Seriously, Mike Huckabee?

When asked in an interview why he continues to oppose marriage rights for same-sex couples, even in the face of the overwhelming obviousness of how wrong he is, Huckabee said this:

". . . when people say, 'Why don't you just kind of get on the right side of history?' I said, 'You've got to understand, this for me is not about the right side or the wrong side of history, this is the right side of the Bible, and unless God rewrites it, edits it, sends it down with his signature on it, it's not my book to change,'" he added, as quoted by CNN.

Oooookay. . .

 So, um. . . you do know that the Bible you have now didn't float down from Heaven with God's autograph on it, right? I mean, if the only way you'll change your position on an issue is if you get instructions signed, sealed, and delivered from the Almighty Himself, then I don't see how you can base your current position on a book of such uncertain authorage. No one knows who wrote the various books and letters contained in the Good Book. We attribute some of them to Moses, others to St Paul, but no one really knows. But I can guarantee you they weren't carved into stone tablets atop Mt Sinai. People wrote them. People wrote down their thoughts and ideas about the Deity and someone collected those writings and called it the Bible.

And don't pretend like you don't already perform your own edits on the Scriptures. You seem to have no qualms about editing out the parts about "judge not, lest ye be judged," or "sell all you have and give the money to the poor." or "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven." You have no problem ignoring those parts, but the part about gay marriage which isn't even mentioned in the Bible, that part is sacrosanct? That part that isn't there, that's the part that you couldn't possibly presume to change?

Are you sure it's not just that you're a hater?

"I'm not against anybody. I'm really not," he said. "I'm not a hater. I'm not homophobic." 

Uh, yeah. . . Pretty sure you are, Gomer.

My Apologies

I know.
I know I've been very neglectful of my duties lately.
Work has been in - sane!
Hopefully, things will soon be back to normal.
We appreciate your patience.

Stupid person says maybe the studiest thing ever

This incredibly stupid person is named Patrice Lewis.



 You know she's extra-stupid from the get-go, because she writes for Wing Nut Daily. And no, I don't normally cruise around on WND, but there was a link on Wonkette.

Anyway, as you might imagine, her entire article, entitled "I live the life feminists hate," is stunningly, head-slappingly stupid. But this one sentence really stood out as maybe the stupidest thing ever.

As much as feminists want to deny reality, the fact remains that men and women are biologically different. (Scandalous, I know.)

Wow! Yes, that's exactly what feminists do. They totally deny the reality that men and women are biologically different, hence the old feminist slogan "what do you mean men don't have vaginas?"

And this sentence, pointing out that men have wieners and women have, um, something other than wieners? I think? anyway, this sentence is used to support her central thesis that the best way to have a happy relationship is to let the dude be in charge. Because otherwise, why wouldn't everyone have the same bodies, hmm? Ever think of that, feminists?

 Oh, and the triumphalism with which she tosses out her knowledge of facts and her charge that "feminists" somehow try to deny this "fact," so touche', case closed, chalk up another win for Patrice!

Honest to God, this whole article is really that stupid. Starting with sentence # 1:

In the wake of some feminist headlines this week (such as this and this), I am going to confess something so shocking, so appalling and so outrageously backward to the progressive cause that I’m certain feminists the world over will faint in horror.

Ready? Here it goes: My husband is the head of our household.

Oh, yes. Shocking. Because we had no idea that old-fashioned people still existed. It never occurred to us coastal elites that some people still live with a 19th Century mindset. Catch me, I'm fainting. Zzzzzzzzz. . .

Actually, to be fair, it gets stupid even before the first sentence. Check out the byline:

REAL AMERICA

I live the life feminists hate

Exclusive: Patrice Lewis boldly declares, 'My husband is the head of our household'

"Real America!" Of course, because people who have relationships based on mutual respect and equality are obviously not real Americans.

And "boldly declares?" Mt God, she really thinks this is some courageous declaration! Oh, she's a rebel, all right. She's thinking outside the box and she's not a afraid to go there!

In today’s world marinated with progressive morals and ideals, it’s tantamount to heresy for a woman to freely admit that her husband heads the household. But let’s face it: It makes life easier for both my husband and me.

You know, any time someone begins a thought with "let's face it," you know they're going to say something stunningly stupid as though it were inescapably true. And Patrice doesn't disappoint.

 I like to think that God in His divine wisdom came up with the spiffy concept of a division of labor for the sake of efficiency. Divisions of labor are utilized the world over in the workplace to increase efficiency. Why not try it at home as well?

Geezus, where to start? I guess with "spiffy?" Spiffy? Is she trying to be cute? Trying to be clever? Trying to be funny? Or is this a word she actually uses in real life? Since she appears not to have been a teen in the 1950's, I gotta think she's trying to be clever in some way, but, um "suh-wing and a miss!"

 

Also, you really want to model your marriage on the workplace? Would you like your husband to be able to fire you? Or maybe outsource your duties to someone younger and cheaper? You think the workplace dynamic is something you'd like to import into your home life? Oh, you are the last of the hopeless romantics, aren't you?

And, yes, most marriages and other domestic arrangements utilize a division of labor. For instance, I generally handle most food-related tasks and the Missus handles most money-related jobs. That way, we can live in a house and enjoy meals. That's perfectly normal. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with one person being the "head" of the house.

 I am the Heart of this household, and as everyone knows, a body is no good without a heart, just as a body is no good without a head. We need both, and the fact that I view my husband as my Head in no way diminishes my importance as his Heart.

The kids are the lungs of the house. My in-laws are the spleen. Grandma is the liver. It's pretty complicated.

A wise Head takes advice and counsel from his Heart. My husband and I discuss all household decisions and mutually agree on nearly everything. But if there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance.

But why?
Why couldn't he defer to you? Or why couldn't the two of you work out some sort of compromise? Why couldn't whoever feels less strongly defer to the one who is more passionate on the subject? Why should the default be you always deferring to him? For the record, it would be just as sad if he felt that he had to always defer to you. Why does either party have to have deference be their default position?

Why is it oppressive or subservient to look to one’s husband for guidance and strength, rather than to feminists? Why can’t it be a freeing thing for a woman to lean on her husband? Unless she’s unmarried, it’s comforting when a woman doesn’t have to “do it all.”

See, that's what you call a false choice. Actually a couple of them. Your only two options are not " look to one’s husband for guidance and strength" or "look to 'feminists.'" One might, for instance look within for strength. One might be surprised what one might find. Or one might ask for guidance from an older relative, say a mother or aunt or maybe look to one's friends. I don't know, there are tons of options.
Also, the choice isn't between looking to your husband for strength and guidance on leaning on him or having to do it all yourself. It's wonderful if you have someone in your life that can help you shoulder your burdens. That doesn't mean you have to give up your own ability to shoulder things.

Much of the hostility toward stay-at-home moms appears to stem from the notion that home is an awful place to be.

Also, it seems to stem mainly from your fevered imagination. Who is hostile towards stay-at-home moms? I've never heard anyone directing any hostility towards them.

But a home ruled over by a domestic diva who appreciates her man is a lovely, warm, welcoming place, a refuge from an often cruel world, an anchor of peace in a tough economy, a haven of tranquility against the rigors of the outside world.

And men know this very well, because they are the slayers of dragons and our knights in shining armor whose efforts permit us to create those homes.

Wow! Just. . . wow!
You know there are many women who create homes without the aid of a dragon-slaying armor guy, right? My sister, for instance. Her husband died at a tragically young age and she has made a wonderful loving home for herself and her children - believe it or not, all by herself!




 So I guess my point is fuck Patrice Lewis, the stupidest person ever!

Stupidest People Say the Stupidest Things

Stupidest person # 1: Donald Trump




O fer fuck sake. . .

Yes, Mr. Trump, that's exactly how it works. Even though there is exactly ZERO evidence linking vaccines to autism and even though researchers believe that signs of autism are visible in fetuses who have never been vaccinated, yes, that's probably what happens. Kid goes to doctor, comes home and says "mommy, I don't feel good. I think I'm autistic now."
Who found these "many" cases you refer to? The same investigators who were finding all that unbelievable stuff in Hawaii?



Jeezus Christ! It doesn't matter what you believe! You are not a doctor, you are not a scientist, you are not even a reasonably intelligent person. It wasn't enough to link yourself to Orly Taitz, now you're throwing in your lot with Jenny McCarthy? Kids will die because stupid self-important blowhards like you scare gullible parents into leaving their children unprotected from preventable diseases. Shut the fuck up, you stupid bag of assholes!

Stupidest person # 2: Ted Nugent

Ted Nugent calls mayor ‘racist,’ ‘anti-Texas’ after town pays him not to show

Wow, Ted Nugent calling someone else a racist. That's really a case of the pot calling the kettle a pot!

“I hear from reliable sources that the mayor is a racist and was offended that my band performs mostly African-American-influenced music,” Mr. Nugent, 65, told the Star-Telegram.

Oh my God. African-American influenced music? Is it possible that anyone could listen to the dreck Nugent performs and hear any echoes of "African-American music?" Could anyone be whiter than ted Nugent? I mean, I understand the concept of the blues having a baby and naming it rock and roll, but the "rawk" music Ted performs has absolutely no vestige of any soul/r&b/blues influence.  He makes Pat Boone seem like a soul singer.

 “Sounds like a sad case of anti-Texas in Texas.”

Anti-Texas? What the fuck does Nugent have to do with Texas? He's "the Motor-City Madman," right? Last I checked, the Motor City is in Michigan.

“Everyone knows ol’ Uncle Ted is the ultimate Independence Day rockout with the ultimate all-American, soul music, rockin’ soundtrack of defiance, liberty and freedom,” he said.

Ah. I see. Also, everyone knows that only complete douchenozzles refer to themselves in the third person, especially using a self-given nickname.

 

Lookin' at you, "Black Mamba!"

 



But, sure, that's probably why they decided not to invite you to perform at their Fourth of July party, despite your Sarah Palin-style word salad you tossed there with the freedom an' the defiance and whatnot. It couldn't be that they decided it might be a bit controversial to celebrate America with a person who referred to her President as  "sub-human mongrel." And it couldn't be that someone at the mayor's office sobered up and realized that a family-friendly event might not want to feature a guy who sings songs about "poontang" while wearing a loincloth.

Wang dang, what a sweet poontang
A-shakin' my thang as a rang-a-dang-dang in the bell

She's so sweet when she yanks on my meat
Down on the street you know she can't be beat
What the hell

Amerrrrrica, Amerrrica.
God shed his grace on theeeeeee. . . .

This is what we get

This is a predictable result of the austerity framework that has dominated our politics since the 1980's.
Because we have such fear of taxation and government spending (except on war, of course) that we don't fund our institutions. The institutions have to seek funding from other sources. Those other sources tend so be wealthy megalomaniac nuts who, unsurprisingly, want something in return for their "investment."

Like, for instance, YOUR SOUL!!!!!

 So we get shit like this:

(Via Salon)

A major funder of “creation museums” has been selected — strange as it may seem — to be the commencement speaker at Montana’s leading institution of science, Montana Tech, the mining and engineering school in Butte that has produced some of the world’s top geologists.

The speaker is Greg Gianforte, a conservative billionaire whose philanthropic endeavors include funding museums whose purpose is to discredit Darwinism and persuade visitors that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that North America’s geology was carved by Noah’s flood, and that dinosaurs coexisted with early humans.

 

Now why would a science school invite an anti-science fanatic to give its commencement address?

 

Funny you should ask!

 

Odder still is the fact that Gianforte is no stranger to science at all. He is a computer scientist, who built a massively successful company. . . And he has donated money to Montana Tech for its computer science program

 

 

 

The objectors are not only upset about Gianforte, but also the inclusion of his wife, Susan, in the program.  She was invited to co-deliver the commencement speech with her husband.  Susan Gianforte is a vociferous opponent of laws designed to protect gay people from being targets of discrimination.  She believes businesses should have the legal right to refuse service to gay customers, and she has been leading the charge against an anti-discrimination ordinance that is now being debated by the city council of Bozeman, where the Gianfortes live.

 

So, pretty much exactly the type of couple that an institute of higher learning would want to associate itself with. But in these times we live in, everything's for sale.