They're short, funny and well-written. And they're 100%, dead-on-balls accurate. 99% of everything that is wrong with the world is beautifully exemplified in these two articles:
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 beck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beck. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
How much ignorance?
OK. The other day, I completely lost my shit over some ball-bashingly ignorant comments made by the soon-to-be former Congressman, Todd Akin (R-MO.) (Or should that be: MO-R-on?) Now, in the course of my (well deserved) rant, I made a few general statements about Conservatives and Republicans regarding OTHER comments that have been made over the years (equating pedophilia and homosexuality, claiming that Autism isn't a real condition, belittling the poor, etc...) Well, far be it for this Liberal to not be evidence-based, even in his rants. So here are just a quick smattering of the Right-Wing's greatest hits, to show the kind of thing that I'm talking about. And before anyone tries to look intelligent by pointing out (as I often do) that anectdoltal evidence isn't evidence, please allow me to retort: These comments cover a wide smattering of issues, come from a diverse source of speakers, over many years, are very much aligned with the official Republican platform and policies, and, most importatntly, only took me about five minutes (on Google, Wiki and MMFA) to find. This last point is important, becuase had I been up all might assembling the list, one might be able to infer that this type of ignorance is rare and therefore anomalous. Rest assured: This only scratches the surface. HAD I been up all night? I would have been able to write book.
So here they are, and feel free to add more in the comments section if you have some good ones, the Right Wing's Greatest Hits:
What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right?
~Rush Limbaugh, February 29, 2012
“Sandusky does not represent all of homosexuality, just like the priests in the Catholic Church don't represent all of homosexuality, just like the aberrant criminals in heterosexual society don't represent all heterosexuals. But because the gay lobby is very powerful, people don't go there. People don't address it, they don't talk about it, and as such, an element of the problem never gets dealt with.”
~Rush Limbaugh, November 18, 2011
A small item but the point is Nixon came in, shut it down, there was the shooting at Kent State, and gosh, I know liberals don't like it and when you look on Nexis and oh, the whole country was embarrassed. Well, I'm not embarrassed. That's what you do with a mob. They were monstrous at Kent State. It was being led by Bill Ayers.
~Ann Coulter, June 6, 2011
The Ryan White Care Act provides money for community-based counseling centers. While that may sound noble and compassionate, we know from experience that "AIDS education" becomes a platform for the homosexual community to recruit adolescents and lure teens into a self-destructive sexual lifestyle.
~Christine O’Donnell, October 20, 2010
“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”
Brian Kilmeade, October 15, 2010
They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it’s a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."
~Pat Robertson, January 13, 2010 (discussing the earthquake in Haiti)
“This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don't know what it is.
~Glenn Beck, July 28, 2009
You know, people are poor in America, Steve, not because they lack money; they're poor because they lack values, morals, and ethics.
~Bill Cunningham, October 89, 2008
Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, "Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot."
~Mike Savage, July 16, 2008
“These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”
Ann Coulter, June 8, 2006 (regarding widows of 9/11 victims.)
“If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nailbiters.”
Anita Bryant, February 2, 2006
“Cindy Sheehan is a tragedy slut.”
~Glenn Beck, August 15, 2005
“It probably would be a lot cheaper to just exterminate male homosexuals.”
Paul Cameron, November, 1985
So here they are, and feel free to add more in the comments section if you have some good ones, the Right Wing's Greatest Hits:
What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right?
~Rush Limbaugh, February 29, 2012
“Sandusky does not represent all of homosexuality, just like the priests in the Catholic Church don't represent all of homosexuality, just like the aberrant criminals in heterosexual society don't represent all heterosexuals. But because the gay lobby is very powerful, people don't go there. People don't address it, they don't talk about it, and as such, an element of the problem never gets dealt with.”
~Rush Limbaugh, November 18, 2011
A small item but the point is Nixon came in, shut it down, there was the shooting at Kent State, and gosh, I know liberals don't like it and when you look on Nexis and oh, the whole country was embarrassed. Well, I'm not embarrassed. That's what you do with a mob. They were monstrous at Kent State. It was being led by Bill Ayers.
~Ann Coulter, June 6, 2011
The Ryan White Care Act provides money for community-based counseling centers. While that may sound noble and compassionate, we know from experience that "AIDS education" becomes a platform for the homosexual community to recruit adolescents and lure teens into a self-destructive sexual lifestyle.
~Christine O’Donnell, October 20, 2010
“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”
Brian Kilmeade, October 15, 2010
They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it’s a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."
~Pat Robertson, January 13, 2010 (discussing the earthquake in Haiti)
“This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don't know what it is.
~Glenn Beck, July 28, 2009
You know, people are poor in America, Steve, not because they lack money; they're poor because they lack values, morals, and ethics.
~Bill Cunningham, October 89, 2008
Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, "Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot."
~Mike Savage, July 16, 2008
“These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”
Ann Coulter, June 8, 2006 (regarding widows of 9/11 victims.)
“If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nailbiters.”
Anita Bryant, February 2, 2006
“Cindy Sheehan is a tragedy slut.”
~Glenn Beck, August 15, 2005
“It probably would be a lot cheaper to just exterminate male homosexuals.”
Paul Cameron, November, 1985
Monday, December 19, 2011
Minsinformers of the Year
This year, Media Matters has seen fit to award MULTIPLE "Misinformer of the Year" awards. As evidenced by my own Hall of Fame (December's Inductee's coming soon) I LOVE this kind of thing, so for those who share my interest and would like to see just how bad the Right Wing Media gets, here are the Media Matters:
2011 Misinformer of the Year: Ruppert Murdoch and News Corporation
2011 Misinformer on LGBT Issues: Dr. Kieth Ablow
2011 Misinformer on Climate Issues: Rush Limbaugh
2011 Misinformer on FOX News: Fox & Friends
While all are well earned and richly deserved, ff particular note are Dr. Ablow's views on the transgendered in general, and Chaz Bono in particular, and Limbaugh's absolute gems on the Global Warming. Mu favorite might just be (emphasis added):
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG.
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.
And? BOTH will in fact be right!
And over the years, I think that MMFA has done a good job of calling the person or entity that went above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to carrying water for the Right Wing Propaganda Machine. Past MIY winners include:
2010: Sarah Palin
2009: Glenn Beck
2008: Sean Hannity
2007: Offensive and Degrading Speech (not just Imus!)
2006: ABC
2005: Chris Matthews
2004: Bill O’Rielly
Interesting reads all. Well done MMFA. I hope that, in future, you will continue this new tradition of award not only an overall award, but awards based on smaller issues as well.
NOTE: In the next couple of days, should more of the issue-based award be named, I will updated this post accordingly.
2011 Misinformer of the Year: Ruppert Murdoch and News Corporation
2011 Misinformer on LGBT Issues: Dr. Kieth Ablow
2011 Misinformer on Climate Issues: Rush Limbaugh
2011 Misinformer on FOX News: Fox & Friends
While all are well earned and richly deserved, ff particular note are Dr. Ablow's views on the transgendered in general, and Chaz Bono in particular, and Limbaugh's absolute gems on the Global Warming. Mu favorite might just be (emphasis added):
LIMBAUGH: How did I know global warming is a hoax? 'Cause of who's behind pushing it. Liberals. They lie.
[...] If there ever is scientific proof -- and see, I don't need scientific proof because to me the people who are promoting manmade global warming are a bunch of frauds. They are liberals, they lie. It's not a generalization. It is an undeniable truth of life.While the absolute absurdity of these statement is both undeniable and self-evident, I am tickled pink to see, once again, further evidence of what I always say:
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG.
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.
And? BOTH will in fact be right!
And over the years, I think that MMFA has done a good job of calling the person or entity that went above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to carrying water for the Right Wing Propaganda Machine. Past MIY winners include:
2010: Sarah Palin
2009: Glenn Beck
2008: Sean Hannity
2007: Offensive and Degrading Speech (not just Imus!)
2006: ABC
2005: Chris Matthews
2004: Bill O’Rielly
Interesting reads all. Well done MMFA. I hope that, in future, you will continue this new tradition of award not only an overall award, but awards based on smaller issues as well.
NOTE: In the next couple of days, should more of the issue-based award be named, I will updated this post accordingly.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
I work for a Japanese company. In America (Detroit area) but it's a Japanese firm. And one of the things I've learned about the Japanese from working there is that is you ask them ANYTHING or ask them FOR ANYTHING, the will ALWAYS ask you, "Why?"
Now, in the West, "Why?" is a very confrontational question. Every time I hear "Why?" my minds follows it up with "...the hell do need [or need to know] that?!" I don't know if everyone feels that strongly about it, but I think you'll agree that if you ask me a simple, strait forward question and I answer why "Why?" it kind of puts you on the defensive, no? (Truth be told, in my experience, it really pisses most people off!)
Well... Anyway, they don't do it to be difficult pricks. (Although there's no shortage of people that seem to think that they do! LOL) They do it because they genuinely want to give you the best possible, most complete answer / information the first time so you will not be misled, and they will not waste your time. (And possibly so you won't come back and bother them again! LOL) And really, although it takes some getting used to when you hear it every. fucking. time, it's really not a bad philosophy. Really? When you think about it, it's almost always the PERFECT question to ask!
Now I mention that, because as part of my work (as an engineer) we often have to solve problems. And one of the Japanese methods (which I'm sure has been adopted in the west in some places or companies as well) of problem solving is called the FIVE WHY'S. It is believed that to get to the real root cause of any problem, you have to ask "Why?" at least FIVE TIMES.
Now... Take, for example: The Mortgage Meltdown of 2008. (Although extremely racist, this exercise is a lot more fun if you read the following questions with a Japanese accent.) (And, yes, I know that I'm going to hell for that.)
WHY did the economy tank?
(1) A lot of people were losing money on mortgage backed securities and the real estate bubble.
WHY were so many affected? (Or Why a was there bubble?)
(2) A lot of bad and risky loans were being written by the banks.
WHY were the banks writing these loans?
(3) They were making money from them. They were a huge source of revenue.
WHY were they making money off of them? (That's more of a HOW question, but it still works.)
(4) The were combining them with other loans into securities and were able to break up and sell the resulting product at a higher rate than it was truly worth.
WHY were they able to sell them as more than they were worth?
(5) Because the Bond Ratings Agencies were giving them AAA / Investment grade ratings even though they were hard too value, and no one knew what was really IN them.
Now...
Did you notice how I was able to go five layers deep without any real politics or opinion or partisan judgement coming into play? Of course, I can't go any farther without interjecting my own political "bias" (notice the "quotes" - I know that's just the bias of reality!) interfering with the analysis. But there you go: Five "why's" got us down to a pretty good route cause, with statements that (1) Even the most blatant partisan could not really argue the veracity of (though some of the dumber ones will try) and (2) has no judgement, no liberal-this or progressive-that necessary to reach this route cause. The mortgage meltdown happened because the ratings agencies inflated the grades of and overvalued these inherently risky assets. (If you're buying something and you don't know what it's worth or even what it really is? THAT'S RISKY. PERIOD!)
So I found it interesting, and I had to kick myself for not thinking of this myself the other day in my downgrade post, to read MMFA's take on the U.S. downgrade:
Attention Media: S&P Lacks Credibility
And it hit me like a thunderbolt! Of course! These are the same clowns who basically, single handedly tanked the U.S. economy, into a deep recession that, while it ended, at leats officially, we are still reeling from the effects of, and are now heading into another one... THANKS TO THE VERY SAME PEOPLE! They ruined Bush (not that he needed much help) and now they're ruining Obama (again, not that he needs much help!)
And yet the reaction by the Conservative media is all over the map!
CNN's Erickson Giddy About Downgrade Of U.S. Credit Rating
(what a rooting for failure scumbag!)
After Cheering Default, Bolling Laments Potential Effects Of Downgrade
Make up your fucking mind, you "Party of Personal Responsibility" HYPOCRITE!
Limbaugh Accuses Obama Of Orchestrating Decline Of America
Ok... I have to stop here, because this is just bat-shit fucking psychotic on multiple levels. First of all... "Yeah... because nothing gets a President re-elected like a really shitty economy, huh Rush?" And second of all, in the plane of prime material reality, on the planet EARTH, there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that this was orchestrated by ANYONE other than CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS simply because they knew their Corporate Media would the the "right" story / Right's story and people would blame Obama. Not that they'd really needed the propaganda machine here anyway: Blaming the President for a shitty economy is practically the American Past time!
Nostradumbass Uses Downgrade To Claim Vindication Of His Conspiracy Theories
Well, whoopdie-do for your crystal ball, Glenn! The Republicans have been trying to prevent recovery and orchestrate a full blown collapse since Obama took office! The only risk you were taking in that bet was whether or not they would succeed! (And we've know they would for some time, because Obama has all the spine of an invertebrate!) Of course... given you infinite wisdom into these matters... why are you consistently wrong on who RESPONSIBLE for it? Who's REALLY destroying this country, Glenn?! And what REALLY caused it Glenn? What POLICIES? (I'll give you a hint: The start with "Aw" and rhyme with "Posterity.")
Yeesh.
Yeah, it was a good "Media Matters Day" for me. On my lunch break, of course. ;)
I also finished Chapter 11 (ironically, LOL) of Utopia today over lunch as well. That puts me two Chapters ahead of what's posted so far, I just need to figure out how far to space out posting them. In any case, it's days like today that are my inspiration for writing it. Listening to these liars is one thing - makes me throw up in my mouth a little - but knowing how many glassy-eyed, brain-dead zombies there out there LISTENING to these frauds, and BELIEVING them... It just drives me fucking crazy. And Edward serves as an indulgence of those feeligns. Days like today make writing that - especially knowing what's to come - really, really fun.
Evil, yes. (And if you don't see it yet, you will.)
But F-U-N!
Now, in the West, "Why?" is a very confrontational question. Every time I hear "Why?" my minds follows it up with "...the hell do need [or need to know] that?!" I don't know if everyone feels that strongly about it, but I think you'll agree that if you ask me a simple, strait forward question and I answer why "Why?" it kind of puts you on the defensive, no? (Truth be told, in my experience, it really pisses most people off!)
Well... Anyway, they don't do it to be difficult pricks. (Although there's no shortage of people that seem to think that they do! LOL) They do it because they genuinely want to give you the best possible, most complete answer / information the first time so you will not be misled, and they will not waste your time. (And possibly so you won't come back and bother them again! LOL) And really, although it takes some getting used to when you hear it every. fucking. time, it's really not a bad philosophy. Really? When you think about it, it's almost always the PERFECT question to ask!
Now I mention that, because as part of my work (as an engineer) we often have to solve problems. And one of the Japanese methods (which I'm sure has been adopted in the west in some places or companies as well) of problem solving is called the FIVE WHY'S. It is believed that to get to the real root cause of any problem, you have to ask "Why?" at least FIVE TIMES.
Now... Take, for example: The Mortgage Meltdown of 2008. (Although extremely racist, this exercise is a lot more fun if you read the following questions with a Japanese accent.) (And, yes, I know that I'm going to hell for that.)
WHY did the economy tank?
(1) A lot of people were losing money on mortgage backed securities and the real estate bubble.
WHY were so many affected? (Or Why a was there bubble?)
(2) A lot of bad and risky loans were being written by the banks.
WHY were the banks writing these loans?
(3) They were making money from them. They were a huge source of revenue.
WHY were they making money off of them? (That's more of a HOW question, but it still works.)
(4) The were combining them with other loans into securities and were able to break up and sell the resulting product at a higher rate than it was truly worth.
WHY were they able to sell them as more than they were worth?
(5) Because the Bond Ratings Agencies were giving them AAA / Investment grade ratings even though they were hard too value, and no one knew what was really IN them.
Now...
Did you notice how I was able to go five layers deep without any real politics or opinion or partisan judgement coming into play? Of course, I can't go any farther without interjecting my own political "bias" (notice the "quotes" - I know that's just the bias of reality!) interfering with the analysis. But there you go: Five "why's" got us down to a pretty good route cause, with statements that (1) Even the most blatant partisan could not really argue the veracity of (though some of the dumber ones will try) and (2) has no judgement, no liberal-this or progressive-that necessary to reach this route cause. The mortgage meltdown happened because the ratings agencies inflated the grades of and overvalued these inherently risky assets. (If you're buying something and you don't know what it's worth or even what it really is? THAT'S RISKY. PERIOD!)
So I found it interesting, and I had to kick myself for not thinking of this myself the other day in my downgrade post, to read MMFA's take on the U.S. downgrade:
Attention Media: S&P Lacks Credibility
And it hit me like a thunderbolt! Of course! These are the same clowns who basically, single handedly tanked the U.S. economy, into a deep recession that, while it ended, at leats officially, we are still reeling from the effects of, and are now heading into another one... THANKS TO THE VERY SAME PEOPLE! They ruined Bush (not that he needed much help) and now they're ruining Obama (again, not that he needs much help!)
And yet the reaction by the Conservative media is all over the map!
CNN's Erickson Giddy About Downgrade Of U.S. Credit Rating
(what a rooting for failure scumbag!)
After Cheering Default, Bolling Laments Potential Effects Of Downgrade
Make up your fucking mind, you "Party of Personal Responsibility" HYPOCRITE!
Limbaugh Accuses Obama Of Orchestrating Decline Of America
Ok... I have to stop here, because this is just bat-shit fucking psychotic on multiple levels. First of all... "Yeah... because nothing gets a President re-elected like a really shitty economy, huh Rush?" And second of all, in the plane of prime material reality, on the planet EARTH, there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that this was orchestrated by ANYONE other than CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS simply because they knew their Corporate Media would the the "right" story / Right's story and people would blame Obama. Not that they'd really needed the propaganda machine here anyway: Blaming the President for a shitty economy is practically the American Past time!
Nostradumbass Uses Downgrade To Claim Vindication Of His Conspiracy Theories
Well, whoopdie-do for your crystal ball, Glenn! The Republicans have been trying to prevent recovery and orchestrate a full blown collapse since Obama took office! The only risk you were taking in that bet was whether or not they would succeed! (And we've know they would for some time, because Obama has all the spine of an invertebrate!) Of course... given you infinite wisdom into these matters... why are you consistently wrong on who RESPONSIBLE for it? Who's REALLY destroying this country, Glenn?! And what REALLY caused it Glenn? What POLICIES? (I'll give you a hint: The start with "Aw" and rhyme with "Posterity.")
Yeesh.
Yeah, it was a good "Media Matters Day" for me. On my lunch break, of course. ;)
I also finished Chapter 11 (ironically, LOL) of Utopia today over lunch as well. That puts me two Chapters ahead of what's posted so far, I just need to figure out how far to space out posting them. In any case, it's days like today that are my inspiration for writing it. Listening to these liars is one thing - makes me throw up in my mouth a little - but knowing how many glassy-eyed, brain-dead zombies there out there LISTENING to these frauds, and BELIEVING them... It just drives me fucking crazy. And Edward serves as an indulgence of those feeligns. Days like today make writing that - especially knowing what's to come - really, really fun.
Evil, yes. (And if you don't see it yet, you will.)
But F-U-N!
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, December 3, 2010
Glenn Beck is amazing!
In the Quentin Tarantino-written movie, True Romance, Don Vincenzo (played by Christopher Walken) explains to the soon-to-be-tortured-and-executed Clifford Whorley (played by the late Dennis Hopper) that “Sicilians are great liars,” and that “[his] father was the world heavy weight champion of Sicilian liars.” That may have been true in the Tarantino-verse, but I’m betting that his Don Vincenzo’s father couldn’t hold a CANDLE to the new heavyweight champion of American, Right Wing Liars: GLENN “BOOM-BOOM” BECK.
Consider this. As of earlier today, Media Matters has 4,424 items from this oracle of obfuscation, dating back to January 17th of 2006, when CNN first hired him. That’s exactly 1,781 days ago. Which means that Glenn Beck has lied an average of two and half (2.48) times a day*, every day, for the past FIVE YEARS! And that doesn’t even account for the time he was off the air between his ouster at CNN and when Fox picked him up. Now… one might say that maybe he’s not “lying,” per se, because he actually believes this stuff, or that he’s not “lying,” just really bad at research, journalism, etc… But I’m not willing to give him the benefit of that doubt here. Because when you rake in over $30 Million Dollars a year to talk about current events, you really should GET IT RIGHT occasionally. If you’re paid that much, and screw up two and half times a day for five years? You’re a paid liar, and you know it.
This past week however, Glenn Beck has truly outdone himself, both with the number of lies, the diversity of subject matter, and the absolute, utter absurdity of the claims being made. The following are just SOME of the items from MMFA, just in past couple of days:
Here’s Beck, making things up about the Food Safety Bill,
And finally, making things up about Net Neutrality.
That last one is particularly artful/egregious, as it manages to conflate the RW distortion of the Fairness Doctrine, which was taken off the books almost 10 years before the Internet was even a thing, and their idiotic opposition to Net Neutrality which (usually) amounts to little more than “It’s a violation of their freedom of speech to prohibit them from censoring you. ” It’s also truly amazing, when you consider the long established RW opposition to Net Neutrality, that he could seriously manage to screw up the basic premise of the issue that badly.
But then… He’s Glenn Beck. A very good candidate to become MMFA’s very first TWO-TIME Misinformer of the year! (He’s definitely got MY vote!)
(And no, I don’t get a vote.)
*As a point of comparison, Rush Limbaugh had only 2,953 items, dating back to 1/6/06, for an average of just 1.65 lies a day. And Rush has his own section on the website! And yet Glenn Beck is still about 50% more dishonest – by just under a lie a day, over five years – than Rush Limbaugh! Who have thought that was possible?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Gold Star Awards, November, 2010
The Joe DiMaggio Gold Star #29: ALECWatch
Well, this month started with a piece about ALEC, which may have (finally) represented my loss of innocence when it comes to American Democracy and the death of any remaining idealistic misconceptions I may have had about who’s really in charge in this country. So it’s only appropriate that I start out the final post of the month by awarding the prestigious (ha!) Joe DiMaggio Gold Star to a group dedicated to exposing the truth behind the greatest shadowy political conspiracy the world over that nobody’s talking about. Now… Unfortunately, it seems that this site has not been updated for several years. And I think that’s a shame, because what they DO have there is critically important information that people need to know about. So, if anyone has some information about a more up-to-date ALEC watchdog site, PLEASE let me know and I will be sure to highlight them as well. IMHO, ALEC, more so than any other organization in the world, represents the single greatest threat to the American Democracy. Al Qaeda are bush-league compared to ALEC. Al Qaeda can only know down buildings and kill a few people. That’s horrible, to be sure, but we lost more Americans last year due to reduced vaccination rates than we typically lose to terrorism. (So Al Qaeda's roughly as dangerous to America as Jenny McCarthy.) ALEC, OTOH, is actively and effectively destroying the very soul and fabric of the Country and of the very ideals of popular, representative Democracy that the terrorists hate so much. And at least we’re actually FIGHTING Al-Qaeda. ALEC is a CANCER that we WELCOME into our political system the way an addict welcomes his own chosen poison. They are WINNING in territory that terrorists never even considered fighting for.
The Gabby Hartnett Gold Star #30: Mother Jones
I’ve made no secret of the contempt that I feel for what remains of mainstream journalism. IMHO, even the least of the bloggers do a passably better job of analysis than the average Cable news show, who so often can’t even get basic FACTS right. But if there is a website anywhere that’s more than a blog, and yet practiced journalism the way it is MEANT to be practiced, that site is Mother Jones. I’m a newcomer to their publication, but I have been consistently impressed at the depth and fearlessness with which the pursue their stories. To call them the “NPR of the web” would not even be complimentary. Check them out.
The Ted Lyons Gold Star #31: Down with Tyranny
I’ll have to apologize to the folks at DWT… I am having an increasingly difficult time finding ways to praise my favorite blogs in a way that differentiates them from those that I’ve honored before. The problem is that when I come across a blog that I want to add here, it is usually for the same reasons that I’ve included so many others: Well written; witty, if not humorous; makes me think / challenges me intellectually; etc… And in that regard Down With Tyranny is right up there with Left Hook, Midnight Review, Political Irony, etc… So while I hate to say, “One more great blog that I follow,” unfortunately there is not much I can say that hasn’t been said two or three times before. But they rock. So check them out!
The Dazzy Vance Gold Star #32: Beck Unhinged
Who can’t admire a site that highlight just how utterly bat-shit crazy the now face of Fox News, Glenn Beck, is. Funny in the same way as “$#!t my Dad Says” or Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin (using Palin’s own words) this site makes Glenn Beck look ridiculous but using only quotes from… GLENN BECK. If that’s not doing the Lord’s good work, I don’t know what is. LOL.
The Frank “Home Run” Baker Silver Star #21: Blip
Blip is another of my favorite web comics. It’s about a girl who’s existence was not fated to happen, and thus represents a threat to fabric of reality itself. Heaven has set about suppressing the girl’s creative talents – in order to save the universe, but making her miserable in the process – while Lucifer attempts to unleash her power – by allowing her a modicum of well-deserved happiness. It’s a well written story, with crative and original characters, taking place in a well conceived world of angels, demos and even ancient Gods. It’s at times philosophical, hilarious, poignant, romantic and (recently) tear-jerking. In short this is #1 on my list of favorite web comics at the moments, and well worth checking out. As with all web-comics, I recommend reading it from the beginning.
The Ray Schalk Silver Star #22: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
I’ve recently used several pieces of SMBC that I’ve found relevant, but in truth, if I didn’t stop myself, I’d probably be able to find a use for about 99% of the site’s content. They’re absolutely hilarious and absolute relevant, politically and philosophically. You will seldom find a comic that is both finnier and more intelligent. Check them out. You’ll laugh. A lot. (And since the strip is not serial, this is not one you have to read in any particular order.)
------------------------------------------------------
BTW... The Fred Clarke Silver Star winner, Item Not as Described has been taken down and/or been devoured by the Cheeseburger Network. And that's cool, but since (1) They're no longer maintaining the "Free Shit from Craig's List" content, and (2) they already has several Silver Stars to their credit already (FailBlog, Ugliest Tattoos, Engrish) I'm going to replace this link with a new one at some point.
One More Piece of News... The Hughie Jennings' Silver Star winner, web comic YU&ME: Dream has finished it's run. (*sad*) The author, Megan Gedris, finished the story on her own terms and created what I honestly believe to be one of the most complex, creative, whimsical, romantic, thoughtful, and just flat out cool, (not to mention COMPLETED!) web comic around, and has now moved on to another project, which is also totally worth checking out. I'll read anything she writes at this point, but only time will tell if it'll get a Star of it's own in the future. If you haven't read YU&ME: Dream yet, you can do so now, knowing that you will actually be able to FINISH it. And I guarantee you won't be disappointed!
Well, this month started with a piece about ALEC, which may have (finally) represented my loss of innocence when it comes to American Democracy and the death of any remaining idealistic misconceptions I may have had about who’s really in charge in this country. So it’s only appropriate that I start out the final post of the month by awarding the prestigious (ha!) Joe DiMaggio Gold Star to a group dedicated to exposing the truth behind the greatest shadowy political conspiracy the world over that nobody’s talking about. Now… Unfortunately, it seems that this site has not been updated for several years. And I think that’s a shame, because what they DO have there is critically important information that people need to know about. So, if anyone has some information about a more up-to-date ALEC watchdog site, PLEASE let me know and I will be sure to highlight them as well. IMHO, ALEC, more so than any other organization in the world, represents the single greatest threat to the American Democracy. Al Qaeda are bush-league compared to ALEC. Al Qaeda can only know down buildings and kill a few people. That’s horrible, to be sure, but we lost more Americans last year due to reduced vaccination rates than we typically lose to terrorism. (So Al Qaeda's roughly as dangerous to America as Jenny McCarthy.) ALEC, OTOH, is actively and effectively destroying the very soul and fabric of the Country and of the very ideals of popular, representative Democracy that the terrorists hate so much. And at least we’re actually FIGHTING Al-Qaeda. ALEC is a CANCER that we WELCOME into our political system the way an addict welcomes his own chosen poison. They are WINNING in territory that terrorists never even considered fighting for.
The Gabby Hartnett Gold Star #30: Mother Jones
I’ve made no secret of the contempt that I feel for what remains of mainstream journalism. IMHO, even the least of the bloggers do a passably better job of analysis than the average Cable news show, who so often can’t even get basic FACTS right. But if there is a website anywhere that’s more than a blog, and yet practiced journalism the way it is MEANT to be practiced, that site is Mother Jones. I’m a newcomer to their publication, but I have been consistently impressed at the depth and fearlessness with which the pursue their stories. To call them the “NPR of the web” would not even be complimentary. Check them out.
The Ted Lyons Gold Star #31: Down with Tyranny
I’ll have to apologize to the folks at DWT… I am having an increasingly difficult time finding ways to praise my favorite blogs in a way that differentiates them from those that I’ve honored before. The problem is that when I come across a blog that I want to add here, it is usually for the same reasons that I’ve included so many others: Well written; witty, if not humorous; makes me think / challenges me intellectually; etc… And in that regard Down With Tyranny is right up there with Left Hook, Midnight Review, Political Irony, etc… So while I hate to say, “One more great blog that I follow,” unfortunately there is not much I can say that hasn’t been said two or three times before. But they rock. So check them out!
The Dazzy Vance Gold Star #32: Beck Unhinged
Who can’t admire a site that highlight just how utterly bat-shit crazy the now face of Fox News, Glenn Beck, is. Funny in the same way as “$#!t my Dad Says” or Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin (using Palin’s own words) this site makes Glenn Beck look ridiculous but using only quotes from… GLENN BECK. If that’s not doing the Lord’s good work, I don’t know what is. LOL.
The Frank “Home Run” Baker Silver Star #21: Blip
Blip is another of my favorite web comics. It’s about a girl who’s existence was not fated to happen, and thus represents a threat to fabric of reality itself. Heaven has set about suppressing the girl’s creative talents – in order to save the universe, but making her miserable in the process – while Lucifer attempts to unleash her power – by allowing her a modicum of well-deserved happiness. It’s a well written story, with crative and original characters, taking place in a well conceived world of angels, demos and even ancient Gods. It’s at times philosophical, hilarious, poignant, romantic and (recently) tear-jerking. In short this is #1 on my list of favorite web comics at the moments, and well worth checking out. As with all web-comics, I recommend reading it from the beginning.
The Ray Schalk Silver Star #22: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
I’ve recently used several pieces of SMBC that I’ve found relevant, but in truth, if I didn’t stop myself, I’d probably be able to find a use for about 99% of the site’s content. They’re absolutely hilarious and absolute relevant, politically and philosophically. You will seldom find a comic that is both finnier and more intelligent. Check them out. You’ll laugh. A lot. (And since the strip is not serial, this is not one you have to read in any particular order.)
------------------------------------------------------
BTW... The Fred Clarke Silver Star winner, Item Not as Described has been taken down and/or been devoured by the Cheeseburger Network. And that's cool, but since (1) They're no longer maintaining the "Free Shit from Craig's List" content, and (2) they already has several Silver Stars to their credit already (FailBlog, Ugliest Tattoos, Engrish) I'm going to replace this link with a new one at some point.
One More Piece of News... The Hughie Jennings' Silver Star winner, web comic YU&ME: Dream has finished it's run. (*sad*) The author, Megan Gedris, finished the story on her own terms and created what I honestly believe to be one of the most complex, creative, whimsical, romantic, thoughtful, and just flat out cool, (not to mention COMPLETED!) web comic around, and has now moved on to another project, which is also totally worth checking out. I'll read anything she writes at this point, but only time will tell if it'll get a Star of it's own in the future. If you haven't read YU&ME: Dream yet, you can do so now, knowing that you will actually be able to FINISH it. And I guarantee you won't be disappointed!
Monday, November 15, 2010
Glenn Beck meets Donald Duck
OMG! Have you seen this yet?
Funny as hell. Captures the spirit and message of that hypocritical, lying snake PERFECTLY, not to mention the double-speak! The gap between rich and poor keeps growng, so vote REPUBLICAN?!
That he is both (1) somewhat popular and (2) still a net positive for the GOP, is proof of just how stupid this country has become. Listening to this, I've decided that Glenn Beck is NOT crazy, and NOT stupid. He's a very, VERY EVIL MAN. And I never would have thought I'd have underestimated that quality in one of these Right -Wingers. But he is, and I did. He's an damned evil genius! He rubs people faces in everything the Right-wing has done to them, and yet somehow convinces then it's all the LEET's fault! (And they you should give him money!) It abso-fucking-lutely BRILLIANT!
For more like this, check out http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/.
And if you haven't given me your two cents yet, here's my paypal address... no, just kidding! LOL If you haven't given me your two cents yet, please be sure to comment on my Question for y'all post. I've got about 3/4 of the overall plot roughly outlined, but I still want to know how "real" (or how fictional) this 'real world' shoudl be. Thanks!
Funny as hell. Captures the spirit and message of that hypocritical, lying snake PERFECTLY, not to mention the double-speak! The gap between rich and poor keeps growng, so vote REPUBLICAN?!
That he is both (1) somewhat popular and (2) still a net positive for the GOP, is proof of just how stupid this country has become. Listening to this, I've decided that Glenn Beck is NOT crazy, and NOT stupid. He's a very, VERY EVIL MAN. And I never would have thought I'd have underestimated that quality in one of these Right -Wingers. But he is, and I did. He's an damned evil genius! He rubs people faces in everything the Right-wing has done to them, and yet somehow convinces then it's all the LEET's fault! (And they you should give him money!) It abso-fucking-lutely BRILLIANT!
For more like this, check out http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/.
And if you haven't given me your two cents yet, here's my paypal address... no, just kidding! LOL If you haven't given me your two cents yet, please be sure to comment on my Question for y'all post. I've got about 3/4 of the overall plot roughly outlined, but I still want to know how "real" (or how fictional) this 'real world' shoudl be. Thanks!
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Open Fascism
Many of us have made case that the new American Right Wing are a bunch of fascists. I have. Classic Liberal has. Down With Tyranny has. And so have many others. And the situation on the Right has now devolved to the point where they apparently think Godwin’s Law will continue to shield them from any and all criticism, indefinitely. But they are WAAAY beyond the point of merely abusing that otherwise reasonable principle: they’ve beaten it to a bloody death with their bare hands and ass-raped its still-warm corpse.
And now you can MMFA to the mix: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011120017
Granted, that piece was exclusively about Glenn Beck (well… and his handlers/enablers at Fox) but we are all grown up enough by now to know full well that this is just the latest, and arguably most blatant, example in what is becoming a disturbing and disgusting trend in American Right-Wing Politics.
I particularly want commenter Duta to read that piece. Because while I won’t ever try to over-simplify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the online company of someone who LIVES there – there’s no doubt in my mind that there’s nothing I can tell her about it, and plenty she could tell me – I think she (and many others) grossly oversimplify our Right Wing’s policy of unwavering support of Israel.
My advice is just this:
You should be very wary of the support you get from a group of people who LOVE ISREAL, but HATE JEWS.
And now you can MMFA to the mix: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011120017
Granted, that piece was exclusively about Glenn Beck (well… and his handlers/enablers at Fox) but we are all grown up enough by now to know full well that this is just the latest, and arguably most blatant, example in what is becoming a disturbing and disgusting trend in American Right-Wing Politics.
I particularly want commenter Duta to read that piece. Because while I won’t ever try to over-simplify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the online company of someone who LIVES there – there’s no doubt in my mind that there’s nothing I can tell her about it, and plenty she could tell me – I think she (and many others) grossly oversimplify our Right Wing’s policy of unwavering support of Israel.
My advice is just this:
You should be very wary of the support you get from a group of people who LOVE ISREAL, but HATE JEWS.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Gold Star Awards, September, 2010
Yeah, yeah, I know, they're a day late. No one reads these entries anyway, so sue me. LOL
We're up to 1953 - and that means two golds, and two... (*ahem*) lesser metals.
The Dizzy Dean Gold Star #24: Republicans for Obama
I just like these guys! If the Republican Party, were more like these dudes? I'd still be a Republican. Oh, I'd still be a centrist / maverick / soclially liberal / libertarian type, but these guys support Obama for pretty much the same reason I DO: He's a moderate, and he's got good ideas.
If there is a single element of the Republican Party left that doesn't put Party interests WAAAY ahead of those of the country, these guys represent it.
The Al Simmons Gold Star #25: Open Secrets
If there is a single force in politics MORE destrucutive than Religion... Wait... No, sorry, strike that: Religion will ALWAYS be number one.
But what will consistantly rank a very distant second is CORPORATE INTERESTS. And I absolutley hold to this principle regardless of Party. (After all, all of the worst parts of every Obama policy have corporate fingerprints all over them!) So I'd have no problem requiring public disclsoure from politicians recieveing money from ANY such group. (Even those whiny little bitches over at the NRA!) Since we'll basically NEVER have that, I salute these guys who are doing the next best thing and EXPOSING who's getting what. It sad that this is needed in an open, Democratic society, but as long as it is I hope these guys keep up the good work!
The Chief Bender Iron Star: BigGovernment
September 2010 markes the one-year anniversary of a website "presented by" the worst journalist who ever lived, not named "James O'Keefe:" Andrew Brietbart's BigGovernment. Few greater repositories of Rigth-Wing spin and out-Right misinformation have ever been spawned. Mister Breitbart? You have accomplished a truly ignoble achievement in your work. Congratulations. If there is a God in heaven and justice on this earth, you will die a very poor, very hungry, very lonely and despised man.
BTW... This "honor" is meant to represent ALL of the "Big" sites. I'm not wasting anymore keystrokes in the future on a waste of donor organs like Andrew Brietbart.
The Bobby Wallace Iron Oxide Star: The Blaze
What better way to honor the birthday of one of the web's most vomit inducing sites than to simulataneously honor the site it inspired: Glen Beck's, the Blaze.
Um...
Do I really need to say anything else here? I mean... It's fucking Glenn Beck for fucksake! Glenn Beck, following the inspiration of Andrew Breitbart! Do you really expect me to top that?!
"Can you lead me though this minefield?" said Ray Charles to Stevie Wonder.
I hope everyone has a great weekend!
We're up to 1953 - and that means two golds, and two... (*ahem*) lesser metals.
The Dizzy Dean Gold Star #24: Republicans for Obama
I just like these guys! If the Republican Party, were more like these dudes? I'd still be a Republican. Oh, I'd still be a centrist / maverick / soclially liberal / libertarian type, but these guys support Obama for pretty much the same reason I DO: He's a moderate, and he's got good ideas.
If there is a single element of the Republican Party left that doesn't put Party interests WAAAY ahead of those of the country, these guys represent it.
The Al Simmons Gold Star #25: Open Secrets
If there is a single force in politics MORE destrucutive than Religion... Wait... No, sorry, strike that: Religion will ALWAYS be number one.
But what will consistantly rank a very distant second is CORPORATE INTERESTS. And I absolutley hold to this principle regardless of Party. (After all, all of the worst parts of every Obama policy have corporate fingerprints all over them!) So I'd have no problem requiring public disclsoure from politicians recieveing money from ANY such group. (Even those whiny little bitches over at the NRA!) Since we'll basically NEVER have that, I salute these guys who are doing the next best thing and EXPOSING who's getting what. It sad that this is needed in an open, Democratic society, but as long as it is I hope these guys keep up the good work!
The Chief Bender Iron Star: BigGovernment
September 2010 markes the one-year anniversary of a website "presented by" the worst journalist who ever lived, not named "James O'Keefe:" Andrew Brietbart's BigGovernment. Few greater repositories of Rigth-Wing spin and out-Right misinformation have ever been spawned. Mister Breitbart? You have accomplished a truly ignoble achievement in your work. Congratulations. If there is a God in heaven and justice on this earth, you will die a very poor, very hungry, very lonely and despised man.
BTW... This "honor" is meant to represent ALL of the "Big" sites. I'm not wasting anymore keystrokes in the future on a waste of donor organs like Andrew Brietbart.
The Bobby Wallace Iron Oxide Star: The Blaze
What better way to honor the birthday of one of the web's most vomit inducing sites than to simulataneously honor the site it inspired: Glen Beck's, the Blaze.
Um...
Do I really need to say anything else here? I mean... It's fucking Glenn Beck for fucksake! Glenn Beck, following the inspiration of Andrew Breitbart! Do you really expect me to top that?!
"Can you lead me though this minefield?" said Ray Charles to Stevie Wonder.
I hope everyone has a great weekend!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Back, finally!
I’m back!
Sorry, I was out of town all last week and didn’t find a whole lot of time for posting, and I've been so busy as a result, this week has flown by as well!
I was down in Arizona, visiting out plant in Mexico. We’d heard a lot of rumors about how difficult it was going to be to cross the border (and cross back) but we didn’t have any trouble at all. We did see a checkpoint in AZ that in the past was either closed or just waved people through that was really back up (thank you Jan Brewer) but by the time we finally hit it (heading back north) we were just waved through.
Since we had been to Mexico (and needed our passport anyway) we would have been prepared later that evening when we got pulled over for speeding. (You know, if the cops were still required to check for citizenship.) But there was no need (no thanks to Jan Brewer) and we were let off with a warning. (Good thing we didn’t look illegal, huh? Not that I’m suggesting that they racially profile or anything!)
Anyway, enough of that.
Although a few of these are out of date at this points, there are a few things I came accross over the past two weeks that I wanted to share with y’all...
Glenn Beck’s big rally cam and went without the Rapture occurring or the Second Coming or even free Ice Cream fro the kids. Considering how much hey pumped it up over the past few months, I’d imagine that the bulk of the crowd ended up thinking, “THAT was what I came to D.C.? Oh well, at least the weather was nice.” (But maybe not, I mean if you’re impressed by Glenn Beck, you can’t be that hard to impress!) Daily Kos had a interest first hand account of the event, from a liberal Black man who attended out of curiosity. Very enlightening read. Worth checking out.
Robert Kuttner had a savage response to the rumblings of the Cat-food commission regarding social security. It’s amazing how easy these problems would be to sovle, and how far even the “liberal” (notice the “quotes”?) politicians are willing to go to screw over the lower 99% of the country to satisfy the top 1%. We’re NOT a "conservative country” but we sure as hell are RULED by them, aren’t we? What the hell would it take to get congress to just ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE? Why is that SO HARD? What would it take? Breaking out the tar and feathers? Shooting some of them? Seriously! But then it’s no surprise that even our “liberal” (notice the “quotes”?) politicans are so god dmaned useless, because we have such a stupid and uneducated electorate that doesn’t hold them accountable! And since the “liberal” (notice the “quotes”?) media is no better, it’s not surprising at all that we have such a stupid and uneducated populace! In fact, it’s depressingly predicatble.
And what the fuck is up with THESE PEOPLE?! Book-burning? Really? One of the most visible and recognizable hallmarks of the Nazi’s, and every other vile Dictatorship and suppression of human rights and free expression and free religious practice that America ever stood against? That’s what we’ve been reduced to? What UnAmerican SCUM. I hope their church burns down with their children asleep in the nursery
(No. I'm not apologizing for that last bit. Fuck 'em.)
Coming up in the next few days…
- A continuation of Steeve’s and my conversation about the origin of Christianity.
- A Republican Propaganda Video that shows just how gullible Republican’s are.
- And I’ve read and replied to all of the comments that you’ve all left over the past couple weeks, just so you know that I DO read them and very much appreciate them!
Sorry, I was out of town all last week and didn’t find a whole lot of time for posting, and I've been so busy as a result, this week has flown by as well!
I was down in Arizona, visiting out plant in Mexico. We’d heard a lot of rumors about how difficult it was going to be to cross the border (and cross back) but we didn’t have any trouble at all. We did see a checkpoint in AZ that in the past was either closed or just waved people through that was really back up (thank you Jan Brewer) but by the time we finally hit it (heading back north) we were just waved through.
Guard: What country y’all from?No need to check the passports or ID’s of anyone who doesn’t look illegal, I guess. (Not that I’m suggesting that they racially profile or anything!)
Us: This one!
Guard: OK, have a nice day.
Since we had been to Mexico (and needed our passport anyway) we would have been prepared later that evening when we got pulled over for speeding. (You know, if the cops were still required to check for citizenship.) But there was no need (no thanks to Jan Brewer) and we were let off with a warning. (Good thing we didn’t look illegal, huh? Not that I’m suggesting that they racially profile or anything!)
Anyway, enough of that.
Although a few of these are out of date at this points, there are a few things I came accross over the past two weeks that I wanted to share with y’all...
Glenn Beck’s big rally cam and went without the Rapture occurring or the Second Coming or even free Ice Cream fro the kids. Considering how much hey pumped it up over the past few months, I’d imagine that the bulk of the crowd ended up thinking, “THAT was what I came to D.C.? Oh well, at least the weather was nice.” (But maybe not, I mean if you’re impressed by Glenn Beck, you can’t be that hard to impress!) Daily Kos had a interest first hand account of the event, from a liberal Black man who attended out of curiosity. Very enlightening read. Worth checking out.
Robert Kuttner had a savage response to the rumblings of the Cat-food commission regarding social security. It’s amazing how easy these problems would be to sovle, and how far even the “liberal” (notice the “quotes”?) politicians are willing to go to screw over the lower 99% of the country to satisfy the top 1%. We’re NOT a "conservative country” but we sure as hell are RULED by them, aren’t we? What the hell would it take to get congress to just ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE? Why is that SO HARD? What would it take? Breaking out the tar and feathers? Shooting some of them? Seriously! But then it’s no surprise that even our “liberal” (notice the “quotes”?) politicans are so god dmaned useless, because we have such a stupid and uneducated electorate that doesn’t hold them accountable! And since the “liberal” (notice the “quotes”?) media is no better, it’s not surprising at all that we have such a stupid and uneducated populace! In fact, it’s depressingly predicatble.
And what the fuck is up with THESE PEOPLE?! Book-burning? Really? One of the most visible and recognizable hallmarks of the Nazi’s, and every other vile Dictatorship and suppression of human rights and free expression and free religious practice that America ever stood against? That’s what we’ve been reduced to? What UnAmerican SCUM. I hope their church burns down with their children asleep in the nursery
(No. I'm not apologizing for that last bit. Fuck 'em.)
Coming up in the next few days…
- A continuation of Steeve’s and my conversation about the origin of Christianity.
- A Republican Propaganda Video that shows just how gullible Republican’s are.
- And I’ve read and replied to all of the comments that you’ve all left over the past couple weeks, just so you know that I DO read them and very much appreciate them!
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.
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!)
Monday, July 19, 2010
A Joke I'll Surely go to Hell for...
(Assuming I'm wrong about God.)
I just read that Glen Beck is going blind. So... Beck's BLIND, and Limbaugh's DEAF.
So we've got "See no evil" and "Hear no evil." But when I tried to figure out who "Speak no evil" would be...
Well...
...Of course THAT would have to be a LIBERAL!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I'm a shit for thinking that, but here was a very like-minded commenter (Cimarronrose) from that same column:
I just read that Glen Beck is going blind. So... Beck's BLIND, and Limbaugh's DEAF.
So we've got "See no evil" and "Hear no evil." But when I tried to figure out who "Speak no evil" would be...
Well...
...Of course THAT would have to be a LIBERAL!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I'm a shit for thinking that, but here was a very like-minded commenter (Cimarronrose) from that same column:
Limbaugh is deaf, Palin is dumb, and now Beck is going blind...karma is like God... you either believe in it or you don't...in this case I'm a true believer.Well... I'm still not. But I appreciate your POV none the less.
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.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The Bay of Rigs
Rush Limbaugh must have been a fantastic bully in grade school. And I don't just say that as one of the typical liberal attacks on the man. I say that because if he has a singular skill, something he's just REALLY GOOD at, it's making up goofy names for things that stick in people's heads. He was like that kid in school (usually the bully or one of his lackey's) that could find some rhyming, vulgar perversion of pretty much ANYONE'S name. Something that made a really catchy chant or something. Remember: This is the guy who coined terms like Feminazi, Testicle Lockbox, etc... Most of these are just purile and offensive of course, but evey now and then - credit where it's due - there are some real gems.
And his latest - Obama's "Bay of Rigs?" Come on - that's pretty clever, no? I mean, yeah... It missies the mark completely and is a pretty pathetic attempt to blame Obama for... what? Not banning all off-shore drilling, and hence given them a change to portray as some kind of paranoid environmentalist for not allowing the practice that led to the disaster that they're now trying to blame on him... You know what? Let's not even try to follow thier "reasoning" there. So much circular login and catch-22's make me dizzy. Gives me a headache.
But "Bay of Rigs" is still way better than the media once again trotting out "Obama's Waterloo." I mean...How many Waterloo's can one fascist, communist dictator HAVE anyway? If Napolean was allowed this many Waterloo's, he could have taken over the entire world. Or "Obama's Katrina." I don't recall 20,000 people, 1,300 vessels and [the hurricaine equivalent of] almost 2 Million feet of containment boom being sent to 17 different staging areas to protect said areas during Katrina. I remember some Jackass from Texas doing a fly-by, playing air guitar and saying "heckova job, Brownie." They may WANT this to be Obama's "Katrina" - as in, the moment that the public starts to turn on him in a big way, like they did on Bush. There's only one problem: You can't just SAY "Katrina" over and over again and somehow make it so. There needs to be a collossal fuck-up on his part (you know, kind of like during Hurricane Katrina?) for the meme to have any teeth.
As for the "Waterloo" comparison? This is far more likely to be BP's "Waterloo" or the Oil Indusury's "Waterloo" or Off-Shore Drilling's "Waterloo" than Obama's. I mean... who was the Party of "Drill Baby Drill"? Who's the party that's always poo-pooing environmentalistrs, government regulators, industry watchdogs, etc... I'm telling you. This should be the REPUBLICANS' "Waterloo" or - since they're all a bunch of cowboys, and they hate French so much anyway - the Republicans' "Alamo." (Considering how much they all "remember the Alamo" it's funny that they always seem to forget that we LOST at the Alamo. LOL)
Do you know what I'd be doing from now until November if I were runnign for office as a Democrat? I'd be constantly running a commercial which starts out with the Drill-Baby-Drill chant, complete with the most recognizable icons of the Republican Party (Palin, Bush, the guy I'd be running against...) and have it slowly morph so that by the end the chant has changed to SPILL, BABY SPILL. Maybe turn the Republican Logo into something like this:
(Mastodons stuck in the Tar Pits)
Because this disaster can only REALLY be a problem for the Republicans. There's no way to completely pevent something like from happening and, as BP has been busy proving for the last month, there's no way to fix it if it does. About the time this shit starts washing up on the beaches of the British Isles, maybe people will start realizing what a disastrous energy policy it really is! And they're the ones that have been puching so hard for it all these decades! Heckuva of a job, Pub's!
But there's something here that the conservative mind can't seem to wrap it's head around: It's not about what happens on who's watch. Nor is it the PERSON who makes a policy good or bad. If you ever bring up George W. Bush to a conservative, many are quick to acknowledge the failure of the MAN, even as they aregue for the very policies he supported! It's like the problem was just Bush and Bush alone and not the policies he advocated for - like, oh, I don't know... Scrapping Kyoto and pushing for expanded drilling, perhaps? And they assume that we think the same way - that we flocked to Obama on the basis of the man alone. That somehow if they could just tarnish the Obama brand, people will go back to their brand. And granted... some will. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have made a career out of this phenonmenon. But what is lost of these fools is that Liberals never viewed Obama as this Messiah figure that they tried to lampoon him as. He could never be our George W. Bush, becuase we never invested so much of our faith and hope in him they way they did with Bush. We have no problem criticizing Obama. In fact... the more liberal you are, the more likely it seems that you'd be willing to take him to task. But they just don't get this. They just don't understand that we don't follow our politicians in a sheep-like manner the way they do. That's the Democrat's biggest problem as a party: No unity! The Republican's all march in lockstep, and yet somehow WE'RE the "sheep!" WTF?
Now granted... Obama probably has SOME egg on his face for announcing expanded of shore drilling a mere two (?) weeks before the exploision that kicked off this disaster. But this rig's permit was not granted as a result of that statement and you can bet he's going to go back on that statement big time moving forward. Otherwise this really would be his "Waterloo." And Rush Limbaugh can whine all he wants how how environmentalists are "happy" about this disaster. We get no satisafaction out of saying "I told you so." What can't be ignored is that we were right, they were wrong, and our ENERGY POLICY needs to change. The short term damage is now every bit as serious and the long-term consequences. But the public needs to be constantly reminded who was REALLY advocating for this policy. Becuase it's not just about WHO is in charge, but WHAT THEY STAND FOR. And "more of the same" should no longer be palatable to ANYONE.
"Bay of Rigs" is still pretty funny though... Let's just make sure it's appled to the Republicans, K?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Four Levels of Conservative Reasoning
This week has had something in common with pretty much EVERY week since 1/20/09: Just when we think Rush Limbaugh can't stoop any lower or Glen Beck can't possibly get any more insane, the Right once again prooves us wrong, and shames us for underestimating them so. At first, I was thinking that the lies, spin, slander and insanity that's come out in the past week (too much to even elaborate on - check out MMFA, and pick ANY ITEM at random for a perfect example) was somehow unique, somehow WORSE than it's ever been. THEN I realized just how often it was that I've felt that way over the past 18 months!
So to help anyone out who just can't understand it anymore, I've identified four degrees of conservative reasoning. Four levels that can help you gauge the exact level of insanity we've reached on any given issue or discussion...
Level One: Bill O’Rielly / John Boehner - Mitch McConnell
Person A tries to argue a conservative position. Person B refutes their argument with facts, research, evidence, reason and logic.
The liberal concludes that person A is wrong.
The conservative concludes that person B is liberal.
Level Two: Sean Hannity / Trent Lott - Tom DeLay
Person A, in attempting to defend the conservative position, is caught in a demonstrable lie by person B.
The liberal concludes that, as the argument was predicated on a falsehood, person A must be wrong.
The conservative concludes that since person A is conservative, person B must be wrong.
Level Three: Rush Limbaugh / James Inhofe - Jim Bunning
Person B further presents person A with strong, scientific evidence that his (conservative) position is wrong.
The liberal concludes that the conservative position is weak because it’s not supported by evidence
The conservative concludes that the evidence is weak, since it doesn’t support the conservative position.
Level 4: Glenn Beck / Michelle Bachman - Sarah Palin
Person A continues to spout falsehoods and starts displaying hypocritical, faux outrage over non-stories, made up allegations and paranoid nonsense. Person B continues to demonstrate that each point, in turn is becoming increasingly desperate and absurd.
The liberal wonders why anyone is still listening to person A.
The conservative wonders why person B hates his country so much.
So to help anyone out who just can't understand it anymore, I've identified four degrees of conservative reasoning. Four levels that can help you gauge the exact level of insanity we've reached on any given issue or discussion...
Level One: Bill O’Rielly / John Boehner - Mitch McConnell
Person A tries to argue a conservative position. Person B refutes their argument with facts, research, evidence, reason and logic.
The liberal concludes that person A is wrong.
The conservative concludes that person B is liberal.
Level Two: Sean Hannity / Trent Lott - Tom DeLay
Person A, in attempting to defend the conservative position, is caught in a demonstrable lie by person B.
The liberal concludes that, as the argument was predicated on a falsehood, person A must be wrong.
The conservative concludes that since person A is conservative, person B must be wrong.
Level Three: Rush Limbaugh / James Inhofe - Jim Bunning
Person B further presents person A with strong, scientific evidence that his (conservative) position is wrong.
The liberal concludes that the conservative position is weak because it’s not supported by evidence
The conservative concludes that the evidence is weak, since it doesn’t support the conservative position.
Level 4: Glenn Beck / Michelle Bachman - Sarah Palin
Person A continues to spout falsehoods and starts displaying hypocritical, faux outrage over non-stories, made up allegations and paranoid nonsense. Person B continues to demonstrate that each point, in turn is becoming increasingly desperate and absurd.
The liberal wonders why anyone is still listening to person A.
The conservative wonders why person B hates his country so much.
Friday, May 14, 2010
More Friday Fun: Nazi Tourette's
OK... Even though it WORKED, the Google Tag Poetry was still pretty lame. So... for anyone who hasn't yet seen Lewis Balck completely pwn Glenn beck on the Daily Show, or catch the replay on Countdown, here you go. This is what genius sounds like.
"What you gotta do, is find an attic!"
Brilliant.
"What you gotta do, is find an attic!"
Brilliant.
Friday Fun: Google Tag Poetry
Google Tag Poetry
Glen Beck is a psychotic hack
Sponsors want their money back
Sean Hannity is a stupid fool
About as welcome as “P” in pool
Rush Limbaugh tells naught but lies
With his "degree" he should be serving fries
Mike Savage spews naught but hatred
His father should have been castrated
Ann Coulter is a stupid bitch
The sight of her makes me itch
Sarah Palin is a sellout
Of her lack of soul I have no doubt
Joe Scarborough… at least he tries
To sort out truth from Right Wing Lies
And all them still outrank Tucker
That bow-tie wearin’ mother…
LOL. OK... The point of this REALLY BAD poem is to see whether Google’s tag-bots just look for NAMES and WORDS or if they do anything at all to consider context. Because every time I mention one of these fools in a post, the next thing I see is an ad for their book, blog, show, etc… appearing right below the post.
Not that I mind! Those ads seem to PAY a lot better, and lest you think I’m selling out, remember: The more you click on them, the more of their money goes to me to write blog entries calling out their insanity! Google doesn’t want me to tell you to click the shit out of those ads, but (because) doing so gives their money to me, and won’t sell a single god-damned book of theirs. LOL. Again – I’m saying all this out of perverse curiosity about whether the Google-bots ever consider CONTEXT. (That and little bit of online civil disobedience!)
(So click away, just try not to get me banned!)
And speaking of BANNED… I’m going to try to go and get myself banned from FoxNation. I don't regularly post on any RW sites at the moment, but I think every good liberal should get banned from as many conservative comment boards – for doing no more than posting an alternative viewpoint - as they can. So I’m thinking about starting and keeping a list of mine. I’m going to start off with FoxNation, but if anyone knows of any boards that are particularly easy to get banned from (just for disagreeing) please let me know.
And just a little more, to test the Google-bots…
Karl Rove, George Bush, Michelle Bachman, Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Alies, Clear Channel, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, John Boehner, Bill Kristol, Dick Morris are all assholes.
OK… let’s see if this will get me some good-paying ads from any of these fools! LOL
Glen Beck is a psychotic hack
Sponsors want their money back
Sean Hannity is a stupid fool
About as welcome as “P” in pool
Rush Limbaugh tells naught but lies
With his "degree" he should be serving fries
Mike Savage spews naught but hatred
His father should have been castrated
Ann Coulter is a stupid bitch
The sight of her makes me itch
Sarah Palin is a sellout
Of her lack of soul I have no doubt
Joe Scarborough… at least he tries
To sort out truth from Right Wing Lies
And all them still outrank Tucker
That bow-tie wearin’ mother…
LOL. OK... The point of this REALLY BAD poem is to see whether Google’s tag-bots just look for NAMES and WORDS or if they do anything at all to consider context. Because every time I mention one of these fools in a post, the next thing I see is an ad for their book, blog, show, etc… appearing right below the post.
Not that I mind! Those ads seem to PAY a lot better, and lest you think I’m selling out, remember: The more you click on them, the more of their money goes to me to write blog entries calling out their insanity! Google doesn’t want me to tell you to click the shit out of those ads, but (because) doing so gives their money to me, and won’t sell a single god-damned book of theirs. LOL. Again – I’m saying all this out of perverse curiosity about whether the Google-bots ever consider CONTEXT. (That and little bit of online civil disobedience!)
(So click away, just try not to get me banned!)
And speaking of BANNED… I’m going to try to go and get myself banned from FoxNation. I don't regularly post on any RW sites at the moment, but I think every good liberal should get banned from as many conservative comment boards – for doing no more than posting an alternative viewpoint - as they can. So I’m thinking about starting and keeping a list of mine. I’m going to start off with FoxNation, but if anyone knows of any boards that are particularly easy to get banned from (just for disagreeing) please let me know.
And just a little more, to test the Google-bots…
Karl Rove, George Bush, Michelle Bachman, Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Alies, Clear Channel, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, John Boehner, Bill Kristol, Dick Morris are all assholes.
OK… let’s see if this will get me some good-paying ads from any of these fools! LOL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)