Michele Bachmann’s ‘Truth’

Having a Michele Bachmann in congress speaks more to the complete idiocy of the people who vote for her than it does about Bachmann herself.

“What we want is women to be able to make their own choices…. You see, that’s the lie that happens under Obamacare. The president of the United States effectively becomes a health care dictator. Women don’t need anyone to tell them what to do on health care. We want women to have their own choices, their own money. That way they can make their own choices for their future on their own bodies.”

Spoken by a woman who represents a political party which wants to do away with a woman’s right to choose as well as restrict women’s access to contraception.

Shocked by Bachmann’s statement? You shouldn’t be. One can only hear reality-challenged crap of this sort so many times before it all comes across as incoherent dribble. And yet, Bachmann is a three-term member of the House of Representatives and prior to that, a two term state senator.

Dexter’s dad might have had a valid point when he once said to our favorite serial killer that understanding people involves understanding two types of truths; the truth we wish to see in others and the truth the other wishes us to see. And when those two ‘truths’ converge and line up, we end up with the political successes of individuals like Michele Bachmann. It has nothing to do with absolute truth or fact-based reality but only to do with saying exactly what others want to hear.

I can’t think of any other good reason as to why a simple-minded bumpkin like Michele Bachmann has any relevance at all in American politics.


__

(The Michele Bachmann source photograph is a Creative Commons licensed image from photographer Gage Skidmore. )

Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.

Comments

  1. R F says:

    I’m not “crazy” about the title of this column “Crazy Birds.” It has a hint of misogyny to it, whether it was intended or not.

  2. Is that not stretching it a bit? Do you also believe the the entire ‘Angry Birds’ phenomena has a hint of misogyny to it? Maybe we should outlaw the use of all ‘negative’ words in the same phrase with the word ‘birds.’

  3. R F says:

    No, ‘Angry Birds’ is not misogynistic, because it uses the word ‘birds’ in its true context (as in the species) and not as a flippant term used to describe women. Unfortunately, nothing is as easy as outlawing a word; it’s about understanding the cultural and historical context of the language you use and understanding the oppressive implications behind them. It’s no secret that calling women “crazy” or “hysterical” has been a commonly used tool to suppress women. The phrase “Crazy Birds” is certainly reminiscent of that. I actually agree with many of the points you make in the article (and am probably just as disgusted by Bachmann’s rhetoric as you are), but have trouble understanding why such emphasis is placed on Michele Bachmann’s political views in the context of being a woman rather than being misguided and unintelligent person (and here, I am speaking in direct reference to your title.)

  4. Sorry, RF, but I have no idea where you’re coming from on this one. Your “disgust”, while understandable in terms of how women have been treated over the ages (present times included), really has no place in regards to this post. Where have Bachmann’s political views been criticized in the context of her being a woman? And where has the word ‘hysterical’ been used to describe her behavior? As for ‘crazy’, women certainly don’t have exclusive rights on that word. I can easily name a dozen men off the top of my head who are every bit as crazy (if not more) than Bachmann. Ted Nugent is one.

    I understand people’s sensitivity to anything which might appear to be an attack on women and their struggle to find equality. A quick perusal of this site would tell whose side I’m on. Attacking this post for having what you claim is a “hint of misogyny” is wasted concern. It really is.

  5. R F says:

    I’m surprised you have no idea where I’m coming from; I thought I delineated my concerns quite clearly. I can certainly understand where you’re coming from, but I still don’t think you get my point. You are criticizing Michele’s political views in the context of being a woman by calling your article “Crazy Birds.” Maybe that’s not what you intended, but that’s how it comes across. And yes, you are right, women don’t have exclusive rights on the word “crazy.” My point is that there is a cultural context implied with the term as it applies to women, and one should proceed with caution when using those kinds of terms.

    I am certainly not “attacking” your post. I am pointing something out that you may or may not be aware of. I applaud your support of women’s struggle to make equality, but there are certainly subtleties to which even those who are in support of the struggle are not attuned to, which can be even more inhibiting (counter-intuitively) than a conservative politician who doesn’t support reproductive rights. It’s also not about taking sides; this isn’t a baseball game (and I’m don’t exactly see the value of taking sides in the theater of politics.) If questioning or challenging your peers is a “wasted concern”, then I fear for the future of “our” cause.

  6. GoldenSun says:

    R F – in a place like London, England the word “bird” is probably the most common slang term for woman/girl/girlfriend.

    In the U.S. and Canada – not so much.

    Mario, I believe, was referencing the popular video game “Angry Birds” and not the “slang” term.

  7. E.A. Blair says:

    R F, you seem to me to be one angry bird.

  8. R F says:

    That’s hilarious! I’m like the least angry person I know.