It never fails.
I get some great comments, find some related articles and plan to do a whole mess of writing over the weekend and… life happens instead. So we had a fun and busy weekend with the kids, and I did NOT get to the Abortion / Contraception post as I had planned to. And now here I am on the last day of the month with a different post in mind, and several comments that need replying to, and instead of doing anything INTERESTING, I’ve got to put up my Gold Star’s for the month of October. (It’s a pet peeve, but I HATE posting these on the first of the following month!)
So, here we go. The year is 1968, and there was one BWAA inductee and two from the Veterans committee:
The Ducky Medwick Gold Star #40: Progressive Punch
Presumably so named because “Left Hook” was taken! ;)
Progressive Punch is a non-Partisan, yet strongly Progressive, web site that tracks the votes of members of congress on issues of concern to progressives. It rates and ranks MoC’s and is a great resource, if a bit overwhelming at times (and depressing at others!) Good information though. No reason that both parties whouldn’t be held accountable for their votes and actions!
The Goose Goslin Wooden Star: The Economnic Collapse
Believe it or not, this collection of Right Wing Propaganda was actually up for GOLD Star at one point. Now, it’s a throwaway. I did write-up on one of their articles a while back. They’re a great example of the most insidious kind of Right Wing writing: it SOUNDS principled and well-reasoned at first, but once you dig a little bit deeper, you find out how dishonest they’re being. I mention it here because the first couple of articles I came across DID do a fairly good job of blaming Republicans for the bad economy. So they did pique my interest… But once you see all of the “buy gold” and “food insurance” ads in the banners, you realize what their true agenda really is. (See... the Republicans weren't being Conservative enough, apparently!) Overall? I'd descibe it as pessimistic alarmism to the point of being almost Right-Wing parody. (Scary part? They're so convinced they're right! Some pretty creepy sycophants in the comments section. I think I know where MMFA gets their trolls form now!) They have a comments section – mostly RW Nut-Jobs and the occasional Liberal talking sense. Personally, I’d like to see how long it would take me to get banned from there! LOL
The Kiki Cuyler Silver Star #38: Count Your Sheep
A long-running and thoroughly adorable web comic about a single-mom and her precocious little girl who share the same imaginary friend: “Ship,” a “counting sheep.” (If you count him, (“one,”) you IMMEDIATELY fall asleep.) The strips are most cute stuff – often enough to give you a sugar-high – and are reminiscent of “Calvin and Hobbes,” only with a female Calvin and a struggling, single mom (who sees and interacts with Ship) instead of Calvin’s nameless, and relatively comfortable, middle class parents (who only ever saw Hobbes as a stuffed toy.) It does on occasion, however, delve into social politics – lightly enough to remain inoffensive, yet enough to give it some topical relevance – and has stretches where it becomes darker, even depressing at times, bordering on tear-inducing. (Laurie was widowed while pregnant with Katie, and the strips where she talks about how much she loved Marty and misses him can be absolutely heart-wrenching.) (You’ve been warned!) Anyway… it’s completely wonderful and I highly recommend it. There’s no single, on-going storyline but, since I’m kind of aspie that way, I still recommend reading it from the beginning! XP
And Happy Halloween, everyone!!!
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, October 31, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
If you took Human Sexuality in college, that line may sound familiar to you.
I want to clarify a small part of my last post. As I was going through my list of examples of social progress that the Conservatives had instinctively fought against and/or sought to undo, I mentioned "Reproductive Freedom." And based on the ascending chronology of the items in the list, it would be reasonable to conclude that I intended that as no more than a euphemism for "Abortion." Well... yes and no. Sadly, YES, Abortion is part of what I'm talking about. And admittedly it's curious thing to consider as "social progress" and to defend as such. However, while I feel that Abortion is a sin and a tragedy to use as a mere form of Contraception, it must be considered is part of the overarching issue of Contraceptive Rights, and the right of a woman to have a say in whether or not she will bear one man's children, or indeed ANY children. Take away abortion, and what you've got left is something that was beautifully, and rather appropriately, characterized by Keith Olbermann as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights." (Note: I'm sorry - I cannot find a proper attribution of that epithet. I first heard it from Olbermann, but it may well have been first said by someone else.)
No before we get sidetracked or a discussion about Abortion alone, I would like you to read the following exert from the autobiography of Margret Sanger - a feminist, nurse, reproductive rights pioneer and founder of Planned Parenthood. More of it can be found here. I read this in college, and remembered it clearly, because it just about destroyed me. THIS is the world that the other side of the slippery slope - the one that would limit a woman's reproductive freedom - leads to:
Then one stifling mid-July day of 1912 I was summoned to a Grand Street tenement. My patient was a small, slight Russian Jewess, about twenty-eight years old, of the special cast of feature to which suffering lends a madonna-like expression. The cramped three-room apartment was in a sorry state of turmoil. Jake Sachs, a truck driver scarcely older than his wife, had come home to find the three children crying and her unconscious from the effects of a self-induced abortion. He had called the nearest doctor, who in turn had sent for me. Jake's earnings were trifling, and most of them had gone to keep the none-too-strong children clean and properly fed. But his wife's ingenuity had helped them to save a little, and this he was glad to spend on a nurse rather than have her go to a hospital.
The doctor and I settled ourselves to the task of fighting the septicemia. Never had I worked so fast, never so concentratedly.
Jake was more kind and thoughtful than many of the husbands I had encountered. He loved his children, and had always helped his wife wash and dress them. He had brought water up and carried garbage down before he left in the morning, and did as much as he could for me while he anxiously watched her progress.
After a fortnight Mrs. Sachs' recovery was in sight. As I was preparing to leave the fragile patient to take up her difficult life once more, she finally voiced her fears, "Another baby will finish me, I suppose?"
"It's too early to talk about that," I temporized.
But when the doctor came to make his last call, I drew him aside. "Mrs. Sachs is terribly worried about having another baby."
"She well may be," replied the doctor, and then he stood before her and said, "Any more such capers, young woman, and there'll be no need to send for me."
"I know, doctor," she replied timidly, "but," and she hesitated as though it took all her courage to say it, "what can I do to prevent it?"
The doctor was a kindly man, and he had worked hard to save her, but such incidents had become so familiar to him that he-had long since lost whatever delicacy he might once have had. He laughed good-naturedly. "You want to have your cake and eat it too, do you? Well, it can't be done."
Then picking up his hat and bag to depart he said, "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
I glanced quickly to Mrs. Sachs. Even through my sudden tears I could see stamped on her face an expression of absolute despair. We simply looked at each other, saying no word until the door had closed behind the doctor. Then she lifted her thin, blue-veined hands and clasped them beseechingly. "He can't understand. He's only a man. But you do, don't you? Please tell me the secret, and I'll never breathe it to a soul. Please!"
These were not the words of someone trying to get a job, or borrow something from a friend, or asking the bank for a few more days to make their payment. This was a mother, wife and human being who was looking for a way NOT TO DIE.
"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
And while you're mulling that over, consider that this took place in 1912: A time when 1% of women - 1 in 100 - still died in childbirth in the U.S. (Roughly 100x as many as today's rate of 11 in 100,000). And Condoms and Diaphragms? The only existing forms of contraception, which had been around for thousands of years in one form or another? WERE ILLEGAL. And they remained illegal until Sanger "won" a court battle in 1918, appealing her 1917 Conviction for disseminating information (!) about birth control. I say "won" because her Conviction was upheld (!!) but the court issued a ruling that finally allowed Doctors to prescribe contraception.
Think about that. So strong was the movement AGAINST this basic tenet of Woman's Right's that it took a COURT CASE to allow even DOCTOR'S to prescribe it! (Meaning that, even in the case of LIFE THREATENING MEDICAL NEED, they had previously been barred from doing so!)
Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
That was their answer. That was society's answer.
And before anyone tries to explain to this humble blogger that the modern Conservative movement has nothing against Contraception (as long as teenagers never get a hold it, anyway *facepalm*, *shakes head*) and only one modern Church (the bass-ackwards and psychotic Catholic Church, which I am sorry to say I was raised in) opposes it's use, remember that I said that it was not ONLY about abortion. Just as the modern (Republican) church opposes abortion, who do you think it was that lead the crusade against contraception before and at the turn of the century?
Why, who else? That great bastion of Conservatism, the MOTHERFUCKING CHURCH! (Who, at the time, also considered it a sin for a wife not to avail herself to the sexual advances of her lawful husband, don't forget!)
Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
And in case you are wondering? There IS more to the story, and it does not end well...
The telephone rang one evening three months later, and Jake Sachs' agitated voice begged me to come at once; his wife was sick again and from the same cause. For a wild moment I thought of sending someone else, but actually, of course, I hurried into my uniform, caught up my bag, and started out. All the way I longed for a subway wreck, an explosion, anything to keep me from having to enter that home again. But nothing happened, even to delay me. I turned into the dingy doorway and climbed the familiar stairs once more. The children were there, young little things.
Mrs. Sachs was in a coma and died within ten minutes. I folded,her still hands across her breast, remembering how they had pleaded with me, begging so humbly for the knowledge which was her right. I drew a sheet over her pallid face. Jake was sobbing, running his hands through his hair and pulling it out like an insane person. Over and over again he wailed, "My God! My God! My God!"
So let me rephrase the sentiment that I was trying to express in my lats post:
At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.
Or, to put in a less artificially politically-neutral way:
At every crossroads on the path that leads to the social progress, tradition has placed 10,000 Conservatives to hinder it.
And remember the statement on the Bumper sticker that led to the whole rant:
Evil flourishes when good men doing nothing.
Well... If anyone still has issues with my labelling of "Reproductive Freedom" as a great and defensible milestone of profound social progress, or for that matter any of you Right Wing Pricks who would spread all manner of lies about Planned Parenthood, and even Sanger herself, just to score cheap political points from the abortion (*see below) issue, please, by all means, come on over here a second so I CAN HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!
Do you see what's been written on the back of it?
"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
(And... uh... I think I also wrote "Fuck You" on the other side...)
----------------------------------------------
*It is worth noting that Sanger herself was opposed to abortion:
So, really, all you people who are out there (on the 'Net, or in the Media) lying about Sanger?
I've got a brick here with your name on one of the remaining sides!
More on Margret Sanger. More. And more.
I want to clarify a small part of my last post. As I was going through my list of examples of social progress that the Conservatives had instinctively fought against and/or sought to undo, I mentioned "Reproductive Freedom." And based on the ascending chronology of the items in the list, it would be reasonable to conclude that I intended that as no more than a euphemism for "Abortion." Well... yes and no. Sadly, YES, Abortion is part of what I'm talking about. And admittedly it's curious thing to consider as "social progress" and to defend as such. However, while I feel that Abortion is a sin and a tragedy to use as a mere form of Contraception, it must be considered is part of the overarching issue of Contraceptive Rights, and the right of a woman to have a say in whether or not she will bear one man's children, or indeed ANY children. Take away abortion, and what you've got left is something that was beautifully, and rather appropriately, characterized by Keith Olbermann as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights." (Note: I'm sorry - I cannot find a proper attribution of that epithet. I first heard it from Olbermann, but it may well have been first said by someone else.)
No before we get sidetracked or a discussion about Abortion alone, I would like you to read the following exert from the autobiography of Margret Sanger - a feminist, nurse, reproductive rights pioneer and founder of Planned Parenthood. More of it can be found here. I read this in college, and remembered it clearly, because it just about destroyed me. THIS is the world that the other side of the slippery slope - the one that would limit a woman's reproductive freedom - leads to:
Then one stifling mid-July day of 1912 I was summoned to a Grand Street tenement. My patient was a small, slight Russian Jewess, about twenty-eight years old, of the special cast of feature to which suffering lends a madonna-like expression. The cramped three-room apartment was in a sorry state of turmoil. Jake Sachs, a truck driver scarcely older than his wife, had come home to find the three children crying and her unconscious from the effects of a self-induced abortion. He had called the nearest doctor, who in turn had sent for me. Jake's earnings were trifling, and most of them had gone to keep the none-too-strong children clean and properly fed. But his wife's ingenuity had helped them to save a little, and this he was glad to spend on a nurse rather than have her go to a hospital.
The doctor and I settled ourselves to the task of fighting the septicemia. Never had I worked so fast, never so concentratedly.
Jake was more kind and thoughtful than many of the husbands I had encountered. He loved his children, and had always helped his wife wash and dress them. He had brought water up and carried garbage down before he left in the morning, and did as much as he could for me while he anxiously watched her progress.
After a fortnight Mrs. Sachs' recovery was in sight. As I was preparing to leave the fragile patient to take up her difficult life once more, she finally voiced her fears, "Another baby will finish me, I suppose?"
"It's too early to talk about that," I temporized.
But when the doctor came to make his last call, I drew him aside. "Mrs. Sachs is terribly worried about having another baby."
"She well may be," replied the doctor, and then he stood before her and said, "Any more such capers, young woman, and there'll be no need to send for me."
"I know, doctor," she replied timidly, "but," and she hesitated as though it took all her courage to say it, "what can I do to prevent it?"
The doctor was a kindly man, and he had worked hard to save her, but such incidents had become so familiar to him that he-had long since lost whatever delicacy he might once have had. He laughed good-naturedly. "You want to have your cake and eat it too, do you? Well, it can't be done."
Then picking up his hat and bag to depart he said, "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
I glanced quickly to Mrs. Sachs. Even through my sudden tears I could see stamped on her face an expression of absolute despair. We simply looked at each other, saying no word until the door had closed behind the doctor. Then she lifted her thin, blue-veined hands and clasped them beseechingly. "He can't understand. He's only a man. But you do, don't you? Please tell me the secret, and I'll never breathe it to a soul. Please!"
These were not the words of someone trying to get a job, or borrow something from a friend, or asking the bank for a few more days to make their payment. This was a mother, wife and human being who was looking for a way NOT TO DIE.
"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
And while you're mulling that over, consider that this took place in 1912: A time when 1% of women - 1 in 100 - still died in childbirth in the U.S. (Roughly 100x as many as today's rate of 11 in 100,000). And Condoms and Diaphragms? The only existing forms of contraception, which had been around for thousands of years in one form or another? WERE ILLEGAL. And they remained illegal until Sanger "won" a court battle in 1918, appealing her 1917 Conviction for disseminating information (!) about birth control. I say "won" because her Conviction was upheld (!!) but the court issued a ruling that finally allowed Doctors to prescribe contraception.
Think about that. So strong was the movement AGAINST this basic tenet of Woman's Right's that it took a COURT CASE to allow even DOCTOR'S to prescribe it! (Meaning that, even in the case of LIFE THREATENING MEDICAL NEED, they had previously been barred from doing so!)
Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
That was their answer. That was society's answer.
And before anyone tries to explain to this humble blogger that the modern Conservative movement has nothing against Contraception (as long as teenagers never get a hold it, anyway *facepalm*, *shakes head*) and only one modern Church (the bass-ackwards and psychotic Catholic Church, which I am sorry to say I was raised in) opposes it's use, remember that I said that it was not ONLY about abortion. Just as the modern (Republican) church opposes abortion, who do you think it was that lead the crusade against contraception before and at the turn of the century?
Why, who else? That great bastion of Conservatism, the MOTHERFUCKING CHURCH! (Who, at the time, also considered it a sin for a wife not to avail herself to the sexual advances of her lawful husband, don't forget!)
Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
And in case you are wondering? There IS more to the story, and it does not end well...
The telephone rang one evening three months later, and Jake Sachs' agitated voice begged me to come at once; his wife was sick again and from the same cause. For a wild moment I thought of sending someone else, but actually, of course, I hurried into my uniform, caught up my bag, and started out. All the way I longed for a subway wreck, an explosion, anything to keep me from having to enter that home again. But nothing happened, even to delay me. I turned into the dingy doorway and climbed the familiar stairs once more. The children were there, young little things.
Mrs. Sachs was in a coma and died within ten minutes. I folded,her still hands across her breast, remembering how they had pleaded with me, begging so humbly for the knowledge which was her right. I drew a sheet over her pallid face. Jake was sobbing, running his hands through his hair and pulling it out like an insane person. Over and over again he wailed, "My God! My God! My God!"
So let me rephrase the sentiment that I was trying to express in my lats post:
At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.
Or, to put in a less artificially politically-neutral way:
At every crossroads on the path that leads to the social progress, tradition has placed 10,000 Conservatives to hinder it.
And remember the statement on the Bumper sticker that led to the whole rant:
Evil flourishes when good men doing nothing.
Well... If anyone still has issues with my labelling of "Reproductive Freedom" as a great and defensible milestone of profound social progress, or for that matter any of you Right Wing Pricks who would spread all manner of lies about Planned Parenthood, and even Sanger herself, just to score cheap political points from the abortion (*see below) issue, please, by all means, come on over here a second so I CAN HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!
Do you see what's been written on the back of it?
"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
(And... uh... I think I also wrote "Fuck You" on the other side...)
----------------------------------------------
*It is worth noting that Sanger herself was opposed to abortion:
...we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way — no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in An Autobiography, 1938
So, really, all you people who are out there (on the 'Net, or in the Media) lying about Sanger?
I've got a brick here with your name on one of the remaining sides!
More on Margret Sanger. More. And more.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Random thoughts...
One of my favorite (I think original) quotes is to say that...
When you argue with a Liberal, he'll tell you why you're wrong; while if you argue with a Conservative, he'll show you why you're Liberal.
I post that (or some variant of it) on MMFA a lot. And the best part of that?
If a Liberal is arguing with a Conservative? Using this reasoning? THEY'RE BOTH RIGHT!
LOL
(That just dawned on on me earlier today.)
So... I'm sitting in what we call the "Salmon Run" - that's the long line of cars that forms at 4:30, going down the small road in front of our office that leads to the main road - today and I'm reading the various bumper stickers on the back of the truck of the guy in front of me:
"Support the Troops."
Which REALLY means: Support the Republicans.
Which I can't do, due in part to what a shitty job they do supporting the troops!
"Taxed Enough Already!"
Did you hear? Rick Perry is now picking up the Cain 9-9-9 line and is pushing a flat-tax scheme of his own. And I guarantee you this guy in front of me doesn't make enough to be one of the BENEFICIARIES of this plan. (Unless Perry's just blowing smoke when it comes to the deficit. But then... we KNOW the Republicans NEVER do ANYTHING that adds to the DEFICIT, don't we?) (Is one in the Reagan worth two in the Bush?)
"Evil flourishes when good people do nothing!"
I laugh my ass off whenever I see this one. The funny thing? Is that it's really a profoundly LIBERAL sentiment. I mean... what could be more PROGRESSIVE than that, right? And yet, it usually ends up on the bumper of Right-Wingers. (Something to do with the Iraq War, IIRC. Apparently violating sovereignty and starting unnecessary wars is GOOD, I guess.) But here's what REALLY strikes me as absurd about that sticker appearing on the bumper of a Conservative's car:
THE CONSERVATIVE'S ANSWER TO EVERYTHING IS TO DO NOTHING!
Global Warming?
Do nothing.
Shitty Economy?
Do nothing.
Entire U.S. Auto Industry about to go belly-up?
Do nothing.
Unfair trade practices?
Do nothing.
Middle Class shrinking?
Do nothing.
People Losing Jobs?
Do nothing.
Poor people starving?
Do nothing.
40 Million Americans can't get health Insurance?
Do nothing.
The only time they ever do anything is following some manner of societal PROGRESS that finally DOES AWAY will some kind of evil! Think about it:
Abolish Slavery?
Jim Crow.
Stop lynching?
Segregation.
Civil Right Act?
George Wallace.
Affirmative Action?
Southern Strategy.
Equal Rigths for Women?
KILL the ERA.
Reproductive Freedom?
Politicize Religion. (More so.)
Black man elected President?
Tea Party.
The only time ANYONE acts against evil, it's a Progressive. And the only time Conservatives do anything except money-change and power-broke is when a Progressive finally makes some Progress!
Anyway... Those are my thoughts for today... Stuck in traffic... Behind a Conservative...
BTW...
Had some fun over on MMFA today, thinking about how well former Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) might fit in over at his new gig as a contributor to Faux Snooze. In a very rare act of self indulgence (LOL) I'd like to re-post my comment here, as it kind of fits with the theme of this post:
A Liberal aspires to be right.
A Conservative aspires to be Conservative.
Argue with a Liberal and he'll tell you why you're wrong.
Argue with a Conservative and he'll show you why you're Liberal.
A Liberal bases his position on his judgement of the evidence.
A Conservative bases his judgement of the evidence on his position.
To a Liberal, a liar is anyone who knowingly contradicts the truth.
To a Conservative, a liar is anyone who is knowingly Liberal.
An honest Liberal Politician is one who cannot be bought.
An honest Conservative Politician is one who, once bought, STAYS bought.
I believe that Governor Sanford will be very comfortable in his new position.
When you argue with a Liberal, he'll tell you why you're wrong; while if you argue with a Conservative, he'll show you why you're Liberal.
I post that (or some variant of it) on MMFA a lot. And the best part of that?
If a Liberal is arguing with a Conservative? Using this reasoning? THEY'RE BOTH RIGHT!
LOL
(That just dawned on on me earlier today.)
So... I'm sitting in what we call the "Salmon Run" - that's the long line of cars that forms at 4:30, going down the small road in front of our office that leads to the main road - today and I'm reading the various bumper stickers on the back of the truck of the guy in front of me:
"Support the Troops."
Which REALLY means: Support the Republicans.
Which I can't do, due in part to what a shitty job they do supporting the troops!
"Taxed Enough Already!"
Did you hear? Rick Perry is now picking up the Cain 9-9-9 line and is pushing a flat-tax scheme of his own. And I guarantee you this guy in front of me doesn't make enough to be one of the BENEFICIARIES of this plan. (Unless Perry's just blowing smoke when it comes to the deficit. But then... we KNOW the Republicans NEVER do ANYTHING that adds to the DEFICIT, don't we?) (Is one in the Reagan worth two in the Bush?)
"Evil flourishes when good people do nothing!"
I laugh my ass off whenever I see this one. The funny thing? Is that it's really a profoundly LIBERAL sentiment. I mean... what could be more PROGRESSIVE than that, right? And yet, it usually ends up on the bumper of Right-Wingers. (Something to do with the Iraq War, IIRC. Apparently violating sovereignty and starting unnecessary wars is GOOD, I guess.) But here's what REALLY strikes me as absurd about that sticker appearing on the bumper of a Conservative's car:
THE CONSERVATIVE'S ANSWER TO EVERYTHING IS TO DO NOTHING!
Global Warming?
Do nothing.
Shitty Economy?
Do nothing.
Entire U.S. Auto Industry about to go belly-up?
Do nothing.
Unfair trade practices?
Do nothing.
Middle Class shrinking?
Do nothing.
People Losing Jobs?
Do nothing.
Poor people starving?
Do nothing.
40 Million Americans can't get health Insurance?
Do nothing.
The only time they ever do anything is following some manner of societal PROGRESS that finally DOES AWAY will some kind of evil! Think about it:
Abolish Slavery?
Jim Crow.
Stop lynching?
Segregation.
Civil Right Act?
George Wallace.
Affirmative Action?
Southern Strategy.
Equal Rigths for Women?
KILL the ERA.
Reproductive Freedom?
Politicize Religion. (More so.)
Black man elected President?
Tea Party.
The only time ANYONE acts against evil, it's a Progressive. And the only time Conservatives do anything except money-change and power-broke is when a Progressive finally makes some Progress!
Anyway... Those are my thoughts for today... Stuck in traffic... Behind a Conservative...
BTW...
Had some fun over on MMFA today, thinking about how well former Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) might fit in over at his new gig as a contributor to Faux Snooze. In a very rare act of self indulgence (LOL) I'd like to re-post my comment here, as it kind of fits with the theme of this post:
A Liberal aspires to be right.
A Conservative aspires to be Conservative.
Argue with a Liberal and he'll tell you why you're wrong.
Argue with a Conservative and he'll show you why you're Liberal.
A Liberal bases his position on his judgement of the evidence.
A Conservative bases his judgement of the evidence on his position.
To a Liberal, a liar is anyone who knowingly contradicts the truth.
To a Conservative, a liar is anyone who is knowingly Liberal.
An honest Liberal Politician is one who cannot be bought.
An honest Conservative Politician is one who, once bought, STAYS bought.
I believe that Governor Sanford will be very comfortable in his new position.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Go far enough to the left...
...And you'll find as much of the smae stupidity as you find on the Right.
(Of course, to be fair, on the Right you don't have to go nearly as far!)
Let me back up a bit...
I don't care for labels. I'm not a "Republican," but that doesn't make me a "Democrat." Thanks to all of the political and mental baggage that comes with the label, I haven't called myself "Conservative" in about 20 years or so. Does that make me "Liberal?" Meh, I suppose. That's fine, if that's how those numb-skulls want to characterize me, I'm OK with that. I can't stop them, and I hardly see it as an insulting epithet anyway. But I just don't embrace labels. (Which alone, in their eyes, MAKES me a Liberal!) But I don't really care if my position on something is Liberal or Conservative. That it happens to be liberal 90-some percent of the time is entirely a function of modern Liberals largely choosing the path of reason, rather that me choosing the path of modern Liberalism. I like "Progressive" better anyway, since it conjures imagery more about forwards versus backwards than Right versus Left, but again: I really don't care if I earn that label or not. I only endeavour to form opinions that I believe are principled and defensible and that will lead to positions that make the world a better place. If, years from, now it's happens to be so-called "Conservatives" who do that? Fine. Then I'll be "Conservative" again.
I guess my point is that I just hate DOGMA (the philosophical concept not the Kevin Smith movie!) and DOGMATIC thinking. And really that precludes me from being Conservative these days, because ever since they decided to basically abandon Social Libertarianism and embrace Christian Funny-Mentalism, dogmatic thinking has become a basic requirement to being Conservative. And while [whatever you call the alternative: Liberalism, Progressivism, etc...] simply does not embrace dogma the same way - Liberalism is all about CHANGE, after all - the fact is that if you go far enough off the deep-end (and we do have one) you'll find that there IS in fact dogma, or at least dogmatic thinking in "our camp" as well.
The first time I encountered this was in seeing the hard-core Feminist reaction to basic rape-prevention advice, characterizing any and all discussions of that nature as "blaming the victim." And DON'T GET ME WRONG: There is NEVER any justification for rape, and I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE we have a societal commitment to stopping all forms of Rape, Violence against Women, Sexual Harassment, and any other form of mysoginy and gender discrimination. Hey: I manage to get through every single one of my days, working with women, without triggering a lawsuit; so I have very little sympathy for those man who can't seem to accomplish this. (And I've worked with some of them as well. Dumbasses, every one.) I despise the Barbie doll on many levels, and truly believe that the sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears. So I've got plenty of feminist cred. Yet, when it's pointed out that maybe after her fourth abusive relationship, a girl might want to take batter care in selecting her life-partner? (Or address whatever personal issues she's got that keeps her fgoing down the same path over and over?) I get attacked for "blaming the victim." Hey: Society can do anything and everything you want them to, and yet in the end you can still only control your own actions.
When idealism blinds you to pragmatism?
That's dogmatic thinking.
The other day on MMFA, I was in an argument with a LIBERAL who wanted to defund NPR, because their bias was even more insidious than Fox's, since they put on juts a good enough of show that people believe them to be objective. OMFG, where to even begin? NPR is worse for society than Fox? *shakes head* Is NPR perfect? No. They absolutely are not perfect. They have biases and agendas and rely on political favor from congress as well as corporate donors for their financial survival. So yes, they have committed every error from false equivalency and balance to broadcasting outright RW misinformation. The thing is? That is largely the EXCEPTION at NPR, where it is the RULE at Fox. If you seriously conclude that NPR is WORSE than Fox? Well... You're either off the deep end of Conservatism, or off the deep end of Liberalism, as was the case here. (Though, for the record, I do agree with them that there was simply no reason for NPR to act as they did in this case. However, much like with MSNBC's treatment of Olbermann in 2008, I will take a media station that at least HAS a standard of ethics over one that flaunts their lack of one ANY DAY.)
So... what's this all about. Well... I'm talking to my Dad earlier today (staunch Conservative / Republican) and he asked me if I'd heard about this idiot superintendent in Massachusetts who wants to ban Halloween, Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. Now, I had, on MMFA. But in a stunning (LOL) show of liberal bias, they point out of she may have had plenty of Conservative allies (Christian Whack-Jobs, Pat Robertson, etc...), had she just stuck to Halloween. But they kind of left out the rest of it. But that's fine, I've got the whole story now. And you know what?
She's a fucking idiot.
Now DON'T GET ME WRONG: My objection to this particular breed of LW insanity has nothing to do with the "PC Police" complaints coming from the Right. Unlike the modern breed of jingoistic, Right Wing, "American Execptionalists" I have no problem discussing the genocide of the Native Americans (and it WAS a genocide) nor of the Europeans bringing diseases, nor of them stealing their land, nor of having a frank discussion about those very "exceptional" origins of America from all angles. And it is precisely because I believe those discussion to be of such importance that I make my judgement of her.
What better time to have a complete discussion, and endeavour to give children a FULL and COMPLETE understanding of our history than in the context of these Holidays?! And seriously... It's not like Thanksgiving is all about celebrating the Pilgrims (eventual) victory (massacre, genocide) of the Indians, and neither is it really about trying to GLOSS OVER IT either. Not anymore, anyway. For as long as I can remember, it's been little more than a Hallmark Holiday and an excuse to drink and est yourself into a carb-coma. Maybe, maybe we'd take a few minutes to "give thanks" for the "things were thankful for." (Hardly an offensive practice.) But really? It's about Turkey and Potatoes and Stuffing and Gravy and possibly some form of Alcohol. So if this person wants to raise awareness about what REALLY happened to the Native Americans, maybe a more productive way would be to fill the void of meaning that this holiday has now, let the kids have their celebration, and USE THE OPPORTUNITY to EDUCATE them a little! (They still do that in schools, right?)
She'd reach a lot more people that way, raise awareness about the American Genocide that much higher, and piss off... basically no one! (I'm not even sure that ACTUAL Native Americans would give a crap about this, one way or the other!) And so thinking that we should BAN Thanksgiving and Columbus Day (not to mention Halloween?) is just stupid. And, if it's coming from a Liberal motivation, only the result of what happens when LIBERALS start engaging in DOGMATIC THINKING of their own.
Nothing will accomplish more in getting modern Americans to FORGET about the fate that befell the Native Americans than BANNING Thanksgiving Celebrations. On their best day FOX NEWS could only dream of accomplishing so much harm.
(Of course, to be fair, on the Right you don't have to go nearly as far!)
Let me back up a bit...
I don't care for labels. I'm not a "Republican," but that doesn't make me a "Democrat." Thanks to all of the political and mental baggage that comes with the label, I haven't called myself "Conservative" in about 20 years or so. Does that make me "Liberal?" Meh, I suppose. That's fine, if that's how those numb-skulls want to characterize me, I'm OK with that. I can't stop them, and I hardly see it as an insulting epithet anyway. But I just don't embrace labels. (Which alone, in their eyes, MAKES me a Liberal!) But I don't really care if my position on something is Liberal or Conservative. That it happens to be liberal 90-some percent of the time is entirely a function of modern Liberals largely choosing the path of reason, rather that me choosing the path of modern Liberalism. I like "Progressive" better anyway, since it conjures imagery more about forwards versus backwards than Right versus Left, but again: I really don't care if I earn that label or not. I only endeavour to form opinions that I believe are principled and defensible and that will lead to positions that make the world a better place. If, years from, now it's happens to be so-called "Conservatives" who do that? Fine. Then I'll be "Conservative" again.
I guess my point is that I just hate DOGMA (the philosophical concept not the Kevin Smith movie!) and DOGMATIC thinking. And really that precludes me from being Conservative these days, because ever since they decided to basically abandon Social Libertarianism and embrace Christian Funny-Mentalism, dogmatic thinking has become a basic requirement to being Conservative. And while [whatever you call the alternative: Liberalism, Progressivism, etc...] simply does not embrace dogma the same way - Liberalism is all about CHANGE, after all - the fact is that if you go far enough off the deep-end (and we do have one) you'll find that there IS in fact dogma, or at least dogmatic thinking in "our camp" as well.
The first time I encountered this was in seeing the hard-core Feminist reaction to basic rape-prevention advice, characterizing any and all discussions of that nature as "blaming the victim." And DON'T GET ME WRONG: There is NEVER any justification for rape, and I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE we have a societal commitment to stopping all forms of Rape, Violence against Women, Sexual Harassment, and any other form of mysoginy and gender discrimination. Hey: I manage to get through every single one of my days, working with women, without triggering a lawsuit; so I have very little sympathy for those man who can't seem to accomplish this. (And I've worked with some of them as well. Dumbasses, every one.) I despise the Barbie doll on many levels, and truly believe that the sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears. So I've got plenty of feminist cred. Yet, when it's pointed out that maybe after her fourth abusive relationship, a girl might want to take batter care in selecting her life-partner? (Or address whatever personal issues she's got that keeps her fgoing down the same path over and over?) I get attacked for "blaming the victim." Hey: Society can do anything and everything you want them to, and yet in the end you can still only control your own actions.
When idealism blinds you to pragmatism?
That's dogmatic thinking.
The other day on MMFA, I was in an argument with a LIBERAL who wanted to defund NPR, because their bias was even more insidious than Fox's, since they put on juts a good enough of show that people believe them to be objective. OMFG, where to even begin? NPR is worse for society than Fox? *shakes head* Is NPR perfect? No. They absolutely are not perfect. They have biases and agendas and rely on political favor from congress as well as corporate donors for their financial survival. So yes, they have committed every error from false equivalency and balance to broadcasting outright RW misinformation. The thing is? That is largely the EXCEPTION at NPR, where it is the RULE at Fox. If you seriously conclude that NPR is WORSE than Fox? Well... You're either off the deep end of Conservatism, or off the deep end of Liberalism, as was the case here. (Though, for the record, I do agree with them that there was simply no reason for NPR to act as they did in this case. However, much like with MSNBC's treatment of Olbermann in 2008, I will take a media station that at least HAS a standard of ethics over one that flaunts their lack of one ANY DAY.)
So... what's this all about. Well... I'm talking to my Dad earlier today (staunch Conservative / Republican) and he asked me if I'd heard about this idiot superintendent in Massachusetts who wants to ban Halloween, Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. Now, I had, on MMFA. But in a stunning (LOL) show of liberal bias, they point out of she may have had plenty of Conservative allies (Christian Whack-Jobs, Pat Robertson, etc...), had she just stuck to Halloween. But they kind of left out the rest of it. But that's fine, I've got the whole story now. And you know what?
She's a fucking idiot.
Now DON'T GET ME WRONG: My objection to this particular breed of LW insanity has nothing to do with the "PC Police" complaints coming from the Right. Unlike the modern breed of jingoistic, Right Wing, "American Execptionalists" I have no problem discussing the genocide of the Native Americans (and it WAS a genocide) nor of the Europeans bringing diseases, nor of them stealing their land, nor of having a frank discussion about those very "exceptional" origins of America from all angles. And it is precisely because I believe those discussion to be of such importance that I make my judgement of her.
What better time to have a complete discussion, and endeavour to give children a FULL and COMPLETE understanding of our history than in the context of these Holidays?! And seriously... It's not like Thanksgiving is all about celebrating the Pilgrims (eventual) victory (massacre, genocide) of the Indians, and neither is it really about trying to GLOSS OVER IT either. Not anymore, anyway. For as long as I can remember, it's been little more than a Hallmark Holiday and an excuse to drink and est yourself into a carb-coma. Maybe, maybe we'd take a few minutes to "give thanks" for the "things were thankful for." (Hardly an offensive practice.) But really? It's about Turkey and Potatoes and Stuffing and Gravy and possibly some form of Alcohol. So if this person wants to raise awareness about what REALLY happened to the Native Americans, maybe a more productive way would be to fill the void of meaning that this holiday has now, let the kids have their celebration, and USE THE OPPORTUNITY to EDUCATE them a little! (They still do that in schools, right?)
She'd reach a lot more people that way, raise awareness about the American Genocide that much higher, and piss off... basically no one! (I'm not even sure that ACTUAL Native Americans would give a crap about this, one way or the other!) And so thinking that we should BAN Thanksgiving and Columbus Day (not to mention Halloween?) is just stupid. And, if it's coming from a Liberal motivation, only the result of what happens when LIBERALS start engaging in DOGMATIC THINKING of their own.
Nothing will accomplish more in getting modern Americans to FORGET about the fate that befell the Native Americans than BANNING Thanksgiving Celebrations. On their best day FOX NEWS could only dream of accomplishing so much harm.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Gee, go figure...
So it turns out that Science works. If you test something a thousand times, your thousand and first test is basically guaranteed to yield the same result. Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath for the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Fox News and every other brain-dead, anti-science, superstitious, Right-Wing moron to admit they were wrong, STFU and get out of the way while the rest of try to DO SOMETHING about it, and apologize for politicizing science and for being a bunch of bent-over, corporate whores, in the wake of the most recent study - one done BY CLIMATE DENIERS, in order to "disprove" global warming - which concluded that basically? Science already had it right: The world is getting warmer, and man's consumption of fossil fuels and the CO2 released room it are the primary driver.
So, as I figure it, the score stands at:
SCIENCE: Whatever
RELIGION & RIGHT-WING CORPORATE WHORES: -ZERO-
Thanks for playing.
...Not that I'm under any delusion that this will make a difference. Limbaugh, Coulter and co. are FAR too well-paid to get of the grift anytime soon (plus I think they just enjoy it too much,) and America has shown no reluctance in the past to take scientific advice from these Conservative Scumsuckers, but personally? I hope they eaten by Grolar Bears.
So, as I figure it, the score stands at:
SCIENCE: Whatever
RELIGION & RIGHT-WING CORPORATE WHORES: -ZERO-
Thanks for playing.
...Not that I'm under any delusion that this will make a difference. Limbaugh, Coulter and co. are FAR too well-paid to get of the grift anytime soon (plus I think they just enjoy it too much,) and America has shown no reluctance in the past to take scientific advice from these Conservative Scumsuckers, but personally? I hope they eaten by Grolar Bears.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Another one bites the dust!
I'm going to channel my inner righty for a scond...
COLONEL MUMMAR GHADAFFI IS DEAD!
Read the score:
Obama: 2 dead terrorist warlords who killed Amricans
Reagan/Bush/Bush: 0 Dead terrorist warlords who killed Amricans
So: WHO's being soft on terrorism?
Suck it, fuckers: We got BOTH of them! Bin Laden and Ghaddafi. We put down BOTH mad dogs of the middle east!
See what can be accomplished when the world doesn't hate you?!
COLONEL MUMMAR GHADAFFI IS DEAD!
Read the score:
Obama: 2 dead terrorist warlords who killed Amricans
Reagan/Bush/Bush: 0 Dead terrorist warlords who killed Amricans
So: WHO's being soft on terrorism?
Suck it, fuckers: We got BOTH of them! Bin Laden and Ghaddafi. We put down BOTH mad dogs of the middle east!
See what can be accomplished when the world doesn't hate you?!
Saturday, October 15, 2011
There was a cracked article yesterday that had the good sense to link to the following video by former Labor Secretary Robert Riech. The rest of the article had some feir criticisms of the OWS movement, but IMHO, is not really owrth cehcking out. This, OTOH is:
You tell 'em, Robert!
And the soloution to these 6 points?
1) Tax the rich
2) Tax the rich
3) Tax the rich
4) Tax the rich
5) Get a Progressive Candidate who isn't afraid to tax the rich, and lead from a progressive agenda.
6) Vote for said Progressive, and his progressive agenda. (And tax teh rich.)
Funny how that works out, huh?
Gladstone was right about one thing: the OWS people could learn to simplfy the message a bit.
You tell 'em, Robert!
And the soloution to these 6 points?
1) Tax the rich
2) Tax the rich
3) Tax the rich
4) Tax the rich
5) Get a Progressive Candidate who isn't afraid to tax the rich, and lead from a progressive agenda.
6) Vote for said Progressive, and his progressive agenda. (And tax teh rich.)
Funny how that works out, huh?
Gladstone was right about one thing: the OWS people could learn to simplfy the message a bit.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Breaking down the stereotypes
Conservatives love to read Liberals' accusations of racism as the Liberals' inability to answer their arguments. Well, no, the problem is that their arguments do not reflect reality. They rail against fictitious programs and legislation that never happened, and then ask us to defend it. We simply call them racist because we can't imagine why else someone would be willing to tell so many lies about this President. So... Is it possible to criticize a black man and NOT be a racist? Sure. I've done it to Tom Sowell, Colin Powell, Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas MANY times. Me! An OBAMA voter! And I'll do it again:
HERMAN CAIN IS AN IDIOT.
So there are two stereotypes that are struck down: Liberals won't criticize blacks, AND criticising a black makes you a racist! And if we wins the primary, I bet you'll see a third one struck down: That black people will vote for ANY black candidate!
Here's another one: Liberals want to raise taxes, Conservatives don't. Well... the first part is more of a misstatement. Liberals don't WANT to raise taxes... We just the only ones who realize that we HAVE TO. The second part? Is complete and utter baloney sausage. Conservative ABSOLUTELY want to raise taxes. They just want to raise them on the poor and middle class - that mythical "47% of American who pays no taxes!"
And this isn't even an issue of raising taxes versus raising revenue - you like that old Laffable Curve suggests? This 9-9-9 plan of Cain's that everyone "loves" because it's so simple? Is nothing more than a tax increase on the rest of us.
So what... is this class warfare?
I couldn't tell you. Class Warfare seems to be whatever the Right wants it to be. So let use MATH to call it what it it: A TAX INCREASE.
Well, what's the problem? I though Liberals wanted to raise taxes?! What is it so much better to tax the rich a little more, when you've got people who aren't putting in?
OK... I'm sure I don't have to dignify that question with a response, for any of my regular readers. But if you're new, or Conservative, here's why:
BECAUSE THE RICH CAN AFFORD IT. Because taxing the rich will have -ZERO- impact on their spending decisions whilst taxing ANYONE ELSE will have direct impact on theirs! And THAT will destroy the economy! Less spending = Shitty economy. That's not Liberal dogma or academic theory: that's FACT.
Herman Cain's plan is the worst possible thing: Increased taxes on those who can least afford it.
You know... If the only Black people I knew were Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Tom Sowell and Herman Cain? (IOW - If I were a Republican?) If THAT was the extent of my sample population?
I'd probably be racist too.
(Likewise, if Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Chrstine O'Donnell, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc... were the most intelligent and outspoken women I knew? I'd probably be as mysongyinst as they Right is as well!)
HERMAN CAIN IS AN IDIOT.
So there are two stereotypes that are struck down: Liberals won't criticize blacks, AND criticising a black makes you a racist! And if we wins the primary, I bet you'll see a third one struck down: That black people will vote for ANY black candidate!
Here's another one: Liberals want to raise taxes, Conservatives don't. Well... the first part is more of a misstatement. Liberals don't WANT to raise taxes... We just the only ones who realize that we HAVE TO. The second part? Is complete and utter baloney sausage. Conservative ABSOLUTELY want to raise taxes. They just want to raise them on the poor and middle class - that mythical "47% of American who pays no taxes!"
And this isn't even an issue of raising taxes versus raising revenue - you like that old Laffable Curve suggests? This 9-9-9 plan of Cain's that everyone "loves" because it's so simple? Is nothing more than a tax increase on the rest of us.
So what... is this class warfare?
I couldn't tell you. Class Warfare seems to be whatever the Right wants it to be. So let use MATH to call it what it it: A TAX INCREASE.
Well, what's the problem? I though Liberals wanted to raise taxes?! What is it so much better to tax the rich a little more, when you've got people who aren't putting in?
OK... I'm sure I don't have to dignify that question with a response, for any of my regular readers. But if you're new, or Conservative, here's why:
BECAUSE THE RICH CAN AFFORD IT. Because taxing the rich will have -ZERO- impact on their spending decisions whilst taxing ANYONE ELSE will have direct impact on theirs! And THAT will destroy the economy! Less spending = Shitty economy. That's not Liberal dogma or academic theory: that's FACT.
Herman Cain's plan is the worst possible thing: Increased taxes on those who can least afford it.
You know... If the only Black people I knew were Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Tom Sowell and Herman Cain? (IOW - If I were a Republican?) If THAT was the extent of my sample population?
I'd probably be racist too.
(Likewise, if Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Chrstine O'Donnell, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc... were the most intelligent and outspoken women I knew? I'd probably be as mysongyinst as they Right is as well!)
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Cracked Nails it Again! (And: Behold your liberal media!)
Great article from Cracked about 6 B.S. Myths You Probably Believe About America's "Enemies". Good read. I highly recommend it, as I do 99.9% of what they produce. (They are to print media what John Stewart is to Broadcast Media.) And really quickly, I'd like to point out some interesting trends in these myths. I'm going to put the "Myth" next to the "Truth," in order in a moment. I'd like you to ask yourselves, just who it is that is creating and perpetuating these myths, and who benefits from them. There's a couple where you can say "both sides do it," but, as usual, there's some false equivalency at play if you do...
1) MYTH: Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!
TRUTH: Iran's military is a joke, their Nuclear program is basically nonexistent and their REAL leaders (the Guardian Council) hos no interest in doing so, despite whatever posturing that Monkey in a Suit that they have for a President says. (He has no real power.) And what's more... they recently hired a Mexican to kill a Saudi in America. I mean... If they wanted to kill a Saudi, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to send an Iranian to kill one in Saudi Arabia?! That pretty much proves that even when they WANT to, they basically have no fucking idea HOW to!
2) MYTH: China's Economy Is Going to Steamroll America's!
TRUTH: We're the customer. They need US a LOT more than we need them.
3) MYTH: America Relies on Its Enemies for Oil!
TRUTH: 36% of our oil is domestic, 22% comes from Canada and our third biggest supplier is Mexico. As for the rest? See myth #2. Even Venezuela has no interest in cutting us off or threatening us. (We send them MONEY, after all!)
4) Al-Qaida Is Still a Huge Threat!
TRUTH: You had a 0.3% chance of dying in a terrorist attack if you were IN NEW YORK, on 9/11! Big picture? They never really were. And I'll give Bush credit for doing a few things right, because after 9/11 things only went downhill for them. (If only he didn't get this stupid obsession with Iraq, he'd could have killed Bin Laden himself, back in 2003.) But yeah... When you have to resort to guys lighting their underpants on fire? You're no longer a threat.
5) North Korea's Military Is Dangerous and Insane!
TRUTH: See Iran. Kim Jong Il might be crazy, but he isn't stupid. He's got a pretty good gig going. A decent little lifestyle for himself. There's just NO WAY he fucks that all up by getting his ass handed to him in a War with the much richer, much more militarily capable South.
6) The World Hates America!
TRUTH: Most of the world has a better view of American than most Americans do, and hold us in higher esteem than we hold our own leaders. But let me come back to this in a moment.
So... what do I see as the trend here?
Well, (1 - Iran) is just xenophobic warmongering. The same bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's the mindless pro-Isreal lobby, and pro-Oil lobby, and pro-Christian lobby, etc... IOW? Real Liberals. Just kidding. That's lies from the Right, by the Right and for the Right. Yet it's pretty much the consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(2 - China) is one that can go both ways. The Right have no love for Communism, and the Left? Well, hey: far be it for a self-admitted Working Class Warrior to ignore where all of out manufacturing jobs have gone! But think about it for a moment... Who is it that is terrified of making any kind of tough trade sanctions against China? And who is it that BENEFITS from treating China like they're some kind of Leather-Clad Dominatrix to the us, the lowly Sub? Who is that REALLY benefits from stoking the FEAR that ANY kind of tough negotiation with China will somehow RUIN us? Ding! Ding! Ding! .That would be the OWNERSHIP CLASS! AKA: Our corporate overlords. AKA: The RIGHT! And yet, that's still pretty much a consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(3 - Oil) is another one that someone who's not really playing attention might try to pin on both sides. We all know the Right's contribution - we're still fighting a damned war in Iraq over it! But one MIGHT say that the Left uses this to bolster their environmental arguments. Except that, no, we really DON'T. OK, we might, to try and convince a Righty to eat some greens, by using what he already believes against him. But in reality, Environmentalists don't NEED peripheral reasons to try and reduce our dependence on OIL, in general, regardless of where it comes form. Saving the environment is reason enough for most of them! So, again, Thank You, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and that no-good jackass who traded in all of his good reputation and credibility in support an illegal, immoral and completely unnecessary war: General Colin Fucking Powell. Thank you all for this one. (And... Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(4 - Al Quaeda) *sigh* See #3. We spend twice as much on defense as Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France COMBINED. And what reason do they USUALLY feed us to justify this psychopathy? (Oh, yeah... and behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(5 - North Korea) *sigh* see #'s 3 and 4. (And behold: You're Liberal Media!)
So far, the trend for who is perpetuating these myths, and benefiting from them, is pretty clear. In his last comment, in my "Occupy Reality, Part 2" post, Classic Liberal said that "The American conservative elite has waged a relentless war on the notion that there is any such thing as an objective fact" and had gone on to say that their refusal to simply ACKNOWLEDGE reality (and their preference to try and shape or re-define it) is "a serious problem," one he's called "our most serious problem." And I'm inclined to agree with him. Our semantics may have differed, but my previous post, and my reason for posting this one are pretty much the same: It's not about Liberal-Conservative anymore, or even Progressive-Regressive. Those issues are secondary to the far greater problem of Reality vs. Whatever World the Conservatives Think they Live in or Exists. He is (as usual) SPOT ON. The year is 1984. And for the foreseeable future? On the Right? It will continue to be.
Now... as for #6...
Cracked brings up a very salientpoint that, at first blush, seems like a very valid "both sides do it" argument:
THEY use this myth to JUSTIFY doing horrible things.
WE use to try and STOP US from doing horrible things!
Think about that! Let that sink in for a moment. It just ain't the same! Once we accept that both sides are wrong in this case? At worst? WE are still advocating for peace and diplomacy and a continuation of ALL THE GOOD that our country has done for the World! And at BEST? They end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy! I mean, fine: Maybe the World DOESN'T hate us. Great. But drop enough bombs? Invade enough countries for no good reason? Kill enough innocent civilians? Continue to act like the arrogant School-Yard Bully? And eventually?
They will.
Now... Can ANYONE tell me why ANYONE who not an integral part of the Right-Wing Power or Money Structure would call themselves "Conservative?"
Oki?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
1) MYTH: Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!
TRUTH: Iran's military is a joke, their Nuclear program is basically nonexistent and their REAL leaders (the Guardian Council) hos no interest in doing so, despite whatever posturing that Monkey in a Suit that they have for a President says. (He has no real power.) And what's more... they recently hired a Mexican to kill a Saudi in America. I mean... If they wanted to kill a Saudi, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to send an Iranian to kill one in Saudi Arabia?! That pretty much proves that even when they WANT to, they basically have no fucking idea HOW to!
2) MYTH: China's Economy Is Going to Steamroll America's!
TRUTH: We're the customer. They need US a LOT more than we need them.
3) MYTH: America Relies on Its Enemies for Oil!
TRUTH: 36% of our oil is domestic, 22% comes from Canada and our third biggest supplier is Mexico. As for the rest? See myth #2. Even Venezuela has no interest in cutting us off or threatening us. (We send them MONEY, after all!)
4) Al-Qaida Is Still a Huge Threat!
TRUTH: You had a 0.3% chance of dying in a terrorist attack if you were IN NEW YORK, on 9/11! Big picture? They never really were. And I'll give Bush credit for doing a few things right, because after 9/11 things only went downhill for them. (If only he didn't get this stupid obsession with Iraq, he'd could have killed Bin Laden himself, back in 2003.) But yeah... When you have to resort to guys lighting their underpants on fire? You're no longer a threat.
5) North Korea's Military Is Dangerous and Insane!
TRUTH: See Iran. Kim Jong Il might be crazy, but he isn't stupid. He's got a pretty good gig going. A decent little lifestyle for himself. There's just NO WAY he fucks that all up by getting his ass handed to him in a War with the much richer, much more militarily capable South.
6) The World Hates America!
TRUTH: Most of the world has a better view of American than most Americans do, and hold us in higher esteem than we hold our own leaders. But let me come back to this in a moment.
So... what do I see as the trend here?
Well, (1 - Iran) is just xenophobic warmongering. The same bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's the mindless pro-Isreal lobby, and pro-Oil lobby, and pro-Christian lobby, etc... IOW? Real Liberals. Just kidding. That's lies from the Right, by the Right and for the Right. Yet it's pretty much the consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(2 - China) is one that can go both ways. The Right have no love for Communism, and the Left? Well, hey: far be it for a self-admitted Working Class Warrior to ignore where all of out manufacturing jobs have gone! But think about it for a moment... Who is it that is terrified of making any kind of tough trade sanctions against China? And who is it that BENEFITS from treating China like they're some kind of Leather-Clad Dominatrix to the us, the lowly Sub? Who is that REALLY benefits from stoking the FEAR that ANY kind of tough negotiation with China will somehow RUIN us? Ding! Ding! Ding! .That would be the OWNERSHIP CLASS! AKA: Our corporate overlords. AKA: The RIGHT! And yet, that's still pretty much a consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(3 - Oil) is another one that someone who's not really playing attention might try to pin on both sides. We all know the Right's contribution - we're still fighting a damned war in Iraq over it! But one MIGHT say that the Left uses this to bolster their environmental arguments. Except that, no, we really DON'T. OK, we might, to try and convince a Righty to eat some greens, by using what he already believes against him. But in reality, Environmentalists don't NEED peripheral reasons to try and reduce our dependence on OIL, in general, regardless of where it comes form. Saving the environment is reason enough for most of them! So, again, Thank You, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and that no-good jackass who traded in all of his good reputation and credibility in support an illegal, immoral and completely unnecessary war: General Colin Fucking Powell. Thank you all for this one. (And... Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(4 - Al Quaeda) *sigh* See #3. We spend twice as much on defense as Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France COMBINED. And what reason do they USUALLY feed us to justify this psychopathy? (Oh, yeah... and behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(5 - North Korea) *sigh* see #'s 3 and 4. (And behold: You're Liberal Media!)
So far, the trend for who is perpetuating these myths, and benefiting from them, is pretty clear. In his last comment, in my "Occupy Reality, Part 2" post, Classic Liberal said that "The American conservative elite has waged a relentless war on the notion that there is any such thing as an objective fact" and had gone on to say that their refusal to simply ACKNOWLEDGE reality (and their preference to try and shape or re-define it) is "a serious problem," one he's called "our most serious problem." And I'm inclined to agree with him. Our semantics may have differed, but my previous post, and my reason for posting this one are pretty much the same: It's not about Liberal-Conservative anymore, or even Progressive-Regressive. Those issues are secondary to the far greater problem of Reality vs. Whatever World the Conservatives Think they Live in or Exists. He is (as usual) SPOT ON. The year is 1984. And for the foreseeable future? On the Right? It will continue to be.
Now... as for #6...
Cracked brings up a very salientpoint that, at first blush, seems like a very valid "both sides do it" argument:
The right wing will tell you that everyone from France to Iraq hates our freedom, or our democracy, or our ability to get chili cheese fries added to any meal. The left will tell you with a grim fatalism that the developing world hates us because we've been occupying their countries, damaging their culture and our reputation for years.Now... Once we accept the reality that, in fact, most countries DON'T hate us, it might be easy to conclude that "both sides" us this for their own political agenda. But I think this serves as a pretty shrewd example of how both sides think, and explains why I am perfectly happy to demonize the Right and proudly wear whatever label they want to pin on me, "Progressive," "Liberal," "Commie," whatever...
THEY use this myth to JUSTIFY doing horrible things.
WE use to try and STOP US from doing horrible things!
Think about that! Let that sink in for a moment. It just ain't the same! Once we accept that both sides are wrong in this case? At worst? WE are still advocating for peace and diplomacy and a continuation of ALL THE GOOD that our country has done for the World! And at BEST? They end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy! I mean, fine: Maybe the World DOESN'T hate us. Great. But drop enough bombs? Invade enough countries for no good reason? Kill enough innocent civilians? Continue to act like the arrogant School-Yard Bully? And eventually?
They will.
Now... Can ANYONE tell me why ANYONE who not an integral part of the Right-Wing Power or Money Structure would call themselves "Conservative?"
Oki?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Monday, October 10, 2011
One Tin Soldier
(NOTE: I put this up last night, and them imediat;ey took it down. And now, I'm like, "Fuck it, I'm putting it back up." I really need to just stick to my guns and post whatever I type. This is just brain-droppings anyway, not some profound political and social endevour.)
So, here I am blogging, listening to music, trying for the 1000th time to sing all of "The War Was in Color" without my voice faltering (becasue I'm on the verge of tears) and I came across THIS rather interesting AMV for "One Tin Soldier."
It's certainly not perfect. Not at all. It makes the tragic mistake of depicting Saddam Hussien as a sympathetic character. Well, no. That much is bullshit. [***actually, see note below!] BUT, aside from that, it really uses some cool images, and draws some very apt symbolic parallels between this song and how it applies to the Iraq War. It's not my favorite cover of the song, not by a long shot, so I don't know yet if I'll put this one up on my music page, but I think it's worth a listen. (And if you really want to gag, go read some of the comments on the original YouTube page. It's amazing how the Right just so consistently manages to get it wrong.)
I find this to be a much better interpretation, by several orders of magnitude, than any of the other goofy, jingoistic, war-mongering, anti-Islam videos that I found that placed pictures of 9/11 in the background of the song, along with the faces of the terrorists, as if the whole point is that somehow the wars that resulted were justified. Don't get me wrong, you can certainly argue it... (well, Afghanistan anyway, not Iraq...) but you can't use THIS SONG to do it!
This song is not about rationalizing war, but rather a criticism of those who would rationalize it. (Like the very morons making anti-Islamic, 9/11 videos from it!)
[NOTE: I just noticed something. That picture of Saddam that comes up? On the line "pay the price and we wiil share?" That's a much EARLIER picture of him, and that guy he's shaiking hands with is DONALD RUMSFLED! So that was beck when Saddam was our BUDDY. So much for the AMV creator depicting him as a good guy! Shit, that was REAGAN and CHENEY and RUNSFELD'S doing! I take back what I said: This AMV IS perfect!]
So, here I am blogging, listening to music, trying for the 1000th time to sing all of "The War Was in Color" without my voice faltering (becasue I'm on the verge of tears) and I came across THIS rather interesting AMV for "One Tin Soldier."
It's certainly not perfect. Not at all. It makes the tragic mistake of depicting Saddam Hussien as a sympathetic character. Well, no. That much is bullshit. [***actually, see note below!] BUT, aside from that, it really uses some cool images, and draws some very apt symbolic parallels between this song and how it applies to the Iraq War. It's not my favorite cover of the song, not by a long shot, so I don't know yet if I'll put this one up on my music page, but I think it's worth a listen. (And if you really want to gag, go read some of the comments on the original YouTube page. It's amazing how the Right just so consistently manages to get it wrong.)
I find this to be a much better interpretation, by several orders of magnitude, than any of the other goofy, jingoistic, war-mongering, anti-Islam videos that I found that placed pictures of 9/11 in the background of the song, along with the faces of the terrorists, as if the whole point is that somehow the wars that resulted were justified. Don't get me wrong, you can certainly argue it... (well, Afghanistan anyway, not Iraq...) but you can't use THIS SONG to do it!
This song is not about rationalizing war, but rather a criticism of those who would rationalize it. (Like the very morons making anti-Islamic, 9/11 videos from it!)
[NOTE: I just noticed something. That picture of Saddam that comes up? On the line "pay the price and we wiil share?" That's a much EARLIER picture of him, and that guy he's shaiking hands with is DONALD RUMSFLED! So that was beck when Saddam was our BUDDY. So much for the AMV creator depicting him as a good guy! Shit, that was REAGAN and CHENEY and RUNSFELD'S doing! I take back what I said: This AMV IS perfect!]
Occupy Reality, part two
I'm probably the last one to the party, but I'd like to say a few things about the good work that is being doing by the protesters up in New York (and many other places) that are taking part in the occupy Wall Street protest. I support everything they're doing, everything they stand for, and the message they're bringing. It is high time the American People gave a collective FUCK YOU to the unimaginable levels of greed that have poisoned our national discourse, ruined our economy, screwed over the American worker and purchased (or rented, in the case of Democrats) our political leaders.
So good on them.
Of course...
If you watch the news, you probably wouldn't even know it was happening! (Sad though it may be, THAT article was the first I'd heard about it! And I listen to National Public Radio!)
And when they HAVE reported on this GENUINE, grass-roots, political phenomenon, what have they had to say?
Fox's Watters Degrades Wall Street Protests As "The Sludge" Of "Every Single Left-Wing Cause"
Fox's Guilfoyle: Wall Street Protesters Are "People With Absolutely No Purpose Or Focus In Life" There To Just "Dirty The Streets"
Limbaugh Calls Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Stupid," Says They're Being "Us[ed]"
Ann Coulter And Sean Hannity Lash Out At "Destructive" "Mob Mentality" Of Occupy Wall Street Protests
Kuhner: "Obama Has Unleashed Class Hatred And Racial Hostility"
Fox's Stephen Hayes On Occupy Wall Street: "This Is Not Going To Amount Of Any Kind Of A Serious Movement"
Limbaugh Derides Occupy Wall Street Protesters As "Pure, Genuine Parasites," Says Many Are "Bored Trust Fund Kids" ***do you know how many lawyers and political insiders this shit-stain's family has?! And he has the NERVE to call someone ELSE "trust fund parasite?!"
Fox's Trotta On Occupy Wall Street Website: "Ravings Of What Sounds Like The Unabomber"
Fox's Bolling: Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Do Seem Like Petulant Little Children"
Fox's Crowley: Wall Street Protestors Are "Useful Idiots Who Probably Haven't Paid Much In Taxes Their Whole Life"
Now, to be fair, that's mostly Fox, but basically no one else has even made a STORY of it! In response to Alan Colmes calling out Fox's double standard here, one poster though it was relevant to say that this was all being backed by GEORGE SOROS! (And old trick, to be sure, but a new one relative to THIS story!)
(And, of course, If George Soros WERE leading a Left-Wing Revolution in American politics? Shouldn't that at least qualify as a STORY?! Shouldn't MORE PEOPLE be talking about that?! So... Even were it TRUE, Colmes still has a point!)
My favorite was this one:
Fox's Doocy Quotes NY Post To Claim The "Number One Reason People Are Going" To Wall St. Protests Is "Free Food"
Now, I'm not posting all of these items, merely to pick on Fox. We've all know, for a looooong time, that they are kind of a "special needs" news channel, and so we can't expect them to get it right all the time. (Or ever.) But there is an interesting patter here. Do you notice what every single one of these headlines (and moronic Internet comments) have in common?
They're all nothing but ad hominen attacks!
Under that Free-Food item, poster donzostevens1082 (finally) pointed out:
And the answer? Is ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING!
Because that's what an ad hominen attack IS!
When you can't "win" on facts, evidence, logic, reason, principle...
When all else (including you're own intellect) FAILS...
ATTACK THE SPEAKER RELENTLESSLY!
Look at the above comments: "Idiots," "Sludge," "Parasites," "Mob mentality," (which sure is rich, coming from the Reich-wing!) "People with no Purpose," "Petulant Little Children..." Do ANY of these things address the POINTS that are being made? Oh, HELL no! Why would Fox News want to make anyone aware of the MESSAGE and the POINTS that these people are making?
Well, they might...
IF they had ANYTHING of substance to counter with.
I mean... MMFA pretty muich puts up ALL KNOIDS of things trhey Right says, EVERY SINGLE DAY. And they do this because they KNOW they can prove them wrong! You see, it's like I always say:
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, S/HE'LL TRY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG. WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, S/HE'LL TRY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.
And try they have - to paint these protesters as "commies" and "hippies" and any number of things OTHER than American's who have had ENOUGH of this crap!
And don't forget: This was the same network that described the Tea Party as "grass roots" - every chance they got, in their 24/7 coverage of them, on their national news service, from whence they organized protests and coordinated rallies... Yeah.. "grass roots." No corporate sponsors there, huh? The trouble with the Right isn't WHAT they think, or even (as I once believed) HOW they think. The problem with the Right is that they're not even living in the SAME WORLD as the rest of us! They're not actually living in the same REALITY any more.
Think about "OBAMACARE." Can anyone explain to me what that actually IS?! I mean... they spand an awful lot of time harping on it, and yet NO ONE can explain to me how it is any different for mwhat we've had forever. What IS this thing? It is nothing more than a figment of the Rigth's imagination that the have convinced their followers EXISTS...
...The same way Obama is going to take all of our guns...
...or impliement Sharia law...
...of wants to tank the economy...
...or start a race war.
In what fucking plane of exsistance can any of this crap be taken seriously?!
Bottom line?
The ad hominen attack is the last refuge of the guy who's got nothin'.
Fox has got NOTHING. So? Attack the speaker. Sling mud. Make people suspect him. Make people HATE him...
...because you're basically BONED if anyone actually LISTENS to him!
Thank you, Fox. I accept your concession on all points.
Now... CAN WE PLEASE VOTE OUT ALL OF THE CORPORATE WHORES?!
So good on them.
Of course...
If you watch the news, you probably wouldn't even know it was happening! (Sad though it may be, THAT article was the first I'd heard about it! And I listen to National Public Radio!)
And when they HAVE reported on this GENUINE, grass-roots, political phenomenon, what have they had to say?
Fox's Watters Degrades Wall Street Protests As "The Sludge" Of "Every Single Left-Wing Cause"
Fox's Guilfoyle: Wall Street Protesters Are "People With Absolutely No Purpose Or Focus In Life" There To Just "Dirty The Streets"
Limbaugh Calls Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Stupid," Says They're Being "Us[ed]"
Ann Coulter And Sean Hannity Lash Out At "Destructive" "Mob Mentality" Of Occupy Wall Street Protests
Kuhner: "Obama Has Unleashed Class Hatred And Racial Hostility"
Fox's Stephen Hayes On Occupy Wall Street: "This Is Not Going To Amount Of Any Kind Of A Serious Movement"
Limbaugh Derides Occupy Wall Street Protesters As "Pure, Genuine Parasites," Says Many Are "Bored Trust Fund Kids" ***do you know how many lawyers and political insiders this shit-stain's family has?! And he has the NERVE to call someone ELSE "trust fund parasite?!"
Fox's Trotta On Occupy Wall Street Website: "Ravings Of What Sounds Like The Unabomber"
Fox's Bolling: Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Do Seem Like Petulant Little Children"
Fox's Crowley: Wall Street Protestors Are "Useful Idiots Who Probably Haven't Paid Much In Taxes Their Whole Life"
Now, to be fair, that's mostly Fox, but basically no one else has even made a STORY of it! In response to Alan Colmes calling out Fox's double standard here, one poster though it was relevant to say that this was all being backed by GEORGE SOROS! (And old trick, to be sure, but a new one relative to THIS story!)
(And, of course, If George Soros WERE leading a Left-Wing Revolution in American politics? Shouldn't that at least qualify as a STORY?! Shouldn't MORE PEOPLE be talking about that?! So... Even were it TRUE, Colmes still has a point!)
My favorite was this one:
Fox's Doocy Quotes NY Post To Claim The "Number One Reason People Are Going" To Wall St. Protests Is "Free Food"
Now, I'm not posting all of these items, merely to pick on Fox. We've all know, for a looooong time, that they are kind of a "special needs" news channel, and so we can't expect them to get it right all the time. (Or ever.) But there is an interesting patter here. Do you notice what every single one of these headlines (and moronic Internet comments) have in common?
They're all nothing but ad hominen attacks!
Under that Free-Food item, poster donzostevens1082 (finally) pointed out:
Even if this "free food" nonsense were true, how does it invalidate a protest against vast and growing income disparity?
And the answer? Is ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING!
Because that's what an ad hominen attack IS!
When you can't "win" on facts, evidence, logic, reason, principle...
When all else (including you're own intellect) FAILS...
ATTACK THE SPEAKER RELENTLESSLY!
Look at the above comments: "Idiots," "Sludge," "Parasites," "Mob mentality," (which sure is rich, coming from the Reich-wing!) "People with no Purpose," "Petulant Little Children..." Do ANY of these things address the POINTS that are being made? Oh, HELL no! Why would Fox News want to make anyone aware of the MESSAGE and the POINTS that these people are making?
Well, they might...
IF they had ANYTHING of substance to counter with.
I mean... MMFA pretty muich puts up ALL KNOIDS of things trhey Right says, EVERY SINGLE DAY. And they do this because they KNOW they can prove them wrong! You see, it's like I always say:
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, S/HE'LL TRY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG. WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, S/HE'LL TRY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.
And try they have - to paint these protesters as "commies" and "hippies" and any number of things OTHER than American's who have had ENOUGH of this crap!
And don't forget: This was the same network that described the Tea Party as "grass roots" - every chance they got, in their 24/7 coverage of them, on their national news service, from whence they organized protests and coordinated rallies... Yeah.. "grass roots." No corporate sponsors there, huh? The trouble with the Right isn't WHAT they think, or even (as I once believed) HOW they think. The problem with the Right is that they're not even living in the SAME WORLD as the rest of us! They're not actually living in the same REALITY any more.
Think about "OBAMACARE." Can anyone explain to me what that actually IS?! I mean... they spand an awful lot of time harping on it, and yet NO ONE can explain to me how it is any different for mwhat we've had forever. What IS this thing? It is nothing more than a figment of the Rigth's imagination that the have convinced their followers EXISTS...
...The same way Obama is going to take all of our guns...
...or impliement Sharia law...
...of wants to tank the economy...
...or start a race war.
In what fucking plane of exsistance can any of this crap be taken seriously?!
Bottom line?
The ad hominen attack is the last refuge of the guy who's got nothin'.
Fox has got NOTHING. So? Attack the speaker. Sling mud. Make people suspect him. Make people HATE him...
...because you're basically BONED if anyone actually LISTENS to him!
Thank you, Fox. I accept your concession on all points.
Now... CAN WE PLEASE VOTE OUT ALL OF THE CORPORATE WHORES?!
Occupy Reality, part one
The Dow Jones Industrial Average "soared" 330 points today. What does that mean? Well... nothing, actually. But there's an interesting story to the DJIA when take in context. Here are the numbers over the past two months:
From July 21st to August 8th it lost 1914.26 points. That's... a pretty substantial drop. Now... Seeing as how it had been an almost consistently upward trend for over a year leading up to that point - up 6097.27 points since its low, about six weeks or so after Obama took office. So... What was going on during that time period that might have given the economy some jitters? Hmmm.... Let me think...
OH YEAH!
The whole stupid DEBT CEILING DEBATE! Thank you, REPUBLICANS! I mean, GOD FORBID the recovery happen when there's a DEMOCRAT in the White House! Keynes might make a comeback or something! (Of course, by stiflingng the stimulus packages, and seeing the recovery falter, they basically PROVED Keynes was right, but don't expect that liberal media (*barf*) to tell you that!) They couldn't bear to see that Obama (and Keynes) were RIGHT, so they invented an issue in order to shit-can the economy. Way to go, Republicans!
And since then, check it out:
UP 429.82
DOWN 519.83
UP 423.37
UP 125.71
UP 213.88
DOWN 77.707
UP 5.017
DOWN 419.63
DOWN 172.93
UP 37
UP 322.11
UP 143.95
DOWN 170.89
UP 134.72
UP 254.71
UP 20.7
UP 53.58
DOWN 119.96
DOWN 369.31
UP 15.04
UP 275.56
DOWN 119.05
DOWN 303.68
UP 68.99
UP 44.73
UP 140.88
UP 186.45
UP 75.91
DOWN 108.08
UP 7.65
DOWN 283.82
DOWN 391.01
UP 37.65
UP 272.38
UP 146.83
DOWN 179.79
UP 143.08
DOWN 240.6
DOWN 258.08
UP 153.41
UP 131.24
UP 183.38
DOWN 20.21
UP 330.06
Now, the trend? On average? Since, August 8th? Is DOWNWARD. OK, yeah, the index is actually UP 193.41 points since the start period, but the trend-line says that we'll lose about 4.65 points per trading day. The thing is? Do you notice how many days there are that the CHANGE (up or down) was in the triple digits? Because I did. Don't bother counting, I'm going to tell you: 32 out of 44. That 72% of the time that the Index changed by roughly 1% of it's overall value. To put that in context - a 1% change in a single day - if it went UP every day by 1%, in a year you'd have roughly THIRTEEN TIMES the money you started with. Now, obviously, that's never going to happen. Down days will cancel out up days and vice-versa. But more than EVER OTHER DAY? THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR?! That's extraordinary.
So... what does it mean?
Well... You have to understand that the DJIA is nothing but a handful of stocks (30) that the Dow Jones Company picks because they feel that they are a good indicator of the countries overall economic health. (It's actually one of THREE indices for this purpose, but it the only one anyone every talks about, so it's what we're going to talk about.) And you also have to understand what a stock's price actually means. What it is, is the net present value (which assumes some arbitrary inflation rate) of all future dividends (profits) divided by the number of shares. IOW, it's a predictive value of how a company will do. And, obviously, as new information comes in (like quarterly reports?) both that projection, and the price, will change accordingly.
So... what does it mean that "the experts" keep changing their prediction by such a significant amount every day, up and down?
Well, for a start, it may seem that they don't what the hell they're bloody doing! But ACTUALLY, it merely means that there's a lot of economic instability at the moment. Now the Republcians will balme it on all kinds of things that eitehr haven't happened yet (like tax increases) or things that have no chance of happeneing. (Like tax increases.)
But I have an alternate theory, and it's fairly simple.
The economy is trying to recover. It really wants to. There is pent up demand and people are starting to spend money again. Sales of Halloween Candy/Decorations/Cosutems/etc..., for example, is WAY up from the last two years. I can tell you that Automotive sales (and profits) are generally up as well. But then...
HERE COME THE REPUBLICANS...
Debt crisis = higher interest rates = harder to borrow = lousy economy
No More Stimulus = hampers demand = lousy economy
Raise taxes on THE POOR (a favorite of Fox News these days!) = hampers demand = lousy economy
Cut Social Security and Entitlements = hampers demand = lousy economy
Cut Government Salaries and jobs = hampers demand = lousy economy
You see the trend?
The ECONOMY? Would be doing just fine if the Republicans did what they always say the Government should do: STOP FUCKING WITH IT!
All of this instability is due to Washington's (read: REPUBLICANS) refusal to simply DO WHAT IS NECESSARY to make things better.
Now... You might hear the Right tell you that their thinking LONG TERM instead of SHORT TERM.
To which I'll answer, "Yeah..." and point out that, to a Republican, "Short term" means the next fourteen months, while "Long term" meand 2013 through 2016.
If I had my way, I'd execute every one of these scumbags for treason. As it is, they should be impeached and jailed for theft, fraud and corruption. But, at a minimum? THEY SHOULD ALL BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. EVERY LAST MOTHERFUCKING ONE OF THEM!
I've said it many times on MMFA, and probably once or twice here, and I'll say it again:
Anyone making less than $250,000 a year who votes Republican is either clinically psychotic or functionally retarded. The rest? Are just greedy.
From July 21st to August 8th it lost 1914.26 points. That's... a pretty substantial drop. Now... Seeing as how it had been an almost consistently upward trend for over a year leading up to that point - up 6097.27 points since its low, about six weeks or so after Obama took office. So... What was going on during that time period that might have given the economy some jitters? Hmmm.... Let me think...
OH YEAH!
The whole stupid DEBT CEILING DEBATE! Thank you, REPUBLICANS! I mean, GOD FORBID the recovery happen when there's a DEMOCRAT in the White House! Keynes might make a comeback or something! (Of course, by stiflingng the stimulus packages, and seeing the recovery falter, they basically PROVED Keynes was right, but don't expect that liberal media (*barf*) to tell you that!) They couldn't bear to see that Obama (and Keynes) were RIGHT, so they invented an issue in order to shit-can the economy. Way to go, Republicans!
And since then, check it out:
UP 429.82
DOWN 519.83
UP 423.37
UP 125.71
UP 213.88
DOWN 77.707
UP 5.017
DOWN 419.63
DOWN 172.93
UP 37
UP 322.11
UP 143.95
DOWN 170.89
UP 134.72
UP 254.71
UP 20.7
UP 53.58
DOWN 119.96
DOWN 369.31
UP 15.04
UP 275.56
DOWN 119.05
DOWN 303.68
UP 68.99
UP 44.73
UP 140.88
UP 186.45
UP 75.91
DOWN 108.08
UP 7.65
DOWN 283.82
DOWN 391.01
UP 37.65
UP 272.38
UP 146.83
DOWN 179.79
UP 143.08
DOWN 240.6
DOWN 258.08
UP 153.41
UP 131.24
UP 183.38
DOWN 20.21
UP 330.06
Now, the trend? On average? Since, August 8th? Is DOWNWARD. OK, yeah, the index is actually UP 193.41 points since the start period, but the trend-line says that we'll lose about 4.65 points per trading day. The thing is? Do you notice how many days there are that the CHANGE (up or down) was in the triple digits? Because I did. Don't bother counting, I'm going to tell you: 32 out of 44. That 72% of the time that the Index changed by roughly 1% of it's overall value. To put that in context - a 1% change in a single day - if it went UP every day by 1%, in a year you'd have roughly THIRTEEN TIMES the money you started with. Now, obviously, that's never going to happen. Down days will cancel out up days and vice-versa. But more than EVER OTHER DAY? THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR?! That's extraordinary.
So... what does it mean?
Well... You have to understand that the DJIA is nothing but a handful of stocks (30) that the Dow Jones Company picks because they feel that they are a good indicator of the countries overall economic health. (It's actually one of THREE indices for this purpose, but it the only one anyone every talks about, so it's what we're going to talk about.) And you also have to understand what a stock's price actually means. What it is, is the net present value (which assumes some arbitrary inflation rate) of all future dividends (profits) divided by the number of shares. IOW, it's a predictive value of how a company will do. And, obviously, as new information comes in (like quarterly reports?) both that projection, and the price, will change accordingly.
So... what does it mean that "the experts" keep changing their prediction by such a significant amount every day, up and down?
Well, for a start, it may seem that they don't what the hell they're bloody doing! But ACTUALLY, it merely means that there's a lot of economic instability at the moment. Now the Republcians will balme it on all kinds of things that eitehr haven't happened yet (like tax increases) or things that have no chance of happeneing. (Like tax increases.)
But I have an alternate theory, and it's fairly simple.
The economy is trying to recover. It really wants to. There is pent up demand and people are starting to spend money again. Sales of Halloween Candy/Decorations/Cosutems/etc..., for example, is WAY up from the last two years. I can tell you that Automotive sales (and profits) are generally up as well. But then...
HERE COME THE REPUBLICANS...
Debt crisis = higher interest rates = harder to borrow = lousy economy
No More Stimulus = hampers demand = lousy economy
Raise taxes on THE POOR (a favorite of Fox News these days!) = hampers demand = lousy economy
Cut Social Security and Entitlements = hampers demand = lousy economy
Cut Government Salaries and jobs = hampers demand = lousy economy
You see the trend?
The ECONOMY? Would be doing just fine if the Republicans did what they always say the Government should do: STOP FUCKING WITH IT!
All of this instability is due to Washington's (read: REPUBLICANS) refusal to simply DO WHAT IS NECESSARY to make things better.
Now... You might hear the Right tell you that their thinking LONG TERM instead of SHORT TERM.
To which I'll answer, "Yeah..." and point out that, to a Republican, "Short term" means the next fourteen months, while "Long term" meand 2013 through 2016.
If I had my way, I'd execute every one of these scumbags for treason. As it is, they should be impeached and jailed for theft, fraud and corruption. But, at a minimum? THEY SHOULD ALL BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. EVERY LAST MOTHERFUCKING ONE OF THEM!
I've said it many times on MMFA, and probably once or twice here, and I'll say it again:
Anyone making less than $250,000 a year who votes Republican is either clinically psychotic or functionally retarded. The rest? Are just greedy.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Comments
Hey, I just wanted to let y'all know that I am reading your comments, and as always I greatly appreciate them. But it seems that Blogger is having issues again, and I've been unable to post even anonymously in the comments section. Hoepfully you're not having this issue, but I just wanted to let you know so you don't think I'm ignoring them. I'd LIKE to reply to your comments, as I've typically done in the past, but for some reason the system just isn't letting me.
Also, just a reminder:
NEW MUSIC PAGE
and
UTOPIA has been updated!
Also, just a reminder:
NEW MUSIC PAGE
and
UTOPIA has been updated!
Music Page
I've added a page to collect some of the songs I've highlighted over the past couple of that I really like and that I feel are of great social importance and carry an important message. The tab is at the top- right, check it out, let me know what you think!
Friday, October 7, 2011
Two Republicans
You know what's really frustrating? One - someone like Obama who seems to be full of good ideas, but would rather give in to his opposition at the first opportunity. But even more so? Hard-Right Conservative Republicans who make sense just often enough to make you think they don't have their heads up their asses. (I say "often enough" because it usually only takes a few minutes before they prove this wrong, but still...) This started out as a "top X Republicans I like" kind of post, but it was really triggered by recent comments by the whopping total of TWO. And that's not a list. All the same, I'd like to tip my cap to a couple of guys who are absolutely hard-core Right Wingers, but who, on many occasions, GET IT RIGHT just often enough to frustrate the hell out of you: Ron Paul and Lindsey Graham.
Ron Paul is always an interesting guy to listen to. For one thing - as he'll gladly tell you - he really the only TRUE Conservative in Politics today. And I think there's a lot of truth to that. And his conviction to stick to his principles, even when it would be unpopular with "conservatives" was on full display recently when he, along with the ACLU, condemned the killing of American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Yep: One more example of Ron Paul getting it right, while his party and the masses of ignorant Red Necks who support it, CELEBRATE getting it WRONG. Now I am a true-blue supporter of all that the ACLU does, including those times when the DEFEND Churches and Right-Wing Talk Show Hosts in court. Because MY OWN principles regareding Civil Liberties are also neither negotiable, nor partisan. Classic Liberal had a great write up on this a while back too, so check it out!
How can anyone think that the RIGHT and the AMERICAN thing to do was ANYTHING other that (1) arrest him, (2) extradite him, (3) try him, and (4, most likely) Execute him? (OK... I know, I know... We've already debated #4. I just threw that in to aggravate you.)
Now... Don't get me wrong: RON PAUL IS A KOOK. One of my thresholds for Right-Wing / Libertarian / John Birch / Kook is anyone who argues for the ABOLITION of the Federal Reserve. It's one thing to disagree with a specirfic Fed policy or practice, but to argue for the outright abolition? That's kook territory. And if you don't agree with me, then you've never passed a college-level economics or history of economic course. (Glenn Beck? I'm looking at you!) But hey - I will ALWAYS give credit where it's due, and Ron Paul makes too much sense, too often, for me to reconcile that with the fact that he's goes off the la-la land deep end as often as he does as well. It's to bad he's not electable ("conservatives" hate him) though, because of ALL the Republicans out there right now? I honestly think he'd be one of the better choices. (And before all you crazy liberals start flaming me over that, please consider how low I'm setting the bar with that statement!) ;)
The other guy who makes me nod and say "Now see? THAT GUY gets it!" too often for the level of Right -Wing kook that HE is, is Lindsey Graham, one of the few Republicans to recently come out in favor of trade sanctions against China for their unfair currency manipulation:
You go, Lindsey!
And this happens A LOT! There are so many times that I find myself nodded my head and rhetorically high fiving this very Conservative, Southern, Republican Senator! And yet... Get him talking about Abortion, Gay Rights, or any other of the Right's pet anti-causes and suddenly he's an ignorant Redneck again!
And please, don't for a minute think that I'm suggesting that OBAMA is somehow winning over some Republicans. No way. I've been watching these guys for YEARS, vacillating between loving them and laughing at them. What I DO think is happening, in the case of Graham, is that he's looking at inherently good legislation and, once again, sees his party opposing it on the basis of it still being Obama's watch and he's saying "Fuck You" to his party and their four year plan to screw America for the sake of sinking Obama.
Anyway, as far as Republicans go, I do like these guys...
...But I'd still never vote for them.
(OTOH, I'm still registered as Republican in Michigan, so if there's ever a Paul/Graham ticket, I WILL give them some love in the Primary! LOL.)
(Never happen.) XD
Ron Paul is always an interesting guy to listen to. For one thing - as he'll gladly tell you - he really the only TRUE Conservative in Politics today. And I think there's a lot of truth to that. And his conviction to stick to his principles, even when it would be unpopular with "conservatives" was on full display recently when he, along with the ACLU, condemned the killing of American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Yep: One more example of Ron Paul getting it right, while his party and the masses of ignorant Red Necks who support it, CELEBRATE getting it WRONG. Now I am a true-blue supporter of all that the ACLU does, including those times when the DEFEND Churches and Right-Wing Talk Show Hosts in court. Because MY OWN principles regareding Civil Liberties are also neither negotiable, nor partisan. Classic Liberal had a great write up on this a while back too, so check it out!
How can anyone think that the RIGHT and the AMERICAN thing to do was ANYTHING other that (1) arrest him, (2) extradite him, (3) try him, and (4, most likely) Execute him? (OK... I know, I know... We've already debated #4. I just threw that in to aggravate you.)
Now... Don't get me wrong: RON PAUL IS A KOOK. One of my thresholds for Right-Wing / Libertarian / John Birch / Kook is anyone who argues for the ABOLITION of the Federal Reserve. It's one thing to disagree with a specirfic Fed policy or practice, but to argue for the outright abolition? That's kook territory. And if you don't agree with me, then you've never passed a college-level economics or history of economic course. (Glenn Beck? I'm looking at you!) But hey - I will ALWAYS give credit where it's due, and Ron Paul makes too much sense, too often, for me to reconcile that with the fact that he's goes off the la-la land deep end as often as he does as well. It's to bad he's not electable ("conservatives" hate him) though, because of ALL the Republicans out there right now? I honestly think he'd be one of the better choices. (And before all you crazy liberals start flaming me over that, please consider how low I'm setting the bar with that statement!) ;)
The other guy who makes me nod and say "Now see? THAT GUY gets it!" too often for the level of Right -Wing kook that HE is, is Lindsey Graham, one of the few Republicans to recently come out in favor of trade sanctions against China for their unfair currency manipulation:
"The institution I need to be protecting is the American workforce, who is having their clock cleaned by a communist dictatorship who cheats."BOOM!
~Lindsey Graham
You go, Lindsey!
And this happens A LOT! There are so many times that I find myself nodded my head and rhetorically high fiving this very Conservative, Southern, Republican Senator! And yet... Get him talking about Abortion, Gay Rights, or any other of the Right's pet anti-causes and suddenly he's an ignorant Redneck again!
And please, don't for a minute think that I'm suggesting that OBAMA is somehow winning over some Republicans. No way. I've been watching these guys for YEARS, vacillating between loving them and laughing at them. What I DO think is happening, in the case of Graham, is that he's looking at inherently good legislation and, once again, sees his party opposing it on the basis of it still being Obama's watch and he's saying "Fuck You" to his party and their four year plan to screw America for the sake of sinking Obama.
Anyway, as far as Republicans go, I do like these guys...
...But I'd still never vote for them.
(OTOH, I'm still registered as Republican in Michigan, so if there's ever a Paul/Graham ticket, I WILL give them some love in the Primary! LOL.)
(Never happen.) XD
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Some interesting Solyndra stuf...
OK, so a few posts back, I put in my two cents about Solyndra in a post which some readers may have felt was a bit to conciliatory to the Right. Also, a bit farther back I joked about how a little research can go a long way. Well... shame on me for not taking my own advice! I will say that I stand by the overall points made in my previous Solyndra post. Nothing I've found has really changed my overall opinion, but the were some interesting findings. There's rather a bit more to the story. Just don't expect the mainstream media to tell you about it. (Or Fox News to tell you the truth!)
First off, Media Matters pointed out how so many media outlets were giving disproportionate coverage to the failure of Solyndra. And it wasn't just Fox! In print, the LA Times, the New York Times, USA Today, theFox Street (sorry) Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post all gave Solyndra anywhere from two to five time the amount of coverage that they gave to the 2008 exposure of Government Corruption in the Minerals Management Service or about the waste and fraud on the part of military contractors. The mainstream television media was not much better: 50% more at NBC, ~twice as much at CBS and ~five times as much at ABC. And on Cable, but MSNBC and CNN also gave 2-5 times as much coverage to the Solyndra story as the other two.
BEHOLD: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!
Fox's coverage ratio was closer to 100 to 1, but this is hardly even about Fox this time!
It's probably worth mentioning that BOTH of those stories represented a much larger loss of taxpayer money. Of course they also occurred on Bush's watch, and one in association with Bush's War, but hey... I'm sure all those Liberal media outlets were all over tha... oh, yeah. Um... not so much, as it turns out.
So, aside from playing their standard game of "Bash the Negro," what's really going on here? Turns out it's a bit more than just the typical Corporate Media bashing all things green and Liberal. Yeah, they're covering for the rigth in more ways than one. (In this case, TWO, by my brief, and probably incomplete, count.)
First of all, Down With Tyranny did an excellent write up of the Republican Hyposcrisy at play here. Normally exposing Republican hypocrisy is about as difficult as putting on a hat, but this time it didn't involve any underaged boys. (This actually kicked off several additional posts about it.) And he wasn't the only one - more from Daily Kos. And all that's just from one blog. There's a lot more. What's with all the Republican entanglement with this?
Here's the key point, as noted by Extreme Liberal: THIS ALL STARTED IN 2007 UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH!
In my own post, I mentioned that Government shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which companies will succeed. And I stand by that. And I think most people would agree with that, at least in principle. Where I kind of stepped on my dick there is that I had had assumed (hearing the story first from Fox) that it was the Obama administration who made the loan guarantee. Ummm... NOPE! That, like most of the Shit Obama's wiping off the White House furniture, once again came from BUSH!
BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!
I swear he was like King Midas' retarded cousin: Everything he touches turns to shit!
But hey, at least we've got that LIBERAL MEDIA to tell us the whole story, so we won't have to rely on bloggers to give us the...
...oh, yeah.
(BTW, did you know that October was "National Hit Someone In The Head With a Brick Who Complains About How The LIBERAL Media Is Distorting the Facts And Not Telling The Whole Truth Month?" Tell your friends!)
First off, Media Matters pointed out how so many media outlets were giving disproportionate coverage to the failure of Solyndra. And it wasn't just Fox! In print, the LA Times, the New York Times, USA Today, the
BEHOLD: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!
Fox's coverage ratio was closer to 100 to 1, but this is hardly even about Fox this time!
It's probably worth mentioning that BOTH of those stories represented a much larger loss of taxpayer money. Of course they also occurred on Bush's watch, and one in association with Bush's War, but hey... I'm sure all those Liberal media outlets were all over tha... oh, yeah. Um... not so much, as it turns out.
So, aside from playing their standard game of "Bash the Negro," what's really going on here? Turns out it's a bit more than just the typical Corporate Media bashing all things green and Liberal. Yeah, they're covering for the rigth in more ways than one. (In this case, TWO, by my brief, and probably incomplete, count.)
First of all, Down With Tyranny did an excellent write up of the Republican Hyposcrisy at play here. Normally exposing Republican hypocrisy is about as difficult as putting on a hat, but this time it didn't involve any underaged boys. (This actually kicked off several additional posts about it.) And he wasn't the only one - more from Daily Kos. And all that's just from one blog. There's a lot more. What's with all the Republican entanglement with this?
Here's the key point, as noted by Extreme Liberal: THIS ALL STARTED IN 2007 UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH!
In my own post, I mentioned that Government shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which companies will succeed. And I stand by that. And I think most people would agree with that, at least in principle. Where I kind of stepped on my dick there is that I had had assumed (hearing the story first from Fox) that it was the Obama administration who made the loan guarantee. Ummm... NOPE! That, like most of the Shit Obama's wiping off the White House furniture, once again came from BUSH!
BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!
I swear he was like King Midas' retarded cousin: Everything he touches turns to shit!
But hey, at least we've got that LIBERAL MEDIA to tell us the whole story, so we won't have to rely on bloggers to give us the...
...oh, yeah.
(BTW, did you know that October was "National Hit Someone In The Head With a Brick Who Complains About How The LIBERAL Media Is Distorting the Facts And Not Telling The Whole Truth Month?" Tell your friends!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)