World's most horrifying Christmas Card

What the HELL is this shit?














Someone named Hannah Hawkes, who is presumably a ladyperson, took this photo and posted it on-line as if it weren't sickening at all.

I know, it's supposed to be a joke but that doesn't make it any better. It might make it even worse, because presenting this type of misogyny as lighthearted, harmless fun just enforces the idea that it's no big deal to humiliate and degrade your wife and daughters.
Look, whatever this ass and his wife find amusing is their own business, they're both presumably consenting adults, but what do you think you're teaching those liitle girls? And what are you teaching that little boy? What kind of relationships do you think these kids are going to have once they're old enough to start dating? When they've been taught from an early age that females are annoyances who need to shut up or we'll shut them up, what chance do they have at developing healthy relationships? Is there any way this little boy doesn't grow up to be, if not an outright abuser, at least someone who disrespects and devalues women? And is there any way these little girls don't grow up with serious self-esteem issues?
And it's not just because of this one picture. This picture doesn't happen if this isn't the normal family dynamic in this household. But it's alarming that the father (and maybe the mother) are so comfortable with the family misogyny that they would use this as their Christmas card as if this is nothing of which to be ashamed.

So, does Hannah Hawkes have an explanation for this horror show?

She does!

Oh, surprisingly, she's smug, self-righteous and one of those people who think they're being bold and daring by saying "merry Christmas" (in all caps!)

So you don't support abuse or the degradation of women, you just document it?
It was taken by the request of the family? So what? If someone requests something offensive, you say no. It's easy. They say "Hey, Hannah, would you please take a photo of me drowning these puppies?" and you say "No. I would not like any part of that, for I am a decent human being."

This photo was taken with humor in mind? You think that makes it better? You think that the fact that you find this kind of disturbing tableau amusing makes it less offensive?

They are not abusive to their children in any shape or form? Um, except in that photo. I assume you mean that the little girls don't get beaten or molested by their parents, but in this photo of yours, they're clearly being told that they are worthless. That no one wants to hear what they have to say. And that they are absolutely less valued than the male members of the family.
Look at the picture:


Do the little girls look like they're in on the joke?
Do you think that they see the "humor" in it?
They look miserable. They look like kidnapping victims, sitting with their hands together as if bound at the wrists with tape over their mouths. It looks like exhibit A in an child abduction case.

And you're going to sit there and smugly assure us that "no one was harmed during the process?" Just because they aren't being physically harmed doesn't mean no harm is being done. They will bear the emotional scars for life.

Good Christmas Songs

Judging from the comments on the recent "Bad Christmas Songs" post, it seems like I have a few Grinchy McScroogeypants among my readers. Well, we can't have that. This is the Chaos Compound, not Communist China! So, to dispel any notions of "all Christmas songs are terrible," here are some good Christmas songs for your holiday enjoyment.

On Second Thought. . .

. . .maybe it's best that you don't show up to work at all, Marco.

Marco Rubio Pushes to Block Low-Cost, High-Speed Broadband

In a rare senatorial act, full-time Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio joined with a handful of fellow legislators on Friday in an attempt to block local municipalities from undercutting big telecom companies by providing cheap, fast internet service

Rubio, who is raising campaign cash from the telecom industry for his presidential campaign, fired off a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency to allow states to block municipal broadband services.

Because conservatives really love local governance, ya know.
So a city, say Chatanooga, decides that it wants to offer its citizens low-cost broadband access. And it does and everyone's happy.

For less than $70 a month, [Chattanooga] consumers enjoy an ultrahigh-speed fiber-optic connection that transfers data at one gigabit per second. That is 50 times the average speed for homes in the rest of the country, and just as rapid as service in Hong Kong, which has the fastest Internet in the world. (source)

Rubio, and his fellow free-marketeers in the Senate's teabagging society, would like the state government of Tennessee to be able to step in and outlaw the city doing something good for its citizens.

Rubio, who notoriously has pretty much stopped showing up to work because he "hates it" there, decided that this was actually worth taking time away from his quixotic campaign for president and actually doing something.

For Rubio, it's not enough that he not do anything that might benefit people, he wants to prevent anyone else from doing anything that might be beneficial.

And, in true neo-Confederate fashion, he phrased his twisted logic in the language of "states' rights."

Rubio joined Sens. Deb Fischer, Ron Johnson, John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, John Barrasso, Michael Enzi, and Tim Scott in protesting the Commission’s interference in “overriding [Tennessee and North Carolina’s] sovereign authority to regulate their own municipalities.”

Hmm, suddenly you're all in favor of government regulations? How odd. I wonder why that might be?

Few candidates have closer ties to corporate telecom interests than Marco Rubio. AT&T lobbyist Scott Weaver, who works as the public policy co-chair of high-powered DC law firm Wiley Rein, is a close Rubio associate. Weaver, also assisting in litigation against the FCC to curb municipal broadband, is one of three lobbyist money-bundlers working on behalf of the Rubio campaign. He has raised at least $33,000 so far for the Florida senator.
Rubio has lived off AT&T’s generosity since his days in the Florida legislature, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, including $22,000 in personal expenses, on a state Republican Party American Express card that was paid each month with funds donated by AT&T and other special interest

 Oh, and here's the best part:

"The [Federal Communications Commission] is promoting government-owned networks at the possible expense of private sector broadband providers," the letter reads. "The FCC should not be in the business of choosing winners and losers in the competitive broadband marketplace."

Um, okay, first of all, in most places, the broadband market is not very competitive. How many choices do you have where you live for  broadband service? Here, we have Comcast, AT&T, and I'm not sure if Clear is still around, but it's not like shopping for shoes or something where there are dozens of brands to choose from. There are very limited options. And a municipal broadband provider makes the market MORE competetive. The more competing providers there are, the more competeitive the market - it's the definition of the word! And if the for-profit companies can't compete with the municipal provider, hey tough luck. That's how the market is supposed to work, right? That's what capitalists have been preaching since forever, survival of the fittest, right? Whoever provides the best product at the best price thrives while competing companies either adapt and improve or fall by the wayside.

Plus, people like this. If people don't like municipal broadband, they won't sign up for it and it will go under. Problem solved. But since people do want this, and the city is willing and able to provide it, how do you justify the big boot of government crushing the city's efforts under its heel? (that's capitalist talk, right? I'm sorry, I'm not really fluent.)

 So, seriously Marco. Just go back to your flailing, moribund presidential campaign. Don't try to govern. We're better off with you doing nothing.

Things that made me think of other things

1. Saw "Frozen" on an airplane.





It made me think of this:










2. Saw this cat video on Tumblr









It made me think of this:

Defeat ISIS with this one weird trick!

Okay, it's actually 7 weird tricks, but Dr. Ben Carson has the solution to defeating ISIS.

Ben Carson: Destroy ISIS with these 7 steps

Guaranteed to work! Just as surely as the pyramids are filled with corn!

Congress must formally declare war on ISIS.

Yeah, because all we're doing now is dropping bombs on them. If we get a formal declaration of war, which you probably wouldn't because the only way Congress can issue a declaration of war is if the President asks for one and if President Obama asked for a declaration of war against ISIS, Congress would probably pass the "Defense of ISIS" bill, but if we did officially declare war on ISIS, then what? American soldiers on the ground in Iraq? Again? Honestly, it's been done to death.

The U.S. should lead the formation of a military coalition in the Middle East.

 With whom? Which countries do you think are going to be up for yet another coalition of the sort of grudgingly willing to fight yet another endless war in the Middle East?

The U.S. coalition should establish a “massive” military force of Sunni Syrian men to take on ISIS.

You mean like the Iraqi army we've been training for the last 10 years? The ones who saw ISIS coming and thought "fuck it, this isn't even my home town," dropped their weapons and fled?

Granted, those were mostly Shia, because we kicked  the Sunnis out of the Army, leaving them to form ISIS, but sure, we'd probably get tons of Sunni men to go to war against their fellow Sunnis. You know, if Uncle Sam is the one asking. They'd be greeted as liberators!

A refugee safe zone should be established in Syria. 

How? How would that happen? Who would be establishing and protecting this "safe zone?" The Syrians? Their country is in shambles. If there was any zone that was safe, they'd be in it. How do you think someone is going to walk into the middle of the chaos of a civil war and say "hey, fellas? From now on, um, this section here is, like, off-limits for killing, mmkay?"

Congress should establish a war-time emergency visa and immigration policy.  

Um, "no vacancy" is not really an immigration policy. We actually have an immigration policy already. It allows for refugees to come in to the "safe zone" known as the US, provided they pass enough checks and jump through enough hoops. An emergency war-time immigration policy might be a good idea if that policy is "get these refugees in here, get them safe, then we'll sort things out," but I'm pretty sure you meant the opposite of that because you are afraid of  refugees because you are a coward.

Oh my God, they're terrifying!

U.S. military personnel should patrol the U.S. southern border and designated areas along the northern border.

Yes, we need to stop ISIS militants from storming over the borders from their strongholds in Guadalajara and Montreal!

Oh, God. Here they come!

The U.S. should designate the Muslim Brotherhood and similar organizations as terrorist organizations, and fully investigate the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Yes. Let's investigate the group whose goal is to improve relations between Muslims and the West. They sound pretty dangerous.
Also, you lost the right to do these kinds of investigations sometime between claiming that Huma Abedin was a Muslim Brotherhood mole and the fourth or fifth Benghazi sideshow.

Huma Abedin. The Muslim extremist with the Jewish husband.