Archive for the ‘Mel Gibson’ Category

MoveOn.org is inviting all of us to a virtual town hall to talk about Iraq with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Joe Biden. Earnestness is not my forte, but I think this is genuinely good.

Virtual Town Hall: Iraq
Tuesday, April 10
7:15 PM

Read Full Post »

the thing with I know this should be called, “Drowning in Republican Tears #2”, but I can’t avoid sensationalist headlines.

To start things out, the Republican Party puts a lot of stock into being homogeneous, despite being filled to the brim with libertarians, fiscal conservatives, neocons, hardcore evangelicals and so forth. This is all because the Republican Party’s strategy is to create/find a resonating idea (with hyped rhetoric), like communism, terrorism, the moral decay of society, whatever…and then push forward with a hypothetical united front. Then there they are, the Republican base holding hands in unison, singing kumbaya, fighting the good fight, while the evil Democrats are just angry, mean, and disagreeable. It’s really a beautiful dance of cogs and gears.

The great thing about Giuliani is, right when the Republican Party is out trying to find it’s new voice, recovering from scandals and internal doubt, the most Democrat Republican (or just the oddest Republican) is polled first for the Republican primaries. It’s quite wonderful because it undermines the whole idea of the Republican movement. It ruins their aura of homogeny, shows the weakening of the evangelical base, and to top it off Giuliani is completely and utterly unelectable. I won’t even get to his failed personal life, which even makes mine look rosy (ie I break up with girls via text messages, he breaks up with his wife via a public press conference*). He has no experience with public policy on the federal or even state level, and even his 9-11 strengths aren’t that strong.

I’m not saying that Giuliani is sticking with these beliefs, that would be too much to ask from a candidate. Instead he’s scrambling to the right like McCain (or any other candidate’s “readjustments”), trying to find a way to renounce the platforms he’s ran on in the past. He’s already stated that he will only appoint baby loving judges to the Supreme Court. Don’t worry though, we can still watch him as he wiggles around his ideas of gun control and gay marriage. It’ll be amazing to see a man eat his own foot.

So for every moment that Rudy Giuliani is holding the race, he’s a symbol of the present collapse of the Republican Party (besides Bush himself, Mark Foley, Abramoff, “Scooter”, Gonzales…I give up).

*To any single females reading this, I don’t actually break up with people via text messages. Just the occasional email/voicemail. Or sometimes notes with cut letters from a magazine.


Read Full Post »

So the half-assed, luke warm political insult slinging has begun. Sigh. I wish they would just all get together and have a nice slapfight and settle this like adults.

McCain is definitely pulling out ahead in this one if only because he has literally no shame. Case in point:

“Some minutes later, after the news conference had ended, Mr. McCain, unbidden, said to the reporter, ‘Sir, I stand by my comments about Secretary Rumsfeld, by the way.'”

Really, really, Mr. Reporter sir. I don’t like that man one bit! Take me seriously! Unfortunately what he said about Rumsfeld wasn’t too salacious. It was along the lines of Rumsfeld being a bad Secretary of Defence. At which point all of America slapped their foreheads and said, “duh.”


Read Full Post »

In an uncharacteristic display of cognitive sagacity and, um, being conscious, Bush acknowledged that, yes, some people are richer than others. And, surprisingly, those people tend to have more education and skills than the poor people.

He knows, because he is (duh) actively trying to increase income inequality, you know, to prove he’s not a commie bastard. The bastards. And fuck you if you are thinking about socialized health care. And everyone getting a decent education.

Bush has proposed his new budget. He lauds 2012 as the year when our budget will be balanced!!!……… apparently it’s the year when people who make over $1 million annually will save $73 billion in taxes, and domestic discretionary programs (help poor and almost poor people) will get cut by $34 billion. So, right, not balanced, and totally fucked up.

This interesting graph shows, for this year, how different programs add up for spending.

Tax Break Graph

But seriously, why am I whining so much? When the top 1% of households will get tax cuts averaging about $167,000, they will each be obligated to hire 5 full-time and 1 part-time staff members to wipe their asses and drive their cars and empty their bedpans and stuff. And that will be awesome.

I was listening to a BBC Documentary this morning asking ‘how do regular Americans feel about the course of their country?’ and the commentator had to explain private health care to the listeners. She was like, “in America, the government doesn’t pay health care costs and people have to buy it themselves, and most can’t afford to.” It sounds crazy, but we love it.

Read Full Post »

“In other words, liberal moment or conservative slump?

“Both, presumably, for reasons that could be explained in part by the ‘mommy party/daddy party’ cliché — that is, that voters typically favor Democrats (‘mommy party’) on social issues and Republicans (‘daddy party’) on national security.

“’At the moment, daddy seems to have messed up the war in Iraq,’ says Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review magazine, ‘so people are much more willing to listen to mommy, which helps Democrats.'” *

Mommy party and daddy party? Oh sweet fuck. How come I hadn’t heard of this moniker before?

I suppose if we lived in a less sexist world, and this wasn’t a term so obviously created by Republicans, I would hate the idea of this less. In fact, it would be possible to spin this in a positive way. Mommies are looking out for the good of the family (“country”), trying to keep everyone alive (less war, more health care, economic equality -> less poverty -> healthier people). Daddies have a stronger arm (more war), more alienated from the intimate workings of the family (“country”), but more closely related to the financial business of the family.

But, as a liberal, I see actual gender roles deviating from this paradigm, not only in my own family, but in like, every family. Also, I don’t hate men. Also, I don’t think Republicans are actually very good at dealing with money.
But even the above interpretation is the new version of the mommy/daddy definition currently in use. Just a few years ago, it meant something completely different. So to hear this described by a true-blue Repub, with possibly non-western philosophical leanings, circa 1999:

“The concept [is] that the Democratic Party is the ‘Mommy Party’ and the Republican Party is the ‘Daddy Party.’ This derives from the oriental concept of yin and yang, which divides the cosmos into yin, which is feminine, dark and negative, and yang, which is masculine, light and positive. The Democratic party is the Mommy Party in that it represents security, which must be pessimistic, just as mother and wife as traditional keepers of hearth and home are risk averse. Republicans represent growth, which results from risk-taking, which requires optimism, which father and husband need as they set forth to improve the conditions of the family. The family is in harmony, as is the cosmos, when yin and yang are in balance.” **

I personally, see this as ass-backwards. In this scenario, the Democrats are associated with “security” and the Republicans are associated with “improv[ing] the conditions of the family.” But this explanation was written in 1999, before Republicans cared about terrorists and while they were still interested in making sure Bill Clinton keeps his dick out of the public eye/Monica Lewinsky. Ah, simpler days.

Can we all agree at this point that, as a country, we’re not going to use terms like this anymore because it makes us sound so naive, so dated, so pricky? Can we just go ahead and take the issues and each decide where we stand on them, without associating them with deeply ingrained prejudices? Can we move forward and actually discuss important things like adults?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.


* “Leftward, Ho?”

** “Memo, 1-19-99; Mommy Party, Daddy Party”

Read Full Post »