Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.
Feel free to contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Grover Cleveland "Pete" Alexander GOLD STAR #9: Republican Offenders
What a great site. All the right-wing hypocrites, law-breakers, thieves, adulterers, molesters, and maleficence-makers in one handy place! This sight documents all of the Republican Wrongdoing over the years, focusing on the highest ranking members and influential leaders within the party, and the more powerful lobbyists that they're associated with them.
My favorite part might just be his answer to the question, Why not a list of Democrat Offenders? Great stuff. Worth a read for that answer alone! LOL.
It has its share of fun, and takes a few cheap shots (usually preceded by a "cheap shot alert!") but overall it's fairly exhaustive in scope, with more than enough depth to be a useful reference when pointing out Right-Wing hypocrisy. (Granted, finding Right-Wing hypocrisy is about as difficult as putting on a hat, but some of these RW clowns out there still insist on links and references and this site has one for just about everyone who's anyone in the Republican Party.
For reference, previous inductees include:
Ty Cobb's GOLD STAR #1: Media Matters for America
Babe Ruth's GOLD STAR #2: The Skeptic's Dictionary
Honus Wagner's GOLD STAR #3: Snopes
Walter Johnson GOLD STAR #4: Armchair Subversive
Christy Mathewson GOLD STAR #5: Humanism by Joe
Cy Young's GOLD STAR #6: The American Prospect
Nap Lajoie's GOLD STAR #7: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity
Tris Speaker's GOLD STAR #8: Rational Wiki
Next month will include 4 more Gold Stars, and 3 Stars of *ahem* lesser metal. Should be fun!
Saturday, November 28, 2009
It was fairly uneventful in a very good way. Not exactly what I'd call relaxing, but we did have Thanksgiving dinner in a tiny farmhouse sitting on 250 acres in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Not a bad place to take the boys for an after-dinner stroll. :)
But I wanted to share something with you all that I'm not exactly sure how to take. On our last day in Lynchburg, we ate breakfast at a 50's-style diner called "DOC's". It is located ON the Liberty University Campus. For those that don't know, Liberty University was founded in 1971 by none other than his holy hypocrisy, the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Easily one of my 10 least favorite people on Earth, when he was still on Earth. And if I had my way, Liberty University would be burned to the ground, along with Bob Jones College, Regent University and Oral Roberts University. (And any other "school" that teaches any form of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom.) (I'd burn down the "Creation Museum" in KY as well!) That being said, one might wonder why I'd spend any of my hard-earned money there. Well... first off, I didn't know where it was (or who owned it) when we agreed to meet my brother-in-law and his family there for breakfast. Also... he paid. So none of my money went there. I did get a free car-sticker:
Of course... I'll be dancing naked in the 9th circle of HELL before I drive around with a Liberty University ANYTHING on my car, but still: Good for a laugh!
Thing is... while we were in there, trying to keep our breakfast down sitting amongst tacky, larger than life-sized murals of the Reverend Falwell *barf*, I noticed a few things that I found... rather odd. And I'm not talking about the picture of Falwell being hoisted up by the Basketball team so he could cut down the net! (WTF? What, did Liberty win the Class-C Evangelical Invitational or something?!) No... I mean something rather... IRONIC, considering the setting.
Now, like I said, this place was ON the Liberty Campus. And it was called "DOC's" because apparently that was Falwell's nickname amongst the students. And the menu was (supposedly) full of his favorite stuff. I'll give the portly, hypocritical, cardiac case this much: The FOOD was excellent! But as were eating, I take a look at my kid's "kiddie-cups" and what do I see? A WIZARD. A medieval SORCERER! Seriously! And, no, he wasn't being burned at the stake or anything! In fact he was helping a knight fight a Dragon! Aren't these the same nutcases who boycotted D&D back in the '80s and Harry Potter much more recently?! And the picture on the cup was actually a GAME: Help the Wizard find the six magical stones! MAGICAL STONES?! WTF?! These people are now teaching childeren about MAGICLA STONES? When the fuck did that start happening?!
OK... So, at first, I thought I might just be reading too much into it. Or who knows, maybe someone made a mistake? But then I look over the KID'S MENU. The second item (basically a Burger-n-Fries combo) is called the "TINKY WINKIE!!!" Again, for those who don't know, Tinky Winky is the Purple Teletubby that caused all kinds of controversy a few years back, amongst people like his blessed insanity, the Revered Jerry Falwell, because supposedly he was GAY. That's right: TINKY WINKY was the GAY TELETUBBY and they named the second item on the KID'S MENU in a JERRY FALWELL-themed diner ON LIBERTY U. CAMPUS after him!
So... Either the people who run this place are actually more like thee and me and they're poking a little fun at the late Preacher and the students who took his verbal incontinence seriously enough to pay him tuition -OR- these Christian Funny-Mentalists have WAY MORE of a sense of humor than I ever gave them credit for!
Not sure. We had a good laugh (and a GREAT heaping stack of Pancakes!) either way!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Nah, not really... But I am defining where my limits are. The thing is that no political ideology in and of itself is a virtue. There is nothing inherently bad about trending conservative or inherently good about trending liberal. And I would be a hypocrite if I were to bash the Right and the Conservatives and the Republicans for using their ideology to justify their position, or essentially thinking that being conservtaive MAKES one or one's positions right, if I weren't willing to call out some liberals. Or... put differently if I'm going to say that it's not the ideology but rather the extremes that we're seeing lately, then I've got to determine where I draw the line on our side. At what point does liberal extremism become dysfuntional?
So here my list of liberals, or at a minumum people or groups that the conservatives associate with liberals, that I REALLY DON'T LIKE!
10. P.E.T.A.(Vegans, Militant Vegitarians, etc…)
Let me say right of the bat that I have no problem with the idea that causing animals unecessary harm is wrong. I’m a dog lover myself, and hearing about cruelty to dogs (Michael Vick, etc...) often makes me more angry than hearing about all the horrible stuff humans do to one another. The reason I don't like these people is that they take this basically good idea and take it WAAAY too far. The minute you tell me that I am bad because I eat meat, or wear leather – the minute you start telling ME about how I should live MY life - you have adopted the worst behavior of religion.
If YOU don’t want to eat meat FOR WHATEVER REASON (you think it’s unhealthy, immoral, bad luck… Whatever! I don't care!) I promise you I will never ridicule that belief, and will never try to talk you to into doing otherwise. I WILL RESPECT YOUR BELIEFS. But the minute you try to push it on me, you are going to get the same SMACK-DOWN that I give to anyone trying to shove religion down my throat. I like steak. I like pork. I like Chicken, Fish, Duck, Lamb, Goat, Snake, Pheasant, Deer, Boar, and Ostrich. And if we’re going to cook steaks, the very idea that we should THROW AWAY THE SKIN, as opposed to making leather out of it is UTTERLY INSANE!!! (Didn’t you people learn anything form the American Indians?!)
Now… Fur? I’ll agree with you. It’s ugly, gaudy, and if we aren’t willing to eat it (I’ve never eaten Fox, Racoon or Mink, and I’m guessing I won’t anytime soon) we probably shouldn’t be wearing it. That being said, (and I realize that I'm going beyond strictly PETA here...)THROWING PAINT ON PEOPLE’S COATS IS UTTERLY INSANE, AND YOU SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR IT AS WELL AS PAY DAMAGES! First of all – if it’s a really good synthetic you may not be able to tell. Second of all, THE ANIMAL IS ALREADY DEAD!!! If you want to prevent the killing, do what LAW ABIDING liberals do: Protest the manufactures, organize boycotts and lobby congress to pass stricter laws!
Now granted, a lot of the behaviors I'm describing here are not officially PETA actions. I get that. I'm lumping in some rather beligerant individuals into this one along with them. And the naked protests? Yeah, I totally dig that! And yes, I realize that they DO, in fact "Protest the manufactures, organize boycotts and lobby congress to pass stricter laws." But that sums up why I feel they've gone off the deep end, and have ended up urting their cause: By worrying about minute stuff, or by dabbling in the extreme - and trying to turn the entire world into herbivores is extreme - they lose a lot of credability that could be used to meanigfully address serious problems, like Dogfighting, Ear Cropping/Tail Docking, Pet Adoption... or many of the very issues they're trying to focus on. The "shock and awe" stuff makes for good posters and PSA's, but it's poison for a politician.
(And seriously: If you expected to belive that we shouldn't eat HONEY, because it EXPLOITS THE BEES?! You're fucking insane!)
9. Gay Pride Parades
I'm sure this one surprises most people, as I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals, am an ardent supporter of equal rights, including gay marriage, and for the anti-discrimination laws protecting them. So this is NOT about the idea that people should march, or be public about their political demands. Not at all. It's not about the idea of having a parade...
My beef is with the half-naked, leather studded, S&M, Villaige People looking whack-jobs that seem to make up the majority of the marchers in the gay pride parades these days, particularly in big cities. (New York, San Fran, etc...) By making yourself into a public spectacle of the very stereotype that the Religious Right wants mainstream America to perceive the gay communtiy as, you destroy all the progress made by the other 99.999% of the homosexual community that is otherwise indistinguishable from everybody else. By dressing up like a bunch of weirdoes you help the religious right portray the entire gay community as a bunch of weirdoes. Now: I still happen to think that weirdoes deserve equal rights. But, sadly, the majority of Americans do not. I don’t care if you want to wear that stuff, doing whatever with whomever (limited to consenting adults, of course) but when it’s on such a public, in-your-face display for political purposes it makes any real political progress that much harder.
And besides: these people are NOT representative of the gay community! I've been friends with and have worked with MANY homosexuals in my life and NONE OF THEM EVER HAD PEACOCK FEATHERS STICKING OUT OF THEIR ASS! It’s great theatre, but it’s helping the Right make the argument to mainstream America that homosexuals are “the other” and thus don’t deserve the same rights and protections as 'normal americans.'
You want to march? Please do. Carry your rainbow flags, and your ♀/♂ signs, chant your slogans… You know: Do what EVERYBODY does when they protest or march. All I ask is the you dress the way that you would normally dress... to go to work, or the movies or the market. Millions of people in your own community are suffering because you want to march looking like an lavish Las Vegas Drag Act!!!
Again: By going to far, you harm a very important cause!
8. Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton
I got in deep trouble with a poster named "Barry Bonds" on MMFA for arguing this one!
Let me say this right up front: There IS still racism in this country. It's been out in force since 1/20/09. But, just as President Obama said, we need to get beyond the idea that EVERYTHING is about race. President Obama gets it. These clowns do not. The pre-1960's brand of Institutional racism is GONE. Being racist these days is considered a BAD THING. So... WE’VE MADE PROGRESS!!! A LOT! Kids being raised today are being brought up in the most diverse classrooms anywhere in the world at anytime in human history. My (white-christian) son’s two best friends in school last year were Ahmed (arab-muslim) and Sohaum (Indian-hindu). You think these guys have even a fraction of the racism in them that even my generation did? And as it was we had but a fraction of that of our parents… Who had but a fraction of that of their parents… So while there IS still racism, the problem has evolved. And yet these guys act like people are still getting fire-hoses and attack dogs turned on them.
When I hear either of these men speak, I can't help but wonder what the hell they would DO with themselves if racism truly DID disappear. Seriously, what woud they DO?! IMHO, they have made a living and a life off of this problem, and I seriously don't think they really want it to truly go away! They achieved too much fame and fortune fighting it! Personally? I think if they could wave a magic wand and either (1) make us all the same color or (2) Elighten us all, so that we can all understand and appreciate our mutual differences, I truly believe that either of them would instead (3) Snap that wand over their knee.
No progress on racial issues will be made with these two involved.
Man is causing global warming. That’s a fact. Look it up. Species are disappearing at an alarming rate, due to our actions and we should stop it. Deforrestaion? Big problem. Habitat destruction? Yep, that too. Whaling… yeah, that should be banned immediately. No-brainer that one. As should using shark-fins without eating the rest of the shark.
That being said, the outrageous actions taken by Greenpeace and other, even more extreme, eco-terrorist groups end up dragging down the image of the seious, law-abiding, academic, scientists that study climate change and other ecological issues. Your efforts are counter-productive. My advice for you is the same as that for PETA: Organize Boycotts, stage protests and LOBBY THE GOVERNMENT(S)! That's the only way any prgress can be made on these problems. A bunch of guys floating in the antartic ocean on a raft? Looks like piracy to me. Open fire.
6. Michael Moore
I won't call him the "Rush Limbaugh of the left" - that's as disingenuous as describing MSNBC as "just the liberal verison of Fox" - but I honestly can't think of a BETTER way to describe him. He starts with good ideas and then goes WAAAAAY off the deep end with them. During the Auto-Bailout talks, he’s actually suggested nationalizing the auto industry! Communism anyone? He does make some interesting films, that ask some really important questions. But I don’t think he has any more idea than Rush Limbaugh does what it really takes to run a country, or an economy, or a company.
The thing is... 10-20 minutes into any one of his movies, I'm thinkninng, "GOOD POINT! Go get 'em, Mikey!" The problem is that by 90-110 minutes, I'm so numb from propaganda overload that I can't wait to hit the Conservtive blogs to get their refutation of it! It's overkill! And what's more - he's pretty famous at this point for deceptively cropping his interview clips and deceptively editing his films. And while he can make his point anyway he wants... by doing things this way, he actually WEAKENS the whole argument! If you ask a question, LET ME HEAR THE WHOLE ANSWER! And if the answer refutes your argument, use some time to debunk ot thoroughly! By obviously cutting it short, and then not dealing with it, I'm left with the impression that you wouldn;t have been able to respond to his point! I had the same complaint about Bill Maher in Religilous, so you could include him in this one as well. I use Moore because he's more well know, but all this applies to Maher as well.
Moore is great at getting liberals upset about issues and conservtaives upset about Michael Moore, and liberals in general but again: IMHO, it's counter productive politically.
5. Partisan Political Celebrity Commentary (Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Matt Damon, etc…)
Mister Robbins? Shawshank Redepmtion was one of the greatest movies ever made. But your lot did NOTHING to help John Kerry's ’04 campaign. I’ve never met a single person that voted ‘Kerry’ because Susan Sarandon told them to. But there's probably no shortage of people who voted ‘Bush’ in 2004, just because Susan Sarandon told them to vote for John Kerry.
Celebrities, please understand: I have no problem with you getting involved in social causes. In fact, it’s my belief that every celebrity should lend their voice and support to a cause they believe in. Your celebrity can do a LOT of good to raise money for medical research, or bring attention to an issue that’s not getting enough attention. But when you become so politically vocal on matters of partisan policy, during the election cycle, you do great harm to your own candidate. The only reason you didn’t sink Obama was that he didn’t need your help to win. I don’t think you cost John Kerry the election in ’04 – he had an uphill climb as it was, and (I think) ran a milquetoast campaign – but I seriosuly don’t think you helped any.
4. Product Liability Industry
It’s not that I think that companies that knowingly put out unsafe products, or pollute the environment or are guilty of gross negligence shouldn't pay up. They should. And we need lawyers to make them. No problems there. And, BTW, we don’t need tort reform. That’s a bunch of nonsense spewed by right-wing industry-whores to confuse people who don’t really understand the law, or what 'tort' even means. BUT – I have a serious problem with the INDUSTRY that has grown up around product liability.
The biggest problem is that SCIENCE holds almost no sway in the court room. You see… a lawer doen’t have to PROOVE, SCIENTIFICALLY that a given product caused a given problem. Occasionally they get it right (Tobacco’s link to cancer.) But they’re never let lack of evidence get in the way of a “good case.” Silicone Breast Implants? Perfectly safe. Vaccines? DON’T CAUSE AUTISM (the court’s have finally gotten that right, but it really never should have even been heard because the anti-vaccine crowd didn’t have a scrap of valid evidence!) And the list of companies that have been successfully sued, because some lawyer confused 12 relatively uneducated jurors with a bunch of hooey and junk science, and been forced to pay out MILLIONS, costing jobs and sometimes sinking the company, only later to have scienctist finally determine that the product wasn’t causing any problems at all... is a lengthy one. Frivolous lawsuits will NEVER stand up to scientific reasoning. Unfortunately court rooms are largely allergic to science.
3. Cindy Sheehan
I'm against the Iraq War. Was from the beginning. Never supported it. Closest I came was for about 20 minutes following Colin Powell's UN speech, and even then WAR still didn't seem like the right option, especailly the way we were gooing about it. So why is Cindy Sheehan on this list? Well... as hard as it was to seperate out all the Right Wing's lies and distortions about her (and MMFA was very helpful with that) I was still left with the impression that, after awhile, it was really about about publicity. Hey: Maybe I'm worng. But it seems to me that she had her chance, had her 15 minutes, it passed and she just didn't want to let it go. It not her fault that Fox slandered her as much as they did - and there;s no love lost between me and Fox - but she was setting herself up as the spokeperson for the anti-war movement, and she just wasn't the right person for that job. Again, like so many others, I feel she ended up doing more harm than good to a very important cause.
2. Rod Blagojevick, Elliot Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick, James Trafficant etc…
Not really liberals per se, but... Corrupt Democrats give liberals a bad name. These guys should be ousted form the party, and blacklisted from politics, legal practice and media commentary. There is no place in any issue for a disgraced politician. And BTW – I’ll give Bill Clinton a pass, even though I never voted for the man: He cheated on his wife, he DID NOT abuse his office! His impeachment was a shameful power-grab by the Republicans and it forever lowered the standard of what is an impeachable offense to something the ALMOST EVERY POLITICAN could meet. You do not overthrow an elected government over a blow-job. To think otherwise is to be a moron! But these clowns? They hurt the Deomcratic party and the Liberal movement more that than any republican or conservtive ever could. Even if there are 10 crooked republicans for evey crooked democrat, corruption is something I'd gladly let THEM have a monopoly on!
1. Alan Colmes
Number ONE?! YES. Number ONE. The spineless, ineffectual sellout who gave percieved credability to Hannity and Colmes all those years, yet never ONCE really nailed Sean Hannity in a debate on ANY ISSUE! That HAD to be in his contract - let Sean win - because beating Sean Hannity in a debate is about as difficult as putting on a hat! Whether his nightly wuss-routine was due to genetics or 30 pieces of silver matters little to me. Hannity makes conservatives look bad. So does Beck, Savage, O'Rielly, Limabugh... But Alan Comles made LIBERALS look bad. And I cannot forgive him for that.
Now... If anyone out there feels I'm way off the mark here, or that I'm just buying into all the Right Wing media propaganda? PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I'm not the kind who can't admit he's mistaken. But like I said - If I'm going to bash conservatives for thinking that extremisim in their ideology is a virtue, then I've got to make an intellectually honest attempt to draw the line somewhere on our side. So there you go.
(Bracing for liberal backlash) Now LET ME HAVE IT! LOL.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
I've made no secret of the fact that I love MMFA. I love that they call out the Right's lies, that they debunk the myth of the Liberal Media and (of course) that they're LIBERAL.
I love them MORE SO because while they're liberal, they manage to keep partisan politics out of a lot of their commentary. No, they do! Really! I'll explain: They mostly limit their editorial content to criticism of journalistic practices and many sources lack of journalistic ethics.
When they do a global warming article, or Congressional Budget article, or a Gay Right article, for example, they pretty much never actually advocate for the liberal position. Rather, they show how the issue if be misrepresented or deceptively framed, and show either conservative bias (in a supposedly liberal media) or the demostrable falsehood being presented. They criticise the coverage, without advocating for the position. They show you why the story is slanted or false without trelling you WHAT to think. (Only HOW to think!) It's objective, it's effective and I LIKE IT!
But there is another reason I like MMFA: The posters.
First off, most of the liberal posters (many of whom comment here regularly, thank you very much for that, btw!) have positions accross the board that I can relate to. And that goes beyond simply being liberal. (I DO NOT believe that something is inherently good just because it's "liberal." That's largely a mental disorder of conservtaives.) But I just don't find a lot of liberal extremeists there. (And to prove that I do believe there IS such a thing, and just to show the con's that I'm NOT one, my next post will be something alont the lines of "10 liberals I hate," but we'll leave that for now.) Basically I find their liberal posters to be very reasonable and to hold positions that I largely share. (And where some of the lib's there DO lean consrvative, even THAT is on some of the same issues as I do: Death Penalty, Gun Control, Jassie Jackson and Al Sharpton... just to name a few.)
But that's only half of it.
In addition to having some of the best LIBERAL posters, I have to admit that they've drawn in the very best CONSERVTAIVE POSTERS as well. And I know. I've looked on other boards, particularly conservative and even on ostensibly non-partisan boards, and the level of politcial discourse there is somewhere between neanderthal and thuggery. And as tough as I am on the regular Conservative posters over on MediaMatters (and I certainly don't hold back!) I find that they really do they best job, as far as posters go, pretty much anywhere on the web, of arguing the conservtaive position. That's not to say that any of them have ever actually influenced me... But at one point or another, every one of them has made me THINK. And I appreciate that. Plus I respect anyone who can gop into the "lion's den" and advocate for the christians, so to speak. (Think 'Romnan Coloseum' if you don't get the joke there.)
But seriously, I truly believe that the conservative posters on MMFA are among the best that are out there. You guys keep coming back, despite all the abuse, and you keep making GOOD POINTS, at least relative to the morons posting everywhere else. And you really keep the conversation hopping. So I want to give a profound THANK YOU to all the Conservative over there that I've locked horns with, for all the spirtied debate over the past couple of years:
OSCAR THE GROUCH
TRUTH AND JUSTICE (that guy was a trip! what ever happened to him?)
Hopefully, I didn't forget anyone. Anyway, THANK you guys, for the all the spirited debate.
Now... I don't plan to go any easier on you, and I hope you never feel the need to pull your punches with me, but it's been so much FUN going at it with you guys, and you're a HUGE part of why I've stuck around on that board, where I've just given up (in boredom) on so many others.
And for all my LIBERAL friends? (Oh God, I hope y'all know who you are!) I can't even start to name you off, becasue there are too just many to count. (Although thank you especially to Brabantio, DellDolly and Conchobhar for your regular contibutions to THIS blog!) (And if I'm leaving anyone out, it's becuase I don't know what your handle is over on MMFA!)
Anyway I LIVE for debate. And while it's nice to know I have people who see the world the same way I do, it's also very nice to have worthy adversarties.
So THANK YOU.
Monday, November 9, 2009
I want to say something about Fort Hood first. Every day more and more right wingers conclude that this was "terrorism" because the shooter was "religiously motivated," largely on the basis that every day more and more right wingers conclude that this was "terrorism" because the shooter was "religiously motivated." Now... as if that wasn't bad enough...
I'm on the way home, listening to NPR. They're reading letters from their viewers and there was one from a LIBERAL who was "appalled" that NPR suggested that Religion and/or Politics MAY HAVE influenced or motivated the shooter. (Or may they were "disgusted" as the suggestion, I can't exactly remember.)
Now... earlier today I was arguing that the Liberal position was NOT that religion/politics played NO role, but rather that it is TOO EARLY to conclude anything and that EVERYONE should wait for the Military to conduct their investigation. Now... I HOPE that I was not overestimating the common sense possessed by the average Liberal, and that NPR merely picked THAT ONE letter because it was contrary to the others. Because it really IS too early to conclude ANYTHING! It's as absurd to say that Religion played NO ROLE, more so really, than it is to conclude with any certainty that this was an act of TERRORISM. The fact is that there are MANY questions that NEED to be explored. Nothing should be ruled in or out at this point from either side. So let's ALL take a deep breath and let the Army do it's job, K?
Something else is bothering me too. I was posting the other day on the Detroit Tiger's Fan Club Forum to promote my new All-Time Teams Baseball Blog, having just finished the All-time Tigers (if you're a baseball fan, check it out, let me know what you think) and I came across a message about how "Obama's #$%@ Health Plan passed!" Now, putting aside...
1) That this is a BASEBALL board, and not a place to discuss partisan politics. (It looks like they've since taken the post down, which shows some good sense on the part of the moderators.) (Same goes for my other blog as well: keep the politics HERE.)
2) It's not a LAW yet, it's just passed the first of several votes that will be needed. (So the poster fails Civics 101, on top of it.)
There was one part that REALLY pissed me off. He said, "The government couldn't even distribute enough H1N1 Vaccine, now they're going to run the entire Health Care system!"
AGAIN... putting aside that no version of ANY of the health care bills ever amounted to an anything CLOSE to a "government takeover" of the health care system...
It was not the GOVERNMENT that's caused the shortages of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is only involved at all because PRIVATE ENTERPRISE failed to develop it in time and PRIVATE ENTERPRISE failed to make enough to meet the demand. So the Gov't is involved only to make sure that those with the greatest MEDICAL NEED get it first, rather than those with the greatest financial means. They are REACTING to the shortage, not CAUSING it! If H1N1 was a failure, iot was a filure of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
And WHICH party has all the politicians that were obstructing all the funding that would have allowed for better production and distribution? Yeah: That would be the, da-da-dahhh: REPUBLICANS.
You got to love how the Right makes themselves into an obstacle at every turn, and then has the nerve to claim that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS can't get anything done. What makes me SICK is how many ignorant dupes (American voters) keep falling for it time and time and time again! And who's the most complicit in enabling all this nonsense? Our great liberally biased media.
Friday, November 6, 2009
This was just too shitty a day to be jovial.
I woke up to the news out at Fort Hood.
As if that travesty wasn't enough, far be it for the RIGHT to miss a chance to distort the facts about a National Tragedy for Political gains. Traitorous, un-American, fucking scumbags.
And after a whole day of hearing half the country MISS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT, I get to drive home to economic reports about unemployment going over 10%.
Here the thing about that... The right blames OBAMA, and says to stop "blaming the previous administration for these things!" (Even though he's been in office 10 months and this recession started almost TWO YEARS ago!) But you know the LAST time unemployment went over 10%? You know was President? REAGAN. And WHO controlled the Senate? THE REPUBLICANS. And even though that was well over a full year into HIS administration, how many conservatives, when presented with those HISTORICAL FACTS, immediately try to blame all THAT on the PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION?! Yeah.. that would be ALL OF THEM.
See, they not only traitorous scumbags, but hypocritical, whiny little bitches to boot.
OK... Bitch session over...
Here's what I wanted to do for my Friday fun, but I was in way too shitty a mood to do it right. I wanted to include a few of my favorite quotes from the campaign trail, some of which were rather unintentionally hilarious. Well, I can't do THAT, but here are a just a few of my fav's overall, anyway. (And I've used all of them on MMFA multiple times, so I'm afraid this will be nothing new to those who already know me.)
"When they stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them."
~Adlai Stephenson-D, c.1952 (about the Republicans, as if you needed to know.)
Scary how apt that still is, fifty-seven years later!
"I don't want the people who managed Hurricane Katrina to be managing my health care!"
~Mitt Romney-R, on the campaign trail, 2008.
I agree entirely, Mitt: I don't want the REPUBLICANS managing my health care either!
On his 11/4/09 Radio Show, Rush Limbaugh touted Doug Hoffmann's "good showing" in the election for the vacated NY-23 seat, applauded the conservative for having "kept a horrible Republican from possibly winning."
Well Rush, there's finally something we can both give him credit him for. You know... I hope y'all pursue this strategy from now though 2010 and on to 2012. It might keep a lot of HORRIBLE REPUBLICANS from winning. And God knows, this country can only benefit from fewer of these HORRIBLE REPUBLICANS .
"It's like they take pride in being ignorant!"
~SENATOR Barack Hussein Obama-D, on the campaign trail in 2008, finally realizing what he's up against.
Good night and good luck!
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Now, to be fair, this site is such a steaming pile of wet, runny dogshit that most conservatives are in fact embarrassed by it. They don't even try. They make less of an effort to appear like a legitimate encyclopedia that Fox does to appear like a legitimate News channel. It's bad. It's so bad, it's not even good for a laugh. They've gone beyond Coulter, and even beyond Colbert. If it were a liberal site SPOOFING conservatives, I'd say they went to far even for that purpose and the humor has been lost in it's heavy handedness.
But just for fun, I figured I'd dignify one of their entries with an objective, academic response. And I think I've found the perfect entry for this futile exercise:
A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical
standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal
standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses
many words to say nothing. Liberalism began as a movement for individual
liberties, but today is increasingly statist,
and in Europe even socialistic.
Hoo-boy, where to begin?
A liberal (also leftist) - improper and unnecessary conflation of terms. (-1)
rejects logical and biblical standards - logical is matter of unsupported opinion (-1). There is nothing logical about the bible. (As implied here.) It contains both logical contradiction and implies statements of fact that have been disproven scientifically. (-1)
often for self-centered reasons - opinion, not supported. evidence? (-1)
There are no coherent liberal standards - evidence? (-0, for now, but remember this one!)
often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention - irrelevant. opinion, not supported. evidence? (-2)
who uses many words to say nothing - There is no sin worse than hypocrisy. (-1)
The last bit is almost accurate. We'll let it pass, despite lack of supporting evidence presented.
The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and
political movements in history is a story not told often enough...
A cute quote, and properly cited, but irrelevant to the definition of liberal. (-1)
Plus: There is no sin worse than hypocrisy. (-1)
A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and
Wait... I thought...
There are no coherent liberal standards
I guess we'll have to deduct a point for each of these, two if they're false or misstated to boot...
- Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion (-1)
- Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events (-2)
and (-1) for being un-American and violating the first amendment and every parent's right to raise their child in the religion of their choice without gov't interference. (Asshole.)
- Support for gun control (-1, although not this liberal!)
- Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right (-1: You betcha!)
But another (-1) for not recognizing that 'obscenity' is a matter of opinion, and the courts deciding what is and what isn't is tantamount to the gov't censoring speech.) (Asshole.)
- Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation. (-2: Progressive taxation has been around since the beginning of time and was endorsed by every Conservatives' favorite economist, Adam Smith, for very liberal sounding reasons!)
- Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care (-2, for the 'Rationing' bullshit.)
- Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education (-1: You bectha!)
- The denial of inherent gender differences (-2: for 'inherent.' We don;'t reject 'inherent' differences, only the arbitrary, societal contrived ones.) (Asshole.)
- Insisting that men and women have the same access to jobs in the military (-1, but it's close to a -2!)
- Legalized same-sex marriage (-1: You betcha!)
- Implementation of affirmative action (-2: Hey moron: it's already been implemented. I think the word you're looking got is "maintenance" or "keeping in place.") (Idiot.)
- Political correctness (-3: Liberals hate this shit too. And -1 more for hypocrisy, because Conservatives practically invented this shit!)
- Support of labor unions (-1: You betcha!)
- Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex. (-3: This goes beyond misstatement. This borders on slandering teachers across the country as child molesters at worst, pornographers at best.)
- A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended (-3: the extra point for hypocrisy: WHO said 'it's just a damned piece of paper'? Plus, each judge has his own opinion about 'what was intended.' So this is saying nothing more than, 'They interpret it differently than we do' or 'they have a different agenda.' Whoop-de-frickin'-do. Not exactly a profound revelation, moron.)
So far they're down 9 points from the opening paragraph, 13 for calling out what 'a liberal generally supports' after declaring that 'there are no coherent liberal standards.' And 11 more for either misrepresenting the liberal position and/or adding hypocrisy to the mix. (So we're doing C+ work so far, and we're barely started!)
The then have several sections which do nothing to further define liberalism, but rather seek to defame it:
- Liberals and Uncharitableness - citing studies that show that people of faith give more money per capita that atheists, even when Church giving is taken out of the equation. Now I can't comment on the study itself yet, though I'm going to look into. This section loses a point for declaring that this data is due to their "reject[ion of] biblical morality (and therefore conservative Christianity ) and hold to moral relativism" Their is so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to start. (-1 for the unsupported assumption, -1 for the conflation of 'biblical morality' in a general sense with 'Conservative Christianity' and -1 for the whole 'moral relativism' thing. Liberals generally DON'T hold that philosophy. It's basically just a stupid smear that Conservatives use, as well as a word they don't really understand the meaning of anyway. So: -3
- Liberals and Superstition - -1 for assuming that religion and it's attendant rituals, are necessarily different from superstition. -1 for the continued assertion that one can't be any manner of christian unless they're conservative.
- Liberalism in North America today - -1 for the lie that the media tends to be liberal. I've presented my evidence. Where's yours? Talk about begging the question. (-1 for logical fallacy.) This section includes the statement:
Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social
justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic
virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics.
At first, I'm almost inclined to say, "Thank you," but he implies that this belief is not, in fact, the case. In any case, -1, because no liberals actually believe this, and -1 again for hypocrisy, since it's far closer to the delusion that conservative have about themselves. Just substitute the last five words with "secular humanists." (shudder)
- Liberal Rankings of Congress Members - (-1) It basically accurate, but irrelevant, since they don't include the ranking, or even a link to it. (-1) Because the National Reviews ranking have been shown to be flawed, and are constructed to name whomever in on the Democratic ticket as the 'most liberal.' John Kerry in '04, Obama in '08. What, did Kerry move to the right or something?
- Liberalism in Europe today (+1) for admitting that 'liberal' is sometimes used as a 'term of abuse.' (-1) for not adding 'by Conservatives.' (Asshole.)
- Historical Liberalism - (-1) for "In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the U.S. failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq." This is bullshit. We are all on board until Bush decides to go on that stupid, illegal boondoggle in Iraq. And to that we were ALL opposed. Another (-1) for "Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion." which continues to contradict "There are no coherent liberal standards."
- Original meaning: Classical Liberalism - This section is fine. Go figure that it's the shortest section in the whole article!
- Alternative meanings of 'liberal' - The first definition is basically crappy. The rest is fair enough. Again - very short section.
- Liberal Organizations Some of these are questionable (How can the ACLU be called 'liberal' when they've defended religious groups and Conservatives?! This is a Conservative smear, and it's a stupid one.) But we'll let it pass. In general the organization mentioned are ones I'm happy to be affiliated with and support.
So how did they do?
The Opening paragraph and first section lost them 23 points, and the individual section lose them another 12, just with the very little [mis]information they provide. So they're down to a 65 (D work) just on deductions. And given the lack of depth and actual definition of the term, not to mention the complete and utter lack of objective and neutral voice, another 5 point deduction is well earned. And I'm deducting another -1, for the cartoon, which is not accurate and is completely devoid of wit.
59 - FAIL.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
It probably goes without saying but I was very angry yesterday. But not just about the stories that I mentioned. I was just... angry. And the two stories I mentioned just pushed me over the top.
That being said... It felt really GOOD to rant like that, and I've been smiling ear-to-ear ever since. I went to bed smiling, having been angry all day, woke up smiling and was in the best mood I've been in for quite some time all day today. Last night's post was very... cathartic.
But I do feel it needs some explanation. Notice I haven't apologized for it? Yeah: I don't plan to. But I think some explanation is warranted. I hope it is obvious that I don't actually wish ANYONE to actually die. (Last month's Death Note post not withstanding.) The thing is... I HATE being right all the time! And when [my people: liberals, scientists, environmentalists, etc...] are mocked when we're trying to HELP PEOPLE. Or worse - insulted, by the likes of Bill O'Rielly and Glenn Beck with their, "Environmentalists really hate people" nonsense... I draw no satisfaction to the stupid ignorant sheep who buy into this crap physically harmed by their own folly.
For me, it's not schadenfreude. It's FRUSTRATION. And I have less tolerance for the stupidity (and greed) of the VICTIMS in this case than I do for the perpetrators! Notice in all my ranting, how I never wished any ill on the COMPANIES and their EXECUTIVES who are out there poisoning people? Obviously I want them regulated, but what they're doing is perfectly rational and, in fact, the only, inevitable outcome given the system they're operating within.
That why things need to change!
And THAT'S what gets me so upset about these fools in Texas: They constantly stand in the way of increased regulation, environmental cleanup and renewable energy investment... and then they whine and cry when they get sick! Well... I'm human. I'll admit that I could feel a bit of schadenfreude at their plight and leave it at that with a smug sense of satisfaction.
But I can't feel that way, because their stupidity affects more than just them: it infects the ENTIRE WORLD! Every living being on the planet is affected by the irrational stupidity of these inbreeds! And THAT'S why I'm so angry at them.
Behind hypocrisy, few things piss me off as much as stupidity.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
First on NPR this morning...
Apparently the town of DISH, TEXAS (so named so that the residents get free satellite TV, I shit you not) is experiencing health problems. You see, their downwind for a series of about 1200 compressors along a natural gas line that pump the natural gas for the oil shale in one part of the state to refineries in another. These compressors are HUGE and are basically powered by HUGE internal combustion engines - over a thousand of them. And ever since these have been installed, the resident are getting headaches, dizziness, nausea and all kinds of other symptoms, and the dept of evironmental quality have found high level of carcinogens like benzene and other nasty stuff in the air and water. Trees are dying horses and cows (remember: its Texas) are getting sick, going blind, having other problems and either dying or having to be put down...
And you know what? I say, "SCREW 'EM."
FUCKING TEXAS. A state full of global-warming denying oil-men and cowboy-conservatives who poke fun at enviormentalists and scientists and liberals and Democrats. So FUCK 'EM. I hope they all get cancer and die. Then maybe their neighbors might try LISTENING to the scientists and environmentalists when they warn of problems next time instead of mocking them, listening to the oil and gas companies, and their RELIGION, and voting REPUBLICAN so that these companies can poison them with impunity. FUCK 'EM. They get what they deserve. WAIT, NO I TAKE THAT BACK: THEY GET WHAT THEY BEGGED FOR, WHAT THEY CAMPAIGNED FOR, WHAT THEY LOBBIED FOR, AND WHAT THEY VOTED FOR. So SCREW 'EM.
That might sound harsh, but the problem with Darwin is that his forces work way too slowly, and most of these idiots have already bred.
And should I happen to have any liberal friends down in Texas, I offer no apologies. I'm sure if you look around, you'll see that you're basically surrounded by what I'm talking about. I've been to Texas a few times and I been to Massachusetts countless times. And I guaren-god-damn-tee you there are are more Conservatives in Massachusetts than there are Liberals in Texas.
Second, just now on Countdown...
Congressman Joseph "YOU LIE!" Wilson, who voted against giving more money to fund the distribution of the H1N1 Vaccine, is now blaming OBAMA for their not being enough Vaccine to go around. Why the sudden urgency? Apparently his wife contracted H1N1. Good. I hope she dies. He can live with that, and with his vote, and with his party's stupid, vaccant, useless, greedy political philosophy for the rest of his miserable short-ass life. I say short-ass life, because I hope that she gives it to HIM and HE DIES. And then I hope that Obama and the rest of the Dem's have the BALLS to call out everyone (Republican AND Democrat, if there were nay) who voted against that funding and BLAME THEM for these deaths. Their names should go with H1N1 like Bacon and Eggs. Then MAYBE these assholes will grow up and start helping govern the country, instead of obstructing everything in sight only to turn around and hit the campaign trail crying, "See? The Democrats couldn't get anything done! Vote for us instead!"
I hate these bastards! I hate these bastards! I hate these bastards!
(more deep breathing)
Did anyone ever tell you that it's not good to bottle stuff up? To let stuff build up inside you? It's good advice. See... If you do, something like [the above] might happen, and you'll look like a real asshole.
Works for Lewis Black.