Why the people criticizing Obama for complimenting a woman are so stupidly wrong

Recently, President Barack Obama was doing the only thing he seems to be capable of not screwing up (see: getting people to give money) and still managed to step in it with his base of totalitarian hippie supporters somehow.

At a fundraiser outside of San Fransisco, the President included in his remarks that attorney general of California, Kamala Harris was “the best looking attorney general in the country”. The hippies got angry and used it as an opportunity to peddle their speech-policing about what is and isn’t okay.

What isn’t okay about noting that someone is attractive? Nothing, obviously. Which is the only thing that makes this a noteworthy story. The articles and social media praise for those scolding the president don’t even make an attempt at logical arguments. They just forbid and demand and seek to bully and shame those who don’t adhere to their thought and comment codes and it’s gross.

The definition of “political correctness” is forbidding truths inconvenient to the political Left, which is rooted in Marxist ideology seeking “sameness” but usually masking it under the more palatable but flexible term of “equality”. This strive for sameness requires a lot of social engineering that no un-brainwashed person would find at all appealing, so pressure tactics need to be employed under the guise of pleading on behalf of a victim class.

In this case, the social engineering the hippies desire is the 1960s version of “feminism” (the attack of femininity in the pursuit of women being seen, thought of, and treated no different than men in any way) which is the opposite of feminism (embracing the feminine and observing it as different but equal in respect and legal rights to masculinity and other typically male traits). Hippie feminism demands the suppression of the fact that men find women attractive, so thus it demands that references to this fact be banned. Media using attractive women are demonized as “objectifying” women and comments on women’s attractive appearances are labeled as doing the same thing. This is because that under an ideology of sameness-worship, the observation of differences debunks the end goal. So their solution is just to ban it. Call these things offensive.

It doesn’t matter that there is no logical basis behind keeping quiet over obvious observable truths and it doesn’t matter that there is nothing insulting, degrading, inappropriate, or out of context about polite notation of such obvious observable truths. The argument is merely “we said so. the end”.

Harris was already noted by President Obama as being “brilliant” and that “she is dedicated and she is tough” before he added that she was also “the most attractive attorney general in the country” so there is no argument to be made about any kind of denial of her non-physical attributes. Instead, the presidents comments are just being called inappropriate and offensive by the usual suspects of hippies stepping in front of someone who was neither victimized nor offended and broadcasting about victimizaiton and offense.

Mika Brezinski on MSNBC said “It just divides women and it just divides people up to separate them by looks and probably was a little ham-fisted. I just think the whole thing, the whole dynamic about women and their looks puts women under a lot of stress that they don’t need.” I like Mika and don’t want to beat up on her, so i’ll leave it to you to decide if she really believes that hippie talking point and/or if it is congruent with pictorials like this:

Katie J. M. Baker asks in a Jezebel post that uses an unflattering photo of Kamala Harris, “was it wrong of Obama to call Harris “the best looking attorney general” while listing her many other attributes?” and then immediately answers herself with “Yes”, because, she says “Women put up with enough unsolicited attention as it is; the president of our country doesn’t need to legitimize the practice by piling on.”

Robin Abcarian in the LA Times had to admit the statement is “accurate” and “stating the obvious” but still asks if it was “sexist” (inadvertently admitting that truth is sometimes “sexist” which un-defines the word sexism). She concludes that making obvious statements about a womans attractiveness is predatory and problematic by saying “More wolfish than sexist, I’d say. And this may be a little problem he needs to work on.” In an attempt to justify this potential “problem” that needs “working on”, Abcarian says:

As Arlette Saenz of ABC News pointed out, Obama got into some hot water a while back when he addressed a reporter as “sweetie.” That was obnoxious, and demeaning, and Obama rightfully apologized. In 2008, he told Hillary Clinton she was “likeable enough” during one of the primary debates, which turned off God knows how many women, who heard the smug judgment of an arrogant upstart.

2 more bogus examples as the reporter didn’t express any offense at the “sweetie” remark, which isn’t inherently obnoxious or demeaning and the “likeable enough” comment was a joke in response to a question about whether Hillary “is likeable” (so in other words, he was using the language of the question in the debate to make light of the question in her defense – not decreeing to Hillary that he, as an elitist, had dubbed her to be adequate).

Amanda Marcotte at Slate wrote an article titled “Sorry, President Obama, but Complimenting a Colleague’s Looks Isn’t Harmless” but forgot to include in the article, any “harm” inherent in such an action. Instead she just points out that dumb hippies on twitter rebuked the President, and lauds that many were male and dismissed columnists debunking the lunacy as “unsurprising defensive whining”. At least she is unsurprised that when cry-bullying over fake victimization stories in service to illogical dogmas are used as offenses, the defense is expected. Her laughable evidence that complimenting women “isn’t harmless” is a statement by a social scientist who quoted a 1996 paper in where researchers discovered that – gasp – passive-aggressive behaviors exist. Marcotte should get with the 21st century and realize that this isn’t news. Yes, it’s true that people can say nice things in manipulative ways for negative outcomes – thanks for that professional citation to uncover that obvious point literally everyone is already aware of. Sorry, Amanda, but the potential to be negative by paying people compliments doesn’t make the act of making a compliment in itself “harmful”.

Joan Walsh at a Salon.com  titled “Kamala Harris deserves better” un-makes her point in nearly every line of the first few paragraph by admitting the details that contradict he phony claim of sexist oppression (Obama and Harris are close allies; the compliment was intended as such and not as an attack; that it was preceded by calling her “brilliant”) and then says “but my stomach turned over anyway”.

And that’s the perfect summary of this situation: “Yes, there was nothing wrong whatsoever about this comment that had good motives, was well received by the person it was directed to and was objectively accurate…but I hated it anyway” – Hippie Feminism in a nutshell.


To review: President Obama says something nice about a friend and supporter at a fundraiser and no one there complains and the friend and supporter expresses no problem at having been publicly complimented by the President of the United states on her brilliance, toughness, dedication, and good looks. Leftist crusaders, however, step in to say that’s not okay in a variety of outlets, but to recap the 5 covered here:

An MSNBC host says that complimenting women on being attractive adds “stress that they don’t need” and “divides” them, even though she adds to the division with 90% more hair and makeup vamping and 100% more leg showing than her male co-anchors.

An LA Times columnist says that it is “wolfish” and “a problem” to compliment a women on her looks, even though she admits herself several times that the woman in question has complimentary looks (ie: a compliment).

A Slate.com columnist claimed that a 1996 paper someone wrote said that nice things could potentially be used in bad ways and dubiously concluded that that is proof that complimenting a womans appearance is “harmful”.

A Jezebel columnist said that the president was “piling on” the plight that women already unjustly suffer when they look attractive by saying so.

And a Salon.com columnist claimed that she became physically sick when she heard that the President had complimented a woman.


The Dark Knight Rises as an allegory for the 2012 Election

All this talk of Mitt Romney (whose primary win in New Hampshire tomorrow and then in South Carolina and then in Florida will secure his nomination for president) and his previous work at the investment firm Bain Capital has made me think of a metaphor…

Mitt Romney = Bane.
The toughest match the Dark Knight has ever had to face.

Barack Obama = the Dark Knight
Once thought of as a hero, now thought to be a monster, he must return to fight for his ideals.

Commissioner Gordon = The Tea Party 
Traditionalist called by a sense of duty to engage in a battle to preserve what is radically decaying before his eyes.

 Catwoman = Occupy Wall Street
An otherwise uninvolved player, motivated by and attracted to chaos whose sense of entitlement brings her/them to class warfare and a life of law breaking they feel is morally justified cuz rich people have stuff and they don’t. She’s angry because she’s ignorant – mainly in her misunderstanding of economics, thinking of it as a pie with a finite amount of slices.

How does it all end?…

Take it either way:

Romney/Bane succeeds in doing what other more experienced contenders previously failed at and breaks the people’s hero?


Obama/Batman gets broken by a strong challenger but ultimately wins in the end?

We’ll find out in about 10 months…

Good News!: Obama to Approve Anti-Small Business Policies, Cheat Middle Class out of Billions

Via the Huffington Post: Obama to Approve a Series of Anti-Small Business Policies That Will Cheat the Middle Class out of Billions.

In the midst of the worst economic downturn in U.S. history, President Obama is abolishing the nation’s oldest and most successful program to direct infrastructure spending to minority-owned small businesses, which could cost them between $25 and $50 billion a year. The President has continued to allow billions of dollars a month in federal small business contracts to be diverted into the hands of big businesses. His administration tried to cover up the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants by destroying data in the Federal Procurement Data System such as the “small business flag” and the “parent DUNS number,” that allowed watchdogs like myself, and the media, to monitor the actual recipients of federal small business contracts.

And now, President Obama will reauthorize a Department of Defense program known as the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program (CSPTP) that makes it easier for prime contractors to cheat small businesses out of billions. Under the CSPTP, large defense contractors are exempt from reporting their subcontracting actions and also exempt from any penalty of non-compliance with congressionally mandated small business procurement goals.

The idea of the CSPTP is ludicrous.

Small business you say? Why… I have one of those…

But thats not a requirement to see that this is bullshit of the highest order. read the article and weep.

The bottom line here is that in the U.S., small businesses equal jobs. Taxes, on the other hand do not create jobs. But for some reason, the mainstream media seems more concerned with the handful of pennies that the President and Congress are bickering over in payroll tax cuts than the billions of dollars that are diverted away from small businesses by the federal government every month.

Black Democrats and Obama

Will the black community support Barack Obama no matter what? History says “Duh”. Even though the hits to the economy under Obama’s policies are hitting black communities disproportionally worse – the biggest possible defection from Obama’s 96% he got of black votes in 2008 is likely to be, as the video says “Goodbye 96%, hello 94”.

I’ve heard several black friends in different areas of the country since 2004 talk about the peer pressure of voting “the right way”. It’s unfortunate that people have bought into this, not because they should all be voting Republican, but because voting in a lock step like that hurts you by making you not matter. Black liberals shouldn’t be voting against their views just to shake things up obviously, but most blacks arent liberals. Most blacks have conservative positions on social issues and are a mixed bag on taxes, immigration and foreign policy – yet they do not vote that way. They vote one way only, every time.

Those are the people who’s ideology makes them a swing voter but since they do not ever swing their vote, it has no bargaining value. Just like if Libertarians never vote Republican, then their votes are already discounted and their ideology not argued by Republicans seeking their vote because they know they can’t get it. If a Libertarian alternates between sitting out/voting 3rd party and voting for the candidate closest to their ideology in the 2 major parties then they have some bargaining power because it shows in the election results.

Black Democrats arent open to this because of the old “Danger on the Right” meme that doesn’t even allow a voter to consider the ideas of the right-of-center side because it is immediately demonized as racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic and in service to corporate greedheads.

Jon Stewart and his “Senior black correspondant” took a look at the economy, its effect on the black community and said voters likely reaction to it.

PS: Even though I have never heard of Godfathers Pizza chai, pizza is pizza and I too will vote for Hermain Cain if he hooks me up with free pizzas

Oily hypocrites

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 that limits BP’s monetary damages to $75 million for losses to private parties was sponsored by, amongst current names that I recognize, Nancy Pelosi (D), Barbara Boxer (D), and Joe Kennedy (D). –Dick Cheney *wishes* he was so evil.

dick cheney got oil“And who was President at that time?” was a question I got on this observation and the answer is of course Bush Sr, though thats as relevant as who was on the Supreme Court at the time since the bill came from a Democrat controlled Congress, not the Presidents desk (passed 375-5). But it’s also irrelevant because im not actually calling anyone evil – im doing the opposite: illustrating the absurdity of the lengths people go to demonize politicians instead of actually investigating the details of a certain policy.

Instead of openly debating how it may or may not be fair to add a loss limit in a bill containing a ton of other regulations and rules on oil companies to prevent such accidents or acknowledging the fact that Halliburton is the only company that can do certain jobs, we’re given smears of how “eeeevil” Dick & Dubya are because everythings a vile scam in service to their oil baron puppet masters. If we’re to believe those smears then the Dems who signed this bill must be REALLY evil and Obama must reall REALLY be a monster for doing things like awarding Halliburton a no bid contract for half a BILLION dollars. That’s an odd thing to do for someone who campaigned on the promise of not awarding any no-bid contracts over $25,000. Quick – remind me again: is 500 million more than 25 thousand?

President Bush was attacked for playing golf by critics who manufactured as much phony outrage that they could muster. Things got difficult for them when Bush stopped playing golf in 2003 because he agreed that it wasn’t a good image to be seeing the President enjoying a leisure sport while troops were engaged in combat. Since that destroys the entire smear of Bush being a heartless elitist robot that plays all day and cools off with a bottle of his own Blood of American Patriots brand of Gatorade, his haters had to scramble to turn even THAT into a “Bush is evil” meme by claiming he “lied” about not playing golf since he did in fact pick up a club after 2003 *gasp*. Good work, critics! You totally exposed a “lie” that in no way is a desperate attempt to cling on to a phony meme you invented despite being based on nothing but personal hatred!

Except now you’ve made a problem for yourselves. By inventing the ridiculous smear that a President playing golf is a soulless act that spits in the face of Lady Liberty, you fuck yourselves when the guy you like comes in and does that 8 times worse (literally).

President Obama has already played more golf than Bush ever did. 8 times more. Where as Bush canceled golf games as a symbolic gesture, Obama canceled a trip to Poland for the funeral (attendance of which is a symbolic gesture) of the Prime Minister and then played golf instead.

Obama, in his first year has already become the 8th most golf playing President in history. In one year Barack Obama has played 8 times more golf than George Bush did in 8 years.

But its all par for the course for Barry – which doesn’t make him “evil”, it makes him just as bad as any other politician who did similar unethical things. No problem there, UNLESS you call those other politicians evil corrupt manipulators and give a free pass to Obama because you like him better. That’s the definition of a hypocrite.

So here’s an idea: how bout we save the ‘that guy is evil’ stuff for real evil instead of just saying ‘its evil when THAT guy does it, but not MY guy’?”.

Bush Bashin Obama, Hacky Hannity and the facts

Sean Hannity just played a clip from Obama’s speech where he talked about Bush and came back with the awesome come back of “will the Bush bashing ever stop!?”. ooooo! zing! LOL Sean! Good one! that is such an annihilating smackdown that it in no way illustrates what an untalented hack you are! who cares if Obama’s list of Bush foibles was accurate – YOU SURE TOLD HIM! lulz. Hannitee 4 Prezident LOL lulz roflma fml.

This part of the speech is what Hannity was referring to:

The worst part is that he could have actually made a point there if he weren’t such a knee-jerk Republican shill that thought non-hilarious one-liners like that were acceptable retorts to the opposition in power.

He could have, for instance, maybe brought up the fact that Obama is going to triple the national deficit this year and even the Whitehouse’s own estimates show they plan to put Bush’s spending to shame.

And it doesn’t stop there, Woody. This Buzz Lightyear is going to Infinity and Beyond:

Karl Rove gave an ACTUAL response to the Bush stuff (is it too late to give him Hannitys job?):

transcript from Karl Rove’s segment with Greta Van Susteren:

“I can find no administration in which there is such a frequent recourse to blame the previous administration…

They want to blame the Bush Administration for the debt. I happened to be last week in a debate with David Plouffe in which he blamed the Bush Administration for the deficit this year. And I said, “Wait a minute, what about your spending bill? It was your bill, President Obama’s $787 billion Stimulus Bill. What about the $33 billion SCHIP bill that he signed? What about the $410 billion Omnibus Bill?” In reflection didn’t Senator Obama support the rescue package the recovery package last fall, the $750 billion to help rescue the banks? $350 billion dollars of that was spent by the time he got into office. If he didn’t like that spending he could have said, “You know were not going to spend another dime of that $350 billion,” and yet he did…

I think this is wearing thin. This is causing the American people to say, “Wait a minute. This is all your spending. Why do you keep blaming the guy who came before you?”