On One Hand

October 14, 2009

GOP history is Highlighted by Things that Republicans Now Hate, says GOP.com

Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 2:39 pm
Tags: ,

The Republican Party’s new website, GOP.com, has made a long list of Republican accomplishments beginning in 1860 with building the railroads and freeing the slaves. It seems that the GOP has a tawdry past of being overrun by liberal agendas, including major public works projects, electing diverse people to public office, embracing diversity and launching civil rights reforms, which are today all liberal policy points. GOP accomplishments include:

Establishing the Trans Continental Railroad, though it is Barack Obama who currently wants to launch an interstate high-speed rail system, and Republicans routinely oppose funding public transportation.

Passing the Land-Grant College Act to build a nationwide system of affordable public universities, which began the Republican Party’s long love-affair with er, resentment of uh, lets say mixed feelings about academia.

Electing the first Mexican-born governor in California; (well, Republicans now want to restrict immigration, but, you know.)

Passing the 14th Amendment; “The original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South” says GOP.com. See, they started it.

Beginning Affirmative Action by starting the first African-American university, Howard University; (but don’t Republicans oppose Affirmative Action?)

Passing the 15th Amendment so that African-Americans could vote; “The 15th Amendment was ratified the following year, but using intimidation, poll taxes, registration fraud, and literacy tests, Democrats prevented most African-Americans from voting for nearly a century.” Damn, who knew Obama’s party hated “African-Americans” so much? (By the way, Michael Steele, it’s OK to say “black.”)

Opposing racial segregation in schools; (henceforth the GOP shall be renaming itself ACORN!)

Banning the Ku Klux Klan; (we know that today’s white supremacists voted for Obama in 2008).

Founding Yellowstone National Park; (Republicans now oppose the establishment of new federal protected areas…)

Giving Women the Right to Vote (but opposing their right to control their bodies).

Electing the first women mayors (Republicans for Hillary Clinton!)

Appointed the first Jewish person to cabinet secretary. Most Jewish Americans are Republicans, right? Oh wait…

Granted American Indians U.S. Citizenship.

Elected the first Asian-American senator in Hawaii. (Republicans love the idea of increasing diversity in public office, which is why they go out of their way to support members of minority groups…)

Called to end racial segregation in the military; (But still opposes gays in the military).

Established the Federal Highway System; (funded by a 91% peak income tax rate, I might add!)

Ended segregation in schools; “Republicans were unfazed by the many Democrats, including John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who criticized President Eisenhower for the action he took to uphold civil rights” says GOP.com. That’s right, it was Eisenhower and not Kennedy who ch

At this point, it devolves into the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, Welfare Reform (er– I thought Bill Clinton was a Democrat), Operation Enduring Freedom (the Afghan war) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (getting progressively more unpopular now…).

Now if there’s one thing it seems the Republican Party has done consistently, year to year, throughout this list, it’s to oppose whatever the South wants. Which is ironic, since the South is now the core of the party and the only place it did not lose electoral votes and house seats in the 2008 election.

But anyway.

Methinks you have something of an identity crisis when everything you highlight about your past is, ironically, everything you vehemently oppose in our current political climate.

But it’s nice to see that the GOP agrees that everything great and lasting in American history are the very things that liberals are gung-ho about. Maybe a reconciliation is afoot?

Anyway. I encourage you to check out the Republican list yourself, at GOP.COM

Now I’m genuinely confused. When I celebrate these progressive moments in U.S. history as being what it’s all about to be proud as an American, I’m told that this is a revisionist history, or at least a strong liberal slant on history. I’m told that “multiculturalism” is not just a sentiment geared towards respect, but an insidious political agenda that might fit with my values but doesn’t fit with Middle America (whatever that is). Now Michael Steele has put it on the GOP webpage as the main thrust of the Republican party? Inasmuch as this is a “culture war,” they’ve sided with liberal culture.

I’m glad, of course, that they’re turning out to value this, but I doubt that this signifies as any sort of cultural shift in the party, but is rather an attempt to seem more moderate (or to appeal to people of color, who are growing in numbers in the U.S.) If I thought that any of this sentiment was heartfelt (and if they took out the anti-Democrat vitriol when Democrats are now nearly universally on board with civil rights; Republicans, however, are not) then I would certainly celebrate.

July 30, 2009

Protected: Sarah Palin as Poet

Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 3:14 am
Tags: ,

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

July 29, 2009

Wonkette.com Solves the Healthcare Crisis!

Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 3:56 pm
Tags: ,

Here’s a great idea, fresh out of Wonkette’s think-tank wing: The government gets in touch with every $1+ million annual earner in the country and asks each of them, “If the government raised taxes on your $1,000,000 annual income by $9,000 in order to deliver health care to 40 million Americans, would you (a) just pay the taxes (b) stash money in an off-shore vertical trust scheme to avoid paying or (b) literally move to another country to avoid paying this tax increase for health care?” For those who select either (b) or (c) or for some reason both, the government will just take 100% of their money, stun them with cattle-prods, and feed them to the Uighurs.


The entry the quote was drawn from was actually quite poignant. A New York Times/CBS poll found that most Americans would rather pay down the federal deficit than use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Yet they also opposed every possible way to pay down the deficit: fifty-six percent said they would not be willing to pay more taxes, and fifty-six percent said they would not be willing to cut government services. This is a conundrum that has plagued the the concept of “big government” throughout history; nobody likes the idea if big or inefficient government, but they would rather have big government than lose its services.

July 14, 2009

Onion News Network: New Poll Allows Pundits to Pander in Real Time!

Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 5:01 pm

New Live Poll Allows Pundits To Pander To Viewers In Real Time

September 18, 2008

Another Case of Missing the Point of Feminism with Sarah Palin

Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 12:18 am
Tags: , ,

Invoice to women who want to be successful: WEAR A SKIRT.

Sarah Palin is a good VP choice because “men want to sleep with her,” says Donny Deutsch. He goes on to say that this is the golden ticket the feminist movement just hasn’t thought of yet after 40 years.

What I love most is that all the buzzers are going boing boing in this guy’s head when he thinks he’s made a crucial breakthrough – HAVE YOU CONSIDERED MAKING YOURSELF INTO A SEXUAL OBJECT!!?? Meanwhile any 16-year-old girl with even a mildly sophisticated upbringing can say it’s been going on since 34,000 BCE, and perhaps, feminists find the sexual objectification of women problematic for other reasons than being embarrased that conservatives thought of it first.

And perhaps the CEREAL BOX – O – CANDIDATE idea is just a little commodifying?

This video is like watching the really awful signer in the American Idol audition think he’s achieved vocal brilliance just before Simon Cowell’s brutal glare rips him apart. I feel bad for the female CNBC anchor who is trying to play ditzy to conceal what I can’t distinguish between annoyance and amusement.

But According to Deutsch this response would be dismissed as his “all Left-brained stuff, issues and all that – IT DOESN’T MATTER” (3:10).

The video came from Feministing.com (a blog I highly reccommend).

September 11, 2008

Happy 9/11

Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 11:18 pm


April 21, 2008


Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 10:16 pm
Tags: ,

I used to hope Chelsea Clinton would get into politics. She is remarkably intelligent, and has earned private-sector credentials that many lifelong Democratic politicians – especially those from big political families – skip over. She faced GOP Clinton-bashing during her father’s presidency, and in her sensitive formative years was at ground-zero in the biggest sex scandal in American history – winning the sympathy of nearly all Democrats. Unlike her parents, she’s never been responsible for any of the scandals and blunders that have tainted the Clinton name, and unlike other famous first-daughters, she’s never been caught up in an underage drinking scandal.

Chelsea disappeared for nearly a decade, gracefully bowing away from media attention to complete her education, proving yet again her class as a high-profile figure. We never heard anything about her for years, until she appeared suddenly out of the mist to stump for her mother’s presidential campaign. When I first saw footage of her college tour on MSNBC, it struck me then that, unless she gets a job at a laundromat or lives in rural Texas for a while, Chelsea Clinton will never win public office outside Massachusetts.

Chelsea Clinton has the thickest Harvard accent I’ve ever witnessed, either on TV or in person. You can hear it before she even opens her mouth; Harvardiosity practically leaks out of her pores. It is in the way she dresses and the way she carries herself, careful to keep all hand gestures within a seven-inch bubble around her chest, and a perpetually surprised expression on her face; her composure is more reminiscent of a speaker at a city Water Board meeting or prep school debate team than a tumultuous and empassioned political campaign.

Allow me to take this opportunity to discuss something I noticed recently, when a 50-something blonde woman with big, bushy hair and glasses discussed animal rights as a guest speaker in a sociology class. When she uttered the words, “I first became Vegan at Harvard,” it was of no surprise; she may as well have posted her alma mater on a name tag.

If you live in a college town you can learn to identify professors and grad students who went to Harvard. I imagine they’re scattered through university campuses across the United States, usually bitter that the school they’re working in now isn’t as good as the one they came from – either that or they think they’re successfuly of-the-people, able to blend in among the inferior, blue-collar crowds at Michigan State or UCLA. They are unaware of how sorely they stick out, most immediately identifiable by their clothing, which comes in the form of expensive earth-tone slacks, layerered vests and ribbed turtleneck sweaters. They like cocking their head to one side and speak in a gentile, soft-spoken, yet subtley condescending tone, and are immensely proud of having stood up for veganism or feminism or gay rights in a culture that is uneducated and backwards on those issues.

There’s one layer of Harvardiosity for academic elites in general – which is constituted by most Humanaties professors and grad students who do not smoke weed or roll their own cigarettes – a second layer for those from one of the top 50 American schools, and a third layer for Ivy Leaguers specifically. Those who actually went to Harvard, meanwhile stand at the shining pinnacle of Harvardiosity, elite, excessively cultured, strong-willed, mild-tempered and gut-wrenchingly self-critical. They are a bizarre, ground-zero synergy of old money, extreme liberalism, East Coast cutthroat professionalism and a profound sense of superiority, which even the more laid-back Berkeleyites pale in comparison to. Their politics – and this applies to most white-collar Democrats from the Northeast – are steered towards compassion for social groups, but that doesn’t mean you have to be compassionate toward any one person in a competitive world – there is no excuse for intellectual laziness or ignorance.

I don’t think people from prestigious schools mean to make you feel unintelligent, but you can tell that somewhere in the depth of their souls, they get a kick out of it. Even if they respect your unconventionality, creativity or oppressed minority status, they will find a way consider you naive or disrespectful. Within five minutes of talking to them you know they’ve evaluated whether or not you could have gotten in to Yale or Princeton if you were more ambitious, and decided that, if you are of sufficient IQ, you took the path you’re on either out of despair or because you grew up persecuted by a Christian church setting. You often wonder if they’re using unnecessarily big words on purpose, or if they realize how annoying it is when they drop lines like “if you’d gone to Harvard you would have read from….” or “at Harvard we discussed the…” etc.

I don’t know if the way they discuss Chomsky’s latest thesis like you were clearly all over that shit is more patronizing than had they prefaced, “Noam Chomsky is a famous liberal academic,” assuming you’d never heard of him at all. In the case that they do mention the MIT professor’s recent lecture at Columbia, you know they know you hadn’t heard of it and were just discussing it to show what world they come from.

I’ve had professors or met grad students whose Harvardiosity was slathered so thick you wanted to drop the names of French philosophers just to avoid seeming like an idiot by comparison – then praying you didn’t reference a brand of European cheese by mistake. “As Reblochon argued,” you continue, “identity is a composite of what the society wishes it was not.” The Harvarder will not embarrass you, but will instead politely feign ignoriance – “hm, I am not familiar with that line” – then whisper about it to a colleague before selecting another toothpick of port salut at the campus museum’s Persian flowerpot exhibit’s public opening.

I, along with so many Americans, used to feel sorry for Chesea Clinton. We’d lament how unfair it was that she had to grow up with the pressures of living in a political family, and curse at Rush Limbaugh who compared her looks to a that of a dog when she was just twelve years old. How unfair that she was isolated from her peers and –

– wait a minute, her father is the president, former slave. Lets face it, Chelsea Clinton is one of the most priveledged people in the United States and the world; I’d certainly rank her among the top 100. She met virtually every important world figure and traveled with Secret Service protection while growing up. Warner Brothers made a movie staring Mandy Moore based on Chelsea Clinton’s life, but only after Disney made one for TV first.

Chelsea Clinton is priveleged among the priveledged, and it comes through in her voice. Neither of Chelsea Clinton’s parents reek of East Coast elitism, though they went to Yale – they are more accultured to the life of populist politics, while Chelsea is fresh out of it.

Barack Obama doesn’t have the Harvard accent, though he graduated from Harvard Law, but John Kerry does, even though he went to Yale. Michelle Obama, who also went to Harvard, has a bit of a Harvard accent.


January 23, 2008

Protected: GASP

Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 10:06 pm
Tags: ,

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

December 27, 2007

2 girls 1 cup

Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 3:32 pm
Tags: ,

It has come to my attention that many of you have not yet come to experience the joy that is 2 girls 1 cup. Those who know are asked not to spoil the secret, but if you don’t, this might give you an idea about what we’re talking about:

2 Girls 1 Cup reaction #1

REACTION 2 (Grandma watches 2 girls 1 cup)

REACTION 3 (a second attempt to get through the whole thing)

I suppose you might want to know what all this is about…

the REAL 2 Girls 1 Cup!!! (not safe for work)

Extra credit if you videotape yourself watching it.

I showed my dad some of the above reaction videos, posted throughout the years on YouTube and other sites, and he couldn’t help himself but to load the actual clip to see what everyone was freaking out about. My mom looked on from the couch, knitting, and said “I’m not dumb enough to look at that.” But while my dad covered his eyes, howled and fled the room, my mom calmly muttered, “that’s not real poop.”

An hour later my mom started talking about how the video showed how far our society has decayed and that she can’t beleive I would know about such a thing. “Nobody else knows about that,” she insisted, “maybe YOUR friends would but nobody sane would know about that thing and pass it on.”

Being as it was Christmas, and since he is nearly as obnoxious as I am, my dad showed my grandfather the reaction videos and, ultimately, the de-facto 2 girls 1 cup. My grandpa, a 67-year-old, 30-year military veteran who was once stationed in Southeast Asia, and his son-in-law, also a career military man, stared at it and laughed for the full 2 minutes without looking away. My dad said he was shocked that they could get through the whole thing. When it was done, my grandpa looked up and explained, “what you don’t realize is that we’ve been to Thailand.”

The next day we were seeing more family, and my mom, thinking it was an inside joke, mentioned 2 girls 1 cup. Three of my cousins, aged 14, 15, and 16, simultaneously screamed. It eventually led to more aunts and uncles watching 2 girls 1 cup. But one of the boys insists that he knows of a video online that is “much, much worse.”

I bring you this because 2 girls 1 cup has been the overriding theme of Christmas 2007. Happy holidays!

December 11, 2007

More Lessons about Gun Control

Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 12:16 am
Tags: , ,

You guys are exactly right that the shooting at the Colorado Springs church last weekend proves that guns are good. The volunteer security guard at New Life Church was able to save many lives by shooting and killing Matthew Murphy (the first shooter). Only a total of three people died in that event, but imagine this other scenario: if gun control prevented the security guard from having a gun and prevented Matthew Murphy from having gun, think about how many people Matthew Murphy would have killed with his bare hands before someone was able to stop him.

If guns were not available, people would commit crimes with other weapons instead. If that were the case, watch out! You could be walking in the mall minding your own business and suddenly be sniped by flying knives and ninja-stars! Highly lethal! Without having guns to defend ourselves we’d all be sitting ducks, compared to our current situation’s mass-shootings, which have all gone so well.

Killing is wrong, but having the ability to kill someone very easily with a gun is a God-given right. Laws don’t exist to prevent murder and fatal accidents, they exist to punish the bad people after the fact. How would we be able to exercize our God-given free will if we didn’t have the ability to kill someone?

Also, consider the Holocaust during World War II. Hitler began his persecution of the Jews by taking away their guns. Everyone knows that owning handguns makes you safe from things like oppression, starvation, and massive government armies. If some of the Jews had kept their guns and fought back, I’m sure the whole Holocaust would have been avoided because the Nazi leadership was very mild-mannered, and wouldn’t have pressed the issue by using bombs or tanks. That’s why no armed soldiers ever died during World War II; because they had guns.

Seriously, guys, do you want your kids to be child-molested by Bin Laden!? If you are for gun control, you’re basically saying you do.

I’m glad there are guns out there, because I know that if I am shot and killed in a mall or whatever, that person will be punished for his or her crime by our legal system. That’s totally worth it.

I hope this all proves that guns make us safe. It’s also clear to see that if a small handgun for self-defense makes us safe, semi-automatic assault weapons make us even safer. The ability to shoot an airplane from the ground is very important to my right to protect myself from burglars, and if I can’t shoot more than 100 rounds per minute then OMG I am going to be mugged by gangsters, terrorists or worse!!!!!!!

Come to think of it, I think we should also give guns to small children to prevent child molestation.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.