by Yashar Ali

My friend Karen (all names changed to protect privacy) was confused and frustrated when she called me on a Friday night.

About a year ago, she met a guy, Michael, through work. They met a few times for drinks with colleagues and then one night, she met him for dinner, which ended with the two of them “hooking up” (whatever that means).

She liked Michael a lot, and wanted to see him again.

After they had dinner, a week went by when Karen got a text message from Michael, “What’s up? How are you?”

She was happy; he wanted to hang out again.

Now, Karen wishes that was the last time she ever heard from him.

As she explained the manner in which she and Michael were communicating, I realized Karen was dealing with a situation several other women very recently talked to me about.

Since their last night together, Michael kept in touch with Karen on a regular basis. Every couple of weeks, Karen received a text or email from him. The messages always started out the same way, “What’s up?”

Karen would always respond.

“How are you?”

“Good, what’s up with you?”

Karen would proceed to fill him in on her life and Michael would always respond with the same short answer, “That’s cool.”

After one or two text messages, Michael would usually disappear. But a couple of weeks later, he would show up again. Sometimes their conversations would go deeper — ten minutes of texting back and forth. Karen would find hope in those longer texting sessions, thinking that he was finally engaging with her.

Michael would sometimes get more creative, giving Karen the impression he cared about her and her life.

“What’s up? How was your holiday weekend?”

“What’s up? Saw your Facebook post, so funny.”

A couple times he even texted, “We should have dinner soon.”

But every time Karen agreed to dinner, Michael would tell her about his really busy month at work, delaying the need to schedule a real date. Then, he would never follow up.

This faux-relationship wasn’t going anywhere and Karen was left feeling confused and frustrated about Michael’s intentions.

But these sporadic texts weren’t even about sex. Michael never even proposed any sort of rendezvous. And Karen’s motivation was certainly not friendship. “I have enough friends,” she said.

“He’s not even trying to sleep with me, what’s the point of all this?”

I told her, “Karen you’re being e-maintained”

“Is that an official term?” she laughed.

The week before, I had come up with the term as a joke, but the idea actually made sense. Michael was maintaining her — keeping her, in his mind, satisfied — and he was doing it electronically.

My friend Julia was dealing with the same issue. She was subject to these short, rapid bursts of texting with men on a consistent basis and she always got her hopes up that something was moving forward, but there was nothing. No substance at all.

“Are these actual adult men with responsibilities or are they children? I can’t figure it out,” she said to me.

I’ve always been fascinated, and disgusted, by the notion that in order to be happy, women need to be “maintained” in a sexual and/or romantic relationship. This kind of treatment of women is on par with our taking care of a car in need of an oil change or dealing with a wood deck in the backyard in need of a coat of varnish.

The concept of maintaining women is billed, through the conditioning our culture imposes on men, as a solution to keep women from being hysterical. According to mainstream social ideas, women are illogical and crazy when it comes to relationships and dating. Men engage in conscious maintenance as a way to “calm” women down so they can get what they want from their women partners (sex, attention, etc.).

This is why so many men are in a rush to cram their love and affection into holidays, birthdays, anniversaries. We don’t teach men or boys that day-to-day affection is equally, if not more important, than special dates.

And what has always been alarming to me is that this so-called maintenance of women has defined behavior that shouldn’t be considered “extra” in any kind of relationship or partnership. Acts of maintenance consist of behavior that should be inherent and the foundation of all relationships: basic human respect, affection and attention.

So, if men are taught about certain critical steps to keeping women happy, “duties” that are treated not as normal behavior, but as annoying, time-consuming steps, how does this make women feel?

My friends, who are or were dealing with e-maintaining, or even just dealing with good-old-fashioned maintaining, are left in a strange, emotional limbo. Women who are “maintained” by men, electronic or otherwise, are made to feel legitimate for short periods of time and then left to question their position with their partners, and sometimes themselves.

Are these women supposed to be happy with a guy who stays in touch every-so-often on his terms? Are they supposed to be satisfied when their spouse buys them an expensive piece of jewelry or remembers their anniversary? Even though their love and/or attention come in waves — inconsistent and sometimes abrupt — are my women friends ungrateful for expecting something more, something more substantial, something more basic? Does any form of maintaining make up for days, weeks, months, years of emotional silence from men?

We’ve always conditioned men to maintain women — this isn’t something new. What’s different is this “maintenance” has become completely electronic for some men, and the men doing the “maintaining” aren’t seeing or even making an effort to see the women they connecting with. Men are just texting, emailing or using social media to give the impression they are checking in or they care — in order to maintain these women.

For these men, the definition of “maintenance” has shifted from traditional strategies like sending gifts and engaging in the occasional dinner, drinks or movie, to this incredibly convenient and empty form of communication based on text messages, emails, and social media: e-maintaining. And it is a mode of communication that isn’t even based in reality.

For some of my women friends, this kind of texting/emailing communication was keeping them engaged until they discovered what e-maintaining really means.

Some of the men I spoke with didn’t even realize their e-maintaining of women was a pattern of behavior. Most of them admitted to doing it when they were bored: waiting at the doctor’s office, in bed at night when they couldn’t sleep, at the airport.

But many of these men knew exactly what they were doing.

“You can’t write about this, you are literally ruining the greatest scam of the century,” my friend Carlos told me over breakfast.

“What’s the scam?”

“I can keep these women satisfied by just texting or emailing. I don’t have to do anything else.”

“It’s like walking a dog, as soon as you do it, they just calm down,” a progressive friend (more on that later) told me via email that same day.

So why not move forward, especially if some of these women are willing to sleep with them?

“Its about options, possibilities,” a friend added.

“I do this because I don’t want to hear her bitching about how I just call about sex, so this way I have a history of having stayed in touch.”

My friend Josh gave an example, “Last Thanksgiving when everyone was out of town, I had someone to hookup with, we even went to the movies.”

In this age of digital communication (texting, Facebook, email), our way of connecting has obviously become more frivolous. While our random, electronic check-ins with friends are usually made with good intentions, the men who engage in e-maintaining don’t want to be friends with the women they text and email (the women don’t want friendship either), and more significantly, their texting is not filled with good intentions.

So, is e-maintaining ultimately about men and women placing different weight on communication? Do women believe that communication is about moving forward — are they being practical and mature? And do men see communication in this form in a more flippant manner, that it doesn’t necessarily lend legitimacy to their desired outcomes?

Is e-maintaining more evidence of gender imbalance in our culture? Does this virtual maintenance of women show the lack of respect our culture requires or expects men to have for women?

Last week, I checked in with Karen to see if she was still pining for Michael and frustrated by his e-maintaining.

She has moved on.

And from now on, Karen’s policy is very simple when it comes to communicating with the men she is interested in, “Where’s the beef?”

The lack of substance in an e-maintained relationship no longer satisfies her.

Yashar Ali is a Los Angeles-based columnist, commentator, and political veteran whose writings about women, gender inequality, political heroism, and society are showcased on his website, The Current Conscience. Please follow him on Twitter and join him on Facebook. 

He will be soon releasing our first short e-book, entitled, A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not Crazy — How We Teach Men That Women Are Crazy and How We Convince Women To Ignore Their Instincts. If you are interested and want to be notified when the book is released, please click here to sign-up.

Related Posts:
He Doesn’t Deserve Your Validation: Putting The Fake Orgasm Out of Business
A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not Crazy

by A.J. Focht

As if subjecting the demonstrators at #OccupyDenver to the horrors of hypothermia by refusing to allow them to erect shelter against the recent snow and harsh Colorado nights wasn’t bad enough, during the march held on Saturday October 29, the police used unnecessary force on the otherwise peaceful assembly.

Local Denver activist, @EisMC2 a.k.a Emmi Einstein spoke with SuicideGirls and gave us an account of the events of that day:

The march attracted upwards of 2,000 people to the Capitol at Civic Center Park. While the rally marched, Emmi and others stayed back at the #Occupy site to make sure things were running smoothly. She noticed early on that there were many more cops than the usual one or two that roam the park. When a SWAT team started to assemble, the group used the distraction to rebuild their camp. As the cops massed, Emmi noted one was filming the event .

After those on the march had returned to the park, the rally took a turn for the worse. Police moved into the park en mass, driving their motorcycles directly through the crowds. One police motorcyclist drove through a crowd of protestors, hitting one identified as Frank Roper. Roper shoved the bike in a fit of anger. The officer responded by chasing Roper down, tackling him, and proceeding to split his face in two. This is the event that seemed to trigger widescale police brutality on Saturday, and it was all caught on tape by a woman wanting to be known as Pinky Disaster – see video below.

That incident may have served as a catalyst, but it is clear from the video that police were moving in before it occurred. Law enforcement agencies, dressed in riot gear, were forcing their way through the protestors in unnecessarily large numbers. The officer whose bike was shoved could have just continued on, but he instead dismounted and proceeded to brutalize Roper until he required hospital attention; causing the subsequent disastrous chain of events.

Police admitted using Mace and firing pepper balls; protestors claim they were being hit with rubber bullets as well, and many witnessed police using excessive force with batons. Emmi watched things escalate quickly, even witnessing one man being choked by an officer while pinned to the ground. Some of the more terrifying reports include pregnant women getting pepper sprayed, and a kid (possibly identified as a 21-year-old who was filming the event) who was shot out of a tree by several projectiles (pepper balls or rubber bullets). Emmi herself – a 5’2” 95lb female – was pepper sprayed and beaten with a baton by a cop she identified by the badge #05100.

Many of the police on duty did not feel it was necessary to use such force, and instead attempted to keep things as peaceable as possible. Unconfirmed reports also surfaced online that two Denver police officers quit their jobs because of the attacks, and an unidentified source within #OccupyDenver said they witnessed one officer walking away from the riot line in tears saying he wouldn’t do it anymore.

The police made a big deal out of gearing up and loading the tear gas guns, but they never fired. Instead, they moved into the occupants’ encampment with gas masks and tore it down. Numerous #OccupyDenver protestors were arrested at this point as they tried to salvage anything from police grasp. All of the tents, the kitchen, the protest signs, and much more were taken by the police and tossed into a city dump truck.

The excessive force used on the protestors only kindled their spirits. After being down to under a dozen bodies staying on site 24/7, over fifty people stayed through the night on Saturday. And donations quickly came in to help make up for the movement’s losses. Unfortunately, despite donations of tents, occupants are still being forced to sleep without shelter.

Following the events on Saturday, the #OccupyDenver group held a sunset candlelight vigil on Sunday evening. The peaceful event was a collective stand against the violence of the previous night, and served as a chance to refocus the group back on the socioeconomic goals of the #OccupyWallStreet movement as a whole.

More images can be found at TannerSpendley.com.

By Nicole Powers

As Americans, we like to think of ourselves as advanced and sophisticated as a society. Yet, when it comes to issues of gender equality the numbers don’t lie –– there’s no escaping the fact that we’re pretty damn backwards.

Women make up 51% of the US population, yet hold just 16.6% of the seats in Congress and 17% of those in the Senate. Indeed, we rank 90th in the world in terms of the proportion of women in national parliaments, below Afghanistan, Cuba, China, Ethiopia, Iraq, and the Sudan!

Furthermore, in America, just 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. Similarly only 3% of positions of clout in the telecommunications, entertainment, publishing, and advertising industries are held by the fairer sex (pun intended). And this may be part of the problem, since those that are ultimately responsible for the aspirational messages we receive on a daily basis are predominantly male.

That’s not to say that the innate sexism that’s partly responsible for this power imbalance is necessarily malevolent or even intentional; the root of much of it is simply a lack of consciousness on all our parts. And to an extent, the state of play appears to be self-perpetuating, since a mere 16% of those responsible for Hollywood’s mass market dream machine (writers, directors, producers, cinematographers, and editors) are women, which in turn perhaps explains a similar lack of female protagonists/role models in feature films.

A much talked about new documentary, Miss Representation, which recently debuted on the OWN Network, does a very comprehensive job of exploring the underlying reasons for this vast leadership gender gap. The film features many prominent leading ladies including Nancy Pelosi, Condoleezza Rice, Dianne Feinstein, Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, Geena Davis, Rachel Maddow, Lisa Ling, and Katie Couric, whose powerful voices add strength to the message –– which is that a woman’s value is more than just the sum of her youth and beauty (as the mainstream media might have you believe).

SuicideGirls spoke with the driving force behind Miss Representation, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, who wrote, directed, and produced the exceptional cinematic gender essay. As a Stanford graduate, environmental and gender activist, actress, and mother –– who also happens to be the wife of the former Mayor of San Francisco, and current Lieutenant Governor of California, Gavin Newsom –- she’s had a front row seat watching what happens to women in power and how the media treats them, so perhaps has a greater understanding of the issues they face than most.

Read our exclusive interview with Jennifer Siebel Newsom on SuicideGirls.com.

by A.J. Focht

#Occupy protestors across the US are standing their ground as police and politicians do their best to drive them out. Out at the #OccupyDenver protest, the demonstrators remain unwavering despite the efforts of law enforcement agencies and Colorado’s bitter fall cold.

Following Denver’s first winter storm of the year on Wednesday, daily nighttime temperatures are consistently below freezing. The six inches of snow that accumulated wasn’t enough to defeat the #OccupyDenver crowd however. After a few protestors were admitted to the hospital for hypothermia, the group found a nearby indoor location where many of them can stay. Only a handful of steadfast activists are remaining in the park through freezing nights.

The cold isn’t the only adversary #OccupyDenver has faced. Local law enforcement refuses to allow the group to erect shelters, even going as far as to tear down an igloo that was made as a last attempt at protection against arctic weather. The food service station, dubbed the “Thunderdome” has been torn down several times; last time I checked they were on Thunderdome 4. With increasing aggressiveness on each raid, fears rise that the next police action will mirror what happened in Oakland.

The #OccupyDenver crowd has held several rallies. The last one was held on Saturday October 22, 2011 and attracted between 2,000 and 2,500 according to the police. The resistance continues, and more events are planned for this weekend. The cold has caused their general numbers to dwindle, but the consistent and persistent rallies ensure that they won’t be defeated.

#Occupy protests across the nation are accepting donations to help keep the movement strong. #OccupyDenver has sent out an urgent call to everyone who can help by bringing warm clothes, gear (including sleeping bags and tarps), and anything else that will help them combat the elements (hot drinks, hand warmers, etc.). The group keeps an up-to-date list of needs and requests at OccupyDenver.org, along with any updates on the event. If you want to join them, they are currently occupying Civic Center Park, in front of the Capitol Building. Finally, if you can’t make it down to support them, you can always call Denver Mayor Hancock at 720-865-9000 and add your voice to the collective.

No matter the brutal police violence in Oakland or the harsh nights of Colorado, the #Occupy movement is here to stay. Until the voice of the 99% is heard, and the 1% stop using their money to corrupt our government, the #Occupy movement will stand strong.

Images courtesy of OccupyDenver.org/
Huge gratitude to EisMC2 for her assistance with this post.

by Blogbot

Went down to @OccupyLA for the fourth Saturday in a row.

Again, a lot has changed in a week.

The camp now has a grand entrance, and has expanded to all sides of City Hall:

And the tents have expanded to multi-room bijou residences – welcome to Chateau #OWS West:

Some of the grander dwellings even have sculptures in their “front yard.”

Inside things could do with sprucing up though. While awaiting a major intervention from ABC’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, we’re putting SG in charge of the @OccupyLA interior design committee. Need air beds, fairy lights, shag pile rugs, and disco balls ASAP.

Otherwise, life is good. The #OccupyLA activity schedule is always packed:

There’s lots of opportunities for education (no student loans required!):

A newly established theater company:

The live music is pretty good too (just be wary of the dodgy drum circles, which are currently causing more distress to the #OWS movement than anything the 1% can do).

There’s a pumpkin patch for seasonal fruit — and political and corporate vegetables:

There’s lots of places to meditate on the finer points of campaign finance reform — like here:

And here — though a yoga instructor is wanted:

There’s a creche:

Because it’s important for kids to learn how democracy works:

Pets are welcome:

Though the onsite kitchen is temporarily shut down while awaiting Health & Safety permits, there’s still some pretty stylish dining opportunities. Today, someone donated the remainder of a wedding buffet, which came complete with exceedingly high class waiting staff:

There’s also an onsite coffee truck for latte liberals (like me):

The Bike Repair Shop is apparently where all the cool kids hangout:

And the media tent has gone solar (panels modeled by the lovely Gia):

Just one (minor) criticism: Protesting doesn’t make tie dye OK. You’ll never get taken seriously wearing that shit (sorry!).

Despite the odd dodgy fashion faux pas, every #OWS protester looks beautiful today:

I pity the fool that don’t fight for his [or her] rights:

And for financial reform – such the reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Act:

Many thanks to the fabulous Gia (a.k.a. @MissBrass) and all SG’s friends @OccupyLA for everything they’re doing on behalf of all us 99 Percenters.

Love You
XOX

by Yashar Ali

You’re so sensitive. You’re so emotional. You’re defensive. You’re overreacting. Calm down. Relax. Stop freaking out! You’re crazy! I was just joking, don’t you have a sense of humor? You’re so dramatic. Just get over it already!
Sound familiar?

If you’re a woman, it probably does.

Do you ever hear any of these comments from your spouse, partner, boss, friends, colleagues, or relatives after you have expressed frustration, sadness, or anger about something they have done or said?

When someone says these things to you, it’s not an example of inconsiderate behavior. When your spouse shows up half an hour late to dinner without calling — that’s inconsiderate behavior. A remark intended to shut you down like, “Calm down, you’re overreacting,” after you just addressed someone else’s bad behavior, is emotional manipulation — pure and simple.

And this is the sort of emotional manipulation that feeds an epidemic in our country, an epidemic that defines women as crazy, irrational, overly sensitive, unhinged. This epidemic helps fuel the idea that women need only the slightest provocation to unleash their (crazy) emotions. It’s patently false and unfair.

I think it’s time to separate inconsiderate behavior from emotional manipulation and we need to use a word not found in our normal vocabulary.

I want to introduce a helpful term to identify these reactions: gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a term, often used by mental health professionals (I am not one), to describe manipulative behavior used to confuse people into thinking their reactions are so far off base that they’re crazy.

The term comes from the 1944 MGM film, Gaslight, starring Ingrid Bergman. Bergman’s husband in the film, played by Charles Boyer, wants to get his hands on her jewelry. He realizes he can accomplish this by having her certified as insane and hauled off to a mental institution. To pull of this task, he intentionally sets the gaslights in their home to flicker off and on, and every time Bergman’s character reacts to it, he tells her she’s just seeing things. In this setting, a gaslighter is someone who presents false information to alter the victim’s perception of him or herself.

Today, when the term is referenced, it’s usually because the perpetrator says things like, “You’re so stupid” or “No one will ever want you,” to the victim. This is an intentional, pre-meditated form of gaslighting, much like the actions of Charles Boyer’s character in Gaslight, where he strategically plots to confuse Ingrid Bergman’s character into believing herself unhinged.

The form of gaslighting I’m addressing is not always pre-mediated or intentional, which makes it worse, because it means all of us, especially women, have dealt with it at one time or another.

Those who engage in gaslighting create a reaction — whether it’s anger, frustration, sadness — in the person they are dealing with. Then, when that person reacts, the gaslighter makes them feel uncomfortable and insecure by behaving as if their feelings aren’t rational or normal.

My friend Anna (all names changed to protect privacy) is married to a man who feels it necessary to make random and unprompted comments about her weight. Whenever she gets upset or frustrated with his insensitive comments, he responds in the same, defeating way, “You’re so sensitive. I’m just joking.”

My friend Abbie works for a man who finds a way, almost daily, to unnecessarily shoot down her performance and her work product. Comments like, “Can’t you do something right?” or “Why did I hire you?” are regular occurrences for her. Her boss has no problem firing people (he does it regularly), so you wouldn’t know that based on these comments, Abbie has worked for him for six years. But every time she stands up for herself and says, “It doesn’t help me when you say these things,” she gets the same reaction: “Relax; you’re overreacting.”

Abbie thinks her boss is just being a jerk in these moments, but the truth is, he is making those comments to manipulate her into thinking her reactions are out of whack. And it’s exactly that kind manipulation that has left her feeling guilty about being sensitive, and as a result, she has not left her job.

But gaslighting can be as simple as someone smiling and saying something like, “You’re so sensitive,” to somebody else. Such a comment may seem innocuous enough, but in that moment, the speaker is making a judgment about how someone else should feel.

While dealing with gaslighting isn’t a universal truth for women, we all certainly know plenty of women who encounter it at work, home, or in personal relationships.

And the act of gaslighting does not simply affect women who are not quite sure of themselves. Even vocal, confident, assertive women are vulnerable to gaslighting.

Why?

Because women bare the brunt of our neurosis. It is much easier for us to place our emotional burdens on the shoulders of our wives, our female friends, our girlfriends, our female employees, our female colleagues, than for us to impose them on the shoulders of men.

It’s a whole lot easier to emotionally manipulate someone who has been conditioned by our society to accept it. We continue to burden women because they don’t refuse our burdens as easily. It’s the ultimate cowardice.

Whether gaslighting is conscious or not, it produces the same result: it renders some women emotionally mute.

These women aren’t able to clearly express to their spouses that what is said or done to them is hurtful. They can’t tell their boss that his behavior is disrespectful and prevents them from doing their best work. They can’t tell their parents that, when they are being critical, they are doing more harm than good.

When these women receive any sort of push back to their reactions, they often brush it off by saying, “Forget it, it’s okay.”

That “forget it” isn’t just about dismissing a thought, it is about self-dismissal. It’s heartbreaking.

No wonder some women are unconsciously passive aggressive when expressing anger, sadness, or frustration. For years, they have been subjected to so much gaslighting that they can no longer express themselves in a way that feels authentic to them.

They say, “I’m sorry,” before giving their opinion. In an email or text message, they place a smiley face next to a serious question or concern, thereby reducing the impact of having to express their true feelings.

You know how it looks: “You’re late :)”

These are the same women who stay in relationships they don’t belong in, who don’t follow their dreams, who withdraw from the kind of life they want to live.

Since I have embarked on this feminist self-exploration in my life and in the lives of the women I know, this concept of women as “crazy” has really emerged as a major issue in society at large and an equally major frustration for the women in my life, in general.

From the way women are portrayed on reality shows, to how we condition boys and girls to see women, we have come to accept the idea that women are unbalanced, irrational individuals, especially in times of anger and frustration.

Just the other day, on a flight from San Francisco to Los Angeles, a flight attendant who had come to recognize me from my many trips asked me what I did for a living. When I told her that I write mainly about women, she immediately laughed and asked, “Oh, about how crazy we are?”

Her gut reaction to my work made me really depressed. While she made her response in jest, her question nonetheless makes visible a pattern of sexist commentary that travels through all facets of society on how men view women, which also greatly impacts how women may view themselves.

As far as I am concerned, the epidemic of gaslighting is part of the struggle against the obstacles of inequality that women constantly face. Acts of gaslighting steal their most powerful tool: their voice. This is something we do to women every day, in many different ways.

I don’t think this idea that women are “crazy,” is based in some sort of massive conspiracy. Rather, I believe it’s connected to the slow and steady drumbeat of women being undermined and dismissed, on a daily basis. And gaslighting is one of many reasons why we are dealing with this public construction of women as “crazy.”

I recognize that I’ve been guilty of gaslighting my women friends in the past (but never my male friends — surprise, surprise). It’s shameful, but I’m glad I realized that I did it on occasion and put a stop to it.

While I take total responsibility for my actions, I do believe that I, along with many men, am a byproduct of our conditioning. It’s about the general insight our conditioning gives us into admitting fault and exposing any emotion.

When we are discouraged in our youth and early adulthood from expressing emotion, it causes many of us to remain steadfast in our refusal to express regret when we see someone in pain from our actions.

When I was writing this piece, I was reminded of one of my favorite Gloria Steinem quotes, “The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn, but to unlearn.”

So for many of us, it’s first about unlearning how to flicker those gaslights and learning how to acknowledge and understand the feelings, opinions, and positions of the women in our lives.

But isn’t the issue of gaslighting ultimately about whether we are conditioned to believe that women’s opinions don’t hold as much weight as ours? That what women have to say, what they feel, isn’t quite as legitimate?

Yashar Ali is a Los Angeles-based columnist, commentator, and political veteran whose writings about women, gender inequality, political heroism, and society are showcased on his website, The Current Conscience. Please follow him on Twitter and join him on Facebook.

If you are interested and want to be notified when the book is released, please click here to sign-up.

Related Posts:
He Doesn’t Deserve Your Validation: Putting The Fake Orgasm Out of Business

by Nicole Breanne

Guys, the Republican Debate in Las Vegas, Nevada happened Tuesday night…I’m writing about it now because I needed all of Wednesday to process what the fuck happened. Here are the highlights:

Michelle Bachmann, who is completely batshit crazy and was dressed like a sea captain for some reason, unleashed her “double wall” plan. She was very proud of the fact that she’s the only candidate to sign a plan with a double wall to protect our borders from illegal crossings. Michelle Bachmann is campaigning on the “double bag it” platform. It doesn’t work on condoms and it ain’t gonna work on illegal border jumping. Go back to your padded cell.

Ron Paul was there, and reminds me of that crazy uncle that is always invited to family gatherings though all anyone does is talk about how crazy he is and how they have no idea why they still allow him to come around. They just let him putter around in his boxer shorts and tattered robe talking to himself because he’s family. So he was there. Earlier in the day, he had talked to Wolf Blitzer about how he wants to get rid of five government cabinet positions and their associated agencies to cut $1 trillion from the budget including the Department of Energy and Department of Education –– cause who needs those? At the debate he brought up that time that Ronald Regan negotiated with terrorists and how no one held it against him. You guys remember that right? Regan negotiating with terrorists?

Next is Herman Cain, who scares me. His ideas are ludicrous and there’s a video of him singing “Imagine There’s No Pizza” set to the tune of the idealistic John Lennon classic. To top his crazy ass pizza off, he was quoted as saying: “Jesus was killed by a liberal court.” He also stated in a paper called The Perfect Conservative that “He (Jesus) helped the poor without one government program. He healed the sick without a government health care system. He fed the hungry without food stamps.” Continuing, Cain also noted that, “For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check.” Maybe that’s because none of that existed, but I digress.

So at the debate everyone went apeshit over Cain’s 9-9-9 plan –– which sadly didn’t involve 9-inch pizzas with 9 toppings for $9.99. No Cain’s 9-9-9 plan involves 9% corporate business flat tax, 9% income flat tax and a 9% national sales tax. Everyone then jumped on how stupid this plan is. Rick Perry implied that it’s actually going to cost people more (which it will). Howard Cain explains it as “Mixing apples and oranges. State tax is an apple we are replacing apples with oranges. We are replacing current tax codes with oranges.” Well, thank Christ Herman, because I was worried about our vitamin C intake! Are Republican’s allergic to coherent explanations?

Moving on to Mitt Romney, he explained Romneycare, which is basically Obamacare. In fact lots of Republican’s were pissed at Mitt because his advisors told Obama how to put together Obamacare. So Mitt says, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Romney care works great. Massachusetts loves it,” but he would “never impose this on the nation”. Yeah man, don’t impose a working system on a nation that’s ranked below numerous so-called third world countries for healthcare. That’s madness!!!

But now we come to the big dogs, the main event: ROMNEY vs. PERRY. These dudes hate each other, and they don’t even try to hide it. Mitt Romney touched Rick Perry. Now that doesn’t sound like a big deal, but you do not touch your opponent during a debate. You do not place your hands on someone to get them to stop talking like they are a 5-year old upset about someone stealing their ball at recess. Romney then followed up this condescending gesture with this condescending quote: “You have a problem with letting people finish speaking. If you want to President you need to learn how to let both sides finish.” I’m sorry Mitt Romney, but your vast knowledge on how to be President comes from where? If you want to be President, maybe you should keep your pompous holier than thou attitude in check.

My favorite part of the debate was the moment Rick Perry brought up the fact that Mitt Romney employed illegals to work at his property as gardeners. Guys, I know it’s shocking, right? So Romney continues to mess with Texas, he does not give a fuck! He’s like, “Listen Tex!” OK, he didn’t exactly say that, but in my version of the debate he totally did. What he did say was that when he found out about the undocumented workers he confronted the company and told them, “Look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property. I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake.”

Wow, just wow. Drop the mic and walk off stage ‘cause it is over. Let me break down that quote that Republican Presidential candidate said on national TV at a debate:

• Part 1: “You can’t have any illegals working on our property.”

  He doesn’t say, “You can’t hire illegals period.” He says you just can’t have them on his property…which brings us to part two:

• Part 2: “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake.”

  In other words the exploitation of immigrants for two bucks an hour would be totally fine if I wasn’t being looked at under a microscope. Where does it end Romney? “Get these drugs outta my house I’m running for office for Pete’s sake!” “Get that Tijuana stripper and donkey out of my back room, I’m running for office for Pete’s sake!” Guys, it’s gonna be epic at Romney’s house after he’s done running for office.

This campaign has more bad acting, dialogue, and action than a Stallone movie franchise. I cannot wait for PERRY and ROMNEY in REPUBLICAN DEBATE IX!