Home / General / Mazie Hirono

Mazie Hirono


For anyone who missed it, this speech before 48 Republicans voted for what would have been one of the most abominable bills ever passed by the United States Congress is very much worth watching:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

    Hey, I love corn as much as the next guy, but I think she’d prefer her name spelled “Mazie” ;)

    • N__B

      Such concern over niceties is corny.

      • Warren Terra

        This is a masa deserving fine-grained investigation.

        • Hogan

          It is indeed a masa of the utmost cerealness.

          • Warren Terra

            It’s important to proceed carefully and build this conversation up from the ground flour.

          • applecor

            What is this, Song of the South?

        • MikeG

          It may be a big tassel, but it demands a earing.

      • Stag Party Palin

        And yet there is a kernel of truth in what he says.

      • wherewhich the werewitch

        Aww, *shucks*

      • Whenas in silk my Senator goes…

      • allium

        These are some really Grade-Zea puns.

    • Joe Paulson

      Why do you say that? Because the tweet posted from her has that spelling?

    • Dennis Orphen

      Please don’t hassle the front pagers.

      • Cheap Wino

        Eh, it was quickly cobbled together.

      • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

        Look, I don’t want to stalk the management, but it’s important to maintain some starch. Without it, the site could become blighted with smut.

        • Veleda_k

          It might end up merely a husk of what it once was.

      • Warren Terra

        Did you mean, “don’ tassel”?

    • benjoya

      sounds like you’ve got grain damage

    • Gwai Lo, MD

      Maybe she’s using the Libyan spelling, you American pig?


  • sleon

    But we all know Obama proved that Hawaii is not a real state so it doesn’t count.

    • Gwai Lo, MD

      But it’s achieved “some island in the Pacific” status according to our Attorney General who has achieved “beleaguered” status.

      • Warren Terra

        Trump’s not getting enough credit for that one. Nicknaming J. Beauregard Sessions as J. “Beleaguered” Sessions is easily the wittiest thing he’s done (against a very weak field, it should be said).

        • Gwai Lo, MD

          It’s also a bit of a shame since “No Regard” would be a superior name choice. Trump won’t even let us snark properly, which is the greatest evil.

    • Hogan

      Their biggest industry is fake birth announcements for foreign Communists so they can be elected president.

      • Cheap Wino

        Short form.

  • Warren Terra

    Before this week I didn’t even know we had a senator Hirono from Hawai’i. The ratio of national attention given to her cancer and to McCain’s is a bit infuriating, especially when McCain was voting to take others’ health care away and she was voting to help people keep their care, before McCain’s dramatic last-minute plot twist.

    Edited: by “we” I mean the country, not to imply I have an especially strong personal connection to Hawai’i.

    • woodrowfan

      well, he was the republican nominee for president. and he was in all those “Die Hard” movies. oh, wait….

      • Mike Schilling

        And Ranier Wolfcastle played him.

  • Stag Party Palin

    Another example of why the hell would all but three Rethuglicans vote the same way as Mengele would have. Compassionate Conservatives one and all.

  • patrick II

    “Where is your compassion?”

    Pretty much the core question.

    • Hondo

      To which we pretty much know the answer.

  • Yixing’s Fluffer

    Women Are Invisible, Part 1,307,278

    • efgoldman

      Women Are Invisible

      Huh? Did you say something?

  • Joe Paulson

    Yes, McCain isn’t the only older senator with cancer.

    She is one of those senators (well there are 100) that I haven’t really seen much of though being on the Judiciary Committee, I saw her when Gorsuch was up. Glad she is getting some more attention though again not familiar with her as a whole.

    • not familiar with her as a whole.

      I‘m not familiar with her as a haole.

      • Joe Paulson

        Know it is National Lipstick Day from twitter hashtags. Is it homophone day or something too?

        • wjts

          Here at LGM, every day is like Punday.

          • N__B

            Time for a 500-comment post on fudge versus butterscotch on top of pundaes.

            • DAS

              Why does this have to be a choice? Why not both? After all, a pun is only a pun if multiple meanings are involved, so why not multiple toppings and sauces?

          • Warren Terra

            Well, only every day ending in “why?“.

        • Gwai Lo, MD

          Homophones: what resulted when Jeff Sessions sued the FCC and lost.

  • IS

    “I hear John McConnell…”
    I liked that mistake. Though McCain did manage to prove that at least this once, that’s not what he was going to be.

  • drdick52

    Great speech, but she knows as well as we do that they never had any compassion for anyone and just fake it when they feel it is socially mandated.

    • Geo X

      They certainly don’t have any compassion for the American people as a whole, but I can easily believe that some of them had genuine compassion for her personally. People are complicated and hypocritical.

      • Cheap Wino

        That so many of these assholes can’t make the leap between personal compassion and basic humanity is not okay. Loudly calling them out on that hypocrisy is needed.

        • Deborah Bender

          This may be special pleading on my part, but I wonder if one of the reasons for this is the difference between Christianity and Judaism in teachings about the poor. The Torah contains legislation for a social safety net; for example, the law that gives widows and orphans the right to go into any farmer’s field and glean after the harvest, the provision for debt forgiveness every fifty years, and the law mentioned by one of the prophets requiring day laborers to be paid before they go home from work, so they can buy food for their families. Post-Biblical Judaism expanded on these laws by, among things, Maimonides’ ranking of different ways of giving charity, with the second best being charity given in such a way that the giver and recipient are anonymous to each other, ad the best being to provide a livelihood so charity is not needed.

          Jesus who of course was Jewish directed his followers to treat everyone in need the way they would treat him, but as Christianity developed as a separate religion, it seems to have gone in the direction of encouraging rather than discouraging personal relationships between givers and the needy, and entirely dropped the idea of social legislation to minimize the need for private donations.

          • Cheap Wino

            I’m not knowledgeable enough to know the history that well but I suspect there’s also the reality that Jewish scholarship and how the religion is manefest took hold long before Christianity did. Christianity really gained a foothold when it became institutionalized — as Constantine and the Romans adopted it with the backing of the state. Judaism became established in a different setting.

            That institutionalized nature of early Christianity, essentially a self-serving one, might explain some of the differences. I’m sure more knowledgeable commenters can chime in with better, more productive insight.

            • Deborah Bender

              Constantine is directly responsible for the extreme emphasis on orthodoxy (right doctrine) in Christianity, compared to most other world religions.

              I agree with your general point that both Christianity and Judaism have been heavily influenced by historical circumstances.

          • drdick52

            The recorded teachings of the Rabbi Yeshua bar Yosef (assuming he actually existed) are very explicit about the imperative to care for the less fortunate and condemning the wealthy (a rich man has as much chance of entering heaven as a camel does of passing through the eye of a needle). Modern “Christianity” mostly has nothing to do with Christ and everything to do with the self-loathing bigot, Paul.

            • Deborah Bender

              I should note that even the most radical Jewish prophets did not expect or advocate class leveling before the arrival of the Messiah. Jesus’s statement about the rich man was extreme, though given the doctrines of the Sadducees and their alliances, it may have been justified in that time and place.

              • (((realinterrobang)))

                I personally don’t think a historical Jesus existed as a single person. I think that part was entirely made up by Paul and the later writers who formed the nucleus of early Christianity, for their own personal ends, probably some form of power. It was (I think) easier for them to say they were following some obscure deceased rabbi than claim prophet status for themselves.

                If anybody should have spawned their own offshoot religion from Judaism, it should have been the Rambam (Maimonides), although I feel like a filthy apikorset for saying so. (I am not advocating for Sabbatai Zevi, 2.0.) Rambam had it going on. As someone who’s studied medieval philosophy in the context of religious and folkloric beliefs about supernatural entities and good and evil, Guide to the Perplexed is probably the finest synthesis of the philosophy of the time. Rambam doesn’t get enough respect outside of Jewish circles.

                I think the fact that Christianity is essentially about dying right whereas Judaism is about living right (and makes no real claims about what happens after death, aside from the vague “resurrection of the dead”) makes a lot of difference to the outlook. Christians, I think, generally feel that G-d will take care of things in the end, so it’s not necessarily incumbent upon them as believers to do any specific thing (this is particularly evident in the “faith not works” traditions in Christianity). Judaism is specifically about how to live one’s daily life, not having one’s soul in order for the afterlife.

          • One of the differences is that the Torah is literally meant to be the law, so it has more to say (good and bad) about what rules should govern the people in their social relations.

            Jesus’ teachings challenged the way the Torah was being interpreted and enforced by the authorities of the time but he did not presume to substitute his own set of laws for governing a political community. To the extent that he does promulgate rules they are rules of discipleship.

            Maybe that’s part of the reason Christianity has a mixed history on social legislation. Probably a bigger reason is that as Christianity became the official religion of the rulers, it had to accomodate the desire of those with wealth and power to keep it. So the idea that hierarchies were God’s will became part of it. Later on, as capitalism took hold, the idea that wealth showed that you were among God’s elect took hold. Of course the wealthy were still expected to be charitable, but this charity was to be on the benefactor’s terms, and so would never threaten the order that allowed some to be rich and left others poor.

            • Deborah Bender

              That’s a good observation about Jesus’s rules being directed to his disciples. Some of his (to me) problematical statements, like “Let the dead bury the dead,” and “Forsake your father and mother” which directly contravenes one of the Ten Commandments, are a little bit better if they are intended for a select group of initiates (if Morton Smith and a few other scholars are right) getting ready for the end of history.

              To your last point, Talmudic Judaism evolved under opposite historical circumstances from Christianity. For well over a thousand years, there was no independent Jewish state and no hope of establishing one. A principal task of religious authorities was to adapt and interpret the Law in ways that would maintain communal solidarity, deter assimilation and stay on good terms with Christian and Muslim rulers. Among many other things, that required putting social pressure on prosperous Jews to take some responsibility for the welfare of the less prosperous, especially since the community could not count on help from outsiders.

              I don’t know much about Mormon history, but it looks to me as if the very strong Mormon ethos along the same lines may have developed for similar reasons.

          • AMK

            Interesting history, but the intricacies of religious laws are irelevant to most of the people in both groups.

            American Jews are far more likely to be secular, so what the Torah says has little bearing on political values or thought processes for most of them. Meanwhile, the political Christianity that animates the GOP is just euphemistic white nationalism, so what Jesus actually said is irrelevant to them too.

            • Deborah Bender

              I think you underestimate the degree with which values and outlooks that originated in a religion get passed down as culture to descendants who are not themselves religious.

              Do you have an alternative explanation of why American Jews don’t vote their class interests to the degree that other identifiable groups do?

          • twbb

            The problem is that for about 1,900 years the Christian churches were the primary social welfare net in Europe and North America, and parts of Asia, Africa and South America. What you’re seeing now in the U.S. is largely inconsistent with historical Christian welfare traditions.

      • Denverite

        Yeah, I’ve worked for elected/appointed Republicans, and many of them are quite compassionate people. (Best boss I ever had was a Republican, in fact, and he’d give you the shirt off his back if you needed it.) People are weird.

        • Warren Terra

          There’s a very quotable line about Ronald Reagan (that really I think is too kind to him) saying that if he met a beggar on the street he’d give the guy the shirt off his back, then stride still shirtless into the Oval Office to sign legislation that would put another million beggars on the streets.

          I think the line vastly overstates his personal generosity, but does a fair job of capturing the dynamic you describe.

          • twbb

            “I used to say I thought if you were down on your luck and you got through the Secret Service, got in the Oval Office and said, Mr. President, ‘I’m down on my luck,’ he would literally give you the shirt off his back. And then he’d sit down in his undershirt and he’d sign legislation throwing your kids off school lunch program, maybe your parents off Social Security, and of course the Welfare Queen off of welfare.” — Sam Donaldson

      • MikeG

        I’m sure a lot of them have normal-human levels of compassion for people they know personally, with the exception of a few sociopaths like Ted Cruz.

        It’s the millions of their countrymen they don’t know, that they don’t even acknowledge as people.

        “You know the way you feel about money? Well, some of us feel that way about people.” — John Oliver, to congressional Republicans

  • cpinva

    i think this whole bill has, if nothing else, publicly demonstrated the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party:

    Democratic Party = The Party of life well lived.
    Republican Party = The Party of death.

    oh sure, i know the ‘pubs claim to be the party of forced birth, but the truth is, when it comes down to actual, living, breathing human beings, they’d just as soon you die, and quickly, unless you’re rich.

    i hope Sen. hirono gets very well, so she can come back and continue being a major league thorn in their side. Her family has every right to be proud of her, she’s a stand up lady.

    • blackbox

      Republicans uncharacteristically (purport to) care about the innocent, possibly even non-white life of unborn babies because it is treated as a religious issue and a firm adherence to some bastardized sort-of-Christianity is important among their base. Democrats uncharacteristically don’t care about it because it’s treated as a women’s rights issue and universal adherence to anything which ends up in that bucket is likewise important among their base. I find it deeply sad that neither party addresses the issue on its own terms.

      • I don’t understand what this means. This is the worst kind of both sideserism. Many democrats are, in fact, women. For them women’s rights are not some kind of shibboleth but, you know, actual human rights. We have given reproductive rights and–speaking as a mother–fetal needs and childrens rights, extensive moral consideration.

        • woodrowfan

          What Aimai said. It’s not just “treated” as a woman’s rights issue, it IS a rights issue!

        • blackbox

          I don’t disagree with anything you said except that my comment was “both siderism.” Both siderism is a tool in a political agenda which seeks to dismiss the wrongdoing, shortcomings, or outright evil of one side because the other side is also bad so “it’s all a wash.” I don’t believe my comment embodies that at all. It only represents my personal views on the issue and dismay that few see the issue the way I do — saying neither party does that really isn’t both siderism.

          • I’m late to respond but, again–the democratic party and women do, in fact, treat abortion “on its own terms.” That they don’t see those terms the same way you do doesn’t mean that their viewpoint isn’t clear, moral, and based on a principled view of the issue. Perhaps if no one sees the issue the way you do you might want to re-examine your personal views? Because the insistence that your unique viewpoint should, somehow, be dispositive is literally idiotic.

            • blackbox

              How women treat the issue (if such a general statement can be made) isn’t the subject here. How the Democratic and Republican Parties do, is. My viewpoint is not at all unique, it’s just not represented in the public, political discourse of the issue. I strongly disagree that either party treats the issue on its “own terms” when the Democrats reduce it to a sound byte about “choice” and the Republicans just fall back on their typical pick-and-choose pseudo-Christian fake-morals.

              I’m not going to keep coming back to respond to this. My original comment was in retrospect a pointless pity party I threw for myself, which I obviously should have just kept to myself.

              • Yeah–a weird and pointless pity party. I’ll keep to myself how utterly bizarre I think your argument is: parties are conglomerates of people (even women!) that put forward policy proposals based on a mixture of principals, ethics, morality, and necessity to achieve shared goals w/r/t public issues. They are not obligated to indulge in a “public discourse” on an issue–public discourse, which is heavily inflected by race, class, and gender, forces issues from the private sphere to the public sphere. This is Mills’ private troubles/public issues formulation and its a good one. With the caveat that what existed in the private sphere–such as women and children’s issues, or the issues of slaves–only becomes public when a large enough crisis or a serious enough political movement comes along to force the matter to the level of a major public concern/crisis. See also Herman’s work on the ways in which PTSD got expanded from being something suffered by military men to something that was understood to be happening to women and children as well.

                So we don’t get public discussion of ideas about shit until there is a political movement of affected people to bring their ideas and morality to the public and who try to seize control of the discourse, the party, or the legislation necessary to protect or change the laws.

                So in short: fuck you with your assumptions about how women’s voices and morality are not reflected in the careful use of the word “choice” within a political context in which our bodies and our morality are usually ignored. Speaking as a two time fetus carrier: fuck you.

    • woodrowfan

      In 2002-2003 hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Democrats and others on the left took to the streets to protest an unnecessary war that killed hundred sof thousands and created millions of refugees over the next decade.

      In 2009-2010 hundreds of thousands, if not millions of republicans and others on the right took to the streets (in tea party rallies) to protest providing health care to sick people.

      there is your difference right there…

  • Mike Schilling

    49 Republicans

It is main inner container footer text