Someone ought to set up a benefit concert for the absorbed zygotes

Big day today for the reproductive rights battle in Mississippi (and possibly the country):

Mississippi voters are casting ballots Tuesday on an amendment to the state constitution that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception.

Initiative 26 would define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

Though the text of the amendment is simple, the implications if it passes couldn't be more complex. If approved by voters, it would make it impossible to get an abortion in the state and hamper the ability to get some forms of birth control.

If the amendment passes, it will end up in front of the Supreme Court as a direct challenge to Roe v Wade. Naturally, this can put reproductive rights supporters on edge, but it's inevitable this would happen. Anyone that has followed this debate closely knew that it wasn't ever a question of "if", instead one of "when". If Mississippi doesn't pass this amendment (the last poll I checked this morning had it fairly tight), another amendment will come along, and another, and another. The goal among some of the factions of the anti-choice movement, no longer content with just bullying women by passing legislation that treats them like idiots (waiting periods), makes reproductive health a luxury of the rich (Hyde) or forces unwanted medical procedures on them (mandatory ultrasounds), is the quest to up the ante by taking on Roe itself. I'd argue they always have wanted this, but the tight structure of the establishment GOP prevented them from gaining too much ground. When a party uses these issues as nothing more then political fodder, the worst thing in the world would be to get what they claim to want. However, with the rise of movement conservatism and a bizarre sense among the right that nothing could possible be too fringe to pursue, anti-choicers are starting to eye the ultimate trophy to their own self-righteous grandstanding. And Roe is, overall, a pretty weak ruling.*

What they are missing is that there's a reason the more institutionalized, old guard misogynists are staying far away from personhood amendments such as the one coming out of Mississippi - this could end up spectacularly backfiring on the anti-choice movement, who has seen some great gains within the last decade when it comes to oppressing women. It's not that the ultimate goal is to overturn Roe, it is, but if the court is presented with the question of whether or not a zygote is a legal person, and as such, a protected entity, it's not going to be able to make exemptions here and there based on the whimsy of anti-choicers on a state level. This could be a major setback. The more activist wing of the anti-choice movement are prematurely banking on SCOTUS agreeing that zygotes are persons; but the truth is that bestowing personhood on nothing more then the requirement of something being a fertilized human egg leads to so many legal quagmires that SCOTUS would have a hard time handing the anti-choice crowd a victory. This would hold true even if we had reached a point where the courts stacked with right-wing ideologues in order to favor these sorts of rulings (which we haven't yet, although we are moving in that direction quickly, because Republicans, unlike Democrats, understand the importance of the court system while liberals stupidly vote for Nadar or don't vote at all so they can pat themselves on the back and feel all awesome and non-conformist and shit).

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour amusingly points out some of the legal problems with Initiative 26 (while naively chalking them up to a problem with word usage):

“Some concerns that I had were about out of what I call ectopic pregnancies where the fertilized egg lodges outside the womb, say the fallopian tubes,” he said. “But there’s no question that the wording down here is what concerned people, not the idea that life begins at conception, but that the wording of it is.”

It's not a problem with the wording, Governor. It's a problem with the idea that you can establish legal personhood with something that is so fickle. Yes, if we legally define "person" with the fertilization of an egg, ectopic pregnancies are indeed legal persons. As are Hydatidiform moles. There is no way around that. And let's not even get started on the legal issues that will arise when we consider twinning (one fertilized egg dividing and developing into two separate entities long after personhood is granted) and chimeras (one fertilized egg absorbing the other, can we charge zygotes with murder yet? Probably not, but I bet we can charge the mother with creating a "hostile womb environment" that led to the death of that legalized and now absorbed dead person or something).

That's probably why it's a really fucking bad idea to classify "person" in this manner. And unfortunately for the anti-choice crowd, as it stands now, SCOTUS is probably going to agree.

I also feel that once we start taking it to the federal level it will start getting the attention that has been long lacking in recent years. My mother and I were discussing the Mississippi amendment this past weekend, she expressed frustration over the success of the GOP War on Women and the seemingly lack of care that these issues are getting - "I don't think women today realize how hard we fought for those things" is what she tells me. I realize some will think that statement is ridiculous, as we are seemingly embroiled in never-ending culture wars and abortion is just one of those topics where everyone needs to put in their two cents while at the same time really wishing you'd just shut up about it already. But it did stall for a while. I liked to joke after Obama was elected that hey, at least we might have a few years of peace where I don't have to talk about Hydatidiform moles again. And we did get that, if only briefly.

But a false sense of security or complacency often leads to apathy. Although the anti-choice movement is flawed in many ways, their ability to organize is not one of them, they never tire out. Which is why, as 2010 saw a massive wave of social conservatives flooding back into public office, we saw an increase of legal barriers to reproductive rights targeted at women even when it seemed absurd to do at a time when the concerns about the economy seemed to transcend the culture wars. In fact, the timing seemed so absurd that pro-choicers didn't really do anything to prevent it. 2010 was an election that was touted as being about the poor economy and job market, yet I think we saw more legislation passed regarding reproductive issues then we did any other issue. And the reason this happened was because while pro-choicers were trying to be the responsible ones, focusing on the things that matter instead of this culture war bullshit - the right wing was still doing the culture war bullshit. The fact that we set it aside because we were just too serious to deal with it right now just made it all the easier for them to be successful.

I feel this pattern has been consistent since the days after Roe. I mean, technically women have the right to an abortion, so we can relax now, correct? Like with most issues in this country, progressives have this stubborn idea that if we won it in the past, it can't be taken away. We won, fair and square. So we stop arguing, we stop fighting, we start to make a base camp at the bottom of whatever the next uphill battle will be and let the fire at the old camp burn out. The losers of history, however, have no need to do this. In fact, being the underdog is an amazing motivator. So while the slogans and campaigns and soundbites and protests for reproductive rights fade from the public eye and disappear from pop culture, the slogans and campaigns and soundbites and protests of the fight against reproductive rights have saturated it. And this is why you have so many well-meaning, starry-eyed teenagers of the newer generations waxing poetic about saving babies and posting this on The Facebook:



While having no clue what this sign means:



We are so accustomed to living in a society where we can take our reproductive rights for granted that it is hard for us to go back and remember what it was actually like without them. We can take to heart the pleas for "compromise" with anti-choicers because we have easily been able to ignore what the darker consequences of their movement really means for the rights of women, and what that says about their actual motivations. And we can cringe slightly while reproductive rights are chipped away at but be okay because after all, Roe is settled law, is it not?

Not really. For now, it's fine, but eventually, we cannot depend that it will just always exist to protect us. We need a wake up call. So perhaps the time is perfect for the anti-choice zealots to jog our memories about what sort of society they really want us to live in. So all I can actually say in regards to to Mississippi's Initiative 26 is this: Bring it.

*I'd rather pass the ERA. I feel women's protections in regards to reproductive health are due to their equal rights as citizens rather then an interest in protecting their privacy. Which is why, when discussions of personhood became repetitive and less of a challenge for me, I started arguing from the standpoint of zygotes being people - because hey, why not? - and found that it's not that clear-cut, you still have to argue successfully why special laws are necessary that ensure that pregnant women, and only pregnant women, are required to waive their rights away in order to sustain the rights of another. We see this demand for sacrifice in no other area of law. I think Ruth Ginsberg is attempting to create a safety net for women using this same sort of logic in case we do eventually lose Roe, her dissent in Gonzales v Carhart leans strongly towards the angle that this is overall an issue of equality.

30 Day Music Challenge: 01

I'm not sure where the idea originated, but I'm stealing it from Stereophone, which I should point out will probably feature better music choices and better writing than this little blog will, so perhaps if anything you can use these music posts you'll encounter for the next 30 days as a reminder to go read Stereophone. I won't mind, as I'm really just doing this as a distraction while I give up some of my vices this month and I feel this will be better for my overall mental health than screaming at someone about how I will totally find out a way to reach through my monitor and rip their fucking eyes out if they use the words "job creators" one more goddamned time (although that will be quite necessary at times as well).

But ahem, I am reaching to transcend the anger and cynical nature and run-on sentences that have consumed my life up until this point, so for now, it's thirty days of tunes. Thirty days of meditation and healing, thirty days on a deep and spiritual journey full of love for the self and for others, and thirty days of introspection and self-examination eventually leading up to fulfillment and inner peace. And so we dig in and start our travels off with:

Day One: Your Favorite Song.

WAIT, WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS BULLSHIT.

No seriously, did I just go back to 7th grade? Oh, I'm going to go buy posters and hang them on my wall because this song is like my favorite song ever and then I'm going to make a mix-tape with just this song on it because if my heart could write lyrics they would sound like whatever is at the number three spot on the billboard top ten list for this week and fucking seriously. Who the hell actually has a favorite song? How do you even define "favorite song" for something like this? I mean, I have a favorite song on a daily, weekly, or sometimes hourly basis, but there's never really "one" song to rule them all for ever and ever. I would actually go so far to suggest that if you have a favorite song, you just have it to tell people that it's your favorite song in hopes they'll be impressed by it. I don't feel a need to impress any of you fuckers.

Look, I have songs that I love because they remind me of my favorite places, or my favorite people, or my favorite seasons, or years, I have songs that I love for the melody or instruments used and songs that I love the for they lyrics or even songs that I love for those brief four measures where everything jives just so perfectly before going back to being utterly forgettable, I have songs that I love when sitting in Irish bars and songs I love when driving my car at night and songs that I love when dancing around my house and songs that I love to sing to the dog and songs that I love to daydream to and songs that I use to unwind.

But no, I don't have a favorite song. I'm honestly at a loss for what to put here. I guess I'll just go with this one because (a) it's Greg Dulli (b) there's a wicked piano in the background (c) it's naughty (d) so it's fun as hell to sing along with and (d) I just heard it while driving today.



More deep thoughts and self-discovery tomorrow!

The lost art of civility

There's an interesting article up in the Times today regarding the decline of "Southern Manners". Interesting due to where it starts off:

One August night, two men walked into a popular restaurant attached to this city’s fanciest shopping mall. They sat at the bar, ordered drinks and pondered the menu. Two women stood behind them.

A bartender asked if they would mind offering their seats to the ladies. Yes, they would mind. Very much.

Angry words came next, then a federal court date and a claim for more than $3 million in damages.

The men, a former professional basketball player and a lawyer, also happen to be black. The women are white. The men’s lawyers argued that the Tavern at Phipps used a policy wrapped in chivalry as a cloak for discriminatory racial practices.

And where it ends:

“I will not give up,” she said, firm in her belief that Southerners still want to raise children who are kind and well-mannered.

“They must,” she said, “or my classes wouldn’t be full.”

I'm not sure how you start off with the use of civility/chivalry for racist means and then end in a wistful tone about how the South is fighting to keep this culture alive. Anyway, Amanda Marcotte tears down this bullshit quite well, so I've really nothing to add to that aspect of it.

But I have encountered the "civility" argument time and time again, and after being accused countless times of being uncivil myself (I'm pretty blunt. I swear. All of which, I'm informed, is quite unladylike), all I really have to say to that is, you know what? Fuck Civility.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about this in the sense of just being decent to your fellow human beings (this is a good thing). Not in the sense that we should just be inconsiderate as hell to everyone (although this seems to be the trend). Just that civility, as we commonly define it, is quite meaningless. I find that overall, it's not about being a decent person, it's about appearing to be a decent person while being kind of a scumbag.

Once upon a time at a site I wrote at I decided to run what I thought was a clever experiment. This was back when the John Edwards affair scandal broke, and as usual, Republican pundits had some very trenchant analysis of the situation. Rush Limbaugh, for example, speculated that perhaps if Elizabeth Edwards used her mouth for other things other than talking, poor Johnny wouldn't have had to bang the assistant, or babysitter, or whomever he was banging at the time, I forget.

This is what we would call an offensive statement. Now, I don't care much about Rush Limbaugh, he does what he does. Nor am I an advocate for censorship (I prefer to let things like this stand as starting off points for discussion). But keep in mind that during this time on the site, we were lucky to have the "conservative coalition outrage patrol", who felt their main purpose was to find offense at swear words on the site written by liberals and would shriek and scream about them until the article was changed or pulled down.

So I thought I'd do a little light trolling with this one. As someone that is aware of all internet traditions, I pulled a shorter, and although I went into detail in the article as to why Rush Limbaugh's statement was offensive, my title was fairly direct:

"Rush Limbaugh to the Ladies: Less talking, more dick sucking".

Oh god, the outrage. You'd be amazed as to what a title like that can do for your page views. Naturally, many folks came on to tell me that wasn't what Rush Limbaugh was saying at all, that I was putting words in his mouth to make him look worse then he was, that the title was vulgar, that it needed to be changed. It was actually one of the few articles that the site pulled from me (although it was reinstated). And for every complaint, I just asked the same question - is it the words that you find offensive or the idea behind them? Is your beef actually with me, or with Rush Limbaugh? Because let's face it, "Less talking, more dick sucking" and "Perhaps you would keep your man if you used your mouth for other things besides talking" are very similar statements - so much so that they are actually the same statement.

So I asked the outrage police - if I change the title to reflect Limbaugh's actual quote, can we then talk about why what he said was offensive? I was assured that we could. If I just took "dick sucking" out of there, we could have a nice, "civil" conversation about it. So I changed the title. As predicted, once that happened, no one came back. Tumbleweeds. The offensiveness of the statement that women need to shut up and sexually pleasure their men because that's all men really want from them anyway was magically eradicated with the removal of the words "dick sucking".

Anyway, I just bring it up because when it comes to civility, this seems to be the pattern time and time again. This is not to say that there aren't things that people say that are offensive. Just that I find what they are actually saying is to be more offensive then how they say it. I can't even begin to tell you how many "civil" debates I've sat through with some folks pontificating the inferiority of certain biological traits that some other folks have. And I guarantee you, even if there's not a racial slur or blatantly misogynist statement or any disagreeable language to be found anywhere, they are some of the most vile discussions I've ever sat through. They are usually worse for the fact that the folks discussing them assume somewhat of a intellectual superiority over everyone else merely for their ability to not swear, they'll gather in a circle jerk, grab out their thesaurus and discuss why members of group X are weak, or morons, or illogical, or violent, or whatever other negative trait you can muster up in such an educated and civil tone, and then it's back pats all around because of how civil and rational and totally objective the discussion is and aren't they all just awesome for being so intelligent and discussing these sorts of "touchy subjects" so civilly?

At which point the observer is pretty much tearing their hair out and wondering, in all caps, WHAT THE FUCK JUST HAPPENED THERE? There really is no other response to this situation then to tell these folks to fuck off. But that's the other nifty thing about pretending to adhere to a standard of "civility" - Would you like to take a guess as to what you are called when you go that route? Yep, that's correct. If you dare to actually take on a certain "tone" when responding to people that have just talked about how your biological traits automatically make you inferior to them, well, then you are just being totally uncivil and are not worth listening to. Perhaps you should choose your words more wisely next time if you want to be taken seriously, thanks for proving my point about how I'm totally better then you (snicker snicker nudge nudge).

And this really hits to the heart of why I find the whole civility debate tiresome. It's never about civility. Instead, it's about shutting down conversation. It's about getting away with being a douchebag while still coming off as a good person. It's a way of dismissing someone without ever actually addressing what they are saying. It's about what benefits you, and only you, not about what is beneficial to others.

Which I don't find civil at all, really. Good riddance.

The 53% is part of the 99%, whether they acknowledge it or not

Oh hey, I have a blog! I probably should use it again at some point.

So, as we've learned from the great "I'm sorry"/"I'm not sorry" debate of 2004, Republicans tend to get real pissy when a bunch of liberals start a Tumblr blog. And, because pretty much 95% of Republican attacks narrow down to just stealing talking points from liberals and throwing them right back at them in an amusing display of psychological projection, the response is a typical "Oh yeah? Well I'll just start a Tumblr too! Suck on that, LIEbrals!".

As such, we now get the "We are the 53%" Tumblr, in response to the "We are the 99%" Tumblr that has had a nasty habit of tugging on some heartstrings and making folks sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street protests. Obviously, once people actually start having feelings like empathy for their fellow Americans, it needs to be shut down at all costs, and drinking champagne from a balcony overlooking the protests just wasn't cutting it. So, the 53%. This is a reference to the percentage of the population that pays income tax. It's a totally awesome burn, because it's really not fair that people that are too poor to pay income taxes don't have to pay income taxes and instead just pay things like sales taxes or payroll taxes, or something like that. Either way, it's a percentage! That we can use to title our Tumblr blog! Roll with it.

So in the spirit of fairness, and by that I mean, in the spirit of sarcastic mockery that serves no purpose other then my own amusement, I took a look at what the "We are the 53%" are saying.

We are the 53%

Here is every conservative's wet dream. 22 years old and a business owner! Pays all of his taxes, and doesn't play bongos. He never gets any time off, nor does he have health insurance, but that's okay, because he doesn't blame Wall Street, just elitist career politicans. Who aren't funded in any way by Wall Street lobbyists.

We are the 53%

And here's a guy who works three jobs, can't sell his house, and whose insurance costs are outrageous. And might be Erick Erickson, who has never been handed a cushy job on CNN that he really didn't deserve but only received for the sole reason that he's a blogger that really fucking hates liberals and we need "balance" in our media.

We are the 53%

Here is a former Marine that works 2 jobs, and has no health insurance, and is bragging about not having more then four days off in a row for over four years. So, you know, ha ha, guy that works two jobs with no health insurance... ha ha... you know what, guys? I don't think I can do this.

We are the 53%

Here we have a guy that makes his way through life without "luxuries". He has a low-paying job, a truck with 200,000 miles on it, no health insurance, and can barely afford his rent, who is pretty much one unfortunate random incident away from catastrophe.

I'm going to go cry now.

I mean, is this some sort of parody? Is this actually a Tumblr blog in support of the 99%? Because the only difference I see between this guy and this guy is a medical condition. All of these people I've linked to above, all of the people that have thus far shown up on the "We are the 53%" Tumblr blog, are all very hardworking, self-driven, inspirational people. And are all one small financial catastrophe away from ruin.

And that is exactly what the problem is.

For what it's worth, I don't feel bad for the person that is $100,000 dollars in debt for her M.A. in Art either. The idea passed down to my generation that to succeed, you only need to spend a ton on a degree is something that needs to be re-evaluated. But that isn't what these protests are solely about. What I'm actually seeing here is a need to paint the Occupy Wall Street protesters as entitled little brats, and not real, hardworking people, so that at night, we can tell ourselves that they are not us. That it won't happen to us. That in the end, the "American Dream" will work out for us if we just try hard enough. To make it through the day, we need to believe that. But I don't think the American Dream is working three jobs just to keep your head above water. I don't think it is doing everything "right" and "responsible" to ensure your stability in this society, yet still ending up in financial desperation because of things that are out of your control. I think the American Dream, as we romanticize it, is dead.

Look through both of those blogs. When you look at their paths, and their concerns, they are essentially the same. Some are just not so "lucky".

If you can even call the posters on the "We are the 53%" blog "lucky". From what I've read, blindly prideful, yes. "Lucky", no. Not really.

It's now 9/12, can I go back to being an asshole?

Hey, at least I waited a day.

So another 9/11 has come and gone, and we say goodbye to yet another day of watching chaos and horror and destruction on a 90 minute loop so that we "never forget", although what we aren't supposed to ever forget by being shown this footage I'm not quite sure of. I'd think that those that choose to honor instead of forget the dead do so by celebrating their life rather than their untimely demise, but that never really seems to be the theme with the media, does it? So the only thing I can really come up with is this idea that America is not secure and we should be afraid, very afraid, or that sick motherfuckers exist, which is something I don't think we really would ever forget even if we tried.

So again we are subjected to lectures from very serious right-leaning pundits about the proper way of conducting yourself on this day, which apparently involves eagle gifs and flags and tales about how they learned on 9/11 that voting Republican is the only way to go to keep us safe because after the attacks Bush had a bullhorn and that was really inspiring and all. And all of this they figured out as they were watching it unfold on their televisions that were hundreds to thousands of miles away from Ground Zero, which is why they can tell people like 9/11 widows and first responders when they are being totally out of line and doing things other than shutting the hell up and posing for patriotic photo ops - that sort of distance they were lucky enough to have gives one perspective on the real way to grieve, you see.

But even with eagle gifs, wingnuts can't completely feel in touch with this holiday without finding some sort of faux-outrage to scream about how liberals hate America, as it's tradition. And normally this would be targeted at the head liberal usurper in chief, because really, is there anything you can't blame on Obama these days? But sadly, if you mention Obama and 9/11 in the same sentence now, it might just bring up the fact that it was Obama, not Dick Cheney, not Erick Erickson, not John McCain, and not George W Bush that actually got America's Public Enemy #1, instead it was the America-Hater himself, and that shit is just awkward.

Luckily for them, Paul Krugman stepped up to the plate, and will now be your representative as to what is really wrong with America this year (psst! Spoiler Alert: It's liberals again!). Let's see what radical, extremist, America-hating tripe KThug managed to bust out to make American Baby Jesus cry this time:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity

And now there must be screaming and shouting and moral grandstanding up to volume 11 because it's just not right if there's a liberal out there somewhere with a column that we haven't completely made into a pariah for daring to suggest that perhaps some people might of had the wrong reaction after the attacks, because as we all know, if you say love America enough, you can't possibly ever be wrong. Even if you were horribly, disastrously, and completely wrong. But fuck you, it's 9/11, and you are not allowed to point that sort of thing out. Feelings, and all.

So let's look at some of the reactions of some of those directly affected by those attacks that were hurt by Paul Krugman's heartless comments. And by that I don't mean victims or families of victims or the thousands of New Yorkers or folks in DC that were smack in the middle of what when down that day. Instead, I mean right-wing bloggers.

Erick Erickson:

If he speaks for liberals, liberals are truly disgusting. I assume and believe that most liberals reject this and hope many of them will be vocal about the disagreement. And the New York Times might want to rethink using Krugman’s conscience as that of a typical liberal.

Flopping Aces:

“Years of Shame”? Mr. Krugman has exhibited an unconscionable moment of shame for which he should forever be embarrassed. As you can see, he is as cowardly as the terrorists themselves… a hateful hit and run on a day of remembrance and mourning, demonstrating that he, himself, is guilty the accusations he levels at others.

And I just have to link this one because I absolutely love that someone has the gall to lecture Paul Krugman about his "partisanship" on this holiest of holy days and then two posts later comment on the very serious event that was cheering George W Bush and not Barack Obama (because everyone hates Obama, amirite?), which isn't partisan or petty at all guys, really.

Your more nuanced, "serious" conservative is merely clucking their tongue and talking about how Paul Krugman totally shouldn't do things like point out that for all the chest-beating idealism about "freedom" that came from the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, we sure did fuck that up quite a bit and put the country on a road for the worst. But it's okay because they are sure that other, more rational liberals would never reflect on 9/11 through this sort of prism that accurately reflects the reality of the situation (so don't even think about talking about it, liberals. You don't want to be an asshole like Paul Krugman, do you?).

(Side note: At first I thought it was kind of strange that they decided to go with "Sounds of Silence" for the tribute song this year. I mean, I know that interpretations differ, but the song seems to be making a pretty strong point in regards to living in ignorance or "silence" while the truth is right there staring at us in the face, and warns against society turning away from it and towards comforting falsities for guidance instead. But seeing the reaction to Krugman's column, and considering how critics of the handling of the aftermath of 9/11 were treated as if they were borderline treasonous, makes me think that the choice was perhaps quite apt. Sorry, just something I was thinking about today)

I feel if anything, I've earned the right to be cynical while watching what has unfolded during the past ten years. And I feel no need to keep quiet about it, because the effects of these mistakes are still with us to this very day. Find me one thing in Krugman's post that is not true. Tell me one mistake Washington or the DC media reflected upon and learned from. People did behave badly post-9/11, and often for selfish reasons. We did take a moment of national unity and turn it into one of the most decisive partisan issues of the past decade. And yes, some of them know damn well that is what happened, and they really don't like it when you make it a salient point in their minds. I have a hunch these are the same people that are shrieking the loudest about what Krugman said. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.

I'm obviously not going to take the high road here. I'm not going to reminisce without partisanship, or without politics, because the fact is that what happened cannot be divorced from these things. I'm not going to fake my way through that, or forget anything that has happened since for the sake of protecting the feelings of those that were wrong, tragically wrong, about the path this country should take at that point. And those who are still taken as credible to this day, as if their full truckload of fail from that time never existed.

Perhaps for a while, the politics and the bickering could have been separate from the memorial. I know that in the aftermath, we did have this euphoric sense of national unity. I know that some of this is an attempt to find that unity again.

But I also know that it was squandered for political reasons then, and I know that it's often squandered for political reasons now.

And I know exactly who I hold accountable for that.

How to survive a bear attack

I have a great love for camping. There's always something about setting up a tent, throwing on a hoodie and laying on the ground to view all the stars in the night sky that has a calming and peaceful effect on me. But as anyone in Bear Country knows, one must take a cautionary approach when camping. So a few weeks back, in preparation for a camping outing with the husband, I brushed up on my bear knowledge. Not that I haven't read these things a thousand times or more, but it's almost enjoyable to look into all the ways you can meet your end on a dewy morning (I've always had an absurd fascination with things that can kill me). So given what I've gone through the past week, in the spirit of being helpful, I've decided to share some of these tips with you.

Now, first, just relax. You don't really need to go out of your way to avoid a bear, even if you've had negative interactions with them in the past. Bears aren't really built for drama and try to avoid it. Instead, they'd just like to amble along their way, eating berries and generally just being lazy in the summer months. Odds are, you won't even encounter a bear, not only is the bear usually two steps ahead of you anyway, there's also the fact that you just don't do many things that are interesting enough to catch the bear's attention. But make no mistake that this sort of aloofness is somehow an indicator of weakness. If the bear feels a need to, they will attack.

And bears hit very hard.

If you shock or surprise a bear in its own territory, it will respond to let you know who is really the boss. Do not get between a bear and something that the bear holds dear to them. Do not randomly jump out of nowhere and piss off the bear, because when bears are just looking for something like berries or a warm sunny spot to lay in and they are subjected to bullshit, they find that sort of thing to be kind of annoying. But this is not the usual scenario with bear encounters.

Keep in mind that most of the time, the bear is just curious. Bears are well aware of everything that goes on in their surroundings, and learn quickly (you may think you are offering up some new sort of contraption, but trust me, the bear has probably seen it used already). Bears are remarkable in that they learn the habits of humans and pick up on their patterns. Do you think that unopened can of beer is safe to leave on your table? Think again. The bear, through its interactions with humans, understands what certain things signify, even if there isn't an obvious giveaway (like scent) to tip it off. And man, you do not want to mess with a bear that's had a few. In short, the bears have been doing this for a long time, and they learn. So they understand these things, they've seen the patterns time and time again, they can often anticipate your steps before you even are aware of them, and it's probably not a good idea to underestimate them. Do not assume you are clever enough to pull one over on the bear.

So when encountering what is most likely a curious bear, do not lose your shit. No panic is necessary, simply talk to the bear in a rational tone and do not escalate the situation. Let the bear know you are there, that you are human, but do not draw too much attention to yourself in order to avoid becoming the bear's main focal point. The solution here is not to freak out and scream "AHHH A BEAR IT WILL EAT MEEEE" and run away. Do not try to do something as silly as bullshitting the bear that you're totally not camping, and instead just doing a study on bears when the bear fucking knows better, because it will not end well for you. Seriously, the bear has no patience for that sort of shit. Keep calm, stay honest, and eventually the bear, after knocking over your cooler and taking a nap on your tent in order to get its point across, will tire of you and leave.

But let's say you've ignored all the other advice and decided to piss off the bear.


And now you imagine that you have a tonnage of fury directed your way, and are fully aware that you haven't any tools to deflect it. So you pretty much have no choice but to use what is the only thing you have left - unhinged, angry emotional outbursts. Flail. Scream. But stand your ground. Bears will often do what is known as a fake charge in order to intimidate the intruder, as a means of testing their resolve. Any sign of weakness on your part could cause the bear to react, because at this point, the bear is sick of your ass. But rejoice! At some point, the bear will more then likely decide that you just aren't worth it, as it wasn't looking to be bogged down in camper drama. Camper drama is the worst. I mean, perhaps the bear really likes where it is and doesn't want to be forcefully removed by the authorities that run its nature reserve. Perhaps the bear is worried that it might get that sort of "bad bear" reputation among the campers and has to spend each day knowing that it will eventually be shot by the forest ranger. Or perhaps the bear just doesn't feel like dealing with your scared and defensive ass when there are lots of other tents to sleep on that aren't inhabited by people that will flip out and misjudge the bears actual intentions (wasn't that an unopened beer just sittin' out on your cooler? Just askin').

But even if you discount all the above advice, know this. Once you cause the bear to lose interest in you, or once that bear has decided that the potential harm from the situation maybe isn't worth mauling your ass, just let the bear go.

For real. There's really no reason to hide behind a tree and throw rocks at the bear while it is *awesomely* sauntering away.

If you got through an encounter with a bear without too much permanent damage, congratulations! Not too many people do, so perhaps the bear was feeling generous that day. But even so, you don't really want to rely on that and continue to poke the bear.

The second attack is usually more gruesome then the first.

*It's an analogy, bitchez.

**Although all of the above facts that aren't based in anthropomorphic assumptions are for the most part true, I'd rather you not use me as the bear expert. I mean, I pretty much wrote this because it amused the hell out of me to write it and if you decided to go strolling through the woods because of your new found bear knowledge and get dead, I'd feel pretty fucking bad about that.

***No bears were harmed in the making of this blog post.

"And we’re going to hurt some people"

Movie quotes that apparently motivate GOP huggy times:

"House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the party's vote counter, began his talk by showing a clip from the movie, "The Town", trying to forge a sense of unity among the independent-minded caucus.

One character asks his friend: "I need your help. I can't tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later."

"Whose car are we gonna take," the character says.

After showing the clip, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), one of the most outspoken critics of leadership among the 87 freshmen, stood up to speak, according to GOP aides."I'm ready to drive the car," West replied, surprising many Republicans by giving his full-throated support for the plan."

One of the things that always struck me about how the GOP presents their policies is the frequency in which they rely on the idea that the ends always outweigh the means (the most glaring example of this, in my opinion, is the propaganda leading up to the Iraq War, in which the 9/11 heartstrings that were tugged and the misinformation regarding the threat that Saddam Hussein posed was all really in the name of regime change rather then making the US "safer"). Now, for the most part, this is intentional: The Iraq War was hard enough to sell to the public as it was, and the idea that we needed to go bomb a country that had nothing to do with our current state of affairs probably wouldn't fly except among the most tribal of the GOP's party. If your ends and your means are both useless and damaging, you probably aren't going to get a ton of takes. So "trust me" becomes the only option.

But even if you assume it's a genuine sentiment, that sometimes you just have to shut up, not ask questions, and just go along with the scheme because in the end it will pay off, it still doesn't really follow when you look at the GOP's own dogma. Essentially the GOP is asking their members to pipe down and go along with it because the GOP establishment knows what's best for them, and assumes everyone else is too stupid to understand the complicated means that take us to a desirable end, so just trust that your betters have your best interest in mind and will take care of you.

Which, as astute observers of political rhetoric know, may be fine if it's Republicans, but could you even imagine the screeching that would take place if this sort of "Trust us, we are doing what is best for you" rhetoric was manifesting on the left? All our favorite talking points about liberal elitists would be rampaging across the internet and various opinion columns of Very Serious newspapers.* We've heard that type of accusation before, in fact, it's a major staple in the rhetoric that paints the GOP as the defenders of the little guy, the people, against Washington busy-bodies (and conveniently masks that they are really the party of the aristocracy). So I can't help but be a bit amused by a party that constantly accuses Democrats of being composed of elitists that yearn for a nanny state to control the masses and thumb their noses at those stupid American folks because they are just too simple-minded to understand what's at stake here, then turns around and actually supports just such an effort, and probably for dishonest means and ends to boot. Once again, the GOP shows itself to be a master at psychological projection tactics**.

And all this is just an observation assuming the movie quote from the WaPo is correct. It gets worse, because the WaPo actually misprinted the quote (and if this was done intentionally, we are actually starting to get all inception-like up in this shit here, aren't we?). Here is how Ben Afflick's line actually reads:

I need your help. I can't tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later. And we're going to hurt some people.

There really isn't much to add to that. No wonder the Republicans are all fired up about it. We are ruled by grifters and sociopaths.

(via MNPublius)

*And should I get started on the Hollywood aspect of this? Funny how liberals and Hollywood are always sittin' in a tree, and warpin' the minds of the folks, yet it seems to only be the GOP that seriously uses movies as political arguments (they did this with the whole "We must torture, because it worked for Jack Bauer" talking point as well). I could seriously do this all day.

**I really need to start a series on this. You can take pretty much any talking point Republicans use to slam Democrats and discover that it's actually something they are already doing themselves, or really want to start doing. It's so predictable at this point that it would almost be comical, if it weren't so damn effective.