Drink, Drink To RGB

Before we'd even had our second tequila last night, you were emailing us asking if we had Ruth Bader Ginsburg ... anythings. And we didn't. And we were ashamed. How could we have neglected her?

Now we're even more ashamed to scrabble a buck off her passing. Strike that. You need Wonkette, our merch helps fund Wonkette, judging by ActBlue last night and today you're TRYING to spend all your money, and like I said: you asked.

Keep reading... Show less

The Federalist Has An Argument About 'Cuties' And Gay 'Grooming', Stop Laughing, It's TERRIBLE.

In what appears to be The Federalist's 85,000th screed about the movie Cuties and why it is bad from someone who definitely has not seen it, writer Matthew Cochran argues that it is a good thing to be "disgusted" by Cuties and that it is important to for parents to "help children understand what is and what is not disgusting."

According to Cochran, degenerate liberals are pushing movies like Cuties — a movie that criticizes the sexualization of young girls — in hopes of normalizing pedophilia, a thing he is very sure we are all trying to do.

Yes, really:

Our kids are being exposed to a constant diet of perversion while parents become increasingly afraid of being seen as pearl-clutching bigots. So parents often fail to do anything about it.

Pedophilia is merely the next big push from this same movement. As such, we should recognize what's next when we start seeing euphemisms like "minor-attracted persons," "child sexuality," and "intergenerational intimacy" being thrown around. We should know where normalization leads. The stigma against molesting children doesn't need to be softened.

Literally no one is doing this. No one wants to "soften" the stigma against molesting children or abusing them in any other way. But the Right doesn't have much of anything going on anymore, ideology-wise, so they're trying to do this whole "We don't like child molestation, and if you're against us then obviously you're for that!" thing. Curious, coming from the party that voted for a man who bragged about spying on teen girls undressing during the Miss Teen USA pageant and also tried to elect Roy Moore, a man banned from the mall for hitting on teen girls. Or that voted for Jim Jordan, who simply refused to cooperate with an investigation into accusations of sexual abuse against the physician for his Ohio State University wrestling team? Or whose President enlisted the help of a man who attempted to transport hundreds of images of child pornography?

I could go on. And for a very long time.

Keep reading... Show less

Tenant Farming (But Make It Fashion)

Hi there! I'm a crop scientist who got their start in dirty farm jobs. Today I want to treat you to a New York Times article that I like to call "Tenant Farming (But Make It Fashion)." The NYT real estate staff thought the right person to do an article about farming — tenant farming, even, which is let us say a sensitive topic — was an architecture, design, and style writer. Because what is more important, in agricultural economies, than aesthetics?

At first I thought this was a horrible mistake. But on further reflection, I have to look at this as a stroke of naïve genius. It's Just The Right Kind of Wrong. That's because, as a writer who covers home renovations, reporter Tim McKeough diligently lists improvements, property values, and how much money is changing hands for rent. He's straight with us, which someone with an agricultural upraising couldn't be — farm kids grow up thinking they know farming, but they don't know the finances. They do know that talking about money is Just Not Done — a taboo designed to hide wealth. Period. Having a design reporter write on this lovely little slice of upstate New York pastoralism lets us, gentle readers, get a good look at how hard the couple in this article is screwing the farmers they're "sharing" the property with. A farm columnist would never make that mistake! I owe this man everything. Let's get into it.

This article features a lovely couple who built their dream home in the Hudson Valley. But they also wanted a sustainable farm on their 7-acre property. So they partnered with a nice young couple to make that happen. This nice young couple didn't just plant crops, no. They installed a well. They built on-site cold storage for the crops. They built greenhouses. They installed fences. They cleared several acres of brush. They made the place generally pretty — a job normal people might pay a landscaper for. Dear reader, these homeowners didn't pay the farmers to do any of it. They didn't even foot the bill for these upgrades on their own property. The farmers did! They did all the work, emptied out their savings, and went into debt. My rough estimate is this young farmer couple has contributed at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the value of this property — and as far as the article indicates, they own none of the equity.

Are you ready for the cherry on this sharecropping sundae? This nice young couple didn't just drop hundreds of thousands of dollars of sweat equity and personal savings on this property. They're paying rent to live there. And the landowners in the big house honest-to-God think they're doing this nice young couple a favor.

Keep reading... Show less

Bill Barr Is Out Of F*cking Control

No sooner had we published our LAST piece on Bill Barr Is A Lying Pigfuck than the Wall Street Journal reported that on a call with prosecutors last week, Barr told them maybe they should just charge protesters with SEDITION, YES WE SAID SEDITION. Which, if you'll recall from your studies, is literally planning to overthrow the government.

You see, Bill Barr isn't just Donald Trump's cover-ups guy, he's also, at age 70, having a severe case of authoritarian Little Man Syndrome, and he wants to LOCK THEM UP people exercising their constitutional rights to protest, especially if the little people are displeased with Barr's boss trying to do a coup before their very eyes and seize power illegally against the will of American voters.

Oh sure, he puts the word "violent" in front of protesters, and pretends he respects the rights of peaceful protesters, who are different from the violent ones. But remember he gave the orders that ended with the gassing of peaceful protesters, including a priest, at Lafayette Square, so that Trump could do his fascist Bible photo-op. So when Barr says "violent protesters," you should just assume he wants to attack your Nana,. And her priest.

Bill Barr is out of fucking control.

Last night, he went to speak to wingnut kids at the wingnut Hillsdale College, and showed us just how out of fucking control he is. The Washington Post was the first to report on his version of a Michael Caputo Facebook Live Meltdown, and we don't even know where to start, so we'll just start.

Keep reading... Show less

Just Bill Barr Unpersoning Some Entire Cities For Donald Trump

'Anarchist jurisdictions' is not a thing.

The Department of Justice announced this morning that it would be officially designating New York City, Seattle, and Portland as "anarchist jurisdictions" — a term that means absolutely nothing, but that they are claiming means the cities "have permitted violence and destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities."

It would be super fun to roll our eyes at this, at how this is a really weird move for a party that is supposedly so upset about cancel culture and thinks that consumer boycotts are a violation of the First Amendment, and also how stupid Donald Trump doesn't even know what anarchism is. But the purpose for the designation is that Trump wants to "defund" these cities. He wants to take away their federal funding. You may recall that he has tried to do this before with sanctuary cities. It's become his go-to whenever he feels like he's not getting his way.

Keep reading... Show less
2020 presidential election

Big Pharma Declines To Bribe Seniors For Trump

Another great idea buys the pharma.

The White House almost reached a deal with Big Pharma that would have limited the costs of prescription drugs for folks on Medicare, but negotiators for the pharmaceutical industry noped out because the Trump administration wanted drug companies to send out $100 cash cards to seniors just before the election, the New York Times reports.

Had it actually gone through, the deal would have done some real good for people using Medicare's prescription drug program. The drug companies would have put up $150 billion to help cover out-of-pocket costs, covering most seniors' co-pays for prescription meds. And with Donald Trump's support from older voters slipping, actually reducing drug costs would have been quite a feather in his cap right before the election. He's been promising big results on prescription drug prices since 2015, and this might have been something to point at as a success.

But oopsies, the industry negotiators refused to get roped into the cash-card stunt:

Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump's chief of staff, insisted the drug makers pay for $100 cash cards that would be mailed to seniors before November — "Trump Cards," some in the industry called them.

Some of the drugmakers bridled at being party to what they feared would be seen as an 11th-hour political boost for Mr. Trump, the people familiar with the matter said.

Oh gosh, looks like another big black eye for America's greatest deal-maker.

Keep reading... Show less

Mark Kelly Could Be Just The Spaceman To Launch Mitch McConnell's SCOTUS Dreams Directly Into The Sun

Could happen! Let's DONATE HIM SOME DOLLARS just to be safe.

Since Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday, amidst the despair and existential dread, people have been talking about whether or not Mitch McConnell actually is holding the cards he says he's holding, and will actually be able to quickly seat a "Handmaid's Tale" extra in RBG's seat before Joe Biden beats the shit out of Donald Trump in 43 days.

Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Colins have made statements suggesting they are opposed to it, though take Susan Collins's word at your own peril. Some are holding on to past statements from Chuck Grassley suggesting what's good for the goose is good for the "pidgin," and that he would support waiting for a new president to make the nomination. Of couse, Grassley isn't chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee anymore. Craven shitheel Lindsey Graham is.

Mitt Romney? Nobody fucking knows, and he's not saying.

Throughout all this talk about other vulnerable senators — Joni Ernst is DOWN THREE to Theresa Greenfield according to a new poll, DONATE TO GREENFIELD — exactly nobody has suggested that Arizona GOP Senator Martha McSally might have a shred of human decency, or even read the room and realize just how badly she is about to lose her own Senate race, and support waiting for a senator people actually want representing them to cast that vote. She's a total fucking asshole. Nobody ever died on the hill of "Maybe Martha McSally will surprise us by having a soul."

Speaking of, hello, Senator McSally:

But it might not matter, if we can stall long enough, and if you haven't heard about why yet, here is why.

Keep reading... Show less

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)