I can hear you now.
“What? A new blog post?”
“It hasn’t even been a whole year since the last one!”
Once in a while somebody (OK, my dad) asks me about my blog, and it used to be I’d say, “Yeah, I keep meaning to write something for it.” Until I finally did. Then, once I posted my big ol’ where-the-hell-have-I-been update (aka the final chapter in The Lavafoot Chronicles), it just didn’t really occur to me to do any more blogging. Why? I guess I haven’t felt I had anything to say.
Then the Rude Pundit, whose blog I love (but, be warned, is not for the faint of heart), asked me to be a guest blogger during his annual vacation-week-of-guest-bloggers. I was incredibly flattered. Not to mention a bit bewildered. In past years his guests have included bloggers like Angry Black Bitch and Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend. I’m not even a “real” blogger.
In trying to decide whether I should take up the challenge, I asked the advice of a writer friend. “I don’t have anything interesting to say,” I whined to him. “For someone who doesn’t have anything to say,” he said, “you sure post a hell of a lot on Facebook.” He had me there.
So I accepted the Rude One’s invitation, and in doing some of the background research for my post—which you can read on rudepundit.blogspot.com this Friday, August 19—I of course came upon several things I just had to share, and did so where I usually do these days: on Facebook.
And why not the larger world? What the hell, I decided. I may as well warm up my “audience” by posting some of that here. For those of you uninterested in Mia’s political rants, however, be warned, you may want to stick to my photo albums and photos of the day (which I do hope to start doing again, as I have *so* many more for you…).
And so here begins my official blog post (yes, pilfered from Facebook). Which might or might not be the start of a new chapter in ‘miandering, the blog.’ We shall see.
——————-
This week’s New Yorker piece on Michele Bachmann by Ryan Lizza is, I think, a must-read for all who care about the future of this country (and beyond). So please, yes, read it. But, I know, reading an entire New Yorker article takes dedication. So for a quick and bitter taste of the radical theocracy espoused by not one but two serious contenders for the office of president of the United States (a country founded, you may recall, on the separation of church and state), I suggest you check out this Daily Beast column by Michelle Goldberg.
A Christian Plot for Domination?
Then, if you just haven’t had enough, you might want to delve even deeper into the nitty gritty of the radical religious right and its ideological forbears by checking out “Michele Bachmann Was Inspired By My Dad and His Christian Reconstructionist Friends — Here’s Why That’s Terrifying,” written by the son of one of those very forbears. You will learn everything you need to know about Christian Reconstructionists (also, and more aptly, called Dominionists) who believe “It is not only our duty as individuals, families and churches to be Christian, but it is also the duty of the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere to be under Christ the King. Nothing is exempt from His dominion.”.
Know where Michele Bachmann got her law degree?
Yeah.
Be scared, people. Be very scared.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 18, 2011 at 1:55 am
RobbieC
Michele Bachmann is going to give Obama his much deserved 2nd term. Whether she wins the nomination or not, she’ll draw out the crazy in all the candidates. A necessary evil?
August 19, 2011 at 9:14 am
prosey
Many thanks to Rude for having you as a guest contributor on his blog. Glad to have found your blog through his…and I’ve added you to my blogroll. If most of your political rantings are in facebook, I would enjoy following you there also. :-)
August 19, 2011 at 9:18 am
miandering
thanks! i’m so flattered!
May 21, 2012 at 6:44 am
Saif
crazy things and the fact she is the only woman in the nanimotion race, she will be attacked for her emotions. I do recognize that women are depicted as not able to control their emotions and I do see that in the newsweek cover. I do not think they had to select this photo unless their goal is to display that she is not fit for being the nominee or President. It is an anti-Bachmann photo. Now when I first heard of this I ignored it because its Bachmann and always felt she brings problems upon herself. In this case, I do see the emotion of rage connecting to her. Unfortunately, being labeled a minority in America means that you are likely having to represent a whole group. Michele should not have to be seen in such a way. Is Bachmann emotionally unstable? Perhaps. Should that photo have been selected to discuss her campaign? I would not have put that up. Now we must ask is any photo of a woman depicted as emotionally weak sexist? If I saw Michael Steele in a stereotypical fashion of a black male I would defend him. In this matter I will say the photo shows the stereotype of women so I will have to say I will defend that it was inappropriate to show such an image of her. There is sexism in all areas of the political sphere because men dominate obviously in political life. Politics is still very white male dominated. I find the newsweek cover rather scary and you take enough pictures of anyone you will find some uncomforting ones.