AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

The NAGs Try to Regain Relevance

NAGs (National Association of Gals) would refer to N.O.W. (National Organization of Women). I prefer to use Rush Limbaugh’s term for them, since it’s more appropriate. heh

Anyway, so in relation to the disgusting misogynistic jokes David Letterman told about Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) and her daughter, some bloggers are posting about the statement put out recently by N.O.W. condemning Letterman. “Credit where credit’s due”, some are saying.

Sorry, no dice.

Here is what I posted in the comment thread to a friend who posted this on Facebook:

Yeah, whatever. They didn’t defend women during the Clinton Administration, didn’t defend Hillary last year during the campaign, didn’t ridicule Obama about his “sweetie” condescension, didn’t defend Sarah Palin at all from all the hate and vitriol thrown her way last year, didn’t defend Condoleeza Rice from the attacks on her [ed — and didn’t defend Carrie Prejean from the attacks on her… thanks to Kelly for the reminder]. So I could give a darn if they say something about this. Especially with their condescending BS at the end:

“NOW hopes that all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who aren’t professed conservatives.”

Like NOW has any credibility at all when it comes to calling out sexism. NOW can shove it. Rush has had them pinned correctly for years: NAGs (National Association of Gals). They defend liberalism, and that’s it. The reason they came out for this is because they wanted the publicity, nothing more AND to take another shot at conservatives to deem them sexists.

Total dog and pony show, it means nothing.


I agree with all that… but I was still in shock that they even wrote ANYTHING about this!

It is a bit surprising, but like [he] stated too, it’s just a dog and pony show for them. They’ve been irrelevant for quite a while, they saw an opportunity to ride Sarah Palin’s coattails to get a nice little pot shot in at conservatives and they took it.

It’s the same as Barack Obama — 20 year veteran of anti-Semitic hate speech, in his church of choice in Chicago, from his spiritual mentor — coming out saying we need to be vigilant against anti-Semitic hate speech. What-the-hell-ever.

NOW has no credibility whatsoever. They simply saw an opportunity to pretend to be relevant and hope people gave them credit — and sure enough, people are out there saying “credit where it’s due” — and they took it.

Sorry, but I am not letting them get away with their BS.

Guys… I’m trying to find a positive on the left… they don’t come very often… once in a while… okay maybe twice since the inauguration… that is 2 times in how long? Whatever their lameass reasoning for talking about it the point is they DID and they could have blown this one off like they have everything else about Palin.

I understand what you’re trying to do. I just don’t agree with it and will never give the Left credit until they deserve it.

This is like saying that a girl should give her boyfriend credit for buying her roses on Valentine’s Day when he treats her like dirt the rest of the year. That’s assinine.

The same thing applies here, as far as I am concerned. NOW deserves absolutely NO credit. Period.


Also, (and please don’t take these comments as attacks on you… I understand what you’re trying to do, I just don’t agree with it and don’t think the Left has earned any modicum of respect or benefit of the doubt from you or anyone) you’re basing “credit” on extremely low standards.

It’s the equivalent of a baseball pitcher walking the bases loaded on 12 pitches and then throwing a strike to the next batter and someone saying we should give him credit for throwing a strike. Well, uh, that’s his job. He shouldn’t get credit for doing what he’s supposed to do.

Same here. NOW is *supposed* to defend women against all sexism. Yet, for years, they have chosen not to defend conservative women against sexism. Now they kinda-sorta do ONE time and they deserve credit? Sorry, but… no.


Okay, one last rant. Case in point… there have been, let’s say (for the sake of argument), 100 total smears/insults/degrading sexist remarks made about Sarah Palin — including this Letterman situation — over the past 10 months, since she was first introduced as McCain’s running mate. Of those 100, NOW was silent on 99 of them. Only now do they chime in.

Understand now why I give them no credit and think they are insincere hacks?

As I said, a girl doesn’t give her boyfriend credit for bringing flowers on Valentine’s Day after he is a jerk the other 364 days of the year. So too does NOW not deserve any credit for this when they ignore sexism against Palin the 99 other times it’s happened.

UPDATE (06/12/2009):   Thank you, Michelle Malkin. I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed NOW’s holier-than-thou nonsense at the end of their statement:

Last night, NOW finally spoke up — but not without taking a holier-than-thou potshot of its own. I suggest they all review the Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse before wagging their tired old fingers again and lecturing us “inauthentic” women about not doing enough to combat sexism.

UPDATE (06/13/2009): Kimberly Morin has some good thoughts as well over at The Examiner: NOW finally speaks out against remarks made by a liberal man against Palin – too little, too late.

I believe that if a conservative man made these remarks (no, they are not actually jokes) about a liberal politician’s daughter that NOW would use stronger words than ‘ugly’ to describe them. As a matter of fact, I’m sure NOW would have been protesting rather than just adding to the ‘Hall of Shame’ a full 3 days later. Maybe they are finally realizing their own irrelevance in the world of women?

June 11, 2009 , 9:49PM Posted by | Feminism, Hollywood, Liberalism, Sarah Palin | Comments Off on The NAGs Try to Regain Relevance

“It Takes 15 Minutes to Get the News”

A friend of mine left that comment on a comment thread on Facebook and I just shook my head. And then got aggravated. Which led to the following back-and-forth discussion:

I think it is very important — nay a DUTY — for all Americans to take at least one hour of EVERY day to (1) spend time doing something they enjoy in order to keep themselves relaxed and happy and (2) spend time staying up-to-date with current events in order to keep themselves informed.

“It takes 15 minutes to get the news. the rest of my time I’m destressing and doing things I like.”

That said, I think all the “news” channels are a complete waste of time, including Fox News Channel. They are absolutely the best of any “news” organization out there, but that is not saying much, since the bar is set so low.

Personally, I have not watched “news” on TV since the summer of 2004. I get all my news and political commentary online from all the different blogs I read. I am better informed than pretty much everyone I know. Do I understand everything? No. But at least I am informed about it and can talk intelligently on all current events of the day.

The problem with any TV “news” channel is that they cannot possibly cover any story properly, giving all the facts and context. That’s why I do all my research online and find all the facts and all the context for each story out there.

Honestly, I think people waste their time watching anything “news” on TV. The blogs are where you get the facts and context. TV “news’ is all sensationalized [and geared toward what they want you to know, not what you should know about any given issue or topic].


15 minutes? You’re joking right? You can get surface details of the news in 15 minutes, sure. But I would hope you would want more than surface details of complicated issues and news stories?

“I know nothing of [her] knowledge of world and current events and this is not aimed specifically at [her], but sadly most Americans get their ‘news coverage’ from The Daily Show and Letterman. Most news channels are shills for the appropriate side they want to take, but I do agree that Fox is as balanced as any out there – even though it leans right with its evening commentary shows. I sat through 20 minutes of Olbermann a few nights ago and thought Bush was still in office as he continually trashed the former President – I guess when your own ‘guy’ isn’t doing much these days, the ratings for trashing Bush is still good enough to draw a million college students.


And yes, I agree that the internet, when properly filtered can be an excellent source of in depth research on the events of the day/week. News shows deal in sound byte journalism and even for the expert that is a difficult arena to articulate a point within.”

“News shows deal in sound byte journalism and even for the expert that is a difficult arena to articulate a point within.”

Exactly. And I don’t care what the issue is, it cannot possibly be explained properly and thoroughly in 1-2 minute soundbites, which is all these “news” shows offer. Even their “interviews” of “experts” last one “segment” long, which ends up being about 5-7 minutes, if that. What that forces the “experts” to do is try to dumb down the info in order to get it explained within a couple minutes.

If that was the best way to explain things, then there would be no reason to have classes in school last 30-45 minutes. We’d simply have teachers or professors teach for 5 minutes on a subject each day and then move on to the next one.

Obviously, that is not the case, for good reason. So why anyone thinks they can be fully informed by watching dumbed down 3 minute soundbites on complicated issues, is beyond me.


And the 15 minutes thing is pretty much the equivalent of asking one’s kid what they did at school today, and having them run down “we learned about science, math, english comprehension, spelling, history and had gym”. Okay, well that’s the news right there, but there are no details. So, the good parent presses further and asks “what did you learn in science today… what did you learn in math today… what did you learn in english today… etc etc etc”. And that takes longer to explain, of course.

Same thing with the TV news. What they do is tell us the subjects in their allotted time, but they rarely tell the details.

For example, a former Obama-loving, Lefty friend of mine told me she didn’t vote Republican, because she said they didn’t fund her area of work (social work, foster kids). I brought up S-CHIP and asked if that was what she was referring to. She had no idea, she just said the GOP was bad for her issues. And it’s typical. Don’t know the details, just the surface.


Just to finish, I researched S-CHIP for her, sent her all the details of why the GOP and Bush were against the Democrats’ proposed S-CHIP bill, also included the details of her State’s version of S-CHIP, details of the corruption of the program, details of the Democrats’ ridiculous standards in the bill and increased spending… and then sent all this info to her in 2 separate e-mails, asking for her feedback on this issue, since it seems it was the one thing most important to her in determining her political voting. She never responded. Pissed me the hell off. (which is a big part of the reason she is a *former* friend)

But that’s what I find with most Leftists and so-called “moderates”. They don’t know squat about the details of anything, just know surface stuff about issues.


My friend (to whom I referred in my previous two comments) asked me what I thought about Sarah Palin back during last year’s campaign. I went through all her background and accomplishments as Mayor and Governor and her successes in the energy industry and said I was very impressed with her. I spent about 5 minutes explaining everything I knew about her background and why I supported her and was impressed.

Ya know how she responded to me? “And she can see Russia from her house!” In a condescending, snide laughing tone. That was the end of our conversation. She — and people like her — really piss me off. They get off on being condescending about their political opponents, but they know jack squat about any details and get their news from Jon Stewart and SNL. Pathetic.


Oh and then of course, they turn around and call me a radical and ridiculous, simply because I am informed on the issues and take time each day to stay up to date and informed. Yet they — the ones who spend about 15 minutes a week getting their news, ya know, cus they’re just so above it all — deem themselves to be “normal” and sane for being ignorant and uninformed except for what they watch on the Obama media or SNL or The Daily Show. It used to piss me off. Now I just don’t even bother with people like that. They want to be apathetic and ignorant. Fine. But they’ll get no sympathy from me when they whine about the consequences of a government about which they deemed was not worthy of their time to stay informed.

June 11, 2009 , 9:22PM Posted by | Liberalism, Media Bias | Comments Off on “It Takes 15 Minutes to Get the News”

So When Will Letterman Joke About Obama’s Mother Being a Whore?

David Letterman obviously finds humor in unmarried teen mothers. Well, our very own current President’s mother got knocked up out of wedlock when she was a teenager. So, I’m sure we can all expect Mr. Letterman to start making jokes about Obama’s “whore” of a mother any day now, right?

Via Jim Treacher at HotAir’s Green Room: David Letterman’s Stupid Blame-Dodging Tricks

Hey, all you Palin-haters, here’s a fun fact you might not know: Barack Obama was conceived out of wedlock when his mom was barely legal!

That’s right, Ann Dunham Soetoro was born on 11/29/42, she married Barack Obama, Sr. on 2/2/61, and their son was born on 8/4/61. So lil’ Barry would’ve been conceived somewhere around his mom’s 18th birthday, most likely before, with a man who was not her husband. And his parents’ subsequent marriage wasn’t even legal, because Barack Sr. was still married to a woman in Kenya. Ann was in the same situation then as Bristol is now, except the father hung around a little longer. And she didn’t have a seething mob dogging her heels and then running back to their news networks and late-night talk shows.

Boy, I’ll bet Jack Parr is in Heaven right now, wishing he’d done some hilarious gags about Obama’s mom banging Mickey Mantle and getting hit on by JFK.

June 11, 2009 , 5:19PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Hollywood, Sarah Palin | 2 Comments

Obama Apparently Wants to Make it Illegal to Live

Just a few thoughts I had upon pondering Obama’s wonderful government-run healthcare plan…

Interesting. So with government healthcare, Obama will apparently make it illegal to be overweight/obese (leads to diabetes), smoke (leads to cancer), drink (liver problems, among many other things), etc. The same people who whine about “keeping the government out of our bedrooms” are welcoming the goverment into every other room in the house. Brilliant.

In response to my Facebook status on this subject, I received this comment:

“Naturally. The government should regulate all that stuff. Ban all tobacco. I hate it. Ban all high calorie and high fat foods. They are unnecessary. I mean, people can’t really take care of themselves. I’m sure the government can do much better. Take away all freedom of choice, turn us into robots, and then we have perfect utopia.

Time for me to go vomit now.”

To which I responded…

I forgot something else: Cap and Trade, which will basically make it illegal for us to breathe (since we all breathe out CO2, afterall.). Gonna have to regulate how much we all breathe, dontchaknow! So we have anti-choice laws for eating, smoking, drinking and breathing. But hey, at least every consenting adult will be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms!


“I think it is more sickening that a huge part of our population actually believes this garbage. And that is why more and more freedom is taken away everyday.”

Oooh, forgot one more thing. You note all the freedoms of choice which are being taken away. BUT, we sure as hell will have the freedom of choice to kill babies for convenience!

No school choice, no healthcare choice, no choice of foods to eat, no choice of smoking, no choice of drinking, no choice of driving SUVs, no choice of having our thermostats at 72 degrees. BUT, we damn sure will have the choice to do what we want in our bedrooms and then kill babies afterwards! Woohoo! HOPE and CHANGE in the new era of Obama!


“few surgeries back I was facing amputation but my Doc decided he was going to try meds and other treatments to save my life w/o amputation including maggot theropy (that was gross). He had surgeons comming into my room on rotation and I was assigned a private room.

Do you think an obama Czar controlled medical proceedure would be permitted like that? I would have lost both my legs that week. Heres the kicker, private insurance”

There was a case a year or two back of an elderly woman who was told that the government insurance would not pay for a life-saving procedure, but would pay for an assisted suicide procedure. So, you’re right, the government is not interested in paying for what is best for people, they are doing what is in the best interest of saving the government money. And that means rationing care and not spending money to keep people alive they deem unworthy of keeping alive.

And even more:

“Can’t outlaw smoking – BHO smokes!!! Maybe they’ll put some sort of grandfather clause in. Plus, things like tobacco create such a great stream of tax revenue — Lord knows the government makes more in taxes off of alcohol, tobacco and gasoline that the “greedy” corporations do.”

Exactly right about the taxes. BUT, keep in mind, that the taxes are also a way of influencing behavior. The government knows full well that if they place a high tax on gasoline, it will influence people to drive less. High tax on cigs and booze will influence people to smoke and drink less. Also, recall all the smoking bans put into law all over the place. That is another way of the government creating laws to influence behavior. They won’t ban cigarettes, but they will place ridiculously high taxes on them and puts bans in places all over where people cannot smoke the cigs. These laws don’t outright outlaw the practice of these things, but they take away more and more freedoms, a little at a time.

June 11, 2009 , 1:28PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Healthcare, Liberalism, Socialism | Comments Off on Obama Apparently Wants to Make it Illegal to Live

Andrew Breitbart: Eff You MSM

Here, here, Mr. Breitbart.  Kudos, sir.  We need more people LOUDLY and PROUDLY calling out this constant utter BS by the government-run media and the Left (BIRM).

Via his Facebook status:

Andrew Breitbart
“F.U. MSM: This Holocaust Museum killer creep job was a 9/11 truther (a left-wing phenomenon), hated Neo-Cons (Jews like me,) Bush, McCain and hated the right’s beloved Israel (also a leftist phenomenon, mostly) — and you — in conjunction with the Democratic Party try to say he is an example of the ‘far right’ that is against Obama — all for the sickening sake of political gain? We won’t forget this, you thugs.”

Well, most of us non-retarded people most certainly won’t.   I can’t speak for the 26% of Americans who seem to still have their heads — and their logic — shoved firmly up their orifices.

June 11, 2009 , 12:23PM Posted by | Anti-Semitism, Media Bias, Terrorism | 1 Comment