Now up to 70% less Daily!

Monday, February 27, 2017

Why we lose

On Saturday morning the delegation from the Chaos Compound (Me and the Missus) went to the DNC Winter Meeting in downtown Atlanata, hoping to drum up support for Keith Ellison.

 And if there were any questions about why Democrats keep losing, I think they were answered that day.

Donna Brazile opened the proceedings announcing the color guard from a local ROTC program. Then silence for a minute. "Um, is the color guard here?" Silence for another minute. "Okay, yeas they're here, please rise for the presentation of the colors." Silence. . . "Um, color guard? Are you. . .?" Eventually they made their way to the front, but Christ, she couldn't even get that to run smoothly.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed was in attendance, and his presence was noted, but he was not invited to speak, which seemed like a pretty big snub considering he is the mayor of the host city. You'd think they'd at least have him do one of those "on behalf of the city of Atlanta, I would like to welcome you, blah blah blah. . ." kind of things. But nope. Nothing.

 Then there was a debate over Resolution 33.

This was a proposal to re-instate President Obama's policy of not allowing the DNC to accept corporate money and not letting corporate lobbyists serve as "at-large" members. This was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm by the attendees like ourselves who were not voting members. It was, of course, stricken from the by-laws. The opposition was led by some guy from California named Mullholland who stepped up to the mic and said something to the effect of "We're not the little sisters of the poor, we're the Democratic party."  This would have been an easy bone to throw to the grass roots, since not striking it down would have merely referred the by-laws in toto to another discussion committee where the proposal could have been killed quietly. But Democratic leadership isn't even smart enough to do that.

Then there was a video tribute to Donna Brazile who acted as if she had no idea this was going to be sprung on her **eyeroll**. The video played for about a minute, stopped, the screen went blank, then it started again from the beginning. As the Missus noted "it's hard to get competent tech people when you piss off all the millennials."

Then Donna Brazile read off a list of people she wanted to thank and said that without them, they never could have accomplished all that they had accomplished and everyone in our pro-Keith-Ellison section started chuckling and looking around saying "she thinks she's accomplished something?"

You just lost a race to the most beatable candidate in history. You lost the House and you lost the Senate. And you're talking about your "accomplishments?" This is why it's going to be so hard to make anything better, the higher-ups in the party refuse to learn a single goddamm lesson from losing. When you lose a race that the opposition party had pretty much gift-wrapped and handed to you on a platter by nominating an unstable buffoon, a cartoonish blowhard, an admitted sex offender, and a man with absolutely zero qualifications to hold public office as your opponent - when you somehow manage to lose that race and you think "ah, time to rest on my laurels!" nothing is ever going to get better.

And if she had talked about her "accomplishments" and the other DNC members had laughed or heckled or booed, I might have some reason for optimism, but no. They applauded politely as if what she was saying made some kind of sense in their world. It was appalling.

Then they chose the DLC-affiliated Tom Perez as the new DNC chair, because apparently they're just fine with the job done by Brazile, Wasserman-Scultz, Kaine, etc. The only encouraging news was that it took a second ballot, and the vote was pretty close, so there are at least a sizable minoroty among the voting members that seem to have some sort of clue as to how to move forward.

Oh, and the vote took forever because the hand-held clickers that they were using to record votes didin't work right and they eventually had to switch to paper ballots. I forgot to mention that at the very beginning, members were to press a button on the clicker to record their presence so that a quorum could be established. That took forever and several members never did get their presence recorded because the most simple technology is apparently beyond the grasp of the party that, as the Missus says, pushes away the young people.

That afternoon, we participated in a "save the ACA" march. We marched past the convention center where the DNC meeting was still going on, and the hotel where the DNC bigwigs were staying, shouting and chanting and whatnot. It would have been an easy thing for someone, say Tom Perez?, or anyone to come out of the convention center and address the assemblage. Just tell us that you hear us, you understand, you intend to fight, just basic boilerplate stuff would have gone a long way. But did anyone come out? Haha, no. Of course they didn't.

And that is why we keep losing.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

The Crazy has spread to Iowa!

Sp you know how college campuses are full of young people and like liberals and progressives and what-not? Well, an Iowa state senator has a solution to that problem!


Senator Mark Chelgren Aims To Purge Democrats From Iowa Universities

February 20th, 2017

Well, to be fair, he only wants to get rid of about half the Democrats.

Chelgren wants to impose an ideological litmus test in order to create a “partisan balance,” based on how Iowa has voted in past elections.

Because if the corn farmers of your state all voted a certain way, that should affect the political makeup of your institutions of higher learning.

The legislation proposes that a “person shall not be hired as a professor or instructor member of the faculty at such an institution if the person’s political party affiliation on the date of hire would cause the percentage of faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of faculty belonging to the other political party.

Because you know how much conservatives love affirmative action and quotas and social engineering to ensure "fair" outcomes.

By the way, he does know that there are more than two political parties, right?  You're trying to keep an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, what about professors who are registered Green Party or Libertarian, or Reform Party (is that still around?)
What about professors who are part of the American Independent Party or the Peace and Freedom Party or the Democratic Socialists? What about those who register as "no party affiliation" or aren't registered to vote at all?

The Secretary of State’s office would be directed to provide voter registration lists to the colleges so that new job applicants’ party affiliation could be checked before the hiring process gets underway. Graciously, Chelgren allows for people registered as No Party to slip through the process without facing the litmus test.

So anybody considering applying for a job at the University of Iowa just has to change their registration to "No Party" and the whole fascist system comes tumbling down?

You know, I could see where you might want to be sure that different viewpoints are represented in, say, the Political Science Department. Or the Philosophy Department, maybe the History Department. But what possible difference could it make whether the professor of Calculus is a Democrat or Republican? Or the Computer Science prof? Or, really any of the S.T.E.M. fields?  What is even the point of this proposal?

I would say that there's no chance of this bill passing, but it's 2017 and when it comes to right-wing politics, all bets are off.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Trump voters get feelings hurt, are pathetic little wiener babies.

The New York Times

Are Liberals Helping Trump?

And here we go. Here we go with the whole "your protesting is just making things worse, why don't you just be quiet and polite and just put up with the destruction of your country? Isn't it better to see a once-great nation destroyed than to hurt the feelings of the extreme right?"

Also, there's a rule about headlines, and I can't remember to whom the credit goes, but the rule states that whenever a headline  poses a question you can assume the answer is no. I'm assuming this headline will be no exception.

Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina, voted reluctantly for Donald Trump. As a conservative, he felt the need to choose the Republican. But some things are making him feel uncomfortable — parts of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, for example, and the recurring theme of his apparent affinity for Russia

So he voted for Orange Julius Caesar, but now he's a bit uncomfortable with him doing the things he said he would do before this wiener voted for him? And did he really not know that Il Douche was chummy with Putin before casting his vote?

Mr. Medford should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Mr. Trump was a bad choice. But it is not working out that way. Every time Mr. Medford dips into the political debate — either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles — he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority

Why should Medford be an ally of "liberals?"It's like saying that a guy who feels naseous after eating a whole pack of hot dogs should be an ally of vegans trying to convince people that meat is murder. The guy who thinks maybe Cheeto Mussolini might have a couple of flaws after all is supposed to be an ally of the people who tried to warn him that electing a ridiculously unqualified walking personality disorder with a history of assaulting women and defrauding business associates was a monstrously bad idea? Fuck this guy. What makes anyone think that this guy is going to realize how stupid he's been and put a Bernie 2020 sticker on his douchemobile? If anything, he's maybe going to think "yeah, I shoulda voted for Ted Cruz" or "maybe Jeb! wasn't so bad after all."

And I think it's fair to say that those of us who did not support a racist misogynist pussy-grabber have a right to feel a bit of moral superiority to those who did, those who looked at the racism, xenophopbia, hatred of Muslims and boasts of sexual assault and did not find a single deal-breaker among them.

“We’re backed into a corner,” said Mr. Medford, 46, whose business teaches people to be filmmakers. “There are at least some things about Trump I find to be defensible. But they are saying: ‘Agree with us 100 percent or you are morally bankrupt. You’re an idiot if you support any part of Trump.’ ”

Oh my Gawd! Conservatives are such fragile flowers!

Who is it that is saying "agree with us 100% or you're morally bankrupt?" Go ahead, name one person who has said that to you. We'll wait. . .
Because of course no one has said that to him. Of course he can't give a single example. Interestingly, he also seems to be unable to give an example of any of the things he finds defensible about the Rump.
And, by the way, if a month in to his administration, the best thing you can say about him is that he has some aspects that are "defensible," not "laudable" or "commendable" but "defensible" - if that's the best you can say about the man you chose to fill the highest office in the land, that he's not 100 percent completely indefensible, maybe you just ought to go ahead and sit out the next several elections.

He added: “I didn’t choose a side. They put me on one.”

You didn't choose a side? Really? What the hell do you think voting is? You didn't fill out your ballot for "oh, either one, they both seem okay." You chose a side. No one forced you to, you could have abstained from voting. No one would have missed you at all.

Liberals may feel energized by a surge in political activism, and a unified stance against a president they see as irresponsible and even dangerous. But that momentum is provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the right. In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism — the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one. Disagreeing meant being publicly shamed.

Hmm, funny how we never saw articles like this for the last 8 years while conservatives were dressing up as Paul Revere and demanding their country back. No one ever said to the teabaggers, "hey, you know, protesting might feel good, but you risk alienating liberals  with your harsh eliminationist rhetoric."

Surely there's no harm in telling people who voted for a mild-mannered centrist that they support a Muslim Marxist! They're sure to come around to our side 
when they read our pithy signage!
Never underestimate the power of a well-reasoned argument
 to sway your opponents to your side.

Protests and righteous indignation on social media and in Hollywood may seem to liberals to be about policy and persuasion. But moderate conservatives say they are having the opposite effect, chipping away at their middle ground and pushing them closer to Mr. Trump.

Moderate conservatives? We might lose the support of moderate conservatives? Both of them?
And what is a "moderate conservative" these days anyway? Someone who would rather have seen Mike Pence at the top of the ticket? Someone who thinks maybe the Republicans should shut down the federal government a little less often? Someone who thinks that maybe Social Security shouldn't be completely eliminated?
Assuming these people exist, and if they do, they had to have voted for Il Douche, how does pushing them even closer to the gaping maw of utter insanity make any real difference?
I mean, my God! What if instead of tepid support for Trump, they instead start feeling strong support for him. What a gamechanger! Just think how much more enthusiastically they'll pull the (R) lever next time! That will surely make a huge difference!

The name calling from the left is crazy,” said Bryce Youngquist, 34, who works in sales for a tech start-up in Mountain View, Calif., a liberal enclave where admitting you voted for Mr. Trump is a little like saying in the 1950s that you were gay.

No. No no no no nooooooo.

No, being a Trump supporter is not anything like being gay in the 1950's.

No one has to fear losing their job because they voted for Trump.
No one has to fear being physically attacked because they voted for Trump.
No one has to worry about being evicted from their residence because they voted for Trump.
No matter how big a fucking baby you are, and you certainly are, the hurt feelings you get from co-workers rolling their eyes and saying "Trump? Really?" do not begin to compare with the bullshit gay people have to deal with today, let alone in the dark ages of the 1950's.

Oh, and before you even begin, let me just go ahead and tell you that being a Trump voter in california is also NOTHING like being a Jew in Germany in the 1930's.
But, but. . . I'm the victim here!

The name calling from the left is crazy,” said Bryce Youngquist. . .  “They are complaining that Trump calls people names, but they turned into some mean people.”

Aw, no! Did the mean people hurt your little feelings? Ahh, here have your teddy bear and go take a nice little nap, eh?

 Also, gosh, I wonder how it must feel to have your political opponents insult you and call you names?

 Mr. Youngquist stayed in the closet for months about his support for Mr. Trump. He did not put a bumper sticker on his car, for fear it would be keyed.

 The fact that this idiot feared that his car would be keyed is NOT evidence of.. . well., it's not evidence of anything. But it definitely is not evidence of liberals being too mean to poor little conservatives. If I see someone walking toward my car and I lock the doors because I think he looks suspicious, that's not evidence that this stranger is a car thief. It's just me being overly-cautious.  And Mr. Youngtwit fearing someone would key his car almost certainly has more to do with the media he listens to telling him that "liberals" are out to get him than it does with any actual lib/progressive people he might encounter.

And yes, I saw the "in the closet" line, It's really just too pathetic to comment on.

The only place he felt comfortable wearing his Make America Great Again hat was on a vacation in China. Even dating became difficult. Many people on Tinder have a warning on their profile: “Trump supporters swipe left” — meaning, get lost.

Oh my GOD! Are you telling me that some ladies on Tinder don't want to date men whose political beliefs are the opposite of theirs? Discrimination! Next you'll be telling me that some people don't want a relationship with someone of a different religion!
I mean, isn't political compatibility one of the basic criteria people have always had for dating? I was going to ask whether it was likely that Mr. Youngtwit would be interested in dating a liberal woman, but I realized the answer was probably "if her boobs are nice enough."

He came out a few days before the election. On election night, a friend posted on Facebook, “You are a disgusting human being.”
“They were making me want to support him more with how irrational they were being,” Mr. Youngquist said.

*Sigh* No, he did not "come out." Do not cheapen the difficult experience that many LGBT people have had and will have by comparing this douchebag's experience to theirs.

Also, he not only voted for Il Douche, he had a "Make America Hate Again" hat. How much more could he support the guy? "Oh, they make me want to support him more?"  What's he gonna do, vote for him twice next time?

Conservatives have gotten vicious, too, sometimes with Mr. Trump’s encouragement.

Oh, Eleven paragraphs in and we're finally going to acknowledge that? For one tiny throwaway sentence?
Are we going to mention that "conservatives getting vicious" includes things like bomb threats phoned into Jewish centers and mosques being burned down and shot up? Not that that compares to the real  sin of being a jerk on Facebook, but still.

Conservatives have gotten vicious, too, sometimes with Mr. Trump’s encouragement. But if political action is meant to persuade people that Mr. Trump is bad for the country, then people on the fence would seem a logical place to start. Yet many seemingly persuadable conservatives say that liberals are burning bridges rather than building them.

Nope! Of course we're not going to touch on that. Because no matter how many acts of violence, no matter how many hate crimes are committed by Trump supporters, the real villains are of course you dumb old liberals being impolite on social media. If only you liberal jerks would reach out to the voters who chose a bloated racist buffoon with a trail of bankruptcies and trophy wives to be president because Hillary seemed kinda bitchy, surely they would join hands with us across the aisle and usher in a new golden era of bipartisan cooperation. But that will never happen now, because right-wing conservayives got their feelings hurt when you stupid liberal jerks called them names.

The end of America is on your heads, dumb old liberals!

Monday, February 13, 2017

Outrage and adorable babies

Idaho judge orders 19-year-old statutory rapist not to have sex until he is married

Judge Randy Stoker sentenced Cody Duane Scott Herrera of Twin Falls to five to 15 years in prison, but he suspended the sentence for a one-year rider program. If the unmarried Herrera completes the programme, he’ll be released on probation, which requires celibacy unless he weds.

I don't know what to be more outraged about. The fact that another rapist is going unpunished, or that a judge in America thinks he can order someone not to have sex.

Stoker said the probation condition is needed because Herrera told presentence investigators he’s had 34 sexual partners. “If you’re ever on probation with this court, a condition of that will be you will not have sexual relations with anyone except who you’re married to, if you’re married,” Stoker told Herrera.

How many consenting adults this pig has slept with is none of the court's business. It really seems that this judge is more upset about the number of partners that this scumbag has had than the fact that one of those partners was fourteen years old.*388/HERRERA+STILL.jpg
 Also, no he has not.

And I do NOT like being put into a position where I feel like I'm sticking up for a lowlife like Herrera because I am NOT sticking up for a lowlife like Herrera, I hope he never has any kind of sex ever again in his life. But if this judge can order a chum bucket like him not to have sex, what's stopping him, or any other judge, from deciding someone else should be forced to remain celibate? Maybe someone the judge feels has made too many babies or maybe the judge just has a sincere religious belief that people should not get any action before their wedding night. I don't know, but if we allow judges to start telling people what they can and can't do with their naughty bits, that can not end well.

Also, start putting rapists in prison, goddammit! Even if they are young white men with bright futures.

And speaking of government officials who want to take us back to Puritan times:

Tennessee GOP Lawker Files Bill To Make Children Born Through Artificial Insemination Illegitimate

An excuse to post pictures of adorable babies? Yes, Please!

Seriously, though. . .

A bill filed by a Tennessee Republican aims to make children born through artificial insemination illegitimate.

Really? How is that. . . how is that even still a thing? Who still makes a distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" babies? Are there still people out there saying "you can not inherit our father's title, for you are a bastard!"

WMC reported that state House Representative Terry Lynn Weaver is sponsoring HB 1406 to repeal Tennessee current statute, TCA 68-3-306, which declares that children born through artificial insemination are the "legitimate" child of the mother's husband.

I don't know which is a sadder statement, the fact that this nincompoop is trying to repeal this law, or the fact that this law had to be passed in the first place. Was there a problem with couples going to fertility clinics and then the husband saying What? I'm not the biological father? You whore!"

Does the law in Tennessee distinguish somehow between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children? Is there some benefit given to those whose parents were legally married, or denied to those whose parents weren't? I can't imagine even in Tennessee that "legitimacy" holds any legal status.

Pictured: Totally legit.

So what is even the motivation for trying to make this change?

Last year, Weaver was one of 53 GOP lawmakers who got involved in a same-sex marriage divorce that dealt with the custody of a child born through artificial insemination. Weaver and the other lawmakers asserted that the lesbian wife of the child's mother should not be considered a "legitimate" parent under the current statute.

Of course! Of course it has to do with the gay! Of course it has to do with a way to try and hurt or punish same sex couples. Of course! How did I not guess?

Okay, one more adorable baby, and then it's off to bed!