Welcome to The Stew’s weekly column of winners and losers, heroes and zeroes, foolish and fabulous, in the world of politics, news and pop culture.
This week: Texas secessionists, GOPer wants Corporations to Vote, birth control is poison, and Mike Pence takes up mantle of transvaginal champion……
Heroes
A look at the bizarre thinking of secessionists in Texas, which will blow your minds! Would it be such a bad thing to let them go? I think not (I think they should be forced to vacate) – and The Daily Show shows us why.
The Daily Show: Did you know that Abraham Lincoln is considered akin to Adolf Hitler in the minds of secessionists? Well, that’s what Jessica Williams of The Daily Show found out when she ventured into Texas Crazy Land with Larry Kilgore and Lynn Troxel, where allowing talking on cell phones and texting while driving proves “how much freedom Texans want to keep” and where:
“A tyrant to me would be somebody like Hitler or Lincoln who comes in and murders the people for their own political gain.”
And then there’s Bob Wilson, who says Texas isn’t officially part of the United States anyway:
“Apparently, a clerical error in the annexation agreement of 1845 proves Texas never legally joined the Union. And Bob’s mail-order documents are both officially detailed and extremely well-laminated!”
So, Williams did the only charitable thing possible and brought these loony-tunes folks together via an epic voyage on a Mayflower semi-truck, and breathed a sigh of relief as she took her leave:
“As they settled in for what I can only imagine was a joyous first Thanksgiving, I suddenly knew the relief the British must have felt 400 years ago when these guys finally fucking left.”
I wish I could say that I’d miss them, but…
WATCH (story continues below):
Zeroes
Unfortunately, this week was full of ‘em, so let’s just dive in as Republicans across the country loudly and proudly fly their freak flags.
Steve Lavin: Montana State Rep. Steve Lavin (R), has done what we all knew was coming, it was just a matter of time. He has introduced a bill that would allow corporations to vote in elections:
Section 2. Provision for vote by corporate property owner. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election as provided in [section 1].
(2) The individual who is designated to vote by the entity is subject to the provisions of [section 1] and shall also provide to the election administrator documentation of the entity’s registration with the secretary of state under 35-1-217 and proof of the individual’s designation to vote on behalf of the entity.
Because “corporations are people, my friend,” as Mitt Romney once put it, and their rights are becoming increasingly more important than the rights of the rest of us.
State of Indiana: Just because Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) is being termed out of his position, that doesn’t mean that the nation will lose their infamous Governor Ultrasound. It would appear that Mike Pence may be poised to take up the mantle as “champion” of the magical wand as Indiana tinkers with the idea of medically unnecessary and forced transvaginal probes for women seeking an abortion:
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
Indiana Republicans are advancing legislation that would require women to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound prior to an abortion, the latest in a string of efforts by state GOP lawmakers to actively discourage women from terminating their pregnancies.
The provision is tucked inside Senate Bill 371, introduced by State Sen. Travis Holdman (R), which has passed a committee. Although the legislation doesn’t specifically say transvaginal ultrasound, its criteria would effectively require it, according to the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.
I don’t have much to say on this because I feel like I’m starting to sound like a broken record. So I’ll leave it to my girl-crush, Rachel Maddow, to expound on the issue as only she can.
WATCH (story continues below):
State of Oklahoma: The red states are on a roll in their was against women this week, as Oklahoma joined the fray and introduced a bill that would allow employers to refuse to cover birth control under their group insurance policies because birth control is poison:
Under State Sen. Clark Jolley (R)’s measure, “no employer shall be required to provide or pay for any benefit or service related to abortion or contraception through the provision of health insurance to his or her employees.” According to the Tulsa World, Jolley’s inspiration for his bill came from one of his male constituents who is morally opposed to birth control, and wanted to find a small group insurance plan for himself and his family that didn’t include coverage for those services:
Poison Pill?
Women are worse off with contraception because it suppresses and disables who they are, Pedulla said.
“Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother,” Pedulla said. “They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn’t bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies.”
Ah, yes, the crackpot “women’s health researcher” who obviously knows what he’s talking about. NOT. But a perfect playmate for the Party of Factless Fiction nonetheless! The march of stupid continues unabated. Thanks, Oklahoma, your mama would be so proud!
That’s it for this week! Join us next week for more Heroes and Zeroes!
Note: I always welcome your input via the comment section below. You can also nominate someone/thing for next week’s “Heroes and Zeroes.”
~Beth
About Beth
Beth, Snookums
Left hates Right, Right hates Left. Yawn. If the Left took a fraction of the time and energy they use to bash Conservatives and instead utilized all that effort to light a fire underneath their champions in the Senate and White House, then all that ‘Hope & Change’ bantied about during the elections might become a glimmer of reality; instead, all the policies that Bush promoted (endless undeclared wars, trampling of civil rights, bank giveaways, irresponsible monetary policy et al) have all been taken to the next level by this present administration.
Take away the lip service Obama has given the Gay Community and the free giveaway to the Health Insurances Companies through mandatory premiums and there’s pretty much nothin’ there. Before you’re allowed an ‘end-zone dance’ and and the opportunity to taunt the other team, you actually have to score a touchdown first.
Try and take Barack and the Democrat Party off your shoulders long enough to prevent their legs from atrophying altogether……………
xoxxox,
Looney Libertarian
Be-dah be-dah be-dah, THAT’S ALL FOLKS!!!
While I agree with *some* of what you say, I sure didn’t hear your side protesting when most of what you mentioned (endless undeclared wars, trampling of civil rights, bank giveaways, irresponsible monetary policy et al) was being deregulated, institutionalized and enshrined under the Bush administration. Additionally, furthering the civil rights of the LGBT community is not lip service — it’s what’s called progress. And the fact of the matter is, I don’t hate the right, I simply regard them with the ridicule and mockery they so richly deserve as they descend into pure, unadulterated batshittery.
As for the “Snookums” portion of your comment, well, try not to be a sexist, condescending a-hole in future comments. If you want to know why people of your ilk are becoming increasingly irrelevant, there’s your first clue.
Beth! Boobalah! Is that anyway to treat your most loyal sparring partner? And when you say ‘my side’ is that to infer that I’m a Republican? Fuck the Republicans. I’d never align myself with the Party of Idiots and Curmudgeony Tyrants. I’m a Libertarian and as such I endorsed Ron Paul for President. Everything I said in my previous post was consistent with the goals of the Libertarian platform.
Believe it or not, my address to you wasn’t a nasty attempt at being sexist but rather endearing. BOOBALAH! That’s Jewish for ‘Give it up Brown Sugar’! You know you’re probably my favorite Lefty here! You know, sometimes I think you guys just keep me around as an amusement instead of wanting to go toe-to-toe with me. My presence here should be about more than just feeding me crickets and occasioally tapping on the glass to acknowledge me. I maybe crude to you but it’s a matter of perspective. Let’s celebrate what we agree on and try to espouse the merits of what we don’t see eye-to-eye on through discussion. Gosh darn it, I’m a person just like you and I do deem myself relevant. I’m good enough, I’m smart enough so gosh darn it why won’t you treat me like the loveable looney Libertarian munchkin that I am? Oops! I’m sorry! You’re not a ‘Little Person’ are you? See!??!? You got me walkin’ on eggshells already………..
I didn’t falsely assume that your posts here were a forum and not a billboard correct?
Obviously, we welcome your comments, but I, personally, do not appreciate being called “Snookums,” Boobalah” or anything else. My name is Beth, and you can address me as such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQaUyBBL_M8
Mz. Beth (Heh? I threw that ‘Mz’ in myself! You like?!??!)
You got it! If it melts the ice and prevents you from giving me the stink eye before I tap you on the shoulder and ask you to dance then I’ll happily oblige. Tell me the truth though: Aren’t you Gay/Libertarian Curious? We in the Libertarian sphere consider our friends on the Left as our ‘deep bench’. The Republicans are more like the crazy old Aunt we keep down in the basement – yes she’s ours, everybody knows she’s down there and we love her, but we really don’t like to show her off to company.
I have a question: Hypothetically, if Obama could forcefully address ALL the issues I mentioned in my previous email, would you forsake – at least for now – whatever perceived progress you’ve gained from his endorsement of Gay Marriage, or do you think that the direct concerns of the Gay Community overide all those other issues deemed politically relevant?
Do you know what the Libertarian stance is on Gay marriage? Well you should be able to marry whomever you want because the government has no place in defining what marriage should be, and as long as you’re not ***hurting anyone else you have the blessings of the Libertarian community! Koom – bi – yah? What?!??! Is that the thawing of the politcal ice floe I hear? See? With Libertarians, you actually get fries with that burger!
Damn, I wish someone would endear me enough to call me snookums. My wife hardly has the enthusiam to call me for dinner anymore; unfortunately, her nicest pet name for me now is ‘Plaintiff’…..
***Of course, this doesn’t apply to the S&M crowd, but I would have to check the manual to make sure.
Whoopsie! Sorry I wasn’t able to drop everything because you posted again…my bad!
No, I don’t believe that LGBT issues override all other issues, but I’m also not willing to push them aside either, anymore than I’m willing to push women’s issues aside, because I’m a strong advocate for multi-tasking. I will give you that there is a certain and complete collusion between ALL PARTIES and Wall Street, as well as a betrayal on civil liberties from both sides. On the financial front, Bill Clinton is as much to blame for the financial mess as Republicans as he oversaw and championed the abolishing of Glass-Steagall, but on the civil liberties side, most of the blame lies at Bush’s door and the fear mongering that took place post-9/11. But you are right that Obama has continued and expanded those policies — to his immense and disappointing discredit — I really can’t argue with you on that one. Nevertheless, he took that already enshrined executive power and ran with it.
On the other hand, I have no interest in the Libertarian POV, because I believe in a civilized society and effective government, not anarchy. I believe in regulations and checks on the free market, because a lack thereof has gotten us into the mess we’re currently wallowing in. The free market doesn’t solve everything. Effective government is a required necessity for a civilized society.
No response Mz. Beth? Going once, going twice………………….
BTW (sometimes my rebuttal is on several hours tape delay), what ARE your Libertarian views on women’s reproductive health and rights (the crux of this particular post)? Just “Libertarian-curious…”
Well cool, were establishing a dialogue – albeit after a rough start – which in effect is a sign of progress. Firstly, my views on women’s reproductive rights. My views on this subject aren’t dictated by religious dogma yet I still feel it’s a moral question. Personally I had a very simple rule that was hammered into my skull by my parents when I was younger and then carried into my adult life: If you play, you pay. Simple as that. I maybe a little old-fashioned in my views, but I feel that if you don’t love another person enough to share a child with them, then you just don’t love em’ all that much – unless of course you’ve made a predetermined and conscience decision that kids will not be a part of your lives.
Now I know that answer will not be satisfactory enough with regard to the question of rape, incest or whatever other unusual circumstance which results in a pregnency; however, I think we can establish that the great majority of unwanted pregnancies are a matter of late term birth control; If that’s the case, then – to me at least – it’s a matter of honor and I would feel compelled to provide for the child if the woman chose to have it; if on the other hand she chose not to, then how can I stop her? It’s her body. It doesn’t necesarrily mean I agree with her decision but at that point I’m impotent to do anything about it.
I guess the big question here is would I support legislation to take away a women’s right to choose. My personal philosophy is that you can’t legislate morality, yet for me personally the act of a late term abortion for the sake of convenience is abhorent. That’s just the way I feel and the only way I can explain it is that it’s an inate reverance for life. Here the legal and moral lines are in a gray area. For example, I look at past legal decisions that were’nt favorable to the Civil Rights movements but ultimately were reversed on a moral basis and doing what was right.
My hope is that someday people will look apon this as a moral question and do what is right by avoiding abortion unless it’s absolutely necesarry. I would think that as you are a Gay woman and if you chose to have a child there would obviously be a great deal of planning – how could there not be in your circumstance? For straight women it’s a tougher road to go because pregnancy is much more likely to be a result of not planning.
I hope that answer is satisfactory as far as my own personal belief. As far as the Libertarian point of view they regard this as a State’s Right’s issue. I believe that people tend to congregate based on demographic and idealogical paradigms. People in California are going to be much more Liberal on issues than people in the Bible Belt. I welcome diversity but we all tend to assemble on a regular basis with people that share the same ideas. This fits comfortably into the Libertarian philosophy of States’ Rights. I can live with that.
Lastly, you make a lot of assumptions on Libertarianism as seen through the Left’s prism which for the most part I believe are erroneous. Perhaps we can get into that at a later date because that’s a different issue and there’s much to consider. For now I’m just elated that we could establish a dialogue.
Wow. That’s a more thoughtful view than I had expected, considering your previous posts. However, please explain your meaning of “a great majority of unwanted pregnancies are a matter of late term birth control.”
Isn’t the phrase ‘ a great majority of unwanted pregnancies are a matter of late term birth control’ self explanatory? For the most part the element of personal responsibility and self control have to enter the picture as a preventative measure or else problems will ensue – at least this should be the first and most overemphasized step to the matter. If one takes the elements of rape, incest and direct threat to the life of the mother out of the equation, I’m sure that the remaining circumstances surrounding unwanted pregnancies are a result of impulse, indescretion and lack of planning; If pregnancies are terminated on this basis then I believe it’s foolish and irresponsible, but how can one control youthful indescretion other than to lay a solid moral foundation in a child’s earlier years to prevent it from coming to fruition? Love, a direct involvement in your children’s lives, emphasis on either a religious or nonreligious basis as a moral foundation and leading by example are a good start I believe. If one takes the time and effort to deal with this in such a manner, then I believe we’ve eliminated the great deal of unwanted pregnancies out of the gate. Compared to other more severe circumstances that could arise, this method would seem relatively easy.
Now the hard part: What of the women that are impregnated as a result of a more deleterious circumstances? First let me say that if a woman’s pregnancy was a result of rape and if on the outside chance she chose to have the child due to a serious convction regarding the sanctity of life then of course that would be incredinbly noble – but of course very rare. If she chose to terminate the pregnancy then it would be entirely understandable because rape is absolutely intolerable and the woman had no control of the situation; however, this is where it starts getting really tough for me because a newborn is a newborn is a newborn. They come into this world not having the foggiest idea of the circumstances surrounding their birth; whether it was planned, by accident or a result of rape. To me, the idea of killing a child is horrifying and reprehensible. If the pregnancy was to be terminated because of rape, then it would have to be done at the earliest stages possible as a compromise to my own personal convictions – though I still cringe at this solution. As far as incest was concerned, then of course it’s a no-brainer because due to genetic malformations as a result of inbreeding the child would never have a chance.
Unwanted pregnancies and abortions are going to plague us for a very long time. In a perfect world, every pregnancy would be planned, every child loved and every woman respected to the degree that rape would be nonexistent; however, I would be the first to admit that this is all wishful thinking. People can never attain perfection but they certainly can strive for it. Love always seems to prevail in this world but because of some inexplicable wrinkle in the universe it never endures. To me, this has aalways been the ultimate conundrum of life.
Lastly, as far as being surprised by my ‘thoughtful’ answer I find that rather amusing. If my responses before this have been quirky and noninsightful it was only because I was seeking various ways of entering the discussion instead of being engaged in the discussion itself; conversely, up until now you seemed to have had a very big chip on your shoulder due to preconceived notions of who and what I stood for; this is understandable to the degree that we’re all guilty of judging others as a defense mechanism. My goal – regardless of how I attain it – was just this: To establish a dialogue. I would even venture to guess Beth that we have more in common than you would think. Your recent replies to the questions I posed to you earlier regarding the nefarious consistency between seperate administrations is evidence of this. At some point, I would like to engage in a more concise and meaningful conversation with you about all that, but right now the emphasis is on the topic of women’s rights so I hope I’ve answered your question to your satisfaction.
Yes, being at a predominately Gay and Leftist sight is alien to me, but we have to foster discussion with those we perceive as different from us in order to attain some degree of harmony. Aside from political, ethical and moral beliefs we are all human beings and as such this primal commonality has to unify us. One thing I’m not going to do is rigorously pursue political discussions with those that agree with me – what’s the point? Aside from endeavoring to crystalize already established idealogies and the methods to convey them, engaging someone who already shares the same beliefs is futile and sycophantic.
Though I have already claimed that I have no ‘voluntary’ religious conviction I’ve always believed in the Golden Rule: ‘Do unto others as you would have others due onto you’. Libertarianism seems to be the most sensical, congruent and consistant symbiosis to this precept and that’s why I embrace it’s philosophy of do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t harm someone else.
Are we good? Now I would like to hear YOUR concise and thoughtful answer regarding women’s rights so we can dismiss what overlaps and then try to reach some concensus on those issues that divide us. My goal isn’t to recruit and bring you to my side, rather it is to seek a working and harmonious truth as an axiom to other harder questions.
Sorry…don’t do well with word salad…fucks my brain up…probably more than yours…
‘Word salad’? How do you go from ‘thoughtful response’ to ‘word salad’ and practically all in the same breath? Along with every response you’ve given me, for some reason you find it necessary to include a jab of one kind or another. It must be exhausting being angry 24/7. At some point you’ll be able to redeem all that vitriol for a complimentary ticket to a padded room if you don’t make a conscious decision to tread a little more lightly…………
Rantsalot -
You really are transparent.
You troll our posts, commenting on all of them, hoping that one of us will engage you in your silly argument.
You throw a tantrum when your comments are held in moderation for spamming, etc.
Would you care to use your time more wisely and engage in discussion that accomplishes something, or would you like to continue exhibiting this infantile trollish behavior?
The choice is yours.
Access is not guaranteed.
Steve (publisher and owner)
So because I’m trying to incite discussion that makes me a troll? I would think that in a town with only one stop sign you’d be thankful for the traffic. If I was a ‘troll’ I wouldn’t leave voluntarily – but I will. This sight isn’t a forum – it’s just a Gay Liberal billboard. Good luck, you’ll definitely need it……..
Choosing to leave on your own is the first mature and rational thing you’ve done since you started trolling our site.
“one stop sign” — that’s a great one!
“Gay Liberal Billboard” is even better.
I love it when a few words from me brings out the true nature and motivation of a troll like you.
Speaks volumes.
And you know in reality that it has nothing to do with your persecution complex or your grandiose idea that you “incite discussion” with your vitriol.
Toodles from the chief poster of the gay liberal billboard.
S.