To hear what the RIGHT had to say about it: Here you go.
“GOP leaders, by the way, you know, ‘The Man,’ can only ride ya when your back is bent. So strengthen it. Then The Man can’t ride ya.”
~Sarah Palin
Um... so... IOW... Vote Democrat?!
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 palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label palin. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
R.I.P.: Sarah Palin's Career
To hear what the RIGHT had to say about it: Here you go.
Um... so... IOW... Vote Democrat?!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
A Sad State of Affairs
I haven't written much lately. I don't know why. In the past it's been for a lack of interest (on my part) or inspiration, but that definitely hasn't been the case lately. With Republican's running head-long off a cliff in ways that continue to amaze and astound me, even after all these years, there has been no shortage of material to write about. And I've been fairly active on Media Matters, intending to do some follow-up here, but lately it seems that sometime between my lunch-hour rants on MMFA and my after-dinner fray into the man-cave, it seems other things just keep crowd out those thoughts.
But one of DW's facebook-friends recently sent her a link to a Guardian article that I absolutely MUST share with you all. There have been many of these articles written before - you may recall the piece a from 2008 that likened Conservatism to Mental Illness (here's another form 2004) - and they are usually met with the kind of response that proves one of my favorite personal adages:
Argue with a Liberal and they'll prove you're wrong.
Argue with a Conservative and they'll prove you're Liberal.
I'm curious, though not optimistic, to see if any *ahem* Conservative commenters here might do better than that. We'll see. My favorite part might have been the quotes from Republican Strategist David Frum that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics." In the column, that quote links to another great column by Paul Krugman where it is shown in its entirety:
There two kinds of Conservatives: Evil and Stupid.
One lies and the other buys.
It really all comes down to two groups - Liberals and Conservative - that are both convinced they're right. The DIFFERENCE is that Liberals increasingly have the prevailing Scientific and Economic viewpoint, not to mention the evidence supporting those, on their side whilst Conservatives have increasingly chosen to propagandize for the demonstrably false knowing (as the article points out) that half the population won't knwo any better anyway. And whether it's Global Warming, Evolution, the Keynesian Economic Model or the Constituton, the Right has grown increasingly separated from reality, and more defiant every day as they say and defend that which is not only self-evident but, of infinitely more importance, is supported by empirical evidence as well.
Between Sean Hannity claiming that "you can't make the case that the economy is improving," (unless of course you look at, oh I don't know... the rising GDP, the falling unemployment rate, the rising DOW, S&P and Nasdaq, the number of new job's being created each month... you know, literaly EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC INDICIATOR) or Fox arguing that Government Spending hurts the economy (WTF?!) and Sarah Palin insisting that the unemployment numbers must not be acurate (Because, you know, the Right couldn't possibly be WRONG about... well, EVERYTHING, could they?!) the Conservative noise machine has grown increasing desperate with each passing day in their attemtps to get more and more people to ignore what it right in front of them, and to ignore the inevitable social progress that society makes, putting them in th perpetual state of losing the argument, generation after generation. Adage number three:
Scientists aren't right because they agree with Liberals.
Liberals are right because they agree with Scientists.
Of course, the Right has never been shy about slandering pretty much ANY outfit that (1) Does good and (2) Leans Democratic or Liberal, but I wanted to re-post my repsonse here to CNN's (CNN'S!) Dana Loesch's claim that "It's a 'lie' to claim that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms," because I think it would be an apropriate way to close out this post:
It's a lie to claim there's a "liberal media."
It's a lie to deny that global warming is happening or that it is man-made.
It's a lie to say that one chooses to be homosexual or transgendered.
It's a lie to claim that "both sides do it" when it comes to broadcasting false infomration and distorted, out of context quotes.
It's a lie to claim that the economy has gotten worse under Obama.
It's a lie to put the responsibility for the mortgage crisis anywhere except with the deregulation (and greed) of the banks.
It's a lie to claim that keeping condoms out of schools will stop teenagers from having sex.
It's a lie to claim that "Bush kept us safe from terrorists."
It's a lie to claim that Obama is a Muslim, or a non-American Citizen by birth.
It's a lie to claim that anyone who supports wars and the death penalty is "pro-life."
It's a lie to claim that the war on terror is a war of Christianity vs. Islam, instead of a war of Secular Freedom vs. Religious Fundamentalism and Extremism.
It's a lie to claim that "Happy Holidays" represents a Liberal War on Christmas.
It's a lie to claim that Republicans care about the deficit.
It's a lie to claim that Government spending does harm to the economy.
It's a lit to claim that taxes are "too high."
It's a lie to cliam that Obama raised taxes.
And it's a lie to claim that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an abortion mill.
Here's the thing... It may not have always been the case, but right now, and increasingly over the last 3+ years (and the last 12, and the last 20...) Conservatives have chosen to be wrong on literally EVERYTHING. (Hey: Even the two issues that I'm most strongly Conservative on, I'll happily admit that my position is indefensible and based entirely on emotion rather than reason!) And that being the case... knowing that... I'm forced to ask the question: WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE CONSERVATIVE?!
But then... that's already been answered, hasn't it?
But one of DW's facebook-friends recently sent her a link to a Guardian article that I absolutely MUST share with you all. There have been many of these articles written before - you may recall the piece a from 2008 that likened Conservatism to Mental Illness (here's another form 2004) - and they are usually met with the kind of response that proves one of my favorite personal adages:
Argue with a Liberal and they'll prove you're wrong.
Argue with a Conservative and they'll prove you're Liberal.
I'm curious, though not optimistic, to see if any *ahem* Conservative commenters here might do better than that. We'll see. My favorite part might have been the quotes from Republican Strategist David Frum that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics." In the column, that quote links to another great column by Paul Krugman where it is shown in its entirety:
Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”So... not only is Black White and White Black, but... Black is Black and White is White as well. Which leads to another favorite adage of mine that sums up the Republican Party, the Right Wing, and the Conservative Movement:
There two kinds of Conservatives: Evil and Stupid.
One lies and the other buys.
It really all comes down to two groups - Liberals and Conservative - that are both convinced they're right. The DIFFERENCE is that Liberals increasingly have the prevailing Scientific and Economic viewpoint, not to mention the evidence supporting those, on their side whilst Conservatives have increasingly chosen to propagandize for the demonstrably false knowing (as the article points out) that half the population won't knwo any better anyway. And whether it's Global Warming, Evolution, the Keynesian Economic Model or the Constituton, the Right has grown increasingly separated from reality, and more defiant every day as they say and defend that which is not only self-evident but, of infinitely more importance, is supported by empirical evidence as well.
Between Sean Hannity claiming that "you can't make the case that the economy is improving," (unless of course you look at, oh I don't know... the rising GDP, the falling unemployment rate, the rising DOW, S&P and Nasdaq, the number of new job's being created each month... you know, literaly EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC INDICIATOR) or Fox arguing that Government Spending hurts the economy (WTF?!) and Sarah Palin insisting that the unemployment numbers must not be acurate (Because, you know, the Right couldn't possibly be WRONG about... well, EVERYTHING, could they?!) the Conservative noise machine has grown increasing desperate with each passing day in their attemtps to get more and more people to ignore what it right in front of them, and to ignore the inevitable social progress that society makes, putting them in th perpetual state of losing the argument, generation after generation. Adage number three:
Scientists aren't right because they agree with Liberals.
Liberals are right because they agree with Scientists.
Of course, the Right has never been shy about slandering pretty much ANY outfit that (1) Does good and (2) Leans Democratic or Liberal, but I wanted to re-post my repsonse here to CNN's (CNN'S!) Dana Loesch's claim that "It's a 'lie' to claim that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms," because I think it would be an apropriate way to close out this post:
It's a lie to claim there's a "liberal media."
It's a lie to deny that global warming is happening or that it is man-made.
It's a lie to say that one chooses to be homosexual or transgendered.
It's a lie to claim that "both sides do it" when it comes to broadcasting false infomration and distorted, out of context quotes.
It's a lie to claim that the economy has gotten worse under Obama.
It's a lie to put the responsibility for the mortgage crisis anywhere except with the deregulation (and greed) of the banks.
It's a lie to claim that keeping condoms out of schools will stop teenagers from having sex.
It's a lie to claim that "Bush kept us safe from terrorists."
It's a lie to claim that Obama is a Muslim, or a non-American Citizen by birth.
It's a lie to claim that anyone who supports wars and the death penalty is "pro-life."
It's a lie to claim that the war on terror is a war of Christianity vs. Islam, instead of a war of Secular Freedom vs. Religious Fundamentalism and Extremism.
It's a lie to claim that "Happy Holidays" represents a Liberal War on Christmas.
It's a lie to claim that Republicans care about the deficit.
It's a lie to claim that Government spending does harm to the economy.
It's a lit to claim that taxes are "too high."
It's a lie to cliam that Obama raised taxes.
And it's a lie to claim that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an abortion mill.
Here's the thing... It may not have always been the case, but right now, and increasingly over the last 3+ years (and the last 12, and the last 20...) Conservatives have chosen to be wrong on literally EVERYTHING. (Hey: Even the two issues that I'm most strongly Conservative on, I'll happily admit that my position is indefensible and based entirely on emotion rather than reason!) And that being the case... knowing that... I'm forced to ask the question: WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE CONSERVATIVE?!
But then... that's already been answered, hasn't it?
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, June 6, 2011
Four things...
The were a couple of items today on Media Matters that really got me thinking. I was tied up all day at work and didn't have the time to comment on them, but I'd like to do so here, because I think they are very indicative of how Conservatives thynk and what they prynciples are.
(See what I did there?)
The first was this item about the Federal ICE and Secure Communities Programs. There's a lot of the same old bullshit... (They're not racists, they're just saying that every Mexican is a criminal!) They lie about they're affect on our economy, and our tax base, and the job market. But there's a sub-text buried in there, almost like an afterthought, that I found to be almost laughably profound: They focus on California, and the fact that in opting out of these programs, they also want to opt out of federal cross-checks. Or, at least... not perform them, per federal immigration law.
Now... they were hardly praising this move. In fact, as I read it, they seemed to take rather serious issue with California's bucking federal law here. Which got me thinking:
Aren't these guys supposed to be all about State's Rights and limiting the power of the Federal Government and letting States decide for themselves what laws to have and how to enforce them?
Well... They certainly TALK a good game there. But it's clear that this principle only matters if those States choose to resits LIBERAL Laws (non-discrimination laws, hate-crime legislation, industrial and environmental regulations) and replace them with CONSERVATIVE ones (anti-abortion measure, union-busting, prayer in school, etc...) Which means this whole, "States Rights" thing? Isn't a PRINCIPLE at all. It only comes into play when it serves their overall agenda - Which has nothing to do with States Rights. In this case? It's just more blatant racism, using propaganda to refute reality.
The second thing, was this. In their effort to vilify Planned Parenthood as nothing more than an abortion mill, dedicated to some kind of genocide, the National Review's Rich Lowry, when presented with actual, factual data on how much of PP's business is abortion services (3%) and how much of its revenue was represented by those services (15%) and the fact that no federal money was ever used to pay or or subsidize those services, he simply waved his hands and called the data, "Fake And Bogus."
I've said it before folks: The biggest different between how Liberals think and how Conservatives thynk is that Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form their position accordingly, whilst Conservatives form their position and then evaluate the evidence accordingly.
I've always known that to be true, but I'd never thought I'd see it proven so... clumsily!
The third was RW micro-hack Hugh Hewitt's advice for Sarah Palin to not participate in presidential debates that are organized by "traditional media" outlets, claiming that they were overwhelming opposed to the election of GOP candidates, and that she should expect them to ask the "gotcha" questions. Like...
Calling out the fact that they are so far to the right on abortion that they no longer support exceptions for rape victims (or as Keith Olbermann more aptly put it: supporting the rapist's Bill of Rights) is something bad, journalistically speaking?
Pointing out either the continued, absurd belief that Saddam had WMD's, or the utterly psychotic viewpoint that the war was even remotely justified without them (hell - it wasn't necessarily justified WITH them!) is information that the American People shouldn't have access to?
Teaching evolution in the classroom? Believing in long and thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, and wanting to TEACH that to our children? We shouldn't know (or care?) about that?!
Global Warming?! Again with the thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, only this time they get to make money off of it, while slowly dooming humanity to a planet that can no longer support them? This isn't something we should know about the candidate?!
Hugh... I've got a question for you: If you're so ashamed of you viewpoints, WHY DO YOU HAVE THEM? If your positions on these issues make you so unpalatable to the American people that you can't even defend them in a simple interview, then WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU['RE CANDIDATE]?
Again... I always knew they only cared about winning, and about power, and couldn't give two shits about what's important to a super-majortiy of the American people, but still...
They're usually better about hiding it!
Though... I still wonder why any politician, any Representative of the People, should hold a position that such an anathema to the people he represents, that he doesn't want anyone to know about it! That ALONE should disqualify ANYONE from holding a public office, no?
And the LAST THING, well... if you REALLY want to read some shit... ;)
(See what I did there?)
The first was this item about the Federal ICE and Secure Communities Programs. There's a lot of the same old bullshit... (They're not racists, they're just saying that every Mexican is a criminal!) They lie about they're affect on our economy, and our tax base, and the job market. But there's a sub-text buried in there, almost like an afterthought, that I found to be almost laughably profound: They focus on California, and the fact that in opting out of these programs, they also want to opt out of federal cross-checks. Or, at least... not perform them, per federal immigration law.
Now... they were hardly praising this move. In fact, as I read it, they seemed to take rather serious issue with California's bucking federal law here. Which got me thinking:
Aren't these guys supposed to be all about State's Rights and limiting the power of the Federal Government and letting States decide for themselves what laws to have and how to enforce them?
Well... They certainly TALK a good game there. But it's clear that this principle only matters if those States choose to resits LIBERAL Laws (non-discrimination laws, hate-crime legislation, industrial and environmental regulations) and replace them with CONSERVATIVE ones (anti-abortion measure, union-busting, prayer in school, etc...) Which means this whole, "States Rights" thing? Isn't a PRINCIPLE at all. It only comes into play when it serves their overall agenda - Which has nothing to do with States Rights. In this case? It's just more blatant racism, using propaganda to refute reality.
The second thing, was this. In their effort to vilify Planned Parenthood as nothing more than an abortion mill, dedicated to some kind of genocide, the National Review's Rich Lowry, when presented with actual, factual data on how much of PP's business is abortion services (3%) and how much of its revenue was represented by those services (15%) and the fact that no federal money was ever used to pay or or subsidize those services, he simply waved his hands and called the data, "Fake And Bogus."
I've said it before folks: The biggest different between how Liberals think and how Conservatives thynk is that Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form their position accordingly, whilst Conservatives form their position and then evaluate the evidence accordingly.
I've always known that to be true, but I'd never thought I'd see it proven so... clumsily!
The third was RW micro-hack Hugh Hewitt's advice for Sarah Palin to not participate in presidential debates that are organized by "traditional media" outlets, claiming that they were overwhelming opposed to the election of GOP candidates, and that she should expect them to ask the "gotcha" questions. Like...
"[The] standard stunt questions on abortion in the event of rape or incest, weapons of mass destruction, evolution, global warming, or any of a dozen other dog whistles to the left designed to create the moment that replicates across the Web."Anyone see anything wrong with this kind of thynking?
Calling out the fact that they are so far to the right on abortion that they no longer support exceptions for rape victims (or as Keith Olbermann more aptly put it: supporting the rapist's Bill of Rights) is something bad, journalistically speaking?
Pointing out either the continued, absurd belief that Saddam had WMD's, or the utterly psychotic viewpoint that the war was even remotely justified without them (hell - it wasn't necessarily justified WITH them!) is information that the American People shouldn't have access to?
Teaching evolution in the classroom? Believing in long and thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, and wanting to TEACH that to our children? We shouldn't know (or care?) about that?!
Global Warming?! Again with the thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, only this time they get to make money off of it, while slowly dooming humanity to a planet that can no longer support them? This isn't something we should know about the candidate?!
Hugh... I've got a question for you: If you're so ashamed of you viewpoints, WHY DO YOU HAVE THEM? If your positions on these issues make you so unpalatable to the American people that you can't even defend them in a simple interview, then WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU['RE CANDIDATE]?
Again... I always knew they only cared about winning, and about power, and couldn't give two shits about what's important to a super-majortiy of the American people, but still...
They're usually better about hiding it!
Though... I still wonder why any politician, any Representative of the People, should hold a position that such an anathema to the people he represents, that he doesn't want anyone to know about it! That ALONE should disqualify ANYONE from holding a public office, no?
And the LAST THING, well... if you REALLY want to read some shit... ;)
Friday, September 17, 2010
Friday Fun: Dumbest Article EVER
Saw this yesterday on MSN.com. It was originally from the NYT. It's completely non-political, and I'd like to nomintatie for the DUMBEST ARTICLE I'VE EVER READ.
I don't think I could say it here any better than the comment I left on the site, so to save you the trouble of finding it, here it is:
I don't think I could say it here any better than the comment I left on the site, so to save you the trouble of finding it, here it is:
I'm sorry, but as much as I hate New York, hate the Yankees and hate Yankee fans, this is just stupid. It's NEW YORK for cripes sake! What do you expect them to be wearing? Mariners Caps? Padres Jerseys?In other news...
What you have discovered is that some sub-section of the population of New York dresses a lot like the REST OF THE POPUPLATION OF NEW YORK. OMFG - Yankee fans? In NEW YORK?! Stop the freakin' presses!
Nonsense stories like this is exemplary of everything that's wrong with the news media today.
(Go Red Sox!)
Is it just me, or does Christine O’Donnell look like Sarah Palin’s slightly uglier kid-sister? Sort of like the Ashlee Simpson of the Tea Party movement?
I'm not trying to pass that off as serious political analysis or anything. It's just that it's pretty hard to take someone seriously who's against Abortion, Contraception AND Masturbation. Seems to me that a person who's being ebven slightly reasonable couldn't possibly be opposed to more than two of them.
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.
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.
Monday, April 5, 2010
In defense of Obama
It seems all the rage these days in the liberal blogosphere to be bashing Obama. Of course, that's always been the rage in the conservative blogospere, but their arguments are too absurd to even warrant a counter argument. But for my part, I've never been afraid to go against the grain on and this case is no different. So I'm going to go against the hard left here and offer a strong defense of what Obama is doing. And I'm going to do thins not becuase I'm defending the lesser of two evils - I'm doing this because I'm HAPPY with what happening.
Yes, you read that right.
That I'm a self-proclaimed liberal that likes Obama will not surprise anyone the Right. But they're morons, and they actually BELIEVE the RW media's nonsensical chariciture of him and have no idea what they're talking about. To them it would never occur that Obama even needs a defense from the far more will-informed and principled attacks that come from the Left. Well, Mister President, I'M YOUR MAN. I can only hope that I'm equal to the task.
Two areas in which liberals are feeling a bit, shall we say, betrayed lately are the recently enacted health care reform and the pending (and passed) energy legislation. The common explanations that I come accross that accompuy the liberal head-scratching is that President Obama is a FOOL for doing things like throwing out the public option or opening up [SOME] off-shore drilling without demanding ANYTHING from the Republicans in return for these huge concessions. I've heard every, very legitate, argument that he's pissing away all his negotiating power, and it's in the ultimate of all veign efforts since the Republicans have adopted as their official party-line policy, "Stop all things Obama and all things Democrat at ANY cost." In other words: They're calling him a fool for not only holding out hope for bi-partisanship but also for going about getting it in such an ineffective manner. Now these conclusions and these judgemenbts are perfectly valid and reasonable, except for the one thing they all ignore:
President Barack Hueissein Obama doesn't give a shit about Congressional Republicans or their uneccessary votes. Not. A. Shit. Mark my words that eveything he passes - and a lot will yet pass - under his administration will do so under a pure party-line vote, occasionally excepting Maine's Snowe and Collins. And the President not only knows this, he's counting on it. You see he's not doing ANY of this for the votes of Congressional Republicans...
He doing it for the votes of Moderate Republicans in the general public, for both his beneift and the benefit of the party.
And he's also doing it to get the entreched industries on board. It's one thing to have to deal with Republicans who dig in their heals. But they're irrelevant. They really are. But try passing health care reform if the INSURANCE COMPANIES and the MEDICAL INDUSTRY all dig in their heals; or energy legislation if BIG OIL and BIG NUKE dig in theirs. Liberals my not like the concessions but I for one do believe that they are necessary if ANYTHING is going to get done. And while the individual points and details may cause some legitimate consternation, we ARE still moving in the right direction net and net. And every judgement to the contrary, to me sounds more like someone saying that we're simply not moving in that direction fast enough. But there is a world of difference between moving in the right driection too slowly and goin full tilt in the wrong direction. Anyone who thinks that there's only a subtle difference between an Obama presidency and a hypothetical SARAH PALIN presidency (or the George W. Presdiency) for example, is a fool. In Obama's adminstration there is MORE regulation that before, MORE government involvement than before. More of everything that evcery liberal wants than there would be otherwise. In a Palin presidency, there would only, ever, be LESS, just as we saw with Bush. (And we saw the results.)
And the really beautiful part is that he's doing a lot more than just getting the necessary endorsments from the affected industries in order to got us heading the right way again. By making these concessions, and (to some extent) angering his base, the image that the RW press tries to paint of him (as some radical, communist, socialist, facsist, marxist, etc...) gets increasing incruent with reality. This only make the RW talkers seem more and more irrational, more and more out of touch and farther and farther to the right. This won't change their message of course, they've proven that much, but it will change the preception of some of those right-center moderates who increasingly will realise that these Limbaugh and Beck types simply are no longer observing reality. This will win over many moderates.
Does this win moderates at the risk of alienating his base? Is he rubbing their face in it? No, not really.. He's giving them what he can, and he giving them far more credit than the Republicans are giving the tea-baggers. At some point he must realize that liberals will vote for him, not just as the lesser of two evils, but as the WAY lesser of two evils, and even the bringer of SOME good. Again, if you say he's the same as Bush or Palin (would be), the you're simply not observing reality. And he knows that true liberals will not risk eight years of Sarah Palin over a little bit of oil, or the structure of a health care system that actually delivers. Side by side, one looks the right direction and one looks like lunacy. The left will realize this. The moderats will realize this. And the only people who see thing the other way? Are the lunatics!
Now I've mentioned that I, for one, don't feel betrayed. And I'm not actually the least bit surprised at what's happening actually. In fact, as I remember it, it's exactly the policies that he advocated for on the campaign trail. First off, I never fell for the RW nonsense. But I'm honestly not sure where the liberals got the idea that he'd be all that far to the left either. I listened to his speeches and everything he said, everything he's EVER said, just MADE SENSE to me. It was always EXACTLY what I wanted to hear him say. And what I took away from his speeches, and what I came to expect when I cast my vote for him, is playing out pretty much as I expected, though I underestimated the Republican's will to obstruct.
Obama did NOT. Yes, you read that right.
Remember: He doesn't care about getting their votes. But by giving all of these concessions, and knowing that the Republicans will dig in no matter what, he not only deprives of the ability to take credit for it, but they can't even claim credit for reigning it in. They can't even say, "Well, it worked because we made him do X" or "we stopped him from doing X." They've been the blindfolded party of 'no' from the start, will continue to be, and won't even be able to take credit for the concessions. Everything that happens will be 100% to the credit of both Obama and the Democrats. And depsite the story the press will tell, mark my words that every Democrat in the upcoming election, and in 2012, will be listing their party's accomplishments and finishing their speeches with: "AND MY OPPONENT [or his party] VOTED AGAINST EVERY SIGLE ONE OF THOSE!"
My opponent WANTS you to be denied insurance!
My opponent WANTS you to have your insurance dropped because your sick!
My opponent WANTS insuracne to be priced out of the range of most Americans!
...and, on energy:
My opponent not only wants to ignore the growing problem of climate change, but he didn't even vote to get you cheaper gas!
(Yes, yes, I know, full well, that this little bit of drilling, or indeed A WHOLE LOT of drilling will make little difference in the price of gas... But the average voter doesn't! Drill, baby, drill, remember?)
Now, at this point you may be wondering if I'm allowing Obama to just do what he thinks he needs to to get re-elected. And maybe I am. To be fair, I actually see that as a big part of a polticians JOB. But for eight long years I watched as the country went headlong in the WRONG DIRECTION. And what I FELT I was being promised - what I took away from Obama's speeches - was that the direction would change. We would not be delivered to a liberal's paradise in one term, two terms or even necessarily in my lifetime... but we would be headed in the right direction once again. And, IMHO, we are. And to me, all of the arguments from the left sound like "we're not going fast enough" rather than "we're going the same direction we were." We're not. And you're whitewashing George Bush and Dick Cheney and (hypothetcially) Sarah Palin to say that we are. And the only way we can continue to march in that direction? Is to STAY IN POWER and GET THNGS PASSED. Because one IN, it's harder to take things OUT. It's a lot easier to PASS laws than REPEAL them. And thus, we progress.
As for energy? Hey: He SAID he'd drill. He SAID we need more oil. I remember that specifically! That was IN his speeches on energy policy! It's not his fault that both the Right and the Left took that about as seruiously as they did McCain'slipservice pledge to pursue some pathetic little amount of green energy. I took it seriously. (Obama's not McCain's!) He also said we needed a ton of the green stuff as well. So if giving some new resouces to the oil companies means that we get some serious investments in alternative energy? As was promised, and as has been absent fro eight years? And new Cafe standards? Proposed at 35 mpg for all vehicles, when they haven't changed in so long? And some climate change treaties signed? After we balked at Kyoto and have boycotted any serious effort since for eight years? And some (ANY!) serious development of wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, whatever / etc...? Shoot, I'll give him some oil for that. Becuase if we actually GET the other things, just like with health care reform, we will be making progress once again, after eight years of stalling at best and rushing headlong in the wrong direction almost all of the time.
And if anyone still thinks he should have gotten some Republican concessions out of it? Remember: He doesn't need them, and more importnatly: He doesn't even WANT them. We'll get the good stuff he proposing, AND we'll even get some oil resources developed - proving to right-leaning moderates that you don't have to kill the economy to get renewable energy, BTW - and, once again, the Democrats will be able to take all the credit for it. And what he's got now is an oil industry that will resist these changes that much less, and have that much less to go after him with. And if you think that he could have just forced some radical liberal agenda though? (1) You're just not being realistinc about the COUNTRY and how things are done; and (2) you mustn't have heard the same speeches I did, in the same way I did. Because drillign was ALWASY part of his ebnergy plan, and it's one of the reason I LIKED it.
He's no fool, politically speaking. If anything, he's far closer to "evil genius" than Karl Rove ever was. (Except that he's using his powers for GOOD!) And the Republicans are doing EXACTLY what he wants them to.
Now, could I be wrong? Hells yes I could be! And in two years time, I may sound just like those fools who were still defending George Bush well into 2007, saying that everything was going according to some secret grand master plan. Well... WE sure as hell didn't see the plan! And history has shown that there really wasn't one. Rove wasn't a genius and Bush didn't assemble the "dream team." Those were media concoctions. And the policies just plain FAILED, just as we knew they would.
THIS time around? I actually SEE the plan. And I actaully LIKE the policies that are coming out of it, and I look forward to seeing the Democrats USE these while the Republicans keep trying to argue against progress.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This is a post about LEADERSHIP, NEGOTIATING and STRATEGY. So PLEASE keep your comments on THAT topic and give me another day to pull together my position piece on energy legislation. You can savage my defense of oil - and NUKE! OMFG! - then.
Yes, you read that right.
That I'm a self-proclaimed liberal that likes Obama will not surprise anyone the Right. But they're morons, and they actually BELIEVE the RW media's nonsensical chariciture of him and have no idea what they're talking about. To them it would never occur that Obama even needs a defense from the far more will-informed and principled attacks that come from the Left. Well, Mister President, I'M YOUR MAN. I can only hope that I'm equal to the task.
Two areas in which liberals are feeling a bit, shall we say, betrayed lately are the recently enacted health care reform and the pending (and passed) energy legislation. The common explanations that I come accross that accompuy the liberal head-scratching is that President Obama is a FOOL for doing things like throwing out the public option or opening up [SOME] off-shore drilling without demanding ANYTHING from the Republicans in return for these huge concessions. I've heard every, very legitate, argument that he's pissing away all his negotiating power, and it's in the ultimate of all veign efforts since the Republicans have adopted as their official party-line policy, "Stop all things Obama and all things Democrat at ANY cost." In other words: They're calling him a fool for not only holding out hope for bi-partisanship but also for going about getting it in such an ineffective manner. Now these conclusions and these judgemenbts are perfectly valid and reasonable, except for the one thing they all ignore:
President Barack Hueissein Obama doesn't give a shit about Congressional Republicans or their uneccessary votes. Not. A. Shit. Mark my words that eveything he passes - and a lot will yet pass - under his administration will do so under a pure party-line vote, occasionally excepting Maine's Snowe and Collins. And the President not only knows this, he's counting on it. You see he's not doing ANY of this for the votes of Congressional Republicans...
He doing it for the votes of Moderate Republicans in the general public, for both his beneift and the benefit of the party.
And he's also doing it to get the entreched industries on board. It's one thing to have to deal with Republicans who dig in their heals. But they're irrelevant. They really are. But try passing health care reform if the INSURANCE COMPANIES and the MEDICAL INDUSTRY all dig in their heals; or energy legislation if BIG OIL and BIG NUKE dig in theirs. Liberals my not like the concessions but I for one do believe that they are necessary if ANYTHING is going to get done. And while the individual points and details may cause some legitimate consternation, we ARE still moving in the right direction net and net. And every judgement to the contrary, to me sounds more like someone saying that we're simply not moving in that direction fast enough. But there is a world of difference between moving in the right driection too slowly and goin full tilt in the wrong direction. Anyone who thinks that there's only a subtle difference between an Obama presidency and a hypothetical SARAH PALIN presidency (or the George W. Presdiency) for example, is a fool. In Obama's adminstration there is MORE regulation that before, MORE government involvement than before. More of everything that evcery liberal wants than there would be otherwise. In a Palin presidency, there would only, ever, be LESS, just as we saw with Bush. (And we saw the results.)
And the really beautiful part is that he's doing a lot more than just getting the necessary endorsments from the affected industries in order to got us heading the right way again. By making these concessions, and (to some extent) angering his base, the image that the RW press tries to paint of him (as some radical, communist, socialist, facsist, marxist, etc...) gets increasing incruent with reality. This only make the RW talkers seem more and more irrational, more and more out of touch and farther and farther to the right. This won't change their message of course, they've proven that much, but it will change the preception of some of those right-center moderates who increasingly will realise that these Limbaugh and Beck types simply are no longer observing reality. This will win over many moderates.
Does this win moderates at the risk of alienating his base? Is he rubbing their face in it? No, not really.. He's giving them what he can, and he giving them far more credit than the Republicans are giving the tea-baggers. At some point he must realize that liberals will vote for him, not just as the lesser of two evils, but as the WAY lesser of two evils, and even the bringer of SOME good. Again, if you say he's the same as Bush or Palin (would be), the you're simply not observing reality. And he knows that true liberals will not risk eight years of Sarah Palin over a little bit of oil, or the structure of a health care system that actually delivers. Side by side, one looks the right direction and one looks like lunacy. The left will realize this. The moderats will realize this. And the only people who see thing the other way? Are the lunatics!
Now I've mentioned that I, for one, don't feel betrayed. And I'm not actually the least bit surprised at what's happening actually. In fact, as I remember it, it's exactly the policies that he advocated for on the campaign trail. First off, I never fell for the RW nonsense. But I'm honestly not sure where the liberals got the idea that he'd be all that far to the left either. I listened to his speeches and everything he said, everything he's EVER said, just MADE SENSE to me. It was always EXACTLY what I wanted to hear him say. And what I took away from his speeches, and what I came to expect when I cast my vote for him, is playing out pretty much as I expected, though I underestimated the Republican's will to obstruct.
Obama did NOT. Yes, you read that right.
Remember: He doesn't care about getting their votes. But by giving all of these concessions, and knowing that the Republicans will dig in no matter what, he not only deprives of the ability to take credit for it, but they can't even claim credit for reigning it in. They can't even say, "Well, it worked because we made him do X" or "we stopped him from doing X." They've been the blindfolded party of 'no' from the start, will continue to be, and won't even be able to take credit for the concessions. Everything that happens will be 100% to the credit of both Obama and the Democrats. And depsite the story the press will tell, mark my words that every Democrat in the upcoming election, and in 2012, will be listing their party's accomplishments and finishing their speeches with: "AND MY OPPONENT [or his party] VOTED AGAINST EVERY SIGLE ONE OF THOSE!"
My opponent WANTS you to be denied insurance!
My opponent WANTS you to have your insurance dropped because your sick!
My opponent WANTS insuracne to be priced out of the range of most Americans!
...and, on energy:
My opponent not only wants to ignore the growing problem of climate change, but he didn't even vote to get you cheaper gas!
(Yes, yes, I know, full well, that this little bit of drilling, or indeed A WHOLE LOT of drilling will make little difference in the price of gas... But the average voter doesn't! Drill, baby, drill, remember?)
Now, at this point you may be wondering if I'm allowing Obama to just do what he thinks he needs to to get re-elected. And maybe I am. To be fair, I actually see that as a big part of a polticians JOB. But for eight long years I watched as the country went headlong in the WRONG DIRECTION. And what I FELT I was being promised - what I took away from Obama's speeches - was that the direction would change. We would not be delivered to a liberal's paradise in one term, two terms or even necessarily in my lifetime... but we would be headed in the right direction once again. And, IMHO, we are. And to me, all of the arguments from the left sound like "we're not going fast enough" rather than "we're going the same direction we were." We're not. And you're whitewashing George Bush and Dick Cheney and (hypothetcially) Sarah Palin to say that we are. And the only way we can continue to march in that direction? Is to STAY IN POWER and GET THNGS PASSED. Because one IN, it's harder to take things OUT. It's a lot easier to PASS laws than REPEAL them. And thus, we progress.
As for energy? Hey: He SAID he'd drill. He SAID we need more oil. I remember that specifically! That was IN his speeches on energy policy! It's not his fault that both the Right and the Left took that about as seruiously as they did McCain's
And if anyone still thinks he should have gotten some Republican concessions out of it? Remember: He doesn't need them, and more importnatly: He doesn't even WANT them. We'll get the good stuff he proposing, AND we'll even get some oil resources developed - proving to right-leaning moderates that you don't have to kill the economy to get renewable energy, BTW - and, once again, the Democrats will be able to take all the credit for it. And what he's got now is an oil industry that will resist these changes that much less, and have that much less to go after him with. And if you think that he could have just forced some radical liberal agenda though? (1) You're just not being realistinc about the COUNTRY and how things are done; and (2) you mustn't have heard the same speeches I did, in the same way I did. Because drillign was ALWASY part of his ebnergy plan, and it's one of the reason I LIKED it.
He's no fool, politically speaking. If anything, he's far closer to "evil genius" than Karl Rove ever was. (Except that he's using his powers for GOOD!) And the Republicans are doing EXACTLY what he wants them to.
Now, could I be wrong? Hells yes I could be! And in two years time, I may sound just like those fools who were still defending George Bush well into 2007, saying that everything was going according to some secret grand master plan. Well... WE sure as hell didn't see the plan! And history has shown that there really wasn't one. Rove wasn't a genius and Bush didn't assemble the "dream team." Those were media concoctions. And the policies just plain FAILED, just as we knew they would.
THIS time around? I actually SEE the plan. And I actaully LIKE the policies that are coming out of it, and I look forward to seeing the Democrats USE these while the Republicans keep trying to argue against progress.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This is a post about LEADERSHIP, NEGOTIATING and STRATEGY. So PLEASE keep your comments on THAT topic and give me another day to pull together my position piece on energy legislation. You can savage my defense of oil - and NUKE! OMFG! - then.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
"Terrific" Article on Obama from "the WSJ"
I want to take a break from the more controversial stuff for a little while, and go back to preaching the choir for a bit. I need a break. LOL
So I'd like to share with you some of the e-mail that I occasionally receive from my conservative friends, family and co-workers. Mind you, these are all people I love and/or respect, but I just cannot reconcile my generally positive view of them with some of the absolute trash they forward on from their inbox. It's like these otherwise sane, mostly educated, usually intelligent people, just turn their brains off and let their eyes glave over when they get a few words of conservatism thrown their way. It's insane.
Anyway, I recently got the following email from my Dad.
The subject field read: FW: A MUST READ!!! Wall Street Journal Article on Obama
It was described as a
"Terrific Article on Obama ! ! !" and an "Article from the Wall Street Journal Form by Eddie Sessions:"
Now... first off, I'll bet the house that my father honestly believes that "Eddie Sessions" is a WSJ contributor, and they Journal actually PRINTED this piece of crap. I'm sure he has no idea that anyone can write whatever they want to on the WSJ FORUM, including himself and me. As "terrific" as this write-up is, and as much as Uncle Ruppert has corrupted the once proud Journal, I think it's telling that even HE [Murdoch] knows this is crap, and that it's lack of veracity, utility and over-all quality is self evident for all to see. (So while he's perfectly willing to LIE, he recognizes THIS LIE as being so absurd that it's not even USEFUL.) Here's the "terrific article on Obama" from the "WSJ" (forum.)
Wha...? First of all... Mathews in particular has a long history of kissing Republican ass, especially McCain and Giulliani, but others as well. (MMFA named in "misinformer of the year" in 2005! Behold the liberal media!) And this "schoolgirl crush" nonsense is just the sour grapes of someone who's party lacks any charismatic eloquent speakers. Just because YOU disagree with his policies doesn't mean he does a bad job PRESENTING them. Also... just one paragraph ago you said McCain was CRAZY for picking Palin, who somehow transformed him into Walter Modale c.1984? Dude? Seriously: The press did all it could to carry Palin. They were genuinely interested in learning more about this "unknown." It's not the press' fault that she's dumb as a stone, and can't remember the name of a single newspaper. (Or a supreme court decision, other than Roe v Wade, to give as an example of the 'Judicial Activism' she was campaigning against at the time!) If this article had been about PALIN, the "theory" and "evidence" and conspiracy theories, while still weak, would be a lot closer to the truth. Amazing how much these people project.
The "joke" is one that only circulates among right-wingers who would also call this "article" "terrific," can't think of anything to criticize him on substantively and are too lazy to even make something else up. And it's a tired one. EVERYONE use teleprompters, and Obama's repeatedly been shown to be better on his feet that McCain or Palin. Again: PROJECTION. Put YOUR OWN FLAWS onto someone else, so no one will notice them in YOU. Also, I'll say it again: Just because YOU disagree with someone, that doesn't mean he said "the wrong thing." 50% of these "wrong thing's" have been outright misquotes and the rest have been things that actually MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, assuming your not blinded by right-wing group-think, or outright racism, and actually THINK about them.
Refresh my memory... WHO was it that ignored the threat of Militant Islam during his first year in office? George... something or other? (Weren't there two REALLY BIG buildings that used to be here?) Remember folks: PROJECTION. Whatever you biggest flaw is, make sure you say it about the OTHER GUY. You'll look that much better by comparison. Doesn't have to be true either. The press never bothers with mundane thigns like FACT-CHECKING anymore. Whoever says it first WINS. (And that will ALWAYS be the Right, since the Left don't actually possess these flaws. So... nothing to project!)
Again... I'm almost as stunned by the writer's 'grasp of history' as I am by the evidence, or lack thereof, that he presents to support this "theory." Remember: "TERRIFIC ARTICLE." Not 'ignorant rant by some loser on an internet forum,' but a "terrific article" by the "Wall Street Journal" no less!
Again: EVIDENCE? What "communist ideology"?! Can this moron point to ONE THING that Obama has done that has even a HINT of "communist ideology" in it? No. But why do you need evidence when you're preaching to the choir? Remember: "Terrific Article."
Gates was being questioned by police for breaking into his own house. No matter what else happened, that's the bottom line. Apparently, the writer here sees the same wisdom in that that he sees in LYNCH MOBS. Now... so do I! But where I see NONE, he sees 'the way things ought to be.'
Gitmo has written Al-Quaeda's propaganda for them since the day it opened. And the last time I checked, "fair trials" was one of the "American Values" we were fighting to DEFEND! I thought the militant Muslims wanted to destroy our freedoma? WHY, therefore, would we want to HELP THEM succeed?! Oh yeah... and Bush waited FIVE DAYS to make a statement following Richard Reid's failed shoe-bomb attack, so let's get over the fact that Obama waited three. Again: Whether or not comments are "lame" is a matter of opinion. Personally, given the propensity of the RW press to constantly mischaracterize his words, I can't see how there's anything wrong with a little "clarification."
WHO'S trying to "wish away the truth" here? Are you beginning to see what I mean by a 'lack of self awareness?' Remember: "Terrific Wall Street Journal Article."
It the author who's "pathetic" here. He's yet to name WHO this 'sock puppet's' "handlers" ARE, or offer any EVIDENCE of their existance. But a crazy conspiracy theory must be more comforting than admitting (1) that you're wrong. (2) That you're misinfoimred. (3) That you've been lied to for going on 20 years now by the RW media. (4) That your entire political philosophy and world view are informed by these lies, and you really are no more than a mindless automaton still clinging to the false words of it's master. I can see why the author wouldn't want to consider that possibility.
Just curious, because I don't really watch them but does even Fox News still take the Birther's seriously? I've got a newsflash for this intrepid reporter: He DID produce it. He also put it on his website and had it authenticated by several official sources. He did not spend so much as a single penny to "keep it hidden." As for the "facts" about his "life?" Well... as you pointed out in your second paragraph, he's written two books covering two generations of his family and then some. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?!
The REAL question is: What "facts" will you be willing to accept?
Well, speaking for myself, I counted the days until January 20th, 2009. I also cursed the Supreme Court decision in Bsh v Gore as often as I could. (Now THAT was 'judicial actvism'!) What I DIDN'T do, and IMHO have never done, is to write a piece of crap like this and email to all my friends claiming it's a "terrific article" from the "Wall Street Journal."
If the Wll Street Journal even PRINTED this piece of crap, this blog deserves the PULLITZER Prize.
So if I ever seem overly sensitive or angry, just remember: THIS is what I have to put up with! LOL
Have a nice weekend everyone!
So I'd like to share with you some of the e-mail that I occasionally receive from my conservative friends, family and co-workers. Mind you, these are all people I love and/or respect, but I just cannot reconcile my generally positive view of them with some of the absolute trash they forward on from their inbox. It's like these otherwise sane, mostly educated, usually intelligent people, just turn their brains off and let their eyes glave over when they get a few words of conservatism thrown their way. It's insane.
Anyway, I recently got the following email from my Dad.
The subject field read: FW: A MUST READ!!! Wall Street Journal Article on Obama
It was described as a
"Terrific Article on Obama ! ! !" and an "Article from the Wall Street Journal Form by Eddie Sessions:"
Now... first off, I'll bet the house that my father honestly believes that "Eddie Sessions" is a WSJ contributor, and they Journal actually PRINTED this piece of crap. I'm sure he has no idea that anyone can write whatever they want to on the WSJ FORUM, including himself and me. As "terrific" as this write-up is, and as much as Uncle Ruppert has corrupted the once proud Journal, I think it's telling that even HE [Murdoch] knows this is crap, and that it's lack of veracity, utility and over-all quality is self evident for all to see. (So while he's perfectly willing to LIE, he recognizes THIS LIE as being so absurd that it's not even USEFUL.) Here's the "terrific article on Obama" from the "WSJ" (forum.)
"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House."Opening paragraph: One sentence. Not a good sign, right at the onset. It's a nice "theory" though... let's see if this simpleton can produce any EVIDENCE to support it...
In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.Who else do I know who's written their memoir by age 45? I don't know. But who else has been elected President by age 47? Must have a pretyt interesting life. I'm not sure why it's significant in any negative way that his previous book was published by age 34. Seems rather a positive accomplishment, until... ***BULLSHIT ALERT*** it was written by his "communist" "friend" Bill Ayers. You know... that close friend he barely knows. Does Ayers get royalties from the book he wrote? Seems he should if that were the case. I guess it all part of the conspiracy to get a Muslim, Communist, puppet of Bill Ayers in the White House. (Cuckoo - Cuckoo - Cuckoo. Either it's 3:00 or this guy's crazy!)
His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial.. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.OK, so... you can't find any votes you actually disagree with, so you go with the old "rarely voted on anything controversial" shar. The next sentence pretty much means he was a Democrat from Chicago. I'm not sure why that machinery benefited him as opposed to any other Democrat. But, I guess those Daly's have a really good record when it comes to racial issues. NOT!
He was in the U.S.. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?So we're back to the false dilemma of either arrogance or a conspiracy that's to explain for the fact the HE WON THE ELECTION. (Perish the though that he was the best man for the job.) As for the second part, it might just be possible that the Howard Dean gets his knowledge and information from more that just Right Wing sources. Just sayin'. Also, it's becoming obvious this was written by a conservative, because all he's doing to support his "theory" is essentially giving more "theories" - Asking [scary sounding] questions, and making [ealisy debunked] implications rather than pointing to any actual FACTS to support his "theory."
He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.WTF does this even mean? Being "cool" is somehow bad becasue famers aren't cool? Maybe that's not it, but I just don't get it. Remember: OBAMA was the one who knew thee guys grew Arugula, while it was the RW'ers who made fun of that and acted like ignorant morons. But he certainly seemed to hit it of with them well enough. Also, I don't think he meant that last bit: His "charisma" "hid" "any real substance." I'm pretty sure he meant "hid any LACK of real substance." But that's also a matter of opinion. So far, I'd say it's the "terrific article" that lacks any real substance.
And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.The most inept candidate since BOB DOLE?! OMG! The ONLY republican candidate between Bob Dole and John McCain was GEORGE WALKER BUSH!!! I'd say, clearly, that HE was the most inept candidate they've fielded is YEARS! DECADES! Shit, GENERATIONS! You'd have to go back to HERBERT HOOVER to find a worse President and ALF LANDON to find a worse candidate! You've got to stand gobsmacked at the lack of... what? SHAME? SELF-AWARENESS? Of someone who can construct conspiracy theories about OBAMA's road to the White House and suggest that Dole and McCain were inept, but BUSH was somehow both QUALIFIED and LEGITIMATE. Remember... this was a "terrific article."
The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man.. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.
Wha...? First of all... Mathews in particular has a long history of kissing Republican ass, especially McCain and Giulliani, but others as well. (MMFA named in "misinformer of the year" in 2005! Behold the liberal media!) And this "schoolgirl crush" nonsense is just the sour grapes of someone who's party lacks any charismatic eloquent speakers. Just because YOU disagree with his policies doesn't mean he does a bad job PRESENTING them. Also... just one paragraph ago you said McCain was CRAZY for picking Palin, who somehow transformed him into Walter Modale c.1984? Dude? Seriously: The press did all it could to carry Palin. They were genuinely interested in learning more about this "unknown." It's not the press' fault that she's dumb as a stone, and can't remember the name of a single newspaper. (Or a supreme court decision, other than Roe v Wade, to give as an example of the 'Judicial Activism' she was campaigning against at the time!) If this article had been about PALIN, the "theory" and "evidence" and conspiracy theories, while still weak, would be a lot closer to the truth. Amazing how much these people project.
Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.
The "joke" is one that only circulates among right-wingers who would also call this "article" "terrific," can't think of anything to criticize him on substantively and are too lazy to even make something else up. And it's a tired one. EVERYONE use teleprompters, and Obama's repeatedly been shown to be better on his feet that McCain or Palin. Again: PROJECTION. Put YOUR OWN FLAWS onto someone else, so no one will notice them in YOU. Also, I'll say it again: Just because YOU disagree with someone, that doesn't mean he said "the wrong thing." 50% of these "wrong thing's" have been outright misquotes and the rest have been things that actually MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, assuming your not blinded by right-wing group-think, or outright racism, and actually THINK about them.
Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe , having gained a foothold in Spain ..
Refresh my memory... WHO was it that ignored the threat of Militant Islam during his first year in office? George... something or other? (Weren't there two REALLY BIG buildings that used to be here?) Remember folks: PROJECTION. Whatever you biggest flaw is, make sure you say it about the OTHER GUY. You'll look that much better by comparison. Doesn't have to be true either. The press never bothers with mundane thigns like FACT-CHECKING anymore. Whoever says it first WINS. (And that will ALWAYS be the Right, since the Left don't actually possess these flaws. So... nothing to project!)
The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.
Again... I'm almost as stunned by the writer's 'grasp of history' as I am by the evidence, or lack thereof, that he presents to support this "theory." Remember: "TERRIFIC ARTICLE." Not 'ignorant rant by some loser on an internet forum,' but a "terrific article" by the "Wall Street Journal" no less!
Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.
Again: EVIDENCE? What "communist ideology"?! Can this moron point to ONE THING that Obama has done that has even a HINT of "communist ideology" in it? No. But why do you need evidence when you're preaching to the choir? Remember: "Terrific Article."
Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.
Gates was being questioned by police for breaking into his own house. No matter what else happened, that's the bottom line. Apparently, the writer here sees the same wisdom in that that he sees in LYNCH MOBS. Now... so do I! But where I see NONE, he sees 'the way things ought to be.'
He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America .. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.
Gitmo has written Al-Quaeda's propaganda for them since the day it opened. And the last time I checked, "fair trials" was one of the "American Values" we were fighting to DEFEND! I thought the militant Muslims wanted to destroy our freedoma? WHY, therefore, would we want to HELP THEM succeed?! Oh yeah... and Bush waited FIVE DAYS to make a statement following Richard Reid's failed shoe-bomb attack, so let's get over the fact that Obama waited three. Again: Whether or not comments are "lame" is a matter of opinion. Personally, given the propensity of the RW press to constantly mischaracterize his words, I can't see how there's anything wrong with a little "clarification."
The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.
WHO'S trying to "wish away the truth" here? Are you beginning to see what I mean by a 'lack of self awareness?' Remember: "Terrific Wall Street Journal Article."
Knock, knock.. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.
It the author who's "pathetic" here. He's yet to name WHO this 'sock puppet's' "handlers" ARE, or offer any EVIDENCE of their existance. But a crazy conspiracy theory must be more comforting than admitting (1) that you're wrong. (2) That you're misinfoimred. (3) That you've been lied to for going on 20 years now by the RW media. (4) That your entire political philosophy and world view are informed by these lies, and you really are no more than a mindless automaton still clinging to the false words of it's master. I can see why the author wouldn't want to consider that possibility.
When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.
Just curious, because I don't really watch them but does even Fox News still take the Birther's seriously? I've got a newsflash for this intrepid reporter: He DID produce it. He also put it on his website and had it authenticated by several official sources. He did not spend so much as a single penny to "keep it hidden." As for the "facts" about his "life?" Well... as you pointed out in your second paragraph, he's written two books covering two generations of his family and then some. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?!
The REAL question is: What "facts" will you be willing to accept?
We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America ?"
Well, speaking for myself, I counted the days until January 20th, 2009. I also cursed the Supreme Court decision in Bsh v Gore as often as I could. (Now THAT was 'judicial actvism'!) What I DIDN'T do, and IMHO have never done, is to write a piece of crap like this and email to all my friends claiming it's a "terrific article" from the "Wall Street Journal."
If the Wll Street Journal even PRINTED this piece of crap, this blog deserves the PULLITZER Prize.
So if I ever seem overly sensitive or angry, just remember: THIS is what I have to put up with! LOL
Have a nice weekend everyone!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
10 Chicks that are DANGEROUS and 10 Women I admire
"Idiot wind, blowin' every time you move your teeth. You're a idiot, babe. It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe." ~Bob Dylan
Not much more of an intro needed. I will say this, however: Some of the language I use in the first section is a bit stronger than my typical vernacular when refering to women. Should any female readers wish to take me to task for that, I will grant you that it's fair, but I will not apologize for it. The difference between me and some mysoginistic jackass? What pisses me off the MOST about these ten is not only just how much damage they've not only done to this country in general, but women in particular, and the women's movement and the quest for gender equality. All the same, I know I'm going to get in trouble for some of what follows. (Particularly my attitude towards porn and softball.) In any case I hope that you consider the entirity of the picture I'm painting, as well as appreciate why each woman is HERE, and not get too hung up on the smaller details. But yes, as always I'm keen to discuss whatever strikes you as worthwhile.
So, without further ado, here are ten chicks that I see as nothing but DANGEROUS:
Sarah Palin: If you don’t know why Palin is dangerous yet, you’re definitely in the wrong place. (Not to mention the wrong PLANET.) (I can see Russia from my house! Tee-hee!) I was struck by the recklessness of her recent speech at the tea-bagger convention, in which she put the administration in the position of either appearing weak on terrorism, or having to release classified intel (thus rendering this crucial intel worthless) in order to refute her. She puts party ahead of country and self ahead of party. This country (not to mention the women’s movement) dies a little more every time Caribou Barbie appears in public.
Michelle Bachman: See above. We don’t need the media giving prominence to politician’s who advocate for investigations into members of congress who are “anti-America." We tried that once and, except from the misguided POV of the genetic defectives on this list, it was one of the darkest periods in this country’s political history. She’s an ovarian cancer on the U.S. political system, and would have been well served to try actually reading the Constituion that she swore to uphold when she took office.
Michelle Malkin: She’s almost too stupid to be dangerous, but anyone of Asian decent who thinks that the U.S. putting foreigners or American’s or foreign (non-white) descent into concentration camps without trial is either an acceptable practice or one that could never punish “innocent citizens” shows an ignorance to history and willingness to believe whatever she’s told to such an extent that, given her prominence in the media and blogosphere, qualifies her as truly dangerous.
Ann Coulter: About as friendly as a Hissing Cobra. Like Malkin, almost too stupid to pose any threat. Yet, somehow, the media and the market keep rewarding her hansomely for doing nothing but spewing bile. I’m not sure what ANYONE sees in this walking justification for violence against women, but she just keeps raking in the money, and she just keeps getting more of a platform to spew her filth from. (And, now that I’ve once again mentioned her in my blog, we’ll probably see some more ads for her book or website appearing here. Google has rules against me saying this (so don’t take it seriously) but if you see any, CLICK THE SHIT OUT OF THEM! I love the idea that that bitch’s money will actually be used to sponsor this site! LOL)
Dana Perino: She covered for George W. Bush. That would basically be enough, but she actually appears to believe everthing she said, after lying with every breath she drew. I’m not sure how else you explain the fact that she’s STILL covering for that Texas Shit-Kicker, even off the payroll, and still advocating for his failed policies. And that what makes her dangerous: As a contemporary Bush apologist, she works against establishing the legacy of George W. Bush as an abject failure. She works to keep his policies alive, and his legacy redeemable.
Megyn Kelly: The Blonde Bimbo on Fox news. Puts a pretty face on Fox’s Republican, Corporatist Propaganda. And for some reason there seems to be a positive correlation between how far right of center you are and how glossy-eyed you become at the site of an attractive female. Not that any of these men actually take here seriously. But as long as she keeps doing what she’s told, and doesn’t worry her pretty little head about anything, they’ll keep coming back for more.
Laura Ingraham: Kind of a toned down version of Malkin. And that makes here even more dangerous. Since her rhetoric is less obnoxious than Malkin’s, it’s easier to mistake her for an objective analyst or moderate commentator. Seeing as how she’s presenting the same flawed rationale for the same failed policies of the Right, I’d say that the more moderate demeanor is like a predator's camouflage: it serves to lull the "undecideds" into a sense of complacency, where they will be more open to these ideas.
Phyllis Schlafly: Old news, and really no longer relevant except that her progeny seeks to redefine what knowledge is, how research should be done, and even seeks to change the “unchanging” word of God. Both by proxy and in person, few women have done as much damage to this country in general and to women in particular, than Phyllis Schlafly. (I mean, she actually campaigned AGAINST equal rights for women! How fucked up is that?!)
Michelle Duggar: I don’t care how many kids you have. I really don’t. But if you’re having them because God wants lots of Christian soldiers for the upcoming war, then YOU’RE DANGEROUS. And if you don’t believe me, just Google the Quiverfull Movement, of which her family are perhaps the most prominent subscribers. (And of course, which they completely gloss over on that fertility-fest that passes for a television show.) If your children are nothing more than arrows in God’s quiver? You shouldn’t have ANY. In fact, you should be on meds.
Jenny McCarthy: By pushing phony fears about vaccines, starting with their fraudulent link to Autism, as evidenced by the now discredited Andrew Wakefield, and moving on to nebulous unfounded fears that aren’t even fully articulated, let alone supported by science, McCarthy is the public face of the anti-vaxxer movement that is responsible for a significant reduction in the number of children getting vaccinated against deadly and contagious diseases. This reduction has caused outbreaks of diseases, such as measles, which had been unheard of for decades. And these outbreaks have lead to the deaths of children. I would be going WAY out on a limb (bein absurd, actually) to put the blood of dead children on the hands of ANY of these other women, but McCarthy is crimson-red up to her elbows. She’s so dangerous, she’s actually caused children to die. All in a superstitious attempt to protect them. As if a professional bimbo can do that better than DOCTORS.
And to give a fuller understanding of who I really am, here are ten women I truly admire:
Professor Temple Grandin: Truly one of my all-time heroes. You learn a LOT about Professor Grandin when you raise children with Autism, as I do. Temple Grandin not only overcame her childhood autism, to the point of achieving a PhD, but used her unique powers of perception to help revolutionize how cattle processors design their shoots, such that the animals would feel less stress going though. To be slaughtered, yes, but in feeling less stress, and thus resisting less, the need for less humane measures to get them though are needed. Since the animals will go through willingly, not only can they be treated more humanly, but the process is actually more efficient. Imagine that! Being considerate to animal rights actually INCREASES the output of the beef industry! At present her designs are used by about 75% of the cattle processing industry. She didn’t just achieve something impressive “considering her disability.” She actually USED her “disability” to completely revolutionize and industry!
Rachael Maddow: The witty host of the Rachael Maddow Show, which follows Countdown on MSNBC. The epitome of the way things should be done, Maddow manages to give challenging, pointed interviews without appearing abrasive or demeaning in doing so. Like a mainstream media version of John Stewart, she’s displayed a gift for utterly skewering her opponents, all the while exuding none of the acidic tone and rhetoric that comes from the likes of Coulter or Ingraham.
Sarah Haskins: The host of the Target:Women section on Infomania. Arguably the funniest, and most enlightening feminist I've ever seen. This lady just gets it. Her main focus is on products, advertising, and media aimed at women that all tend to lag about 20 years behind the times, and have little to offer a woman who wants something more out of life than just taking care of the man that takes care of her. She's funny as hell, and her feminist message rings both so loud and so true that I don't know whetehr to laugh or cry. (Well, yeah I do, I can't stop laughing at the way she absolutely skewers the way [so many] members of my gender view the members of hers.
Eri Yoshida: I’m guessing most people don’t know about Yoshida. She’s the first woman to ever play professional baseball in Japan. She throws a sidearm knuckleball with a velocity comparable to Red Sox star Pitcher Tim Wakefield’s. Now... you have to understand… I HATE Softball. To me Softball is an abomination of a great game. It’s Baseball that’s been dumbed-down so that it wouldn't be too hard for the girls. Now… I’ll grant you: The girls took the “easy game” and MADE it hard! I once dated a girl with an underhand fastball that I had NO CHANCE of connecting with. We never measured, but I’d be willing to bet that her underhand fastball was easily within 5 mph of my overhand fastball, and possibly faster. But that only proves my point, that there is no reason for softball to even exist. GIRLS SHOULD PLAY BASEBALL! And they should play of the same field as the boys. Not AGAINST the boys, necessarily, but if someone like Yosida can make the majors, either in Japan or over here, then maybe more girls might realize that there's no reason to keep playing the bastardized version.
Rumiko Takahashi: Another Japanese name that many of you will not be familiar with. Takahashi is a Mangaka – an author and writer of Manga, or Japanese Comic books. The reason that she’s here, beside the fact that I’m a HUGE Anime fan, is that she’s produced three separate franchises over the years that have reached the 100+ episode mark in their runs as Anime: Maison Ikkoku, Ranma ½ and InuYasha. All three are considered classics by amine fans in their respective genres: Romantic Comedy, Martial Arts/Harem Comedy, and Fantasy/Medieval Action. But what is most impressive to me is that she achieved this level of a success as a female, writing for a male dominated market, in a male-dominated industry, in a male-dominated country and culture! Way to show ‘em! You GO girl! Takahashi’s success no doubt also played some role in paving the way for companies like the all-female production house, Clamp, and other successful female mangaka who followed.
Arianna Huffington: Personally, I am not a huge fan of the Huffington Post. Although an important source of political information and opinon, and not afraid to even host an occasional conservative voice or two, IMHO it has far too much celebrity fluff, relative to it's serious content. But one cannot deny the web-presence she’s achieved, nor the overall media presence she’s parleyed that into. Depending on your preferred semantics, Huffington has either redefined blogging or merely brought it into prominence. But she was one of the first to show, in an undeniable way that cannot be ignored or dismissed, that the ‘Net can be be a powerful political tool for more than just muckraking Drudgery.
Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins: Two Republican Senators, both from Maine (probably not coincidently,) who still actually remember what the Republican party once stood for. Both moderates constantly top every Righty’s RINO list, and they may be the last two, that haven’t already defected, that have shown a willingness to engage President Obama and negotiate with the Democrats and participate in the legislative process with them. If the Republican party had more members like Snowe and Collins, this COUNTRY (not to mention the Republican Party) would be in much better shape.
Sasha Gray: Yes, a porn actress. And no, I’m not *ahem* familiar with her work. (Seriously, I’m not! LOL) Now granted... Porn is not something that gets much support from ANY quarter. The conservatives find it an easy “family values” targets, while the liberals go after it for “objectifying women” and (their word’s, not mine) “encouraging sexual violence against women.” Personally? I think Larry Flynt is the greatest defender of free speech that we’ve had since James Madison. And no, I’m not *ahem* familiar with his work either. (Seriously, I’m not! LOL) But recently I read an interview she did with Rolling Stone awhile back (link is not to the full interview, sorry) and I was struck by her ATTITUDE about sex in general and towards her craft in particular. Despite her chosen profession, and to some extent maybe becuase of it, I found it positively enlightened. Now… I’m not saying that every woman should act like a porn actress in the bedroom. (Seriously, I’m not! LOL) But I DO think that every woman should follow her OWN path regarding her sexuality and not let society tell her what’s what, all the while giving the men a free pass to be themselves and largely do as they please. (Go figure: “Society” is a bunch of arbitrary rules, written by men, meant to keep women in line!) More than anyone I can think off, Gray has cast off society's arbitrary baggage when it comes to women's sexuality, and is calling her own shots - even in an industry infamous for being exploitative to the women who work in it. Although very few may admire the choices she’s made, everybody should admire the fact that she’s made her own choices.
Meg Whitman: I don’t know if she’s the first CEO to reach a certain level of success, or where she ranks among female CEO’s all time, blah, blah… I really don’t know. And I don’t feel like looking it up right now. What I DO know is that she was the Vice President of Strategic Planning at Disney during their 1990’s renaissance, and they haven’t produced dick since she left… to take the reigns at eBay and turn it from merely an interesting idea into one of the most successful internet power-houses of all time. We may not all LIKE eBay (although personally I’ve had nothing but good experiences using it), but nobody can deny what it represents for the internet, e-business and entrepreneurs everywhere, not to mention what her undeniable success means for aspiring young women everywhere. She’s living proof that you don’t need stodgy old men to run a company, and in fact that the day of the stodgy old man might in fact be OVER.
So there you go. Ten women that no human being should follow at all, and ten women that I think all people should see as role models.
Not much more of an intro needed. I will say this, however: Some of the language I use in the first section is a bit stronger than my typical vernacular when refering to women. Should any female readers wish to take me to task for that, I will grant you that it's fair, but I will not apologize for it. The difference between me and some mysoginistic jackass? What pisses me off the MOST about these ten is not only just how much damage they've not only done to this country in general, but women in particular, and the women's movement and the quest for gender equality. All the same, I know I'm going to get in trouble for some of what follows. (Particularly my attitude towards porn and softball.) In any case I hope that you consider the entirity of the picture I'm painting, as well as appreciate why each woman is HERE, and not get too hung up on the smaller details. But yes, as always I'm keen to discuss whatever strikes you as worthwhile.
So, without further ado, here are ten chicks that I see as nothing but DANGEROUS:
Sarah Palin: If you don’t know why Palin is dangerous yet, you’re definitely in the wrong place. (Not to mention the wrong PLANET.) (I can see Russia from my house! Tee-hee!) I was struck by the recklessness of her recent speech at the tea-bagger convention, in which she put the administration in the position of either appearing weak on terrorism, or having to release classified intel (thus rendering this crucial intel worthless) in order to refute her. She puts party ahead of country and self ahead of party. This country (not to mention the women’s movement) dies a little more every time Caribou Barbie appears in public.
Michelle Bachman: See above. We don’t need the media giving prominence to politician’s who advocate for investigations into members of congress who are “anti-America." We tried that once and, except from the misguided POV of the genetic defectives on this list, it was one of the darkest periods in this country’s political history. She’s an ovarian cancer on the U.S. political system, and would have been well served to try actually reading the Constituion that she swore to uphold when she took office.
Michelle Malkin: She’s almost too stupid to be dangerous, but anyone of Asian decent who thinks that the U.S. putting foreigners or American’s or foreign (non-white) descent into concentration camps without trial is either an acceptable practice or one that could never punish “innocent citizens” shows an ignorance to history and willingness to believe whatever she’s told to such an extent that, given her prominence in the media and blogosphere, qualifies her as truly dangerous.
Ann Coulter: About as friendly as a Hissing Cobra. Like Malkin, almost too stupid to pose any threat. Yet, somehow, the media and the market keep rewarding her hansomely for doing nothing but spewing bile. I’m not sure what ANYONE sees in this walking justification for violence against women, but she just keeps raking in the money, and she just keeps getting more of a platform to spew her filth from. (And, now that I’ve once again mentioned her in my blog, we’ll probably see some more ads for her book or website appearing here. Google has rules against me saying this (so don’t take it seriously) but if you see any, CLICK THE SHIT OUT OF THEM! I love the idea that that bitch’s money will actually be used to sponsor this site! LOL)
Dana Perino: She covered for George W. Bush. That would basically be enough, but she actually appears to believe everthing she said, after lying with every breath she drew. I’m not sure how else you explain the fact that she’s STILL covering for that Texas Shit-Kicker, even off the payroll, and still advocating for his failed policies. And that what makes her dangerous: As a contemporary Bush apologist, she works against establishing the legacy of George W. Bush as an abject failure. She works to keep his policies alive, and his legacy redeemable.
Megyn Kelly: The Blonde Bimbo on Fox news. Puts a pretty face on Fox’s Republican, Corporatist Propaganda. And for some reason there seems to be a positive correlation between how far right of center you are and how glossy-eyed you become at the site of an attractive female. Not that any of these men actually take here seriously. But as long as she keeps doing what she’s told, and doesn’t worry her pretty little head about anything, they’ll keep coming back for more.
Laura Ingraham: Kind of a toned down version of Malkin. And that makes here even more dangerous. Since her rhetoric is less obnoxious than Malkin’s, it’s easier to mistake her for an objective analyst or moderate commentator. Seeing as how she’s presenting the same flawed rationale for the same failed policies of the Right, I’d say that the more moderate demeanor is like a predator's camouflage: it serves to lull the "undecideds" into a sense of complacency, where they will be more open to these ideas.
Phyllis Schlafly: Old news, and really no longer relevant except that her progeny seeks to redefine what knowledge is, how research should be done, and even seeks to change the “unchanging” word of God. Both by proxy and in person, few women have done as much damage to this country in general and to women in particular, than Phyllis Schlafly. (I mean, she actually campaigned AGAINST equal rights for women! How fucked up is that?!)
Michelle Duggar: I don’t care how many kids you have. I really don’t. But if you’re having them because God wants lots of Christian soldiers for the upcoming war, then YOU’RE DANGEROUS. And if you don’t believe me, just Google the Quiverfull Movement, of which her family are perhaps the most prominent subscribers. (And of course, which they completely gloss over on that fertility-fest that passes for a television show.) If your children are nothing more than arrows in God’s quiver? You shouldn’t have ANY. In fact, you should be on meds.
Jenny McCarthy: By pushing phony fears about vaccines, starting with their fraudulent link to Autism, as evidenced by the now discredited Andrew Wakefield, and moving on to nebulous unfounded fears that aren’t even fully articulated, let alone supported by science, McCarthy is the public face of the anti-vaxxer movement that is responsible for a significant reduction in the number of children getting vaccinated against deadly and contagious diseases. This reduction has caused outbreaks of diseases, such as measles, which had been unheard of for decades. And these outbreaks have lead to the deaths of children. I would be going WAY out on a limb (bein absurd, actually) to put the blood of dead children on the hands of ANY of these other women, but McCarthy is crimson-red up to her elbows. She’s so dangerous, she’s actually caused children to die. All in a superstitious attempt to protect them. As if a professional bimbo can do that better than DOCTORS.
And to give a fuller understanding of who I really am, here are ten women I truly admire:
Professor Temple Grandin: Truly one of my all-time heroes. You learn a LOT about Professor Grandin when you raise children with Autism, as I do. Temple Grandin not only overcame her childhood autism, to the point of achieving a PhD, but used her unique powers of perception to help revolutionize how cattle processors design their shoots, such that the animals would feel less stress going though. To be slaughtered, yes, but in feeling less stress, and thus resisting less, the need for less humane measures to get them though are needed. Since the animals will go through willingly, not only can they be treated more humanly, but the process is actually more efficient. Imagine that! Being considerate to animal rights actually INCREASES the output of the beef industry! At present her designs are used by about 75% of the cattle processing industry. She didn’t just achieve something impressive “considering her disability.” She actually USED her “disability” to completely revolutionize and industry!
Rachael Maddow: The witty host of the Rachael Maddow Show, which follows Countdown on MSNBC. The epitome of the way things should be done, Maddow manages to give challenging, pointed interviews without appearing abrasive or demeaning in doing so. Like a mainstream media version of John Stewart, she’s displayed a gift for utterly skewering her opponents, all the while exuding none of the acidic tone and rhetoric that comes from the likes of Coulter or Ingraham.
Sarah Haskins: The host of the Target:Women section on Infomania. Arguably the funniest, and most enlightening feminist I've ever seen. This lady just gets it. Her main focus is on products, advertising, and media aimed at women that all tend to lag about 20 years behind the times, and have little to offer a woman who wants something more out of life than just taking care of the man that takes care of her. She's funny as hell, and her feminist message rings both so loud and so true that I don't know whetehr to laugh or cry. (Well, yeah I do, I can't stop laughing at the way she absolutely skewers the way [so many] members of my gender view the members of hers.
Eri Yoshida: I’m guessing most people don’t know about Yoshida. She’s the first woman to ever play professional baseball in Japan. She throws a sidearm knuckleball with a velocity comparable to Red Sox star Pitcher Tim Wakefield’s. Now... you have to understand… I HATE Softball. To me Softball is an abomination of a great game. It’s Baseball that’s been dumbed-down so that it wouldn't be too hard for the girls. Now… I’ll grant you: The girls took the “easy game” and MADE it hard! I once dated a girl with an underhand fastball that I had NO CHANCE of connecting with. We never measured, but I’d be willing to bet that her underhand fastball was easily within 5 mph of my overhand fastball, and possibly faster. But that only proves my point, that there is no reason for softball to even exist. GIRLS SHOULD PLAY BASEBALL! And they should play of the same field as the boys. Not AGAINST the boys, necessarily, but if someone like Yosida can make the majors, either in Japan or over here, then maybe more girls might realize that there's no reason to keep playing the bastardized version.
Rumiko Takahashi: Another Japanese name that many of you will not be familiar with. Takahashi is a Mangaka – an author and writer of Manga, or Japanese Comic books. The reason that she’s here, beside the fact that I’m a HUGE Anime fan, is that she’s produced three separate franchises over the years that have reached the 100+ episode mark in their runs as Anime: Maison Ikkoku, Ranma ½ and InuYasha. All three are considered classics by amine fans in their respective genres: Romantic Comedy, Martial Arts/Harem Comedy, and Fantasy/Medieval Action. But what is most impressive to me is that she achieved this level of a success as a female, writing for a male dominated market, in a male-dominated industry, in a male-dominated country and culture! Way to show ‘em! You GO girl! Takahashi’s success no doubt also played some role in paving the way for companies like the all-female production house, Clamp, and other successful female mangaka who followed.
Arianna Huffington: Personally, I am not a huge fan of the Huffington Post. Although an important source of political information and opinon, and not afraid to even host an occasional conservative voice or two, IMHO it has far too much celebrity fluff, relative to it's serious content. But one cannot deny the web-presence she’s achieved, nor the overall media presence she’s parleyed that into. Depending on your preferred semantics, Huffington has either redefined blogging or merely brought it into prominence. But she was one of the first to show, in an undeniable way that cannot be ignored or dismissed, that the ‘Net can be be a powerful political tool for more than just muckraking Drudgery.
Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins: Two Republican Senators, both from Maine (probably not coincidently,) who still actually remember what the Republican party once stood for. Both moderates constantly top every Righty’s RINO list, and they may be the last two, that haven’t already defected, that have shown a willingness to engage President Obama and negotiate with the Democrats and participate in the legislative process with them. If the Republican party had more members like Snowe and Collins, this COUNTRY (not to mention the Republican Party) would be in much better shape.
Sasha Gray: Yes, a porn actress. And no, I’m not *ahem* familiar with her work. (Seriously, I’m not! LOL) Now granted... Porn is not something that gets much support from ANY quarter. The conservatives find it an easy “family values” targets, while the liberals go after it for “objectifying women” and (their word’s, not mine) “encouraging sexual violence against women.” Personally? I think Larry Flynt is the greatest defender of free speech that we’ve had since James Madison. And no, I’m not *ahem* familiar with his work either. (Seriously, I’m not! LOL) But recently I read an interview she did with Rolling Stone awhile back (link is not to the full interview, sorry) and I was struck by her ATTITUDE about sex in general and towards her craft in particular. Despite her chosen profession, and to some extent maybe becuase of it, I found it positively enlightened. Now… I’m not saying that every woman should act like a porn actress in the bedroom. (Seriously, I’m not! LOL) But I DO think that every woman should follow her OWN path regarding her sexuality and not let society tell her what’s what, all the while giving the men a free pass to be themselves and largely do as they please. (Go figure: “Society” is a bunch of arbitrary rules, written by men, meant to keep women in line!) More than anyone I can think off, Gray has cast off society's arbitrary baggage when it comes to women's sexuality, and is calling her own shots - even in an industry infamous for being exploitative to the women who work in it. Although very few may admire the choices she’s made, everybody should admire the fact that she’s made her own choices.
Meg Whitman: I don’t know if she’s the first CEO to reach a certain level of success, or where she ranks among female CEO’s all time, blah, blah… I really don’t know. And I don’t feel like looking it up right now. What I DO know is that she was the Vice President of Strategic Planning at Disney during their 1990’s renaissance, and they haven’t produced dick since she left… to take the reigns at eBay and turn it from merely an interesting idea into one of the most successful internet power-houses of all time. We may not all LIKE eBay (although personally I’ve had nothing but good experiences using it), but nobody can deny what it represents for the internet, e-business and entrepreneurs everywhere, not to mention what her undeniable success means for aspiring young women everywhere. She’s living proof that you don’t need stodgy old men to run a company, and in fact that the day of the stodgy old man might in fact be OVER.
So there you go. Ten women that no human being should follow at all, and ten women that I think all people should see as role models.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
How stupid are these people?
LOL, I couldn't resist!
Is she still a serious contender for 2012? Seriously? She hurt McCain! She's as divisive a George W. Bush, and yet somehow even stupider! I read recently that Dick Cheney is being considered for 2012. I'd LOVE that. Obama versus Cheney. It won't be Reagan-Mondale, but Obama would mop the floor with him. And Sarah Palin? Are you kidding?! Can you imagine the debates? He'd tear her apart! But who else do they have? Mike "I let Maurice Clemmons out of prison early" Huckabee? Oh, if there is a God HE will be somewhere on the ticket... And we'll "Willie Horton" the stuffing out him! (That'd be fun, huh?) Mitt Romney? Who was pro-choice before he was pro-life? For Gay rights before he was against them? Good like selling HIM to the bible-humpers down south! Newt Gingrich? (See "Dick Cheney!") Cheney and Gingrich are among the most depsised politicians in America. Is ANYONE here concerned about 2012? Seriously? I'm only concerned about Congressional seats. And even there, the 'Pubs could hardly make a dent in the off-year. They'll gain some in the Mid's, the opposition party always does, but I predict that the gains for them will be small. And yet, somehow Fox will still trumpet how a 2-seat gains in the house represents a "mandate against Obama" or some nonsense like that!
But anyway, like the title suggested... HOW STUPID ARE THESE PEOPLE?!
Here a few examples that should make you laugh. (Or throw up.)
Here a bit about that douchebag Andrew Shafly over at Conservapedia, re-writing the Bible. A few gems from that waste of donor organs...
"Professors are the most liberal group of people in the world, and it's professors who are doing the popular modern translations of the Bible,"
LOL. Yeah Professors... who also happen to be the smartest, most well-infomred people in the world as well. Curse that darned "research" and "inquiry" and "analysis" and "evidence." What liberal codswallop!
"The phrase 'theological conservative' does not mean that someone is politically conservative," said Schlafly.
This is a lie. There may be not causality, but the fact is the correlation is 1-to-1, 100%. because it only Conservatives like Shitfly who use the Bible to defend their positions (because, it's not like more American concepts like FREEDOM or LIBERTY or even LIMITED GOVERNMENT will work!) and since Liberals are generally smarter and for more prone to resort to LOGIC and REASON, it is only Conservatoive like Shitfly that look foolish when the Bible is turned against him.
The inablity to tolertate any questioning of your beliefs is a common, almost universal, mental illness among Conservatives, and Shitfly is ehxibit numero uno in that.
Here another one, about the utter failure of Glenn Beck movie in every major market. It did well in the rural south, that Mecca of fine America culture, but flopped in New York, Boston and D.C. (Big surprise, huh?)
Now, HOW STUPID is Glenn Beck? How about the TICKET PRICE?: He charged TWENTY DOLLARS PER TICKET! How out-of-touch with middle America do you have to be to charge DOUBLE the price that makes more and more Americans switch to Netflix every year? It must be nice to make so much money that $20 to see a crappy movie seems like a reasonable price!
I really wish the Democrats would hire some more sleazy campaign managers. They really need to drive home just how out of touch the Righties are. They calime to be "populists" but THEY'RE the real "elitists."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)