So I'm down at the gym and, because my headphones got run over in the parking lot a few weeks back, I'm listening to NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. Here's the video feed:
Now... What really struck about this were the statistics. And these are from the WALL STREET JOURNAL, mind you: Ruppert Murdoch's own news rag!
In favor of Presdient Obama's Debt Reduction Proposals: 58%
In favor of Congressional Republican's Debt Reduction Proposals: 36%
Should Republicans compromise and agree to raise taxes?
YES: 62%
NO: 27%
Should Democrats compromise and allow cuts to Social Security and Medcicare?
YES: 38%
NO: 52%
To put those numbers in perspective...
% of people who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984: 59%
% of people who voted for Walter Mondale in 1984: 41%
The Republicans are polling at least 3 points lower that Walter Fucking Mondale did in what ended up being one of the worst landslide losses in U.S. Electoral History.
The Democrats are polling within 1 point overall - and three points ahead on tax increases - of Raonlad Reagan, the Right's great hero, in his brightest hour. (What's more? That lone 52% on the Entitlements issue? Is still over a full point higher than Reagan polled in 1980 against Carter!)
So... here's my question: Why do we even NEED a gang of six? Why is ANYONE still listening, compromising, fucking PANDERING with ANY of these Right-Wing Ass-Hats? The Republicans have a position which is unpopular on a Mondalian scale and they're STILL trying to (and our Democratic leaders are letting them) shove it down our throats!
Mister President, Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Minority Leader Pelosi:
The way I see it, and according to Ruppert Murdoch's own Wall Street Journal about 200 MILLION AMERICANS agree with me, we can fix everything, keep all entitlemants intact, erase the deficit and render the Republican Party permanently irrelevant by following nine simple words:
Tax the rich.
Tax the rich.
Tax the rich.
That's it. Tax the rich. It will literally fix everything and harm nothing. And it will make you the party of the people once again. Screw this "gang of six" crap. Tax the rich and veto anything that doesn't. Leave Social Security and Mecdicare alone - or better: FIX THEM without cutting benefits - and veto anythign that doesn't. It is time to LEAD. You failed for two years to do this and you lost the house. So I implore you... It's time to grow a spine, step up, LISTEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and do what everyone (even the rich) know that you HAVE TO. I already like your chances in 2012. But if you stand firm and deliver what a SUPERMAJORITY OF AMERICA is askign you for? I'll actually FEEL GOOD about liking your chances.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The Worst Kind of Research... UGH!
Some of you might be aware of a little writing project I'm doing. That blog's serving as kind of a rough-draft. Will it ever be anything else? Who knows. In the meantime, it's a bit of personal and political indulgence that's been a fun creative excersise.
BUT I want to ground as much of the events, and the setting, in the real world as I can. (At least up until the end of the next two chapters, where the story will deviate, rather sharply with reality.) And RIGHT NOW, the story takes place in the weeks following the 2010 Mid-Term elections. And in the chapter I'm currently working on, one of the charecters (Epiphany) is trying to convince the other (Edward) to act - to impliment his proposed plan - by bombarding him with Fox News, AM Talk Radio, etc... Almost as if to irritate him into doing that which goes against his better moral judgement.)
And I thought, rather than just making stuff up, (like Beck) why not use ACTUAL QUOTES from Fox, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, etc... from shows that aired on some of the days in question? I thought it would be cooler to use some of the actual nonsense, and actual lies being told by these people. And with the power of the internet, it would be child's play to find and download transcripts. And it was...
...which lead to a problem...
Have you ever tried READING though a WEEK'S worth of transcripts of the RUSH LIMBAUGH program? OMFG, I think it gave me a brain tumor!
Then there was SEAN HANNITY'S "interview" with SARAH PALIN that aired that week. (And I put interview in quotes, becuase it would be more accurate to say that he rhetorically went down on her.) Halfway though I think I threw up in my mouth a little.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!
Oh my God!
The clips and snippets that get posted on MMFA are bad enough, but taken IN THEIR ENTIRITY?! Taken IN CONTEXT?! They get WORSE by an order of magnitude!
I'm just trying to find a handful of quotes that I can sprinkle into a humorous part of a story - the kind of scene where one person turns on the the TV and hears [Palin - I wouldn't be out there apologizing for us being a superpower!] and the other one turns it off. (Only to have that repeat it self several times.)
But finding the most outrageous five seconds of an hour-long RW lovest (even longer in Limbaugh's case) requires reading a hundered times more than you'd ever want to.
I give the folks at MMFA (FAIR, etc...) credit. Because good lord, reading this much RW trash is enough to make my eyes bleed.
/rant
:)
BUT I want to ground as much of the events, and the setting, in the real world as I can. (At least up until the end of the next two chapters, where the story will deviate, rather sharply with reality.) And RIGHT NOW, the story takes place in the weeks following the 2010 Mid-Term elections. And in the chapter I'm currently working on, one of the charecters (Epiphany) is trying to convince the other (Edward) to act - to impliment his proposed plan - by bombarding him with Fox News, AM Talk Radio, etc... Almost as if to irritate him into doing that which goes against his better moral judgement.)
And I thought, rather than just making stuff up, (like Beck) why not use ACTUAL QUOTES from Fox, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, etc... from shows that aired on some of the days in question? I thought it would be cooler to use some of the actual nonsense, and actual lies being told by these people. And with the power of the internet, it would be child's play to find and download transcripts. And it was...
...which lead to a problem...
Have you ever tried READING though a WEEK'S worth of transcripts of the RUSH LIMBAUGH program? OMFG, I think it gave me a brain tumor!
Then there was SEAN HANNITY'S "interview" with SARAH PALIN that aired that week. (And I put interview in quotes, becuase it would be more accurate to say that he rhetorically went down on her.) Halfway though I think I threw up in my mouth a little.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!
Oh my God!
The clips and snippets that get posted on MMFA are bad enough, but taken IN THEIR ENTIRITY?! Taken IN CONTEXT?! They get WORSE by an order of magnitude!
I'm just trying to find a handful of quotes that I can sprinkle into a humorous part of a story - the kind of scene where one person turns on the the TV and hears [Palin - I wouldn't be out there apologizing for us being a superpower!] and the other one turns it off. (Only to have that repeat it self several times.)
But finding the most outrageous five seconds of an hour-long RW lovest (even longer in Limbaugh's case) requires reading a hundered times more than you'd ever want to.
I give the folks at MMFA (FAIR, etc...) credit. Because good lord, reading this much RW trash is enough to make my eyes bleed.
/rant
:)
Capital Punnishment
NOTE: I've written this an re-written it, three times in total, and it's still a disjointed, disorganized mess. What can I say? It's a complex issue with a LOT of considerations to balance. BUT, I'm just going to post it as-is becuase there's other things I want to write about, and if I let it go too long, I'll never get around to putting this up.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I did not intend for that one throwaway comment in my Casey Anthony post last week to turn into a death penalty discussion, many thoughtful, principled and pragmatic comments about the death penalty ended up in the comments section as a result of it. And, after reading them, I was motivated to do a little digging, a little exploring of the issue, and maybe clarifying both to you all and to myself where I really stand on it.
Although politically ironic, but from my own POV logically consistent, my position on the Death Penalty, as a general practice, is almost a perfect mirror to my position on abortion. With abortion, I feel that the practice is completely immoral in all cases (yes, you read that right) where the life of the mother is not in immediate jeopardy. BUT, as this is just my opinion - and since I don’t share the Right’s mental illness that compels them to force everyone else to live according to their opinion - I have no desire to see abortion made ILLEGAL, just becuase I see it as IMMORAL. With Capital Punishment, it’s kind of the opposite: I do not oppose the practice on general moral grounds. BUT… as a PRACTICAL MATTER I do see much that is wrong with how we go about administering it. So I never cheer-lead for it, as some do. And I do see a reduction in executions as a good thing. But I stop short of a complete abolitionist stance, based on moral objection.
This puts me immediately at odds with posters such as jlarue, who feel it is simply an immoral practice. And you know what? You’re absolutely right. I’ll concede on all moral points right now: It’s wrong. And yet, I still feel the way I do. And, going back to the abortion parallel, I’ve never heard an argument, EVER, that convinced me that abortion was ever morally justifiable (in any case in which the life of the mother was not in imminent danger.) But again: What we believe to be moral and what we will support the legality of are not always the same. This happens to both Liberals and Conservatives, and hits me up from both sides of both of these two issues. The bottom line is that the execution of someone who has taken the life of another? Just does not bother me enough to change my opinion. If that makes me a bad person? Then so be it. For what it’s worth, I concede the moral high-ground to your admittedly more principled position.
(Just an aside: In admitting that being “pro-death penalty” - one of a very few Conservative positions that I hold - is a moral failing on my part, it’s funny to me just how many Conservative positions in general (almost all of them, in fact) can be described that way.)
So… morally I concede, though that doesn’t change my position. What about those practical concerns? The administrative details?
Poster ClassicLiberal gave me a pretty good quote, about how “the government can’t even keep potholes filled” so he’d not going to trust them with such grave matters. That’s a nice sentiment, and while I have no intention of arguing that the practice is air-tight, I will point out that this is the same basic argument that Conservatives use to argue against a Nation Health Care system, so you’ll have to better than that. Fortunately, he did: The politicization of the Judiciary.
Now, I hear you when it comes to the ELECTION of judges. Hoo-boy, that’s a HUGE problem. And it affects so many aspects of our society. There’s just SO MUCH worng with that, in particular the very perversion of our Democracy that you describe the pro-industry and pro-corporatist groups doing. But, much as with our disagreement on filibusters, it still sounds to me (rigth or worng) like you are opposing a practice IN GENERAL because of how ONE GROUP has decided to abuse it. (And let’s please take up the filibuster/reform issue again another time, because I’ve been sitting on a counterargument for your loast post on that for like a year now, but just haven’t felt like writing about it.) Anyway... IN THEORY, the election of judges shouldn’t be done on Political grounds. Of course, that’s gone completely by the wayside, but I’m not sure what else we should do. APPOINT them? To LIFETIME terms? NFW. And as counters I submit that Federally appointed Circuit and Supreme Court judges are every bit as politicized as local judges, and there’s an additional problem: WE CAN’T EVER GET RID OF THEM! What’s more, the judiciary is meant to act as a counter-balance to the Legislature and the Executive branch. But how will we get that when the judges are nominated, confirmed and appointed by the very bodies they’re meant to be opposing? I’ll see you and raise you two Scalia’s and a Thomas that this is a much worse way to go. This way, electing them? If a judge REALLY SUCKS? The will of the people, and the power of Democracy can be mustered to fix the problem. I just cannot belieev that because industry and corporations pervert Democracy, this is a reason to scrap the practice. Much as with terrorism, we must RESIST those forces, not allow them to trick us into dismantling our Democracy. If you have a third alternative, I really would like to hear it, but the immediate alternative, to me, seems like it can only be worse.
But it bring us to the crux of the matter, at least for me: Has this politicization, inefficiency, prosecutorial maleficence or any other factor actually led us to execute an innocent man?
Unlike Conchobhar, I have not served on a jury. In fact, I’ve only been in court three times in my life: Once when my parents finalized my sister’s adoption, once for a traffic ticket and once when I was being sued. (I won, if you’re wondering.) (OK, and I was called in for jury duty once, but I wasn't selected.) And our history, much like the UK’s, is rife with examples of officially administered injustice. And convictions are overturned ALL THE TIME when examination of the DNA evidence after the trial completely proves, beyond any doubt, that they had the wrong guy. (Remember: With a match, there’s STILL a 1 in 20 Million chance you’re wrong, but with a MISMATCH? Unless the lab-tech bled onto the sample, you KNOW the right answer. )
And you certainly have a good point, arguably THE point, when a verdict comes down to nothing more than which witnesses appear more credible: The guys who’s facing life or death and is on the stand for the first time in his life, facing a suspicious and skeptical jury; or the career law-enforcement officer (and trusted, heroic public servant) who’s in court every week, has testified hundreds of times and faces no personal or professional risk if should the case go one way or the other. And because “real-life” is never as neat and clear-cut as Television’s CSI shows, perception will thus determine reality. And that’s a huge problem, as matters of perception and personal feelings inevitably end up being given a weight disproportionate to their accuracy or value.
But there’s another side of that perception vs. objective evidence coin. It has been suggested that the preponderance of legal shows like CSI, Law and Order, etc… has had the effect of making us more skeptical as a people. That juries expect cases to look a lot neater and air tight before convicting. Now – I don’t KNOW if that’s true. Admittedly, I can’t find the original piece I had read. (I think it might have been a Slate piece.) And for all I know it could have been written by a disgruntled prosecutor who just came off of losing a big case. But as useless as anecdotal evidence is, case like Anthony (and O.J. Simpson and many others in between) do see, to suggest that there are juries out there for whom “erring on the side of caution” means an acquittal, when in doubt. Which… is exactly as it is supposed to be!
As I looked into this, I came accros a few other things, that can be interpreted in different ways…
For the years that I could find data for reasonably quickly (2006-2009) there were 186 executions in the U.S. In that same time period there were 65,642 murders. Now, committing the same error as when they calculate the divorce rate, that works out to a 0.3% execution rate for murderers. I find the size of that number – being so small – striking in a few different ways. If were trying to be a “tough-on-crime” Right Winger (never! LOL) I might cite this as evidence that we need to DO MORE to prevent violent crime. (NOTE: I’M not saying that. I’m just saying that you could imagine someone making that argument.) A death penalty opponent might use it to point out that very little would change if we DID eliminate the practice: It would result in an almost imperceptible uptick in prison populations, in exchange for KNOWING we NEVER executed an innocent person. Which is a pretty good trade off, I must admit! And a moderate supporter, like me, looks at it and is inclined to view it as a relatively small problem: 1 execution for every 357 murders? I don’t know. I guess I just thought it would be a LOT higher, by at least an order of magnitude. (BTW, my numbers were taken from a few different sources, which is why I haven’t linked them. If you have different figures, I’ll freely admit that I just grabbed the first set of data I could put together.)
I also found that, due to the (thankfully) small number of people we execute, trying to determine what kind of “deterrent” effect this has, if any, is impossible. One rather disturbing study showed that there’s only a discernable deterrent effect is places with very high execution rates. Meaning that, for this to work, we got to start executing MORE people. I might support the Death Penalty in theory, but putting that kind of reasoning into practice is just psychotic.
But putting aside any “benefits” we might see, no one should accept the possibility of executing an innocent man. So I did some poking around, looking first at overturned convictions. Of course, there are TONS of stories out there, and an interesting (though rather incomplete) list could be found on Wikipedia. I went through this list, trying to focus only on case where physical evidence exonerated the suspect, rather than them just being posthumously pardoned or something like that. (Where there was doubt of guilt, but not proof of innocence.) And there certainly is no shortage of cases where people sat on death row who were UNDENIABLY innocent. And one can certainly look at all of these MISTAKES and argue that such an imperfect system simply cannot be trusted. BUT… every conviction that gets overturned is also evidence that the system WORKS – that if someone is innocent, then the truth will come out. That may sound weak to some, and I’ll gladly admit that I’d feel better if we got it right the first time, every time, but it is significant that there ARE so many self-correcting mechanisms. The imperfection is mitigated by the fact that we recognize it.
BUT… Do they work? Was there ever a case where we KNEW we executed the wrong guy?
Well… A couple of names on that list jumped out at me.
First, there was Charles Hudspeth. He was hanged for the murder of her lover’s missing husband, who was found – ALIVE - a year later. Thing is? That was in 1892! And I have a hard time imagining a scenario like that happening today. So… it’s an EXAMPLE, but I’m not sure it’s still relevant. We’ve made SOME progress in the last 120 years.
There was also Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italian Anarchists convicted in 1920 in what many considered to have been a show-trial, rife with anti-Italian prejudice that was more common then than it is now, and executed in 1927. But at this point it’s impossible to PROOVE that they were innocent. A bad conviction? Well, Governor Dukakis certainly thought so, when he pardoned them in 1977. And I AM inclined to agree with him. But a definite “execution of the innocent?” Impossible to say.
Going from there to the wrongful execution article, I found a few more examples. There were several from the U.K. and Australia, but nothing from the U.S. The closest was Ellis Wayne Felker, who’s DNA evidence was re-evaluted after his execution. Butthe results we’re found to have been “inconclusive.” And that’s too frustrating. It’s not that I’d celebrate an innocent man being put to death, but putting aside that absurd result from 1892, at least ONE BONA-FIDE example of the State executing an innocent man would pretty much change me over to the abolitionist camp. That’s it. Just one. There are many cases where there has been doubt of guilt – and I DO NOT support the Death Penalties use in case like that – but so far no indisputable examples where we can prove innocence. And that means that it cannot be PROOVEN that our system is so profoundly flawed.
There was a case like that that got my attention many years ago, and that became very emotionally involved with.
The suspect’s name was Roger Keith Coleman. He was a coal miner in Grundy, Virginia, not far from where I was going to college at the time. And based on what the media presented at the time, I was convinced was innocent. Oprah had him on her show, and I found him to be very persuasive. At a minimum, the questions he raised and the apparent incompetence of his lawyer suggested that a new trial was appropriate. And he might have gotten one: Had that very same, publicly appointed lawyer, not filed his appeal ONE DAY AFTER the deadline to file had expired. Which, IMHO, pretty much speaks right back to that Public Defenders own incompetence! In any case, I was convinced he was innocent and beyond that convinced beyond any doubt that his original trial was flawed. But Virginia’s piece of shit Governor at the time, Democrat Douglas Wilder, (sorry, I really HATE that guy, and so does DW) refused to grant clemency, a even stay to allow the appeal about the appeal to go though. Coleman was executed and on that day I was convinced we had executed an innocent man. 100% convinced.
So, a decade later when Republican Governor Mark Warner decided to re-open the case and examine the DNA evidence which had NOT been presented at trial, I followed the story in anticipation that Roger Keith Coleman would finally be exonerated. Instead, the DNA evidence put him at the scene of the crime. He was lying. FUCK. I was angry, not so much because I WANTED to have seen an innocent man put to death, but because I had become so emotionally involved with his story. I got “sucked in,” if you will, and he was nothing more than a liar, and a murderer.
Anyway, I realize that our system of justice is imperfect. All of those overturned convictions DO point to mistakes of ALL KINDS being made. (Though over-zealous, political-motivated prosecution seem to be at the heart of many of them.) But saying that something COULD happen, is different form saying that it HAS. Finding errors, and the potential for errors, and FIXING THEM when they are found suggests that we have to have safeguards in place. Are they adequate? It’s a hollow sentiment, but so far? In this country? They appear to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I did not intend for that one throwaway comment in my Casey Anthony post last week to turn into a death penalty discussion, many thoughtful, principled and pragmatic comments about the death penalty ended up in the comments section as a result of it. And, after reading them, I was motivated to do a little digging, a little exploring of the issue, and maybe clarifying both to you all and to myself where I really stand on it.
Although politically ironic, but from my own POV logically consistent, my position on the Death Penalty, as a general practice, is almost a perfect mirror to my position on abortion. With abortion, I feel that the practice is completely immoral in all cases (yes, you read that right) where the life of the mother is not in immediate jeopardy. BUT, as this is just my opinion - and since I don’t share the Right’s mental illness that compels them to force everyone else to live according to their opinion - I have no desire to see abortion made ILLEGAL, just becuase I see it as IMMORAL. With Capital Punishment, it’s kind of the opposite: I do not oppose the practice on general moral grounds. BUT… as a PRACTICAL MATTER I do see much that is wrong with how we go about administering it. So I never cheer-lead for it, as some do. And I do see a reduction in executions as a good thing. But I stop short of a complete abolitionist stance, based on moral objection.
This puts me immediately at odds with posters such as jlarue, who feel it is simply an immoral practice. And you know what? You’re absolutely right. I’ll concede on all moral points right now: It’s wrong. And yet, I still feel the way I do. And, going back to the abortion parallel, I’ve never heard an argument, EVER, that convinced me that abortion was ever morally justifiable (in any case in which the life of the mother was not in imminent danger.) But again: What we believe to be moral and what we will support the legality of are not always the same. This happens to both Liberals and Conservatives, and hits me up from both sides of both of these two issues. The bottom line is that the execution of someone who has taken the life of another? Just does not bother me enough to change my opinion. If that makes me a bad person? Then so be it. For what it’s worth, I concede the moral high-ground to your admittedly more principled position.
(Just an aside: In admitting that being “pro-death penalty” - one of a very few Conservative positions that I hold - is a moral failing on my part, it’s funny to me just how many Conservative positions in general (almost all of them, in fact) can be described that way.)
So… morally I concede, though that doesn’t change my position. What about those practical concerns? The administrative details?
Poster ClassicLiberal gave me a pretty good quote, about how “the government can’t even keep potholes filled” so he’d not going to trust them with such grave matters. That’s a nice sentiment, and while I have no intention of arguing that the practice is air-tight, I will point out that this is the same basic argument that Conservatives use to argue against a Nation Health Care system, so you’ll have to better than that. Fortunately, he did: The politicization of the Judiciary.
Now, I hear you when it comes to the ELECTION of judges. Hoo-boy, that’s a HUGE problem. And it affects so many aspects of our society. There’s just SO MUCH worng with that, in particular the very perversion of our Democracy that you describe the pro-industry and pro-corporatist groups doing. But, much as with our disagreement on filibusters, it still sounds to me (rigth or worng) like you are opposing a practice IN GENERAL because of how ONE GROUP has decided to abuse it. (And let’s please take up the filibuster/reform issue again another time, because I’ve been sitting on a counterargument for your loast post on that for like a year now, but just haven’t felt like writing about it.) Anyway... IN THEORY, the election of judges shouldn’t be done on Political grounds. Of course, that’s gone completely by the wayside, but I’m not sure what else we should do. APPOINT them? To LIFETIME terms? NFW. And as counters I submit that Federally appointed Circuit and Supreme Court judges are every bit as politicized as local judges, and there’s an additional problem: WE CAN’T EVER GET RID OF THEM! What’s more, the judiciary is meant to act as a counter-balance to the Legislature and the Executive branch. But how will we get that when the judges are nominated, confirmed and appointed by the very bodies they’re meant to be opposing? I’ll see you and raise you two Scalia’s and a Thomas that this is a much worse way to go. This way, electing them? If a judge REALLY SUCKS? The will of the people, and the power of Democracy can be mustered to fix the problem. I just cannot belieev that because industry and corporations pervert Democracy, this is a reason to scrap the practice. Much as with terrorism, we must RESIST those forces, not allow them to trick us into dismantling our Democracy. If you have a third alternative, I really would like to hear it, but the immediate alternative, to me, seems like it can only be worse.
But it bring us to the crux of the matter, at least for me: Has this politicization, inefficiency, prosecutorial maleficence or any other factor actually led us to execute an innocent man?
Unlike Conchobhar, I have not served on a jury. In fact, I’ve only been in court three times in my life: Once when my parents finalized my sister’s adoption, once for a traffic ticket and once when I was being sued. (I won, if you’re wondering.) (OK, and I was called in for jury duty once, but I wasn't selected.) And our history, much like the UK’s, is rife with examples of officially administered injustice. And convictions are overturned ALL THE TIME when examination of the DNA evidence after the trial completely proves, beyond any doubt, that they had the wrong guy. (Remember: With a match, there’s STILL a 1 in 20 Million chance you’re wrong, but with a MISMATCH? Unless the lab-tech bled onto the sample, you KNOW the right answer. )
And you certainly have a good point, arguably THE point, when a verdict comes down to nothing more than which witnesses appear more credible: The guys who’s facing life or death and is on the stand for the first time in his life, facing a suspicious and skeptical jury; or the career law-enforcement officer (and trusted, heroic public servant) who’s in court every week, has testified hundreds of times and faces no personal or professional risk if should the case go one way or the other. And because “real-life” is never as neat and clear-cut as Television’s CSI shows, perception will thus determine reality. And that’s a huge problem, as matters of perception and personal feelings inevitably end up being given a weight disproportionate to their accuracy or value.
But there’s another side of that perception vs. objective evidence coin. It has been suggested that the preponderance of legal shows like CSI, Law and Order, etc… has had the effect of making us more skeptical as a people. That juries expect cases to look a lot neater and air tight before convicting. Now – I don’t KNOW if that’s true. Admittedly, I can’t find the original piece I had read. (I think it might have been a Slate piece.) And for all I know it could have been written by a disgruntled prosecutor who just came off of losing a big case. But as useless as anecdotal evidence is, case like Anthony (and O.J. Simpson and many others in between) do see, to suggest that there are juries out there for whom “erring on the side of caution” means an acquittal, when in doubt. Which… is exactly as it is supposed to be!
As I looked into this, I came accros a few other things, that can be interpreted in different ways…
For the years that I could find data for reasonably quickly (2006-2009) there were 186 executions in the U.S. In that same time period there were 65,642 murders. Now, committing the same error as when they calculate the divorce rate, that works out to a 0.3% execution rate for murderers. I find the size of that number – being so small – striking in a few different ways. If were trying to be a “tough-on-crime” Right Winger (never! LOL) I might cite this as evidence that we need to DO MORE to prevent violent crime. (NOTE: I’M not saying that. I’m just saying that you could imagine someone making that argument.) A death penalty opponent might use it to point out that very little would change if we DID eliminate the practice: It would result in an almost imperceptible uptick in prison populations, in exchange for KNOWING we NEVER executed an innocent person. Which is a pretty good trade off, I must admit! And a moderate supporter, like me, looks at it and is inclined to view it as a relatively small problem: 1 execution for every 357 murders? I don’t know. I guess I just thought it would be a LOT higher, by at least an order of magnitude. (BTW, my numbers were taken from a few different sources, which is why I haven’t linked them. If you have different figures, I’ll freely admit that I just grabbed the first set of data I could put together.)
I also found that, due to the (thankfully) small number of people we execute, trying to determine what kind of “deterrent” effect this has, if any, is impossible. One rather disturbing study showed that there’s only a discernable deterrent effect is places with very high execution rates. Meaning that, for this to work, we got to start executing MORE people. I might support the Death Penalty in theory, but putting that kind of reasoning into practice is just psychotic.
But putting aside any “benefits” we might see, no one should accept the possibility of executing an innocent man. So I did some poking around, looking first at overturned convictions. Of course, there are TONS of stories out there, and an interesting (though rather incomplete) list could be found on Wikipedia. I went through this list, trying to focus only on case where physical evidence exonerated the suspect, rather than them just being posthumously pardoned or something like that. (Where there was doubt of guilt, but not proof of innocence.) And there certainly is no shortage of cases where people sat on death row who were UNDENIABLY innocent. And one can certainly look at all of these MISTAKES and argue that such an imperfect system simply cannot be trusted. BUT… every conviction that gets overturned is also evidence that the system WORKS – that if someone is innocent, then the truth will come out. That may sound weak to some, and I’ll gladly admit that I’d feel better if we got it right the first time, every time, but it is significant that there ARE so many self-correcting mechanisms. The imperfection is mitigated by the fact that we recognize it.
BUT… Do they work? Was there ever a case where we KNEW we executed the wrong guy?
Well… A couple of names on that list jumped out at me.
First, there was Charles Hudspeth. He was hanged for the murder of her lover’s missing husband, who was found – ALIVE - a year later. Thing is? That was in 1892! And I have a hard time imagining a scenario like that happening today. So… it’s an EXAMPLE, but I’m not sure it’s still relevant. We’ve made SOME progress in the last 120 years.
There was also Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italian Anarchists convicted in 1920 in what many considered to have been a show-trial, rife with anti-Italian prejudice that was more common then than it is now, and executed in 1927. But at this point it’s impossible to PROOVE that they were innocent. A bad conviction? Well, Governor Dukakis certainly thought so, when he pardoned them in 1977. And I AM inclined to agree with him. But a definite “execution of the innocent?” Impossible to say.
Going from there to the wrongful execution article, I found a few more examples. There were several from the U.K. and Australia, but nothing from the U.S. The closest was Ellis Wayne Felker, who’s DNA evidence was re-evaluted after his execution. Butthe results we’re found to have been “inconclusive.” And that’s too frustrating. It’s not that I’d celebrate an innocent man being put to death, but putting aside that absurd result from 1892, at least ONE BONA-FIDE example of the State executing an innocent man would pretty much change me over to the abolitionist camp. That’s it. Just one. There are many cases where there has been doubt of guilt – and I DO NOT support the Death Penalties use in case like that – but so far no indisputable examples where we can prove innocence. And that means that it cannot be PROOVEN that our system is so profoundly flawed.
There was a case like that that got my attention many years ago, and that became very emotionally involved with.
The suspect’s name was Roger Keith Coleman. He was a coal miner in Grundy, Virginia, not far from where I was going to college at the time. And based on what the media presented at the time, I was convinced was innocent. Oprah had him on her show, and I found him to be very persuasive. At a minimum, the questions he raised and the apparent incompetence of his lawyer suggested that a new trial was appropriate. And he might have gotten one: Had that very same, publicly appointed lawyer, not filed his appeal ONE DAY AFTER the deadline to file had expired. Which, IMHO, pretty much speaks right back to that Public Defenders own incompetence! In any case, I was convinced he was innocent and beyond that convinced beyond any doubt that his original trial was flawed. But Virginia’s piece of shit Governor at the time, Democrat Douglas Wilder, (sorry, I really HATE that guy, and so does DW) refused to grant clemency, a even stay to allow the appeal about the appeal to go though. Coleman was executed and on that day I was convinced we had executed an innocent man. 100% convinced.
So, a decade later when Republican Governor Mark Warner decided to re-open the case and examine the DNA evidence which had NOT been presented at trial, I followed the story in anticipation that Roger Keith Coleman would finally be exonerated. Instead, the DNA evidence put him at the scene of the crime. He was lying. FUCK. I was angry, not so much because I WANTED to have seen an innocent man put to death, but because I had become so emotionally involved with his story. I got “sucked in,” if you will, and he was nothing more than a liar, and a murderer.
Anyway, I realize that our system of justice is imperfect. All of those overturned convictions DO point to mistakes of ALL KINDS being made. (Though over-zealous, political-motivated prosecution seem to be at the heart of many of them.) But saying that something COULD happen, is different form saying that it HAS. Finding errors, and the potential for errors, and FIXING THEM when they are found suggests that we have to have safeguards in place. Are they adequate? It’s a hollow sentiment, but so far? In this country? They appear to be.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Yet another Bush era failure...
THIS, folks, is why you don't tie school funding to student performance.
Yet one more example of something that George W. Bush and the Republicans got their greedy little hands on that turned to absolute shit. Nice going, jack holes.
Given Rush Limbaugh's enlightened commentary on the matter, I would like to propose walking into his studio and beating him to death with his microphone stand. But then... I still need to post my bit about capital punnishment, so maybe that will have to wait.
(Hey Rush: Last time I checked those schools were in a pretty red state, kind of how you be if I'd had my 'druthers and society allowed it, you lying, hypocritical fuckwad.)
Yet one more example of something that George W. Bush and the Republicans got their greedy little hands on that turned to absolute shit. Nice going, jack holes.
Given Rush Limbaugh's enlightened commentary on the matter, I would like to propose walking into his studio and beating him to death with his microphone stand. But then... I still need to post my bit about capital punnishment, so maybe that will have to wait.
(Hey Rush: Last time I checked those schools were in a pretty red state, kind of how you be if I'd had my 'druthers and society allowed it, you lying, hypocritical fuckwad.)
Friday, July 15, 2011
Deathly Hallows, part 2
I'm about half way done with a death-penalty piece, but it's not ready yet. I can probably get it posted this weekend though. We'll see. You guys gave me a bit to think about in the comments of the last part.
In the meantime...
We just got back from seeing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2 and I've just got to say that it was absolutely amazing. I was completely blown away. I can easily pay it the best compliment I can to a movie of this type:
It lived up to every bit of the hype, and exceeded my rather high expectations.
To compare it to some of its contemporaries, it was (much) better than Revenge of the Sith, better than The Dark Knight and on par with Return of the King. Simply incredible. Perfect, actually.
In the meantime...
We just got back from seeing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2 and I've just got to say that it was absolutely amazing. I was completely blown away. I can easily pay it the best compliment I can to a movie of this type:
It lived up to every bit of the hype, and exceeded my rather high expectations.
To compare it to some of its contemporaries, it was (much) better than Revenge of the Sith, better than The Dark Knight and on par with Return of the King. Simply incredible. Perfect, actually.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Is this really "the problem" with the system?
Unless you live under a rock, or your TV is broken you probably heard the news yesterday: Casey Anthony was found "not guilty" on all charges directly related to the death of her two year old daughter Calee in 2008, save only the four counts of providing false information to the police.
(Which, let's face it, is something that probably been done by every single human being ever accused of a crime since the beginning of human history.)
My boss actually had a news feed up on his computer, so we heard the verdict pretty much as it came out. Several of us were "following" the case, so naturally there was a lot of interest. (No, we don't work in a law office.) And I should say that I haven't been "following" the case, so much as I was bombarded by it. There were 16,442 people murdered in the United States in 2008, but I'll be damned if I can name a single other case off the top of my head. But hey: An attractive white woman, acting strangely I might add, a cute white kid, weird circumstances and answered questions? That's NEWS (I guess.)
I'm not trying to say that Calee doesn't deserve justice, nor even that I don't think Casey did it. (I DO, but more on that in a minute.) The thing is, those 16,442? Are based on CONVICTIONS. How many OTHER cases of dead people in 2008 went uncovered by the media? How many OTHER victims didn't get justice? How many OTHER people got away with it? That's the first thing that annoys me about these kinds of stories.
Another is NANCY FUCKING GRACE.
Oh my Holy Lord in Heaven, is there any other human being anywhere on this big and beautiful planet MORE ANNOYING and MORE GRATING that Nancy Grace?! Holy crap, I honestly think I'd rather have Ann Coulter on my jury! And I AGREE WITH HER! I don't even really have a problem with he JUDGEMENT in this case! I think she's basically got it right! I just can't stand listening to her!
Here's the thing... A few weeks back, CNN had a prominent defense attorney on air to discuss the case and he basically said, "Here's what the prosecution will try to say. Here's what the defense will counter with. And here are the issues that the jury will need to sort out." There may have been something in there about the states burden of proof, but it was basically a balanced, objective summary of the case, for the benefit of those who've managed to otherwise avoid or miss the massive coverage of it. Then they turned to Nancy. Her response, and I'm paraphrasing here, was something like this:
"THAT'S A LOAD OF BULLSHIT, MARK. THE BITCH IS GULITY AS HITLER, AND DESERVES TO DIE - AT LEAST TWICE - IN THE MOST INHUMANE WAY POSSIBLE. ACTING LIKE SHE DID PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT SHE'S A LOUSY DAUGHTER, A LOUSY MOTHER, AND AN INHUMAN, MURDERING PUDDLE OF POND SCUM!"
...Which is what I guess passes for objective reporting on what Conservatives refer to as the "Communist News Network." (Or, as I call it, "Chicken Noodle News.")
And understandably, there were some pretty strong opinions being expressed around the office when the verdicts were announced. A betting pool was immediately drawn up on Casey Anthony's life expectancy, and one of the more prominent opinions was: "THIS is what's wrong with our system."
Now… These were conservative guys. Not morons, professional people I respect, but conservatives. And what they were feeling was that (1) she was guilty and (2) she was let off. So (3) “the system” doesn’t work. We also got into a discussion about the 4th Amendment and how it’s bullshit that evidence obtained “illegally” was automatically inadmissible, particularly when it revealed the TRUTH of the matter. Now, I LOVE taking on Conservatives in these kinds of discussion, because I can do so from [their own] libertarian point of view, without having to wear my politics on my sleeve.
I simply asked them: How else can you protect our rights? You wouldn’t even know the person was guilty until AFTER you violated their rights! So what good is any protection of privacy and private property if there are no repercussions to the state for violating it? What else would you do? Punish the Cops?! Throw them in jail or sue them? Sure. And good luck getting any more cops to search shit from that point forward. It wouldn't work. So, flawed as it is, this the best you can do and not live in a police state.
And the whole reason we were even talking about that was that I said that I wanted to get an idea of the disparity between the case that was presented to the jury and the story that was told to us by the media. Sure: We’re all torqued up about this woman’s guilt because that’s how the media wants us. (And to anyone who thinks they always get it right, I have three words for: Jean Benoit Ramsey. And you and Nancy Grace owe her later-mother an engraved apology! Big time!) And who knows…? Maybe they even had some inkling as to where this case was heading. So by presenting one side, they might be able to milk this story even longer. Who knows? In any case, this case, for better or worse, is clear evidence trails are NOT tried in the media or the court of public opinion, and I for one think that’s a VERY GOOD THING.
Also… As you may know I like to think of things a little bit differently. I kind of have a “freakanomics” way of looking at the world, only with a progressive / liberal bias. And the one other Liberal in the office asked an interesting question to that end:
Do you think she might have been convicted, is she was being tried in a state that did NOT have the death penalty?
And honestly? I DON’T KNOW. It’s hypothetical, and there’s no way to prove it one way of the other, unless one of the jurors were to come right out and admit it, but it’s certainly one of the more effective, if somewhat more cynical, arguments against the death penalty that I’ve heard; A point that I never really considered: Could abolishing it end up in MORE convictions?
And just FYI: I SUPPORT the Death Penalty. Not blindly, of course, and not in all cases that it's been applied, and not the system that currently administers it. But the practice, in general? I’m basically OK with. And before anyone gives me the Liberal arguments against it, don’t bother. I’ve heard them before and I don’t care. But don't worry... I don’t get much love from Conservatives on the issue either. Because I don’t buy their bullshit about it anymore that I care about the far more fact-based arguments being presented by Liberals. I support it, yes, but I’ll happily admit: It’s a vice. It’s a vice that satisfies the sin of wrath, nothing more. Someone is dead, I’m angry about it, so someone must die. As long as it’s the RIGHT person? I’m basically OK with it.
Which brings me back to the case at hand: Did she do it?
Well, she certainly ain't winning any ‘mother of the year’ awards. She seems guilty of gross parental negligence at a minimum. (Something she wasn’t even CHARGED with!) If my kid were missing for three minutes I’m panicking. And after thirty? I’m calling the cops. But thirty DAYS?! Holy crap! So her first story was bullshit. I get that. So she’s also a liar. But there is an established burden of proof that the state MUST meet to convict someone of a Capital Crime. And in the absence of being able to establish either the CAUSE or the TIME of death? That burden gets very difficult to meet.
And so, unfortunately, since real life is not like CSI on TV, they had no case; just the least sympathetic defendant who didn’t yell “Allah Akbar!” at the time of the crime.
And here’s where my freakanomic thinking comes in… If you’re a Conservative, arguing with a Liberal about the Death Penalty, or tougher prison sentences, or anything else that falls under the “cruel and unusual punishment” venue, isn’t the fact that Casey Anthony got off PROOF that the system DOES in fact work? Doesn't it PROVE that we can’t possibly falsely convicting that many people if even a terrible, terrible person like her got off? Should this silence all of the Liberal critics of our legal system? If the Right wasn’t so blinded by their own anger, they might realize that this is actually a VICTORY for them! Kind of like how O.J. Simpson getting off (the first time) is proof that the system isn’t racist!
Even though... People are shown by DNA evidence to have been falsely convicted ALL THE TIME.
And Blacks are more likely to be executed, and receive tougher sentences than whites convicted of the exact same crimes.
But… I guess they’d still rather execute a couple more people than to be able to argue that the system works. See? I TOLD you it was a VICE!
BTW… If you ever have someone say something to the effect of “I’d rather send an innocent man to prison than risk letting a guilty man go free,” PLEASE hit them in the head with a brick that has the word “MORON!” engraved in it. And once they come to, ask them: If an INNOCENT MAN (AKA: NOT THE GUY WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME) went to prison, what happened to the guy who ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME?! (Um… I’m pretty sure he went free, FUCKWAD!) See… The guilty guy goes free either way! But these jack-holes would rather compound this legal cluster-fuck by sending THE WRONG GUY to prison on top of it! That’s how they want the system to “werk,” I guess.
The real problem here is how the media chooses to cover these things, and how they choose the cases they want to cover at all. And this is compounded by the public's belief that they can draw any conclusions about our legal system from the media: An entity that focuses on one case at a time out of TEN THOUSAND (or more.) (16,442 in 2008!) By definition ANY case being given this kind of coverage the media can onlybe the exception: It's 1 out of 10,000+ after all! You don't learn about significant trend with a NON-RANDOM sample size that small.
One last thing… There was a couple of great articles in Crack about bullshit the media thinks is news, and how the media makes bullshit look like fact. Worth a read. Oh, and here’s some GOOD NEWS that nobody’s talking about! (That last one has a little bit of conservative bias to it, at least the way I see it, but still: Good news is good news!)
(Which, let's face it, is something that probably been done by every single human being ever accused of a crime since the beginning of human history.)
My boss actually had a news feed up on his computer, so we heard the verdict pretty much as it came out. Several of us were "following" the case, so naturally there was a lot of interest. (No, we don't work in a law office.) And I should say that I haven't been "following" the case, so much as I was bombarded by it. There were 16,442 people murdered in the United States in 2008, but I'll be damned if I can name a single other case off the top of my head. But hey: An attractive white woman, acting strangely I might add, a cute white kid, weird circumstances and answered questions? That's NEWS (I guess.)
I'm not trying to say that Calee doesn't deserve justice, nor even that I don't think Casey did it. (I DO, but more on that in a minute.) The thing is, those 16,442? Are based on CONVICTIONS. How many OTHER cases of dead people in 2008 went uncovered by the media? How many OTHER victims didn't get justice? How many OTHER people got away with it? That's the first thing that annoys me about these kinds of stories.
Another is NANCY FUCKING GRACE.
Oh my Holy Lord in Heaven, is there any other human being anywhere on this big and beautiful planet MORE ANNOYING and MORE GRATING that Nancy Grace?! Holy crap, I honestly think I'd rather have Ann Coulter on my jury! And I AGREE WITH HER! I don't even really have a problem with he JUDGEMENT in this case! I think she's basically got it right! I just can't stand listening to her!
Here's the thing... A few weeks back, CNN had a prominent defense attorney on air to discuss the case and he basically said, "Here's what the prosecution will try to say. Here's what the defense will counter with. And here are the issues that the jury will need to sort out." There may have been something in there about the states burden of proof, but it was basically a balanced, objective summary of the case, for the benefit of those who've managed to otherwise avoid or miss the massive coverage of it. Then they turned to Nancy. Her response, and I'm paraphrasing here, was something like this:
"THAT'S A LOAD OF BULLSHIT, MARK. THE BITCH IS GULITY AS HITLER, AND DESERVES TO DIE - AT LEAST TWICE - IN THE MOST INHUMANE WAY POSSIBLE. ACTING LIKE SHE DID PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT SHE'S A LOUSY DAUGHTER, A LOUSY MOTHER, AND AN INHUMAN, MURDERING PUDDLE OF POND SCUM!"
...Which is what I guess passes for objective reporting on what Conservatives refer to as the "Communist News Network." (Or, as I call it, "Chicken Noodle News.")
And understandably, there were some pretty strong opinions being expressed around the office when the verdicts were announced. A betting pool was immediately drawn up on Casey Anthony's life expectancy, and one of the more prominent opinions was: "THIS is what's wrong with our system."
Now… These were conservative guys. Not morons, professional people I respect, but conservatives. And what they were feeling was that (1) she was guilty and (2) she was let off. So (3) “the system” doesn’t work. We also got into a discussion about the 4th Amendment and how it’s bullshit that evidence obtained “illegally” was automatically inadmissible, particularly when it revealed the TRUTH of the matter. Now, I LOVE taking on Conservatives in these kinds of discussion, because I can do so from [their own] libertarian point of view, without having to wear my politics on my sleeve.
I simply asked them: How else can you protect our rights? You wouldn’t even know the person was guilty until AFTER you violated their rights! So what good is any protection of privacy and private property if there are no repercussions to the state for violating it? What else would you do? Punish the Cops?! Throw them in jail or sue them? Sure. And good luck getting any more cops to search shit from that point forward. It wouldn't work. So, flawed as it is, this the best you can do and not live in a police state.
And the whole reason we were even talking about that was that I said that I wanted to get an idea of the disparity between the case that was presented to the jury and the story that was told to us by the media. Sure: We’re all torqued up about this woman’s guilt because that’s how the media wants us. (And to anyone who thinks they always get it right, I have three words for: Jean Benoit Ramsey. And you and Nancy Grace owe her later-mother an engraved apology! Big time!) And who knows…? Maybe they even had some inkling as to where this case was heading. So by presenting one side, they might be able to milk this story even longer. Who knows? In any case, this case, for better or worse, is clear evidence trails are NOT tried in the media or the court of public opinion, and I for one think that’s a VERY GOOD THING.
Also… As you may know I like to think of things a little bit differently. I kind of have a “freakanomics” way of looking at the world, only with a progressive / liberal bias. And the one other Liberal in the office asked an interesting question to that end:
Do you think she might have been convicted, is she was being tried in a state that did NOT have the death penalty?
And honestly? I DON’T KNOW. It’s hypothetical, and there’s no way to prove it one way of the other, unless one of the jurors were to come right out and admit it, but it’s certainly one of the more effective, if somewhat more cynical, arguments against the death penalty that I’ve heard; A point that I never really considered: Could abolishing it end up in MORE convictions?
And just FYI: I SUPPORT the Death Penalty. Not blindly, of course, and not in all cases that it's been applied, and not the system that currently administers it. But the practice, in general? I’m basically OK with. And before anyone gives me the Liberal arguments against it, don’t bother. I’ve heard them before and I don’t care. But don't worry... I don’t get much love from Conservatives on the issue either. Because I don’t buy their bullshit about it anymore that I care about the far more fact-based arguments being presented by Liberals. I support it, yes, but I’ll happily admit: It’s a vice. It’s a vice that satisfies the sin of wrath, nothing more. Someone is dead, I’m angry about it, so someone must die. As long as it’s the RIGHT person? I’m basically OK with it.
Which brings me back to the case at hand: Did she do it?
Well, she certainly ain't winning any ‘mother of the year’ awards. She seems guilty of gross parental negligence at a minimum. (Something she wasn’t even CHARGED with!) If my kid were missing for three minutes I’m panicking. And after thirty? I’m calling the cops. But thirty DAYS?! Holy crap! So her first story was bullshit. I get that. So she’s also a liar. But there is an established burden of proof that the state MUST meet to convict someone of a Capital Crime. And in the absence of being able to establish either the CAUSE or the TIME of death? That burden gets very difficult to meet.
And so, unfortunately, since real life is not like CSI on TV, they had no case; just the least sympathetic defendant who didn’t yell “Allah Akbar!” at the time of the crime.
And here’s where my freakanomic thinking comes in… If you’re a Conservative, arguing with a Liberal about the Death Penalty, or tougher prison sentences, or anything else that falls under the “cruel and unusual punishment” venue, isn’t the fact that Casey Anthony got off PROOF that the system DOES in fact work? Doesn't it PROVE that we can’t possibly falsely convicting that many people if even a terrible, terrible person like her got off? Should this silence all of the Liberal critics of our legal system? If the Right wasn’t so blinded by their own anger, they might realize that this is actually a VICTORY for them! Kind of like how O.J. Simpson getting off (the first time) is proof that the system isn’t racist!
Even though... People are shown by DNA evidence to have been falsely convicted ALL THE TIME.
And Blacks are more likely to be executed, and receive tougher sentences than whites convicted of the exact same crimes.
But… I guess they’d still rather execute a couple more people than to be able to argue that the system works. See? I TOLD you it was a VICE!
BTW… If you ever have someone say something to the effect of “I’d rather send an innocent man to prison than risk letting a guilty man go free,” PLEASE hit them in the head with a brick that has the word “MORON!” engraved in it. And once they come to, ask them: If an INNOCENT MAN (AKA: NOT THE GUY WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME) went to prison, what happened to the guy who ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME?! (Um… I’m pretty sure he went free, FUCKWAD!) See… The guilty guy goes free either way! But these jack-holes would rather compound this legal cluster-fuck by sending THE WRONG GUY to prison on top of it! That’s how they want the system to “werk,” I guess.
The real problem here is how the media chooses to cover these things, and how they choose the cases they want to cover at all. And this is compounded by the public's belief that they can draw any conclusions about our legal system from the media: An entity that focuses on one case at a time out of TEN THOUSAND (or more.) (16,442 in 2008!) By definition ANY case being given this kind of coverage the media can onlybe the exception: It's 1 out of 10,000+ after all! You don't learn about significant trend with a NON-RANDOM sample size that small.
One last thing… There was a couple of great articles in Crack about bullshit the media thinks is news, and how the media makes bullshit look like fact. Worth a read. Oh, and here’s some GOOD NEWS that nobody’s talking about! (That last one has a little bit of conservative bias to it, at least the way I see it, but still: Good news is good news!)
Saturday, July 2, 2011
And NOW I'm a Conservative...
Leave it to Cracked to turn even me against Scientific and technological progress!
Spooky.
Read and be warned.
Luddites unite!
Spooky.
Read and be warned.
Luddites unite!
Friday, July 1, 2011
Gold Star Awards, June, 2011
Here we go, once a gain a day late: The Gold and Silver Star awards for June! The year is 1964, and there was one BWAA Inductee and a whopping five from the Veterans committee. So, here we go:
The Luke Appling Gold Star #37: AWOLBush / Who Served?
Are you tired of how the Right is always belly-aching about who supports the troops and who doesn’t? How Liberals, and by extension the Democrats, hate their country? And hate the military? And how they love to point out that Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or some other Democrat or Liberal never served in the Military? (Neither did Ronald W. Reagan, but they always seem to leave that one out!) Well, HERE’S a site that turns the tables on those Right-Wing jack-holes by showing that, in fact, there are rather a large number of prominent Democrats who did serve and quite a few Prominent Republincs (read: ALL OF THE LOUDEST AMONG THEM!) who did not. So keep the pressure up on these hypocritical, and at times downright un-American, neo-con chicken-hawks and, check this out! (And as a side note, let's be honest here: When 50,000 men are dying in the jungles of Southeast Asia while you're fighting Communism in the skies over Texas? YOU'RE A DRAFT-DODGER!)
The Red Faber Silver Star #31: Five Second Films
The extended version of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings Trilogy is over three hours long. It’s truly a masterpiece of modern American Cinema (and made in New Zealand, by a New Zealander no less!) but WHO HAS THAT KIND OF TIME! (If you do? Get a JOB you lazy bum!) But THESE films? Are NOT Lord of the Rings. Most of them? Are merely funny. Some are hilarious. And some of them really suck. But at five seconds apiece? You can watch 12 of them in ONE MINUTE and have as many laughs as Peter Jackson gives you in 12 HOURS! Beat that!
The Burleigh Grimes Silver Star #32: Off Planet Films
This YouTube channel is just fucking twisted. And fucking hilarious. I can’t even BEGIN to describe them, other than to say that they produce animated shorts (~three-five minutes or less) with a bizarre, dark, and at times downright psychotic sense of humor about them.
The Tim Keefe Silver Star #33: On the Spectrum
The first of three web-comics I’d like to mention this month centers on an issue that's near and dear to me: Autsim. This comic is a series of strips about one family’s experiences raising autistic children. Although some of the humor is aimed at people who are familiar with Autism, and thus can understand the mind of an Autistic child, a lot of it is pretty general family-humor stuff that anyone (with kids) can be relate to. The artwork is not as professional like most of the web-comics I read (and share here) but it’s cute. You should check it out. Unfortunately, also like a few other comics that I’ve mentioned here, this one hasn’t been updated in a while, and I'm afraid it may be on hiatus permanently at this point. I hope not, because it’s definitely helped me see things in a different light with my own children.
The Heinie Manush Silver Star #34: Selkie
The next web-comic also deals with a personal issue for me: Adoption. And while I never spent time in an orphanage, I am adopted, and so relate to many of the things that the characters talk about and deal with. Similar to "On teh Specturm," it’s not the most polished comic art-wise, but he still manages to capture the charecters' facial expressions and emotions very well, and there are panels such as this, which gives a glimpse at both the soul and the potential of the series:
![]()
Its charecters have dpeth, and it's heroine is one of the most sympathetic you will find - just impossible not to absolutely fall in love with. It deals with issues of acceptance (Selkie is a sea-creature living amongst humans), discrimination and diversity, as well as what it means to be a good parent, good son or daughter and good friend. It worth checking out, and should be read from the beginning.
The Monte Ward Silver Star #35: Alone in a Crowd
Most people might initially find this comic to be silly. But keep an open mind. Like Selkie, it is about acceptance, both of yourself and others, and being true to yourself. These themes permeate all of the characters, for the hopelessly idealist Hope, to Grace, the Girls with Cat-Ears, to the Girl who’s taken advantage of at work, to the Aunt who manages a pornographic film studio to the geeky guy who collects action figures. It’s very cutely drawn, and reminds us that, at some point, we’ve all Alone in a Crowd at some point. So check it out! (From the Beginning!)
The Luke Appling Gold Star #37: AWOLBush / Who Served?
Are you tired of how the Right is always belly-aching about who supports the troops and who doesn’t? How Liberals, and by extension the Democrats, hate their country? And hate the military? And how they love to point out that Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or some other Democrat or Liberal never served in the Military? (Neither did Ronald W. Reagan, but they always seem to leave that one out!) Well, HERE’S a site that turns the tables on those Right-Wing jack-holes by showing that, in fact, there are rather a large number of prominent Democrats who did serve and quite a few Prominent Republincs (read: ALL OF THE LOUDEST AMONG THEM!) who did not. So keep the pressure up on these hypocritical, and at times downright un-American, neo-con chicken-hawks and, check this out! (And as a side note, let's be honest here: When 50,000 men are dying in the jungles of Southeast Asia while you're fighting Communism in the skies over Texas? YOU'RE A DRAFT-DODGER!)
The Red Faber Silver Star #31: Five Second Films
The extended version of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings Trilogy is over three hours long. It’s truly a masterpiece of modern American Cinema (and made in New Zealand, by a New Zealander no less!) but WHO HAS THAT KIND OF TIME! (If you do? Get a JOB you lazy bum!) But THESE films? Are NOT Lord of the Rings. Most of them? Are merely funny. Some are hilarious. And some of them really suck. But at five seconds apiece? You can watch 12 of them in ONE MINUTE and have as many laughs as Peter Jackson gives you in 12 HOURS! Beat that!
The Burleigh Grimes Silver Star #32: Off Planet Films
This YouTube channel is just fucking twisted. And fucking hilarious. I can’t even BEGIN to describe them, other than to say that they produce animated shorts (~three-five minutes or less) with a bizarre, dark, and at times downright psychotic sense of humor about them.
The Tim Keefe Silver Star #33: On the Spectrum
The first of three web-comics I’d like to mention this month centers on an issue that's near and dear to me: Autsim. This comic is a series of strips about one family’s experiences raising autistic children. Although some of the humor is aimed at people who are familiar with Autism, and thus can understand the mind of an Autistic child, a lot of it is pretty general family-humor stuff that anyone (with kids) can be relate to. The artwork is not as professional like most of the web-comics I read (and share here) but it’s cute. You should check it out. Unfortunately, also like a few other comics that I’ve mentioned here, this one hasn’t been updated in a while, and I'm afraid it may be on hiatus permanently at this point. I hope not, because it’s definitely helped me see things in a different light with my own children.
The Heinie Manush Silver Star #34: Selkie
The next web-comic also deals with a personal issue for me: Adoption. And while I never spent time in an orphanage, I am adopted, and so relate to many of the things that the characters talk about and deal with. Similar to "On teh Specturm," it’s not the most polished comic art-wise, but he still manages to capture the charecters' facial expressions and emotions very well, and there are panels such as this, which gives a glimpse at both the soul and the potential of the series:
The Monte Ward Silver Star #35: Alone in a Crowd
Most people might initially find this comic to be silly. But keep an open mind. Like Selkie, it is about acceptance, both of yourself and others, and being true to yourself. These themes permeate all of the characters, for the hopelessly idealist Hope, to Grace, the Girls with Cat-Ears, to the Girl who’s taken advantage of at work, to the Aunt who manages a pornographic film studio to the geeky guy who collects action figures. It’s very cutely drawn, and reminds us that, at some point, we’ve all Alone in a Crowd at some point. So check it out! (From the Beginning!)
Monday, June 27, 2011
Hot Coffee and Frivolous Lawsuits
I heard an interesting story this morning on NPR about an upcoming documentary called “Hot Coffee.” It documents the facts surrounding a certain “frivolous lawsuit” that I’m sure we’re all familiar with. I’m sure you “know” what I’m talking about: Some lady was driving along, spilled her coffee, got some burns, sued McDonalds and was awarded Millions in a case of “jackpot justice.” There’s only one problem with that:
IT’S ALL BULLSHIT
Some of the FACTS about the case include:
1) She was, in fact, a PASSENGER in a PARKED car.
2) She received THIRD DEGREE BURNS. (Would you put something in your mouth hot enough to cause third degree burns to your LEGS?!)
3) McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180 °F, which can cause a third-degree burn in under seven seconds.
4) From 1982 to 1992 the McDonald's had received over 700 reports of people burned by thier coffee, and had settled claims for more than $500,000. (Remember: A big part of tort is that you (a) KNOW about the problem, and (b) DO NOTHING to fix it. This is TEXTBOOK, people!)
5) She was incapacitated and underwent medical treatment for TWO YEARS.
6) In the end, she did not see MILLIONS of dollars - less than $600,000 actually, roughly $160,000 of which was just her own medical expense.
And the following is a FACT, but one who’s importance and relevance is a matter of DEBATE; one for the COURT to decide. (And thus: NOT a point of frivolity):
7) [McDonald’s] handed someone a liquid, that they prepared to a temperature that was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, in a container that was not strong enough, or with a lid steady enough, to contain it – the properties of which were specified by McDonalds. Think about that. Would YOU do that?! Not to someone you LIKED! (And remember: Better cup = More $$$!)
Now... I’m going to go out on a limb here, because I haven’t seen the film yet, and recommend that EVERYONE see this. And that you tell your friends about it. Because it brings up broader points about our society, and its system of justice, or the lack thereof. Let me ask you a question…
WHY does “everyone know” so much about this case that is complete bullshit? Why is everyone such an “expert” on this case despite mostly not knowing shit, and going almost entirely on misinformation?
Well… Do you remember that LIBERAL MEDIA we always hear about?
They’re the ones that origionally TOLD THE STORY. They're the one we were getting our fakts (not facts) from. Sure, they didn’t come right out and SAY it was a “frivolous law suit.” But the fakts presented were done so entirely from McDonald’s point of view.
Hmmmmm….
Do you think that MIGHT have anything to do with the fact that for most of the past half-century, McDonalds was not only one of the largest corporations in the United States, but also one of the single largest sources of TELEVISION ADVIRTISING REVENUE? Think back to when you were a kid. How many times did you see Ronald McDonald on TV? (Mayor McCheese was always my favorite!) But hey: I’m sure the news media wasn’t being biased in their presentation of this story just because the it cast on of their corporate shareholder’s largest sources of income in a bad light. Don’t you agree?
Behold: Your LIBERAL media!
And this was almost a SIXTEEN YEARS AGO! This was 1994!
Do you know what DIDN’T exist in 1994?
The Fox News Channel, the Tea Party, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, President George W. Bush, a Republican Majority in the House, Glenn Beck’s radio program, Sean Hannity’s radio program, Ann Coulter’s bi-weekly column…
Yeah, I’m sure that our media hasn’t leaned any farther to the Right since 1994!
The bigger picture here is that when we complain about these so-called “frivolous lawsuits,” we are in fact promoting corporatism, taking the corporation’s side and voluntarily, even enthusiastically sacrificing our rights. Try reading the fine print on your phone bill or credit card statement some time. Do you see that little bit about “binding arbitration?” Do you know what this means?
It means that if you have any dispute with that company, you agree to binding arbitration where:
1) They pick the venue for the court.
2) They pick the judge.
3) They PAY for the judge.
4) The Judge is not required to provide ANY rational for his ruling. (!!!)
5) YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE OR RIGHT TO APPEAL.
And we sign more and more of this kind of fascist bullshit EVERY SINGLE DAY.
But hey, why should we complain? I mean: It’s not like you HAVE to have a cell phone. Or a credit card.
…or access to the internet.
…or the ability to buy a plane ticket.
…or the ability to rent a car.
…or the ability to build a credit history.
Yeah. That seems like a reasonable trade off: They make a profit. I have no power if they screw me. (Which, of course, NEVER HAPPENS!) And if I exercise my rights to OPT-OUT of having my rights taken away from me…?
I LOSE THAT MANY MORE OF MY RIGHTS!
And there is simply NO GOOD REASON we need to make that tradeoff!
It time to WAKE UP, America! The next time the media tells you about a “frivolous law suit?” Check to see if it’s against one of their sponsors. Whether or not it’s frivolous is a matter for the COURTS TO DECIDE. And plenty of these just get thrown out. Every day. It is not a matter for the media to decide and to use to influence public opinion on Tort Reform…
…which is just another Right Wing Code Word for taking away more of your rights as people in the name of protecting Corporations from having to PLAY BY THE RULES and OBEY THE LAW.
And remember, WHERE did I hear about this? On NPR: A PUBLIC station that does not rely on corporate sponsorship! Think about THAT the next time some Jack-Hole sends you another Right-Wing e-mail that begins, “Here’s a story the cowards in the main-stream media won’t tell you!” The only stories left untold are the ones the corporate owners and corporate sponsors don’t want you hear, or form your own opinion about.
So here’s a new rule: THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A FRIVOLOUS LAW SUIT.
Such judgments are entirely matters for the COURT to decide for themselves.
WHICH IS WHY WE FUCKING HAVE THEM!!!
IT’S ALL BULLSHIT
Some of the FACTS about the case include:
1) She was, in fact, a PASSENGER in a PARKED car.
2) She received THIRD DEGREE BURNS. (Would you put something in your mouth hot enough to cause third degree burns to your LEGS?!)
3) McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180 °F, which can cause a third-degree burn in under seven seconds.
4) From 1982 to 1992 the McDonald's had received over 700 reports of people burned by thier coffee, and had settled claims for more than $500,000. (Remember: A big part of tort is that you (a) KNOW about the problem, and (b) DO NOTHING to fix it. This is TEXTBOOK, people!)
5) She was incapacitated and underwent medical treatment for TWO YEARS.
6) In the end, she did not see MILLIONS of dollars - less than $600,000 actually, roughly $160,000 of which was just her own medical expense.
And the following is a FACT, but one who’s importance and relevance is a matter of DEBATE; one for the COURT to decide. (And thus: NOT a point of frivolity):
7) [McDonald’s] handed someone a liquid, that they prepared to a temperature that was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, in a container that was not strong enough, or with a lid steady enough, to contain it – the properties of which were specified by McDonalds. Think about that. Would YOU do that?! Not to someone you LIKED! (And remember: Better cup = More $$$!)
Now... I’m going to go out on a limb here, because I haven’t seen the film yet, and recommend that EVERYONE see this. And that you tell your friends about it. Because it brings up broader points about our society, and its system of justice, or the lack thereof. Let me ask you a question…
WHY does “everyone know” so much about this case that is complete bullshit? Why is everyone such an “expert” on this case despite mostly not knowing shit, and going almost entirely on misinformation?
Well… Do you remember that LIBERAL MEDIA we always hear about?
They’re the ones that origionally TOLD THE STORY. They're the one we were getting our fakts (not facts) from. Sure, they didn’t come right out and SAY it was a “frivolous law suit.” But the fakts presented were done so entirely from McDonald’s point of view.
Hmmmmm….
Do you think that MIGHT have anything to do with the fact that for most of the past half-century, McDonalds was not only one of the largest corporations in the United States, but also one of the single largest sources of TELEVISION ADVIRTISING REVENUE? Think back to when you were a kid. How many times did you see Ronald McDonald on TV? (Mayor McCheese was always my favorite!) But hey: I’m sure the news media wasn’t being biased in their presentation of this story just because the it cast on of their corporate shareholder’s largest sources of income in a bad light. Don’t you agree?
Behold: Your LIBERAL media!
And this was almost a SIXTEEN YEARS AGO! This was 1994!
Do you know what DIDN’T exist in 1994?
The Fox News Channel, the Tea Party, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, President George W. Bush, a Republican Majority in the House, Glenn Beck’s radio program, Sean Hannity’s radio program, Ann Coulter’s bi-weekly column…
Yeah, I’m sure that our media hasn’t leaned any farther to the Right since 1994!
The bigger picture here is that when we complain about these so-called “frivolous lawsuits,” we are in fact promoting corporatism, taking the corporation’s side and voluntarily, even enthusiastically sacrificing our rights. Try reading the fine print on your phone bill or credit card statement some time. Do you see that little bit about “binding arbitration?” Do you know what this means?
It means that if you have any dispute with that company, you agree to binding arbitration where:
1) They pick the venue for the court.
2) They pick the judge.
3) They PAY for the judge.
4) The Judge is not required to provide ANY rational for his ruling. (!!!)
5) YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE OR RIGHT TO APPEAL.
And we sign more and more of this kind of fascist bullshit EVERY SINGLE DAY.
But hey, why should we complain? I mean: It’s not like you HAVE to have a cell phone. Or a credit card.
…or access to the internet.
…or the ability to buy a plane ticket.
…or the ability to rent a car.
…or the ability to build a credit history.
Yeah. That seems like a reasonable trade off: They make a profit. I have no power if they screw me. (Which, of course, NEVER HAPPENS!) And if I exercise my rights to OPT-OUT of having my rights taken away from me…?
I LOSE THAT MANY MORE OF MY RIGHTS!
And there is simply NO GOOD REASON we need to make that tradeoff!
It time to WAKE UP, America! The next time the media tells you about a “frivolous law suit?” Check to see if it’s against one of their sponsors. Whether or not it’s frivolous is a matter for the COURTS TO DECIDE. And plenty of these just get thrown out. Every day. It is not a matter for the media to decide and to use to influence public opinion on Tort Reform…
…which is just another Right Wing Code Word for taking away more of your rights as people in the name of protecting Corporations from having to PLAY BY THE RULES and OBEY THE LAW.
And remember, WHERE did I hear about this? On NPR: A PUBLIC station that does not rely on corporate sponsorship! Think about THAT the next time some Jack-Hole sends you another Right-Wing e-mail that begins, “Here’s a story the cowards in the main-stream media won’t tell you!” The only stories left untold are the ones the corporate owners and corporate sponsors don’t want you hear, or form your own opinion about.
So here’s a new rule: THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A FRIVOLOUS LAW SUIT.
Such judgments are entirely matters for the COURT to decide for themselves.
WHICH IS WHY WE FUCKING HAVE THEM!!!
Friday, June 17, 2011
So I was reading Cracked earlier and I saw this ad (just an ad, not one of Cracked's things):
![]()
And so I clicked it (as you should ALWAYS do when some bullshit ad pops up on a site you like, thereby taking say... some crack-pot's money and redistributing it to a common-sense blogger.) (Hint, hint.) And the ad linked this THIS SITE. I just perusde it, I didn't read much of it, and I couldn't help but wonder...
WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN THE PATRIOT ACT WAS BEING "DEBATED"?
WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN BUSH WAS DEFENDING WARRANTLESS WIRE-TAPS?!
Now... BELIEVE ME... I'm as disappointed as the next guy (probably ClassicLiberal) that President Obama did not immediately, and has not yet, disabled and dismantled all of these illegal Bush-Era practices. (Like the MURDER LIST? Yeah... Come on Barry, WTF RU waiting for?!)
And I, like many Liberals, am certainly not above critical discussion of President Obama. But I cannot STAND it when he's criticised for continuing Bush-era policies by the same RW Fools that HEER-LEAD the SAME POLICIES when Bush was in office, while REAL Civil Libertarians were voicing their concerns and were ridiculed BY THESE SAME PEOPLE for it!
The list of hypocrisy and projection on the part oft he Right grows and grows, and this is actually two more examples in one: First - They complain Obama doing what Bush did... And criticised us fro complaining about it under Bush! Second - They keep saying we don't criticize Obama. That he's our "Messiah" or that anyone who criticise him will be called a racist. Um... No. That's a lot of shit that the Right just MADE UP. And it's obvious from how these things always play out, that THEY are the ones who can't stand to see their leaders criticized.
How much more obvious can that be when the criticize Obama for doing the very things THEY INVENTED?!
Oh yeah... And speaking of Cracked, here's another great article. There "liberal bias" (read penchant for living in reality) is less subtle with this one. The article's great, and some of the comments are even better. (Look for mine: 'EddieCabot'!)
WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN THE PATRIOT ACT WAS BEING "DEBATED"?
WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN BUSH WAS DEFENDING WARRANTLESS WIRE-TAPS?!
Now... BELIEVE ME... I'm as disappointed as the next guy (probably ClassicLiberal) that President Obama did not immediately, and has not yet, disabled and dismantled all of these illegal Bush-Era practices. (Like the MURDER LIST? Yeah... Come on Barry, WTF RU waiting for?!)
And I, like many Liberals, am certainly not above critical discussion of President Obama. But I cannot STAND it when he's criticised for continuing Bush-era policies by the same RW Fools that HEER-LEAD the SAME POLICIES when Bush was in office, while REAL Civil Libertarians were voicing their concerns and were ridiculed BY THESE SAME PEOPLE for it!
The list of hypocrisy and projection on the part oft he Right grows and grows, and this is actually two more examples in one: First - They complain Obama doing what Bush did... And criticised us fro complaining about it under Bush! Second - They keep saying we don't criticize Obama. That he's our "Messiah" or that anyone who criticise him will be called a racist. Um... No. That's a lot of shit that the Right just MADE UP. And it's obvious from how these things always play out, that THEY are the ones who can't stand to see their leaders criticized.
How much more obvious can that be when the criticize Obama for doing the very things THEY INVENTED?!
Oh yeah... And speaking of Cracked, here's another great article. There "liberal bias" (read penchant for living in reality) is less subtle with this one. The article's great, and some of the comments are even better. (Look for mine: 'EddieCabot'!)
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The outrage meter still works apparently...
Just when I thought that the Right Wing could sink no farther into the slime, one of pieces of shit comes along and recalibrates my outrage meter. Today this service comes compliments of editorialist venomous Right-wing hack, Ann Coulter.
Speaking on Hannity last night, Miss Coulter explained that the Kent State Massacre in May of 1970 was "justified" because...
"That's what you do with a mob."
Now... I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating, but before I do, here's a refresher course in case anyone forgot what happened. (And shame on you if you did.)
On May 4th of 1970, an estimated 2,000 people gather on the Kent State University Campus in Kent, Ohio in protest of the Vietnam War. Specifically they were protest President Nixon's decision to expand the war despite having won the presidency in 1968 running on a campaign promise to end it. What's more they students, mostly children (and members) of working and middle class families who were being unfairly targeted by the draft as those from wealthy families could better afford to pay the $300 commutation fee to essentially exclude themselves.
Just before 12:30, with the crowd refusing to disperse after four days of protest, and having lobbed the National Guards' own tear gas canisters back at them, the National Guard opened fire on the crowd, shooting 67 rounds in 13 seconds. When the smoke had cleared, four students lay dead:
Jeffrey Miller, age 20
Allison Krause, age 19
William Schroeder, age 19
Sandra Scheuer, age 20
I can't find which was which, but it is worth mentioning that one or two were merely watching the demonstration, and were not part of it, and one was hit by a stray bullet as she walked to class.
Three days after the event, even Vice President Agnew describe the action as murder. (Though, ever the lawyer, he did add, "but not first degree" since there was "no premeditation.") Still - that from the guy who's administration was being protested against.
But to Ann Coulter? Having the United States Military gun down American Citizens for exercising their First Amendment Rights on American Soil was justified.
"That's what you do with a mob."
We've long known that Miss Coulter talks a pretty good game, at least in Right Wing circles, when it comes to "supporting the troops." Too bad she can't ever seem to muster any "support" for the FREEDOMS those troops are risking their lives to protect.
(Deep breath...)
Now...
In the past I've made no secret of my hated of both misogyny and hypocrisy, but I've got a "get - out - of - hypocrisy - free" card in this case, since what I am about to say reflects not my own true feelings, but rather serves as an example to Miss Coulter of what it might look like if someone treated her they way she seems to treat every human being to her Left. (Which... is almost all of them.) There is no more hypocrisy inherent to giving someone a taste of their own medicine than there in inherent to basic (or poetic) justice. That being said, I'd like to see someone go up and give Ann Coutler a hard, back-handed slap to the face. Because...
"That's what you do with a mouthy bitch!"
Speaking on Hannity last night, Miss Coulter explained that the Kent State Massacre in May of 1970 was "justified" because...
"That's what you do with a mob."
Now... I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating, but before I do, here's a refresher course in case anyone forgot what happened. (And shame on you if you did.)
On May 4th of 1970, an estimated 2,000 people gather on the Kent State University Campus in Kent, Ohio in protest of the Vietnam War. Specifically they were protest President Nixon's decision to expand the war despite having won the presidency in 1968 running on a campaign promise to end it. What's more they students, mostly children (and members) of working and middle class families who were being unfairly targeted by the draft as those from wealthy families could better afford to pay the $300 commutation fee to essentially exclude themselves.
Just before 12:30, with the crowd refusing to disperse after four days of protest, and having lobbed the National Guards' own tear gas canisters back at them, the National Guard opened fire on the crowd, shooting 67 rounds in 13 seconds. When the smoke had cleared, four students lay dead:
Jeffrey Miller, age 20
Allison Krause, age 19
William Schroeder, age 19
Sandra Scheuer, age 20
I can't find which was which, but it is worth mentioning that one or two were merely watching the demonstration, and were not part of it, and one was hit by a stray bullet as she walked to class.
Three days after the event, even Vice President Agnew describe the action as murder. (Though, ever the lawyer, he did add, "but not first degree" since there was "no premeditation.") Still - that from the guy who's administration was being protested against.
But to Ann Coulter? Having the United States Military gun down American Citizens for exercising their First Amendment Rights on American Soil was justified.
"That's what you do with a mob."
We've long known that Miss Coulter talks a pretty good game, at least in Right Wing circles, when it comes to "supporting the troops." Too bad she can't ever seem to muster any "support" for the FREEDOMS those troops are risking their lives to protect.
(Deep breath...)
Now...
In the past I've made no secret of my hated of both misogyny and hypocrisy, but I've got a "get - out - of - hypocrisy - free" card in this case, since what I am about to say reflects not my own true feelings, but rather serves as an example to Miss Coulter of what it might look like if someone treated her they way she seems to treat every human being to her Left. (Which... is almost all of them.) There is no more hypocrisy inherent to giving someone a taste of their own medicine than there in inherent to basic (or poetic) justice. That being said, I'd like to see someone go up and give Ann Coutler a hard, back-handed slap to the face. Because...
"That's what you do with a mouthy bitch!"
Monday, June 6, 2011
Reagan Jokes (not what you think...)
He may have been the most over-rated President of All-Time, but I have to admit: The man could certainly deliver a joke. And boy did he during his eight years in office...
In the immortal words of Daniel Lawrence Whitney, "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!"
Speaking of which, here's another classic...
I'm not going to keep posting my own jokes here (unless anyone thinks that's a good idea? Whatever. I don't.) This is also going to the last time I re-post a joke I've already told. So if you want to hear some good ones (mostly of a non-political nature) please subscribe to my YouTube channel.
In the immortal words of Daniel Lawrence Whitney, "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!"
Speaking of which, here's another classic...
I'm not going to keep posting my own jokes here (unless anyone thinks that's a good idea? Whatever. I don't.) This is also going to the last time I re-post a joke I've already told. So if you want to hear some good ones (mostly of a non-political nature) please subscribe to my YouTube channel.
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... ;)
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Joke of the Day (not political)
OK, so I've used this one before, but here you go, in case you missed it...
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Silver Star Awards, May, 2011
It's the last day of the month, which means... time for the SILVER STAR AWARDS. (Sometimes that's also what the first day means: time for LAST MONTH'S awards! LOL) Anyway, were' up to the MLB HoF election of 1963, which saw four members elected by the Veteran's Committee - so no Golds this month, but for Silvers going out.
The John Clarkson Silver Star #28: Misfile
Its seems every time I get a bunch of Silvers in one month, I have at least on web-comic. Well... no sense changing now! LOL. Misfile is a very funny web-comic featuring two characters, one that's had his gender changed and one that lost (was forced to repeat) the last two years of her life (the two miserable years she spent studying her ass off to getting into Harvard no less!) due to a celestial fuck-up on the part of a certain, mostly drunken, Angel who's now laying low and trying (not very hard) to set things right. The artwork is very Manga-like, and very clean considering it's mostly pencil-work. In additional to a kick-ass art-style, the characters Chris Hazelton's created are strong, human, interesting, fallible, flawed and perfect. The relations are real and complex with ups, downs, trust and betrayal. Oh yeah, and the odd gender-bending humor? Funny as hell. And while is NOT what I would consider a trans-gendered comic, since the whole plot is magically-based, it does get into issue of acceptance, both public and self. As with all web-comics, I recommend reading this one from the beginning.
The Elmer Flick Silver Star #29: The Nostalgia Critic
If you were alive at any time during the 1980's, and either loved the decade or remember how utterly tacky and cheesy it was (or both) you'll love to hear this obnoxious foole absolutely eviscerate it. He takes the best (and worst) of popular culture from the last 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's (so, IOW: my life, or the part I remember) and has great fun goofing on it. He's obnoxious... but he elevates it to an art form. Funny as hell. But if you're under the age of 30? Maybe 25? Don't bother. You won't remember it. (Which is OK, because the Nostalgia Critic remembers it, so you don't have to!)
The Sam Rice Silver Star #30: The Perry Bible Fellowship
OK, so this months, there's two comics! This one's been on hiatus for a long time (finished?) but it's still very worth checking out. The humor is ironic, irreverent and subtly dark and twisted. The artistic style varies from cartoony to actual ART, using a variety of media. It's great stuff. Check it out.
The Eppa Rixey Aluminum Star: Newsbusters
(It's been a while since I high-lighted a low-light. LOL)
Ah, good old Newsbusters. "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias." Well... not really. To expose something, it must first ACTUALLY EXIST. Reading Newsbusters provides one with little more than evidence that anything to the Left of Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin-fueled wet dreams is "Liberally Biased." (Or, as Stephen Colbert put it: That REALITY has a Liberal bias!) What's more, to "Combat" it, one needs to formulate an actual ARGUMENT. Some of my readers might instinctively point out that convincing a Right-Winger that the Right is right is about as difficult as putting on a hat. But that's all they've really managed to do: Convince die-hard conservatives that Liberal's are "wrong." Which... is pretty much completely unnecessary, since most Conservative usually START OUT their argument with that assumption! So, why do they even need to exsist then? What's their raison detre? For all their "exposure" and "combat," the most they can do? Is reach level four.
Cheers, my friends!
The John Clarkson Silver Star #28: Misfile
Its seems every time I get a bunch of Silvers in one month, I have at least on web-comic. Well... no sense changing now! LOL. Misfile is a very funny web-comic featuring two characters, one that's had his gender changed and one that lost (was forced to repeat) the last two years of her life (the two miserable years she spent studying her ass off to getting into Harvard no less!) due to a celestial fuck-up on the part of a certain, mostly drunken, Angel who's now laying low and trying (not very hard) to set things right. The artwork is very Manga-like, and very clean considering it's mostly pencil-work. In additional to a kick-ass art-style, the characters Chris Hazelton's created are strong, human, interesting, fallible, flawed and perfect. The relations are real and complex with ups, downs, trust and betrayal. Oh yeah, and the odd gender-bending humor? Funny as hell. And while is NOT what I would consider a trans-gendered comic, since the whole plot is magically-based, it does get into issue of acceptance, both public and self. As with all web-comics, I recommend reading this one from the beginning.
The Elmer Flick Silver Star #29: The Nostalgia Critic
If you were alive at any time during the 1980's, and either loved the decade or remember how utterly tacky and cheesy it was (or both) you'll love to hear this obnoxious foole absolutely eviscerate it. He takes the best (and worst) of popular culture from the last 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's (so, IOW: my life, or the part I remember) and has great fun goofing on it. He's obnoxious... but he elevates it to an art form. Funny as hell. But if you're under the age of 30? Maybe 25? Don't bother. You won't remember it. (Which is OK, because the Nostalgia Critic remembers it, so you don't have to!)
The Sam Rice Silver Star #30: The Perry Bible Fellowship
OK, so this months, there's two comics! This one's been on hiatus for a long time (finished?) but it's still very worth checking out. The humor is ironic, irreverent and subtly dark and twisted. The artistic style varies from cartoony to actual ART, using a variety of media. It's great stuff. Check it out.
The Eppa Rixey Aluminum Star: Newsbusters
(It's been a while since I high-lighted a low-light. LOL)
Ah, good old Newsbusters. "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias." Well... not really. To expose something, it must first ACTUALLY EXIST. Reading Newsbusters provides one with little more than evidence that anything to the Left of Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin-fueled wet dreams is "Liberally Biased." (Or, as Stephen Colbert put it: That REALITY has a Liberal bias!) What's more, to "Combat" it, one needs to formulate an actual ARGUMENT. Some of my readers might instinctively point out that convincing a Right-Winger that the Right is right is about as difficult as putting on a hat. But that's all they've really managed to do: Convince die-hard conservatives that Liberal's are "wrong." Which... is pretty much completely unnecessary, since most Conservative usually START OUT their argument with that assumption! So, why do they even need to exsist then? What's their raison detre? For all their "exposure" and "combat," the most they can do? Is reach level four.
Cheers, my friends!
Obama's Katrina
A lot happened this month, but alas I could not be bothered to find the time to write about it. Personally though I think the last couple of months can be summed in in one single dick-move by Congressional Republicans and Eric Cantor.
We've watched for months (the last two years, actually) while they prioritized budget austerity in the face of crushing economic woes, knowing that this could only prolong America's misery and that most of the ignorant fools (the Right) would just blame Obama'.
Because, you know: FUCK WORKING PEOPLE.
(And DOUBLE-FUCK the unemployed!)
And in truth, some of the blame DOES lie with Obama for his refusal to take the gloves off and call out their anti-American, routing for failure bullshit for what it is. (As I have just done.) We've seen what he's capable of. We saw this at the correspondent's dinner, and we saw it on immigration reform with his "alligator filled moat" comment. We KNOW he can do it. And that makes it all that much sadder than he doesn't employ this razor wit more often.
And now they go beyond trying to keep the economy shitty. In an effort to pull down Obama, they're going to do their damnedest to turn Joplin's Tornadoes into a Katrina-like disaster. It won't work - or at least it shouldn't - mainly because the crisis following Katrina was MUCH WORSE. And any failings on the parts of Mayor Nagan-D and Governor Blanco-D only made for a greater opportunity for FEMA Direct Brown-R and President Bush-R to show some REAL LEADERSHIP.
And they failed, miserably, EPICALLY, to do this.
But do you know what I DON'T remember? I don't remember Congressional Democrats accusing Bush of overreaching his authority during Katrina, or off being irresponsible with the budget when it came to spending too much on relief efforts, or dicking around with obstructionist tactics to prevent him from acting while people's houses, businesses and lives were destroyed. But who knows?
I mean... That could have just been a failure of that good old, Liberal Media to tell the story, right?
Because they sure have failed to make sure people have the right ideas about THIS story.
We've watched for months (the last two years, actually) while they prioritized budget austerity in the face of crushing economic woes, knowing that this could only prolong America's misery and that most of the ignorant fools (the Right) would just blame Obama'.
Because, you know: FUCK WORKING PEOPLE.
(And DOUBLE-FUCK the unemployed!)
And in truth, some of the blame DOES lie with Obama for his refusal to take the gloves off and call out their anti-American, routing for failure bullshit for what it is. (As I have just done.) We've seen what he's capable of. We saw this at the correspondent's dinner, and we saw it on immigration reform with his "alligator filled moat" comment. We KNOW he can do it. And that makes it all that much sadder than he doesn't employ this razor wit more often.
And now they go beyond trying to keep the economy shitty. In an effort to pull down Obama, they're going to do their damnedest to turn Joplin's Tornadoes into a Katrina-like disaster. It won't work - or at least it shouldn't - mainly because the crisis following Katrina was MUCH WORSE. And any failings on the parts of Mayor Nagan-D and Governor Blanco-D only made for a greater opportunity for FEMA Direct Brown-R and President Bush-R to show some REAL LEADERSHIP.
And they failed, miserably, EPICALLY, to do this.
But do you know what I DON'T remember? I don't remember Congressional Democrats accusing Bush of overreaching his authority during Katrina, or off being irresponsible with the budget when it came to spending too much on relief efforts, or dicking around with obstructionist tactics to prevent him from acting while people's houses, businesses and lives were destroyed. But who knows?
I mean... That could have just been a failure of that good old, Liberal Media to tell the story, right?
Because they sure have failed to make sure people have the right ideas about THIS story.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Strarbucks Fires Dwarf
Starbucks is being sued for firing a woman who has dwarfism. After three days of barista training, the woman was fired from an El Paso store on the same day she asked for a stool or small stepladder to perform her job.
If you read the comments (and do recommend it) make sure you clink the "all" button. There's a very thoughtful discussion going on there.
Bottom line, IMHO? Starbucks didn't make nearly enough of an effort to find a reasonable accommodation, and has a pretty lousy track record in this department. And I think it's absurd that the expected reaction should be that if they lose, more companies will be leery of hiring dwarfs or anyone else they might need to accommodate. It's so absurd. There are so many ways this could have easily been worked out, but in the end sloth motivated by no more than simple discrimination won out. The ADA is one of those laws I see as an inherent good and it's signing was one of the non-war related highlights of the Bush'41 administration and it's expansion to include a broader range of people was one of the few thing Bush'43 did right.
It's equaling amazing and depressing that there remains a group of people in this country who are afraid to ask for reasonable accommodations or feel they need to hide their handicaps (when possible) to avoid discrimination. I read all the comments in that article, and it really made for a very thoughtful, spirited discussion in which both sides were represented, but really? Starbucks is 100% in the wrong here because they didn't even try to accommodate her or find something that would work. (Couldn't she have been a dedicate cashier? Or transferred to a different Starbucks, with a larger workspace? Seems like there usually a dozen with walking difference.) I'm interested to see how this plays out. Here's hoping they draw the Liberal equivalent of a Hanging Judge.
Oh, yeah... And the best comment?
What do you expect from a company whose smallest drink is a Tall?
If you read the comments (and do recommend it) make sure you clink the "all" button. There's a very thoughtful discussion going on there.
Bottom line, IMHO? Starbucks didn't make nearly enough of an effort to find a reasonable accommodation, and has a pretty lousy track record in this department. And I think it's absurd that the expected reaction should be that if they lose, more companies will be leery of hiring dwarfs or anyone else they might need to accommodate. It's so absurd. There are so many ways this could have easily been worked out, but in the end sloth motivated by no more than simple discrimination won out. The ADA is one of those laws I see as an inherent good and it's signing was one of the non-war related highlights of the Bush'41 administration and it's expansion to include a broader range of people was one of the few thing Bush'43 did right.
It's equaling amazing and depressing that there remains a group of people in this country who are afraid to ask for reasonable accommodations or feel they need to hide their handicaps (when possible) to avoid discrimination. I read all the comments in that article, and it really made for a very thoughtful, spirited discussion in which both sides were represented, but really? Starbucks is 100% in the wrong here because they didn't even try to accommodate her or find something that would work. (Couldn't she have been a dedicate cashier? Or transferred to a different Starbucks, with a larger workspace? Seems like there usually a dozen with walking difference.) I'm interested to see how this plays out. Here's hoping they draw the Liberal equivalent of a Hanging Judge.
Oh, yeah... And the best comment?
What do you expect from a company whose smallest drink is a Tall?
WTF?! (not political)
OK, I just have to share this with you guys... And PLEASE, tell me how you would interpret this, how you would feel about this, becuase... I'm sorry, this is messed up...
My mother sends me articles that she cuts out of the paper from time to time. (I tend to get my news online, so other than for the Sunday circularm we rarely buy a newspaper.) And in the last bacth, she included the following, from the WSJ:
Out, Out, Pesky Sweat Stains
and
Ways to Deal With a Stichy Underarm Situation
Here ths thing: These two were addressed to my wife, with the note: "[Wife's Name], thought you would find article about sweating interesting."
So... DW's like... "WTF?!"
And I am laughing my ass off.
So, yeah, seriously, WTF?
What would you guys think about that?
My mother sends me articles that she cuts out of the paper from time to time. (I tend to get my news online, so other than for the Sunday circularm we rarely buy a newspaper.) And in the last bacth, she included the following, from the WSJ:
Out, Out, Pesky Sweat Stains
and
Ways to Deal With a Stichy Underarm Situation
Here ths thing: These two were addressed to my wife, with the note: "[Wife's Name], thought you would find article about sweating interesting."
So... DW's like... "WTF?!"
And I am laughing my ass off.
So, yeah, seriously, WTF?
What would you guys think about that?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Funny picture
This came from a cracked.com photoplasty contest. There were a slew of good ones, but I'm a huge Star Wars fan, plus this one rather approproiate to the blog:
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Who says Liberals don't love America?
This song is dedicated to every Conservative who likes it becuase they don't understand irony.
LOL
My new favorite song. Couldn't have said better myself if you gave me a thousand years to try.
LOL
My new favorite song. Couldn't have said better myself if you gave me a thousand years to try.
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Tragedy of John McCain
By now, I'm sure many of you have heard John McCain's position regarding the use of torture (ahem) enhanced interrogation techniques, the waterborading of Khalid Shake Muhammad and the Death of Osama Bin Laden.
In short?
1) Traditional methods of interrogation led to Bin Laden's capture
2) Torture doesn't work and produces bad information
3) The Republicans are full of shit on this one.
Now let me say up front: There's a LOT that John McCain does, says, believes and champions that I don't not support or agree with. (And to be fair, as it turned out, I can say the same about Obama! LOL) And I'm well aware that his "Maverick" label is more a creation of his own campaign strategists and the media than anything based in reality. But in those rare instances when a Republican gets it right and speaks the truth, 80% of the time that Republican seems to be John McCain. (And before you dispute that, do the math, and first consider how rare it this that this actually happens!)
Unfortunately, these rare occasions when Senator McCain stands up to his party, stands up to popular (on the Right anyway) but ultimately immoral and illegal behavior, and shows himself to be a fine, upstanding, principled, American Public Servant, only serve to contrast John McCain-R the party sell out that we saw in the years between being knee-capped by George Bush in the 2000 Republican Primaries and the 2008 Presidential Campaign in which he became a more reliable proponent of party talking points than all of AM Talk Radio and Fox News combined. Oh, yeah, and along the way... INTRODUCED AMERICANS TO SARAH F. PALIN!
WTF happened?
It like after the 2000 Primaries he made a personal pact, George Wallace style, that he'd never be out-niggered (or out-liberaled) ever again, and started a steady march to the Right that continued even after his 2008 Presidential electoral loss to Barack Obama!
I mean... How can someone who demonstrates that they have enough of a conscience to make a statement like this one, spend so much of the rest of their time trying to prove otherwise?! How does a guy that I probably would have voted for in 2000 (yeah, though admittedly I learned a LOT in the years that followed) become such an utterly despicable sell-out, and then have the nerve to show me something like this, as if to say, "The John McCain you admired once? The one that would have kept you in the Republican party (albeit in the libertarian faction)? He's still here! Deep down. I did all I could to suppress him all these years, but I'm too old to ever run again, so I'll let him out occasionally. Just to tease you a little, and make you think of what might have been!"
For brief moment, seeing him on CNN the other day, I felt like I should party like it was 1999.
I'm sure it won't last. The Right can't allow the truth to be told. Especially not on national television.
In short?
1) Traditional methods of interrogation led to Bin Laden's capture
2) Torture doesn't work and produces bad information
3) The Republicans are full of shit on this one.
Now let me say up front: There's a LOT that John McCain does, says, believes and champions that I don't not support or agree with. (And to be fair, as it turned out, I can say the same about Obama! LOL) And I'm well aware that his "Maverick" label is more a creation of his own campaign strategists and the media than anything based in reality. But in those rare instances when a Republican gets it right and speaks the truth, 80% of the time that Republican seems to be John McCain. (And before you dispute that, do the math, and first consider how rare it this that this actually happens!)
Unfortunately, these rare occasions when Senator McCain stands up to his party, stands up to popular (on the Right anyway) but ultimately immoral and illegal behavior, and shows himself to be a fine, upstanding, principled, American Public Servant, only serve to contrast John McCain-R the party sell out that we saw in the years between being knee-capped by George Bush in the 2000 Republican Primaries and the 2008 Presidential Campaign in which he became a more reliable proponent of party talking points than all of AM Talk Radio and Fox News combined. Oh, yeah, and along the way... INTRODUCED AMERICANS TO SARAH F. PALIN!
WTF happened?
It like after the 2000 Primaries he made a personal pact, George Wallace style, that he'd never be out-niggered (or out-liberaled) ever again, and started a steady march to the Right that continued even after his 2008 Presidential electoral loss to Barack Obama!
I mean... How can someone who demonstrates that they have enough of a conscience to make a statement like this one, spend so much of the rest of their time trying to prove otherwise?! How does a guy that I probably would have voted for in 2000 (yeah, though admittedly I learned a LOT in the years that followed) become such an utterly despicable sell-out, and then have the nerve to show me something like this, as if to say, "The John McCain you admired once? The one that would have kept you in the Republican party (albeit in the libertarian faction)? He's still here! Deep down. I did all I could to suppress him all these years, but I'm too old to ever run again, so I'll let him out occasionally. Just to tease you a little, and make you think of what might have been!"
For brief moment, seeing him on CNN the other day, I felt like I should party like it was 1999.
I'm sure it won't last. The Right can't allow the truth to be told. Especially not on national television.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Three Romantic Ideals
Is it me, or does it seem sometimes that the race to the top of Conservative media is little more than a contest to see who can be the biggest dick?
As I mentioned in my last post, I posted something on Media Matters that got a hugely positive response and I wanted to expand on it. It was in response to this little display of douchebaggery by Glenn Beck:
Now... put all politics aside for the moment, and let's consider what he's barfing at: The daughter of a skin cancer survivor (and a decorated Vietnam Veteran, at that!) is raising public awareness about the disease and the risk of sun damage, and in doing so, exposes her... SHOULDERS! (Oh my god, the SCANDAL! Next there will dancing!) And while it is completely irrelevant, I'll point that the woman in question is rather quite attractive. Really beautiful, actually.
So... What the fuck is Glenn Beck problem?! (Please don't answer that, we'll be here all day and night!)
Now... what I posted, and what I'm going to re-state here, I posted once before on MMFA, on another piece showcasing Glenn Beck's naked misogyny, when he used the Royal Wedding as a platform to rate women on his scale of 'hottness.'
OK... At this point it is patently obvious that Glenn Beck has a SERIOUS problem with women. But, as I'm sure I don't need to point out, the Right has a serious problem with women in general. (You KNOW that Rush Limbaugh is not on his fourth wife because so many women can't get enough of him!)
And besides... Think about it: If a woman is brainlessly repeating the party line? (Coulter, Malkin, Ingrahm, etc...) or is a party insider? (Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell) They can't get enough of her. These guys practically dry-hump Palin every time she's in the room. But if one starts questioning their malfeasance (like Rachel Maddow) or has the audacity to be independent or has the nerve to *gasp* age (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton) suddenly they can't even discuss policy without mentioning how ugly they think these women are! And fro the most part? That the extent of their argument!
You know... I don't think I ever heard a Conservative coherently state one of Nancy Pelosi's policies and explain why they find it so abhorrent. All any Conservative has EVER been able to tell me about Nancy Pelosi is that she's (1) Liberal (duh!) and (2) Ugly, old and/or botoxed.
So I want to be clear that I am not stating the following merely as a way of burnishing my own feminist cred, but rather to, in one simple post, neuter and debunk every single occurrence of this brand of Right Wing misogyny that has ever occur ed and ever will. So let me get on my soapbox, and elaborate on my romantic idealism:
Rule #1: All women are beautiful.
Rule #2: If you meet someone who truly makes you happy, and who you truly want to make happy in return, physical traits up to and including gender are not important. Should you be gay, or the they be trans, etc... This is not important. Just BE HAPPY. And MAKE EACH OTHER HAPPY. This is all you can do in this life.
Rule #3: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears.
First off, let me point out strait up that these are ideals. As I am human, I am forced to admit that I do not always live up to my ideals. No human being does. At times, we fail. (And to be fair, I can not honestly say that I have ever been tested on Rule #2.) But these are things I truly believe. And I want to address some of the challenges that have been posed, just to show you that, yes, I do really believe in them.
ALL Women? Really?
Yes, all women. And here: I'll prove it to you. This is for the Heterosexual Men out there: Picture for a moment the least fortunate looking woman you know. (On a purely physical level, I mean.) Now think of the best looking man you can think of... Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall, maybe. (Sure, why not?) Now, let me ask you: Which one would you rather have sex with?
I rest my case.
If the least beautiful woman you can think of is sexually preferable to the most beautiful man I can think of? Then all women MUST be beautiful!
LOL
What about... ANN COULTER?
Hoo boy... That's a tough one isn't it.
And it a sad example because it the one time you really see LIBERALS piling on and pointing out how ugly they think she is. And guys? Don't do this. Seriously. Not cool.
First of all, what Ann Coulter SAYS and WRITES is vile, disgusting and despicable in it own right. Her physical appearence is irrelevant to the scumbaggery that she puts out for a living. (She puts out for a living? LOL) (SHAME on me for writing that, and on you if you laughed at it!) The importance of exposing the vile, dishonest and downright un-American nature of what she says and writes is to great to risk the credibility of your argument by acting like a dick-thinking right winger and trashing her appearance. We're better than that. And more importantly? WE'RE RIGHT.
Besides... Imagine for a minute that Rachel Maddow looked exactly like Ann Coulter. Would you stop watching her? Would you stop listening? WOuld you no longer take her seriously? Would you feel the need to point out how hideous she is? I doubt it.
So fine: Coulter goes out of her way to be repulsive. And he lack of attractiveness? I'll bet dollars to dimes comes from our hatred of what she says, writes and stands for, and has little, if anythng at all to do with her physical traits. Ann Coulter is exactly as beautiful as she chooses to be at any given time. The same can be said of every other RW Woman I mentioned above: There is nothing wrong with their physical appearace. (Rule #1) It's completely irrelevant (Rule #2) because the sexiest part of a woman's body is her BRAIN (Rule #3)...
...which is really why we can stand the sight of these people!
But that certainly doesn't mean that we should act like RW misogynists and put it in those terms!
Anyway, that's my philosophy. And let me tell you: My world is a far more beautiful place for having adopted it.
As I mentioned in my last post, I posted something on Media Matters that got a hugely positive response and I wanted to expand on it. It was in response to this little display of douchebaggery by Glenn Beck:
Now... put all politics aside for the moment, and let's consider what he's barfing at: The daughter of a skin cancer survivor (and a decorated Vietnam Veteran, at that!) is raising public awareness about the disease and the risk of sun damage, and in doing so, exposes her... SHOULDERS! (Oh my god, the SCANDAL! Next there will dancing!) And while it is completely irrelevant, I'll point that the woman in question is rather quite attractive. Really beautiful, actually.
So... What the fuck is Glenn Beck problem?! (Please don't answer that, we'll be here all day and night!)
Now... what I posted, and what I'm going to re-state here, I posted once before on MMFA, on another piece showcasing Glenn Beck's naked misogyny, when he used the Royal Wedding as a platform to rate women on his scale of 'hottness.'
OK... At this point it is patently obvious that Glenn Beck has a SERIOUS problem with women. But, as I'm sure I don't need to point out, the Right has a serious problem with women in general. (You KNOW that Rush Limbaugh is not on his fourth wife because so many women can't get enough of him!)
And besides... Think about it: If a woman is brainlessly repeating the party line? (Coulter, Malkin, Ingrahm, etc...) or is a party insider? (Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell) They can't get enough of her. These guys practically dry-hump Palin every time she's in the room. But if one starts questioning their malfeasance (like Rachel Maddow) or has the audacity to be independent or has the nerve to *gasp* age (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton) suddenly they can't even discuss policy without mentioning how ugly they think these women are! And fro the most part? That the extent of their argument!
You know... I don't think I ever heard a Conservative coherently state one of Nancy Pelosi's policies and explain why they find it so abhorrent. All any Conservative has EVER been able to tell me about Nancy Pelosi is that she's (1) Liberal (duh!) and (2) Ugly, old and/or botoxed.
So I want to be clear that I am not stating the following merely as a way of burnishing my own feminist cred, but rather to, in one simple post, neuter and debunk every single occurrence of this brand of Right Wing misogyny that has ever occur ed and ever will. So let me get on my soapbox, and elaborate on my romantic idealism:
Rule #1: All women are beautiful.
Rule #2: If you meet someone who truly makes you happy, and who you truly want to make happy in return, physical traits up to and including gender are not important. Should you be gay, or the they be trans, etc... This is not important. Just BE HAPPY. And MAKE EACH OTHER HAPPY. This is all you can do in this life.
Rule #3: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears.
First off, let me point out strait up that these are ideals. As I am human, I am forced to admit that I do not always live up to my ideals. No human being does. At times, we fail. (And to be fair, I can not honestly say that I have ever been tested on Rule #2.) But these are things I truly believe. And I want to address some of the challenges that have been posed, just to show you that, yes, I do really believe in them.
ALL Women? Really?
Yes, all women. And here: I'll prove it to you. This is for the Heterosexual Men out there: Picture for a moment the least fortunate looking woman you know. (On a purely physical level, I mean.) Now think of the best looking man you can think of... Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall, maybe. (Sure, why not?) Now, let me ask you: Which one would you rather have sex with?
I rest my case.
If the least beautiful woman you can think of is sexually preferable to the most beautiful man I can think of? Then all women MUST be beautiful!
LOL
What about... ANN COULTER?
Hoo boy... That's a tough one isn't it.
And it a sad example because it the one time you really see LIBERALS piling on and pointing out how ugly they think she is. And guys? Don't do this. Seriously. Not cool.
First of all, what Ann Coulter SAYS and WRITES is vile, disgusting and despicable in it own right. Her physical appearence is irrelevant to the scumbaggery that she puts out for a living. (She puts out for a living? LOL) (SHAME on me for writing that, and on you if you laughed at it!) The importance of exposing the vile, dishonest and downright un-American nature of what she says and writes is to great to risk the credibility of your argument by acting like a dick-thinking right winger and trashing her appearance. We're better than that. And more importantly? WE'RE RIGHT.
Besides... Imagine for a minute that Rachel Maddow looked exactly like Ann Coulter. Would you stop watching her? Would you stop listening? WOuld you no longer take her seriously? Would you feel the need to point out how hideous she is? I doubt it.
So fine: Coulter goes out of her way to be repulsive. And he lack of attractiveness? I'll bet dollars to dimes comes from our hatred of what she says, writes and stands for, and has little, if anythng at all to do with her physical traits. Ann Coulter is exactly as beautiful as she chooses to be at any given time. The same can be said of every other RW Woman I mentioned above: There is nothing wrong with their physical appearace. (Rule #1) It's completely irrelevant (Rule #2) because the sexiest part of a woman's body is her BRAIN (Rule #3)...
...which is really why we can stand the sight of these people!
But that certainly doesn't mean that we should act like RW misogynists and put it in those terms!
Anyway, that's my philosophy. And let me tell you: My world is a far more beautiful place for having adopted it.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Hoo boy...
I posted something on Media Matters today that got an overwhelmingly positive response and generated some interesting challenges to it as well. So I'm going to expand on the thought over here... just not now. (It's late.) LOL.
And between that and some ritualistic abuse of one "BoulderHippy" (truly one of the most brain-dead conservatives you're likely to meet, but one of those 'never gives up' types that makes MMFA so much fun) it seems I've attracted at least one Conservative Troll over here. Which is cool. And I can tell, becuase they went a voted "what a load" on every single item that came up in the blog! LOL. And yet... they left all of the older stuff unscathed. How lazy is that? If you're going to troll me, at least go back a page or two, right? LOL. But, I mean, WTF, they even "thumbs-downed" the WWII Veterans tribute song! I mean... why do they hate Veterans, right? ;)
And, go figure: Not ONE SINGLE COMMENT left in their wake. But then... I guess that's how I know it's not one of YOU GUYS, becuase if YOU think I'm full of shit, you've never been shy on calling me out on it! (And I truly wouldn't have it any other way!)
Anyway, like I said, it's late, so I'll get on my soapbox tomorrow. In the meantime, here's some music that worth a listen. I'm a huge fan of Pandora and I've been turned on to some GREAT bands through my Flogging Molly Channel: Great Big Sea, Carbon Leaf (who wrote THIS), the Tossers and a band called "DaVinci's Notebook" who are freaking hilarious.
Here's one of thiers. TELL ME we all haven't been THERE at some point! (I'm there at least once a week!)
(Yeah: Me too!)
If you liked that, and you generally like Irish Drinking Songs, here's Another Irish Drinking Song, also by DaVinci's Notebook:
What's the difference between an Irish Wedding and an Irish Funeral?
One less drunk.
Finally, there was something else that I want to share. This one's not funny at all. But I think it's has some contemporary social relevance in light of the draconian, anti-labor RW Agenda the Republicans are pushing through in places like Wisconsin (as fast as they possibly can, now that they're asses are all facing recalls!) and if you ever want a great pro-labor, anti-corporate bastards song, this one's for you. There's just one prob... I can't find an acceptable (complete) version of it!
This is a REALLY GOOD cover, by a gent name Kenn Gordon:
I like it, but he left off the final verse:
The thirties are a memory for Dad again
He tells me it can never be that bad again
But from Jarrow and from Clyde they come
With silent hearts and muffled drum
We want the cake and not the crumb
We're mad again
Me too, friend. Me too.
And between that and some ritualistic abuse of one "BoulderHippy" (truly one of the most brain-dead conservatives you're likely to meet, but one of those 'never gives up' types that makes MMFA so much fun) it seems I've attracted at least one Conservative Troll over here. Which is cool. And I can tell, becuase they went a voted "what a load" on every single item that came up in the blog! LOL. And yet... they left all of the older stuff unscathed. How lazy is that? If you're going to troll me, at least go back a page or two, right? LOL. But, I mean, WTF, they even "thumbs-downed" the WWII Veterans tribute song! I mean... why do they hate Veterans, right? ;)
And, go figure: Not ONE SINGLE COMMENT left in their wake. But then... I guess that's how I know it's not one of YOU GUYS, becuase if YOU think I'm full of shit, you've never been shy on calling me out on it! (And I truly wouldn't have it any other way!)
Anyway, like I said, it's late, so I'll get on my soapbox tomorrow. In the meantime, here's some music that worth a listen. I'm a huge fan of Pandora and I've been turned on to some GREAT bands through my Flogging Molly Channel: Great Big Sea, Carbon Leaf (who wrote THIS), the Tossers and a band called "DaVinci's Notebook" who are freaking hilarious.
Here's one of thiers. TELL ME we all haven't been THERE at some point! (I'm there at least once a week!)
(Yeah: Me too!)
If you liked that, and you generally like Irish Drinking Songs, here's Another Irish Drinking Song, also by DaVinci's Notebook:
What's the difference between an Irish Wedding and an Irish Funeral?
One less drunk.
Finally, there was something else that I want to share. This one's not funny at all. But I think it's has some contemporary social relevance in light of the draconian, anti-labor RW Agenda the Republicans are pushing through in places like Wisconsin (as fast as they possibly can, now that they're asses are all facing recalls!) and if you ever want a great pro-labor, anti-corporate bastards song, this one's for you. There's just one prob... I can't find an acceptable (complete) version of it!
This is a REALLY GOOD cover, by a gent name Kenn Gordon:
I like it, but he left off the final verse:
The thirties are a memory for Dad again
He tells me it can never be that bad again
But from Jarrow and from Clyde they come
With silent hearts and muffled drum
We want the cake and not the crumb
We're mad again
Me too, friend. Me too.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Good article by a good man...
LOL - That got you curious, didn't it?
It's pretty likely that you don't know this author, but I know him very well, personally. He is both one of very few truly good men in this world and and an underated talent. He recently penned an interesting piece reporting on the Vatican's position on Global Warming.
I always find it interesting when science and religion can agree on something. I wonder how this will affect the Catholic vote? (Sorry - the WHITE Catholic vote, I mean! LOL)
Actually, I'm sure this will just be more fodder for those other religious 'Mercans who view the Vatican as "just another European country that hates us." Yeah - I actualy got that in an email from a [Conservative, Baptist] friend of mine back when the pope was coming out against the execution of Saddam Hussein after having condemned the US's invasion of Iraq. After a rather loud *sigh* I explained that this is, in fact, what a PRINCIPLED "pro-life" position looks like: Against abortion, yes, but ALSO against the Death Penalty and War, in general. He conceded the point, but said he still thought it was "strange."
Well, there's plenty that the Vatican gets wrong, but I'll take them ANY day over the average 'Mercan Mega-Church. It's nice to see them on the right side of this one. Maybe religion can actually do some good after all!
It's pretty likely that you don't know this author, but I know him very well, personally. He is both one of very few truly good men in this world and and an underated talent. He recently penned an interesting piece reporting on the Vatican's position on Global Warming.
I always find it interesting when science and religion can agree on something. I wonder how this will affect the Catholic vote? (Sorry - the WHITE Catholic vote, I mean! LOL)
Actually, I'm sure this will just be more fodder for those other religious 'Mercans who view the Vatican as "just another European country that hates us." Yeah - I actualy got that in an email from a [Conservative, Baptist] friend of mine back when the pope was coming out against the execution of Saddam Hussein after having condemned the US's invasion of Iraq. After a rather loud *sigh* I explained that this is, in fact, what a PRINCIPLED "pro-life" position looks like: Against abortion, yes, but ALSO against the Death Penalty and War, in general. He conceded the point, but said he still thought it was "strange."
Well, there's plenty that the Vatican gets wrong, but I'll take them ANY day over the average 'Mercan Mega-Church. It's nice to see them on the right side of this one. Maybe religion can actually do some good after all!
Monday, May 2, 2011
Justice served, at long last!
I'm over in Germany right now, and just got off the plane when I heard the news that OSAMA BIN LADEN HAS BEEN KILLED. Congratulations to President Obama and to the U.S. Armed Forces for this momentous occasion and tremendous success. There's still a long way to go (there alwasy is when you declare war on common nouns) but a day like today is what we're fighting for, and I am glad to hear that, for today, we are victorious, even as the fight goes on.
My only regret, being in Germany, is that I will miss the Right Wing Media attemtps to somehow credit this to the Republicans, or to Bush. Maybe this is just proof that the Bush Tax worked or something absurd like that. Hey: I'll give them one thing... There was ONE Bush policy that allowed OBAMA to capture/kill Bin Laden...
The IRAQ WAR.
Yep.
Becuase if it weren't for the Iraq War, BUSH would have caught this assmuncher about SIX YEARS AGO!
Now, in all seriousness, too many have died, on ALL sides for me to be makoing light of this. And no one should ever celebrate the death of another human being, even a bloodthrity, psychopathic piece of shit like Osama Bin Laden. I can only hope that the numbers that will inevitably follow in his path, only to find their own meaningless deaths waiting for them, are over-estimated.
But getting back to my previous tone... (sorry, can't help it!)
Hey, REPUBLICANS? SUCK IT, FUCKERS! WE GOT HIM! WE GOT HIM!
And by year's end Obama will have acieved Reagan's elusive victory as well when Kaddafi falls from power in Libya. Two great successes where the Right failed. I can't WAIT!
So if you're a hawk? (Deficit, as I've explained before, or otherwise?) VOTE DEMOCRAT.
THIS is what effective mid-east policy looks like. One country after another overthrowing thier regimes - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and now SYRIA (!) - and Osama Bin Laden dead and buried.
THAT'S what happens when you don't go decalring unecessary wars.
(And I'll stop acting like a mirror image of the Right now.) (Still... USA! USA! USA!)
My only regret, being in Germany, is that I will miss the Right Wing Media attemtps to somehow credit this to the Republicans, or to Bush. Maybe this is just proof that the Bush Tax worked or something absurd like that. Hey: I'll give them one thing... There was ONE Bush policy that allowed OBAMA to capture/kill Bin Laden...
The IRAQ WAR.
Yep.
Becuase if it weren't for the Iraq War, BUSH would have caught this assmuncher about SIX YEARS AGO!
Now, in all seriousness, too many have died, on ALL sides for me to be makoing light of this. And no one should ever celebrate the death of another human being, even a bloodthrity, psychopathic piece of shit like Osama Bin Laden. I can only hope that the numbers that will inevitably follow in his path, only to find their own meaningless deaths waiting for them, are over-estimated.
But getting back to my previous tone... (sorry, can't help it!)
Hey, REPUBLICANS? SUCK IT, FUCKERS! WE GOT HIM! WE GOT HIM!
And by year's end Obama will have acieved Reagan's elusive victory as well when Kaddafi falls from power in Libya. Two great successes where the Right failed. I can't WAIT!
So if you're a hawk? (Deficit, as I've explained before, or otherwise?) VOTE DEMOCRAT.
THIS is what effective mid-east policy looks like. One country after another overthrowing thier regimes - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and now SYRIA (!) - and Osama Bin Laden dead and buried.
THAT'S what happens when you don't go decalring unecessary wars.
(And I'll stop acting like a mirror image of the Right now.) (Still... USA! USA! USA!)
Sunday, May 1, 2011
GOLD STAR AWARDS, April, 2011
As has been becoming an unfortunate tradition lately, here are April's Gold star winners, one day late. We're up to 1962, that's two Gold's and a Silver. PLUS, as my HoF is a living document (just like the U.S. Constitution!) I need to issue a replacement silver for a website that has disappeared and now just hawks crappy T-Shirts. LOL. Any way, here we go!:
The Bob Feller Gold Star #35: No Labels
No Labels describes itself as a non-partisan organization, who’s philosophy is that we need to come together, stop the partisan bickering, and focus on solving the problems that face this country in the way that is the best for… (wait for it…) AMERICA. Imagine that! Now… one MIGHT be tempted to say that this is what President Obama has been trying to do since 1/22/08, and look at what it’s brought us! (And the funny thing? Both conservatives and liberals can say those exact same words, without any sense of irony!) In all seriousness, President Obama’s big mistake was in the assumption that the Right would just come along, if he played nice. Of course… the Democrats ALWAYS play nice. That’s their biggest weakness! And that is the first reason that while No Labels might be non-partisan in their positions, they are inherently Progressive in their philosophy. Partisan bickering only, EVER, helps those who wish to stand in the way of social change. Secondly, what we have now, in Congress? Is exactly what President Washington was warning against when he advised not to create “factions.” (PARTIES, as it played out, but the same thing.) But finally, here is why there message and their movement is so critical. Here is why eliminating the LABELS is inherently, flamingly, screamingly LIBERAL. If you argue with a Liberal, they’ll try to prove you WRONG. Which is a much higher bar than Conservatives set when you argue with them and they try to prove you LIBERAL. See… I don’t self-identify as “Progressive” because I need to cling to an ideology and believe it to be inherently good. I identify that way because 99% of the time, the Progressive (and/or Liberal) position on a given issue just MAKES MORE SENSE, SEEMS MORE PRINCIPLED and is FAR MORE DEFENSIBLE. Not always, granted, but GENERALLY. And whenever hear a Conservative try to defend their position, they start from the assumption that the Conservatives are always right, the Liberals always wrong, and thus identifying the opponent or their position as Liberal is sufficient for chalking up a “win.” Lose the labels? And the Liberal will win the argument 99% of the time. Regardless of what these guys propose on any specific issue, position-wise, ditching political labels can only help Liberals. (Unless we’re wrong!) ;)
The Jackie Robinson Gold Star #36: Project Censored
IIRC, I think it was one of the commenters here that first turned me on to this site. (ClassicLiberal maybe? My apologies, if it was someone else and I forgot.) ANYWAY, for all the accusations of "liberal bias" in the press, and the Himalayan amounts of evidence to the contrary, this site can, once and for all, kill that myth and kill it with fire. Project Censored collects all of the stories that get buried and remain largely untold by the biggest "news" outlets. And surpriiiiise, surpriiiise! 99% of these are stories that are inconvenient to the powers that be! Industry. Corporate Sponsors. Their Political Whores. Their Media whores. The Church. The Right. The Rich. The Powerful. Check them out. What they AREN'T telling you is an order of magnitude more infuriating than the misinformation they ARE.
The Edd Rousch Silver Star #27: eBay
E-BAY?! Are you fucking KIDDING me?!
LOL. No. I'm not. Of all the dot-com's to come out of the 1990's tech "bubble" - and in all truth, it wasn't a bubble at all - the one that was the biggest game-changer, IMHO, was eBay. And I can hear it now... All the whining about fees, and the effect it's had of the price of collectibles, and how big a rip-off it is, and how much they completely suck, in general....
Fuck all that. I've been an eBay junkie for YEARS, both buying and selling. And you know what? I've yet to have a single negative experience that wasn't my own fault. You read that right.
And before we go arguing about their policies, fee structure, service, etc... Let's realize what eBay actually DOES: It's bring entrepreneurialism to every single person in America. (In the WORLD, really.) If you've got something to sell? You've got the entire market - the U.S., North America, the Western Hemisphere and the Entire WORLD at your disposal. Call it this liberal's way fo showing his love for the truly free market, but eBay has changed the world.
SO to all you "feeBay" haters? Fuck off. I LOVE eBay. (How's THAT for going against the status quo? LOL) :P :P :P :P :P :P
OK, and since "Item not as described" is now completely defunct (and hawking crappy T-Shirts, the last time I checked) I will need to re-issue Fred Clarke's Silver Star #6. So, in an effort to keep my HoF remotely relevant, here is the NEW...
Fred Clarke's Silver Star #6: Brightest
If you're getting the idea that I read a LOT of webcomics, you're right. I do. And I do for one simple reason: THEY'RE GOOD. Brightest tells the story of Charlene (Charlie) an out-of-work, overweight, relationship-challenged, possible lesbian and the trals and tribulations in her life. In addition to an awesomely quirky art-style, it is a poignant, sometimes painful, at times ironically funny story that avoids falling into stereotypes. I think what I like the most about the main character is that her characteristics do not DEFINE her. They do not LIMIT her persona. She's overweight, yes. But she doesn't obsess over it. There none of the constant, neurotic dieting or sweating over her appearance that you might get in another work with a heavier heroine. Nor is her self-esteem tied up in her weight. (No, she has low self esteem for 100 other reasons! LOL.) And also, while she's a Lesbian (or might be) this is also not the defining characteristic or the character or the comic. Most of the time, the conflict over her sexuality never enters into the story. And when it DOES? It handled so... realistically. And what results is an amazingly HUMAN character. Flawed, neurotic, but completely FAMILIAR - we ALL know someone like this, and sometimes we ARE that person! Anyway, I've really enjoyed the ride so far, and as always, I recommend reading it from the beginning.
The Bob Feller Gold Star #35: No Labels
No Labels describes itself as a non-partisan organization, who’s philosophy is that we need to come together, stop the partisan bickering, and focus on solving the problems that face this country in the way that is the best for… (wait for it…) AMERICA. Imagine that! Now… one MIGHT be tempted to say that this is what President Obama has been trying to do since 1/22/08, and look at what it’s brought us! (And the funny thing? Both conservatives and liberals can say those exact same words, without any sense of irony!) In all seriousness, President Obama’s big mistake was in the assumption that the Right would just come along, if he played nice. Of course… the Democrats ALWAYS play nice. That’s their biggest weakness! And that is the first reason that while No Labels might be non-partisan in their positions, they are inherently Progressive in their philosophy. Partisan bickering only, EVER, helps those who wish to stand in the way of social change. Secondly, what we have now, in Congress? Is exactly what President Washington was warning against when he advised not to create “factions.” (PARTIES, as it played out, but the same thing.) But finally, here is why there message and their movement is so critical. Here is why eliminating the LABELS is inherently, flamingly, screamingly LIBERAL. If you argue with a Liberal, they’ll try to prove you WRONG. Which is a much higher bar than Conservatives set when you argue with them and they try to prove you LIBERAL. See… I don’t self-identify as “Progressive” because I need to cling to an ideology and believe it to be inherently good. I identify that way because 99% of the time, the Progressive (and/or Liberal) position on a given issue just MAKES MORE SENSE, SEEMS MORE PRINCIPLED and is FAR MORE DEFENSIBLE. Not always, granted, but GENERALLY. And whenever hear a Conservative try to defend their position, they start from the assumption that the Conservatives are always right, the Liberals always wrong, and thus identifying the opponent or their position as Liberal is sufficient for chalking up a “win.” Lose the labels? And the Liberal will win the argument 99% of the time. Regardless of what these guys propose on any specific issue, position-wise, ditching political labels can only help Liberals. (Unless we’re wrong!) ;)
The Jackie Robinson Gold Star #36: Project Censored
IIRC, I think it was one of the commenters here that first turned me on to this site. (ClassicLiberal maybe? My apologies, if it was someone else and I forgot.) ANYWAY, for all the accusations of "liberal bias" in the press, and the Himalayan amounts of evidence to the contrary, this site can, once and for all, kill that myth and kill it with fire. Project Censored collects all of the stories that get buried and remain largely untold by the biggest "news" outlets. And surpriiiiise, surpriiiise! 99% of these are stories that are inconvenient to the powers that be! Industry. Corporate Sponsors. Their Political Whores. Their Media whores. The Church. The Right. The Rich. The Powerful. Check them out. What they AREN'T telling you is an order of magnitude more infuriating than the misinformation they ARE.
The Edd Rousch Silver Star #27: eBay
E-BAY?! Are you fucking KIDDING me?!
LOL. No. I'm not. Of all the dot-com's to come out of the 1990's tech "bubble" - and in all truth, it wasn't a bubble at all - the one that was the biggest game-changer, IMHO, was eBay. And I can hear it now... All the whining about fees, and the effect it's had of the price of collectibles, and how big a rip-off it is, and how much they completely suck, in general....
Fuck all that. I've been an eBay junkie for YEARS, both buying and selling. And you know what? I've yet to have a single negative experience that wasn't my own fault. You read that right.
And before we go arguing about their policies, fee structure, service, etc... Let's realize what eBay actually DOES: It's bring entrepreneurialism to every single person in America. (In the WORLD, really.) If you've got something to sell? You've got the entire market - the U.S., North America, the Western Hemisphere and the Entire WORLD at your disposal. Call it this liberal's way fo showing his love for the truly free market, but eBay has changed the world.
SO to all you "feeBay" haters? Fuck off. I LOVE eBay. (How's THAT for going against the status quo? LOL) :P :P :P :P :P :P
OK, and since "Item not as described" is now completely defunct (and hawking crappy T-Shirts, the last time I checked) I will need to re-issue Fred Clarke's Silver Star #6. So, in an effort to keep my HoF remotely relevant, here is the NEW...
Fred Clarke's Silver Star #6: Brightest
If you're getting the idea that I read a LOT of webcomics, you're right. I do. And I do for one simple reason: THEY'RE GOOD. Brightest tells the story of Charlene (Charlie) an out-of-work, overweight, relationship-challenged, possible lesbian and the trals and tribulations in her life. In addition to an awesomely quirky art-style, it is a poignant, sometimes painful, at times ironically funny story that avoids falling into stereotypes. I think what I like the most about the main character is that her characteristics do not DEFINE her. They do not LIMIT her persona. She's overweight, yes. But she doesn't obsess over it. There none of the constant, neurotic dieting or sweating over her appearance that you might get in another work with a heavier heroine. Nor is her self-esteem tied up in her weight. (No, she has low self esteem for 100 other reasons! LOL.) And also, while she's a Lesbian (or might be) this is also not the defining characteristic or the character or the comic. Most of the time, the conflict over her sexuality never enters into the story. And when it DOES? It handled so... realistically. And what results is an amazingly HUMAN character. Flawed, neurotic, but completely FAMILIAR - we ALL know someone like this, and sometimes we ARE that person! Anyway, I've really enjoyed the ride so far, and as always, I recommend reading it from the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)