If anyone is capable of blowing this, it's Hillary!

You know, it should be a no-brainer. Any Democrat with a pulse should be able to mop up the floor with Donald Trump. But if there is any politician capable of blowing this, it's Hillary Clinton.

At some point in our recent history, the two parties absorbed opposite lessons. The Republicans learned to play to their base. keep 'em all wound up and scared, whether it's the fear of dirty hippies with their sex and drugs,

I don't know what that stuff is, but I bet it's smokable! 

or fear of Commies in our midst,

or this terrifying scene,

you keep your base scared to death and tell them that you're coming to save them if only they vote those darn liberals out of the way.

Democrats somehow learned the opposite lesson. Ignore your base. Hell, actively distance yourself from your base. Deny them thrice before the cock crows twice and "triangulate" by staking out a position just a bit to the left of wherever the GOP is at the moment and try to capture that elusive "moderate voter."

Look, a soccer mom!

And no one has internalized this lesson more than Hillary Clinton. At a time when she needs to try to appease Bernie supporters and show the progressive wing of the party that she shares at least some of their values and concerns, she extends to them, not an open hand, but a middle finger in the form of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Fairly or not (fairly, I think), Wasserman Schultz is seen as public enemy #1 by a lot of Berners, who are furious that she (allegedly) colluded with HRC to defeat Senator Sanders. Schultz became such a distraction that she was forced to step down as head of the DNC. And was IMMEDIATELY hired by Hillary Rodham Clinton. She might as well have said to Bernie's supporters "oh, you hate Debbie? You see her as the personification of corruption? Then I'm with her! Fuck all y'all!"

She has clearly staked out the position that she neither needs nor wants the votes of real progressives because she's confident that enough Republican voters will desert their party because of Trump and vote for her that she can win without us.

Then, as if to drive home the point, she invites Democrat/ Republican/whatever he is now  weasel Mike Bloomberg to speak on her behalf at the convention, trying to lure more centrist conservatives to her campaign.

Is this going to work? It might. Only because Donald Trump is the most loathsome and frightening nominee of a major party we've ever seen. And it god damn well better work, because she god damn well needs to win this thing.

Which means that we need to vote for her. Because she is the lesser of two evils. And no one wants to vote for the lesser of two evils, but when your only legitimate choices are greater evil and lesser evil, you have a moral obligation to choose the lesser. And just a common sense interest in having the lesser evil.

If you are given the choice of a punch in the stomach or a knife in the heart, you choose the punch in the stomach. And no, you're not going to enjoy the punch in the stomach, and no, you didn't deserve a punch in the stomach, but the alternative was so much worse that you'd be a fool not to choose the stomach punch.

Thank you, sir may I have another?

Okay, here's a better analogy. Suppose you are convicted of a crime which you did not commit. And the judge offers you a choice of prison time or community service. And you say "well, I don't deserve any punishment, having been falsely convicted, and I won't dignify this miscarriage of  justice by choosing either undeserved penalty. I'll just let you decide, Judge!" You'd have to be an idiot to do that, right?

Tell us again about how you stood up to that lousy judge! Then we're both gonna fuck you.

So, yes, you do have to vote for Hillary. At least if you live in a swing state. And not because she "deserves" your vote or should be "rewarded" for various misdeeds by receiving your vote. It's not about her. It's about you. And me. It's about us and whether or not wee have to spend the next four years being governed by a childish buffoon with fascist leanings. We're going to have to put up with Hillary for at least four years to avoid that fate. And if we have any sense,  we'll have four years of grassroots organizing to find a primary challenger for 2020. But for now, we have to get behind Hillary, because she's pursuing a really dumb strategy. And if there's one politician capable of losing to Trump, it's Hillary Rodham Clinton.

whiny baby of the day

Michelle Obama said a thing. So naturally, conservative morons are finding a reason to be all butthurt about it.

Home Talk John Gibson

THE HOUSE THAT SLAVES BUILT

Michelle Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention has been widely praised as the highlight (so far) of the convention.
No mention of ISIS, but no surprise. Why would she? After all, it’s the bloody handprint on her husband’s record.

Oh. I didn't realize Michelle Obama had married George W. Bush!

“Every morning I wake up in a house that was built by slaves.”
I’ll admit I find the line aggravating. But not for the first time; she has delivered the line before.
Why am I annoyed? Not because the statement doesn’t have some element of truth. Was the White House was built by slaves? Sort of. Yes.

But you're going to find a reason to complain about it anyway, right?

When Politifact came to this conclusion–“We rate it true”– it glossed over this from the White House Historical Association:
“Enslaved people quarried and cut the rough stone that was later dressed and laid by Scottish masons to erect the walls of the president’s house. The slaves joined a workforce that included local white laborers and artisans from Maryland and Virginia, as well as immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, and other European nations.”

So. . . . because not all of the labor was performed by slaves. . . . um. . . what is the objection exactly?

Pffft. Those white people hardly did anything. Slaves built the White House. At least, that’s the view of the First Lady.

Ohhhhhh, I get it now. The problem is that white people don't get enough credit.

Whenn the First Lady mentioned the FACT that slave labor was used in the construction of the White House, she should have said “Every morning I wake up in a house that was built by slaves, in part. Also by Irish and Scottish workers and local white folks." That would have made the point about how far America has come in dealing with its racism problem much more poignant!

A couple relevant facts: it was 1792. The land for the District of Columbia was ceded to the federal government by two slave states. Slaves lived in the area and were employed in building much of the capitol.
What, then, is the purpose of appropriating the construction of the White House to black slave workers, neglecting to mention other workers?

Um, maybe because the slave labor is the only relevant part of the story? It's like if I tell you the story about the time I met NFL star Dwight Clark and you say, "yes, but don't forget there were other people in that restaurant! What were the names of the other customers? Who were the restaurant employees? Why leave out all the non-football playing people in the story?' It's because the only two people that matter in the story are me and Dwight Clark (who could not have been nicer, by the way. Real class act!)





Why get bogged down in mentioning all the other people who are not pertinent to the epic tale of the time I met Dwight Clark?

Mrs. Obama’s obsession with pointing an accusing finger at the “slave built” White House looks as though it is intended to pour salt in the wound of slavery, to upset today’s African Americans. To remind black Americans today that two centuries ago people in this country were enslaved is to restate the obvious, and her aim to besmirch the image of the White House is callous and calculating.

Yes, if Michelle Obama hadn't mentioned it, everyone would totally have forgotten about slavery by now. And "today's African Americans" would have nothing to be upset about. Except maybe that they keep getting murdered by police who keep getting away with it, and maybe the fact that commenters on your website (and others) keep referring to our first black president as an ape, monkey, or worse.

And obviously, Mrs Obama's point in mentioning this totally true fact was not to point proudly to how far we've come in the last 2 centuries, but to "besmirch the image of the White House?" Whatever that means?

Also, how could it possibly be besmirched any more than it has been by some of its previous residents?

Weirdest Moment of the RNC

Of course there were a lot of weird moments at this years RNC shitshow. From "Doctor" Ben Carson trying to link Hillary Clinton with Lucifer to Melanoma Trump apparently getting pranked by her speechwriters, including ending her speech by getting Rick-Rolled. 

There was the duck dynasty idiot telling the assembled dullards dolts  and dunces  that Donald Trump would "have their back," which is one of those expressions that sounds nice but doesn't really mean anything, and what meaning it has doesn't really fit a guy who has made a career out of stiffing contractors and swindling investors.

There was some screamy minister leading the crowd in chanting "All Lives Matter!" even though he's black, then saying he dreamed of a society where education and good jobs replaced mass incarceration as if he had no idea whose convention he was addressing.


There was this creepiness:






 I didn't have the stomach to watch much of the debacl, but I think the oddest moment for me, of the odd moments I did see was the speech by Scott "Chachi" Baio.  I mean, first of all, what the hell was he even doing there? Do people even remember who he was? And it's not like he's some sort of activist or politically involved or intelligent or employable or anything. But he did manage the oddest line of the entire tiny part of the convention I managed to sit through. He said that Donald Trump was
 “a man doing this from the goodness of his heart and genuinely wants to help.”

Donald Trump and "the goodness of his heart," That's two phrases I never thought I'd hear in the same sentence. It's like one of those things that you just assume has never been spoken by human tongue like "No, that's too many French fries," or "boy, I can't get enough of that Katy Perry!" or "Madam, please! Remove your mouth from my genitalia at once!"

How did Scott Baio get invited to speak? From what I understand, not only were all the speaking slots filled, but there were dozens of prominent Republicans begging to be asked to appear. They even had to bump Tim Tebow after he said that he had never agreed to appear and would not do so if asked. So who didn't make the cut?
My sources tell me that the following prominent dignitaires who were bumped, including:


This Chair:




This inanimate carbon rod:








Jim Carrey's butt





Snidely Whiplash




Patrick Starr



And Cthulu





 

The Itchy and Scratchy School of Journalism

Whilst I was away, this headline appeared in the USA Today "newspaper."

Trump, Clinton both threaten free press: Column

Carol E. Lee and Jeff Mason 9:50 a.m. EDT July 14, 2016

I know Trump has stated that if elected he will loosen the libel laws to allow him to sue reporters who write negative stories about him. That seems like a pretty serious threat. But in what way has HRC threatened the Fourth Estate?

Well, let's see.
Oh, first of all, in the interests of full disclosure, let me once again state that I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. I have a lot of issues with her, but next to Trump, she looks like George Freaking Washington.

Anyway, let's see how the comparison shakes out.

The public’s right to know is infringed if certain reporters are banned from a candidate's events because the candidate doesn’t like a story they have written or broadcast, as Donald Trump has done.

Okay. You'll get no argument here.

Similarly, refusing to regularly answer questions from reporters in a press conference, as Hillary Clinton has, deprives the American people of hearing from their potential commander-in-chief in a format that is critical to ensuring he or she is accountable for policy positions and official acts.

Oh, sure because that's totally the same. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . wait, what?

"She doesn't hold enough press conferences" is the equivalent of "he bans reporters who dare criticize him?" In what universe?


This is just the latest example of what I like to call "Itchy and Scratchy journalism."

If you've never seen "Itchy and Scratchy," the cartoon-within-a-cartoon featured on the Simpsons, it goes something like this. There's a cat and a mouse. Each episode begins with the cat either minding his own business or trying to be friends with the mouse. Then the mouse murders the cat in some spectacularly gruesome and sadistic way.

 But the opening title sequence of each episode is this:






The lyrics to the theme song are:
They fight
And fight 
And fight and fight and fight.
Fight, fight, fight!
Fight, fight, fight!
The Itchy and Scratchy Shooooow!!!!!


And sure, it's funny. But it gives a completely false impression of what the show is all about. They don't fight and fight. The mouse just eviscerates the cat for no reason other than his own psychotic enjoyment. But if all you saw was the opening, you would think it was some sort of fair fight between equally-matched opponents, both of whom, hate the other.

Similarly, if , like most news consumers, you just glanced at the headline and maybe skimmed the article, you could be forgiven for thinking that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are equally villainous in their treatment of the press.

I remember the first time I noticed this phenomenon. It was during the 2000 Presidentiual campaign, after one of Bush and Gore's debates. The article listed any number of instances where G.W. Bush had lied, distorted, or otherwise told falsehoods. Then they tacked on a bit about Al Gore exaggerating some statistic and slapped on a headline that read something to the effect of  "Both Candidates Stray From the Truth" or something like that.


Anyway, this is why we can't have nice things. Because no one in the media has the nerve to stand up and say "hey, you know what? Both sides don't always do it! Sometimes it's just the one side."

So no one will say "by refusing to even consider a nominee for the Supreme Court, the Republicans have entered in an unprecedented level of partisanship, pointless obstruction, and politicizing of the court." When's the last time you heard Merrick Garland's name on the news? Today, he just broke the record for the longest time waiting to be confirmed, did you hear about that on the evening news? And not only has he broken that record, but he's broken it without a single hearing. It's completely unprecedented, but no reporters have the guts to poin it out. It's just "partisan gridlock," or "business as usual in Washington" and **shrug** what can you do? The two sides just can't get along!


And that's why Trump advisors can say things like this:

“This whole thing disgusts me, Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason,”

or this:

@HillaryClinton You should be tried for treason, murder, and crimes against the US Constitution... then hung on the Mall in Washington, DC

— Michael Folk (@MichaelFolk34) July 16, 2016

Without it even being a story.

That's why people could keep getting beaten up at Trump rallies without it being a major scandal. They're so married to their supposed "objectivity," that they can't bring themselves to admit that the two parties are not the same, not mirror images of each other. One party has gone completely off the rails and the press stands by and says "Gosh, the emperor's suit is fantastic!"

Which is why it should be heartening to hear that Chris Cuomo actually said the following to Trump surrogate Paul Manafort:

“I can't move on,” Cuomo said. “Because you keep lying about it, so I can't move on from it.”

Hearing a journalist actually state the obvious, that someone is telling a lie, is about as rare as hearing Pavarotti covering Led Zeppelin. But, of course, the exchange took place during a discussion about Melanoma Trump's plagiarized speech. No journalist (no mainstream, corporate journalist, I should say) would ever call a lie a lie when it's about something important. All we're likely to get from them on issues on importance is " they fight. And fight. And fight and fight and fight. . ."

Fraud of the Day

Well this is pretty shameless. Some snake-oil company called "GOLO" is pimping their more-than-likely-worthless product in TV ads with this "expert" spokesthing.

Yeah, that's FOX News's favorite pshychiatrist "Doctor" Keith Ablow.
And they don't even have the decency to point out that he is not a dietician, or a nutritionist, or really any kind of an expert on weight loss. He may not even be a real psychiatrist.

Oh, and if you aren't familiar with his hackery, here's all you need to know about "Doctor" Keith Ablow and his expertise on weight loss: (via Media Matters) he " described First Lady Michelle Obama as too fat to be credible while offering advice to children on nutrition."

"If you've struggled to lose weight, it's not your fault. The culprit that may be sabotaging your ability to lose weight could very well be Insulin Resistance." ~ Dr. Keith Ablow

Okay, I'll bite. What is "insulin resistance?"

Well, according to the National Institutes of Health, it is actually a real thing.

In insulin resistance, muscle, fat, and liver cells do not respond properly to insulin and thus cannot easily absorb glucose from the bloodstream. As a result, the body needs higher levels of insulin to help glucose enter cells.
The beta cells in the pancreas try to keep up with this increased demand for insulin by producing more. As long as the beta cells are able to produce enough insulin to overcome the insulin resistance, blood glucose levels stay in the healthy range.
Over time, insulin resistance can lead to type 2 diabetes and prediabetes because the beta cells fail to keep up with the body's increased need for insulin. Without enough insulin, excess glucose builds up in the bloodstream, leading to diabetes, prediabetes, and other serious health disorders

Okay, but what about weight gain?

Although the exact causes of insulin resistance are not completely understood, scientists think the major contributors to insulin resistance are excess weight and physical inactivity.
Some experts believe obesity, especially excess fat around the waist, is a primary cause of insulin resistance.

Ah. I see. So according to the NIH, obesity can cause insulin resistance. According to "Doctor" Keith Ablow, it's insulin resistance causing obesity.

And, if you are someone who doesn't know that Keith Ablow is one of the biggest quacks to have ever faked expertise, you might be wondering "gosh, could I have this insulin resistance? Is that why I'm overweight? Here I thought it was all the cheesecake and lethargy, but if this doctor says so. . ." And if you did think that, you might take this quick Cosmo-test to see if you do indeed have a serious medical condition which should really have been diagnosed by an actual physician, but who has time for all that?"

The following are indicators of impaired insulin performance or Insulin Resistance. Review the 10 indicators below to see how many apply to you:

 

• My waist is greater than 40” for men or 35” for women

So, if you're a larger-sized person, you can pretty much assume that you have it. 

• I gain weight easily or have difficulty losing weight

So if you are one of what medical experts refer to as "most people," you probably have it.

• I have dieted before and gained the weight back

This also puts you into that high-risk category that doctors refer to as "people."

• I am more than 20 pounds overweight I have low energy or suffer from fatigue I suffer from hunger and cravings

 If you are overweight, that's clear evidence that this condition is the thing that is causing you to be overweight. That's the scientific method in action!

• I am an emotional or stress eater

So, if you eat because of your emotional stress, um. . . that still counts, somehow? Like your weight gain couldn't possibly be due to overeating just because you tend to overeat! I diagnose insulin resistance!

• I consume meal replacement shakes, skip meals or eliminate key food groups like fat or carbs.

If you are currently on a diet - Yep, you have it! That's a sure sing of insulin resisitance, because why else would you be trying to lose weight, hmm? Answer me that, smart-guy!

• My diet consists of more than 30% processed foods

So if you live in America. . . You got it!

• I am on one or more weight related medications (high cholesterol, high blood pressure, sugar control)

Well, sounds to us like maybe you wouldn't mind being on one more!


So what is this miracle elixir?

". . .a patented, all natural, plant based formula with 10 active ingredients with 3 proprietary mechanisms. These address the triggers associated with weight gain."


So. . . there's no medicine? Just "plant-based" ingredients and "mechanisms?" So it could be practically anything? It could be some sort of herbs that may have medicinal properties, or it could be ground up tree bark and yard clippings? Sign me up!

Oh, and what are "mechanisms" and how do you fit them into a pill?

Take two of these and call me in the morning!

But wait, there's more!
You also get this patented space-age diet plan book!



So, if I take your sugar pills, I mean plant-based ingredient pills, and then eat a healthy diet with lots of vegetables and such, I could lose weight? Or, and I'm just spit-balling here, maybe I could just eat healthy food, and. . .wait, hear me out on this. . . I could eat vegetables instead of fried pies, skip the pills altogether and maybe still lose some weight?

Gosh, "Doctor" Ablow, you sure are swell. It's no wonder you have the respect of your peers who say things like this about you:

Medical Experts Condemn Fox's Keith Ablow:

"Shameful" And "Unfortunate That He Is Given A Platform"

Medical experts contacted by the Associated Press condemned Fox News contributor Dr. Keith Ablow for his ongoing cable news psychoanalysis of President Obama, his wife, and other figures.
Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, the chairman of psychiatry at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons and past president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), told the AP that "it is shameful and unfortunate that he is given a platform by Fox News or any other media organization," adding that "he is a narcissistic self-promoter of limited and dubious expertise."
Ford Vox, a staff psychiatrist at the Shepherd Brain Injury Rehabilitation Center in Atlanta, said that Ablow's medical analysis "is really just irresponsible and it's embarrassing for physicians in general."

Well, this will probably be my last post for the week. We have some friends coming out from California and we're going to drive up to Nashville. And we're not coming home until at least one of us has a record contract! See you next week!

Oh, and for the record, I am at least 20 lbs overweight, and get winded watching sports on TV. I am not at all trying to mock or shame anyone over their weight. Probably should have put that up top.