MUCHO, MUCHO MAS. An EXCLUSIVE ZOMBIE BREITBART INVESTIGATION reveals that BLACK PEOPLE DISLIKE OBAMA. And that, sportsfans, is Breaking News you can only discover through the magic of Citizen Journalism.
Thankfully, certain events are beyond the media’s control. Some events
are political (or real) hurricanes. Let’s hope the storm on November
6th blows Mitt Romney into the White House and Barack Obama permanently
back to Chicago.
You can try to untangle the "logic" that compels this fellow to say such a thing, bless you. But he's just being a dick.
It’s the states, particularly Ohio, that really matter, argues New York Times poll analyst (and former DailyKos blogger) Nate Silver.
“Mr. Obama is the favorite [in Ohio],and because of Ohio’s central
position in the Electoral College, he is therefore the overall favorite
in the election,” Silver wrote Saturday....
Team Romney believes there is a fairly close relationship between the
national polls and the polls in Ohio. Romney aides are highly skeptical
of any results from Ohio that are several points out of line with the
national polls. For example, if Romney is up two nationally, they would
find it very hard to believe a poll that shows him down by five in Ohio
— to them, that seven-point gap just seems too big.
You know, pull the other one, it's got bells on.
This "national poll/state poll" stuff is amusing, but based on nonsense. There's lots of Ohio polling data, and it's all far more likely to be correct than national data. I only got a B- in my BA stats class, but I'm kinda sure that the math backs me up here.
And even with the national data, Romney is not up by 2.
If Silver's forecast holds up, and Rasmussen & Gallup's numbers don't change, this ought to be kind of a big deal, though -- that would be two major firms embarrassed. As it is Gallup looks very much an outlier.
Holy shit! We so totally are becoming medieval because of technocratic elites making national unity charmless! That is so totally dead on balls accurate!
A tourist mecca like Venice now boasts that it
dreams of breaking away from an insolvent Italy. Similarly Barcelona,
and perhaps the Basques and the Catalonians in general, claim they want
no part of a bankrupt Spain. Scotland fantasizes about becoming separate
from Great Britain. The Greek Right dreams of a 19th-century Greece
without Asian and African immigrants who do not look Greek. Belgium
increasingly seems an artificial construct, half Flemish, half French,
with the two sides never more estranged. These days Texas and California
do not even seem like two parts of a united nation, just as
Massachusetts is growing ever more distant from Wyoming.
Golly. 2012 sure has been a momentous year, when all this happened for the first time ever in all of history.
Here at home, it is not just that taxation and government are different
in red and blue states, or that for the last two decades national
elections have hinged on what the shrinking number of purple-state
voters prefer. Social and cultural questions are also dividing us,
almost as much as slavery did in the 1850s. Fault lines over abortion,
the role of religion, gay marriage, affirmative action, welfare, illegal
immigration, and gun ownership are starting to manifest themselves
regionally. We have long had the Blue–Gray game; soon will there be a
Red–Blue Bowl? If Mexico plays against the U.S. soccer team in Merced,
Fresno, or L.A., will the spectators root for the country in which they
live or the country that they left?
Wow. Regional differences are starting to manifest themselves in America, something totally unprecedented in this nation, except for that minor Civil War outlier. (And fair enough: VDH carefully omits "race" as an American "fault line," because he is a Serious Scholar of The Past.) And also there is soccer, a sport where for inexplicable reasons American fans don't always yell the loudest in stadiums, despite soccer being America's Pastime and a National Obsession on a par with, say, badminton, or curling.
Europe may in the not-too-distant future end up as it was in the 16th century, before the rise of the nation state.
Feudalism: don't call it a comeback.
Various longstanding European nationalist movements are opposed to the idea of the nation state? They want, what, monarchies?
Well, Dr. Hanson's the scholar! He can't possibly be talking out his ass!
If current trends continue, the United States may unwind in the reverse
of the manner in which frontiers became territories and then states. No
entity is ensured perpetual union. The process of forming nations and
empires and then disassembling them back into small city states or
provincial units is certainly not novel, but rather ancient, and more
likely fluid and cyclical than linear — even if the process takes
decades or at times centuries. When an empire or even a nation state can
no longer guarantee locals that the increased security and wealth of a
vast union makes it well worth transcending their parochial customs and
ethnic profiles, then we have a Greece of 1,500 city states, or a
medieval Europe of castles and moats.
So if you think gays can marry, you are accelerating the process whereby folks in Wyoming dig moats to protect themselves from soccer-loving Mexican immigrants. And you should be ashamed of yourself.
Voters are also disgusted with government, and feel that their overseers
are not even subject to the consequences of what they impose on others:
We expect the Obamas to trash the 1 percent as they jet to Martha’s
Vineyard, or a zillionaire John Kerry to demand higher taxes as he seeks
to avoid them on his yacht, or an upscale French Socialist president to
have a home on the Mediterranean — or, on the other side of the ledger,
social-conservative elites to speak and act like metrosexuals.
It is truly awful. Rich people who think they should pay higher taxes remain rich, while religious leaders who want to deny gay people equal rights talk like fags. Shit is fucked up and bullshit.
Christ. There are entire paragraphs more of this bullshit. Tired now.
Anyway, VDH is mad that Obama is destroying the country by totally pretending that the GOP wants to restrict women's autonomy, redistribute wealth upwards, race bait, and pursue contractionary economic policies.
Remember: Victor David Hanson is as far as the American Right can go in regards to producing an intellectual.
The “everyday lives of many American Catholics
are no longer particularly distinctive from the everyday lives of
members of other faiths," Kim Daniels writes. “And so non-Catholics can
be forgiven for reducing our faith to its positions on hot-button
issues, for often that’s all that seems to distinguish us from anyone
So we're no longer ethnic -- except for the Hispanics, where the Evangelicals are making inroads. But this particular pitch seems to be instead aimed at country club types. Hence, K-Lo is wondering, "Judge Smails, how can I seem to you less of a freak?" So if you are living 40 years ago as a rich Catholic, uh, heads up, this all is useful?
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: You start your
chapter with a flashback: “We’ve all been there. The block party where
your neighbor sees you putting ketchup on your hamburger and decides
this is the time to ask you why Catholics won’t let women be priests.”
Whatever do you say?
Nobody has "been there," ever. Ketchup-pouring block-party theological leading questions only happen hypothetically to insane people. If it happened once at any point that is batshit loony, and at any rate still never happens. "We've all been there"? Fuck you. And all your little ones were taught in hedge schools because of the Penal Laws, I suppose?
KIM DANIELS: Moments like this are great everyday opportunities to witness to one’s faith
No they aren't. Block parties are terrible places to discuss your religion.This is a thing you should shut your gob tight about at a party.
the only appropriate response is to meet people where they are and
appeal to the positive intention behind their question. In this
instance, your neighbor values women’s equality, a value rooted in the
Christian idea of the equal dignity of all before God. You point that
out, and recognize that like other social institutions, the Church has
often failed to live up to this ideal. But you also point out that women
have held prominent, unprecedented roles in the Church from its
earliest days, through the middle ages when Catholic abbesses led large
communities and presided over vast tracts of land
After that, you get your hamburger and chips and move on. Your neighbor
will remember less about what you say than how you say it, and these
exchanges aren’t about winning debates, but witnessing to your faith.
The way you talk and the way you live will be much more convincing than
any abstract argument.
So you will have correctly bullshat the question: women can't be Catholic priests because here, examine a pile of mumbo-jumbo sexist horsecrap. Can I get a witness!
There's more, but it's all equally ugly vacant. It's all about how if you're Catholic, you are Oppressed worse than actual poor Americans without health insurance because maybe some woman somewhere might be able to get birth control pills.
He told his hearers that he was there that evening for no terrifying,
no extravagant purpose; but as a man of the world speaking to his
fellow-men. He came to speak to business men and he would speak to them
in a businesslike way. If he might use the metaphor, he said, he was
their spiritual accountant; and he wished each and every one of his
hearers to open his books, the books of his spiritual life, and see if
they tallied accurately with conscience.
Jesus Christ was not a hard taskmaster. He understood our little
failings, understood the weakness of our poor fallen nature, understood
the temptations of this life. We might have had, we all had from time to
time, our temptations: we might have, we all had, our failings. But one
thing only, he said, he would ask of his hearers. And that was: to be
straight and manly with God. If their accounts tallied in every point to
"Well, I have verified my accounts. I find all well."
But if, as might happen, there were some discrepancies, to admit the
truth, to be frank and say like a man:
"Well, I have looked into my accounts. I find this wrong and this wrong.
But, with God's grace, I will rectify this and this. I will set right my
Some Catholics I know personally did this thing where they shut up and went out and helped the poor, sick, and dying. And without fail, the Official Church gave them shit about it. Weird!
While it's unlikely that this election is going to have any effect as regards our national enthusiasm for flying death robots (predictable Decepticon apologetics here), I am wanly hopeful that an Obama victory may have the salutary effect of getting Democrats to finally -- after going on a third of century now -- get off their plump (male) asses and forcefully defend a woman's right to choose.
Yes, this is to do with Mourdock (sometimes Dickens gets to give names to politicians, apparently) being a shit. But it goes past that.
I was just shocked that anyone was shocked. Lots of Republican
politicians oppose rape exceptions. Paul Ryan, for one, opposes abortion
in the case of rape. Rarely does anyone bother to offer an explanation
for why he holds that position. (Todd Akin famously did earlier this
year, and that didn’t go so well for him.) I’m not sure what
justifications people had imagined for opposing a rape exception that
would be more acceptable than Mourdock’s.
Yes, well, the fact that a lot of people were shocked would be the fucking point. There is a reason why the Official GOP (the "stickies"? First person who explains that joke in the comments gets a free lifetime WF subscription!) has soft-pedaled the abortion issue in any general election, while simultaneously trying to dog-whistle to the fundie crazies. It's because the "pro-life" position only sounds like it makes moral sense, when in fact it gets deeply nutty the farther you push it. Sullivan:
Despite the assertions of many liberal writers I read and otherwise
admire, I don’t think that politicians like Mourdock oppose rape
exceptions because they hate women or want to control women. I think
they’re totally oblivious and insensitive and can’t for a moment place
themselves in the shoes of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rape.
This is crap -- they certainly do want to "control women" if they wish to deny women by force of law certain choices. It's that blunt.
And moreover -- let's accept that Mourdock is sincere, and believes this, in Sullivan's words:
But if Mourdock believes that God creates all life and that to end a
life created by God is murder, then all abortion is murder, regardless
of the circumstances in which a pregnancy came about.
Fine. So, therefore, Mourdock believes that if you are a woman, and you are raped, and you conceive a child, and you abort that child, you are guilty of murder. Under our wise American system of justice, murderers may be themselves put to death...
So, if you are a woman who is raped, and you conceive, and you have an abortion, you should be killed by lethal injection, hanged, or sent to the electric chair.
You killed a baby, after all.
That's the logic.
If you abort a baby conceived by rape, you are a murderer who hates God, and according to Standard American Morality, can be executed.
Have the Democrats finally discovered that they can run against that rather vicious, sanctimonious, authoritarian logic? The logic that is totally there but that "pro-lifers" will never, ever discuss?
MAS. We at WF have a very open comments policy. However, all comments to this post that are not either (a) limericks, or (b) strings of paint-peelingly angry swear words in all caps... will be deleted. CIVILITY MUST BE MAINTAINED.
MUCHO MAS. Actually... we've done similar things before. Consider the Mean Mark Halperin Mocking Limerick Contest basically announced.