BuyPartisan: Sorry, there isn't an app for stupid!

BuyPartisan sounds like a great app: scan the bar code of your favorite food and figure out if that company leans to the left or to the right and how much it contributes to the various parties. It’s inventor told the Washington Post that the app was designed to “empower individuals so that they can make every day like Election Day in how they spend their money.” Oddly enough, the editorial board doesn’t like this one bit. Surprising!

For now, I think this app is a great idea. It boils down the one fast rule of life: money is everything. People as a whole have known for some time that voting with your dollar is the quickest way to make the change you want. It’s no surprise that after corporate sponsors of the regressive think tank ALEC were outed a lot of them went “What? Nope…not us!” and hustled out of the door so fast. It’s how groups of people threaten to boycott certain corporations that are doing things they don’t care for in order to persuade the corporation to maybe just have ONE day where they’re not being the evil, black-hearted, cocks they tend to be. Glenn Beck knows all to well the power that corporations provide through advertising. So much so that when they started leaving his accompanying shows in droves, he left the television airways with them, and now hocks “real made in the USA” denim jeans on his radio show and “internet television network“.

Unlike the Washington Post editorial board, I don’t think one app is going to further splinter the country. I would be amazed if it did, and that would mean that a lot of red state citizens would probably have to buy a Smartphone first. With their tin-foiled hat fear of the government scanning their thoughts for future crime, and dragging them away in the night, I doubt a surge in Smartphoned right-wingers is going to happen.

To attempt to try and validate its point, the editorial pulls out that stupid ass Pew Research poll that proves that America is driving itself further down ideological lines. I say stupid ass because all it’s proving, like a lot of polls showing this divide, is that it’s CONSERVATIVES that are becoming more ideologically rigid, and unwilling to work with other ideas. NOT the other way around. You’d think the right-leaning Washington Post would do better than to include that quote from the Pew poll, but they do.

The editorial continues with the notion that “if” the app “succeeds” it will take ideological sorting to a whole new level. Have they even used a Smartphone before, do they even know what an app is? This editorial is strangely technophobic and profoundly ignorant to just how much of an impact an app can have…on any level.

The app seems to be more about informing consumers about how a corporation does its business, and less about driving an ideological agenda. In fact, the app seems more to fill in the gap that has long been abandoned by the news altogether: public information. The internet also facilitates this notion, and it’s any wonder the news industry is suffering as a whole.

This notion of fearing the impending “ideological silos” is laughable, because it’s mostly a right-wing construct. Why is there still this constant need to have your own views represented in everything? The GOP/right-wing has a white knuckle grip on talk radio, they have their own channel, and a fair amount of newspaper editorial boards. This fear of marginalization was laughable when it was established and is absurd now. No one’s driving the GOP/right-wing ideas away from the mainstream but themselves and their idiotic actions as a party/ideology.

5 Signs You're A Social Justice Asshole!

Since writing about the Samantha Allen vs. Giant Bomb a while back I went on a journey in to the world of social justice. If this Encyclopedia Dramatica reference is to be believed, I’m fucked, and there’s no way out. Well, it was nice knowing you dear readers.

But fear not, my time with this wing of The Internets is drawing to a close. I’ve attempted three different times to write an article about social justice: it’s misinformed warriors and it’s well-intentioned but narrow minded knights. All to no avail. I’m struck by the sheer amount of horrible writing, both in terms of content and it’s literal meaning. These Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s) defend topics that need absolutely NO DEFENDING. In the past month, I’ve read a defense of Kim Kardashian’s shitty celebrity game, that claims people hate Kim K because she’s making money? In that same vein another SJW defended PewDiePie from game “journalists” who are also jealous of his millions, and homophobic? What? This is the world of the SJW.

To close this dark chapter in my time as Mayor of Haterville, I’ve decided to take one of these articles to task. Ironically enough, it’s a Samantha Allen article titled 5 Signs You’re Dating a Reddit Troll. Yup, ol’ Ms. Allen is writing another tired “thought piece” on what appears to be one of the few different venues that draw her, and most SJW’s ire, Reddit. The other is 4chan. Because white cisgendered men are the enemy, and they cannot hide any longer!

I chose the article mostly because it’s the most recent, and is vaguely political, but also because it encapsulates my general problem with SJW’s. These broad stroke, lazy, arm chair quarterback articles are just inert pieces of trash clogging up The Internets, and honestly, not doing anyone a bit of good.

SJW’s by their very stated nature aren’t in to educating people, especially men. They are more than happy to shovel their hot opinions in to your face, but if you even blink at a notion they suddenly feel threatened and go on the offensive. Ms. Allen is great at this. She was interviewed at On the Media (around the time of the Giant Bomb debacle) about games that include "LBGT (sic) identities". On the podcast comment page were FIVE comments. One of the comments posted was a link to Ms. Allens’ misandry screed and stated that perhaps this wasn’t the right person to be interviewing about broader representation in games. Ms. Allen then proceeded to inform her twitter feed that she was being trolled yet again by the white man. Which wasn’t even the case. This mountain out of a molehill mentality is kind of the SJW’s one play with The Internets.

The one thing that truly stymies me is the SJW writer actively engaging in the very trolling behavior they admonish. Which, if the research I’ve been doing these past few weeks is any indication, is kind of what they do. I truly want to believe that Ms. Allen’s article is satirical in nature, but sadly it isn’t and it’s truly sad.

The intro to the list is a bit useless as it’s unnecessary to the list. But Ms. Allen has a SJW quota to fill so she indulges in a bit of early man hate from the beginning. You see, a woman’s husband left a browser open on their shared laptop, she shockingly discovered that he was an internet troll that “spends his spare time harassing teenagers on Tumblr”. (Tumblr is basically SJW Valhalla, so this is doubly damning!) Horror of horrors, the wife is also pregnant! (Somehow the teenagers referenced earlier are coyly changed to “women”, and the husband then becomes a “chronic harasser”.)

Now it’s not up to Ms. Allen to provide context, she’s trying to sell her bullshit misandry anyway she can. But context is definitely key. The husband needs to be a woman hating internet harasser for her article about how every single male on the planet is evil to hang together. It’s with the context of actually going and looking up said reddit thread that things become a lot less black and white, but we’re here to make fun of Ms. Allen’s list, not use one couples deeper marital issues to buoy horseshit ideology-as-help articles.

To perhaps save the woman from the same fate as the reddit woman, who was tricked by an evil man in to marrying him and then producing children with him, which he would then harass and slut-shame, Ms. Allen has crafted a list of things a woman needs to ask a potential man (who you are not going to be fooled by then perhaps marry and procreate with him). But you would probably be better off just NOT asking any MAN anything, because as we all know, men are just wanting sex and cannot even begin to suppress their need to subjugate the woman.

Question 1. “What do you think of Seth MacFarlane?” As a white cisgendered man (A.K.A. THE ENEMY) my first answer would be: “What?” But I’m part of the problem. Because Mr. MacFarlane’s Family Guy (and most of his output if we’re being honest) is about being equal opportunity offender to everyone, this greatly bothers SJW’s. The SJW’s see their plight as the most pure and the most right, and equal opportunity thinkers (EOT’s) are the SJW kryptonite in this regard. EOT’s think that SJW’s are just polishing the brass on the Titanic, and are just being overwrought, hyperbolic bullies. MacFarlane being a white male is also the worst thing ever, regardless of his equal opportunity “nonsense”.

Also, according to Ms. Allen he squandered his one-shot at Oscar hosting, which is odd, as he just hosted the Oscars, do you mean perhaps another shot? A second shot if it were? I don’t think Seth MacFarlane is going to lose sleep over not hosting the Oscar’s again. So, if you hate Seth MacFarlane’s “politics” then you’ve passed woman level one! If not, then the woman should be worried, because you may have been mean to a woman on The Internets! Run woman Run!!!! At the very least she didn’t make the question about “the South Park guys” and their equal opportunity shenanigans.

Question 2. “Have you ever heard of Anita Sarkeesian?” You’re answer will probably be “Nope!” As NO ONE outside SJW’s and video game nerds have heard of her. More than likely, you’re answer should still be “Nope!” because she’s a non entity to most society/culture and really should not have any profound impact on a relationship in any capacity.

Ms. Allen still has an axe to grind with the Giant Bomb “community” and this is how she squeezes it in to her article. First off, the term “video gamer” is antiquated and insulting, and so is the idea that if you’re a male and play video games you’re a seemingly undesirable to the female. Calling Anita Sarkeesian a feminist is fine, but calling her a media critic is pretty laughable. She isn’t interested in critiquing media and video games, she’s only interested in propelling herself. Her videos “liberally borrow” content from other internet videos, we used to call this plagiarism, but when you’re the queen of SJW’s you can do no wrong, therefore it’s not stealing. She also “liberally borrowed” other content on The Internets for her video series and failed to give proper credit, causing more problems for herself.

As with most SJW movements, Anita Sarkeesian isn’t interested in addressing problems and fixing them. So, do as Ms. Allen says in the last sentence and pretend to recognize the name and say something that “[…]sounds feminist or, at the least, empathetic […]. Then you’ll be okay to have babies with! Hooray?

Question 3.  “Which amendment in the Bill of Rights do you think is the most important?” I could write an entire column just about this ONE question. This is where the article leaves the atmosphere of anything remotely satirical and crashes gloriously in to the SJW quagmire of buffoonishness. It’s clear that Ms. Allen doesn’t know shit politically and this question should’ve been avoided as it also has NOTHING to do with a relationship.

Ms. Allen does a quick sexy run down on the Bill of Rights. In fact, it seems as though she just ran down the Bill of Rights wikipedia page and nothing else. Speaking of sexy this question can be a “ […] fun question that every couple should ask each other just to build intimacy […]” Sure, if you’re a couple of TEA Party Patriots who met on okStupid or Ohatedate.com!

Unsurprisingly, the fourth amendment gets shoved unsexy like with the fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments.  It seems as though Ms. Allen started losing the thread in her column as none of the choices seem particularly inspired, funny, or insightful...or remotely satirical. Thinking that one particular amendment is more important than another doesn’t say much about a person. Nor is thinking the 2nd amendment being the most important makes you unlovable and that the woman should “RUN!” from you. Most people will ALWAYS pick the 1st amendment, it’s the fucking 1st amendment for crying out loud! Instead of half-assing a top-ten list of the Bill of Rights, perhaps Ms. Allen should’ve just said “If the man says anything about the 1st and 2nd amendment then he is unworthy of your love, because crazies love the 2nd amendment and internet trolls ALWAYS use the first amendment to harass women!” It’s also humorous that she adds about 1st amendment lovers  “[…] If he thinks it means that “it’s a free country” and “people can say whatever they want,” tell him to go back to the playground he learned his politics from […]” Kind of where Ms. Allen learned her critical thought and analysis ability?

Question 4. “Can I borrow your laptop really quick?” The next two questions are quick because Ms. Allen got her misandry out of the way and you can only sub textual write “white cisgendered males are the Satan” so many times. What better way to find out if your loved one is the one by straight up invading his privacy. According to Ms. Allen you have about 30 seconds to hand over your laptop before your doltishness unleashes itself and your rendered wifeless and alone! No one, I mean NO ONE should have their privacy invaded in order to prove worthiness. This nugget pretty much settles everything in this humorous bit:

“Men don’t just cheat on you and watch too much porn anymore. They also obsessively track down and harass people who are different from them in order to feel the fleeting sense of control and superiority that defines their particular version of masculinity.”

Are we still pretending this is satirical? 

Question 5. “Do you harass people on the Internet?” This is the only question you ever need to ask. The entire article previous is useless, unless you’re in to misandry and broad stroked idiocy-as-academic-critical-thought. But more importantly, being an asshole on The Internets doesn’t make you an unworthy partner. Should you also think twice when you’re riding in the car with your mate and they yell at bad driving on the road? Unless they have constant anger issues, you have nothing to worry about. There is more concrete evidence and signs for a bad partner than their internet habits.

It recently came to light, from Ms. Allen herself, that the article in question is just a “lighthearted thing”. I sincerely hopes that this is the case, but it still doesn’t excuse the rampant idiocy that rages through this column. Sure, as an academic Ms. Allen isn't shackled to churning out constant “academic thought pieces”, but that would mean that she would have to have written something academic in the same vein as this column. The bulk of her writing online is about video games, and trolling pop culture, so it becomes a bit stymieing that she paints with such a willfully ignorant brush. None of this article reads as satire, unless tongue-in-cheek has become ruthlessly bullying and mean. This article is just straight up trolling.

Debate: Are Republicans cold-hearted? Well, They Are Stupid.

Ugh. I almost wrote about Jonah Goldberg’s column about conservative values finding a home in the evil Uber-Liberal world of the moving pictures. His rhetorical laziness and blatant force of ignorance will always trump any sort of real cogent point he could make about the excellence of “conservative values“.

Instead, something else fell in to my lap, which is much more worthy of my rankles.

I don’t think people understand what debate is anymore. Reading this hot garbage Newsday fueled “debate” on whether Republicans are cold-hearted or not makes the case that the two authors don’t either. Then I read the comments. Yeah, people don’t have a goddamned clue what debate means anymore.

It’s easy to understand how this came to be. Real debate is hard for normal people. For the pundit class, who get paid to think by their ideological monied interests, it’s all too easy. For the pundit class, debate is just yelling over someone who thinks differently from you, not answering the original question asked, and going of on some tangent that’s somehow remotely related to the debate topic…and inexplicably not answering the question. That’s debate in the 24 hours news cycle, so can you really blame normal, everyday people, if they think that what the see these days is “debate”?

I tend to avoid reading these kind of “pro” and “con” articles when they appear in the newspaper. They lack any real substance and simply boil down to a “chocolate” or “peanut butter” solution from their respective camps on the myriad of topics foisted at it. It’s also just blatant status quo upkeep in the grand false equivalency.

So the topic goes: “Recent poll results from the Pew Research Center raise the question anew: They show that 86 percent of self-described "steadfast conservatives" believe that in America, "the poor have it easy." Just 6 percent of "solid liberals" believe the same thing. Who is right? Are liberals too soft-hearted, or are conservatives big ol' meanies?”

Joe Mathis (I guess representing the left-wing?) and Ben Boychuk (Umm…the right-wing…but not because he is a LIBERTARIAN!) “debate” this question.

Coming in at a (generously counted) blazing sixty-hundred and sixty-ish words you kind of get the notion that there’s not going to be much, if any debate. And wouldn’t you know it? There isn’t! Mr. Mathis does attempt to answer the question. Of course, the answer is yes: because they are!

Mr. Mathis makes some good points. He discusses the last election, and Romney’s “47 percent” comment, behind closed doors. It’s in their veiled racism towards “others”, like Reagan’s “welfare queens” of yore. Further, it’s in the GOP/right-wing’s exaltation of “policy wonk” Paul Ryan’s annual attempt to gut welfare budget’s and garner huge tax cuts for the wealthy through his “budgets”. It’s going on now with the current immigration problem, as the pundit class looks at those children living a life in limbo and squalor and just keep screaming “Eww! Eww! Send them away! Obama do something! Ick! Ick! Ick!” It’s in GOP/right-wing in congress being the arbiter’s of the general “Do-Nothing Congress 2.0” nature. If they are not cold-hearted, then what are they? They certainly aren’t pragmatic or sensible currently.

Mr. Mathis undercuts most of this by continuing to hedge his answer towards the false equivalency. It’s kind of hard not to. Regular people aren’t as black and white as the pundit class is paid to be. They can be of two minds on a topic. Believing that some poor people aren’t trying hard enough, AND that government is doing too much harm than good or in their case, probably not spending the money on the things they think the government should be spending their tax money on.

Ben Boychuk, in perfect right-wing fashion, doesn’t even bother answering the question. He’s basically “Answer?…pssh! That poll is stupid!”. The End. He does site a shortened version of the poll you the viewer can participate in and of course he came up “solidly conservative“. Then goes on to I guess site the actual poll where people could answer “I don’t know” to some of the questions, and has one of his buddies at the LIBERTARIAN Cato Institute double down on Mr. Boychuk’s assertion that the poll’s questions are dumb, therefore the poll itself is dumb. He then rattles off some debunked right-wing talking points, and calls it a day.

The Pew Poll website quiz that Mr. Boychuk sites is indeed a bit dumb. There are only two answers to a question, and it’s PRETTY OBVIOUS which answers are which. But the debate question isn't “Is this poll dumb and why?” and I’m pretty sure if we count this as a debate, then the answer is “Yes, Republicans are cold-hearted…and stupid…and don’t take direction well when asked to debate a question.” But hey at least Mr. Boychuk was found to be "solidly-conservative". Whew!

Giant Bomb vs. Samantha Allen

The greatest trick Giant Bomb ever pulled was convincing regular people they could get hired at their site.

Samantha Allen, a trans writer “activist” known for her provocateur nature writing on gender politics and videogames, had a point: Giant Bomb hired two white guys they already knew? Yawn.

If only it was constructed that way.

Initially, Ms. Allen had my sympathies in the great shitstorm on the internets that arose over her disappointment in Giant Bomb hiring to white males to their staff and her nascent need to comment on it as a trans woman. In the ensuing hours and days after her twitter post, it was nigh impossible to get a clear picture of what just instigated Giant Bomb’s “community” to spew hot trash and vitriol someone just speaking their mind. Giant Bomb’s staff were on twitter vaguely commenting towards the assholery and telling those in the “community” to stop and that they didn’t represent the site and so on. It wasn’t helping matters. Then Jeff Gerstmann wrote a vague editorial admonishing those who would attacks critics of the site.

But after reading Ms. Allen’s work, I find that my sympathies have greatly diminished for her. While I don’t condone the insults and harassment she received, I do believe she brought in on herself with how shittily she handled the entire situation. I think she knew what she was doing when she expressed her opinions, she just wasn’t prepared for the onslaught of push back she received.

It’s been over a week since the debacle, and it’s been interesting to see so little of those in the videogames press attempt to discuss the Giant Bomb debacle, as most of them are white males, with any clarity. Aside from the “we need more women in videogames” and the “oh you…the internets…up to no good again!” comments, nothing’s really being discussed in depth. This topic needs to be treated with respect and honesty.

Giant Bomb’s staff, aside from the editorial, has said nothing else on the subject. Which is pretty disappointing, as again, I think this a topic worth discussing. Of course, it’s a minefield, both as Giant Bomb being owned by CBS and the very real notion that Ms. Allen was indeed the instigator in the hot mess that everyone found themselves in. 

I’m of the mind that the harassment Ms. Allen experienced may have been fueled by Giant Bomb’s “community”’s disappointment at not getting hired at the site, and they couldn’t really lash out at the staff. Ms. Allen was a perfect target to focus this communal rage at not gaining access to the promised land of games journalism. She apparently looked to be starting a fight, and the internets being the internets, obliged her.

Let’s be honest: “games journalism” is a shallow, tiny pool. Giant Bomb itself and past hiring practices have been one of friends and known entities to the various staff members of the site. It should’ve been a foregone conclusion that Giant Bomb was going to hire someone everyone knew, for maximum awesome and general site personality cohesion. It was ALWAYS going to be a white male.

Ms. Allen initially had a point: Giant Bomb could’ve hired ANYONE else. The tired argument goes “It is 2014 after all“, and while it is indeed a small minority (no pun intended), there are a lot of other people besides 30 something white males that have opinions on videogames. But Ms. Allen handled her point inelegantly, and because of her “activist” nature, swung a mighty feminist cudgel when none was necessary.

But my biggest question about all of this: why white trans women like Ms. Allen (and to a lesser extent Caorlyn Petit), are pushing such a hard-line feminist agenda? In addition why do they insist on doing so in the low hanging fruit venue of videogame websites? This same subculture has allowed man-children the ability to whine and scream about videogames and their corporate overlords doing them injustices AND getting paid to do so! Predominantly overweight white men to boot. It’s a subculture of man-babies creating content for fifteen year old boys.

Reading most of Ms. Allen’s writings, there is a clear thread of provocation. Which she has never been unclear about. She’s an unapologetic misandrist. Which makes her wading in to the videogame’s press sphere a tad insidious. When you’re a hammer everything seems to be a nail, and so it explains when a fellow twitter writer wrote that maybe Giant Bomb’s new white male hire’s were the most qualified she replied “Go Fuck Yourself”. Unfortunately, those tweets were deleted from her feed, in a move to probably appear more victimized than initially observed. But the bulk of her misandry and views on videogames press is still present in her twitter feed.

To be fair, after everything was said and done Ms. Allen appeared to lament her knee jerk reaction that inevitably lead to the shitstorm she found herself in and made her vacate twitter for a week. I hope this becomes a teachable lesson for her, and any young “activists” that think provoking people is a viable method of converting the masses to your cause. Too often young activists just don’t understand how long it takes to actually affect real change.

But this fiery attitude is immeasurably useful to any movement. The fire and brimstone nature of youth gives any change movement the energy it needs in the long cold months when it seems like nothing is ever going to change for the better. But the sexiness of activism wears off quickly for young people, and they soon abandon their “principles” once they realize that revolution has not taken hold overnight.

This fiery attitude can also lead to the Giant Bomb/Samantha Allen fiasco as well. It should be noted that Ms. Allen is knee deep in academia at Emory University. So I believe she should know better than to entertain the kind of firebrand proactive baloney she keeps finding herself in.  She has some good things to say, and her activist bent is going to be an evergreen one as our country itself begins to understand and accept sexualities that may confuse and scare them. But the last place she needs to couch some of it is in the videogames press. Enthusiast press of all sorts isn’t really the venue for ANY kind of political activism, it’s existence is based on true escapism from the “real world”.

I’m of the mindset that the videogames enthusiast press isn’t going to change any time soon. I’m less concerned with the diversity of it’s ranks and more concerned with the toddler tantrum nature that seems to be the entire foundation of it’s being. I would love if videogames could be taken seriously as an art form, but it is still shackled to the notion by and large that it’s still a toy for children. Videogames themselves have a long way to go, and “gamers” themselves have even further. I would enjoy the notion that we could discuss the topics Ms. Allen and others bringing up in the videogames press with some maturity, but for now that is largely absent from the proceedings.

Jonah Goldberg: Running Scared from a Hilary Clinton Presidency

Republicans are scared of a Hilary Clinton presidential run. They just need to come out and say it already. They know full well whatever clown crawls out of the wreckage of next year’s GOP Presidential Candidate Clown Car Rally™ is going to lose to her. It won’t be pretty, and so now you see the GOP/right-wing at it’s best: trying to fire up the base with some good old fashioned Clinton bashing!

The GOP/right-wing know people as a whole aren’t paying attention. It’s why they can cycle through their boogeyman at a pretty good clip and no one really notices. It’s no surprise that the lack of Obamacare failure gave rise to renewed Benghazi inquests. Never mind the over a dozen congressional investigations that if they had turned up something scandal worthy, we would never hear the end of it out of Fox News and right-wing pundits.

But what is so bad about another democrat president? Haven’t the GOP/right-wing had field day driving a centrist corporate democrat president further to the right with obstinacy and general “do-nothing”-ness? Time and time again have they not gotten almost everything they’ve wanted out of Obama? Is this all a sick ploy to actually get Hilary elected in 2016?

The reason I bring up the whole "GOP/right-wing know people don’t pay attention" is because Jonah Goldberg riffs on a common political tactic and twists it around as some sort of bellwether to Hilary’s certain defeat. That tactic: distancing yourself from your political counterparts.

But first, some clarification on the recent history. Mr. Goldberg asserts that candidate Obama “pandered to liberal hopes”. This is juvenile wordplay on Mr. Goldberg’s part, but isn’t accurate. Candidate Obama, and most mainstream candidates, pander to most EVERYONE, even during the respective party primaries. He also goes on to say that Obama “promised miracles and magic”, which again, isn’t true. Again, I'd like some sort of context or examples, of said miracles and magic. However, he did propel "Hope" and "Change", but I don't know how magical or miraculous those things are.

Perhaps in the ass lined cave that Jonah Goldberg keeps his head in, Obama-come-Savior was the case. But what both candidate Obama and candidate Hilary were doing was distancing themselves from each other and also W. Who at the time was the veiled political Satan and chief driver of our country's economy in to the ditch. It should be noted that John McCain certainly wasn’t touting just how much like W. he would if he got in office (well…aside from that ridiculous foreign policy of skullfucking “The Terrorists”).

It could be said that in 2008 Americans got wrapped up in Obamamania. But Mr. Goldberg blames “liberals” for voting with their hearts and not their heads for why Obama came to power, and why the government is now suddenly being run by a boob. And to be fair, I have no real defense on the way Obama is running the executive, because it doesn’t matter to me. What was clear that Americans wanted something different, and being pandered to by a really old white man and an illiterate hockey mom was not the answer they were looking for. Then in 2012 they staunchly defended themselves from being presided over by a literal manifestation of "The Man".

When Mr. Goldberg runs with Obama’s handling of the VA “scandal” as some sort of proof that democrats are really regretting that whole “hopey changey thing”, I have to wonder if that’s just wishful thinking on his ideology and behalf. Time and time again, actual scandals worth being scandalized over pop up, and the GOP/right-wing do nothing. This VA scandal isn’t being pushed too hard by the right-wing pundit class because the GOP/right-wing are the most responsible for it. They would rather harp on something like Benghazi which isn’t nearly so tied in to GOP/right-wing congressional malfeasance wagon.

Mr. Goldberg surmises that Hilary is distancing herself from Obama because of his perceived failures, and is attempting to run from it. Of course she is! This is how it’s been done since the founding of this nation! Every candidate to a “T” has distanced themselves from the previous occupant in order to get in said occupants place! That Hilary won’t dare run on any of her time in the Obama administration because that will tank her chances, is ludicrous. Any politician worth their salt is going to downplay fault or perceived “failures”. It isn’t like Hilary doesn’t know Benghazi isn’t going to hound her during her run. Hell, that’s why the GOP/right-wing is still pushing it as if it’s something.

Mr. Goldberg asserts: “Americans almost never reward a party with a third consecutive term in the White House, and when they do, it’s because they want more of the same. Anyone want to wager on how much of a “more of the same” mood America will be in come 2016?” Oddly enough, that depends. I don’t think most Americans are buying what the current GOP/right-wing is selling, that’s for sure. And while Obama’s numbers may be going down, it isn’t because he’s mired in scandal and inept as the right-wing would attest, they’re just getting bored with him.

To end his column Mr. Goldberg insults Hilary’s time as Secretary of State. The manner in which he does show is a really good primer in the GOP/right-wing’s strategy in trying to either dissuade her from running, or what they will harp on when she does. It’s bad enough that they’re insinuating that she might have brain damage (after ravenously proclaiming at the time of her concussion she was faking it to get out of Benghazi investigations), but that she also might be too old to run for office. This coming from the same party that is THE de facto party for propelling old white men presidential candidates! Ronald Reagan was 69, John McCain was 72, Bob Dole was 73 and we’re really going to take Hilary to task on age?

It’s odd that once again Jonah Goldberg uses a construct, in the case the “Hilary-Industrial Complex“, to lambaste “liberals” while rigidly maintaining the GOP/right-wing groupthink that anything that isn’t staunchly conservative is THE EVIL. Does he not even see the irony in this? The right-wing “bubble” is largely to blame for their inability to maintain executive or congressional power very long? 

And “liberals” are still the ideology who votes with their hearts and not their heads?

The GOP/right-wing are clearly afraid of a Hilary Clinton presidential run. It’s apparent just from Jonah Goldberg’s column that this is true. All those conservative presidential darlings of a few months back? Chris Christie, Jeb Bush…where are they now? And while Sheldon Adelson and the other moneyed interest hasn’t quite publicly declared a victor in the GOP “Blunder Games”, you can expect that the “defeat Hilary at all costs playbook” is being written at this moment.

Cal Thomas is Dumb!

Pundits like Cal Thomas,  and others such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer, puzzle me. These old white men are often treated like wizened men of yore, what spake truth with every utterance. They go on panel shows and fart and belch nonsense, then go home and shit out umpteen columns about their chosen bugaboos. I don’t understand the deference from literally EVERYONE in the media. Can we just grab any old doddering fool and have them blubber in to a hot microphone for twenty minutes and be utterly wrong? It surely would be much cheaper.

Cal Thomas predominantly writes about religion and the culture wars therein. Like a black sportswriter, his chosen topic is unfortunately evergreen. Mr. Thomas is constantly couching the topic du jour through his bullshit lens of “truth” and since he’s a seemingly tenured syndicated columnist, never answers for anything. Every topic he’s covered, and the very words he farts, are always thoroughly debunked with common sense before he gets around to his point. Like clockwork, you’ll see him provide some argument that has clearly been done away with. His current topic “redistribution of wealth”…more importantly, his wealth, and the wealth of the catholic church.

It’s clear that those of the more evangelical right-wing catholic mindset don’t care much for Pope Francis. For some odd reason, their prayers for Benedict to keep Pope-ing around, disenfranchising catholics the world over with his hyper-dated worldview and pedophile cover ups, fell on deaf ears. To the rest of the world, Pope Francis has been a unbelievable breath of fresh air.

As a non-catholic I’m a big fan of a populist pope. I mean, we don’t have too many types of world leaders with the peaceful reign longevity or worldwide reach of a pope.  Ideally, the pope sets the religious standards for the entire world. Saying things like “be excellent to yourselves and each other” and “give your money and time to those in need”. All that bullshit that bums out those evangelical right-wingers who use their faith as a cudgel to silence and get rid of things that make them feel icky inside.

Mr. Thomas uses that tired notion of “redistribution means they take ALL the money EVER and just GIVE it FREELY to all the OTHERS! (who have done nothing for society but TAKE!)”. Then couples that with the other tired notion of “redistribution didn’t work under the New Deal or War on Poverty it just went down 16%” Where did that figure come from? Who knows?!

His solution: The Pope should put his money where his mouth is and just start redistributing ALL the Vatican’s money if it‘s such a great idea! So…a silly non answer? Sounds about right from a right-wing pundit.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find Cal Thomas’ net worth on the internets. I’m assuming from the humble brag in his second paragraph he considers himself wealthy, and taxed enough already. He prattles on about how he gives to charity, and if the government started just outright taking his money, where would all the good his money does for his tiny tribe go? You see, he’s taken care of his money responsibly, unlike other people…you know…the others?

It’s this kind of insipid article writing that trickles down (hey a trickle down idea that actually works!) to the stooges of the GOP/right-wing. That wealthy people paying taxes is a punishment. That those tax monies aren’t being poured in to things THEY want, so they are being wasted on things like the OTHERS. Ironically, the right-wing stooges don’t give nearly enough to charity as say a Cal Thomas would, but assuming they tithe and give to charity, they do it under the guise of philanthropy from the tops of their noses. Which they both share in great amounts. Mr. Thomas acts as if he gives so much of his money to charity, that if he didn’t, the charity would fold up and blow away. Which is absurd. And so what if they did? It isn’t like those in need and those who provide charity are just going to end one day.

It’s in the hypothetical that Cal Thomas unveils the type of modern christian that everyone has grown to loathe. In their passive-aggressive actions, they have completely lost what their faith was founded on. Hell, even Mr. Thomas in a recent column about public prayer, extols the quiet reflection that is demanded of his very faith. So prayer, we should probably be hush hush, but when giving your time and money to those in need you can just blast it over the bullhorn? “LOOK AT ALL THE GOOD WORKS I AM DOING! THANK GOD FOR ME AND MY MONEY THAT I FREELY GIVE TO THESE OTHERS!” Give me a break!

The simplicity with which Mr. Thomas breaks down what causes poverty is laughable. Has this man ever known need, probably not, and his breakdown shows that in spades. Let‘s break them down:
1) a dictatorial governmental system that thwarts individual initiative and liberty. What the hell is he talking about? You have to wonder if this means some sort of third world situation or is a reference to the tyrannical ruler Obama. I’m more inclined to lean to the latter merely because it’s a staid talking point, and Cal Thomas has never met a tired talking point he didn’t like. Because of Obama’s tyrannical dictatorship both initiative and liberty have struggled. Which explains why the DOW is hitting record highs, and corporate profits are at an all time high! Somehow the liberty of the working class is getting squashed by all the liberty these overpaid CEO’s are getting, but who’s to parse the thwarting of liberty!?
2) a religious system that oppresses people, especially women, in the name of an angry deity who is ready to pounce on anyone having pleasurable experiences. Again, he may be flying too close to the sun on this one. I’m supposing he’s talking about the OTHER religions that oppress women in the name of an angry deity that’s NOT Christianity? Cal Thomas may be on to something if there is an ongoing problem about impoverished gays. I’m thinking this is a dig at the Vatican, which is the thesis of his article, but the vagueness is puzzling. Is he talking a theocracy, because Mr. Thomas’ articles tend to lead one to believe that ’s the only government system he’d really get behind?
3) the wrong economic system, which stifles growth and discourages risk-taking. This seems eerily similar to the first cause of poverty.  Also, an example of what a wrong economic system is would be beneficial to the reader. Once more, I assume this is a dog whistle “Obama is an evil tyrant” sort of thing and nothing more. I guess I’d say just put what I wrote under poverty cause number one under this one too. I mean, if he’s not even trying at this point…why should I?
4) Wrong lifestyle choices when it comes to education, sex, marriage and crime. Mr. Thomas must have a word count, because I really feel like these are more like poverty causes 4-7 or 8ish. More to the point, it’s also the veiled racist portion of Mr. Thomas’ article. As he’s done with the bulk of his column, he’s somehow married disparate concepts that exist in a simplistic wrongheaded worldview. You can’t "wrong lifestyle choices" education if you’re living in the slums and ghettos. You can’t "wrong lifestyle choices" who your parents are and how much money and stability they come with. It’s so easy to make smart decisions when you’re born into stability and means, like I assume Cal Thomas has.

In all these causes, Mr. Thomas offers no real solutions, which is all well and good and probably the most christian thing to do in this case. He just supplies this notion that attempting to fix social injustice has been a failure, so why even bother? Surely the benevolent charitable givers alone should be able to lift those unwashed masses out of their poverty! He talks about moving poor children to better educational opportunities, but who’s going to pay for that? The GOP/right-wing balk at this notion and only attempt to offer solutions that will only enrich their moneyed interests and still provide no better an education. In the grand false equivalency, he writes “[…] liberal politicians won't let them escape for fear of losing political contributions from teachers' unions.” What a crock of shit.

Confederacy of Dunce: Kathleen Parker

It was funny when I was going about doing what little research I do for these pieces that I happened upon this Kathleen Parker Washington Post page. That alone wasn’t the humorous bit, but the headline next to her very botoxed face was. “Taking the country’s pulse - and assessing it’s health. Twice a week.” Now, this doesn’t say whether she’s actually any good at taking a pulse OR assessing a health. Just as I assume no one ever proofs or edits her columns to make sure they have any ounce of credibility to them. Some form of editor would have been nice, if only to prevent her from a public display of her column prowess on Meet The Press a few weeks back.

Kathleen Parker kinda/sorta proclaimed that southerners are dumb...well, at least not "sophisticated" The clip doesn't really help her case either. She kind of just rambles through her talking point anxiously looking to hand it off to the guy to her left. Had it not been for a transcript, I wouldn't have a clue as to what she truly said. So you can kind of understand why people, especially Southerners, would be upset about this comment.

Well, never fear! She decided to do a little backtrack by proudly rolling out her Southern bona fides.

But how much damage control did she really expect to do? I mean millions or people purportedly watch Meet The Press every Sunday, I imagine a tiny fraction of those people actually READ a Kathleen Parker article.

The major bone I have to pick with Ms. Parker is mostly over her southern bona fides. I'm never surprised at anything she says anymore, and I'm more ashamed of the corporate media for tapping her for any sort of on opinion, knowing full well she's full of shit. Was she brought on to Meet The Press because the clip was Southern person adjacent, and the producers thought "Hey, do we know anybody remotely Southern?" Then some shaky handed intern typed in to the internets: "Pundit that claims to be Southern and Lives Withing 20 Miles of Studio" and up popped Kathleen Parker?

What's more, it's never clear how Ms. Parker delinates what makes her Southern. Is she a Southerner because she grew up in Florida, in a nearly 100% white population (which arguably could be a Southerner construct)? That she was also educated in Florida, and got degrees in Spanish Literature? She doesn't share any of that in her bona fides article. Instead, she leans back on the local flavor, and the fact that her family has been based in South Carolina since 1670!

My land! 1670 is a long time ago.

She begins her article by trying to rewrite history. Which I applaud her effort. If she could have just been as eleqouent on television as she is in this opening salvo, things could've been different. But she's Kathleen Parker. Also, she is a Southerner (her words). So she's using the "I have a black friend" argument to talk mess on fellow Southerners? On top of that, she's continuing her useless war against the internets by also asserting that "[...] at least one person with a laptop was offended [...]" and she was beset upon by ALL of social media.

At least she does admit she didn't really answer David Gregory's question on the ad and instead, tore off on her own by reacting to "[...] something that has irked me for years — the media stereotype of the Southerner as a befuddled hayseed [...]" To which no one was asking her to, A. And really didn't come across in that mumble/ramble that she assumes was a "reaction", B.

Funnily enough, she blames those who are unfamiliar with her "body" of "work" (defending Southerners?) for taking her out of context and being offended (on top of a failed "bird brained/flock mentality" dig). This coming from the same woman who armchair quarterback's 90% of her columns about the Beltway from her home office, in South Carolina. Most of her body of work is taking things people say out of context and just flip-flopping around on the topic until she runs out of column space. She's also a follower of the pundit class pack to the utmost. And she's taking people to task for doing the same to her?

Even if that was the case, you can tell it got to her enough that she felt compelled to roll out her bona fides, even though it does nothing to dispel her stupid "reaction" on Meet The Press. No one cares that you live in South Carolina, married a Southerner, that your great-great-great-grand pappy settled the land, and when compelled can speak with a Southern accent Kathleen Parker. Further, the self-deprecation isn't a flattering look on you either. No one's really buying it.

Well, she tried and failed. And as they say in the South: Well, bless your heart

Jonah Goldberg Uses Confirmation Bias to Prove Confirmation Bias!

Sometimes, odd things happen. Like a few of the pundit class will all happen to harp on one of the bullet points in the Talking Points Memo. Of course, it’s of varying quality, and overall, not quite worth the mass effort on all their fronts. The topic: the “radical left”. Oh, and that Mozilla guy that had to step down because liberals forced him. The usual suspects? Charles Krauthammer, Russ Douthat and Jonah Goldberg.

I’ve been meaning to write about this mythical radical left wing of the liberal party for some time. In the great false equivalency machine that is the pundit class, there HAS to be a mirror to the TEA Party patriots that are ruining things for everybody…right? There has to be some radical movement on the left that is punishing democrats for not supporting climate change, fighting for a fair wage, at-will abortions, and so on. Every single day we hear about shaky Democrats in Congress that are being primaried by even more liberal fellow Democrats. Right? Yeah, I thought so.

This is one of those topics that you kind can’t believe the GOP/right-wing still mess around with. There’s that continuing notion from them about the “War on Women” being false, yet time and again some republican is putting their foot in their mouth on women’s issues. This piece by Dana Milbank talks about the Heritage Foundation holding a shindig with women right-wing luminaries that you just can’t make up. That there’s some radical left is utterly false.

That all the author’s articles mentioned start from a place of attacking truth and facts is unsurprising. They’re trying to make a basic argument that at the very least the liberals are just as bad as the conservatives when it comes to certain topics. Krauthammer’s “thought police” is a more sinister way of saying “people are trying to make Charles Krauthammer feel bad for being a stooge”. Or better yet “Charles Krauthammer is an old white man who’s white knuckle grasp on culture wars is slipping and no one cares”. It’s Glenn Beckian in it’s “the left is destroying people for being anti-gay and anti-woman” when it’s more like times are changing and the general public are course correcting society again.

Now, the Krauthammer and Douthat articles about liberal overreach are at least passable as they at least stay on topic. But I was more drawn to Jonah Goldberg’s article because of not only it’s profound stupidity, but how it perfectly encapsulates the right-wing pundit’s viewpoint on the left is somehow equal to the right. Confirmation bias is a nasty thing. It’s on full display on the GOP/right-wing, so it’s a bit odd that Jonah Goldberg, who lives in a glorious glass house, would start chucking rocks about the topic.

It’s humorous that Mr. Goldberg’s article is about an assumed confirmation bias, when he’s actively contributing to bit of his ideology’s very own the week this was published. It becomes clear when you look at just the examples I gave. He also continues to show that conservatives are allergic to facts and truth with his article condemning liberals for being diabolically rigid when it comes to facts.

Ezra Klein’s got a website that is attempting “explanatory journalism” which Mr. Goldberg just outright mocks, doesn’t even bother trying to define what that might mean in the context of media. “Phooey! Facts!” And that liberals have confirmation bias too, not because of anything Jonah Goldberg relates in his article, but because Ezra Klein said so! Well, at least Mr. Goldberg is maintaining the lazy legacy of his pundit class.

Mr. Goldberg then goes on to rattle off from the Talking Points Memo about the scary liberal scourges who are looking to “purge” those who don’t think like they do! Thought police! Coming in the night, taking your bigotry and misogyny…probably your guns too…Bastards! Then hamhandedly tries to blame this “disinterested servants” idea on liberals? That these “servants” got in to government and were more keen on staying in power and expanding their reach than serving their constituency? What?!

Fearing that he’s losing his footing, Mr. Goldberg turns to the tried-and-true attack piece for help here. You see Klein makes the mistake of showing all kinds of conservative biases, but no liberal ones. Odd, I wonder why that would be? One ideology has majority control of talk radio, a pundit class that dominates the opinion page, a channel completely dedicated to it and its “news”. The other ideology? Well, they sort of have chunks of the internet that the libertarians have let them borrow, MSNBC…kind of, and Paul Krugman?

Mr. Goldberg, from reading Klein’s piece, assumes he didn’t make much effort to find liberal confirmation bias. How he comes to this conclusion he doesn’t elucidate on, which is his typical wont. But, since Klein does at least admit that there is SOME liberal confirmation bias, he doesn’t have to anyway. Then he goes on to attack Paul Krugman for thinking he‘s better than conservatives essentially.

After going through his hate Rolodex of right-wing boogeyman and shoe-horning in how they‘re mire in their own confirmation bias, Mr. Goldberg get’s back on track. You see, liberal confirmation bias had lead to “bad policies”. What policies are those? Nope, not here. But he does assert this grand assumption that liberals think that they have sole access to the Truth. Yes, he capitalized truth.

He abandons that notion, but it is worth exploring. Why would one ideology be so in to the Truth? When did that become such a bad word? Why did truth start having two sides to it in the wake of a GOP/right-wing resurgence with Fox News? When did insisting that people accept truth become a personal attack on their rights and freedoms?

Funnily enough, if you change all the words in this article to conservative, it starts to make a LOT more sense. I would love if liberals wielded the power that Krauthammer, Douthat and Goldberg mention in their articles. We would actually get things done as a nation.

Mr. Goldberg’s folly is that he uses up an entire article essentially proving just how deep confirmation bias is in the GOP/right-wing. It’s become so engrained in the ideology they can’t even see when they themselves are falling victim to it. His article is far less informative about the liberal confirmation bias as he is displaying right-wing group think buoyed by Fox News and talk radio. It’s the same bubble that has mired there message through the last decade. Remember when Dick Morris predicted a Romney landslide in the 2012 election? That’s just one example of the level of the group think bubble. I could go on for days.

It is time, however, to push back against the GOP/right-wing and their ideological rigidity. If they get this agitated over a little push back from a few liberal pundits, just think of what they’ll do when more of the general public start acting accordingly. We saw how they lost their minds in the in the midst of the Occupy Movement, and history has shown just how utterly on the wrong side of it the right-wing is. But liberals must also get away from trying to educate people to the facts and truths of news. For too long, they’ve wasted too much time trying to win debates with facts. The GOP/right-wing doesn’t trade in facts and truth, they trade on fears and prejudices. We need more pundits like Jesse Myerson, who satirize the self serious pundit class, and less cookie cutter Rachel Maddow’s, who make easy right-wing targets and get paid no mind because to the GOP/right-wing she’s an icky girl and a lesbian.

Movie Review: The Unknown Known

Movie Review: The Unknown Known

The Big Takeaway: Donald Rumsfeld narrates a documentary on his life in public office.

The Little Takeaway: A waste of time. The two men participating in a masturbatory game of “cat-and-also-cat” is never going to make as compelling a documentary as they think. This movie will please no one with any political bent.

At the end of the movie Donald Rumsfeld flatly says “I think you’re chasing the wrong rabbit.” And he’s right. I suppose director Errol Morris thought he might have something when he got Rumsfeld to agree to sit down and chat about his life, both private and public. To be fair, the first half-hour or so of the movie is indeed interesting, if not a little bit flat and uninformative as to how his circumstances developed Rumsfeld as a person. But that’s fine, you find Rumsfeld himself to be engaging and fun. As the film wears on, however, you begin to see just how utterly false, condescending and a tad horrifying that same posture becomes.

Immediately for me, as is no surprise, Rumsfeld reminded me of all the things I absolutely loathed about the Bush administration. The Frank Lutz-tization of vocabulary (it’s not torture it’s “advanced interrogation tactics” for example), that somehow people were making decisions but no one was taking theme blame. The sinister incompetence that seemed to infest the entire administration is on display in this film in fits and bursts. If you didn’t love the Bush years, this movie isn’t going to change your mind one bit.

But what if you’re one of those conservatives that thought W. was just one of the greatest presidents ever? Well, you’ll find nothing here really either. Rumsfeld himself seems uninterested in celebrating anything he did as secretary of defense, and rightfully so. All he really do was execute our nation getting in to two needles wars. Time and time again he repeats that history will ultimately decide if the administrations actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were wise. In addition to that, I don’t think we’ll need THAT much time to know what an utter failure the Bush administration was.

For a man that was so effusive with memo writing Rumsfeld doesn’t say much. The film time and time again touches on this notion of these myriad of memos resembling a blizzard. As the memos came be known as “snowflakes”. It’s through these memos that the bulk of the narrative heft is laid. You find out how Rumsfeld ran the Pentagon, how he dealt with his peers, and so on. He also narrates these memos, but never elucidates on them, believing them to speak for themselves.

Therein lies the problem: a documentary is only as good as the topic its covering. Rumsfeld is a shitty topic, and therefore the movie suffers for it. It’s not a bad film, per se, but by hanging it’s hat on Rumsfeld, it falls way short of anything approaching a compelling documentary. It’s just masturbatory and you get the notion that Morris thinks he’s doing more than what appears on the screen.

But you’d be hard pressed to find either Morris or Rumsfeld disagreeing with that notion. From time to time in the movie you can hear Morris’ voice pipe up with incredulity at something Rumsfeld says, or asking him to expound on something. He does the old trick of having the interviewee say something, then contradicting it with facts or figures to the contrary. And this being Rumsfeld, there is plenty of material. You have to wonder if it's a conscious choice on the part of Morris, or he just had so little to go on from Rumsfeld, he had to pad out the movie with this cliche garbage.

You get the idea that Morris thinks he’s playing a game of cat-and-mouse with Rumsfeld. But Rumsfeld is masterful at this kind of bullshit. The only time he shows any emotion is when he relates the story of visiting a soldier clinging to life at Walter Reed. He get teary-eyed, and that’s about it. The rest of the movie’s running time is Rumsfeld and his toothy-grin dodging questions and passing blame around to anyone else but himself.

It’s clear that Rumsfeld is doing a bit of legacy clean-up, which is why he chose to do this movie. On top of that you can palpably feel the arrogance and narcissism dictating that he do this film as well. But for all the effusiveness of the memos, his presence in the film doesn’t reconcile with that, so you’re obligated to go with what is already known about the man from his years in office. In fact, I would be surprised, stemming from this  if other members of the Bush Administration pop up and start doing a little chatting of their own, “correcting” the record.

The Unknown Known is a shitty documentary about a shitty man’s time in power. Even the title tips its hat to a perceived cleverness that just doesn’t exist in the movie itself. Men who have held great power are always going to come out of the woodwork and try to galvanize their legacy. It takes even greater men to humble them and show us how mortal they really are and have paved the road to their legacy with a great many mistakes. It’s going to take a lot more than Errol Morris’ cheeky barbs to clip Rumsfeld’s wings.

Final Verdict: Pass!

With Friends Like These: Your Good Friend Kathleen Parker!

First, read this.

Now that you’re done, hopefully, you are somewhat saddened at just how bad things are going to get for our political system. It’s awful  enough our pundit class is out of touch, it’s quite another when they’re just out and out defending the poisoning of our government. The cherry on top, well and the sprinkles to, shaming someone for speaking the truth.

I’m not surprised that Shithead Hall of Fame® Inductee™ Kathleen Parker wrote this in the slightest. I imagine that she’s currently giddily standing by her mailbox waiting for a fat paycheck from the Koch brothers, or more like, their myriad of subsidiaries, fists clinched, with a shit eating grin on her face. She’s hoping attached the check is a letter of thanks, and that the envelope is perfumed with the scent of money.

I think my favorite part of the article is near the beginning when she name drops the Koch brothers and then adds: “Who? Exactly.” Now, I’m not saying the Koch brothers are a fully known quantity, but they are known. Maybe not known is that they’re pouring vast amounts of their wealth in to right-wing think tanks and political action committees, and have essentially wrestled away one house of congress from the American people. But they’re known.

Ms. Parker nuzzles up to her corporate masters with the tried and true “they’re job creators”: what with noting that they employ a mere 60,000 people. Truly, and they are using their wealth for good: “they are spending gobs of their own money to sway politics toward free-market principles and away from current government expansionist trends.” Yeah, we’re not even in to the body of her “article” and this is the table she is setting.

What I enjoy more is the notion that she thinks Harry Reid “broke protocol” by calling out the Koch brothers and then labeling them “un-American”. It’s hyperbolic, to be sure, but the bigger news should be that at least ONE democrat is finally punching back with nonsense of his own!

I mean seriously, for over a decade we’ve had to listen to GOP/right-wing stooges assert all kinds of insanity and accuse myriads of people of all manner of things. We don’t even bat an eye anymore at someone calling Obama a tyrannical ruler. That’s on both sides of the aisles in this beautiful thing we call the “false equivalency”. Which Ms. Parker uses with a cudgel like grace throughout her Koch brothers commercial.

But her assertion that Democrats are trying to make the Koch brothers the “face” of the Republican party is wrong. You can’t make something that’s so apparently true. And while the Koch brothers may never be the “face” of the GOP/right-wing they are now the driving force behind the party, the “id” for lack of a better word. More to the point they continue to be the dank, dark underbelly of the whole party.

The cudgel of false equivalency swings wildly when Ms. Parker notes that “liberal commentators” are frequently admonishing the Koch brothers. Funnily enough, the article on her website links to a Washington Post (well played Washington Post Opinion Columnist Ms. Parker) piece about Rachel Maddow going after the Koch brothers on a near nightly basis. So…just a singular liberal commentator then? She asserts that although they aren’t nearly as powerful as Rush Limbaugh, they still have large followings. Enough so that they’ve shone a bright light on those dastardly Koch brothers…which "no one has heard of"? The Kathleen Parker amounts of horseshit that this article is, is indeed confounding.

To call what Harry Reid said as “McCarthyesque” is laughable. If there was indeed any stakes in calling a monolith such as the Koch brothers “un-American” it would be one thing. You can’t blacklist and ruin someone who’s already won. With limits on campaign financing essentially rendered moot by the United States Supreme Court, elections are now ONLY for the highest bidder. Running for political office was financially untenable already. It seems that now running for office means you’ll have to get corporate sponsorship, not unlike another red state favored past time: NASCAR.

Ms. Parker’s flip-flopping in this article is dizzying as she tries to stick the landing on her commercial. She laments that indeed having the super-wealthy “influence” political outcomes, the bigger issue is name calling? That one senator calling out one monolith is somehow the slippery slope that will lead to “A Senate committee investigating such un-American activities as advocating free-market principles or pursuing capitalist endeavors?” is ridiculous. But Ms. Parker assumes that this already has. She is beyond stupid.

The cherry on top? She finishes her “article” with this: “Yes, it was bad when right-wingers called Obama un-American, but Obama is the most powerful man in the world and the rabble is just that. Reid owes the Kochs — and the American people — an apology.” No, no he doesn’t.  Obama isn’t going to be in power forever. The Koch brothers aren’t suddenly going to lose billions of dollars or influence any time soon. The foothold they currently have on the political system is just a start. With friends like these in the pundit class, for those like Kathleen Parker who asserts that she is “center-right” (like most of America), the American people ought to be really afraid for the future.

CPAC Happened? When?

So, the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) happened not to long ago. What’s that? You didn’t read much about it either? That’s odd. You’d think that magical time of year where the GOP and the right-wing get together to somehow figure out how to turn their electoral fortunes around would get a bit more ink, especially amongst the pundit class. All I really saw was an article from Cal Thomas saying he saw a Stormtrooper and Chewbacca at CPAC, and Michael “I’m The Truest Real” Reagan talked about how Rand Paul is the future of the republican party because he's not a Ted Cruz level of asshole.

At least Mr. Reagan get’s it, somewhat. The GOP right-wing really need to find a mainstream candidate. They’re not going to find it at CPAC, however much they want it. And from the little coverage I saw of it, that’s probably for the best. The Paul’s: both Rand and Ron are nothing more than wishful thinking amongst the most right of the right-wing. This fantasy that Libertarianism somehow is of “The Internets” and that those young people amongst it will be enough to turn the tides in a general election is laughable. What’s more, the republican party will never open up the tent wide enough for Libertarians and their candidates.

Ted Cruz, one of the presumptive clowns for the Republican Presidential Candidate Clown Car Rally, had some harsh things to say about John McCain, Bob Dole and Mitt Romney. Harsh isn’t the word I would use, and to be fair Cruz just repeated the talking point that came in the wake of the 2014 election: the candidate wasn’t “conservative” enough. Of course Dole and McCain came out and grandpa grumbled about their conservative bonafides, and more or less did show that the republican party does have a real issue: old white men that won’t go away.

The GOP/right-wing could embrace populism more effectively if they were constantly having to appease old farts that still feel a need to say something. Of course, Cruz’s comment were meant to rankle, he even did the whole “These men are great men, but come on…” preamble before he dropped the “not conservative” enough haymaker on them. But Ted Cruz isn’t a populist candidate either. Perhaps, and given enough time, when the TEA Party slowly erodes the GOP, he could establish himself as mainstream. But for now, he and his patriots are just reeking havoc on an already shaky political party.

To two grand dames of the TEA Party, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin, showed up to…what were they doing? It seems more and more every year that these two just show up and say nothing, look pretty, and have people yell “Run For President”. Because that’s what the GOP/right-wing needs right now, people mired in controversy and blatant hypocrisy.

Even this column mentions the subdued nature of the CPAC this year, noting that it’s an off year election and that the major juice from the TEA Party Patriots of old has begun to diminish. Also mentioned is a lack of a defined leader to coalesce the party around. This is indeed a real issues the GOP/right-wing is having right now, and from the looks of CPAC this isn’t going to be remedied ANY time soon. I’m come on, Rand Paul won the straw poll!

It’s sad that nearly two years after they lost the presidential election to that rascally Obama that the GOP/right-wing can’t get their shit together as a party. It’s as if they had marginal success with one thing, the “Pelosi-Obama-Reid-Obamacare” tactic in 2010, and now have little else to work with. The fact that the Thomas and Reagan articles both mention a new tact to take should speak volumes to the actual problems the republican party is having. But it’s been the same song and dance since the election, when ol’ Mitt Romney just “wasn’t conservative” enough.

You have to wonder why the GOP/right-wing doesn’t change their message. They have to see that after four years the “Obamacare is gonna get you!” isn’t really working. Even with the faulty start and odd implementation of the program, it didn’t prevent Obama from being re-elected and the democrats were poised to lose seats in both houses of congress anyways. With the further splintering of the electorate the stakes have never been lower, and it’s odd to see the GOP/right-wing really struggle with a clear message at this point.

TEA Party Hair of the Dog with Michael Gerson

A few things happened recently that went under reported. One, president Obama signed a debt limit increase. Two, the TEA Party celebrated it’s fifth birthday as a “grassroots” political organization. I say under reported because they’re both non news, but they are important in the run up to this years midterm elections. The GOP thinks it’s going to capture the Senate this fall, mostly on the back of Obamacare’s implementation and Democratic Party implosion. They couldn’t be more mistaken, but crazier things have happened.

But why the sudden change in tenor from the GOP right-wing? Why wasn’t there the usual Republican so and so on cable news networks screaming that the world was ending and sliding down the slippery slop of socialism as decreed by the almighty King Obama? Why is the TEA Party’s birthday marginalized to the back of the paper as a “Oh yeah, this happened”? Well, mostly because the GOP wants to win this midterm election really, really bad.

Of all the articles to pick about this fresh face emerging within the GOP, I chose Michael Gerson. He’s just your run-of-the-mill middle-aged white man that writes benign political opinion for the Washington Post. His interpretation is pretty comical, and you have to wonder if Mr. Gerson understands the mercenary animal that is a political party backed in to a corner.

First off, the hangover analogy isn’t very apt. The TEA Party has become part of the GOP, just like the evangelicals. The GOP needs all the voter bloc they have scared up in ensuring decades to pad out their old white men element that’s dying off on them. To be fair, there is a LOT of overlap between TEA Party and evangelicals, so the 2010 electoral shot in the arm of true patriots may have been a bit muddy.

This pure and faith based faux ideology is what Mr. Gerson says made the GOP right-wing start pulling away from the crazies in the party. Mentioning a recent outburst from Ted Nugent, Mr. Gerson surmises that since the ideology of the party is “faith and morality” they HAVE to pull away from old Uncle Ted, who was using “dehumanizing” language or else they look bad. So, he’s at least on point there.

But the GOP right-wing won’t pull TOO far away, as they need those thinly veiled racists to come out to the polls and vote against Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Obamacare-Abortion-They’reGonnaTakeYerGuns. In this desperate grab for the Senate they believe they can do without those who would typically come out to vote for a republican. Mr. Gerson agrees to as much when he states that the majority of republicans still identify with the TEA Party ideology.

Also worth noting is this notion that many right-wing pundits have been parroting lately: populism. I about lost my mind when I read George Will espouse it in a recent column, and of course it finds itself here in an also ran Michael Gerson column. Problem is, the GOP right-wing is totally going to take the wrong “lessons” from this recent turn of events. And I’m fairly uncertain that even though the TEA Party birthday was still marginalized, that they aren’t a potent force.

The reason I say this is because Ted Cruz spoke at the D.C. birthday bash, as did other TEA Party congress people. Ted Cruz is hoping to save a bit of face after imploding the GOP right-wing last fall with his buffoonish filibuster. Mr. Gerson seems to think the Cruz debacle was a liberating moment for the GOP, which in a way, it was. The GOP right-wing could very well send him down river under the notion that he was the old, crazy, racist, bigoted GOP right-wing. This 2014 on forward GOP is your real friend, no…neighbor, who just lives up the street in that shining city on a hill.

But the notion that Mr. Gerson provides in the populist choices that the GOP right-wing has to make is laughable: “Do they want to be identified with the tactics of Ted Cruz? Or do they want to give the populist backlash that Obama has provoked a positive governing purpose on issues from health care to education to economic mobility?” Problem is they are ALREADY identified by Ted Cruz tactics, see every recent debt limit increase, house Obamacare repeal, and so on since Obama entered office. It’s a false choice. The other choice? Give me a break! In order to capitalize on the “populist backlash” they need workable ideas. I’ve already written about some of those ideas at length. They aren’t hiding something super awesome up their sleeve that’s just going to blow independent voters minds.

To end his column Mr. Gerson sticks to the talking points memo: liberalism is in a state of disrepair…because of Obamacare? I’m curious to see if and when the GOP right-wing unleash their healthcare plan if it’s going to work minute one of implementation? That they will find no barriers to enacting the law, and that everyone will gladly accept it with open arms. This is assuming that the GOP right-wing as a whole decides to repeal Obamacare, which many have said is easier said then done. Aside from that, the independents aren’t going to be swayed because Obamacare failed, seeing as that isn’t really an issue to them. A more pressing issue to them has been and will always be the economy.

What’s more, the vast majority of independents are former republicans that have been repulsed by what the TEA Party has done to the GOP. The notion Mr. Gerson lays out is that the GOP right-wing must embrace populism to get votes has never been more apt. But it’s going to take a long, long time before the GOP shakes it’s “scary” elements that are disenfranchising voters and chiefly independents. And you can bet that if the GOP fails to grab the senate this fall, they’ll be more than happy to have that TEA Party hair of the dog to keep the party going to 2016.

What Difference Does It Make, Jack Krier?

It’s been a while since the last time I wrote about Shithead Hall of Fame® Inductee™ Jack Krier. Too long, in fact. I wish I hadn’t lost my write up of the“editorial” of “his” that claimed that the Plymouth Pilgrims discovered and then rejected socialism. That alone was worth writing about, but then to discover that he had plagiarized the work from a Rush Limbaugh book was even better. His ensuing “I’m an old man what don’t know how the e-mail forwards work and what whence they came” shtick that followed when a reader wrote to him about it was nothing less than to be expected from Old Man Jack.

It’s doubly so if you happen to read Jack Krier’s one black friend, Thomas Sowell. You’ll literally hear an echo if you read Dr. Sowell, then wait a week to read Jack Krier. On more than one occasion, a similarly minded articled was birthed by both men, even down to a book to read selection. So either Dr. Sowell is ripping off Jack Krier, they share an odd ability to intercept the echo chamber, or Jack Krier is just "rephrasing" Thomas Sowell.

But that’s not why we’re here today. Michael Sam, a University of Missouri football player, came out recently. What’s more The Westboro Baptist Church came to Columbia MO with about fourteen people to protest against Michael Sam, they were greeted by large number of his supporters. I couldn’t have been more proud of those students/supporters. Jack Krier doesn’t see what all the fuss is about.

The title of Mr. Krier’s article is “What difference does it make?” Not only is it a super clever Benghazi jab, it’s also the thesis of his editorial. But you’d think that if it didn’t make any difference then why dedicate an entire editorial to it? Espousing not only how you don’t care what difference it makes, but then stating for the record that you believe it’s morally wrong (and that marriage is between and a man and a woman...blah blah blah)? Then The two ideas leap frog over one another as Mr. Krier’s article shambles on.

Right-wing boogeyman roll call: Mainstream Media loves anything to do with homosexuality. “Masses of liberals, led by Michelle Obama, loudly proclaimed Mr. Sam’s bravery.” This leads to Mr. Krier’s assumption that “[…] the media and progressives are obsessed with people’s sexuality and those who decide to publicly come out, praising their actions, like homosexuality is the new “it” thing to be.” Wait, who’s REALLY obsessed with people’s sexuality here? The people who support a man for coming out, or the people obsessed with his sexuality and how it doesn't fit their religious worldview? Mr. Krier’s assumption that people are looking for the conservatives to “lambast (sic) the homosexuals for ‘coming out’” is pretty absurd. Trouble is, we don’t have to, they more than help themselves at any and every opportunity. I mean look like Jack Krier slings around the word "homosexual" as a poorly veiled epithet.

Mr. Krier states that conservatives “don’t give a rats behind” about anyone’s sexuality, but then here he is writing about how much of a rat’s behind he does give. It’s an odd conundrum. To say the least of his mistaken assertion that liberals and the media put those who do come out on a pedestal. Can we not lend mass support to someone, a public figure, when they need it most, regardless of their sexuality?

“Why is embracing your sexuality such an act of bravery?” Jack Krier asks, using the idea that if being gay is natural, and the way someone is born, then why is coming out something to be praised? I assume he thinks that this is clever. Trouble is, it’s not…by far. You see, being gay is still a difficult thing to navigate in this day and age. And while yes, culturally we have made great strides for our gay brother and sisters, as a society we have much further to go. That Michael Sam, a Texas born, Missouri educated man came out is a marvelous thing to behold. He is attempting to enter a venue such as the NFL that seems unfriendly at the least to a gay man. He needs all the love and support he can get.

Reaching back for any strand of a hope to mask his bigotry as a thought piece, Mr. Krier latches on to when Tim Tebow entered the draft. According to Jack, Tebow “ […] encountered a rain of hate from people worried for the sport, people who  resented having to hear about the personal beliefs of “Saint Timmy.”” Except, none of that happened. If anything people were hoping for failure because he was overrated at a position he couldn’t play at a higher level than college and was inexplicably drafted in the first round. And I don’t remember Michael Sam’s mother having a commercial (paid for by evangelical conservative think tank Focus on the Family) air during halftime of the super bowl.

Now, if Jack Krier could’ve couched his bigotry with his false equivalency to Tim Tebow’s “coming out” as a Christian better, he could’ve made a point: both Sam and Tebow were/could be distractions to an football organization, regardless of talent level. But I’m of the mindset that Michael Sam will be a lot like Manti Te’o than a Tim Tebow, and by this time next year, no one, on either side, will care.

This line toward the middle of his article struck me: “Just as the person has the right to stand up in front of the world and say, “I’m gay and I’m proud,” so, too, do others have the right to stand beside them and say, “I think it is morally wrong and I don’t approve of it.”” But what difference DOES it make? You’ve lost. No one really cares that you think it’s “morally” wrong and don’t “approve” of it.

Not so long ago, what people’s religious views were no one’s business. You kept it to yourself. It only started mattering when the GOP right-wing needed fresh voters to help stem the tide of the electorate towards their regressive socioeconomic agenda. Suddenly, religion mattered, in the very place it shouldn’t: our federal government. We even have entire chunks of pundit class who ONLY cover religious elements in our government, and sadly, their articles aren’t in the religious sections. They stand toe to toe with other “substantive” opinion pieces. These people have kept the “debate” of a woman’s constitutional right to her body going for over four decades. So too will they keep the flame for their regressive ideas about what is morally “right” and “wrong”. Unfortunately, time is not on their side. Because of Michael Sam’s bravery, many more will follow in his footsteps and not be trepidatious about coming out. And yes, Jack Krier, we will laud, love and support them as well.

The Great American Humor of Tom Purcell

Tom Purcell’s bio blurb at the end of his columns states that he is a humor columnist. Far be it from me to wonder where exactly the humor is in his columns, unless you count bigotry and ignorance with a heaping helping of right-wing baloney humor? Not only that, but the vast majority of his output seems to be these columns written as conversations wherein he espouses more GOP right-wing idiocy read as policy breakdown. He, or an ideological representative, sets about educating a caricature of a right-wing bogeyman to the great wealth of conservative thinking. I can’t tell if he’s patronizing his readers, is actually trying to educate them on policy, or is attempting this “humor” that is spoken of in his bio.

The GOP right-wing is currently obsessed with proving that Obamacare is costing Americans their jobs. The Congressional Budget Office released a report showing that, because of Obamacare, about 2 million Americans will leave the work force. The GOP right-wing pretends it doesn’t understand the difference between a person willfully leaving their job versus actually not having a job. Tom Purcell chimes in with his “humor” filled "thoughts".

Working is just no fun! Seems to be the crux of his "humor" piece. So why wouldn’t millions of Americans just line up to get all those free goodies, that Mr. Purcell has to pay for with his rising premiums? Again, this notion that the GOP right-wing uses as evidence of Government overreach is absurd. Their premiums went up, and it’s because they have to pay more so more and more “others” can take needed healthcare. The nerve! But everyone’s premiums went up! They’ve gone up every year at ungodly leaps and bounds. This is the downside of the lack of a single payer option, and giving over our healthcare to for-profit corporations. Of course they’re going to squeeze everybody!
But that is just no fun, Mr. Purcell doesn’t feel like doing it. He doesn’t even get going with his job - being a “writer” - till about 11 a.m.! And his nugget for the day: pull yourself up by your bootstraps…blah blah blah. It’s so easy! See, he and his other like minded conservative friends have done just that! Never mind the conservative welfare state of writing books, that are bought up by right-wing think tanks to be foisted on to their members, speaking engagements, and sometimes you get called up to the Fox News and are paid to yell over other people on a television program.

Or you could do as Mr. Purcell puts it: “you can go the other direction and find ways to avoid work and minimize your income on paper, so that others will help cover your costs.” Then he reaches in to his right-wing pundit cliché bag and pulls out the “I met an ‘other’ that is cheating the system” card.

I can’t stand this antiquated bullshit. At least I would respect the right-wing punditry more if they could just spice it up a little from time to time. If you’re going to invent somebody to help make up your lie/point, at least give them a name. That’s always been the big red flag for me when reading right-wing tin foil hat paranoia fanning articles. The writers can ring out entire oral histories from these “others” yet can’t be bothered to grab a first name? Give me a break.

Mr. Purcell took a cab from the airport recently and just so happened to strike up a conversation with his driver…a native of Africa! So that dog whistle gets to make the cut, but no name…oh well! This African man had just so happened to have signed up for Obamacare and of course qualified for all the subsidies ever, so that his premium was low enough to be affordable. Which of course it is, because as Mr. Purcell relates, his premiums doubled because he has to subsidize the man! What’s more: “He also told me he has a nice suburban home and he and his family are living very well in Pittsburgh.” The temerity of this “other” to live in a good home with his family, how dare he! He’s a cab driver for Pete’s sake, he has no right!

Mr. Purcell wonders how this “other” came to be in this great, fortuitous situation. Well, he cheated the system of course! You see, the driver is paid in cash, and he keeps the vast majority of it off the books! Pure genius! According to Mr. Purcell this is two-fold harming America. One, it is keeping much needed tax revenue away from the government. Two, this much needed revenue is what is necessary to pay for this "other"'s subsidy. So this “other” is not only damming himself, but the entire American society! For shame!!!

This new “entitlement” is going to now make countless millions of other Americans discover this new vaunted secret of freebies. No more tax revenue…no more God fearing America to love! Mr. Purcell sums it up nicely “[…] policy that is helping put nails in the coffin of the American dream.”

Much like most of his punditry brothers and sisters, he’s misusing causality to make a right-wing talking point. Like the assumption that the welfare state is part of the reason why the government is running a deficit every year. What about bloated defense budgets? Which can allow for a blank check welfare state for our military: to build planes it doesn’t need and bases in foreign countries that no nation desires on their soil is beyond me. That the CBO clearly states that people are LEAVING the work force, citing the freedom from “job lock” as the main reason for this. Too many people, baby boomers mostly, are staying at their job because they desperately need the health care. They can ill afford to be jobless at a time when their health is in fast decline. With Obamacare people can now have the freedom to find better employment opportunities, and do this whole “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” right wing fallacy they keep parroting as some fix-all for a lagging economy being weighed down by fear of loss of health insurance and job insecurity.

Mr. Purcell, and his right-wing pundit ilk, have been railing this “my premiums doubled under Obamacare” argument a lot recently, but they fail time and again to provide context. How much is double? What amount of increase will your premiums undergo before you yourself decide to drop your own coverage? What kind of coverage do you have? I’m assuming it’s a Cadillac plan, and that it’s wroth every penny paid in to it.

I’m also assuming people like Mr. Purcell can get sick and not have to worry about losing his cushy not having to get started till 11 a.m. writing job because Cagle Cartoons could just hire someone to take his place. Hell, he could just run reprints of old columns and not miss a beat. Perhaps this is the “humor” of his bio, the sick joke he’s playing on his readers.

Above Kathleen Parker's Pay Grade!

Oh all right, I’ll indulge this petty need to write about Shithead Hall of Fame Inductee™ Kathleen Parker. It’s not that she hasn’t been dropping turd nuggets of all sorts lately, far from it, but I couldn’t bear to write another article blasting Susan Stamper Brown for “knowing” that Reaganomics worked. Really…you KNOW Reaganomics worked? And of course she sources nothing, but her “know”-ing, it’s maddening for sure, but I’m just not in the mood right now.

The National Prayer Breakfast is an antiquated joke. Every single year Obama seems to fail to give a proper speech. This years was no different. But this year, Ms. Parker has something to say about it…I think.

Bill O’Reilly’s column was finally put out to pasture late last year, and for good measure. From the little I covered of his articles, it was desperately necessary, as he was just not writing anything of substance. On top of that, the word count was woefully short. Perhaps the Washington Post should cut Ms. Parker’s output down to just one column per week, as she just quits on this piece. And really, she doesn’t need two columns.

Waddling out in to the tides of a religious column just isn’t in Ms. Parker’s wheelhouse. It’s painfully obvious to everyone involved about three oddly placed sentences-as-paragraphs in. Since I’m assuming she didn’t attend the event in question, she’s just hoping to fill a word count quota and move on to her next column idea. So sure, lets just assume that religious protections are under attack in America.

Obamacare is forcing for profit religious entities to cover contraception for it’s employees. Again, this goes back to my notion as to why that’s an attack on religious freedom, and having people who aren’t in need of boner pills pay for others need to defy nature, isn’t an attack on their freedoms from the un-need of boner pills?

That Ms. Parker states that religious-liberty lobby is losing is absurd. They’re not losing any ground, and if anything are attempting to strengthen themselves by coalescing in to concentrated tribes in the middle and south of the country. So sure, they may be marginalized in terms of mainstream popularity, but their far from out in terms of their single issue voter bloc, and the GOP right-wing’s ability to rile them up and drive them to the polls with the word “abortion”.

But this debate is more than just about birth control, it’s about the stability of the nation!  If we force for profit businesses with “religious convictions” to offer basic insurance coverage to their employees, of which their use of it is absolutely none of their business, the religious freedoms are doomed!

This IS more than a debate about birth control. Indeed, it is yet another way for the GOP right-wing to team up with their 12th man evangelicals to try and dismantle Obamacare. Waste more time and money propelling this case through the federal court system, and ultimately, lose at the Supreme Court.  But then, they have something to rile up the one issue evangelicals with for the 2014-2016 elections, and ultimately, lose there too.

The problem with the “but my religious convictions” argument is that these businesses are for profit. Religious groups are one thing, and ideally, if they are participating in the free market, they should be obliged to pay for insurance coverage, just the same as any other business. But businesses like Hobby Lobby, a non-religious corporation, are only a pawn in yet another campaign to destroy Obamacare. The fact that Ms. Parker parks them all together into this “persecuted” mass is a disservice to the argument she’s attempting to make. Thanks to Citizens United, corporations are people now, so I guess if they want to make a better argument they need to baptize their corporations and get them to start tithing to become religious entities fit for prosecution.

But then she just drops her entire thesis. Quoting Obama’s answer to Rick Warren back in the day: “It’s beyond my paygrade.” What an utter waste of time, right? All this stupid ass pontificating, and all you have for us is a shrug? Shame on you, Ms. Parker! Shame! What we are left with is a bunch of right-wing posturing about Obama-come-King nonsense.

Reducing the argument down to “free contraceptives for women” is an attempt by right-wing punditry to put the argument back in to the government overreach arena. That the whole reason of Obamacare is for the government to offer freebies to all the ladies, thereby locking them down in to democrat voters for the foreseeable future, just like what they did with welfare and the “others”.

But it’s not about “free contraceptives” it is and always will be about offering health insurance to anyone and everyone who wants it. This odd religious argument Ms. Parker makes is dangerous as it pertains to only a certain religious thought. What about other religions and their objections? Should we honor all of those as well? By Ms. Parker’s definition their religious liberties are under attack, and NO ONE is speaking up for them in the pundit class! And what about Hobby Lobby’s (probably non-existent) non-religious employees? Should they have their corporate overlords religion foisted upon them? What about their rights?

The answers? Oh yeah, that’s above my paygrade. But at least Kathleen Parker got her comments section in a tizzy! Over 1,000 comments and counting!