THE GINGRICH CAMPAIGN: PAST IS PROLOGUE

Does anybody else here find it incredibly ironic that Newt Gingrich is successfully running as the anti-Washington, populist candidate? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a man who bathes himself in hypocrisy is running on a platform completely antithetical to his record. But what is slightly disappointing (though, not so much surprising) is that the Republicans are actually buying his schtick. Remember, past is prologue.

Come on, people. The anti-Washington, populist who happened to have served in Washington for 20 years, during which he was embroiled in more than his fair share of scandals? Really? Ask Newt about check-kiting. Ask him about going after Clinton for Monica Lewinski while he was banging Calista behind his (then) wife's back. Ask him about shutting down the government (which despite what Republicans may think, is not a good thing) because Clinton forced him to sit in the back of a plane on the way to Yitzhak Rabin's funeral. Ask Newt about being the first Speaker of the House to be slapped with ethics violations for using a college course as a partisan playground and taking campaign cash in return for teaching "favorable ideas."  Oh wait, that's right. College is where the liberal elitists brainwash kids with their partisan ideals. And of course, let's not forget that after he torched every bridge he had, his own party tried to overthrow him as speaker and when the Republicans lost seats in the House in the 1998 election (largely due to his actions as Speaker) he finally resigned in shame. Anti-Washington populist? Wake up people and learn your history.

Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite and a scam artist. He made his money after his resignation from Congress by peddling his name he so dubiously earned during his tenure.  He rails about Fannie and Freddie being responsible for the economic crisis, yet has no problem taking a big fat paycheck from them. He buddied up with the Heritage Foundation when they called for an individual health insurance mandate, but now that the idea comes from Barack Obama, it's a socialist, fascist, commie, pinko policy. And while Newt may think it's absurd and shameful to be asked a question about his personal marital history, when you run with a socially conservative agenda, it's more than fair to have to answer questions about your own chronic infidelity issues.

All that aside, how can anybody stand to listen to this arrogant s.o.b. speak? This man's primary language is dog whistle and his litter responds to the same jaded rhetoric every time. I'm going to vomit if I have to hear any of the following phrases again:

Washington Elites        

Liberal Elites    

Media Elites                

Anti-Religious Bigot     

Saul Alinksy Radical                

Pro-American Campaign  

Food Stamp President

Newt never again has to answer a single question because all he has to do is make ad hominem attacks against the liberal media elites that are all just in the game to prop up Obama and take down all conservatives…(and the conservative crowd gives Newt a standing ovation). He accuses Judge Fred Biery, who upheld the establishment clause, of being an anti-religious bigot (let's ignore the fact that he went to college at a school associated with evangelical Lutherans and then got his JD from Southern Methodist).

A message to the religious right:

I understand that the crap you were brainwashed with as a child has impeded your ability to think with logic and reason and said upbringing has also created a vast propensity for you to accept fairy tales as absolute truth. So, for the umpteenth time, the First Amendment prohibits a government established religion while simultaneously providing for its free exercise. Government institutions (for example, public schools) cannot mandate prayer. However, they cannot stop you from exercising your right to practice your religion if it does no harm to anyone else. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. Government can't force you to practice the tenets of Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Druidism, etc), but they can't stop you either. Your right to be a Christian does not preclude the right of others not to be.

Don't worry, though, elect Newt and every judge who disagrees with him will just be arrested. Talk about separation of powers. Why have a judicial branch of government when the executive can just throw any judge who dares to rule against its will behind bars? People who disagree with you are not anti-American. In fact, open disagreement is about the most American thing I can think of.

Moving on…The vast majority have never heard of Saul Alinsky, let alone Rules for Radicals (which, by the way, is a decent read), but thanks to Newt’s dog whistle I'm sure the mutts assume he's just another Bill Ayers type that Obama was pallin' around with back in his youth. For those of you not in the know, here are Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals:

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

If these tactics sound familiar it's probably because they're employed by politicians and organizations of every political affiliation. The only reason Alinksy pissed off the Republicans is because he happened to be a *GASP* community organizer (aka Commie Bastard). But I have two words for any conservative who wants to continue to claim Saul Alinsky's Rules are dirty pool: LEE ATWATER.
 

Finally we've got Newt's favorite dog whistle, the food stamp president. Obama is leading during the worst recession since the Great Depression. Of course people are in need now and at least part of the responsibility for that belongs to the economic policies of Ronald Reagan of which Newt so proudly touts being a part of. Trickledown economics created the vast and disgusting wealth gap that we're suffering today. And don't you think the fact that the Republican controlled House is doing everything possible to obstruct any bill that passes through its doors (unless that bill involves gaining more control over a woman's uterus) has something to do with the country being so slow to pull itself up out of the black hole of a recession that Reaganomics, deregulation, two unpaid for wars, American materialism, and idiots thinking they could afford a $500,000 house on a $35,000/year salary put us in?

Part of me doesn't believe that Republicans actually buy anything that Newt is saying. Part of me still wants to believe it's the last stand of the anti-Romney crowd and eventually Newt will fade off into the sunset. I know I said in a previous post that this Republican primary was the greatest show on earth, but now it's just getting kind of sad. For real, Republicans? This is the best you can come up with? I am here waiting for a reason not to vote for Obama again, but you just throw out religious wing nuts, hypocrites, spineless flip floppers who run away from their record (which isn’t so bad, by the way), and a crazy old man. Chris Christie--have you reconsidered your decision not to run (please)?

Yours,

Liz

No, Mitt, We Don't Want to Be You

See, now this is why I hate Mitt Romney. 

He represents everything that is wrong with both the public and private sectors of our country. His public sector problems go without saying—he’s a piece of plastic right down to the slicked back haircut and condescending grin. He changes his positions depending on the audience and when he’s called out for his obviously incongruous record he comes up with these reductio ad absurdum responses that never really explain himself and, instead, serve only to condescend to his audience.

How could you possibly think that was my position, you ignoramus? Now, Biff, drive around the limo and don’t forget the Gray Poupon this time.

Nobody in his own party can stand him. Some insist that it’s just the evangelical bigots who can’t get over the Mormon thing.  Others say it’s because he’s really just a Massachusetts liberal. But he’s neither conservative, liberal, nor moderate. People don’t like this guy because he speaks out of both corners of his mouth (and also largely from his ass). People don’t like him because they can’t believe a word he says. They can’t believe a word he says because they don’t even know if HE believes a word he says.

But back to this argument from envy. I’m so sick of hearing this people envy Wall Street, class warfare bullshit. Why are the rich so arrogant to think that everybody wants to be them? I picture Mitt waking up every day, grinning in the mirror after a hearty stretch, puffing out his chest, and saying, “My God, who wouldn’t want to be me?” Well, let me be the first to raise my hand.

While Bain Capital certainly wasn’t the worst of all private equity firms/venture capitalists out there (it doesn't solely specialize in private equity or venture capital), its hands certainly aren’t clean. Mitt Romney’s practice of “creative destruction” came at the cost of laying off workers, outsourcing jobs overseas where there weren’t pesky minimum wage or safe workplace standards, and bloating executive salaries while diminishing the salaries of the people who actually do the work that makes those executives fabulously wealthy.

And this was done at Bain’s greatest success stories. Bain capital fired people to make money…not just to survive…but to make massive sums of money. They destroyed people’s livelihoods not because they were bad workers or committed some egregious error, but so executives at Bain could go out and buy their new yacht or their third house out in Kennebunkport. This isn’t even to speak of the 22 percent  of Bain companies that went bankrupt or had to close its doors. But don’t worry, Bain still made its money and was able to hide some of its profits in offshore tax havens. 

That’s American Capitalism for you—risk and reward—the workers absorb all the risk while the investors run away with all the reward. Capitalism is a great system—WHEN IT’S ACTUALLY CAPITALISM and not when it’s some shadow of capitalism where the plutocrats are able to buy off politicians in order to pass favorable legislation for them and prevent the regulators and watchdogs from doing their jobs.

Points in case: 1. SEC failures to enforce rules which contributed greatly to our current economy and 2. The melee that ensued when politicians realized the CFPB would have teeth when Obama tried to appoint Elizabeth Warren. And all of this so the politicians and the rich can become masters of the universe together while the “regular people” are left to feed off of their crumbs.

So Mitt, no, I don’t envy you. If I have to destroy jobs, hide my profits in tax shelters, line pockets of executives who sit in offices all day and know very little about the people sitting in their trenches, mislead people about my record in order to win their votes, stuff my shirt, and muster my best toothy grin in order to be rich then I don’t want to be wealthy. Your money doesn’t make you any better than any one of the “little people,” and contrary to what you think, we don’t want to be you. We just don’t want to struggle to survive because your money allows you to rig the system.  

Google Santorum

I’ve got to admit that I’m a little sad today. I was busy saving lives last night at work but I found a minute to look up the results of the Iowa Republican Caucus during my lunch break. Now I don't think that the Iowa Caucus is a bellwether of the American public—or even most Republicans. Iowa as a whole, maybe. Iowa Republicans, no way.

However, that Rick Santorum won 25% of the vote and was able to come in second place by only 8 votes makes me very sad and it makes me sad for two reasons.  

First, it makes me sad that people are so easily brainwashed by the media that they're willing to vote in a presidential election for a guy who has made his name on bigotry and homophobia. The people know nothing about this man. They knew nothing about Michele Bachmann, they knew nothing about Rick Perry, they knew nothing about Hermann Cain, and they knew nothing about Newt Gingrich. All they knew was what the people in the talking box were telling them. Santorum got lucky that Newt's ride on the media bandwagon ended just in time for the Iowa Caucuses and he was the heir apparent to the anti-Romney throne. Hey Rick, congratulations, you're the conservative's last resort. Now the media is going to actually vet you and the public will see you for who you really are, you bigot.

The second (and primary) reason it makes me sad is because it shows that there is still a large portion of our population that are socially conservative ideologues. I’m not referring to the live and let live conservatives, but the ideologues who want to jam their religion down your throat--the ones who want to deny equal rights to gays because their religious ideals tell them gay is bad. I’m talking about the ones who want to control women’s uteruses and care more about a kid when it's a fetus than when it's an actual live child (until, of course, they reach military age-then they're much more useful).

Rick Santorum is a bigot who thinks his idea of “values” should supersede anybody else's "unchristian" value system. Yes, I said it-Rick Santorum is a bigot and if you think your religious ideals give you the right to trample on the rights of others' who do no harm to you then you’re a bigot, too. That’s another thing that annoys me. Why is the term “values” in this country synonymous with “Christian values?” You dig through the history of the church’s actions past and present and you’ll find that Christianity is very low on the morality totem. Christians most definitely do not have a monopoly on values. But if you want to know more about my feelings on religion then I refer you here: WARNING: Excessive Consumption of False Rhetoric Leads to Messed Up Worldviews. 

How can we take seriously a man who compared gay marriage activists to 9-11 terrorists? How dare we even consider a man who openly says that gay relationships are the equivalent to polygamy, incest, adultery, pedophilia, and bestiality? Why would you want a president who is openly disdainful toward single mothers seeking government help (forget his completely contradictory stances against contraception and sex education)? But, hey, when Glenn Beck says you’re the next George Washington, you must be legitimate. If you really want to know the true nature of this dufus looking a-hole, all you have to do is Google “Santorum.”

Don’t get me wrong, Rick Santorum isn’t going anywhere. He’s a Mike Huckabee and considering Rupert Murdoch’s endorsement, he’ll be back on Fox News sometime in the near future. He works for the loony tune evangelicals, but the American public won’t tolerate such an ignoramus once they learn who he is. It’s just disheartening to know that the God, Guns, and Gays demagoguery still holds clout with such a large segment of society.

Here’s my plea to sane Christian’s everywhere (I know you’re the majority): Please stop letting people like this represent you. Rick Santorum is one of the reasons why stereotypes have way more power than they should. Is Google “Santorum” really who you want people to think of when they hear “Christian?”

Successful societies always trend towards progressivism and giving more rights. This country’s no different, but unfortunately it isn’t a linear progression towards freedom. The road to freedom and equality has some bumps in it. We take steps forward and backward—we just have to hope the forward steps outnumber the backward ones.

I thought this country was more advanced in its thinking, but that Rick Santorum can be taken seriously as a presidential candidate makes me very sad that we haven’t moved beyond that kind of ignorance in many places. But, like I said, things always move toward progressivism—just at varying rates. America is a beautiful country, but sometimes we get a large, ignorant boil right on our ass that can only be treated with intelligence and insight.

A Message to Tea Partiers and Occupiers: We’re All Idiots

The Tea Party versus Occupy Wall Street, battle of the titans, clash of the Gods, natural enemies…who will come out on top? In the right corner we’ve got the Tea Party—a bunch of old, rich, white men who want to eliminate anything that can be categorized, even under the loosest definition, as an entitlement program (except of course for their monthly social security checks). In the left corner is Occupy Wall Street—a bunch of entitled, young hippies, who want the hardworking class in America to pay off their student loans instead of getting a job. It’s going to be a bloody battle and only one will come out on top…the fate of our country lies in their hands. Will America turn into a fascist corporatocracy or will she become a Marxist socialist state? Stay tuned to find out…

Of course, this is all bullshit. And while the vast majority of Americans who fall within the center-left to center-right spectrum are pitted against each other, the people who run this country are laughing behind our backs. We’re all fighting for the same thing: a fair shot in this country. Those on the right are convinced that government is the root of all evil. Those on the left say that corporate greed is source of the current economy. Well, I’ve got news for you, they’re both responsible because they’re virtually one and the same. They want us fighting because if we teamed up it would be the end of them. So far, they’re winning.

For those of you under the delusion that we have a free market economy, check your bank accounts. It’s safe to say that unless you make well into the six-figure range, it’s either gone down or stayed about the same, if you’re lucky. It took Barack Obama 745 MILLION DOLLARS  to win the presidency in ’08. Combined with McCain, the two spent well over a BILLION dollars—and this was without the Citizens United decision. Think about that for a second—over a billion dollars spent on just one campaign. I’d have to work about 20,000 years to see that much money. Some 47 percent of congress members are millionaires. That’s hardly representative democracy.

Congress and wealthy corporations are dependent on each other for their very existence. Corporations buy off politicians to pass favorable legislation and in turn, the politician gets a nice long career in Washington and when they retire, they get a nice cushy job as a lobbyist for a pharmaceutical company or big oil or whoever else they fought for during their time in office. This passed by unnoticed (or at least ignored) by the general public when the economy was good. But now that we’re in crisis, the public is looking for someone to blame. The wealthy want you to think it’s government and government wants you to think it’s the corporations.

We’ve got a problem in this country when a serious presidential candidate can get away with saying that, “corporations are people,” and we barely bat an eye. We’ve got a problem in this country when a politician who got a sweetheart deal from Countrywide is the same politician who's responsible for drafting financial reform legislation.

THEY ARE IN IT TOGETHER, PEOPLE. Their survival depends on convincing the majority of America that we’re enemies. We’re not. We’re fighting for the same outcome—an opportunity to live without the fear of losing our homes, or not being able to eat, and maybe having a little left over so we can retire before we die. Their survival depends upon the right leaning and left leaning being at each other’s throats because when we think we’re adversaries, the real culprits can continue with their unholy alliance.

It isn’t all of them, but it’s most of them and certainly enough to put us in the state we’re in today. The system is messed up. We are government and we are corporations and we’ve created a monster and now we need to fix it. Complete public financing of campaigns would be a good start. If we can’t do that, at least limit campaign donations to individuals and curb the ability of 527s and PACs to influence elections. We also need to close the revolving door between Congress and K Street. But until Middle America realizes we’re not each other’s enemy, the people with the money are going to continue to play us like pawns in their little game of masters of the universe.

MISSING: One Large Set of Cojones. If Found, Please Return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

I remember watching Barack Obama’s keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. As he neared the end of his speech, I distinctly remember saying to myself that he was going to be our president someday. I didn’t think it would be four years later. Hillary Clinton was my choice in ’08, but since I’m a registered independent I didn’t have much of a say over that in the Democratic primary. But after the eight year disaster that was George W. Bush there was a virtual zero chance that a Republican was going to win the election and I cast my vote for Obama with all the confidence of the hope and change that he promised.

Four years later, Clinton has become arguably the best secretary of state this country has ever known and Obama…he’s been mediocre, at best. He started to reel me in when the Lilly Ledbetter Act was signed into law. I thought Hey, maybe this guy’s for real and things are about turn around. But almost four years later I’m still left with a feeling of wanting more.

It’s inarguable that Obama’s done a lot in his first term. The argument is whether you like what he's done or not. He passed an economic stimulus bill, there was cash for clunkers, the auto bail out, health care reform, federal funding for stem cell research, Lilly Ledbetter, Bin Laden’s dead, Sotomayor and Kagan onto the Supreme Court, we’re finally out of Iraq, Gaddafi’s gone with no American lives lost, no more global gag rule, and DADT (that hideous monstrosity) is finally gone.**

     **Forgive the lack of chronology as I was just throwing out things off the top of my head.

After all of this, I’m still left with a lot ambiguity toward our 44^th president. The economic stimulus didn’t go nearly far enough and allowed states to use the money in ways that were not stimulative. The health care bill also didn’t go nearly far enough and I’ll elucidate my opinions on health care at a later date. Obama’s foreign policy has been better and more humane than W's and Cheney's ever was (but, then again, when the defense industry is privatized and highly profitable, should we be so shocked that we get perpetual war?)

It’s nice to have a president who believes in science and doesn’t use women’s rights as a bargaining chip for destitute countries to receive foreign aid. However, to give Obama credit for the DADT repeal would be analogous to giving Wilson credit for the Nineteenth Amendment (it’s women’s suffrage people. Geez, study your history). Much like activists such as Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Lucy Burns, Carrie Catt, Inez Milholland, et al deserve the credit for forcing the hand of a reticent public and a president playing politics, people like Lt. Dan Choi, Knights Out, the Log Cabin Republicans, Susan Collins, and yes, even Lady Gaga deserve the credit for forcing the hand of a president who was playing politics with a constituency he assumed he had in his back pocket. Nevertheless, the P.O.S. law is gone and that’s a plus one for Obama.

But the bottom line is no matter how much blame can be placed on the Bush Administration, no matter how much of a failure trickledown economics is, no matter how many pledges Grover Norquist makes conservative legislators sign, this country is not that much better off than it was four years ago. Republican obstructionism notwithstanding, the hope and change promised in the campaign has fizzled down to a, "maybe if we wait it out things will get better." I don’t want rhetoric. A nice speech, no matter how poignant, doesn’t pay my bills. My paycheck has stagnated for three years now, but my cost of living keeps going up and I can’t sustain that trend much longer.  

It isn’t difficult to discern what the American public wants. We just want fairness. We get that the free market ebbs and flows and sometimes we hit downturns, but the downturns have become deep pits because we have a system that’s set up to favor large corporations who can afford to buy off politicians. We don’t want to pay zero taxes, we just want everyone to pay their fair share—even the wealthy.

(And, conservatives, please stop with the half of America doesn’t pay income tax bullshit. They don’t pay income taxes because they make shit for wages and you just want to kick them while they’re down. Everybody pays taxes in some form or another. Effective rates are what matter and the ultra-wealthy are making money off of their money, not from hard work).

Our system is set up against the middle class. We bear the brunt of both corporate tax breaks and excessive entitlements. We carry the weight of the poor overhead like Sisyphus, while we drag corporate welfare behind us like a ball and chain strapped to our ankles. But pretty soon our backs are going to break and then who will politicians run to? You won’t be able to turn to your owners (the wealthy) because the second you turn on them is when they pull their funding from your PACs and then how do you win re-election? And you won't be able to drain the middle class anymore because, well, we won't exist.

Given the state of the Republican primary it’s looking more and more like my vote in 2012 will be going back to Obama, unless Huntsman pulls out a miracle. But it’s definitely not with the enthusiasm I had four years ago. I’ve got to admit, Mr. President, that I think you’ve been a little on the wimpy side over the last four years (apart from Bin Laden and the Iraq pull out, for which your country owes you a debt of gratitude). I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you about the whole fourth most accomplished president bit. You’ve done a lot, but much of it has been rather half-assed and you seem to capitulate to the right more than is necessary. We’ve still got massive unemployment, massive debt, and a stagnant economy, though an obstructive House deserves at least as much of the credit for that. The Tea Party has revealed itself for what it really is—a group of saboteurs who want nothing but your downfall—and the American public has caught on to them. If you get re-elected, your next four years will reveal your presidential legacy. I think you have it in you to be a great president, but (and forgive the uncouth locution) you need to grow pair before that will happen.

Yours,

Liz

Republican Primary: The Greatest Show on Earth

Normally, conservative politicians elicit an allergic-type reaction in me—hives, itching, watery eyes, slight nausea, and a moderate to severe feeling of apprehension. But I must admit that the Republican primary has been one of the most endearing shows on the talking box all year. 

First we get Donald Trump threatening to run for president and going all birther in order to boost his ratings for the Apprentice. Nobody really takes this loon seriously, but the media jumps all over it because, after all, the media does exist mostly for entertainment value. Obama releases the birth certificate and Trump finally fizzles (though, I hear Orly Taitz is still on the case—so hope endures, Donald)

Crazy Eyes Bachmann wins a straw poll in Iowa, which is about as far away from a bellwether state as you can get, and suddenly Republicans take seriously this woman who once claimed that Congress should be probed for anti-American views. Remind me again, what kind of legacy did Joseph McCarthy leave behind? Hey, crazy lady, disagreeing with you does not constitute treason.

Rick Perry struts into town, both guns blazing. But then he opened his mouth and we all remembered why nobody wants another president from the state of Texas—EVER AGAIN! Rick may not be ashamed to say he’s a Christian, but you don’t need to be listening to this idiot every day to realize there’s something wrong in America when a big old homophobe can be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, but suicides among gay teenagers are becoming epidemic. Oops.

The Republican field is so damn bad and so detestable to their own party that they begged and pleaded for Christ Christie—a first term governor from New Jersey—to save them from the horror of having to vote for Mitt Romney.

But alas, along comes Mr. Nine Nine Nine, himself, Herman Cain. A man whose economic plan was strikingly similar to that found in Sim City, a man who derives inspiration from Pokemon the movie, a man who proudly proclaimed, “We need a leader, not a reader.” What was his downfall? No, it wasn’t any of the above, it wasn’t an abject failure in understanding foreign policy, and it wasn’t even the multiple charges of sexual harassment. No, what the Republicans found too distasteful for their vote was an extramarital affair between two consenting adults. Bye, bye pizza man.

Bring in the Newt, who’s got more baggage than the Duggars bringing their 96 kids to Disney World. He took off in the polls until people realized that he was even more detestable to his own party than to the Democrats. Now he can’t even get his campaign together enough to qualify for the ballot in his own home state. Looks good for a guy bidding to run the country. Adios Newt.

Re-enter Donald Trump and his debate and a new threat to run as an independent. A middle finger from the candidates (except, of course from Gingrich and Santorum, who will never win any nomination except maybe if the Westboro Baptist Church forms a party) and a quick fizzle for Trump again. Hey, Donald, you’re nothing but the butt of jokes now. Go away.

Let’s also not forget the supporting cast—the debate crowds. The cheering for the killing of mentally retarded prisoners, the booing of gay soldiers (who fight for your rights while their own get shit on), cheering the idea of letting the uninsured die on the streets, and emphatically supporting the idea of child labor (Good idea to jump start the economy-let’s take the few jobs that are available that adults so desperately need and give them to children. They come way cheaper. I hear the going rate in China is about 2 bucks an hour).

Seriously, Republicans, is this the best you have to offer? While it is extremely entertaining, this isn’t reality television. In case you haven’t noticed, our country is in a bit of an economic quandary. These people are running to be the leader of the free world, not auditioning for the gazillionth season of the Real World.

My Time in Life: Why Hypocrites Need to Think Before They Speak



YUMMY!

I was in the grocery store yesterday and was in line to buy my Bailey’s, and my apple pie flavored gum (delicious, by the way) and there was a woman in front of me. A nosy peruse later, I see that she has green beans, sweet potatoes, apples, and a few other essential items that were probably the components of a nice Christmas dinner. No longer impressed, I turned my interests back to my liquor and dessert gum. Until, alas, this woman asked the cashier if she could swipe her…gulp…EBT CARD through the swiper at the desk!!! My head turned like Regan MacNeil being prayed over by Father Merrin (it’s The Exorcist, people). At that point, I decided to follow this case through to the end. This woman left the store with her green beans and apples and, you’ll never believe what she did next! She put what little cash she probably had in her wallet into a big, red bucket and THEN had the gall to thank the woman standing there ringing her little bell. Disgusted, I followed her out of the store right to her humble sedan, probably an early 2000’s model. I couldn’t take anymore after that and burned rubber right out of that parking lot. After all this I thought, I should’ve spoken up when I had the chance. As soon as I counted this woman’s 14 items in the 10 item or less lane I knew she was trouble!

In case you didn’t pick up on it from the title or the snark in the previous paragraph, this rant is in response to a young woman from my hometown who recently went viral with a blog post titled My Time at Wal-Mart: Why We Need Serious Welfare Reform.

I won’t hold this woman’s young age against her, though the argument from lack of life experience is a valid one. I detest when people use “kid” as a pejorative. Intelligence and idiocy comes in all ages and to dismiss someone outright because they are, “just a kid,” only makes it look like you have no real defense. Rousselle’s age shouldn’t be a knock against her, nor do I think it gives her a free pass from having the glaring irony of her essay pointed out.

I won’t debate this woman’s argument because, frankly, she’s got a point. There are people who abuse the welfare system. The abusers should be rooted out as best as possible, but when you have programs that are intended to help the needy, you’ll inevitably have those who screw it over. It isn’t just the poor who lack ethics (think, Enron, Bernie Madoff, WorldCom, et al). Corrupt people are just that—self-absorbed assholes—no matter how much money they have in the bank.

I find it incredibly ironic-If not hypocritical-that this young woman took a paycheck from and presumably patronized a corporation that is responsible for perpetuating poverty in the towns it swallows up. Wal-Mart sets up shop, drives down retail wages, and forces local businesses to close their doors. But I’m sure Miss Rousselle is a pro small business Republican.

Wal-Mart uses government subsidies so it can continue to grow like a urinary tract infection in a nursing home. Taxpayers also indirectly subsidize Wal-Mart with the huge number of its employees who are on Medicaid. Not only do they make crap wages, but it’s less expensive for them to take government insurance than to go on their employer’s rolls. You think Wally thought of that while he was making up the benefits packages? I suppose Miss Rousselle thinks it’s different for a multi-billion dollar corporation to take advantage of “taxpayer generosity” than her hot dog vendor buddy out in the Old Port, or that anyone paying with an EBT card, must therefore also be unemployed, and not looking for a job.

I’m sure at this point my more conservative friends are ripping their hair out screaming, “WELL, AT LEAST SHE HAS A JOB!!!!” Calm down, chill out, go grab a glass of chardonnay, and put down the mouse before you throw it through the monitor. I’m sure Wal-Mart was happy to have Miss Rousselle as an employee as she was probably on her parents’ health insurance. I’m also sure she didn’t complain too much about the crap wages because she, most likely, wasn’t trying to raise a family of four.

Working for Wal-Mart only perpetuates poverty, encourages foreign product sourcing, and supports gender discrimination (oh, wait, the conservative Supreme Court said that because Wal-Mart’s has a policy of non-sex discrimination, the glaring disparities within the company are purely coincidence…Yes, you read that right. Why is there no sex discrimination at Wal-Mart? Because Wal-Mart says so).

For this woman to take wages from Wal-Mart and then speak out against welfare is hypocritical. Wal-Mart is as much of a welfare abuser as any single person who shops there. This girl is naïve, but I’m sure she’ll learn to appreciate the liberals a little more when she graduates from Providence and either can’t find a job or gets a crappy job with no benefits and needs to stay on mommy and daddy’s insurance.

Yours,
Liz

Oh, and P.S.

When you say you want to be the next Ann Coulter, you immediately lose all credibility as an impartial observer and expose yourself as someone who only wants to throw out inflammatory rhetoric and offer nothing constructive.