Congress

Is Alan Grayson Congress' Most Awful Representative?

No, but is it too much to ask for representatives - even those from Florida - to not be jackasses *all* the time?

|

In many ways, no. He's reliably against war and is in favor of ending government surveillance. He believes in auditing the fed and marriage equality.

True, his views on most economic issues are a grab-bag of progressive lowlights and his defense of Obamacare is without nuance or apology. But, as I explain in my most recent Daily Beast column, what actually gets under my skin about Grayson, who represents Florida's 9th district, is thinking about running for Senate, and recently called the mother of his five children and wife of 15 years "a gold digger," is that he never misses an opportunity to lower the bar for public discourse. 

As the self-styled "Congressman With Guts," Grayson has yet to reach bottom when it comes to throwing low blows. In 2009, for instance, while appearing on Jones' show and talking about the Federal Reserve, he called Linda Robertson, an adviser to Ben Bernanke, "a K Street whore."

"Here I am," he inveighed, "the only member of Congress who actually worked as an economist, and this lobbyist, this K Street whore, is trying to teach me about economics."

Perhaps Grayson was just nervous in his freshman year in Congress and trying to show off a bit too much. That same year he turned in the performance for which he is probably still best-known: his executive summary of the Republican health care plan alternative to Obamacare as "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly." He delivered that message, complete with props, from the floor of Congress.

In a tough 2010 re-election campaign, Grayson ran ads calling his Republican opponent, Daniel Webster, a draft dodger and, more improbably, "Taliban Dan," in a nod to Webster's social conservatism. Factually incorrect and overflowing with duplicitous editing, the commercials are pitch-perfect parodies of negative ads and are widely believed to have helped cost Grayson the election. Florida voters, accustomed as they are to reading about "Florida Man," don't always want his spiritual cousin representing them in Congress (Grayson would return to Washington in 2013, representing a newly redrawn 9th district).

Grayson is to Congress what Florida Man is to Twitter: "a never-ending series of cringe-inducing incidents, headlines, and actions that define—and defame—an entire state." Or in this case, an entire institution. He's not alone in defining dumbness down for Congress, but that's no reason not call him out, either.

Surely it's not asking too much that the folks running the federal government refrain from being jackasses in the way they comport themselves?

Full column here.

Advertisement

NEXT: What Magna Carta Can Teach Us About Libertarian Strategy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Surely it’s not asking too much that the folks running the federal government refrain from being jackasses in the way they comport themselves?

    Yes. Yes it is.

  2. A man might change his mind for you, and he might be right to do so, but you’re asking a man to change his heart for you.

  3. “DaveinUK

    The Daily Beast has long proven itself to be wannabe rag that thinks being apologists for neo-conservatives will secure it readership and revenue…. Good luck with that kids…

    Broken_2
    @DaveinUK

    And to think this rag used to be Newsweek“”

    C’mon, you have to admit that last bit is pretty funny

    Almost all of the 400+ comments are some version of an exasperated liberal shrieking, “BUT THE GOP IS WORSER!!! CLEARLY KOCHTOPUS HIT PIECE”””

    “echo_chamber_orchestra

    i read down the comment thread till “show more comments”…. wow
    that was enough
    Nick Gillespie took a 4-sided beating like i’ve not read before

    wouldn’t want to be you… Nick
    was the money worth it?”

    Its actually worth wading through. there are some choice morsels.

    1. I love it. The Kochs roost at the center of a vast effort to control elections in unspecified but nefarious ways, none of which the left can ever articulate, but suggesting that Hillary may have peddled influence to foreign governments is just a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.

      1. I keep forgetting what “fallacy” its typically referred to as…

        …but the claim that someone is “being paid” to do something, or somehow benefits financially from their stated view, is a super-common left wing accusation that is thrown out whenever anything requires instant dismissal.

        Its nearly universally cited by the commenters.

        There are sillier attacks, but not many. They really do seem to find nothing funny about Grayson at all. Noble soldier in God’s Army, he is.

        1. Crazyotto 14 hours ago

          @swimmingnaked For the 11th most wealthy he has horrific taste in clothing. Seriously he is an absolute disgrace primarily because his over the top and inflamed rhetoric hardly ever meets the smell test. In short he simply doesn’t have much to say that is factual. You may agree with his basic positions but he loses it with his insane bloviating and bad shirt and tie mixes.

          And, finally.. someone cuts to the heart of the matter…

          1. I actually like his atrocious shirt-tie combinations.

            Politicians are clowns. Dressing like one is entirely apropos.

            1. I think a bouffant hair style, Late Elvis w/sideburns, and open butterfly collar with several gold chains would be far more appropriate in such instance..

  4. 🙁

    John Forbes Nash Jr., the brilliant Princeton University mathematician whose life story was the subject of the film “A Beautiful Mind,” and his wife of nearly 60 years were killed in a car crash Saturday on the New Jersey Turnpike, police said.

    Nash was 86. Alicia Nash was 82. The couple lived in Princeton Junction.

    The two were in a taxi traveling southbound in the left lane of the New Jersey Turnpike when the driver of the Ford Crown Victoria they were in lost control as he tried to pass a Chrysler in the center lane, crashing into a guard rail, according to State Police Sgt. Gregory Williams.

    1. Really sad… though I have to admit that Nash was one of those people I thought had died a few years ago. A great man of the 20th century, and I can’t imagine the struggles that Alicia endured. Very sad that both died.

      1. He’s the Lou Reed of mathematics.

    2. Died in a taxi? That is unpossible, isn’t it? After all they are licensed.

      Thank god he didn’t die an an Uber car. The left would have gone nuts.

      1. Seat belt laws will be reviewed and amended. Wait and see.

    3. Evidently, the driver of the car did not feel he was in Nash equilibrium with the rest of the traffic and decided to alter his strategy. An erroneous calculation on his part, it would appear.

      He was definitely one of the ones who won the Nobel prize for econ who actually deserved it.

  5. Gloria Steinem is a total idiot.

    Peace activists led by US feminist Gloria Steinem cross Korean border

    A group of women peace activists, led by American feminist Gloria Steinem, has made a rare crossing of one of the world’s most militarised borders to promote reconciliation between North and South Korea.

    Shortly before midday on Sunday the group of 30 activists rode by bus through the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas after spending several days in Pyongyang ? a stay that triggered criticism they were being used as propaganda tools by the North.

    Hey – couldn’t you, I don’t know, protest against all that mass starvation in North Korea rather than chastising the North and South equally for failure to reconcile?

    “We are feeling very much that the visit accomplished what no one said could be done, which is to be on a trip for peace, for reconciliation, for human rights and a trip to which both governments agreed,” the feminist icon said to reporters in footage broadcast by Yonhap News TV. “We were able to be citizen diplomats, to have no official function whatsoever.”

    “We accomplished absolutely nothing! WORSHIP US!

    1. “We accomplished absolutely nothing! WORSHIP US!”

      Are you suggesting the triumph of symbolism over substance isn’t a victory worthy of worship? An event to be heralded for the ages? Neanderthal…

    2. Gloria Steinhem, the living embodiment of the useful idiot.

      The only thing that could make this story more perfect is if Kim had had her eaten by dogs.

    3. I wonder how disappointed Kim Jong Un was when he realized that that those pics he got from North Korea’s official media agency of Gloria as a Playboy Bunny were slightly out dated.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/g…..hotos.html

    4. They came from North to South as official guests of the Norks. So, yes, of course they are propaganda pawns of the Norks. A century on, and communism has yet to run out of useful idiots.

      If they had crossed from South to North without first obtaining official permission, then I would have been impressed. Hell, I probably would have made a small donation to pay for the repatriation of their remains and funerals.

    5. This is just Steinem’s way of reminding the world that she’s not dead yet.

      Next week she’ll be taking Further down Route 66 to protest childhood diabetes to equal effect.

    6. “After going back in time to September of 1939, Steinem marched with protesters across the eastern front after spending some time in Warsaw moving toward Berlin, calling on both sides equally to admit their wrongdoings and come together.”

      I think the Nazi comparison is apt too. If Kim Jong Un had as much power as Hitler, he’d likely be even worse. If anywhere in the world is not a ‘pox on both their houses’ case, it’s Korea. You have pretty much the worst regime on the planet up there. It’s pretty fucking unambiguous who the good and the bad are in that situation. Steinem, of course, would be the ugly.

  6. They are all jackasses. Grayson is simply forthright instead of pretending.

    1. Agreed. Regardless of his political positions, I actually find it kind of refreshing to see a politician be so honest about what he thinks. I’d love to see more politicians talk like that instead of spewing off the scripted yet mealy-mouthed bullshit.

  7. Ready for some Millennial naval gazing?

    Can We Please Get God Out of Religion?

    We all need a spiritual side. But not because of some make-believe afterlife. Because it makes us better in this life.

    Goddammit.

    According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, about 35 percent of millennials have no religious affiliation and thus are categorized as the “nones.” Approximately 56 million Americans are religiously unaffiliated, and the horde of “nones” grows steadily by the year.

    As a millennial myself, I am part of the generation that has conspired to spread this heresy nationwide, from coast to coast, as a kind of modern-day version of Manifest Destiny.

    One of wisest things the millennial “nones” could do for their progeny could be to find a proper spiritual outlet for their children while still expressing a healthy cynicism toward organized religion. The “nones” should anticipate that their children will become religiously jaded but still hope that they are capable of believing in a force greater than themselves. Hopefully this will prevent the “nones” from creating a new generation of anxiety-ridden narcissists.

    Speaking of anxiety-ridden narcissists…

    1. We all need a spiritual side. But not because of some make-believe afterlife. Because it makes us better in this life.

      Do college freshmen still qualify as millennials?

      1. Homo Retardius is the next step in human evolution. It transcends petty titles and categorizations. Embrace the new era, and behold the dawn of greater human endeavor. They shall make sweet wine of your sour grapes. You are tilting at windmills in retrograde while humanity advances…

    2. In other words, let’s all raise our children to worship “society” as manifested in its only begotten son, the government!

      1. How bout you raise them to worship liberty?

        1. I agree. My daughter deserves worship.

          1. Idolater!

    3. “I’m spiritual but not religious” is a joke, right?

      Poe’s Law?

      1. Not at all. One can certainly be spiritual and not religious. The feeling I get when I catch a trout or go for a walk in the woods is spiritual and has absolutely nothing to do with “god”. It’s a feeling of wellbeing and satisfaction based upon links that don’t physically exist.

        1. I feel the same way. What is it about flyfishing in particular that engenders such feelings?

          1. “I fish because I love to. Because I love the environs where trout are found, which are invariably beautiful, and hate the environs where crowds of people are found, which are invariably ugly. Because of all the television commercials, cocktail parties, and assorted social posturing I thus escape. Because in a world where most men seem to spend their lives doing what they hate, my fishing is at once an endless source of delight and an act of small rebellion. Because trout do not lie or cheat and cannot be bought or bribed, or impressed by power, but respond only to quietude and humility, and endless patience. Because I suspect that men are going this way for the last time and I for one don’t want to waste the trip. Because mercifully there are no telephones on trout waters. Because in the woods I can find solitude without loneliness. … And finally, not because I regard fishing as being so terribly important, but because I suspect that so many of the other concerns of men are equally unimportant and not nearly so much fun.”

            ? Robert Traver

          2. And speaking of which, I’m off to be spiritual.

          3. Because it’s strikingly similar to masturbation.

        2. No, it’s a joke. It’s just pure intellectual cowardice. They don’t believe in the stories and they don’t like binding moral systems, but they are still afraid of the notion of dark, empty, meaninglessness existence in which they are mere animals and the rules they follow are mere habits shaped by billions of years of evolutionary accidents.

          So, they try to have their cake and eat it too, by worshiping vagaries. Hearing young people talk about spirituality is among the most unpleasant experiences imaginable. It’s just perpetual equivocation aimed at avoiding having to come to difficult or unsettling conclusions.

    4. This sounds like someone who’s afraid to accept the notion of a godless universe but doesn’t want to rub shoulders with those icky church-going theists and their gross social conservatism.

      1. ^ verily, this

        I was going to say something similar, but more offensive. along the lines of, “Millenials are even Metaphysical Pussies

    5. Can We Please Get God Out of Religion?

      We all need a spiritual side. But not because of some make-believe afterlife. Because it makes us better in this life.

      Happened about a hundred years ago – its called socialism and in America progressivism.

      1. The bitter discontent, when they shed their mortal coils and move on to meet not “God”, nor Marx… but Woodrow Wilson in the afterlife, as their spiritual overlord.. Whatever would they talk about..

    6. “If we think of spirituality in these terms, then it becomes merely a tool for a healthier life. An apt comparison could be playing recreational sports or studying a musical instrument.”

      Yes, that’s why Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree and why the desert fathers gave up their secular lives to engage in contemplation: so that they could live healthier lives while riding their sea doos and playing the viola.

      1. “If we think of spirituality in these terms, then it becomes merely a tool for a healthier life. An apt comparison could be playing recreational sports or studying a musical instrument.”
        Fucking retarded millenials, I hate them, this soft little unexamined fucking utilitarianism that infects their minds.

        People do not learn musical instruments to “live a healthier life.” They do it to create beautiful music. Plenty actually do so at the expense of their health because of their devotion to music.

        Is nothing an end in itself? No wonder ‘fine’ art has gotten so terrible these past few generations.

    1. we won the cold war by encouraging the Russians to spend shitloads on their defense until they imploded

      if I were a Russian with Anti-American feelings, I’d be cheerleading the F35 as well.

      1. Yeah, that’s the interpretation that the neocons love. Then there are those of us with an understanding of economics who actually think that communism is not sustainable.

        1. Yep. Mises made this point a century ago and was consequently ignored for being insufficiently faithful to the nationalist & socialist dogmas that were popular throughout the 20th century.

          My dog could understand why a coerced win-lose arrangement is less economically efficient than voluntary trade, but somehow this escaped a century’s worth of “economists” in thrall to the state.

      1. The American Taxpayer “gets it”

        (the bill, at least)

        1. I can’t argue that it’s inexpensive or efficient. It is necessary, however, if you value not being defeated in battle.

          Take pleasure in the fact that it will be the last fighter ever built, as the paradigm is going to change before another can replace it.

          1. “Take pleasure in the fact that it will be the last fighter ever built,”

            I take no pleasure in it. I like planes.

            ” It is necessary, however, if you value not being defeated in battle.”

            I am aware of your interest/experience w/ the topic.

            I would disagree that *this particular aircraft* is the sine qua non of victory in any/all prospective future military conflict. Or that pouring massive resources into 5th-gen air-power rather than other kinds of military preparedness even makes sense.

            didn’t the A-10 fly more actual combat missions than any other modern platform? (and actually did a lot of ‘actual fighting’ as opposed to providing air cover at enormous expense)

            I am a deep-skeptic about the ability to prepare for distant-future types of military conflict by investing limitless amounts of money in technology, versus learning and adapting from the conflicts we’re actually facing in the moment.

            My impression is that assholes in the Pentagon got such a boner over the dominance of airpower in Gulf I, that they committed to spending a trillion bucks, imagining we’d be able to repeat that sort of thing forever. There was a similar myopia in how Rumsfeld thought our ‘technology’ advantage meant we could subdue a gigantic nation with a piddling ground force. Technology is a crutch that tends to replace actual capabilities. In the case of this airplane, that’s little things like “turning”

            1. Describe the feeling you get when one does a low flyover above your position headed towards the enemy. The military industrial complex takes full advantage of those feelings. Even at airshows you can’t help feeling “man, I’m glad that fucker’s on our side”. Still way too expensive.

              1. Yes, i know how ‘air cover’ works.

                by that token, we should be flying a bunch of ‘cheap, fear inspiring’ aircraft rather than these trillion $ wundertech craft that have trouble doing tight circles

                like “an updated A-10”, basically

            2. My concerns with the F-35 are two-fold:

              (1) It sounds like a “do-everything” platform, which means it probably kinda does most things, but nothing particularly well.

              (2) I’ve heard the maintenance requirements are horrific. In an extended conflict, that’s going to mean we have a bunch of planes taking up hangar space, and not very many actually fighting.

              1. I’ve heard the maintenance requirements are horrific. In an extended conflict, that’s going to mean we have a bunch of planes taking up hangar space, and not very many actually fighting.

                Same was said about the B-1, perhaps the worst military MX nightmare ever. See below.

                MX improves with time. Processes are improved upon. It’s NEVER as bad as those lobbying for more F-15/16/18s would lead you to believe.

                That said, I will NEVER defend the acquisition system. It is abysmally inefficient.

                1. That said, I will NEVER defend the acquisition system. It is abysmally inefficient.

                  Francisco,
                  I disagree. The DoD (the government to be honest) acquisition system is very efficient at maximizing cost and schedule.

                  1. You want it fast, cheap and good.

                    Pick two.

            3. Actually, the B-1 dropped more weapons than any other platform. It dropped 69% of the ordinance (mostly in CAS-type roles) while flying under 30% of the sorties.

              That said, it, or the A-10 wouldn’t last 10 minutes a modern air battle. Remember, Iraq and afghanistan are third-world countries.

              It takes 20-30 years to design and field a modern fighter. That means, before the next one comes along to replace it (and IF you start design as soon as its predecessor is fielded, which they don’t) the current model has to be designed to defeat threats, not of today’s battlefield, but threats that will exist 30-40 years from now.

              You mention turning. What the Russian “gets” is that gen-5 isn’t about turning performance. It’s about turning information into a useable format so you can shoot your enemy before he can shoot you. The F-35 isn’t expensive because of new aerodynamics that make it more agile. It is expensive (and lethal) because it has the ability to take data from anywhere and turn it into a targeting solution faster and at greater range than the enemy can counter.

              Just because the last few wars happened to be with third world adversaries, doesn’t mean the next will.

              1. “Just because the last few wars happened to be with third world adversaries, doesn’t mean the next will.”

                I recall this being said after Vietnam

                Also, “third world” is itself a cold-war term. Iraq had a ‘modern’ army, and defense infrastructure. That didn’t turn out to be the main problem.

                1. Iraq had a ‘modern’ army, and defense infrastructure. That didn’t turn out to be the main problem.

                  This is simply false.

                  Iraqi forces were almost two generations behind our own. They were easily defeated.

                  1. Who isn’t 2 generations behind?

                    seriously.

                    The idea that the russians and chinese are going to field MechaGodzilla if we don’t endlessly double down on technology strikes me as Strangelovian Fantasy

                    1. Who isn’t 2 generations behind?

                      Us, the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the Indians.

                      The Russians and Chinese have systems we can’t defeat (to my knowledge) now. Thankfully, they keep such things for themselves…until they design something better…then they sell their old shit.

                      It is not a fantasy. It is the way military technology works. It’s cat and mouse, measure… countermeasure… counter- countermeasure…

                      It means anyone who has better shit than you can defeat your X (Air Force, Ground Force, Navy…) or make it very costly to use in terms of lives and machines. Can you imagine our expense if Iraq (or anyone) had the ability to shoot down half our aircraft?

                      It doesn’t end, and it’s expensive. But every several generations in, it resets with a paradigm shift, which is what we are on the cusp of. There will be no gen 6 aircraft, and the new paradigm will be less expensive (or should be).

                    2. ” Can you imagine our expense if Iraq (or anyone) had the ability to shoot down half our aircraft?”

                      This is hilarious for a few reasons.

                      1) we’d never have invaded were that the case
                      2) we spent 2 trillion *anyway*… not because of their possession of any advanced technology, but rather the hubris created by our own technological superiority, and a failure to understand its limitations in helping achieve specific goals

                      “It doesn’t end, and it’s expensive”

                      Well, those would be the teleological assumptions of a defense contractor.

                      I’m of a different POV, which is that the likelihood of a equally-matched conventional military conflict is close enough to zero to be negligable, while there will be more, smaller, more varied asymmetrical conflicts like Vietnam/Iraq in the future.

                      another way of saying it is that the “paradigm shift”* has already happened, and the technology of ‘5th generation’ armed conflict is mostly useless in that context.

                      (*post nuclear-weapons)

                    3. 1) we’d never have invaded were that the case
                      2) we spent 2 trillion *anyway*… not because of their possession of any advanced technology, but rather the hubris created by our own technological superiority, and a failure to understand its limitations in helping achieve specific goals

                      1. Go look up our expected aircraft losses for the first night of Gulf War I
                      2. Because certain idiots in the Bush administration don’t know the difference between military strategy and weaponry, doesn’t mean that having inferior weapons can’t lose you the war too.

                      Well, those would be the teleological assumptions of a defense contractor.

                      They are the assumptions of one who gets shot at. Ask all the dead Iraqis if technology on the battlefield doesn’t matter.

                      the likelihood of a equally-matched conventional military conflict is close enough to zero to be negligable

                      Your right. Near parity disincentivizes war. That’s what we’ve got. If we shitcanned the F-35 tomorrow, it would take 20-30 years to replace them which puts our potential adversaries a generation ahead of us.

                      Not to mention, those nations sell to shitholes, which means even the shitholes can threaten us.

                      There are ways to cut our military in half with very little impact on capability. But allowing us to fall behind in technology means you’ve relegated your country to being a second rate power at the whim of anyone with better shit.

                    4. Who cares if they have better systems than us? If we out-prosper them, then they’ll be working for us anyway. The surest guarantee of safety is economic prosperity (the safest goose isn’t the one that bights the hardest, but the one that lays golden eggs).

                      Why are we so intent on becoming the best armed slum in the world?

              2. “That said, it, or the A-10 wouldn’t last 10 minutes a modern air battle.”

                Please to remind me the last time a “modern air battle” actually happened

                1. Please to remind me the last time a “modern air battle” actually happened

                  Yeah…I wonder why that is?

            4. You mean you like an aircraft (A-10) that could stall the engines when the gun was fired? Wasn’t one of the selling points the big gun it came with? And the contractor couldn’t build the aircraft either. You like that piece of crap?

              I bet you liked the P-38 that had a tendency to have it’s wings fall off when it went into a dive. Or the P-51 that perform couldn’t perform well enough at altitude to protect the bombers. The F-111 that liked to kill its pilots. How about the C-5 with its billion dollar overrun? And the F-15 with it’s crappy engines. Or the 747 with engines that had a tendency to fly apart when used?

              My point is many aircraft have problems during development. People usually forget about them when they get fixed. Especially if the aircraft performs well at the tasks it was designed to do (people usually want it perform the task of the aircraft that is being retired, when technology and tactics have evolved)

            5. I picture the majority of ground fighting to be accompanied in the future by large quadcopter drones loaded with weaponry. These things will replace Apaches and other attack helicopters. Unfortunately, the quadcopters also make pretty good targets, so maybe they won’t be shaped that way. But those things are so much more maneuverable and flight stable than a traditional helicopter that they’re much better for remote control.

  8. Interview with Camille Paglia from 1995 has this gem:

    I began to realize this in the Seventies when I thought women could do it on their own. But then something would go wrong with my car and I’d have to go to the men. Men would stop, men would lift up the hood, more men would come with a truck and take the car to a place where there were other men who would call other men who would arrive with parts. I saw how feminism was completely removed from this reality.

    I also learned something from the men at the garage. At Bennington, I would go to a faculty meeting and be aware that everyone hated me. The men were appalled by a strong, loud woman. But I went to this auto shop and the men there thought I was cute. “Oh, there’s that Professor Paglia from the college.” The real men, men who work on cars, find me cute. They are not frightened by me, no matter how loud I am. But the men at the college were terrified because they are eunuchs, and I threatened every goddamned one of them.

    PLAYBOY: Do you think that feminism is antisexual?

    PAGLIA: The problem with America is that there’s too little sex, not too much. The more our instincts are repressed, the more we need sex, pornography and all that. The problem is that feminists have taken over with their attempts to inhibit sex.

    Ahead of her time. This could have been written last week.

    1. Is she still any good? Did she return to the fold or is she still a rebel against third-wave insanity?

      1. If anything she’s gotten even more bizarrely right-wing on the matter of gender politics.

        If men are obsolete, then women will soon be extinct ? unless we rush down that ominous Brave New World path where women clone themselves by parthenogenesis, as famously do Komodo dragons, hammerhead sharks and pit vipers.

        A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology.

        Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.

        1. Infantile parasites don’t need strong adult figures of either gender to emulate.

          Just a teat to suckle.

        2. What, Brave New World gets a shout-out but no love for the Bene Gesserit?

          1. She makes an interesting point in that first post though, which is that the men most comfortable with the ‘strong women’ feminists claim to idolize are actually the very men that feminists disdain. Pajama Boys are not interested in strong women because strong men and women frighten them and make them wet themselves. Strong men and women might ignore your triggers and avoid warning you that they’re about to mention sexual assault.

            It’s a really odd disconnect within the feminist movement, in that feminists make all these claims about what they want, but their actual actions contradict everything they say.

            1. Very true. Strong, secure men find strong women attractive rather than threatening.

        3. One of the craziest things I have witness during my time in college was seeing middle to upper class white and black women constantly complain about how hard they have it in today’s society. It’s seriously a race to become a victim and make sure everyone glorifies their victimhood.

          Whenever you confront them with the realities of women in countries such as Saudi Arabia and India, they lose their shit and call you a tool of the patriarchy,

          1. If ever we needed the threat of Mongols or Gauls on the frontier…

          2. Most women today, who call themselves feminists, are not. They are simply left wing whiners attempting to acquire power over men by claiming victim status.

            Real feminists simply want to have equal opportunity to compete on their own merits.

            1. I used to have arguments with an ex who styled herself a disciple of Jessica Valenti. In one breath she would make noises about just wanting equal opportunity and in the next breath parrot tired “war on women” cliches, all of which boil down to carving out exceptions for women in terms of employment, education, criminal and family law, etc. It’s telling that Cathy Young is a marginal voice in the movement while Valenti and Steinem and similar halfwits hold the commanding positions.

              1. You sure can pick ’em.

              2. “Marginal voice.” I’d say their voices are about as marginal as Martin Luther’s and John Calvin’s were in Catholicism.

                Most of Young’s and Paglia’s supporters are not feminists, and most self-identified feminists regard them as anti-feminists.

        4. Feminists went from demanding equality to demanding privilege to being outright misandrists attributing every human dysfunction to men and the masculine and every positive attribute to women and the feminine. And yet they still with a straight face will claim that they are still only demanding equality.

          We are now to the point where a woman can make any claim against a man and that man is guilty until proven innocent (in the court of public opinion) and anyone remotely skeptical is sexist. The worst part is that when the woman’s claims are proven false people are more outraged that it may create skepticism towards real female victims in the future instead of being outraged that a man had his reputation ruined. So even in situations where a man was screwed, it’s still women who are the real victims.

          1. I really don’t mind the misandry, and many of them are pretty upfront about it. Righteous anger makes dealing honestly with your hatred much more comfortable than closeted bigotry, and given their theories about gender it’s not difficult to understand why they’re strident misandrists.

            It’s the erasure of gender distinction and the biological denialism that goads me. Striving for equality under the law, equality of opportunity, and wanting to tear down the edifice of masculine privilege?fine. Insisting that women and men have no innate differences and expecting reality to reflect that delusion?not fine.

            1. “Insisting that women and men have no innate differences and expecting reality to reflect that delusion?not fine.”

              I was under the impression that many do believe there are innate differences between genders, just that males got all the “bad differences”, and that they need to be “fixed”

              (veterinary snipping insinuation intended)

              it is notable that the feministing/jezebel crowd of Feminists seems almost entirely focused on ‘attacking’ things, or constantly talking about “other people’s problems”, rather than any particular goal which they want to ’empower themselves’ toward. Its all about “safety” instead of enabling anything.

              perhaps a poor metaphor, but its sticking in my head = they seem more interested in de-clawing cats than training a dog to do something useful.

            2. The biological denialism bothers me too. I absolutely do not want a fireman with physical strength similar to my own on the force—I can’t carry a heavy woman let alone a full grown man. If a job has physical requirements, it’s absolutely right and proper to only hire those who meet the requirements. If 99.9% of women can’t, that aint sexism, that’s just the real world.

    2. The problem with this response, at least in confronting the contradictions of feminism, is that third-wave feminists are no longer content with being taken seriously within academia or media. Because they own those forums. They’ve prised away the cultural controls from men and taken over almost completely. Now they’re working to forcefully de-sexualize men. The eunuchs with which they surround themselves is the model on which they’re trying to reform the men in the garage. They want to castrate society in addition to intellectually neutering it. So maybe the mechanics were more unafraid than the eunuchs, but now they’re sexually oppressive male gazers and potential rapists who must be castrated. So that women can finally feel safe.

      1. In their broken down car. Where no man in his right mind will stop to help, because being alone with a woman is becoming all that’s necessary for a successful rape charge.

        1. Where no man in his right mind will stop to help, because being alone with a woman is becoming all that’s necessary for a successful rape charge.

          I think men are safer in this instance because no woman is going to want to drag her driver’s seat around everywhere.

          1. She’ll just drag the seat cover. She’d need a mechanic to get the seat out of the car.

      2. See Sheri S Tepper The Gate to Women’s Country, a pro-eugenics treatise on breeding out auto-shop men.

        1. “The setting of the story is Women’s Country, apparently in the former Pacific Northwest. They have evolved in the direction of Ecotopia, reverting to a sustainable economy based on small cities and low-tech local agriculture.

          They have also developed a matriarchy where the women and children live within town walls (so-called women’s country) with a small number of male servitors, and most of the men live outside the town in warrior camps.”
          ….
          The Marthatown garrison is soon sent to battle against another Women’s Country city, and no survivors return.
          ….
          Tepper thus illustrates a world approaching a feminist utopia through the vision of a powerful leadership who impose rigid behavioural control on their society, and engineer the removal of those traits they consider undesirable through forced sterilization”

          Nowhere mentioned are the ‘low tech’ laborers who will be growing all the food for the Matriarchs.

          God the rest of that plot-summary is a riot.

          What’s with these enlightened ‘Women’s City-States’ *fighting each other*? For what, again? (“those bitches think they’re so smart.”) And who built the walls of their enclaves?

          sigh. And I thought “The Handmaid’s Tale” was as bad as it got.

          1. “The setting of the story is Women’s Country, apparently in the former Pacific Northwest.

            Was there a massive tectonic shift that made the Pacific Northwest go away? Jesus, talk about shitty writing.

          2. Nowhere mentioned are the ‘low tech’ laborers who will be growing all the food for the Matriarchs.

            IIRC (been a while), the selectively spayed women do it, as that is all they are deemed good for (because they are not-smart or otherwise “flawed”). The emasculates are household servants and sperm donors (and happy to be that, by gum!).

            And I thought “The Handmaid’s Tale” was as bad as it got.

            No, and Tepper’s other work is along those lines, but she is a good storyteller, which is the only reason I could stomach it. That said, she more than any other author goaded me into flying my libertarian flag high and proud in my own work and indulge my little bodice-rippin’ heart, so she’s a watershed author for me.

            1. Another woman libertarian? You guys are sprouting like mushrooms. Must be from all the rain.

              1. And doing my best to sow more seeds.

              2. Actually, (speculation on my part since I’ve been a libertarian since the late 80’s), I think this newest iteration of feminism is creating more female libertarians, because there are a shit ton of women who like manly men and sex with manly men and don’t like whiny bitches and mean girls.

                1. BuSab Agent, I agree, but I’ll raise you this: I hang in a lot of liberal feminist SJW spaces?who are there to intellectualize and justify their love of romance novels. The desire for manly men hasn’t gone away, but it’s a guilty pleasure, and they find incredible ways to justify their love for alphaholes (asshole alpha heroes) and validate the romance genre’s existence, up to and including horning it into academic studies. I am unapologetic about my love for alphaholes.

                  Furthermore, while contemporary romance (“real” life, “real” people, current timeframe, no history, no magic sparkles, steamgoggles, or blood sucking) HAS gotten stodgier (the ’70s and ’80s were so much more enlightened, she says with a straight face), the rise of paranormal has skyrocketed. What used to be a bodice ripper and is now derided as “rapetastic” has morphed into vampires and were-creatures.

                  Twilight is not about sparkly vampires. It’s about a Dom/sub relationship (although I will also submit Meyer didn’t grok the subtext). Its fanfic Quasimodo, Fifty Shades of Grey, just stripped the sparkly vampire bit and called a spade a spade (kinda sorta not really, but that’s a discussion for another time).

                  tl;dr The SJW feminists love romance novels and alphaholes but the ones who will admit it intellectualize it so they don’t lose SJW street cred.

                  1. That’s just sad for the SJW’s then that they drunk the cool-aid so deeply that they think asshole=masculine. I’ve never liked romance novels, mainly because the female protags are stupid and weak and fall for assholes lol. If I want to get my juices flowing, I watch gay porn. Now there’s men’s men!

                    1. Their idea of “asshole” and mine are different.

                      I don’t like watching/reading smut without a vagina involved.

                      The 70s and 80s novels had heroines that were all about the derring-do.

                      I WAS going to say the heroines are more kick-ass now but then I realized *I* haven’t read a romance novel in a while. Oopsie.

            2. So, why isn’t this stuff considered hate speech? Why is the Southern Poverty Law Center not sending out alerts about this prolific author who sounds like a living female Otto Weiniger? Rhetorical question of course, I already know. 🙁

          3. Those low-tech laborers are Morlocks. They helped maintain the sophisticated, enlightened Eloi as livestock.

  9. Eleanor Clift, long the leftest chair on the McLaughlin Group, pens article titled,

    Only Capitalism Can Save the Planet

    Save your eyebrows the labor of raising themselves = no, its not what it sounds like.

    Its that environmentalists seem to think that trying to force Top-Down laws which impose draconian regulations on businesses aren’t working *fast enough*, and that the real path to success is to pressure companies to adopt bullshit green energy practices in order to receive a ‘seal of approval’ and thus create demand for their shitty Green Tech which Federal Subsidy isn’t stimulating fast enough.

    She cites WalMart‘s solar initiative, and the rent seeking of people like Philip Anschutz (who is building a wind farm in Wyoming intending to sell Green ‘lectricity to California) as examples of the Great Corporate Awakening.

    Clearly a paid shill for the Tom Steyerpus

    1. The longer the let’s-increase-the-price-of-machine-calories catastrophe continues, the more tempted I am to found a nonprofit dedicated to putting a copy of the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels in every hotel room in America.

  10. Grayson worked as an economist, WTF????

    A marxist one at a university, would explain is ass hattery.

    1. Grayson worked his way through Harvard College as a janitor and nightwatchman, and graduated with a Bachelors of Arts summa cum laude degree in economics in 1978.[6][7] After working two years as an economist, he returned to Harvard for graduate studies (Public Policy).”

      BA in econ + 2 years of something right after graduation.

      with that kind of CV i could call myself ‘an economist’ many times over.

      1. Yeah well, anytime he pontificates on business or finanace or economics in general he demonstrates that he’s an ignorant raving loon.

        It’s equivalent to a homeophath and bleeder claiming to be a doctor.

        1. That’s because a BA in economics means absolutely fucking nothing. It’s a joke degree. I have one and there were literally econ classes where I’d go to three classes in a semester and get an A or B in the class. There was one class in particular where he’d read off the powerpoint and that was all he did and he’d also post the powerpoint online. So you never had to go to class – just look the powerpoints up online at your leisure for the purpose of studying for tests.

          In that class, there were also four exams which were equally weighted and they were the only grades in the course. You were also allowed to drop the worst grade you got on one of your exams. Therefore, I got A’s on my first three exams without even going to class and then just skipped the final because I could just drop the 0% I was going to get on the final anyway.

          So I got an A in an undergrad econ course and all the work I did was approximately 8 hours of studying that semester plus maybe another 7 hours worth of exams. This is why I am massively unimpressed when people tell me they have degrees in economics.

          1. I have an econ degree (among other things) and it’s very useful.

            You’re doing it wrong.

            1. I didn’t say it’s not useful.

              I said it’s not difficult to achieve.

          2. classes where I’d go to three classes in a semester and get an A or B in the class

            Ah, the social sciences

            1. Pick up syllabus and list of required texts

            2. Show up for mid-term

            3. Show up for final

            A or B

            It always annoyed me I couldn’t complete those courses in a week or just 3 consecutive days.

          3. I have a BS in Econ. I was a horrible student, but got through it basically by memorizing graphs before exams.
            But if you’re talking easy, the criminal justice and sociology classes were what I used to fill up my electives with very little effort.

      2. And BTW, I’m curious what that fluff piece means by working two years as an economist as no employer nor job title is mentioned.

          1. I know increasing the min wage is good for the economy campaigning among low-info voters.

            1. You are showing your ignorance. Increasing the minimum wage is good for the economy as every penny above the current level and the higher level goes straight into the economy. And yes, I know you cons screech and wail that it would cost 500,000 jobs but you are too stupid to realize it would create several million and 3 million minus 500,000 is still a net positive of 2.5 million jobs. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

              1. That’s an even stupider post than your one below. After all, if this were true:

                Increasing the minimum wage is good for the economy as every penny above the current level and the higher level goes straight into the economy.

                then why not just go to a 500 dollar minimum wage? Every penny above the current level goes straight into the economy! We’d immediately become like 700 times richer! HOOOZAH!

                And yes, I know you cons screech and wail that it would cost 500,000 jobs but you are too stupid to realize it would create several million and 3 million minus 500,000 is still a net positive of 2.5 million jobs.

                Look at this math I just made up with no evidence! LOOK AT MY NUMBERS I PULLED OUT OF MY ASS! LOOK AT THEM.

              2. “very penny above the current level and the higher level goes straight into the economy

                Wow. and where did it COME FROM?

                I’m sure you think digging holes and filling them back in again is also “productive”

                1. Guys, this is definitely a troll. Even committed TEAM BLUE aren’t this obvious.

                2. I read through one of the Saturday threads and I think it was you who made “tony” run away by asking him/it where money comes from.

                  It said the dumbest thing I’ve read in awhile, which is that raising wages will create more demand, and this more jobs, because more poor people will have money. It doesn’t get derpier than that.

                  1. “Ex nihilo, nihilo fit.” Another principle of logic dispensed with.

                    In biology there is no spontaneous generation, but nobody said anything about economics!

          2. The Twitter multiplier at work.

          3. Reminds me of actors who speak as though they are experts on a topic because they once acted in a movie that dealt with the subject.

            1. “I’m not a doctor, but I played one on TV.” FTW!

            2. Hi, I’m Sally Fields, and I’m no farmer but I played one in the movies…”

            3. Hi, I’m Sally Fields, and I’m no farmer but I played one in the movies…”

          4. His career as an ‘economist’ just doubled.

            If we had an actual independent press in this country, as opposed to socialist party fluffers, they’d find out exactly where he worked as ‘an economist’ and exactly what that entailed.

            Nick, you claim to be journalist, right? Might be an interesting avenue to explore. If you could stop stoking proggies for a few hours.

            1. Don’t tease him VG, Nick can only do as the Jacket commands.

  11. You cons are hilarious. Alan is my U.S. Representative and when he put forth the rethuglican “healthcare” plan he was right on the $$$ – die, and die quickly. Did you all forget when you yelled “let him die” at a rethuglican debate in 2012 when the moderator posed a hypothetical about a sick person without insurance.

    And then the hilarious thing was when the rethuglicans screeched and wailed and whined and demanded an apology from Grayson, he gave one, apologizing to all the dead people who died because of rethuglican hate.

    Now, I’ll tell you who gets my vote for not only the most awful member of con-gress, but just an overall horrible human, who is of course a rethuglican – Scott DeJarlias, who is, cough, cough, anti-abortion but yet made both his wife and mistress get abortions. Now that is a truly horrible, despicable, hypocritical thug. Good job, rethuglicans for re-electing him after all of this came out. You have not a pin head to stand on when it comes to morality.

    1. Wow. That’s an awfully stupid post. How long did it take you to write such a stupid post? I’m guessing about half an hour since you probably had to tear your hair out for 15 minutes or so deciding whether to call Republicans “Rethuglicans” or “Rethuglikkkans.” I’m glad you made the right choice and avoided the “KKK” because it makes your argument more subtle.

      1. Tony is pretty quick at setting up new accounts.\

        He has had lots of practice.

    2. You cons are hilarious.

      I stopped right there.

      You do realize that libertarians and conservatives aren’t even the same species, right? This is a libertarian site and you completely blew 100% of your credibility with your first four words.

      1. ^ This.
        Always makes me laugh when a leftist thinks conservatives and libertarians are related or a matter of degree. It’s just like the idiots who mistake Sikhs for Arabs.

  12. Here’s a pretty good explanation of how little Alan Grayson actually knows about economics.

    He asks Bernanke about the currency swap lines that the Fed established with other central banks during the financial crisis, which he clearly doesn’t understand (although he obviously thinks he does). He harps on the fact that Bernanke doesn’t know which foreign financial institutions “got the money.” Of course Bernanke doesn’t know that. The Fed entered into currency swaps with foreign central banks, like the ECB and the BoE. Who those central banks then lent the dollars to is irrelevant?the Fed doesn’t bear the credit risk of loans made by other central banks. The Fed only bears the credit risk of the central banks it established swap lines with, which, obviously, is vanishingly small. Grayson then focuses on the Fed’s swap line with New Zealand’s central bank, which is where the wheels really come off the wagon. He apparently thinks a swap is the same thing as a loan, and that the Fed extended $9bn of credit to New Zealanders, which he considers an outrage . Of course, he doesn’t even get his facts right. The Fed’s swap facility with New Zealand central bank is $15bn, not $9bn, and more importantly, NZ’s central bank never even drew on its swap line, which has $0 outstanding (pdf):

  13. I’m sorry, but we could use some more open jackasses in government.

    As it is, most of them pretend that they’re something special and hide the rottenness under layers of fake politeness.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.