Republicans must be asking themselves how long it will take before their candidate renounces the endorsement of Ted Nugent, who is currently under investigation for public threats directed at President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other elected members of the government.
How could an association with gun waving, threat spouting Nugent become even more radioactive? One of the problems of having been a public ranting wild eyed armed extremist is that there is an easily accessible record of both those words and your prior history.
I remember Nugent from the 1970s when he was one of the creepiest of often creepy semi-talented heavy metal rockers.
He had a reputation as a child-fucker even among the groupies and as a creep. He never hid his misogyny and indeed reveled in it. He was alleged to be a full blown racist even then.
Like many marginal musicians he was like yesterday’s papers until his reputation for gun waving and ever more outlandish attention seeking crap brought him back into the public eye.
Since Nugent announced his endorsement of Romney negative material that has long been a matter of public record has just poured forth.
His commission of potential criminal deception in order to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War by not bathing and wearing clothes he had pissed and shit in should be so embarrassing as to cause Republicans to disown him.
One has to wonder what they are thinking. Do they wish to be considered serious people or they simply spiraling down to fringe party status?
One would think the only people who could possibly continue supporting this party would be the racists, the misogynists, the rich and the truly insane.
Aren’t they disconcerted that someone so loudly proclaiming his support for their candidate has a long history of making public threats directed at elected officials?
Are they really so desperate they willing to accept the support of an alleged child molester and pedophile who bragged about committing statutory rape during a 1998 VH1 taping?
From Crooks and Liars: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/romney-supporter-nugent-admitted-multiple-a
April 17, 2012
It appears Ted Nugent’s violent rhetoric at the NRA convention over the weekend may not be the only problem facing the Romney campaign with their acceptance of his endorsement. Jason Easley at Politicus USA reports that Nugent apparently had a penchant for messing around with underage teenage girls when he was in his thirties and out on the road touring.
The term “pedophile” is not technically correct for what Ted Nugent was doing, but it doesn’t make it any less disgusting that the man was out there talking the parents of teenage girls into allowing him to have sex with their underage daughters.
Here’s more from their post — Is Mitt Romney Aware That Ted Nugent Is a Self-Admitted Pedophile?:
Mitt Romney’s Ted Nugent problems are much worse than the rocker’s threats against President Obama. Romney’s real issue is that he has accepted the endorsement of an admitted pedophile.
The Romney campaign reacted to Nugent’s comments tepidly, “Divisive language is offensive no matter what side of the political aisle it comes from. Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil.” What Mitt Romney didn’t do was distance himself from Ted Nugent, or else he risks alienating the fringe right that he is still oh so desperately trying to court.
Romney’s Ted Nugent problem is about to get a whole lot worse if the mainstream media ever decides to report that Mittens has not rebuked a self-admitted pedophile. In a 1998 episode of VH1’s Behind The Music, Ted Nugent admitted to being a serial pedophile. VH1 politely phrased this as, “his weakness for young women.”
by Julia Serano
April 18, 2012
Aviva Dove-Viebahn’s recent Ms. blog post, “Transfeminism and Its Conundrums,” framed trans feminism* as a controversial and debatable submovement within feminism. I strongly disagree, as did a number of commenters, and here’s why:
Trans feminism—that is, transgender perspectives on feminism, or feminist perspectives on transgender issues—is one of many so-called “third-wave” feminisms. Its origins are closely linked with other feminist submovements—specifically, sex-positive feminism, postmodern/poststructuralist feminism, queer theory and intersectionality. These strands of feminism represent a move away from viewing sexism as an overly simplistic, unilateral form of oppression, where men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed, end of story.
Instead, these feminisms recognize that there are numerous forms of sexism—that is, numerous double standards based on a person’s sex, gender, or sexuality. In addition to traditional sexism (where men are viewed as more legitimate than women), there is heterosexism (where heterosexuals are viewed as more legitimate than homosexuals), monosexism (where people who are exclusively attracted to members of a single sex are viewed as more legitimate than bisexuals/pansexuals), masculine-centrism (where masculine gender expression is viewed as more legitimate than feminine gender expression) and so on.
There are also other forms of marginalization prevalent in our society, such as racism, classism and ableism.As feminists of color have articulated, these do not act independently of one another but intersect with and exacerbate one another. A woman of color doesn’t face racism and sexism separately; the sexism she faces is often racialized, and the racism she faces is often sexualized. This concept of intersectionality is now very well accepted among many contemporary feminists (albeit not by those who continue to adhere to a unilateral men-oppress-women-end-of-story approach to feminism).
Trans feminism is rooted in this idea that there are multiple forms of sexism that often intersect with each other and other forms of oppression.
on April 16, 2012
American companies are born as private commercial entities, but thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, suddenly they can transition to human status for the purpose of influencing an election with millions of dollars. Meanwhile, thousands of actual human citizens, who’ve only transitioned gender identity, may have less influence over elections—or no influence at all—because they’ll now face heavy burdens under strict photo voter ID laws. It’s an obscene paradox.
Over 25,000 transgender American citizens may face stiff barriers to voting in the November 2012 election, according to the report “The Potential Impact of Voter Identification Laws on Transgender Voters,” released last week by the Williams Institute at UCLA’s law school. This is, by any measure, the portion of the electorate that is among the most marginalized and stigmatized, and hence probably most in need of the right to have a say in who governs their lives. But discussions on both sides of voter ID laws tend to leave out transgender citizens in discussions about who would be most adversely impacted.
I’m including myself in that critique. I briefly mentioned that transgender citizens would be impacted in my first Voting Rights Watch blog, but have failed to consistently talk about their burdens in subsequent blogs. We often talk about black and Latino voters, elderly and student voters, women and those with low incomes as having trouble satisfying new photo voter ID mandates, but many transgender voters will have an incredibly tough set of challenges before them if they are to have their vote counted in November. The cost of getting the appropriate ID to vote in some jurisdictions will be as high as getting surgery.
The photo voter ID laws are already unnecessary intrusions into the lives of many people of color. Those intrusions become an epic accumulation of burdens, though, for transgender people of color. According to the report, two particular races—American Indian/Alaskan Native and African-Americans—are most likely to lack identification documents (46 percent and 37 percent, respectively) that reflect their accurate gender identity.
News stories surfaced today regarding how macho poser and racist bully Ted Nugent was a Vietnam War Draft dodger, pissed and shit in his pants to get out of serving in Vietnam the way so many brave working class American boys did.
This is the face of the NRA… A loud mouth racist bully and chicken shit poser.
I knew transsexual and transgender women who only came out after serving who had more courage than he-man macho ass hole and bully Nugent.
Gay men with more courage than he ever dreamed of having.
Ted Nugent is a total fraud who thinks it is cool to call the President of the United States racist names and pose with big guns.
This Barbie Doll fraud, this cartoon caricature of a man actually made terrorist threats against our President.
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur blasted Ted Nugent on Wednesday, claiming the conservative heavy metal singer and guitarist was all talk.
Over the weekend, Nugent told a crowd at the National Rifle Association (NRA) convention that he would be “either be dead or in jail by this time next year” if Obama was re-elected and that they needed to “chop their heads off in November.”
Despite Nugent’s braggadocio, Cenk noted that he had dodged the Vietnam war.
“He wasn’t even close to going to Vietnam,” Cenk said. “It wasn’t like he couldn’t. He could have. In fact, he actively avoided it. But that’s not the most interesting part of the story, it’s how he did it.”
In 2006, the Rutland Herald in Vermont published part of an article from the Detriot Free Press where Nugent was interviewed. Nugent claims that: “if I would have gone over there, I’d have been killed, or I’d have killed, or I’d kill all the hippies in the foxholes…I would have killed everybody.”Nugent also came clean and stated that 30 days before the physical for the draft, he didn’t shower, refused any form of hygiene, ate nothing but junk food and for the last week and half, didn’t use the bathroom and urinated and defecated into his pants so he would be turned away for the draft. Ted Nugent claims to be a “real” American and slams anyone who doesn’t have radical conservative views, but considering his past, maybe Ted Nugent needs to start looking in the mirror before he decides to judge others.
By: David Dayen
Wednesday April 18, 2012
Eli got at this yesterday, based on an early read from HuffPost Hill. Now, Pete Stark has introduced his bill called the Women’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, which would allow low-income mothers with children up to 3 years old to classify their child-rearing responsibilities as work, just the way Ann Romney did:
Current law does not count low-income stay-at-home parents who are raising young children as meeting the necessary Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work requirement. Current law also bans states from counting these individuals toward that state’s work participation rate, which can result in financial penalties if not met. This effectively bars low-income parents who choose to stay home to raise their young children from access to the financial support of TANF.
The WORK Act would amend TANF law to recognize the critical job of raising children age three or younger as work. Under the legislation, low-income parents could work, receive job training, search for work, or raise their children until they are school-aged without fear of losing TANF support and being pushed deeper into poverty. This is the same option that wealthy families, such as the Romneys, enjoy.
The WORK Act has the usual suspects as co-sponsors, including Progressive Caucus members John Lewis (D-GA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rosa DeLauro (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), and Laura Richardson (D-CA). But something that backs Republicans, and Mitt Romney, into a corner in this fashion should have far more than 12 co-sponsors. The entire point of the Ann Romney hissy fit was that raising kids equals work and ought to be respected. Nobody disagreed with that idea. All this bill would do would be to codify that principle into law, so that stay-at-home single moms can benefit from welfare in the early years of raising children.
From Crooks and Liars: http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/phyllis-schlafly-lets-destroy-word-feminism
April 18, 2012
My gratitude to the stalwarts at Right Wing Watch for watching nearly two hours of Phyllis Schlafly’s seminar earlier this month at The Citadel. She had some interesting things to say about feminism.
In the World According to Schlafly, the word “liberal is a pejorative now since Michael Dukakis…no politician wants to be called a liberal anymore” and because it’s a pejorative, Schlafly thinks “that’s the way we should treat feminism.” She goes on to say women don’t want to be called feminists because it’s a bad word, and that “everything they stand for is bad and destructive.”
I admit, I’m confused by this, especially since the right wing has been trying to hijack the term feminist for the past several years, courtesy of Sarah Palin. As far as our badness and destructiveness, I guess it’s bad and destructive to work to take care of our kids so we’re not at the mercy of the welfare state? Let’s see. She truly believes “America is a giant island of freedom, achievement, wealth and prosperity”, too. I guess for her that means freedom, achievement, wealth and prosperity for men and men only?
But wait, according to Phyl, “American women are the most fortunate people who lived on this earth” and feminists just want to be victims.
Are you facepalming yet? Wait till you get to the part where she hypothesizes about a man and a woman competing for the same high-paying job, and the woman being at a disadvantage because the man has a WIFE, something the woman is “insanely jealous of”, so she wants to “abolish the wife of the man” because she can’t have a wife of her own.
The funniest part about it might be the bored, barely-stifled looks of amusement on the cadets’ faces when the camera cuts away from Woman Wingnut long enough to pan the room.
Continue reading at: http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/phyllis-schlafly-lets-destroy-word-feminism