Utopia 2025I don’t much like Hillary Clinton. I think she has all of her husband’s bad points and none of the good ones. But I have to say, I would relish like a fine wine her election to President in November 2008 – just to see the massive number of head explosions that would result among the crapweasel right wing as Hillary and Bill saunter back into the White House. It would be like watching all three “Scanners” movies at the same time.
The usual crapweasel suspects on the right are all up in arms about the proposed ballot measure in Washington State that would require married couples to have children within three years, or have their marriages annulled.
After carping for years that marriage is all about children, these doofuses are taken aback with their own “morality” being thrown back in their faces. As usual, though, I don’t think the measure’s proponents have gone far enough. On my old site, I outlined a similar proposal, something I called the Bureau of Marriage and Family Certification (BMFC).*
Here’s the rundown:
1. No marriage allowed where the woman is older than child-bearing age (medical certification required).
2. All engaged couples must sign a Procreation Pledge, agreeing to attempt to conceive for at least the first five years of the marriage.
3. Both marriage partners must be heterosexual, to avoid conflict with Rule 2. Heterosexuality will be authenticated by the BMFC, using investigative techniques, or in difficult cases, medical arousal testing.
4. All new marriages will be monitored by the BMFC for no less than one (1) year, to make sure the union is legitimate and not undertaken for financial or other non-approved reasons, especially including theft of company or government benefits.
5. Divorce will be strictly regulated. All civil divorces will have to be approved by the BMFC, after a 3-5 year evaluation process.
I think this is a good start in forcing the right wing to confront the real consequences of their worldview. Marriage is all about children? Divorce is too easy? People shouldn’t get married just to get benefits? Fine. Then write it into law, bitches.
When I lived in Michigan, an ambitious local prosecutor thought his ticket to fame would be prosecuting women for giving birth to crack-addicted babies. Great idea, right? Get tough! But once he started actually throwing poor black mothers in jail, the bloom fell off the rose.
You think abortion is murder? Fine. Then every single doctor who performs an abortion, and every single woman who gets one, should be charged with and convicted of murder. Murder is murder. And the woman doesn’t get off the hook because the baby was conceived in a rape. A fetus is a person, full stop. Deal with that reality, and maybe we can talk.
*NOTE: I take no responsibility for how people will pronounce this acronym. 🙂
A quote from a 1995 Molly Ivins article on Rush Limbaugh, in Mother Jones magazine:
I have a correspondent named Irwin Wingo in Weatherford, Texas. Irwin and some of the leading men of the town are in the habit of meeting about 10 every morning at the Chat’n’Chew Cafe to drink coffee and discuss the state of the world. One of their members is a dittohead, a Limbaugh listener. He came in one day, plopped himself down, and said, “I think Rush is right. Racism in this country is dead. I don’t know what the niggers will find to gripe about now.”
Godspeed, Molly.
The whole “Mary Cheney’s baby” thing has been fascinating, hasn’t it? It’s just another layer of frosting on the cake that is Mary Cheney’s lesbianism in the first place. How galling it must be for those right-wing crapweasels to have a perverted selfish hedonist smack dab in the middle of that nest of vipers called the Cheney family.
Of course, Lynne and Dick haven’t exactly charged to their daughter’s defense, and Mary herself has been even worse – taking the right-wing’s money, both at Coors and from her own father’s campaign, and staying silent when it came to standing up to the elements in her father’s party that abhor her very existence.
As usual, other people say it more eloquently than I can – in this case, it’s Dan Savage. Preach it, brother!
Molly Ivins died just a few days after she revealed that her cancer had come back for a third time. I’m surprised at how much this hurts. I don’t have a lot of words at this point, so I’ll turn it over to Tbogg commenter D. Sidhe, who responded to Dean Esmay’s despicable display of hatred thusly:
Of course I’m sure all of this will just go into the hopper as proof of Dean’s little thesis that the left is full of angry people like Molly Ivins. But you know what? Screw him. How dare he demean Molly’s anger, her completely legitimate anger, at what he and his boy Bush and the rest of the people like him have done to her–and our–country? Of course she was angry. These jackasses are tearing our entire country apart, and have spent the last six years calling us traitors for even noticing it, who wouldn’t be angry about that? Jesus Christ, Dean, if you thought we were destroying the country you loved, wouldn’t you be angry? You even seem plenty angry at the moment, to say that kind of thing about a woman who’s just died, and you’re on top. Do me a favor, and remember how you felt during the Clinton years. Now remember how angry you got when you found a couple of idiots in blogs somewhere saying nasty things when Reagan died, and then go shut the hell up. Damned straight we’re angry. We’re angry you morons forced an immature little bully on us, and angry you forced a vicious, destructive, pointless war on us, and angry you’ve made us less safe, not more, and gotten literally uncountable numbers of people killed doing it, and angry as hell you’ve been treating us like traitors and hysterics for being pissed off about it. You’re a nasty little boy who pulls the wings off of flies and laughs when they buzz helplessly around in the dirt, just like your bullying president. Molly knew that from the start. That’s why you’re glad she’s dead, because she knew that and she never stopped saying it. And all of her anger was nothing to what you people have done to us, all of us, as a planet. My biggest regret is she will never get the chance to see Bush impeached, and jailed, like the war criminal he is. And I’m going to work even harder to make sure that happens, because you, and all of the rest of you pricks who are saying evil things about her today, deserve to be dragged out into the light and shown for what you are and what you’ve done. You’ve hurt Molly’s country, and my country, and our entire world, and if we have to pin it all to your foreheads to make sure you can’t do it again in another twenty years, we’ll do just that.
I never met Molly. But I miss her so damned bad it aches. And I didn’t want to know what the bastards were saying about her, because it hurts. But, you know, I’m glad I know. Because it made me angry, and I’m going to use that anger to help restore the country she loved.
Isn’t it funny that the crapweasel right wing’s description of the Scooter Libby trial, “lying about a crime that did not take place,” can actually be more factually applied to Bill Clinton’s impeachment?
As someone once said on Democratic Underground, “Can’t we find a woman to give Bush a blowjob, so we can impeach him?”
Related post: Blowjobs and broomsticks
NOW…
CHENEY: [If the U.S. had not invaded Iraq,] Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would, at this point, be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Ahmadinejad, his blood enemy next door in Iran —
BLITZER: But he was being contained as we all know —
CHENEY: He was not being contained. He was not being contained, Wolf.
THEN…
“Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capacity with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001
“We are able to keep [Saddam’s] arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
-National Security Advisor Condi Rice, July 29, 2001
Molly Ivins’ breast cancer is apparently “back with a vengeance,” and she’s in the hospital. This is sad, sad news. The world will be a much poorer place without her in it. I wish her and her family the best.
I don’t know if Air America is struggling or dying or doing fantastic. Depends on who you ask, like everything these days. But I do know that it hasn’t been the bang-up success that its initial founders thought it would be.
I think the answer is twofold: one from the negative side, and one from the positive side. They’re really just two sides of the same coin.
The positive: I don’t think people on the left have to be coddled and reassured of their opinions every moment of every day, like people on the right. Righties seem to need constant assurance that yes, they are of course right about everything, and damn those traitorous bastards who are cheeky enough to think otherwise. On the left, largely, I think people have come to their positions over time, through actually thinking about them. Right-wing ideology, to me, seems to be more the product of indoctrination and imposition. That’s not to say that some on the left can’t be just as rigid and doctrinaire as any Michelle Malkin or Dean Esmay. But overall, I think the idea holds.
The negative: People on the left are so beaten down by the dominant right-wing ideology in this country that even they flinch when confronted with people and ideas that the right finds abhorrent. It’s practically stylish in my Commie bubble called Madison to be openly scornful of Michael Moore, for example, even though he’s one of the few pop culture figures who have forcefully rebelled against the horrors of the neocon worldview. Lefties can be so conciliatory that they won’t support people on their own side if they are too “strident.” Let’s just get along, be nice and smile, and maybe everyone will hold hands and buy each other a Coke.
To which I say: HELL NO. That time has passed. Fight back. Get in their face. Stand up for what you believe in, goddamn it. Get a bloody nose, and give two back. We didn’t start this fight, but we better damn well win it.
One of the most successful PR campaigns in the history of humanity has been to change the U.S. war in Iraq from a response to a perceived threat into a heroic campaign to spread democracy.
Now that the non-existent threat of Iraq (remember the 45-minute launch of drone planes?) has been justly thrown into the dustbin, the crapweasel right-wing has successfully managed to completely change the subject. They will deny utterly that the “threat” was the reason for the war, and point to various mentions of “freedom” and “democracy” sprinkled through Bush speeches and official documents as proof that FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY were the reasons for the war all along. You like democracy, don’t you, punk? Don’t you like freedom, you Commie bastard? Purple fingers, bitches!
Too bad this justification is just as fake as the last one.
What’s magic and brilliant about this new construct is that it allows us to blame the Iraqis for not being grateful enough that we invaded their nation, killed hundreds of thousands of their friends and family, and destroyed their infrastructure. Bush even explicitly mentioned this “debt of gratitude” in his last up-against-the-wall Iraq speech.
All I can say is, those Iranians better be ready with the flowers and candy.