Nolite Te Bastardes Carborundorum D L T B G Y D

15Apr/080

5 points to Amandagon(and of course Glenn Greenwald)

Posted by

Very insightful paragraph! I'm not sure if it's from Glenn Greenwald's book more or from Amanda Marcotte, but either way, 5 points to Amandagon! This paragraph is from the middle of her review of Glenn Greenwald's new book Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics

Where do women fit into all this? Well, that’s an interesting question that Greenwald tackles in his section on how conservatives tout themselves as big family men with happy housewives, as opposed to those decadent liberals with our liberated women and sexifying ways. He then carefully details hows these “family men” are all too often wife-traders who alienate their own children (current nominee of the Republican party John McCain went years without his children from his first marriage speaking to him, they were so angry about the way he dumped his first wife to get a prettier, younger, richer model that fit his political aspirations more), adulterers, johns, and even closeted homosexuals. Greenwald notes that the Republicans coddled their own who stomp all over the women and children in their lives, but are willing to cut the strings on the outed gays, but to my mind this demonstrates a consistency that will always resonate with the anxious masculinity voters. Basically, the more adulteries and trophy wives, the more the gun humpers are going to think of these politicians as “family values” sorts, because “family values” is a code word for “male dominance”, or really, the patriarchy, because as the oppression of gay men shows, only certain kinds of men get to dominate. That John McCain talks about family values after trading his old wife for a younger, richer model is hypocrisy, true, but it’s also probably just going to make the sexists like him more. Still, they are wild hypocrites—after all, the official argument for the patriarchy is that it serves women’s interests to be second class, because we get male protection. The behavior of prominent conservatives shows how much a lie that really is.

1Apr/080

New Lying AG, Same as Old Lying AG

Posted by

Glenn Greenwald explains why new rationales being presented by the attorney general for warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity are plainly lies.

Filed under: 1984, Political No Comments
21Mar/080

EXPELLED!

Posted by

I couldn't figure out why Pharyngula was so good natured about being kicked out of an event based on no legal reasoning. Then I got to the end. So funny.

5Jan/086

More on why Obama is not the man

Posted by

This article is long, but really details even further than Krugman did(he linked this on his blog, where he promised he won't write about this any more, but still linked to someone else who did). I've never read Lambert before but this article is excellent. Good explanation of many examples of why Obama's awesome speeches just aren't going to get the job done. Congrats Obama! You made me like Clinton better than you!

Filed under: Political 6 Comments
24Oct/071

Rudy Awakening

Posted by

Great article over at Washington Monthly detailing Rudy Giuliani's time as mayor of New York City. If Hillary Clinton somehow loses this election it will most likely be to Giuliani, and if his mayoral experience is any guide at all, it will likely be a presidency much like George Bush's, only much worse, and much much more effective. Fortunately I don't think Rudy has any real chance of winning, but if he does, dear lord.

Filed under: Political 1 Comment
19Oct/070

How Comcast decides what you should be doing

Posted by

Crazy article about how Comcast monitors all traffic and cancels people's peer to peer connections.

Filed under: 1984, Political No Comments
14Oct/070

People who want to marry Stephen Colbert

Posted by

Me
Apparently Maureen Dowd
(probably his wife?)

9Oct/070

Christians’ Christian Nation?

Posted by

Great op-ed from over at the NY Times about how much the founders didn't want this to be a Christian nation. I thought this was kinda funny:

A pseudonymous opponent of the Connecticut proposal had some fun with the notion of a deity who would, in a sense, be checking the index for his name: “A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution.”

9Oct/070

People besides me getting mad about the primaries

Posted by

There's a good rant over at Salon.com about the trainwreck of a lie that are the presidential primaries.

Filed under: Political No Comments
4Oct/070

Why do we want Iowa to control the primaries again?

Posted by

Aside from the fact that I don't think it's reasonable for a couple of states to control the primary anyway, Gail Collins over at the NYTimes makes a good point that the Dems are really making some bizarre choices concerning campaigning and the moved primaries. The candidates have all signed a pledge not to campaign in states that move up their primaries, but they can still raise money there. So it's ok to talk to anyone with a checkbook, but trying to convince regular people to vote for them, that's somehow bad. Florida Senator Bill Nelson is suing the party over the disenfranchisement of the voters in his state, and I wish I thought he would win that suit. I think the Democratic party is making a HUGE mistake with this and it's going to backfire on them. So brazenly trying to make the electorate easier to control. Why in the world does anyone think this is ok? I can haz useful partee now pleez?

Filed under: Political No Comments