Obama Approval Higher than either Clinton or Reagan

I'm sure that will be the lead on Fox News for the next week. Of course his approval is lower than either Carter or Bush Sr. It seems the lesson is that a lot can change in the third year of a Presidency.

You can go to gallup's website to compare polling data for every President since Truman: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

The Twisted Desire to Date a Nazi

As I continue down the rabbit hole of misogyny on the web (the start of my journey is discussed here) there is one particular scenario that seems to make misogynists really really angry. The scenario is that of a hot girl being with a jerk. No other scenario angers a 'nice guy' quite like seeing a super hot babe with a guy he perceives as a bad person.

A post at the excellent blog Man Boobz outlines such a scenario here. In it, David Futrelle, does an excellent job of explaining how the original poster (someone who goes by 'Scarecrow') is anything but a nice guy. He is in fact a festering pile of hate and resentment. This is a standard response to the 'nice guy' complaining about the hot chick dating the 'jerk'. You don't have to peel back very many layers to often reveal the alleged nice guy as an entirely self centered individual, who lacks basic respect for other human beings, especially women.

However, Scarecrow's story reveals another simple response to the nice guy complaint, and even a potential answer to the question Scarecrow himself poses to the world he views as so cruel and unfair. From his original post:

When I went to the pre-trial, I saw two young men (say late teens or early twenties). One of them had a swastika on his left shoulder. The other had arms covered with various tattoos. They were both skin-heads - real winners (sarcasm). They were obviously into drugs (I KNOW that the "we stole this car" was merely a rouse for them to deny possession of drugs and illegal firearms).

The thing that pissed me off:

They had their girlfriends with them: Two super-mega-hot women, a brunette and a blond. Both were busty, thin, and extraordinarily pretty in the face. They had no tattoos or piercings. They both looked quite ordinary, except for their well-above-average aesthetic appearance.

I wondered: Why do such losers get totally hot women, and men who are better off and "square" do not get the time of day from such women?

Read it in it's entirety here, if you dare.

So I'm going to propose one possible answer for him: because they are jerks. You see, when men view women only as object, and not real people, they completely fail to prescribe any personality to individual women. A females social worth is based upon her physical appearance, as all woman have the same basic programming, in the mind of the 'nice guy' misogynist.

Astoundingly it never occurs to the poster that these women, who were dating Nazi, Skinhead, drug users, might themselves be Nazis, or drug users.

Of course, not all women who date bad guys are themselves bad. But it astounds me that the poster doesn't even begin to consider this possibility. At the exact same moment he is criticizing these women for being with their terrible boyfriend, the poster is desiring to be with these women. Women who likely meet the same criteria that cause the poster to describe a man as a 'loser,' not deserving of hotness.

When I see a really hot girl with a guy I know to be a bad person, my first thought is not that she should be dating me. Honestly, my first thought is to question her character. If I know the guy is selfish, dismissive and rude, then I'm going to think that maybe she has some of these characteristics as well, at least in large enough amounts to not care if they exist in a mate. If I see a hot girl who is dating a nazi meth user, my first thought is not "dang, she should be dating *me.*" I don't want to date a nazi meth user, and the odds that she is one just went up by a lot.

I think there's some projecting going on here. The poster obviously would happily date these girls he saw in court, in order to have sex with someone he thinks is hot. He apparently wouldn't need to undergo much investigation into her personality, drug use or potential hatred of racial minorities. Obviously, rather than deal with this character flaw, he has projected onto all women and assumed they are just as shallow as he is. This makes him burn with the anger and judgment that only extreme self delusion can allow.

"You're Blowing It"

Can Gods have a Race?

According to the Council of Conservative Citizens they most certainly can, and in the case of the Norse Gods that race is white. The CCC has decided to boycott the movie Thor because one of the gods is being played by Idris Elba, who is black.

This issue has already been dealt with perfectly in comic format.

All I would like to add is that I'm not sure people who continue to think that this guy:

>

Looked like this:

Really have much place complaining about the depiction of race in the imagery of gods.

Of course one could also point out that, when it comes to Thor, we're dealing with comic book character who fight crime in the 21st century. But, that seems far too rational.

Standing by Our President

Remember when it was downright treasonous not to stand with the President on issues of foreign relations?

Those times appear to be gone.

When the Monsters Under the Bed are Real

Exaggeration is used a lot in politics. When you exaggerate in politics I find that it is often a extrapolation of an opponents position, which you frame and pull to the extreme.

Congressman Grayson stood on the floor of the House and said that the Republican health care plan was for 'you to die quickly.' He didn't mean it literally. He meant that he felt like their plan was callous to the point that if you got sick there wasn't recourse, so you better just die quickly.

It's an exaggeration. There were no Republicans during the health care debate who said the words 'I think sick people should die quickly.' So this is a kind of discourse of which I am accustomed.

So when I read feminist blogs talk about 'Men's Rights' groups, I thought they engaged in the same style. If I read 'they don't want women to have the vote' or 'they think women are spiteful bitches are out to get them personally' or some other extreme position attributed to some internet 'men's rights' blogger, I think in my head: 'Republicans want you to die quickly.' I assumed it was an extrapolation of hurtful, but far less insane, positions.

I was wrong. I was very wrong.

The other day I made the mistake of venturing to a couple sites: Men Going Their Own Way, and Feminist Apocalypse. Seriously, go there at your own risk, it is actually bad for the heart and soul.

I found out that crazy positions and opinions attributed to these authors are not exaggerations. These guys really do state that there are no women good enough to marry, or that women shouldn't vote, or that all women will cheat. The sites actually read like Colbert level satire, and in order to maintain my sanity, I'm forced to imagine that at least half the contributers and comments are elaborate satire.

In the middle of a slut shaming rant about how college women 'these days' will just sleep with anyone, anytime, anywhere, the author says 'I was born too soon.' Can't we all picture Stephen Colbert going on an identical rant, and stating the problem with women having promiscuous sex is that they aren't having it with him. That's satire! That can't be real!

So the next time you feel like a feminist seems to be going a little over board, maybe it sounds like s/he's over reacting to a situation, or exaggerating the level of misogyny in the world take a look at the people with whom they do regular battle. I spent half a day looking at the monsters under the 'men's rights' bed and I barely escaped with my sanity, but my decibel level on gender issues has probably been permanently turned up a notch or two.

More evidence that our democracy is broken

There is a new poll on the public's position on tax cuts. You can find the entire poll here and a summary here, but I want to just make one point:

More people want to let all the cuts expire (27%),
(a position held by zero Senators)

than want to extend the top tax cuts permanently (19%).
(a position held by the majority party in the Senate)

This is a fundamental breaking of our representational system.

Could it be related to Senators, themselves, falling into that top tax bracket? I'll keep waiting for the millionaire reporters and pundits to ask them that one . . . .