Well, MediaMatters did an excellent write up to Sean Hannity's continued Islamophobic attacks on Congressmen Keith Ellison, and Ellison's response that Hannity should be ashamed at being so immoral by saying so may things on the air that aren't true. Haniity, for his part, just amped up his attacks, but here's a list of 10 Examples of Sean Hannity saying things that aren't true.
If you don't want to read the whole post, here's the short list. If you [Conservatives] doubt any of these, don't bother arguing them here unless you first check out the citations and background evidence that MMFA presents. I grow weary of replying to such arguments with "read the fucking article."
10. Hannity Hyped RNC's Doctored Audio Of Supreme Court Arguments. [Media Matters, 3/30/12]
9. Hannity Distorted CBO Data To Attack Obama. [Media Matters, 2/2/12]
8. Hannity Falsely Claimed A White House Adviser "Advocated Compulsory Abortion." [Media Matters, 9/9/09]
7. Hannity Falsely Claimed Obama Called The Death Of Four Americans "Just A Bump In The Road." [Media Matters, 9/25/12]
6. Hannity Spread False Report That Egypt Was Considering Necrophilia Bill. [Media Matters, 4/30/12; Huffington Post, 4/26/12]
5. Hannity's Special On "Liberal Bias" Featured Wildly Distorted And Out-Of-Context Quotes. [Media Matters, 4/24/11]
4. Hannity Cast Doubt On Scientific Consensus About Climate Change. [Media Matters, 12/4/09, 1/13/10, 8/27/10, 11/19/10, 6/24/11]
3. Hannity Fueled Myth That Obama Is A Muslim. [Media Matters, 3/24/11, 3/21/12]
2. Hannity Fed The Birther Movement. [Media Matters, 3/28/11, 4/20/12]
1. Hannity Ignored Overwhelming Evidence To Repeatedly Claim Obama's Policies Have Not Helped Improve The Economy. [Media Matters, 1/13/10, 7/14/11, 2/2/12]
And remember... This is a man who's paid approximately $20,000,000 per year - enough to hire over 500 School Teacher, about 230 Engineers, or 80 Medical Doctors.
And as interesting as I'm sure it will be to see some anonymous Conservative poster try to debunk ANY
of these as not being actual false hoods, I defy that same poster, or indeed
any Conservative to give me a similar list for say, Rachael Maddow, or Keith
Olberman, or Ed Shultz, or Chris O'Donnell, or MMFA for that matter!
(Remember when William tried that? He posted one example of
MMFA ADMITTING they got something wrong, one example that was clearly a true
statement, and one that was said (by some RW website) to contain misinformation,
which turned out to be taken verbatim from the subject's own tax returns!)
I'm sure any Conservative could come up with a list of 10
examples of things that were said by one of these people that were LIBERAL, but
I'll vote a strait Republican ticket in the 2014 mid-terms if they can come up
with a list of 10 examples of things that were said by one of these people that
were actually FALSE.
Lots of luck!
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label mmfa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mmfa. Show all posts
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Monday, December 12, 2011
WHAT filibusters?
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Is that really Dick Cheney?
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."
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."
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Three Romantic Ideals
Is it me, or does it seem sometimes that the race to the top of Conservative media is little more than a contest to see who can be the biggest dick?
As I mentioned in my last post, I posted something on Media Matters that got a hugely positive response and I wanted to expand on it. It was in response to this little display of douchebaggery by Glenn Beck:
Now... put all politics aside for the moment, and let's consider what he's barfing at: The daughter of a skin cancer survivor (and a decorated Vietnam Veteran, at that!) is raising public awareness about the disease and the risk of sun damage, and in doing so, exposes her... SHOULDERS! (Oh my god, the SCANDAL! Next there will dancing!) And while it is completely irrelevant, I'll point that the woman in question is rather quite attractive. Really beautiful, actually.
So... What the fuck is Glenn Beck problem?! (Please don't answer that, we'll be here all day and night!)
Now... what I posted, and what I'm going to re-state here, I posted once before on MMFA, on another piece showcasing Glenn Beck's naked misogyny, when he used the Royal Wedding as a platform to rate women on his scale of 'hottness.'
OK... At this point it is patently obvious that Glenn Beck has a SERIOUS problem with women. But, as I'm sure I don't need to point out, the Right has a serious problem with women in general. (You KNOW that Rush Limbaugh is not on his fourth wife because so many women can't get enough of him!)
And besides... Think about it: If a woman is brainlessly repeating the party line? (Coulter, Malkin, Ingrahm, etc...) or is a party insider? (Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell) They can't get enough of her. These guys practically dry-hump Palin every time she's in the room. But if one starts questioning their malfeasance (like Rachel Maddow) or has the audacity to be independent or has the nerve to *gasp* age (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton) suddenly they can't even discuss policy without mentioning how ugly they think these women are! And fro the most part? That the extent of their argument!
You know... I don't think I ever heard a Conservative coherently state one of Nancy Pelosi's policies and explain why they find it so abhorrent. All any Conservative has EVER been able to tell me about Nancy Pelosi is that she's (1) Liberal (duh!) and (2) Ugly, old and/or botoxed.
So I want to be clear that I am not stating the following merely as a way of burnishing my own feminist cred, but rather to, in one simple post, neuter and debunk every single occurrence of this brand of Right Wing misogyny that has ever occur ed and ever will. So let me get on my soapbox, and elaborate on my romantic idealism:
Rule #1: All women are beautiful.
Rule #2: If you meet someone who truly makes you happy, and who you truly want to make happy in return, physical traits up to and including gender are not important. Should you be gay, or the they be trans, etc... This is not important. Just BE HAPPY. And MAKE EACH OTHER HAPPY. This is all you can do in this life.
Rule #3: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears.
First off, let me point out strait up that these are ideals. As I am human, I am forced to admit that I do not always live up to my ideals. No human being does. At times, we fail. (And to be fair, I can not honestly say that I have ever been tested on Rule #2.) But these are things I truly believe. And I want to address some of the challenges that have been posed, just to show you that, yes, I do really believe in them.
ALL Women? Really?
Yes, all women. And here: I'll prove it to you. This is for the Heterosexual Men out there: Picture for a moment the least fortunate looking woman you know. (On a purely physical level, I mean.) Now think of the best looking man you can think of... Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall, maybe. (Sure, why not?) Now, let me ask you: Which one would you rather have sex with?
I rest my case.
If the least beautiful woman you can think of is sexually preferable to the most beautiful man I can think of? Then all women MUST be beautiful!
LOL
What about... ANN COULTER?
Hoo boy... That's a tough one isn't it.
And it a sad example because it the one time you really see LIBERALS piling on and pointing out how ugly they think she is. And guys? Don't do this. Seriously. Not cool.
First of all, what Ann Coulter SAYS and WRITES is vile, disgusting and despicable in it own right. Her physical appearence is irrelevant to the scumbaggery that she puts out for a living. (She puts out for a living? LOL) (SHAME on me for writing that, and on you if you laughed at it!) The importance of exposing the vile, dishonest and downright un-American nature of what she says and writes is to great to risk the credibility of your argument by acting like a dick-thinking right winger and trashing her appearance. We're better than that. And more importantly? WE'RE RIGHT.
Besides... Imagine for a minute that Rachel Maddow looked exactly like Ann Coulter. Would you stop watching her? Would you stop listening? WOuld you no longer take her seriously? Would you feel the need to point out how hideous she is? I doubt it.
So fine: Coulter goes out of her way to be repulsive. And he lack of attractiveness? I'll bet dollars to dimes comes from our hatred of what she says, writes and stands for, and has little, if anythng at all to do with her physical traits. Ann Coulter is exactly as beautiful as she chooses to be at any given time. The same can be said of every other RW Woman I mentioned above: There is nothing wrong with their physical appearace. (Rule #1) It's completely irrelevant (Rule #2) because the sexiest part of a woman's body is her BRAIN (Rule #3)...
...which is really why we can stand the sight of these people!
But that certainly doesn't mean that we should act like RW misogynists and put it in those terms!
Anyway, that's my philosophy. And let me tell you: My world is a far more beautiful place for having adopted it.
As I mentioned in my last post, I posted something on Media Matters that got a hugely positive response and I wanted to expand on it. It was in response to this little display of douchebaggery by Glenn Beck:
Now... put all politics aside for the moment, and let's consider what he's barfing at: The daughter of a skin cancer survivor (and a decorated Vietnam Veteran, at that!) is raising public awareness about the disease and the risk of sun damage, and in doing so, exposes her... SHOULDERS! (Oh my god, the SCANDAL! Next there will dancing!) And while it is completely irrelevant, I'll point that the woman in question is rather quite attractive. Really beautiful, actually.
So... What the fuck is Glenn Beck problem?! (Please don't answer that, we'll be here all day and night!)
Now... what I posted, and what I'm going to re-state here, I posted once before on MMFA, on another piece showcasing Glenn Beck's naked misogyny, when he used the Royal Wedding as a platform to rate women on his scale of 'hottness.'
OK... At this point it is patently obvious that Glenn Beck has a SERIOUS problem with women. But, as I'm sure I don't need to point out, the Right has a serious problem with women in general. (You KNOW that Rush Limbaugh is not on his fourth wife because so many women can't get enough of him!)
And besides... Think about it: If a woman is brainlessly repeating the party line? (Coulter, Malkin, Ingrahm, etc...) or is a party insider? (Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell) They can't get enough of her. These guys practically dry-hump Palin every time she's in the room. But if one starts questioning their malfeasance (like Rachel Maddow) or has the audacity to be independent or has the nerve to *gasp* age (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton) suddenly they can't even discuss policy without mentioning how ugly they think these women are! And fro the most part? That the extent of their argument!
You know... I don't think I ever heard a Conservative coherently state one of Nancy Pelosi's policies and explain why they find it so abhorrent. All any Conservative has EVER been able to tell me about Nancy Pelosi is that she's (1) Liberal (duh!) and (2) Ugly, old and/or botoxed.
So I want to be clear that I am not stating the following merely as a way of burnishing my own feminist cred, but rather to, in one simple post, neuter and debunk every single occurrence of this brand of Right Wing misogyny that has ever occur ed and ever will. So let me get on my soapbox, and elaborate on my romantic idealism:
Rule #1: All women are beautiful.
Rule #2: If you meet someone who truly makes you happy, and who you truly want to make happy in return, physical traits up to and including gender are not important. Should you be gay, or the they be trans, etc... This is not important. Just BE HAPPY. And MAKE EACH OTHER HAPPY. This is all you can do in this life.
Rule #3: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears.
First off, let me point out strait up that these are ideals. As I am human, I am forced to admit that I do not always live up to my ideals. No human being does. At times, we fail. (And to be fair, I can not honestly say that I have ever been tested on Rule #2.) But these are things I truly believe. And I want to address some of the challenges that have been posed, just to show you that, yes, I do really believe in them.
ALL Women? Really?
Yes, all women. And here: I'll prove it to you. This is for the Heterosexual Men out there: Picture for a moment the least fortunate looking woman you know. (On a purely physical level, I mean.) Now think of the best looking man you can think of... Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall, maybe. (Sure, why not?) Now, let me ask you: Which one would you rather have sex with?
I rest my case.
If the least beautiful woman you can think of is sexually preferable to the most beautiful man I can think of? Then all women MUST be beautiful!
LOL
What about... ANN COULTER?
Hoo boy... That's a tough one isn't it.
And it a sad example because it the one time you really see LIBERALS piling on and pointing out how ugly they think she is. And guys? Don't do this. Seriously. Not cool.
First of all, what Ann Coulter SAYS and WRITES is vile, disgusting and despicable in it own right. Her physical appearence is irrelevant to the scumbaggery that she puts out for a living. (She puts out for a living? LOL) (SHAME on me for writing that, and on you if you laughed at it!) The importance of exposing the vile, dishonest and downright un-American nature of what she says and writes is to great to risk the credibility of your argument by acting like a dick-thinking right winger and trashing her appearance. We're better than that. And more importantly? WE'RE RIGHT.
Besides... Imagine for a minute that Rachel Maddow looked exactly like Ann Coulter. Would you stop watching her? Would you stop listening? WOuld you no longer take her seriously? Would you feel the need to point out how hideous she is? I doubt it.
So fine: Coulter goes out of her way to be repulsive. And he lack of attractiveness? I'll bet dollars to dimes comes from our hatred of what she says, writes and stands for, and has little, if anythng at all to do with her physical traits. Ann Coulter is exactly as beautiful as she chooses to be at any given time. The same can be said of every other RW Woman I mentioned above: There is nothing wrong with their physical appearace. (Rule #1) It's completely irrelevant (Rule #2) because the sexiest part of a woman's body is her BRAIN (Rule #3)...
...which is really why we can stand the sight of these people!
But that certainly doesn't mean that we should act like RW misogynists and put it in those terms!
Anyway, that's my philosophy. And let me tell you: My world is a far more beautiful place for having adopted it.
Friday, October 15, 2010
What a difference a day makes...
Wow. So… one day after I left what may have been my most provocative comment, in terms of responses anyway, on MMFA, I leave what appears to be by far my LEAST popular: 6 Thumbs down, 0 up at the time of this posting, to go along with what I believe to be some rather unreasonably scathing comments from Dharmasatya.
I'm not going into the details here. If you're that interested, go there, check out the thread, and then PLEASE come back and tell me why what I'm saying is so wrong! Seriously. I think you all know me to be a pretty reasonable guy. I've admitted I've been wrong before and I've changed my position on certain things as well. But... Rather than even TRY to persuade me she opted for outright abuse. That's fine. That's her right. It just doesn't make any fucking sense to me at all! Anyway, sorry, that's the last time I'll mention her. (As hard as that will be for me.) I WOULD like to defend my position however. So if, after rading this, you think I'm full of it, PLEASE, by all means: let me know where I'm going wrong!
By now, I’m sure most of you caught some of my outrage over Rush Limbaugh calling the NOW “a bunch of whores” [to liberalism.] And as a follow up to that, MMFA gave an example of what the claimed was “selective outrage” (IOW: hypocrisy) on the part of FOX, for being OUTRAGED over one of Brown’s staffers calling Whitman a whore (which is fine – nothing wrong with that outrage) but not being upset with one of Whitman's staffer's saying the same thing about CONGRESS. And from this point out, since neither campaign has really apologized, I'm going to treat the words as if they come from the Candidates themselves. Right or wrong, it's juts easier. Besides, this is more of a PHILOSOPHICAL argument anyway and the details of what REALLY happened, in this instance, aren't actually critical to it.
Now… I claimed that this example was weak tea on MMFA’s part. Now: I love MMFA. But you can take this as proof that I don’t find them to be above critique; and not only for the rare time that they're “not liberal enough.” LOL. The claim of hypocrisy in this case is bullshit. Sorry to have to give one to Fox here, but it’s Apples and Oranges. A MAN (such as Limbaugh, or Brown) calling a woman (such as the NOW, or Whitman) a “whore” is unacceptable in any context! It’s off limits! Like I said: Calling NOW a “bunch of whores” is NO DIFFERENT than calling the NAACP a “bunch of Niggers.” Both are wildly inappropriate, and completely unacceptable. But a woman say the same about a bunch of men? TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING.
I'll explain...
See... I treat all of these kinds of words (whore, nigger, faggot, etc...) the same going the other way.
For example: I, as a White person, have no business telling Blacks that they can’t use the word “nigger” however they want to. If they want to call each other “nigger,” either as friendly, male banter, or even in anger, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL THEM THEY CAN’T! But... If Bill Cosby (for example) doesn’t like it? FINE! Listen to HIM! He has some standing in this discussion! He’s Black! But seeing as how White People INVENTED that word to HURT and SUPPRESS Blacks? HOW DARE we tell them how they can and can’t use it! They can use it however they want! And we can’t. EVER. And what's more, Whites have no right to tell them that THEY CAN’T.
To me? All this is self evident. If what I just said doesn't make sense to you? Either explain to me WHY, or... (just some friendly advice?) Avoid talking about race issues in mixed company. You'll probably REALLY piss somebody off!
And I'm inclined to treat "whore" the exact same way.
WOMEN can use that word, however they want. No harm no foul. If one woman calls another a whore? That’s her business. As a MAN, I have no standing to tell her that’s inappropriate. If a woman calls a MAN a whore? Again: NO harm, no foul. And still: that doesn’t give him leave to turn it around. Men don’t get to use the word “whore,” like that, anymore than white people get to use the word “nigger.” Period.
So while it may have been VULGAR on the part of Whitman’s campaign, it simply ain’t misogynistic. Whitman calling CONGRESS “Whores” is one thing. Brown calling WHITMAN a “whore?” Limbaugh calling NOW “whores?” Something else entirely. So Fox getting mad about Brown, but not Whitman? Not hypocrisy. (Yeah, it's hypocrisy that they give Limbaugh a pass - but that wasn't the example.)
And I MIGHT be going out on a limb here, by personally? I'm OK with a MAN calling another MAN a "whore." Hey: I've done it. For example... I've (probably) called Dick Cheney a whore to the oil industry, at some point. (IDK. It sounds like something I'd say, anyway. LOL) Why is that OK? IN THAT CONTEXT, it is stripped of any feminine connotations! I'm not suggesting he's a WOMAN; of of ill repute or otherwise. I'm using a colorful metaphor to say that, as a man, he is getting sodomized (METAPHORICALLY) by the oil industry, for MONEY. Now... I'm not completely heartless here. If that offends women? (Or MEN for that matter?) LET ME KNOW! Just do it in a way that recognizes how much we AGREE ON when it comes to issues of respect and gender equality. That's all I ask. Because I tend to respond in kind. It's human nature, and I'm happy to report that I am very much a human being. More reasonable than most, but if you attack me unfairly? I promise you I'm going to get defensive. But I dont think any of you really think I'm someone that can't be reasoned with. Shit, that's why I DO this! It's not just so I can read the sound of my voice! I WANT to be told when I'm full of shit!
ANYWAY... (Sorry. Still steamed about... she who shall not be named.)
Now... as I said before: If Bill Cosby wants to take issue with them (or Chris Rock?) using that word? That's fine. But it is not MY PLACE to say what Black people can and can't say. And while I’m all in favor of feeling outraged over blatantly misogynistic language, lets at least TRY to make sure it’s well placed!
Because I’m pretty sure Meg Whitman doesn’t hate women. Congress, maybe, but that’s her prerogative.
To recap:
Woman pissed at a man for calling another woman a Whore? PERFECT. Strong woman!
Man pissed at a man for calling a woman a Whore? ALSO PERFECT. Quality man!
Woman pissed at another woman for calling yet another woman a whore? I ain't takin' sides, but... Nothing wrong with that at all: Have it out!
Man pissed at a woman for calling another woman (or another man) a Whore? Really ought to mind his own fucking business.
Man pissed at a man for calling another man a Whore? Hey, depends on the context, but I'd say he's probably being a bit too sensitive about things.
Woman pissed at man for calling another man a Whore? Again, depends on the context, but if I were that man? I'd treat lightly and acknowledge she might have a point.
But again: CONSIDER the CONTEXT and reason it out!
Now... Can someone please tell me what I’m missing here?
I'm not going into the details here. If you're that interested, go there, check out the thread, and then PLEASE come back and tell me why what I'm saying is so wrong! Seriously. I think you all know me to be a pretty reasonable guy. I've admitted I've been wrong before and I've changed my position on certain things as well. But... Rather than even TRY to persuade me she opted for outright abuse. That's fine. That's her right. It just doesn't make any fucking sense to me at all! Anyway, sorry, that's the last time I'll mention her. (As hard as that will be for me.) I WOULD like to defend my position however. So if, after rading this, you think I'm full of it, PLEASE, by all means: let me know where I'm going wrong!
By now, I’m sure most of you caught some of my outrage over Rush Limbaugh calling the NOW “a bunch of whores” [to liberalism.] And as a follow up to that, MMFA gave an example of what the claimed was “selective outrage” (IOW: hypocrisy) on the part of FOX, for being OUTRAGED over one of Brown’s staffers calling Whitman a whore (which is fine – nothing wrong with that outrage) but not being upset with one of Whitman's staffer's saying the same thing about CONGRESS. And from this point out, since neither campaign has really apologized, I'm going to treat the words as if they come from the Candidates themselves. Right or wrong, it's juts easier. Besides, this is more of a PHILOSOPHICAL argument anyway and the details of what REALLY happened, in this instance, aren't actually critical to it.
Now… I claimed that this example was weak tea on MMFA’s part. Now: I love MMFA. But you can take this as proof that I don’t find them to be above critique; and not only for the rare time that they're “not liberal enough.” LOL. The claim of hypocrisy in this case is bullshit. Sorry to have to give one to Fox here, but it’s Apples and Oranges. A MAN (such as Limbaugh, or Brown) calling a woman (such as the NOW, or Whitman) a “whore” is unacceptable in any context! It’s off limits! Like I said: Calling NOW a “bunch of whores” is NO DIFFERENT than calling the NAACP a “bunch of Niggers.” Both are wildly inappropriate, and completely unacceptable. But a woman say the same about a bunch of men? TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING.
I'll explain...
See... I treat all of these kinds of words (whore, nigger, faggot, etc...) the same going the other way.
For example: I, as a White person, have no business telling Blacks that they can’t use the word “nigger” however they want to. If they want to call each other “nigger,” either as friendly, male banter, or even in anger, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL THEM THEY CAN’T! But... If Bill Cosby (for example) doesn’t like it? FINE! Listen to HIM! He has some standing in this discussion! He’s Black! But seeing as how White People INVENTED that word to HURT and SUPPRESS Blacks? HOW DARE we tell them how they can and can’t use it! They can use it however they want! And we can’t. EVER. And what's more, Whites have no right to tell them that THEY CAN’T.
To me? All this is self evident. If what I just said doesn't make sense to you? Either explain to me WHY, or... (just some friendly advice?) Avoid talking about race issues in mixed company. You'll probably REALLY piss somebody off!
And I'm inclined to treat "whore" the exact same way.
WOMEN can use that word, however they want. No harm no foul. If one woman calls another a whore? That’s her business. As a MAN, I have no standing to tell her that’s inappropriate. If a woman calls a MAN a whore? Again: NO harm, no foul. And still: that doesn’t give him leave to turn it around. Men don’t get to use the word “whore,” like that, anymore than white people get to use the word “nigger.” Period.
So while it may have been VULGAR on the part of Whitman’s campaign, it simply ain’t misogynistic. Whitman calling CONGRESS “Whores” is one thing. Brown calling WHITMAN a “whore?” Limbaugh calling NOW “whores?” Something else entirely. So Fox getting mad about Brown, but not Whitman? Not hypocrisy. (Yeah, it's hypocrisy that they give Limbaugh a pass - but that wasn't the example.)
And I MIGHT be going out on a limb here, by personally? I'm OK with a MAN calling another MAN a "whore." Hey: I've done it. For example... I've (probably) called Dick Cheney a whore to the oil industry, at some point. (IDK. It sounds like something I'd say, anyway. LOL) Why is that OK? IN THAT CONTEXT, it is stripped of any feminine connotations! I'm not suggesting he's a WOMAN; of of ill repute or otherwise. I'm using a colorful metaphor to say that, as a man, he is getting sodomized (METAPHORICALLY) by the oil industry, for MONEY. Now... I'm not completely heartless here. If that offends women? (Or MEN for that matter?) LET ME KNOW! Just do it in a way that recognizes how much we AGREE ON when it comes to issues of respect and gender equality. That's all I ask. Because I tend to respond in kind. It's human nature, and I'm happy to report that I am very much a human being. More reasonable than most, but if you attack me unfairly? I promise you I'm going to get defensive. But I dont think any of you really think I'm someone that can't be reasoned with. Shit, that's why I DO this! It's not just so I can read the sound of my voice! I WANT to be told when I'm full of shit!
ANYWAY... (Sorry. Still steamed about... she who shall not be named.)
The difference, of course, is, and always will be, CONTEXT. To quote America’s last great Stand-Up Philosopher, George Carlin:
We don’t care is Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor use the word “nigger” because we know they’re not racist.
How do we know that?
They’re niggers!
Because I’m pretty sure Meg Whitman doesn’t hate women. Congress, maybe, but that’s her prerogative.
To recap:
Woman pissed at a man for calling another woman a Whore? PERFECT. Strong woman!
Man pissed at a man for calling a woman a Whore? ALSO PERFECT. Quality man!
Woman pissed at another woman for calling yet another woman a whore? I ain't takin' sides, but... Nothing wrong with that at all: Have it out!
Man pissed at a woman for calling another woman (or another man) a Whore? Really ought to mind his own fucking business.
Man pissed at a man for calling another man a Whore? Hey, depends on the context, but I'd say he's probably being a bit too sensitive about things.
Woman pissed at man for calling another man a Whore? Again, depends on the context, but if I were that man? I'd treat lightly and acknowledge she might have a point.
But again: CONSIDER the CONTEXT and reason it out!
Now... Can someone please tell me what I’m missing here?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Good riddance, Doctor Laura
It may not be very big of me, to celebrate the absolute laying low of another person, the complete destruction of a career, one that is ending in utter disgrace, but what happened this week to “Doctor” Laura Schlessinger couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person. Well, OK, maybe that’s not true… seeing as how Schlessinger is a has-been that hasn’t been politically relevant since the early 1990’s, I suppose I’d have rather it had be Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter… but I’ll take what I can get. One down, too many to count to go. Goodbye Laura, and good riddance to bad garbage
OK. Glad I got that out of the way. I said some other nasty things about her on MMFA (and you can hear the audio's of her over there) when the news first broke. Bottom line: I’ve never liked her. I’ve always found her to be mean spirited, bigoted and a religious nut – especially on issues related to sexuality and sexual orientation – and most importantly, at least to me, a screaming, FLAMING HYPOCRITE. Consider this: I call my mother AT LEAST once a week, and usually every couple of days. This great preacher of “family values” hadn’t spoken to her mother for 20 years prior to her death in 2002! I don’t need to hear someone preaching to me about “family values” who’s been estranged from her mother for 20 years, anymore than I do from someone who is thrice divorced with no kids!
*Exhale*
OK, rant over. Thanks for letting me get that out of my system. What I really wanted to do was share some of the comments that I left on MMFA about the racial controversy in general. I hadn’t started out trying to write anything profound, but they got a tremendously positive response, so I’d like to share them with everyone else as well, see what y’all think about it. (The following paraphrases several comments, but primarily comes from THIS ONE.)
The media has largely focused on the fact that she actually said the word, “Nigger.” (Like… eight times in a row!) And this is a shameful (and conservatively biased) ploy on the part of the media. Because in reality, saying, "nigger" was the LEAST of the problems with he broadcast that day, as well as her career, show and political philosophy in general!
Because the WORD isn't the problem. SHE IS. And focusing on the word whitewashes the fact that she felt it was the CALLER who had a hypersensitivity problem, as opposed to realizing that it was the caller’s husband's friends who had an IGNORANCE problem, and who showed a profound LACK of sensitivity. THIS is the REAL PROBLEM. She went so far as to tell the caller that if she was so sensitive about race issues that maybe she shouldn’t have married outside her rice! WTF is up with that?! When someone asks someone else (who's black) "Do black people like [something]?" and thinks that's an appropriate substitute for "Do YOU like something]?" It's racist! PERIOD. But the “Doctor” is apparently too ignorant, too stupid, too racist and way, way, WAAAAY to ARROGANT to ever realize this.
And while it may be a gross generalization on my part, Liberals aren't the ones who, when talking to a black person, lump them into the larger group. That IS however something that I see Conservatives do ALL THE TIME - such as Dr. Laura, Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, etc... Time and time again white people are just people, but black people are black people first. And this is inherently racist, even if you harbor no conscious ill will toward the group! Because it dehumanizes – de-INDIVIDUALIZES – the person, diminishing them to being just a token representative of a group. And that’s why I say that this focus on the word “nigger” is not only unfortunate, but conservatively biased. Because Conservatives seem to think that the have to actually HATE the group in order to be racist. That somehow, as long as you don’t CALL someone a “nigger” you can’t be saying something, or thinking something racist.
But it’s not about HATING the group. Actual, conscious hate is NOT at all required: Viewing someone as the member of a sub-group FIRST and an individual human being, fully deserving of respect, dignity and validation SECOND, is inherently racist (or bigoted in the case of religion, sexuality, etc…) even if you don’t harbor – or don’t THINK you harbor – any ill will towards the group.
As for the word itself? Personally, I refuse to say "n-word." The word is "nigger." We’re all adults here, and we should be putting it on a pedestal like that. But it's a word that should be treated the same way that PEOPLE should treated: With RESPECT. It has a long, sordid history and context matters. Black people can say it. That’s perfectly OK. Given the history of white's behavior, I'm happy to let them own it - to let them emasculate it by treating it like a term of endearment even. I don’t care. For my part, I have and would never call someone one, nor would I (or have I) ever refer to someone as one. Nor do I choose to deal with people as "blacks" as opposed to PEOPLE. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. And that's why I - and most liberals - can get a pass for merely SAYING the word. Because in the context of a frank discussion about race, we have a tendency to remember the history, and understand and VALIDATE the other person's feelings. But people like “Doctor” Laura, who generally tend blame the victims, demonstrating that, for all their polite-sounding diction, they really haven't evolved their thinking beyond the segregation-era, generally DON’T. They might not CALL someone a “nigger,” but they also have not demonstrated sufficient understand to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to context.
I think Keith Olbermann was right about what she was REALLY saying when she said that she that Obama's election signaling the end of racism, that we’ve moved beyond it. It's the same old question that came for Civil Right Act, The Voting Right Act, Brown v Board of Education, etc...: "Haven't we done enough for you people?"
And the answer (to those who would ask this) is, "NO." NO. Not until you stop treating people who you can categorize into subgroups as token representatives of that subgroup and start dealing with every person as an individual. And what’s more, an individual worthy of respect, dignity and validation! And definitely not until you realize that, when it comes to race, white people CAN, in fact, do wrong. That not ALL racism exists solely in the imaginations of black people, and Schlessinger is living proof of this, whether she realizes it or not.
Obama’s election was NEVER evidence that racism was gone. In fact, it’s brought out every last, ugly bit of evidence out there that racism is still alive and well. It’s not the SAME, obviously – we don’t go around CALLING people “niggers” anymore – but like any strong organism, it’s EVOLVED. It’s evolved to remain hidden and preserve itself in our viewpoints and our discourse.
President Obama, our first Black President, means the end of racism? It would be closer to the truth to say that more people have apparently taken it as a signal that racism is somehow OK to bring back out into the open again.
OK. Glad I got that out of the way. I said some other nasty things about her on MMFA (and you can hear the audio's of her over there) when the news first broke. Bottom line: I’ve never liked her. I’ve always found her to be mean spirited, bigoted and a religious nut – especially on issues related to sexuality and sexual orientation – and most importantly, at least to me, a screaming, FLAMING HYPOCRITE. Consider this: I call my mother AT LEAST once a week, and usually every couple of days. This great preacher of “family values” hadn’t spoken to her mother for 20 years prior to her death in 2002! I don’t need to hear someone preaching to me about “family values” who’s been estranged from her mother for 20 years, anymore than I do from someone who is thrice divorced with no kids!
*Exhale*
OK, rant over. Thanks for letting me get that out of my system. What I really wanted to do was share some of the comments that I left on MMFA about the racial controversy in general. I hadn’t started out trying to write anything profound, but they got a tremendously positive response, so I’d like to share them with everyone else as well, see what y’all think about it. (The following paraphrases several comments, but primarily comes from THIS ONE.)
The media has largely focused on the fact that she actually said the word, “Nigger.” (Like… eight times in a row!) And this is a shameful (and conservatively biased) ploy on the part of the media. Because in reality, saying, "nigger" was the LEAST of the problems with he broadcast that day, as well as her career, show and political philosophy in general!
Because the WORD isn't the problem. SHE IS. And focusing on the word whitewashes the fact that she felt it was the CALLER who had a hypersensitivity problem, as opposed to realizing that it was the caller’s husband's friends who had an IGNORANCE problem, and who showed a profound LACK of sensitivity. THIS is the REAL PROBLEM. She went so far as to tell the caller that if she was so sensitive about race issues that maybe she shouldn’t have married outside her rice! WTF is up with that?! When someone asks someone else (who's black) "Do black people like [something]?" and thinks that's an appropriate substitute for "Do YOU like something]?" It's racist! PERIOD. But the “Doctor” is apparently too ignorant, too stupid, too racist and way, way, WAAAAY to ARROGANT to ever realize this.
And while it may be a gross generalization on my part, Liberals aren't the ones who, when talking to a black person, lump them into the larger group. That IS however something that I see Conservatives do ALL THE TIME - such as Dr. Laura, Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, etc... Time and time again white people are just people, but black people are black people first. And this is inherently racist, even if you harbor no conscious ill will toward the group! Because it dehumanizes – de-INDIVIDUALIZES – the person, diminishing them to being just a token representative of a group. And that’s why I say that this focus on the word “nigger” is not only unfortunate, but conservatively biased. Because Conservatives seem to think that the have to actually HATE the group in order to be racist. That somehow, as long as you don’t CALL someone a “nigger” you can’t be saying something, or thinking something racist.
But it’s not about HATING the group. Actual, conscious hate is NOT at all required: Viewing someone as the member of a sub-group FIRST and an individual human being, fully deserving of respect, dignity and validation SECOND, is inherently racist (or bigoted in the case of religion, sexuality, etc…) even if you don’t harbor – or don’t THINK you harbor – any ill will towards the group.
As for the word itself? Personally, I refuse to say "n-word." The word is "nigger." We’re all adults here, and we should be putting it on a pedestal like that. But it's a word that should be treated the same way that PEOPLE should treated: With RESPECT. It has a long, sordid history and context matters. Black people can say it. That’s perfectly OK. Given the history of white's behavior, I'm happy to let them own it - to let them emasculate it by treating it like a term of endearment even. I don’t care. For my part, I have and would never call someone one, nor would I (or have I) ever refer to someone as one. Nor do I choose to deal with people as "blacks" as opposed to PEOPLE. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. And that's why I - and most liberals - can get a pass for merely SAYING the word. Because in the context of a frank discussion about race, we have a tendency to remember the history, and understand and VALIDATE the other person's feelings. But people like “Doctor” Laura, who generally tend blame the victims, demonstrating that, for all their polite-sounding diction, they really haven't evolved their thinking beyond the segregation-era, generally DON’T. They might not CALL someone a “nigger,” but they also have not demonstrated sufficient understand to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to context.
I think Keith Olbermann was right about what she was REALLY saying when she said that she that Obama's election signaling the end of racism, that we’ve moved beyond it. It's the same old question that came for Civil Right Act, The Voting Right Act, Brown v Board of Education, etc...: "Haven't we done enough for you people?"
And the answer (to those who would ask this) is, "NO." NO. Not until you stop treating people who you can categorize into subgroups as token representatives of that subgroup and start dealing with every person as an individual. And what’s more, an individual worthy of respect, dignity and validation! And definitely not until you realize that, when it comes to race, white people CAN, in fact, do wrong. That not ALL racism exists solely in the imaginations of black people, and Schlessinger is living proof of this, whether she realizes it or not.
Obama’s election was NEVER evidence that racism was gone. In fact, it’s brought out every last, ugly bit of evidence out there that racism is still alive and well. It’s not the SAME, obviously – we don’t go around CALLING people “niggers” anymore – but like any strong organism, it’s EVOLVED. It’s evolved to remain hidden and preserve itself in our viewpoints and our discourse.
President Obama, our first Black President, means the end of racism? It would be closer to the truth to say that more people have apparently taken it as a signal that racism is somehow OK to bring back out into the open again.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Pseudo-Conservatism
The other day MMFA Poster NastyLiberal linked to a fantastic article. It offer a new term for the kind of Conservatism that I’m REALLY railing against here; the kind that has unfortunately increasingly come to dominate the argument on the Right. I highly recommend you check it out.
It’s called PSEUDO-CONSERVATISM and it is the school of thought embraced by Fox News and AM Talk Radio. It is at heart and soul of the Tea Party, and Glenn Beck may be this generation’s premier spokesman for the movement. The thing is…? The article was written in 1954! I don’t know if I should be relieved or terrified by that fact! I mean… OK, they’ve been a recognizable force for almost 60 years, and they still haven’t taken over – just a few years after that article was written we elected Kennedy and then Johnson. And while I might be scared that the movement is STILL AROUND after 60 years, and seems to be gaining momentum, we DID just elect Barrack Obama. So maybe they are just doomed to a permanent “almost” status. (OTOH, back then it was recognized for the enbrace of ignorance that it is, while today it's treated with undue respect as if it was something profound!)
Anyway, I've come to realize that when I’m railing against “Conservatives,” THESE are the people I’m usually talking about. And I’m lumping the media personalities (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage) in with them, because that’s really the political school of thought that they speak for, as well as SOME politicians (Palin, Bachman, anyone connected to the Tea Party) who would rather fan the flames and benefit from the outrage, rather than actually educate people and start addressing some of the problems facing this country. It may seem trivial, to argue against this kind of lunacy, but I do not seek to prove it wrong so much as to point out how much of it is really out there. To make people aware of how much it has permeated our lives, become the “new normal.” This is exactly what I was talking about a few posts back when I said that this is not about Liberals and Conservatives so much, at least in any meaningful sense, but against Authoritarians and those who would think for themselves, regardless of the positions they may end up holding.
Ture Conservatives remain a frustrating lot to be sure, but there are least some principles that guide them, misguided or misplaced though they may be. But THESE PEOPLE? It's just as then Senator Obama said in his '08 campaign, "It's like they take pride in being ignorant!"
Well they DO. And I knew that at the time. What I didn't know was just how long this foolishness has been going on, and that the only recent development was the media's MAINSTREAMING of it.
Anyway, it’s a good read, and important stuff. So please check it out.
It’s called PSEUDO-CONSERVATISM and it is the school of thought embraced by Fox News and AM Talk Radio. It is at heart and soul of the Tea Party, and Glenn Beck may be this generation’s premier spokesman for the movement. The thing is…? The article was written in 1954! I don’t know if I should be relieved or terrified by that fact! I mean… OK, they’ve been a recognizable force for almost 60 years, and they still haven’t taken over – just a few years after that article was written we elected Kennedy and then Johnson. And while I might be scared that the movement is STILL AROUND after 60 years, and seems to be gaining momentum, we DID just elect Barrack Obama. So maybe they are just doomed to a permanent “almost” status. (OTOH, back then it was recognized for the enbrace of ignorance that it is, while today it's treated with undue respect as if it was something profound!)
Anyway, I've come to realize that when I’m railing against “Conservatives,” THESE are the people I’m usually talking about. And I’m lumping the media personalities (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage) in with them, because that’s really the political school of thought that they speak for, as well as SOME politicians (Palin, Bachman, anyone connected to the Tea Party) who would rather fan the flames and benefit from the outrage, rather than actually educate people and start addressing some of the problems facing this country. It may seem trivial, to argue against this kind of lunacy, but I do not seek to prove it wrong so much as to point out how much of it is really out there. To make people aware of how much it has permeated our lives, become the “new normal.” This is exactly what I was talking about a few posts back when I said that this is not about Liberals and Conservatives so much, at least in any meaningful sense, but against Authoritarians and those who would think for themselves, regardless of the positions they may end up holding.
Ture Conservatives remain a frustrating lot to be sure, but there are least some principles that guide them, misguided or misplaced though they may be. But THESE PEOPLE? It's just as then Senator Obama said in his '08 campaign, "It's like they take pride in being ignorant!"
Well they DO. And I knew that at the time. What I didn't know was just how long this foolishness has been going on, and that the only recent development was the media's MAINSTREAMING of it.
Anyway, it’s a good read, and important stuff. So please check it out.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
More on (Moron) the Oil Spill...
Eric Bohlert of MMFA had a great piece today, comparing today's coverage of Obama in the Gulf spill, to the coverage of President Bush ('41) following the Exxon Valdez spill. I'd like to vent a little more about that.
I’m getting a little bit tired of the criticism being leveled at Obama over this spill. Not because I think he’s been perfect, or because I think he above criticism, but because the criticism has largely been completely lacking in any substance at all. More and more, for both sides, I’m hearing pundits whine about the tone he’s taking, the priority he’s giving it, whether or not he should have called for prayer… basically BULLSHIT. Not one person, that I’ve heard, has come out and said, “He should have done [this]” or “He should be DOING [this].” Well, there’s one: Gov. Bobby Jindal and his damned sand burms. But in that case the Army Corps of Engineers deemed the plan to be an ineffective waste of a scarce resource they’d need to deal with the disaster later on. Now… I had no idea that SAND was so fucking precious, but I’m not about to argue with the Army Corps of Engineers, and Governor Jindal is certainly in no position to. (The day I start asking lawmakers for engineering judgments, I’ll start asking engineers for legal advice!)
And don’t get me wrong: Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann and both entitled to their opinions and are paid to give them. If nothing else, their comments show that MSNBC is hardly just the liberal version of Fox. Remember: They were willing to criticize the President here, just as they were willing to criticize the Democrats during the health care debate. Despite their unwillingness to adopt the Right’s love of the far Right and blind hatred of Obama and the Democrats, they’ve shown themselves to be more objective politically than Fox has ever done.
But I’m still sick of this “His TONE wasn’t stern enough.” WTF?! Is there some tone of voice he can use to plug the hole? Do really think that him ranting and raving (and threatening?!) like a lunatic would somehow “motivate” BP to get its act together? That’s nonsense! BP is TRYING. It’s not that I like BP, right now I hate them, but there’s no doubt in my mind that THEY’RE DOING ALL THEY CAN at this point! Yes: Obviously they could have done more last month, last year, 5 years ago and 10 years ago. But they’re not sitting on some magic cure all at the moment! They simply do not have the technology to deal with this, because it DOESN’T EXSIST. They’re already running around, Apollo-13 style, trying to make the cap for [this] fit onto the pipe for [that] using [this stuff.] They’re not going to make up for 30 years of the industry’s use of inadequate technology in a week just because Obama found the right tone. And his tone is all they got, because there is nothing more, that I’m aware, that Obama can actually DO here. The coast guard was mobilized on day one. The National Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers has been involved from day 1. If there’s something OBAMA is supposed to be doing, WHAT EXACTLY IS IT?! (And if you say “sand burms” I’m going to punch you, and the refer you to an earlier piece I wrote, with a lot of capitalized expletives in it.)
But they HAVE to make this BAD for Obama. The oil lobby cannot afford for this to be “Obama’s 9/11” (for energy policy) so it’s got to be “Obama’s Katrina.” And they’ll find any way to MAKE IT that. Yeah… I’m finding the analogies to be getting a bit moronic as well. You know what this is? It’s Obama’s GULF OIL SPILL. That’s it. It’s not 9/11 (sorry, Mr. president) it’s not Katrina (sorry pundits) and most ironically of all, consider the source, it’s certainly not “Obama’s Iran Hostage Crisis.”
That last one came from Rush Limbaugh, IIRC, presumably because constantly calling it “Obama’s Katrina” keeps reminding people of BUSH’s Katrina. So… better to find a Democrat’s debacle to compare it to. I think it’s telling that they had to go back over THIRTY YEARS to FIND one, but even so they couldn’t have picked a worse example. Because the LAST THING the pro-oil conservatives really want here would be for a well respected newscaster, today’s “Walter Kronkite” (though I’m not really sure who that would even BE) to be counting the days, and reminding people, on a nightly basis, what a huge disaster this is. Not that is would make much of a difference, I think most people have a pretty shrewd idea anyway, but “today marks the umpti-fifth day since the oil started flowing into the Gulf” would NOT help their cause any.
I’ll judge Obama’s "performance" on this based on the legislation that comes out of it. If he can get up to start to leave the path were on, and start to embrace clean energy and sustainable behavior? Then he’ll get top marks from me, regardless of the tone he uses.
I’m getting a little bit tired of the criticism being leveled at Obama over this spill. Not because I think he’s been perfect, or because I think he above criticism, but because the criticism has largely been completely lacking in any substance at all. More and more, for both sides, I’m hearing pundits whine about the tone he’s taking, the priority he’s giving it, whether or not he should have called for prayer… basically BULLSHIT. Not one person, that I’ve heard, has come out and said, “He should have done [this]” or “He should be DOING [this].” Well, there’s one: Gov. Bobby Jindal and his damned sand burms. But in that case the Army Corps of Engineers deemed the plan to be an ineffective waste of a scarce resource they’d need to deal with the disaster later on. Now… I had no idea that SAND was so fucking precious, but I’m not about to argue with the Army Corps of Engineers, and Governor Jindal is certainly in no position to. (The day I start asking lawmakers for engineering judgments, I’ll start asking engineers for legal advice!)
And don’t get me wrong: Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann and both entitled to their opinions and are paid to give them. If nothing else, their comments show that MSNBC is hardly just the liberal version of Fox. Remember: They were willing to criticize the President here, just as they were willing to criticize the Democrats during the health care debate. Despite their unwillingness to adopt the Right’s love of the far Right and blind hatred of Obama and the Democrats, they’ve shown themselves to be more objective politically than Fox has ever done.
But I’m still sick of this “His TONE wasn’t stern enough.” WTF?! Is there some tone of voice he can use to plug the hole? Do really think that him ranting and raving (and threatening?!) like a lunatic would somehow “motivate” BP to get its act together? That’s nonsense! BP is TRYING. It’s not that I like BP, right now I hate them, but there’s no doubt in my mind that THEY’RE DOING ALL THEY CAN at this point! Yes: Obviously they could have done more last month, last year, 5 years ago and 10 years ago. But they’re not sitting on some magic cure all at the moment! They simply do not have the technology to deal with this, because it DOESN’T EXSIST. They’re already running around, Apollo-13 style, trying to make the cap for [this] fit onto the pipe for [that] using [this stuff.] They’re not going to make up for 30 years of the industry’s use of inadequate technology in a week just because Obama found the right tone. And his tone is all they got, because there is nothing more, that I’m aware, that Obama can actually DO here. The coast guard was mobilized on day one. The National Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers has been involved from day 1. If there’s something OBAMA is supposed to be doing, WHAT EXACTLY IS IT?! (And if you say “sand burms” I’m going to punch you, and the refer you to an earlier piece I wrote, with a lot of capitalized expletives in it.)
But they HAVE to make this BAD for Obama. The oil lobby cannot afford for this to be “Obama’s 9/11” (for energy policy) so it’s got to be “Obama’s Katrina.” And they’ll find any way to MAKE IT that. Yeah… I’m finding the analogies to be getting a bit moronic as well. You know what this is? It’s Obama’s GULF OIL SPILL. That’s it. It’s not 9/11 (sorry, Mr. president) it’s not Katrina (sorry pundits) and most ironically of all, consider the source, it’s certainly not “Obama’s Iran Hostage Crisis.”
That last one came from Rush Limbaugh, IIRC, presumably because constantly calling it “Obama’s Katrina” keeps reminding people of BUSH’s Katrina. So… better to find a Democrat’s debacle to compare it to. I think it’s telling that they had to go back over THIRTY YEARS to FIND one, but even so they couldn’t have picked a worse example. Because the LAST THING the pro-oil conservatives really want here would be for a well respected newscaster, today’s “Walter Kronkite” (though I’m not really sure who that would even BE) to be counting the days, and reminding people, on a nightly basis, what a huge disaster this is. Not that is would make much of a difference, I think most people have a pretty shrewd idea anyway, but “today marks the umpti-fifth day since the oil started flowing into the Gulf” would NOT help their cause any.
I’ll judge Obama’s "performance" on this based on the legislation that comes out of it. If he can get up to start to leave the path were on, and start to embrace clean energy and sustainable behavior? Then he’ll get top marks from me, regardless of the tone he uses.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
How NOT to argue a point...
In the past I've expressed my sincere appreciation of the conservative posters over on MMFA. As much as I really love the sight's comments, it's the discussions and debates that ensue below each item that really keep me coming back. Of course every sight has these, but over the years, IMHO, the level of discourse there, heated though it may be, just seems to be on a much higher level than what I've encountered elsewhere. And while there have been countless liberal posters that I've admired, it's the CONSERVATIVES, those people that I've butted heads with full force that have really kept me interested, and made it so much fun. So I'll stand by everything I said in my earlier post, with one exception:
FLOYD IS A FUCKIN' IDIOT!
What he's hoping her is that nobody realizes here is that I was referring to his inexplicable question / mispaced quote: eddie-- Tell us again how confusing the basics of the American progressive tax system is. Now, to his credit he DID acknowledge that this was a cut-n-paste error. All I did was tell him that I had in fact taken that topic up as well in my blog, but to please comment [here] rather than [in MMFA] since that would be "waaay off topic." But hey, why pass up an opportunity to have your attempt to make someone else look stupid completely backfire on you, huh?
Now, while Floyd is entitled to his opinion about how best to deal with the situation - and Governor Jindal would seem to be on his side, there are a few people whose opinions he hasn't addressed. And they're not mine or even President Obama's. The people that disagree with Gov. Jindal and Floyd are the FUCKING ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS! Now he does a lot of putting words in my mouth, in terms of other lousy options, and asks what I might do instead. Floyd? I have no fucking idea. Not a clue. And unlike you, I have no problem admitting that. Know why? IT'S NOT MY FUCKING JOB TO KNOW THAT SHIT! I don't know the first thing about cleaning up an oil spill. Neither does Bobby Jindal. Neither does Barack Obama. And, unless you have a PhD from Exxon U. that I'm unaware of, neither do you. There are some people who DO know however. A lot of them work for BP. (So far...? I'm not that impressed.) Do you know where some other might be? IN THE FUCKING ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS! You know... that long-haired band of environmentalist hippies that is the U.S. FUCKING MILITARY!
I don't know if the sand burms would be a good idea or not, but that being the case, I'll trust the judgment of the Army Corps of Engineers. Their judgment, seeing as how it's their job to make it, should be good enough for Bobby Jindal and it sure as hell should be good enough for fucking FLOYD!
There's some truly beautiful misdirection going on here. First of all, see above as far as who's job it is (not mine) to figure out how best to deal with the situation. There are only so many times I can type "FUCKING ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS" before it loses its impact. In any case, here's the readers digest version of what they had to say:
1) It probably wouldn't work.
2) If they DID work, they'd protect the sensitive marshes in Louisiana at the cost of the sensitive marshes in Mississippi.
3) They wash away in a matter of days
and
4) The particular type of sand is apparently a pretty scarce resource (who knew?) so it's not wise to waste it on something so stupid.
Now... The ACE has submitted a modified proposal but Gov. Jindal, in his infinite technical wisdom, has rejected it. And I'll be the first to admit that I haven't the slightest idea how else they'd use that sand. Again: Not my fucking job. But if I have to decide between the judgment of a politician or that of a team of engineers, regarding the effectiveness of an engineering project, I'll that the engineers’ judgment EVERY FUCKING TIME. PERIOD. And to me it's completely irrelevant whether that politician is a Democrat, a Republican, a Political Genius or an idiot like Bobby Fucking Jindal. I don’t want Politician’s making engineering judgments anymore than I want engineers making political ones. If the ACE says the project is a waste of a scare resource, THEN IT'S A WASTE OF A SCARCE RESOURCE. So STFU, and accept that your "plan" SUCKS.
Also - notice how he says liberals are "whining" about prevention? Yeah. "Whining." Floyd? We've be "whining" FOR THIRTY FUCKING YEARS ABOUT IT! And if anyone had been LISTENING in past three decades, this wouldn't have happened. And as we get no satisfaction out of being right all the time and having nothing to show for it but saying, "I told you so," you're goddamned right we're going to "whine" about it a little more. Because maybe, just maybe, after a disaster like this some people might finally realize just how shitty an idea this energy model really is, who's been fighting to KEEP it (Conservatives) and whose been "whining" in an effort to enact something better (Liberals.)
And shit... at its worst, at “whining” doesn't completely deplete a precious resource that the Army Corps of Engineers says they'll need later on to deal with the disaster!
There's a delicious irony (or maybe just some bitter hypocrisy) at work here. Because Jindal's plan represents a microcosm of conservative planning in General: Do something, ANYTHING, today, and to hell with the consequences on (almost literally) tomorrow. And then? Once you've "done something," whether it's slap a band-aid on it, or just dump a bunch of much-needed sand into the ocean, go right back to what you are doing. THAT is classic conservatism: Keep fucking things up the say way over and over again, and then dismiss your critics as “whiners.”
Actually, I had blamed REAGAN in this case, but whatever. I'll bite.
I think you'll find that Obama took a lot of flak from Liberals over that expanded off-shore drilling. The "typical liberals" were echoing concerns of those "whiny" environmental groups you lot so often mock. And you know what? I wasn't even really among them. I realized that, sadly, we DO need a lot of oil at the moment, shitty though that reality is. But you've got to love how it's somehow BAD for us to blame Republicans when the polices they've championed for thirty years now lead to disaster, but somehow it's OK for them to BLAME Obama because he threw them a bone and gave them something they’ve been fighting for. I mean how insane (or just flat-out fucking stupid) do you have to be to not see the difference between saying "How dare you give them that concession?" and "How dare you give us that concession?!"
As for Clinton... Again, I've never claimed to be a hug fan of Bill Clinton, but between 1981 - When Reagan took the Solar Panels off the White House roof and 2009, when Obama took office, Clinton was President for exactly EIGHT of those TWNETY-EIGHT years. And he had a Republican controlled Congress for six of them. A Republican controlled Congress that indicated it’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Climate Treaty, I might add. But hey, so what? I guess that's all Clinton's fault, huh? Hey asshole: Clinton and/or (President) Gore would have gladly signed Kyoto, and we’d have started working on those Solar Panels some 8-12years ago. But the REPUBLICAN Congress wouldn’t sign Kyoto, the Supreme Court would let the will of the people decide the President, and Bush chose to give preference to the Climate deniers, as the Republican’s are wont to do. So yeah, I guess I am blaming Bush. But, hey: If he didn’t FUCK EVERYTHING UP, the everything wouldn’t be his fault! (Duh.)
Thanks, I will. Just one problem: You lot are perfectly welcome to come by and try to take me on any time you like. I promise you that I don't moderate comments based on politics or even foul or abusive language (that would be monumentally hypocritical of me, no? LOL). Only blatant spam. So, by all mean, take your best shot. (But if this pathetic attempt is it? Don’t waste your time, or mine.)
See my "Level One" through "Level Three" from a few posts ago. Identifying something as Liberal is not the same as proving it false. But you idiots never seem to be able to wrap your heads around this.
Really poor grammar, dude. Don't try to be clever. (Just be yourself!) You see, in your mind I'm a "sheep." "Sheeple" would be plural. And despite the awesome intellectual presence that I represent on the 'net, I can assure you that there's only one of me. I'd still rather have my shepard be the Army Corps of Engineers than Bobby Fucking Jindal, however
Well THANK GOD for that: I'm not trying to! I'll leave "fooling people" to the conservatives and the fools who follow them. I'm trying to CONVINCE people, using facts, reason and good judgment. (I suppose I could do with a bit more DIPLOMACY as well, but oh well…) You might try it yourself sometime, but I better warn you ahead of time: Some idiot conservative will probably "whine" about you being a liberal.
Thanks to anyone other than Floyd who bothered to read all this. I hope you were entertained. I know I had a blast.
As to Mister Floyd? I’ve wasted enough of my time on you. This is WAY more consideration that you deserve.
-----------------------
OMT… What might be the single most absurd part of this whole sad comedy is that MMFA’s original point was that Jindal was lying when he said he was [PP] “Still waiting to get approval” to proceed with the sand burms. OK… I guess this was technically true, because he did NOT yet have approval. But he was lying by implying that he hadn’t heard back at all. He had. His proposal was shot down. In conservative-speak this is the equivalent of saying “God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no.” So he might be “still waiting,” but he’s going to be waiting forever since his idea was REJECTED (rather than ignored) and he’s in turn rejected the ACE’s counter-proposal. "Waiting for approval" is not the same thing "already got rejected." By that logic, I'm "still waiting" for Loraine Garrison from the 10th grade to go out with me. (Of course, not being Bobby Jindal, I realized about 20 years ago that this wasn't going to happen!) What is lost on the useless waste of key-strokes that I’m debating with here, is that whether Jindal’s idea was good or bad, he can’t say he “hasn’t yet gotten an answer.” That’s a lie. Period. He did. And the answer was, “No.”
Hey Floyd…
FLOYD IS A FUCKIN' IDIOT!
Since MMFA has closed comments on the item we were "debating," I'll have to post my reply to his last post here. This is a bit unnecessary, perhaps, but he really pissed me off. And if I'm going to respond somewhere, it may as well be HERE. So I won't hold it against you if you decide to skip this post. This is really just meant for him, in case he has the balls to try and take me on here. It might seem be a bit petty of me to continue a discussion from somewhere else back here. I mean, there is a lot of serious shit going on in the world today, right? Aw, fuck it. He pissed me off, and this is MY blog. And as far as I know he doesn't have one, or I'd go THERE. So fuck 'im. I'm going to put his stupidity on display here for all to see, as I pull his last response apart point-by-point.
Brilliant. I am talking about the barrier being built. YOU claim it is "WAAAAAY OFF TOPIC". Hey, einstein, the barrier plan IS the topic. And you whine that I can't read. Here's a cake, cause you sure take it.
eddie-- You, sir, are the one conlcuding it's GOOD just because a Republican came up with it.
I don't like the plan "just" because a republican came up with it. I think it is better to protect the area from a MASSIVE oil spill (and getting larger by the minute) any way you can, quickly. If you're idea of protecting that area is to let the oil soak in then clean it up afterward, then you go ahead and think that is a good idea. Maybe you would like to let it get soaked with oil then they can burn the oil away. Wow, another brilliant thought.
Now, while Floyd is entitled to his opinion about how best to deal with the situation - and Governor Jindal would seem to be on his side, there are a few people whose opinions he hasn't addressed. And they're not mine or even President Obama's. The people that disagree with Gov. Jindal and Floyd are the FUCKING ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS! Now he does a lot of putting words in my mouth, in terms of other lousy options, and asks what I might do instead. Floyd? I have no fucking idea. Not a clue. And unlike you, I have no problem admitting that. Know why? IT'S NOT MY FUCKING JOB TO KNOW THAT SHIT! I don't know the first thing about cleaning up an oil spill. Neither does Bobby Jindal. Neither does Barack Obama. And, unless you have a PhD from Exxon U. that I'm unaware of, neither do you. There are some people who DO know however. A lot of them work for BP. (So far...? I'm not that impressed.) Do you know where some other might be? IN THE FUCKING ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS! You know... that long-haired band of environmentalist hippies that is the U.S. FUCKING MILITARY!
I don't know if the sand burms would be a good idea or not, but that being the case, I'll trust the judgment of the Army Corps of Engineers. Their judgment, seeing as how it's their job to make it, should be good enough for Bobby Jindal and it sure as hell should be good enough for fucking FLOYD!
WHAT, pray tell, do you think would work better than to block the oil from reaching land? Oh, wait, let me guess. You would prefer to whine that the oil not be spilled in the first place and you will whine and whine about who caused the spill and who ignored regulations and who should pay for the repairs. Hey, nimrod, the oil IS spilled. Time to act is NOW, not after you finish whining about WHO caused it.
There's some truly beautiful misdirection going on here. First of all, see above as far as who's job it is (not mine) to figure out how best to deal with the situation. There are only so many times I can type "FUCKING ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS" before it loses its impact. In any case, here's the readers digest version of what they had to say:
1) It probably wouldn't work.
2) If they DID work, they'd protect the sensitive marshes in Louisiana at the cost of the sensitive marshes in Mississippi.
3) They wash away in a matter of days
and
4) The particular type of sand is apparently a pretty scarce resource (who knew?) so it's not wise to waste it on something so stupid.
Now... The ACE has submitted a modified proposal but Gov. Jindal, in his infinite technical wisdom, has rejected it. And I'll be the first to admit that I haven't the slightest idea how else they'd use that sand. Again: Not my fucking job. But if I have to decide between the judgment of a politician or that of a team of engineers, regarding the effectiveness of an engineering project, I'll that the engineers’ judgment EVERY FUCKING TIME. PERIOD. And to me it's completely irrelevant whether that politician is a Democrat, a Republican, a Political Genius or an idiot like Bobby Fucking Jindal. I don’t want Politician’s making engineering judgments anymore than I want engineers making political ones. If the ACE says the project is a waste of a scare resource, THEN IT'S A WASTE OF A SCARCE RESOURCE. So STFU, and accept that your "plan" SUCKS.
Also - notice how he says liberals are "whining" about prevention? Yeah. "Whining." Floyd? We've be "whining" FOR THIRTY FUCKING YEARS ABOUT IT! And if anyone had been LISTENING in past three decades, this wouldn't have happened. And as we get no satisfaction out of being right all the time and having nothing to show for it but saying, "I told you so," you're goddamned right we're going to "whine" about it a little more. Because maybe, just maybe, after a disaster like this some people might finally realize just how shitty an idea this energy model really is, who's been fighting to KEEP it (Conservatives) and whose been "whining" in an effort to enact something better (Liberals.)
And shit... at its worst, at “whining” doesn't completely deplete a precious resource that the Army Corps of Engineers says they'll need later on to deal with the disaster!
Yeah you schooled me alright. You schooled me into seeing how idiotic liberals are when they whine and whine about who caused the largest oil spill in decades while ignoring that something NEEDS TO BE DONE. That is classic liberalism... whine about what caused it, but refusing to actually DO something to fix it.
There's a delicious irony (or maybe just some bitter hypocrisy) at work here. Because Jindal's plan represents a microcosm of conservative planning in General: Do something, ANYTHING, today, and to hell with the consequences on (almost literally) tomorrow. And then? Once you've "done something," whether it's slap a band-aid on it, or just dump a bunch of much-needed sand into the ocean, go right back to what you are doing. THAT is classic conservatism: Keep fucking things up the say way over and over again, and then dismiss your critics as “whiners.”
Where was CLinton's massive solar panel deal? Where was Clinton's super EV plans? Where were Clinton's great 'take us off oil dependancy' plans? Typical liberal, blame a republican when no democrat did anything to correct the problem you whine is present. What regulations were put in place when the democrats took control of the political system in 06? Did any regulations appear when Obama took over in 08? Geee, NO ... NONE. But, liberalism tells you it is ALL Bush's fault. Even when he was out of office for a year before any drilling even started on that platform. OBAMA called for further off-shore drilling, OBAMA WANTED to allow BP and others to drill any way they wanted to. Bush did too, but so does OBAMA. Obama IS president, he is in charge, he is NOW responsible for regulations that oversee those platforms. Too bad it takes a major disaster for him to wise up and see he should have done something a little earlier. And all you can say is: Bush caused it.
Actually, I had blamed REAGAN in this case, but whatever. I'll bite.
I think you'll find that Obama took a lot of flak from Liberals over that expanded off-shore drilling. The "typical liberals" were echoing concerns of those "whiny" environmental groups you lot so often mock. And you know what? I wasn't even really among them. I realized that, sadly, we DO need a lot of oil at the moment, shitty though that reality is. But you've got to love how it's somehow BAD for us to blame Republicans when the polices they've championed for thirty years now lead to disaster, but somehow it's OK for them to BLAME Obama because he threw them a bone and gave them something they’ve been fighting for. I mean how insane (or just flat-out fucking stupid) do you have to be to not see the difference between saying "How dare you give them that concession?" and "How dare you give us that concession?!"
As for Clinton... Again, I've never claimed to be a hug fan of Bill Clinton, but between 1981 - When Reagan took the Solar Panels off the White House roof and 2009, when Obama took office, Clinton was President for exactly EIGHT of those TWNETY-EIGHT years. And he had a Republican controlled Congress for six of them. A Republican controlled Congress that indicated it’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Climate Treaty, I might add. But hey, so what? I guess that's all Clinton's fault, huh? Hey asshole: Clinton and/or (President) Gore would have gladly signed Kyoto, and we’d have started working on those Solar Panels some 8-12years ago. But the REPUBLICAN Congress wouldn’t sign Kyoto, the Supreme Court would let the will of the people decide the President, and Bush chose to give preference to the Climate deniers, as the Republican’s are wont to do. So yeah, I guess I am blaming Bush. But, hey: If he didn’t FUCK EVERYTHING UP, the everything wouldn’t be his fault! (Duh.)
Go back to your blog and continue whining to your liberal cohorts.
Thanks, I will. Just one problem: You lot are perfectly welcome to come by and try to take me on any time you like. I promise you that I don't moderate comments based on politics or even foul or abusive language (that would be monumentally hypocritical of me, no? LOL). Only blatant spam. So, by all mean, take your best shot. (But if this pathetic attempt is it? Don’t waste your time, or mine.)
Go to mmfa and continue reading and believing their constant lies and misinformation.
See my "Level One" through "Level Three" from a few posts ago. Identifying something as Liberal is not the same as proving it false. But you idiots never seem to be able to wrap your heads around this.
You're a sheeple in sheeple's clothing.
Really poor grammar, dude. Don't try to be clever. (Just be yourself!) You see, in your mind I'm a "sheep." "Sheeple" would be plural. And despite the awesome intellectual presence that I represent on the 'net, I can assure you that there's only one of me. I'd still rather have my shepard be the Army Corps of Engineers than Bobby Fucking Jindal, however
You don't fool anyone.
Well THANK GOD for that: I'm not trying to! I'll leave "fooling people" to the conservatives and the fools who follow them. I'm trying to CONVINCE people, using facts, reason and good judgment. (I suppose I could do with a bit more DIPLOMACY as well, but oh well…) You might try it yourself sometime, but I better warn you ahead of time: Some idiot conservative will probably "whine" about you being a liberal.
Thanks to anyone other than Floyd who bothered to read all this. I hope you were entertained. I know I had a blast.
As to Mister Floyd? I’ve wasted enough of my time on you. This is WAY more consideration that you deserve.
-----------------------
OMT… What might be the single most absurd part of this whole sad comedy is that MMFA’s original point was that Jindal was lying when he said he was [PP] “Still waiting to get approval” to proceed with the sand burms. OK… I guess this was technically true, because he did NOT yet have approval. But he was lying by implying that he hadn’t heard back at all. He had. His proposal was shot down. In conservative-speak this is the equivalent of saying “God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no.” So he might be “still waiting,” but he’s going to be waiting forever since his idea was REJECTED (rather than ignored) and he’s in turn rejected the ACE’s counter-proposal. "Waiting for approval" is not the same thing "already got rejected." By that logic, I'm "still waiting" for Loraine Garrison from the 10th grade to go out with me. (Of course, not being Bobby Jindal, I realized about 20 years ago that this wasn't going to happen!) What is lost on the useless waste of key-strokes that I’m debating with here, is that whether Jindal’s idea was good or bad, he can’t say he “hasn’t yet gotten an answer.” That’s a lie. Period. He did. And the answer was, “No.”
Hey Floyd…
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Have you heard of Koch Industries?
Was surprised to see the following referenced in the past couple days on both of my two favorite websites: Skepdic AND MMFA (twice, atcually).
Greenpeace article on Koch Industries, secretly fundging the Climatre Deniers
and
MORE on Koch Indutsries, secretly funding the Climate Deniers
"The biggest company ytou never heard of," huh? Well... You SURE aren't going to learn about them on Fox News or even the Fox Business Channel, I can guarentee you that!
Now... I've said before that I'm no fan of Greenpeace, but they are truly doing some great work here. Let's see if that "mainstream liberal media" picks this up.
(I'm not holding my breath. The mainstream liberal media picking this up is about as likely as a Goblin doing so, and for the same reason.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT NOTE: I promise that my mis-spelling of "Koch" with a 2nd "k" in the first link was an error and not some lame attempt on my part to try and be clever. I'm a lot better than that! ;)
Greenpeace article on Koch Industries, secretly fundging the Climatre Deniers
and
MORE on Koch Indutsries, secretly funding the Climate Deniers
"The biggest company ytou never heard of," huh? Well... You SURE aren't going to learn about them on Fox News or even the Fox Business Channel, I can guarentee you that!
Now... I've said before that I'm no fan of Greenpeace, but they are truly doing some great work here. Let's see if that "mainstream liberal media" picks this up.
(I'm not holding my breath. The mainstream liberal media picking this up is about as likely as a Goblin doing so, and for the same reason.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT NOTE: I promise that my mis-spelling of "Koch" with a 2nd "k" in the first link was an error and not some lame attempt on my part to try and be clever. I'm a lot better than that! ;)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
An argument for proportinate pay
It's funny, but sometimes when you start to gather information together for a topic, you come across someone who's already said it all perfectly! Lemme splain...
After the nonsense in the comments section of this thread on MMFA, I thought it might be time to put in my two cents on wages. And... it really wasn't on topic, as the thread was about Tom DeLay saying how "people are unemployed because they want to be." That's the same bullshit that the Republicans always trot out whenever they want to eliminate whatever paper-thin safety nets we still have left. Of course, saying something like that in this economy sure demonstrates either a complete brainlessness or utter heartlessness on the part of the former Senate Majority Leader. Of course I never accused him of having either a heart or a brain, but if the Democrats had any nerve they'd be playing that clip up and down the yellow-brick road until November.
ANYWAY... as it often happens, things got a bit OT in the comments section, and a few people started blaming Unions - another right wing gem; as if those same rich CEO cocksuckers that laid everybody off in the first place would have been happy to pay their labor a living wage voluntarily. I mean, that has exactly ZERO historical precedent of happening, with the lone exception of Henry Ford who paid his people more so they wouldn't unionize. (See - even in that case workers made more because of the Union! The Union even helped out non-members!) Well, whatever, I didn't want this to turn into a UNION post, and I'm the wrong guy to defend the Unions anyway, except for the most absurd RW attacks, but this strawman from Highliter got me thinking about wages:
Now... the biggest problem with this statement is that NO ONE was suggesting that "unskilled labor" should get the same wages as skilled professionals. But... a living wage would be nice! And this is what pisses me off... See, I'm an Engineer, with an MBA. I make a decent living. And guess what? I'm struggling! Now, my wife staying home with the kids doesn't help in that department, but that was our choice, and that's fine - I'm not griping about that. But I can tell you that I most definitely feel I'm underpaid! And it's not just me: I defy you to find ANY engineer in ANY industry, who's at least a few years out of school, who doesn't feel this way! Now I had to go to school for four years, and get a degree (something that Highliter thought was what you needed to be a CEO:
Well: My own of course. But let's say I'm feeling envious and want to blame someone. According to Highlighter's logic, the way that I should feel better about my own situation would be to pay those "unskilled laborers" less. But that doesn't really help me does it? Not when there are CEO's pulling down Millions, even last year, even as their companies tumbled and had to bailed out by the gov't / taxpayers! How exactly did they "earn" this money? How much "skill" does it take to bankrupt a BANK?! A lot, I suppose, but it doesn't seem the kind of skill that should command a high salary!
So what I really wanted to show here was a little perspective. And lo and behold THIS is the first article I came across. It's from 2002, but it lays out the problem PERFECTLY. Because MY answer to the wage gap that I feel would be to pay the "unskilled labor" pretty much what they're getting now, maybe a little more, and give myself and my fellow engineers good 30-50% raise. And where would that money come from? Simple: OVERPAID EXECUTIVES.
Consider this (from that article):
And remember: Median income for individual workers in this country isn't $70K. It's more like $48K per year, according the latest data I could easily find. And remember: that's MEDIAN INCOME. So half of America makes less than that!
Consider THIS piece on CEO pay in the Insurance Industry. CEO's getting paid upwards of $25 Million Dollars just to deny us health care? Puh-lease. (Back to that engineer: we're up to about NINE TIMES what the engineer makes in his entire career going to these assholes EVERY YEAR.)
Anyway, I think you get the picture. If I can live on $70,000 a year (and I make a little more, but whatever) If I can live on that, as a degreed engineer with a Master's Degree surely anyone should be able to drink a nice hot, steaming cup of STFU, making say... $2.8 Million a year, or: what that engineer will make in his career, but making that every year. Boo-frickin'-who-for-you if you can't live quite well and quite happily on $2.8 Mil per year. That's $23,000 per MONTH! $7776 per DAY! When was the last time YOU spent seven grand in a single day and didn't drive home a new (used) car?! Imagine doing that EVERY DAY! (That would be like Brewster's Millions!)
So here's an idea that I've been kicking for while now. Let's get rid of the minimum wage. Seriously. Let's scrap it. It's ends up not so much a floor for these people as a GOAL, so let's get rid of it. And let's replace it with a law which says that the highest paid person in any company, in terms of TOTAL compensation, can be paid no more than 50 times (or 60, 70... PICK A NUMBER) what the LOWEST paid employee gets in terms of his total compensation. (Broken down based of a 2200 hour work year, for example, since part-time employees could screw that formula up.) But whatever, say, the guy who sweeps the floor makes in terms of an hourly wage, the CEO's total compensation package cannot exceed 50 times that, once broken down by 2200 hours per year.
Think about that: There's no salary cap. You can absolutely pay your CEO $20 Million a year if you want... provided that there's enough left to pay even the lowliest employee $400K! And everyone in between would also have to be paid proportionately. A manager could, say, make no more than tow or three time what his lowest paid direct report gets, for example. Skilled labor would have to be guaranteed double what unskilled labor makes, etc...
If the CEO wants a raise? Everyone has to get at least the same percentage increase. Not enough to go around? Well... I guess that CEO didn't do such a good job, did he? How about bonuses or profit sharing? Same thing: Distribute proportionate to Salary. If the CEO wants a Million Dollar bonus? There has to be enough to give even your floor-shiner and toilet bowl cleaner a smooth 20-Grand. Also, lest he be tempted to go a fire a bunch of people, just to raise the salary floor, NO BONUSES should be paid out to ANYONE if (a) the company reports a net-loss to the IRS or (b) lays of more than, say... 1% of it's total workforce.
And the beauty of this is that the most successful companies will attract the best people, at least at first, but small, entrepreneurial up-and-comers, will also benefit, since jobs might be little tighter at some of those big firms. And the best opportunities will still be at growing companies anyway. CEO pay at those big firms will be pretty hard to increase, while one at a small firm has lots of potential for growth, provided they share the wealth along the way!
Now... you can pick any number you want. Maybe 50 IS too low. I'm sure Classicliberal will argue for something lower while Highliter will argue for something higher, for example. I don't really care what the number is, although I don't think anyone would argue that it should be 500. That the factor between 50 Grand and 25 Mil, which should work out for some of those insurance companies. No reason it should be anywhere near that much. But whatever. Once we settle on a number, who thinks this would work? Who's buying? Who's with me?
Because I'd vote for this in a New York minute.
After the nonsense in the comments section of this thread on MMFA, I thought it might be time to put in my two cents on wages. And... it really wasn't on topic, as the thread was about Tom DeLay saying how "people are unemployed because they want to be." That's the same bullshit that the Republicans always trot out whenever they want to eliminate whatever paper-thin safety nets we still have left. Of course, saying something like that in this economy sure demonstrates either a complete brainlessness or utter heartlessness on the part of the former Senate Majority Leader. Of course I never accused him of having either a heart or a brain, but if the Democrats had any nerve they'd be playing that clip up and down the yellow-brick road until November.
ANYWAY... as it often happens, things got a bit OT in the comments section, and a few people started blaming Unions - another right wing gem; as if those same rich CEO cocksuckers that laid everybody off in the first place would have been happy to pay their labor a living wage voluntarily. I mean, that has exactly ZERO historical precedent of happening, with the lone exception of Henry Ford who paid his people more so they wouldn't unionize. (See - even in that case workers made more because of the Union! The Union even helped out non-members!) Well, whatever, I didn't want this to turn into a UNION post, and I'm the wrong guy to defend the Unions anyway, except for the most absurd RW attacks, but this strawman from Highliter got me thinking about wages:
Most of the manufacturing jobs are UNSKILLED labor and don't deserve middle class wages. Someone who puts tab A into slot B does not deserve the same wage as skilled professionals.
Now... the biggest problem with this statement is that NO ONE was suggesting that "unskilled labor" should get the same wages as skilled professionals. But... a living wage would be nice! And this is what pisses me off... See, I'm an Engineer, with an MBA. I make a decent living. And guess what? I'm struggling! Now, my wife staying home with the kids doesn't help in that department, but that was our choice, and that's fine - I'm not griping about that. But I can tell you that I most definitely feel I'm underpaid! And it's not just me: I defy you to find ANY engineer in ANY industry, who's at least a few years out of school, who doesn't feel this way! Now I had to go to school for four years, and get a degree (something that Highliter thought was what you needed to be a CEO:
Because a CEO had to go to 4 years of school and get a degree.(Yeah... it's a little more complicated than that, Highliter.) But as it is, I'm only making slightly more than some of those "unskilled laborers" make, at least after overtime and bonuses. Now... WHO'S FAULT IS THAT?
Well: My own of course. But let's say I'm feeling envious and want to blame someone. According to Highlighter's logic, the way that I should feel better about my own situation would be to pay those "unskilled laborers" less. But that doesn't really help me does it? Not when there are CEO's pulling down Millions, even last year, even as their companies tumbled and had to bailed out by the gov't / taxpayers! How exactly did they "earn" this money? How much "skill" does it take to bankrupt a BANK?! A lot, I suppose, but it doesn't seem the kind of skill that should command a high salary!
So what I really wanted to show here was a little perspective. And lo and behold THIS is the first article I came across. It's from 2002, but it lays out the problem PERFECTLY. Because MY answer to the wage gap that I feel would be to pay the "unskilled labor" pretty much what they're getting now, maybe a little more, and give myself and my fellow engineers good 30-50% raise. And where would that money come from? Simple: OVERPAID EXECUTIVES.
Consider this (from that article):
Back in 1980, CEOs made 45 times the pay of average workers. [In 2002], they made 241 times as much.And it's worse now. Consider this...Let's say you've got an engineer making $70,000 per year. I make a little more than that, but that's not a terribly low estimate for engineers. Now, if that engineer's company pays their CEO $7,000,000 per year, he makes 100 times as much. To see how absurd that is, consider this: Someone's career might last about 40 years. (From mid 20's to mid 60's, let's say.) Now, this CEO makes two and a half times as much as that Engineer will make in his entire career, EVERY YEAR. And it's not like Engineers qualify as "unskilled labor!" What's more, $7-Mil isn't even that high! Again, from the article:
Median CEO pay at the 100 large companies in Fortune's survey rose 14 percent last year to $13.2 million.THIRTEEN.POINT.TWO.MILLION. That's the MEDIAN. So at the fifty largest companies, CEO's made just under FIVE TIMES (4.7 time, based on 40 years) what that engineer will make in his entire career... EVERY SINGLE YEAR!
And remember: Median income for individual workers in this country isn't $70K. It's more like $48K per year, according the latest data I could easily find. And remember: that's MEDIAN INCOME. So half of America makes less than that!
Consider THIS piece on CEO pay in the Insurance Industry. CEO's getting paid upwards of $25 Million Dollars just to deny us health care? Puh-lease. (Back to that engineer: we're up to about NINE TIMES what the engineer makes in his entire career going to these assholes EVERY YEAR.)
Anyway, I think you get the picture. If I can live on $70,000 a year (and I make a little more, but whatever) If I can live on that, as a degreed engineer with a Master's Degree surely anyone should be able to drink a nice hot, steaming cup of STFU, making say... $2.8 Million a year, or: what that engineer will make in his career, but making that every year. Boo-frickin'-who-for-you if you can't live quite well and quite happily on $2.8 Mil per year. That's $23,000 per MONTH! $7776 per DAY! When was the last time YOU spent seven grand in a single day and didn't drive home a new (used) car?! Imagine doing that EVERY DAY! (That would be like Brewster's Millions!)
So here's an idea that I've been kicking for while now. Let's get rid of the minimum wage. Seriously. Let's scrap it. It's ends up not so much a floor for these people as a GOAL, so let's get rid of it. And let's replace it with a law which says that the highest paid person in any company, in terms of TOTAL compensation, can be paid no more than 50 times (or 60, 70... PICK A NUMBER) what the LOWEST paid employee gets in terms of his total compensation. (Broken down based of a 2200 hour work year, for example, since part-time employees could screw that formula up.) But whatever, say, the guy who sweeps the floor makes in terms of an hourly wage, the CEO's total compensation package cannot exceed 50 times that, once broken down by 2200 hours per year.
Think about that: There's no salary cap. You can absolutely pay your CEO $20 Million a year if you want... provided that there's enough left to pay even the lowliest employee $400K! And everyone in between would also have to be paid proportionately. A manager could, say, make no more than tow or three time what his lowest paid direct report gets, for example. Skilled labor would have to be guaranteed double what unskilled labor makes, etc...
If the CEO wants a raise? Everyone has to get at least the same percentage increase. Not enough to go around? Well... I guess that CEO didn't do such a good job, did he? How about bonuses or profit sharing? Same thing: Distribute proportionate to Salary. If the CEO wants a Million Dollar bonus? There has to be enough to give even your floor-shiner and toilet bowl cleaner a smooth 20-Grand. Also, lest he be tempted to go a fire a bunch of people, just to raise the salary floor, NO BONUSES should be paid out to ANYONE if (a) the company reports a net-loss to the IRS or (b) lays of more than, say... 1% of it's total workforce.
And the beauty of this is that the most successful companies will attract the best people, at least at first, but small, entrepreneurial up-and-comers, will also benefit, since jobs might be little tighter at some of those big firms. And the best opportunities will still be at growing companies anyway. CEO pay at those big firms will be pretty hard to increase, while one at a small firm has lots of potential for growth, provided they share the wealth along the way!
Now... you can pick any number you want. Maybe 50 IS too low. I'm sure Classicliberal will argue for something lower while Highliter will argue for something higher, for example. I don't really care what the number is, although I don't think anyone would argue that it should be 500. That the factor between 50 Grand and 25 Mil, which should work out for some of those insurance companies. No reason it should be anywhere near that much. But whatever. Once we settle on a number, who thinks this would work? Who's buying? Who's with me?
Because I'd vote for this in a New York minute.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Friday Fun... just some stuff...
Nothing much going on today. I was going through some old comic books, and I found the above panels, from "Kingdom Come," written by Mark Waid and Painted (yes: Painted) by Alex Ross back in 1996. I love it not only for the sentiment...
"You heard Big Blue's pitch, now for the Democratic Resposne." Priceless! Green Arrow's always portrayed as one of the most liberal Superheores that ever lived. Go figure: He modeled his costume and MO after Robin Hood, who "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor." LOL "Big Blue" BTW, in this case, is a reference to SUPERMAN, not the Republicans. But I can't BEGIN to explain the whole thing. Suffice to say that it's worth a read, and this is one of my favorite lines in it!
...but also for Alex Ross's ARTWORK which is just masterpiece quality in every panel. Check out his website for more examples. IMHO, he's simply the best there is, or ever was.
In any case, I'm keeping the banner until someone tells me to take it down. :) It's just way too... apt.
Changing gears...
I learned about a new website today from MMFA: STOPBECK.COM. Awesome. Will absolutely be a Gold-Star winner the next time I hand out any. (There will only be Silver Star awards THIS month, however and THIS SITE warrants a GOLD!) MMFA's misinformer of the year, 2009 deserves no less!
And seeing it reminded me of another site that was active years ago, back when I first stumbled accross MediaMatters.org and started down the path of enlightenment: SWEET JESUS I HATE BILL O'RIELLY! Now... that site hasn't been active since 2005, but reading the guy's old posts I could absolutly relate to how he felt back then! (And with his homage to The Godfather. LOL) Now... you may or may not know this, but Bill O'Rielly took home the "Misinfomrer of the Year" award back in 2004...
...So, I find it no suprise that Fox has to have the whole unholy trinity on the air: Does anyone know any good sites grilling 2008 MMFA Misinformer of the Year, Sean Hannity?
Have a happy weekend, everyone!
"You heard Big Blue's pitch, now for the Democratic Resposne." Priceless! Green Arrow's always portrayed as one of the most liberal Superheores that ever lived. Go figure: He modeled his costume and MO after Robin Hood, who "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor." LOL "Big Blue" BTW, in this case, is a reference to SUPERMAN, not the Republicans. But I can't BEGIN to explain the whole thing. Suffice to say that it's worth a read, and this is one of my favorite lines in it!
...but also for Alex Ross's ARTWORK which is just masterpiece quality in every panel. Check out his website for more examples. IMHO, he's simply the best there is, or ever was.
In any case, I'm keeping the banner until someone tells me to take it down. :) It's just way too... apt.
Changing gears...
I learned about a new website today from MMFA: STOPBECK.COM. Awesome. Will absolutely be a Gold-Star winner the next time I hand out any. (There will only be Silver Star awards THIS month, however and THIS SITE warrants a GOLD!) MMFA's misinformer of the year, 2009 deserves no less!
And seeing it reminded me of another site that was active years ago, back when I first stumbled accross MediaMatters.org and started down the path of enlightenment: SWEET JESUS I HATE BILL O'RIELLY! Now... that site hasn't been active since 2005, but reading the guy's old posts I could absolutly relate to how he felt back then! (And with his homage to The Godfather. LOL) Now... you may or may not know this, but Bill O'Rielly took home the "Misinfomrer of the Year" award back in 2004...
...So, I find it no suprise that Fox has to have the whole unholy trinity on the air: Does anyone know any good sites grilling 2008 MMFA Misinformer of the Year, Sean Hannity?
Have a happy weekend, everyone!
Saturday, January 23, 2010
My 2 cents (and not a penny more!) on the presidents
One of the boasts I made in my argument on MMFA reagarding Bush beign a complete failure was that "I could easily name something I liked, and something I didn't, about every president, or what they did, since TR and probably 3/4 of the ones before him." (That's EXCEPTING George W. Bush, of course.) So, figuring that I'd better be able to back it up, I sat down over my lunch break that day and quickly rapped out that very thing: Something I liked and something I didn't like about every Preseident prior to Bush'43. Just to dazzle you with amazing presidential knowledge (HA!) this was done in one go, without going to Wiki or any other site. It's just off the top of my head. I have cleaned up the format a little since then, just so it's legible in my blog, but I haven't changed any of the content since I first wrote it, back on Thursday's lunch break. So here goes:
Clinton, Democrat:
Good: Fiscal Discipline resulting in budget surplus and a growing economy for eight strait years.
Bad: Telecommunications Bill and repeal of Glass-Stegal.
Bush’41, Republican:
Good: Strong foreign policy, both military and diplomatic.
Bad: Weak economic policy due to continuation of the Reaganomics he once criticized. (Deficits, taxes, etc... it's killed his presidency in the end.)
Reagan, Republican:
Good: Restored the pride in America and inspired up like no one since Kennedy. Short-term, his fiscal and monetary policy broke the stagflation of the late '70's.
Bad: Lousy long-term economic policies; brought radical Christians into the forefront of American Politics while at the same time arming radical Muslims.
Carter, Democrat:
Good: Peace between Egypt and Irsael. Arguably the most honest man, with the strongest principles and integrity of any man since Grover Cleveland, but let’s face it...
Bad: The results were disastrous!
Ford, Republican:
Good: Restored as measure of faith to the integrity of the Presidency.
Bad: His pardon of Nixon undermined a lot of this, and had lasting implications.
Ed Note: My next blog will be a bit of musing about those "lasting implications!" :)
Nixon, Republican:
Good: Strong foreign policy, both militarily and diplomatic – ENDED Vietnam War. Strong domestic policy: The EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc... But...
Bad: better relations with China have led to US economic issues long term. Plus he WAS a crook. (Watergate, etc...)
Johnson’36, Democrat:
Good: Civil Rights Act, and related legislation.
Bad: Great Society was right-hearted by wrong-minded. Should have been carefully designed. Escalated Vietnam War.
Kennedy, Democrat:
Good: Strong foreign policy with Soviet Union, inspiring leader domestically.
Bad: Started Vietnam War and waffled on Civil Rights for most of his term.
Eisenhower, Republican:
Good: Strong leader with integrity. Visionary, who foresaw our current problems with the ‘military industrial complex.’
Bad: Um… he didn’t actually DO anything!
Truman, Democrat:
Good: A leader who took ownership of the tough issues. Ended the Second World War.
Bad: Truman Doctrine was right-hearted but wrong minded – led to Vietnam War. Korean War was the most poorly run war until the 2nd Iraq War. (Other than Vietnam.)
Ed Note: Let's leave discussing the implications and morality of dropping the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for another post.
Roosevelt’32, Democrat:
Good: New Deal led us out of the Great Depression and he led us through World War II.
Bad: Was actually tepid about New Deal – didn’t do nearly enough and tried to end it too soon. Gave the same lousy advice to Herbert Hoover before him, actually.
Hoover, Republican:
Good: He was an engineer. (Yes, that counts for something, in my mind!) (OK, not really.)
Bad: He should have stayed [an engineer]: Economic policies allowed the ’28 crash and led directly to the great depression. Was idealistic, but ideals were misplaced.
Note: To his credit, he couldn’t have known so at the time. He did what the conventional wisdom told him to. At the time, even FDR talked him OUT of some new-deal like programs that were very similar to those he later implimented!
Coolidge, Republican:
Good: Didn’t get in the way of the runaway growth of the roaring 20’s.
Bad: Didn’t get in the way of the runaway growth of the roaring 20’s.
Harding, Republican:
Good: OK. I got nothin'.
Bad: He was a crook with corrupt friends whom he lacked the strength and leadership to reign in. One of the two or three most corrupt administrations ever.
Wilson, Democrat:
Good: Arguably the most visionary foreign policy president of all time. Conceived a new way for Nation to resolve dispute aside from War. If anyone had listened to him, WWII might not have happened.
Bad: As visionary as was his foreign policy, his domestic policy was luddite – women’s suffrage, for example.
Taft, Republican:
Good: Continued economic policies of Roosevelt and even kicked them up a notch.
Bad: Not a very inspiring leader. A bit too plodding, too academic to be our top executive. Better suited for his retirement job: Supreme Court Justice.
Roosevelt’26:
Good: Strong foreign policy, with strong diplomacy. The man himself was a force of nature. One of the most inspiring presidents ever. Strong economic policy – “trust-busting” issues that no company gets “too big to fail” or to powerful for the gov’t to regulate.
Bad: It may have been more a sign of the times, but the man was a bit of a racist, especially with regards to the Native Americans.
OK... So that's part one. I couldn't come up with anything good for Harding, and my Hoover good was really, really weak. And yeah, granted their both Republicans, but they're not exactly ones that the Right usually holds up as shining examples of leadership anyway. So that's 17 president and I got 32 out of 34 good/bads right off the top of my head. Not perfect, but I'll take the 94% as a solid "A." I think that's good enough! LOL
Moving on... the target is now just 75%. This was a bit tougher though...
McKinnley, Republican:
Good: Economic and foreign policies laid the groundwork for those of TR.
Bad: I got nothin'.
Cleveland, Democrat:
Good: He’s honest. He’s honest. He’s honest. (That's was an actual quote about the man.) Also a strong leader, kind of a Democratic version of TR.
Bad: I got nothin'
Harrison’22, Republican:
Good: I got nothin'
Bad: I got nothin'
Arthur, Republican:
Good/Bad: Like several other VP’s who were thrust into office (Tyler, Filmore, Ford) he really just ran the course. Luckily there wasn’t much going on!
Ed Note: Count this as 1 point out of 2.
Garfield, Republican:
N/A: Got shot too early to DO anything.
Ed Note: Garfield and Harrison'9 will not be counter in the final tally.
Hayes, Republican:
Good: I got nothin'
Bad: A do-nothing who left most of the tough issues for his successor.
Grant, Republican:
Good: Finally got country backl on track follwing Civil War and Reconstruction.
Bad: Although the man himself was not necissarily part of it, the Grant administration was one of the two or three most corrupt in hostory.
Johnson’17, Democrat:
Good: I got nothin' (Although his impeachment was bullshit.)
Bad: Screwed up the Reconstruction.
Lincoln, Republican:
Good: Did no less than SAVE this country from an existential threat. Greatest defender and crusader for civil rights until LBJ.
Bad: NOTHING, he was the best, and just for this one, I'm counting this as a point!
Buchanan, Democrat:
Good: Nothing. He was the worst, and just for this one, I'm counting this as a point!
Bad: Did nothing while the country tore itself apart. Supported preservation of Slavery as a ‘States Rights’ issue.
Pierce, Democrat:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: Did nothing while the country tore itself apart. Supported preservation of Slavery as a ‘States Rights’ issue. (Yeah, just like Buchanan.)
Filmore, Whig:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: Like several other VP’s who were thrust into office (Tyler, Arthur, Ford) he really just ran the course… while the country tore itself apart. (Yeah, just like Buchanan and Pierce.)
Taylor, Whig:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: Made little progress on slavery issue – left it for others to address.
Polk, Democrat:
Good: Oversaw greatest land expansion of any President.
Bad: Extension of Statehood is what kicked the slavery issue into high gear.
Tyler, Whig:
Good/Bad: Like several other VP’s who were thrust into office (Filmore, Arthur, Ford) he really just ran the course. Mishandled transition though, and alienated his own party.
Harrison’9, Whig:
N/A: Died WAAAAY to early in his term to say anything at all about him.
Ed Note: Garfield and Harrison'9 will not be counter in the final tally.
Van Buren, Democrat:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: First truly lousy president we’ve ever had.
Jackson, Democrat:
Good: One of the strongest men ever to hold the office. Was transformative in his economic policies. In many ways, he changed the role of the chief executive, and changed what people expected of the office.
Bad: If you want to pinpoint the beginning of the "imperial presidency" it's earliest roots would be in the Jackson presidency.
Adams’6, National Republican:
Good: I got nothin'
Bad: The first president we had that wasn’t stellar. Took muckraking to a new level in his campaign against Jackson. (Though it should be mentioned that Jackson did the same!)
Washington (Federalist), Adams'2 (Federalist), Jefferson (Democratic-Republican), Madison (Democratic-Republican) & Monroe (Democratic-Republican):
Good: All founding fathers, all fantastic successes, all legendary presidents.
Bad: Nothing bad to say, and I'm talking 5/5 here, I don't care! (OK - Adams'2 wanted to be King. He was kind of a kook. Still one of the greatest Americans that ever lived.)
So there you go - 32/34 on the first part, and 23/44 on th second. So only 52% on the second part, but most boast was only that I could do 75%. So that's about 69%%of the goal, or just D+ work. Oh well, sue me. LOL
And if you see anything here that you find to be incorrect, remember: This was just off the top of my head, with no research involved. And yes, that includes remembering them all, in order, and which party they belong to. ("Look at the big brain on Bret!" ~Jules Winfield) So yeah, there may be one or two things I got mixed up.
In any case, I may have exagerated my boats a LITTLE bit, but I'll stand by my judgment of George W. Bush as a complete failure and somewhere between the 3rd and 5th worst president of all time: Better than Hoover or Buchanan, on par with Pierce and Harding.
Clinton, Democrat:
Good: Fiscal Discipline resulting in budget surplus and a growing economy for eight strait years.
Bad: Telecommunications Bill and repeal of Glass-Stegal.
Bush’41, Republican:
Good: Strong foreign policy, both military and diplomatic.
Bad: Weak economic policy due to continuation of the Reaganomics he once criticized. (Deficits, taxes, etc... it's killed his presidency in the end.)
Reagan, Republican:
Good: Restored the pride in America and inspired up like no one since Kennedy. Short-term, his fiscal and monetary policy broke the stagflation of the late '70's.
Bad: Lousy long-term economic policies; brought radical Christians into the forefront of American Politics while at the same time arming radical Muslims.
Carter, Democrat:
Good: Peace between Egypt and Irsael. Arguably the most honest man, with the strongest principles and integrity of any man since Grover Cleveland, but let’s face it...
Bad: The results were disastrous!
Ford, Republican:
Good: Restored as measure of faith to the integrity of the Presidency.
Bad: His pardon of Nixon undermined a lot of this, and had lasting implications.
Ed Note: My next blog will be a bit of musing about those "lasting implications!" :)
Nixon, Republican:
Good: Strong foreign policy, both militarily and diplomatic – ENDED Vietnam War. Strong domestic policy: The EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc... But...
Bad: better relations with China have led to US economic issues long term. Plus he WAS a crook. (Watergate, etc...)
Johnson’36, Democrat:
Good: Civil Rights Act, and related legislation.
Bad: Great Society was right-hearted by wrong-minded. Should have been carefully designed. Escalated Vietnam War.
Kennedy, Democrat:
Good: Strong foreign policy with Soviet Union, inspiring leader domestically.
Bad: Started Vietnam War and waffled on Civil Rights for most of his term.
Eisenhower, Republican:
Good: Strong leader with integrity. Visionary, who foresaw our current problems with the ‘military industrial complex.’
Bad: Um… he didn’t actually DO anything!
Truman, Democrat:
Good: A leader who took ownership of the tough issues. Ended the Second World War.
Bad: Truman Doctrine was right-hearted but wrong minded – led to Vietnam War. Korean War was the most poorly run war until the 2nd Iraq War. (Other than Vietnam.)
Ed Note: Let's leave discussing the implications and morality of dropping the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for another post.
Roosevelt’32, Democrat:
Good: New Deal led us out of the Great Depression and he led us through World War II.
Bad: Was actually tepid about New Deal – didn’t do nearly enough and tried to end it too soon. Gave the same lousy advice to Herbert Hoover before him, actually.
Hoover, Republican:
Good: He was an engineer. (Yes, that counts for something, in my mind!) (OK, not really.)
Bad: He should have stayed [an engineer]: Economic policies allowed the ’28 crash and led directly to the great depression. Was idealistic, but ideals were misplaced.
Note: To his credit, he couldn’t have known so at the time. He did what the conventional wisdom told him to. At the time, even FDR talked him OUT of some new-deal like programs that were very similar to those he later implimented!
Coolidge, Republican:
Good: Didn’t get in the way of the runaway growth of the roaring 20’s.
Bad: Didn’t get in the way of the runaway growth of the roaring 20’s.
Harding, Republican:
Good: OK. I got nothin'.
Bad: He was a crook with corrupt friends whom he lacked the strength and leadership to reign in. One of the two or three most corrupt administrations ever.
Wilson, Democrat:
Good: Arguably the most visionary foreign policy president of all time. Conceived a new way for Nation to resolve dispute aside from War. If anyone had listened to him, WWII might not have happened.
Bad: As visionary as was his foreign policy, his domestic policy was luddite – women’s suffrage, for example.
Taft, Republican:
Good: Continued economic policies of Roosevelt and even kicked them up a notch.
Bad: Not a very inspiring leader. A bit too plodding, too academic to be our top executive. Better suited for his retirement job: Supreme Court Justice.
Roosevelt’26:
Good: Strong foreign policy, with strong diplomacy. The man himself was a force of nature. One of the most inspiring presidents ever. Strong economic policy – “trust-busting” issues that no company gets “too big to fail” or to powerful for the gov’t to regulate.
Bad: It may have been more a sign of the times, but the man was a bit of a racist, especially with regards to the Native Americans.
OK... So that's part one. I couldn't come up with anything good for Harding, and my Hoover good was really, really weak. And yeah, granted their both Republicans, but they're not exactly ones that the Right usually holds up as shining examples of leadership anyway. So that's 17 president and I got 32 out of 34 good/bads right off the top of my head. Not perfect, but I'll take the 94% as a solid "A." I think that's good enough! LOL
Moving on... the target is now just 75%. This was a bit tougher though...
McKinnley, Republican:
Good: Economic and foreign policies laid the groundwork for those of TR.
Bad: I got nothin'.
Cleveland, Democrat:
Good: He’s honest. He’s honest. He’s honest. (That's was an actual quote about the man.) Also a strong leader, kind of a Democratic version of TR.
Bad: I got nothin'
Harrison’22, Republican:
Good: I got nothin'
Bad: I got nothin'
Arthur, Republican:
Good/Bad: Like several other VP’s who were thrust into office (Tyler, Filmore, Ford) he really just ran the course. Luckily there wasn’t much going on!
Ed Note: Count this as 1 point out of 2.
Garfield, Republican:
N/A: Got shot too early to DO anything.
Ed Note: Garfield and Harrison'9 will not be counter in the final tally.
Hayes, Republican:
Good: I got nothin'
Bad: A do-nothing who left most of the tough issues for his successor.
Grant, Republican:
Good: Finally got country backl on track follwing Civil War and Reconstruction.
Bad: Although the man himself was not necissarily part of it, the Grant administration was one of the two or three most corrupt in hostory.
Johnson’17, Democrat:
Good: I got nothin' (Although his impeachment was bullshit.)
Bad: Screwed up the Reconstruction.
Lincoln, Republican:
Good: Did no less than SAVE this country from an existential threat. Greatest defender and crusader for civil rights until LBJ.
Bad: NOTHING, he was the best, and just for this one, I'm counting this as a point!
Buchanan, Democrat:
Good: Nothing. He was the worst, and just for this one, I'm counting this as a point!
Bad: Did nothing while the country tore itself apart. Supported preservation of Slavery as a ‘States Rights’ issue.
Pierce, Democrat:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: Did nothing while the country tore itself apart. Supported preservation of Slavery as a ‘States Rights’ issue. (Yeah, just like Buchanan.)
Filmore, Whig:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: Like several other VP’s who were thrust into office (Tyler, Arthur, Ford) he really just ran the course… while the country tore itself apart. (Yeah, just like Buchanan and Pierce.)
Taylor, Whig:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: Made little progress on slavery issue – left it for others to address.
Polk, Democrat:
Good: Oversaw greatest land expansion of any President.
Bad: Extension of Statehood is what kicked the slavery issue into high gear.
Tyler, Whig:
Good/Bad: Like several other VP’s who were thrust into office (Filmore, Arthur, Ford) he really just ran the course. Mishandled transition though, and alienated his own party.
Harrison’9, Whig:
N/A: Died WAAAAY to early in his term to say anything at all about him.
Ed Note: Garfield and Harrison'9 will not be counter in the final tally.
Van Buren, Democrat:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: First truly lousy president we’ve ever had.
Jackson, Democrat:
Good: One of the strongest men ever to hold the office. Was transformative in his economic policies. In many ways, he changed the role of the chief executive, and changed what people expected of the office.
Bad: If you want to pinpoint the beginning of the "imperial presidency" it's earliest roots would be in the Jackson presidency.
Adams’6, National Republican:
Good: I got nothin'
Bad: The first president we had that wasn’t stellar. Took muckraking to a new level in his campaign against Jackson. (Though it should be mentioned that Jackson did the same!)
Washington (Federalist), Adams'2 (Federalist), Jefferson (Democratic-Republican), Madison (Democratic-Republican) & Monroe (Democratic-Republican):
Good: All founding fathers, all fantastic successes, all legendary presidents.
Bad: Nothing bad to say, and I'm talking 5/5 here, I don't care! (OK - Adams'2 wanted to be King. He was kind of a kook. Still one of the greatest Americans that ever lived.)
So there you go - 32/34 on the first part, and 23/44 on th second. So only 52% on the second part, but most boast was only that I could do 75%. So that's about 69%%of the goal, or just D+ work. Oh well, sue me. LOL
And if you see anything here that you find to be incorrect, remember: This was just off the top of my head, with no research involved. And yes, that includes remembering them all, in order, and which party they belong to. ("Look at the big brain on Bret!" ~Jules Winfield) So yeah, there may be one or two things I got mixed up.
In any case, I may have exagerated my boats a LITTLE bit, but I'll stand by my judgment of George W. Bush as a complete failure and somewhere between the 3rd and 5th worst president of all time: Better than Hoover or Buchanan, on par with Pierce and Harding.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Friday Fun: Conservative Problem Solving
Yeah, it's an old joke, but it's a classic. Here's my crack at it:
(click for full size)
Now... TELL me this isn't apt! LOL
Fun stuff from yesterday, spilling over into today over on MMFA.
I swear... some these cons, even when they don't really disagree with you, they can't just say, "Sadly, I agree." The see a liberal and they HAVE TO argue, even if they end up arguing 99% the same point!
If a Conservtaive wants to bash Jimmy Carter? Yeah: I'll admit that, sadly, he was a very lousy President. Not the worst - states didn't start to secede from the union (Buchanan) and the entire world wasn't plunged into a ten-year long economic recession the likes of which we'd never seen before (Hoover.) But yeah, pretty bad.
But, if challenged to come up with one single thing he did right? That's easy. A lasting peace accord between Israel and Egypt. He's pretty much the only president since the formation of Israel to make ANY progress towards peace in the middle east. And unlike some of the other treaties over the years, this one has LASTED; 30+ years now, and counting. How much easier was/is the Gulf War in '91 or the Iraq War in '03 or the War in Afganistan or the greater War on Terror[ism] knowing that at least one of the major players in the region will abinde by their treaty and (essentially) remain on our side, or at worst neutral? That's a pretty substantial success, no matter HOW you look at it, or WHAT party you roll with.
So I find it amusing that [Name deleted, but it's pretty obvious if you look at the link!] couldn't come up with ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of something George W. Bush did right, after dismissing my opinon of Bush as a "100%, complete and utter failure" as merely being left-wing bias and liberal nonsense.
Now... he did admit that Bush was BAD, but he kept accusing me of being the partisan one, the black-and-white thinker, even though all I needed was ONE EXAMPLE and I would have admited that I was exagerating.
But I maintain that it is NO exageration to judge George W. Bush a complete and utter, 100% FAILURE, and somewhere between the 3rd and 5th worst presidents of all time. He's not Hoover or Buchanan, but he's no better than Pierce or Harding either.
Basically? Everything he touched turned into a big steaming pile of shit.
We weren't just "worse off than we were eight years ago..." EVERYTHING is worse than it was eight (now nine) years ago! EVERY SINGLE ISSUE! EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF OUR SOCIETY (that he had an influence on) IS WORSE THAN IT WAS BEFORE HE GOT THERE! He did not make any progress on a SINGLE PROBLEM facing tis country. (Even the one problem he had made some progress on: The "problem" that rich people didn't have enough money? Six years of "progress" was wiped out AND THEN SOME in the last two! The man couldn't even make the rich richer, even as he made the poor poorer! How fucked up is THAT?!)
And RightOn (whoops!) at least had the guts to TRY and prove me wrong, even though he made about a dozen posts and still failed by a wide margin. (He sure used a lot of words for guy who wasn't really even trying!) My challenge was open to ANY CONSERVATIVES. And NOT ONE OF THEM even attempted to defend a SINGLE THING about Bush!
Egypt/Isreal might very well be the only thing Carter did right in four years, but it's at least ONE THING. Seriously: What did Bush'43 do that didn't screw everything up?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)