Right Wing World: Obama Doesn't Wear "Mom Jeans," Conservatives Don't Get Humor

Right Wing humor is an odd thing. No, strike that, it's practically a unicorn, because I'm not sure it exists. I should maybe say, Right Wing attempts at humor are an odd thing, a very, very odd thing. For the rest of us, humor has to have an element of truth to it. It has to grow out of something that exists, and

Not Mom Jeans

then is exaggerated to humorous effect. Conservative humor seems to start with an exaggeration or misconception, and the gets more exaggerated and more distorted in the telling and retelling of the joke. It then gets repeated endlessly, as though it's as hilarious in the 3,000th telling as it was the first time. Then, inevitably, Sarah Palin works it into her word salad.

Of course, if you're not conservative, the first telling is a head scratcher, and on the umpteenth retelling, you get so irritated about the lack of humor, you can't hold your tongue anymore. If it's your Republican Uncle Ralph, this can start a family fight. If it's on the interwebz, you might dive into the viper's pit that is NewsBusters.  

NewsBusters is a "liberal media" (hah!) watchdog site, run by Brent Bozell, he of the "put my byline on columns written by others for years at a stretch" infamy. They'll

Still not Mom Jeans.

rail about The NBC Nightly News with the same fervor as Kathy Griffin or Bill Maher, so their idea of news media is rather loose. And if you're a liberal, you'll scroll through their "outrage" headlines, and kind of wonder why any of the headlines is particularly outrageous. My response to most of them is, "yeah, so?" But their comments section is among the most poisonous on the internet. You could point out the correct spelling of the president's name and be called the stupidest, filthiest, most worthless person on the planet.  It's that kind of place.

So, I happened by one day, and caught the repetitive joke that was bugging me one too many times, and couldn't hold my tongue. The joke was about "mom jeans," a reference to a Saturday Night Live faux commercial from several years ago. "Mom Jeans" are those high-waisted pants that seemed to be on every mom in the 1980s and 90s, which made women's rear ends look longer, lower and flatter. They were characterized by a very long rise and fly, which gave seemingly acres of denim from crotch to waist on both the back and front side. It was funny because it was instantly recognizable, and for the tag line that said, "I'm not a woman anymore, I'm a mom."  [Story continues below]

None of the pictures of Obama supposedly wearing mom jeans have these features. None of them. They might look dorky.* They might be ill-fitting. But none fits the joke. In many cases, the funny looking part of the picture is the president's pose (throwing a baseball, riding a bike) or something else he's wearing (like a bike helmet). In no case does the photo match the joke. And yet, they'll insist that it does. And they'll get  vicious to anyone who points out this fact! I even started my entry into this realm by showing the picture (shown here) of the SNL original ladies in mom jeans, and picture of Willard Mitt Romney in similar pants. Because, you know, I'm a helper. Didn't work. They still fail to get the joke, still have no ability to see where they're wrong, and still treat me (even though I'm unfailingly civil, if snarky) like vermin.

Now these are mom jeans!

I don't know why I bother. The commenters at NewsBusters-like those of any conservative site that even allows non-member comments--are instantly hostile to almost any contrary comment. Hostile in a very different way from those you might see to a conservative on a left-wing site.  In Right Wing World, it seems the default response to an "interloper" is to heap on the derision and venom, in an out-of-scale, bazooka-style blast. If you enter into it with a sincere, inquisitive mindset, you'll be crushed. If you go in with the foreknowledge that they're knee-jerk assholes, it's kind of fun.

But somebody who is on their side should really explain humor to them. Because the mom jeans thing is missing the mark, but it's far from their only humor blind spot. I tell you though, if you want to see what Right Wing World--at the base--is really all about, go take a gander at NewsBusters' comments section, and see if you can suss out what they think is funny (such as calling Rachel Maddow, "Ray," "Mad Cow" and "he" or "it," EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.). Here's a link to where I had my latest kerfuffle with them. Note also that this "watchdog" site that allegedly only exists in reaction to the crassness of "liberal media" has no problem calling Maddow "surly" in their headline!

It's here: Newsbusters

*It should be pointed out that at the root of this joke--even though they're not applying it right--is that the president is feminine, girly, not a man. NewsBusters is only a hop and skip from World Net Daily, after all, where they come right out and say that the president is gay. That's why this joke delights them so much, and why they desperately want to make the evidence fit the joke. But it still doesn't.

Westboro Baptist "Church" Picks the Wrong Funeral to Protest

I know these jackasses are lawyers, and are just hoping that someone will touch them so that they can sue. But here's hoping that whatever court hears the eventual case, throws it out. They're assholes.

[Excerpt]

Westboro Baptist Church Protester Bull-Rushed At Military Funeral Protest


The Westboro Baptist Church's attempt to picket a military funeral in North Carolina over the weekend drew a lively counter protest that crested when a service member in the crowd bull-rushed a congregant attempting to stomp on the American flag. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Rick Scott Purging Elligible Voters in Florida

Image from Wonkette

Florida's Rick Scott (pricelessly pictured with his lookalike, Voldemort) is one of the odious GOP Governors class of 2010. Though he had a hideous past, and seemed thoroughly unlikeable, he benefited from 2010's dual political realities: disaffected, apathetic Democrats and Tea Party, Obama-hating Republicans. So, we got a whole boatload of arch-right, ideology-first Republican Governors. They all seem to think that being as nasty and mean as possible is the key to political fortunes.

Scott is second only in my book to Wisconsin Governor Scott Wanker Walker for douchiness. And he's proving it now by purging thousands of Florida voters from the rolls under the guise of preventing "voter fraud." Voter fraud is a vanishingly rare occurrence in the United States, but politicians like Scott have used very rational-sounding arguments to ram through many voter rights restricting laws in the short time since they gathered power. But now, Scott is going further. He's purging actual legitimate voters. And if they don't take the effort and time to prove that they are eligible, they just won't get to vote. If they didn't get the memo? Tough. They don't get to vote.

I can hardly think of anything more un-American. And he's getting away with it.

[Excerpt]


Rick Scott Bravely Purges 91-Year-Old War Hero Criminal From Voting Rolls

Oh look, there they go again! By “they” we mean the Democrats, always crying about voter suppression. Look, is it our fault that their supporters are all vicious thugs, pot smokers, illegal immigrants, white slavers, people whose names end in vowels or “z,” vicious illegal immigrant thugs, and liberals? . . .

Read more at: Wonkette

Breitbart and the Wingnut Right

Image from Washington Independent

Okay, I think this will be my last post about the faux outrage story about Shirley Sherrod for a while, unless something really newsworthy and interesting happens. But I wanted another perspective on the asshattery that is Andrew Breitbart.  In the early days of the blog, I used a few of his posts in excerpts, not realizing what a douche nozzle he is.  I'm a one-man show for the most part, doing this as a hobby. I don't have the power to break a story, or invent one like Breitbart does.  Hell, I didn't even know the Netroots convention was here in my backyard until yesterday!  So here is a more informed opinion of a guy who should be run out of business by this latest fabrication, but won't be.

[Excerpt]

Fooled Again by Breitbart and the Wingnut Right

There's nothing shocking or surprising about the latest Andrew Breitbart scam in which he released selectively-edited video of an African American USDA worker, Shirley Sherrod, and accused her of racism against a white farmer couple, the Spooners. That's not to suggest we shouldn't be vigorously talking about it. We absolutely should be. But the most outrageous aspects of the story are fairly typical of everyone involved: Breitbart, the so-called "liberal" news media, Democrats, Fox News Channel and all points in between. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Conservative CATO Institute On Board for Marriage Equality?

I've heard it argued--by no less than arch conservative Ted Olson--that marriage equality is actually a conservative issue. I sort of agree with Olson's reasoning, but not many conservatives do.  But this wouldn't be the first issue that conservatives are not conservative about. They long ago bowed to their wingnut fringe, and are now being overcome with them.  So I guess it isn't really surprising that an authentically conservative group would agree with Olsen, nor that the far-right Free Republic folks would freak out about it.  First, the story about CATO:

[Excerpt]

Marriage Equality for All Couples

Nearly a century after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.' " That 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, ended bans on interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had such laws. . .

Read more at: CATO Institute

And now, because I haven't done it in a while, some schooling for the FReepers, and those who think like them. Since I wouldn't last 10 minutes in their forum (they rabidly screen out dissent, particularly on this issue), I will give you some quotes from FreeRepublic.com on this article. Then a response from me. I apologize in advance for their use of language. I do not apologize for mine.

"Everyone has the same rights. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Everyone is equal under that definition. I can't marry someone of the same sex as myself, nor can I marry multiple people, nor can I marry an animal or whatever else someone might want to desire to change the definition to."

Though I'm legally married to a man in California (in a rather odd loophole), I do not hold that title in my residence in Nevada. The argument here is ridiculous. If I did mary a woman, it would be deeply unfair to her and unpleasant for me. These same FReepers would lambaste me for putting her--and any potential children--through that ordeal.

"Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity. By allowing this purposeful distortion of meaning we already partially lose the argument as we have allowed dishonest people to frame the debate."

This is an old argument, and it ticks me off. Homosexuality is not a behavior, it is a sexual orientation. I was gay before I ever had sex. I'm gay right now and--at the moment--am not having sex.  I had a best friend who is gay who was married to a woman for a while. He wasn't straight when he was doing that.  Homosexuality can dictate behavior (or as in that last example, maybe not), but it is not a behavior. Dumb ass.

"Why not 2 siblings, multiple partners, a man and a goat? Once we remove the definition of marriage everythings fair game and only a judge’s opinion determines what’s legit."

Incestuous marriage is already illegal for everyone, gay or straight. Same for polygamy.  And while it should be deeply offensive to have my relationship compared to bestiality (it's actually just deeply stupid), goats cannot consent, and therefore inelligible to enter into any sort of contract.  And is there a huge contingent of people fighting for these other things?  If so, let them fight their own fight and win or lose on their arguments' merits.  These are separate issues.

"Two people of the same sex cannot join together as husband and wife - that requires one person to be a man and the other to be a woman. It has nothing to do with “hate” or “discrimination” - it is just the reality."

Hmm. So my legal marriage in California doesn't exist? Can I get my money back?  It's all an illllluuuusion!  Wishing something away doesn't make it so.

"The purpose of marriage is to encourage and promote safe home lives for kids. Nothing more. Since when to gay adults need that?"

Many people have kids outside of marrige. Many people are married and don't, can't or won't have kids. Many people marry after their child-bearing years. Unless marriage carries a requirement for having children, and childless marriages are annulled, this argument is moot.

"Looks like the gay mafia has taken over the CATO Institute."

Yeah, and you better watch out, because our leader--Sir Elton John--has infiltrated the marriage of your leader, Rush Limbaugh!!!  The takeover has begun. . .

Quotes from: FreeRepublic

Insurance Company Rules!

There's a line in Ruthless People, a great comedy from the eighties, that goes something like this: "What the hell's the sense of being a decent person when nobody else is? Let's be assholes and get rich!" That might be what the world would degenerate to if we all played by "Insurance Company Rules." Check it out!



Found at: AmericaBlog