So, there I was, at the gym, right in the middle of my second set of biangle presses when this... absolutely, amazingly beautiful and moving song comes across on Pandora. Have you ever been brought to tears by a song while you're in the middle of lifting weights? The irony of that juxtaposition of imagery is not lost on me, believe me. LOL. But this song is just... incredible. I'm not one of those who often romanticizes the whole "greatest generation" thing - and I've had more than enough of the "baby boomers" to last ten lifetimes - but this was one of the most poignant tribute to the men and women who served in WWII that I've ever heard. Here it is, The War was in Color, by Carbon Leaf:
I just find that so incredibly moving.
BTW...Speaking of WWII, here's Cracked.com doing revisionist history the CORRECT way, as opposed to the Glenn Beck way: Five widely believed facts about WWII that are bullshit. Three cheers for the American, jingoistic education system, huh? In all fairness, I'm not saying that we should now blindly treat all of these as facts. But they certainly are interpretations that warrant some serious thought and consideration. (As opposed to the revisionist crap that Glenn Beck vomits out, which is only food for thinking how mindnumblingly stupid and/or completely bat-shit insane Glenn beck is.) Anyway, the article certainly gave me a lot to think about. Very interesting.
Anyway, I declare April 20 to be National "Punch a Conservative who thinks Liberals don't honor the Troops" Day! Who's with me? LOL.
One last thing, going back to the music. A few songs later Great Big Sea's rendition (they sofa king rock!) of "Dunken Sailor" came on. You know:
What do you do with a drunken sailor?
What do you do with a drunken sailor?
What do you do with a drunken sailor?
Earl-lie in the morning?
And the verses are along the lines of:
Shave his belly with a rusty razor!
Shave his belly with a rusty razor!
Shave his belly with a rusty razor!
Earl-lie in the morning!
And years ago a friend of mine who's also a huge fan of Irish music gave me an absolutely inspired LAST VERSE for the song. Whenever I sing it (car, shower) I always end with:
Put him at the helm of the Exxon Valdez!
Put him at the helm of the Exxon Valdez!
Put him at the helm of the Exxon Valdez!
Earl-lie in the morning!
Cheers!
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 revisionist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revisionist. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Friday, July 30, 2010
More on (moron) Political Schools of thought...
In my last post, in addition to lamenting the decaying state of political discourse (in-box politics, bumper-sticker politics and beagle politics), I also tried to make the case that the hard-Right Wing has co-opted the word “conservative” to mean what “right-wing radical” used to, and sufficiently demonized the word “liberal” to the point where most people would rather be set on fire than be labeled one. In other words, they’ve pulled the whole not notion of Left, Center and Right… to the Right. WAY to the right. I’ve argued this before, but something came to me recently that got me thinking…
There are a couple bits of revisionist history that have become rather fashionable for the Right lately. (And let's face it: After the eight year cavalcade of failure that was the George W. Bush administration, some revisionist history is deperately needed by them!) The first is that George W. Bush wasn’t really a Conservative at all! Apparently the fact that he had huge deficits and huge federal budgets somehow makes him a liberal. And somehow if he were only MORE like Ronald Regan everything would have worked out. The problem with that? Bush was decidedly MORE Conservative that Reagan in just about every way imaginable. Reagan cuts taxes, Bush cut them MORE. And Regan eventually raised some taxes (six times in eight years, in fact) while Bush never did. Reagan waged a Cold War, while Bush waged a decidedly hot war - two, in fact; which for the first six years of his administration accounts for the bulk of his increased spending. Forget detent: he went for Regime Change! And while both had huge deficits, the only budget cutting Bush did was to the budgets of federal regulatory agencies. (That worked out really well, huh?) What's more, Reagan practically INVENTED the culture of deficit spending, but that's outside the scope of this post. And finally while Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor - a famous swing-vote - to the Supreme Court, Bush replaced her with Samuel Alito, a hard-Right Wing Reactionary. So seriously folks, don’t make me laugh: Bush’43 was not only to the Right of Reagan and Bush’41, he was WELL to the Right of them.
And with that in mind, I have to ask:
How far to the Right does one need to be for George W. Bush to look like a Lefty?
I mean… where the hell do you put the center if George W. Bush is supposed to be a liberal?
But the other thing we hear a lot lately, especially with all this “Obama is a Nazi” bullshit going around, is that HITLER was really a Liberal, or a Leftist. Now… as absurd as it is call BUSH’43 a liberal, where the fuck can one get that idea about ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER?! OK… to be fair, there is SOME evidence for it, assuming that you look at it VERY simplistically; almost stupidly, really.
First – The Nazi’s were originally called the “National Socialist Party.” So there’s that word, “Socialist.” That means liberal, right? Well, no, not at all really. (Morons.) But even putting that aside, in the 1930’s, “Socialist” wasn’t quite the epithet that it is now. Back then, it was the kind of label (like, “Conservative” today) that could actually be adopted as a selling point. But in many cases, it really meant absolutely nothing at all. It was just marketing ploy. There was nothing “Socialist” about them. It’s no more meaningful than when Kim Jong Ill calls his country the “Democratic Republic of North Korea.” (Or how Communist East Germany was called the “Democratic Republic of Germany.”) There’s nothing Democratic about ‘em, and there was nothing Socialist about the Nazi’s. It’s a LABEL and nothing more.
Second – It’s been argued that you can’t really place Fascism on a Left-Right spectrum. And that’s sort of true, if you put Communism on the far Left and Capitalism on the Right, since Fascism actually rejects BOTH. Now… to the Righties in this country, with their binary mode of thinking, any rejection of Capitalism MUST therefore be an full embrace of Communism, thus Fascism = Communism. Now… 20 Million dead Russians, felled by Nazi Bullets in WWII might argue otherwise, but… there dead. So I’ll have to.
Here’s why that particular Right-Left analogy is flawed, putting aside the fact that Fascists generally HATE liberals, HATE minorities, HATE dissent, HATE Academia, Intellectualism, etc… While Communism can be viewed as both a Political System and an Economic System, CAPITALISM can not be. Capitalism is primarily ONLY an Economic System. And likewise, Fascism can also not be: It’s not an Economic System at all. It goes so far as to reject economics as the primary driver of human behavior – an idea that lies at the heart of both Communism and Capitalism. It’s purely a Political system. So when we’re talking about ECONOMIC systems, you can certainly put Communism / Socialism on the Left and Capitalism on the Right, while Fascism doesn’t really fit in ANYWHERE. (And “Capitalism” itself can vary in its own level of regulation as well, and yet still remain on the Right!) But, if we’re limiting ourselves to discussion Political Systems, Communism ends up on the far left, Liberal Democracy lies near the Center and Fascism represents the Right. The FAR Right, fine, but if you can accept that, I have to ask…
…How far to the Right do you need to be to look to your Left and see Adolph Hitler?
(I’m looking at YOU, Glenn Beck!)
There are a couple bits of revisionist history that have become rather fashionable for the Right lately. (And let's face it: After the eight year cavalcade of failure that was the George W. Bush administration, some revisionist history is deperately needed by them!) The first is that George W. Bush wasn’t really a Conservative at all! Apparently the fact that he had huge deficits and huge federal budgets somehow makes him a liberal. And somehow if he were only MORE like Ronald Regan everything would have worked out. The problem with that? Bush was decidedly MORE Conservative that Reagan in just about every way imaginable. Reagan cuts taxes, Bush cut them MORE. And Regan eventually raised some taxes (six times in eight years, in fact) while Bush never did. Reagan waged a Cold War, while Bush waged a decidedly hot war - two, in fact; which for the first six years of his administration accounts for the bulk of his increased spending. Forget detent: he went for Regime Change! And while both had huge deficits, the only budget cutting Bush did was to the budgets of federal regulatory agencies. (That worked out really well, huh?) What's more, Reagan practically INVENTED the culture of deficit spending, but that's outside the scope of this post. And finally while Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor - a famous swing-vote - to the Supreme Court, Bush replaced her with Samuel Alito, a hard-Right Wing Reactionary. So seriously folks, don’t make me laugh: Bush’43 was not only to the Right of Reagan and Bush’41, he was WELL to the Right of them.
And with that in mind, I have to ask:
How far to the Right does one need to be for George W. Bush to look like a Lefty?
I mean… where the hell do you put the center if George W. Bush is supposed to be a liberal?
But the other thing we hear a lot lately, especially with all this “Obama is a Nazi” bullshit going around, is that HITLER was really a Liberal, or a Leftist. Now… as absurd as it is call BUSH’43 a liberal, where the fuck can one get that idea about ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER?! OK… to be fair, there is SOME evidence for it, assuming that you look at it VERY simplistically; almost stupidly, really.
First – The Nazi’s were originally called the “National Socialist Party.” So there’s that word, “Socialist.” That means liberal, right? Well, no, not at all really. (Morons.) But even putting that aside, in the 1930’s, “Socialist” wasn’t quite the epithet that it is now. Back then, it was the kind of label (like, “Conservative” today) that could actually be adopted as a selling point. But in many cases, it really meant absolutely nothing at all. It was just marketing ploy. There was nothing “Socialist” about them. It’s no more meaningful than when Kim Jong Ill calls his country the “Democratic Republic of North Korea.” (Or how Communist East Germany was called the “Democratic Republic of Germany.”) There’s nothing Democratic about ‘em, and there was nothing Socialist about the Nazi’s. It’s a LABEL and nothing more.
Second – It’s been argued that you can’t really place Fascism on a Left-Right spectrum. And that’s sort of true, if you put Communism on the far Left and Capitalism on the Right, since Fascism actually rejects BOTH. Now… to the Righties in this country, with their binary mode of thinking, any rejection of Capitalism MUST therefore be an full embrace of Communism, thus Fascism = Communism. Now… 20 Million dead Russians, felled by Nazi Bullets in WWII might argue otherwise, but… there dead. So I’ll have to.
Here’s why that particular Right-Left analogy is flawed, putting aside the fact that Fascists generally HATE liberals, HATE minorities, HATE dissent, HATE Academia, Intellectualism, etc… While Communism can be viewed as both a Political System and an Economic System, CAPITALISM can not be. Capitalism is primarily ONLY an Economic System. And likewise, Fascism can also not be: It’s not an Economic System at all. It goes so far as to reject economics as the primary driver of human behavior – an idea that lies at the heart of both Communism and Capitalism. It’s purely a Political system. So when we’re talking about ECONOMIC systems, you can certainly put Communism / Socialism on the Left and Capitalism on the Right, while Fascism doesn’t really fit in ANYWHERE. (And “Capitalism” itself can vary in its own level of regulation as well, and yet still remain on the Right!) But, if we’re limiting ourselves to discussion Political Systems, Communism ends up on the far left, Liberal Democracy lies near the Center and Fascism represents the Right. The FAR Right, fine, but if you can accept that, I have to ask…
…How far to the Right do you need to be to look to your Left and see Adolph Hitler?
(I’m looking at YOU, Glenn Beck!)
Friday, June 4, 2010
The impilcations of this are pretty scary...
Just read an article about false and manipulated memories on Slate.
The findings were pretty surprising, but the IMPLICATIONS are downright scary. It's pratctially a Blueprint for how the RW Media (which is to say, ALL of the media) operate.
And the WORST offender, BY FAR, is Glenn Beck and revisionist historical rants. I think this lays out why we cannot risk letting Glenn Beck re-wrtie history. He's dangerous, and so is Fox, and so is the Right-Wing, Conservtaive bias that infects practically EVERY level of the media to varying degrees. And this article does a great job of showing why.
The findings were pretty surprising, but the IMPLICATIONS are downright scary. It's pratctially a Blueprint for how the RW Media (which is to say, ALL of the media) operate.
And the WORST offender, BY FAR, is Glenn Beck and revisionist historical rants. I think this lays out why we cannot risk letting Glenn Beck re-wrtie history. He's dangerous, and so is Fox, and so is the Right-Wing, Conservtaive bias that infects practically EVERY level of the media to varying degrees. And this article does a great job of showing why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)