I have a piece at the Guardian's CIF about this whole Anthony Weiner business, and why, even though this is primarily about attacking Weiner because he's a fighter, this fits into a larger pattern of right wing abuse of sexy young women for the high crime of being intellectually independent instead of just doing and believing what right wing ideologues instruct them to do and believe.
Wait a minute, the guy is a left-wing DEMOCRAT so what the fuck is she talking about? Now I admit it's very hard to find out that the guy is a left-wing Dem because news articles notoriously force you to "name that party" when it's a leftie in the dock. It's either not mentioned or listed so far down in the article that you're bored by the time you would reach it. (Republicans or, worse, Tea Party members, on the other hand, are trumpeted in the headline as such if they are suspected of wrongdoing.)
I learned that when I ran a bunch of hate mail I was getting in the wake of the Edwards fiasco. What I felt, in doing that, was that this was an intellectual exercise in learning to have perspective. I was being villainized as some horrible person because I made a few on-target and totally accurate jokes about Catholic dogma, but in fact the people who are the true nasty assholes are the right wing ideologues who sprung erections at the thought of having an excuse to unleash invective on a strange young woman whose main crime was uppitiness.
Talk about rewriting history! This asshole was encouraged to get off the Edwards campaign because she was busily writing anti-Catholic/anti-Christian hate screeds - again, NOT a surprise because she's ALWAYS been a hate-monger, and particularly against Christianity, but come ON, Marcotte, do you actually think this bullshit is going to fool anyone who was paying attention? Let's see her funny, accurate joke about Christianity/Catholicism that led to her getting "hate mail" and being so unfairly victimized. Warning - it's REALLY nasty.
"What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."
And people got mad over THAT? What a bunch of hate-filled wingnuts! I mean, damn, it was hilarious and true; what the hell could anyone get offended about THERE?
But you know, during the Edwards "fiasco" Iowahawk took this bullshitter on and produced a *very funny* AND *accurate* portrayal of how Marcotte really acts on a daily basis and just why there isn't a candidate in the world with two synapses firing who'd want to claim her as their ally. So since he's already done it, and done it better than I ever could, let's hear from Iowahawk on our dear friend Marcotte, shall we?
I particularly love how he's got her language down pat - if you think I swear, you should see her. I can't hold a candle to her in the f-bomb department! (Nor on the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, but whatever.)
And we all know when she (constantly) screams "Christo-fascist Repugnican baby-making rape machines" there's just nothing offensive in THAT. Poor misunderstood bitch.
But he wasn't quite done with our Fair Blogger - here's one more funny for the road.
Based on "Fascist Pygmalion" - and still totally accurate. A friend of mine used to say feminism was almost impossible to parody because anything you could say in jest had already been said in earnestness. But Marcotte parody writes itself...and Iowahawk managed to pull it off. Still, you can't really say he's exaggerating (he isn't). He just makes it funny.
In other news our other "totes" favorite blogger (God, I wish she's STOP saying "totes" and "wevs" - it doesn't make you sound smart or hip, honey; it makes you sound like an asshole) needs a whaaambulance for this news -
"Obviously the best way to stop all those welfare hand-outs making people rich across the country is to punish the people who need a social safety net the most:
Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.
"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."
Shaming is not an incentive. It's a disincentive, and it's a totally ineffective one, at that."
So...illicit drug abusers "need" a "safety net" the most? Well, I guess that's true since in general they can't get themselves into a job or success situation, but that's hardly a good reason to give them "free" money (which of course isn't free at all.) And it's not really an incentive issue - the fact is drug abusers simply wouldn't get the aid (though if they have children they can appoint someone else to get benefits for them.) Shame is hardly the point.