We Knew Louie Gohmert Was Hateful, Stupid, and Ignorant, But He is Also Kind of a Pig.

It is really tough to figure out what is the most objectionable facet of the far right’s disingenuous war against the bathroom freedoms of transgendered Americans, but my vote for most hilarious part is their fantasy fixation on the movie Porky’s.  First it was Mike Huckabee fantasizing on stage about pretending to be transgendered so he could have showered with the girls back in high school, and now it is Louie Gohmert, possibly the dumbest person in Congress, to step up to the plate.  Louie however doesn’t want to shower with the gals, no, seventh grade Louie would have been happy just to pee with them.  (Again, from the kind folks at Right Wing Watch)

Citing his own childhood, the congressman said that boys would be unable to resist the temptation to see girls while they are in the bathroom.

Gohmert recounted to “Washington Watch” host and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins his junior-high fantasies.

“When it comes to this current legislation where — in most of the world, in most of the religions, the major religions, you have men and you have women, and there are some abnormalities but for heaven’s sake, I was as good a kid as you can have growing up, I never drank alcohol till I was legal, never to, still, use an illegal drug, but in the seventh grade if the law had been that all I had to do was say, ‘I’m a girl,’ and I got to go into the girls’ restroom, I don’t know if I could’ve withstood the temptation just to get educated back in those days,” he said.

Gohmert then said that businesses like PayPal are now “telling states that you have to let boys into little girls’ restrooms or we’re pulling our business, it’s just the height of lunacy.”

Sigh.  Insert amusing comment about how Gohmert’s lack of intelligence is as dangerous as fire.

 

I Wonder What They Talk About on “Gun Owners News Hour”?

Did you know that Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt hosts a show called “Gun Owners News Hour”?  Neither did I!  I wonder what they talk about on that show?  I bet it is about new products the gun industry is bringing out for law abiding, responsible gun owners, such as handguns that can fire legal armor piercing rounds, new triggers to make your AR-15 practically fully automatic (since the evil government has overreached and attempted to stop sales of the ARFA kit to make it full auto.  Thanks, Obama.), 30 round handgun clips (for self-defense.  duh.), youth rifles that come in pink, and children’s books such as “101 Things to Do in the Backseat with Mom’s Handgun.”  (Okay, I made the book up.  I was actually going to make up 4 or 5 crazy gun related products, but I kept finding real ones.  Sigh.)  Anyway, let’s see what the show is all about!

Conservative activist Jesse Lee Peterson appeared on the “Gun Owners News Hour” with Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt last weekend, where he repeated the thesis of his most recent book , which is that racism in America does not exist, but rather is a myth perpetuated by people like President Obama who was raised to hate white people and is incapable of feeling love.
God damn it.  Now there’s coffee all over my monitor.  What the fuck did they just say?

Peterson told Pratt that once Americans “dispel that notion that racism exists,” liberals will lose power because “their father the Devil” feeds on such lies.

The two then, for some reason, started comparing and contrasting Dr. Ben Carson, the former Republican presidential candidate, with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor who became a right-wing lightning rod during Obama’s first presidential campaign.

Peterson told Pratt that African American voters didn’t support Carson’s presidential bid because they’re in an “evil state” and “prefer evil over good.”

“And yet, in their fallen state of anger, most blacks see Dr. Carson as the enemy and they see Jeremiah Wright as the good guy,” he said. “And even though Jeremiah Wright speaks evil, he is evil, but because they’re in that evil state, they identify with him over a good, decent man like Dr. Ben Carson. And blacks would never vote for him, the majority would never vote for him because any time a person who’s good like that, they see them as a sell-out, they don’t accept good, they prefer evil over good and they call evil good and they call good evil.”

So blacks who vote Democratic are in an “evil state?”  OMG!  If you add a “n”, it becomes the Demoncratic party!  Why didn’t I ever see that before!  The horror, the horror!

Earlier in the program, Peterson expounded on his theory that President Obama has been sympathetic toward the Black Lives Matter movement because he was raised by a mother who “hated her own race” and grew up without his father so “he doesn’t feel love, he has nothing but anger in his heart.”

Pratt evidently thought this was very perceptive and said that the president “has developed a very cold shell to cover that with and when I see him, it’s almost like looking at a robot, the lack of human emotion that’s on display.” Meanwhile, he said, the president has a “Mt. Vesuvius” of anger bubbling underneath.

Peterson agreed that “Obama is evil, he’s cold-hearted, he doesn’t care about anyone but Obama” but voters have never really understood “how wicked this man is.”

You know, as a 40 year old white man, I’m going to refrain from making the obvious point about who really “hated her(his) own race” and instead just wonder what the fuck any of this had to do with guns.  Oh, yeah.  I forgot.  Obama is coming to take away our guns.  Run for the hills.  Hide your weapons (and your white women).  The bad black President is coming to take them all away.

Any day now.
Definitely before the election.
Or maybe right after.
Or after he declares martial law and makes himself President for life.
Yeah, definitely that last one.  Bet the farm on it.

“Responsible” Gun Ownership. Wait, What?!?

Almost every time I hear an argument supporting private citizen’s right to own firearms, the citizens in question are referred to as “law abiding” and “responsible.”  After all, when defending the right of people to access deadly weapons, it helps to portray those people in the best possible light.  And in a perfect world, they would be right and all gun owners would treat their firearms with the seriousness and respect they deserve, rather than as grown up toys.

Of course, we don’t live in a perfect world, so instead of responsible gun ownership, we have 9 year olds firing weapons way too overpowered for them and killing their sloppy instructors, children shooting their siblings, kids shooting their parents, friends shooting their friends, and men shooting their explosive packed lawnmower…..wait, what the fuck was that last one?

Gruesome video footage has surfaced showing the moment a Georgia daredevil lost his leg shooting a semiautomatic rifle at a lawn mower packed with several pounds of deadly explosives.

David Pressley, 32, can be seen moving closer and closer to the explosive target as he peppers it with bullets. Moments later, the lawn mower suddenly explodes, unleashing a plume of smoke and shrapnel.

Authorities said one piece of shrapnel struck Pressley, severing his leg from below the knee, according to ABC affiliate WSB-TV.

The graphic video, recorded last week, captures blood splattering across the camera’s lens before Pressley yells, “I blew my leg off!”

Another voice says, “Call an ambulance!”

If it would have been his third leg, he would have won a Darwin award without a doubt.  As it stands?  Just more of that “responsible” gun ownership.

Pro-Life Honesty

From the Altoona Mirror’s Letters to the Editor section comes this surprising bit of honesty from  “pro-life” activist Richard A. Ruth:

Pro-life – what does that mean? It seems to mean a lot of things to a lot of different people.

Some think it means to be concerned for the poor.

Others think it means to do away with the death penalty. Others think it means to be civil with people at all times.

But when anyone active in the pro-life movement, including myself, uses the term, it means one thing, and one thing only, namely, anti-abortion.

We are against murdering a baby in its mother’s womb.

So, if anyone uses the term “pro-life,” but does not mean anti-abortion, please do not use that term, but rather coin your own phrase.

Much of the confusion was caused years ago by a cardinal in Chicago, whose name I am happy to forget. His concept of pro-life included many things, like the spiritual and corporal works of mercy and almost any good deed one can think of. This concept is called “the seamless garment.”

It did much to weaken the pro-life movement and caused much confusion.

Rarely have I seen an anti-abortionist state it so bluntly.  It isn’t about women’s health.  It isn’t about what is best for the child.  It isn’t about the sanctity of human life, it’s about the sanctity of the life of the fetus, nothing more.  After they are born?  Fuck ’em.  Dare suggest that “pro-lifers” care about more than the embryo?  Your name will be gladly forgotten.

Of course, embryos are much easier to care about apparently.  Especially if your world view includes this:

Those who are in sympathy with the poor should research the abuses in the welfare system. One that I am familiar with is this: Women are encouraged to have many children. The more children they have, the more money they get. Often a woman will have three to five children to three to five different fathers.

Ahem.  Citation fucking needed.  Also, wait.  If a few poor people play the system, then fuck ’em all?  What about those that are not abusing the welfare system?  Do they not exist?  Oh, I know, they just need to work harder, is that it?  You know, I understand people who are anti-abortion.  I don’t agree with them, but I understand where they are coming from.  But the above quote?  That’s just ignorance.  And prejudice.  And unless I have the Karl Marx version of the Bible, it’s pretty far from the teachings of Jesus.

If Richard Ruth takes requests, I would love to read his thoughts on #blacklivesmatter.  I’m sure they are well thought out and enlightening.

I have to admit however, that Mr. Ruth defeats me with his closing paragraph.

The Democrats are not concerned whether their clients lose their souls or not. They are more interested in getting their votes and their children’s future votes. The more kids they have the more votes they will eventually get.

Wait, what?!?  If that was true, wouldn’t they be anti-abortion then?  Let me see if I can break it down sentence by sentence and see what I am missing.

The Democrats are not concerned whether their clients lose their souls or not.

Good?  The Democratic party is a political entity, not a religion.  The United States is not a Christian nation.  We do not have a Biblical government.  The Democrats shouldn’t care about their members, voters, or “clients” imaginary ghost spirits anymore than they are concerned if their auras are out of wack or if the feng shui of their homes is out of alignment.  (Do political parties have clients?  Does he think Democratic field offices also provide abortion services?)  Maybe the Republican party would find a more receptive audience for their fiscally conservative platform if they stopped worrying about their “client’s” souls?  Pandering to members of a religion tends to turn off those who are not members of that religion.  As much as the GOP would love to pretend “Christianity” is one monolithic religion, it is really a diverse collection of sects, all with contradictory beliefs.  Some Christians are pro-choice.  Some Christians are for LGBTQ rights.  Wait, they aren’t real Christians?  Maybe you aren’t the real Christian.  How about we just stop trying to force others to follow our religious beliefs?  Just an idea.

They are more interested in getting their votes and their children’s future votes.

That’s a bad thing?  Once again, I would hope a political party cares more about votes than religion.  *shrug*

The more kids they have the more votes they will eventually get.

Nope.  Even sentence by sentence, my head explodes at this point.  Did Mr. Ruth write a different letter raging against the Quiverfull movement and somehow edit them together?  Can someone explain this to me?


While we’re on the subject of Altoona Mirror anti-abortion letters, I give you one from Arnie Calaba:

My question/writing here is “How can we, as one nation under God, our United States, expect to prosper/have blessings when we are destroying our little ones in the womb by abortion?”

1954.  That’s when “one nation under God” was added.  That’s all for now, because that is a nonsensical question, along the lines of “How can we, as one town infested with unicorns, expect to prosper when we insist on locking gnomes into their hovels at night?”

There are so many telling signs of the downward, slippery slope we are on as a nation. Our economy’s $19 trillion deficit and so much bickering and upheaval in Washington, D.C.

Wait.  That’s not “so many.”  That is two.  Both caused by pro-life Republicans, I might add.

How can we stand by and allow Planned Parenthood to sell aborted baby parts (lungs, brains, etc.) for a profit?

Lying is a sin.  If you would have written this letter the day those deceptively edited videos came out, I would give you the benefit of the doubt.  But it is March.  Everyone who cares about the facts knows that those videos were cut to make it appear the Planned Parenthood representatives were saying things that they were not.  All you had to do to prove that fact is watch the uncut videos.  Add to that the investigations launched by various states into Planned Parenthood’s practices, all of which cleared the organization from any wrong-doing.

The Bible doesn’t say “the ends justify the means.”  I’m sorry.  No matter how badly you feel it should, it doesn’t.  Lying is still a sin.

And you are a liar.

How can we remain a United States, one nation under God, if abortion – the destruction of “little ones” in the womb continues?

I’ll give you this Arnie, repeating the nonsensical question you opened with to close is better than whatever the fuck type of closing Mr. Ruth went with.

You’re still a liar.

(Edited to fix two three typos.)

 

 

“Things Old White Men Probably Shouldn’t Write” and Thomas Sowell Go Together “So-Well” (See What I Did There!!!!)

From the “Letters to the Editor” page in the Altoona Mirror, I bring you today’s installment of “Things Old White Men Probably Shouldn’t Write, ” submitted to the Mirror by a John K. Coyle (NOT THE SPEEDSKATER!!!) from Bedford, Pennsylvania.  (Bolding is mine as always)

Award-winning syndicated columnist Tom Sowell’s column on “racial representation” is a must read.

In it, he offers his opinion on whether the black race should be continuously complaining of how they are not equally representative in every phase of “what matters.”

He writes with “tongue-in-cheek” of how even the NFL comes up short, with his perfect example of “failure to represent.”

I quote Sowell, “I have seen hundreds of black players score touchdowns, but I have never seen one black player kick an extra point.”

I’m surprised there wasn’t a group of professional protesters at the Super Bowl.

And as always, Tom says it “So-well.”

– See more at: http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/630747/Sowell-makes-his-point-well.html?nav=737#sthash.p016CZLe.dpuf

Oh God, what is that “black race” complaining about now?  I bet it’s something really petty, amirite?  Let’s go to The Jewish World Review to check out the column in question, shall well?

The latest tempest in a teapot controversy is over a lack of black nominees for this year’s Academy Awards in Hollywood.

Wait, what?  That’s the controversy Sowell is writing about?  Is Mr. Coyle misrepresenting Mr. Sowell’s column by only quoting that eye roll worthy joke example of NFL placekickers?  I mean, I admit that I don’t really like Thomas Sowell’s political and social ideas, but he is a nationally known columnist.  Surely he wouldn’t dismiss the lack of nominations for blacks at the Academy Awards the past two years, while the nominations are decided by a voting body that is overwhelmingly white with just that weak ass example.  Right?  I mean, just because he never saw a black place kicker in the NFL doesn’t mean they don’t exist.  At the time this article went to press there had been 4 black NFL place kickers.

I doubt whether any of the guys who grew up in my old neighborhood in Harlem ever went on to become ballet dancers. Nor is it likely that this had anything to do with either genetics or racism. The very thought of becoming a ballet dancer never crossed my mind and it probably never occurred to the other guys either.

Oh, okay.  See?  I knew good old “So-Well” wouldn’t just bring that one sad example.  He has two sad examples.  It took me two clicks on Google to find this story featuring 2 black male ballet dancers from Brooklyn.   I really have no idea what Sowell is playing at by bringing up these two examples.  There are non-racist reasons why some fields (such as NFL place kicking) have lower than normal participation by African Americans.  As the 2012 article said on place kicking:

The Rooney Rule requires NFL teams to interview minorities for coaching jobs. The difference is there were plenty of candidates being ignored when the rule began.

Black kicking prospects aren’t being ignored. They aren’t turned into defensive backs or wide receivers, like promising black quarterbacks used to be. Nobody’s pulling a Jimmy the Greek and saying they lack the leg strength or other “necessities.”

There simply aren’t many out there.

“The hard part is finding a kid who’ll stick with it,” said Oglesby, who runs a kicking camp in Atlanta. “I come across kids who have the talent, but either they’re not interested or don’t have the money to attend camps. Or they play on a team that doesn’t put any emphasis on it.”

Almost all young kickers played soccer, which is not popular in black communities. They get specialized training and don’t depend on high schools developing their skills.

That’s a good thing, since kicking is often an afterthought on the high-school level. And even if a kicker is a young Sebastian Janikowski, the position doesn’t have much sex appeal to an impressionable kid of any race.

As for the ballet dancing, I must admit that I also didn’t know any male ballet dancers growing up.  The thought never crossed my mind, and I doubt it really ever did for most of the guys I went to school with.  Yet I grew up in a school that was 99% white.  How can that be?  Shouldn’t I have been swimming through future ballet principles?  Could it be that some forms of dance, like, ballet maybe, are favored more by girls growing up than boys?  The stereotype when I went to school, which was ages ago, granted, was that little boys played sports while little girls did gymnastics and dance.  Was it sexist as all get out?  Hell yeah.  It wasn’t as divided as I make it seem, girls did play basketball (soccer had yet to catch on) and eventually softball, but the now common sight of a girl playing Little League certainly didn’t occur during my childhood.  The point is that although not the common path, some little white boys and little black boys do decide they want to do ballet.  And if Mr. Sowell, or Mr. Coyle seriously think racism isn’t an obstacle for those black children who want to dance ballet, then they have never done any research into ballet.  Ballet has a serious obsession with “the look.”  Women must be lithe, flat-chested, and delicate while the men must fit their own mold.  The ballet company, the director, and the audience all have an image of what a ballet dancer should look like, and all too often that mental image is of a white person.  Look at Misty Copeland’s rise to Principle dancer and the pitfalls she had to face in spite of her unquestionable talent because she was black with a body outside the classical image of a ballerina.

Even with his pitiful examples, the most audacious part of Sowell’s column is his attempt to obfuscate the  actual argument against the Academy Awards.  Black actors point out the complete white-out for acting nominations, two years running, and Sowell does some quick slight of hand and is suddenly talking about professions where African Americans are underrepresented.  But that misses the point entirely.  Acting is not a profession that is void of black talent.  There were legitimate candidates for nomination the past two years.  This isn’t a case of “well, maybe black folks don’t act, ” or “maybe black folks don’t like to kick balls,” or “none of my black friends danced ballet.”  It’s more “gee, isn’t it funny that this incredibly white voting bloc keeps giving all the nominations to white people, even though there are deserving candidates with differing skin tones.”  It has much more in common with the old “so if white people and black people use drugs at similar rates per capita, then why does such a massive amount  more black people wind up getting arrested?” than Sowell’s sad sack examples.

For Thomas Sowell?  I know, it’s not hard.  As a black conservative columnist, you can pretty much say anything and your intended audience will lap it all up.  But judging by your CV, you are not a stupid man.  So come on, out of intellectual integrity at the least, a bit less baiting, and a bit less switching.

And Mr. John K. Coyle (Not the Speedskater!  Seriously, don’t mess with the speedskating guy, he didn’t say anything.)?  As a fellow white person, although a few decades your junior, I urge you to refrain from ever telling “the black race” what you think they should do.   Especially in a public forum with your name attached while possessing a non-private (not mean enough to link it, it’s easy enough to find.) Facebook account.  I assure you, they do not care what you think, and you sound like your next words will be  “I’m not racist, but…”

Dammit, Quit Feeding The Trolls

Do you know who Nicole Arbour is?  Without using Google, that is.  No?  Good.  Feel free to move along, this post doesn’t concern you in anyway.

Those of you who are left probably know her from her viral video “Dear Fat People,” or her kinda sorta follow up, “Dear Black People,” or maybe even her most recent bowel movement, “Dear Fat People 2: The Second Helping.”  Since you are reading a feminist supportive, progressive blog at the moment, I have to assume that, like me, you watched “Dear Fat People” and “Dear Black People” with the sort of fascination normally reserved for vehicular accidents, be they train or auto.  I’m not going to lie; parts of “Dear Fat People” caused me to chuckle even while I found it, on the whole, shallow and offensive.  Her latest video has zero redeeming qualities.  It is still shallow, it is hateful, and it supports the idea that there is one, and only one, standard of beauty that every woman should attempt to live up to, while being openly seen as “less than” if they fail to live up to the ideal.

While it is easy to assume that Nicole Arbour actually believes the vile shit that comes out of her mouth in the latest video (She is a Trump supporter, and happens to fit right into the standard definition of beauty in America), the sad fact is that these videos were released to be purposefully controversial in order to get views.  Something that she has definitely succeeded in doing.  She is getting video views.  She is getting talked about.  (Here’s a link to Salon’s latest piece on her and her new video.)  Sure, a lot of those views are probably from people nodding along with her, cheering as she tears into the “politically correct” culture that would dare to tell a girl who wears a size 10 that she’s not a disgusting fat pig, but I have to think a lot of those views are also from people who are watching while swallowing back the vomit that keeps trying to escape every time she opens her mouth.

I actually really hope she believes the stuff she says in her videos, believes that her fat shaming is really going to save someone’s life down the road, because the thought that she is viciously body-shaming other women just to get views is abhorrent.  Hurting people because you are shallow and don’t know any better is one thing.  Hurting people as part of a callous plot to draw attention to one’s self is on a different level entirely.

No matter what her true thoughts and reasons for making the videos are, one thing remains the same.  She doesn’t deserve our views or our attention.  This will be the last thing I ever write about Nicole Arbour unless she does something worth writing about.  I won’t be commenting on her videos anymore because I won’t be watching them, and I urge you all to do the same.  Life is far too short to waste any of it listening to this hateful persons cries for attention.  Youtube is filled with funny women who don’t feel the need to body shame other women for a laugh.  If I’m ever tempted, just to see what new hateful thing she has to say this time, I’ll watch Rachael Bloom videos until the urge passes me by.

 

And before I go, I’ve been debating whether or not this was too low of a blow, but then I realized that I really don’t care cause she opened herself up for it.

For Nicole Arbour to complain about Ashley Fucking Graham not meeting her standard of beauty is hilarious.  Even without taking personalities into account I’d choose Ashley over another cookie cutter, stick figure blond every day of the damn week, and twice on Sunday.  Ashley Graham is not beautiful for a plus size model.  She is just beautiful.  Full stop.

A Preview “Wait, What?”

So I have some interesting things planned for the next couple weeks as I bring the blog back from the dead for the Presidential election season, including an article using an infographic/advertisement in a way I am fairly certain the provider of said “adver-graphic” never intended, but I thought I’d toss out a late Friday night “Wait, What?!?” to check out the new layout and see how I like it.  (Speaking of, if you ever felt the need to suggest a theme for this blog, I’ll be open to suggestions for a week or so.)   So let’s take a trip to Ohio, via Raw Story:

Senate Majority Leader Tom Patton was blasted on Thursday after comments he made about fellow Republican Jennifer Herold, reports Cleveland.com.

In a radio interview, Patton said, “The gal that’s running against me is a 30-year-old, you know, mom, mother of two infants. And I don’t know if anybody explained to her we’ve got to spend three nights a week in Columbus.  So, how does that work out for you? I waited until I was 48 and my kids were raised, and at least adults, before we took the opportunity to try.”

Patton also referred to Herold as a “young gal” and added: “I want to tell her, ‘Hey Sweetie, I just got 27 percent of the pie in just my district, which is nine times what should have been done.’

“Hey Sweetie”?  Seriously?  He called his competitor “sweetie?”  *facepalm*

Well, at least the head of the Ohio GOP took Senator Patton to task for his outright misogyny.

Faced with criticism over the condescending comments, GOP county chair Rob Frost defended Patton, saying, “These are not sexist or out-of-line comments.”

Frost went on to say that Herold was only outraged over Patton’s remark in order to get attention.

“This is his opponent, who really, you know, is desperate to try to get some attention onto her run, against a guy who is going to do a stellar job.” Frost stated.

According to the GOP head, Patton would have made the similar comments even if she wasn’t a young mother.

“[It] would be the same if he had said, ‘You know, hey, there’s a guy running against me who’s an insurance agent or a lawyer or a radio host,’” he explained.

Wait, what?  Screw this, my niece just earned her doctorate, I’m going to drink a Fist City to celebrate.  I’m sure I’ll have enough sexism to write about next week.