IMHO RADIO, TUESDAY, 5/12 @ 10:PM EST

Please tune in!

Tuesday, 5/12/15 at 10:PM EST on RainbowRadio.FM for:

I finish up my conversation from last week, with Danah Gaz, give MY TAKE on the situation in Baltimore (William would love it!) [/sarcasm] and my special guest will be Chris Hazelton, creator of Misfile!

Hope you will join us!

RAINBOWRADIO.FM

Remember my "Republicans are Scum" post?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Gold Star Awards, June, 2012

Only four posts last month. That's what happens when work kicks up and you're travelling. (OK, fair enough: That's what happens when work kicks up and I'M travelling. Other people still manage to update their blogs on a regular basis!) And the first casualty of that, aside from spelling, grammar and the profundity of content, is the Monthly Gold Star Awards.  So here they are for June.  I'll have July's up... sometime in July. (Hopefully.)

1976, if you're still counting - 2 Golds and 2 Silvers...


The ROBIN ROBERTS Gold Star #52: Imagine2050

I came across this fairly recently. Great blog / news site, covering the stories that the so-called "liberal press" won't touch, with a focus on issues of race, immigration, cultural diversity and tolerance.

On their website, they describe themselves as: Activists, immigrants, artists and students who are invested in a future nation that embodies a multiracial democracy. By the year 2050, one out of five Americans will be foreign born. Latino and Asian communities will increase significantly. There will be no clear racial or ethnic majority.  We will become a nation of minorities. Today’s perceptions of foreignness will challenge how Americans identify themselves over the coming decades. In light of these challenges, Imagine 2050 is committed to igniting candid conversations around race, immigration, environment, and American identity.

Great and profound stuff.  Check them out!


The BOB LEMON Gold Star #53: Press Pass TV

Most of my regular readers are already of the opinion that the main stream media is useless and that journalism is a dying art.  Well, the work being done by this organization, teaching young people about the issues that go unreported on, and training them in the skills they'll need to present these issues, may just revive it. And that's a good thing. I'll let their own site speak for itself:

We work with Boston and Worcester area youth to produce short news segments that tackle underrepresented social justice issues and celebrates those organizations and individuals working to make their community a better place. Middle school, High school, and College age students engage in all aspects of production, from developing questions to editing video.

Our content is intended to promote civic awareness and action. We create curriculum around our segments to increase awareness, action and accountability. We also hold meetings to continue the discussion of issues raised in our work and support local campaigns for civic action by producing stories on their initiatives.

Recent psychological studies show that when people are exposed to others engaging in benevolent acts, they are more likely to do the same. At Press Pass TV, we operate on this principle and know that for real change to occur, people must regularly witness the amazing acts that others commit on a daily basis.


The Freddie Lindstrom Linoleum Star: Accuracy in Media

Just as Freddie Lindstrom does not belong in Baseball's Hall of Fame, the almost comically Orwellian named "Accuracy in Media" does not belong on anyone's list of honors. (Right-wing Jackasses notwithstanding.) But just as the Baseball Hall of Fame has the dubious distinction of honoring mediocre talents like Lindstrom, so do does this mediocre blog occasionally hand out a dubious honor to an outfit like AIM.  What can I say? A Liberal will prove you're wrong, while a Conservative will prove you're Liberal. 

(BTW... I wish I had though of reserving the Chick Hafey's and Lloyd Waner's and Highpocket's Kelly's of the world for the dogshit sites that I sometimes "highlight"back at the beginning. Unfortunately so good sites were linked to lousy players and some lousy sites were linked to good ones. Oh well.)


The Roger Connor Silver Star #50: Invisible Bread

This is a webcomic about every day humor.  Elegant in it's simplicity, it features just stick figures and smiley faces (like Political Symmetry, if it were in color) and yet still manages to convey emotion and depth and touch on all of the funny situation that we've had to deal with, or (thankfully) managed to avoid as well as soem truly abstract and absurdly off the wall stuff.  There a lot of college humor, about late night cram sessions, video games addiction and snack food, as well as awkward social and relationship material. Hey: It's funny. Read it! ;)

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.

Gold Star Awards, January (!), 2012

I debated just skipping a month and making these FEBRUARY'S Award winners, but at the onset I said I would do these every month, and I know from past experience that it's not a good idea to get into the habit of laziness. And hopefully, this will keep me blogging this month, since I'd hate for the NEXT post to be FEBRUARY'S winners! (Especially if that were in MARCH!)
So here are LAST MONTH'S Si;ver Star Winners. The year is 1971, and the Veterans Committee was VERY BUSY inducting SIX new members:


The Jake Beckley SILVER STAR #41: TV Tropes

Have you ever tried to write fiction?  It's harder than it sounds. (I know: I'm trying!) And it is both amusing and informative to learn more about the tropes used by fiction writers accross so many mediums.  According to their own home page: "TROPES are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations. On the whole, tropes are not cliches.  The word cliched means "stereotyped and trite." In other words, dull and uninteresting. We are not looking for dull and uninteresting entries. We are here to recognize tropes and play with them, not to make fun of them." And do they EVER! Every movie, every TV Show, Every Comic Book, Every Amine... So many forms of media. If you want to see a tongue in cheek look at the tropes used in ANY work of fiction that has more than TWO FANS in the entire world, check this out. 


The Harry Hooper SILVER STAR #42: Flipside

I've been reading this web comic for AGES and I'm still only about halfway though it! It 's been running for YEARS and IMHO is one of the best drawn and best written web-comics out there. Very professional.Amazing work.  It a fantasy, Swords-and-sorcerers story, with subtle Manga influences.  The two leads, Maytag and Bernadette are two of the most interesting, compelling characters I've come across in a very long time.  The authors also manage to work modern issues (such as gender discrimination and homosexuality) into the plot seamlessly, which elevates the work well above the level of a typical hack-and-slash fantasy comic strip. So check it out, you won't be sorry. And be sure to read it from the beginning.


The Joe Kelly SILVER STAR #43: Pandora

I'm sure I don't need to tell you what Pandora is.  What I find so amazing is the idea behind the Music Genome Project, how they will break music down to it's basic elements and recommend songs based on fundamental similarities rather that the "Amazon"/"Netflix" model of "people who liked this also liked...:"  There is a deeper understand of music at play here, and one that deserves some recognition.  Just one observation: Be careful what you give a "thumbs-up" to!  "Thumbs-up" just a single funky bit of 1970-'s soul, and you'll be thumbs-downing so much bad 1970's disco, you'll think you're in a pornographic film!  Despite these shortcomings (which have more to do with ME that with the system, I'm sure!) I really appreciate this site, and the FREE service they provide. So many of the songs I put on my Music Page were discovered through Pandora. (Steven Lynch, Dave Van Ronk, Carbon Leaf, Great Big Sea, and MANY others.)


The Dave Bancroft SULFUR STAR: World Net Daily

Have you ever smelled Sulfur? Have you even read the World Net Daily? Can you see what they have in common?  It was inevitable that I would eventually bestow one of the dubious honors upon this heap of steaming, Right Wing Trash. Some of us like our information to be ACCURATE. For those who prefer it to be CONSERVATIVE, this is the site for you.


The Chick Hafey IPECAC STAR: The Media Research Center

Brent Bozell is to objective journalism what Syrup of Ipecac is to fine dining.  This guy is sofa king brain damaged that upon first viewing I would almost be inclined to view the puddle of bile that he calls his life's work as some form brilliant Liberal-created irony.  Sadly, no: He's serious. And pathetic. And about as easily debunked as the myth that the Sun revolves around the Earth.  How are Conservatives not embarrassed to be associated with these brain-damaged jack-holes?


The Rube Marquard COPPER STAR: Coston's Complaint

Honestly, this Right-Wing Blog is no more or less brainless, nor more or less biased, or more or less factually inaccurate that pretty much any other Right-Wing Blog, he and I just had the mutual misfortune of crossing paths at one point.  I'd love to debate him, but he never replied to my comments. (And I can't even find them now.) Anyway, if you're Conservative, I'm sure you'll love it. If you think people opinions should be at least partially based in reality, you'll probably get a headache.

News About the Chevy Volt

So I'm grabbing lunch today and I happen to pick up a copy of this week's "Tech Center News"- basically an industry rag that you can get for free, usually at Donut Shops or Gas Stations.  And I'm reading an article that I would like to share with you all regarding the Cheverolet Volt.  Called "Volt Is Not a Political Punching Bag."

First though, a little disclosure: I am an engineer in the Auto Industry. Secondly: I love the Volt, as a Liberal, yes, but as an ENGINEER first and foremost. I am still blown away by what GM has finally managed to do: Design and market a TRULY electric car.  And while the price is too high, and the gas-free range not nearly long enough, with time and further development? I predict that THIS is the fundamental power-plant model that will eventually ween us off of gasoline entirely and forever.

A little math, and I'll get back to the article.  The current Volt costs around $45,000. And not only GM sell them at a loss, but even their #1 fan (ME!) will admit that in no one's wildest fantasies in this a $45,000 car.  So to anyone who wants to argue the BUSINESS CASE of the Volt? Let me save you the time: I concede on all points!  For a purely business perspective, and by itself, in a vacuum? The Volt is a loser.  But what GM has designed here remains a TECHNICAL marvel. Lemme 'splain:
Fully charged, the current Volt can go ~35 miles without consuming a drop of gas.  And personally? If I were going to even CONSIDER spending that kind of money? I need AT LEAST a 50 mile range to get me to and from work every day.  But, as you may or may not know, the range of an electric car, at any assumed speed, is a purely linear function of it MASS.  Put simply? Cut the weight in half and you DOUBLE the range!  So, let's see... How do we get from 35 to 50 miles, gas free...?  Well, TAKE OUT THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE for a start!  See the Volt, unlike the Prius, just doesn't need it! So take it out! Save that weight! And the weight of the Alternator. And Radiator. And 10+ Gallons of fuel. And any extra Body Sheet Metal that you no longer need. And the engine mounts... You get the idea.  Because of how the Volt works, you don't actually NEED any gas at all.  The BATTERY drives the wheels, and the engine only acts to keep the battery going once it's depleted. But once the range is adequate for your daily needs? You can pull the engine out and never miss it!
Can't do that with a Prius. Because the Prius' wheels are still driven primarily but the Internal Combustion Engine, which is only ASSISTED by an electric motor. So while more efficient that standard vehicles, you still NEED gas.  It's like Doctor Emmet Brown said:
"[While] Mr. Fusion [...] powers the time circuits and the flux capacitor, [...] the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline; it always has."
And in the Prius? It still does. Not so in the Volt. And that? Is fucking AMAZING.

SO, with my personal biases disclosed and out of the way, I would like to refer you back to a story that NPR (and others) ran awhile back about FIRES in the Chevy Volt.  See... I'd like to file this under"Behold:Your Liberal Media!" And at first blush, some may miss the sarcasm in that. After all" General Motors? FIRES? Sounds familiar no? And what could be more Liberal than showing how a HUGE CORPORATION is putting out UNSAFE PRODUCTS and MISINFORMING THE PUBLIC, right?
Yeeeeeah...

Except that this in the VOLT. And apparently the media's oil-industry sponsors are as afraid of it's implication as I am impressed by them.  How do I mean?
Well... While NPR was fair - fairer than most - there were some small details that they failed to give proper prominence to in their story.  Like the fact that the fires happened anywhere from three days to three WEEKS after the NHTSA Crash Test: 35 mph into a solid, unmoving barrier.
So what? What does that matter? The cars still caught fire, right? What if it were parked in my garage? It could burn my house down, no?!
*sigh*
Well... That's the impression I felt the NPR stories would leave people with. But it's utter hogwash.

The fires occurred due to a COOLANT leak that corroded the terminals and after three days to three weeks caught fire.  Where was the car at the time? In the equivalent of A FUCKING GOVERNMENT JUNKYARD! Which is exactly where YOUR CAR would be after a 35+ mph crash! And, OK, suppose your car's not totalled. I can still guarantee you it's IN THE DAMNED SHOP!

I've been on both the receiving and giving end of SEVERAL crashes in my ~22 years of driving. NONE of them were over 35 mph. I know this for a fact because my airbags never deployed, and airbag typically deploy between 15 and 20 mph. So these were LOW SPEED crashes.  But anything over ~10? And my car (and usually the other guy's) was definitely IN THE SHOP.  It NEEDED repairs.  And if your mechanic notices a LEAK? Of literally fucking ANYTHING? That's pretty much the FIRST thing s/he's going to address!
(BTW... "she or he" (s/he) is used here as MY mechanic happens to be female. Odd but true, and she's AWESOME at it!)
See... These kinds of things: fires after a crash? Are a HUGE problem if it's something like GAS that's leaking. Mainly because that can catch fire while you're still in the car!  But as GM chairman Dan Ackerson was quoted as saying:

"[...] as one of our customers put it: If they couldn't cut him out of the vehicle in two or three weeks, he had a bigger problem to worry about."

 

And that's it. This? Is NOT A PROBLEM. "Fire" might make for a good story, but it a non-issue here, folks!  Do you what GM has to do about this? Precisely NOTHING. (Although they still are reinforcing the battery.)  But in all seriousness? As a bit of an industry  insider? Alert the mechanics that the coolant could be flammable if allowed to sit on the battery terminal for several days and that's pretty much IT.

Here are some FACTS about the Volt:

For you flag waving types? It's made in the USA, exclusively in GM's Hammtramack plant...
For you anti-supply-siders? ...by UAW, Union labor.

For you flag waving types? It will break your / our dependence on foreign oil.
For you eco-warriors? It can potentially eliminate your personal transportation carbon footprint.

And for you car enthusiasts? This thing looks COOL:

OK, so it's not the Corvette, or the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Skye. THOSE? Were some damned fine lookin' cars. (The 'Vette still is, though I'm a  Mustang-man through and through myself!) But other than those? GM's not exactly known for it's bold styling. They've been making ugly Cadillacs for decades now, and I'm sure y'all remember the Aztek and wish you didn't, am I right?  But hey: I'll put this up against any comparably priced Toyota or Honda in terms of style and performance - not to mention SAFETY. Yes, SAFETY, as it was award a FIVE-STAR CRASH TEST RATING in both Driver and Passenger Frontal Impacts, Side Impacts and Rollover Rating.

Now... At $45,000...?

Nah, still too much. But lose the engine - which this power-plant makes possible - extend the range and reduce the cost? (Starting with the cost of the engine you've got to pull out ayway?) And this thing will one day be regarded as the Car that changed the world...
...or at least the point at which it all started!

...And the oil industry KNOWS IT!

Minsinformers of the Year

This year, Media Matters has seen fit to award MULTIPLE "Misinformer of the Year" awards.  As evidenced by my own Hall of Fame (December's Inductee's coming soon) I LOVE this kind of thing, so for those who share my interest and would like to see just how bad the Right Wing Media gets, here are the Media Matters:

2011 Misinformer of the Year: Ruppert Murdoch and News Corporation
2011 Misinformer on LGBT Issues: Dr. Kieth Ablow
2011 Misinformer on Climate Issues: Rush Limbaugh
2011 Misinformer on FOX News: Fox & Friends

While all are well earned and richly deserved, ff particular note are Dr. Ablow's views on the transgendered in general, and Chaz Bono in particular, and Limbaugh's absolute gems on the Global Warming.  Mu favorite might just be (emphasis added):

LIMBAUGH: How did I know global warming is a hoax? 'Cause of who's behind pushing it. Liberals. They lie.

[...] If there ever is scientific proof -- and see, I don't need scientific proof because to me the people who are promoting manmade global warming are a bunch of frauds. They are liberals, they lie. It's not a generalization. It is an undeniable truth of life.

While the absolute absurdity of these statement is both undeniable and self-evident, I am tickled pink to see, once again, further evidence of what I always say:

WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG.

WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.

And? BOTH will in fact be right!

And over the years, I think that MMFA has done a good job of calling the person or entity that went above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to carrying water for the Right Wing Propaganda Machine.  Past MIY winners include:

2010: Sarah Palin
2009: Glenn Beck
2008: Sean Hannity
2007: Offensive and Degrading Speech (not just Imus!)
2006: ABC
2005: Chris Matthews
2004: Bill O’Rielly

Interesting reads all.  Well done MMFA. I hope that, in future, you will continue this new tradition of award not only an overall award, but awards based on smaller issues as well.

NOTE: In the next couple of days, should more of the issue-based award be named, I will updated this post accordingly.

Cracked Nails it Again! (And: Behold your liberal media!)

Great article from Cracked about 6 B.S. Myths You Probably Believe About America's "Enemies".  Good read. I highly recommend it, as I do 99.9% of what they produce.  (They are to print media what John Stewart is to Broadcast Media.)  And really quickly, I'd like to point out some interesting trends in these myths.  I'm going to put the "Myth" next to the "Truth," in order in a moment. I'd like you to ask yourselves, just who it is that is creating and perpetuating these myths, and who benefits from them.  There's a couple where you can say "both sides do it," but, as usual, there's some false equivalency at play if you do...

1) MYTH: Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!

TRUTH: Iran's military is a joke, their Nuclear program is basically nonexistent and their REAL leaders (the Guardian Council) hos no interest in doing so, despite whatever posturing that Monkey in a Suit that they have for a President says. (He has no real power.) And what's more... they recently hired a Mexican to kill a Saudi in America. I mean... If they wanted to kill a Saudi, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to send an Iranian to kill one in Saudi Arabia?! That pretty much proves that even when they WANT to, they basically have no fucking idea HOW to!


2) MYTH: China's Economy Is Going to Steamroll America's!

TRUTH: We're the customer. They need US a LOT more than we need them.
 
 
3) MYTH: America Relies on Its Enemies for Oil!

TRUTH: 36% of our oil is domestic, 22% comes from Canada and our third biggest supplier is Mexico.  As for the rest? See myth #2. Even Venezuela has no interest in cutting us off or threatening us. (We send them MONEY, after all!)
 
 
4) Al-Qaida Is Still a Huge Threat!

TRUTH: You had a 0.3% chance of dying in a terrorist attack if you were IN NEW YORK, on 9/11!  Big picture? They never really were.  And I'll give Bush credit for doing a few things right, because after 9/11 things only went downhill for them. (If only he didn't get this stupid obsession with Iraq, he'd could have killed Bin Laden himself, back in 2003.)  But yeah... When you have to resort to guys lighting their underpants on fire? You're no longer a threat.
 
 
5) North Korea's Military Is Dangerous and Insane!

TRUTH: See Iran.  Kim Jong Il might be crazy, but he isn't stupid.  He's got a pretty good gig going.  A decent little lifestyle for himself.  There's just NO WAY he fucks that all up by getting his ass handed to him in a War with the much richer, much more militarily capable South.
 
 
6) The World Hates America!

TRUTH: Most of the world has a better view of American than most Americans do, and hold us in higher esteem than we hold our own leaders. But let me come back to this in a moment.
 
 
So... what do I see as the trend here?
 
Well, (1 - Iran) is just xenophobic warmongering. The same bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's the mindless pro-Isreal lobby, and pro-Oil lobby, and pro-Christian lobby, etc... IOW? Real Liberals. Just kidding.  That's lies from the Right, by the Right and for the Right. Yet it's pretty much the consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
 
(2 - China) is one that can go both ways. The Right have no love for Communism, and the Left? Well, hey: far be it for a self-admitted Working Class Warrior to ignore where all of out manufacturing jobs have gone!  But think about it for a moment... Who is it that is terrified of making any kind of tough trade sanctions against China? And who is it that BENEFITS from treating China like they're some kind of Leather-Clad Dominatrix to the us, the lowly Sub?  Who is that REALLY benefits from stoking the FEAR that ANY kind of tough negotiation with China will somehow RUIN us?  Ding! Ding! Ding! .That would be the OWNERSHIP CLASS! AKA: Our corporate overlords. AKA: The RIGHT! And yet, that's still pretty much a consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(3 - Oil) is another one that someone who's not really playing attention might try to pin on both sides.  We all know the Right's contribution - we're still fighting a damned war in Iraq over it!   But one MIGHT say that the Left uses this to bolster their environmental arguments.  Except that, no, we really DON'T.  OK, we might, to try and convince a Righty to eat some greens, by using what he already believes against him.  But in reality, Environmentalists don't NEED peripheral reasons to try and reduce our dependence on OIL, in general, regardless of where it comes form.  Saving the environment is reason enough for most of them!  So, again, Thank You, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and that no-good jackass who traded in all of his good reputation and credibility in support an illegal, immoral and completely unnecessary war: General Colin Fucking Powell.  Thank you all for this one. (And... Behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(4 - Al Quaeda) *sigh* See #3. We spend twice as much on defense as Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France COMBINED.  And what reason do they USUALLY feed us to justify this psychopathy?  (Oh, yeah... and behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(5 - North Korea) *sigh* see #'s 3 and 4. (And behold: You're Liberal Media!)


So far, the trend for who is perpetuating these myths, and benefiting from them, is pretty clear.  In his last comment, in my "Occupy Reality, Part 2" post, Classic Liberal said that "The American conservative elite has waged a relentless war on the notion that there is any such thing as an objective fact" and had gone on to say that their refusal to simply ACKNOWLEDGE reality (and their preference to try and shape or re-define it) is "a serious problem," one he's called "our most serious problem." And I'm inclined to agree with him. Our semantics may have differed, but my previous post, and my reason for posting this one are pretty much the same: It's not about Liberal-Conservative anymore, or even Progressive-Regressive.  Those issues are secondary to the far greater problem of Reality vs. Whatever World the Conservatives Think they Live in or Exists.  He is (as usual) SPOT ON.  The year is 1984. And for the foreseeable future? On the Right? It will continue to be.

Now... as for #6...

Cracked brings up a very salientpoint that, at first blush, seems like a very valid "both sides do it" argument:

The right wing will tell you that everyone from France to Iraq hates our freedom, or our democracy, or our ability to get chili cheese fries added to any meal. The left will tell you with a grim fatalism that the developing world hates us because we've been occupying their countries, damaging their culture and our reputation for years.

Now... Once we accept the reality that, in fact, most countries DON'T hate us, it might be easy to conclude that "both sides" us this for their own political agenda.  But I think this serves as a pretty shrewd example of how both sides think, and explains why I am perfectly happy to demonize the Right and proudly wear whatever label they want to pin on me, "Progressive," "Liberal," "Commie," whatever...

THEY use this myth to JUSTIFY doing horrible things. 


WE use to try and STOP US from doing horrible things! 

Think about that! Let that sink in for a moment. It just ain't the same! Once we accept that both sides are wrong in this case?  At worst? WE are still advocating for peace and diplomacy and a continuation of ALL THE GOOD that our country has done for the World!  And at BEST?  They end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy!  I mean, fine: Maybe the World DOESN'T hate us.  Great. But drop enough bombs? Invade enough countries for no good reason? Kill enough innocent civilians? Continue to act like the arrogant School-Yard Bully?  And eventually?

They will.

Now... Can ANYONE tell me why ANYONE who not an integral part of the Right-Wing Power or Money Structure would call themselves "Conservative?"

Oki?

Anyone?

Bueller? 

Bueller?

Do the Right’s Thing

A couple posts ago, I mentioned how I felt that the best parallel to what President Obama has done in the past two years with regards to his negotiations on economic policy, health care and other issues was Henry Clay, brokering compromises with the Slave States to preserve the Nation at the expense of preserving a great evil. And, of course, as history went on to show, this is impossible. It’s a contradiction. And the ability to compromise is only to your credit if your opposite’s position has some merit and both sides give something up and both sides gain something. I suppose it could be argued that Clay’s compromises failed only the first test, but it beyond any doubt that Obama’s have failed both. And this is evidence of a larger trend that goes way beyond merely Obama, as I would include both Clintons, Reid, Bauchus, Nelson and possibly quite a few other Democrats, and the Party as a whole, in the following statements:

As the Republicans have moved farther and farther to the RIGHT, the Democrats hacve responded by moving to the Right.

And this is a dangerous phenomenon, for than just the obvious reasons of… well… the fact that the Right is inherently dangerous. It is worth remembering that before the Civil Rights movement, it was the Democrats who dominated the Southeast and were the Social Conservatives, while the Republicans dominated the Northeast and were the fiscal Conservatives. (For what it’s worth the Mid-West has always been a battle ground, the Mountains have always been Republican, and the West Coast was also mostly Republican, at least at the Presidential level, up until the early 1990’s.) Anyway, the great switch happened after the Civil Rights Act: Noreasters became Democrats, while Rednecks started voting Republican. And while there was a great shift in Party affililation, each party still had its Conservative and Liberal wings. And thus there remained some Democrats that were to the Right of some Republicans (the last of the Dixiecrats and the last of the Yankee Republicans, for example) and vice-versa. So while the Civil Rights Act changed the geographic political landscape, I do not necessarily mark it as the moment when our currently toxic political environment began to form. It gave the Right an opportunity, but it would be another decade and a half before someone would finally seize on it:

RONALD W. REAGAN.

It was Ronald W. Reagan that cobbled together the Republican Coalition that lives on to this day of Libertarians, Funny-Mentalists and Chicken-Hawks – three groups that basically had mutually exclusive agendas, at leats before the first two sold out. (Also, I read somewhere recently where someone pointed out that Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pots and have sex. I KNEW there was a reason I could tolerate the Libertarians! LOL). And it was Regan who stamped out all the intra-Party bickering and forged the iron-clad lock-step Republican unity that live on to this day. “Do not speak badly of your fellow Republican” was his mantra, and his victory in 1980, followed by the 2nd biggest landslide in history in 1984 showed them the wisdom of this.

The Republicans moved to the Right, and the Democrats figured it might be a good idea to follow suit.

Now, the one thing about the politics of ideologues, about those who hold their ideology as sacred, is that there is a constant need to differentiate oneself for the opposition. To the one who is the farthest to the Right, in this case, goes the prize. So as the Democrats moved to the Right, the Republicans had to respond by moving even farther to the Right!

See how that works?

The Republicans PULL the Democrats to the Right, and each time this happens the Democrats then PUSH the Republicans farter to the right! Where does it end? Well, in complete and utter insanity for one thing. Only it doesn’t END there: It perpetuates there. And this was on full display listening to the latest brand of Corporate Nationalists on dis play last night in Iowa.

For example, Michelle Bachman saying she stuck to her “principles” and opposed raising the debt ceiling. Apparently her “principles” include not paying her bills. Maybe I should stop paying my mortgage out of “principle,” what do you think? And here she is, saying she’s opposed to the fact that President (1) caved to Republicans on (2) an issue entirely create whole-cloth out of nothing, in order that (3) our country to do something as basic as fulfill its existing obligations to its creditors and the public.

She’s OPPOSED to that.

Well… so am I, I guess! I mean… Obama never should have let the Republicans make an issue out of this in the first place. But somehow I doubt that my objections and those of the Crazy Congresswoman from Minnesota have anything in common.

She went on to criticize Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (not very Reaganesque of you, Michelle!) for endorsing “Cap-and-Trade,” another Republican idea that was invented to oppose the once Liberal policy of “Cap,” and then again for endorsing the individual mandate in “Obama-care.”

Pawlenty for his part deflected, calling it “Obomney-care” and saying he opposed it and then turned to the former Massachusetts Sellout, Mitt Romney.

Romney then insisted that there were “significant differences” between what they did in Massachusetts and what Obama did.

Yeah: For one thing? “Obama-care” includes things that eliminate some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry – denial of coverage, preexisting conditions, dropping people, etc… So the most glaring difference between the two? Are the things that most people actually LIKE about “Obama-care.” Another difference? In Massachusetts there were subsidies lined up to assist people who couldn’t afford it. In “Obama-care” we’re apparently going to use “markets.”

See what they did there? Obama moved to the Right, and the Right had to respond by moving farther to the Right!

How far to the Right does Obama really want to push these people anyway?

And how much farther are the Democrats willing to be pulled?

A few facts to consider:

1) Congress historically gets a below 50% approval rating from the public. And this has only been trending worse and worse and worse over the past few decades.

2) While Americans generally self-identify as “Conservative,” issue polls have shown that the bulk of Americans, typically over 60% favor the position which is represented by the Liberals.

Now… Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, people’s general dissatisfaction with Congress have anything to do with a growing feeling, as both parties move to the Right of the General Public that they don’t feel like they have adequate representation? Or ANY? That their Candidate or their Representative doesn’t fight for polices that will actually help them? Or benefit them?

Well gee…

I would say that, in a country that wants the Liberal Position 60% of the time, and the “new-Liberalism,” according to this mythical “Liberal Media” that I keep hearing about, includes:

1) Taking Republican ideas on Health Care

2) Taking Republican ideas on Taxes

3) Taking Republican ideas on Entitlements

4) Taking Republican ideas on Environmental Protection

5) Taking Republican ideas on Foreign Policy

And the “new Conservative” involves rejecting these ideas as being “too liberal” and finding a new position even farther to the Right?

Well… It’s no surprise to me that people don’t feel well represented. It’s no surprise to me that Congress gets increasing negative approval ratings as they keep drifting to the Right. We’ve gotten to the point that their absurdly chosen poster child for Liberalism is actually to the Right of most of America! And it’s no surprise to me that there is no end in sight. But moving farther to the Right is not, can not be and has never been the answer to the problem. That we have BOTH parties moving farther and farther to the Right IS the problem!

And maybe it’s coming time for us to have a Tea-Party of our own.

Maybe tell the Right that they’ve Taken Enough Already!

(*sigh* If only the media would report something that generally resembled reality)

I’ll end with one more example of this, from the Iowa Debate…

Mitt Romney said that “he wouldn’t eat the dog food Obama was serving,” in reference to the “debate” about the debt ceiling and the “deal” that was finally worked out. See what he did there? I mean, just as with Loony Bin Bachman, I AGREE that it was ‘dog food.’ BUT, it’s only because Obama never should have given the Republicans the time of day on it! If caving into Republican demands and letting them frame the issue and dominate the debate and giving them everything they want in exchange for what amounts to routine housekeeping is the “new liberal?” Where does that leave the Republicans to go?

Note to Obama: The Right will always seek to distinguish itself from the Left. And, accurately or not, the Democrats will continue to be labeled as the Left. So you will not get the Republicans to stop running to the Right by chasing them there! You are embracing their insanity and only making them more crazy! If you want to “bridge the partisan divide” try using a ROPE, like in a tug-of-war, and try PULLING ON IT for a change! Right now? You’re chasing a moving target who, right or wrong, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to be anywhere near you! And the closer you get, the faster they run! You can’t go on trying to be just like someone who will only, ever seek to differentiate themselves from you! You will never achieve that, nor will you ever get them to stop! So stop chasing them! Stop PUSHING them farther to the Right! The Republicans have only, EVER shown a desire to Negotiate with Democrats when the Democrats actually OPPOSE them! SO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COUTNRY AND PROGRESS, PLEASE: START PULLING!

Before there’s nothing Left!

Worst Democrat since Andrew Johnson.

Is this really "the problem" with the system?

Unless you live under a rock, or your TV is broken you probably heard the news yesterday: Casey Anthony was found "not guilty" on all charges directly related to the death of her two year old daughter Calee in 2008, save only the four counts of providing false information to the police.

(Which, let's face it, is something that probably been done by every single human being ever accused of a crime since the beginning of human history.)

My boss actually had a news feed up on his computer, so we heard the verdict pretty much as it came out.  Several of us were "following" the case, so naturally there was a lot of interest. (No, we don't work in a law office.) And I should say that I haven't been "following" the case, so much as I was bombarded by it.  There were 16,442 people murdered in the United States in 2008, but I'll be damned if I can name a single other case off the top of my head.  But hey: An attractive white woman, acting strangely I might add, a cute white kid, weird circumstances and answered questions? That's NEWS (I guess.)

I'm not trying to say that Calee doesn't deserve justice, nor even that I don't think Casey did it. (I DO, but more on that in a minute.)  The thing is, those 16,442? Are based on CONVICTIONS. How many OTHER cases of dead people in 2008 went uncovered by the media? How many OTHER victims didn't get justice? How many OTHER people got away with it?  That's the first thing that annoys me about these kinds of stories.

Another is NANCY FUCKING GRACE.

Oh my Holy Lord in Heaven, is there any other human being anywhere on this big and beautiful planet MORE ANNOYING and MORE GRATING that Nancy Grace?!  Holy crap, I honestly think I'd rather have Ann Coulter on my jury!  And I AGREE WITH HER! I don't even really have a problem with he JUDGEMENT in this case! I think she's basically got  it right! I just can't stand listening to her!

Here's the thing...  A few weeks back, CNN had a prominent defense attorney on air to discuss the case and he basically said, "Here's what the prosecution will try to say. Here's what the defense will counter with. And here are the issues that the jury will need to sort out." There may have been something in there about the states burden of proof, but it was basically a balanced, objective summary of the case, for the benefit of those who've managed to otherwise avoid or miss the massive coverage of it. Then they turned to Nancy. Her response, and I'm paraphrasing here, was something like this:

"THAT'S A LOAD OF BULLSHIT, MARK.  THE BITCH IS GULITY AS HITLER, AND DESERVES TO DIE - AT LEAST TWICE - IN THE MOST INHUMANE WAY POSSIBLE. ACTING LIKE SHE DID PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT SHE'S A LOUSY DAUGHTER, A LOUSY MOTHER, AND AN INHUMAN, MURDERING PUDDLE OF POND SCUM!"

...Which is what I guess passes for objective reporting on what Conservatives refer to as the "Communist News Network." (Or, as I call it, "Chicken Noodle News.")

And understandably, there were some pretty strong opinions being expressed around the office when the verdicts were announced.  A betting pool was immediately drawn up on Casey Anthony's life expectancy, and one of the more prominent opinions was: "THIS is what's wrong with our system."

Now… These were conservative guys. Not morons, professional people I respect, but conservatives. And what they were feeling was that (1) she was guilty and (2) she was let off. So (3) “the system” doesn’t work. We also got into a discussion about the 4th Amendment and how it’s bullshit that evidence obtained “illegally” was automatically inadmissible, particularly when it revealed the TRUTH of the matter. Now, I LOVE taking on Conservatives in these kinds of discussion, because I can do so from [their own] libertarian point of view, without having to wear my politics on my sleeve.

I simply asked them: How else can you protect our rights? You wouldn’t even know the person was guilty until AFTER you violated their rights! So what good is any protection of privacy and private property if there are no repercussions to the state for violating it? What else would you do? Punish the Cops?! Throw them in jail or sue them? Sure. And good luck getting any more cops to search shit from that point forward. It wouldn't work. So, flawed as it is, this the best you can do and not live in a police state.

And the whole reason we were even talking about that was that I said that I wanted to get an idea of the disparity between the case that was presented to the jury and the story that was told to us by the media. Sure: We’re all torqued up about this woman’s guilt because that’s how the media wants us. (And to anyone who thinks they always get it right, I have three words for: Jean Benoit Ramsey. And you and Nancy Grace owe her later-mother an engraved apology! Big time!) And who knows…? Maybe they even had some inkling as to where this case was heading. So by presenting one side, they might be able to milk this story even longer. Who knows? In any case, this case, for better or worse, is clear evidence trails are NOT tried in the media or the court of public opinion, and I for one think that’s a VERY GOOD THING.

Also… As you may know I like to think of things a little bit differently. I kind of have a “freakanomics” way of looking at the world, only with a progressive / liberal bias. And the one other Liberal in the office asked an interesting question to that end:

Do you think she might have been convicted, is she was being tried in a state that did NOT have the death penalty?

And honestly? I DON’T KNOW. It’s hypothetical, and there’s no way to prove it one way of the other, unless one of the jurors were to come right out and admit it, but it’s certainly one of the more effective, if somewhat more cynical, arguments against the death penalty that I’ve heard; A point that I never really considered: Could abolishing it end up in MORE convictions?

And just FYI: I SUPPORT the Death Penalty. Not blindly, of course, and not in all cases that it's been applied, and not the system that currently administers it. But the practice, in general? I’m basically OK with. And before anyone gives me the Liberal arguments against it, don’t bother. I’ve heard them before and I don’t care. But don't worry... I don’t get much love from Conservatives on the issue either. Because I don’t buy their bullshit about it anymore that I care about the far more fact-based arguments being presented by Liberals. I support it, yes, but I’ll happily admit: It’s a vice. It’s a vice that satisfies the sin of wrath, nothing more. Someone is dead, I’m angry about it, so someone must die. As long as it’s the RIGHT person? I’m basically OK with it.

Which brings me back to the case at hand: Did she do it?

Well, she certainly ain't winning any ‘mother of the year’ awards. She seems guilty of gross parental negligence at a minimum. (Something she wasn’t even CHARGED with!) If my kid were missing for three minutes I’m panicking. And after thirty? I’m calling the cops. But thirty DAYS?! Holy crap! So her first story was bullshit. I get that. So she’s also a liar. But there is an established burden of proof that the state MUST meet to convict someone of a Capital Crime. And in the absence of being able to establish either the CAUSE or the TIME of death? That burden gets very difficult to meet.

And so, unfortunately, since real life is not like CSI on TV, they had no case; just the least sympathetic defendant who didn’t yell “Allah Akbar!” at the time of the crime.

And here’s where my freakanomic thinking comes in… If you’re a Conservative, arguing with a Liberal about the Death Penalty, or tougher prison sentences, or anything else that falls under the “cruel and unusual punishment” venue, isn’t the fact that Casey Anthony got off PROOF that the system DOES in fact work? Doesn't it PROVE that we can’t possibly falsely convicting that many people if even a terrible, terrible person like her got off? Should this silence all of the Liberal critics of our legal system? If the Right wasn’t so blinded by their own anger, they might realize that this is actually a VICTORY for them! Kind of like how O.J. Simpson getting off (the first time) is proof that the system isn’t racist!

Even though... People are shown by DNA evidence to have been falsely convicted ALL THE TIME.

And Blacks are more likely to be executed, and receive tougher sentences than whites convicted of the exact same crimes.

But… I guess they’d still rather execute a couple more people than to be able to argue that the system works. See? I TOLD you it was a VICE!

BTW… If you ever have someone say something to the effect of “I’d rather send an innocent man to prison than risk letting a guilty man go free,” PLEASE hit them in the head with a brick that has the word “MORON!” engraved in it. And once they come to, ask them: If an INNOCENT MAN (AKA: NOT THE GUY WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME) went to prison, what happened to the guy who ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME?! (Um… I’m pretty sure he went free, FUCKWAD!) See… The guilty guy goes free either way! But these jack-holes would rather compound this legal cluster-fuck by sending THE WRONG GUY to prison on top of it! That’s how they want the system to “werk,” I guess.

The real problem here is how the media chooses to cover these things, and how they choose the cases they want to cover at all.  And this is compounded by the public's belief that they can draw any conclusions about our legal system from the media: An entity that focuses on one case at a time out of TEN THOUSAND (or more.) (16,442 in 2008!) By definition ANY case being given this kind of coverage the media can onlybe the exception: It's 1 out of 10,000+ after all!  You don't learn about significant trend with a NON-RANDOM sample size that small.
One last thing… There was a couple of great articles in Crack about bullshit the media thinks is news, and how the media makes bullshit look like fact. Worth a read. Oh, and here’s some GOOD NEWS that nobody’s talking about! (That last one has a little bit of conservative bias to it, at least the way I see it, but still: Good news is good news!)

S'more Rambling...

Just some random rambling, because I feel to compelled to write something tonight, but as too sick, achy and tired to be profound.  So I want to share something with you that will make you laugh your asses off.  BUT... I want to share the emotional roller coaster that got me there as well. (Of course, you may also feel free to skip down to the link if you don't care! I won't mind!) ;)

Earlier tonight I was giving my two boys a bath.  And when I do that, i sing to them.  I sing both loudly, and fairly badly.  But they don't really care, the bathroom tile does wonders with acoustics and since it is the first fifteen minutes since they got home from school that my wife doesn't have to deal with them, she's usually keen to keep her otherwise witty comments to herself during this time.

So I'm drying them off, and singing Paul Simon's 'American Tune' (yeah, we sing GOOD SONGS here, not this 'wheel's on the bus' shit!) and he's gently rocking to the music, and I just feel... good.  But the song is pretty moving, and it's not entirely a feel-good tune. (It's not depressing, juts... solemn.) So, after we were finished, I tried looking on you-tube for a karaoke  version (no vocals), that I could sing to while my wife was out. (Being a firm believer in the eighth amendment, after all!)  And I found one, but... a very different version than the one I knew (from the "Concert in Central Park" Live Album?)  So I couldn't really sing to it.  (Even beyond the fact that I can't really sing!)

So I started surfing YouTube, watching Paul Simon videos, when I saw one with Paul and John Lennon, appearing in some really chessy 1970's talk show together.  No music, really awful jokes.  But from there I started watching some John Lennon videos, and eventually came to the one's related to John death.  Now... I was 7 years old when John Lennon died, and my parents were not Beatles fans. I have no first hand memories of John Lennon from when he was alive, and was not really aware of the man or the story at the time.  (The first artist's death that I was aware of was Harry Chapin's, two years later.  I didn't cry then; but I almost do now, thinking of it.)  And something just struck me... Between Paul McCartney trying to play it cool to the British press later that evening, yet obviously too stunned to pull it off (probably the first time in his life that's happened) to the news casters, half of whom treated it like the weather report. (And fine, I do truly long for the days when the news was presented without all the sensationalist grandstanding, but considering what John Lennon meant to the world, reading the release with the emotional involvement that you give a sports score from a game that doesn't matter in a sport that you don't even follow hardly seems appropriate.) And finally there was the reaction of then President-Elect Reagan, who it seemed to me could barely contain his apathy. Granted it was the Reporter who brought up gun control, but Reagan positively BOOKED it from the interview at that point.  He actually answered the question with a talking point as he walked quickly away. The "great communicator." The president elect.  Upon being informed of the grisly murder of music's greatest living icon.  (Even if his was a damned, dirty, pinko, commie, hippy -  A fact that no doubt drove Reagan crazy!)  Anyway, I don't know why but after watching so many utterly lifeless news reports about this terrible event, possibly the first "JFK" moment of my lifetime, albeit one I don't remember, I started feeling depressed. 

Really depressed.  (And to be honest, it hasn't taken much lately.)

So I decided I needed to laugh. A lot.  I needed a good dose of the only alternative medicine that's worth a damn.  And my dose was expertly doled out by Seanbaby, the two-time Silver Star winning contributer to Cracked.com.

Here you go:
The four most irresponsible sex advice books of all time

(The funniest part might be that they're all written by the same guy!  I guess... Seanbaby wants his money back? IDK.) (Sorry, Seanbaby: You know I love you, man! PLEASE don't give me the "Godek" treatment if you happen to read this!)

It's 99% genius, and here's a piece of gold worth remembering:

#132: There's always nude dusting, nude room painting, nude dish washing... (You get the idea)

To which Seanbaby replies:

Yeah, I get the idea that after you clean something, there's more pubic hair on it than when you started.

There's more, but I almost fell out my chair when reading that.  So you'll have to check out the rest for yourselves.  If you ever need a really good laugh (and you know who you are!) there are few writers out there better than Seanbaby to give you an overdose.

Cheers!

-----------------------------------------------------------

BTW... I only plan to do two more posts this year, since we'll be busy with the holidays, and travelling to boot. (No, not to "Boot," to BOSTON.  I meant "as well!") The next one will be the December Gold Star Winners, and the last is just a year's-end / holiday sign off.  Starting next year, I'll be trying to go back to something resembling my former writing schedule, but I don't see another month like October anytime soon.  Plus I'm finally taking an actual drawing class, (which I've never actually done before!) so I should be getting my next comic strip off the ground a couple of weeks in.  I'll probably create a tab at the top of the blog, where I can stash anything related to the project, and have a place to link to any of the older posts that I've put up about it.  Anyway, until then, take care, get your shopping done (the economy needs it!) and enjoy your holidays!

Practical Advice for the media...

Practical Advice for the media, from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal:

Oh hells yes this is a good rule!

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.

Losing heart...

*sigh*

I’ve really been losing heart lately.

The Phelps piece was totally draining for me to write, because it really is a lose-lose scenario. I still feel like crap for having to come down on the side of shitstain like Phelps, and feel even worse that my feelings haven’t really changed much since writing it. Sometimes I find that when writing something and laying out my argument that my feelings on the matter change during that process. That the arguments that sounded fine and dandy in my head, sound absurd once I put them down on paper, (so to speak.) And the Phelps piece could easily fall into that category, bar the fact that I still feel the same way. (And still feel completely and utterly awful about it.)

But beyond any one issue, there’s been a growing sense of helplessness in my mind lately. Some of it comes from the continuing erosion of public support for the Democrats, and how they will now likely lose control of at least the House if not the Senate. Part of it comes from the fact that they DESERVE TO, having abandoned their voting base, accomplished very little, and failed to really sell what they did, after having made concession after concession to the Right, all in a vein effort to win their support – which they never would. And perhaps the worst part of it all is that the general perception (according to narrative being played out in the media) is that they’re losing because they tried to be too Liberal. This narrative has been carried by the Beltway Press since the Carter days, and while there has NEVER been much actual evidence to support it, there is far less now than there has ever been.

The REALITY is that the Republicans have actively tried to sabotage everything Obama and the Democrats have tried to do, even as this has caused people to lose their homes, lose their unemployment benefits, and forestalled the country’s economic recovery until such time as it would be politically advantageous for them. And for all their treasonous, anti-America scumbagery, PEOPLE ARE REWARDING THEM.

What a joke. Obama’s too liberal – even though no part of the liberal agenda has come to pass – and it’s his fault the country’s in this mess – even though it started under Bush, and has been on a steady path to recovery, despite every effort made by the Republicans to prevent this.

The public is being actively misinformed. And they have no fucking clue. None at all.

And it’s not like I haven’t been aware of this for years. It’s not like my frustration with utter stupidity possessed by the average American is anything new. But while I’ve been both a skeptic and cynic my whole life, I guess for one brief moment, between the time the Democrats took back the House in '06 and Obama won the Presidency in '08, I thought things might change. For one brief period of time, I let myself BELIEVE. I had FAITH. But I guess I also seriously underestimated just how stupid this country is, and how easy it would be for the uber-rich and the RW Media (which is ALL of the media!) to simply GIVE power back to the Right. I really didn’t think people would forget how badly the Republicans fucked everything up quite this quickly, especially as the Democrtas have made some progress FIXING almost everything.  IOW - the COURSE is basically right, we just not going fats enough, thanks to the Repulicans, so people want the Republican's to set the course. 

It's makes no damned sense at all.

And not only are the Republicans are running against a recovery that they fought against, and incumbantcy that has been slowly but surely cleaning up their messes for the past four years, reversing the downward death spiral that we were in when the Dem’s came to power in 2006 and that we in the absolute depths of when Obama was elected in 2008… And yet not only are they winning, but the candidates they are winning with candidates who are like everything that was wrong with the ones that lost in 2006, SQUARED! I swear… the next time I hear one of these god-damned tea-baggers saying that we need to cut spending to create jobs, or cut taxes to fix the deficit, I am going to punch them square in the face! (And while they’re on the ground, as I continue kick the shit out of them, maybe I’ll take the time to educate them about how progressive taxation systems or macroeconomics work.) Reagan & Bush’41 CREATED the fiscal problem, Clinton fixed it, Bush’43 brought it right back, and these people want to go BACK to those morons, even as the economy recovers under Obama!

It's utterly insane.

I’d say they deserve what they get, but the problem is that the rest of us DON’T.

Anyway, thanks. Thanks for listening to me piss and moan. I really needed that. I want to leave you with something I came across the other night from a webcomic I’ve started reading recently called “Venus Envy.” (Which is really, really GOOD, BTW! Strong, complex characters, good plot with clever twists, funny as hell at times, dark and tragic at others. Definitely a future Silver Star recipient, although probably not this month.) This is a rather old piece, and it's not a piece from the actual storyline, but rather an expression of the author's frustration with the results of the 2004 election that perfectly echoes not only how I too felt at the time, but how I have increasingly come to feel in over the past two years, and particular in the past few months. I couldn’t say it any better, and don’t really want to try (again) so here it is:

You’re beautiful, Erin. 

And BTW, I love her follow-up reply, to the emails basically telling her to STFU and ‘get on with the story.’ All I can say is, "Wow. Damned strait! You go, girl!"

Same Old Song and Dance

I haven't been very topical lately, and a lot of it has to do with just how depressing the political landscape is right now.  Obama and the Democrats made a mad dash for the Center, overshot the mark considerably, and yet are losing to morons and neophytes who are out campaigning (to the ignorant and the gullible) how "Obama's liberal policies" are destroying this country.  And of course, I'm forced to ask, "WHAT liberal policies?"  The only thing "liberal" about Obama and the Democrat's "policies" are that the teabaggers are describing them as such.  It's absurd. 

1) They cut to the Right of Center.
2) Liberals have largely abandoned them.  (Just take a look at the primary turn out rates!)
3) The Right is poised to take back most, or all, of the Democrats majorities
and (most depressingly of all)
4) The press will characterize the Democrat's defeat as being a backlash against their Liberal Policies!

Again...

WHAT FUCKING LIBERAL POLICES?!?!

NAME ONE!!!

And yet most people still think the press leans Liberal!!!

The press leans STUPID, first and foremost.  But stupidity has a Conservative bias, so...

I can't even talk about it anymore.  It just too depressing.

Because ClassicLiberal was right, in the Pseudo-Conservatives post:

The left in the U.S., to be sure, is a glutton for punishment. It takes a beating over and over again and replies with "thank you sir, may I have another?" But everyone has their breaking point, and those at the White House are smoking crack if they think [fill in anything they've done] going to do anything but hurt them.

He was referring specifically to Press Sec. Gibbs' absurdly ignorant comments about the "professional Left," but I think it applies to practically everything, from Health Care, to Financial Reform, to Elena Kagan, to... Christ, just about everything.

And do you know what REALLY sad part is?  I'm still gung-ho to support the Democrats!  I'm STILL saying "thank you sir, may I have another," because if I/we DON'T then we'll not only be looking at a Tea Party majority in Congress, and President Palin in 2012 - and all the policies, and Court appointees that will result from it - but we'll have to listen to the press say that the Dem's lost because they were too Liberal.

The Dem's will only LOSE if the Liberals STAY HOME.  Which is pretty much exactly what's happening!  And as much as I'd love to "send a message" to the Democrats, that message will never get sent, because the mainstream press simply will not carry that narrative!  To them, it will be: the Right won, the Left lost, so we must just be a conservative country. I'm sorry.  I can't deal with two years of that insanity leading up to November, 2012.  (And the aftermath for this country that will likely, inevitably result.)

But that was the story in 1980, and it was the story in 1994. It's ALWAYS the story... except when the Democrats make gains. And then, even when there an unpopular Republican in the White House, the story is that it's because they were political moderates, willing to work with the Right.  Blue-Dogs, so to speak. DINO's, if you will.

(But DINO 's who will suddenly be painted as flaming liberals come the next election cycle!)

So despite everything that's happened (and everything that hasn't) the thought of the alternative is just too depressing.

Even more so than the current reality... which is just too depressing.

It's all too depressing.

I wish these gutless, spineless Democrats would wake the fuck up.  But that ain't going to happen, and the press would actively work against them if they DID.

I'll be on med's by November.

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.

This was very distrubing....

Driving into work this morning, I head this story on NPR.  I found it very disturbing; a sign of just how far this country has devolved.  I'm not sure if I should hope Mister Obama is aware of what's going on or not.  It's a sad state of affairs to be sure.


First of all... Why the fuck are BP employees calling the shots here?! Why are they standing side by side with our coast guard and police force? Are you fucking kidding me?! This is NOT what's meant by "civilian control of the military!" This has been going for some time now, and it grows ever more disturbing as time goes on. Welcome to 1984, folks. If you ever wanted to see the freedom of the press utterly destroyed, well HERE YOU GO. It’s just like George Carlin once predicted: When fascism finally comes to this country, it won’t be wearing jack-boots, it will be wearing Nike’s.

A few points, that highlight the absolute absurdity of this, from the transcript:

"You are not allowed, as a police officer, to rummage through the notebooks and photographs — not published — of newspapers," Engelberg said. "That's not how we do it in this country."

Well said, Mister Engelberg. Have you contacted the ACLU yet?

"We have more than 40,000 people working on this response," [BP spokesman Scott Dean] said. "We're working around the clock to make this situation right. And we very much want that story to be told."

Yeah – they sure do: THEIR VERSION of the story. How else does he explain away the fact that the press has been HINDERED by HIS OWN company from telling the story?! This man is not only a whore, he’s a cheap whore, and doesn’t even try to hide the fact.

The flap in Texas City over the police stop of the Pro Publica photographer involves practices initiated in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. FBI Special Agent Shauna Dunlap, of the agency's Houston field office, said that such stops have become common around sensitive sites like refineries and nuclear power plants.

"People don't think about it, but there are people out there who want to do us harm, and it's our obligation to protect our territory and these critical infrastructures that are targets," Dunlap said

Riiight… I’m sure an already demolished oil well, 5000 feet below sea level, is a really high level target on Al-Quaeda’s hit list.

...adding that the oil company had also been threatened by what she said were environmental terrorists.

"There is a heightened security around those facilities, especially with BP," Dunlap said.

Oh, I get it. It’s environmental terrorism, they're worried about. Because, yeah, again, they’d accomplish SO MUCH by screwing up the cleanup effort, after the rig had burned down, sunk, and spilled X-Million barrels of oil into the gulf. Yeah, that’s when they "eco-terrorists" would SPRING INTO ACTION.

Is our FBI really this stupid, or are they just blatantly insulting our intelligence? If "eco-terrorism" was involved AT ALL, it would have been at the BEGINNING, when the rig was still WORKING. Now, it was already shown that the initial fire was entirely the result of BP’s own negligence.  That’s been clearly established.  And that’s was the only possible oppotunity for “eco-terrorism.” Destroy the RIG. (Something that is completely without precedent, I might add!)  Not showing up three months later and sabotaging the CLEANUP. That doesn’t make any damned sense at all!

This situation is now nothing more than corporatism using out irrational fear of terrorism to PREVENT the real story from being told here. (Behold your LIBERAL MEDIA!) And the only really terrifying thing going on here, is just how much this FOREIGN (not even US-based!) corporate entity can manipulate our gov’t into doing its bidding, even getting them to violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

No only should BP’s heads roll over this (and as far as I’m concerned, that BP Corporate Whore Scott Dean should be boiled in crude-oil as an example to other professioanl liars) but there needs to be some serious investigations into the gov’t actions here; Not in dealing with the spill itself, as the right have hypocritically called for, I’ll stand by my earlier judgment that President Obama is doing exactly what he should be in terms of the cleanup, (althought how would I know otherwise, seeing as how the press has been largely shut out?!) but of the way the Coast Guard, FBI and Police have denied press access, intimidated the press, rifled though their private property without warrant or propbable cause and have conspired with BP to keep the Public minimally informed at best, and misinformed at worst. Heads should roll over that.

Hey right-wingers? THIS is what “big government” or "big borther" REALLY looks like: Corporate interests being protected over public ones.