One state's pork is another state's vital project

Does it surprise anyone that when it comes to government spending, the freshmen Republicans elected in the 2010 election-by-tantrum don't practice what they preach?

NYT:

Freshman House Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into office last year vowed to stop out-of-control spending, but that has not stopped several of them from quietly trying to funnel millions of federal dollars into projects back home.

They have pushed for dozens of projects in their districts, including military programs opposed by the president, replenishing beach sand lost to erosion, a $700 million bridge in Minnesota and a harbor dredging project in Charleston, S.C. Some of their projects were once earmarks, political shorthand for pet projects penciled into spending bills, which Republicans banned when they took over the House.

An examination of spending bills, news releases and communications with federal agencies obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that nearly two dozen freshmen have sought money for projects that could ultimately cost billions of dollars, while calling for less spending and banning pork projects.

Politicians have long advocated for projects on behalf of individuals and businesses back home, even without earmarks. Several lawmakers said they were merely providing a constituent service. But since many of the freshman Republicans campaigned on a pledge to cut spending and to change Washington’s time-honored ways, their support of spending projects suggests that in many cases ideology can go only so far in serving the needs of people back home.

Lawmakers like Representative Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, who advocated for the harbor dredging project with other members of the South Carolina delegation, insist their requests are neither earmarks nor wasteful. “This was a merit-based project that was open and transparent,” said Mr. Scott, who helped secure $150,000 for the first phase of a harbor-deepening project in Charleston, his hometown. The project is expected eventually to cost as much as $300 million. Mr. Scott, a favorite of the Tea Party movement, said he is opposed to earmarks and that dredging the port was in the national interest because it would accommodate bigger cargo ships and help create trade opportunities and jobs.

Any project in any district can be deemed to be in the national interest; that doesn't mean it is. But if these Republican hypocrites really believed what they said, they'd be more like Ernie Scott Garrett of the 5th congressional district of New Jersey, who refuses to bring ANYTHING back home, to the point that New Jersey is one of the biggest donor states in the country. Of course Garrett is not completely free of hypocrisy either, having taken a tax break designed for farmers on nine acres of his Sussex County estate becaues his brother sells a few shrubs out of it, but at least he doesn't do anything that might fly in the face of Grover Norquist's Rules...you know, things that might help the district he was elected to serve.

But Tea Party Congressional freshmen aren't even as ideologically pure as Garrett:

On the Minnesota-Wisconsin border, local officials and members of Congress have pushed for a new four-lane bridge over the St. Croix River that was co-sponsored by Representative Sean P. Duffy, a Wisconsin freshman Republican, and Representative Michele Bachmann, the three-term Minnesota Republican who is running for president.

Opponents labeled the bridge an earmark, but Mr. Duffy and Mrs. Bachmann said the bridge was critical to handle increased traffic that an 80-year-old bridge nearby can no longer handle alone. They defend the spending by arguing that it was not an earmark since there were no specific costs listed in the bill itself, nor is it a financing bill. The legislation calls only for a bridge to be built.

The National Park Service has opposed the project, saying it would violate the Wild and Scenic River Act by harming the river’s scenic and recreational qualities.

Thom Martmann Explains It All For You

Thom Hartmann explains how the ORIGINAL Tea Party was not at all about "small government", or about abortion, or about crushing liberalism, or about any of the pet causes of today's self-styled "Tea Party". It was actually in response to a government that was totally in the pocket of a giant corporation, the East India Company:

And you can rest assured that the original Tea Party wasn't funded by corporate interests the way today's is.

(There's another video, embedded over at Politics USA, but I can't get that one to play. So enjoy this one instead. Or in addition to the other. Then go tell your Tea Party friends the truth (not that the truth has ever mattered to these people if it flies in the face of their ideology...)

Actual photo of the "massive" Tea Party rally yesterday in Washington DC

Just look at these tens of thousands of hundreds of Teabaggers converging in Washington DC yesterday:

I saw more people than this gather for a Peter Karp concert in Tenafly a few years ago.

Jed Lewison braved Faux Noise for coverage, where the meme was that the bad weather kept people away. Remember, these so-called tea party patriots are the same guys who dress up in three-cornered hats and invoke the Founding Fathers; they give lip service to worship of Our Brave Military, yet they are too wussy to get a little bit wet and a little bit cold in the service of their Noble Cause.

Frauds. Every last one of them.

This is your Tea Party, America

Now let me see if I have the twisted Teabagger mindset straight: In Teabag America, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are victims because people say their rhetoric is unnecessarily inflammatory, but Gabrielle Giffords had it coming:

In March 2010, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) warned that the rhetoric from the tea parties and Sarah Palin was potentially dangerous. “I can say that in the years that some of my colleagues have served — 20, 30 years — they’ve never seen it like this…when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there’s consequences to that action,” she said on MSNBC. Tuscon Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries called Giffords’ previous concerns about violent rhetoric “political gamesmenship,” claiming that if Giffords was so concerned, then she is to blame for Saturday’s shootings because she “had no security whatsoever”:

“It’s political gamesmanship. The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?” he said. “For all the stuff they accuse her [Palin] of, that gun poster has not done a tenth of the damage to the political discourse as what we’re hearing right now.”

Humphries also told the Guardian that Saturday’s shootings in Tuscon are “evolving into a conspiracy to destroy his organisation and silence criticism of the government.” Watch excerpts of interview here:

Real classy, asshole.

American Teabagger Terrorists

Yes, terrorists.

There was a terrorist attack in this country yesterday. It wasn't done by Muslims, or by Mexican drug dealers. It looks as though it was committed by the same teabagger nutballs that the Republican Party has embraced as its own.

David Neiwert reports:

Following up on yesterday's shutdown of Rep. Raul Grijalva's office after a letter containing a toxic substance was mailed to them, we called up Adam Saravana, Grijalva's communications director, and got the inside story.

Here's what Adam told us:

At about 12:30, as they do every day, the staff checked the mail for the congressional district office. Among the letters was this envelope with -- it just had a mailing label, with a name and address on it, and I can't confirm if it's real or not. Inside the envelope, there were two pieces of paper with swastikas drawn on them.

And there was a little plastic baggie with this powder in there. And so they called the police. The police showed up, and then the fire department arrived. And the fire department did a test, and said, 'OK, this is actually toxic. This is for real.'

So the congressional office was on lockdown for more than an hour. They first had a police cordon around the building, they wouldn't let the staff leave -- the staff were all there while they were all tested for their vital signs and everything. And finally the fire department got its results back and they said, 'This stuff is dangerous, we need to get you out of here.' So they kept the cordon up but they evacuated the building.

Our congressional staff all went home. The congressman and I were out, and so they wouldn't let us in the building.

The substance, he told me, was identified as hydroxyacetenalide:

Symptoms of overexposure to this compound include nausea, vomiting, cyanosis from methemoglobinemia, injury to the liver, kidneys, central nervous system and heart, circulatory collapse, drowsiness, confusion, liver tenderness, low blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmias, jaundice, acute renal failure, death due to liver necrosis, metabolic acidosis, hepatic damage and cirrhosis. Other symptoms include changes in exocrine pancreas, diarrhea, irritability, somnolence, general anesthesia, fever and hepatitis. Diaphoresis and general malaise may occur. Exposure may lead to hematological reactions and, occasionally, skin rashes and other allergic reactions.

It's available generically as Tylenol, but not in mass quantities as a powder (though it certainly is conceivable that the senders simply ground up a large amount of Tylenol to create this). In powder form it can be very dangerous indeed. Not only will breathing it potentially induce these symptoms, but it also happens to be highly combustible.

As KOLD-TV News 13 reported:

This is not the first time the office has been the target of intimidation. In April, the Congressman closed down the Tucson office after receiving personal threats against his life. In July, someone fired gunshots through the front of his Yuma office. Rep. Grijalva calls it an indication of how emotionally charged this political year has been, in light of his stance on Arizona's illegal immigration law.

"This is not the way we have a civil debate," said Rep. Grijalva. "This is not the way we make decisions in this country. I think the tone has been ugly."

But it IS the way teabaggers make decisions. Disagreements about policy are grounds for being marked for death. And these are the people who are poised to take over our government in two weeks because a bunch of American Idiots™ refuse to admit that the very corporatists whose bidding they're doing are busy picking their pockets while pointing their attention at the shiny objects lower on the socioeconomic ladder.

A demand for an apology is not "reaching out"

It's hardly surprising that Ginny Thomas would pull something fucked up like this; after all, what would you expect from someone who would marry Clarence Thomas?

Virginia Thomas, the wife of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, left a message last weekend on the voice mail of Anita Hill, who accused her husband of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings, a spokeswoman for Ms. Thomas confirmed on Tuesday.

[snip]

“I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago,” Ms. Thomas said in a statement provided to The New York Times.

“That offer still stands,” her statement went on. “I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.”

Ms. Thomas did not explain why she had reached out to Ms. Hill at this time. Ms. Hill did not respond to calls to her office at Brandeis.

While Ms. Thomas described the call as an attempt to reach out, the university appeared to be taking the matter more seriously.

Andrew Gully, senior vice president of the Brandeis University communications office, confirmed that Ms. Hill had received the message and that she had turned it over to the campus department of public safety. That office, in turn, passed it on to the F.B.I.

ABC News quoted from the voicemail:

“Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginny Thomas,” it quoted from the voicemail. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day.”

Ms. Thomas has long been active in conservative circles in Washington, and in the past year has rose to greater prominence as the founder of a new nonprofit activist group, Liberty Central, which opposes what she characterizes as the leftist “tyranny” of the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats.

Her activities with the group have raised questions of judicial ethics because the group, which pays her, has accepted large contributions from unidentified donors. She began the group with two gifts of $500,000 and $50,000 from undisclosed contributors, tax forms show.

I'm sorry, but demanding an apology is not "extending an olive branch." Ginny Thomas is just another teabagger throwing her weight around. I would regard it as a threat too if I were Anita Hill.

UPDATE: I'm not the only one who pointed out the absurdity of the notion that this was "reaching out." Google News still shows references to the Times' original headline:

...but now, the headline accurately reflects Mrs. Thomas' phone call:

PUPPIES? How the hell can teabaggers be even against PUPPIES?

Yes, it's true. In Missouri, teabaggers are against even minimal regulation of puppy mills:

Now, a group of Missouri tea partiers have found a new target: regulations that would mandate more humane conditions in the state’s puppy mills. This November, Missouri voters will go to the polls and decide the fate of Missouri’s Proposition B, which would place new regulations on puppy mills, including mandating that they provide “sufficient food and clean water, necessary veterinary care, sufficient housing, including protection from the elements, sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles.”

As TPM Muckraker’s Jillian Rayfield reports, the Missouri Tea Party and the Tea Party Patriots have begun organizing meetings against the proposition. One tea party activist described the measure as being about the “government or the big company trying to tell people what to do“:

The Tea Party has also gotten on board the anti-Prop B bandwagon. A meeting called “Vote NO on Proposition B” on October 12 is advertised on websites for the Missouri Tea Party and the Tea Party Patriots. The event, held at Coach’s Pizza World, is being organized by the Mexico Tea Party, which activist Ron Beedle told TPM is a relatively new chapter of the Tea Party. This is their first meeting, he said, and Prop B is about the “government or the big company trying to tell people what to do.”

Also campaigning against the proposition is the local chapter of conservative Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum and Samuel Wurzelbacher (”Joe The Plumber“). Wurzelbacher has teamed up with the Alliance For Truth, an anti-Prop B organization strongly backed by the kennells and mills across the state, to blog against the measure. One blog post by him features an animal rescue officer kicking down the door of a home. Meanwhile, the Missouri Cattleman’s Association is warning that if the Humane Society — which is a big booster of the proposition — manages to pass the measure, they may be able to succeed in bettering conditions for farm animals as well.

OMG, humane treatment of animals? Horrors! Next thing you know they'll be telling industry that they can't put melamine in baby formula. What's America coming to?

Alaska: The state that's a 1960's sitcom come to life

DCap is usually the one who puts bobbing heads of contemporary wingnuts on video from old sitcoms, so if you're reading this, DCap, and you want to run with this, be my guest.

When I was a kid, there were a lot of dumb sitcoms that revolved around Aren't Those Yokels Funny. Whether it was Petticoat Junction, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, or The Andy Griffith Show, there were always people who were the TeeVee Industry's idea of hicks doing goofy things.

We wrote the other day about how Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller believes that unemployment compensation is unconstitutional for everyone but his own family. Blue Girl is reporting on the Great Game of Biggest Dickus being played out in Alaska between the patriarch of the Wasilla Hillbillies and The Hypocrite Who Would Be Senator. Now there's more on said Hypocrite, as it turns out that like another Senate candidate who can't manage money and is basically a Jim Bakker-type huckster while talking fiscal conservatism for everyone else, Joe Miller is sitting on a fair amount of credit card debt:

Republican Joe Miller has filed his financial disclosure forms with the Senate. The documents, which detail the finances and potential conflicts of all senators and Senate candidates and are a requirement of both, were turned into the Senate public records office Thursday afternoon.

Miller was supposed to turn his form in sometime in April, when he had more than $5,000 in campaign donations in his campaign account. He never turned one in, though – an omission that the campaign said was unintentional. However, both Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Democrat Scott McAdams filed their forms. There's more information here about what's in their disclosures.

He could face fines for turning the disclosure form in late; no one with the Senate Ethics office was available for comment Thursday. However, there's a $200 penalty for filing even one month past the due date and failing to file the disclosure forms entirely can result in a fine of up to $50,000.

Miller also has a substantial amount of credit card debt, including between $35,003 and $80,000 on three separate charge accounts: two cards charging 10.24 percent interest with Bank of America and one zero percent interest loan with USAA Federal Savings Bank.

Anyone see a pattern here with these people? The majority of teabaggers running for office seem to have financial problems, and while they decry government spending and government size, they seem awfully anxious to get their hands on a government paycheck to pay off their own debts -- while campaigning on platforms of fiscal responsibility.

(h/t)

If we could all just agree that Republicans and teabaggers are a bunch of self-righeous hypocrites, we could save ourselves a lot of time

Just think....if we could all agree on this, how much effort would be saved. After all, time and time again, we see so-called conservatives and their religious nutball friends not practicing what they preach. Whether it's George Rekers running gay "cures" while paying rentboys, or Republicans in Congress railing against pork while bringing the bacon home to their own states, or women who have had abortions who want to take that choice away from others, it seems to be at the very heart of what passes for contemporary conservate "thought" to feel that you are entitled to do the very things for which you excoriate others.

The latest example of this is none other than Alaska teabagger Senate candidate Joe Miller, who feels that unemployment compensation is unconstitutional -- unless it's being paid to a member of his own family:

U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller confirmed Monday night that his wife -- once hired to work as a part-time clerk for the same Alaska court in which he was serving as a U.S. magistrate judge -- went on unemployment after she left the job.

Miller is running on a self-described constitutional conservative platform, arguing that the nation must return to the principles and powers penned by the founding fathers to save it from bankruptcy. Putting an end to entitlements on a national level and empowering states has been a key message in his campaign.

In the weeks leading up to the admission about his wife's unemployment history, Miller has finessed his message on unemployment benefits, saying he's not opposed to them but that they should be managed by the states -- not the feds.

On Monday, in response to a blogger's post and questions from reporters, the Miller campaign issued a statement detailing how his wife -- Kathleen Miller -- worked for him while he was serving as a part-time U.S. magistrate judge in Fairbanks. Prior to moving to Fairbanks, the couple lived 200 miles away in the rural Alaska town of Tok where Miller worked as magistrate for the state court system. (Clarification: A prior version of this story incorrectly stated that the Millers' federal court service took place in Tok.)

Miller held the magistrate position for the District Court out of Fairbanks from June 21, 2002 through June 1, 2004, earning a total of $71,418. Kathleen Miller worked as a part-time clerk for him from June 2002 to December 2002, according to a resume she submitted to the state last year when she pursued an appointment to the Alaska Judicial Council.

After she left her clerk job, she briefly went on state unemployment, Miller acknowledged in a statement:

My wife, Kathleen, did work for me as a magistrate judge clerk/secretary while I was a part-time Federal Magistrate judge from 2002 to 2004. Before 2004 there was a long-standing practice, both in Fairbanks as well as other areas in the United States, that due to the time commitments of being a lawyer and a part-time Federal Magistrate judge the same individuals that worked in your private law offices also worked in your federal magistrate office - many of those being family members. Before even applying for the Fairbanks Magistrate judgeship I spoke with members of the federal court concerning the employment of Kathleen. It was confirmed that she could work for me in my office. After leaving my office Kathleen did receive unemployment benefits for a short period of time.

In Joe Miller's world, it's a bad thing for someone who's been working consistently for 34 years to collect unemployment, but it's OK for his own wife to game the system by working FOR HER OWN HUSBAND for six months and then collect.

Again -- hardly a surprise, but nonetheless -- why is anyone actually planning to vote for these people?

It's not a cost, it's rainbows and puppies -- because Rand Paul says so

These people truly ARE delusional:

This morning, on Fox News Sunday, Paul said that his focus in the Senate would be reducing the “mountains and mountains of debt.” But when asked to square that with his desire to spend trillions of dollars on tax cuts, he replied that, when it comes to extending Bush’s tax cuts, “I’m not seeing it as a cost to government”:

Q: You said at the very beginning, the first issue you mention was the national debt. If you’re so concerned about the national debt, how are you going to pay for a $4 trillion loss of revenue from the tax cuts.

PAUL: I think, first of all you look at whose money it is. It’s the people’s money, who earned the money; we give up some to pay taxes, so I’m not seeing it as a cost to government.

Watch it:


Paul later promised to “introduce legislation that will reduce spending,” but when Fox News’ Chris Wallace noted “there’s no way you’re going to get $4 trillion by spending cuts,” Paul simply reiterated that he would cut spending without laying out any specifics.

Of course not. Because if he laid out any specifics, no one in his/her right mind would vote for this clown. Those who want to know what the magical candyland envisioned by teabaggers would look like need look no further than Ernie Scott Garrett, who represents New Jersey's Fifth Congressional District, which is alas the one in which I live. Garrett in just one week voted AGAINST a fund to benefit those workers who risked their health in the Ground Zero cleanup; voted AGAINST imposing import tariffs on nations that deliberately devalue their currency to increase sales in the US; and voted AGAINST funding NASA's space shuttle and International Space Station programs. That's just last week. Here's his record for all of 2010, and he's been at this since January of 2003. Appropriations for HUD and the Department of Transportation? No dice. Amending the IRS Code of 1986 to create jobs through increased investment in infrastructure and eliminate loopholes which encourage companies to move operations offshore? No dice. Unemployment compensation extension for the unemployed in his district? Uh-uh. Flood insurance reform? Nope -- not even when a good chunk of his district got deluged last week. No on supplemental appropriations for disaster relief. No on the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

No and no and no and no and no.

But when it comes to lobbyists, even those from governments known to be sponsors of international terrorism, being barred from donating to political campaigns (including his)? He refused to make a commitment on that one and didn't even show up.

Soctt Garrett was teabag before tea was the flavor of the moment. We here in NJ-5 have already seen what Rand Paul's America looks like, we've been looking at it for nearly a decade. And what's tragic is that most people in this district aren't even paying attention.

The ultimate "We Suck But They're Crazy" political race

Is there a more odious, disgusting political contest going on in this country than the one between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle in Nevada? Is there a better example of "We Suck Less" than one between the craven, gutless sellout Harry Reid, who led the Great Democratic Cave today in deciding that there will be no votes on retaining or rescinding tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% until after the election, and the cruel, vicious, Make-Them-Have-Their-Father's-Baby Christian Dominionist Sharron Angle?

Let me tell you about my friend Beth. Beth is the most talented web designer I know, and a talented writer. I've known Beth for over a decade, even though we've never met in person. (That will have to change sometime, Beth!) We used to brainstorm and write fiction together, until we both kind of had other things in our lives that required that energy and attention. Beth got married and, as she says, has been "managing life on the autism roller coaster since 2005." Beth covers the challenges of parents of autistic children for Examiner Philadelphia.

Sharron Angle doesn't believe in autism, and she doesn't think that she should have to have her insurance premiums go to pay for any kind of help for Beth's child or for parents like Beth. In case you're inclined to agree, you should also know that she resents having to pay insurance premiums to companies that provide coverage for pregnancy and newborn care:

Perhaps that's why Sharron Angle is running for Senate. Perhaps it's the only way she'll be able to afford her own health care -- after she sets it up so that health care, like everything else in the Republican playbook, becomes a question of "I Got Mine And Fuck You."

If you're in Nevada, and you vote for this woman, you deserve her. I just wish you wouldn't inflict her on the rest of us. Do you really mean there is no one in Nevada who would be better than either of these two?

Hey, teabaggers...what a bunch of schmucks you are

Those guys you're planning to vote for? Their "Pledge for America" was written by a lobbyist:

The Republican Party's 21-page blueprint, "Pledge to America," was put together with oversight by a House staffer who, up till April 2010, served as a lobbyist for some of the nation's most powerful oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies.

In a draft version of The Pledge that was being passed around to reporters before the official release, the document properties list "Wild, Brian" as the "Author." A GOP source said that Wild -- who is on House Minority Leader John Boehner's payroll -- did help author the governing platform that the party is unveiling on Thursday. Another aide said that as the executive director of the Republican leadership group American Speaking Out, Wild's tasks were more on the administrative side of the operations.

Until early this year, Wild was a fairly active lobbyist on behalf of the firm the Nickles Group, the lobbying shop set up by the former Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Don Nickles. During his five years at the firm, Wild, among others, was paid $740,000 in lobbying contracts from AIG, the former insurance company at the heart of the financial collapse; $800,000 from energy giant Andarko Petroleum; more than $1.1 million from Comcast, more than $1.3 million from Exxon Mobil; and $625,000 from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc.

So when this pledge talks about less regulation and repeal of health care reform, and when Republicans talk about wanting to turn over Social Security to Wall Street, they aren't looking to do it for you. They're looking to do it for their REAL constituents. You know, the people they really mean when they refer to "our people".

But they don't tell you what they mean by "our people"

In the past, Republicans have made very clear who "our people" refers to -- and it isn't the middle class or the poor. George W. Bush actually did us a favor at that dinner during his term where he said this:

But forget everything else in the Republican Vagaries for America. The thing all the mouth-frothers ought to be asking themselves is "What do they mean by "our people"?

“In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent,” the Republicans wrote in the introduction. “An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people.”

Promising to “honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers,” the Republicans added: “We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense and national economic prosperity. We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.”

The introduction to the blueprint also stresses the need to improve the economy and create jobs. “Rising joblessness, crushing debt and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people,” the Republicans wrote, adding a nod to states’ rights.

“With this document,” they wrote, “we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.”

I hate to tell these guys, but the consent of the governed is called an election. Second of all, if you look at what they're saying here, it's that they plan to govern as a Christian theocracy, with a return to states' rights, and who knows -- they may even want to allow Southern states to buy and sell human beings as slaves, since that's what states rights refers to.

If you loved Europe in the Middle Ages and the antebellum South, you'll LOVE Teabag America. But who do they mean by "Our people"? Is it all Americans? Or is it the Tea Party lunatics -- willfully ignorant people who are rightfully angry about the loss of their jobs but are pointing their ire at the wrong place? Is it the K Street lobbyists who are already gleefully rubbing their hands together at the prospect of John Boehner once again passing out tobacco industry bribes on the floor of Congress, and who plan to spend election night in a cuddle huddle with the GOP?

Joans, Peggys, and Christine O'Donnell: Is this what feminism has come to?

I'd never been able to much get into Mad Men, but this season I started watching and found myself getting sucked into it. Part of it is that we're in familiar territory this season, since I was about the same age in 1964-65, when the season takes place, as Don's daughter Sally. But I think much of it is that this season is more about the women than about a bunch of Guys Behaving Badly.

Part of what's fascinating this season is watching the interplay between the women and the men, as the early glimmerings of change start to take hold. Joan, the whispery-voiced somewhat aging sexpot who's the office manager, seems stuck in the previous decade, while Peggy, the secretary-turned-copywriter, sees a glimpse of a new way of being at a boho party, starts to find her own voice and begins to assert herself. I'm not sure that Peggy actually existed in 1965; her rise seems somewhat unlikely until a couple of decades later. But in this week's episode, when Peggy fires a freelance copywriter whose filthy drawing about Joan truly IS beyond the pale, Girl Solidarity backfires right in Peggy's face:

Note: video may expire

Peggy and Joan are in their own ways trying to find a way in a world that's still very much controlled by men and the rules (or lack of same) that men make.

The feminism for which Joan and Peggy are just a few years too early gave a lot of lop service to being about toughness. It had to. Look at the world that women who were trying to fight their way out of being baby-making appendages lived in. It's no wonder that the Rogers and the Dons and the Joeys of the world laughed at the women who dared to challenge the established order and called them ugly...and they still do.

The rise of Victim Feminists like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell is perhaps a natural consequence of the fatal mistake that the 1960's feminists made -- of not realizing that "the system" that they felt enslaved them in the 1950's also enslaved men. As massive jerks as Don Draper and Roger Sterling and Henry Francis are on Mad Men, it's hard to argue that they're kings of the world. Roger and Henry have young pretty trophy wives, but they're still unhappy. Roger and Don are clearly alcoholics (though Don, being the show's protagonist, is starting to show signs of getting his shit together). These guys, like Leonardo DiCaprio's character in Revolutionary Road, have lives of mind-numbing sameness that were only marginally better than the stifling lives of 1950's housewives in the suburbs. EVERYONE was oppressed by the budding culture of consumerism that was given life after World War II. But the minute early feminism claimed the mantle of oppression, it lost any semblance to an empowerment movement and paved the way for Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell. That's why I was so disturbed last night to hear Howard Fineman opine that part of the reason for O'Donnell's victory last night was that Mike Castle, known in Delaware as a Really Nice Guy, hammered at O'Donnell too hard and that made women voters upset.

Of course Joan and Peggy don't know about feminism yet, but in the exchange in the elevator, Joan seems to be aware that in firing Joey, Peggy has succumbed to this kind of victimology. I don't know if pornographic drawings of the office manager were a commonplace pastime among the creative department in 1960's ad agencies, but I do know that when I was a secretary in an ad agency as late as 1980, I arrived every morning to find one of the bosses standing by the coffeemaker, mug in hand, waiting for me to make the coffee, and then expecting me to break into meetings any time his girlfriend was on the phone for him (but not if it was his wife). Peggy may think she's sending a message that this sort of behavior will no longer be tolerated as of today, but I suspect that the remaining assholes in SCDP's creative department are going to be testing their limits, asserting their dominance over Joan (who rightly knows that they see her as a "meaningless secretary" and treating Peggy like a "humorless bitch."

Fast-forward forty years and you have Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell, two mind-bogglingly stupid and unqualified women, wrapping themselves in the mantle of poor, put-upon fragile flowers being picked on by mean old men like Mike Castle and others who dare mention the obvious -- that if one is to participate in government, one is at least supposed to be coherent and not sound like the early boot on Survivor, kicked off for being useless in challenges AND around camp. Because for all that Sarah Palin talks about Mama Grizzlies, what stares us in the face is the smoking ruin of feminism -- and it looks a lot like corseted Victorians fanning themselves on fainting couches.

Sarah Palin came into the public eye with her guns and her talk about field dressing a moose and shooting wolves out of a helicopter and her aura of dominatrix. But it quickly became about the imagery of the soccer mom tied to her minivan, the Downs Syndrome mom, the poor widdew goilie being bullied by the "lamestream media." Any scrutiny of Sarah Palin was just mean old media men being mean to a girl. Palin appropriated the mantle of feminism as her own, but she's twisted it into a gargoyle of victimology. Palin feminism isn't about toughing it out in a man's world, and it isn't even about changing that man's world. It's about playing the victim card every time someone dares ask you to play on the same field as the guys. Christine O'Donnell has clearly studied her Sarah Palin very carefully. She looks like Palin (only without the psychopathic eyes), she dresses like Palin, and she won just like Palin -- by playing to victimhood. This is a woman who thinks masturbation is adultery, who checks the bushes outside her house for her political enemies, hasn't held a real job in years, pays her living expenses off her campaign donations, rails against people sucking at the government teat, but is running to collect a taxpayer-funded paycheck herself.

This is what feminism has come to? Last night in her victory speech, O'Donnell threw down the gauntlet when she talked about ordinary people being able to run for office without fear of "character assassination." This is a worthy goal regardless of party, but somehow I get the feeling that this goal is not going to apply to her Democratic opponent, who is a man and is no doubt already wondering how he's going to run against her when any criticism, no matter how minor, is going to be be met with cries of "character assassination." Because in the feminism of conservatism, women are just little fragile flowers, wilting under the slightest breeze.

Freedom....freedom...troops...military.... reform...independent...pioneering... blah...blah...blah...

If you really can't resist reading about Evita Mooselini's appearance in Wasilla on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Mudflats has the entire sorry tale, including a transcripts of Mean Grrrl's remarks. It is interesting indeed how only mentions the anniversary that's the reason why she's even there. Doesn't she understand that invoking September 11 over and over again is the key to the Republican arsenal?

Why am I not surprised?

It has always seemed odd to me that so many so-called conservatives who hate government, hate civil service workers, and hate anything government does to help people, are so eager to get in there and get a government paycheck themselves.

In the case of Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle (Hypocritical Wingnut Party), the hypocrisy and the double standard are elevated to an art form, because her household is ALREADY supported by a federal pension:

Sharron Angle, the queen of Tea Party extremism, may be the worst hypocrite in a political party that never fails to take hypocrisy to new levels. Angle’s political positions are well documented: she wants to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and practically the entire social safety net, except when it applies to her. Angle has no job of her own at the moment and is living off her husband Ted Angle’s federal pension. Ted Angle worked for the Bureau of Land Management for 25 years and I’m sure his pension is well deserved, just like the 400,000 people in Nevada who deserve the Social Security benefits that they receive after paying into the program all their lives.

The idea that people are too dependent on the federal government to provide for them is the keystone of Sharron Angle’s campaign, yet apparently she cannot support herself without the federal government. Of course like many other detestable Republicans, her hypocrisy does not end there. Prior to the Reid campaign illuminating Angle’s own reliance on the federal government, Angle tried to attack Reid for the benefits he will collect through his retirement account that he enjoys as a Member of Congress.

Nevadans deserve this lunatic nimrod if they vote for her. The problem is that she's going to have influence that far outstrips her junior Senator status. And this is the price we pay for Harry Reid being so utterly useless.

Sorry, ladies, but you only get a free pass if the media thinks you're hot

I guess people are supposed to just vote blindly for Jan Brewer and Sharron Angle because of what they blather. Because being asked questions seems somehow "unfair" to stupid, moronic, ignorant candidates who might have to actually talk about their policies on the spur of the moment rather than just spout babbling talking points.

First it was Sharron Angle saying that reporters should only ask the questions her campaign wants them to:

Now, after her meltdown during her most recent debate where she couldn't talk about her own policies, Arizona governor Jan Brewer says she won't do any more debates:

Incumbent Republican Jan Brewer said Thursday she has no intention of participating in any more events with Democrat Terry Goddard. She said the only reason she debated him on Wednesday is she had to to qualify for more than $1.7 million in public funds for her campaign.

"I certainly will take my message in a different venue out to the people of Arizona," she said.

Brewer said she has been in elective office for 28 years, and Goddard has held office for nearly that long. "I think it's pretty defined what he stands for and what I stand for."

Anyway, Brewer said, she believes the debates help Goddard more than they benefit her.

"Why would I want to give Terry a chance to redefine himself?" she said.

Brewer conceded that her performance in Wednesday's debate, and her refusal to answer a question from reporters afterward, was not well-handled. That includes an opening statement when she lost her train of thought and went silent, and walking away after the event rather than answering questions about her prior statements about headless bodies in the desert.

Brewer blamed part of her post-debate activities on her gaffe in her opening statement. The governor also said she presumed reporters would want to talk to her about some of the issues raised during the hour-long, televised debate.

"All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings," the governor said. "That is something that has stuck with you all for so long, and I just felt we needed to move on."

The subject came up during an exchange in which Brewer said unions are to blame for financial fallout over illegal immigration, calling on Goddard to disavow unions' support because they have called for boycotts of the state.

Goddard responded that it is actually Brewer scaring off tourists with comments about headless bodies being found in the desert, for which there is no supporting evidence.

Brewer insisted later that she has been misquoted. "I never said 'Arizona,' and it's unfortunate that it was construed as 'Arizona.' "

It's hardly surprising that Angle and Brewer would be baffled that they don't get a free pass when they show that they don't know a damn thing. These people want to be able to just spout whatever horsepuckey pops into their heads -- spoiled Americans....beheadings....unemployment is useless....with absolutely no consequences. After all, Sarah Palin gets away with spouting meaningless babble composed entirely of disjointed talking points, why shouldn't they?

And indeed, that's an interesting question. There's no quantifiable difference between the kind of dangerous, ridiculous nonsense spouted by Angle and Brewer and that spouted by Palin -- except that Palin's comes out of a younger, more physically attractive package. You'd think that two women who have reached middle age in our society would have recognized that double standard already.

But the larger picture is that these Tea Party candidates are all about the sloganeering. It's like their minions who talk about wanting to vote for someone who "loves the Constitution" or "will govern by the Constitution" -- when most of them don't even know what's in it. They don't feel they should have to be coherent, or defend their policy plans. After all, Sarah doesn't have to, and she gets LOTS of fawning attention.

Your tax dollars at work

While the teabaggers are getting ready to vote for a Senator from Alaska who believes that unemployment insurance and Social Security are unconstitutional and people delude themselves that these people are ONLY concerned about the national debt, it's funny how we've heard NOTHING from any of these teabaggers and their candidates about the billions squandered in rebuilding Iraq:

A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children's hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets.

As the U.S. draws down in Iraq, it is leaving behind hundreds of abandoned or incomplete projects. More than $5 billion in American taxpayer funds has been wasted — more than 10 percent of the some $50 billion the U.S. has spent on reconstruction in Iraq, according to audits from a U.S. watchdog agency.

That amount is likely an underestimate, based on an analysis of more than 300 reports by auditors with the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. And it does not take into account security costs, which have run almost 17 percent for some projects.

And this doesn't even include the $9 billion that mysteriously disappeared in that country during the war.

Who knew that Beckapalooza would feature a civil rights movement theme park?

Children of teabaggers on the "Experience Birmingham 1963" ride

(More photos and commentary at the Great Orange Satan.)

If you read one article today, make it this one

Matt Taibbi is always worth reading, but today he takes on what the results of Tuesday's primaries really mean -- that John McCain notwithstanding, the Tea Party was a big victor -- and that we laugh at them at our peril. I disagree with him that Americans are not thinking about Muslims; in the wake of the ginned-up "controversy" over whether Muslims can build a community center on property they bought, suddenly Scary Swarthy People are back in the reptilian brain of the Downtrodden and Afraid. And I'm not sure we haven't tried to push back. But I would say to Matt Taibbi that when you fight back, but the people who are supposed to represent you in our government have decided that you simply do not matter, it's hard to invest a whole lot in trying to stave off the inevitable.