The Real Reason the ACA Scares the Shit Out of Republicans

As if it couldn't be more obvious, Republicans at both the state and federal levels have been trying their damnedest to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, either through denying funding, stupidly challenging parts of it, or trying in vain to repeal it for the 40th time.  They are terrified of this law, nevermind that they came up with it first (specifically, their 2012 presidential candidate enacted the exact same program in Massachusetts).

The question on everyone's mind, of course, is why.

Oh, they're all too happy to tell you.  They're positively gleeful to tell you it's a job-killer, it's socialist, it's putting too many regulations on the free market, it will cost too much, it's unconstitutional even after the Supreme Court has said otherwise, and any other reason they can pull out of a bottle of scotch and dried election night tears.

I could pick through each and every reason listed and why they're all ridiculous nonsense, but that horse has had its rotting flesh flogged off for a couple years already.  No, the purpose of this rant is to cut through the bullshit and tell you the true reason the GOP is evacuating its bowels over Obamacare.

That reason is because it will work.

Yes, they're terrified of it working.  And the reason they're terrified of it working is because it was implemented by a black Democratic president.

There's a very simple formula at work, here.  When you give people rights they know they should have and protect the rights they already do have, you get votes.  The GOP is afraid because they know that when it works -- not if, when -- and when people start feeling the benefits of being able to get healthcare they didn't have access to before, they will be Democratic voters for life.

Because see, that's just how we roll on the left.

Conservative voters (read: scared old white people) vote out of fear.  Fear of change, fear of losing their privilege, fear of their ideas becoming obsolete.  When you vote out of fear, you vote to restrict and restrain that which makes you afraid (read: people who are not old, scared and white).  And thus, as a conservative, you vote to take away rights.  You vote to restrict and restrain the poor, women, the LGBT community, immigrants, and people of other races.

Progressive voters (read: everyone else) vote out of hope.  Hope to make things better, for our lives to improve.  We vote to give rights to people instead of taking them away, because when people have rights, their lives suck less.

Republicans hate the ACA not for the law itself, but for which side it's benefiting.  Which is why they rail so hard against Obama for it, but dodged the question when Romney's plan was mentioned.  They're not seeing 30 million Americans having access to healthcare; they're seeing 30 million votes going to Democrats, and they just can't let that happen after the beating they took last year.

This isn't new, of course.  Anybody who paid attention under the Clinton Administration should be getting an odd sense of déjà vu.  For those who weren't old enough to remember or be interested in politics, check out this infamous memo from 1993, courtesy of Republican strategist William Kristol.

To put it another way, I'm sure anyone who is reading this and is from the U.S. has seen Revenge of the Nerds.  Or at least clips of it.  If you haven't, let me remedy that because it's kind of important:

 

 Sound familiar?

The message from the Alpha Betas is pretty clear: how dare you be popular, how dare you work, how dare you give credit for working to people we don't like.

Republicans fear Obamacare for the same reason they feared the 19th Amendment, Executive Order 9981, the New Deal and the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Acts, the Auto Industry Bailout of 2009, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and countless other Little Guy victories.  They know there are a lot more nerds than there are beautiful people.  There are a lot more who have been stepped on, left out, picked on, and put down.

They know there are way more of us than there are of them, and they're afraid that if we're given too many rights, too much equality, we're going to realize it.

The Most Important Reason Why You Should Never Date a Nice Guy(TM)

For clarification before I begin, when I use Nice With a Capital "N", I'm not talking about actual guys who are nice.  Nice Guys with capitalization necessary are men who put on a pretense of being nice because they think doing so will get them what they want (usually sexual favors/relationships, but not always).  Rather than genuine goodwill, their niceness is pure turd polish.  And while this phenomenon does happen with girls, too, it doesn't seem nearly as common in women as it is in men.  And I'll get into why I think that is later.

We ladyfolk have heard all the usual reasons Nice Guys make terrible boyfriends.  They're entitled jerks, they're manipulative, they don't actually care about you as a person, etc.  But I think there's one more reason that isn't talked about nearly as much as it should be.  Not because people are afraid to call out the behavior for what it is, but that many out there don't understand what's so fucked up about it.

Nice Guys and Nice Girls are domestic abusers looking for a victim.

Or more to the point, they have the dangerous potential to become domestic abusers, because they have the mentality of one already.  Specifically, they have the mentality of an emotional abuser.  One who uses guilt and feelings of attachment in their victim in order to get what they want.

When a Nice Guy responds to romantic rejection with the classic line -- "Look at everything I've done for you, how could you do this to me!" -- what he's doing is shifting the responsibility for his emotions onto the person he's pining for.  It's not his fault that he's hurt, it's hers for telling him no.  She's the bad guy, here, because she'd have to be in order to reject someone as nice as him.

That, dear readers, is the hallmark of emotional abuse.

The vilification of the victim,  and the absolution of the abuser is what makes the sick system work.  Someone who already has the capability to make another person feel responsible for their moods and emotions has one foot on the abuse train, and the other isn't far behind.

All abusers have a degree of narcissism -- that is, an inflated sense of self-worth and importance and a lack of empathy for other people -- but it's not anywhere near as blatant and apparent as it is with the emotional abuser.  He doesn't use the fear of violent reprimand to control his victim, but guilt and feelings of worthlessness and inadequacy.  And he does this primarily by shifting blame and making his partner feel responsible for all of the problems in the relationship, and therefore unwilling to leave because doing so becomes a perceived admission of failure.

The crux of the Nice Guy mentality is exactly this kind of blame displacement.  That he's already learned to do this to someone he's not even in a relationship with speaks volumes to his potential for further abuse should this behavior go unchallenged.  And the reason this behavior tends to go unchallenged is because of the three types of abuse, emotional is the most poorly understood and the least visible.  The scars it leaves are just as devastating as any physical or sexual trauma, but they're only recognized by therapists who have been trained to look for them, and by people who have been the victim of it themselves.  And of the three, it's also the only kind that is perfectly legal.

Nice Guys are more common than Nice Girls for a couple of reasons.  One is that women generally don't receive societal conditioning that tells them they are entitled to any man they want by virtue of being a woman.  In order to feel entitled to a man, society dictates that certain criteria must be met first.  A woman must be stunningly beautiful (read: slender and buxom, with flawless skin and eternal youth), classy and well-mannered (read: keeps her opinions to herself), and able to walk the invisible line dividing the Madonna-Whore Complex with the precision of a highwire performer if she is to be seen as having "the luxury of being picky" (that being picky when it comes to romantic partners is seen as a luxury at all is another rant entirely).

Men, on the contrary, can only lose the luxury of pickiness if they meet certain criteria (and that criteria is being exceptionally unattractive, though Ugly Guy, Hot Wife is a very common wish fulfillment trope for a reason, so sometimes not even then).  Otherwise, society conditions men that they deserve the woman they want just by virtue of being male.

Men (especially American men) are also conditioned not to be negatively emotional unless it's anger and aggression.  Sadness is unmanly.  Hurt is unmanly.  Guilt is unmanly.  I don't just mean expressing these emotions, but just feeling them.  The Nice Guy seeks to shift the blame for his hurt and sadness at being rejected onto the person who rejected him in order to feel "manly" again.  His feelings of hurt and sadness don't count against him if they aren't really his fault.  If he can make someone else take responsibility for them, he can get his Man Card back.

While women don't display this kind of manipulative behavior as blatantly or as often, Nice Girls are out there, and they are just as abusive.  The difference is the pathology of emotionally abusive women is rooted not in a sense of entitlement being challenged, but in...well...feelings of inadequacy and worthlessness.

Women are conditioned to the exact opposite of entitlement, as previously mentioned.  We are pressured to be perfect in every way.  We are pressured to be beautiful, quiet, chaste, and resilient and if we aren't all of these things to a superhuman degree, we are told we will never attract a mate and if we can't attract a mate, we are worthless.  When a woman is trying to weasel into the life of a man she wants, it's because his rejection of her is effectively telling her "you're undateable and therefore useless" whereas a woman's rejection of a man is merely challenging his perceived authority over her.  Note that this does not make it okay for women to be abusers; it's not okay for anyone to emotionally abuse another person.  This is merely explaining the difference in motives.

When a woman shifts the blame for her moods onto someone else, she's not doing it to reclaim her Woman Card because feelings of sadness and hurt are considered "feminine."  Women cry.  Women emote.  Women react.  Women sit around the kitchen table with cheesecake and ice cream and console each other.  For women who shift blame to other people for their emotions, the chief difference can be found in the emotion they're shifting blame for.  While male abusers shift blame for sadness and hurt, women shift blame for anger.  Because while sadness and hurt are considered feminine, women displaying anger (and therefore aggression) is unladylike.  When female abusers blame-shift, they are often looking for absolution of wrongdoing.  "I didn't get angry, you made me angry by Doing Thing X/Not Doing Thing Y."

So now that I have a Fashionable Headgear Army all bent out of shape because I'm calling the Nice Guys with whom they identify and sympathize potential abusers and steering all the women away from them, what I mean by the title of this post is not that Nice Guys should be avoided forever; they should be avoided only while they are still Nice Guys and still have that blame-shifting mindset.  Because while it's entirely possible for Nice Guys to reform and grow up and realize how fucked and awful their behaviors and motives are, while they are still Nice Guys and unwilling to own their emotions and moods and seeking to shift that burden to their partner, they should not be given the chance to reel in a victim.

Behold, the Power of Shoes

Women love shoes.

It's a stereotype as old as Sears Roebuck itself, often the subject of jokes that are funny for about five minutes until you realize that invoking stereotypes for the sake of humor and not doing anything more is shorthand for "I'm not actually funny, I'm just an asshole."  And recently, it's become a thorn in the sides of radfems seeking to abolish anything viewed as traditionally "feminine" (a rant for another day, I assure you, because fighting sexism with misogyny is like stabbing yourself and expecting your opponent to keel over dead).

Before I start on this, I want to go on record that I am not a shoe-woman.  I own exactly three pair: one pair of flip-flops (because Florida), one pair of plain black slip-ons, and a pair of black steel-toed men's work boots.  All three pair put together set me back less than $60, and I only replace them when they are quite literally falling apart.  No doubt there are many women out there who are much the same.  Like any stereotype out there, there are going to be people who buck the trend, real or perceived.

The reason I'm defending the women out there who do love shoes, however, is because I'm sick of being told there is only one right way to be a feminist, and I'm doubly sick of interests associated with women getting shat upon because nobody ever grew up past "girls have cooties!"  I'm tired of women and anything associated with women being Acceptable Targets.

First, shoes carry different meanings for men and women.  For men, they're an item of fashion and/or utility and little else.  You wear them because they fit a need, and don't really think much of it.

With regard to women, shoes are a symbol of independence.  Especially for older women who grew up in the 1950s, the era that the phrase "barefoot and pregnant" as the pinnacle of female virtue gained popularity.  Shoes mean she can leave the house whenever she damned well pleases.  Shoes mean agency and the ability to do things for herself without having to wait for her husband to get home.

As a fashion accessory, it's no wonder that women who love shoes are going to buy a lot of them, and are going to be choosy about their styles and colors.  Shoes are a symbol of individual rebellion.  Naturally they're going to reflect the woman who is wearing them.  The woman who is telling the world that she does what she wants and if you don't like it, you can kindly fuck off because she doesn't have to answer to you.

Women who love shoes view them the same way that men who love vehicles view their cars.  But while jokes about guys and cars are affectionate and good-natured, the jokes about women and shoes are derisive and full of contempt.  And it's more than just a hideous double standard of 'girly' interests being worthless.

Denigrating women for liking shoes is denigrating them for putting their agency and independence on display.  For expressing their individual desires and wants and going out to get them.  For reminding everyone that they are not to be kept locked up in the house all day.  It's denigrating women for not wanting to be controlled.

Think about that the next time you make or hear a hateful joke about women and shoes.  Would you effectively tell that woman you think she's stupid because she wants to leave the house and be her own person and you find that just hilarious?

If you would think twice, maybe that joke is better left unmade.

Privacy Is Dead, Get Used to It

Because I'm the type who calls shit when I smell it, regardless of whether it came from the anus of an elephant or a donkey.  Fake outrage is fake outrage is fake outrage, and it sounds silly no matter who's getting frothy about it.  In this case, it's privacy.  Or the illusion thereof.

Ever since some guy named Edward Snowden showed us what's been common knowledge to anyone paying attention for almost 20 years now, many on the left have gotten a lit stick of dynamite shoved up their collective asses about privacy.  The reason I call this fake outrage is because privacy as we know it has been hanged in the village square since approximately 1995, when the internet and cellphones started becoming affordable and accessible to people who aren't the Koch brothers.  It's especially dead now when cellphones and VOIP service have been pushing the landline into extinction since at least 2011.

See, when you make a call on a cell phone, your message is not confined to one very tiny physical space that you need some know-how to hack into (a practice called "phreaking").  With a cellphone, especially in the smartphone age, there are a shitload of apps out there that do all the work for you and allow you to listen in on live calls without the other person's knowledge.  And this is not just limited to intentional spying.  "Spying" of the accidental type (called "crosstalk") can also happen due to signal interference, especially in large cities.  Which is why if you're doing telephone banking on your cell, enter the numbers on the keypad if you can instead of speaking them.  And also why many banks and other services no longer have the IVR speak your entered information back to you.

And we haven't even gotten to the internet yet.  This is just your phone.

With the internet, you're even more exposed because you're already going through a couple of middlemen to communicate at all.  The first is your ISP, of course.  The second is the server supporting whatever website or e-mail you use.

See, the internet is little more than a shitload of computers all over the world talking to each other.  Every website you visit is another computer.  Your e-mail address is another computer (two, actually; one for incoming mail and one for outgoing).  A computer that someone else owns and has full access to.  Sending an e-mail is not like sending a letter; when you send a letter, there is exactly one copy of your message that gets physically delivered to the recipient.  When you send an e-mail, your message is copied to your e-mail provider's outgoing mail server, then sent to the incoming mail server for your recipient, which he or she then downloads the message from or views the server copy depending on the provider.

These servers (basically gigantic monstrosity computers) are maintained by a team of people who, by agreeing to the terms of service, you give permission to access anything on them, anytime.  This is why it's never ever recommended to send important shit like credit card information or passwords through e-mail; there are way too many people who could potentially get their hands on it.

Even on social media sites that allow filters, such as Facebook and Livejournal, anything you post online is already in someone else's hands by virtue of how the internet works.  That post gets copied to another server.

But let's pretend you're one of those technophobes who has no computer or cellphone or tablet or whatever, and you're reading this because one of your friends printed it for you.  Your worry is those evil gub'mint cameras at busy intersections that are watching you, not unlike those two creepy statues at the entrance to Cirith Ungol.  Your outrage isn't fake because how dare The Man invade your privacy like that, right?  You're just walking down the street!

Well...yeah.  You're walking down the street, in public.  If you think you have an expectation of privacy at a busy intersection, your outrage is actually more fake than anyone worried about their phone calls or e-mails getting snooped on.  Because you are literally within view of hundreds of people, and there's a good chance half of those people are carrying a high-definition zoom camera with a constant internet connection in their hand.

That camera on the traffic light or street lamp?  The guy behind it doing the watching doesn't give a shit about you.  He's not going to notice you unless you're doing something that camera was meant to catch (speeding, running a red light, driving like a coked-up ostrich, etc.).

That's really the part that makes this outrage so baseless and sad.  Not only can private citizens snoop your calls and e-mails and surreptitiously snap your picture far more effectively than the federal government and with far more malicious intent (see: creepshots, Scientology), but nobody in the government cares about your day-to-day activities unless they are illegal.  Yes, I realize that people want their privacy and they don't like the long arm of the government getting all up in their Kool-Aid.  But let's be realistic here: you've likely been spied on by private companies working on federal contracts for the last 15-20 years.  What terrible injustices have happened in your life in that time that you can directly and verifiably attribute to government surveillance?

The problem is that people like feeling significant.  Being snooped on is flattering in a stupid, twisted way because it means they're important enough to pay attention to.  And they have a real problem with someone taking the wind out of their sails and being told that no, really, the Feds don't care how long you talked about the Game of Thrones finale with your friends last week.  Or where you went for lunch on Tuesday.  Sure, they can listen to your calls, watch you at an intersection, read your e-mails.  And they're going to be bored out of their collective skulls because you aren't doing anything that warrants a second glance.  Sure, it may be a violation of the 4th amendment, but 1) this isn't going away, and 2) it's petty and insignificant compared to shit like TSA digitally removing your clothes and groping you at the airport.  You don't have to like it, no.  But there's something to be said for picking your battles wisely rather than succumbing to knee-jerk reactionary bullshit.

Privacy as we've always known it is dead.  Whether you're buying coffee, banking, taking the bus, talking to your friends online or on the phone, texting your significant other, or even just walking down 5th Ave., you are likely being recorded in some fashion.  And if you hadn't even noticed it until Edward Snowden pointed it out, it's not likely to make any difference whatsoever in the rest of your time on the planet, either.

Why?  Because your life is not a Will Smith movie.  Except maybe for that part at the end of Men In Black II where we're the mold in some alien's locker room.

Nobody Dates a Jerk On Purpose: An Open Letter to the Self-Proclaimed Nice Guy(TM)

Dear Mr. Nice Guy,

I appreciate your feigned concern over the welfare of women whom you perceive to have ill-gotten taste in men because they 'only date assholes.'  There are just a few problems that I would like to point out that may help you realize why you're always the guy who finishes last, because let's not kid ourselves any longer.

Problem the First is that nobody looks for assholes to date.  No woman is deliberately looking to get treated like shit.  We just happen to end up dating assholes because many assholes have perfected the art of keeping their true nature a secret, and because women are conditioned from the time we develop cognitive reasoning to accept that our entire worth as people revolves around whether we make a decent mate.  In practical terms, this means that if a woman is single for too long, there's an implication that there's something wrong with her to make her undateable and therefore worthless.  Ergo, many women will seem to tolerate shitty behavior in their mates because they don't want to be viewed as unable to keep a man interested.  You can thank men and all the years of forcibly marrying your daughter off right after puberty for that one.

Problem the Second is that what you're seeing as assholishness, she's seeing as confidence, and to her that's attractive.  See, not everyone she dates is going to be a genuine asshole.  They just seem that way because none of those guys are you and you happen to have an artificially inflated opinion of yourself to compensate for your insecurities.  A guy who is rough around the edges but still confident enough to be upfront about his intentions instead of trying to weasel his way into her life is going to get more respect just for being honest.

Problem the Third is that if you are befriending or being kind to a woman with the end goal of having sex with her, that makes you just as much of an asshole.  You're just more subtle about it.  The reason it makes you an asshole is because just like the ones you think she's dating, you don't see her as a person, either.  She's a prize.  A reward for not being an overt douchebag.  You are still objectifying and dehumanizing her, but doing so under the guise of friendship and caring.  And frankly that just makes you creepy rather than nice.

See, nobody owes you sex or a relationship in return for pretending to be a decent human being.  As a famous image macro says, women are not machines that you put kindness coins into until sex falls out.  If you're being nice purely because you're expecting a reward, you're still an asshole, full stop.  Women have the right to refuse your advances no matter how nice you're being, because nobody is entitled to another person in any way whatsoever.

It's your duty to handle rejection like someone who isn't an asshole.

Regards,
The Patron of Sarcasm

Wendy Davis Teaches Us What the Filibuster Is

After watching the Republican minority in the U.S. Senate abuse the filibuster to the point of it being meaningless for the last 3 years, what Wendy Davis did 2 nights ago took on an extraordinary context.  Rather than simply invoke the silent filibuster and sit there while jobs don't get created, Texas state Senator Davis stood up and talked.

And talked.

And talked.

For 11 hours.

That's almost half a day without eating or sitting or even exiting the senate chamber to use the bathroom.

No, it's not a record by any means -- the longest filibuster in U.S. history is courtesy of Strom Thurmond, who spent 24 hours and 18 minutes running his mouth in an unsuccessful attempt to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1957 -- but it's nothing to sneeze at.

First, before I get too involved, have a short civics lesson.  The filibuster is a check on majority power in the Senate by allowing the minority to kill a bill by running out the clock so it can't be voted on before the session ends.  Before 2010, this technique was brutal.  You had to talk, and you were not allowed to leave the Senate floor for any reason, and it takes 60 votes to shut you up.  After 2010, the rules changed to allow the "silent filibuster," which required no talking, nor even for the Senator who invoked it to be present for its duration.

The rules in Texas are still the old-school rules.  If you want to kill a bill that badly, you have to fight for it.  The idea being that if a Senator truly cares about not getting this legislation passed, they will endure it.  And fight Davis did, for 11 goddamned hours.  More importantly, she won.  At least for now, until Perry calls his special session and the bullshit parade starts all over again.

My point is that the other night, Wendy Davis showed us what a filibuster is supposed to do and the right way to use it, versus the cowardly shit her Congressional Republican counterparts have been pulling the last three years.  Clogging up the system with nonsense filibusters they don't even have to be present for purely out of spite to the point that routine business stops, because how dare they have to concede final authority to a black guy.

Wendy Davis, while wearing a back brace and pink running shoes, displayed more spine than nearly half of the current U.S. Senate.  Simply by refusing to shut up or sit down until she was forced to.

The problem we have with the filibuster being abused in the national Senate is because it's easier to hold one.  There's been a lot of talk of filibuster reform, and I think besides limiting the number of them per year, the most important change would be to do away with the silent filibuster altogether.  If you want to fight a bill, then fucking fight it and make your colleagues shut you down. If you walk away, you throw in the towel.  Because if killing the bill is that important to you, you won't.  You will stay there for the people who elected you, because you owe them that much.

Senator Davis more than repaid the people in her district.  Let's see just how many U.S. Senators would be far too apathetic to do the same.  Maybe then, Congress can actually get something done for once.

Another One Sees the Light

Alan Chambers, head of the defunct-as-of-four-hours-ago "reparative therapy" organization Exodus International, has effectively said this shit was a bad idea and is closing down the entire operation.

In case you're not familiar with the term, "reparative therapy" is a thoroughly misleading moniker describing the various psychological tortures used to try and "cure" homosexuality.  In the sense that "cure" means "hate yourself until you can't get it up anymore."

Today, Chambers not only announced the dissolution of the organization, but posted an apology to the LBGT community on the organization's website.  And not one of those dickish I'm-not-really-sorry-but-I-don't-want-to-be-seen-as-an-asshole apologies, either.  A genuine "I fucked up royally, I'm sorry, this shit stops now, and while I hope you'll forgive me I don't really expect you to."

It is all too tempting for us Not Straight people and our allies to be gleeful.  I freely admit, I did a fist pump and cackled when I read the headline.  But then I read the apology, and I was no longer laughing and jubilant.

See, Chambers himself is gay.  Chambers is a gay man who subjected himself to this very same "therapy" in an effort to "fix" his attraction to men.   And he finally realized that not only did it not work, but it made him feel like shit.  And then he realized just how many other people his organization had put through this same hell on earth, and had an epiphany.  An awful epiphany that probably made him feel even worse (and rightly so).

This is not something to be gleeful about.  This is not something to be smug and greater-than-ye about.  This is not the time for a petty I-told-you-so no matter how good it would feel to say it.

Because this guy is one of us.

It's easy to feel superior if you've never grown up Not Straight in a very conservative household.  It's easy to say "wow, the dumbfuck finally got it, shame it took so long."  But the reason that's easy is because not growing up with that baggage affords you the privilege of being an outsider.  It affords you a clear head.

For those of us who have grown up as such, it's a different ballgame.  You are conditioned from a very young age to hate not just that one aspect of yourself, but the entire package because of it.  You are made to feel it's a choice even when you know it isn't.  You hate yourself because that's the only way you're accepted by your family, and as a teenager you're fucking terrified of getting disowned.  You will, quite literally, do anything to resolve this conflict.  And the easiest thing at that time is to just stop being Not Straight.  You can't hate yourself if you are not the thing you're raised to hate, after all.

It can and does frequently take people half a lifetime to figure out that the path of least resistance only works for electrons.  Some never do.  And when you do finally realize it with the knowledge that there's a whole shitload of people mad at you, it really does take the courage of a comic book hero to stand up and say "wow, did I ever fuck up.  I'm so, so sorry."

Alan Chambers did just that.  He faced the anger of both his own organization and the LGBT community and said "fuck it, this isn't working, I'm done, and I'm sorry."

If we want more Christians like him, we can't be smug.  We can't sink to our base emotions and point and laugh.  We have to show them this is right, and to do so we have to be the bigger people and say "hey, better late than never."

We don't have to forgive them for the pain they've caused.  But we do have to meet their decision and their change of heart with the support and kindness we want to see in them now.  Not derision and mockery.

Me?  I get him.  I grew up with the same baggage and no matter how much I think I've conquered it, some days I still lug it around like ten-tonne shackles because that kind of programming is exceedingly difficult to even erase, nevermind rewrite.  This is a guy who is a decade my senior and is just now attempting to take those shackles off.

So yes, better late than never, Mr. Chambers.  You're on the right track.  Just keep going.

Why Real Men Hate Rape Culture

Again, massive trigger warning for discussions of rape and rape culture following.

So, we ladyfolk already know why we should hate rape culture and everything it stands for: the victim blame, the suppression of women's sexuality, and the attempt to control our thoughts and actions through the fear of violence if we don't comply.

But you know what?  Men, real men, should hate this idea just as much as we do, if not a little more.

When society says that it's the (usually female) victim's responsibility to cover herself up, not flirt, not drink or watch her drink, not walk home alone at night, not answer the door if she's alone, not accept a ride from a man, lock her door as soon as she gets home, not listen to music while jogging, or a myriad of other precautions, what society is also saying is that the reason she must do this is because men have all the self-control of Cookie Monster at a bake sale.  Society is saying that men are slaves to their penises.  That they can't help themselves.  That their natural state is "rapist."

Being told that you can't help but rape and are always looking for a target because that's just what you do since you're a man should make you want to break shit.  Because it's painting you as incapable of human cognition, reasoning, and compassion.  As less than human.

If this doesn't piss you off, then there is something very wrong.

But of course, this begs the question: if that's the case, why are so many men either part of rape culture or not nearly as angry as they should be?

I'm not a psychiatrist, obviously.  I'm merely going on my personal experience with men who endorse rape culture, as well as the experiences I've read and heard from other women.  To me, the problem appears to be that rape culture itself is a double-edged sword; while on the one hand it's telling men they're natural rapists, on the other it's also absolving men of responsibility for their actions which hurt other people.  And that absolution is very, very appealing and comforting to a lot of men who are constantly watching the privilege they've grown used to get eroded by feminism.  Now, when bad things happen as a result of their own or their fellow men's actions, they can just turn around say "it's your own fault" instead of listening to the victim.

I see this attitude at work every time someone tells a rape victim (male or female) "well you were drunk/walking alone/not paying attention/leading them on/etc., what did you expect?"

Obviously, we all should be expecting to be raped (unfortunately, statistics are on their side on this one).  Which makes our concern that we were raped easily dismissable.  After all, not the rapist's fault that we didn't take proper precautions (or the ones we did take weren't good enough).

Why real men (and hell, women, we're just as capable of both rape and defending rape as men are) should hate this?  Is because real good, honest people should hate being told they are natural predators.  That they're inherently evil.

If you don't hate being told that?  There's something broken inside.

Politics Is A Lot Like Online Dating

You may sound good on paper as a candidate, but seeing you in person is what's going to make or break your chances.  You may not look like a supermodel, but if you're intelligent, confident, caring, funny, and make it clear you're going places, you'll attract people.  More than you may know what to do with.  Being good-looking but dense as a sack of bricks isn't going to get you further than a one-nighter.  Being good-looking, smart, and an asshole isn't going to get you anywhere period.  You might dupe people in the short-term if you have any sense of charm, but they'll eventually drop your ass once they realize they can do better.  And word will spread, and you will eventually be known as That Guy.

While nobody's quite mastered the first type, right now the GOP are the poster children for that third one.  The Self-Proclaimed Nice Guys® chewing on the brims of their fedoras and chugging a can of Venom while complaining about those stuck-up minority voters constantly friendzoning them at the polls.

As so many of us ladyfolk know, this attitude is repulsive enough coming from a 20-something college kid who expects minor sexual favors as a reward for not being an overt douchecanoe.  When it comes from 60+ year old men who are more than old enough to know better, it falls somewhere between "hilarious" and "fuck this, I'm done."

See, when you make it painfully clear that there are certain groups you want to deny voting rights to simply because they won't vote for you, it's the dating equivalent of putting a "ps - no fat chicks, lol" line in your online profile.  Not only are you not going to get the fat chicks you don't want, but you're going to drive away a lot of the people you do want because you sound like an asshole.

Guess what?  That really doesn't leave too many people in your corner.

This "re-branding" campaign the GOP has launched in a mad scramble for votes after getting summarily whipped black and blue at the polls in 2012 is little more than just fluffing up their online dating profile with better pictures and quietly removing Ted Nugent from their list of favorite artists.  The same asshole is still behind it. And if you schedule a date and meet him in person, in public, you'll see it.  You'll see it in every ridiculous thing he says about rape, in every racist anti-immigration law he wants to pass, in every women's clinic and shelter he wants to close, in every gun he wants to put in the hands of a teacher, in every dollar of social aid he wants to keep out of the hands of the poor, in every public classroom he wants to put a Bible in, in every word of paranoid nonsense he says about climate change and evolution being hoaxes, and in every child he wants to deny sex education to.

It's not the "brand" that needs to change for the GOP.  It's the policies behind the brand.  It's the pining for an America that never existed.  The fear, the paranoia, the frothing insanity and denial of reality, the resistance to change itself.  The stagnation.  The fetid peat bog of stupid that is only serving to preserve this farce of a party for posterity, so we can look back on it in forty years and say "thank God Almighty we dodged that fucking bullet."

Nope, We Really Haven't Come That Far At All

First, trigger warning for discussions of rape and rape culture on this post.

On Sunday, news broke of the verdict in Steubenville, OH for two football players who sexually assaulted a drunk and mostly-unconscious 16-year-old.  And just because that wasn't despicable enough, one of them saw fit to take pictures of her naked and share them with friends, as well as let friends film him assaulting her.

The two defendants have been found guilty, and sentenced to a paltry three years between the two of them.  But that's not what has -- or should have -- everyone with even a basic grasp of human decency incensed.

No, what should make anyone following this case so utterly fucking furious is the media coverage.  CNN in particular, but the sentiment has spread to other stations.

Scott Prouty, the Man Who Saved America

As far as history's concerned, we only remember the big guys.  The ones in the thick of the action, for good or ill.  The wealthy white men making the big decisions.  Yet if you know where to look and who to read, you discover this sprawling world of seemingly insignificant people whom history has completely overlooked, but who were actually responsible for some of the biggest game-changers that have ever gone down.

And so it is today.  Tonight, after finally outing himself, Scott Prouty joins the ranks of Frank Wills, the security guard who discovered the break-in at Watergate which led to Nixon's resignation and the passing of the Freedom of Information Act, and Barton W. Mitchell, the Union scout who found the copy of Special Order 191 and is the reason we're still the United States of America, in this country's army of unsung heroes and heroines to whom we owe so much, but don't really know who to make the check out to.  Little Guys who, like Frodo Baggins, snuck past the Gate because Sauron thought them too small and insignificant to pose much of a threat; Frank Wills was a high school dropout because he had to help support his single mother and made $80 a week then as a guard at Watergate, and Mitchell was a Corporal who was tasked with what was then known as "getting shot at first."  Compared to one of the most cunning tactical minds in American history, and the 37th President of the United States, these two men were the human equivalent of that last bit of boot polish that comes farting out of the bottle.

But unlike Frodo, neither one of these men was on a crusade to defeat the evil overlord when it went down.  Frank Wills did not wake up the afternoon of June 17, 1972 and get ready for work while thinking "you know what, I'm gonna bring down the entire fucking government today."  He was simply wandering the halls like he was shittily paid to do, and just happened to see some duct tape on the doors where duct tape really shouldn't be and did the right thing and called the cops.  Barton W. Mitchell didn't approach D. H. Hill's deserted camp in September 1862 thinking "I'm going to find the secret to winning the entire goddamned war today."  He was simply hoping not to get shot at by any stragglers and looking for useful shit that the Confederates might've left behind (like the cigars that Special Order 191 was wrapped around because why the fuck not?).

Likewise, Scott Prouty did not go to work on May 17, 2012 thinking "I'm going to make double-damn pinky-swear sure that Barack Obama gets re-elected today."

Scott Prouty, like Frank Wills and Barton W. Mitchell before him, was simply doing his menial I-don't-get-paid-nearly-enough-for-this-bullshit job serving alcohol to rich assholes who could afford to blow what the average American makes in a year on one fucking dinner.  He brought his camera purely hoping to get a souvenir photo-op with some famous rich guy, because at a previous event that Prouty worked, another famous rich guy named Bill Clinton made it a point to go to the kitchen and treat the staff like people.  What he got instead was Mitt Romney verbally pulling down his pants and pissing on nearly half the nation.  And he just happened to catch that shit on tape.

It was a case of sheer dumb luck for the entire nation that the man who managed to record those remarks also had the balls to do the right thing and make them public, as he puts it, "so that those who couldn't afford to be there could see what Romney really thought."

By putting a needle in the arm of Romney's campaign through exposing his raw, uncensored schmuckery to everyone who didn't have a year's worth of paychecks to blow in one night, Scott Prouty saved the country by making Obama's re-election a foregone conclusion.  By preventing a real life Gordon Gekko from making a leveraged buyout of the U.S. to whoever would give him the best offer.  Like Frank Wills for exposing a thoroughly corrupted administration, and Barton W. Mitchell for finding the Confederates' complete war plan and getting it to the right people, Prouty is also a national hero.

Someone, make him a drink for once.

Why Nobody Should Care What Mitt Romney Thinks, But We Do Anyway

It's not uncommon for the loser of a presidential election, regardless of party, to have an interview a few months later to reflect on their loss.  And in the last few elections prior to 2012, nobody really bothered to question why we do this.  It's interesting to hear from the also-ran why he didn't get to the finish line, to be sure, but there's also the matter of previous candidates still being in the political arena in some fashion despite not being president: John McCain is unfortunately still a Senator, John Kerry was still a Senator, and Al Gore, while not holding public office, is still a huge activist for not screwing up the planet any more than we already have.

Mitt Romney is nothing.

After his second failed bid for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Romney has gone back to doing what he does best: diving through mountains of cash like Scrooge motherfucking McDuck.  Only Scrooge made his money with honest hard work -- the character started out as a literal boot-polisher -- instead of being born into money and wresting an even bigger fortune away from actual honest, hardworking people.

And we know why he lost.  He lost because he was a terrible candidate: an out-of-touch, self-righteous, exceedingly arrogant, chauvinistic asshole who ran the biggest clusterfuck of a campaign since George McGovern, and couldn't convince even half the country that he wasn't a total schmuck.

Nobody should give a single constipated shit what he thinks.  He's not involved in politics anymore, and he isn't going to tell us anything we hadn't figured out by November 6, 2012.

So why does anyone care enough to let him tell us his sob story about how much he and his wife pretend to be concerned for anybody but the ironic 47% who voted for him?

The answer is twofold.  First, we need a distraction.  Or more specifically, the GOP needs a distraction.  They need something to point at to get their constituents' minds off how much they can't get their shit together, because they care more about being True Republicans than actual lawmakers.  Second, it's a mad scramble to get back into the bubble before reality turns them into progressives, because Romney was the center and wall of that bubble for a year and a half.

So by rights, nobody in either party should be caring what Romney thinks.  He's a loser who should fade back into irrelevance, and be remembered the same way we remember Michael Dukakis' existence after 1988.  But for a party that is smack in the middle of a midlife crisis that would make a 49ers fan roll his eyes, Romney is grudgingly safe territory.  A reminder of what the party should stand for, and the Dickens-era hellhole that it wants to drag the country back kicking and screaming into.

For the rest of us?  Hearing a smug asshole weep is some sweet, sweet music and a slice of schadenfreude pie.

You Built That, Just Not By Yourself

And in this exercise in screaming into the void that is the internet when nobody's paying attention to you, I'll be tackling the biggest and most perpetuated lie the GOP has continued to sell its base on for decades. The Lie That Was the Lie. The One Lie to Rule Them All: self-reliance.

Why I’m calling it a “lie” and not merely a “myth” is because with myths, those who perpetuate them know they aren’t true and don’t expect anyone else to believe they’re true. They’re good marshmallow-toasting tales to entertain your friends with (and possibly make them afraid to sleep with the lights off ever again). A lie, on the other hand, is something the teller knows is bullshit, and expects the sucker he’s telling it to to believe him anyway. In fact, he’s counting on it. When Republicans talk about self-reliance and getting on that ladder, they’re lying, because they know as well as the Democrats that the end of that ladder isn’t resting on the ground; it’s rather high up, and unless you’re tall enough to start with, you’re going to need help reaching it.

The difference is that the Democrats want to help people reach that ladder no matter how short they are. The Republicans want to keep the short people off it so that their success doesn’t lose any of its specialness.

Self-reliance is a lie because unless you’re a 16^th-17^th-century pioneer (in which case, how the hell are you reading this?), you are relying on others every single day. You may not be able to see them and many of them you will never meet, but you rely on them just the same.

Somebody built your house or apartment. Somebody built the electrical grid that powers your home and laid the pipes that bring you water. Somebody grew and made the food you ate today. Somebody cleaned up the water you drank so it would hydrate you instead of kill you. Somebody printed the money you used to buy that food and water. Somebody built the road and the car or bus or train you used to get to work today. If you have a job, somebody hired you. If you own a business, somebody is keeping you in business by buying whatever goods or services you provide. Somebody is also keeping your business moving by delivering and mailing your parcels and handling your money and giving you a line of credit to buy things you need. Somebody also built the computer or tablet or smartphone that you’re using to read this post.

And chances are, none of those “somebodies” up there was you. There’s an even better chance that you can’t call a single one of them by name. But they’re not invisible pink unicorns; they do exist, even if you have no idea who they are. Because these things got done somehow, and if you didn’t do it, then someone else had to.

No, what the doctrine of self-reliance is is a way to look down on others who aren’t tall enough to reach the end of that ladder, and a means to dismiss them as unimportant.

Because I love pop culture, and I think movies are some of the most biting social commentary we have as well as entertainment, let’s take a look at this quote for a minute from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:

Indiana Jones: It was just the two of us, dad. It was a lonely way to grow up. For you, too. If you had been an ordinary, average father like the other guys' dads, you'd have understood that.
Professor Henry Jones: Actually, I was a wonderful father.
Indiana Jones: When?
Professor Henry Jones: Did I ever tell you to eat up? Go to bed? Wash your ears? Do your homework? No. I respected your privacy and I taught you self-reliance.
Indiana Jones: What you taught me was that I was less important to you than people who had been dead for five hundred years in another country. And I learned it so well that we've hardly spoken for twenty years.

Sure, it’s one of the most famously bitter father-son duos verbally duking out their problems over some whisky while being chased by Nazis. But if you look closer at it, it’s also some insightful commentary on the GOP’s current delusion. Like Henry Jones, Sr., they think neglect is just a way of teaching you how to fend for yourself.

In a twisted way, it is. But it’s not going to teach that lesson any better than throwing someone into the deep end will teach them how to swim; you only learn something if you don’t die trying.

In the end, we all want to get on that ladder. But until that ladder comes down to the ground where everyone has a fair shot at reaching it, there’s only one way to make sure that success is not just limited to tall people: build the short ones something to stand on.

Lifestyles of the Rich and Shameless: Why Republicans Hate the Poor, But Love Poverty, Part 1

You remember when you were in gradeschool, and some jerkass member of the opposite sex made your life hell?  And when you complained about it, you were told "that means s/he has a crush on you?"  And it seemed like total bullshit because what kind of childhood sociopath would act like a raging bag of dicks toward people they liked?  And if they're a raging bag of dicks when they like you, what truly awful things have they done to people they actually hate?

Yeah, I never understood that explanation, either, until I started following politics.  Because the GOP has exactly that kind of crush on the poor.

On the one hand, they hate poor people.  Because they buy into the whole "But...But...Bootstraps!" thing which makes life a lot easier for them when they can ignore that you have to have bootstraps in order to pull yourself up by them.  So it's a quick, easy way to feel superior to others no matter how much your life sucks otherwise.  Your wife may be filing for divorce because she caught you banging your secretary and her husband because you left your webcam on, and your two-point-five children have cut you off because you couldn't put down the golf club and the bourbon long enough to be involved in their lives, but at least you're not that poor fucker who had to deal with your angry phone call when the cable went out.

After all, you're responsible and hardworking enough to not have to deal with assholes like you all day.  Go you.

On the other hand, Republicans love them some poverty, and they will be all too happy to count the ways if you let them.  All of their policies are carefully crafted to ensure that people who are already broke will stay that way.  Because poor people tend to be too tired from having to make major financial decisions all day, every day to think about all the ways they're being screwed.

It's part of a larger sick system that helps people who don't deserve it stay in power no matter how absurd their positions seem to the rest of us.

It's far less work to slyly manipulate people into needing you than to make them want to stay in your corner by being someone they like and respect.  Being a likeable, respectable person (or political ideology) requires empathy, compassion, and concern for other people.  For bona fide assholes like the current Republican party, that's too much work.  The sick system is easier.  And unfortunately, a lot more reliable.

For proof that it works, look no further than this study: the poorest people in the country also tend to be the staunchest conservatives.  When you look at the outline of what a sick system is -- mental exhaustion (policies that gut social programs, and national financial crises manufactured purely by political obstructionism) peppered with intermittent morsels of bread-and-circuses-style temporary reward (tax breaks, religion, and patriotic fervor), it suddenly makes sense how people could feel in any way loyal to a political ideology that exploits and abuses them and laughs all the way to the bank.

We're Still Having This Conversation Because Stupid, Insecure Men Still Think Confident Women Are Going to Cut Off Their Dicks

It's the year 2013, but due to the rhetoric uttered by old men who still can't stop saying dumb things about rape even after losing two Senate races because of it, it can be easy to forget that and scribble "1970" the next time you need to date something.

See, in case you haven't figured it out already because the world hasn't completely ruined you yet, "pro-life" is a complete, intentional misnomer.  It's the candy they hand out the back of their windowless van; once you figure out the far more insidious truth, it's a little too late.  And no, the analogy really isn't that far off.

Because if it was really about the babies, these people would be all over birth control.  They'd be putting it in vending machines right next to the green M&Ms and giving out complimentary condoms like a steakhouse hands out after-dinner mints.  They'd be doing everything humanly possible to encourage people to practice that which prevents the need for abortion: safe, responsible sex.

But they don't do that.

These are instead the same people who pitch the -- oh yes -- mother of all hissyfits over making insurance companies cover contraception, but are tellingly silent about why Cialis and Viagra need to get put on the corporate tab.

What the "pro-life" movement is about is not saving the lives of fetuses, but controlling female sexuality and punishing the women on whom those fetuses would depend, because how dare a woman step outside her historical place.  How dare a woman be in charge of her own body.  How dare she think sex is something she gets a say in.  And, horror of horrors, how dare she enjoy it without asking a man's permission or begging his forgiveness.

Because yes, it's 2013, and the very idea of a woman realizing she has agency and not being afraid to use it is something a significant -- but thankfully shrinking -- number of men find utterly terrifying.  Because just like their bowels in a rented tux, they're losing control and they know it.

And it should come as a shock to absolutely no one that the men most afraid of this eventuality are those who have the most to lose.  But in a self-fulfilling prophecy straight out of Minority Report.

What these men have to lose is the power they've enjoyed over women since before we started writing this stuff down.  The salve they've been taught to put on their bruised egos since birth that no matter how much they might get kicked around by other men in various posturing power struggles, there is always someone they count on to respect their authority, and that someone is women.

Not having anyone to easily reassert power over at the end of the day?  Means they'll have to start -- and this is the really scary part -- being respectable instead of assuming people think they are.  They'll have to start earning respect through something other than fear and force and manipulation.  And, what with this form of respect being completely new to them and all, they'll have to learn it like a yuppie learns how to tip at a nightclub in Overtown: by screwing up, and getting told in excruciating detail just how you screwed up and why you should never screw up that way again.

For the man who is typically just hitting that point in his life where he blows his life savings on a Ferrari to cruise around town and pick up a date young enough to be his daughter, this is the absolute last candle on the sanity cake, and it's just been blown out.

The real irony, of course, is that he would not have anything to lose if he wasn't so damned scared in the first place.  But that's just it: men who are decent people and know they're decent people don't need to prove it by basing their entire identity off maintaining a place in some perceived pecking order.  Men who are decent people don't feel threatened by sharing equally with women power and respect, because they're already doing it.

If you remember The Neverending Story and the Magic Mirror Gate that Atreyu had to pass through in order to get to the Southern Oracle?  It's kinda like that.  These are kind men discovering that they're cruel.  Brave men discovering that they're really cowards.  They're confronting their true selves, and running away screaming.

And the decent people of the world are all too content now to just let them run.  The further, the better.

Government Is Not a Volunteer Service

Or rather, why paying taxes is important and people who truly want free stuff need to stop whining about money that was never theirs in the first place.

Yes, let's get this notion out of the way first: the money you pay in taxes is not your money, and it never was.  It's the government's money.  Taxes are not donations; they're taxes.  You are required to pay them.

And why are you required to pay them?

Because all these nifty government services you use every day whether you realize it or not cost money.  Delivering running water and sewer costs money.  Picking up your trash every week costs money.  Maintaining traffic lights and roads and bridges costs money.  Police and firefighters need to be paid.  The service that mails your letters and parcels costs way the fuck more than the actual postage you pay.  Inspectors that make sure the food you eat doesn't contain rat poison also need a paycheck.  So do the clerks who make sure you still exist on paper tomorrow.  The transit workers who get you where you want to go if you don't have a car.  The teachers who guarantee every kid has a shot at an education.

You get the idea.

These people are not volunteers.  They work.  And they work just as hard as anyone in the private sector, and for substantially less money because everyone needs to have access to the services they provide.

This is why we pay taxes.  Because unless you can afford to buy your own private island and start your own country of one, all of these services that make life a lot less miserable (and dangerous) require other people to have jobs.

So you can stop bitching and moaning about "your" money going to other people without your permission anytime.  For one thing, it's not your money.  For another, that money is, in fact, coming right back to you through these vital services.

The fiscal speed bump we just went over?  Is making sure you can still receive these services.

Would I like to pay lower taxes and still receive the same benefits?  Not gonna lie, I sure as hell would.  But that really isn't possible.  It's one thing that we need to stop plugging our ears and admit:

Many of the Bush tax cuts that a lot of us have benefited from in the short term (including Yours Truly)?  Were a mistake in the long run.  An enormous, expensive mistake, and we're only now beginning to see the longer term effects of it.  Trying to run an effective government, period, as a skeleton operation doesn't work.  And as much as Republicans are trying to force it to, We the People saw through that smokescreen in November.

A deal to keep the lower taxes for the middle class would be awesome.  But I don't think it can work.  We can't just climb out of this one.  The hole is too deep, the sides are too smooth, and there are way too many of us.  We need to dig sideways and then start digging back up so we have something to stand on that isn't the backs of those below us.

And that means everyone needs to grab a shovel.

A Lame Duck Can Still Beat You With His Cane

As the GOP still refuses to take its pills and pretends Romney won the election because that's what the alien microbes that live in their cellphones told them and the alien microbes know better than everyone who isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch, they have proposed a "counteroffer" to the current administration's plan to avoid the fiscal cliff.  And the quotes are necessary because it's less like a counteroffer and more like one of Wile E. Coyote's diagrams for a jetpack powered by Chupacabra farts.

For one thing, in case you haven't heard it already, the fiscal cliff is only being referred to as such because "cliff" is a scary word that makes everyone who hates math and failed high school economics think of the ending to Thelma & Louise.  Putting a life-or-death spin on it has a funny way of getting people to listen.  In reality?  It's something we can easily survive.  Because we have before, and under very similar circumstances.

Coming out of Bush 41's one-term disaster in 1992 -- due mostly to his own party turning on him for not being half as crazy as they hoped he was -- with even the national unemployment rate only slightly lower than it is now, we took the higher tax rates for the wealthy that Clinton signed into law in stride, right along with the breaks for the middle and lower classes.  And we did more than just okay.  We did pretty damned awesome compared with what we'd just come out of.  We had a surplus.  Unemployment dropped almost three full percentage points over the next eight years.  At least until He Who Must Not Be Named started two completely unnecessary wars while telling the world we'll figure out how to pay for it later and people like Mitt Romney can game the system for as much as the Cayman Islands will hold at the expense of as many people as they want.

Going back to the Clinton-era tax rates at the moment isn't ideal, only because the tax rates for the middle class would also increase.  But it won't ruin us, either.  So we can stop acting like this is what the Mayans were on about any time.

Secondly, the "counteroffer" Boehner and his cohorts just put on the table is not only impossible, it's impossible in a way that makes the cliff look like the better option.  The cliff, while raising taxes for everyone, doesn't disembowel the programs that people who aren't rich depend on because even if they worked their minimum wage job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they still wouldn't have enough to cover all their bills for the month.  And the cliff doesn't gut these programs so that people like the Koch brothers and Bernie Madoff don't have to give up that sixth house in the Maldives.

Thirdly -- and I've saved the best for last -- is that if the GOP gave half the crap that they shat on Election Night about reducing the deficit as much as they pretend to, they would be flooring the gas to get over that cliff as fast as possible, because that's exactly what the cliff is going to do: reduce the deficit.

But they aren't.  They're trying, instead, to put on the brakes even if it means blowing the engine and stopping the car dead.  And the only reason they care enough to do so is because the tax hike would affect the top 1% who are supposed to line their coffers and rig the voting machines for 2014.  If the tax hike was only on the middle class, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Also, Medicare/Medicaid, social security, and food stamps are an evil scheme to breed more gay atheist brown people to take over the country and we need to eliminate them before the Great Pumpkin and his army of Killer Tomatoes take vengeance, according to the cellphone-dwelling alien microbes.

It's a cognitive dissonance in that they're half on board the HMS Keynes, but don't want to admit it because they're afraid the captain of the Menger will give them a taste of the lash for such vile sedition.  And it'd be hilarious if it wasn't gumming up the works so much.

So, as a solution, I propose this: every single Congresscritter who agrees with John Boehner should be barred from introducing or voting on any legislation regarding the economy until they've passed the Advanced Placement Government and Economics exam with a score of 3 or higher.  If they do not pass it, their seat is recalled, and their state will hold a special election.  All candidates for these elections must also pass the Advanced Placement Government and Economics exam with a 3 or higher before they can appear on the ballot.

Because what the GOP has yet to realize is that Obama being a lame duck President doesn't mean he's lost his power; quite the opposite.  He doesn't have another election to worry about winning for the history of ever.  He doesn't have to watch his step, because he has nothing left to lose for the next four years.

They do.  About 214 things, to be precise.

"Job Creators" Are Much Like "Inconceivable"

...If you're a Republican, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

The thing about "job creators" that the Republicans have missed the last four years and will keep missing the next four unless the lot of them get bashed in the face with a clue-by-four is who they actually are.  Obviously, people who create jobs.  But what the GOP fails to understand is who really does that and how they do it.

The people who directly create jobs are very often well-off enough to have a business of their own, yes.  But the thing about a business is that it needs income in order to pay its employees and buy its supplies and still have profit left over.  Where does that money come from?

Look in the mirror.

Yes, you.  That money that keeps businesses running and keeps the paychecks flowing comes from you.  It comes from me.  It comes from your friends and neighbors and your bus driver and your teacher and that woman who bags your groceries and that college kid who made your latte this morning.  It comes from everyone in the country who buys things, and the majority of that everyone is not made up of Fortune 100 CEOs.

Rich people do have more disposable income than the rest of us, yes, and can spend much more than any of us can as individuals.  But there are a lot more of us than there are of them, so collectively we spend money in far greater quantities.

I see it at my job all the time.  The majority of people who come into my store looking for new cool stuff they don't really need but really really want are not upper class.  And you can tell they're not upper class because the average person who makes $250K/year is not going to do a ten-minute cost-benefit analysis with you on an item that's under $50.  The average person who makes $250K/year is not going to camp out on Thanksgiving in anticipation of Black Friday because their sleep is more valuable to them than the money they'll be saving on that doorbuster.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with not having the money to drop $50 on a whim, and to have to shop on Black Friday because you won't be able to afford that item otherwise.  My point is that the millions of people I see every day who do that are not rich.  But I see way the hell more of them as customers than the ones who have the money to buy out my entire stockroom, and still have enough for dinner at Joe's Stone Crabs.

It's the middle-class people who are the fabled "job creators" because it's their money that gives me my tiny-but-vital paycheck.  If they weren't buying things, there would not be demand for my job.  And no company worth its salt is going to create jobs they don't need to just to put people to work.

With this in mind, now remember the trickle-down economics that the Republicans have been trying to sell you for decades, and see if you don't feel like you're being approached by some creepy guy on a subway platform trying to get you to buy a wooden iPad for $200.

Because giving rich people more money that they're not going to spend in enough quantities to matter will not grow anything except their bank accounts.

You grow an economy the way you grow a tree; by watering the soil, not the leaves.  So that you have solid roots and a strong trunk so it doesn't get blown over in the first nasty wind that hits it.  You can even have a tree with no leaves at all in the wintertime when resources are scarce.  You can't have a tree without a trunk and a root system.

 The GOP's policy of watering the leaves and assuring us that it will somehow reach the rest of the tree, biology be damned, is going to do nothing but destroy the parts of the tree that make it a tree in the first place.  Trickle-down economics does way worse than merely not work; it prevents any other strategy or action from being taken.  When the tax cuts are going to rich people, who in turn donate to the lawmakers who give them the tax cuts so they can get re-elected and then pocket the rest, what you have is an infinite closed loop of money that doesn't create one single goddamned job.  Because it's not reaching the people who truly create those jobs: us.

How to Lose Gracelessly: The Republican Handbook

I never much liked sports when I was in school.  I partly blame the South Florida sun and humidity that makes your clothes stick to you like a lot of Post-It notes in embarrassing places, but most of it is because gradeschool sports culture is a swamp of hurt and grudges and all around foul sportsmanship.  Which is to say it's a lot like the GOP this past week.

The one piece of advice that every P.E. coach I ever had tried and failed to drill into the heads of my classmates was that sports was about having fun and getting your fat ass moving more than it is about winning or losing.  "It isn't whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game," was chanted like a mantra.  And if you're going to lose, at least do yourself a favor and lose with dignity and learn why you lost so you can play a better game next time.

In this case, the GOP strategy for losing is about as screwed up as their campaign was.

From Paul Ryan blaming black "urban" voters, to Romney blaming "gifts", to Rove claiming voter suppression on the part of the Democrats because they convinced people not to vote for Romney -- Karl, that's called campaigning, voter suppression is what you guys tried to do in Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio, among other places -- it's like a handbook for how to lose in the sorest way possible since Kenneth Pinyan.

And if they're not trying to blame black people and poor people and women and gays being allowed to vote as the reason they lost, they -- or at least Fox News, but these days same difference -- turn to the old standby, the batshit conspiracy theory.  They turn to Benghazi and Fast and Furious as an empty "I told you so" to anyone who will listen.  Which, strangely enough, not even they're doing.

This is not how you lose if you ever want to win again.  Not just because it's dickish.  Not because it's racist.  Not because it's condescending.  Not because it's a turnoff to everyone but your most brainwashed sycophants.  It's all of these things, yes, but there's an even bigger reason that even someone who is a racist, condescending dick should be able to appreciate:

If you're blaming everyone else and shooting Oliver Stone films in your spare time, you aren't learning a goddamned thing about why you actually lost.  And if you don't do that, if you don't look back at the game footage with a critical eye to see exactly where you screwed up and how you should avoid screwing up that way again, you will never be able to win another title.

When even Bobby Jindal -- the guy who allowed Creationist propaganda to masquerade as science in Louisiana public schools -- is telling you to "stop being the stupid party", I think it's time to face the room full of addicts and admit you have a problem.

Why the GOP Has Lost Far More Than the Election

November 6, 2012 was a win.  Not just for President Obama, but for everyone in the United States with a firm grip on reality.  For those who truly care about making this country better for everyone who lives in it, not just the privileged few at the top.  For those who want to see this nation succeed in spite of one half of its two-party system doing damn near everything to sabotage it.

Which means, of course, that it was a loss for the Republicans.  Just the latest in a long line of losses that stretches back the last two decades.

And what they have lost goes way beyond mere elections.  They have lost their anchor in the fabric of the world.  Some out there will invariably say that Mitt Romney was not elected because he was merely unlikeable; he let his true colors come through too often, and the American people decided they just weren't as into Piero Manzoni as his strategists had anticipated.  But it goes so much deeper than that.

The first problem the GOP has is that it's trying to appeal to an America that no longer exists.

This is only a slight oversimplification.  The demographic the GOP has always depended on to vote them into office -- the white, upper-crust churchgoing men with trophy wives and two-point-five children -- has been steadily shrinking since the late 1980s.  America has gotten browner, gayer, and less concerned with who created the universe.

Compounding this is that the GOP depends on that white, upper-crust churchgoing man to be not just staunchly conservative, but fearful of change.  Because that fear is to their power what the One Ring is to Sauron.  It's the basis for everything they do.  They can't use gays, atheists, and brown people as threats to the American way of life unless the white men they're pandering to have enough sphinctre-loosening terror to prey upon.  And that fear has been steadily dissipating for the last eight years.  Ever since Massachusetts made it clear that people can marry who they want, and the Earth will keep spinning and the sky will stay up because astrophysics and human sexuality have the same effect on each other as iocaine powder does on The Dread Pirate Roberts.

This is not to say that there aren't still some scared, angry white guys out there.  There are plenty.  That Obama's win in this race was significantly less of a landslide victory than it was in 2008 against a far less extreme opponent and with record numbers of minority voters is clear evidence of that.  But there just aren't enough paranoid, angry white people to sustain the GOP as they are.

The second problem for the GOP is, quite frankly, the internet and the age of free and immediate information that it has fostered.  Thirty years ago, it could take days or even weeks of research to refute a false claim in a political ad or a debate, and even longer to put that new information into people's hands.  Now, with the internet being more popular than television as a news source, people all over the country can fact-check what you say as you say it and put that information out there before you even know what your next lie is going to be about.  You can't just swiftboat your way into office anymore.  As this election and the 2008 election have proven, people do care about facts.  And now that those facts are available on-demand, wherever and whenever they're needed, people care about them more than ever.

The third, and biggest problem, is that the GOP refuses to acknowledge the first two problems.  It refuses to face reality, because reality is hard and unforgiving.  It's a very childlike mentality of hoping that if they ignore unpleasant things, they will go away.

First, they selected Mitt Romney as their frontman.  The upper-crustest, churchgoingest, angriest, whitest unless he's appearing before an Hispanic audience guy they could find.  Next, they ignore every piece of bad news that surfaces about him.  They ignore his unreleased tax returns.  His record of assaulting classmates with scissors.  His seemingly pathological need to lie.  His inability to do simple math.  His hypocritical denouncing of his own policies.  His contempt for nearly half the country he's depending on to elect him.  And the train-loads of smarm that ooze from every pore of him like poison ivy.  It's less like ignoring the elephant and more like ignoring the giant pile of elephant droppings while everyone else in the room is gagging on the stench.

It's a policy that clearly doesn't work anymore when not even the most blatant attempts at voter suppression since the Reconstruction Era could save their candidate.

What they must take from this election if they're ever going to win another one is that progress is like a glacier; slow, almost imperceptibly so at times, but ultimately unstoppable.  And as with a glacier, you have three options when one is bearing down on you: 1) move forward with it, 2) get out of the way, or 3) get buried by it.

The GOP's fact-free fantasy bubble of being able to rely on lies and paranoid white men can't shield them any longer.  The principle of evolution applies as much to politics as it does to biology: you either adapt, or you go extinct.