Remember my "Republicans are Scum" post?

Well, MediaMatters did an excellent write up to Sean Hannity's continued Islamophobic attacks on Congressmen Keith Ellison, and Ellison's response that Hannity should be ashamed at being so immoral by saying so may things on the air that aren't true. Haniity, for his part, just amped up his attacks, but here's a list of 10 Examples of Sean Hannity saying things that aren't true.

If you don't want to read the whole post, here's the short list. If you [Conservatives] doubt any of these, don't bother arguing them here unless you first check out the citations and background evidence that MMFA presents. I grow weary of replying to such arguments with "read the fucking article."


10. Hannity Hyped RNC's Doctored Audio Of Supreme Court Arguments. [Media Matters, 3/30/12]

9. Hannity Distorted CBO Data To Attack Obama. [Media Matters, 2/2/12]

8. Hannity Falsely Claimed A White House Adviser "Advocated Compulsory Abortion." [Media Matters, 9/9/09]

7. Hannity Falsely Claimed Obama Called The Death Of Four Americans "Just A Bump In The Road."  [Media Matters, 9/25/12]

6. Hannity Spread False Report That Egypt Was Considering Necrophilia Bill.  [Media Matters, 4/30/12; Huffington Post, 4/26/12]

5. Hannity's Special On "Liberal Bias" Featured Wildly Distorted And Out-Of-Context Quotes.  [Media Matters, 4/24/11]

4. Hannity Cast Doubt On Scientific Consensus About Climate Change. [Media Matters, 12/4/09, 1/13/10, 8/27/10, 11/19/10, 6/24/11]

3. Hannity Fueled Myth That Obama Is A Muslim.  [Media Matters, 3/24/11, 3/21/12]

2. Hannity Fed The Birther Movement. [Media Matters, 3/28/11, 4/20/12]

1. Hannity Ignored Overwhelming Evidence To Repeatedly Claim Obama's Policies Have Not Helped Improve The Economy. [Media Matters, 1/13/10, 7/14/11, 2/2/12]


And remember... This is a man who's paid approximately $20,000,000 per year - enough to hire over 500 School Teacher, about 230 Engineers, or 80 Medical Doctors.

And as interesting as I'm sure it will be to see some anonymous Conservative poster try to debunk ANY of these as not being actual false hoods, I defy that same poster, or indeed any Conservative to give me a similar list for say, Rachael Maddow, or Keith Olberman, or Ed Shultz, or Chris O'Donnell, or MMFA for that matter!

(Remember when William tried that? He posted one example of MMFA ADMITTING they got something wrong, one example that was clearly a true statement, and one that was said (by some RW website) to contain misinformation, which turned out to be taken verbatim from the subject's own tax returns!)

I'm sure any Conservative could come up with a list of 10 examples of things that were said by one of these people that were LIBERAL, but I'll vote a strait Republican ticket in the 2014 mid-terms if they can come up with a list of 10 examples of things that were said by one of these people that were actually FALSE. Lots of luck!

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):

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.

Occupy Reality, part two

I'm probably the last one to the party, but I'd like to say a few things about the good work that is being doing by the protesters up in New York (and many other places) that are taking part in the occupy Wall Street protest.  I support everything they're doing, everything they stand for, and the message they're bringing. It is high time the American People gave a collective FUCK YOU to the unimaginable levels of greed that have poisoned our national discourse, ruined our economy, screwed over the American worker and purchased (or rented, in the case of Democrats) our political leaders.

So good on them.

Of course...

If you watch the news, you probably wouldn't even know it was happening! (Sad though it may be, THAT article was the first I'd heard about it! And I listen to National Public Radio!)

And when they HAVE reported on this GENUINE, grass-roots, political phenomenon, what have they had to say?

Fox's Watters Degrades Wall Street Protests As "The Sludge" Of "Every Single Left-Wing Cause"



Fox's Guilfoyle: Wall Street Protesters Are "People With Absolutely No Purpose Or Focus In Life" There To Just "Dirty The Streets"

Limbaugh Calls Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Stupid," Says They're Being "Us[ed]"

Ann Coulter And Sean Hannity Lash Out At "Destructive" "Mob Mentality" Of Occupy Wall Street Protests

Kuhner: "Obama Has Unleashed Class Hatred And Racial Hostility"


Fox's Stephen Hayes On Occupy Wall Street: "This Is Not Going To Amount Of Any Kind Of A Serious Movement"

Limbaugh Derides Occupy Wall Street Protesters As "Pure, Genuine Parasites," Says Many Are "Bored Trust Fund Kids" ***do you know how many lawyers and political insiders this shit-stain's family has?! And he has the NERVE to call someone ELSE "trust fund parasite?!"

Fox's Trotta On Occupy Wall Street Website: "Ravings Of What Sounds Like The Unabomber"

Fox's Bolling: Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Do Seem Like Petulant Little Children"

Fox's Crowley: Wall Street Protestors Are "Useful Idiots Who Probably Haven't Paid Much In Taxes Their Whole Life"



Now, to be fair, that's mostly Fox, but basically no one else has even made a STORY of it!  In response to Alan Colmes calling out Fox's double standard here, one poster though it was relevant to say that this was all being backed by GEORGE SOROS! (And old trick, to be sure, but a new one relative to THIS story!)

(And, of course, If George Soros WERE leading a Left-Wing Revolution in American politics? Shouldn't that at least qualify as a STORY?! Shouldn't MORE PEOPLE be talking about that?! So... Even were it TRUE, Colmes still has a point!)

My favorite was this one:


Fox's Doocy Quotes NY Post To Claim The "Number One Reason People Are Going" To Wall St. Protests Is "Free Food"

Now, I'm not posting all of these items, merely to pick on Fox. We've all know, for a looooong time, that they are kind of a "special needs" news channel, and so we can't expect them to get it right all the time. (Or ever.)  But there is an interesting patter here. Do you notice what every single one of these headlines (and moronic Internet comments) have in common?

They're all nothing but ad hominen attacks!

Under that Free-Food item,  poster donzostevens1082  (finally) pointed out:

Even if this "free food" nonsense were true, how does it invalidate a protest against vast and growing income disparity?

And the answer? Is ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING!
Because that's what an ad hominen attack IS!

When you can't "win" on facts, evidence, logic, reason, principle...

When all else (including you're own intellect) FAILS...

ATTACK THE SPEAKER RELENTLESSLY!

Look at the above comments: "Idiots," "Sludge," "Parasites," "Mob mentality," (which sure is rich, coming from the Reich-wing!) "People with no Purpose," "Petulant Little Children..." Do ANY of these things address the POINTS that are being made? Oh, HELL no!  Why would Fox News want to make anyone aware of the MESSAGE and the POINTS that these people are making? 

Well, they might...

IF they had ANYTHING of substance to counter with.

I mean... MMFA pretty muich puts up ALL KNOIDS of things trhey Right says, EVERY SINGLE DAY.  And they do this because they KNOW they can prove them wrong!  You see, it's like I always say:

WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, S/HE'LL TRY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG. WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, S/HE'LL TRY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.

And try they have - to paint these protesters as "commies" and "hippies" and any number of things OTHER than American's who have had ENOUGH of this crap!
And don't forget: This was the same network that described the Tea Party as "grass roots" - every chance they got, in their 24/7 coverage of them, on their national news service, from whence they organized protests and coordinated rallies... Yeah.. "grass roots." No corporate sponsors there, huh?  The trouble with the Right isn't WHAT they think, or even (as I once believed) HOW they think. The problem with the Right is that they're not even living in the SAME WORLD as the rest of us!  They're not actually living in the same REALITY any more. 

Think about "OBAMACARE."  Can anyone explain to me what that actually IS?!  I mean... they spand an awful lot of time harping on it, and yet NO ONE can explain to me how it is any different for mwhat we've had forever.  What IS this thing?  It is nothing more than a figment of the Rigth's imagination that the have convinced their followers EXISTS...

...The same way Obama is going to take all of our guns...
...or impliement Sharia law...
...of wants to tank the economy...
...or start a race war.

In what fucking plane of exsistance can any of this crap be taken seriously?!

Bottom line?

The ad hominen attack is the last refuge of the guy who's got nothin'.

Fox has got NOTHING. So?  Attack the speaker.  Sling mud.  Make people suspect him.  Make people HATE him...

...because you're basically BONED if anyone actually LISTENS to him!

Thank you, Fox. I accept your concession on all points.

Now... CAN WE PLEASE VOTE OUT ALL OF THE CORPORATE WHORES?!

The outrage meter still works apparently...

Just when I thought that the Right Wing could sink no farther into the slime, one of pieces of shit comes along and recalibrates my outrage meter.  Today this service comes compliments of editorialist venomous Right-wing hack, Ann Coulter.

Speaking on Hannity last night, Miss Coulter explained that the Kent State Massacre in May of 1970 was "justified" because...

"That's what you do with a mob."

Now... I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating, but before I do, here's a refresher course in case anyone forgot what happened. (And shame on you if you did.)

On May 4th of 1970, an estimated 2,000 people gather on the Kent State University Campus in Kent, Ohio in protest of the Vietnam War.  Specifically they were protest President Nixon's decision to expand the war despite having won the presidency in 1968 running on a campaign promise to end it. What's more they students, mostly children (and members) of working and middle class families who were being unfairly targeted by the draft as those from wealthy families could better afford to pay the $300 commutation fee to essentially exclude themselves. 

Just before 12:30, with the crowd refusing to disperse after four days of protest, and having lobbed the National Guards' own tear gas canisters back at  them, the National Guard opened fire on the crowd, shooting 67 rounds in 13 seconds.  When the smoke had cleared, four students lay dead:

Jeffrey Miller, age 20
Allison Krause, age 19
William Schroeder, age 19
Sandra Scheuer, age 20

I can't find which was which, but it is worth mentioning that one or two were merely watching the demonstration, and were not part of it, and one was hit by a stray bullet as she walked to class.

Three days after the event, even Vice President Agnew describe the action as murder.  (Though, ever the lawyer, he did add, "but not first degree" since there was "no premeditation.")  Still - that from the guy who's administration was being protested against.

But to Ann Coulter? Having the United States Military gun down American Citizens for exercising their First Amendment Rights on American Soil was justified. 
"That's what you do with a mob."


We've long known that Miss Coulter talks a pretty good game, at least in Right Wing circles, when it comes to "supporting the troops."  Too bad she can't ever seem to muster any "support" for the FREEDOMS those troops are risking their lives to protect.

(Deep breath...)

Now...
In the past I've made no secret of my hated of both misogyny and hypocrisy, but I've got a "get - out - of - hypocrisy - free" card in this case, since what I am about to say reflects not my own true feelings, but rather serves as an example to Miss Coulter of what it might look like if someone treated her they way she seems to treat every human being to her Left. (Which... is almost all of them.)  There is no more hypocrisy inherent to giving someone a taste of their own medicine than there in inherent to basic (or poetic) justice.  That being said, I'd like to see someone go up and give Ann Coutler a hard, back-handed slap to the face. Because...

"That's what you do with a mouthy bitch!"

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.

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.

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.

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

Conservatives have an interesting interpretation of censorship...

PART ONE

In a fairly recent discussion about Net Neutrality, I was presented with the absolutely absurd point by RW poster Seahawks123, that Net Neutrality was somehow tantamount to censorship.  He likened it to the fairness doctrine, another vastly overated "threat" to "free speech" that the Right loves to fear monger about. 

Now, first of all, regarding the fairness doctrine:

1) The Democrats are NOT trying to reinstate it.  I don't know why not.  It could only help civil discourse and foster more open and honest political debate at this point.  (And the fact that the Right isn't advocating for a required rebutal, sort of puts a stake, once and for all, in the idea that the media leans to the left, no?)  But, for better or worse, there are no serious proposal pending to re-instate it.

2) In arguing against it, as is par for the course, the Right can't help but distort what it represents.  All it requires is that the opposition be allowed to say their piece.  WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH THAT?!  It does not (and never did) require equal time.  After three hours of Rush Limbaugh, Clear Channel would have been in perfect compliance just to give some token liberal 10 seconds to quote Joe Peschi from My Cousin Vinny and say, "Everything that guy just said was bullshit."

3) They always say that it impinges on free speech, and thus that's it tantamount to censorship.  But for the life of me, I'll just never understand how making sure someone has the chance to speak somehow constitutes a LIMIT on free speech!  Seems to me that only a coward who KNOWS HE'S WRONG or KNOWS HE'S LYING would fear hearing (or having people hear) what his opponent might say.  Personally, I wouldn't dream of editing out (or moderating) a conseravtive's resonse to anything I've posted here.  If it were thoughtful, I'd just deal with it, and if it were absurd and abusive I'd simply say, "Look at what I have to deal with!"  But, if you're as intellectualy bankrupt as Rush Limbaugh / Glenn Beck / Sean Hannity / Mike Savage / Ann Coulter / etc... I can see why being forced to give even 10 seconds to an opposition voice would cause you to wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.

ANYWAY, the really goofy thing here is that Net Neutrality doesn't work at all like the fairness doctrine.  And it doesn't stop anyone from saying anything or force anyone to give time or space to let anyone else say something.  What it DOES DO is guarentee everyone an equal opportunity to speak.  It says that NO ONE can be cut out.  Well, that's pretty much EXACTLY what free speech is all about, isn't it?!  But the bulk of the Right (as usual) can't wrap their tiny little brains aorund even so simple a concept as this.  This becuase:

1) The Democrats support it.  Therefore they MUST oppose it.  Doesn't matter what it is.  Which is just fucking stupid.

2) The Right Wing Talking heads (who are all paid by the corporations who would lose power and influence under Net Neutrality) oppose it.  Therefore the MUST oppose it.  Doesn't matter what the implications are for US, the prviate citizens. Which is, again, just fucking stupid.

3) Per their talking points, ANYTHING a private, for-profit corporation does is GOOD, and ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the Government does is BAD.  (Which might just be the MOST fucking stupid mentality of all!)

And the sad thing is that I honestly do not believe I am distorting their position here!  As far as I can tell, and I would LOVE for someone to explain to me how I'm wrong, letting private, for profit corporations decide which messages get priority and which messeges get to be access at dial-up speeds is NOT censorship, but a law saying that ALL SITES, regardless of their message, get the same bandwith somehow IS.

IOW: Making censorship illegal, is censorship. 

I'll say it one more time: That is just fucking stupid.  There is simply no other conclusion that can be reached. by a sentient, free-thinking life form.

So let me make this crystal clear: I'm an 100%, unequivocably in favor of Net Neutrality.  And that means that Matt Drudge and Fox Nation and Conservapedia and all the other RW propaganda sites will all have the same opportunity to put their ideas out their as I do. And I'm fine with that.  A-OK, in fact. Because THAT is what free speech, no... that is what AMERICA is all about, and that is what makes America great.  To oppose Net Neutrality is to oppose free speech itself.  So... it's really no surprise that the Right opposes it: If they can't silence thier opposition, and dominate ever corner of a debate, they can't WIN.  And they KNOW this.  So of course they want the power to stick the opposition sites on dial-up speed! 

But we, as liberals, know that (1) We have nothing to fear from these clowns in a open and honest debate and (2) that if we were put on EQUAL footing, that we'd actually have MORE of a say than we do now.  We know what a rude awakening it will be for the bulk of the Right to discover just how much in their favor even the parts of the media that are relativly critcial of them really are.  So yeah: To me it's no suprise that they find the idea of REAL free speech terrifying.  It would only make them look like stupid, uneducated hypocrites - something their complicit corporate media has thus far been unwilling to do, even though it's about as difficult as putting on a hat.

(There's a PART TWO to this, but it's late, and I've got sh...tuff to do.  So I'll do that part tomorrow.)

Friday Fun... just some stuff...

Nothing much going on today.  I was going through some old comic books, and I found the above panels, from  "Kingdom Come," written by Mark Waid and Painted (yes: Painted) by Alex Ross back in 1996.  I love it not only for the sentiment...

"You heard Big Blue's pitch, now for the Democratic Resposne." Priceless!  Green Arrow's always portrayed as one of the most liberal Superheores that ever lived.  Go figure: He modeled his costume and MO after Robin Hood, who "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor." LOL "Big Blue" BTW, in this case, is a reference to SUPERMAN, not the Republicans.  But I can't BEGIN to explain the whole thing.  Suffice to say that it's worth a read, and this is one of my favorite lines in it!

...but also for Alex Ross's ARTWORK which is just masterpiece quality in every panel.  Check out his website for more examples.  IMHO, he's simply the best there is, or ever was.

In any case, I'm keeping the banner until someone tells me to take it down.  :)  It's just way too... apt.

Changing gears...

I learned about a new website today from MMFA:  STOPBECK.COM. Awesome.  Will absolutely be a Gold-Star winner the next time I hand out any.  (There will only be Silver Star awards THIS month, however and THIS SITE warrants a GOLD!)  MMFA's misinformer of the year, 2009 deserves no less!

And seeing it reminded me of another site that was active years ago, back when I first stumbled accross MediaMatters.org and started down the path of enlightenment: SWEET JESUS I HATE BILL O'RIELLY!  Now... that site hasn't been active since 2005, but reading the guy's old posts I could absolutly relate to how he felt back then!  (And with his homage to The Godfather. LOL)  Now... you may or may not know this, but Bill O'Rielly took home the "Misinfomrer of the Year" award back in 2004... 

...So, I find it no suprise that Fox has to have the whole unholy trinity on the air: Does anyone know any good sites grilling 2008 MMFA Misinformer of the Year, Sean Hannity?

Have a happy weekend, everyone!

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year everyone! I hope y'all had a great time and made it home safe and sound despite!

I wanted to start off the New Year by sharing a snippet of a conversation from lat night. DW and I don't talk politics with my parents (who we're visiting) and this will show you why, but I think it also shows a difference between how Conservatives and Liberals THINK. (Again - not WHAT they think, but HOW.) This from is my [staunchly conservative] Dad.

We were watching Pixar's UP with the kids (great movie, BTW) and he admits he like it, but the says, "But I just don't like Ed Asner AT ALL." (OK - big surprise, and I'm sure we all know why, right?)

He goes onto to say, "These actors think that because of their celebrity, they can pontificate on things. Most of these guys have no more than a high school diploma! These actors are so much better when they keep quiet!"

Now... as I said: We don't talk politics with my parents. No good can come of it. They are a conservative's conservative; especially my Dad. And... I think this demonstrates that.

But it was all I could do to keep from laughing out loud. Pontificating with no more that a High School Diploma? Maybe, like... oh... I don't know... GLENN BECK, SEAN HANNITY and RUSH LIM BAUGH?! I mean... these guys are PAID to "pontificate!" Ed Asner was just exercising his free speech! If that ain't the worst example of IOKYAR I've ever heard, I'm not sure what is! Think about that: A CONSERVATIVE saying someone with only a HS diploma ought to STFU. I'm not saying that I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but only because it would shut up most of the Right's most effective liars! LOL I mean... it that hypocrisy or just stupidity? I'm not really sure.

Now... I think I also wrote something up recently myself about how celebrities ought to stay out of partisan issues and electoral politics. So... Am I being hypocritical here myself? Not really. Because I was criticising people who I AGREED with. Who's political viewpoints I largely shared, but who I felt were doing more harm than good.

I then thought... OK... Are there any conservative actors, entertainers, etc... Who's work I can't stand because of their politics? The most obvious example are Limbaugh and Beck. But there "work" IS their political viewpoint. Neither has played an apolitical character in a movie that itself was only mildly political at best. So they don't count. I though about Mel Gibson. He's a deeply religious guy. I don't know where he stands on electoral politics, but he's a deeply religious member of an extremely conservative Catholic denomination... So - probably not someone who I'd share a lot of political viewpoints with. And I can honestly say that off the top of my head, I don't think I've ever seen one of his movies that I haven't liked. I thought Tom Cruise was a douchebag BEFORE he broke Oprah's couch, and I can say they same thing: I've never seen one of his movies and thought it was bad. (I never saw 'Eyes Wide Shut', BTW.) Even Charlton Heston... I haven't seen as much of his work as Cruise or Gibson, but I can still say that I've really enjoyed everything that I have seen, and can acknowledge the guy was a talented actor despite being someone who I wouldn't see eye to eye with on too many things, politically speaking.

I tried to come up with a few more, but the Kirk Cameron's of the world tend to either drop out of Hollywood all together or go on to make lousy, low-budget movies that could at best be described as what snopes.com might call "Glurge." And usually with a Christian subtext that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer. I don't hate those movies because of their conservative Christian message: I hate them because they SUCK!

And even the actors THEMSELVES... I don't dislike any of them strictly for their political positions. (Again - Beck and Limbaugh are not actors. Politics is what they do.) Even someone like Carrie Prejean - who I was BRUTAL to - it was so much more about her stupidity than her political opinions! And I don't mean "stupid" the way a conservative thinks ALL liberals are "stupid" just because we disagree, I mean truly, mindbogglingly, head-up-your-ass, STOO-PID. Here's her big controversial statement from last year:

"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."

Now... I have no problem with the "I believe that it should be between a man and a woman" part. I disagree with her. But that's fine. That's all she had to say. They asked what she thought, and this would have been a sufficient answer. The part that permanently etches this in the annals of leather-headedness is, "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other." This is stupid for two reason:

1) It completely contradicts, politically, what she says next. It's like saying, "I think it's great that women have the right to choose, but I'm dedicating my career to banning abortion!" You'd have to be brain damaged to be able to wrap your head around a statement like that!

2) IIRC, at the time, only California and Massachusetts performed and recognized same sex marriage. So a more accurate way to say it might have been, "I think it's great that Californians are able to choose one way or the other... for now."

And THAT'S why I felt she was deserved so much abuse. I can tolerate those that disagree with me (I've been doing it 24/7 for a week now!) But I have far less patience for stupidity. And saying, "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other" when... um... THEY CAN'T is stupid. There's just no other way to describe it.

So, in any case, I don't think I've violated my first principle here in criticising my Dad, for having a hard time liking Ed Anser in movies because he once criticised our beloved president. (Hey - it must be tough that even some schmuck with no more than a HS diploma knows the guy you voted for was an idiot, huh? Nothing stings like the truth I guess! LOL)

Now... as I'm writing this I'm reminded of another conversation we had back in early November, 2008. He asked me (rhetorically - he wasn't really interested in my opinion) if it was was wrong of him to stop sending money/gifts to his Godson because he supported Obama. Now... YEAH, I think it's despicable! And if, say, my hippy Aunt & Uncle had done the same to one of their hypothetical Godchildren (though to be fair, I don't know even they have any) for supporting Bush, I'd feel exactly the same way. I also think it's absurd that he won't buy "Ben and Jerrie's" Ice Cream because, "they're communists." (Communist entrepreneurs, huh? Gotta love it!)

But I think that with all this, it's finally dawned on me why Liberals and Conservatives can never see the other as "principled." They can't see us as principled, because they labor under the delusion of their own inherent goodness. And we can't see them as principled, because of this. The thing is: conservatives mistake CONVICTION for PRINCIPLES. And that's not a problem so much of WHAT they think, but it goes back to my problem of HOW they think. And... they DON'T. They accept an ideology and let that do the thinking for them. And because they've accepted they inherent goodness and rightness of it, it is completely lost on them that anyone who ACTUALLY THINKS might reach a different conclusion.

Anyway... I hope all are enjoying your holidays. I'm enjoying mine, despite this bitch-fest. LOL. Here's hoping 2010 is even better than 2009! (After all... 2009 was better than 2008, which was worse that 2007, which was worse that 2006. Maybe Obama IS doing some good after all! LOL)

Happy New Year!

Friday Fun: The DEATH NOTE

OK, First things last...

For those of you who aren't familiar with it, DEATH NOTE is the name of an Anime Series. It is arguably the greatest Anime ever produced. That's not just my opinion BTW: it held the #1 or #2 spot on Anime News Network for several years at one point. It currently resides at #6 all-time (that's out of the roughly 3200 titles that garnered enough votes to be ranked) and I can tell you that's better that either Cowboy Bebop (at #5) or Spirited Away (at #4) and both of those are abosolute masterpieces. So I HIGHLY recomend you check it out. It's very accessible for both a western audience and for non-anime fans. (It's been dubbed in english.) You can get the series from Netflix, so CHECK IT OUT! You won't be disappointed! (Just make sure yo get the ANIME version, NOT the live action version!)

The series is about a soon-to-be-college student who finds (or is granted, depending on your POV regardng fate) a DEATH NOTE. A Death Note is a note book. It looke like this:

























On the inside of the cover, are written Da Rulz:


























In case you can't read them, the first five (the most imporatant ones) are:

1) The human whose name is written in this note shall die.

2) This note will not take effect unless the writer has the person's face in their mind when writing his/her name. Therefore, people sharing the same name will not be affected.

3) If the cuase of death is written within 40 seconds of writiing the person's name, it will happen.

4) If the cause of death is not specified, the person will simply die of a heart attack.

5) After writing the cause of death, details of the death should be written in the next 6 minutes and 40 seconds.

Now the series does not have a hero and villain in the traditional sense. It deals primarily with the student (Light Yagami) who finds the Note, and his initial intention to use it to make the world a better place. (He starts out by killing unrepetent criminals that esaped legal punnishment.) Over the course of the series he is corrupted by it, and taken over by his paranoia and lust for power. The antagonist of the seires, are the detectives who try to stop him, led initially by the enigmatic "L." They are the "heroes" but the series challenges your philosphy to the point that you find yourself routing against them at certain times, and routing aginst the villain, Light, at others, as they play thier little cat-and-mouse chess game.

A big question to ask yourself, as you watch what goes on, is, "What would I do if I had a Death Note?" "Would I risk using it?" "Could I keep it from corrupting me?" Well... I think most people wouldn't think of using it. At least at first. Their first instict would be to destroy it. BUT, if they didn't destroy it right away, and instead kept is in a safe place, there is no doubt in my mind that EVERYONE would end up using it.

For my part? Yeah, sadly I'd have to say that I WOULD use it. Just a few times. Just to make the world... a better place. I'd just jot down a FEW names...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Roger Eugene Ailes, Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri, Samuel Anthony Alito Jr., Alan Wayne Allard, Michele Marie Amble Bachmann, Robert R. Barefoot, Glenn Lee Beck, William John Bennett, Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, John Andrew Boehner, Christopher Samuel "Kit" Bond, Neal A. Boortz, Leo Brent Bozell III, Patrick Joseph Buchanan, Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson, Clarence Saxby Chambliss, Richard Bruce Cheney, Jack Thomas Chick, Thomas Allen Coburn, John Cornyn III, Jerome Robert Corsi, Ann Hart Coulter, Michael Dean Crapo, Bill Cunningham, Thomas Dale DeLay, James Warren DeMint, Louis Dobbs, James Clayton Dobson Jr., William A. Donohue, Stephen James Doocy, James Robert Duggar, Michelle Duggar, David Ernest Duke, Newton Leroy Gingrich, Bernard Richard Goldberg, Jonah Jacob Goldberg, William Philip Gramm, Charles Ernest Grassley, Sean Patrick Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Kent E. Hovind, Michael Dale Huckabee, Alexander Britton Hume Sr., Laura Anne Ingraham, James Mountain Inhofe, John Hardy Isakson, Kim Jong-Il, Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i , Brian Kilmeade, David Kirby, William Kristol, Howard Alan Kurtz, Jon Llewellyn Kyl, Mark Reed Levin, George Gordon Battle Liddy, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, Chester Trent Lott Sr., Bernard Lawrence Madoff, Michelle Malkin, Jennifer Ann McCarthy, Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr., Michael Medved, Dana Timothy Milbank, Melanie Morgan, Dick Morris, Robert Gabriel Karigamombe Mugabe, Keith Rupert Murdoch, Mohammed Omar, William James O'Reilly Jr., Sarah Louise Palin, Fred Waldron Phelps Sr., Jim Quinn, John Glover Roberts Jr, Marion Gordon "Pat" Robertson, Scott Roeder, Karl Christian Rove, Eric Robert Rudolph, Antonin Gregory Scalia, Andrew Schlafly, Phyllis Schlafly, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Jeffrey Keith Skilling, Laura Catherine Schlessinger, Thomas Sowell, Michael Stephen Steele, Benjamin Jeremy Stein, Mark Steyn, Orly Taitz, Rose Somma Tennent, Clarence Thomas, John Randolph Thune, David Bruce Vitter, James Wenneker von Brunn, Andrew Wakefield, Christopher Wallace, Joel D. Wallach, Michael Alan Weiner, Juan Williams, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher

...and then put it in a safe place for a good 4,8 or 12 years and see what happens. With all of the propagandists, corporate criminals, professional liars, corrupt obstructionist politicians, magical thinkers, religious bigots, religious fanatics, terrorists, dictators, thieves, liars and hypocrites out of the way... or at least these hundered (count 'em)... it's hard to imagine how the world could not be a much better place for everyone. (And yet, no one would even thank me for it!) :(

Oh well.

(Yes, this is satirical. And YES, I still recommend you see "Death Note.")















Shut up, Ryuk!