A few posts back, Anonymous (dude, seriously, please: Pick a fucking name if you're going to be a regular commenter. If anyone else decides to post anonymously, it's going to confuse the hell out of everyone) told me that there was no Rebublican War on Women. That it was as fictitious as the Liberals' War on Christmas. Well, I suppose he's half right.
Considering that the Violence Against Women act passed despite Republican inaction and opposition, the fact that the Republican Platform now wants to outlaw abortion WITHOUT a rape exception, that fact that, on top of that, they fight mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives which, as Sandra Fluke so eloquently pointed out last year, puts women's health at risk when insurance companies refuse to pay for their MEDICAL use (such as the treatment of endometriosis) on the ground that they don't cover CONTRACEPTIVES, the fact that the defunded Planned Parenthood, one of the leading providers of Cancer Screenings, Pre-Natal Care, and Family Planning services for poor women, the fact that they opposed equal pay for Women, the Lilly Ledbetter act and equal employment opportunities...
The only reason that any women should vote Republican would be that she's a religious nut-bag or terminally misinformed. (Or just plain fucking stupid.) If you have any doubts of this, here's a brilliant piece for the defacto mouthpiece of the Right Wing in America:
WOW, right?
Also curious is this...
Yeah, there's no War on Women here!
As offensive as it is that he mocks domestic violence, date rape, and every other form of violence that countless women face every day in this country, and the bill that provides training to law enforcement to properly fight against it, the hypocrisy of this partiuclar stand makes it more disgusting by an order of magnitude:
Estimates of the number of women that are the victims of violence every year range form 600,000 to 6 Million (http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/physicalabusestatistics.htm) and yet, this act - which does nothing more that TRAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT, and has been effective in reducing the rate of occurrence of this crime since its passage in 1994 - is treated like a joke.
And yet, this is the same Party that is perfectly happy disenfranchising millions of people, and going out of their way to make it more difficult for people to exercise the FUNDAMENTAL, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to VOTE, due to their fears of "voter fraud." A crime in which actual cases (of in-person voter fraud) numbered in the SINGLE DIGITS in the past few elections.
You know what? Fuck these people! Seriously.
----------FORTY-X-FORTY-UPDATE---------
Date: 3/9/13 (Day 14)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 209.1
Morning Weight:
207.7 (BMI: 31.6)
Pounds Down: 8
Pounds to go: 32
Days Left:
194
Workout Summary: Eliptical Climber, 33 min, 403 cal; Rope, 10 min, 253 cal; Bike, 35 min, 271 cal; Eliptical, 13 min, 142 cal. Light/Short weights. TOTAL: 1069 Calories.
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 limbaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label limbaugh. Show all posts
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Poor, Sad Rush Limbaugh
*shakes
head*
So... just one year after Limbaugh started a mass exodus of advertisers from Right-WingRadio, that continues to this day, by responding to Women's Health Advocate Sandra Fluke's eloquent, emotional and medically sound testimony before Congress by calling her a "slut," on the air, and going on a three-day tear attacking her over what amounted to her sexual proclivities, as imagined by Rush Limbaugh, the Great Gastropod has this to say about NFL Prospect Lauren Silverman:
So... just one year after Limbaugh started a mass exodus of advertisers from Right-WingRadio, that continues to this day, by responding to Women's Health Advocate Sandra Fluke's eloquent, emotional and medically sound testimony before Congress by calling her a "slut," on the air, and going on a three-day tear attacking her over what amounted to her sexual proclivities, as imagined by Rush Limbaugh, the Great Gastropod has this to say about NFL Prospect Lauren Silverman:
Yes, Rush, as it turns out, women are people too. It's a bitter pill to swallow, I know, but it
turns out they can do a lot more than we give them credit for.
Before you know it they'll want to be allowed to vote, and get the same pay
as a man for doing the same job. I mean... Who's going to make our sandwiches once that happens?!
In other news...
I would like to congratulate Danica Patrick on her strong finish at Daytona this
year...
Eri Yoshida
on her productive, if not spectacular, season in the North American Baseball League last year...
and my Wife who
earned her 2nd Degree Brown Belt in Iaido last week.
What do you know,Rush? Women are people too!
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
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
So much stupidity, so little time...
...Or at least I've spent very little time lately pointing it out and having some fun at the Right's expense.
I read an interesting piece the other day on "Accuracy In Media" - arguably the most Orwellian named web-site in existence, BTW - about Media Matters. (Or does it?) It was full of enough Right Wing talking points and Conspiracy Theories to fill a Bingo Card: George Soros, Democratic Run, Obama Campaign Coordinated... You name it. Of course... there was one thing that was conspicuously absent form this hatchet job: Even a single example of ANYTHING that Media matters has ever gotten wrong. Not one! Not a single example! And of course, I defy ANYONE (William?) to find even a single piece on MediaMatters in which they call out something as inaccurate and have nothing more to say about it than "these people are Conservative" or "this is all coordinated by Ruppert Murdoch." And even when, in that case, the accusation would have the benefit of actually being TRUE. Because Liberals are smart enough to realize that this kind of ad hominen attack? IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Why would I even give a fuck if George Soros IS funding them, if what they are saying IS TRUE?!
It just goes back to what I always say:
A Liberal will prove that you're wrong and a Conservative will prove that you're Liberal.
(BTW... ANOTHER THING you will never find in MediaMatters is this kind of EXAMPLE FREE hack-level hatchet-job. Just sayin'.)
--------------------------------------------------
In related news, I heard earlier today that Rush Limbaugh now does not have so much as a single corporate advertiser left on his program. I haven't been able to substantiate that claim as stated, but o March Eighth they were forced to broadcast over five minutes of DEAD AIR due to the corporate boycott that he's brought upon himself. And that's great. I say: Five down, One Hundred Seventy Five to go! And while the dream of his broadcasting demise remains elusive, the fact of the matter is that TODAY, not a single ad was aired from a corporate sponsor. NOT ONE! And he's had the nerve to say that he "won't forgive them" and "doesn't want them back." And that's funny... because the guy's been in radio for over 25 years now, so you'd think he have some fucking idea how that media actually FUNCTIONS.
That's fine though. In the meantime, I'm sure that the United Negro College Fund is enjoying all of the free advertising it's getting on his program. Because apparently IRONY is a terrible thing to waste.
Oh.. and did you hear? Today he claimed that Sandra Fluke's appearance before the Senate and the subsequent action but his sponsors to bankrupt his program are all part of a coordinated conspiracy by the Obama Administration to get rid of him. I'm not sure where calling a woman's advocate a "slut" figured in to all that... the Batman Gambit , I guess. But at what point will these morons stop trying to conjure up fantasy conspiracy theories and just face the fact that they might... JUST MIGHT... have actually been WRONG?!
Isn't that the simpler explanation?
Note to Rush: This isn't what an Obama orchestrated conspiracy looks like. Obama couldn't organize a barbecue, and neither can the Democrats. This is what it looks like when you get your ass kicked by the FREE MARKET and the people's FREEDOM OF SPEECH after you piss of LITERALLY EVERYONE.
But by all means, keep digging. You've got all the money you need, so there's no point in turning back now. Keep showing everyone what the Republican Party, the Right Wing and the Conservative movement REALLY stand for. Keep exposing the Faustian Bargain they made with you back in 1992 (despite the fact that they LOST that year!) and see if you can't take down Hannity, Fox News, and the Republican Party with you while you're at it.
Do some GOOD for a change with your short-ass, miserable existence.
I read an interesting piece the other day on "Accuracy In Media" - arguably the most Orwellian named web-site in existence, BTW - about Media Matters. (Or does it?) It was full of enough Right Wing talking points and Conspiracy Theories to fill a Bingo Card: George Soros, Democratic Run, Obama Campaign Coordinated... You name it. Of course... there was one thing that was conspicuously absent form this hatchet job: Even a single example of ANYTHING that Media matters has ever gotten wrong. Not one! Not a single example! And of course, I defy ANYONE (William?) to find even a single piece on MediaMatters in which they call out something as inaccurate and have nothing more to say about it than "these people are Conservative" or "this is all coordinated by Ruppert Murdoch." And even when, in that case, the accusation would have the benefit of actually being TRUE. Because Liberals are smart enough to realize that this kind of ad hominen attack? IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Why would I even give a fuck if George Soros IS funding them, if what they are saying IS TRUE?!
It just goes back to what I always say:
A Liberal will prove that you're wrong and a Conservative will prove that you're Liberal.
(BTW... ANOTHER THING you will never find in MediaMatters is this kind of EXAMPLE FREE hack-level hatchet-job. Just sayin'.)
--------------------------------------------------
In related news, I heard earlier today that Rush Limbaugh now does not have so much as a single corporate advertiser left on his program. I haven't been able to substantiate that claim as stated, but o March Eighth they were forced to broadcast over five minutes of DEAD AIR due to the corporate boycott that he's brought upon himself. And that's great. I say: Five down, One Hundred Seventy Five to go! And while the dream of his broadcasting demise remains elusive, the fact of the matter is that TODAY, not a single ad was aired from a corporate sponsor. NOT ONE! And he's had the nerve to say that he "won't forgive them" and "doesn't want them back." And that's funny... because the guy's been in radio for over 25 years now, so you'd think he have some fucking idea how that media actually FUNCTIONS.
That's fine though. In the meantime, I'm sure that the United Negro College Fund is enjoying all of the free advertising it's getting on his program. Because apparently IRONY is a terrible thing to waste.
Oh.. and did you hear? Today he claimed that Sandra Fluke's appearance before the Senate and the subsequent action but his sponsors to bankrupt his program are all part of a coordinated conspiracy by the Obama Administration to get rid of him. I'm not sure where calling a woman's advocate a "slut" figured in to all that... the Batman Gambit , I guess. But at what point will these morons stop trying to conjure up fantasy conspiracy theories and just face the fact that they might... JUST MIGHT... have actually been WRONG?!
Isn't that the simpler explanation?
Note to Rush: This isn't what an Obama orchestrated conspiracy looks like. Obama couldn't organize a barbecue, and neither can the Democrats. This is what it looks like when you get your ass kicked by the FREE MARKET and the people's FREEDOM OF SPEECH after you piss of LITERALLY EVERYONE.
But by all means, keep digging. You've got all the money you need, so there's no point in turning back now. Keep showing everyone what the Republican Party, the Right Wing and the Conservative movement REALLY stand for. Keep exposing the Faustian Bargain they made with you back in 1992 (despite the fact that they LOST that year!) and see if you can't take down Hannity, Fox News, and the Republican Party with you while you're at it.
Do some GOOD for a change with your short-ass, miserable existence.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
On Hypocrisy...
A while back, in one of his comments, William accused me of two things.
He said I didn't honestly answer his [goofy, IMHO] question about aborting homosexuals, and that he really wanted to know how I felt. Well... that's odd, seeing as how I've written extensively on both topics over the past three years, and have permanent tabs at the top of the page on both Abortion and LGBT Issues, giving a quick rundown of my feelings on both of these matters, if anyone is interested. So I don't know if this accusation comes from either laziness or illiteracy, but there is little more I can say about Abortion or Gay Rights at this point that I haven't said a dozen times already. So... RTFB, if you honestly can't understand the answer I gave you.
He also accused me of HYPOCRISY. See... I guess I say a lot of BAD THINGS about people that I think are bad people. No.. .I take that back. State it more honestly, I should say that I take GREAT PRIDE in the things I say about VILE, BIGOTED, GREEDY, DISHONEST People. And by some wild universal coincidence, it seems that 90-some percent of these people are Conservative, or Right-Wing, Public Figures.
OMFG! HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!
Now I get the hypocrisy accusation a lot. I do. And I invite it.I really do. Because in truth, I'm fairly outspoken about the fact that there is scarcely a vice I can't tolerate, save for hypocrisy. I loathe hypocrisy above all else. I could even forgive a murder, and yet happily kill the accused myself, should he walk out off death row on a technicality and then go on to become an agressive death penalty proponent and fourth ammendment opponent. And so: Should anyone ever manage to catch me in a bit of hypocrisy... WELL, HEY... They've WON, haven't they? And typically lacking any actual evidence to support their arguments, that remains the ONE WAY, the one SUREFIRE way, that a Conservative could actually BEAT ME in an argument.
So I'm not shy about the fact that I get that. A LOT. The problem is?
Conservatives don't understand the first fucking thing about hypocrisy. They couldn't properly identify hypocrisy if it turned itself into a snake and bit them in the ass. Which is probably why their more prominent spokespeople are all such raving, intellectually dishonest HYPOCRITES.
But what about me?
Well... IF I UNDERSTAND his accusation correctly - and I'm sure he'll need no encouragement to clarify things if I'm missing something - it appears that it is hypocritical of me to say bad things about people who I believe are bad because they say bad things about people.
And, yeah, I suppose that can look like hypocrisy... if you're an idiot.
Because to follow that logic? You can never judge ANYONE! Suddenly, magically, ANYTHING GOES! Someone could go around calling every Black person he saw a Nigger right to their face, and no one could say that this guy was being an ignorant racist, jackass, because THAT... would be hypocritical.
But... of course that's completely idiotic.
The fact is? That there is no hypocrisy in calling a vile person, a vile person. When they say vile things about otehr people, you do not become a vile person in pointing out that they are a vile person! DUH! One does not need to be tolerant of intolerance in order to avoid hypocrisy. Now... I'll give you a BE-YOU-TIFUL example of what I'm talking about...
Starting yesterday, and continue on to today, Rush Limbaugh actually had the audacity to refer to a Law Student, who was advocating up for women's health care a "SLUT" and a "PROSTITUTE." His misogynistic vitriol continued today.
Limbaugh: "I Will Buy All Of The Women At Georgetown University As Much Aspirin To Put Between Their Knees As They Want"
Limbaugh Lectures Georgetown Student: "Ms. Fluke, Have You Ever Heard Of Not Having Sex?"
Limbaugh Demands Women With Contraceptive Coverage Post Sex Videos Online "So We Can All Watch"
Limbaugh To Sandra Fluke: "Who Bought Your Condoms In The Sixth Grade?" (holy fucking crap!)
Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol
Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke Is "Having So Much Sex, It's Amazing She Can Still Walk" (OMFG!)
Limbaugh: Five Dollars For A Month Of Birth Control? "That Makes PMS Almost Worth It" (Really, Rush? Really?)
So... here's my answer: Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic SCUMBAG.
Now... let recap: Limbaugh said some mean things about Sandra Fluke. And I said some mean things about Rush Limbaugh for doing that. Shame on me? Shame on my hypocrisy?
Did you have a fucking brain tumor for breakfast?!
READ THOSE. LISTEN TO THOSE. EVERY ONE. And you know what? If you do that and DON'T come to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag? Then, sir or madame, YOU are a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag!
I and I will only be revealed as a hypocrite the day I post such vile, misogynistic trash on this blog. (Or chastise people over either foul language or typos.) Well, sir, you will be waiting alongside Adlai Stevenson until hell freezes over, because I am not a misogynist, and I am no hypocrite.
All I can say is that I hope Rush's fourth wife was listening. This is who you married sweetheart. I hope it will be worth it to you. (That's NOT mysoginy, BTW. I don't think she's a bad person. I'm merely pointing out her abysmal taste in men.)
He said I didn't honestly answer his [goofy, IMHO] question about aborting homosexuals, and that he really wanted to know how I felt. Well... that's odd, seeing as how I've written extensively on both topics over the past three years, and have permanent tabs at the top of the page on both Abortion and LGBT Issues, giving a quick rundown of my feelings on both of these matters, if anyone is interested. So I don't know if this accusation comes from either laziness or illiteracy, but there is little more I can say about Abortion or Gay Rights at this point that I haven't said a dozen times already. So... RTFB, if you honestly can't understand the answer I gave you.
He also accused me of HYPOCRISY. See... I guess I say a lot of BAD THINGS about people that I think are bad people. No.. .I take that back. State it more honestly, I should say that I take GREAT PRIDE in the things I say about VILE, BIGOTED, GREEDY, DISHONEST People. And by some wild universal coincidence, it seems that 90-some percent of these people are Conservative, or Right-Wing, Public Figures.
OMFG! HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!
Now I get the hypocrisy accusation a lot. I do. And I invite it.I really do. Because in truth, I'm fairly outspoken about the fact that there is scarcely a vice I can't tolerate, save for hypocrisy. I loathe hypocrisy above all else. I could even forgive a murder, and yet happily kill the accused myself, should he walk out off death row on a technicality and then go on to become an agressive death penalty proponent and fourth ammendment opponent. And so: Should anyone ever manage to catch me in a bit of hypocrisy... WELL, HEY... They've WON, haven't they? And typically lacking any actual evidence to support their arguments, that remains the ONE WAY, the one SUREFIRE way, that a Conservative could actually BEAT ME in an argument.
So I'm not shy about the fact that I get that. A LOT. The problem is?
Conservatives don't understand the first fucking thing about hypocrisy. They couldn't properly identify hypocrisy if it turned itself into a snake and bit them in the ass. Which is probably why their more prominent spokespeople are all such raving, intellectually dishonest HYPOCRITES.
But what about me?
Well... IF I UNDERSTAND his accusation correctly - and I'm sure he'll need no encouragement to clarify things if I'm missing something - it appears that it is hypocritical of me to say bad things about people who I believe are bad because they say bad things about people.
And, yeah, I suppose that can look like hypocrisy... if you're an idiot.
Because to follow that logic? You can never judge ANYONE! Suddenly, magically, ANYTHING GOES! Someone could go around calling every Black person he saw a Nigger right to their face, and no one could say that this guy was being an ignorant racist, jackass, because THAT... would be hypocritical.
But... of course that's completely idiotic.
The fact is? That there is no hypocrisy in calling a vile person, a vile person. When they say vile things about otehr people, you do not become a vile person in pointing out that they are a vile person! DUH! One does not need to be tolerant of intolerance in order to avoid hypocrisy. Now... I'll give you a BE-YOU-TIFUL example of what I'm talking about...
Starting yesterday, and continue on to today, Rush Limbaugh actually had the audacity to refer to a Law Student, who was advocating up for women's health care a "SLUT" and a "PROSTITUTE." His misogynistic vitriol continued today.
Limbaugh: "I Will Buy All Of The Women At Georgetown University As Much Aspirin To Put Between Their Knees As They Want"
Limbaugh Lectures Georgetown Student: "Ms. Fluke, Have You Ever Heard Of Not Having Sex?"
Limbaugh Demands Women With Contraceptive Coverage Post Sex Videos Online "So We Can All Watch"
Limbaugh To Sandra Fluke: "Who Bought Your Condoms In The Sixth Grade?" (holy fucking crap!)
Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol
Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke Is "Having So Much Sex, It's Amazing She Can Still Walk" (OMFG!)
Limbaugh: Five Dollars For A Month Of Birth Control? "That Makes PMS Almost Worth It" (Really, Rush? Really?)
So... here's my answer: Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic SCUMBAG.
Now... let recap: Limbaugh said some mean things about Sandra Fluke. And I said some mean things about Rush Limbaugh for doing that. Shame on me? Shame on my hypocrisy?
Did you have a fucking brain tumor for breakfast?!
READ THOSE. LISTEN TO THOSE. EVERY ONE. And you know what? If you do that and DON'T come to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag? Then, sir or madame, YOU are a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag!
I and I will only be revealed as a hypocrite the day I post such vile, misogynistic trash on this blog. (Or chastise people over either foul language or typos.) Well, sir, you will be waiting alongside Adlai Stevenson until hell freezes over, because I am not a misogynist, and I am no hypocrite.
All I can say is that I hope Rush's fourth wife was listening. This is who you married sweetheart. I hope it will be worth it to you. (That's NOT mysoginy, BTW. I don't think she's a bad person. I'm merely pointing out her abysmal taste in men.)
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, October 10, 2011
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:
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?!
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?!
Friday, October 7, 2011
Two Republicans
You know what's really frustrating? One - someone like Obama who seems to be full of good ideas, but would rather give in to his opposition at the first opportunity. But even more so? Hard-Right Conservative Republicans who make sense just often enough to make you think they don't have their heads up their asses. (I say "often enough" because it usually only takes a few minutes before they prove this wrong, but still...) This started out as a "top X Republicans I like" kind of post, but it was really triggered by recent comments by the whopping total of TWO. And that's not a list. All the same, I'd like to tip my cap to a couple of guys who are absolutely hard-core Right Wingers, but who, on many occasions, GET IT RIGHT just often enough to frustrate the hell out of you: Ron Paul and Lindsey Graham.
Ron Paul is always an interesting guy to listen to. For one thing - as he'll gladly tell you - he really the only TRUE Conservative in Politics today. And I think there's a lot of truth to that. And his conviction to stick to his principles, even when it would be unpopular with "conservatives" was on full display recently when he, along with the ACLU, condemned the killing of American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Yep: One more example of Ron Paul getting it right, while his party and the masses of ignorant Red Necks who support it, CELEBRATE getting it WRONG. Now I am a true-blue supporter of all that the ACLU does, including those times when the DEFEND Churches and Right-Wing Talk Show Hosts in court. Because MY OWN principles regareding Civil Liberties are also neither negotiable, nor partisan. Classic Liberal had a great write up on this a while back too, so check it out!
How can anyone think that the RIGHT and the AMERICAN thing to do was ANYTHING other that (1) arrest him, (2) extradite him, (3) try him, and (4, most likely) Execute him? (OK... I know, I know... We've already debated #4. I just threw that in to aggravate you.)
Now... Don't get me wrong: RON PAUL IS A KOOK. One of my thresholds for Right-Wing / Libertarian / John Birch / Kook is anyone who argues for the ABOLITION of the Federal Reserve. It's one thing to disagree with a specirfic Fed policy or practice, but to argue for the outright abolition? That's kook territory. And if you don't agree with me, then you've never passed a college-level economics or history of economic course. (Glenn Beck? I'm looking at you!) But hey - I will ALWAYS give credit where it's due, and Ron Paul makes too much sense, too often, for me to reconcile that with the fact that he's goes off the la-la land deep end as often as he does as well. It's to bad he's not electable ("conservatives" hate him) though, because of ALL the Republicans out there right now? I honestly think he'd be one of the better choices. (And before all you crazy liberals start flaming me over that, please consider how low I'm setting the bar with that statement!) ;)
The other guy who makes me nod and say "Now see? THAT GUY gets it!" too often for the level of Right -Wing kook that HE is, is Lindsey Graham, one of the few Republicans to recently come out in favor of trade sanctions against China for their unfair currency manipulation:
You go, Lindsey!
And this happens A LOT! There are so many times that I find myself nodded my head and rhetorically high fiving this very Conservative, Southern, Republican Senator! And yet... Get him talking about Abortion, Gay Rights, or any other of the Right's pet anti-causes and suddenly he's an ignorant Redneck again!
And please, don't for a minute think that I'm suggesting that OBAMA is somehow winning over some Republicans. No way. I've been watching these guys for YEARS, vacillating between loving them and laughing at them. What I DO think is happening, in the case of Graham, is that he's looking at inherently good legislation and, once again, sees his party opposing it on the basis of it still being Obama's watch and he's saying "Fuck You" to his party and their four year plan to screw America for the sake of sinking Obama.
Anyway, as far as Republicans go, I do like these guys...
...But I'd still never vote for them.
(OTOH, I'm still registered as Republican in Michigan, so if there's ever a Paul/Graham ticket, I WILL give them some love in the Primary! LOL.)
(Never happen.) XD
Ron Paul is always an interesting guy to listen to. For one thing - as he'll gladly tell you - he really the only TRUE Conservative in Politics today. And I think there's a lot of truth to that. And his conviction to stick to his principles, even when it would be unpopular with "conservatives" was on full display recently when he, along with the ACLU, condemned the killing of American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Yep: One more example of Ron Paul getting it right, while his party and the masses of ignorant Red Necks who support it, CELEBRATE getting it WRONG. Now I am a true-blue supporter of all that the ACLU does, including those times when the DEFEND Churches and Right-Wing Talk Show Hosts in court. Because MY OWN principles regareding Civil Liberties are also neither negotiable, nor partisan. Classic Liberal had a great write up on this a while back too, so check it out!
How can anyone think that the RIGHT and the AMERICAN thing to do was ANYTHING other that (1) arrest him, (2) extradite him, (3) try him, and (4, most likely) Execute him? (OK... I know, I know... We've already debated #4. I just threw that in to aggravate you.)
Now... Don't get me wrong: RON PAUL IS A KOOK. One of my thresholds for Right-Wing / Libertarian / John Birch / Kook is anyone who argues for the ABOLITION of the Federal Reserve. It's one thing to disagree with a specirfic Fed policy or practice, but to argue for the outright abolition? That's kook territory. And if you don't agree with me, then you've never passed a college-level economics or history of economic course. (Glenn Beck? I'm looking at you!) But hey - I will ALWAYS give credit where it's due, and Ron Paul makes too much sense, too often, for me to reconcile that with the fact that he's goes off the la-la land deep end as often as he does as well. It's to bad he's not electable ("conservatives" hate him) though, because of ALL the Republicans out there right now? I honestly think he'd be one of the better choices. (And before all you crazy liberals start flaming me over that, please consider how low I'm setting the bar with that statement!) ;)
The other guy who makes me nod and say "Now see? THAT GUY gets it!" too often for the level of Right -Wing kook that HE is, is Lindsey Graham, one of the few Republicans to recently come out in favor of trade sanctions against China for their unfair currency manipulation:
"The institution I need to be protecting is the American workforce, who is having their clock cleaned by a communist dictatorship who cheats."BOOM!
~Lindsey Graham
You go, Lindsey!
And this happens A LOT! There are so many times that I find myself nodded my head and rhetorically high fiving this very Conservative, Southern, Republican Senator! And yet... Get him talking about Abortion, Gay Rights, or any other of the Right's pet anti-causes and suddenly he's an ignorant Redneck again!
And please, don't for a minute think that I'm suggesting that OBAMA is somehow winning over some Republicans. No way. I've been watching these guys for YEARS, vacillating between loving them and laughing at them. What I DO think is happening, in the case of Graham, is that he's looking at inherently good legislation and, once again, sees his party opposing it on the basis of it still being Obama's watch and he's saying "Fuck You" to his party and their four year plan to screw America for the sake of sinking Obama.
Anyway, as far as Republicans go, I do like these guys...
...But I'd still never vote for them.
(OTOH, I'm still registered as Republican in Michigan, so if there's ever a Paul/Graham ticket, I WILL give them some love in the Primary! LOL.)
(Never happen.) XD
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, October 14, 2010
WHORES?! REALLY?!
Today I posted something on MMFA that got a response many times greater than anything else I've ever posted there. And I'd like to summarize it here, and invite you to comment either here or there. This was in repsonse to Rush Limbaugh, that great defender of women, *barf*, making the statement that "the NAG'S [his nickname for NOW] are a bunch of WHORES, to liberalism." Here's the clip:
Now... I am absolutely a defender of equality. Without question. I stand against all forms of discrimination whether it be on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sexuality, gender or gender expression. All HUMAN BEINGS deserve equal treatment and respect. That being said, NOW's position in this instance? Sure it's debatable. Shoot, ALL "women's issues" are DEBATABLE: Abortion, Equal Pay, Serving in Combat, Maternity Leave, Societal Gender Roles... all of these things can be debated. And I might disagree with everything [an asshole like Limbaugh] has to say on the topic, but I won't deny his right to argue his position. In fact, it is critically important to our national, social and political discourse that we ALL do so! But calling them WHORES? That's completely and utterly unacceptable. And that should have NO PLACE in our national, social and political discourse.
And what really pisses me off? (Unless society closed the gender gap when I wasn't looking?) You watch: This won't even be a news story. He won't be held accountable by the market for this. You watch: No one will say "boo" about it!
Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez got fired for making relatively innocuous remarks about Jews.
Don Imus and Laura Schlesinger were fired over very offensive remarks they made about Blacks.
And Mike Savage was fired for making offensive remarks about Gays.
And that's fine! Thats' exactly as it should be!
(OK, Thomas and Sanchez both got screwed, actually, but you know what I'm saying.)
But why are we so ready to get up in arms with our collective outrage when it's about Jews, Blacks, Gays, etc... (and as I said: that's GOOD) but not when it's about WOMEN? I know there's a double standard in our society. I'm well aware of that. But come on: A guy with the public stature of Rush Limbaugh calling an organization that satnds up for strong, successfull women, in general, WHORES? Why is that different from calling GLAAD a "bunch of faggots" or the NAACP a "bunch of niggers?" Seriously!
Why are we so unwilling to feel the same outrage over hateful, abusive language when it's aimed at women?
Hey, maybe we are. I could be wrong. I'd certainly be happy to be wrong, in this case. (Of course, I'm almost never wrong when I'd be happy to be so!)
And this isn't just about NOW. NOW is his target because they're Liberal, but he's talking about FEMINISTS in general. And even women who DON'T fall in with the Liberal Feminists? Say... Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell or Meg Whitman? Were it not for the feminists who came before, were it not for the woman's movement in general, were it not for NOW and the hundreds and thousands of sisters before them who stood up to society, THOSE WOMEN WOULD BE HOME MAKING SANDWICHES RIGHT NOW!
It is becasue of NOW, and those that came before, that ALL women have the opportunity to make of their lives what they choose! And it's because of assholes like Limbaugh, and the society that tolerates (shit: REWARDS) them that they STILL have to work twice as hard as a man to do so!
And that's REALLY what's going on here. Who's a WHORE? Anyone who's not some smiling, empty-headed, barbie-doll offering to get their husband something to eat or another beer. NOW is a symbol of everything that's changed for women. Of all the social progress that's been made. Maybe not all women agree with everything they stand for. That's fine. But that doesn't give any MAN the right to call them WHORES, without someone calling him out for it!
So... that's what I'm doing I guess. I'm standing up and calling him out.
I'm calling for Rush to recieve the same treatement, over his remarks about WOMEN that so many others have over their remarks about Gays, Blacks, Jews or any other group. There should not be a place in our societal discourse for someone to call women "whores" over a political disagreement.
And I'm really getting sick and tired about all these Conservatives trying to make these sorts of things out to be some kind of first ammendment issue! This is NOT a first ammendment issue! No one is suggesting that the GOVERNMENT pull him from the air. I'm simply using MY firts ammendemnt rigths - and might moral judgement - to expres my DISGUST at it!
To that? A bunch off perople told me to "just ignore him" or "just don't listen."
Um... UH-DUUUUUH! I don't! [listen to him]
But telling me that? In this context? Is really just telling me to "shut up."
Well that's their right, but also it's mine to respond in kind: FUCK YOU.
Or, because NO ONE can fuck with me when it comes to twisting logic, fine, "Don't Listen." "Ignore him."
Only while they're saying it to ME... Me, I'm saying tio the whole damned country. Let's NOT LISTEN. What's more... Let's STOP PAYING HIS SALARY! Let's BOYCOTT HIS SPONSORS! If Corporations should be allowed to "speak" by spedning money, surely we are allowed to speak by choosing NOT TO, right? Isn't that OUR 1st ammendment right?
Even calling for his ouster is not a 1st Ammendment issue. No employer is required to retain an employe who is disceminating a message that they don't agree with, find offensive or that brings ahrm to the comapny. You can say whatever you want, by not on the comapny's dime. Free speech never promised anoyone a JOB or a SALARY for it! Words have CONSEQUENCES. A the free-market is a BITCH, baby! So do you know what Clear Chanel is saying by NOT taking action? That they endorse his message. That they think it's OK to call women WHORES if they dare to have an opinon that's different from thiers. With that thought in midn, it's about time this society sent CLEAR CHANNEL and every other peddler of misogyny a message. It's about time that we boycott ANY company who sponors ANY SHOW on ANY Clear Channel network or affiliate.
What pisses me of the most? Is that we won't. The double standard will continue.
And I seriously CAN'T WAIT to be proven wrong.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Now... I am absolutely a defender of equality. Without question. I stand against all forms of discrimination whether it be on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sexuality, gender or gender expression. All HUMAN BEINGS deserve equal treatment and respect. That being said, NOW's position in this instance? Sure it's debatable. Shoot, ALL "women's issues" are DEBATABLE: Abortion, Equal Pay, Serving in Combat, Maternity Leave, Societal Gender Roles... all of these things can be debated. And I might disagree with everything [an asshole like Limbaugh] has to say on the topic, but I won't deny his right to argue his position. In fact, it is critically important to our national, social and political discourse that we ALL do so! But calling them WHORES? That's completely and utterly unacceptable. And that should have NO PLACE in our national, social and political discourse.
And what really pisses me off? (Unless society closed the gender gap when I wasn't looking?) You watch: This won't even be a news story. He won't be held accountable by the market for this. You watch: No one will say "boo" about it!
Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez got fired for making relatively innocuous remarks about Jews.
Don Imus and Laura Schlesinger were fired over very offensive remarks they made about Blacks.
And Mike Savage was fired for making offensive remarks about Gays.
And that's fine! Thats' exactly as it should be!
(OK, Thomas and Sanchez both got screwed, actually, but you know what I'm saying.)
But why are we so ready to get up in arms with our collective outrage when it's about Jews, Blacks, Gays, etc... (and as I said: that's GOOD) but not when it's about WOMEN? I know there's a double standard in our society. I'm well aware of that. But come on: A guy with the public stature of Rush Limbaugh calling an organization that satnds up for strong, successfull women, in general, WHORES? Why is that different from calling GLAAD a "bunch of faggots" or the NAACP a "bunch of niggers?" Seriously!
Why are we so unwilling to feel the same outrage over hateful, abusive language when it's aimed at women?
Hey, maybe we are. I could be wrong. I'd certainly be happy to be wrong, in this case. (Of course, I'm almost never wrong when I'd be happy to be so!)
And this isn't just about NOW. NOW is his target because they're Liberal, but he's talking about FEMINISTS in general. And even women who DON'T fall in with the Liberal Feminists? Say... Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell or Meg Whitman? Were it not for the feminists who came before, were it not for the woman's movement in general, were it not for NOW and the hundreds and thousands of sisters before them who stood up to society, THOSE WOMEN WOULD BE HOME MAKING SANDWICHES RIGHT NOW!
It is becasue of NOW, and those that came before, that ALL women have the opportunity to make of their lives what they choose! And it's because of assholes like Limbaugh, and the society that tolerates (shit: REWARDS) them that they STILL have to work twice as hard as a man to do so!
And that's REALLY what's going on here. Who's a WHORE? Anyone who's not some smiling, empty-headed, barbie-doll offering to get their husband something to eat or another beer. NOW is a symbol of everything that's changed for women. Of all the social progress that's been made. Maybe not all women agree with everything they stand for. That's fine. But that doesn't give any MAN the right to call them WHORES, without someone calling him out for it!
So... that's what I'm doing I guess. I'm standing up and calling him out.
I'm calling for Rush to recieve the same treatement, over his remarks about WOMEN that so many others have over their remarks about Gays, Blacks, Jews or any other group. There should not be a place in our societal discourse for someone to call women "whores" over a political disagreement.
And I'm really getting sick and tired about all these Conservatives trying to make these sorts of things out to be some kind of first ammendment issue! This is NOT a first ammendment issue! No one is suggesting that the GOVERNMENT pull him from the air. I'm simply using MY firts ammendemnt rigths - and might moral judgement - to expres my DISGUST at it!
To that? A bunch off perople told me to "just ignore him" or "just don't listen."
Um... UH-DUUUUUH! I don't! [listen to him]
But telling me that? In this context? Is really just telling me to "shut up."
Well that's their right, but also it's mine to respond in kind: FUCK YOU.
Or, because NO ONE can fuck with me when it comes to twisting logic, fine, "Don't Listen." "Ignore him."
Only while they're saying it to ME... Me, I'm saying tio the whole damned country. Let's NOT LISTEN. What's more... Let's STOP PAYING HIS SALARY! Let's BOYCOTT HIS SPONSORS! If Corporations should be allowed to "speak" by spedning money, surely we are allowed to speak by choosing NOT TO, right? Isn't that OUR 1st ammendment right?
Even calling for his ouster is not a 1st Ammendment issue. No employer is required to retain an employe who is disceminating a message that they don't agree with, find offensive or that brings ahrm to the comapny. You can say whatever you want, by not on the comapny's dime. Free speech never promised anoyone a JOB or a SALARY for it! Words have CONSEQUENCES. A the free-market is a BITCH, baby! So do you know what Clear Chanel is saying by NOT taking action? That they endorse his message. That they think it's OK to call women WHORES if they dare to have an opinon that's different from thiers. With that thought in midn, it's about time this society sent CLEAR CHANNEL and every other peddler of misogyny a message. It's about time that we boycott ANY company who sponors ANY SHOW on ANY Clear Channel network or affiliate.
What pisses me of the most? Is that we won't. The double standard will continue.
And I seriously CAN'T WAIT to be proven wrong.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Is it racism... or just stupidity?
Conservatives love to claim that any criticism of Obama or “his policies” ("quotes" because so many of them are carried over from Bush) results in the immediate cry of “racism” from liberals. The implication, of course, being that we use this tactic as a way to be dismissive of their supposedly legitimate concerns. And quite frankly, I was tired of hearing this nonsense form these whiny little bitches long before Jimmy Carter finally got around to calling out their actual racist elements. I was sick of it by then, and I remain sick of it. A few things to consider…
1) It doesn’t really happen all that often.
It almost seems like Conservatives start their arguments out that way because it will somehow give legitimacy to the rest of what they have to say. Of course, when we point out how utterly absurd whatever they have to say is, THEY go on to accuse us of loving Obama, and (if there really riled up) maybe accuse Obama of racism, just to get those extra points.
2) When it does happen, we present evidence.
Putting aside that anyone with an internet connection can google “racist tea party signs” and get more images than they can handle, it’s gotten so bad that even Glenn Beck and other high profile Tea Party leaders have asked their supporters to tone down the signs! So it’s no longer the liberals that are calling these fools racists… it’s GLENN BECK!
3) Actually? ‘Racist’ gives them the benefit of the doubt.
This is a tough one for them to wrap their heads around; because they’re 100% convinced they have a point. But they don’t. See, calling them ‘racists’ is a far more kind an explanation of why they are advocating for the policies that they do. Because the alternatives, assuming that most of them don’t make well over $250K per year, are: STUPIDITY and PSYCOPATHY.
Because their “points” aren't reasonable: they are logically contradictory. And they aren’t rational: they run contrary to the interests that the tea party and the average ‘angry voter’ claim to be concerned about!
How many times have you heard something this: “I’m out of a job, and we’re losing our home, and yet the Government just keeps spending our money!”
Translation: I’m concerned about the economy, so I want to cut spending.
And as I’m sure no one needs to be told anymore that the “T-E-A” Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already.” Yet what does their number one concern seem to be? The deficit!
Translation: I’m concerned about the deficit, so I want to cut taxes.
Now… take those two statements together, and try to explain to me how someone might believe these are good ideas? See… these statements are so completely insane that “racism” is a far more forgiving explanation that the level of stupidity and ignorance (or outright insanity) that we'd have to assume in the speaker if they really thought that cutting spending will bolster the economy, or that cutting taxes will reduce the deficit!
And it’s far from just the Tea Party… Have you seen the Republican’s overwhelmingly vapid “Pledge to America?”
They’ll cut taxes – even though the only difference between what they’re proposing and what Obama is proposing is a benefit for the top 2% of earners.
They’ll cut spending – even though the economy is still weak. And of course what the really mean is: We’ll gut social security, Medicare, etc… See it’s the same old charade: Cut taxes for the Rich, cut spending on the poor, working and middle class. Why the hell do people fall for this? Again – You’d think “racism” is preferable to the level of “stupidity” required. At least the person ends appearing the least bit rational that way!
But in the end they won’t really cut spending, because they’re pledging increases to defense spending. Check this out. Pick an income and put it in that graph. Look at how much we spend on defense compared to how little we spend on the Republicans’ favorite targets, entitlements and earmarks. These are overwhelmed by defense spending. We could eliminate everything else and even a small uptick, percent-wise, in defense spending would end up increasing spending overall.
And the kicker? They say they’ll do all of this while ELIMINATING THE DEFICIT. And the best criticism our lame-stream media can come up with? “They don’t really tell us how they’ll accomplish this.” What the…? They may as well tell us how they’re going to accomplish time travel and cold fusion. What they’re proposing is IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot cut overall spending if you increase defense spending in any significant way. And it would have to be significant, because Obama already increased it! And you can’t reduce, let alone eliminate, the deficit by cutting taxes, unless you reduce spending by all that PLUS… the amount of the deficit! That's just 1st-grade arithmatic!
They’re either lying, stupid or insane.
And the only reasons for someone to vote for them? (Aside from the top 1-2% of earners?) The person doing so would have to be either STUPID or INSANE.
Or… (you know…) RACIST.
(I fail to see why they would be so quick to accept the alternative.)
And until either the Republicans start proposing ANYTHING that makes any damned sense, or people stop voting for them, there IS no other explanation for their current popularity. We’re not in the current economic mess because of taxes, and we’re not here because of the deficit or the national debt. And cutting SPENDING is the exact OPPOSITE of what you should do in you’re concerned about the economy. (And TAXES should be the least of your worries if you don’t have a job!) And my hat’s off to anyone who’s concerned about the deficit. But realize that the only way you can fix that is to raise taxes back to a level that they were back when we HAD a balanced budget.
I look at it this way…
The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans right now is like the difference between a Doctor and a Prostitute. One is telling you to exercise more, lose weight, quit smoking, quite drinking, let them perform all manners of uncomfortable examinations, stick you with needles, etc… And the other is saying that they’ll bring the beer and cigarettes and have sex with you all night long. One off these obviously comes off the more tempting offer, but it’s pretty clear what choice the person who’s more interested in their long-term well being will make.
Cutting the safety nets for 98% of the country while giving more money to the multi-millionaires in the top 2% is NOT the path to National Fiscal and Economic Health, long term. Neither is continuing to ignore Global Warming or continuing to let manufacturing jobs go to developing countries or continuing to think we can badger the rest of the World into doing our bidding.
The Right just ain’t right… on ANYTHING.
Finally I want to leave you with this gem from the great gastropod, Rush Limbaugh, because I really think that THIS shows what passes for “reason” on the Right::
A guy who makes $35 Million a year who wants a tax cut to help him generate some wealth for himself is principled.
Buy the government collecting taxes so that the Government can provdei basic services, defend the country and created some semblance of a social safety net for the other 99.9% of the country... That's 'tyrannical greed.'
Glad we got that straitened out.
BTW... the highest paid Goverment Employee is, unless I'm much mistaken, the Presdient. He makes $400K per year. Which, BTW, would represent a 98.8% pay cut for Limbaugh. (But remember: It's the GOVERNMENT who's greedy!)
Who else gets paid through taxes? Teachers, Police, the Military, Firefighters... Glad to know this guy who sits on his @$$ and blathers for a living feels these people, who make closer to $50K per year, (which would be a 99.9% pay cut for Rush) are "greedy."
We are so screwed right now.
1) It doesn’t really happen all that often.
It almost seems like Conservatives start their arguments out that way because it will somehow give legitimacy to the rest of what they have to say. Of course, when we point out how utterly absurd whatever they have to say is, THEY go on to accuse us of loving Obama, and (if there really riled up) maybe accuse Obama of racism, just to get those extra points.
2) When it does happen, we present evidence.
Putting aside that anyone with an internet connection can google “racist tea party signs” and get more images than they can handle, it’s gotten so bad that even Glenn Beck and other high profile Tea Party leaders have asked their supporters to tone down the signs! So it’s no longer the liberals that are calling these fools racists… it’s GLENN BECK!
3) Actually? ‘Racist’ gives them the benefit of the doubt.
This is a tough one for them to wrap their heads around; because they’re 100% convinced they have a point. But they don’t. See, calling them ‘racists’ is a far more kind an explanation of why they are advocating for the policies that they do. Because the alternatives, assuming that most of them don’t make well over $250K per year, are: STUPIDITY and PSYCOPATHY.
Because their “points” aren't reasonable: they are logically contradictory. And they aren’t rational: they run contrary to the interests that the tea party and the average ‘angry voter’ claim to be concerned about!
How many times have you heard something this: “I’m out of a job, and we’re losing our home, and yet the Government just keeps spending our money!”
Translation: I’m concerned about the economy, so I want to cut spending.
And as I’m sure no one needs to be told anymore that the “T-E-A” Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already.” Yet what does their number one concern seem to be? The deficit!
Translation: I’m concerned about the deficit, so I want to cut taxes.
Now… take those two statements together, and try to explain to me how someone might believe these are good ideas? See… these statements are so completely insane that “racism” is a far more forgiving explanation that the level of stupidity and ignorance (or outright insanity) that we'd have to assume in the speaker if they really thought that cutting spending will bolster the economy, or that cutting taxes will reduce the deficit!
And it’s far from just the Tea Party… Have you seen the Republican’s overwhelmingly vapid “Pledge to America?”
They’ll cut taxes – even though the only difference between what they’re proposing and what Obama is proposing is a benefit for the top 2% of earners.
They’ll cut spending – even though the economy is still weak. And of course what the really mean is: We’ll gut social security, Medicare, etc… See it’s the same old charade: Cut taxes for the Rich, cut spending on the poor, working and middle class. Why the hell do people fall for this? Again – You’d think “racism” is preferable to the level of “stupidity” required. At least the person ends appearing the least bit rational that way!
But in the end they won’t really cut spending, because they’re pledging increases to defense spending. Check this out. Pick an income and put it in that graph. Look at how much we spend on defense compared to how little we spend on the Republicans’ favorite targets, entitlements and earmarks. These are overwhelmed by defense spending. We could eliminate everything else and even a small uptick, percent-wise, in defense spending would end up increasing spending overall.
And the kicker? They say they’ll do all of this while ELIMINATING THE DEFICIT. And the best criticism our lame-stream media can come up with? “They don’t really tell us how they’ll accomplish this.” What the…? They may as well tell us how they’re going to accomplish time travel and cold fusion. What they’re proposing is IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot cut overall spending if you increase defense spending in any significant way. And it would have to be significant, because Obama already increased it! And you can’t reduce, let alone eliminate, the deficit by cutting taxes, unless you reduce spending by all that PLUS… the amount of the deficit! That's just 1st-grade arithmatic!
They’re either lying, stupid or insane.
And the only reasons for someone to vote for them? (Aside from the top 1-2% of earners?) The person doing so would have to be either STUPID or INSANE.
Or… (you know…) RACIST.
(I fail to see why they would be so quick to accept the alternative.)
And until either the Republicans start proposing ANYTHING that makes any damned sense, or people stop voting for them, there IS no other explanation for their current popularity. We’re not in the current economic mess because of taxes, and we’re not here because of the deficit or the national debt. And cutting SPENDING is the exact OPPOSITE of what you should do in you’re concerned about the economy. (And TAXES should be the least of your worries if you don’t have a job!) And my hat’s off to anyone who’s concerned about the deficit. But realize that the only way you can fix that is to raise taxes back to a level that they were back when we HAD a balanced budget.
I look at it this way…
The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans right now is like the difference between a Doctor and a Prostitute. One is telling you to exercise more, lose weight, quit smoking, quite drinking, let them perform all manners of uncomfortable examinations, stick you with needles, etc… And the other is saying that they’ll bring the beer and cigarettes and have sex with you all night long. One off these obviously comes off the more tempting offer, but it’s pretty clear what choice the person who’s more interested in their long-term well being will make.
Cutting the safety nets for 98% of the country while giving more money to the multi-millionaires in the top 2% is NOT the path to National Fiscal and Economic Health, long term. Neither is continuing to ignore Global Warming or continuing to let manufacturing jobs go to developing countries or continuing to think we can badger the rest of the World into doing our bidding.
The Right just ain’t right… on ANYTHING.
Finally I want to leave you with this gem from the great gastropod, Rush Limbaugh, because I really think that THIS shows what passes for “reason” on the Right::
The whole notion of paying for tax cuts has always offended me, as though government is first, last, and always, and whatever happens -- they are the single greatest repository of greed in the world, Washington, DC, including even all the tyrannical dictators around the world. [...] "You don't pay for tax cuts. Tax cuts generate wealth creation.Limbuagh logic:
A guy who makes $35 Million a year who wants a tax cut to help him generate some wealth for himself is principled.
Buy the government collecting taxes so that the Government can provdei basic services, defend the country and created some semblance of a social safety net for the other 99.9% of the country... That's 'tyrannical greed.'
Glad we got that straitened out.
BTW... the highest paid Goverment Employee is, unless I'm much mistaken, the Presdient. He makes $400K per year. Which, BTW, would represent a 98.8% pay cut for Limbaugh. (But remember: It's the GOVERNMENT who's greedy!)
Who else gets paid through taxes? Teachers, Police, the Military, Firefighters... Glad to know this guy who sits on his @$$ and blathers for a living feels these people, who make closer to $50K per year, (which would be a 99.9% pay cut for Rush) are "greedy."
We are so screwed right now.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Good riddance, Doctor Laura
It may not be very big of me, to celebrate the absolute laying low of another person, the complete destruction of a career, one that is ending in utter disgrace, but what happened this week to “Doctor” Laura Schlessinger couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person. Well, OK, maybe that’s not true… seeing as how Schlessinger is a has-been that hasn’t been politically relevant since the early 1990’s, I suppose I’d have rather it had be Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter… but I’ll take what I can get. One down, too many to count to go. Goodbye Laura, and good riddance to bad garbage
OK. Glad I got that out of the way. I said some other nasty things about her on MMFA (and you can hear the audio's of her over there) when the news first broke. Bottom line: I’ve never liked her. I’ve always found her to be mean spirited, bigoted and a religious nut – especially on issues related to sexuality and sexual orientation – and most importantly, at least to me, a screaming, FLAMING HYPOCRITE. Consider this: I call my mother AT LEAST once a week, and usually every couple of days. This great preacher of “family values” hadn’t spoken to her mother for 20 years prior to her death in 2002! I don’t need to hear someone preaching to me about “family values” who’s been estranged from her mother for 20 years, anymore than I do from someone who is thrice divorced with no kids!
*Exhale*
OK, rant over. Thanks for letting me get that out of my system. What I really wanted to do was share some of the comments that I left on MMFA about the racial controversy in general. I hadn’t started out trying to write anything profound, but they got a tremendously positive response, so I’d like to share them with everyone else as well, see what y’all think about it. (The following paraphrases several comments, but primarily comes from THIS ONE.)
The media has largely focused on the fact that she actually said the word, “Nigger.” (Like… eight times in a row!) And this is a shameful (and conservatively biased) ploy on the part of the media. Because in reality, saying, "nigger" was the LEAST of the problems with he broadcast that day, as well as her career, show and political philosophy in general!
Because the WORD isn't the problem. SHE IS. And focusing on the word whitewashes the fact that she felt it was the CALLER who had a hypersensitivity problem, as opposed to realizing that it was the caller’s husband's friends who had an IGNORANCE problem, and who showed a profound LACK of sensitivity. THIS is the REAL PROBLEM. She went so far as to tell the caller that if she was so sensitive about race issues that maybe she shouldn’t have married outside her rice! WTF is up with that?! When someone asks someone else (who's black) "Do black people like [something]?" and thinks that's an appropriate substitute for "Do YOU like something]?" It's racist! PERIOD. But the “Doctor” is apparently too ignorant, too stupid, too racist and way, way, WAAAAY to ARROGANT to ever realize this.
And while it may be a gross generalization on my part, Liberals aren't the ones who, when talking to a black person, lump them into the larger group. That IS however something that I see Conservatives do ALL THE TIME - such as Dr. Laura, Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, etc... Time and time again white people are just people, but black people are black people first. And this is inherently racist, even if you harbor no conscious ill will toward the group! Because it dehumanizes – de-INDIVIDUALIZES – the person, diminishing them to being just a token representative of a group. And that’s why I say that this focus on the word “nigger” is not only unfortunate, but conservatively biased. Because Conservatives seem to think that the have to actually HATE the group in order to be racist. That somehow, as long as you don’t CALL someone a “nigger” you can’t be saying something, or thinking something racist.
But it’s not about HATING the group. Actual, conscious hate is NOT at all required: Viewing someone as the member of a sub-group FIRST and an individual human being, fully deserving of respect, dignity and validation SECOND, is inherently racist (or bigoted in the case of religion, sexuality, etc…) even if you don’t harbor – or don’t THINK you harbor – any ill will towards the group.
As for the word itself? Personally, I refuse to say "n-word." The word is "nigger." We’re all adults here, and we should be putting it on a pedestal like that. But it's a word that should be treated the same way that PEOPLE should treated: With RESPECT. It has a long, sordid history and context matters. Black people can say it. That’s perfectly OK. Given the history of white's behavior, I'm happy to let them own it - to let them emasculate it by treating it like a term of endearment even. I don’t care. For my part, I have and would never call someone one, nor would I (or have I) ever refer to someone as one. Nor do I choose to deal with people as "blacks" as opposed to PEOPLE. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. And that's why I - and most liberals - can get a pass for merely SAYING the word. Because in the context of a frank discussion about race, we have a tendency to remember the history, and understand and VALIDATE the other person's feelings. But people like “Doctor” Laura, who generally tend blame the victims, demonstrating that, for all their polite-sounding diction, they really haven't evolved their thinking beyond the segregation-era, generally DON’T. They might not CALL someone a “nigger,” but they also have not demonstrated sufficient understand to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to context.
I think Keith Olbermann was right about what she was REALLY saying when she said that she that Obama's election signaling the end of racism, that we’ve moved beyond it. It's the same old question that came for Civil Right Act, The Voting Right Act, Brown v Board of Education, etc...: "Haven't we done enough for you people?"
And the answer (to those who would ask this) is, "NO." NO. Not until you stop treating people who you can categorize into subgroups as token representatives of that subgroup and start dealing with every person as an individual. And what’s more, an individual worthy of respect, dignity and validation! And definitely not until you realize that, when it comes to race, white people CAN, in fact, do wrong. That not ALL racism exists solely in the imaginations of black people, and Schlessinger is living proof of this, whether she realizes it or not.
Obama’s election was NEVER evidence that racism was gone. In fact, it’s brought out every last, ugly bit of evidence out there that racism is still alive and well. It’s not the SAME, obviously – we don’t go around CALLING people “niggers” anymore – but like any strong organism, it’s EVOLVED. It’s evolved to remain hidden and preserve itself in our viewpoints and our discourse.
President Obama, our first Black President, means the end of racism? It would be closer to the truth to say that more people have apparently taken it as a signal that racism is somehow OK to bring back out into the open again.
OK. Glad I got that out of the way. I said some other nasty things about her on MMFA (and you can hear the audio's of her over there) when the news first broke. Bottom line: I’ve never liked her. I’ve always found her to be mean spirited, bigoted and a religious nut – especially on issues related to sexuality and sexual orientation – and most importantly, at least to me, a screaming, FLAMING HYPOCRITE. Consider this: I call my mother AT LEAST once a week, and usually every couple of days. This great preacher of “family values” hadn’t spoken to her mother for 20 years prior to her death in 2002! I don’t need to hear someone preaching to me about “family values” who’s been estranged from her mother for 20 years, anymore than I do from someone who is thrice divorced with no kids!
*Exhale*
OK, rant over. Thanks for letting me get that out of my system. What I really wanted to do was share some of the comments that I left on MMFA about the racial controversy in general. I hadn’t started out trying to write anything profound, but they got a tremendously positive response, so I’d like to share them with everyone else as well, see what y’all think about it. (The following paraphrases several comments, but primarily comes from THIS ONE.)
The media has largely focused on the fact that she actually said the word, “Nigger.” (Like… eight times in a row!) And this is a shameful (and conservatively biased) ploy on the part of the media. Because in reality, saying, "nigger" was the LEAST of the problems with he broadcast that day, as well as her career, show and political philosophy in general!
Because the WORD isn't the problem. SHE IS. And focusing on the word whitewashes the fact that she felt it was the CALLER who had a hypersensitivity problem, as opposed to realizing that it was the caller’s husband's friends who had an IGNORANCE problem, and who showed a profound LACK of sensitivity. THIS is the REAL PROBLEM. She went so far as to tell the caller that if she was so sensitive about race issues that maybe she shouldn’t have married outside her rice! WTF is up with that?! When someone asks someone else (who's black) "Do black people like [something]?" and thinks that's an appropriate substitute for "Do YOU like something]?" It's racist! PERIOD. But the “Doctor” is apparently too ignorant, too stupid, too racist and way, way, WAAAAY to ARROGANT to ever realize this.
And while it may be a gross generalization on my part, Liberals aren't the ones who, when talking to a black person, lump them into the larger group. That IS however something that I see Conservatives do ALL THE TIME - such as Dr. Laura, Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, etc... Time and time again white people are just people, but black people are black people first. And this is inherently racist, even if you harbor no conscious ill will toward the group! Because it dehumanizes – de-INDIVIDUALIZES – the person, diminishing them to being just a token representative of a group. And that’s why I say that this focus on the word “nigger” is not only unfortunate, but conservatively biased. Because Conservatives seem to think that the have to actually HATE the group in order to be racist. That somehow, as long as you don’t CALL someone a “nigger” you can’t be saying something, or thinking something racist.
But it’s not about HATING the group. Actual, conscious hate is NOT at all required: Viewing someone as the member of a sub-group FIRST and an individual human being, fully deserving of respect, dignity and validation SECOND, is inherently racist (or bigoted in the case of religion, sexuality, etc…) even if you don’t harbor – or don’t THINK you harbor – any ill will towards the group.
As for the word itself? Personally, I refuse to say "n-word." The word is "nigger." We’re all adults here, and we should be putting it on a pedestal like that. But it's a word that should be treated the same way that PEOPLE should treated: With RESPECT. It has a long, sordid history and context matters. Black people can say it. That’s perfectly OK. Given the history of white's behavior, I'm happy to let them own it - to let them emasculate it by treating it like a term of endearment even. I don’t care. For my part, I have and would never call someone one, nor would I (or have I) ever refer to someone as one. Nor do I choose to deal with people as "blacks" as opposed to PEOPLE. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. And that's why I - and most liberals - can get a pass for merely SAYING the word. Because in the context of a frank discussion about race, we have a tendency to remember the history, and understand and VALIDATE the other person's feelings. But people like “Doctor” Laura, who generally tend blame the victims, demonstrating that, for all their polite-sounding diction, they really haven't evolved their thinking beyond the segregation-era, generally DON’T. They might not CALL someone a “nigger,” but they also have not demonstrated sufficient understand to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to context.
I think Keith Olbermann was right about what she was REALLY saying when she said that she that Obama's election signaling the end of racism, that we’ve moved beyond it. It's the same old question that came for Civil Right Act, The Voting Right Act, Brown v Board of Education, etc...: "Haven't we done enough for you people?"
And the answer (to those who would ask this) is, "NO." NO. Not until you stop treating people who you can categorize into subgroups as token representatives of that subgroup and start dealing with every person as an individual. And what’s more, an individual worthy of respect, dignity and validation! And definitely not until you realize that, when it comes to race, white people CAN, in fact, do wrong. That not ALL racism exists solely in the imaginations of black people, and Schlessinger is living proof of this, whether she realizes it or not.
Obama’s election was NEVER evidence that racism was gone. In fact, it’s brought out every last, ugly bit of evidence out there that racism is still alive and well. It’s not the SAME, obviously – we don’t go around CALLING people “niggers” anymore – but like any strong organism, it’s EVOLVED. It’s evolved to remain hidden and preserve itself in our viewpoints and our discourse.
President Obama, our first Black President, means the end of racism? It would be closer to the truth to say that more people have apparently taken it as a signal that racism is somehow OK to bring back out into the open again.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Pseudo-Conservatism
The other day MMFA Poster NastyLiberal linked to a fantastic article. It offer a new term for the kind of Conservatism that I’m REALLY railing against here; the kind that has unfortunately increasingly come to dominate the argument on the Right. I highly recommend you check it out.
It’s called PSEUDO-CONSERVATISM and it is the school of thought embraced by Fox News and AM Talk Radio. It is at heart and soul of the Tea Party, and Glenn Beck may be this generation’s premier spokesman for the movement. The thing is…? The article was written in 1954! I don’t know if I should be relieved or terrified by that fact! I mean… OK, they’ve been a recognizable force for almost 60 years, and they still haven’t taken over – just a few years after that article was written we elected Kennedy and then Johnson. And while I might be scared that the movement is STILL AROUND after 60 years, and seems to be gaining momentum, we DID just elect Barrack Obama. So maybe they are just doomed to a permanent “almost” status. (OTOH, back then it was recognized for the enbrace of ignorance that it is, while today it's treated with undue respect as if it was something profound!)
Anyway, I've come to realize that when I’m railing against “Conservatives,” THESE are the people I’m usually talking about. And I’m lumping the media personalities (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage) in with them, because that’s really the political school of thought that they speak for, as well as SOME politicians (Palin, Bachman, anyone connected to the Tea Party) who would rather fan the flames and benefit from the outrage, rather than actually educate people and start addressing some of the problems facing this country. It may seem trivial, to argue against this kind of lunacy, but I do not seek to prove it wrong so much as to point out how much of it is really out there. To make people aware of how much it has permeated our lives, become the “new normal.” This is exactly what I was talking about a few posts back when I said that this is not about Liberals and Conservatives so much, at least in any meaningful sense, but against Authoritarians and those who would think for themselves, regardless of the positions they may end up holding.
Ture Conservatives remain a frustrating lot to be sure, but there are least some principles that guide them, misguided or misplaced though they may be. But THESE PEOPLE? It's just as then Senator Obama said in his '08 campaign, "It's like they take pride in being ignorant!"
Well they DO. And I knew that at the time. What I didn't know was just how long this foolishness has been going on, and that the only recent development was the media's MAINSTREAMING of it.
Anyway, it’s a good read, and important stuff. So please check it out.
It’s called PSEUDO-CONSERVATISM and it is the school of thought embraced by Fox News and AM Talk Radio. It is at heart and soul of the Tea Party, and Glenn Beck may be this generation’s premier spokesman for the movement. The thing is…? The article was written in 1954! I don’t know if I should be relieved or terrified by that fact! I mean… OK, they’ve been a recognizable force for almost 60 years, and they still haven’t taken over – just a few years after that article was written we elected Kennedy and then Johnson. And while I might be scared that the movement is STILL AROUND after 60 years, and seems to be gaining momentum, we DID just elect Barrack Obama. So maybe they are just doomed to a permanent “almost” status. (OTOH, back then it was recognized for the enbrace of ignorance that it is, while today it's treated with undue respect as if it was something profound!)
Anyway, I've come to realize that when I’m railing against “Conservatives,” THESE are the people I’m usually talking about. And I’m lumping the media personalities (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage) in with them, because that’s really the political school of thought that they speak for, as well as SOME politicians (Palin, Bachman, anyone connected to the Tea Party) who would rather fan the flames and benefit from the outrage, rather than actually educate people and start addressing some of the problems facing this country. It may seem trivial, to argue against this kind of lunacy, but I do not seek to prove it wrong so much as to point out how much of it is really out there. To make people aware of how much it has permeated our lives, become the “new normal.” This is exactly what I was talking about a few posts back when I said that this is not about Liberals and Conservatives so much, at least in any meaningful sense, but against Authoritarians and those who would think for themselves, regardless of the positions they may end up holding.
Ture Conservatives remain a frustrating lot to be sure, but there are least some principles that guide them, misguided or misplaced though they may be. But THESE PEOPLE? It's just as then Senator Obama said in his '08 campaign, "It's like they take pride in being ignorant!"
Well they DO. And I knew that at the time. What I didn't know was just how long this foolishness has been going on, and that the only recent development was the media's MAINSTREAMING of it.
Anyway, it’s a good read, and important stuff. So please check it out.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Prop H8TE
*phew*
If it's OK with everyone else, I'd like to get away from debating the philosophy of religion for a while - at least until the comment to my last post start rolling in. But I've been writing for the last week or so on the topic, and even I'M getting tired of hearing what I have to say about it. LOL. In all seriousness, I do look forward to reading your comments, but for now I'm going to take up some current events.
Like HOW ABOUT that Prop H8TE ruling out in California, huh?
The courts are finally starting to get it RIGHT! Hopefully that will continue and Justice Kennedy won't balls it all up when it inevitably makes it way to the SCOTUS.
But, needless to say, I am very glad to see it ruled such. And to me this issue is a no-brainer. (And go figure that those who support banning gay marriage and Prop H8TE have no brains.) Between Rush Limbaugh wetting his pants about how we're living in Tyranny, and how we're weakening the constitution and these idiots who think the judge should have recused himself or that he's out of the mainstream and the bed-wetter on NPR this morning crying about "his vote doesn't count" and how "it's like a dictatorship..."
My God, even if I didn't care about the ruling, you've got love ANYTHING that pisses of the Right Wingers and Religious Conservatives that much. LOL
OK, one at a time...
"We're living in Tyranny" or "It's like a dictatorship."
Give me a freaking break. This is not "like a dictatorship." THIS is like a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY. See... in a dictatorship, you don't GET to challenge the law. And the rights of people get taken away without recourse. So... please explain to me how guaranteeing people equal protection under the law and protecting their LIBERTY is tantamount to "tyranny." It's absurd. All this judge did was to tell one group of people that the don;t have the right to DICTATE the behavior of another group. PERIOD.
And last time I checked, "Freedom to take away someone else's freedom" was not it the Constitution!
"Out of the mainstream"
Posters T.Boone Slickens and Highlighter seemed to think that because 7 Million people voted for it, that makes Prop H8TE, the MAINSTREAM school of thought.
What they fail to grasp is that if a law is unconstitutional, kit doesn't matter HOW MUCH popular support it has! Segregation was pretty popular in the states that had it. (Remember - prop h8te was just a California thing, just a STATE thing!) And the courts saw the insanity and stuck those laws down - that's why we HAVE THEM. That's was "limited government" is all about! PROTECTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS! And that will ALWAYS be in the "mainstream" of Constitutional thought, because that's what the Constitution DOES!
It's an inherently Liberal document today, and was a FLAMINGLY liberal document when it was written!
What's more, I don't use the segregation issue lightly. I choose it because the arguments being presented in opposition to gay marriage are almost word for word the same arguments used a generation ago in support of anti-miscengeny laws! Replace racial bigotry with sexualist bigotry and you're saying the SAME. DAMN. THING!
"The judge (who's gay) should have recused himself."
MMFA does a pretty good job, shooting this one down, but to me it's even more simple. If we are to assume that a gay judge can't be objective about gay issues, we must also assume that a CHRISTIAN judge cannot be objective on church-state issues! Like, say... for example...
GAY MARRIAGE!
The law got shot down because you don't take away people's liberty and deny them equal protection under the law without a compelling state interest. And the supporters of Prop h8te, and all opponents of gay marriage for that matter, have never come CLOSE to demonstrating one. Not. Even. Close.
EVER.
[some nonsense about the] "Traditional Definition of Marriage"
This might be the single dumbest line of reasoning of all. Look... marriage CHANGES. The TRADITIONS of marriage CHANGE. If they didn't? If we stuck to the REAL "traditional definition of marriage?" Well... that's a father marrying of his daughter to a young man of his choosing, in exchange for a dowry. So it seems to me that the "traditional definition of marriage" is closer to what we call "PIMPING" today.
And if you're worried about the institution of marriage being threatened, outlaw DIVORCE. (Something that was also illegal at some point! See? THINGS CHANGE!)
[some nonsense about] Our "Christian Values"
If your argument against gay marriage has the word "bible" ANYWHERE in it, SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.
The first amendment states very clearly that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That's word for word, CRYSTAL CLEAR. So ANY argument made on the basis of religion is 100% irrelevant. When our elected officials take their oath of office, they put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution - not the other way around!
I enthusiastically applaud this ruling, and I see it as the beginning of the end of ACTUAL Religious Tyranny on this issue. And I say, "Good riddance."
There will no doubt be more to come. Gay Marriage is INEVITABLE. There may be set backs, but - just as with Marijuana - the genie is out of the bottle. Why conservatives insist on constantly trying to pull the juggernaught backwards I'll never understand.
If it's OK with everyone else, I'd like to get away from debating the philosophy of religion for a while - at least until the comment to my last post start rolling in. But I've been writing for the last week or so on the topic, and even I'M getting tired of hearing what I have to say about it. LOL. In all seriousness, I do look forward to reading your comments, but for now I'm going to take up some current events.
Like HOW ABOUT that Prop H8TE ruling out in California, huh?
The courts are finally starting to get it RIGHT! Hopefully that will continue and Justice Kennedy won't balls it all up when it inevitably makes it way to the SCOTUS.
But, needless to say, I am very glad to see it ruled such. And to me this issue is a no-brainer. (And go figure that those who support banning gay marriage and Prop H8TE have no brains.) Between Rush Limbaugh wetting his pants about how we're living in Tyranny, and how we're weakening the constitution and these idiots who think the judge should have recused himself or that he's out of the mainstream and the bed-wetter on NPR this morning crying about "his vote doesn't count" and how "it's like a dictatorship..."
My God, even if I didn't care about the ruling, you've got love ANYTHING that pisses of the Right Wingers and Religious Conservatives that much. LOL
OK, one at a time...
"We're living in Tyranny" or "It's like a dictatorship."
Give me a freaking break. This is not "like a dictatorship." THIS is like a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY. See... in a dictatorship, you don't GET to challenge the law. And the rights of people get taken away without recourse. So... please explain to me how guaranteeing people equal protection under the law and protecting their LIBERTY is tantamount to "tyranny." It's absurd. All this judge did was to tell one group of people that the don;t have the right to DICTATE the behavior of another group. PERIOD.
And last time I checked, "Freedom to take away someone else's freedom" was not it the Constitution!
"Out of the mainstream"
Posters T.Boone Slickens and Highlighter seemed to think that because 7 Million people voted for it, that makes Prop H8TE, the MAINSTREAM school of thought.
What they fail to grasp is that if a law is unconstitutional, kit doesn't matter HOW MUCH popular support it has! Segregation was pretty popular in the states that had it. (Remember - prop h8te was just a California thing, just a STATE thing!) And the courts saw the insanity and stuck those laws down - that's why we HAVE THEM. That's was "limited government" is all about! PROTECTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS! And that will ALWAYS be in the "mainstream" of Constitutional thought, because that's what the Constitution DOES!
It's an inherently Liberal document today, and was a FLAMINGLY liberal document when it was written!
What's more, I don't use the segregation issue lightly. I choose it because the arguments being presented in opposition to gay marriage are almost word for word the same arguments used a generation ago in support of anti-miscengeny laws! Replace racial bigotry with sexualist bigotry and you're saying the SAME. DAMN. THING!
"The judge (who's gay) should have recused himself."
MMFA does a pretty good job, shooting this one down, but to me it's even more simple. If we are to assume that a gay judge can't be objective about gay issues, we must also assume that a CHRISTIAN judge cannot be objective on church-state issues! Like, say... for example...
GAY MARRIAGE!
The law got shot down because you don't take away people's liberty and deny them equal protection under the law without a compelling state interest. And the supporters of Prop h8te, and all opponents of gay marriage for that matter, have never come CLOSE to demonstrating one. Not. Even. Close.
EVER.
[some nonsense about the] "Traditional Definition of Marriage"
This might be the single dumbest line of reasoning of all. Look... marriage CHANGES. The TRADITIONS of marriage CHANGE. If they didn't? If we stuck to the REAL "traditional definition of marriage?" Well... that's a father marrying of his daughter to a young man of his choosing, in exchange for a dowry. So it seems to me that the "traditional definition of marriage" is closer to what we call "PIMPING" today.
And if you're worried about the institution of marriage being threatened, outlaw DIVORCE. (Something that was also illegal at some point! See? THINGS CHANGE!)
[some nonsense about] Our "Christian Values"
If your argument against gay marriage has the word "bible" ANYWHERE in it, SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.
The first amendment states very clearly that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That's word for word, CRYSTAL CLEAR. So ANY argument made on the basis of religion is 100% irrelevant. When our elected officials take their oath of office, they put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution - not the other way around!
I enthusiastically applaud this ruling, and I see it as the beginning of the end of ACTUAL Religious Tyranny on this issue. And I say, "Good riddance."
There will no doubt be more to come. Gay Marriage is INEVITABLE. There may be set backs, but - just as with Marijuana - the genie is out of the bottle. Why conservatives insist on constantly trying to pull the juggernaught backwards I'll never understand.
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
On Biographies...
I'd like to pose an open question: Why does one write a biography about another person?
It seems to me that a good biograophy, regardless of the subject and independant of any other property, should endevour to present a full, well rounded view of the person. It should talk about their great triumphs but also honestly explore their trials and tribulations. If it lionizes (or vilifies) the subject, it should do so while at the same time HUMANIZING them. To do that, you have to explore their motivations, their conflicts, their strengths and thier flaws openely and honestly without regard for or fear of what you might uncover. It is not an easy task, but it is the only way to produce any kind of meaningful work.
Becuase no one should feel so strongly about a person that their biography reads like 400 pages of fauning and ass-kissing, (or a vilification of all of their critics.) For example - my post a week or so ago about Harry Chapin. Now THAT was pretty fauning. Could I write a more extensive work, and actually take a more critical look at my hero? Yes. I could explore his flaws. I could explore his failures. And in exploring those I would only paint a more complete and human picture of this person that I find so amazing. For example: He worked himself to DEATH, leaving basically no money set aside for any kind of long-term support for his charities. He was DRIVEN, but he was RECKLESS in his planning. See? It's not that hard. Another example: Jim Rice is my favorite baseball-player. If I were to write a biography of him, it would include not only the amazing highlights, but also the flaws - how later in career he jealously guarded his position on the team, alienated the younger players, and not beign a team player. Does the fact that he's HUMAN diminish him in my mind? Not a bit. Even if I were writing a bio on HITLER... Does it serve any purpose to just wrtie another 400 pages talking about how evil and crazy he was? Not really - we already KNOW that! For any work about Hitler to be meaningful at this point, it would have to endevour to humanize him somehow - to look at what was going on at a very personal level. I'm not saying it would have to be an apologist work or a revisionist one; only that 400 pages of "Look how bad this guy was" wouldn't CONTRIBUTE anything to the conversation that's not already there. It would have no raison d'être; no reason to exsist.
Now... An AUTO-Biography, that's different. You might expect an auto-biography to be a bit more self-serving. It would still be crap, but it would hardly be surprising. Likewise, publishing one's memoires, even if done by someone else, you wouldn't be surprised to find that to be a one-sided presentation. But a BIOGRAPHY should not read as a 400-page advirtisment for a person. Hopefully at this point you understand and on some level agree with what I'm saying.
Because that's why I feel that Zev Chafet's biography of Rush Limbaugh, One Man Army is beyond crap: it has no reason to exsist. It's nothing by a 400 page advirtisment for [Limabugh.] Now, before anyone starts to think that I'd feel this way about ANY work that didn't outright vilify Limbaugh, please go back and consider what I've said above. There is little doubt that Rush Limbaugh has accomplished astounding things. That he is a phenonmenon. That, for better or worse, he is a powerful voice for conservatism. If you want to give some sense of the man from a positive standpoint, it would be pretty easy from the POV of simply looking at what he's accomplished. It becomes utter crap however when you start getting into to the well-known controversies and not only present only his side of thigns -his VERSION of things, more accurately - but do so as strongly or even more strongly than the man himself would! MMFA has a pretty extrensive list of falsehoods in the book itself. Here's another long list of falsehood from Limbaugh himself. And niether is anywhere near an exhaustive list as MMFA seems to document half a dozen new items every DAY. Now... it's one thing to agree with someone politically. It's one thing to paint and overall positive picture of them in a biography. But to go SO FAR to spin so much blatant controversy in their favor and just outright disappear so many distortions and falsehood on their behalf... That goes beyond a Biography. That's just propaganda.
I think it's pretty clear that neither Rush, nor the Republican Party, nor the Conservtaive movement in general has any interest in taking a critical look at the Right's defacto leader. They have no interest in humanizing him, or doing anything short of lionizing him. This is an indication of not only extreme intellectual dishonestly and cowardice on their part, but I think it's also evidence of just what a despicable peson he is, and what despicable people so many of them are. To take a critical look at HIM, would mean taking a critical look at THEMSELVES. And they have never shown themselves ot have the stomach for that.
It seems to me that a good biograophy, regardless of the subject and independant of any other property, should endevour to present a full, well rounded view of the person. It should talk about their great triumphs but also honestly explore their trials and tribulations. If it lionizes (or vilifies) the subject, it should do so while at the same time HUMANIZING them. To do that, you have to explore their motivations, their conflicts, their strengths and thier flaws openely and honestly without regard for or fear of what you might uncover. It is not an easy task, but it is the only way to produce any kind of meaningful work.
Becuase no one should feel so strongly about a person that their biography reads like 400 pages of fauning and ass-kissing, (or a vilification of all of their critics.) For example - my post a week or so ago about Harry Chapin. Now THAT was pretty fauning. Could I write a more extensive work, and actually take a more critical look at my hero? Yes. I could explore his flaws. I could explore his failures. And in exploring those I would only paint a more complete and human picture of this person that I find so amazing. For example: He worked himself to DEATH, leaving basically no money set aside for any kind of long-term support for his charities. He was DRIVEN, but he was RECKLESS in his planning. See? It's not that hard. Another example: Jim Rice is my favorite baseball-player. If I were to write a biography of him, it would include not only the amazing highlights, but also the flaws - how later in career he jealously guarded his position on the team, alienated the younger players, and not beign a team player. Does the fact that he's HUMAN diminish him in my mind? Not a bit. Even if I were writing a bio on HITLER... Does it serve any purpose to just wrtie another 400 pages talking about how evil and crazy he was? Not really - we already KNOW that! For any work about Hitler to be meaningful at this point, it would have to endevour to humanize him somehow - to look at what was going on at a very personal level. I'm not saying it would have to be an apologist work or a revisionist one; only that 400 pages of "Look how bad this guy was" wouldn't CONTRIBUTE anything to the conversation that's not already there. It would have no raison d'être; no reason to exsist.
Now... An AUTO-Biography, that's different. You might expect an auto-biography to be a bit more self-serving. It would still be crap, but it would hardly be surprising. Likewise, publishing one's memoires, even if done by someone else, you wouldn't be surprised to find that to be a one-sided presentation. But a BIOGRAPHY should not read as a 400-page advirtisment for a person. Hopefully at this point you understand and on some level agree with what I'm saying.
Because that's why I feel that Zev Chafet's biography of Rush Limbaugh, One Man Army is beyond crap: it has no reason to exsist. It's nothing by a 400 page advirtisment for [Limabugh.] Now, before anyone starts to think that I'd feel this way about ANY work that didn't outright vilify Limbaugh, please go back and consider what I've said above. There is little doubt that Rush Limbaugh has accomplished astounding things. That he is a phenonmenon. That, for better or worse, he is a powerful voice for conservatism. If you want to give some sense of the man from a positive standpoint, it would be pretty easy from the POV of simply looking at what he's accomplished. It becomes utter crap however when you start getting into to the well-known controversies and not only present only his side of thigns -his VERSION of things, more accurately - but do so as strongly or even more strongly than the man himself would! MMFA has a pretty extrensive list of falsehoods in the book itself. Here's another long list of falsehood from Limbaugh himself. And niether is anywhere near an exhaustive list as MMFA seems to document half a dozen new items every DAY. Now... it's one thing to agree with someone politically. It's one thing to paint and overall positive picture of them in a biography. But to go SO FAR to spin so much blatant controversy in their favor and just outright disappear so many distortions and falsehood on their behalf... That goes beyond a Biography. That's just propaganda.
I think it's pretty clear that neither Rush, nor the Republican Party, nor the Conservtaive movement in general has any interest in taking a critical look at the Right's defacto leader. They have no interest in humanizing him, or doing anything short of lionizing him. This is an indication of not only extreme intellectual dishonestly and cowardice on their part, but I think it's also evidence of just what a despicable peson he is, and what despicable people so many of them are. To take a critical look at HIM, would mean taking a critical look at THEMSELVES. And they have never shown themselves ot have the stomach for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)