Further readings on the Mess we're in

Fascinating article in The Chronicle of Higher Education:

If the political events of 2016 proved anything, it’s that our [liberal profs] interventions have been toothless. The utopian clap in the cloistered air of the professional conference loses all thunder on a city street. Literature professors have affected America more by sleeping in its downtown hotels and eating in its fast-food restaurants than by telling one another where real prospects for freedom lay. Ten thousand political radicals, in town for the weekend, spend money no differently than ten thousand insurance agents.

I will be quoting that last line a few times. Excellent article and diagnosis.

~*~

The (conservative) National Review's entertainingly-rabid pit bull, Kevin D. Williamson, was hired at (liberal) The Atlantic... and when they belatedly discovered that the pit bull really meant what he said about abortion (you mean he isn't joking?)--they fired him. Within hours. Like, this must be some kind of record.

I see this ideological lockstep as more of the same problem. If you can't handle Kevin Williamson, who is pretty extreme, what is wrong with you? You should easily be able to refute his nonsense... or can you?

I think most of the liberals have forgotten how to argue since they live in an echo chamber--so when a conservative pit bull bolts forth--fascist, funny and taking no prisoners... they collectively cower, run and scream. (And fire them, after just hiring them.)

WE used to be the people who made them cower, run and scream. Remember? The Left used to be funny and extreme and posed the existential threat to Western Civ, not National Review columnists, for godsake. Now we are a bunch of finger-wagging schoolmarms who couldn't scare a fly.

Anyway. The National Review, predictably, had strong opinions. In that last piece, Ben Shapiro offered a list:

The Left is narrowing the range of acceptable discourse and persons, and there will be a backlash.

Kevin Williamson. Sam Harris. Bret Weinstein. Bari Weiss. Dave Rubin. Jason Riley. Heather Mac Donald. Jordan Peterson. Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Welcome to the coalition of unpersons.

The people above don’t have much in common. They disagree on matters large and small. Ali is a militant atheist; Williamson is a religious Christian. Peterson focuses on the metaphysical import of myths; Harris focuses on verifiable science. Rubin is a gay Jew; Riley is black. Mac Donald is a supporter of stronger policing; Weinstein was a supporter of Occupy Wall Street.

But there is one thing that everyone on this list has in common: We’ve all been unpersoned by the Left. And that Left is creeping quietly into the mainstream.

As you might know, I belong on that list too. I am no longer on tumblr due to the vicious, 'leftist' lynch mobs that never end. They are singularly uninterested in taking on the Right or Trump--everything they do is about picking the Left apart and destroying it. As you can see, they are doing a fabulous job, and helped the Right elect their president.

These regularly-scheduled "circular firing squads" of the Left have not only rattled me, they have deeply depressed me, as I see what the online Left in America has become = a total stranger. I don't recognize it.

Historically, WE were the people who believed in free speech, remember? WE were the ones who welcomed all kinds of views from all kinds of people. WE were the ones who opposed censorship. Remember? Remember?

Here are some excerpts from the dissenting view from the Atlantic, by Conor Friedersdorf, with which I concur:

Last month, The Atlantic hired Kevin Williamson, the longtime National Review staffer. Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, announced the move, declaring him a writer “whose force of intellect and acuity of insight reflect our ambition.”

Immediately, critics began poring over Williamson’s substantial archive of published writing and public statements. Among the most controversial was an exchange on Twitter about abortion and the death penalty. Williamson declared that “the law should treat abortion like any other homicide.” Pushed to clarify, Williamson added, “I have hanging more in mind.” Later, he expounded, “I’m torn on capital punishment generally; but treating abortion as homicide means what it means.”

...

Do not imagine that I am any less appalled than you at the idea of hanging women who have abortions. I oppose the death penalty, full stop. I would regard any expansion of executions as barbaric and any vast expansion as authoritarian and nightmarish. Even if a politician proposed simply incarcerating women who have abortions, I would oppose the proposition in keeping with my civil libertarian convictions.

...

More specifically, I dissent from the way that Williamson was dragged, regardless of his position. That dragging would be a small matter in isolation, but it is of a piece with burgeoning, shortsighted modes of discourse that are corroding what few remaining ties bind the American center. Should that center fail to hold, anarchy will be loosed.

And I dissent from the termination that followed—a matter for which responsibility must fall on The Atlantic, not on Williamson’s critics, even those critics who most egregiously distorted his words or their prominence in his journalism.

What about the mode of Williamson’s dragging alarmed me?

Word of Williamson’s hiring was greeted by some as if by mercenary opposition researchers determined to isolate the most outlying and offensive thoughts that he ever uttered, no matter how marginal to his years of journalistic work; to gleefully amplify them, sometimes in highly distorting ways, in a manner designed to stoke maximum upset and revulsion; and to frame them as if they said everything one needed to know about his character. To render him toxic was their purpose.

That mode was poison when reserved for cabinet nominees; it is poison when applied to journalistic hires; and it will be poison if, next week or year, it comes for you.

Already has!--interjects Daisy.

Insofar as opinion journalists indulged in it, the mode is also a professional failure. The best illustration of why that is so requires reading a 2015 post by Williamson where he reflects on his “unplanned” conception by parents who chose to give him up for adoption. “It is not as though I do not sympathize with women who feel that they are not ready for a child,” he wrote. And later, he added, “It is impossible for me to know whether the woman who gave birth to me would have chosen abortion if that had been a more readily available alternative in 1972. I would not bet my life, neither the good nor the bad parts of it, on her not choosing it.”

A journalist plumbing the depths of Williamson’s personal archive with the intention of fully informing their readers would surely note that context in their renderings.

How many who dragged him noted it at all?

And then the termination: I worry that the firing was a failure of “the spirit of generosity,” a value that The Atlantic has long touted as a core value. I know that it raised thorny, unresolved questions about what exactly is verboten at the magazine. I fear that it will make it harder for the publication to contribute to the sort of public sphere where the right and the left mutually benefit from fraught engagement. And I expect that many of my colleagues will bear the burden of being dragged in ways that opportunists on the right and the left will now take to be effective.

Finally, I worry that the dragging and the firing were failures of tolerance.

That virtue is unfashionable these days. And I believe that those who minimize, dismiss, or reject it underestimate its value and the potential consequences of its atrophy, even as many who value tolerance have lost the words or the stomach to defend it.

I have not.

Read the rest, it is well worth your time.

And practice saying this with me: more speech, not less.

More, not less. MORE. NOT LESS.

No opinion or POV should ever be suppressed--it will simply return in a far more angry, unmanageable and fanatical form.

Feminists

Oh yeah.

Prompted by: Texas abortion law ignores real problem.

Got links?

At left: a very colorful Page of Cups.



Lots of great reading out there, and I can barely keep up.

Here's a sampler of goodies you may have missed:

[] Arkansas Republican endorses death penalty for children (Raw Story) In case you wonder, candidate Charlie Fuqua got this straight from Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

So if you disagree, talk to God about it, okay?

[] Woo hoo, it's Conspiracy Theory time! Elections bring them out of the woodwork as little else does. AlterNet gives us 10 Conspiracy Theories Hatched by Conservative Fearmongers As Election Day Nears, which is entertaining enough that I hope to cover a couple of these on my upcoming radio show.

As a South Carolina Green Party member in good standing, my hands-down favorite is "The Green Plot to enslave the world":

Agenda 21, a little known and non-binding resolution adopted by the United Nations, is viewed by some on the right as an attempt to control the lives of people throughout the world by regulating everything they do. Amongst their paranoid fears is that Agenda 21 will cede U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. and a one-world government. The truth is that Agenda 21 is a set of principles to guide the development of practices to preserve a sustainable environment for future generations. It is entirely voluntary and was agreed to by the U.N. in 1992 and signed by President George H.W. Bush.

But to hear doomsayers like Glenn Beck put it, it will “suck all the blood out of [our communities], and we will not be able to survive.”

[] My friend JW finally had the daughter I foretold for her and her partner in their Tarot readings. Alright! Our hearty Deadhead congratulations go out to both of them, as well as lovely big sister LM (whom regular DEAD AIR readers may recall from THIS photo).

To celebrate, a look back at JW's reading, as well as a popular piece I wrote about the Tarot titled, How I learned to stop worrying and love the Tarot.

In addition, here is South Carolina Boy's post about my reading of his cards.

[] Anti-Muslim subway ads that sparked anger in New York are now popping up in D.C. (Huffington Post)

The ads, paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, are supposed to be posted in the U Street, Georgia Avenue, Takoma and Glenmont stations for one month.

The ad reads: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad." They have been widely condemned as promoting Islamophobia.

[] Interesting piece titled Nerds and Male Privilege comes directly on the heels of Annalee Newitz's controversial The Great Geek Sexism Debate. BE INFORMED!

[] A heated exchange about disability and abortion starts with Disability, Prenatal Testing and the Case for a Moral, Compassionate Abortion, which brings an angry response from Tiger Beatdown: Lives worth living: Disability, abortion, and slipshod ethics (comments also mandatory reading). Response/Part II: Disability and Abortion, Part Two: Individual moral choices are not categorical imperatives.

Caution: Very heavy, emotionally-wrenching stuff, but it's what we all ought to be thinking about, as science marches on and genetic testing becomes increasingly commonplace and culturally accepted.

[] Historic Number of Women on Ballots Could Lead to Historic Year for Female Lawmakers (Reality Check) Thanks to my California-droog Barbara! (kiss)

Along these same lines, check out some FEMINIST HALLOWEEN COSTUMES!

[] In further election news, our embarrassing Teabagger Senator, Jim DeMint, has decided to join Rick Santorum in backing Todd Akin for Senate in Missouri. I do find it interesting that Chris Christie wants no part of Akin, and has cut him loose.

Translation: Obviously, Christie has his eye on the proverbial Big Tent (higher office), while DeMint is intent on consolidating his power and influence on the right.

[] No list of links is complete without Glenn Greenwald. I especially recommend last month's one-two punch, CNN and the business of state-sponsored TV news (subtitled: The network is seriously compromising its journalism in the Gulf states by blurring the line between advertising and editorial)... and Conservatives, Democrats and the convenience of denouncing free speech (subtitled: Westerners love to decry censorship aimed at them by Muslims while ignoring the extreme censorship they impose on them). Both from the UK Guardian, and required reading for newshounds.

[] And finally, your long-overdue dose of cute: Panda mama nurses her little baby pandas. AIYEEE! SQUEEE!!! (((dead from cuteness)))

Proposed SC State Health plan won't cover abortion

...unless the mother's life is in danger. Rape and incest are A-OK, and if by chance you should be a victim of one of these (includes minors), you will be forced to give birth.

Yes, nothing but COMPASSION from the Republicans.

From the Columbia STATE:

South Carolina’s state health plan would not pay for abortions in the case of rape or incest, according to a budget proviso unanimously approved by a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday.

The proviso, sponsored by Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, would only allow state taxpayers to pay for an abortion if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Lawmakers have tried, and failed, to pass this proviso for at least two years. The proviso would only apply to people covered by the state’s health insurance plan. But it has come to represent the broader abortion debate in general, sparking passionate debate in the House and Senate while slowing the budget process.

“We’re focusing on the rights and the liberty of an unborn child, and I can’t understand why the life of a child that’s a victim ought to be terminated,” Bryant said.

But critics say barring abortions in the case of rape or incest only victimizes the mother.

The three exemptions in the state health plan -- rape, incest or life of the mother -- mirrors the policy of the federal government health plan, commonly referred to as the Hyde Amendment, named for former U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois.

Since 2009, state taxpayers have paid for 19 abortions. Seventeen of them were fetal deaths and two were to save the life of the mother, according to the state Budget and Control Board.

Sens. David Thomas and Mike Fair, both Greenville Republicans, also voted for the proviso. The next step is to pass the full Senate Finance Committee before it reaches the Senate floor.

Besides the garden-variety misogyny involved in forcing a 12-year-old raped by her father to give birth, what really gets me is: these same Republicans claim they are all about saving money, and how much money has all this pro-life political wrangling cost us, compared to a measly 19 abortions? How many working hours have been wasted on this noisy grandstanding to the right-wing base?

Basically, they like to fuss about saving money when they have nothing else to say. They don't mind spending our money arguing endlessly over stuff THEY have chosen to raise hell about. As we have previously established, David Thomas keeps collecting that pricey pension while still in office (that he claimed he didn't believe in), so regardless of what happens, he'll be just fine. He loves to take away the rights of others, all while giving himself more, more, more. No wonder he is such a successful politician.

Mike Fair, we have singled out here before. His entire political career is mostly based on abortion.

WHY are we stuck with these jokers, again? (sigh)

Young evangelicals politically depart from their elders

Saturday's Greenville News article on young evangelicals suggests they have different priorities than their elders. Fascinating! We can make some important political converts in this group, I think.

Some excerpts from Ben Szobody's in-depth piece titled, No presidential candidate has excited young evangelicals:

It’s not the loudest group of voters, but the fate of the 2012 presidential race and even the future fortunes of the Republican Party may partly hinge on a swelling group of independents loosely defined as young evangelical Christians.

Polls and people in tune with the generation say many in the group find themselves politically adrift, amid a bitter campaign that so far features very few of their concerns.

In a shift that may seem radical in the framework of left-right politics, some voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and now support Ron Paul. They may have wanted to transcend partisan politics four years ago and now feel that pulling back on government is the best option left, say a sampling of voters and those who work with them.

The group doesn’t tend to vote in primaries, and the current field of Republicans is seldom touching on their vital subjects. But to lose their vote may mean to lose a generation for good, Christian and political figures say.

“I think a lot of young evangelicals are going to feel politically homeless,” said Tim King, communications director for the social justice group Sojourners who himself fits the demographic.

For his generation, King said abortion matters but the concern for children now includes issues such as child trafficking, mercury levels that affect fetuses, the spread of AIDS and clean water access.

These problems may rope in some big political solutions: social safety nets, churches doing more and a focus on a person’s individual behavior.

This is fabulous news!

One of the problems with young evangelicals that I have noticed, is an easily-offended sensibility. Kids from evangelical and/or home-schooled backgrounds (and due to Bob Jones University, a home-schooler hub, we have a PARCEL of them represented locally, so I know whereof I speak) have been raised in a sequestered environment. They are not allowed to watch TV at BJU, for example; similarly, lots of the home-schooled kids have been extremely overprotected. When they get out into the real world, it can be overwhelming and confusing.

I see this disparity between the young and old evangelicals, as resulting from their experiences in being in sudden contact with liberal Christians, non-Christians and mass-culture in general. The realizations come fast and furious: Wait, how can we be anti-abortion without caring about what actually happens to children after they are born? This starts them thinking in all kinds of new political ways, as they see what Cardinal Bernardin called "the seamless garment"--the concept that "life issues" include war, poverty, the environment, immigration and other global concerns.

Across the nation this week, 53 percent of Republicans were more enthusiastic about voting than usual, compared to 45 percent of Democrats, Gallup reported. But among voters ages 18 to 29, enthusiasm fell by 28 percent since 2008, and by 21 percent among 30- to 49-year-olds.

There’s been little political polling since 2008 focused on young Christians in particular, though a new book by Barna Group President David Kinnaman describes the top reasons many are veering from traditional churches and their positions.

Nearly a quarter of 18- to 29-year olds said Christians “demonize everything outside the church,” while 22 percent said the church is “ignoring the problems of the real world.”

It’s not necessarily that young Christians are apathetic, or less concerned about moral causes than their parents, or disillusioned after voting for Obama, say voters themselves and those attentive to their concerns.

Instead, they say many have a much broader view of how to change society after the Religious Right generation that preceded them. Politics is just a piece, and abortion is just one of the important social issues in play.

“The reality is, there are a lot of people who are actually thinking more broadly about these concerns,” said Paul Blumer, an active churchgoer, owner of Streetside Catering and president of Food for Life, a ministry that feeds the homeless at Triune Mercy Center near downtown Greenville.

He’s frustrated with his voting options but is part of a segment of young Christians who see the poor as their urgent, long-ignored cause. He’s currently trying to get a homeless man and his three children out of a hotel and into a home with another family.

“Here’s what people said to me when I took this on,” Blumer said. “‘You better call DSS.’ And I thought, what is going on with us? Why is it that we continue this constant shrugging of our responsibility as Christians off to government agencies, putting our trust in them as if they will perform the duties that will save these children’s lives?”

Among the current GOP candidates, Blumer likes Ron Paul’s libertarianism but knows he’s unlikely to win and dislikes the way Paul himself is treated as a savior.

“The Republican Party has terrible problems in this area,” said Brent Nelsen, a political science professor at Furman University, a former statewide Republican candidate for office and a founding member of Redeemer Presbyterian Church. “They’re not appealing to the demographics that are growing.”

This includes both young and Hispanic voters, Nelsen said, noting that Obama retains a big advantage among youths, though the Republican Party has recovered some of them since 2008.

The Republican candidates for president, by questioning Obama’s theology or making clear appeals on traditional moral grounds, are talking to “old-school” conservatives who vote in primary elections, he said.

Meanwhile, the “peace-and-justice” movement in evangelical churches is growing, and voting habits tend to lock in during a person’s younger years, Nelsen and King said.

“We’re not talking about the end of the Republican Party as we know it,” he said, adding that the demographic is still relatively small.

Still, if Republicans don’t address what young Christians care about — such as human trafficking or AIDS in Africa — both Nelsen and King say the party risks losing them for good.

Daisy winks, that might not be such a bad thing. Some of us think their dogmatic conservativism may have an unintended positive benefit: they will drive the kids away and ultimately self-destruct. (Some already can't get away fast enough.)

Szobody claims these young people have "a different view of how Christians interact with culture.":

King lays out the timeline this way: The social gospel movement of the 1920s and 1930s aimed at transforming institutions, which was followed by an emphasis on saving individual souls, and then the Religious Right generation sought to use politics as a tool. Preserving prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments in courthouses and “under God” in the pledge while fighting abortion and gay marriage were their causes.

Now, King describes a Christian generation that sees everything from art to writing to building stronger neighborhoods as ways to change others’ view of the world and be a witness for Christ. This effort encompasses environmental concerns, a compassionate approach to immigration and a focus on poverty.

This broader set of interests means that young Christians are often very conservative on the matter of abortion, for instance, but don’t vote on that single issue, King said. They might urge a young woman not to have an abortion, but then question whether the church is prepared to support her and her child.

It’s not a generation exposed to major social movements like the civil rights effort, but he said Occupy Wall Street seems to have hit this nerve: For the first time, they were pushing a cause, their friends were on the news and the world was paying attention.

For the Christians in the crowd, King said a shift from Obama in 2008 to Paul this year isn’t as large as it may seem. They believe Paul is the guy who would end the wars, and is serious about ending the collusion between big business and government — issues Obama underscored in the last election.

Nelsen knows friends who have gone from Obama to Paul, and he said they thought Obama favored personal freedoms but see his actions in office as reliant on the state. That makes Paul the new choice.

Blumer’s view is decidedly libertarian, and he blames “RINOs”* for failing to take up important social causes. In the general election, he said he may write in Paul’s name, or “Jesus Christ.”

Given the options, it’s always a risk that young Christians may not vote, King said.

Still, he said it’s no accident that after 40,000 college students raised $3.3 million to fight modern-day slavery at a January conference in Atlanta, Obama mentioned the effort in his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast.

“President Obama has an opportunity to make the case, but it’s not a done deal,” he said.

Among the youth overall, Obama currently polls well ahead of both Santorum and Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, Republicans have to think to the future, Nelsen said, noting the conservative student groups on Furman’s campus have split into Republican and libertarian camps.

“The young people are up for grabs, ideologically, and I don’t think either party has figured out how they’re going to handle this libertarian wave,” he said.

As I said, fascinating. Hoping some of the disaffected will show up at our Occupy events... hey, we got MOVIES, yall!
We hope to see some of you politically-aware young evangelicals. Your input and participation is welcome!

Stay tuned, sports fans.

*RINO= Republican In Name Only. (They refer to libertarians and liberals.)

Frank would have loved the Occupy movement

Frank on Friday really should be several hours long. Unfortunately, the only time they do that is during "pledge week"--which means I am one of the few people looking forward to WNCW's fund drives. PLAY MORE FRANK! Today, they played Sting and Zappa doing "Murder by Numbers" together in a live performance, simply sublime. Frank kept referring to him as "Mr Sting" which was funny and oh so Zappaesque.

We miss you, man!

~*~

As I said earlier this week, the Occupy movement is under attack. Governor Haley (insert boos, catcalls, thumbs down, other rude gestures) cleared out Occupy Columbia from the Statehouse lawn, claiming protesters were urinating in the bushes. I wish I could have added my urine to the place, to express my dislike of our state government, as well as solidarity with the urinating Occupiers. Nineteen arrests.

First Amendment? What's that?

We need a lawyer to make the case that urine is a form of political protest. If you can artistically dip crucifixes in urine, it seems to me, you can pee on Haley's place of employment and claim that's political.

Alas, this is South Carolina, and we don't have any left-wing political lawyers here.

More nationwide:

Occupiers take over Brooklyn Bridge (Atlantic Wire)

Occupy New Haven meets NY Occupiers on other side of bridge (New Haven Independent)

Occupy Wall Street projects giant 99% logo onto Verizon building (Think Progress) Can you hear us now?

Occupy flash mob in Atlanta Wells Fargo bank (Twitvid)

Occupy Dallas Evicted (KDAF)

Occupy Austin Evicted (Austin Statesman)

Occupy Seattle means business (MyNorthwest.com)

Occupy Chicago protest results in 46 arrests on major bridge (Raw Story)

FBI Director Ducks Questions On Occupy Movement During SF Talk (SF Appeal)

Tea Party and Occupiers find common ground in Memphis (NPR)

Your soundtrack for today's readings!


Revolution - The Beatles



~*~

My husband's home state, Georgia, is next up for the "Personhood for Zygotes" people. They lost Mississippi, but they haven't given up. Not by a long shot.

Hanging out on Twitter last night, I finally got a "pro life" reply to my question: If you make abortion illegal, where will you get the money to build all those new jails? If there have been (as they claim) 53 million murders since Roe v Wade, where will they send all of these murderers? That adds up to the populations of several major cities.

Here is the reply, which was retweeted to me:

Woman who have an abortion should be put to death as soon as guilty gavel cones down. #prochoice is murder.

Silly me, asking about prisons!

I guess I should start asking, where will you get the money in the current economy to pay all those executioners? Or will they outsource that work, like they do call centers?

Pretty honest reply, though. At least the agenda is right out there: we looooove babies, but we don't care about the women who give birth to them and would prefer to kill them off.

Make no mistake, that is the agenda. And at least one of them is honest enough to say so.

Jim DeMint's Tea Party Presidential Forum

At Left: On CNN a few minutes ago, Rep. Michele Bachmann supports a Human Life Amendment.



Yes, I am LIVE BLOGGING Jim DeMint's teabagger forum in Columbia AS IT HAPPENS!

I was unable to hitch a ride down to Columbia in the thunderstorm, so can't be there to yell and scream in person. (sigh) So I am listening online to South Carolina Senator (and major Tea-Party busybody) Jim DeMint and his thoroughly offensive, reactionary love-in. DeMint is tossing lovey-dovey softball questions, along with his trusty minions Congressman Steve King (R–Iowa) and Dr Robert George, founder of the American Principles Project. Dr George just employed the phrase "respect the dignity of all members of the human family, including those in the womb." See, I think they really mean WHITE HETEROSEXUALS in the womb, but then "the human family" has always meant very specific things to Republicans.

Bachmann just said she believed in "equal protection under the law"--wait, what? And she also believes in limiting marriage to heterosexuals. So, she just contradicted herself within three-and-a-half minutes.

Waiting for the Ron Paul fireworks. The rest of these people are wind-up dolls.

Herman Cain, pizza man, is up now.

The questioners are playing immigration-gotcha with Cain. I wonder why? Was he "soft on immigration" at some point in his career? (Did Godfather Pizza neglect to check those Green Cards? Uh-oh!)

These DeMinted minions are pretty obsessed with abortion. In particular, Dr George keeps repeating his line above, ALL MEMBERS OF HUMAN FAMILY... etc. Is he going to use this exact cult-phrase with each and every candidate? (If so, DAISY'S DEAD AIR will hereby reward him with his own post, as I try to do with all the Tea Party whack jobs.) He seems equally obsessed with Catholics being discriminated against by adoption agencies. (NOTE: I didn't understand the importance of this point until his conversation with Governor Romney, later in the debate.)

Cain supports DOMA and traditional marriage. No surprise there. He most especially wanted to talk about his "999" taxation program; Cain's "999" plan replaces the current tax code with a nine percent tax on corporate profits, nine percent on personal income, and nine percent on national retail sales. That magic NINE again! As we discussed here, NINE is the number of completion. Clearly, Herman's been reading his numerology and tarot texts.

Even so, he is a pest, and gets a big fat ZERO from DEAD AIR.

Newt Gingrich!!!! It's the intellectual! Batten down the hatches! Newt is suddenly onstage and makes football jokes out of the box... he appreciates teams like USC that "fumble early in the game, and then come from behind to win." Applause. Cute.

Newt drones on, like a college lecturer (which he has been), talking about the meaning of existence and how the founders were telling us what LIFE MEANT in the Constitution. (Really? Wow, who knew?) And then he goes back to 1802, when Thomas Jefferson eliminated some federal judges. If Jefferson can do it, Newt certainly can. (I just realized that Ohio wasn't even a state then, so I am thinking most of the rest of the country did not exist either... this little fact doesn't derail Newt in the least.)

Gay-baiting time, Newt has a lesbian sister! But the four-times-married heterosexual snubs his sister and the rest of the GLBT population, and says, in so many words, fuck you. He makes it clear that conservatives should not be intimidated by saying marriage is man-woman only.

In this instance, the message for progressives is obvious: INTIMIDATE THEM and call them bigoted haters at every opportunity ... obviously, cautioning his comrades that they should not be intimidated, means they already are.

He calls President Barack Obama "the most effective food stamp president in history"--engaging in some oblique race-baiting. (Newt was always really good at that, while running for congress in Georgia.) Then he accelerates the race-baiting ever-so-slightly, by talking about Detroit. (Why Detroit, of all places? Hm?) Why hasn't Obama fixed Detroit? And repeal Dodd Frank while you're at it! (no explanation of WHY is given) And he likes offshore drilling, the Webb Warner bill, drill baby drill! He reminds everyone in the audience what this would mean for Charleston Harbor. ($$$) Talk about pandering.

Yes, the minion repeated his "respect the dignity of all members of the human family, including those in the womb" cult phrase, for the third time.

Ron Paul gets a squeal from the back of the convention hall, the biggest applause of the afternoon so far.

Congressman Paul starts off sounding like a zealot; a little too wonky. He knows his Constitution and quotes Article 1, section whatever, as impressively as Newt does. Did you know only gold and silver were intended to be legal tender? (I expect a spate of CASH FOR GOLD ads on my blog now.)

He basically wants to dismantle the state, including (did I hear him right?) the police force. He says thousands of bureaucrats were not supposed to be armed, the PEOPLE are supposed to be armed. Hm. Jefferson got rid of the Central Bank, Jackson demolished the Central Bank and we must have the courage to take on the fed. Stop printing money. Keynesian economics will bankrupt the country. Etc.

And then, they asked about our global role. Representative Paul was unequivocal: bring all the US troops home. Now. No nation-building! A woman in the back screamed in approval; there was applause. Ron Paul pointed out that the USA is basically subsidizing South Korea, Germany and Japan's defense. Make them pay for it themselves, he said.

But, but, but... Rep. Steve King says, no troops ANYWHERE? ANYWHERE? He is clearly in shock.

Nope, Ron stands firm. Nowhere. (Audience applause, and I found myself grinning at this.) The man has balls!

About the welfare state, he said a generation had grown up believing in "entitlements" and that is a bad thing. And then, he segued into corporations garnering staggering entitlements, and he almost made me swoon. Nice touch, dude.

Dr George delivers the anti-abortion cult statement once more. (He is going for the gold.) Ron Paul says he would let the states settle the issue. Dr George seems happy with Ron Paul's anti-abortion voting record, but he doesn't like his states rights position. (See, conservatives love "states rights" when it suits them, but not when it doesn't.) Dr Paul compares this to the capital punishment situation, which is different in all states. He seems pleased with that. Dr George, obviously, is not pleased with that AT ALL.

Aside: What about the old Libertarian position, which Ron Paul used to tout when he was running for president as a Libertarian in the 70s? Am I the only person who remembers that? He said THEN, that abortion was not a political issue. When did he change his mind and WHY WON'T SOMEBODY ASK HIM THAT????

Too wonky and disjointed. DEAD AIR gives him a 25% for effort, and for being original.

And now, the android from the catalog, Governor MITT ROMNEY! (Does anyone remember Barbie's boyfriend, KEN, by MATTEL?)

He starts off quoting Justice Brandeis: "The STATES should be the laboratories of democracy." It sounds nice, so he gets all pumped up and pleased with himself.

During Romney's rap, thought I heard some chanting from outside... did somebody bust in? (Or is it just somebody yelling at their kids in the lobby?) I hope it was a hell-raiser! Yeah!

Romney dutifully regurgitates what the others have said, throws in criticisms of Dodd-Frank and all the rest of it. The thing is, he LOOKS so much better than all the rest. He is totally TV-ready, no umming and ahhing like Herman and Ron, no bad hair like Newt, no gollee-gee flat Midwestern accent like Michele. In fact, he sounds like a radio personality with NO regionalisms at all; as George Carlin once said, the DJ voice says, "HELLO! I'm from NOWHERE!"--and Romney sounds like he is most assuredly from Nowhere. He does remind us that he prays. (Better not linger on that TOO long, dude.)

For the fifth time, Dr George repeats his cult phrase about the members of the human family. I am starting to find this really super-creepy. Why these special words, this particular incantation? Why does he say it the same exact way every time? He appears to be a reasonably intelligent and informed person, able to speak extemporaneously... why does he keep up the mantra? Does he think this phrase will especially prick the consciences of pro-choice people or something? I dunno. However, it does finally become clear why he keeps mentioning adoption and Catholics: Catholic adoption agencies won't place children with gay parents, and of course, conservatives don't think they should.

And on this Labor Day, asshole Jim DeMint trashes UNIONS and grills Romney about Right-to-Work laws. The fact that the whole audience is allowed to sit there and have a LABOR DAY holiday, obtained for the American people by UNIONS, makes me damn livid... and I nearly STOPPED THIS WHOLE POST. Hypocrisy SUCKS, Senator.

Ending on a note of definite dyspepsia.

Rick Santorum is right here in Greenville, a few miles away, at Chiefs Wings and Firewater... they didn't invite him to the show. Tee hee.

Friday linkorama

Graphic comes courtesy of YELLOWDOG GRANNY!

:: Voter ID Bill made law in South Carolina -- If you have no photo ID, you can't vote. Obviously intended to sock it to certain groups of people; guess who?

:: Millions for Marriage Equality -- Everybody sign up!

:: Powerful and Primitive -- In light of recent events concerning Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Maureen Dowd poses the question of the hour: Why do powerful men insist on groping the help?

...

And a lil humor to carry you through the weekend:

:: Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex
(The Onion)

:: It's okay to be Takei! (Womanist Musings)

:: Geek Rap - Roll a G6 (Ezra Klein) -- This is priceless! Also, perfect accompaniment for our trip to Fanaticon tomorrow. :)

I'll post pictures!

Government shutdown averted

Comic comes courtesy of Yellowdog Grannie.



And so the government shutdown was averted at the last minute. I remember the last one (in 1995) quite well, as we had made plans to hike Kennesaw Mountain, which is a federal monument. My father-in-law, who believed Newt Gingrich (his horrible congressman) was trying to ruin his life, was convinced that the park would probably be closed when we got there and all our careful plans would come to naught. The shutdown was lifted right before our planned weekend, and the mountain was filled with delayed-hikers.

I was working at the local community college, and I recall employees asking if the school (which received ample federal funds) would eventually be shut down. I remember our supervisor getting some time-line from somewhere, and reading it aloud to us: this is how long the federal government would have to be shut down before the college would need to close. I can't remember the exact length of time; but it was not immediate. However, it was an eventuality. Employees joked that they had wanted the day off; others worried lay-offs would ensue. And they did.

I hadn't been there long and knew my number would be up soon, so I switched jobs within the year. This was shockingly easy in retrospect; I took the Clinton-economy for granted, as we all did. I switched (and added) jobs with near-abandon in the 90s.

And what will happen now? The infrastructure of this country is falling apart as it is. What "budget cuts" are so important? Oh, right, abortion. Always, abortion abortion abortion... fetuses uber alles, as existing American children starve. Yo, prolifers, there are plenty of homeless, sick children to feed and adopt. At least Tea Party crackpot Michele Bachmann can truthfully claim she has put her money where her mouth is, and has provided for 23 foster children in her lifetime. Impressive. So, let's see a similar record from the rest of them!

Ha! I think we'll be waiting a while on that one.

Your opinions of this continuing Ayn Randian soap opera?

Sarah Palin: Even more of a mess than we thought

I know we are supposed to be observing "no Sarah Palin week" or perhaps (for the particularly ambitious liberal!) "no Sarah Palin month" (a whole month!?!) --but speaking personally? You gotta be kidding.

Her ex-aide's manuscript (not even published yet!) was obtained by POLITICO. Translation: All "no Sarah" promises will simply have to go by the wayside for now.

The aide, Frank Bailey, tells us everything we know already, but with emails!:

A new memoir from an embittered former aide to Sarah Palin includes a trove of emails that vividly illustrate her intense focus on image and depiction in the media.

The emails, apparently from the former Alaska governor, portray Palin as nearly obsessed with her political adversaries and consumed with every slight, real or perceived.

This makes me wonder... I've gotten numerous hits from Alaska on my various Sarah Palin posts, which I assumed were from disgruntled Alaskans, personally subjected to Palin and looking for sarcasm aplenty (and we're SO happy to do our part here at DEAD AIR), as well as garden-variety sleaze (ditto!) ... and now I am wondering if these hits (particularly from Wasilla) were from Palin herself. Does she troll the blogs looking for herself? (I know the "Real Housewives" frequently do, but at least they admit it.)

More from the pissed-off employee:

A Palin ally, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that Bailey and Palin corresponded and that the former aide had access to Palin’s passwords and her email account. But the Palin ally said that the content should be viewed through the lens of Bailey being “the quintessential disgruntled employee” who had been denied senior jobs he sought, cut out of Palin’s vice presidential campaign, and been caught up in the “Troopergate” scandal — details Bailey confirms in the proposed book, which is titled “In Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin: A Memoir of our Tumultuous Years.”

As every working class person knows: disgruntled employees know where all the bodies are buried. If you want truth, go to them; they are not beholden to anyone and do not act in obscenely craven ways in order to keep their jobs. (Brief quasi-socialist note: Why an ex-employee should be regarded as less truthful than someone still on the payroll is one of those evil capitalist lies, which you should never, ever believe.) Frank has been cut loose, and now, he is here to tell us all about his nasty boss. LISTEN UP, good Republicans. Behold your queen. She doesn't have too much between the ears:

“Todd just told me you had spoken with him awhile back and reported that some law enforcement friends of yours claimed some dumbass lie about Track not being Todd’s son? This really, really disgusts me and ticks me off,” Palin, according to Bailey, emailed aide Scott Heyworth in January of 2006. “I want to know right now who said it, who would ever lie about such a thing… this is the type of bullsh** lie about family that WILL keep me from running for Governor.”

Palin later repeated the obscure rumor in an email to supporters, prompting Bailey to wonder about her “penchant for inflaming issues that, left on their own, might disappear” – a recurring pattern in her public life.

By the spring of 2009, just months after she and John McCain had lost the presidential race, Palin is depicted as tired of being criticized and focused more on her own national image than Alaska issues.

“I hate this damn job,” she wrote in an April 28 email to Bailey and another confidante.

A month later, she delves deeply into the case of Carrie Prejean, the Miss California beauty pageant contestant who voiced her support for traditional marriage.

“I got slammed on Fox News today for “not defending” (Carrie Prejean), speaking out for someone unfairly and mercilessly attacked by hypocritical media,” Palin wrote.

“I think it would be good to have that statement out there that of course I support this young, strong woman who voiced her honest opinion on stage - then got punished and crucified for doing so. What kind of statement can go out to solidify my already-spoken support for her? I know if I were in her shoes (and I have been) it does mean a lot to have someone with the balls to publicly speak up in support. I’ve asked for [Donald] Trump’s contact info so I can thank him, too.”

Palin, Bailey writes, thought about contacting the media to explain her support for Prejean – but then reconsidered.

“If I call those reporters then I‘m on the hook to answer all their other questions they want,” she wrote.

Concludes Bailey after the episode: “The question we failed to ask was: What does this possibly have to do with being governor of Alaska? While it had nothing to do with Alaska, it had plenty to do with publicity. Fox News made this an ongoing story, giving it wall-to-wall coverage. Sean Hannity in particular latched on with both hands. With Sarah suddenly an outspoken supporter, he had gorgeous Prejean on one arm and sparkling Governor Palin on the other. He appeared a happy man.”

Palin wasn’t entirely divorced from local issues at the time, but her fixation on appearances veered into the absurd, Bailey writes.

When an Anchorage TV news station, KTUU, ran an online poll in May asking Alaskans if they agreed with her decision to reject federal stimulus dollars for energy, Bailey writes that Palin’s small inner-circle “invested time, energy, and emotion into linking our computers and utilizing our software into generating votes in favor.”

Refreshing the results to run up the votes, they emailed one another.

When an aide said Palin was initially leading in the unscientific survey, the governor responded: “Oh thank God!”

This makes me wonder even more... Did Palin teach her protégé (and brand new Tea-Party Governor) Nikki Haley, these kinds of high-tech hi-jinks? It makes sense; how Nikki vaulted to the head of the pack so quickly.

Sarah's mentorship promises to reap major rewards in media time AND in learning how to cook the books.

Bailey reveals that she didn’t even support her own eventual ticket-mate in the GOP presidential primary, recalling that in a January 2008 email Palin wrote: “Huck’s a good pick for me, just fyi.”

Her distrust of Republican insiders was crystallized in a scathing e-mail she sent in June 2009.

After they couldn’t confirm her attendance at an event, the GOP congressional campaign committees rescinded their invitation for Palin to speak at their fundraising dinner that month in favor of Newt Gingrich. The Alaskan reacted by typing a scathing assessment of the former speaker and the national party to her team, in which she credited God for keeping her away from the Washington fundraiser.

“Yes, (Newt/GOP) are egotistical, narrow minded machine goons… but all the more reason God protected me from getting up on stage in front of 5000 political and media ‘elites’ to praise him, then it be shown across the nation.” Palin wrote in the e-mail.

“At some point Newt would have shown his true colors anyway and we would have been devastated having known we’d earlier prostituted ourselves up in front of the country introducing him and acting like that good ol’ rich white guy is the savior of the party,” she continued.

And with the anti-Newt remarks, we see how the Tea Party has endeared itself to the populists of the land. Her last sentence was something I might have written.

However, when she thanks God for saving her from the embarrassment of "nothing decent to wear"--well, that is NOT something I would write. But it is something I hear women say all the time here in DeMint country.

The concept that Almighty God micromanages all of our lives and has time to give a rats' ass about your clothes, well, doesn't that just sum it all up, folks? What kind of bizarre, ego-driven, TV-American narcissism is THAT?:

Palin went on to express another reason she was thankful to the almighty that she wasn’t attending the fundraising gala.

“Plus, I had nothing to wear, and God knew that too. Party machinery sucks. I can’t tell you how much I hate it - nothing ever changes - we went through it before and after the VP campaign,” she wrote. “I’ve gone through it all my career. We just don’t fit into it, and maybe we should thank God for that.”

Oh boy.

And as I wrote here, working for Palin looks like one of the shittiest jobs in the world:

“As mentioned in an earlier chapter, getting Sarah to meetings and events was like nailing Jell-O to a tree,” Bailey wrote. “On the campaign trail and as governor, Sarah went through at least ten schedulers, with few lasting more than months. Nobody wanted the job because Sarah might fail to honor, at the last minute, the smallest commitments, and making excuses for her became a painful burden. In at least one instance, a scheduler quit after breaking down in tears; another left after being accidentally copied on an email from Sarah trashing her.”

It was, Bailey claims, a scheduling issue that ultimately prompted him to lose faith in Palin.

After committing to attend an Anchorage ceremony in honor of an abortion restriction in August 2009, Palin backed out just days before the well-publicized event, Bailey claims.

And she doesn't like government interference, dammit, in anything EXCEPT a woman's womb (where she inexplicably believes the government should set up shop):

“Sarah spoke of an aversion to our no-smoking in restaurant and motorcycle helmet laws. As governor in September 2007, she wrote specifically, ‘I want to make sure DOT knows my position on helmet laws - I don’t support them.’ After alerting us to her aversion to these laws, Sarah then added, ‘Heck, I don‘t even believe in Click-it or Ticket seat belt laws, and I filmed the damn commercial for ‘em.’”

The next President? The next Vice-President? Does that scare you? It should.

Please do not underestimate her, as the Republican Establishment also underestimated Haley.

Start trashing her now.

On Roe (Norma McCorvey)

Norma McCorvey (on left) aka ROE of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision (which made abortion legal in 1973), with her attorney Gloria Allred, at a pro-choice demonstration in Washington DC during the early 90s. (Photo from PBS)


NOTE: I first wrote this in July 2009, after Norma was arrested at a pro-life demonstration. I am re-running it here this weekend, the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.--DD.


Jovan reported that Norma McCorvey was arrested for demonstrating during Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. Once pro-choice, McCorvey met up with the Operation Rescue people while defending a women's clinic and started attending church with some of their members. She was subsequently baptized in 1995 and now strongly identifies as pro-life.

News of McCorvey's recent arrest sent me looking for an incisive article I once read about her in the Village Voice, written right after her conversion to the pro-life side...which of course, I can't find now. The author made the case that the pro-choice, feminist movement had systematically dissed McCorvey as a low-class white-trash embarrassment, sending her over to the pro-life side, which welcomed her and feted her. She was in the widely-viewed pro-life documentary titled I Was Wrong (2007). She speaks to pro-life groups throughout the country, and tells them she feels used.

Was she used?

The article pointed out that Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued Roe, went and got her own abortion while the case was going on, while McCorvey was forced to go ahead and give birth. Why didn't Weddington use herself as "Roe"?

McCorvey and Weddington comprise the tale of two pregnant women, one from the elite class, one from poverty. One argues Roe v. Wade and becomes internationally famous, the youngest lawyer to win a Supreme Court case. She writes books, holds elected office, teaches at UT Austin, and now has her own Weddington Center. By contrast, McCorvey earns her keep by traveling the church-chicken-supper circuit, telling people that Weddington used her for her own political and professional ends.

Did she?

I think so.

As one who has also been repeatedly dissed, let me say, I know the feeling. Feminism often has the unfortunate appearance of a high-class country club, filled with educated, affluent, snooty white people. This is one reason activists like Renee call themselves womanists. This is why many working-class women say "I'm not a feminist, but..." Feminism is often seen as the territory of highly-educated, elite women. When one of these influential feminists disses you and acts like you don't know any better (especially if you are my age, or Norma's age), it can be deeply humiliating. And confusing. I can remember one of the huge pro-choice rallies in Washington, DC in the early 90s (see photo above, McCorvey and Allred) during which McCorvey was not permitted to speak--an incident also mentioned in the Village Voice piece. Why wasn't she? Too redneck and uneducated? Good Lord, people, the damn SCOTUS ruling was named after her!

I can just imagine Norma tearfully wiping away tears in some fast-food restroom somewhere, after the rally, wondering why they would not allow the person whose life was necessary for the ruling, to speak to a crowd of women celebrating said ruling.

Or maybe she did know why. I mean, I immediately knew why. And if you have ever listened to McCorvey, you know she is pretty intelligent.

And now, I echo the Village Voice author, whose name I can not remember (and therefore can not properly credit), who suggested there was an element of "I'll show you bitches!" involved in Norma McCorvey's defection.

And there is also the matter of basic respect for who she is, in a culture of symbols.

It is no mere coincidence Norma eventually converted to Catholicism under the auspices of the head of Priests for Life, Father Frank Pavone. Catholics understand martyrdom and sainthood. Norma being USED by the pro-choice side became a form of martyrdom. Every time the words Roe v. Wade are used by the mass media, Norma is martyred once again. She is used by a group of people, so the story goes, who needed a pregnant, poverty-stricken stooge who could not afford an illegal abortion. Her own lawyer sure could afford one, and didn't waste time procuring one. Why didn't she do the same for Norma?

She needed Norma. Norma was Roe.

~*~

This whole story makes me cringe; I am typing it in perpetual-cringe position. But I think I know why Norma turned to the other side, where she is a pretty good fundraiser, the Catholic pro-lifers tell me. Most have heard her speak at the aforementioned chicken-suppers. She is a very good speaker, intelligent and earnest. Regular folks. She makes an impact. And when she talks about being used? Home run. Every time. The deep pockets open up and the collection plate is full-to-overflowing.

What does it mean for feminism that one of our heroines, a woman we should have honored and given a place of respect, has jumped ship? A woman who was a lesbian (I am not sure if she still identifies this way, but at one time was in a long-term relationship with a woman and called herself lesbian) and should have seen us as the allies, and not them?

I consider the case of Roe, Norma McCorvey, our own failure. It's on us.

Can we please have some class awareness in feminism? Can we stop exploiting each other? Will this ever happen?

And meanwhile, let me guess....who bailed Norma out of jail?

Odds and Sods: They don't call it lunacy for nothing!

Due to the strangeness surrounding me, I knew it was a full moon, way before I saw it. Sometimes, you just know.


~*~


And the USA careens onward, listing evermore to the right, approaching the fever pitch of November elections. If Obama is re-elected, I expect a partial suspension of government by newly-elected Tea Partiers. Newt Gingrich successfully pulled this nasty stunt in 1995 and you can expect a reprise.

What?--you say, alarmed, they can't do that! Daisy laughs ruefully. THEY can do any damn thing they want to. And the way things are presently going, I am girding my loins and preparing for the worst. (I just hope my generally-congenial personality means *I* am not locked up.)

Yesterday, once again, nearly rear-ended due to the bumper stickers. The guy who did it had an MIA bumper sticker... yes, it's a veritable WAR OF THE BUMPER STICKERS. But that's why I tend to worry about the arrival of fascism... sure looks that way to me.

Several of the guys I work with counseled me to buy a gun. Uh-huh, and I'm sure the MIA guy would also have one, and that is a good way for both of us to end up dead. (Then again, I might end up dead when one of them pushes my little car into oncoming traffic.)

Despite my resolve, I might have to scrub off the bumper stickers. Doncha love how these patriots only want constitutional rights (such as FREE SPEECH) for THEMSELVES and not for the rest of us?

Trying hard not to hate. Damn, that sounds so 70s, but I am really trying not to, and fiercely meditating on impermanence.

~*~

Although African-American women get more abortions than white women, abortion is still regarded as a "white women's issue"--why?

This salient question is what started Faith Pennick on the road to making her documentary SILENT CHOICES, about the silence of black women on the subject of abortion, even (especially?) their own... and the many reasons for this:

According to a 2009 report by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, nearly eight in 10 African Americans claim that religion is very important in their lives, compared with just over half of all U.S. adults. And while black churches have historically served as beacons of political activism in this country, most of them have remained mute on the issue of abortion. “Black churches are very left as far as their political views on certain issues,” Pennick notes, “but when it comes to something like abortion, there’s this weird sort of break, like a split personality.”

One of the most pervasive stereotypes attached to this issue, Pennick says, is the image of the black woman as sexually promiscuous. “If we talk about abortion,” says Pennick, “it might make people think we’re freaks who just love sex. Not that there’s anything wrong with loving sex, but we’re giving the racists ammunition to say, ‘See, look at those sluts.’ “

To illustrate how this stereotype continues to thrive in contemporary society, Pennick points to the discovery in 2008 that Bristol Palin—the 17-year-old, unwed daughter of the GOP’s vice-presidential candidate—was pregnant. “Somehow, for conservative whites, it reinforced their traditional family values because she kept the baby and got engaged,” Pennick says. “But if that had been Sasha or Malia Obama, if they had been 16 or 17 and had gotten pregnant, oh my, every conservative in this country would have been saying, ‘[The Obamas] have no family values, they’re horrible parents.’“

Yup.

Excerpt from SILENT CHOICES. (caution, may trigger, etc)

Interesting that my mother's (illegal) abortion was also "a shot"--but she wasn't hit in the stomach. As a result of the shot, my mother slept for three days during which she bled so profusely, my grandmother thought she was dying.

After that, the pregnancy was gone, but I am convinced the hormonal-overdose might have been a precursor to the breast cancer she developed later.

It was her family doctor; he told her he did it all the time, but you had to "catch it early"...

~*~

RADISHES AND RICOTTA (unabashedly stolen from REAL SIMPLE):

1 cup fresh ricotta in small bowl
Drizzle with 1 tbsp extra-virgin olive oil
Sprinkle w/1/8 to 1/4 tsp each, kosher salt and plain black pepper
Serve with two bunches of trimmed radishes.

Excellent source of magnesium, potassium, Vitamin B6, and alla that good stuff! YUM!

~*~

Botox is bad, which of course, you already know. But not only because you are injecting botulism toxin into your body (((screams for emphasis))) but because of the results. Facial expressions are not simply facial expressions.

The University of Wisconsin is on the case:

[Researcher David] Havas was studying people after a pinpoint treatment to paralyze a single pair of "corrugator" muscles, which cause brow-wrinkling frowns.

To test how blocking a frown might affect comprehension of language related to emotions, Havas asked the patients to read written statements, before and then two weeks after the Botox treatment. The statements were angry ("The pushy telemarketer won't let you return to your dinner"), sad ("You open your e-mail in-box on your birthday to find no new e-mails") or happy ("The water park is refreshing on the hot summer day.").

Havas gauged the ability to understand these sentences according to how quickly the subject pressed a button to indicate they had finished reading it. "We periodically checked that the readers were understanding the sentences, not just pressing the button," says Havas.

The results showed no change in the time needed to understand the happy sentences. But after Botox treatment, the subjects took more time to read the angry and sad sentences. Although the time difference was small, it was significant, he adds. Moreover, the changes in reading time couldn't be attributed to changes in participants' mood.

In sales work, I often gauge customer satisfaction by facial expression, and have long noticed that the Botoxed crowd is unable to let you know whether they like something or not. They may even WANT to let you know, but have rendered themselves incapable of doing so. I find it disorienting, and I tend to go emotionless in response. (Thus, I foresee a future in which all interactions between older women will be reduced to Stepford Wife/android-conversations.)

Uppity women are now controlled with pharmaceutical drugs and with the law; through advertising and through our reproductive capacities, and now, they can control our emotions, as I wrote three years ago. Women appearing unhappy or pissed off will probably be outlawed when the Tea Party takeover is complete, and the Botox injections will be mandatory.

Michele Bachmann's doctor will be rich, rich, rich! (Okay, I know, that was nasty.)

~*~

I used to read Adrienne von Speyr, when I was in my hard-core, pseudo-Opus Dei period. And I admit, I still like her! If anyone needs some female-authored (and surprisingly woman-centered) Catholic mysticism, check her out.

She once wrote: Anyone who knows the fullness of the light should not live in the twilight for the sake of thrift.

And I've always tried to live by that.

~*~

Closing with some random tunes I posted on Facebook, and some I've just been listening to in my car... starting with my favorite local band! :)

I'm a Country Man - Mac Arnold and Plate Full O Blues



~*~

All I've got to do - The Beatles



~*~

Easy To Be Hard - Three Dog Night



~*~

This is special for Mr Daisy! (kisses)

Peggy-O - New Riders of the Purple Sage



~*~

Big finish! Whenever I hear this song, I always wonder where all the Quaaludes went, LOL. In Ohio, we called em Sopors, while in the UK (and sometimes on the East Coast), the term was Mandrax. This meant: If you hitchhiked or otherwise traveled a lot, you might not know what you were being offered as you left one region for another, so it was important to be informed!

Ah, pharmaceutical nostalgia for all the former lude-heads in my readership! (goes with the whole FULL MOON motif)

Cities on Flame with Rock and Roll - Blue Oyster Cult

SC Lt Gov Andre Bauer compares poor to stray dogs

Photo of Lt Gov Andre Bauer from 67 Degrees.

~*~


Those of you who wondered why we weren't so all-fired anxious to get rid of our wayward governor, Mark Sanford, down here in South Carolina... well, this should solve the enduring political puzzle at long last. Next in line for the job would be Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, whom I have written about quite a bit here at DEAD AIR.

And Bauer has just distinguished himself in his inimitable fashion, at a town hall meeting in Fountain Inn, comparing poor people to stray dogs.

I could never make this stuff up:

Bauer equates 'stray animals' to people in speech on aid to needy
Lieutenant governor says those receiving help 'owe something back'
By Nathaniel Cary • Staff Writer • January 23, 2010

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer drew a comparison to “feeding stray animals” during a speech about people on government assistance, “babies having babies,” and parents whose children are on free and reduced-price lunch.

Bauer, who's running for the Republican nomination for governor, made his remarks during a town hall meeting in Fountain Inn that included state lawmakers and about 115 residents.

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better,” Bauer said.

In South Carolina, 58 percent of students participate in the free and reduced-price lunch program, 45.5 percent in Greenville County.

Bauer's remarks came during a speech in which he said government should take away assistance if those receiving help didn't pass drug tests or attend parent-teacher conferences or PTA meetings if their children were receiving free and reduced-price lunches.

Bauer later told The Greenville News on Friday that he wasn't saying people on government assistance “were animals or anything else.”

In his speech to the group, Bauer said people have to become more engaged with government.

“You see, for the first time in the history of this country, we've got more people voting for a living than we do working for a living,” he said.

What the hell is he talking about, Daisy interrupts to ask indignantly. Jesus H. Christ.

And of course, it just gets worse.

Later in his speech, he said, “I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina,” adding, “You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch and I'll show you the worst test scores, folks. It's there, period. So how do you fix it? Well you say, ‘Look, if you receive goods or services from the government then you owe something back.'”

Bauer said during the speech that there are no “repercussions” from accepting government assistance.

“We don't make you take a drug test. We ought to. We don't even make you show up to your child's parent-teacher conference meeting or to the PTA meeting,” Bauer said.

“You go to a school where there's an active participation of parents and guess what? They have the highest test scores. So what do you do? You say, ‘Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don't attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits.' We're going to have to do things like that. We can't afford to keep just giving money away.”

And he said it was time to confront “babies having babies, somebody's got to talk about. Politicians don't want to talk about it anymore because it's politically incorrect.”

Later, Bauer told The Greenville News that “people in society have certain responsibilities, just like if you don't pay your taxes, there are certain repercussions.”

He said government hasn't made requirements to make those receiving aid be more responsible.

“They can continue to have more and more kids and the reward is there's more and more money in it for them.”

Instead, he said the government should place incentives in its welfare programs such as providing child care so parents can work or receive education so they can break the welfare cycle.

Government continues to reward bad behavior by giving money to people who “don't have to do a thing,” he said.

Does this include corporate welfare, such as subsidizing Boeing's expensive move to South Carolina--to the tune of a 60% tax break? (And how many millions does that eventually work out to? Never was too good at math!) I agree, that kind of welfare sucks! Not to mention the bloodsuckers who keep running for office and pandering to the lowest element in our society. What are THEY giving back? Are these party hacks good for South Carolina, or do they just contribute to the continuing stereotype of us as a bunch of stupid, xenophobic rednecks?

Is Bauer proposing we take away free lunches from the kids with bad parents--the ones who test positive for drugs and won't attend school conferences, et. al.? Punish the kids for the parents' behavior, isn't that what he is advocating?

Interestingly (and hypocritically), Andre Bauer is a major pro-lifer, and takes the OPPOSITE line when the subject is abortion: Why punish the baby for the behavior of the parents? Like Mike Huckabee, whom he supported for president, Bauer does not believe in any legal exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape or incest; and this is the moral defense he and Huckabee repeatedly offer. So, apparently, it's okay to punish kids for what their parents do, as long as they are already born! Just not in the womb! The womb is sacrosanct, but once they are born? Fuck them and their free lunches!

(((blood boils)))

Anyway, now you know why Sanford is still the governor. Everyone here in SC already knows.