Let's Rein In The Women

See Tweet Here

Today on A.M. Joy, Jehmu Greene said that the man who said he wants to 'rein women in' was Sam Ronan, who is running to lead the DNC. His entire narrative is a tiresome rehashing of the fauxgressive talking points during and after the primaries. He believes the left can be reformed if it determines that Sanders' entire mantra be embraced. The poor forgotten white man is still a central point. No, he never mentions the white man, he just says the failure of the left is having forgotten the working class. This, of course, was the same talking point Sanders used to draw the same misguided correlation.

The bullshit projected there and adopted by the media on the left is painful. I remember vividly last summer when Hillary Clinton was holding rallies in Pennsylvania about her jobs plans and MSNBC broke into her speech to see if she was replying to the fact that Trump had started a fight with Khizr Khan on Twitter. When they determined that what she was talking about wasn't remotely tabloidesque, they cut away from her rally speech and went back to the punditry banter over all manner of nonsense wholly unimportant to the working class voters, and everyone else.

Hillary Clinton had an amazing platform for the working class to raise wages, lower taxes, protect our unions, strengthen small businesses, and every other damned thing you would expect from a REAL Progressive platform. Thoughtfully compare that to Sanders' platform which was focused more on outlining the issues American workers face than defining any actual plans (or means of funding them) for progress.

Clinton traveled the country giving Americans her vision for our future and how to move forward. The fact that every American didn't make it to a rally to hear that vision is not her failing, nor theirs. It is the failure of both the media who found ad buys more enticing than our democracy, and the fauxgressives who spent their time demanding both sides were rotten and only Saint Bernard could save the world. Don't fucking get me started ... there is little chance I will ever stop.

ANYWAY .... Back to my point.

The same people who project the image of the forgotten working class white man are the same people who remind us that 53% of white women voted for Trump. Pause and reflect. If a majority of white women aren't voting as Democrats, isn't it just slightly indicative of an issue speaking to women? And why might that be? I would say if a fauxgressive who is seeking to lead the party spends time thinking out loud that women need to be reined in, we have found a good place to start our reflection.

Of course real Progressives want to move women forward. Of course real Progressives believe in income equality. Of course real Progressives believe a woman should have the ONLY say in her reproductive and family planning choices. But if our party can be hijacked by a group proudly led by a man who writes rape fantasies and can dismiss them as being satirical while ignoring women during the entire campaign, maybe the party has a lot more work to do for the women who are being condemned for not hearing the message. It sounds to me like they probably have. The message they hear is the message our society projects - women need to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. Women have all of the rights they need. And of course, women have destroyed the Democratic party. Do you think that's a stretch? Name me one Democrat who was maligned over the last two years who also has a cock. Thanks.

I will conclude my tirade by reminding you that most women on the left are what I call 'universal mothers.' You don't have to be a mother to be a universal mother. I sincerely believe it is inherent. Universal mothers are those of us who see every issue as a personal issue because they hit all of our children. We demand that the myriad concerns of true Progressives (those which the fauxgressives demand have been too distracting and alienated the white men) are all personal to us. We are fighting for LGBTQ, Black Lives Matter, immigrants, Muslims, campus rape victims, education, disability rights, gun control, mental health coverage, climate change, health care reform, criminal justice reform, etc. These are the issues that America's children face. And America's children are all our children.

If someone wants to lead the Democratic party to a place where 53% of white women aren't voting against their own interests, it would be in the interest of the Democratic leadership to remind themselves, so they can project that reminder to American women, that ALL OF THESE ISSUES are a sincere and beloved facet of our party. If our leadership can spend time denouncing them, they can hardly spend their time reminding American women why these issues are so important.

Trust me, the white man will be just fine. I'm sure having had unchecked privilege throughout our entire history is very comforting and the idea of allowing others to move into the foreground is unsettling. The objective of a REAL Progressive movement would consider it their responsibility to better explain the genuine necessity of inclusion instead of finding ways to counter it. No single aspect of our platform should be hindered to make anyone else more comfortable. And this woman is here to tell you, any motherfucker who believes women need to be reined in needs to exit stage right. Immediately.


Kiss Kiss...

Mean Progressive

The Truth About Progressives

I have had my progressive ideals called into question countless times over the last two years. First it was from nutters on the right who determined lefties weren't allowed to have shitty attitudes (?). Then it came from the left (or those pretending to be from the left hidden behind avatars and fake names) by those demanding that only a true progressive would support the Sanders, then Stein, candidacies. The ignorance encapsulated in both assertions should be clear to any thinking person. I can, then, only assume the reason we find ourselves in this absolute clusterfuck is because we have so few thinking people left. Glorious.

To the first: I can't be bothered to explain to you why I don't fit inside your narrow stereotype any more than you can explain to me why you need to hold on to it. Fuck you. I have a shitty attitude. I'll keep it until I leave this wretched planet.

The second seems to be profoundly missed in every nonsensical piece I've read since the 'election' where they say the Democrats didn't speak to the Progressive wing of the left. Honestly, I send you a pretty healthy 'Fuck You,' as well.

The true Progressives are the ones who stood with Hillary Clinton from the beginning, or those who had their awakening sometime during the campaign and moved to offer her their support. The ridiculously narrow message of the Sanders campaign (and Jesus Christ - Stein didn't even really have a message) offered acknowledgement of about a third of any respectable Progressive platform. Every once in a while he could be bothered to respond to a question asking about the myriad inequalities true Progressives insist be remedied. Even then he managed to fucker that conversation up and bring it back to his fixed presentation of income inequality.

Quietly reflect on this (I'm serious. Take this moment): If the response to a capitalist society gone amok only acknowledges the aspects of that society which affect people financially, haven't you just become the goddamned problem? You've allowed the response to every facet of that society to acknowledge its premise - The only thing that matters is money and power.

True Progressivism moves everyone forward. It is about genuine progress (get it?). When you deny or ignore the marginalized groups of that society, you are the fucking problem. Your message is the fucking problem. Your goddamned messenger is the fucking problem. And when the left loses you insist the reason we lost was because we didn't speak out more for those you determine to be marginalized (the poor forgotten white man), you perpetuate the problem to the place we find ourselves today. Well done, assholes. I've seen the Democrats called Republicans repeatedly. The only Republican mentality I saw on the left this cycle was from fauxgressives demanding the white man was being abused. Check yourselves or embrace what you really are: Libertarian - selfish to the core.

So women were supposed to first embrace a man who wrote rape fantasies in the 70s and had them written off as 'satire' during the campaign? And because you didn't like the candidate on the ticket for the left you now mock us because we have to somehow come to terms with the fact that a proud sexual assailant will lead the country? That's progressive to you?

Sanders took random opportunities to condemn Trump's hate speech, but he never offered anything in his platform to address the inequalities Trump was projecting. Why? Because his message was all too similar:
-The Democrats have ruined the country and only he can save us from ruin.
-The poor forgotten white man must be coddled and made to feel superior again.

Sure, Sanders used completely different language to get that message out, but he did it nonetheless.

True Progressivism makes a lot of demands of society. The reason the Democratic platform is so huge is because it is all-encompassing. There is room in there for all genders. All races. All religions. All income levels. The platform seeks equality for absolutely everyone, without exception. We demand that our children be safe and well educated. That our tax rates be fair. That our water and air are clean. That our workforce be strong and protected. That diplomacy is relevant. That we protect those our society has continued to assault. We insist on thoughtful resolutions to complex issues that won't fit on a meme. This entire election cycle we had one candidate who responded to all of those needs. ONE. And those who demanded she wasn't progressive enough certainly never bothered to read her platform. Here, jackass, take a look - its all still there. And its all still a million times more progressive than the shit Sanders ever tried to address.

I've been told repeatedly that I need to make nice with those who stalk my pages and tell me Trump 'won' the election because we didn't give them the candidate they demanded. I'm not that kind of girl. It's not my place to passively condone the hijacking of my party and bow to the will of the bullies in my midst. Its your job to grow up and take accountability for your own ignorance and arrogance. I'll be here when you get over yourselves.

Until then ...

FUCK YOU AND YOUR GODDAMNED BIRD.

Kiss Kiss...
Mean Progressive

Welcome to the Left

In November, I wrote a piece compelling the left to consider where they point their outrage at this moment when the Regressives give us so much fodder. My only mission in writing for you all is to offer rational, if not always dispassionate, reflections and opportunities for consideration. Having still not determined which of the Democratic nominees I will support for the primaries, it is curious that I received the backlash that I did from a few after writing that article.

Facebook has repeatedly put me on 'probation' because people are reporting me for being abusive. I was interested to find out this morning that there is literally a group of people who are reporting the voices they want silenced. Of course, they are too ignorant about my personality to understand that in doing this they're not creating limitations for me, they're creating determination. And when I am given a challenge, I persevere. Period. So, I will preface with a hefty 'fuck you' to those who determined it would be a good idea to shut me up. You are barking up the wrong bitch. I promise.

I ripped those from a NYTimes article written in May. Its a fascinating read for those of us who are always curious about why people say and do they things they do. I hope if you read it, any fascination will eventually also give way to a quiet moments pause about anyone who compels you to promise not to vote for any Democrat next fall. And then, of course, have a longer (much longer) quiet pause to reflect on what that would do to our country.

Last month I was unaware that the person who commented on my site was Victor Tiffany, a person I had naively friended on Facebook who had started a 'Bernie Or Bust' movement online and managed to get a lot of followers that were starting to creep me out. The comment was from someone who identified themselves as 'The Glenn Beck Review,' and who referred me to his own blog to learn more about myself in an article he'd written. The title graciously determined that the bulk of us on the left are sheep. I put him in his place and refused to read the article because I like to spend my time thinking for myself and seeking insight, not hate. But that's just me.

So I found out this morning (take your time there, Ang) that this guy put the word out about me in November after I wrote that piece compelling Democrats to be a united front against the Regressive Party and he told the admins of left-leaning groups that I am a troll. Anyone who knows what internet trolls are is laughing right now. No worries, I'll give you a minute ..........

Yeah. If I were a troll I would not spend all of my time writing thoughtful pieces and trying to create conversations around all of the shit that the Regressives are doing. I might, however, be creating groups and petitions to stir up shit on the left and perpetuate divisions in my own party. That would make me a troll.

With that little bit of a 'duh' out of the way, I offer you perspectives on the leader of this 'revolution' called Revolt Against Plutocracy and ask you for simple reflections:

Here he admits he was a Regressive until just recently.

Funny that this new convert to the left is calling us 'neo-liberals.' Don't you think? I've been over here on the far left for as long as I have been politically aware. Really, its been decades. There is nothing new about my mission or my passion.

Okay. Their big focus is to get 1,000,000 people to pledge to write-in a vote against Clinton next fall. So if you are a big Bernie supporter, why is your mission to focus on a write in campaign next November? Shouldn't the objective assume his viability and work for him to win the primary?

Good news! Instead of making a donation to your chosen candidate, you can give your money (and credit card information?) to this guy and he will use it to encourage Americans to vote against Democrats. I will generously assume that his motives are sincere and that is what he will be using the money for.

One of their main objectives is to get trending topics on Twitter like this one: #SheepNoMore. Since they just got here, the 'no more' is for you, not them. They are basically above it, right? They are the ones who just popped left to inform you of your ignorance and lead you to the wisdom they've determined you were living without. Backbone, please. This Is Your Party.

This group is literally trying to start negative trending topics about Secretary Clinton. If you don't like her and you don't want to vote for her, fine. If you are a Bernie supporter and you want to say that on Twitter or on Facebook, fine. That is what a campaign is all about: candidates have positions and their constituents either agree or dissent. But I ask you to quietly reflect on what this does to every single left-leaning candidate in any race anywhere if the Twitter feeds of all constituents who are looking for information or opinions are littered with negative information (much I have reviewed here today has actually been proven false or come directly from the right wing talking heads). Because people associate party, this is poisoning their minds. Do you want to be a part of that? Honestly!?

In the last couple of weeks the media has covered these new converts from the right who are anxious to support Sanders. This migration will be very important for the left to win down ticket and it is actually part of my personal mission to find reasonable conversations for those on the right that are presently having a rude awakening about their own party. But ask yourself: How does a Regressive determine that (s)he is going to now not just move left, but move to the FAR left and work tirelessly for a far left agenda? The far left is where we, the most passionate and ardent liberals, live. The far left is where we fight for the environment. And Black Lives Matter. And LGBT rights. And women's rights. And education. And building a middle class. And voting rights. And sensible, compassionate immigration reform. I can see a handful of people having such a profound awakening. But it is more than a little curious to consider a rapid movement of an entire subsection of the Regressive Party into that realm. No?

I ask all of you who are in these groups, again, to spend time reflecting on the message you are receiving and what in the holy fuck will be gained from spending hours a day going back and forth with people who are only telling you to hate the candidates of your own party. If you want to vote for Bernie, I'm with you 100%.  I love him, too. Vote for him! But if you are going to sign a petition to say that you will refuse to vote for Hillary if she ends up winning in the primaries, I am here to tell you that you have absolutely NO INTEREST in a revolution. Because there is nothing revolutionary about pouting on election day. Is there?

We are presently battling to have health care. And exercise our Constitutional rights to get a goddamned medical procedure at Planned Parenthood (or anywhere else, for that matter). And create meaningful legislation around gun rights. And ensure no more Regressive nominees find their way to the Supreme Court. And build an inclusive society. Jesus Christ this list can go on for hours. My point is, ask these 'revolutionaries' about these topics. If you are a true Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, Democrat (I truly don't care what you call yourself as long as you comfortably sit here on the far left with me) I guarantee an introspective moment on the things they talk about will show you that their revolution will not do anything but hinder the things you have been passionate about and fighting for as long as you have been paying attention.

This movement can only create hardships for every candidate on the left next fall. How revolutionary! Are all of the things these signatories have been passionate about for so long and changes they know the country needs to have happen less important than a single candidate? The Supreme Court is not more important? Global diplomacy is not more important?

If you are already planning your temper tantrum on election day, that's on you. Remove me from your friends list. Kick me out of your group. And get the fuck out of my way because I have a lot to do and spending time trying to compel you to understand the importance of this election cycle is obviously just a waste of my time.

For any revolution, it will be an imperative for us to graciously welcome those from the center and the right over to the left. 

It will be equally important that we do not invite them to direct our narrative. 

If you can really #FeelTheBern then read the Revolt Against Plutocracy's first FAQ answer and reflect on what you are doing to HIS movement. Bernie is too nice to point out how destructive this campaign is or how questionable their motives are. I'm not.

Kiss Kiss...
The Mean Progressive


UPDATE: Within moments of my having posted this article I received this little gem on Twitter (notice that it was also sent to @berniesanders & @senWarren). Is this the type of person you want leading your revolution and taking your credit card information?

UPDATE: 3/29/16  I feel confident that Sanders is very much aware of this type of movement and he is taking it upon himself to exploit these bullies' motives. He seems to even be taking some of their moves. I am disheartened and disgusted by his childishness and if I end up having to support him in November, it will be with the least excitement I have worked for a campaign. And I worked for Kerry.

It's Hard Out There For a Trump

As with everything in his world, I suppose, Donald Trump is very adamant about his right to demand the terms of the next debate. He and Dr. Ben Carson have decided that they are going to boycott the CNBC event on October 28th if it is not condensed to 2 hours, including commercials.

The last debate was three hours long and it was a tortured event, I have to admit that. But the torture was for the audience, not the candidates as they would have you understand it. Directly following that event when Trump was interviewed, he repeatedly complained about how long it had been and that he was impressed with himself for having been able to stand the entire three hours. Take pause and imagine ANYONE you know having a proud revelation that they were able to stand up for three hours in a row. While talking. Its not even like he was doing manual labor. He was talking. Jesus Christ.

That evening he also said that he was proud of his daughter, Ivanka, for having endured the long evening. I went to bed that night focused on what kind of a life that woman was afforded when her father gives her accolades for having sat in an audience for three hours. You know that show Wife Swap? I'd like to see a show called Life Swap where she has to switch places with any average American do a week in the life of maybe a single mother who works full time and tries to juggle all responsibilities of the work and home life without losing her mind. And more than that, I'd love to see that single mother get the vacation Ivanka's life surely must be where hardships come from having to sit still for three hours in a row.

The last debates were, absolutely, too long. I cannot come up with a reasonable alternative, though. If CNBC is meant to take their responsibility seriously (as FOX and CNN refused to do), they should have a lot of questions for a lot of candidates, right? With ten or more attention-grabbing, rhetoric spewing, subject changing jackasses to wrangle, it seems nearly impossible to get it done in less time. But on the other hand, none of the candidates have anything of substance to say anyway, so maybe just let them have their two hours. After the record-breaking audience numbers of the Democratic debates the other night which far exceeded any expectations going into it, I would say America has finally realized the difference between the two parties is profound and the defined platforms of 'Hate & Fear' coming from the right are not conducive to the progress any single American is looking for from a leader.

Maybe the media could even start to report on those proposals coming from the left by those who are taking the idea of leading our country seriously. A girl can dream ...

The Latest Attack on Planned Parenthood

Just before Paul, Cruz and Rubio went into the debates last month, the Senate determined it would create a big diversion and hold a hearing to get rid of Planned Parenthood funding. They have used the recent release of doctored nonsensical videotapes to stir up those among us who cannot be bothered to think for themselves. They failed.

What else can the Regressive Party possibly come up with to do when they have debates again tomorrow? They desperately need to remind their sheep that they are in line with their agenda. Clinton still hasn't been found guilty of anything. Everyone still has healthcare. The candidates need something.... Shit!  Hey! I know. Let's see if the House can get the funding eliminated for Planned Parenthood. We know they could give a shit about women's health care. We know they could give a shit about children. But they sure do love to create a lot of hype out of nothing to distract the rest of us from the things they are really up to.

Please join me in telling them their distractions won't work on the majority of Americans. Tell them that anti-choice activism has no place in Congress as it has been legal for over 40 years now. Tell them that Women's Healthcare funding is not a game and their dismissal of the importance of this time-honored institution is a dismissal of us all.

Please follow THIS LINK to sign the petition then please pass it on to all who understand or need to understand.

You can also go to THIS LINK and find a list of companies who support Planned Parenthood to send them a tweet or a comment on their Facebook page to thank them for their support. This list was created by the anti-choice activists. It would be nice for them to hear from those of us who aren't out of our minds, too.

Thank you,
Mean Progressive

Scott Walker and His Welfare Queens

We have Scott Walker's idol, Ronald Reagan, to thank for the term "Welfare Queen." He offered a depiction of a woman who was taking advantage of the system to malign an entire subset of society. All of the poor who received aid were condemned to a hypothetical representative that would've been impossible for anyone to duplicate. The woman Reagan cited did exist, but she was not the typical welfare recipient. She was an actual con artist. Her entire scheme was to get over on anyone in any way she could. She took advantage of many people and many government agencies.

While campaigning for the presidency, Reagan failed to mention all of the other government agencies she managed to take advantage of. Why would he not mention the rest? Because he was a dick. Because he didn't need her for that. He only needed a means to vilify the poor and create a narrative that would have Americans thinking twice about their tax dollars going to help them. The funny thing, which happens to not be funny at all, is that, as with all Republican approaches to societal issues, the idea of fixing a broken system that could be taken advantage of was not the issue. He did not talk about how to make the system more productive in its means of caring for the nations poor. The issue was to condemn those who needed it. And, for the Regressive Party, this has never changed.

Earlier this year, Kansas passed a law saying that welfare recipients cannot spend their money on cruise ships. Well holy shit! That must happen all of the time, right? I mean, either that or Kansas has gone so far out of its way to cure all of its ills that it is only left to mend the problem of assistance dollars being spent in the Caribbean. The focus of this new bill was meant to limit the amount a recipient can spend in one day to $25. This, obviously, makes it quite hard to pay rent and utilities. But I will explain what it does that is not so obvious. When I was on welfare, I didn't have a car most of the time. I had to take a bus wherever I went. Once a month I took a cab to get my groceries. I could hardly bring them all home on the bus, and a cab ride was not free. For the bulk of the time I was receiving aid, my daughter was in diapers. They are not cheap and (sorry Bubba) my baby girl had a very sensitive bottom so we had to buy only a specific (expensive) brand or she would have a terrible rash. With this new proposal, we would have to take a cab to the grocery store several times a month to do our shopping as you simply cannot, even with coupons and a wonderful sale, get a months worth of diapers with $25 along with everything else one needs to feed their family. And I had a family of two. I don't even want to try to imagine how many trips it would take to get the necessities for a family of five or six.

Honestly! Who believes this shit?

This year Maine, Missouri and dear Scott Walker's state of Wisconsin have been working on laws demanding that food stamps cannot be used to buy junk food or expensive items, like steak and lobster. Of course, this is all rhetoric in an attempt to get on the news to remind their lowly base that they need to hate the poor and completely ignore what other items their 'representatives' have on the agenda. The legislators know full well that they would never be able to maintain this even if they manage to pass these bills. First they would have to define junk food. Then they would have to deal with the lawsuits from companies who wanted to contend that their food should not be classified as unhealthy with so many studies defining subjectivities. Then they would have to back off because they were only doing it to rile up morons, anyway.

Lets just pretend that they were able to limit what a family can spend their food allowances on, okay? So we, my daughter and I, were a normal American family. Regardless of how much money we contributed to stimulating the economy, we were a normal, yet small, family. Every year on Audrey's birthday she would get to pick whatever she wanted for dinner. So if my child wanted me to make her a steak that would be unacceptable? And if I wanted to make her a birthday cake, which would be deemed junk food, that should not be allowed? And every month when my period comes I am not allowed to have a candy bar? I dare any legislator to come to my house when I'm on my period and tell me I can't have chocolate. They will leave fearing for their life. I'm pretty sure that's not even an exaggeration. Are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only available to those who can afford it? Shit!

Actual Welfare Queen and my Princess :)

This myth created by Reagan, and perpetuated by Scott Walker and the Republicans, of what it is like to live on welfare is ridiculous. You do not get enough money to go on a cruise. You do not get enough food stamps to buy expensive (or healthy) food items. No one is having a wonderful life from the benefits this assistance offers them. It creates so many limitations that it is very hard to get off of welfare, too. With maybe $600 coming in a month you would be hard pressed to save anything. But if you could find a way to do it, you are not allowed. If you have money set aside, you do not need assistance. But if you do not set money aside, there is no way to get off of assistance without something pretty miraculous happening. Its an ugly circle. Americans who are desperate to condemn others to inflate their own pathetic lives seem unwilling to realize that there really are not enough bootstraps to go around.

Walker was so desperate to condemn those on welfare to drug testing that last year he said he would take it all the way to "a fight with the federal government and in court." Right. So the testing has already proven to be a profound waste of tax payer dollars in other states and now he thinks it is a justifiable use of tax dollars to pay for a lawsuit? This is the same man whose new budget just offered $250 million to millionaires and billionaires. It is curious that those who so excitedly support Scott and his plans are so easily distracted by his games. Wait. No. It isn't, is it? They have been playing the same game since Reagan invented it and designed the rules: Create distractions where the lowest individuals can feel better about themselves by giving them someone to malign and blame for their lot in life so they don't notice that on the other side they are literally giving away the money that could be used to create jobs in these communities to help those in need to the richest among us and their corporations. It's brilliant. Because their base are so stupid.

In a capitalist society that is woefully unbalanced, some aspect of that society will have to be weakened by that imbalance. The poor are those to suffer. Always. The Supreme Court has determined, through its Citizens United ruling, that campaign funding can be limitless and secretive, allowing the wealthiest Americans and corporations to control the message to the voters, and thus those who are elected. The poor can't afford a lobby, let alone the capacity to purchase their very own Congress.

Today the right has managed to convince its followers that Jesus Christ, himself, would condemn those who need assistance in caring for their families. That contention has even been made in a Congressional hearing on food stamps while (mis)quoting a passage from Thessalonians. Well, if St. Ronnie wasn't enough to convince them, Jesus certainly should be. How desperate can one person be for a scapegoat to allow the Bible to be rewritten to justify not helping the poor?

While you are being asked to hate the poor and imagine them sitting around having a lavish lifestyle, ask yourself how likely that really is. Realize, first, that many receiving aid are actually working. But they don't make enough money on their minimum wage job (the wage your representatives would like to eliminate altogether) to come anywhere near the poverty line. Ask yourself about the people you know who have fallen on hard times and needed assistance. Why do you allow them a pass? You don't know every family in America receiving aid. And you don't know what brought them to this place. No one aspires to end up on welfare. And no one wants to imagine continuing to have to give their children the lives welfare affords them.

Why not take a good ten minutes out of your desperate need to hold contempt for everyone you have been told to hate and quietly reflect as a human being why the politicians you support are asking you to hate the group who cost America a third of the amount lost annually by tax breaks offered to those who are meant to be stimulating our economy? And realize, you cannot condemn this economy that you attribute as a failure of President Obama, but then state that the economy is doing so well as to warrant tax breaks to those who are stimulating it so successfully.

Also, quietly ask yourself about the necessity of drug testing those receiving aid beyond the obvious profound waste of those taxpayer dollars you are always so mindful about. The basic tenet of this incredible belief system is that the poor should not be receiving federal dollars if those dollars are being used to buy drugs instead of feed their families. So the obvious first question is, "So the children won't get fed?" Which begs the question, "Wait. What is our objective?" If the answer to the first question is, "Fuck the children." Then the only response is, "Hello, we are asking ourselves the wrong question!" Kindly at least pretend to give a shit about someone other than yourselves and understand that those who are in need of aid are not your enemy. They did not create the system that left Americans with shitty wages and ever decreasing benefits. These are the people who have fallen through the cracks that your elected officials have created and have no intention of repairing. You helped create it. By condemning those with no power to fix the problem you are only enabling those who have created and are perpetuating the problem. That means YOU are the problem. Scott Walker is only the latest to join the circus of clowns who want to entertain and distract you instead of lead us all to a positive future.

Instead of criticizing those who have no means of defending themselves, maybe go demonize the politicians who think so little of your intelligence and capacity for critical thought that they asked you to get riled up about this in the first place. You are supporting those whose agenda is to only benefit the corporations who pay for their elections. They don't care about those of you who actually elect them. Wake up! When these corporations end up with the policies they want (those that will deregulate the means by which they run their corporations, are taxed and are responsible to their employees), Americans will be much poorer. Immediately. That includes you. Obviously none of you are well off (or well educated). You will be screwed. And the safety nets you rallied so hard to get rid of will be gone. And you will need them. And won't that just suck?

Yes, Virginia, There Is A War On Women

Please take a moment to watch the above. It is only one minute long. It is true. It is a fact. I wrote about this a couple of months ago and was shocked by how many people (many women) wanted to argue with me about their belief that it was a lie.

This is why the laws we have aren't enough. Again, it is just one minute. And it is SO Important.

Okay. So we are now all starting from the same place. I admit that I am a Mean Progressive, but I am lovely to all people with open minds and I sincerely hope that this message gets out to all women, regardless of party affiliation. It is time for us to put an end to this ridiculous patriarchy we have been dealing with since we got here. 

Last weekend, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a Regressive group, held a conference in Washington DC and, curiously, the only thing you can find about it in the news is a "reported" bomb threat. You know, because the Christians in this fine nation of ours are under constant threat by all who mean to persecute them. I promise the threat was one they created themselves so they could have a means of documenting their persecution just two days after they tried to tell America that a massacre in an historical southern black church was because of their faith.

All of the Regressive hopefuls for the presidency were there and pandered to their base. The jaw-dropping revelation was that one of their noted speakers was Phyllis Schlafly. She is like 90 something. Not kidding. Apparently it has not yet occurred to those in the GOP that when your esteemed speaker on women's issues has to be helped on the stage and needs to use a walker to get to the podium, it may be time to consider condemnations about your attempts to take women back to the 50's. Not only is she the physical embodiment of that truth, as she dons a dress which was certainly fashionable then, but she narrates it quite gloriously, too.

Schlafly literally opened her speech by bragging that the very room they were standing in was the one she was in when they were able to bury the ERA in 1982. When I watched it I caught myself before I let "Bitch!" come out as I recognized she is elderly. But then I realized she is also a bitch. And I let it go! She went on to tout the glories of conservatism and the needs to maintain their views. She sincerely believes that it is a bad idea for women to make as much money as men because they will find themselves unable to land a man as their egos will be bruised. The entire purpose of being a woman, according to Schlafly, is to be a wife and a mother. She publicly denounces income equality often. She even said, "The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap." And do not misunderstand me, she said this last year.

(Here is a link if you want to see her speech, she comes on at 1:08:00. The entire thing is 4 hours)

It is telling that this was the conservative leader who was invited to speak last weekend. This was the voice the Regressive Party wanted to offer to the women of their party. These were the reminders the leaders of their party believed they needed to hear. In 2015.

At this convention all of the Regressive wannabes took the stage, one after another, demanding the right for women to control their own bodies be taken away. We were reminded of proud cuts to Planned Parenthood, successful attempts to shut down various abortion clinics, passing partial birth abortion bans, etc. And the crowd cheered for them all. This was the message they wanted to hear. In 2015.

Of course this is a group who apparently only have two things on their agenda: #1 Demand our nation allow absolutely anyone to build an arsenal without a 3 day cooling off period. #2 Demand a woman have very little opportunity to choose what to do with her own body but if she can find her way to the resources needed, she needs a 3 day cooling off period.

How has it been nearly 100 years and the ERA has been unable to be ratified in 2/3 of these United States? I don't know? We are mothers. Maybe it is in our nature to worry about taking care of everyone else's needs and that has allowed the movement to go unheard. But, as mothers, it is time to recognize what society we are building for our daughters. It is not selfish to demand equality for ourselves. And it certainly isn't selfish to fight for the generations of women who will follow us. We are sharing this country and not sharing the same rights to it. And that's bullshit.

Presently the Regressive Party War on Women is moving along quite well. Of course, they have Mike Huckabee trying to explain that it is a War for Women. But, Mike, you see, a war for women doesn't assume that we don't have the capacity for reasoned judgment to determine what we can do with our own bodies or families. A war for women doesn't tell my employer that they are entitled to religious objections to my family planning choices. A war for women does not allow for funds directed to DNA testing of rape kits to be misappropriated and ensure the rapists freedom while endangering more women and perpetuating my fear. A war for women doesn't give us statistical proof of our earning a fraction of what men earn and tell us we are overreacting to demand better. And a war for women certainly doesn't champion the work of the woman who battled tirelessly to kill the Equal Rights Amendment.

So, Thanks Mike, but we will take it from here. We will carry the mantle you have managed to drop, kick and set ablaze. It is our work. It is our responsibility to inform all women that they are not remotely entitled to the freedoms they think they are. And it is important to do that while pointing out the myriad rights which are presently being taken away.

Let us not wait for the 100th anniversary of the first attempt to raise our voices.

These are my ideas to start:

You can start by going here to sign a new change.org petition.

You can go to the ERA website to find answers to whatever questions you have running through your head.

You can go here to find your Senator and here to find your Congressperson  and send them an email or a fax NOW. Save their phone number in your phone. Set your phone to remind you to call them during their office hours and DO IT. The reason the right has such an amazing field game is they have organized their crazies to do this daily. And that is why their base is so strong.

Make a list of 5 (or more) women you know who will be pissed to realize that the ERA has never passed. And insist they do the same.

American Exceptionalism?

The fact that politicians on the right are espousing a heartfelt belief in American exceptionalism and are bullying those on the left to prove they believe the same is, frankly, disturbing. Although my computer keeps trying to tell me that exceptionalism isn't a word, the concept has been around for a long time. Exceptionalism is a theory where one society, culture, country, etc. is extraordinary above all others, having something unique which makes it shine above the rest. That is ridiculous. Not only are we an adolescent in comparison to the nations they profess superiority over, but those who are making these demands actually behave like adolescents in regard to, and often in the presence of, those other countries.

Several years ago, the President was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism. He basically said that he believed in it the way that other countries believed that they were exceptional. That would be a pretty fair answer for an absurd question at a NATO summit, I would think. He went on to explain his answer in a thoughtful manner, full of words his detractors would have to look up before countering. Of course, they didn't need to counter his contentions, they had what they needed in that one little sound bite. So the far right had a new rallying cry against the President to say that he didn't love America. Most critical thinkers would have agreed with the President. Some might even think he was being generous. But the far right doesn't talk to critical thinkers. They are talking to people who don't want to be bothered to think for themselves. So they were given their talking points and sent on their way.

At present, we are being inundated by the right with their varied definitions of exceptionalism. Ted Cruz had a rather bizarre and, quite obviously, insincere revelation in March where he explained that his people, those who listen to country music, are superior because of the way that industry responded to 9/11. Before then, he explained, he had been a lover of classic rock & roll. But he was off-put by their response to the attacks on 9/11. Apparently the international fundraisers held in both September and October were not, you know, patriotic. Maybe because of his hasty conversion to country music he missed the new songs which came out about the attacks by classic rockers like Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney and John Mellencamp. Even Neil Young came out with a song that honored the heroes of flight 93. Cruz's attempts to garner supporters will have certainly fallen on deaf ears. No one who wasn't already going to vote for him would ever fall for that shit.

Mike Huckabee, too, has been all over the media, first promoting his book and now on his campaign for President, explaining that there is something quite ideal about the way they live in the south. Apparently he believes his constituency wants or needs to be pandered to. And, apparently, he believes they are not intelligent enough to realize that's what he's doing. His contention is that their superiority is defined by virtues only southern women possess, like not using birth control because they know how to control their libidos. And those women are also too classy to ever use a curse word like those trashy northern women (we know, Mike, but fuck you for noticing). Southerners are funny, where those outside of "Bubbaville" (I can't make this up) are of less humor. Those red, white & blue Bubbas are God-fearing, principled folk and the over-educated city slickers have had all principle taught right out of them. He is really big on reiterating those over-educated every time you hear him speak. It really is curious. How do southerners like having been condemned to being a comical, yet ignorant, bunch who cannot even reason through rhetoric and see that they are being mocked by the man who is professing their superiority? This is an American society. It cannot be defined by someone who is telling us any exceptionalism found in the society is a narrow subset who adhere to his prescribed ideals.

There is something inherently grotesque about the right demanding a moral or patriotic high ground. It is as if their followers, collectively, have such low self-esteem that they need to be told of their supremacy. Secretary of State John Kerry said that the idea of American exceptionalism makes him uncomfortable. I would think most thoughtful people would agree with that assertion for reasons outlined herein. However, the right jumped all over him suggesting that he and the Liberals don't love America and those on the right are more patriotic. Why do the people on the far right need to hear that? People with actual grace and moral standing don't need to be convinced of it. Nor do they need to be told that they're superior for having attained it.

I am an actual patriot. I don't prove it by putting a flag and an eagle and the Statue of Liberty in my avatar. I prove it by loving my country and my countrymen. I prove it by voting and volunteering in my community. I prove it by sincerely supporting our troops, in wanting them to only have to fight when it is necessary and make sure they are 100% taken care of when they get home. I prove my patriotism by wanting to protect America's land and natural resources. And educate her children. And feed her poor. I prove it by not only learning and understanding my country's history, but by promoting ideas of our improving on it. America cannot be a great society just because I wish it to be so. When my daughter was an adolescent, oftentimes she behaved like an ass. At those times I didn't clap my hands together and throw them in the air to proclaim, "Voila! Perfection!" I sighed, realized I still loved her more than anything and acknowledged I had more work yet to do. I am a patriot who loves my country and wants to see her progress toward something exceptional.

As America's history is short and relatively brutal, her stories of greatness would need to be promoted and her failures denied in order to really promote exceptionalism. And we cannot rewrite our own history in order to create a more appealing chronicle. Last year, however, the RNC resolved that the AP History tests, which had been updated to require critical thinking, as had been added to English and math, were focusing on too many negative aspects of our history. Then states began to follow with their own complaints about information that should be removed: slavery, internment camps, issues of equality, etc. Oklahoma tried to pass a bill that would stop funding of AP tests for their students because they wanted a stronger emphasis on positive aspects of history.

In Colorado, one teacher literally came out and demanded that the new testing was bashing America. As if any of the items given to prepare the students for the tests were created out of thin air or this was an attempt to make students less patriotic? The students in Colorado actually went on strike when they realized what was going on. They were, after all, the ones who would have to go to college having never learned about or been asked to consider the facts of our history. As such, these states were not even asking themselves to be accountable for the education of their children. As a mother and an American, that has to be about the most unexceptional thing I can think of. If the focus is to rewrite our own history to create our greatness, the mission has already denied the objective.

Historically, the civilizations that we exalt and remember as having been exceptional are those which have grown into something substantial and influential. Their history defines struggles and teaches a means of overcoming them. This gives all societies something to reflect on, learn from and grow toward. Those on the right who are presently trying to demand our exceptionalism are not only trying to negate the fact that we have not overcome the trials we have created and endured, but they are working very hard to go back to many of them as if they were never problems to begin with. As long as those same people continue to create a mangled present day narrative of hate, dependency, inequality and injustice, I'm not even convinced we can call ourselves a civilization. But I am quite certain that we are not exceptional.