Home / General / Brogressives, Brogressively Stupid.

Brogressives, Brogressively Stupid.

Comments
/
/
/
379 Views

This is brogressivism in a nutshell. (It’s also mind-bogglingly stupid. The charge of tribalism makes me want to headdesk forever and ever.) So many issues to be concerned about…just not issues that affect women’s lives.

I love the idea that there are good (worthy) issues and bad issues. Wouldn’t a normal person agree that there are many issues worth addressing, but that we may–not being a monolith–weight them differently?

Rick Perry has something to say about a Texas abortion law being struck down; it is slightly less intelligible than “Nanny-nanny boo-boo.”

“Today’s decision will not stop our ongoing efforts to protect life and ensure the women of our state aren’t exposed to any more of the abortion-mill horror stories that have made headlines recently,”

I guess I’m curious as to why women need to be protected from stories. I know, I know, women have super-sensitive femi-ears and stories like this can make our ears cry glittery, pink ear-tears…but anyway…did the Governor mean to say that he was going to protect women from abortion mills? Because my femi-ears are sensitive to anti-choice arguments that infantilize women. And my pretty, pretty, Bedazzled brain is easily confused by reasoning that treats women as too stupid to understand what abortion is but still feel that women can be trusted with a 9-month pregnancy, the birthing process and possibly raising a child for 18+ years. Am I crazy or does that not make a lick of sense?

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • UserGoogol

    Perry’s comments sounds like generic political rhetoric rather than something directed towards any particular kind of infantilized demographic. Referring to stories makes it more emotionally evocative, since instead of just referring to “horrors” in general it’s referencing “horror stories that have made our headlines lately.” Referencing news stories that have been happening “lately” gives it more of a sense of urgency, too. Plus, keeping it vague and not actually naming someone like Gosnell lets people use their imagination and pick something suitably creepy.

    Your interpretation is not necessarily wrong, though. It can be read both ways.

    • DrDick

      Given that Perry is actually addressing Texas social conservatives, his intended audience is very much infantilized.

      • Hogan

        But he’s not the one doing it. They were pre-infantilized.

        • Joey Maloney

          They are beyond infantilized. They are approaching, appropriately enough, fetalization.

          • ChrisTS

            Nicely done.

          • carolannie1949

            +1

    • Vance Maverick

      Yeah, conflating an event and the story about it is pretty normal — I’m sure I do it often, and I’m not an oops-prone faux-hick spending several hours a day in front of microphones.

      Conflating safe/legal and horrific/illegal abortion, though, is a very deliberate and well-practiced rhetorical move, for which I cut him not one millimeter of slack.

  • Manta

    “Wouldn’t a normal person agree that there are many issues worth addressing, but that we may–not being a monolith–weight them differently?”

    You forgot that you are writing on LGM, where if those (like Greenwald) who don’t focus on the “right” issues get accused of being, well, brogressives.

    Wait, sorry, I take it back: you *did* specify “a normal person”.

    • Your interpretation of why I and others call Greenwald a brogressive is impressive in its inherent wrongness.

    • panda

      People who violently object to the NSA or drones !=brogressives. People who consider drones or the NSA the single most important thing in the universe, to the extent that they become Paul or Johnson curious = brogressives, or, if you prefer, libertarians in denial.

      • Anonymous

        I was going to ask what a “brogressive” is (I’m fairly new here), but you just defined it. Thanks! One question: I get the “bro” part, but how are they “progressive”? I always took progressive to mean someone who favored economic progress for the poor – libertarianism is effectively working in the opposite direction. The “natural law” if the jungle doesn’t favor poor people.

        • Warren Terra

          A lot of the brogressive schtick is their claim that they, who are willing or indeed eager to blow everything up over their preferred issues, are the only true progressives. It’s part of their denunciation of the more accomodationist parts of the left.

        • panda

          This is why I added the “in denial” to my definition of a progressive. I think many of them think that once you smashed the repressive apparatus of the state, corporate power,and maybe capitalism itself, will also somehow crumble.

          • This always puzzles me, and maybe I’m working from the wrong definition, but inherent to my idea of progressivism is that it’s about working for incremental change towards a better tomorrow. Y’know, progress, and that’s it’s totally opposed to smash-the-state style radicalism.

            I mean, I totally agree with Warren Terra above that what this is about is claiming the mantle of true progressives for themselves, what I don’t get is why they want the title. Why can’t we just be dismissed as insufficiently radical? Why do they have to throw in these ham-handed efforts to step on our turf, too?

            • Yeah, but it’s not like they’re radical on social issues. So that’s why I think they’re worse than brogressives, they’re fauxgressives.

              • Except for the GENDER FRAUDS among them, who would be fauxbrogressives. Or brofauxgressives. \/\/hatever.

                • panda

                  I think the blame here lies in the way the American system operates. As I see it, people who view themselves as progressives include technocrats, liberals (who include a subset of social democrats), radicals, and a small but noisy libertarian in all but name group. Given that each of these groups (besides the latter) has a good claim that it indeed the best representative of the progressive tradition, its little wonder putative progressives don’t particularly like each other. In short, if such disparate people as Ezra Klein, Elizabeth Warren and Glen Greenwald are all claiming a particular label, that label is bound to become either an empty signifier or the object of naming rights warfare.

                • EliHawk

                  Yeah. So much of what is or isn’t progressive gets tied up in the fact that it only became a thing as best I remember in the mid-00s, because “Liberal” had been turned into a dirty word. I always thought it was the worst kind of “please don’t hurt me” response from the left to begin with.

                • Hogan

                  Since WWII anyway, “progressive” in the US has been roughly equivalent to “social democrat,” i.e. farther left than liberals but not as far left as socialists. (In the ’50s and ’60s it was often regarded as a euphemism used by Communists to hide their real beliefs, and may have actually been used that way by the thirty or so Communists who were around then.)

            • Mad Monk

              The more cynical among us might assume that it’s because the whole “leftier than thou” thing is nothing more than a pose from start to finish. Every progressive they can convince to stay home in 2016 is as good as another vote for Christie-or-whomever.

        • Helmut Monotreme

          I see brogressives as the next batch of Reagan democrats, nominally liberal until they think the conservatives will treat their stock portfolio better. Then suddenly they’ll be outraged by Benghazi, or Chappaquiddick or whatever the manufactured scandal du jour happens to be.

          • Reagan Democrats were simple people of the earth, the common clay of America – you know: morons.

            They didn’t have stock portfolios.

            They got taken in by the whole “morning n America” schtick.

            • That’s certainly the popular impression, but the Democrats who actually shifted long-term to Republican tended to be more middle class than working class.

              A lot of the blue collar voters flipped back after the 1980-1 recession, thus the 1982 midterms.

    • Warren Terra

      Um, no, Greenwald isn’t criticized for failing to focus on “the right issues”. When he’s criticized , it’s usually for some or all of the following: for being self-involved to the point of onanism; for being unreadably prolix; for being self-righteous to the point of priggishness; for lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas (ie institutional Libertarianism and the Koch brothers, and Hamsher); for being genuinely bad on some issues; and for making sweeping judgments based on selected issues or disagreements, which you may interpret as “not focusing on the right issues” but which differs from that in important ways. Also, sometimes, for being personally corrupt (though this is a story that goes back a few years, to when his personal finances were perhaps less legitimately secure).

      • DrDick

        Right. From what I have seen, the commentariat here use the term only in reference to those with a single-minded insistence that their pet issue is the only important issue for defining progressivism and who are willing to support overtly regressive folks who superficially seem to agree with them on that one issue, all delivered with an unhealthy level of self-absorbed self-righteousness.

        • Ronan

          But both GG and FDorf have priorities and politics that are clearly different than most people here. Who cares? Its hardly going to split the ‘progressive coalition’

          They dont support or care all that much about unions, social justice issues etc, a lot of people here dont mind all that much about spying or Foreign policy, why not just let bygones be bygones and get over it? (not you Dr Dick, in general)
          as an addendum I do agree with Fdorf that there is some hypocricy, that the amount of outrage a Rep pres would get for doing something dissipates when its a Dem. Farley all but acepted thats probably true (but, rightly imo, said thats just politics..and not an interesting observation)
          so all in all, meh..?

          • Well, glad it doesn’t disturb you, dude. That might be an example of political correctness gone mad, eh?

            • Ronan

              No, completely different topic

            • Ronan

              though its probably related. A difference of temperament, though YMMV

          • Hogan

            They dont support or care all that much about unions, social justice issues etc, a lot of people here dont mind all that much about spying or Foreign policy, why not just let bygones be bygones and get over it?

            Because they keep insisting that we’re wrong to care about what we care about, instead of what they care about. No one begrudges GG his opposition to drone warfare and NSA surveillance; we begrudge his insistence that drone warfare and NSA surveillance are the only issues worth discussing, and that not discussing them at the same length and with the same frequency and vehemence that he does makes you a bad person.

            • Ronan

              ive seen the same said here, that caring about GGs issues is a sign of privilege etc (and I agree on that)
              I think GG et al feature more often here than here does there

              • Malaclypse

                ive seen the same said here, that only caring about GGs issues is a sign of privilege etc (and I agree on that)

                Fixed.

                • Ronan

                  fine, whatever. Its a matter of emphasis

                  I dont, though, think the *only* is accurrate, b/c no one can *only* care about one thing

                  But GG ertainly prioritises it, and certainly has minimal interest in a whole range of issues LGM care about

                  But so what?

            • liberalrob

              we begrudge his insistence that drone warfare and NSA surveillance are the only issues worth discussing

              This is completely false. Greenwald does NOT insist on this.

              and that not discussing them at the same length and with the same frequency and vehemence that he does makes you a bad person.

              This is completely false as well.

              You are mistaking a laser-like focus on a particular issue that is squarely in one’s area of competence with monomania. Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer by training, is supremely unqualified to opine on the merits of trickle-down economics or the degree to which human activity contributes to climate change. That does not mean that he considers those topics unimportant.

              • Ronan

                yeah, agreed
                I thought Hogans comment was a lot of strawmanning tbh

              • But it is kind of interesting that his nastiest attacks are against people who DO care about income inequality and climate change, while he’s also getting in to bed with libertarians who–SURPRISE!–make nasty attacks on those who care about income inequality and climate change.

                • Manta

                  I think his nastiest attack were against Bush.

                • liberalrob

                  He happened to agree with Ron Paul on ONE issue. He did not endorse his campaigns, he is not a big-L “Libertarian,” and he has made many posts over the years on issues other than government spying. In fact I am willing to bet that he’s posted on income inequality and climate change at some point. They are just not his primary focus. And from years of reading his posts and comment-section interactions, his “nastiest attacks” are against low-information morons who show up in comments to bash his posts (and make character insults towards himself) without even bothering to read them completely.

                  We really need to get away from this guilt-by-association kick. Agreement on one issue does not translate to agreement on all.

              • rea

                I’m not going to search the internet for links showing this, but it has been more than adequately documented here and elsewhere that Greeenwald has repeatedly said he doesn’t care about voting or who wins elections.

                • liberalrob

                  Your point being?

              • Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer by training, is supremely unqualified to opine on the merits of trickle-down economics or the degree to which human activity contributes to climate change.

                The fact that he has a JD means he’s not qualified to offer an opinion on anything except what he has decided to offer an opinion upon, at which point he becomes qualified to offer an opinion.

                I had no idea a JD gave so much power, but with so many restraints.

                • liberalrob

                  OK, Captain Pedantic, let me correct my statement to “he’s not qualified to offer an EXPERT opinion.” Is that better?

                • OK, Captain Pedantic, let me correct my statement to “he’s not qualified to offer an EXPERT opinion.” Is that better?

                  If, per your definition, his JD means he is not qualified offer expert opinion on any topic, that works for me. However, it would seem to contradict with your original point.

                  You are of course welcome to explain why you think a JD makes him qualified to offer an opinion (or that his opinion is more valid) on some topics, but not others.

                • liberalrob

                  Gawd. A JD qualifies one to have an expert opinion on matters of law. The NSA spying case is a matter of law. Glenn Greenwald has a JD. Therefore, Glenn Greenwald is qualified to express an expert opinion on matters of law.

                  Fkin logic, how does it work?

                • joe from Lowell

                  So is the first worker’s comp lawyer I can find in the phone book an expert on the NSA, too?

            • DrDick

              Exactly!

            • Random

              Well, there’s also GG’s history of goalpost-moving, then accusing other people of hypocrisy after he moves the goalposts.

              So for example, when Bush was in office GG had a problem with warrantless wiretapping. By the time Obama got in office Greenwald changed that position to opposition to wiretapping even with a warrant.

              Same with targeted strikes on AQ members as opposed to massive, expensive land invasions. At one point this was touted by most progressives as an appropriate way to respond to 9/11, right up until Obama got in office and started doing it.
              Then Greenwald moved the goalposts over and told us we were hypocrites for having the same position we had always had.

              • Rhino

                I am no huge fan of Greenwald, but frankly what you are calling ‘goalpost moving’ is what I would call rationally changing his position.

                When people felt that getting a warrant for wiretapping was a procedure with actual meaning, and that the strictures had actual teeth, then many people were fine with warranted wiretapping. Once it became clear that the process was a giant rubber stamp being overseen by an entirely captured body, then a shift to opposing all wiretaps became very reasonable. Labelling as hypocrites those who failed to move with the times might be slightly harsh, but not a lot harsher than labelling them as fools, which IMHO would be quite fair.

          • Sly

            They dont support or care all that much about unions, social justice issues etc, a lot of people here dont mind all that much about spying or Foreign policy, why not just let bygones be bygones and get over it? (not you Dr Dick, in general)

            Because one of those factions is an important constituency of the Democratic Party and another one isn’t. And the one that isn’t is really, really, really pissed off about that.

        • See for example: The Radical Feminist/Family Values alliance to eradicate porn.

          Watching and listening to people tout the advantages of sleeping with the enemy (complete with auto-infantilization of every woman in the business) was pretty painful, but still hilarious.

          • DrDick

            Another good example and just as insane.

            • I thought it was crazier. This was back in the mid- late 80’s when there was no pretending that the Evangelicals were anything but 1,000% hostile, you had all this confusion and bullshit about HIV/AIDS and America was not exactly overflowing with warm fuzzies for radical feminists/lesbians.

              The bragressives make sense from a completely self-interested dick point of view because none of the people they’re playing footsie with have “Make life extremely unpleasant for the bros,” on their agenda.

      • brewmn

        Your list of criticisms of GG mirrors mine. The reason I dislike him so intensely is that he has doubled-and-tripled down on the “if you support Obama, you support the murder of innocent boown children” line of argument. The fact that the political alternative would like murder thousands of more innocent brown children than Obama has, and in fact was recently stopped from murdering thousands of innocent brown children by the election of Barack Obama, never seems to factor in his argument.

        Thats said, this Snowden thing is adversarial journalism at its best, borderline heroic, and possibly a policy game-changer.

        The Snowden revelations are worthy of praise from all corners of progressivedom. That praise has been in frustratingly short supply.

        • Random

          Except that GG actively and strongly supports Libertarians who advocate cutting off all US international food aid and destroying the domestic safety net. These are actions that will kill far more innocent civilians, mostly little kids and elderly, each year than all the US kinetic military strikes in the last several decades combined.

          If Greenwald wants to get into a brown baby-killing contest he needs to stop promoting people for whom dead brown babies is a plus.

          Snowden himself is a right-wing genocidal Randroid, a cock-bag, and a committed liar. While the information he stole is interesting to progressives, his representation of that stolen information is reliably inaccurate and his motives for stealing that information is to destroy liberals and maximize human misery and suffering in a stateless dystopia.

          It just really grates that someone who sees himself as a mortal enemy of progressives and who’s actions have specifically been taken for the purpose of hurting progressive causes is now being lauded as a hero by progressives. I think that’s why there’s such a strong reaction to him.

          • Unless you are talking about emergency aid, foreign food aid is actually not beneficial to the recipients. It undermines local production and creates dependency. It is also not meant to help foreign countries. The programs in the US were created deliberately as a way of providing US government funds to domestic agricultural producers. When Sankara came to power in 1983 in Burkino Faso he rejected all foreign aid including food aid. Not only did Burkino Faso not starve under his administration, but for the first and only time since “independence” it became self-sufficient in food. So no cutting food aid won’t cause starvation. In fact it is more likely to alleviate food problems in Africa.

            • But if we’re talking about America JoP is off script, again.

              • He explicitly said “cutting off all US international food aid.” International means going outside the US. A big chunk of that aid has gone to Africa undermining local agricultural production. Sankara was right to just say no.

              • Rhino

                He is replying to one of ‘randoms’ contentions that opposing food aid condemns people to death. I don’t necessarily agree with Otto, although there are excellent arguments in favour of his position, but to say it’s not germane to the sub thread is incorrect.

          • Manta

            “Snowden himself is a right-wing genocidal Randroid, a cock-bag, and a committed liar. ”

            It would be interesting to have some evidence for any of those statements.
            For instance, I am curious to know which population Snowden is planning to destroy.

            • Rhino

              Also ‘cock-bag’ is a homophobic slur.

              • joe from Lowell

                It is?

                Does that “eat a bag of dicks” is verboten, too?

                • Anonymous

                  To tell a social conservative to eat a bag of dicks is, in my opinion, acceptable because your are insulting them by taking advantage of their own squick factor. That makes it funny.

                  To make ‘cock-bag’ an insult is to conflate ‘containing a penis’ with being a bad person. Thus directed at a woman, it implies they are inferior because of their sexuality. Directed at a man it implies they are inferior due to their homosexuality.

                  I don’t care nearly as much about this as the posts might indicate, but it did irritate me that along with a number of IMHO unjustified criticisms, a rather shallow insult was given pride of place in an already offensively disengenuous post.

                • Rhino

                  Damn. That was me.

          • liberalrob

            Except that GG actively and strongly supports Libertarians who advocate cutting off all US international food aid and destroying the domestic safety net.

            This is false. You are engaging in guilt by association.

            Snowden himself is a right-wing genocidal Randroid, a cock-bag, and a committed liar.

            Tell us how you really feel about Snowden.

            While the information he stole is interesting to progressives

            And apparently the citizens of many nations around the world…

            his representation of that stolen information is reliably inaccurate and his motives for stealing that information is to destroy liberals and maximize human misery and suffering in a stateless dystopia.

            ROFL. Snowden’s representation of his stolen information has been, “here it is.” And you have no more idea of his “motives for stealing that information” than anyone else.

            It just really grates that someone who sees himself as a mortal enemy of progressives and who’s actions have specifically been taken for the purpose of hurting progressive causes is now being lauded as a hero by progressives. I think that’s why there’s such a strong reaction to him.

            Greenwald does not see himself as “a mortal enemy of progressives.” I don’t know where that’s coming from. But you’re right that there is a strong reaction to him among progressives; a positive one.

        • Warren Terra

          As is typical of the posturing that surrounds privacy and information-freedom issues on the internet, there has in the Snowden case been an utterly infuriating bundling of genuine and false issues, a hectoring tone and stupidly maximalist demands that make rational discussion extremely hard to do.

          Thus: about half of what Snowden has exposed is vitally important for us to know about, should never have happened, and requires remediation.

          And about half of what Snowden has exposed, well, isn’t.

          The problem is, Snowden’s self-appointed greatest adocates have more often than not focused on this latter half. Some of my favorite examples are: (1) the NSA building a single database that accumulates all the separate databases logging cell-phone calls. The existence of this database is denounced, which is asinine: there are legitimate things our government has to do that require the existence of such a database, when a proper procedure respectful of individual libery and protective of privacy has mandated the examination of the database. Snowden has important criticisms of the way the database was controlled and how widely accessible it was; instead of discussing these issues, we spent months talking about its mere existence. Similarly with (2) Google and Facebook establishing an infrastructure for the handing over of data to the feds. This is in itself a complete non-issue: Google in particular insists they do so only when served with a court order, and they need to have a secure server set up for these purposes. This is what we’d want Google to do – but instead the shrieking harpies descended and insisted Google and Facebook had built NSA access into every part of their system.

          At least cosmetically (and because of some of the echoes it has to Assange’s personal failings), I’d also prefer if Snowden had obtained asylum in someplace that wasn’t a racist, homophobic, media-monopolistic repressive hellhole – but then I don’t clearly know what the options are.

          • liberalrob

            Thus: about half of what Snowden has exposed is vitally important for us to know about, should never have happened, and requires remediation.

            And about half of what Snowden has exposed, well, isn’t.

            I’m interested in what you consider to be the irrelevant revelations.

            (1) the NSA building a single database that accumulates all the separate databases logging cell-phone calls. The existence of this database is denounced, which is asinine: there are legitimate things our government has to do that require the existence of such a database

            Such as?

            when a proper procedure respectful of individual libery and protective of privacy has mandated the examination of the database.

            But we have no way of knowing that such a “proper procedure” exists, or that it is being followed, or that infractions of that procedure are investigated, and corrections made or punishments meted out as appropriate. The entire operation is carried out under a veil of secrecy so opaque that not even the nominal Congressional oversight committees are privy to the extent of it. And beyond that, under the 4th Amendment I am supposed to be secure in my person, house, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures; when did my communications become fair game for the government to collect at will? Why is it reasonable to do so, if I am not suspected of any crime or criminal activity? Where is the warrant authorizing that collection, what judge signed off on it?

            The collection itself is illegal, as far as I’m concerned. The existence of the database is indeed asinine; it should not exist at all.

            (2) Google and Facebook establishing an infrastructure for the handing over of data to the feds. This is in itself a complete non-issue: Google in particular insists they do so only when served with a court order, and they need to have a secure server set up for these purposes. This is what we’d want Google to do – but instead the shrieking harpies descended and insisted Google and Facebook had built NSA access into every part of their system.

            Google is not the arbiter of what data should get handed over to the feds. Last I heard, they were not a law enforcement agency nor were they an arm of the federal government. They are not empowered to collect my information for the purposes of providing it to the federal government. They are not even allowed to forward it to third parties period, except in the most general terms (which information would be useless to the government). Why should they be building special infrastructure to securely hand over data the government shouldn’t have access to without a warrant in the first place? And I wouldn’t be so sure that NSA is not having secret access built into every system possible, period.

            At least cosmetically (and because of some of the echoes it has to Assange’s personal failings)

            Guilt by association again…

            I’d also prefer if Snowden had obtained asylum in someplace that wasn’t a racist, homophobic, media-monopolistic repressive hellhole

            Well, I’m sure he would have liked to remain in the United States (speaking of racist, homophobic, media-monopolistic repressive hellholes), but I think he made the right call to leave. The examples of what had happened to previous whistleblowers who tried to reveal our government’s secret activities are all too clear an indication of what was in store for him if he had stayed.

            • Warren Terra

              Wouldn’t it be shorter to say you weren’t interested in reading my comment?

              Re the phone log database: our courts grant warrants for the inspection of these data. For the warrants to be executed, the data must exist and be acessible (under proper controls). It’s maximalists like you that focus on the database itself rather than the controls that so hopelessly muddle the issues involved, helping ensure that the necessary controls won’t be imposed.

              Google has stated that they don’t hand over your information without a warrant, as I said above (“a court order” – same thing). So, you seethe with outrage that Google has worked out a secure process for when they do receive a warrant. Remember, the recent controversy with that privacy-centered email system that closed down was specifically that they were no longer confident they could destroy their data to evade court-ordered handovers of data – not that they were unusual in requiring a court order.

              And for all that there are a million problems with the US, including serious issues on the criteria listed, if you’re scoring our country as being remotely competitive with Russia for denunciation as a “racist, homophobic, media-monopolistic repressive hellhole” – well, then fnck you too. This ignores at least fifty years of progress in our country, casts a blind eye to what’s happening in Russia, and tells me everything I need to know about you.

              It’s the mindlessly kneejerk, no-grey-areas viewpoint of people like yourself that ensure we can’t have a useful discussion on those points that are absolutely crying out for reform. You’re a perfect reflection of the impotent and all-consuming misdirected rage Greenwald seeks to engender. If you didn’t exist, people like Michael Hayden would have to create you.

        • liberalrob

          The reason I dislike him so intensely is that he has doubled-and-tripled down on the “if you support Obama, you support the murder of innocent boown children” line of argument. The fact that the political alternative would like murder thousands of more innocent brown children than Obama has, and in fact was recently stopped from murdering thousands of innocent brown children by the election of Barack Obama, never seems to factor in his argument.

          Nonsense. It absolutely does factor into his argument. The point he is constantly making in that regard is, yeah, this is better than a Romney presidency, but that doesn’t mean we declare victory. There’s still that matter of innocent brown children still being murdered by our flying death robots, maybe not in the thousands, but certainly in the dozens if not hundreds. That’s happening under Obama, whether you like it or not, and attacking people who point this out because “they undermine our President” is just like wingnuts attacking Iraq War opponents for “not supporting the troops.” Of course everyone supports the troops; but we don’t support some of the things they are doing. And of course Greenwald and his supporters prefer Obama over McCain or Romney; but Obama is engaging in practices that we abhor, and it’s important to point that out. We’d really like him to stop doing those things.

    • This is… %100 backwards and makes me think you didn’t bother to read what you’re getting huffy about. I’m perfectly happy to work with people who care about drones and spying more than the issues that matter most to me. That’s how politics work.

      The problem is that we’re constantly told by brogressives that whatever issues we care about don’t matter and we’re just using them to rile people up so we can paper over the President’s record on drones and spying.

      Treating every LGM post as a potential opportunity to issue the same self-congratulatory sneer about how this place isn’t sensible and moderate enough for your refined palate is no way to get your non-point across.

      • rea

        The problem is that we’re constantly told by brogressives that whatever issues we care about don’t matter and we’re just using them to rile people up so we can paper over the President’s record on drones and spying.

        And, case in point, this post is about an article by jerome Armstrong, in which he explicitly says that he’s eager to trade some unimportant social lifestyle issue like overruling Roe v Wade to form a political alliance against drones.

      • jefft452

        “The problem is that we’re constantly told by brogressives that whatever issues we care about don’t matter”

        Right!
        You don’t get solidarity by saying “support my issues!, while I ignore yours”

  • Scott Lemieux

    I used to think favorably of Jerome

    There’s your problem right there.

    • Decrease Mather

      Oh come on, you have to admit this is good

      The Republican Party having their Varuna conjunct Bush’s South node, which Pluto is going to transit, certainly means they are fair game for the Dems progressed Sun to eliminate (or vis versa)

      The strong undercurrent to remember here, is that Bush and the Republicans have the US under a Neptunian spell, and that will break at some point– and the indications are that it’s before the 2004 elections.

      source (HT to a BJ commenter)

      http://web.archive.org/web/20030212035740/astroworld.mydd.com/archives/000279.html

    • I’m quite proud that I may be the first person on Daily Kos, in early 2003, whom he viciously attacked. Markos used to comment that he couldn’t figure out why Jerome disliked me so much, because–according to Markos at the time–Jerome was supposedly really low-key and not confrontational.

      Another badge of honor I wear…

    • wengler

      He went apeshit after Obama beat Hillary in the 2008 primary. In fact that was the last time I heard his name or checked his site.

  • Matt

    Shorter Prick Erry: “We’re going to continue to protect life, by executing people we KNOW are innocent just to give the base an election-year boner.”

  • delurking

    Obviously, bspencer, (A) we can be trusted with the Most Important Job in the world, Being Mothers, but (B) not with making decisions about — well, anything.

    But especially not with decisions about the control over our bodies, because our lady brains are too sweet and mushy for that.

    I’d wonder at what passes for reasoning among the Conservatives, except I know they don’t really believe (A). They just pretend to when they’re talking in public.

    • It’s confusing, isn’t it? Hmmm. Must be your lady brain.

      • Hogan

        I know where you can get a mansplanation for that!

      • MAJeff

        Obviously it’s the lady brain: mothering is all instinct, so you don’t have to think and worry your pretty heads about making choices. You’re just that much closer to your natural instincts than we thoughtful men are.

  • I just want to note that “I guess I’m curious as to why women need to be protected from stories” made me laugh. I was somewhat startled by the clucking of critical comments in response.

    • Thanks!

      Sometimes people skim my posts…don’t grasp all the hilarious nuances!

    • Karen

      I live in Texas and have to hear the stories of Perry supporters. I very badly want someone to protect me from them, forever.

  • OK, just as an aside, there is an ad on this page showing me four 3-d women with large, gravity-defying breasts inviting me to “Play now.” Play what? I NEED MORE INFORMATION, AD!

    • For real gravity-defiance, you should demand three 4-d women. Which would also work out better for Mah-Jong.

    • mds

      Play VirtualTownShop, our new online game in which you are a junior bra fitter using a vector-based control panel to aid women in achieving proper support from their undergarments.

    • Relevant (From my tumblr a few days ago, but NOT pornographic).

      • Sharculese

        Shake, are you familiar with Escher Girls?

        http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/

        • I wasn’t, thanks! Would you happen to know of one that addresses photoshopping of women?

          • Sorry, I just know Escher girls from when Ami used to comment at manboobz. I’m not a tumblr person.

            • I tried to be a tumblr person then found out they have no commenting system. Which–to put it charitably–seemed unintuitive to me.

              • I think I just made up a word.

      • Scott Lemieux

        I hope you sent a copy of that to Chris Muir.

        • You just had to mention Mr. No Spine, didntcha?

      • The line, “I suck at breast variations,” is priceless.

  • mds

    So, assuming he meant actual Gosnellian abortion mills, and not just stories about them, how does making illegal abortion mills like Gosnell’s the only possible option protect women from them, exactly? I must have too much estrogen in my brain to understand the logic here.

    • Precisely my question.

    • Well, the regulation that was just struck down required all abortion providers in Texas to have a physician on staff who had admitting privileges at a local hospital. So the dishonest answer is that you’re requiring a greater degree of screening to prevent any more Gosnell’s in the state.

      Of course, what Perry know but isn’t saying (there are some anti-choice politicians without national ambitions who will admit this) is that it’s highly unlikely for a variety of reasons for a provider to have local admitting privileges, so you’re effectively making it impossible to keep a clinic open, which doesn’t matter because PATIENT SAFETY.

    • I have similar questions about why only one gender warrants protection from medical malpractice and why that protection must involve making a particular form of health care impossible to get.

      Or I would have a question if I didn’t have to finish this Cosmo article about 12 ways to give him a better B.J.

      • Oh, definitely go with Way #13: accompanied by the (minimally!) repurposed Transvaginal Sonogram Wand in Genuine Fasces-Style Ribbed for Heris pleasure!

    • liberalrob

      Do a Google (or whatever) search on “rick perry abortion sister” and the probable answer will magically appear.

      • ChrisTS

        Jeezus. Of course, there had to be a grift in it for Governor Goodhair.

  • liberalrob

    And my pretty, pretty, Bedazzled brain is easily confused by reasoning that treats women as too stupid to understand what abortion is but still feel that women can be trusted with a 9-month pregnancy, the birthing process and possibly raising a child for 18+ years.

    Don’t worry, those are next on the agenda.

    • guthrie

      Ahh, but I thought women weren’t trusted with the pregnancy (see all the stuff telling them what to wear, eat, drink, take, listen to), and weren’t trusted with the raising process, after all they should be in a marriage where their husband can tell them what to do.

      • liberalrob

        They’re not (trusted with pregnancy and childrearing). Think it through. Just remember, you have to think in Wingnut; not in sane person and then transpose. In Wingnut. Can you do it?

        Hint: their carping on “small government” is just a sham; they’re all for “big government” that enforces their moral codes.

        • guthrie

          But I was thinking “Conservative”! I should have quoted the quote, it was more that which I was replying to, rather than the post itself.

          • liberalrob

            That makes more sense. Agreed, +1.

  • make our ears cry glittery, pink ear-tears

    That is some gonzo-awesome cerumen you’re sporting there.

  • tsam

    When (p)Rick Perry invents a story, you’re OBLIGATED to be afraid of it, k?

It is main inner container footer text