Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

June 7, 2016

Making History


Hillary Clinton made history yesterday by becoming the first woman to become the presumptive nominee of a major party in the U.S. Hell, she's been making history all her life. Congratulations, Secretary Clinton!

And to think, it only took 96 years for this to happen after women won the right to vote and 227 years after the first presidential race.

Notes for the Haters: 1) Obama was declared the presumptive nominee in 2008 when he reached the magic number on June 3rd -- months before the convention -- which he was only able to do with the aid of superdelegates. He wasn't declared the presumptive nominee until after the last primary election only because it took him that long to clinch it.  2) Despite what Bernie Sanders has to say about superdelegates now, back in 2008 he endorsed Obama two days after Obama had clinched the nomination acknowledging that Obama was then the presumptive nominee.

October 1, 2015

Nailed it

March 3, 2012

Two local boobs on the wrong side of history


Just in time for Women's History month, PA's Forced Ultrasound Bill and The Blunt Amendment allowing any employer to deny birth control coverage any insurance coverage requirement on moral whims objections both went down in flames. One would be tempted to decry Republicans again and their relentless War on Women, but we can't ignore the Democratic douchebags are who foot soldiers in this war too.

The Trouble With Harry

PA State Rep. Harry A. Readshaw (D, PA-36) not only cosponsored the odious Forced Ultrasound (Rape by Any Other Name) Bill, he was completely out of line when replying to a constituents' letter to him about it (blogger Amadi). He began his thoroughly condescending letter to her by addressing her by her first name only. He proceeds to divulge his daughter's private medical condition as a part of his argument and concludes by letting Amadi know that he's looked up her voting record. Amadi also notes that the letter is handwritten -- perhaps to ensure that there is no digital trail (I guess he neglected to find in his inquiries that she is a popular blogger). Please read her account of it here, including a photo of his correspondence). I'm embarrassed to add that he is also my Rep.

What's the Matter With Bob?

Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) was one of only three Democratic US Senators to vote against killing the Blunt Amendment. One must suppose that he favored it on the basis of his Catholic faith -- even though it was so broad as to allow employers to willy-nilly ignore any insurance coverage requirement (and as noted by Sen. Barbara Boxer, allow insurance companies free rein to deny coverage on "moral" grounds as well -- like that wouldn't be abused). Here's Obama for America's take on the bill, Bob:


(Click to enlarge)

Hey! Wait a minute? Doesn't Bob work for us? I think we should all vote on what health care coverage we want to deny him. Please be as arbitrary and capricious as you like! Also, I agree with Marcy Wheeler that Bobby (as someone who's been on the public dole for many years) needs to disclose to us, his employers, details as to what his history of reproductive choice has been, including details on what kinds of birth control he and his wife have used and who paid for it, as well as whether he's used erectile dysfunction drugs, and who paid for it. It's only fair! After all, employers have a right to have a say in these matters.

July 20, 2011

History Schmistory

Usually when we blog on the history-challenged here at 2pj it's a post on Santorum, or Bachmann, or Bachmann. So, it's only fair to call it out when someone on the left does the same thing (granted, the someone in this case is a flunky at HuffPo and not a presidential candidate).

Via The Huffington Post:


Yeah, they got the wrong queen (or king) here by some 300 hundred years.

This is most definitely not an example of Victorian fashion. The ruff (collar) she's wearing was popular during Elizabethan and Jacobean times. An educated person should not need to be a history, art history or fashion history expert to look at the painting and get that it's way off as an illustration for that headline.

Not earth shattering, I know, but it did bug the hell out of me.
.