BAMF Cinemagraph

I lust over the cinemagraphs posted at From Me to You. I can’t post them here (that I’m aware of), because they embed them in ways that are above my knowledge of theft reposting. But I can screen cap one frame.

But go check it out here.

Loving Republicans give me a chance to practice cognitive dissonance

Over at Facebook, I read this conservative column titled, “Hating Republicans in Southern California” written by Brian Birdnow. It was a response to a liberal column printed in the L.A. Times called “Liberals vs Conservatives” written by Diana WagmanHere’s the L.A. Times link. 

In a nutshell, Wagman says she enjoyed the company of her vacation-home neighbors until she found out they were republicans. She describes how they were enjoying drinks and a poker game, until the mixed-race marriage duo admitted their allegiance to … bum bum bum … the Tea Party.

And Birdnow writes about Wagman encompassing the stereotype of the typical liberal with her typical views and exposes her for the hypocrisy of liking them until finding out their voting views. He blames her for the division of American viewpoints and perpetuating the ever-widening gap of discord.

What’s your problem, brablem? 

The problem I have with Wagman’s article is that she claims she doesn’t want to be friends with her tea-party neighbors and hopes that she vacations on the weekends in which her neighbors do not. But that’s what I love about Tea Party folks. Hell, my family sides with the Tea Party. I don’t care what people’s views are. When we’re being social, let’s be social. If you want to talk politics, let’s talk about it.

I don’t want to avoid you because we don’t share the same views. I want to embrace you. I want to find out what your thoughts really are. I want to help change your diapers. I don’t want to avoid you.

Since I don’t have religion, loving republicans is my way of expressing cognitive dissonance. I gotta do it somehow. Might as well do it with a living, breathing human being.

The problem with these discussions, from my experience, is that nobody gives a shit what I think. Tina and I rarely get the opportunity to express our views. So we nod and talk shit about it later.

Gosh, if you want to side with a group who thinks the president isn’t a “real” Christian, or he’s not a legitimate American, and that the government is too big and awful. If you want to have a party led by a bunch of men who openly don’t practice the values they preach, I’ll gladly sit down at a table and discuss the facts over a meal you bought with food stamps. No problem there at all.

The problem I have with Birdnow’s column was this line:

Certainly Ms. Wagman would argue that Rush Limbaugh should be censored, that Ann Coulter is a national disgrace, and that George W. Bush was the worst President in American history.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. I don’t think Limbaugh needs censorship. Coulter isn’t a national disgrace. Their expression of crazy paves the road for my expression of crazy. Tit for tat. And Coulter’s only a cunt if you let her be one. If you don’t like her, don’t read or listen to her. Same with me.

And George Doubleya wasn’t the worst American president.

Reagan was.

Double Honk. 

Just like Birdnow thinks we’re going to have poor people until people and government stop profiting from it (read: The Business of Poverty: Why Poverty Will Never End“), we’re going to have this oppositional discussion until people stop profiting from it.

[insert screeching tire sound here]

Did you go read that column that Birdnow wrote?

Go read it. I’ll wait. 

We’re going to have poor people until the government agencies and bloated bureaucracies that support poor people in this country are ended?

Shit. All this time I thought there was no end to poverty because Jesus said, “The poor will always be among you” (Mark 14:7).

My social working friends are all out making their millions peanuts helping the poor, you know, like Jesus did everywhere except Mark fucking 14 verse 7 when he was getting his feet washed with perfume by a woman the Catholic church declared a hooker and Rush Limbaugh would call a slut.

If conservatives really wanted to be conservative, they’d go 100 times more traditional than the Amish, and go live in the middle east like a bunch of robed lepers. They’d sell all they have, give it to the poor, and live and act like Jesus behaved and how he prescribed. But that would be too extreme, because secular life is exciting and modern advances are too attractive to actually be a traditional, Jesus-loving conservative.

But, Jer-bear, celibacy is too hard!

For the record, people can’t claim to be a conservative of traditional values and the only time those values are — kind of, but not really — expressed at the voting booth.

But I guess we’re going to have this problem of religious fervency until the church stops profiting from its adherents.

Am I right, or am I right?