In My Humble Opinion...

Wow. Month's just about gone.

2012-01-28T22:19:00.000-05:00

And I've posted just TWICE? WTF?

Sorry, guys. I just have no idea where the time went this month! And what a month it's been too! For three straight weeks now we've watched the Republican Party show just how divorced from reality they are as they keep talking about how imperative it is that they defeat that "Radical Socialist" Barack Obama, and yet have tried every trick in the book to make sure they don't nominate the one guy who would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually WINNING, because he's that dreaded word that all true Conservatives have been conditioned to break out in hives at the sound of: A MODERATE.

Don't get me wrong, Mitt Romney won't get MY vote or backing. But come on! Newt Gingrich?! One of the most despise politicians in American history?! Rick Santorum?! That fucking DOUCHEBAG?! Rick Perry...? Who's learned the hard way that the rest of America in not fucking TEXAS?! And after the revolving side show loonies - Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... Who the hell IS John Huntsman anyway?!

*shakes head*

But enough of that... I'd like you to take a listen to the following clip. It was from ~1986 IIRC, and it's both hilarious and depressing in it's relevance. L & G, the late, great George Carlin:

And here's another one. Great clip in it's own right, but the PICTURES the user put over it elevate it to BRILLIANCE:

That's right, Rush. A BIG, BROWN DICK!

Oh, and, uh... If SOPA and PIPA had there way? YouTube could be shut down over these clips. Great country we're living in, huh?

Couple of other things that caught my eye...

A few posts back, William found it appropriate to mock my calls for comprehensive sex education as a way of reducing abortions. well, here's an article that, while fairly stunning, shows, once again, that I'm right and Conservatives generally suck.

And there something else that I'd meant to post before the holidays, but I lost the link. It appears the Occupy movement isn't going away. Well... The Tea Party took over the House and all they managed to accomplish was to derail the economy with an artificial debt crisis and put more people out of work an out of home just as things were finally starting to turn around. Well done, cockmunchers. So I for one, would like to see what influence this new movement can have. Probably not as much - it lacks corporate sponsorship and media backing for one - but at least the article was BEGINNING to clarify the actual political agenda. Because that's really what's lacking here. WHAT DO THE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH?

And there are a few things that I think would make some pretty powerful, populist and scary (to the status quo) talking points. Two that I think REALLY should be at the top?

1) Overturn the decision in Citizens United, via Constitutional Amendment, if needed.
2) Strip Corporation of their "personhood" status.

The whole "no more bailouts" thing... Meh, not so much. That's Tea Party talk, and mostly the area of people who let their anger get in the way of better judgement. Bt ending corporate welfare via tax loopholes? No longer allowing corporation to write legislation? Ending for-profit prisons? Hey: There's some good political grist in this mill. Don't get me wrong, I'm under no illusions that it will WORK. But hey: You show me an OCCUPY Candidate?

And S/He'll have my vote!

Anyway, I realize this isn't all that deep, but I figured I'd drop in and post, so you'd all know I was still alive anyway.

Stop SOPA & PIPA now!

2012-01-18T22:28:00.001-05:00

OK. So you're probably not surprised that I am opposed to these two fascist acts of government-enabled, corporatist censorship. After all, I'm a free-speech advocate that once took to defending that scumbag, Fred Phelps' right to spew his bile even at military funerals. But what might surprise you is that it took me until today to actual come around to opposing them!

You see... This was originally going to be a post asking for some advice / information / schooling from all of you as to WHY, exactly I should oppose these acts. Serioulsy. For the longest time, reading what little I could about them (becuase the biggest problem that I saw was that the media was stifling all coverage of them, so there really was no public debate about them!) I could find very little that didn't seem right-minded. I mean... free speech is not about protecting the piracy of copyrighted material. And all the “It will end the internet as we know it!” stuff just sounded like so much alarmism to me. My inital thought was, "Bullshit. Global Warming is more likely to end the WORLD as we know, than any one bill is to end the Internet."

And while it pays lip-service to protecting site like YouTube, who would voluntarily take down copyrighted content, the fact is that this is just another exampel of a BAD LAW, that gets made when OLD MEN (and their corporate bosses) start legislating about things they don't understand.

Part of me wants to laugh - because this law will be largely uneforcable in any meanigful way. The U.S. Gov't has no jurisdiction to stop some site in Mozambique from hosting Pirated Content. And the fact that Google links to them? Hey: I can see that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I also firmly bvelieve that Intellectual Property must be protected. But this? This is not the way to do it. I think the Wikia folks make the best case:

While the goals of SOPA and PIPA are clear and we support them, the way SOPA and PIPA attempt to accomplish the goals amounts does not work for the internet and companies such as Wikia because:

they assign legal liability to site owners for ALL user generated content -- Wikia would have to inspect and filter everything users upload -- all text, images or video for copyright infringement and prevent it from being posted. This would be almost impossible to do and would create a terrible user experience with long delays between content submissions, approval and posting. We would have to do this even though we are not a target of this legislation.
they completely bypass today's notice/takedown provision of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) where content owners can demand copyrighted content be taken down and site owners have to comply -- which was a carefully constructed approach that balances the needs of internet companies and the content industry. This will stifle innovation on the internet that has become the 7th largest sector driving the health of the economy.
they deny site owners the due process of law by enabling DNS blacklisting based on any good faith assertion by an individual copyright owners. A site like Wikia could essentially disappear from the web because of the claim of a single content owner who asserted they saw infringing content on our site without recourse.
they also compel payment processors to stop doing business with the web site in question. Wikia could have our entire revenue stream stopped because a single good faith assertion of infringement on a single page in Wikia.
while the laws are aimed at foreign companies in general, they can be equally applied to US companies such as Wikia.

The internet is free. And it must remain free to continue to accomplish all of the good that is has. Al Gore knew this when he drafted, sponsored an dpuch the legislation that created it. And there is no doubt in my mind that a hypothetical President Gore would have already given the signal that a VETO would be awaiting this legislation. (I am not so optimistic about Obama doing the same.)

So to show my solidarty with those who have also chosen to stand up and educate the public about this facsist law (seeing as how the media refuses to) here as some screen captures from various members of my Hall of Fame from earlier today, in protest of SOPA and PIPA:

Google:

Cracked:

Atomic Laundromat:

And, of course, the folks who starte dthe movement to protest this: WIKIPEDIA:

so TAKE ACTION.

RAISE HELL.

Contact your representetive and remind them that when s/he took office they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and Protect our FREEDOM. And while protecting Intellectual property (and let's face the profits of the corporations who own it) is important, it must never take precedence over our liberty, and our right to free expression. The Wikia Page will help you do this. So take action. It's your interent. Don't let our Government - or ANY government - censor it.

BTW...

Here an AMV that I love which might make you wish you never heard of 'FAIR USE" (something the Robert's court, despite their relatively decent record with overly broad laws, has apparenlty NEVER HEARD OF.) And I don"t know what's more shameful - that I know all the words to the song, or that I've seen about 80% of the Anime used in the Video! Anyway... ENJOY IT, before the Government comes to take me (and YouTube) away!

LOL.

Come on... Would you REALLY want to live in a world where that's a felony?!

Happy New Year!

2012-01-09T22:17:00.003-05:00

*exhale*

Long break. Very long. And it's good to be back.

Before I get into anything substantial, over the holiday I saw four movies and read a book that I'd like to give my opinions on.

The first was Sleuth starring Michale Cain and Jude Law. This was a remake of the 1972 Film starring Sir Laurence Olivier and (ironically) Michael Caine. I've not seen the original, but after seeing the performances or Cain and Law, I'd really like to. I highly re-commend this based mainly on the witty verbal banter that goes on between the two leads as each tries to put the other in his place. It's dry British humor and polite insults at their best. Really great stuff. And it's also interesting as it takes place entirely within a single setting (a single SET, even) and possibly with the smallest cast ever filmed, outside of a stand-up comedy routine. Very interesting and if you (still) have Netflix, if well worth a spot in your queue.

The Second was The Invention of Lying starring Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe and Jonah Hill. (Side note: DW went to grade school with Jennifer Garner. For real!) An interesting high concept film, that imagines a world in which humans (except for ONE MAN) are incapable of lying, and people's words are always taken at face value. What it lacked in production value and dynamic performances (despite a very talented cast, which also included Louis C.K., Tina Fey, Jefferey Tambor and Christopher Guest) it made up for in what I consider to be a fairly profound philosophical exploration of what we consider knowledge, how dogma forms, and the nature of humanity well beyond the fairly trivial deceits that we use to simply get through the day without killing each other. One thing I found particularly apt and amusing is that before the main character learned how to lie, there was NO RELIGION. And after he "invented" lying, he almost immediately (albeit inadvertently) started Religion and the belief in God and heaven. (And almost immediately the irreverent humans started asking questions and picking it apart. In any case, it was an amusing and had some pretty profound statements about humanity and religion (and it REALLY does a job on MARKETING!) and for that reason believe that it's well worth giving a chance. (Again, one for the Netflix queue.)

Third was The Muppets, starring Jason Segal, Amy Adams and (of course) Kermit the Frog and Company. OK, so I saw with my kids, but I also saw it as a 38 year old kid who to this day still counts Jim Henson amongst his heroes. I haven't seen ALL of the Muppet Movies over the years, but I've seem most and aside from the the original Muppet Movie (and apparently the Muppet Christmas Carol, which I haven't seen but I've been told is one of the best renditions ever done) most have been crap. This one? Well, this one took me back a bit. I'm only slightly ashamed to say that I shed more than a single tear hearing ~~Brian Henson~~ (sorry, it was Steve Whitmore!) singing "Rainbow Connection" through his Father's old avatar. Also going for it was Fox's collective freak-out over the fact that it "secretly" (secretly!) tries to "turn your kids into liberals." (I mean... Jim Henson was a hippie? Who knew?!) But yeah, this one really captured the spirit of what the Muppets had back when Jim was still running the show - arguably the first time ~~Brian Henson~~ (steve Whitmore) has REALLY gotten it right. If you loved them as a kid, you SHOULD see this. There are just a few things I do have to point out... First off? Nowhere near the level of celebrity cameo's as in teh past. You could making a drinking game out of that in the first movie. This movie? I counted maybe... like three. The musical numbers... *gag*. Too many,m and they were almost all sung by humans. Somehow...? It just goes down easier when it the Muppets doing the singing. And finally? It's very... dark. And fairly depression. It doesn't even END well, unless you include the throwaway ending during the credits. It had a really dark and depressing and somber tone throughout so many scenes. It's not a bad thing, necessarily, but it's a far cry for the sunshine and rainbows of the first movie. (Of course this country, and world, is a far cry from the one Jim Henson lived in and made better by his presence, so maybe that's appropriate.)

Finally, we saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara and Christopher Plummer. Holy shit, what a fucking trip! AWESOME movie, MUST SE. In fact, it was so good that I plan to see the original Swedish version. Mara gives a performance the likes of which you will likely never see again, immersing herself in the character on a level that I would not have imagined was possible. She deserves an Oscar, but (as usual) the Academy will likely fuck her over in favor of a more bankable starlet. But seriously: SEE IT. It's brutal, raw, in-your-face and AMAZING. Shoot... I may even go back and read the book!

Speaking of books...

Over the break I read Killing Lincoln, by (of all people) Bill O'Rielly. And while it may seem an incredible oddity for me to endorse ANYTHING by that buffoon, I have to admit: It made for one HELL of a read! Yeah, I was aware of a couple of historic inaccuracies, but overall I found it to be very balanced (even objective!) from a political standpoint and, for the most part, present a very conventional, non-revisionist view of the historical events being depicted. (Hey: It was Bill O'Rielly, not Glenn Beck!) It's reads more like a novel than an historical text, and does an amazing job of really putting you on the ground, in the taverns and saloons, on the battlefields and into the halls of power, where the events of history played out for better and for worse. I'd never thought I'd say it, but...

Bill O'Rielly did a fantastic job with this, and it is well worth giving it a read.

You will come away with a greater appreciation for the Civil War, and for what Lincoln, Grant, Lee, the Soldiers, the Slaves, the North, the South and Lincoln himself were facing during these times of trial.

Now, having read this, it got me to thinking...

Where the hell does all this HATE all this RAW, VISCERAL, unfiltered and unadulterated HATRED of President Obama come from? From the Right, I mean. Seriously. What has this man DONE to justify this level of blood-boiling HATE?

While it's been largely lost to myth, one of the things that most people forget is that Abraham Lincoln was HATED, really hated and reviled by many, MANY people in this country during the Civil War, and immediately after and leading up to his assassination. And really, regardless of how we in our modern and relatively progressive world might look back on the issue of Slavery, if you put yourself in the South at that time, one can see WHY so many felt this way. Beyond the mere economic upheaval that abolition would bring about, these people's very ways of life were being turned upside down: Blacks as equals. Black VOTING. Blacks marrying white women, even! Holy crap: One day, one might even run for president! We can laugh now, but when one considers the Country that Lincoln was endeavouring to Govern (and were it not for his untimely death, rebuild) it is easy to understand where those feelings come from.

Fast forward almost exactly one hundred years to Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act. Again, arguably the most partisan and divided this country had been since the Civil War and through to today. And again, regardless of how you feel about Jim Crow and segregation, it it not difficult to appreciate how profound that legislation was, and the impact it would have on what so many people considered "normal, moral and decent" for so many years. We may shake our heads now, but in there shoes one can see why Johnson "lost the South for a Generation." (Actually Lyndon, it's been THREE so far, and counting!)

And fine... even when progressives and liberals are on the "winning side" (which is merely to say the RIGHT one, which history has shown us to ALWAYS be on) it's not hard to appreciate where the bitterness comes from when looking at someone like Lincoln, Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. What I DON'T understand is how these same people (generationally speaking, the Right / Conservatives) can find the same (or even a greater) level of hatred for a guy who HASN'T DONE ANYTHING.

(And not doing anything, in this case, is a reason for LIBERALS to dislike him, rather than Conservatives!)

Example: We're watching TV and the Kennedy Center Honors are up next. And my Mother says to my Father, "Well, we don't need to watch that, unless you want to see Obama jigabooing it up on stage."

OK. Now I KNOW that my parents are Conservative Republicans, but really? "Jigabooing?" Jigaboo isn't even a VERB! It a NOUN. And it's second to "Nigger" as arguably the most racist and hateful noun in the dictionary! Look... You can support whichever candidate you want, but I doubt my mother could even articulate WHY she hates Obama so much. I mean... she's not racist. *cough, cough* And, as I and a thousand other bloggers have already pointed out: OBAMA HASN'T DONE ANYTHING!

He hasn't freed the slaves! He hasn't reversed a hundred years of lynching and segregation!

Shit: He hasn't even brought about low-cost health care!

(Or stopped the previous administration's policies of torture, rendition and murdering American Citizens without trial! Again: A reason for LIBERALS to hate him, but Conservatives are he ones who STARTED that shit! They should LOVE this guy!)

And I've asked this question before: Absent racism, what explanation IS THERE to justify this level of hatred form the Right? What has Obama ACTUALLY DONE that is so offensive to them? Seriously. And they wonder why all we're left is:

1) He's black.
2) He's a Democrat.
3) He's the President.

And that's two out of three things he has in common with Eighteen other presidents, few of which (three or four) were anywhere near as reviled as much as this man. But to be fair... this country ISN'T going to tar itself apart and fall into civil war over Obama's policies. So... I just don;'t get it.

THANK YOU , Bill O'Rielly (of all people) for driving home that perspective.

Merry Christmas!

2011-12-24T14:40:00.002-05:00

...and a Happier New Year!

Gold Star Awards, December, 2011

2011-12-23T14:21:00.000-05:00

Just so you know, I'm PROBABLY going to be signing off for the year with this post. We'll be travelling from the 25th on and my laptop got a paralyzing virus that will not be able to be removed until after the new Year, when I can take it to the IT Dept back at work. (They're the admins on it, not me.) So until the 5th of January, this is probably it. I hope all have a save and happy holiday season, stay warm (I'll be in Florida myself!) and try not to get into too many argument with any of the Conservatives in your families. ;)

OK were up to 1970 and have one inductee from the BWAA and two from the Veteran's Committee.

The Lou Boudreau GOLD STAR #43: This Can't Be Happening!

This Blog is a fairly recent discovery for me. It's written by Dave Lindorff, John Grant, Linn Washington, Charles Young and Lori Spencer. Four writers that can be broadly characterized as principled progressives who are not afraid to be critical of the Administration or the Democrats. I've not read as much of the work here as I have in other cases, but I have been very impressed by what I read and feel that it is something that you guys would also enjoy and be interested in. So check 'em out!

The Earle Combs SILVER STAR #41: Atomic Laundromat

This webcomic tells a tongue in cheek story of Superheroes from one of the most unique perspectives I can imagine: The point of view of the guy who runs the laundromat where they all get their tights cleaned! It has a lot of fun with the typical tropes and cliches from the Super-Hero genre, but also contains some very down to earth themes such as a son's desire to protect his Super-Powered but aging father and the unrequited love he has for his long-time friend. (A fiery red-headed lawyer that I fell in love with almost from the get-go.) A lot of the strips are stand-alones or short 2-3 piece gags, but their is a general storyline and continuity, so I recommend reading it from the beginning.

The Jesse Haines SILVER STAR #42: Hate by Numbers

Next to MMFA, I've probably referenced Cracked.com more often than any other site here. And this is the personal site of Cracked.com contributor Gladstone. It's funny, topical, political and most importantly of all, unlike Conservative humor, generally well informed. His recent take on Fox's response to the Muppet Movie is priceless. Check it out!

Merry Christmas, and a Happy Chistmahaunakwanzica to you all! Hope to see you all back here in the New Year!

Meant to post this ealier...

2011-12-22T18:11:00.001-05:00

Someone posted this infographic on MMFA lasty week, and I had meant to post it here and forgot about it until now. It comes from [IMHO HoF'er] Newscorpse and it serves as a pretty handy reference should you find yourself in a debate with any C-Students about taxes or economics. Please feel free to download it and pass it on.

Best Lewis Black clip EVER!

2011-12-19T19:51:00.001-05:00

Holy fucking cow, did Conchobhar send me something amazing. (Sit through the part about Apple Juice, it is SO worth it! Behold:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

And for the record? I supprt 100%, everything he said following the Apple Juice bit, including his commments on Nancy Grace, Chaz Bono and MMFA 2011 Misinformer of the Year on LGBT Issue Docter Keith Ablow!
Great stuff, Lewis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I also wrote a bit about Chaz Bono a few months back. It was posted for about five minutes and I took it down. At the time, after re-reading it, I was afraid that it might come off as either misogynistic or homo- or transphobic. But... I THINK, with all of the other pieces on Gay Rights and Women's equality that I've penned lately, and in the context sharing Black's AMAZING Daily Show clip above, that I can post it now without fear of it being misinterpreted.
(And yes, that last statement obvioulsy excludes William.) ;)
So, here is my quickly deleted post, unedited, from the night of 10/4/11:

Dancing with the Stars (Yeah, I know)

Yeah, you read that right.

I just came from the gym, where I spent one hour on an elliptical, held hostage by the person two machines down from me who watched Dancing With the Stars while she worked out, finished just ten minutes into my workout, but left the TV on when she left. Yeah... That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!

ANYWAY about the time I noticed it was on, the Star in next couple up was Chaz Bono. And I'm thinking... Yeah, now there's an interesting story. Maybe I'll watch this. Why not.

Let me say two things, unequivocally:

First: I fully support, 100%, any decisions that Chaz and for that matter any of the transgendered make with regards to how they decide to live their lives. I would gladly watch a million people to make what I, or anyone else, might consider a huge mistake than to ever stand in the way of even a single person's pursuit of happiness. And I will never be able to wrap my head around the philosophy of people who don't think that way.

That being said...?

I'm pretty sure my second point will at least pass (D+) the test of political correctness: Chaz Bono dances like exactly what he is: A very fat, very out of shape, fairly uncoordinateded white man. And it with no irony, or lack of self awareness that I say that I'm not even sure that standing around, walking a little bit and occasionally giving the pixie that's spinning circles around you a push, even qualifies as dancing. It is also with full awareness of exactly why I was at the gym in the first place that I say that a fat man should never, under any circumstances, wear a tuxedo without a cummerbund.

The only one with a more ill-fitting ensemble was Nancy Grace. Now I don't approve of those who go out of there way to attack women on the basis of their appearance. And, hey: She's on the plus side of fifty, and I only hope I look that good when I get there. On the other hand, as she is on the *ahem* plus side, she might have picked something other than a skin-tight dress that showed every single bulge and crevice in high-def. Yeah, that's a cheap shot, but it's NANCY GRACE so... Yeah, like I care. Also, there's just something funny about two people prancing around with their arms in the air when one of them constantly looks like she's smelling armpit.

And yeah, I realize that the cheap shots about Grace are beneath me. (Or should be, anyway.) But it is not about merely being fat, or a woman having the gall to age. After all, Rikki Lake is just as fat at 43, but she at least had the sense to pick a dress with some flowing fabric around it. You know: Something that actually looked good on her?! Oh... and she's was pretty much one of the few "stars" who could actually DANCE.

Now... God willing, I shall never mention Dancing With the Stars, nor Rikki Lake, in this blog EVER AGAIN.

The Pro-Life Abortion Trap

2011-12-19T19:21:00.002-05:00

For those of you who follow the day to day drama that's been playing out in the comments section [and boy has it been busy since William's come to town - 46 comments in one thread, which is more than I've had in any of the 10 previous MONTHS this year!] you might have seen that I laid out a trap for William over in the abortion thread that he walked right into. I'm sure it's not original, but I like to call it the "Pro-Life Trap." And what I intend to teach him (and any other like-minded folks) is that a principled pro-Life LEGAL position either (1) does not exist or (2) is not defensible.

The Pro-Life trap is simple: DO YOU SUPPORT AN EXCEPTION FOR CASES OF RAPE.

And remember - we're talking about the law and our legal opinions, not out moral ones. Like almost every one of my readers that I've heard from, I am morally opposed to Abortion. And yes, that includes cases of Rape. The DIFFERENCE between Conservatives and ~~Intelligent People~~ Liberals on this issue is that we don't labor under the delusion that our opinion ought to be legally jammed down everyone else's throat. Abortion is only an issue of Life vs. Death when discussing it on a MORAL level. On a LEGAL level it is an issue of CHOICE vs. NO CHOICE.

What's more, if Williams (or anyone else) wants to argue with Pro-Choice folks that DO have insane opinions about abortion, he/they should go over to Jezebel or Feministing. Though, if he does, he should be warned: They will eat him alive.

ANYWAY... William chose the easier answer saying in not so few words, "Yes."

What followed was a combination of Conchobhar stealing my thunder and William falling back on that old RightWing ~~tripe~~ trope of claiming to have been taken out of context. Well, whether he is aware of it or not: he wasn't. And Conch had it 100% correct.

See...

Consider the idea that "Human Life is sacred," and thus therefore never be unnaturally terminated. Next, consider LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TEST they apply to the fetus in an effort to PROVE that it is, in fact, HUMAN LIFE, and thus worth protecting. Well, partially out of laziness and partly out of a desire to not limit the discussion to only those tests that I might come up with off the top of my head, I'm not going to start listing them out. Just PICK A FEW. Whichever ones you want to. Can you think of a SINGLE TEST for "Human Life, thus worth protecting" that a Fetus will pass, if it was conceived consensually, but somehow suddenly and magically fails if it was conceived forcibly?

Well, I can't. DNA, living cells, exothermic, grows, replicates, heals, responds to stimulus, develops into a human (OK I lied: I named a few after all) ALL of these apply to the children of the most loving and happily married parents and to the spawned offspring of the most deprave serial rapists EQUALLY. As one fails, the other fails. And as one passes? So does the other.

So you see, William, while you may THINK that you don't "support abortion as a means of birth control?" On the contrary: YOU DO. You absolutely do. What else do you think is going on here? What... do you think that when a rape victim gets an abortion SOMEONE ELSE delivers the baby? Um... NO. It is, in fact, the very DEFINITION of "birth control" regardless of how you choose to characterize or rationalize it.

In fact, while your position is the already the same as mine MORALLY SPEAKING, (and yes, I say that having read your entire commentary on the matter) the fact is that there is also very little difference in our positions, LEGALLY speaking. You ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT a woman's right to choose under certain circumstances. (Just like me and EVERYONE ELSE HERE!) And the ONLY DIFFERENCE between your position and mine/ours? Is that you choose to draw the line in a slightly different place. That's it. It is absolutely not one iota more profound a "Pro-Life" position than mine. It is just a slickly stricter Pro-Choice position - one in which you merely delineate the acceptable circumstantial criteria a little differently. The fact remains that YOU HAVE DECIDED that it is LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE to kill a fetus REGARDLESS OF IT'S LIFE AND HUMANITY and all you done is chosen a different set of criterion for it. The only difference between you and me? Is that you think a woman needs to get YOUR PERMISSION and satisfy YOUR CRITERIA BEFORE you'll support her legal rights! (And actually... OMG! So do I! Look at that! The principles of our respective positions are, in fact, ABSOLUTELY THE SAME: We simply draw the line in a different place.) (So either your pro-choice or I'm pro-life. Take your pick.)

So calling yourself "pro-life" if it helps you sleep better at night, but your political and legal position is NOT "pro-life" in any principled way. And there is no need for me to debate you any further on this matter, because anyone and everyone is free to read your comments in the previous abortion post. Unless you have something REALLY FUCKING GOOD to add to the conversation, I'm inclined to let my work, yours and Conchobhar's speak for itself.

Now, of course there's another side of the Pro-Life Trap. It's arguably more principled, and attempting to defend it requires both more courage and more stupidity that Williams likely possesses. It is the position that would, for the sake of not in fact merely being a Pro-Choice-lite position, answer my question, "NO."

No exception for Rape.

And hey, you got to admit: It's principled.

The problem is? It also ABSOLUTELY FUCKING PSYCHOTIC.

It is referred to, very accurately, in Liberal circles as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights." And it truly and undeniably defines the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, once again, as not being so much about LIFE as they are about CHOICE. Not allowing Rape victims access to abortion? Completely denies women the right to decide if, and with whom, they will bear children. It says, on no uncertain terms, that it is completely up to ANY AND ALL MEN which women will bear children, how many and when. It says, on no uncertain terms, that I could go out and RAPE THE SHIT out of every woman I choose to, and while I will be punished fro my action, my progeny - all 257 of them, if I've gotten enough rest - will be protected, and MY GENES shall LIVE ON. And as for those women?

"FUCK 'EM!" says this position, regarding their rights to control what happens to their bodies. Reproductive Rights are no longer a matter of legal protection, but rather one of BRUTE PHYSICAL STRENGTH.

Now... This was not William's position, and I do not, for a moment, suggest that it is. (After all - I've already proven that he's almost as 'Pro-Choice' as I am! *wink*) But the ~~morons in~~ good people of South Dakota DID, in fact pass a law that did exactly this in 2006. Unfortunately for rapists the world over, the law was repealed by the end of that same year. (And for fuck's sake READ THAT before you tell me that 'no one' is in fact trying to pass those kinds of laws!)

--------------------------------

BTW... I refuse to add "or incest" to "Rape" when talking about the exception issue. If the incest in question was not consensual (or statutory) then it can simply be called 'rape' and no further information is necessary. Done. And if it was consensual (*ew!*) then why should it require an exception under a pro-life framework? "Incest" is simply an unnecessary and superfluous addition to "Rape."

Minsinformers of the Year

2011-12-19T17:56:00.002-05:00

This year, Media Matters has seen fit to award MULTIPLE "Misinformer of the Year" awards. As evidenced by my own Hall of Fame (December's Inductee's coming soon) I LOVE this kind of thing, so for those who share my interest and would like to see just how bad the Right Wing Media gets, here are the Media Matters:

2011 Misinformer of the Year: Ruppert Murdoch and News Corporation
2011 Misinformer on LGBT Issues: Dr. Kieth Ablow
2011 Misinformer on Climate Issues: Rush Limbaugh
2011 Misinformer on FOX News: Fox & Friends

While all are well earned and richly deserved, ff particular note are Dr. Ablow's views on the transgendered in general, and Chaz Bono in particular, and Limbaugh's absolute gems on the Global Warming. Mu favorite might just be (emphasis added):

LIMBAUGH: How did I know global warming is a hoax? 'Cause of who's behind pushing it. Liberals. They lie.

[...] If there ever is scientific proof -- and see, I don't need scientific proof because to me the people who are promoting manmade global warming are a bunch of frauds. They are liberals, they lie. It's not a generalization. It is an undeniable truth of life.

While the absolute absurdity of these statement is both undeniable and self-evident, I am tickled pink to see, once again, further evidence of what I always say:

WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG.

WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.

And? BOTH will in fact be right!

And over the years, I think that MMFA has done a good job of calling the person or entity that went above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to carrying water for the Right Wing Propaganda Machine. Past MIY winners include:

2010: Sarah Palin
2009: Glenn Beck
2008: Sean Hannity
2007: Offensive and Degrading Speech (not just Imus!)
2006: ABC
2005: Chris Matthews
2004: Bill O’Rielly

Interesting reads all. Well done MMFA. I hope that, in future, you will continue this new tradition of award not only an overall award, but awards based on smaller issues as well.

NOTE: In the next couple of days, should more of the issue-based award be named, I will updated this post accordingly.

Teh Gay! Teh Gay! Oh, PraY teh gay AWAY!

2011-12-18T10:13:00.005-05:00

Note this was earlier in the week, but I've had like NO TIME to proofread (and, yes, I DO!) edit, etc... and get it posted. I also haven't had the chance to get to any of the comments yet. Sorry about that. I DID read Classic's filibuster reply over on LeftHook, and I will respond to it, but it's just been so crazy around here that I haven't had the chance yet. Speaking of which...

I LOVE how lively it's been lately! Everyone's commenting, and debating... And yes, most of the time they're just piling on William, but I've got to admit: It's been a lot more fun and a lot more active lately since he's started commenting! So, William: sincerely and with no sarcasm or irony: THANK YOU for sharing your opinions here. As much as I like preaching to the choir, vigorous and spirited debate (and even the occasionally mean-spirited debate) is what I LIVE for! It's why I do this. So I'm more than happy to have a Conservative who comes in here and ~~lowers the property values~~ speaks his mind. THANK YOU.

(Plus my ad revenue is over $100.00 now, so unless Google finds a way to weasel out of it, I should be getting a check next month. It's like I said: I get paid whether there's any merit in what you post or not. So THANK YOU for that as well!) ;)

Now... ON TO THE TOPIC. I read a piece on MMFA yesterday that really made me angry. In terms of the media, it dealt with how often representatives of the "Family Research Center" have been interviewed and given a chance to spew their anti-gay rhetoric on not only Fox, but CNN and MSNBC as well! Now it's important to note that The Family Research Council has been designated as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone here (besides William) that whenever a Right Wing Think Talk puts the word "Family" in their names, this is almost always a front for a Funny-Mentalist hate group to force their radical and unconstitutional religious agenda down our throats. In this case, I'm not even sure which word their doing a greater Orwellian disservice to, "family," or "research."

In addition to the mere number of times these inbreeds have appeared on the various cable news networks, it is noteworthy that only TWICE have the networks mentioned that they represent a group that has been branded a hate group by the SPLC! And one of those mentions was on FOX! Imagine that: FOX does a better job than CNN disclosing the Right-wing leanings of their guests! Behold: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!

OTOH, considering Fox’s audience, their mention of this probably does more to denigrate the SPLC than to undermine the credibility of the FRC.
SPLC's position on the FRC is summarized as follows:

The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws and anti-bullying programs.
The FRC also strongly promotes the “ex-gay” movement as a way to combat LGBT civil rights measures, though professional organizations have repeatedly called so-called “reparative therapy” (which seeks to turn gays and lesbians into heterosexuals) into question and issued statements that don’t support it. [...]
Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.

And while I have no disagreement with that assessment – and I don’t see how any objective person COULD – MMFA goes on to to include some brilliant statement made by the three most prominent (media-wise) members of the FLC, Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg and Ken Blackwell. It was their personal comments that really pissed me off, especially considering that those "great bastions of Liberalism," CNN and MSNBC were turning to these hate-mongers for political commentary! So what follows will, in it totality, amount to what I think of as one of my better rants. Like all good rants, there's obscenity (so don’t be pussy), but I do still hope to make at least a few of you laugh (those that are capable) and a few of you think (again, those that are capable.) And if do I end up merely preaching the choir? Meh. I still found it personally rewarding to write it.

Gems from Tony Perkins:

“It Gets Better” Project Tries To “Recruit” Kids Into A “Lifestyle” Of “Perversion.”

- Yes! Long live discrimination, the fear of violence and the love of Jesus!

“Research Is Overwhelming” That Gay Men Are More Likely To Molest Children.

- Sure… Except that in fact the exact OPPOSITE is true.

Gay Teens Commit Suicide Because They Know Being Gay Is “Abnormal.”

- …And I’m sure that constantly having genetic defectives like you constantly hammering them with that opinion has nothing at all to do with it.

Anti-Bullying Programs Promote “Indoctrination Into Homosexuality.”

- Note: Violence against children is OK, as long as the kid is a little faggot. Gotcha.

Gay Activists Are Intolerant, Hateful, Spiteful Pawns Of The Devil.

- Question: (1) Intolerant of WHO, exactly? (2) Hateful, Spiteful… in what way, exactly? (3) How exactly would what the Devil… well, I suppose you WOULD know, never mind!

Senators Who Vote For DADT Repeal Will Have “The Blood Of Innocent Soldiers On Their Hands.”

- Wait... Which soldiers? Mybe the GAY ONES who would face violence and possibly death at the hands of those bigots in our military who happen to think as you do. But in that case the blood is on their hands and yours. The blod of victims will alwyas, only, be on the hand of those who perpetrate it and enable it.

"Kids Do Worse In These Same-Sex Households. They’re More Susceptible To Violence.”

- Well, yeah, I suppose they are ‘more susceptible to violence,’ seeing as how you lot are so keen to perpetrate violence upon them!

"Gays Are Trying To “Spread Fear And Intimidation So That They Can Disrupt And Destabilize"

- LMFAO. I’ve had friends and co-workers who've been gay. Great folks, all. And, save for one, pretty much the least intimidating people I’ve even met. Seriously? You’re ‘intimidated’ by gays? Seriously? How can someone believe every stereotype about gays and still find them the LEAST BIT intimidating? That’s hilarious! OTOH… Who was it that was perpetrating bigotry and rationalizing violence again? Oh yeah… IT WAS YOU ASSHOLES!!! So… WHO is it that’s trying to intimidate people again? Oh yeah: IT’S YOU ASSHOLES!!! And, uh… what’s so “destabilizing” about two people settling down and building a life together? If that’s destabilizing, I have to ask: WHY DO YOU HATE MARRIAGE?!

Gems from Peter Sprigg:

Anti-Bullying Programs Indoctrinate “Impressionable School Children.”

- TO REITERATE: Violence against children is OK, as long as there a bunch of little faggots.

Transgender People Should “Stop Pretending To BE The Opposite Of Your Real Sex.”

- Um… they’re TRYING TO, douchebag!

Harvey Milk May Have Been A Pedophile, Faked A Hate Crime.

- Oh! Oh! Let me try! Peter Sprigg MAY like to suck donkey dicks! Tony Perkins MAY enjoy watching scat porn! Ken Blackwell MAY like to fuck three men at the same time! Boy, isn’t this fun!

It Is Better To “Export Homosexuals From The United States Than To Import Them Into The United States.”

- Well, yeah, in general it would be nice to close our trade deficit, but… somehow I don’t think that human trafficking is the way to do it, you Nazi scumbag.

Gems for Ken Blackwell:

“Homosexuality is A Compulsion That Can Be Contained, Repressed, Or Changed.”

- I would say the same of bigotry and ignorance and have the benefit of actually being RIGHT. (I’d be inclined to include RELIGION in that as well, but then some might find that offensive.)

“Homosexuality Is A Lifestyle, It’s A Choice, And That Lifestyle Can be Changed.”

- Homosexuality is a PREFERENCE. That is NOT something that can be changed. (Let me tell you: My life would have been a LOT easier if I didn’t prefer Red-Heads; but more on that later.) Following the lifestyle maybe be a choice, but it’s a choice between accepting who you are, and living a happy, fulfilled life and one where you live in repression and denial. But hey: I see what path YOU’VE chosen, so more power to you!

Same-Sex Marriage “Defies Barnyard Logic... The Barnyard Knows Better.”

- That’s interesting. Because the FACT is that homosexuality has been observed in nature in just about every species of animal on earth. But hey: Don’t let the facts get in the way of your fanciful daydreams about barnyard animals. Also… Why should I (or a donkey) give two shits what a pig or a sheep thinks about my (or the donkey’s) choice of a mate?
(see what I did there?)

President Obama Shows Same Respect For Marriage That He Did For Osama Bin Laden’s Body.

- I'm confused. WHAT, exactly, are you saying here? I must be missing something, because Bin Laden’s body was prepared according to his religions sacred rituals and the released at sea to protect his privacy and avoid a spectacle being made and/or it being desecrated. So… You’re saying that President Obama believes that marriage is a sacred and private affair deserving the utmost respect and should not be made into a spectacle? I mean… I’m OK with that and all, but you say it like it’s a BAD THING. Oh, but then you are the people who want to go around telling everybody else who they can and can’t marry, so… I guess that makes sense.

- Unless your suggesting that he somehow desecrated Bin Laden’s body? But then… do you really expect me to believe that you have a fuck to give about what happened to Bin Laden’s body?

So, to recap: The FRC advocates violence against children in and of and minority groups, the deportation of Citizens, the forcing of Religious beliefs upon the populace, and compares said minority groups to barnyard animals. At this point, I would offer that is it neither hyperbole nor a violation of Godwin’s Law that the FRC are bunch of FUCKING NAZI’S.

Now I’m going to say my piece. First of all, let me be clear: I do not research these things. Which is precisely which I defer to the people who do! I can, however, say that, unlike the jack-booted fascists over at the FRC, the conclusions of the research being done are not in contrast to my own observations in day-to-day life, going back as far back as childhood. Take for example the issue of CHOICE.
William tried to make a point about this in one of his recent comments. Something about how he might choose to walk fast, but that shouldn’t give him civil rights as a ‘fast walker.’ Well… I had a friend in college who was six-foot-seven. REALLY tall fucker. LOVED having him on my Basketball team, HATED trying to play against him. (Trying to shoot against a guy who’s 6’7” is like standing in the shade under a fucking tree!) And you know what? Fucker was BORN a fast-walker. And really? And anyone who would complain about the fact that this dude’s gate was about double that of a “normal” man’s stride? IS pretty much just being a dick. Now… Maybe some people are just born dicks, and maybe some people CHOOSE to be dicks. And you know what? It is ABSOLUTELY your civil right to be as BIG A DICK as you’d like too be, either way! Just like... du-da-dahhhh... it IS, in fact, your CIVIL RIGHT to walk fast (especially if your legs go up to my shoulders.) Come on Will, really? Have you ever seen a law passed that says you can’t walk above a certain speed? Or marry someone who does?

Your example is either completely irrelevant or precisely proves my point. I’m not sure which, but try not to throw it right down the middle next time, OK?
Now… returning once again to the real world: Choice. Or… Does one choose to be homosexual? See… there’s a semantic argument, a trap really, at play here. Because the answer is, “It depends.” It depends entirely on what you mean when you say “be homosexual.” Do you me someone who PURSUES and/or HAS a sexual relationship with a member of the same gender? Well, yeah: That’s a choice. But that’s a BEHAVIOR, not an ORIENTATION. To me (and every thinking person who has the slightest clue and more than two brain cells to bounce together) homosexuality is not a behavior, it’s an orientation… a PREFERENCE, if you will . And you don’t get to choose what you prefer.
(Pay attention now, while I show you how analogies are done…)
I didn’t choose to hate bananas. But I hate them with a burning passion and so I choose not to eat them. And honestly? I wish I liked them! I really do. I wish that I could tolerate the taste, smell and texture of this highly nutritious food – one of the best sources of potassium on the market – and I'm sure I would be in much better health if I could. But I can’t. I didn’t CHOSE this. I just hate bananas. And life is too short already to spend it choking down anything I hate that much. So I don’t. See how that works? I also didn’t choose to prefer Red-Heads. But I do: Carrot-topped, Auburn Haired, Ginger, Freckle-Faced, ~~fire-crotches~~… (dude, really?) I love them all, I can't help it! And as any Red-Head, and any lover of Red-Heads, can tell you: This preference comes with many a life-threatening hazard. I’m not going into details, because if you don’t already know you wouldn’t believe me, but it suffices to say that my life would be a hell of a lot easier, not to mention LONGER, were it not for this dratted preference of mine. Sure… I could have CHOSEN not to have married one… but I had no choice about having such a strong attraction to them.
The CHOICE is not between homo- and hetero-. It is between self-acceptance and self-denial. Fulfillment in your relationships or indifference. Satisfaction in life or dismay. Gratification or needless sacrifice. Happiness or emptiness. It is a choice between following your own instincts and leading the life you want to lead, or wasting the only life you’ll have living to satisfy everyone else around you, none of whom can even claim to give a shit about your happiness or well-being.
Some fucking choice.

Now, I realize that anecdotal evidence does not trump actual research (just don’t tell the FRC!) but I still think it is worth pointing out that my own life’s experiences pretty much jive with what the research has concluded: That people are BORN homosexual. Whenever I’ve discussed the topic, or overheard it being discuss, with friends or co-workers their answer has always been the same. “How long have you known?” “Always.” (Usually with a dismissive hand waving and/or shoulder shrugging.) And even before being fully aware of their sexual orientation, they were aware that something about them was different. And oftentimes, so did everyone around them. A few years back a co-worker of mine came out of the closet. I hadn’t known him that long, or that well, prior to this but upon hearing the news, my reaction was, “I hadn’t realized he was actually IN the closet!” Another coworker has lamented the fate of his family name as he is gay and regarding his only male cousin… “I can already tell.”
Finally I am reminded of this one boy who lived on my block growing up back in Connecticut. He never really fit in with us. We didn’t bully him or anything – at least I didn’t, nor did any of my close circle of friends that I am aware of – but we never hung out either. Sure, I invited him to a couple of my birthday parties, only because he would have been the only kid at the bus-stop or in the Cub-Scout Pack who wasn’t invited otherwise, but neither me nor any of my friends (or the other kids on the block) ever really befriended him. He was just… different. While the rest of us were playing baseball, or soccer, (or Dungeons and Dragons – hey: it was 1982!) he was usually hanging out with the girls in the neighborhood, playing house or tag or some such thing. (And his was in grade-school, mind you, so not a time in which hanging out with girls meant you were some kind of stud.) Well, I moved away and lost touch with him. But years later, in college, I found out that he had also moved away, and ended up graduating from the same high school that my college friends all attended; in the same town that my parents now lived. And upon hearing that I knew him as a child, they pointed out that he was gay, and asked me if I knew that from way back when.
Well… I didn’t. And while I hadn’t given him a though in ten years one way of the other at that point, thinking about it? I was like… “Yeah, pretty much.” I explained that, as children, we didn’t precisely know that he was homosexual. I mean… we were eight. It’s not like WE were into girls or our own sexuality yet either! But knowing this NOW explained a lot of what we observed as kids. It didn’t change anything - not ever having been a bully myself, or ever having harassed him, etc… it wasn’t like this revelation filled me with any regrets. We weren’t friends simply because we had nothing in common. But it did certainly go a long way towards filling in some of the blanks.

Anyway, enough of that. I’ll believe you’re not born gay as soon as an actual GAY PERSON comes forward and tells me so, giving me some time to press him or her to make sure that we’re agreed on the semantics of the question. Until then? Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. I say so, every homosexual I’ve ever encountered says so, and the research done by people who are far more qualified to make that statement than I am says so.
Period.

The next point in debate that I want to address is that of marriage. In the same recent comment William summed up what I’m sure the right considers to be a reasonable position, saying that he “[PP] supports civil unions but has a problem with it being called marriage.” Now I have to make a confession and a partial concession here. Personally? I think that getting hung up on what it’s CALLED is just utterly stupid. Yes, I think it’s stupid for the Williams’es of the world, but I also – for the longest time – would get furious with the GAYS for pressing this point! For the longest time, my feelings were that if they’re being given everything they’re asking for – or shoot, even 99% or even HALF of what they’re asking for – and they would get this if they just accept that it be CALLED something different? Holy fucking shit, just take whatever you can get, you stupid fuck-wads! It’s not like all progress is going to end with any ONE THING! Take what you can get and MOVE ON – to getting more and more and more every passing year and worry about stupid shit like the fucking NAME after all of the PRACTICAL and LEGAL matters are settled!
I felt that way for a really long time, and I’ll have to admit that some small part of me still might. But the other 99.9% of me? No longer does.
I’m not going to make some irrelevant speech about the dangers of “separate but equal.” No one is going to make those with civil unions use a different water fountain or sit at the back of the bus. And the attack dogs and firehouses (or in the modern context: hate crimes) won’t distinguish between the married homosexuals and single ones. Because we’re talking about marriage in the sole context of it being a LEGAL CONTRACT, that carries with it certain RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES and OBLIGATIONS, it would be an almost trivial exercise to create a TRUE “separate but equal” status here. Because let’s face it: The LAST TIME we heard “separate but equal,” it simply wasn’t equal. But it could be in this case. All it would take is a Federal Law stating that any mention of marriage in any Law at the Federal, State or Local Level shall be assumed to read “marriage or civil union,” and that this assumption shall be binding and applied retroactively. One simple, clear statement would settle the “separate but equals” concerns for all time.
There are just a few problems with that...

First of all: NO ONE IS OFFERING THAT! Show me where this is being offered, and I might be inclined to go back to saying, “TAKE IT, NIMRODS!” But there’s also a…
Second Problem: Laws get changed ALL THE TIME. If there was merely ONE LAW that guaranteed this equality? It would only take a change to ONE LAW to take some of it away. Only ONE LAW would have to be repealed to take ALL of it away! Call it marriage? And you’d have to change THOUSANDS OF LAWS if you wanted to take away their rights. And that’s really why it must be called “marriage.” Because that’s what our LAWS call it.
And the more I think about it: Other than a desire to eventually make these two things increasing NOT EQUAL over time, why other reason (beyond placating the bigots) could there possibly be to have two separate names for these things?!
Also… I’ve gotten the argument many times that this should be a STATE issue. That each state should be able to decide how they want to handle it. This is bullshit a complete non-starter. Because while any state may have anywhere form a few dozen to a few hundred laws regarding marriage – including the protection of property rights, work benefits, co-insurance, etc…? The federal laws involving marriage and the rights and privileges of married people number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS. It absolutely MUST be something that is dealt with at the federal level, because it is the federal government that provides the lion’s share of the legal protections, rights, benefits and obligations regarding marriage. Arguing otherwise reveals only one’s own ignorance and arouses suspicions in others of one’s own prejudices.
And really… regarding marriage, or *sigh* the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. Really… these arguments from TRADITION are just plain stupid. In my lifetime there were still states where it was illegal for Blacks and Whites to marry. That changed. There remain countries today where interfaith marriages are illegal. And if you go back to biblical times – and up through to about a century or so ago – marriage was little more than a property transfer, as poor families married off their daughters as best they could, and royalty used it as a tool for diplomacy. That’s changed. The institution of marriage is CONSTANTLY changing. And even if you ignore the numerous changes in the way various societies have viewed marriage over the years, you remain faced with countless assaults on the Institution of Marriage far greater than the idea of two men or two women happily sharing a life with one another. In fact, given the divorce rate, the increasing rate of domestic violence, the rampant adultery, the 72-hour celebrity marriages, the bachelor / bachelorette Reality Shows, etc…? I’d say that they thought of ANY two people settling down and loving each other and building a life together would do the institution of marriage rather a damned bit of GOOD, regardless of their gender.
And finally, before closing on the LEGAL issues, I have a challenge for anyone who’s not with me yet.
First of all, let’s realize that as far as our Government in concerned marriage is in fact no more than a LEGAL CONTRACT. Any talk of spiritual bonding, or any other romantic ideal, is completely immaterial to our government. That is the purview (at best) of the individual CHURCHES. And, in case you haven’t heard, we DO live in a SECULAR NATION and DO, in fact, have and recognize the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. And this is one of those perfect cases that protects the CHURCH’S interests as much as the homosexual’s: Just as the Church (and their legions of brainwashed masses) do not have the authority to tell the government who they can and can’t marry, nor does the Government have any authority to tell any church that they marry, or indeed even recognize the marriage of, ANYONE they don’t wish to. (And the day the gays start ASKING for that, mark my words, I’ll be the first one to be arguing “separation of church and state” AGAINST them!) So you can put aside any mention of Jesus, God, Allah, Muhammad, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin or Ra, not to mention the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Iliad or the Odyssey. It doesn’t matter, and the First Amendment of our Constitution says as much in plain, simple English, so don’t waste your time or mine with any of that nonsense. Marriage, in any discussion involving the LAW, is no more than a legal contract.
So here’s the challenge: Give me an example of any other LEGAL CONTRACT that I can enter into with another person or persons where our genders become an issue. There isn’t any. Oh, there used to be. There used to be many examples, seeing as how at one point women weren’t allowed to own land, conduct business, vote, refuse the advances of their husbands, etc… But that’s all been done away with now. There exists now no other legal contract that requires a certain gender to be legally binding. And there’s simply no reason based in logic or legality to maintain gender discrimination in this case. And the “Why?” question that will inevitably rise from that statement leads into my final point:
IT DOES NO HARM.
It does no harm, and it brings great happiness to those people affected by these laws.
Who is harmed?
The parents? Puh-Lease. How long has it been, and in which backwards cultures do parents have any legal say in who you marry? My parents HATED my wife. Fuck ‘em. I loved her, and I remain married to her, and they just had to deal. Parents want grandkids? Hey: It’s only the action of ignorant bigots that prevents gay couples from marrying and adopting, so who’s REALLY doing all the harm there? Natural Grandkids you say? Well, first of all, my cousin, my sister and I are ALL adopted. So FUCK YOU. Secondly, does a naturally infertile couple victimize their parents or society? What’s that? They didn’t CHOOSE to be infertile? Well shoot… The other couple didn’t choose to be gay! What if I don’t marry at all? Isn't that my right? Am I harming my parents then? What if I become a Priest? Sure, not likely, but it’s still my choice, and not one my parents would prefer that I make. I still wouldn't be harming them! And BTW… I have two sons who are AUTISTIC. So if anyone thinks that I would have the slightest iota of sympathy for someone who’s crying over their child being gay or transgendered, my feeling on their "plight" can best summed up as: GROW THE FUCK UP, YOU WHINY LITTLE BITCHES! YOU THINK YOU’VE GOT PROBLEMS? YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT A PROBLEM IS! GROW UP, GET SOME FUCKING THERAPY, AND LOVE AND SUPPORT YOUR CHILD, YOU HEARTLESS FUCKS!
Parents always say that they “just want their children to be happy.” Well… time to man up and put your money where your mouth is regarding that otherwise principled ideal. Those who fail this simple test?
Head? Meet brick.
I once had one inbred jackass tells me that it spreads disease. One even told me that it CAUSES it. Ok… I PROBABLY don’t need to spell this out for MOST of my readers, but here’s a simple epidemiology lesson for the C-students out there. SEX spreads diseases. This is true with Heterosexuals, and this is true with Homosexuals. If two people who have no diseases have sex with each other, a MILLION TIMES, UNPROTECTED, guess what? They will NEVER get a sexually transmitted disease. (And, uh… tongue-in-cheek here, but homosexuality is also absent the risk of unwanted pregnancy.) (Just sayin’.) On the other hand… if one person is having unprotected sex with a person who HAS A SEXUALLY TRAMISSIBLE DISEASE… well, it’s really only a matter of time until they contract it. And again… This is true of heterosexuals and homosexuals. And the RATE of transmission is immaterial. That one practice may be slightly more risky than another is completely irrelevant because in each case it is a matter of inevitability.
Chance of my contracting a disease having sex with another man who has no diseases?
ZERO
Chance of my contracting a disease having sex with woman who does has a diseases?

>ZERO
Or…
=f(how many times we have sex)

So again… this is just stupid.
And in closing, because I can already hear someone *cough* ~~probably William~~ *cough* accusing me of trying to “impose my values onto another person” or some such nonsense…
SHUT THE FUCK UP, NO I’M NOT.
Allowing someone to have a choice, and to make that choice without taking away any of the rights, freedoms and protections that the rest of society takes for granted is NOT how you “impose your values” on someone. I am not taking anything away from anyone, and nor does Gay Marriage. As usual, I am arguing for, and defending, freedom. And freedom is not something you can IMPOSE upon someone. Even if I “force” you to live free… What you do next, remains, by definition, your choice. That’s what freedom MEANS. I may not LIKE your choice, but as I leave it your choice to make, regarding your own life and taking nothing from anyone else? Well, I remain solidly on the side of freedom.
The only people who are “imposing their values on someone else” are the religious funny-mentalists that make up the opposition to Homosexual equality. Those people who would say, “NO, you MAY NOT do this thing!” Apply that test to ANY ISSUE, and you’ll see who’s on the side of freedom – those who would protect your choices – and those who are against it – those who would take those choices away.
God bless America and our freedom and the people that he decided to make gay and transgendered.
(And a big ‘FUUUUUCK YOOOOOOU!’ to anyone who’s not with me on that!)

WHAT filibusters?

2011-12-12T19:49:00.000-05:00

Saw a hilarious claim made by Fox News being debunked on MMFA today. Apparently the Republicans have NOT, in fact, been using the filibuster, the hold or any other tactics in an effort obstruct the Obama administration who, in fact has accomplished all of his major gosls. I left my two cents on that nonsense there, but it got me thinking…
You may not remember, but like a year and a half ago, ClassicLiberal and I had a disagreement about filibusters. (Steeve said I got ‘owned,’ but hey: it wouldn’t be the first time he and I disagreed.) Anyway, I’ve been meaning to address Classic’s points in that discussion for a LONG time now. To recap (and Classic should PLEASE correct me here, if I’m being inaccurate) his position was that the filibuster should be eliminated. Now, this discussion was happening in the context of filibuster REFORM (which I applauded, at the time) and coming on the heels of a record number of filibusters being waged and anonymous holds being placed on appointees (which amounts to the same thing) I responded that he was only bitter about how the Republicans were USING IT, and about the fact the Democrats never seem to be able to do the same. ‘Not so,’ he answered, and pointed out that the very idea of allowing the minority to override the will of the majority simply goes against the idea of Democracy. And my reaction to that intially was one of pragmatism versus principle. I agreed with him in principle, but felt that I still wanted the filibuster in ‘our’ arsenal, just in case, even at the risk that it gets used against us. (And of course if there was a way to make it less politicized and less AUTOMATIC, I have no problem with that. And that’s why I remain in favor of reform over abolition.)
But over the past year and a half, as I’ve thought about it, I started to wonder if the difference between having a 40-vote filibuster or a 50-Vote filibuster-proof majority is really all that different. So today I did a little exercise. I found some numbers from the2008 electoral roles (from here). And what I wanted to know was this: What would be the absolute minimum number of votes a Party would need to get to achieve the 40 votes needed for a filibuster, vs. the 50 votes they’d need to enact legislation, if the filibuster was eliminated.
[You can skip this paragraph if you’re not interested in the methodology] So I ranked the states by population, skipping DC, which doesn’t have a Senator. Using only the percentage of registered voters who actually voted, I cut that in half and then took THAT number of votes as a percentage of each State’s total (18+) population. I then SUMMED those totals to get these votes as a percentage of the Total U.S. (18+) Population.
Giving no consideration to the partisan leaning of each state in question, I was SHOCKED to learn that a 40-Vote Filibuster could be achieved by Senators voted in by a mere 2.3% of the population. DAMN! On a purely theoretical level, that’s a pretty solid argument against the filibuster even if it is an unrealistic scenario. And if I only used the 20 smallest, traditionally RED States, that number only goes up to 4.0%. Obviously still an absurdly small number to be able to derail popular legislation.
Now let’s say there’s no filibuster. If you take the 25 smallest States, giving no consideration to their partisan leaning, you can achieve a 50-Vote, now filibuster-proof, majority (assuming you hold the Vice-Presidency) with a number of votes totaling just 5.7% of the Population. This goes up to 9.8% if I assume only Red States. And just as a reference, a 60-Vote, filibuster-proof majority under the current system could be achieved with the support of just 10.8% of the Population, (16.0% assuming Red States only,) using the same methodology.
So the way I see it, here’s the big question on the purely theoretical level:
Would you rather have a system where just 2-4% of the population could STOP something from being enacted, or a system where just 6-10% of the population could enact ANYTHING they wanted to?
(And remember that, under the current system of assuming a filibuster every time, and using this methodology, you need just 11-16% of the population to achieve the filibuster-proof majority needed to do anything at all.)
And I don’t think this is a simple question by any means. Neither case resembles by a long shot a populist democracy, where the majority vote should be the deciding factor. In each case, I’m sure either side of the political spectrum (and the center) can conjure up all kinds of nightmare scenarios, about hos the other might use this power; some reasonable, some incredible and some which have already happened. My initial thought was a bit along the lines of a morally relative argument: That it depends on the times.
Suppose it’s the 1850’s. The country has been expanding, but the question of that abhorrent practice of slavery is threatening to come to a head and many fear that this issue may one day tear the country apart. And let’s say I’m President Pierce (or better yet, a hypothetical President Scott) and I want this issue RESOLVED. Well… I could see that the representatives of that mere 2-4% of the population being able to hold up any legislation that could resolve this issue as being far more than a mere thorn in my side. After all: blood will be shed over this, and I want ACTION! From that point of view, I might be inclined to agree with ClassicLiberal, or at least view this as a scenario in which the filibuster MUST be stopped.
BUT… Notice I didn’t say “slavery abolished,” I merely said, “resolved.” President Pierce had Southern Sympathies. And while this pretty much guaranteed the status quo would be maintained, let’s say he had enough voted to, oh... I don’t know… force Northerners to return escaped Slaves to the South or something, thus forcing them to not only enable, but participate directly in this abhorrent practice or else face ciminal prosecution? Oh wait… They had ALREADY DONE THAT! And President Fillmore signed it into law in 1850! Hmmm… Well, it seems that in that case the filibuster might have come in pretty handy to the abolitionists, would they had been able to muster one.
Does that close the case though? Not remotely. Because, I mentioned that hypothetical President Scott. And Winfield Scott was an abolitionist himself. So let’s say he’s the one setting his party’s agenda. If he needed just the representation of 5-10% of the population to END SLAVERY FOREVER? Maybe the Civil War never happens. Or maybe it happens earlier. Who knows?
(And please don’t waste anyone’s time giving me a pre-civil war American history lesson. I’m just using this all as a hypothetical example. I’m not suggesting this is how things actually happened or even worked back then. And I fully realize that I've used it in a somewhat absurd manner.)
And in either case, it doesn’t mean that either of these powers could not be abused. We don’t live in a time where we deal with an issue so fundamentally evil as slavery. And while I’m sure William will yell, “Abortion,” the FACT is that this country is not headed towards a Civil War over that issue or any other. And while we’ve seen filibusters used in an attempt to block undeniably GOOD legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act in the 60’s (and likely any legislation granting full and equal right to the LBGT population today, if the Democrats or Obama had the stones to propose anything,) without the filibuster (or the hold) we’d have had Robert Bork instead of David Souter on the Supreme Court for most of the last 25 years, and no Natural Land Reserves left ANYWHERE that don’t have oil and gas wells on them. And if we’d had a long history of such controversial legislation passing on a mere senate majority, I’m afraid to imagine what we might have seen following 9-11, for example. As bad as it was (and a lot of it WAS and REMAINS pretty bad!) concessions WERE made to get necessary Democratic support. You can question the VALUE of those concessions but that has more to do with the Democrats in question than with the system, IMHO.

If I have to choose? I’ll take the system where 2-4% can shut something down than the alternative of 6-10% being able to enact whatever they want to. Even if I assume a “we’ll clean up there messes” mentality, given the cyclical nature of American Politics the constant chaos of programs and laws and regulations beings enacted and then struck down, every 4-8 years… Well, over time, nothing gets done that way either! But I feel – and this is purely my judgment and opinion based on the facts as I see them, and I’m sure many will disagree with me – that less damage can be done by holding up progress for a few years than by the constant back-and-froth that would result for a pure majority-vote-rules Senate. In that case? Each side would spend their entire first term undoing what the opposition had done in their last term, and basically NOTHING would EVER get done in the long term.
However… I would like to give ClassicLiberals Democratic principles a nod here. Because in truth the whole IDEA of the Senate IS anti-democratic by design. So let me propose an admitedly radical third option to keeping the filibuster as it is or removing it entirely:
1) Eliminate the Senate.
2) Expand the membership in the House of Representatives so that no member has a Constituency larger than 50,000 citizens or smaller than 30,000.
For more information on step (2) please refer to the fine people over at [IMHO Hall of Famer] The 30,000. Aside from a lack of office space, there was really never any reason, nor Constitutional justification, to limit the number of Representatives. Now they don’t go so far as to suggest eliminating the Senate, but consider how much closer we would get to one-person / one-vote if we did. And consider how much less influence Political Parties and Special Interest groups would have (which in general I would say is either a good thing, or at a minimum good for democracy) if all a Representative needed to win was 50% of (whatever percentage was registered and voted) of 30-50,000. That might be as small as 10,000 people. Well… no matter how much money you have and how many mudslinging ads you run, I can go out and personally sit down with 10,000 people, answer their concerns face-to-face, educate them on the issues, explain how the ads are misleading, etc… And you can’t fight that kind of campaigning with propaganda! OTOH, if I need to get the majority of 5,000,000 people? Well… There’s no way I can combat the glut of Negative Ads and Hatchet pieces in the press on a one-by-one, face-to-face basis. So the big money and the big-connections will always to win out. Also – with literally THOUSANDS of seats up for grabs, it becomes WAAAY too expensive for even the BIG money to fight enough of those battles to win enough control by themselves. The way it is now? With so many (~1/10 as many) fewer battles to fight, it’s become VERY practical – easy, even – for the big money to wield WAAAY to much influence in the elections.
In any case, on a basic political system design level, I would not want to eliminate the filibuster altogether unless the Senate were eliminated and the House of Representatives expanded as I’ve described. Otherwise the Senate just has too much power, and represetns fro too few people. Though on a practical level I would still support the proposals of Senator Bennet (D-CO) that were being made way back when.

Too bad they didn’t go anywhere.

How did I miss this?!

2011-12-07T21:51:00.000-05:00

Well... there's been a lot going on this week, but in any case:

CONGRATULATIONS, RON SANTO ON YOUR INDUCTION INTO BASEBALL'S HALL OF FAME!!!

And it's about damned time too! I've been advocating Santo's case for YEARS now. So I'm very happy to see that he finally made it. There's only one problem...

Ron Santo died, one year ago this week.

And that really burns me up. I'd say more, but I don't need to, since Mike Silva's column in NYBaseball pretty much sums it up already.

Granted, this news is already a couple of days old and, like I said: I don't knwo how I missed it! But... atr least it didn't take me TWELVE YEARS!

Nice going, Veterans Committee.

Behold: Your Liberal Media!

2011-12-05T22:54:00.002-05:00

So, I log on tonight and catch the headline on msn.com:
A 'major milestone' in search for Earth's twin
NASA's Kepler telescope confirms first alien planet found in habitable zone

Check it out: They found a planet, 600 light years away from us, that appears similar to earth and has a global climate in the 70's all year round.

OK... That? Is fucking MIND BLOWING! That's AMAZING! It's ASTONISHING! It's ball-bashingly HUGE NEWS!

And what does NBC's strait-News Anchor Brian Williams have to say about it? Maybe some profound, "One small step..." style quote? Nah: He starts out saying "Imagine what we could do with this," and leads into a sarcastic suggestion that we colonize it, and start building Cell-Phone Towers and Parking Lots.

Yeah: He was kidding. I realize that.

But think about it. Consider the EARTH SHATTERING implications of this for a moment.

If it's within a couple million years of age of our planet? I guaren-god-damned-tee you something sentient is living there. We were a single cataclysmic event away from having scales on our skin so, barring something similar in the past million years or so over there, there's a damned good chance they're looking back at us right now. (And possibly have been for some time.)

I wonder what they would have to say about religion, if we ever met them.

Would they laugh at us because we're so irrational as a species? Or would they see a lot of themselves in us?

Suppose they've been watching use for a couple thousand years now. (Like... more than six or so.) It's certainly possible. Would anyone still believe in young earth creationism after learnig that?

Those was the first things that came to my mind, once I was done geeking out about it. And that a hundered years from now, we'll be GOING THERE, and WOW: I was alive to witness it being discovered. This is 'first man on the moon' big, in terms of scientific milestones, and it happened in my lifetime.
So please pardon my digust as Mister Williams' choosing to mark the event with a jaded, throwaway joke about Cell Phones and Parking Lots, never considering for a moment, that we might arrive to find an indiginous population already there. (But it's not like THAT'S ever happened before, huh America?)

I'm sorry. I just don't know how the "Liberal" media can see something as profound as this, and have their first thoughts go to Cell Phones and Parking lots. (Not to mention implied Colonization with nary a thought for who might already be there!) If America has been dumbed down by Consummerism, that one joke, used to mark so momentous an occasion, is exemplary of it.
Behold: Your liberal media?

Reply to Conchobhar's vanden Heuvel article

2011-12-05T22:15:00.006-05:00

When I first read this I hard time separating vanden Heuvel's points and opinions from Chait's. I'm blaming that on the NyQuil, so hopefully I can keep them strait this time around. And I really only want to explore one aspect of the article - the idea of party loyalty, group-think, hero-worship and unconditional support. I'm not going to defend Obama's record, but I'd feel more than a little silly bashing it at this point, seeing as how this was in reposes to a post in which I honored a website dedicated to listing out his accomplishments. (But I probably will anyway.) My opinion on Obama is fairly simple: I supported him in the primary, happily voted for him (esp. w/ Sarah Palin in the #2 spot on the other ticket!) and felt very hopeful that we would get a strong, popular, MODERATELY LIBERAL candidate... which, after eight years of living with the hard-right, seeing our civil liberties eroded away and the Supreme Court pulled solidly to the Right, SHOULD have seemed like a breath of fresh air, and a step in the right (not Right) direction. Of course, I'm as disappointed and disgusted as anyone, and Obama's judgment as a failure over all is well earned, even if the Right-leaning voters haven't the slightest clue as to WHY. Done. I will say no more about it.

BUT... I've certainly leaned pretty heavily over the years on the trope that the Republicans band together whilst the Democrats mostly bicker amongst themselves. That the Right votes (and thinks) in lockstep whilst the diversity of opinion on the Left - while idealistic and admirable - often times sabotages their ability to govern. And that's BEFORE you get someone who's as allergic to hard negotiation as Obama is.

And this article really challenges that trope. I mean, sure, me and a few of my fellow bloggers might criticize Obama (and/or Clinton) but I'm an engineer - a man of SCIENCE. Can this really be quantified? What does it say about this that idea that there are many historic examples of the OPPOSITE being true: that the Right is all disjointed and the Left are the ones that close ranks?
Well... I ain't ready to buy that just yet, but some reconciliation is obviously in order.

So I'm going to go through the examples one by one, starting with Reagan. I think that's the best place to start, because any discussion of MODERN Conservatism and Liberalism, or for that matter Democrats and Republicans really can only be traced back as far as Reagan, maybe Carter. You go back much farther and the parties just look too different form what they are today for these comparisons to be relevant. (In Nixon's day, there were still Conservative Democrats - mostly Southerners - and still some Socially Liberal, Libertarian Republicans. And while that all started to change in the 1960's with the Civil Rights Act (Johnson was right about losing the South, but he was being wildly optimistic that it would ONLY be 'for a generation!') it was finally beginning to cement itself during the Reagan Years. I would say the last nail in the coffin was 1994 and the Gingrich-led Congress, but they were certainly polishing the wood for it, so to speak, during the Reagan years.

Now Hoeft mentions how Reagan had his critics. He mentions the hard Right, because Reagan DID raise taxes several times. (Not something that's really associated with his legacy, but true all the same.) He also had his critics all over the map because of what was the first of what would eventually be twelve years of deficits that were insane in any time that wasn't a full blown World War. But in the end, as Dick Cheney so *ahem* eloquently put it: Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter. (Yeah, unless there's a Democrat in the White House, huh, Dick?) And whatever Right-Wing critics he had on tax policy, he pretty much silenced them in 1987, by lowering the top-tier tax rate to 28% - almost as low as what a median income earner was paying just the year before, while leaving the upper-middle class bracket at 33%. That's right - for three years we actually had a REGRESSIVE taxation system, for the only time in the history of the Federal Income Tax. And given Reagan's historic landslide in 1984, I would hardly say that these critics of the now iconic Republican were really all that significant. Or critical.

And besides... While Reagan might not have always enjoyed the full support of his party (though I question how often this really translated into "No" Votes) he was the one who STARTED the trend. What was his greatest legacy?

"Do not speak ill of your fellow Republican."

Party loyalty was the at very heart of the man's philosophy and is perhaps his most significant and lasting legacy. If the Right learned ANYTHING form the Reagan years (and given the Bush'43 years, I have my doubts) it was this.

So... Fast forward to 1992, and the Republican Primary and incumbent President George H.W. Bush (whom I consider to be the best or 2nd best Republican since Teddy Roosevelt) facing the music from the likes of Pat Buchanan and the Christian Coalition. Look... I don't mean to dismiss the destructive influence that this combination of bigotry and fanaticism has had on the Republican Party. Starting with Jerry Fallwell, then Pat Robertson and now James Dobson (and others) the Christian Right has been destroy the Republican Party for DECADES now. But if you are going to look at George H.W. Bush's loss in 1992, and try to figure out what happened, the elephant in the room can be summed up in two simple lines:

"It's the economy, stupid!" ~Bill Clinton

"Read my lips: No new taxes!" ~George H.W. Bush

That's it. That's all you need to know. George Bush was an INCUMBENT. Any nonsense from the likes of Buchanan or any others are inconsequential next to those two, simple lines. There was a recession. And while it's kind of stupid to blame a recession solely on the President, it's not as dumb if he just raised taxes (after basically saying he wouldn't.) As for the "read my lips" quote? Well, at least the Right is consistent, I'll give them that. Juts like Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet* Bush'41 never said he wouldn't RAISE taxes. He just wouldn't create any NEW ONES. Well... I can certainly see how that could have been misinterpreted. Al Gore's statement... not so much.*

*it's off-topic, but read the end comment.

And at the end of the day, it's not like the Christian Coalition went and voted Democrat, nor did Buchanan really represent a serious primary challenge: Bush trounced him by over three to one in the popular voter and won every single State. Buchanan represented no more than a symbolic (and possibly egotistic) challenge. So... I'm sorry. It's pure and utter bullshit to say that a lack of PARTY LOYALTY cost Bush the '92 election. He went back on a "Read my lips" pledge, and was in a recession, running against a charismatic candidate who constantly reminded people of it.

Dan Quayle didn't help matters much either.

OK, now... Fast forward again to Bill Clinton, 1998.

After six years of compiling a largely Republican record: NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, '96 Telecom Monopoly Bill, Repeal of Glass-Steagal, and a 38.6% top-tier tax rate (remember, from 1982 to 1986, under Reagan no less, it was 50%!); one could certainly make the case that Liberals were fed up with him and his "new Democrat" paradigm. Aside from Bryer and Ginsberg? I can't think of a single, bona fide Liberal thing the man did. Of course, that's not why I hated him then. I was a Conservative then, and still at a "William" level of Right Wing brainwashing, thanks in equal parts to Rush Limbaugh and growing up in the family I did and the times that I did. What can I say? As a CHILD? Reagan was my hero. (I sent him a get-well card when he got shot. He sent me back a letter. That was a pretty deal to a then seven-year old!) (Even though I know he didn't actually write it himself!) But... I'm grown up now, and so I know better. Now? I hate Clinton for the right (not the Right's) reasons.

So how does one explain how we all "rallied" around Clinton during the impeachment proceedings? Where were all his Liberal Critics then? Why didn't we join with Newt Gingrich, in the hunt for justice... Sorry... I can't even type that with a strait face. Rallying around Bill Clinton during his impeachment had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton, and EVERYTHING to do with NEWT GINGRICH! I mean, come on... So the guy was bullshit President. That doesn't mean we're going to sit back while some Right-Wing, jack-booted, cocksucker like Newt Gingrich REMOVES A POPULARLY ELECTED PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE over something as inconsequential as a blow-job from an intern! (And before any doofuses out there tell me it was about lying about it, let me ask you something: How do you feel about the fact that Gingrich him self was having an affair at the time? And did you feel the same about incoming speaker Bob Livingston? Who that mean old Larry Flynt at Hustler magazine "forced" to resign as incoming Speaker over HIS affair? It was a bullshit impeachment, and you know it, so don't waste our time!) What was on display in 1998 was not support for Bill Clinton so much as a backlash against Gingrich and his hyper-partisan, Republican-led witch hunt of Clinton. It wasn't a defense of the DEMOCRATS so much as it was a defense of DEMOCRACY. The Republicans couldn't win fairly in '96, so they were going to ruin him.

Funny how history repeats itself, huh? You'd think Barry would have known the types of people he was dealing before he took the job. Shame that.

So fast forward again (over eight years of a President who WAS NOT popularly elected, and who the press - that's ALL of the press - cheer-led for as he exploded the deficits, startled illegal, unnecessary and unfunded wars and happily chipped away at our civil liberties) to our "savior" (the Right's words, not ours) Barack Obama. So... HOW do I explain why so many Liberals (including your's truly, for longer than most) stuck with him for SO long? Thought a health care bill that resembled Gingrich's c.1993 before the Republicans even took first crack at it. Through a stimulus bill that was trimmed down to a size that would satisfy the very people who's leader stated as his 'top ptriority' making [Obama] a one-term President. Through replacing two reliable Liberal votes on the Supreme Court with two moderates - thus moving the Court farther to the Right. WHY have we stuck with him? Why are there so many still do?

Well, I see two things, really. In the early days, say... early 2009 though about mid 2010? I think there was a lot of... confusion. Obama suddenly didn't sound a whole lot like the guy we had all voted for. That's not normally surprising, most candidates don't live up their rhetoric, but Obama was elected on a large part BECAUSE of that rhetoric! And give HUGE majorities! In BOTH HOUSES! And, pretty much just like Clinton, he took that Liberal mandate and ran right to the Center with, quite possibly overshooting the mark. And... well.. I figure a lot of people didn't even notice at first. And once they did, couldn't figure out what to make of it. And Obama had MUCH larger majorities than Clinton had. (And also squandered.)

And then there was the Right. See... I also think that a lot of the image people had of Obama as this extremely Liberal guy came from the Right. I pretty much knew I was voting for a moderate because I recognized the Right's blathering as pure horseshit and listened to what Obama had to say. The quintessential example of this was when Obama said, [PP] "If we have actionable intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, I would consider military incursions into Pakistan in order to capture him." Within a day this very rational position became "Obama wants to OVERTHROW Musharraf!" (That was our "great ally" Musharraf, BTW, who's country Bin laden WAS actually hiding in the entire time!) And within a day of THAT, I'm getting emails from my Conservative friends saying how Obama wants to NUKE Pakistan! Seriously! And they BELIEVED this! And even after PROVED to them that this was an idiotically absurd interpretation of the man's words, they're response was STILL be best summed up by my friend, Mike, who said, "Yeah, OK, but still... Strange dude."

*face palm*
*shakes head*

Now... What role does all this play? Well... Consider the average American voter. They get inspired by his lofty rhetoric, and here the Right demonize him with every epithet they can muster. He comes into office, seems to capitulate to the Right on just about every key issue, and they... KEEP ON demonizing him with every epithet they can muster. So let's go back to that relatively mild-mannered voter, and now woefully misinformed voter. Sure... there are those on the Left who say he's going too far to the Right, but... If that were true why does the Right seem madder than ever at him?

Well... simple answer: They're bat shit fucking insane, that's why!

And that's really been the trend since at least the Clinton years: As the Republicans have pulled farther and farther to the Right, the Democrats have responded by moving to the right. And as the Democrats have compromised by moving to the Right, the Republicans have responded by moving EVEN FARTHER to the Right!

And at this point? Any real Liberal who's still supporting Obama as a Candidate or the Democrats as a Party are doing so for any of the following reasons: Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John Beohner, Mitch McConnel, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... The list goes on, but I think the point is clear. It not so much as the lesser of two evils, so much as voting for the person or party who would compromise with the evil and voting for the actual evil. At this point the Republicans are so far gone, that NEWT GINGRICH, one of the least popular Speakers of the House in American History, is their LEADING CANDIDATE!
And no, I DO NOT hope he gets the nom, because as much as I believe he would getter utterly TROUNCED in the general, I remember 2000 and the Rehnquist Court appointing our next President, and I will not chance that.

I hope Romney gets the nom. He's the only who's not completely insane, completely moronic or both.
And I hope there is a Primary Challenger to Obama, even if it's just a symbolic one, like Pat Buchanan in '92. If there is? They already have my vote, right now, just to send Barry a message. But I'll still vote for Obama in '12 in the general and, if he loses, I will personally kick the ass of every Liberal who stayed home. Our next President will likely named Ginsburg's successor, and possibly (remote, but still...) Scalia's or Kennedy's. Do you really want that job to be done by Newt Gingrich?!
And THAT'S why I don;t think you can measure our "loyalty" in votes. Because the alternative REALLY IS that much worse.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that my take on the whole thing. And I'm keeping my stance that the Dem's remain the Big-Tent and the Pub's the group-thinkers.

-------------------------------------------

*OK... Al Gore. The Internet. Here's EXACTLY what he said, in his interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Couple of things...

First of all, Blitzer didn't challenge him on the point. At all. He didn't seem to think this claim was all that remarkable at the time. Liberal Bias? Hardly. More like: IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE. How did Gore do this? Well, for a start, there was the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, commonly known as the "Gore Bill." This laid the legislative groundwork for the the National Information Infrastructure, which serves as the foundation of what we now know as the Internet.

Was his statement even misleading or an exaggeration? Well, I think Snopes gives the best take on that question:

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid 1960's that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway system, we would not have seen dozens of editorial lampooning him for claiming that he "invented" the concept of highways, or implying the he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept that Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

If you believe he said it, or doubt the veracity of what was actually said, then you simply do not have a basic understanding of the facts. Because all of the guys that YOU THINK "invented" the Internet? Like pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn? Note that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication."

And making Al Gore's ACCURATE CLAIM into a joke? Makes you sound about as stupid as drawing a picture of Ike with a hard-hat and a shovel - and meaning it as mockery - would do. If you're reading this? You and I both owe a lot of that that to AL GORE. To believe anything else is to swallow the lies that Fox news, and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter told you because they KNEW that Bush would be trounced if the public ever came to grips with just how much Gore had accomplished - the FUCKING INTERNET for fuck's sake!!! - versus how little Bush had. (Trading Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Marique?! What an idiot!!!) So clearly a different narrative had to be told. They're paid propagandists, who preach to the greedy and the gullible. Nothing more.

Democrat vs. Republican...

2011-12-04T20:12:00.001-05:00

Conchobhar... That article you linked to was very interesting. Seriloulsy. I'm trying to work out a logical reply and it's making my head spin. Either that or I'm on a serious NyQuil hangover. I think she makes a good point, although it depends on your POV, and to some extent semantics, and how you want to measure it, and then there's 'reality' versus 'what the media tells you' perspective and... well, shoot... I'm afraid that until this cold & headache go away, this is all I've got:

What?

You just pick what you see as the lesser of two evils!

(With all credit to Silver Star Hall of Famer, Five-Second Films.)

Gold Star Awards: November, 2011

2011-12-01T20:10:00.002-05:00

Yep. A day late. And I was doing so good, too. What can I say. Worst work-week I've had in TEN YEARS.

The year is 1969, and it saw two indictees from the BWAA andf two from the Veteran's Committee.

The Stan Musial Gold Star #41: The Representative Press and his YouTube Channel.

His YouTube Channel has an almost obssessive focus on issues relating to Israel but is, at it's heart, remains a Media Criticism channel, focusing on the failures on the mainstream media to tell the REAL story about such things as the motivation behind the 9/11 attacks (hint: It was our support of Israel) and the Police enforced media black out when the Occupy movement was evicted in New York. Ths guy has the the REAL SCOOP on what the Mainstream Media isn't telling you.

(Maybe William will look into some of these items and then try to explain where that systematic Mainstream Liberal Media Bias comes in.)

The Roy Campanella Gold Star #42: What The Heck Has Obama Done So Far?

OK, I certainly hope that I don't now need to re-establish any of my cred as a CRITIC of the President, BUT... the next time some Right Wing Jackoff Rick Perry type comes talking smack about how "nothing's gotten done," send him to THIS site. Stuff's happened. Progress has been made. That may not make up for the missed opportunities and the progress that hasn't but that doesn't mean that the useless half of this country should be able to run there yaps scott-free without a rebuke. Good resource.

The Stan Coveleski Silver Star #39: Modest Medusa

This cute little web comic started out as little more than a guilty pleasure for me, but I'm always happy to recognize an artist that's willing to lend their talents to a good cause... so go buy this T-Shirt!:

And, in any case, it's a fun little take on mythology, monsters, family, friends, fitting in and sticking it to authority. And, as I always recommend, read it from the beginning!

The Waite Hoyt Silver Star #40: The Bad Chemicals

For biting social, political and philisophical satire, I've only found one Comic that can hold it's own against Saturday Mornign Breakfast Cereal. And THIS IS IT. Rather than say anythign more, just let me share a few gems:

and BEST of all...

OK, so more than just a few, but serioulsy... GOLD, right? So check it out. They're mostly topical and always hilarious.

Save YouTube!

2011-11-19T15:01:00.000-05:00

OK, I make no statement or judgement about the accuracy of the claims in this, but I think you should check it out and sign it ANYWAY, even if only as a preemptive strike in defense of our freedom:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet_us_a/?cl=1399891686&v=11183

And it's really convenient, because I've been looking for an excuse to post this gem from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal:

SMBC is the Cracked.com of WebComics.

Peta... Oh, Peta...

2011-11-17T22:50:00.000-05:00

*shakes head*
The title says its all: PETA slams Mario over use of a fur suit

That's Mario, as in the Nintendo Video Game franchise.

Now... I've said it before: I'm not really a fan of Peta.

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for being against cruelty to animals, I just prefer to go about it the Temple Grandin way:

Treat the animals kindly =
= animals remain calm =
= more animals go thorugh the shoot in a given amount of time =
= more steak for me!

(And to their credit, Peta has also recognized the work that Professor Grandin has done, even if it did mean more steaks and catcher's mitts.)

But there are two reasons why this is just stupid.

First of all... This particular Power Up has been part of the Mario franchise since 1988! If this is really such a big issue, where the fuck have you BEEN for the last TWENTY-THREE YEARS?!

Second of all...

"Mario is sending the message that it's OK to wear fur."

Well, putting aside that it's more like, "Mario is sending the message that it's OK to be a furry," for this to have any signifigance, it relies on the age-old, and continuously unproven trope that video games somehow influence our behavior. (Beyond making us video-game addicted couch potatoes, I mean.)

And seriously... suggesting that someone is going to go out and BUY A FUR COAT becuase they saw Mario turn into a flying squirrel is infinitely more absurd that suggesting that playing Doom (sorry, dating myself), Halo, Call of Duty, GTA, etc... MAKES people commit violent crimes and/or acts of violence.

Remember: Correlation =/= Causality!

What kind of game would you expect a violent, hard-core, gun-toting gangsta to enjoy playing? My Pretty Pony?

Peta: It's about priorities. How about taking on Bullfighting in Spain? Or Cockfighting in Mexico? Or Dogfighting in Detroit? Or the Ivory trade? How about raising awareness (and money) for no-kill animal shelters? How about advocating for endagered species in ways that don't make you look like complete idiots?!

Look... I don't disagree with your cause. It is precisely because it IS so important that you've really got to stop doing such stupid shit! You're the leading voice for Animal Rights, after all! WTF?!

Oh, but, uh... One thing? I do love the naked protests! PLEASE don't stop doing those! ;)

The Worst Penn State Column I've read so far...

2011-11-17T21:13:00.001-05:00

Hoo-boy. What a doozy on MMFA today.

Hosted by Fox (who else) and in his column for the World ~~Nut~~ Net Daily, Joseph Farah attempts to blame the systematic train-wreck at Penn State on...

(wait for it)

Society's tolerance of homosexuality!

You can (and should) read MMFA take, as well as the comments section, and you can read the entire roll of toilet paper here. (And if you do, leave a comment there. I did. We'll see what it brings in.) But here's my take, based on some of the "highlights":

We may not fully understand the details of what Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky did or didn't do to young boys in locker rooms and showers, though he does admit inappropriate behavior. But the real question is how he did it for so long without consequences.

Good start: "We may not fully understand the details,” but hey, don't let that get in the way of your diatribe!

But now that being accused of homophobia is considered an offense, while practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue, should it really surprise anyone that such behavior would go unreported or unchallenged for so long?

“Being accused of homophobia is considered an offense.” I’m not even sure what that means. BEING ACCUSED isn’t the offense, asshat. BEING HOMOPHOBIC is the offense. But whatever.

Also… “practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue.” Really? By who, exactly, other than another homosexual who’s looking for a mate or some action? (Between another consenting adult, and which does not harm to anyone, I hasten to add.) Who actually considers homosexuality a "virtue?"

Does he mean a virtue, like... honestly, for example? Or integrity? Intellingnce? Wisdom? And, if so, HOW THE HELL WOULD THIS GUY KNOW?!

In an age when government schools are actually teaching children how to perform homosexual acts and that there is nothing wrong with them, it would seem that an environment conducive for predators of children is being created under the watchful eye of the state and the media.

“In an age when government schools are actually teaching children how to perform homosexual acts?!” Jesus Tapdancing Christ, man! Where the hell are your children going to school?! A Catholic School?! (Sorry, could resist.)

Remember also that Penn State is a public university. There is probably no institution more conscious of the new "sin" of homophobia than the American college campus. There are few imaginable offenses more grievous than homophobia in that environment. One pays a price for exhibiting any symptoms of this dread disease - especially in academia.

Wow. That’s the first thing he’s gotten right. I can’t disagree with a thing he’s said here. Of course, I’d say it PROUDLY, as opposed to with the righteous indignation that HE'D likely say it with, but whatever.

Although on the other hand... "Academia," huh? Please, refresh my memory: Which academic subject did Sandusky teach, exactly? For that matter which subject did Patrerno teach? And who decided to cover this up for "academic" reasons? Puh-lease. If there's a culture problem here, it's our worship of Football, and the glorification of Football players and Football coaches. The Religioun of Football was far more to blame here (which is to say, almost entirely) than any "indoctrination" regarding tolerance.

What happened at Penn State is a tragedy. Worse, it's likely a series of tragedies that will impact the lives of people for years to come.

Yes, it will. And it is. As is (and will) the continued bigotry against those who want to live in peace with their life partner, but can’t because people like you continue to insist on slandering and harassing them.

Let's stop acting like idiots by addressing symptoms of a much deeper problem when most everyone knows why we're seeing an explosion of predatory sexual acts on innocent children everywhere - in churches, in schools and in academia.

"Let's stop acting like idiots." You first.

Besides… We KNOW why it happened in Churches. Because The Church covered it up! (That, and the most Religious and Pious members of our society usually also tend to be the most hypocritical. Just sayin'.) Asd for SCHOOLS? (Which is realtly the same as aying "Academia?") Yes, Homosexuallity is TOLERATED. That means we no longer ostracize people for being who they are. But the last time I checked PEDOPHILIA is NOT. (Nor is Sexual Harassment – you know: that Liberal pox on the Conservative Corporatists and Herman Cain's of the world?)
Question for you: If Sandusky had been found raping little girls, would that change anything? Would HETEROSEXUALITY suddenly come under scrutiny? It very simple:

HOMO – means “same”

PEDO – means “child” or “young”

See… NOT THE SAME THING.

Sure… Male Pedophiles do tend to show a preference for boys. But not all of them. How do you explain the others? How despicable is it that this man is willing to disappear any number of FEMALE victims of molestion. And I know they're out there! Hey: I know one or two PERSONALLY! How about female pedophiles? They ALSO tend to prefer boys. Some prefer girls, sure, but the trend goes against you here. And many of either gender? Don’t care. Because it’s not about GENDER, it’s about AGE. (And those thing that go along with it.)

And those male pedophiles who molest only boys? They show no greater preference for same-sex relationships with other ADULTS than the general population does. So… Are they still homosexual? What’s more, homosexuals (meaning ADULTS in same sex relationships with OTHER ADULTS of the same gender) show no greater predilection for Pedophilia than the general population. There isn;'t even a corelation between the two unless you start out with absrud assumption that the two are the same and go from there, never bothering to justify, explain or test that assumption!

The REAL reason that this tragedy went unpunished for so long, is very simple. It’s not our tolerance of HOMOSEXUALITY. It is our very unfortunate tolerance of sexual indiscretion. (Combined with our irrational love of Football.) Whether it's politicians who cheat on their wives, bosses who sexually harass their subordinates or people who molest children, for too long the gut reaction is to doubt the victim. Failing that? BLAME the victim. And finally, MAKE IT ALL GO AWAY. Whether that means re-assigning a Priest to a different parish, or telling a retired coach that he and his charity for underprivileged boys (*shudder*) is no longer welcome on campus, we are more eager to bury it under the rug that deal with it.

Of course I say, "we," but lets face it: that's being generous. These people aren't LIBERALS. This guy invokes "Academia," becuase that's a code-word for Liberal. But again: What subject did Sandusky and Parterno TEACH? They're not ACADEMICS, they're FUCKING FOOTBALL COACHES. And Penn State Football? If anything? That's CONSERVATIVE. Backwoods towns, where everyone related to everyone else? (Which more and mor eappears to be the case here?) Outside of Vermont? Those also tend to be CONSERVATIVE. There was no liberal cover-up here. This was not the result of a discussion about the tolerance of homosexuality amongst the Liberal, academic elites. And it's a blatant lie to charectarize it as such. Now I'm not suggesting for aminute that this Sandusky was a pedophile because he was Conservative, or even that he WAS conservative. (Nor Paterno, nor anyone else involved for that matter.) I'm just using it to illustrate the fact that if we're going to start throwing around baseless acusations, I can do it too, and make a far better case for it!

And besides, as far as I know? SANDUSKY IS NOT GAY. And if he is? May if lived in a more tolerant area, he'd have found a more fullfilling relationship with someone his own age, and this never would have happened. I can't proove that, obviously, but if homosexuality plays ANY factor here, tolerance remians on the side of RIGHT!

And is some ways we - as a SOCIETY - are getting better about some aspects of this. Pedophilia generally sets off more alarms, which is what makes the Penn State story so disturbing. But in Rapecases? Blame the victim. Smear the victim. Put the victim on trial. Sexual Harassment? Hoo-boy. Even when they WIN, the victims’ careers are still effectively OVER. Who wants to hire someone who is such a lawsuit liability? (See what happens when "I sued my last employer" is on your resume!) Not to mention that by the time they have won (assuming they ever get to court, let alone win) they’ve endured any and all manner of retaliation, slander, libel, personal attack and invasion of privacy. So they get victimized, then victimized again, and again, only to WIN and have “go find a new career” and a red-letter on there chests to show for it. Meanwhile? Their ex-boss? Well, shoot… Even if he’s NOT rehired - assuming he was even fired - he’s still got his wealth to live on. Much more so than the poor subordinate whose career he was SUPPOSED to be helping BUILD anyway.

If you want to tie Penn State to another social issue? Tie it to Sexual Harassment. Tie it to Rape. Because the issue with Pedophilia is not one of GENDER... It is one of CONSENT.

Asshole.

-------------------------
Best comment in the entire story.
(There are only two people who rocked it better: John Holmes and Freddy Mercury, and they both died of AIDS!)

Speaking of hate crimes against women...

2011-11-15T22:10:00.003-05:00

...And history repeating itself...

...Why is that the only time the Republican Party, or indeed ANY Conservative, is willing to give a Black Man the benefit of the doubt is:

1) When he's accused of sexual harassment
2) And he's one of their boys

Seriously. How many women will have to come forward before Herman Cain no longer remains the Republicans' leading contender?

You know what? I've been listening to these Right-Wing bed wetters cry about "phony" sexual harassment cases since the early 1990's. Big surprise that Limbaugh, that great crusader for gender equality, led the attack. It seems all of the men have one thing in common: They did nothing wrong. That, or the women are just making it up. (Women apparently lie more often than men have lapses in judgement, you see. This is an especially amusing statement when it comes from some one who sees nothing wrong in acting in a manner that offends, intimidates and makes people uncomfortable.)

Of course if it happens to a Liberal, then it must be true, because we KNOW how Liberals all have such loose morals and can't keep their hand to themselves. Without opening up a Bill Clinton-sized can-of-worms here, I find it interesting that, in their minds, it seems he was the only man, ever to act in an inappropriate manner towards a woman. But they sure believed every allegation that time, didn't they?

Well... You know... A couple of things about me. I work with women every day. MANY women. I've worked for women, and I've had women work for me. Most of them were very well educated, and most were fairly ambitious. All were professional, though to varying degrees. And do you know what? I managed, and continue to manage, to get through every one of MY days without triggering a lawsuit. And I just don't have very much sympathy for men who can't seem to manage that.
I made that comment once in a Media Matters post and I WISH I could find it now, because I LOVED the reply I got back. It went something like, "Well, yeah Eddie but that's easy for you because you genuinely like and respect women!"

And it seems to me that if I have a choice of believing the word of several different women, who come forward despite the media onslaught and invasion of privacy and slander and libel and ad hominen attacks that await them of that of a misogynist with a long history of making disparaging comments about women (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Rielly...) well, shit... I guess I'm just biased, huh? And Cain himself hasn't helped matters much. To borrow one from the Right, "This guy changes his position more than John Kerry!"

First he forgot that he even knew these women, then he forgot the investigation that happened way back when, then he forgot the out of court settlements that happened... And now their either lying (that's original) or he didn't do anything wrong. And that's a pretty scary defense, because Herman? You did. And if you don't actually REALIZE that? That's fucking scary. NO, sir, men are NOT in fact supposed to treat women that way.

(This is the part where I resist resorting to the Right-Wing (equivalent) joke about Ann Coulter wishing she was pretty enough to be sexually harassed.) But, since I really don't have anything else to say, here's a cheap joke I couldn't resist:

Oh, Ben and Jerry, you dirty old Socialists you!

Man, I'm hungry now. Maybe I can get my wife to go make me a sandwich.

;)

Some unfiltered opinion about abortion

2011-11-14T21:47:00.000-05:00

I've been away for a while, so this is going to cover a lot of stuff. Bear with though, me because it all comes back to the 'pro-contraception' / 'abortion is a complex issue' theme that I wanted to pick up from the Sanger post.

First of all, let me say that I am relieved to see that Mississippi's"Personhood" measure was shot down by voters. And while I did share pretty much all of the same concerns voiced by ClassicLiberal, I must say that I am not entirely surprised by the outcome. While the pro-life camp has had their share of legislative and judicial victories, the historical record is largely filled with examples of public backlash anytime core abortion rights are threatened. And that's what was happening here regardless of how much politically correct, verbal diarrhea the MI Legislature was trying to dress it up in. They might rank 50th in adult literacy, but apparently the Republicans still can't overreach in Mississippi. And let's face it: If you can't win an anti-abortion battle in Mississippi? YOU'RE OVERREACHING. And if you read the rest of that article, you'll see how Ohio voters responded to their anti-Union proposal, not to mention a recall-election, and a few others that went for the Democrats. And this is coming off a HUGE win in 2010 and leading in to the 2012 election season. Nice going, Republicans! I'm seriously conflicted as to whether or not I want them to learn a lesson from all of this. Part of me wants them to keep fucking everything up for themselves, but then that same part of me remembers just how mind-bendingly stupid and gullible the average American voter is. Still: They've overreached, and the public spoke. Every now and then? The good guys WIN ONE.

Now I wanted to say something about JLarue's comment from the Sanger post.

As far as abortion goes... IMHO, morally speaking, it is simply never justified, with the exception of when it is being done to SAVE A LIFE. Unless SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE, I simply do not believe it is a morally justified course of action. And NO, that judgement does not change when it come to RAPE. That being said? I am pro-choice. Period. Without a second thought. And why? Because in contrast to the funny-mentalists on the Right, I do not labor under the delusion that anyone else should have their own behavior bound or limited by my opinion. My opinion, my principles, my beliefs all affect exactly one person: ME.

And it it the very fact that the choice is mine to make that I value and will vehemently protect.

(Pretty much the same way I describe my position on Gun Control as well: I despise guns, but I value the fact that the decision of whether or not I own one is mine to make. I don't own one, and I likely never will. But I will fight, kill and die to keep that decision mine.)

Now... JLarue goes on to describe how much abuse has been received regarding [what I perceive] a very moderate pro-choice / moderate pro-life position. And I've encountered this as well, particularly on extremely feminist websites such as Jezebel and Feministing. (Two of my all-time fav's, BTW, to be sure. But it suffices to say that I don't agree with the bulk of their readership on this particular issue.) To suggest that a woman in labor can have an abortion up to the moment that the chord is cut? Well... it's every bit as psychopathic as it sounds: Which is to say, ENTIRELY. And yet? You'll get that! I've gotten that! DW has gotten that! And it's completely, and utterly batshit insane!

Now, I'd LIKE to think that this kind of completely batshit insane extremism on the pro-choice side is purely in response to the completely batshit insane extremism on the Right, in general. IOW: We have to take a hard-line, because they will absolutely, positively never stop! They will never concede ANY GROUND, and they they will never stop clawing away at our rights no matter how much "common sense" / "common ground" we concede. They will not stop until all abortion is punishable by death (by stoning, of course), sentence to be carried out immediately, without trial, followed by a Congressional declaration that the person now burns in hell. In truth? That's where the political pro-life camp pretty much is, in the mainstream. So, to be fair, I would like to think that any extremism on our side is nothing more than a reaction to that mentality on theirs. (I really would.) Unfortunately? No - we have our whackos too, Im sorry to say. And even if a proposal (like the one I will present) would satisfy the Right forever (yeah, right!) you would probably find someone on our side who would say that I'm drinking the kool-aid. They're idiots, yeah. But they exist, sad as it is to have to acknowledge them.

Now... If you want to know how I feel about Abortion as a legal issue, as opposed to a moral one, you can click the on the Abortion Page at the top, check any of my past writings on the matter, or read the short version here. This is what I would propose:

1) First Trimester: Abortion is legal, including federally funded as applicable, no questions asked.

2) Second Trimester: Abortion is legal when the health of the Mother is threatened. And Congress would be obligated to define a list of health threats that would need to then be diagnosed. (Obviously, this list would be a source of continued debate, but I think that's OK. IMHO, this is really where the dabate should be anyway!)

3) Third Trimester: Abortion is legal only when the life of the Mother is in immediate jeopardy, and all other reasonable, commonly practiced options have failed, or have be ruled too risky. Doctor's judgement, but they may have to defend it.

An exception for Rape is not needed: It's covered in the first trimester. Partial Birth Abortion? Ugh. COMPLETELY BANNED, at least until an ACTUAL MEDICAL Doctor provides me with ONE EXAMPLE in which this is actually needed, and explains to me why at that point a full vaginal birth, or C-Section could not be performed. I've been told it can happen, but in all my reading I have yet to come across a single, definitive example. And I can be tatlly flexible here. All I need is one example, spelled out for me in words that a product of the American Educational system can understand. So far? That hasn't happened. (And seriously... If you're an OB/GYN who's reading this? PLEASE feel free to educate me here! I'm 100%, dead serious! I really do want to know!)

And the problem with the "personhood clause" is that it not only would effectively outlaw abortion, but open a legal can of worms regarding stem cell research, IVF, and various forms of Contraception. Not cool. I'm not going to get into a stem cell research debate here, but if you're interested you can read my proof. Short version?

Until that embryo is fully implanted in the uterine wall, you haven't even reached the threshold of potential for life, let alone life. (And please comment THERE if you feel you must, as I'd prefer to keep THIS POST strictly about Abortion and Contraception issues.)

And I don't fuck around when it comes to Contraception issues. You might have gotten that feeling for my last post on Sanger, but... yeah. I really don't fuck around there. And that absolutely includes this bullshit idea that Pharmacists should be allowed to choose not to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, based on their religious objections. As far as I'm concerned, this is nowhere near a protected right of theirs, but rather grounds for them to lose their license and business. Period. I'll spell it out for anyone stupid enough to have a different opinion on this matter...

HEY, ASSHOLE: YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AFFECT AND DICTATE THE BEHAVIOR OF EXACTLY ONE PERSON: YOU! AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION PROTECTS MY RIGHT NOT TO BE BOUND BY THE TENETS OF YOUR RELIGION, OR INDEED ANY RELIGION THAT I DON'T BELONG, OR DO BELONG TO YET CHOOSE TO IGNORE. IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO ANY FORM OF CONTRACEPTION: DON'T USE IT, AND DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO IS! PERIOD. END OF STORY. NOW GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FUCKING FACE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP BEFORE I HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!

I really don't think I could say it any more clearly. LOL. And the Hatch Amendment has to go for exactly same reason.

(And if you disagree with me on that, you're either an idiot or you just haven't thought things through completely: If there exists a legal medical procedure that costs-less than a covered alternative?The Government has a moral obligation to the tax payer to fund it! If you don't like abortion , don't have one! That fact that your political party has failed in it's efforts to outlaw is of no consequence to me, nor are that religious taboos to you choose to honor, but which have no bearing on anyone who does not. If you don't want it funded? Outlaw it. If you can't, because the majority of America is against you? Too bad. Suck to be you. The alternative is live birth which costs more. Abortion and contraception are low cost, L-E-G-A-L alternatives to that, and until that changes there is not reason to dick around on the periphery of it with things like funding.)

But I got to thinking over the past week... Why exactly is Contraception so important to me? I mean... sure, yeah: Copious amounts of consequence-free sex. But, in all seriousness... there's got to be more to it than that, doesn't there?

And I think there is. And I think it goes beyond a parent's obligation to properly care for, raise and educate their children, and beyond our societies limited educational and social resources, not to mention our planet's finite environmental resources. That's all fine and good, but I don't see any of it as a reasonable explanation for why I have such visceral feelings on the matter. I mean: Environmentalism is a largely an academic issue to me. It's a voting issue, yes, but I'm no eco-warrior. I'm not going to get into a fist fight with anyone over it. But you know what? If a pharmacist's car were to get set on fire over his forcing his religion down his customers' throats because he refuses to fill birth control prescriptions? I'd sleep VERY well that night, and with a SATISFIED SMILE on my face, psychotic as that sounds. My blood seriously boils that much over this.

And I'm not saying that to scare you. (And I'm totally not kidding.) I just mean it to illustrate how strongly I feel about it. As far as I am concerned:

Any restrictions on contraception, up to and including emergency contraception (aka: the morning after pill) I consider as a HATE CRIME against all women.

You may feel that's an exaggeration, but it's how I feel. And I think I can explain why.

I'm a feminist.

Not a political one in every way, perhaps... though I'm sure we'll agree on a lot of issues. Almost all of them, in fact. Just not one so extreme as to share any of the more psychotic opinions about abortion. But you know what? I just value and respect women so much more than... well, than just about every single man I know.

A recent example of what I'm talking about...

Last week, I was in a bar in Tempe, Arizona with four of my colleagues, travelling on business. These are Engineers: educated people who's intellect and opinions I trust respect. Now... We're all engaged in an activity that four guys would normally be engaged in, in a bar in Tempe: Ogling women. (And no, I'm not proud to admit that, but I'll be honest here.) (And what's more, considering that we're all middle-aged and married? It crossed the boundaries of both sad and a little creepy as well! LOL) And believe me when I say that there was no shortage of extremely conventionally attractive women there, no matter where you looked. Lot's of beautiful women there, no doubt about it. (And four pretty pathetic guys, no doubt about that! LOL) And amongst all this, I noticed a girl sitting just off my 3:00. Short, dark hair - very short pixie cut, with a single long, thin braid on one side. Very little makeup. Tee-Shirt with holes in it. The slightness bit pudgy. Not obese, just having noticeably more jiggle than most of the girls in the bar. Eyebrows were bit unkempt (though nowhere nearly uni-brow territory - come on!) Nose-ring. A plain face, I suppose. I hope you get the idea. Basically? A slightly frumpy, artistic-looking, possibly lesbian woman, who I had no doubt my co-workers would be turned off by, in a bar full of cheerleaders and barbie-doll types. Do you know what my first (and only) thought was?

Of all the women in that bar that night - she looked by far to be the most interesting.

That's it. That was my only opinion. And, sure, maybe it was based on cliches as much as there's were, but of all the people there, if I was going to make the effort to talk to ANYONE, she was the only one I was the least bit interested in: Because she what the one who looked the most interesting. And when she left? One of my co-workers muttered, "What a train-wreck!" To which another replied, "The Lesbian? Yeah, I know!" And that's the real difference between me and pretty much every other guy I know: I was interested in HER. Her, the person. WHO SHE WAS was something that interested me. They were only interested in how people looked, and only then if they conformed to the "barbie doll" standard of beauty. It was a object lesson in the objectification of women. And sure - I could have been wrong: After all I was going only by appearances as well. But I didn't feel the need to say disparaging things about the other women. Indeed I didn't feel anything negative about them at all. At worst? I felt neutral, because I felt there was simply too little to be gleaned from their conformance to the conventional standard of style and beauty. That's not a BAD thing, but it doesn't tell me anything beyond what I can already see: THAT THEY LOOK NICE. Which... Just isn't all that important to me.

I've said it before, and I'll stand by it: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears. I find so much more beauty (not to mention ugliness) in who people are than in what they look like. And that alone doesn't make me better than anyone else, at least until they feel the need to unload disparaging comments on someone just because they don't give a shit whether some forty-year old, half drunk, married man in a bar finds them attractive. But someone who refuses to play that game? Well, hey: THAT'S someone I'd look forward to talking to!

ANYWAY... I guess I just put that story out there to describe what I mean when I call myself a feminist. I simply respect and admire women as people, and I don't overly value physical appearance in women, anymore than I value say... money (for example) in men. It's just not important to me and does not define who you are. (Which is really all that matters.)

And so, for me, I think that explains why I feel so strongly about contraception. Because as I see it there are three things, three accomplishments, that brought about the equality of women in society. (Which, it shoudl be apparent by now, I hold as an inherent good):

1) The first was the invention of firearms. This may seem an odd choice, but consider it on a Darwinian level. When your survival depends on hunting Mastodons with spears? There is no question that, by and large, men are better suited for that activity. When societal conflicts are settled in duels and in wars - both fought with swords, and possibly in armor as well - again, there is little doubt that men have an inherent advantage. But two people with guns? Well, hey: that's a 50-50 proposition, my friend! And there is nothing about the basic physiology of men and women that gives one any inherent advantage over the others. Unless you use you penis to help steady your shot, the FACT of the matter is that, given equal practice and equipment, there is no reason a women won't be every bit as good as shooting things as the man. No so with spears, swords or even BOWS - since the power of the bow is in direct relation to its required drawing force. Physical strength, speed, agility and endurance gave men every advantage in hunting and in battle... Until the invention of the great equalizer: GUNS.

(That may also help explain my 2nd amendment stance as well, who knows? LOL.)

2) The second is women's suffrage. And that one's pretty obvious. Because proving that you can now do every important job every bit as good as a man (by shooting one, for example) will mean very little without a mechanism and the matching political clout to set things right. So that's #2.

And #3...?

3) The invention, mainstreaming and full legalization of all effective forms of contraception, up to and including abortion. Because even given the first two? There is still no question that the sexes are not equal when it comes to pregnancy. When two people have sex, at the moment of climax, the decision of insemination is ENTIRELY in the hands of the male, regardless of any previous agreement that may have existed. (This is a particularly brutal reality in the case of rape.) But ultimately? Absent of contraceptives, the MAN decides if pregnancy is going to be a possibility in any particular sexual encounter. And from that point on? It's the woman who carries the child. The woman who risks all the health implications of pregnancy. The woman who bears all of the all the lifestyle impacts of pregnancy. The woman who goes into labor. The woman who risks all the complications of delivery. (At one time accounting for up to HALF of all deaths amongst women, mind you!) And until recently, it was the woman who was expected to either raise the child or surrender it for adoption. Illegitimate fathers? Largely disappeared, up until a generation or two ago. And even now, it's the woman who takes the unpaid leave from her job to care for her newborn. And if she DID try to stop the pregnancy? The risk of death from abortion was entirely borne by the woman as well.

Contraception levels the playing field in the one area where things still remained inherently uneven. Every discrimination law in the world cannot lesson the impact on a woman's life that a single unplanned pregnancy can have. So I hold Contraception as a central pillar in the foundation of female equality in society.

Now... Getting back to abortion. JLarue laid out what I think is arugably the ULTIMATE pro-life political principle: Do what is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancy's in the first place. [And if anyone opens their pie-hole about preaching abstinence, I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick. The FACT. FACT. FACT. Is that even in States that saw a reduction in teen pregnancies when their school's had abstinence-only sex-education, they still trailed behind the rest of the country in that reduction. It just doesn't work, so SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!] And there are so many areas that we agree on here. Here's MY anti-Abortion plan:

1) Mandatory, comprehensive sex education in the schools. This would begin no later than ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average menarche for girls, and ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average boy becomes capable of getting a girl pregnant. If those grades are different? PICK THE EALIER ONE. It would include a discussion of ALL forms of contraception, including a frank discussion of how they work, how they can fail, and how often they DO fail. And, just to show any religious folks that I'm not a complete dick to their beliefs, it would include the FACT that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself 100% from pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. (STD's, of course, would also be discussed, in depth.) AND? You can also have a frank, objective and factual discussion about what prohibitions exist in various religious circles. This would, of course, be presented as a matter of FACT, and not as an endorsement of those views. (The teacher can even share their own beliefs, but must also then remind the class that they are obligate to defer to the student's family's and the student's own personal judgement and values in these matters. It is simply not their place to moralize.)

2) EASY, CHEAP, and even SUBSIDIZED or FREE access to various forms of Contraception. Keeping Condoms out of schools will not stop teenagers from having sex. Period. Just ask Sarah Palin. Burying our heads in the sand on this point will only INCREASE the number of abortions that happened, completely independent of the legality there of.

3) STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTION OF ADOPTION. This is a big one for me: I'm adopted myself! And it's hard for me to get specific about this (the post is getting too long as it is) but I have heard countless stories of birth parent's rights winning out over adoptive parents right's in so many case that take it to absurd levels due to the vagueness and weak language in adoption law. This does a great disservice to ALL parties involved, primarily the child. Add to that the stigma that still exists when someone decides to give a child up for adoption. This has to be such a soul-crushingly difficult decision for someone to make. And yet, what is the most common response from friends and family? "Oh, you should KEEP IT! We'll help you!" Um... No. No, you won't. You'll BABYSIT occasionally, and give a lecture about responsibility whenever you feel too much is being asked of you. Fuck that. Don't fall for that charade, unwed mothers of society! If your life's plans didn't include children? Your choice is adoption or abortion. Period. And we really need to do a better job encouraging the former, and otherwise minding our own fucking business. Grandchildren are NOT a right! What's more? There's a TEN-YEAR long waiting list for healthy, white babies in this country. Shit - that's what it was ten, twenty years ago! I'll be honest: I don't even know what it is now! So, seriously folks: They're not going to the orphanage. That kid was adopted before you were even old enough to get pregnant. S/He'll go to a good home. (And before anyone tells me about foreign adoptions, make sure you've done your homework regarding the COSTS, RISKS and your LEGAL RIGHTS regarding those!) But people really don't know very much about the process of adoption; public or private. And that's a shame. I think that's a huge problem.

4) STRENGTHEN THE SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AVAILABLE FOR SINGLE PARENTS. I put this last, because I would completely prefer [number three] over the risk of incentivizing this kind of parenthood. But the fact remains that if the person just can't bear the thought of adoption, society has a far greater moral imperative not to incentivize abortion. So for all the Right's bed-wetting about Welfare Queens? Either PAY UP on welfare, or SHUT UP on abortion. You can't have it both ways. And having sex should not condemn you to a life of poverty and/or charity. This is the United States of American not a fucking Charles Dickens novel. So get over it.

INFORMATION. ACCESS. ALTERNATIVES. and SUPPORT.

Now THAT'S a Pro-Life stance that doesn't need to even TOUCH Roe v. Wade!

Been away. Back now.

2011-11-13T11:04:00.000-05:00

There hasn't been a post in over a week because I've been out of town on business. Got back Friday night, but I'm still way out of it from the trip, jet lag and possibly the prodigious amount of drinking that was done. So it's Sunday, but I'm still not up to doing a regular post. But I did replace the Alan Moore picture up top with an appropriate strip from 'Count Your Sheep' that I recently came across. And you know what? That's pretty much what it's like! LOL

Anyway. I'll probably post something later this week, and then not again for another week, since we'll be travelling for Thanksgiving.

So long, Andy.

2011-11-05T09:06:00.000-04:00

Saddened to learn just now about the death of Andy Rooney.

Thinking about his career and his place in the American media, I am amazeds me how nasty and spiteful today's commentator can seem, even when compared to a petty, prickly old curmudgeon who's hobby and livelyhood seemed to be complaining about things and speaking his completely unfiltered opinion. I certainly can't say that I always agreed with him, but he'd always make me either laugh or think, and often enough managed to do both.

He will be missed.

Gold Star Awards, October, 2011

2011-10-31T21:33:00.001-04:00

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!!!

"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

2011-10-26T22:23:00.001-04:00

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:

...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.

Random thoughts...

2011-10-25T22:23:00.002-04:00

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.

Go far enough to the left...

2011-10-23T12:45:00.001-04:00

...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.

Gee, go figure...

2011-10-22T21:06:00.001-04:00

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.

Another one bites the dust!

2011-10-20T11:09:00.000-04:00

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?!

2011-10-15T17:17:00.000-04:00

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.

Breaking down the stereotypes

2011-10-13T15:41:00.000-04:00

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!)

Cracked Nails it Again! (And: Behold your liberal media!)

2011-10-11T22:59:00.002-04:00

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:

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?

One Tin Soldier

2011-10-10T22:36:00.010-04:00

(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!]

Occupy Reality, part two

2011-10-10T20:19:00.002-04:00

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:

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

2011-10-10T19:11:00.003-04:00

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.

Comments

2011-10-09T14:55:00.000-04:00

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!

Music Page

2011-10-09T12:45:00.000-04:00

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!

Two Republicans

2011-10-07T12:08:00.002-04:00

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:

"The institution I need to be protecting is the American workforce, who is having their clock cleaned by a communist dictatorship who cheats."
~Lindsey Graham

BOOM!

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

Some interesting Solyndra stuf...

2011-10-01T11:33:00.001-04:00

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, the ~~Fox 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!)

Gold Star Awards, September, 2011

2011-09-29T20:37:00.002-04:00

It's the end of the month and that (usually) means two things:

1) I get paid tomorrow.
2) Time for more Hall of Fame inductees!

It's the year of Boston's Impossible Dream - fitting, or ironic, seeing as how they blew their 2011 Season last night in final game after pissing away the biggest lead in history (9 Games) every to be blown in September - but we've got one Gold, one Silver and one Revision from a previous month. Here we go:

The Red Ruffing GOLD STAR #39: Laughing in Purgatory

While I've been focusing more on the Economy and anti-Corporatism lately, I haven't entirely lost site of the second biggest part of my political agenda: the Separation of Church and state. Laughing in Purgatory is a blog about raising children in an atheist household in a (*wink*) Christian Nation. It is delightfully irreverent, and anti-religious and does a fantastic job of poking the nose of organized religion and singing the praises of raising our children to be rational, critical and free thinkers.

The Lloyd Waner SILVER STAR #37: The Bleacher Report

They're kind of like the Cracked.com of online Sports Magazine, with all kinds of top-10, top-50 and even top-100 lists spanning all major sports - Baseball, Football, Basketball, Hockey,Soccer, Golf, Boxing... you name it, they cover it all. Their writing style is fairly informal (even someone like me catches several typo's in each post) but it gives the feel of having a conversation with a well-informed amateur, rather than a high-and-mighty sports writer. It always makes for an interesting read, and it should be a regular stop for any sports fan.

And finally, a revision...

I'm hereby officially stripping Netflix of their Silver Star. (See me previous post for more info.) So...

The NEW Frank Chance SILVER STAR #13: The Chive

"Possibly the best site in the world." ~The Chive

They've got humor, sports, videos, pictures of girls... What's not to love? Cracked.com links to their stuff fairly often. Worth checking out.

Class Warfare, Math, Macroeconomics and Fairness

2011-09-28T12:24:00.001-04:00

OK, so by now I'm sure we're all aware of President Obama's judgement that the [curiously named] "Buffett Rule" is NOT class warfare... It's MATH.

Bravo, Barry. It's about time you started calling out the Right on their bullshit.

I would like to give him (and everyone) one piece of advice though, when discussion taxation: Avoid the discussion of "fairness." I know, I know! And I've made fairness-based arguments in the past, linking multiples of the median income in this country to various levels on Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, for example. And these arguments are very effective at convincing people who already agree with you that you're right. They are not very persuasive with anyone who's not already on board. And I'm not conceding the fairness point - I do happen to be of the opinion that the rich in this country do not, in fact, pay their FAIR share of the tax burden. BUT... that's my opinion.

And there's the rub: One cannot objectively quantify "fairness." Whether or not something is "fair" relies entirely on the parties involve FEELING that it is fair. If someone FEELS or is OF THE OPINION that they're being cheated? Well guess what? That's one person who BELIEVES that "it" is not fair!

Fairness is an entirely subjective phenomenon.

Now... I will happily raise my hat and tip my glass to fellow working-class warrior, Elizabeth Warren. SHE got it right. And Conchobhar included some of the best parts of her speech a few posts back. It's truly great stuff but, alas, I fear the "Social Contract" may yet be a little bit too high-brow for the Average American these days. I heard a very well educated man trying to explain it the trainer in the Gym the other night - a black man, who definitely makes only a working-class wage, and yet was attacking the idea of taxing the rich! - and I could see that the argument was not the least bit persuasive. In fact, it came sounding like the kind of namby-pamby Liberal whining that the Right has so effectively charactarized ALL of the higher moral aspects of civilization as over the past 30 years or so.

And besides, I think there's a much better way to put it, and it comes right from the comments section of this very blog...

In response to Tax/Deficit post back in July, Steeve put it absolutely perfectly:

Raise taxes on everyone until they feel the tiniest pinprick of pain.

So you raise taxes 0.001% on most people and they feel immediate pain. Raise taxes 60% on the rich and they feel no pain at all. That's not my problem. Hell, it isn't anyone's problem.

And there you go.

The reason we tax the rich? Because we can do so without impacting their daily spending decisions. And thus it cause no further economic pain, despite the Right's constant bed-wetting about it.

THIS is why you will inevitably end up taxing the rich. Because doing anything else, including significantly reducing spending, is economic suicide. The Right might want that, and Fox News might want that, but the American People do not.

So... STEEVE in 2012?

Lessons from Solyndra

2011-09-27T12:12:00.001-04:00

Right Wing screech-monkeys who haven't idea-one to offer with regards to the deficit, the economy, the environment or any other social problem (other than rich people in America not having enough money) find it easy instead to take advantage of those times when those who try inevitable stumble. And the most recent flavor of the week of this tactic comes to us compliments of the crack management team at Solyndra. Again, I'm a week behind on this, and many of you have probably already moved on, but for those who don't know, here's the short version: The Federal Government loaned Half a Billion Dollars to Solyndra, a solar panel maker. Two weeks ago (?) they filed for bankruptcy and that Half-Bil is now "up in smoke."

Cue the screech-monkeys:

It's Obama's fault
It shows [the Obama team] doesn't have any business sense
We need investigations of this rampant cronyism
This is why Gov't shouldn't get involved in business
This proves green-energy is a bust

Well... in the words of the REAL Niceguy Eddie Cabot, "OK, First things fucking last!"

Does the failure of Solyndra demonstrate the shortcomings of Green Energy?

Well... let me put it a different way...

Did the failures of Stanley Motors or Studebaker prove that the whole "horseless carriage" craze was just a passing fad?

Did the failure of Pets.com (and many, MANY other .com's) prove that this whole "Internets" thing Al Gore kept harping on about was just a flash in the pan?

Well... If you're reading this now, and/or happened to DRIVE ANYWHERE this week, you know that these statements are patently absurd. But there IS still an important lesson to learn here! In Climate discussions, there's always one of these same screech-monkeys claiming that we "can't even predict the weather TOMORROW, so how do we know what the CLIMATE will be DECADES from now?!" (And yes, despite its grammatical structure, that's a CLAIM, not a QUESTION. It's only a question if you're looking for an ANSWER. And screech-monkey's questions are ALWAYS rhetorical.) And I liken tomorrows weather to the climate (or the local weather to the global climate) as a single company's performance to that of the entire economy. That's very apt here.

As was the case with Automobiles or the Internet, there is little doubt that the TECHNOLOGY is going to be around for awhile, and that at some point will be a booming industry. That's relative easy to foresee. What's difficult? Is predicting WHICH COMPANIES will succeed in bringing that industry about. Consider Cars: Just after the turn of the last century, there were over 100 Companies making automobiles in this country alone. Today there are THREE. (And although I do recommend checking out the fine work being done by Tesla and Fisker, they aren't even a grain of sand on the mountain of the Big-3 yet. So, we'll stick with three.) So... back in ~1910, if you wanted to invest in the Auto Industry, despite being pretty sure that the INDUSTRY would thrive, you would have a damned hard time picking which COMPANY would. Same goes for the Internet: There was never any doubt that it would change the world and be HUGE. But who bought Yahoo! instead of Google? Who bought Pets.com? Who bought into any one of a thousand other .com's that rose and fell in the late 1990's and early 2000's?

What's my point? Well... I'm sort of conceding the next couple of points up the list, actually:

1) The gov't shouldn't get this involved in business, because 2) It smacks of cronyism and (as I've laid out) it's nearly impossible to consistently pick which COMPANY will succeed, even if you know that the INDUSTRY is growing - Warren Buffet not withstanding, but 3) he's not Obama's economic advisor! (That's three of their points conceded, in a post where I disagree with them! Dang!)

But hey: I'm a pretty green guy. I'm no eco-warrior, but I do believe that Global Warming is a legitimate threat and that we need to seriously get away from what I call the "burning shit" model of generating energy. So what do I suggest we do, if not directly support fledgling green-power businesses?

Well... there are a few things, and some of the philosophy borrows from Free-Market Libertarianism. And the rest runs precisely counter to it! Here's what might have been done instead:

1) Instead of making a Half-Billion dollar LOAN, why not put up a contract - FOR BID - for half a billion dollars worth of Solar Panels? Then let companies compete to see who can come up with the scratch to support it and deliver. Worst case? (They fail?) You don't pay a dime. Best case? You've got economic stimulus, new technology, competition, etc... (All those things the Right says they want) and at the same time, you're helping the environment: Use the panels at all federal buildings, military bases, state buildings, etc... And spur growth that way.

That's the Libertarian way, and I believe this is one instance in which their way is the better one. Here's another way:

2) Raise CAFE Standards, sign and ratify Kyoto II (or whatever the latest climate treaty is), pass Cap and Trade... or better: just penalize those companies that don't meet the new, stricter emissions and Carbon standards. Then? Go right back to the Libertarian way and let industry sort out for themselves how to make it all happen!

Why do I think this would work? I'll go back to my example of Cars and the Internet...

In the late 1960's, Ralph Nader started a national campaign to improve automotive safety. One of the things that came out of that was something known as FMVSS 209, aka: WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING. (I'm an automotive seat belt engineer. So... Thanks for my job, Mister Nader, but you can still GFY for giving us George W. Bush. And the thing is, while you can't pass FMVSS 209 Testing without a seat belt (after all the regulation is FOR seat belts) it doesn't tell you HOW to make one. (Or WHO can make one.) Likewise, we have NCAP testing - this is where those 4-Star and 5-Star safety ratings come from. Now... you can't get a good Star-Rating without airbags. But the regulation does NOT tell you WHAT airbags you need, where to put them, or how to design them. And what we DO, as engineers, is to come up with better designs. We compete amongst our various companies to deliver BETTER safety restraints, and to do it CHEAPER and FASTER than the next guy. And today we have fewer automotive fatalites annually that we did in the 1950's. Not fewer per capita, mind you, or per mile driven, that's fewer OVERALL, despite having something like 10 times as many people on the road, each driving many times as many miles on average as they did way back when.

This approach? (Set a target and let industry figure out to meet it?) WORKS.

Now consider the Internet. When you consider the version that the legislation sponsored by former Vice President Gore helped bring about, it's fairly utopian: No one "owns" it, users generate their own content, all voices are equal, and anyone can use it as they see fit and as the technology they develop themself allows. And that's what been the key to it's success: At no point in time did the Government, or a company step in to decide exactly HOW things would run, or WHAT it could (and could not) be used for. No one pick and chose, and it wasn't managed.

And the way this applies to Solar Energy?

Well... Who's to say that Solyndra's designs were the best, or that they're the company that will succeed? Why pick and choose? Set the target and let the ENGINEERS do their work. Some companies will fail, but the TECHNOLOGY and the INDUSTRY isn't going away. In the meantime, there's no reason to start placing bets on individual firms with tax-payer money.

As for it all being Obama's fault?

Well, shoot... EVERYTHING is Obama's fault, isn't it?

;)

I support David Lewis!!!

2011-09-26T11:58:00.003-04:00

LOL. No, not really.

And again, having been out of circulation for awhile, I'm sure this clown is old news to y'all by now, but I HAVE to put my two cents in. For anyone who doesn't know, David Lewis is (apparently?) throwing his hat into the ring as a primary challenger to Speaker John Boehner. And if you want to laugh / cringe / feel sorry for a Conservative, you've got see to see this asshat's interview with Neil Cavuto - arguably one of the most sycophantic Conservative interviewers in the biz. Here's the link that I put up before. There are others. You can Google.

And the amazing thing to me was NOT this guy's absurd talking points. I mean, yeah, Planned Parenthood are a bunch of Nazi Babykillers, blah... blah... I did choke on my tea a bit when he called John Boehner a Socialist... That was new. Of course... if Speaker Boehner is a Socialist that only drives the last nail into the coffin of the word having any meaning at all, but it was interesting to see this guy go so far to the Right that even a Right Wing Bootlicker like Neil Cavuto felt compelled to make him look stupid...

...Which, as it turned out, wasn't all that hard.

Because, like I said, it was not so much about Right-Wing talking points that were too absurd for even Fox News. It was more about the way he DELIVERED them! Oh may God... Describing him as "cardboard" would insult the memories of the trees who gave their lives that we might have cardboard! Do you see that dull, vacant expression he's wearing in that picture (if you followed the link)? Yeah, I saw the interview when it aired and let me assure you, he wore that blank look the entire time. And "stilted" doesn't even begin to describe this fool's speaking style (or speech impediment, I'm not sure which.) It was like watching someone, who didn't actually speak English, read words - and even pronounce them correctly - having no idea that they were meant to link together and form sentences. The man's words were so disjointed, Cavuto seemed to have trouble even figuring out when to interrupt! It was painful.

In fact, if you'll pardon the archaic reference, I haven't seen someone look so shell-shocked, camera-shy and both mentally and emotionally unprepared for something since I watched Calvin Schiraldi pitch the last two games of the 1986 World Series. And if you saw that and remember it, you'll know what I mean. If you didn't/don't... It was like watching a middle-school student give a presentation, after forgetting the assignment and deciding to wing it... badly.

It was brutal.

And the whole time I'm thinking:

1) Only Fox would give this fool the time of day. And...
2) There is NO WAY that Fox will continue to give this fool air time!

...for the exact reason that I FULLY SUPPORT HIS CANDIDACY FOR SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE!

Because he makes the Right, and the Republicans and the Tea Party look not only like Fascists, but MORONS. And I don't just mean to the people who know the difference. (Liberals.) Remember: This guy lost NEIL CAVUTO! This guy would make the Right look stupid TO THE RIGHT.

So you know what? I seriously propose that we on the Left enthusiastically support David Lewis for Speaker.

1) Any distraction for the Republicans is good.
2) John Boehner spends too much time in the tanning booths. It's not healthy. This might get him out of the House a bit.
3) By forcing these guys to debate, either the mainstream Republicans will be forced into accepting and acknowledging far more common-sense positions than they currently do (to distance themselves from this clown) or finally be revealed publicly as the whack-jobs we accuse them of being.
4) In the worst case (this idiot wins) he is too bloody incompetent to do any real harm to the country, but he would bring down the entire Republican Party along with him.

So PLEASE... JOIN ME in making DAVID LEWIS the NEW FACE of the REPUBLICAN Party and the TEA PARTY!!!!

Fuck Netflix

2011-09-25T22:37:00.001-04:00

Sorry. I've been away, so this is pretty much old news by now, but 've got to put my two cents in about the recent price hikes at Netflix.

Now... Let me assure you that this is not about the mere fact that they raised priced. That's cool, and it's hardly the first time. (Thought they've never been this dramatic!) But I'm all for companies doing whatever they need to to make as much money as possible. That's Capitalism, after all. That's the free market. And as Liberal as I am, excepting those few services that I do not believe should be influenced by a profit motive (medicine and incarceration leap to mind, for example) I have seen no other economic system that will bring us the goods and services that we was as efficiently and effectively as Capitalism. (Call me a Free-Market Liberal, I guess.) And this was a company that at one time impressed me enough that I put them in my Hall of Fame! So if they need to raise a little more revenue? Hey: Who am I to complain?

Well...

I'm a customer, for starters.

And one who was at one time so impressed with them that I put them in my Hall of Fame!

Now... WHY did I do that? What made them different from so many other companies that I've had satisfactory dealings with over the years?

Well... for starters, like I said when I originally inducted them, they slew big blue: The Bankrupted Blockbuster. And I HATE, HATE, HATED Blockbutser with a seething passion!

But it was the WAY that Netflix evolved that was what really impressed me. It was the changes they brought about that really made me believe they could be different. For one? No bricks and mortar, at all. And they came about at a time when very few companies managed to pull that off successfully. eBay and Amazon managed it, as did a couple of search engines, but overall, even today, a large portion of online commerce still happens at the websites of stores that still actually have stores. They proved that there was yet another business sector that could succeed as an entirely online company. That's an accomplishment worth acknowledging.

Another way in which they were different was in the amount of customer focus they had... at least... up until about six months ago, or thereabouts.

Netflix.com allowed Netflix MEMBERS to write reviews for movies. Sure Amazon did this as well, but Netflix created what felt like a close community. A group of people who were ranked according to their similarity to your own tastes in an effort to help you discover movies that you might not otherwise had, and to steer you towards those that should hold a particular appeal to you.

What's more, they relied on this community to drive their content. Not just on their website, but in their inventory. It is because they realized just how wide and varied people tastes were that they built the largest selection of titles anywhere in existence - at one time 50% larger than Blockbuster online's, and FORGET about the Blockbuster STORES. You think you could walk into a Blockbuster and find any Kurosawa Movies? Or European Films? Or obscure classics? Or Anime? (Other than fucking Dragonball?) The only thing I could ever find at Blockbuster was a series of shelves with hundreds of copies of the same handful of new releases, with every single one of them out. Yaaaay!

Netflix realised the potential that can be tapped when you truly consider the desires of your entire customer base, rather than just following what the bean counters in the boardroom would consider a wise investment. ("Why should get this movies that only 100 or so people would even want to see? Who the fuck is this Kobayashi guy, anyway?!) Blockbuster made us wait for the latest Hollywood garbage. Netflix DELIVERED fims and series that we wanted to see.

And that is what this latest move by them so perplexing. They say it's about new technology, and the digital future and all that, but... Well, I just don't get that. It seems to me that their not only ignoring their customers to an almost George Lucasian extent, but it seems they've thrown out ALL boardroom logic as well! I wish I could just chalk this up to greed, but I can't. This is just... stupidity.

Lemme splain...

Remember that whole thing about bankrupting Blockbuster? Yeah, you see that's an impressive achievement even putting aside my boiling, acidic, venomous hatred for them. It impressive because I can think of no other industry that had been so dominated by a single company that the home video industry had been by Big Blue. Sure there were still the occasional mom-and-pop stores, and Hollywood Video, but nothing and nobody could hold a candle to Blockbuster's market share or profitability. The were a giant. No: They were GODS.

And along comes some kooky little company that has nothing but a websites and a focus on their customer base of film geeks and they BANKRUPTED THEM. So, let me ask you something: If you have a business plan that successful enough to knock off one of the most dominant monopolies in the history of American Commerce... WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU EVER CHANGE IT?!

And yeah... predictably their customers are PISSED. And they've lost millions of subscribers. Not me. Not yet. But show me some who offers the same thing for less? Shit, I'll leave in a heartbeat now. And I've not only been a loyal customer, I've been a CHEERLEADER for them! I've advertised and advocated for them! They've been my absolute bloody HEROES and I have not been shy about telling people about it! And I don;t only feel ripped off, I actually feel BETRAYED, as these Red Bastards start acting like the very same Blue Bastards they knocked off! And WHO am I to go to?

Well, I don't know. There's nobody that's really there yet. (I'll cut my own leg off before going back to Blockbuster!) Netflix achieved something close to a monopoly, and they KNOW it. But here is where some of that Boardroom mentality might have come in handy. Not only do their higher prices drive away their current customer base, but hey help bring about the very competition that will eventually bring them down, they way they did to Blockbuster! They are becoming the engineers of their own royal screwing!

Consider this...

You want to start an online movie rental business. But the current going, market rate for this service is $16-$18 for three movies out a time as well as streaming. And you're thinking, "No way. Without that massive, existing customer base, I could never get my infrastructure off the ground at that rate!" And no doubt a lot of people were thinking that. Otherwise, it stands to reason that someone other than fucking Blockbuster would have been creeping up behind them by now. But if that going rate, for that exact same package, is suddenly raised to $28 a month? Holy shit, did they just do you a HUGE favor! Because THAT? Is a price you can beat! And if you can beat and get even close to that $18 (say... $20?) and offer movie rentals AND streaming? Well now your kicking all ass, because they only offer these services separately now, for anything close to a reaosnable price: 2 movies at a time from "Qwickster" -OR- streaming movies from Netflix. (Or pay $28 dollars a month to keep both!)

And that's what so STUPID (not greedy, stupid) about this: It's not only pisses off their customers but it throws a life-line to any potential competition out there! WHY would you EVER want to do that?! How can you seriously expect to make MORE MONEY taking that path?!

So... for their blatant stupidity in these matters,and so blind a disregard for the will and voice of their customers, I'll be taking Netflix out of my Hall of Fame. It's really an embarrassment now to have it there. I can defend eBay more easily than I can defend Netflix, and that's saying something! So when I get around to doing the Gold Star's this month, they'll be out. I'd take them out now, except that I haven't figured out who to put in their place yet. If they return to sanity sometime in the future? Meh... maybe they'll go back in. But I doubt. I don;t think I'll ever be able to see them as anything but just another blind and stupid corporation anymore.

Been away...

2011-09-21T13:54:00.001-04:00

Had a family-related scare on 9/12 and have been out of town. There's some stuff I'd like to get into, though it will hardly be timely by the time I get around to posting it. I just figured I'd check, say that everything's OK for the time being, and that I'll probably be back to posting on Thursday and over the weekend, both here on IMHO and on Utopia as well.

Coming up...

- Netflix (BOO!)
- David Lewis (ROTF, LMAO!)
- Solyndra, Taxing the Rich and "Class Warfare"

Good Speech

2011-09-08T21:56:00.001-04:00

Heard the President's speech tonight, while working out at the gym.

Leaving out any of the accumulated baggage, and forgetting for the moment about the last two and half years? It was a good speech. A damned good speech. A GREAT speech, even. Diplomatic, yet pointed. Practical but passionate. Statesmanlike, but also partisan the best possible way: He called out Republicans mainly by reminding them of the truly great things that they once stood for. He made the case for eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the richest Americans, pointing out that it's not partisan, nor is it class warfare, but rather a case of simple math. He pointed out that the proposals in his Jobs Plan are (again) things that Republicans and Democrats alike believe in. And yet, this time his calls for bi-partisan action came off not as him being weak, but rather as him shaming Republicans, and managing to do so without sounding preachy! Tonight he had strength. Tonight, he had spirit! THIS was the man I voted for! (I don't know where he's been for th past two and ahlf years, but... I'll get to that.)

It came as no surprise that there were several moments where the Left Side of the chamber was brought to their feet. What DID surprise me were the numerous times that two or three on the Right side of the chamber had the courage to stand up as well. And one time (not including when he was finished (LOL)), he had the entire chamber on its feet.

Save for one man...

And that might have been the best part of the whole speech: Watching that great, bronzed cocksucker Speaker John Boehner twisting uncomfortably in his seat the entire time, looking like he had a bad case of hemorrhoids throughout the whole address, and KNOWING that Obama was winning with his audience...

...And I don't mean his audience in the chamber.

Remember that whole, stupid pissing match they got into over whether the speech was going to be last night or tonight? Well... Obama looked weak (again) and Bohener looked like a dick (again) over the whole stupid thing. But they way it worked out? Most anyone who would have thought it was to the Coppertone Man's credit that he was sitting on his ass all night, looking like a fool? WERE THEMSELVES MOST LIKELY OFF WATCHING FOOTBALL!!! The people most likely to have seen John Boehner looking like he was sitting in a chair that someone had peed in beforehand were the ones most likely to hate him for it!

So top marks...

...for the speech.

We'll see (and more likely, we won't) if this translates into action.

And once again, we are reminded of what ClassicLiberal so aptly refers to as "the tragedy of Obama."

Because, Mister Presdient, the time to put your boot-heel to the necks of the Conservative movement was just over two and a half years ago. The opportunity to suffocate the life out of the Right, turn this country around and start moving FOREWORD again was handed to you 32 months ago on a polished silver platter and you squandered it. And perhaps the greatest example of why he has failed, and why this too will also likely fail was offered by Orrin Hatch beforehand:

“If (the payroll tax cut) is standing alone, I think that might have some success,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “If it's lumped in with a whole bunch of big spending programs that builds Washington at the expense of the rest of the economy he’s not going to have much support from me or any other Republican.”

In other words:

"We'll take whatever you're going to give us for free, but don't expect anything in return."

And that's the rub isn't it? That has been the issue fro day number one - though I've never heard any Republican say it quite this plainly...

...Oh wait, YES I HAVE!

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Sen. Minority Leader Micth McConnell, October 25th, 2010

And AGAIN...

“Well that is true, [making Obama a one-term President is] my single most important political goal along with every active Republican in the country."

Sen. Minority Leader Micth McConnell, July 10th, 2011

Mister Obama, they will NOT stop playing politics, for the simple reason that they want you to fail more than they want the COUNTRY TO SUCCEED. You will never have their support. You will never see anything from these traitorous scumbags other than their best efforts to sabotage your Presdiency, and progressive politics by extension (even though you haven't actually ever USED any). They will never be honest. They will never do right. They will never stop trying to make you fail, and no sacrifice is too great for them!

And I don't think it's all about race. In fact, I don't think it's about race at all.

Their behavior over the past two years is because they recognized the threat to their party's future and to their entire philosophy that you and your popularity represented.

The tragedy here is that YOU never recognized the threat that THEY represented to you, to your presidency and to your country!

Still...

I won't have it be said that I don't give credit where I think it's due.

It was a good speech.

The Democrats could learn from this...

2011-09-05T19:56:00.005-04:00

At some point in the 1984 campaign, Ronald W. Reagan was quoted as saying that he'd like to arm-wrestle Walter Mondale. IOW: He called out Mondale's manhood.

Mondale replied that "The American people would rather hear about arms control, than arm wrestling."

Good one, poindexter!

See... Most Democrats just can't talk trash!

Look at the 2004 campaign, with the Swift-Boat veterans spreading all kinds of slander and insult, and John Kerry did not once call them out on it! As close as that election was (the closest RE-election of all time!) if instead he had come out swinging? I truly believe he would have won. But they just don't get it! I believe it was that same year that Saxby Silver-Spoon Chambliss was talking the same smack about Max "I left three of my limbs in Vietnam" Cleland. But did Cleland get up and kick ass? (OK: remain seated and kick ass?) No more than Kerry did. And this was a guy who could have kicked the shit out of Saxby Fairyboy Chambliss from his fucking wheelchair!

And go figure that both men lost.

Because in America? We'd rather have someone who [looks] strong and is stupid than someone who appears weak, but is smart. I can't imagine what else might be behind the popularity of Governor Robert E. Perry and Congresswoman Loony Bin Bachman (who look to be next year's answer to 2008's McCain / Palin.)

But seriously... The Democrats just don't know how to talk smack! Obama especially!

"Yes, we can!" he said...

...and "Yes! Weak hand!" they realized!

So it is with that in mind that the following Cracked Article is recommended as required reading for all Democrats:

The 10 Greatest Uses of Trash Talk in the History of War

My personal favorite?

In the Third Sacred War, when Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great) sent the following warning to Sparta:

"You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army on your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people and raze your city."

The Spartan's official reply was:

"If."

Now THAT'S bad-ass!

Who can blame Philip and Alexander for spending the rest of their lives fighting wars as far away from Sparta as possible?!

A little research goes a LOOONG way...

2011-09-05T13:11:00.012-04:00

This goes for both Progressives and Regressives alike, the difference being that we're actually willing to DO a little research from time to time, rather than just blindly posting and linking to every email that hits our in-box. And, yes, I am aware that I have made some mistakes here as well. Again, the difference is that when someone points them out to me, I'm far more likely to say "Huh, yeah, good point!" or "Thanks for the tip" than I am to go off on on a tirade, asking why people are "defending the enemy" or some such thing. IOW: It's is important to me to get it RIGHT. First and foremost, I want my arguments to be based in fact more than I care about whether or not they're Liberal. So, seriously: If someone sees something here that's bullshit, by all means: CALL ME OUT ON IT! (You don't usually get that offer from most Right Wing Bloggers!)

So... What's this all about? Well... a couple weeks back I came across a blog called The Economic Collapse. And by what I can only describe as blind luck the first two articles I came across blamed [the economic mess du jour] largely on Republicans and the Democrats that went along with them. So I though 'whoa-hey! Another liberal blog!' And I was all set to put it up for a Gold Star. Yeah... Um... Good thing I dug a little deeper. LOL. The first tell-tale sign was all the ads for Silver, Gold and Platinum Coins and 'Emergency Food' across the top. That's... a little bit too Glenn Beck-ish for me. So I read further, and... Yeah... This one's a hall of SHAMER, big time.

Hoo-boy...

Article after article of intellectual dishonesty, writ large. And don't get me wrong... Some of these? DO manage to make some good points! But these are lost in a sea of blaming Liberals ("Socialists," actually) and distorting the claims just enough to take them beyond the realm of 'interesting examples' and right into the territory of the truly absurd. And there is one such post that I want to use to show you just how low-down and intellectually dishonest they are. This is from "Suffocated By Red Tape - 12 Ridiculous Regulations That Are Almost Too Bizarre To Believe." I'd like to take this on, point by point, to show how they operate and display exactly what the author is NOT telling you. Because... if you're making a "good point" there should be no reason to be intellectually dishonest about it! If you're RIGHT, you shouldn't have to LIE. Also, I'm going to *star* some of these. The ones that get *starred* I'll have a little more to say about at the end. And remember: These are all (supposedly) the fault of LIBERALS, those damned Socialists!

#1 The state of Louisiana says that monks must be fully licensed as funeral directors and actually convert their monasteries into licensed funeral homes before they will be allowed to sell their handmade wooden caskets.

(*) This is a prime example of a BARRIER TO ENTRY. I'll explain what that is at the bottom. Is it bullshit? Usually, yes. Is it LIBERAL? Oh, hell no! But, more on that farther down.

#2 The city of Philadelphia now requires all bloggers to purchase a $300 business privilege license. The city even went after one poor woman who had earned only $11 from her blog over the past two years.

(*) This also falls under the 'barrier to entry' category, but there's some intellectually dishonesty thrown in for good measure. See... take a good look at the story he linked to. First of all, it's $50 per year or $300 for life. Second of all, it's not a tax on BLOGGERS, it's a licensing fee for BUSINESSES. Is it excessive, when applied to bloggers? Well... sure USUALLY. But how much money do Arianna Huffington or Matt Drudge make from their blogs? If you're GOOD AT IT, then it might not be so excessive. And? If you don't want to pay? Just don't sell ads. No big deal there - especially if those ads only net you $11 a year! In Google's AdSense's terms, it would take you just over NINE YEARS to get paid AT ALL at that rate! So why even bother? (Disclosure: I should make my first hundred, and finally get paid, after 2 years of blogging, in about a month or so.) Just take the ads down and your "Free Speech" is completely untouchable. (Remember: It's "free" speech, not "paid" speech!) And, OK, fine... Do I think it's a dumb law? Or one that needs to be altered or amended? YES. Yes, I do. But if you're going to argue that - and I think it SHOULD be argued - WHY do you have to be dishonest about it? The law is absurd enough on its own! If you have to distort the reality even more to make your point, MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT!

#3 In the state of Massachusetts, all children in daycare centers are mandated by state law to brush their teeth after lunch. In fact, the state even provides the fluoride toothpaste for the children.

Nanny-state bullshit? Perhaps. (Although after recently going through crown-extension surgery, and getting three different holes drilled in the same tooth by a guy who I thought was being pretty chincy with the Novocaine? Man: BRUSH YOUR TEETH, KIDS! Because that SUX!) Here's the thing... If the STATE provides the toothpaste? And the kids (presumably) own toothbrushes? HOW, exactly, is this "suffocating" the day-care businesses? Seems to me that this is actually a GOOD program, that works JUST FINE, and it's the John Stossel Conservatives who are whining over nothing. And considering that Medicaid covers dental, it would seem this is a good cost-savings measure as well. But.. you know... never let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

#4 If you attempt to give a tour of our nation's capital without a license, you could be put in prison for 90 days.

All I can say is, one: (*). And two: The sentence is absurd, but the motivation behind ALL of the (*)'s entries is hardly a LIBERAL one. (I'll get to that at the end.)

#5 A reader named Gene recently shared his regulatory horror story with us....

I'm not going to dignify "Gene's story" with a response, other than to say that "anecdotal evidence sure is convincing, isn't it?" I can't verify ANY of these claims, nor do I know ANYTHING about "Gene" or his "Business." If there's any legitimacy to this, maybe they should have found an example from a verifiable source, no? Just sayin'.

Also? (*)

#6 Federal agents recently raided an Amish farm at 5 A.M. in the morning because they were selling "unauthorized" raw milk.

Damn! I'm never even UP by 5 O'Clock in the morning! Although... I suppose that's what makes it a such a good time to have a raid! OK, putting aside that the link provided is to the "World Nut Daily," I was able find this story elsewhere, so we can assume it's legit. First of all: You can sell Raw Milk, if you slap a warning label on it. DID they? I don't know. It doesn't say. They say they don't sell to the public, but it's unclear if that's true or not. (And the fed's had to find out SOME HOW, right?) And while I'm all for letting people make their own choices - bad as those choices may be - I'm going to take on these "natural food" whack-jobs (many of whom are Liberal, yes, I know) right now and recommend that they look up a guy name Louis Pasteur, and learn a little bit more about what the world was like before he came along. Raw milk, unregulated, is dangerous. Period. And arguing otherwise is the closest thing Liberals have to dogma. (Actually, I'll come right out and say it: Vegan, Organic, Gluten-Free, All-Natural, etc...? Is nothing more than Un-Scientific Liberal dogma. And it's every bit as full-of-shit as Conservative Dogma is.) But whatever. Maybe their milk wasn't germ infested. OK, fine. But what about everyone else's? Folks, these regulations are in place for a GOOD REASON: Public Health. Do I have a problem with some aspects of the corporate dairy industry? You betcha: The use of Hormones, for example. But PASTEURIZATION is not one of my qualms. (And the "raw eggs" example is just stupid, because pretty much everyone COOKS their eggs before they eat them.) In any case, this is a perfect example of a regulation that a LIBERAL GROUP (crunchy vegan's, whole-food hippies) would be perfectly happy to strike down! (But which this liberal would disagree with them on.) And that shows two things: (1) "Liberals" are an intellectually and philosophically diverse bunch, unlike the single-minded Conservatives. And (2) You can therefore hardly blame Liberals, in general, for this regulation no matter how you feel about it! There's COMMON GROUND here between Libertarians and certain (somewhat extreme) Liberal Sub-Groups! (Although this is one time I'm thanking God that they haven't bothered to find it!)

Also? (*)

#7 In Lake Elmo, Minnesota farmers can be fined $1,000 and put in jail for 90 days for selling pumpkins or Christmas trees that are grown outside city limits.

(*). Just... (*).

(That's a *star*, BTW, not an asshole! The asshole is they guy who wrote this drivel!)

#8 A U.S. District Court judge slapped a 5oo dollar fine on Massachusetts fisherman Robert J. Eldridge for untangling a giant whale from his nets and setting it free. So what was his crime? Well, according to the court, Eldridge was supposed to call state authorities and wait for them do it.

This the one that REALLY pissed me off. $500 fine, just for being a good guy, huh? No good deed goes unpunished, huh? Well, buried deep down in this more honest story about what happened is a little detail that the Right-wing blogger left out: Far from freeing the netted whale properly, he found that he was unable to do this and merely cut his lines, letting the whale swim away still tangled in the nets! Hmmm... It seems to me that if the guy couldn't do the job PROPERLY, maybe, just maybe, he should have, oh... I don't know... called state authorities and waited for them do it! Also not mentioned? The fact that the fine was reduced from $100,000 (holy crap!) down to $500. So, again, far from this being a case of the State Bureaucracy running amok, it is actually an example of the use of discretion to make sure the laws don't get applied inappropriately. Can we have a debate about the necessity of these laws? Sure we can. Can we have a debate about the appropriateness of the penalties? Absolutely. But WHY can't we at least have an intellectually honest one?!

#9 In the state of Texas, it doesn't matter how much formal interior design education you have - only individuals with government licenses may refer to themselves as "interior designers" or use the term "interior design" to describe their work.

Another classic case of (*).

#10 Deeply hidden in the 2,409-page health reform bill passed by Congress was a new regulation that will require U.S. businesses to file millions more 1099s each year. In fact, it is estimated that the average small business will now have to file 200 additional 1099s every single year. Talk about a nightmare of red tape! But don't try to avoid this rule - it is being reported that the IRS has hired approximately 2,000 new auditors to audit as many of these 1099s as possible.

Part of me would love to say, "See? The stimulus worked! Thousands of new jobs!" But, I'm afraid that some asshat from another other blog might come by and read what I have to say, and I'd hate for them to use that [throw-away joke] as an example of "how Liberal's think." (But watch someone do it anyway!) And another part of me would be perfectly have to concede this one single point and agree that it's bullshit. And yet another part of me wants to say "boo-frickin-hoo..." A little bit of paperwork, "oh my farquing guard!"

But we're right back to classic intellectual dishonestly, writ large. A few points, from that very same story they linked, that were left out? (1) This this really all started in provisions under the 2008 GEORGE BUSH budget. (That damned liberal!) and (2) There's a floor that leaves out the smaller retailers. As usual, this is another classic case of them exaggerating the effects of something that BUSH did, and then blaming it on "liberals." And fine... maybe Obama contributed to it further. Fine. But again: Why can't we just be honest and tell the whole story if we're going to debate it?! WHY DO THEY HAVE TO LIE?!

#11 The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin makes it incredibly difficult to go out of business. In order to close down a business. Milwaukee requires you to purchase an expensive license, you must submit a huge pile of paperwork to the city regarding the inventory you wish to sell off, and you must pay a fee based on the length of your "going out of business sale" plus a two dollar charge for every $1,000 worth of inventory that you are attempting to sell off.

Finally a point I might concede. This one does seem a bit stupid. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find much else on it, so I guess I'll just have to leave it at that. I am left wondering, however, how this can possible be enforced. My lease is up, I close my doors, I walk away. If that's really a crime? The yeah, I'll give them this one. But hitting 1 for 11 (.091) won't keep you a roster spot in any league that I'm aware of! (And tongue-in-cheek I might quip that this might keep some business from going under!) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

#12 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is projecting that the food service industry will have to spend an additional 14 million hours every single year just to comply with new federal regulations that mandate that all vending machine operators and chain restaurants must label all products that they sell with a calorie count in a location visible to the consumer.

First, the joking: LOOK! The Stimulus is working! All that overtime! (And in all seriousness? This WOULD have that effect. And that's not necessarily a bad thing!)

Second, all kidding aside? Why do these people have a problem with their customer's being able to make an informed decision?! I mean... back in the disease-infested milk example, they though people could make informed decision on their own. So fine: I can choose to eat crap out of a vending machine. Or... maybe I won't... If I know how many empty calories are in that shit! This isn't about the overtime, or the regulations. This is about business doing less volume if people start making MORE INFORMED CHOICES. That is why this is a problem for the Right.

Sorry folks, between the overtime and cost avoidance by getting the obesity problem under control, I'm filing this under the "DAMNED GOOD IDEA" category.

And thirdly: Every single year? I seriously doubt that. The calorie count of the Snickers Bar has been a universal constant since 1947. (Yeah, I just made that up.) I don't think they'll ever offer that much variety.

He goes on to say that "no matter what changes are made a lot of companies will still not want to set up shop in the United States until something is done about all of these ridiculous regulations." Umm... My company does business in Europe, Japan, the Gulf Coast Countries (GCC) and China. And I can assure you that ALL of them have just as many regulations as we do and then some. (Socialist Europe? Communist China?) India's 10 times as bad as we! The only places with LESS regulations? Africa and South & Central America. IOW: 3rd world shit-holes where the people largely get screwed over by the utter LACK of regulations! And yeah, I'm generalizing, and there are lots of very nice places in those regions as well. But the overall standard of living is MUCH LOWER than it is in the U.S., Europe, Japan and even China and India. And - as I work in the field of automotive safety - I can tell you, as a matter of absolute, verifiable fact - that the cars sold in those markets are a LOT LESS safe that they are in the U.S. or Canada. They sell shit in Mexico that would fail FMVSS regulations big time. I know of cars there that are guaranteed to severely injure or kill you in the case of a crash.That's something else these John Stossel types will never tell you!

OK... so what's the deal with all the (*)'s?

Well... Licensing and fees and professional requirements and regulations are something that B-Schools call, "Barriers to entry." (MBA, University of Michigan, 2006, with Honors - if you're wondering.)

Now... are these Liberal? Well... the Right wants to tell you they are because most of them are revenue streams for Cities and States. Plus, supposedly, no Liberal ever saw a piece of Red Tape (or a tax) that they didn't like. And I suppose... from a certain point of view... in some instances, there might be some validity to that. (You know, in the binary world of the Right Wing Conservative.)

But ask yourself this: Why does a Liberal care about how many interior decorators there are in Texas? Why does a Liberal care about how many tour guides operate in Washington D.C.? Why does a Liberal care about how many sources there are for hand-made caskets?

Really? WE DON'T.

Liberals don't have a shit to give about where the Pumpkins and Christmas Trees in Lake Elmo, Minnesota come from.

Seriously.

These are nothing more than BARRIERS TO ENTRY. These are things that BIG BUSINESS sets up to deter potential new competitors from entering the market! $300 (or whatever the licensing fee is) is nothing to an established firm. But if it prevents a new firm from starting up? THAT could be worth big money in terms of decreased completion. (Less advertising needed, higher prices can be charged, etc...)

But... But... Isn't that PROTECTIONISM? And isn't protectionism a LIBERAL thing?

Yes, I suppose it could be called protectionism. But if you call it that, then you've already disproven that protectionism is something that's engaged in only by Liberals! And keeping smaller competitors out of a given market is night-and-day next to to trying to keep jobs from going to China. NAFTA? Not Liberal. (Global) Free Trade? Not Liberal! These are anti-protectionism measures that screw over American Workers and they were written by Republicans, backed by Big Business! Clinton may have signed them into law, but who ever accused Bill Clinton of being a Liberal?! (Other than the same idiots who call Obama one?!)

And remember the Right's own narrative: Liberals hate Big Corporations, right? We hate Big Business!

Then... Why is it our fault when Big Business pushes for licensing fees and regulations that keep smaller competitors out of the market?

Answer? IT ISN'T!

And if these fools would get their heads out of their asses for just two seconds and turn of Fox news, they might realize that there are plenty of Liberals who would be more than happy to GET RID of a lot of these regulations! (Save for those that protect consumers, but that still leaves a TON of common ground!) See.. By blaming LIBERALS, more and more Conservatives get elected. And (remember our narrative) those are the pro-Big Business types. And contrary to what this Right-Wing blogger is telling you, these "absurd regulations" are mostly things that deter competition for Big Business.

Now is that bullshit? Yes, it certainly IS.

But is it LIBERAL? Um... NO FUCKING WAY!!!

We want to STOP big business's influence on the Government!

No one wants to disentangle Corporatism and Corporate Interests from Government more than LIBERALS do! And you don't hear the big companies complaining about these things! It's always the LITTLE GUY! Well, you know how we always say that 98% of America is voting against their economic interests? Well, this is a perfect example of that! Big Business backs Republicans. Republicans talk a good game, but do NOTHING to eliminate the regulations, and the Little Guy gets screwed because he's so convinced that LIBERALS are behind all this! SINCE WHEN DID LIBERALS START RULING THE WORLD?! (Especially the parts of it called "LOUISIANA" and "TEXAS!") Blaming Liberals is just propaganda by those same Big Businesses trying to prevent the very people they're screwing over from ever electing the right people to fix the mess! As long as the little guy keeps thinking the Democrats are against him, he'll keep voting for the Party who's REALLY against him!

Some of the regulations actually make sense, and were merely misrepresented, as I pointed out. But the rest of them are barriers to entry, nothing more. They're things that mostly benefit Big Business. Again: To a huge company the cost is minuscule. But keeping out smaller, nimbler, cheaper competitors? THAT'S key to their very survival! Yet they try to blame these anti-competitions measures on the OPPOSITION of the very Party that Big Business generally backs! And to the extent that Democrats do this too? Shoot... That's just Democrats acting like Republicans! And we hate them just as much!

And don't let some Right Wing Liar (or Fool) try to tell you otherwise!

Is that really Dick Cheney?

2011-08-31T18:02:00.003-04:00

Interesting headline and photo on MMFA today:

Is THAT really Dick Cheney?

THIS GUY?

When the hell did he start looking like Max Von Sydow?!

If he wasn't such a scumbag, whose plane ticket to The Hague I'd glady spring for out of pocket, I'd almost be concerned about him!

WTF???

OTOH, since it is Dick Cheney we're talking about, all i can say is that I hope it's inoperable, and "fuck 'im."

Gold Star Awards. August, 2011

2011-08-31T11:59:00.014-04:00

MADE IT! lol

This was a weird month. I started it with only a handful of reserve sites left for the HoF - nothing I was really excited about, just some sites I keep in my back pocket in case I run out of ideas. Well... I ran out of ideas! Then about six or seven different sites, blogs, web comics, etc... All came to my attention at once and I'm set with enough Golds and Silvers to carry me though the end of the year! The only question was who to put into which month. LOL. That's of particular importance this month, since the year is 1966 and the lone inductee is...

The Ted Williams GOLD STAR #38: Potholer54

I don't know how I managed to have missed this channel for so long. I got linked to it recently via a comment on MMFA, and the minute I started watching I was HOOKED. Complex Science about Climate Change, the Creation of the Earth and the Universe, the beginning of life on this planet, Human Evolution, and other things, all boiled down to perfectly digestible short documentaries that even the most brain-dead Right Winger can understand. And beyond the fact that they are FASCINATING in and of themselves, they represent a solid argument that no Right-Wing True-Believer can deny or debunk, especially since he often specifically addresses the very talking points and urban myths that those on the Right try to use to discredit the Science they can't accept. Very well done, and a FANTASTIC resource for arguing with Conservatives. I HIGHLY recommend subscribing.

Also... I want to thank everyone who's read and commented on Utopia. If you haven't checked it out yet, please take a look. I'd love to hear what you have to say, even if it's only to tell me that it's an incoherent mess! But please feel free to leave comments there, here or email me at niceguy9418@usa.com. (That goes for anything, anytime, BTW, not just that!) I'm not always on top of every comment and email, but I do try to reply as soon and as often as possible. And thanks again to ALL of you, for all of your participation in this conversation over the past two years. (It will be two years, officially, in just one more week - 9/7/11.)

Worst. Movie. Ever.

2011-08-20T11:01:00.006-04:00

OK, not really but it was pretty bad.

I love a good Samurai movie. Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, Hidden Fortress, Rashomon, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Throne of Blood and Kobayashi's Samurai Rebellion and Hara Kiri are all among my favorite movies of all time. (I wasn't as high on Kwaidan, but it's still really good.) And I hold Toshiro Mifune, Takashi Shimura and Tatsuya Nakadai in as high esteem as I do any western actors. The classic samurai flics are truly great works of art, and it's a shame that so many Westerners miss out on them.

So when I read about Kihachi Okamoto's Sword of Doom, staring both Mifune and Nakadai, on Netflix, there was no way I wasn't going to check it out.

*ugh*

Now... don't get me wrong: There's a lot of good stuff going on for the first 95% of the movie. The script is fine, the character's are interesting, the acting's top notch and the cinematography is great. It's the final scene and the "ending" (notice the quotes?) that turned it all into a collosal waste of time.

The plot (very, very short version): Nakadai plays a sociopathic samurai who's killed every man he's ever fought. He kills a rival in what supposed to be merely a match, but which turned into a duel. He then takes the man's wife, first in a rape scene which pans to the side and uses the most balant (bordering on the absurdly obnoxious) symbolism for sex (forced or otherwise) that I've ever seen, and then as his own wife. Fast forward, he goes on to do a lot of bad stuff (includeing eventually killing this same woman, and abandoning their child) and we are treated to scenes of his old rival's younger brother training under an Iaido Sensei, played by Mifune. (And it's implied, more than once, that we'll be treated to a climactic showdown between the two.)

But instead, the evil Samurai's gang checks into a hotel, has a bit of a party after which Nakadai's character goes crazy and starts killing them. When's he's about 3/4 of the way done (I lost count, the scene drags on for liek seems like forever, but he kills like 30-some guys) there are a few more left, he's mostly dead (cut several times, bleeding, staggering) and he looks into the camera, looking all angry and crazy... AND THEN IT ENDS!

What the fuck?!

Does he kill them? Do they finally take him down? WHO FUCKING KNOWS?!

But more to the point, what the fuck was with the training montage scenes with rival's brother and Mifune? There is absolutely no reason to even HAVE them, OR Mifune's charecter AT ALL, if instead of a showdown, he's just going to go crazy and kill HIS OWN MEN, and then on top of that the movie ends before he even finishes the job, or gets killed himself!!!

Think about Rocky IV, for a moment... terrible movie, I know, but bear with me. How much worse would it have been if, just before the fight between Balboa and Drago, the Russian boxer goes crazy in his training camp, kills his trainers, kills half of the cops and military folks that come in to get him, and just as some more come in, and he's straining to escape his restraints... THE MOVIE JUST ENDS?!

(Now that I think about it, that might have actually made Rocky IV a BETTER movie! LMAO! But you would still be left wondering what was up with all the training montages if the two were never going to fight!)

So Sword of Doom SUCKS.

Watch ANYTHING by Kurosawa or Kobayashi before seeing this piece of crap.

(cue ClassicLiberal to come in and tell me why I'm wrong. LOL)

Gotta love that free-market health care!

2011-08-20T10:01:00.001-04:00

I'm not going to go into the details of why for-profit, free-market health DOES. NOT. WORK.

(And is just ill concieved and improperly motivated, right for the start.) We all know these already.

But here's another recent example of the failure of market forces to provide adequate health care.

I Don't Believe in Miracles

2011-08-17T22:47:00.005-04:00

Nobel Laureate and one of a very few people who “get it” (or tell the truth) anymore, Paul Krugman, wrote an excellent piece the other day in the NYT debunking the myth of the “Texas Miracle” that has supposedly happened under Governor Rick / General Robert E. Perry. It’s great piece and although it doesn’t go far enough (to use one of his own famous critiques) I recommend that everyone read it, just I as Recommend reading pretty much ANYTHNG this man writes. (Barry? Are you listening?)

And last night the Gym some ass-hat two machines down from me not only had Fox News On, but had it turned UP. (Usually the TV's are muted and just show subtitles.) So I got to listen to a marvelously fact-free response from the four members of the Fox Panel who HAVE NOT won Nobel Prizes in Economics. Devoid of rational response, or evidence to support their so called “miracle,” they report to calling [Krugman's analysis] the “Alien Invasion” theory suggesting either that Krugman credits illegal immigration ALONE for ALL of Texas’ growth, or that he was suggesting that little green men, perhaps from Mars, were somehow to thank. And of course, the average Fox viewer is more likely to hear that explanation and think, “Wow, that Krugman sure is a nut!” rather than, “Wow, these Fox peoples sure are stupid!” Because remember:

A LIBERAL WILL TELL YOU WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS WRONG.

A CONSERVATIVE WILL TELL YOU WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS LIBERAL.

(As an aside, between how pissed off I was getting listening to Fox and the Trainer playing the Greatest Hits of the Rocky movies with one his clients, I did have a really good workout!)

(Another aside - I couldn't find a transcript of the Fox segment, but while looking for one, I found almost the next best thing: This Idiot's Blog. Check it out, although preferably not right after you've eaten! We got a future Hall of Shamer here, for sure. ~~I'm curious to see if he has the balls to let my comments post~~(he did! good on him!), and the chops to respond to them. Or come here! If he does, who knows? It might get interesting.)

Well, anyway, I’m all for debunking “Miracles” as anyone who understands my Humanist and Skeptical Philosophy already knows. And I heard an EXCELLENT story on NPR this morning that started where Krugman left off and ran with it, showing even more reasons why the “Texas Miracle” is unlikely to apply to the broader economy. You can find a transcript and audio HERE, but here are some of the highlights:

1) Population Growth: Texas has had an influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, yes, but also many people moving there from other States. And, as Mister Krugman pointed out, it’s not like EVERY STATE’S population can grow based on people moving there from OTHER STATES. So, either it IS (or will have to be) an actual “Alien Invasion,” as Fox sarcastically put it, or it won’t work. Nice work there, Fox.

2) Public Sector growth has been every bit as robust as Private Sector growth. Liberals would be neither surprised nor bothered by this, but remember: He’s promising small Government. Apparently what’s been good for Texas will NOT in fact be good for the rest of the Country – at least according to him and his Tea-Backers.

3) The overwhelming majority of the private sector jobs have paid minimum-wage or less. Governor Perry, please, despite what your Tea-Backer and Supply-Side buddies will tell you, we don’t just want jobs. We want GOOD PAYING JOBS. Filling the economy with part-time, minimum wage jobs (or worse) is NOT what we’re looking for!

4) Despite all that Public Sector Growth – that the Right isn’t even prescribing? Texas ranks 49th in per pupil public school spending, and 50th – tied with Mississ-fucking-ssippi (or as my father-in-law calls it: The states that keep West Virginia from being LAST in anything) in the percentage of adults that go without health insurance.

5) Texas residence still go without many of the services that residents of every other state enjoy. Remember folks, because this is his recipe for success: Sub-Minimum Wage Jobs, and no Public Services. THAT’s the Texas “Miracle.”

6) Perry's “Enterprise Fund,” which gives taxpayer money to companies to come to, or expand in, Texas. *ugh* OK, putting aside that this is little more than Rick Perry giving tax-payer money to the company’s that back his campaign (alone enough to warrant his removal from office) this might sound a bit familiar. In one of the rare instance in which I agree with the tea-baggers, another word for this is… duh-dah-daaaaaah: STIMULUS. (You know: That thing they want to GET RID OF so we can have MORE JOBS?) (Idiots.) And in one of those rare instances that I agree with Rick Perry, depending on how this is administered this can be a good thing. Of course, I’d prefer public works projects to strait corporate giveaways, but, in a rare instance where Paul Krugman and Rick Perry would agree, the economic effect is largely the same: IT CREATES JOBS. But, of course, this will likely be off the table when it comes to the rest of the country. The Tea Party Republican Retards have no intention of spending any money to fix anything. (At least, not while Obama's in office.)

And finally, the one that PISSES ME OFF THE MOST…

7) What kind of companies thrive in Texas? What are the biggest employers there, the ones driving most of that jobs growth? Well… ~~Enron~~, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Shell Oil, Texaco… You see the pattern yet? Mostly Oil Companies and other Energy Companies. And those guys have been doing great while the rest of the country’s economy remains in the shitter. Why? BOWEL-BASHINGLY HIGH GAS PRICES, THAT’S HOW!!!! These companies have made it their business model to siphon off as much of the rest of country's growth as possible! Well… OK… I’ll say potential growth, because with these greedy little fuckwads operating the way they do, they rest of the country will basically NEVER GROW AGAIN. Does that sound alarmist? Think about it. Since ~2005 or thereabouts (I've noticed it pretty clearly since the days after Hurricane Katrina) the pattern has gone in lockstep perfection:

1: Gas prices go up =>the economy slows.

2: Slow economy => no jobs => less demand => gas prices drop.

3: Low gas prices mean people have more money, as they are no longer being strangled by the oil companies. (Thank you, Mister Keyenes!)

4: More money => more demand => economy starts to improve.

5: Economy improves, demand goes up => GAS PRICES GO UP.

6: GOTO 1

And it doesn’t make a difference whether the oil is foreign or not. (Shell is a Dutch company. They still employ a lot of Texan-Americans.) The problem is that oil and gas (energy) prices will ALWAYS act as drag on the economy. They will ALWAYS be a negatively correlated indicator. Until we break their stranglehold we will not be able to escape this pattern. It’s like a tax on the rest of the economy, but one who’s rate actually goes up to the point that it kills growth as soon as there IS any. And nowhere has this kick-in-the-balls been more evident than in my home state of Michigan. High gas prices killed the SUV. That’s great for the environment, don’t get me wrong. It needed to happen, and it was inevitable that big-Auto would need to transition off of them. But the gas prices have gone back down since then! They slowed the economy and were really what kicked off the mortgage crisis. (Not the kindling, of course, just the spark.) And the two brought the Big Three automakers to the brink of bankruptcy. And we haven’t had a robust recovery – because the Republicans and big oil won’t LTE US!

Nice going.

Oh yeah… and as for the whole Low-Tax, low Regulation business environment?

8) Texas job growth has not kept pace with its population growth: They have higher unemployment that the high-tax, highly regulated, robust public service providing states of New York and Massachusetts. (You remember Massachusetts, right? The state with near-universal health care coverage, compared to Texas’ rank of dead last?)

So THAT’S his recipe folks:

• Shitty, Low paying jobs

• No public services

• Little to no health insurance

• Underfunded schools

• High gas prices

You know what? If THAT shit works? I just might start believing in “miracles!”

Check it out...

2011-08-15T17:44:00.002-04:00

So... I hear that despite the voice of the people in Iowa, the Ayatollah Bin Bachmann is apparently not a factor in the Race for the GOP Nomination. It looks like it's Perry vs. Romney. Actually, it's not surprising that the GOP would't blatantloy discout the will of the people, nor that they would marginalize one of there, given that she is of the fairer sex.

Anyway there was an interesting picture of Rick and Mitt there next to link on homepage that went to the article and it got me thinking... I don't think The Separatist from Texas is any more electable than Loony Bin Bachman. He might seem that way to the Right, given that Bachmann's an idiot and all. (Where do the Right find these bimbos, anyway? Palin, O'Donnell, Bachmann... I swear if my entire sample size of women came for those on the Right, I probably think all women were pretty fucking stupid as well!) But anyway... HERE's why I don't think General Robert E. Perry can win:

(And you're welcome to copy the picture but it's MINE, so make sure to let 'em know where you found it!)

OK, so the last one isn't really relevant. (Well, it is to OBAMA, but not to Perry.) Anyway, strang how easy it was to connect one ignorant Texes shitheel to another. Thought I'd share.

Cheers!

-------------------------------

NOTE (added later, ~11:PM): So I'm checking back in and the ad-bot is showing ads for Rick Perry. *head-slap*

A GREAT Article

2011-08-14T16:17:00.000-04:00

THIS is a GREAT article.

And the best part of it is the last part, so if you don't want to read the whole thing, skip to page 2 and scoll down to:

"How Will I Know When I've Become an Adult?"

It's a great question, and I think I agree with him 100%, both in theory and from looking at my own life when he boils it down to:

You know you're an adult, not just when you're able to put the needs of others above your own, but when you're able to do it without giving a single thought to what they "owe" you in return. You realize that, at some point you weren't even aware of, you became the tap instead of the bucket. And then you look back and hate your younger self for living under the delusion that somehow a world full of buckets could function.

And it is with that firmly in mind that I would like to tell all Republicans to GROW THE FUCK UP!!!