set. They make me laugh about us.