The 2016 buzz has begun and already we are seeing polling numbers and commentary on a potential run at the presidency by Hillary Clinton on the Left and Jeb Bush or other prominent conservatives on the Right. The comments underneath all of the liberal articles are teeming with posts begging for a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren ticket. This troubles me as a liberal because, although I know liberals tend to vote with a conscience, that conscience is a double edged sword that will come back to bite us like it has in the past.
Let me explain.
First, I should frame my viewpoint in terms of the analogous conservative equivalent. Hey, liberals. What do we tell Republicans about voting in hard core representatives from their conservative base? Yeah. You know what we say. Don't act like you don't. We tell them that Tea Party candidates are dangerous and not in line with main stream America. We tell them that extremist ideas are not good.
Well, isn't that the same thing Bernie Sanders ends up being? He's an extreme Lefty. He's our Ted Cruz. What chance does Ted Cruz have in a general election? What good does a Ted Cruz do for our country? Conservatives suck on his teat like no other just as liberals love a good Bernie Sanders appearance on TV, but the broader picture can't survive a Ted Cruz, so by the same token, Bernie Sanders is better left to fight our battles in Congress, not in the White House.
But your liberal conscience wants to argue with me over that just like Tea Party nuts want to argue with me over wanting Rand Paul to rise up and run. End the Fed. All that jazz. The same conservative conscience that turns its nose up at us wants a Rand Paul candidacy just like we want a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren candidacy. That's why primaries are so messy. Every candidate has to play to the base in primaries and the broader picture in the general election. Jeb Bush knows this. Hillary knows this. Sanders doesn't care. Paul doesn't care. Cruz doesn't care. Warren might care. I'm not sure.
What I do know is this. Clamoring for a Warren or Sanders ticket is primary talk, not general election talk.
But your liberal conscience can't take a Hillary for President ticket, can it? That's the next part of our conscience that screws us over. You would sooner stay home and not vote than vote for Hillary Clinton. You would rather sound all smarty smart with George Carlin quotes than use History to make the case that not voting is a bad idea. Look at the 2014 mid-terms. Look where not voting got us. Turn out always favors Republicans and the liberal conscience prevents us from gaining any ground during those elections because we have principles or something that sounds warm and fuzzy like that.
And your liberal conscience also splits the vote like with Nader and Gore. What happened there? Thanks, liberal conscience.
Listen up. We need a moderate liberal voice in the White House and a liberal conscience in the House and Senate. Why? Legislation is written in Congress. The power of the pen rides on the back of Congressional legislation. If we send Bernie and Elizabeth to Congress, they'll push bills that Hillary will sign. If we push our conscience into the presidential election, we'll get a Republican who won't go along with anything Bernie or Elizabeth sign off on.
I've seen liberal media lately talk up this idea of riling up the liberal base by standing up for liberal ideas and whatnot. That's all fine and good, but if we don't get exactly what you want, does that mean the fire has to be doused with your apathy? When you back out, you give the Republicans Congress and the White House. I don't mind Hillary. She's not a Landrieu who won't represent a liberal like me in Louisiana. Hillary is going to follow our lead if we send her the message we want in Congress. She answers to us through bills we get our representatives to push. We have seen this with Obama, haven't we? If we want something, we have to fight for it, even if the president in office isn't our ideal liberal. If we send Obama a clean liberal bill without Republican obstructionism in the way, we'll get what we want.
If you'd rather Nader us again or put us through another shellacking, go ahead and convince yourself the liberal conscience is a hard line we must toe. You're no different than a Teabagger if you believe that. The pendulum cannot afford to swing back that far Left after the troubles Obama has faced. If we didn't have such strong conservative negative advertising against us like talk of tax hikes, scary fake Socialism claims, or threats of driving up the debt, I'd say go ahead and stick to your guns. That's not the way American voters work under normal circumstances because they're dumb. Don't stay home. Don't turn your nose up. Solidarity is our ticket. The rest can be adjusted via Congress.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Friday, December 20, 2013
Dealing with delusional Phil Robertson supporters
With the A&E Duck Dynasty fiasco going on right now, I am seeing a lot of misinformation flying around from conservatives. In most instances, people are simply not telling the truth. Let me tackle most of these asinine claims in list form.
Claim #1. He couldn't speak his mind/express himself.
Fact: The article is in GQ Magazine. His words have not been censored. Everything GQ published in the article is from Phil. His 1st Amendment rights have not been limited.
That's how we got into this mess. He expressed himself. His rights are intact.
What happened was, his words had consequences. You know what consequences are, right? When you say something that is offensive and ignorant, you're going to catch hell for it. You learn not to let your mouth run faster than you can think. You learn that there are some things you just should not say.
It isn't a crime to turn off your verbal filter, but it can end your career. In this world, we hold people accountable, or at least we try to.
Claim #2: "We never judge" blah blah blah from the article in question. "I would never treat anyone with disrespect."
This is not what A&E suspended him for. His comments about blacks, anal sex, vaginas, bestiality, etc reflected poorly on A&E's reputation. Being gay isn't logical? That's judgment. Making anal sex the focal point of your perspective on gays? That's judgment.
All of his views on blacks and homosexuals are disrespectful. He doesn't love all of humanity. That's simply not supported by the rest of what he said.
Claim #3: Liberal hypocrisy/Political Correctness hypocrisy
This claim surmises that Christians are unfairly targeted and that, had this been a Muslim or a liberal, nothing would have happened.
Fact: This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, Islamic Extremists hold the same beliefs as Phil on homosexuality, so in essence, by condemning his ideals, we also condemn anyone else who thinks of gays as he does. On top of that, the Dixie Chicks were met with extreme scrutiny for expressing themselves and I didn't hear much from the Right Wing freedom fighters then. Lots of liberals have been given the axe.
John Edwards. Anthony Weiner. Alec Baldwin. Keith Olbermann. Shall I continue listing people?
Claim #4: Miley Cyrus got away with groping herself on national television and poor Phil gets the axe.
Did Miley get away with her performance? I'm fairly certain she was made a mockery of on several networks and online. I saw the joke photos of Will Smith and his family. I saw the outrage on Twitter. I saw the complaints that this aired on television. I saw the SNL skits. I saw the comparisons to her former Disney persona.
Miley Cyrus did not get away with groping herself. She was immediately ridiculed, condemned, and chastised. She was held accountable and lost several fans as a result.
Duck Dynasty fans, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You are defending the indefensible words of religious-based hatred of an entire group of people in the process.
Claim #1. He couldn't speak his mind/express himself.
Fact: The article is in GQ Magazine. His words have not been censored. Everything GQ published in the article is from Phil. His 1st Amendment rights have not been limited.
That's how we got into this mess. He expressed himself. His rights are intact.
What happened was, his words had consequences. You know what consequences are, right? When you say something that is offensive and ignorant, you're going to catch hell for it. You learn not to let your mouth run faster than you can think. You learn that there are some things you just should not say.
It isn't a crime to turn off your verbal filter, but it can end your career. In this world, we hold people accountable, or at least we try to.
Claim #2: "We never judge" blah blah blah from the article in question. "I would never treat anyone with disrespect."
This is not what A&E suspended him for. His comments about blacks, anal sex, vaginas, bestiality, etc reflected poorly on A&E's reputation. Being gay isn't logical? That's judgment. Making anal sex the focal point of your perspective on gays? That's judgment.
All of his views on blacks and homosexuals are disrespectful. He doesn't love all of humanity. That's simply not supported by the rest of what he said.
Claim #3: Liberal hypocrisy/Political Correctness hypocrisy
This claim surmises that Christians are unfairly targeted and that, had this been a Muslim or a liberal, nothing would have happened.
Fact: This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, Islamic Extremists hold the same beliefs as Phil on homosexuality, so in essence, by condemning his ideals, we also condemn anyone else who thinks of gays as he does. On top of that, the Dixie Chicks were met with extreme scrutiny for expressing themselves and I didn't hear much from the Right Wing freedom fighters then. Lots of liberals have been given the axe.
John Edwards. Anthony Weiner. Alec Baldwin. Keith Olbermann. Shall I continue listing people?
Claim #4: Miley Cyrus got away with groping herself on national television and poor Phil gets the axe.
Did Miley get away with her performance? I'm fairly certain she was made a mockery of on several networks and online. I saw the joke photos of Will Smith and his family. I saw the outrage on Twitter. I saw the complaints that this aired on television. I saw the SNL skits. I saw the comparisons to her former Disney persona.
Miley Cyrus did not get away with groping herself. She was immediately ridiculed, condemned, and chastised. She was held accountable and lost several fans as a result.
Duck Dynasty fans, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You are defending the indefensible words of religious-based hatred of an entire group of people in the process.
Monday, November 4, 2013
ABC World News Now looks to wrong audience on question about ACA signup problems
I was just checking Facebook before calling it a night and I came across a World News Now post in my feed that hit me as surprisingly out of place. The post asks Facebook users to let them know if you're someone who has used the Obamacare web site to sign up for health insurance. I find this odd, considering that people who don't have or can't afford health insurance probably don't use Facebook.
Let's think about that. If you are a struggling American, are you awake at 2am on a Sunday reading Facebook? Do you even have a Facebook account?
This makes me wonder if ABC is looking to get the answer they want by asking the question in a place where they know responses will be largely made by people who don't need to sign up.
I mean, if you want to make it look like rednecks are ignorant, wouldn't you go to a Toby Keith concert and ask them questions about classical music? You'd get the result you wanted, but it wouldn't be a valid sample.
Let's think about that. If you are a struggling American, are you awake at 2am on a Sunday reading Facebook? Do you even have a Facebook account?
This makes me wonder if ABC is looking to get the answer they want by asking the question in a place where they know responses will be largely made by people who don't need to sign up.
I mean, if you want to make it look like rednecks are ignorant, wouldn't you go to a Toby Keith concert and ask them questions about classical music? You'd get the result you wanted, but it wouldn't be a valid sample.
Friday, November 1, 2013
If the TSA was targeted at LAX...
I do not write at this blog very often anymore, but given the state of this country and the rampant spread of paranoia, stupidity, and flagrance, I feel compelled to express myself here.
The news is saying that an eyewitness of the shooting at LAX which took place this morning in Terminal 3 claimed the armed attacker asked if he was TSA. If this is true, then it implies the TSA was the shooter's target. I admit speculation at this point is presumptive and dangerous, so without the facts, this post is merely theoretical in nature.
Given the rise of sites like InfoWars and the paranoia present in Right Wing politics, angst toward the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA has skyrocketed. From beliefs that the DHS is arming itself with ammo to speculation that TSA agents will now be armed, paranoia originating at sites like InfoWars has created an unhealthy environment that can only lead to more dangerous outcomes.
The paranoia has evolved into an overt hatred of the government and underneath that umbrella is where the DHS and TSA both reside. It is no secret that people who are paranoid about the government post day in and day out about how much they do not trust the DHS or the TSA. To these people, it is a war. They are soldiers in a fight against some imaginary New World Order fantasy where their enemies use mind control devices (as in the case of the Navy Yard shooter) and subjugation is their perceived outcome should they choose not to resist.
So in my local environment, I have to deal with extreme Right Wingers and NWO conspiracy theorists. I have to put up with InfoWars fans. I have to put up with lots of crazy nonsense. The thing is, I do not know which one of these people will snap. Nothing tells me which of them is truly insane and which is just paranoid. I have to view all of them as potential Navy Yard shooters as a result.
If the angst toward the DHS and TSA is reaching a tipping point, then as InfoWars fans the flames of paranoia, we should also see a rise in activity amongst its followers.
How many of them are going to act on their impulses?
Who, then, do we hold responsible for fanning the flames?
I understand the need to vocalize dissent, demand transparency, and advocate free speech, but the responsibility is on these crazy sites and political officials to rein in the dangerous verbage. They are inspiring a whole group of people to snap.
Should it be revealed that our latest shooter was one of these crazies, then I think it is time for Americans to wake up to the reality that the enemy is not the TSA or the DHS, but those who are willing to kill based on some conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theorist would default to the ever popular "false flag" bullshit in response to this shooting. The "false flag" defense is one of convenience and proves to be a self serving blind eye to the insanity they have endorsed. Crying "false flag" absolves them of guilt when I feel we should come down hard on them.
Do not let your local nutjob get away with running his mouth this time. The Navy Yard shooting was a wake up call. We have a mental health problem in this country and these same nutjobs are armed. Make no mistake. If you don't side with them, they are perfectly fine with pointing a gun at you.
Denying they are crazy is denying that we have a mental health problem in this country. Do we have a problem or not? Okay, then. Deal with it. Don't say these folks aren't nuts.
The news is saying that an eyewitness of the shooting at LAX which took place this morning in Terminal 3 claimed the armed attacker asked if he was TSA. If this is true, then it implies the TSA was the shooter's target. I admit speculation at this point is presumptive and dangerous, so without the facts, this post is merely theoretical in nature.
Given the rise of sites like InfoWars and the paranoia present in Right Wing politics, angst toward the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA has skyrocketed. From beliefs that the DHS is arming itself with ammo to speculation that TSA agents will now be armed, paranoia originating at sites like InfoWars has created an unhealthy environment that can only lead to more dangerous outcomes.
The paranoia has evolved into an overt hatred of the government and underneath that umbrella is where the DHS and TSA both reside. It is no secret that people who are paranoid about the government post day in and day out about how much they do not trust the DHS or the TSA. To these people, it is a war. They are soldiers in a fight against some imaginary New World Order fantasy where their enemies use mind control devices (as in the case of the Navy Yard shooter) and subjugation is their perceived outcome should they choose not to resist.
So in my local environment, I have to deal with extreme Right Wingers and NWO conspiracy theorists. I have to put up with InfoWars fans. I have to put up with lots of crazy nonsense. The thing is, I do not know which one of these people will snap. Nothing tells me which of them is truly insane and which is just paranoid. I have to view all of them as potential Navy Yard shooters as a result.
If the angst toward the DHS and TSA is reaching a tipping point, then as InfoWars fans the flames of paranoia, we should also see a rise in activity amongst its followers.
How many of them are going to act on their impulses?
Who, then, do we hold responsible for fanning the flames?
I understand the need to vocalize dissent, demand transparency, and advocate free speech, but the responsibility is on these crazy sites and political officials to rein in the dangerous verbage. They are inspiring a whole group of people to snap.
Should it be revealed that our latest shooter was one of these crazies, then I think it is time for Americans to wake up to the reality that the enemy is not the TSA or the DHS, but those who are willing to kill based on some conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theorist would default to the ever popular "false flag" bullshit in response to this shooting. The "false flag" defense is one of convenience and proves to be a self serving blind eye to the insanity they have endorsed. Crying "false flag" absolves them of guilt when I feel we should come down hard on them.
Do not let your local nutjob get away with running his mouth this time. The Navy Yard shooting was a wake up call. We have a mental health problem in this country and these same nutjobs are armed. Make no mistake. If you don't side with them, they are perfectly fine with pointing a gun at you.
Denying they are crazy is denying that we have a mental health problem in this country. Do we have a problem or not? Okay, then. Deal with it. Don't say these folks aren't nuts.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
David M. Draiman politicizes Rolling Stone cover
One of the problems with this country is that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING becomes politicized. Whether it is the Zimmerman trial, Climate Change, or Boston bombing suspects, someone somewhere has to get their political jabs in. I specifically hate it when someone miscategorizes something as liberal when it is not.
The Zimmerman verdict was split down political lines. The fucking weather is disputed at the level of political affiliation, not science. In the case of today's situation, Rolling Stone putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on their cover, Disturbed band member David Draiman tied politics to an apolitical situation.
Quote from Draiman's rant with the questionable content in bold:
Since when is it specifically ultra-liberal to glorify a terrorist?
It isn't. It hasn't.
Let's make something very clear here. Americans, liberals included, condemned the actions of the Boston bombing suspects. Let's also be clear that liberals are not happy that Rolling Stone has chosen to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.
Why is it, then, that David Draiman attributed liberalism to Rolling Stone's poor decision?
Time and time again, I have to put up with having my views as a liberal insulted here in Louisiana. I am despised for no other reason than being a liberal. I am ridiculed on a regular basis by flagrant assholes of the conservative ilk in the city in which I live. I am also attacked by random conservatives on the internet.
In a back and forth Twitter dispute with Scott Wherle, Wherle correctly identified the misplaced attribution of blame on liberals and Draiman, in a state of ignorance, supplied a retort that included justification of his comments because he himself holds liberal views on social issues.
While the back and forth was going on, confrontational conservatives were latching onto the comments made by Draiman to disparage liberals. When confronted with that evidence via Wherle's tweets, Draiman acted as though Wherle's involvement brought on the anti-liberal tweets. Draiman clearly doesn't understand the English language, nor does he understand cause and effect.
Remove "ultra-liberal" from his rant. Now what do you have? Can conservatives use it to tarnish liberals outright? Nope. Draiman is to blame for this mess, through and through.
Here are some examples of conservative hate latching onto Draiman's comments. There are certainly numerous other examples. What I found is just the tip of the iceberg. None of these tweets are valid, nor would they have existed had Draiman left out the "ultra-liberal" jab.
If Michelle Malkin can cling to his comments, something is wrong with having said them in the first place. Opportunistic conservatives came right out of the woodwork to validate their overt hatred of liberals through Draiman's words. Had he refrained from politicizing the issue, we would be united together in condemnation, not getting angry over his tainted misrepresentation of liberalism. Instead of evoking disgust over the cover on the magazine, Dave Draiman has inspired a fresh cut of unsubstantiated anti-liberal hate.
You see, everything for conservatives revolves around politics. Liberals are to blame for everything. They spend every waking hour bitching about liberals. They would blame liberals for the shit stain skidmarks in their tighty whities if they had the inclination.
In response, I have deleted all of Disturbed's songs from my iTunes library. If you think that's an overreaction to these events, ask yourself if you would listen to a band who openly insulted your political views and miscategorized your politics as defending a monster like Tsarnaev.
This has nothing to do with being liberal and to suggest so tells us how apt you are to incorrectly politicize the world around you. Wherle is dead on with his criticism of Draiman. Dave Draiman can go to Hell.
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/17/go-to-hell-disturbed-vocalist-david-draiman-destroys-ultra-liberal-rolling-stone-in-epic-rant/
The Zimmerman verdict was split down political lines. The fucking weather is disputed at the level of political affiliation, not science. In the case of today's situation, Rolling Stone putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on their cover, Disturbed band member David Draiman tied politics to an apolitical situation.
Quote from Draiman's rant with the questionable content in bold:
YOU…DARE…TO…PUT…THE…IMAGE…OF…THE…BOSTON…BOMBER…ON…THE…FUCKING…COVER…OF…YOUR…MAGAZINE!!!!????
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ULTRA-LIBERAL, SYMPATHETIC TO A FAULT, FUCKING MINDS???
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ULTRA-LIBERAL, SYMPATHETIC TO A FAULT, FUCKING MINDS???
It isn't. It hasn't.
Let's make something very clear here. Americans, liberals included, condemned the actions of the Boston bombing suspects. Let's also be clear that liberals are not happy that Rolling Stone has chosen to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.
Why is it, then, that David Draiman attributed liberalism to Rolling Stone's poor decision?
Time and time again, I have to put up with having my views as a liberal insulted here in Louisiana. I am despised for no other reason than being a liberal. I am ridiculed on a regular basis by flagrant assholes of the conservative ilk in the city in which I live. I am also attacked by random conservatives on the internet.
In a back and forth Twitter dispute with Scott Wherle, Wherle correctly identified the misplaced attribution of blame on liberals and Draiman, in a state of ignorance, supplied a retort that included justification of his comments because he himself holds liberal views on social issues.
While the back and forth was going on, confrontational conservatives were latching onto the comments made by Draiman to disparage liberals. When confronted with that evidence via Wherle's tweets, Draiman acted as though Wherle's involvement brought on the anti-liberal tweets. Draiman clearly doesn't understand the English language, nor does he understand cause and effect.
Remove "ultra-liberal" from his rant. Now what do you have? Can conservatives use it to tarnish liberals outright? Nope. Draiman is to blame for this mess, through and through.
Here are some examples of conservative hate latching onto Draiman's comments. There are certainly numerous other examples. What I found is just the tip of the iceberg. None of these tweets are valid, nor would they have existed had Draiman left out the "ultra-liberal" jab.
You see, everything for conservatives revolves around politics. Liberals are to blame for everything. They spend every waking hour bitching about liberals. They would blame liberals for the shit stain skidmarks in their tighty whities if they had the inclination.
In response, I have deleted all of Disturbed's songs from my iTunes library. If you think that's an overreaction to these events, ask yourself if you would listen to a band who openly insulted your political views and miscategorized your politics as defending a monster like Tsarnaev.
This has nothing to do with being liberal and to suggest so tells us how apt you are to incorrectly politicize the world around you. Wherle is dead on with his criticism of Draiman. Dave Draiman can go to Hell.
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/17/go-to-hell-disturbed-vocalist-david-draiman-destroys-ultra-liberal-rolling-stone-in-epic-rant/
Monday, January 7, 2013
Maher wasn't racist on Leno
I missed Bill Maher on The Tonight Show moments ago, but to see how he did, I went straight to Twitter for the commentary. What I found, in addition to a few hateful Republicans from Texas and Louisiana (not surprising), were complaints about Maher's choice of language. He apparently referred to Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained.
Some people on Twitter had a shit fit, crying racism.
Let me set you folks straight, ok?
Here's why it was not racism.
Some people on Twitter had a shit fit, crying racism.
Let me set you folks straight, ok?
Here's why it was not racism.
President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained are all terms representing how Republicans feel about Obama. Bill Maher is merely a voice describing the situation that is the racist attitude toward Barack Obama coming from the Right Wing types. Those nicknames are characterizations of Right Wing angst, not of Left Wing racism. Anyone who thinks such commentary is racist is a complete idiot, disconnected from the national dialogue present on the conservative side of the fence.
In other words, you clearly don't get it.
Maher does not believe Obama is President Blackenstein, President Kenya, or Django Unchained. He understands that Republicans think Obama is President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. There are two Obamas. One is the real Obama. The other is Fantasy Obama, the one Republicans have made up in order to validate their disproportionate fear of a black man. Fantasy Obama is this big scary black guy who represents every stereotype they believe about black people.
It also is not a case of it being okay for a liberal to say something and not okay for a conservative to say something. In this instance, Maher is saying it is not okay for conservatives to perceive Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. He is saying it is not okay for them to be racist. He is not speaking in a derogatory fashion about the President. On the contrary, he is saying these are derogatory perceptions of the President held by conservatives. It's like if I said it's not okay for you to say the N word and in that very condemnation of you, I actually said the N word, not "N word." We're condemning you for your racism, not being racist. It's like if your five year old child said "shit" and in response you said "It's not okay to say shit." What you're doing is responding to my condemnation by saying "But you just said it." Your reasoning is like a five year old being a smart ass instead of learning right from wrong.
Any questions?
Would you rather us NOT talk about how the GOP views President Obama? Tell me why that is. Perhaps you are in denial. Perhaps you aren't aware of the problem.
It also is not a case of it being okay for a liberal to say something and not okay for a conservative to say something. In this instance, Maher is saying it is not okay for conservatives to perceive Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. He is saying it is not okay for them to be racist. He is not speaking in a derogatory fashion about the President. On the contrary, he is saying these are derogatory perceptions of the President held by conservatives. It's like if I said it's not okay for you to say the N word and in that very condemnation of you, I actually said the N word, not "N word." We're condemning you for your racism, not being racist. It's like if your five year old child said "shit" and in response you said "It's not okay to say shit." What you're doing is responding to my condemnation by saying "But you just said it." Your reasoning is like a five year old being a smart ass instead of learning right from wrong.
Any questions?
Would you rather us NOT talk about how the GOP views President Obama? Tell me why that is. Perhaps you are in denial. Perhaps you aren't aware of the problem.
Tell me if you'd prefer that he would say "Big scary black guy" instead of the other terms. At what point does the message lose its value? The racism inside the GOP has to be called out. We can't sit here and say nothing.
(If you don't like that I called some of you idiots, here's a tip. Pay attention to the news. You are most definitely not up to speed on this particular issue. That makes you the idiot.)
(If you don't like that I called some of you idiots, here's a tip. Pay attention to the news. You are most definitely not up to speed on this particular issue. That makes you the idiot.)
Monday, December 17, 2012
Thoughts on the "threat" of tyranny
In the gun control debate, opponents of gun control often justify ownership of assault weapons in the name of self preservation in the rare chance that the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. They believe that in order to stand up in the face of tyranny, they must have firepower strong enough to fire back against the military forces that would impose tyrannical rule. However, that hypothetical scenario has some serious flaws, flaws where the reality of the military and our government are in direct conflict with the idea of liberal tyranny.
There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.
The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.
The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?
Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?
Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.
But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.
So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.
But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.
There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.
The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.
The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?
Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?
Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.
But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.
So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.
But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
What if there's a tie?
In past presidential elections, I do not recall so much emphasis being placed on the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College on election day. Over the past two weeks, it seems as if that's what 75% of news sources mention, in passing or directly. I'm beginning to wonder why.
If I go to Gallup or 270towin and read their front page, in a matter of seconds, I'm going to come across talk of a tie. Should there be a tie, the reality is, the House picks the winner. Right now, the House is controlled by Republicans. That means Romney wins.
So do these people know something we don't? According to 270towin, there are 32 combinations in which a tie might occur as of today with about eleven states up in the air.
It's almost as if they are giving us a preview for the news coverage we will receive on election night and the morning following the election. It's almost as if the election is going to be rigged and then stolen. Imagine the hubbub should the House pick Romney. It will be no different than the events which transpired in 2000 when George W. Bush was handed the big win by the Supreme Court. The people didn't make this decision. The Electoral College didn't even make that decision. It went to the Supreme Court. In this year's scenario, it would be left up to the House, not the people.
It would further discredit the validity of the Electoral College and invigorate the push for our elections to rely solely upon the popular vote instead. I don't know about you, but I don't like the way the tie scenario is being fed to us. It's very suspicious that this possible outcome is so common a topic this year.
I mean, according to 270towin, Obama has a 74% chance of getting to 270 and Romney only has a 24% shot at the same goal. Why, then, does it even come to mind that the election would end in a tie?
Is this just media hype? Imagine the division in this country should the House be given the choice. Imagine just how much finger pointing and complaining we will have to endure over the next four years. Imagine all the doubt and distrust something like this would create.
A tie? That'd put us in some deep doo doo. Let's hope there is a clear winner on election night. I do not want to put up with a partisan decision. I would rather see the Electoral College play out as intended.
If I go to Gallup or 270towin and read their front page, in a matter of seconds, I'm going to come across talk of a tie. Should there be a tie, the reality is, the House picks the winner. Right now, the House is controlled by Republicans. That means Romney wins.
So do these people know something we don't? According to 270towin, there are 32 combinations in which a tie might occur as of today with about eleven states up in the air.
It's almost as if they are giving us a preview for the news coverage we will receive on election night and the morning following the election. It's almost as if the election is going to be rigged and then stolen. Imagine the hubbub should the House pick Romney. It will be no different than the events which transpired in 2000 when George W. Bush was handed the big win by the Supreme Court. The people didn't make this decision. The Electoral College didn't even make that decision. It went to the Supreme Court. In this year's scenario, it would be left up to the House, not the people.
It would further discredit the validity of the Electoral College and invigorate the push for our elections to rely solely upon the popular vote instead. I don't know about you, but I don't like the way the tie scenario is being fed to us. It's very suspicious that this possible outcome is so common a topic this year.
I mean, according to 270towin, Obama has a 74% chance of getting to 270 and Romney only has a 24% shot at the same goal. Why, then, does it even come to mind that the election would end in a tie?
Is this just media hype? Imagine the division in this country should the House be given the choice. Imagine just how much finger pointing and complaining we will have to endure over the next four years. Imagine all the doubt and distrust something like this would create.
A tie? That'd put us in some deep doo doo. Let's hope there is a clear winner on election night. I do not want to put up with a partisan decision. I would rather see the Electoral College play out as intended.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
An Unstable Conservative Mind
While I will preface this post with an understanding that mental illness and violent rhetoric exists on both sides of the aisle, there is an overwhelming trend among the conservative ilk that continually makes liberals like me fear for our safety.
Tonight, on my local Craigslist, someone posted the following rant displayed in the screen capture below.
I reported it to Craigslist via their more advanced help system because I knew merely flagging the post as prohibited did not address the issue. Myself, nor Craigslist, should ignore violence or threatening behavior.
That said, I have a strong suspicion Craigslist will do nothing about this, so I am posting a screen shot of the deplorable post here in hopes of shedding light on the violence brewing in America, namely the South. I strongly feel that this person is a threat to the safety of those around him/her and saying nothing, in my opinion, is as unacceptable as their post. I firmly believe this person either needs to be in jail or helped by our mental health system.
The Southern Poverty Law Center might be particularly interested in this, as might the FBI.
Link to the post: http://shreveport.craigslist.org/rnr/3346039249.html
I contacted this person via email in hopes of drawing out his identity and more of his insane ramblings. To my surprise, he replied. I have his email and his name, so I know exactly who he is.
Tonight, on my local Craigslist, someone posted the following rant displayed in the screen capture below.
I reported it to Craigslist via their more advanced help system because I knew merely flagging the post as prohibited did not address the issue. Myself, nor Craigslist, should ignore violence or threatening behavior.
That said, I have a strong suspicion Craigslist will do nothing about this, so I am posting a screen shot of the deplorable post here in hopes of shedding light on the violence brewing in America, namely the South. I strongly feel that this person is a threat to the safety of those around him/her and saying nothing, in my opinion, is as unacceptable as their post. I firmly believe this person either needs to be in jail or helped by our mental health system.
The Southern Poverty Law Center might be particularly interested in this, as might the FBI.
Link to the post: http://shreveport.craigslist.org/rnr/3346039249.html
I contacted this person via email in hopes of drawing out his identity and more of his insane ramblings. To my surprise, he replied. I have his email and his name, so I know exactly who he is.
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Two Biggest Problems With Clint Eastwood's Speech
While the internet is still buzzing from the hilarity that was Clint Eastwood's rambling on the RNC stage at the convention, two things stood out in my mind as I watched the coverage and replay of the poorly timed and poorly placed attempt at Republican enthusiasm. While I agree with Bill Maher that producing comedy with an empty chair is a difficult task and that Eastwood pulled that part off, I did not find the act itself to be of the quality or decency that we should expect in a campaign.
Let me explain what I mean.
Al Sharpton has already brought my first point to our attention, as have many others. The speech itself was disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States of America. Now before you get your conservative panties and secret mormon underwear in knots, let's cover one very important retort that I've seen. Yes, democrats have been known to say and do some very unkind things when talking about President Bush. This behavior, however, does not excuse you or Clint Eastwood from behaving the same way. You should strive to be a better person than your rivals, no?
Okay, then. So the fact that Clint Eastwood not only spoke in a condescending tone to an imaginary President Obama, but adding profanity to the mix made this performance especially disrespectful. Had President Obama been in that chair, Clint Eastwood would have conducted himself in a more respectful tone.
This leads to my second impression of this crap.
This is the only way conservatives like to debate President Obama. Not only have they spent the last four years (election season and post-election first term) creating a fake story line about President Obama with which they have armed their dittohead minions for the sole purpose of making him a one term president, but in this instance, they created a situation where a debate without a retort from their opposition served only to fit their hate-laden fancy. They could argue with an invisible man from the comfort of their own echo chamber. Difference of opinion? What's that? It's what Republicans refuse to acknowledge in the name of arrogance and self preservation. This was hardly a respectable way to frame the campaign, let alone a debate. In that setting, no humor exists. It's a shameful representation of what the Republican Party has become.
Conservatives do not wish to debate the President on his home turf. No. This was an act of blatant cowardice. If they can't muster up the courage to debate President Obama face to face, then that makes them cowards. That makes Clint Eastwood a coward. To pull a line from Back to the Future III, Clint Eastwood is the biggest yellow belly in the West.
When in history has either party talked this way to a sitting US president? Oh yes, this might have to do with the fact that modern conservatives question the legitimacy of this presidency, from birthers, to people who think he is Muslim, to racists, and to people who think he stole the election. This kind of disrespectful behavior is rooted in the foul mentality that is the hatred modern Republicans have for President Obama. It's disgusting. We're Americans for crying out loud. Act like it.
That is all.
Let me explain what I mean.
Al Sharpton has already brought my first point to our attention, as have many others. The speech itself was disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States of America. Now before you get your conservative panties and secret mormon underwear in knots, let's cover one very important retort that I've seen. Yes, democrats have been known to say and do some very unkind things when talking about President Bush. This behavior, however, does not excuse you or Clint Eastwood from behaving the same way. You should strive to be a better person than your rivals, no?
Okay, then. So the fact that Clint Eastwood not only spoke in a condescending tone to an imaginary President Obama, but adding profanity to the mix made this performance especially disrespectful. Had President Obama been in that chair, Clint Eastwood would have conducted himself in a more respectful tone.
This leads to my second impression of this crap.
This is the only way conservatives like to debate President Obama. Not only have they spent the last four years (election season and post-election first term) creating a fake story line about President Obama with which they have armed their dittohead minions for the sole purpose of making him a one term president, but in this instance, they created a situation where a debate without a retort from their opposition served only to fit their hate-laden fancy. They could argue with an invisible man from the comfort of their own echo chamber. Difference of opinion? What's that? It's what Republicans refuse to acknowledge in the name of arrogance and self preservation. This was hardly a respectable way to frame the campaign, let alone a debate. In that setting, no humor exists. It's a shameful representation of what the Republican Party has become.
Conservatives do not wish to debate the President on his home turf. No. This was an act of blatant cowardice. If they can't muster up the courage to debate President Obama face to face, then that makes them cowards. That makes Clint Eastwood a coward. To pull a line from Back to the Future III, Clint Eastwood is the biggest yellow belly in the West.
When in history has either party talked this way to a sitting US president? Oh yes, this might have to do with the fact that modern conservatives question the legitimacy of this presidency, from birthers, to people who think he is Muslim, to racists, and to people who think he stole the election. This kind of disrespectful behavior is rooted in the foul mentality that is the hatred modern Republicans have for President Obama. It's disgusting. We're Americans for crying out loud. Act like it.
That is all.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Paul Ryan did ask for stimulus money.
Here are screen shots of documents written and signed by Paul Ryan in referencing money being provided by the economic stimulus.
When Paul Ryan says he did not request money from the economic stimulus, he is lying to you.
Don't like it? Too bad. That's his signature there at the bottom of each of these documents.
Now, when he states that the stimulus did not work, surely he has to answer for the fact that, when making these requests, he believed the stimulus would indeed work. Folks, Paul Ryan is merely posturing for political purposes and personal gain now that he is the VP nominee. Not only is it a lie that the stimulus did not work, but the fact that he believed it would work calls into question his current mindset about government spending.
1. We've established he has difficulty with honesty.
2. We've established he has difficulty recollecting about his own actions.
3. We've established that he is saying things just so Mitt Romney can get elected.
As the adage says, a leopard can't change its spots.
When Paul Ryan says he did not request money from the economic stimulus, he is lying to you.
Don't like it? Too bad. That's his signature there at the bottom of each of these documents.
Now, when he states that the stimulus did not work, surely he has to answer for the fact that, when making these requests, he believed the stimulus would indeed work. Folks, Paul Ryan is merely posturing for political purposes and personal gain now that he is the VP nominee. Not only is it a lie that the stimulus did not work, but the fact that he believed it would work calls into question his current mindset about government spending.
1. We've established he has difficulty with honesty.
2. We've established he has difficulty recollecting about his own actions.
3. We've established that he is saying things just so Mitt Romney can get elected.
As the adage says, a leopard can't change its spots.
Friday, June 29, 2012
This just in...
This just in...
Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are reportedly getting a divorce. Fox News blames Obama and claims it is a liberal conspiracy to erode away at the sanctity of marriage and the American way of life. Mitt Romney will hold a press conference later today.
Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are reportedly getting a divorce. Fox News blames Obama and claims it is a liberal conspiracy to erode away at the sanctity of marriage and the American way of life. Mitt Romney will hold a press conference later today.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
How Voter Purging and Papers Please are Linked: Republican Delusions
One of the things about journalism in the US that gets me going is how pundits respond to anything the Republican or Democratic parties do or say. When the news covers a story, it is often framed in such a way that makes an action or phrase sound so preposterous that the party in question has done something outrageous and unheard of. The fact of the matter is, whether you're listening to Fox News or MSNBC, the facts were twisted to cater to an audience who would naturally become suckered into believing something so outrageous when it is nothing of the sort, sort of.
Let me use the recent coverage of voter purging in Florida and the Arizona Papers Please ruling to illustrate the problem. I'll first describe the pitch (the delivery) and then I'll follow through with the explanation the news completely missed.
Voter Purging
The Pitch:
First, in the voter purging situation, the "goal" at first glance was to weed out fraudulent voting. Judging by the citizens who were purged, it was clear all the wrong people were getting caught up in the mess.
The Explanation:
Behind all of that, Republicans feel justified in purging these voters who largely vote for Democrats. Why? Republicans feel that they are the victims here. They claim to be the victims of a liberal conspiracy to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in order to steal the election away from them. In their minds, illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly corrupting the voting process to the point where Republican candidates lose. They feel as though purging the voter rolls will result in a course correction. This is why a Republican audience applauds Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania for saying a voter purge will lead to a Romney victory. Liberals foolishly respond, pointing out how Turzai's comments were an admission of rigging an election.
On the contrary, the Republican delusion is such that they don't see it as rigging the election, but adjusting the situation away from an incorrect belief that the election was rigged to favor Democrats. It's wrong, but it is their delusion. Liberals are left mouths agape for the wrong reason. Liberals need to begin framing unscrupulous behavior in terms of the Republican delusion and not the reasonable assertion from outside the Republican bubble.
Papers Please
The Pitch:
The Papers Please part of the Arizona law that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court has been perceived as a form of racial profiling whereby innocent Hispanic-American citizens would be stopped and accused of being an illegal immigrant just because they are hispanic.
The Explanation:
What you need to understand is, the same sort of Republican delusion exists here, too. You see, Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere believe that illegal immigrants are Democratic strongholds threatening the American way of life and unfairly victimizing (white) American citizens by taking jobs, leeching off government programs, and committing crimes. The Papers Please part of the law, to them, was not an attempt to profile at face value, but it represents Republicans who already profile all Mexican-Americans as illegals. To them, a person of color is not a legitimate American. To them, a person of color is a pawn of the liberal conspiracy against the Republican voter and of America itself.
The Conclusion:
So if you understand the delusion, then you can report on the story better. It will sound as though you are being flagrant and mean to your opposition, but it's the truth. If you admit Republicans are delusional and see the delusion for what it is, you can correctly assess their behavior. Then, you can call them on it. Anything less is feeding into the same stalemate we have come to know.
The same sort of mentality applies to their opinions toward unions and welfare. To them, Democrats are crooked SOBs. To them, a union equates to thugs. To the, welfare equates to lazy leeches. Pick a good system and they will demonize it, claiming victimization.
It's why Romney's "Sauce for the gander" comment resonated. To the, Democrats are unsavory and conspiring against them, so it's only fair to conspire right back. It's disgusting.
Let me use the recent coverage of voter purging in Florida and the Arizona Papers Please ruling to illustrate the problem. I'll first describe the pitch (the delivery) and then I'll follow through with the explanation the news completely missed.
Voter Purging
The Pitch:
First, in the voter purging situation, the "goal" at first glance was to weed out fraudulent voting. Judging by the citizens who were purged, it was clear all the wrong people were getting caught up in the mess.
The Explanation:
Behind all of that, Republicans feel justified in purging these voters who largely vote for Democrats. Why? Republicans feel that they are the victims here. They claim to be the victims of a liberal conspiracy to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in order to steal the election away from them. In their minds, illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly corrupting the voting process to the point where Republican candidates lose. They feel as though purging the voter rolls will result in a course correction. This is why a Republican audience applauds Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania for saying a voter purge will lead to a Romney victory. Liberals foolishly respond, pointing out how Turzai's comments were an admission of rigging an election.
On the contrary, the Republican delusion is such that they don't see it as rigging the election, but adjusting the situation away from an incorrect belief that the election was rigged to favor Democrats. It's wrong, but it is their delusion. Liberals are left mouths agape for the wrong reason. Liberals need to begin framing unscrupulous behavior in terms of the Republican delusion and not the reasonable assertion from outside the Republican bubble.
Papers Please
The Pitch:
The Papers Please part of the Arizona law that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court has been perceived as a form of racial profiling whereby innocent Hispanic-American citizens would be stopped and accused of being an illegal immigrant just because they are hispanic.
The Explanation:
What you need to understand is, the same sort of Republican delusion exists here, too. You see, Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere believe that illegal immigrants are Democratic strongholds threatening the American way of life and unfairly victimizing (white) American citizens by taking jobs, leeching off government programs, and committing crimes. The Papers Please part of the law, to them, was not an attempt to profile at face value, but it represents Republicans who already profile all Mexican-Americans as illegals. To them, a person of color is not a legitimate American. To them, a person of color is a pawn of the liberal conspiracy against the Republican voter and of America itself.
The Conclusion:
So if you understand the delusion, then you can report on the story better. It will sound as though you are being flagrant and mean to your opposition, but it's the truth. If you admit Republicans are delusional and see the delusion for what it is, you can correctly assess their behavior. Then, you can call them on it. Anything less is feeding into the same stalemate we have come to know.
The same sort of mentality applies to their opinions toward unions and welfare. To them, Democrats are crooked SOBs. To them, a union equates to thugs. To the, welfare equates to lazy leeches. Pick a good system and they will demonize it, claiming victimization.
It's why Romney's "Sauce for the gander" comment resonated. To the, Democrats are unsavory and conspiring against them, so it's only fair to conspire right back. It's disgusting.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Santorum Super PAC plays on Islamophobia
Ads are playing right now in Louisiana for the Republican campaigns and I just happened to see one running for Rick Santorum. The ad attacks President Obama on energy policy and it was funded by the Red White and Blue Fund super PAC. As a Louisiana resident, I would prefer that people question the ads playing on our televisions. Knowing Louisiana, this isn't going to happen, so I'm going to be the one person who writes about this damn ad.
First, it attacks Obama using buzzwords, those buzzwords being "foreign oil" and "radicals." The stage was set to plant the seed of Republican American isolationism and fear from the start. From there, the ad went on to say the money we spend on oil goes to "fund radicals with bad intentions," showing a photo of obvious angry Muslim protesters with some form of Arabic language written on a sign on a building, followed by a burning American flag.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we put the gas in our gas tanks. We, American citizens, spend the money which goes to the oil companies and countries in the Middle East, not President Obama. It's our money, not his. We're to blame, Rick. It's our addiction that is the problem.
High prices are also the result of speculation, but market speculation isn't covered in the ad. If you're not talking about market speculation, then you aren't serious about gas prices. Really. You are not at all serious about gas prices.
But we also don't fund radicals. That's just factually inaccurate. Sure, I'm certain some Middle East countries have ties to terrorist organizations, but let's face it. The oil money is going to the very rich families in Saudia Arabia, for example, so that they can live lavish and luxurious lives. Our money goes to the US oil companies so that they can reinvest in research, but also so they can fill their pockets.
Santorum's solution is to investigate domestic sources, utilize natural gas, open up drilling and build pipelines to lower costs, according to the ad.
Unfortunately, these solutions will not provide any immediate relief. These are all long term plans. The Republican plan right now is to drill, baby, drill. It was the same plan they had in 2008. They haven't evolved away from that plan, aside from talking up more natural gas investments.
Americans want immediate relief. No Republican candidate can provide that level of relief with more drilling. We have to build the equipment first and that takes time. This is a promise they cannot keep, but because Americans only think in terms of immediate results, that's how the super PAC wants to play their advertising hand. We are apparently that stupid, or at least they think we're that stupid.
If you're a Republican, ask your candidates what solutions they have to lower gas prices within the next month. Yes, a month. Maybe two.
Sure, we could establish a long term plan to lower prices and increase supplies, but what does that do for you right now? Nothing. Not a damn thing, son.
First, it attacks Obama using buzzwords, those buzzwords being "foreign oil" and "radicals." The stage was set to plant the seed of Republican American isolationism and fear from the start. From there, the ad went on to say the money we spend on oil goes to "fund radicals with bad intentions," showing a photo of obvious angry Muslim protesters with some form of Arabic language written on a sign on a building, followed by a burning American flag.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we put the gas in our gas tanks. We, American citizens, spend the money which goes to the oil companies and countries in the Middle East, not President Obama. It's our money, not his. We're to blame, Rick. It's our addiction that is the problem.
High prices are also the result of speculation, but market speculation isn't covered in the ad. If you're not talking about market speculation, then you aren't serious about gas prices. Really. You are not at all serious about gas prices.
But we also don't fund radicals. That's just factually inaccurate. Sure, I'm certain some Middle East countries have ties to terrorist organizations, but let's face it. The oil money is going to the very rich families in Saudia Arabia, for example, so that they can live lavish and luxurious lives. Our money goes to the US oil companies so that they can reinvest in research, but also so they can fill their pockets.
Santorum's solution is to investigate domestic sources, utilize natural gas, open up drilling and build pipelines to lower costs, according to the ad.
Unfortunately, these solutions will not provide any immediate relief. These are all long term plans. The Republican plan right now is to drill, baby, drill. It was the same plan they had in 2008. They haven't evolved away from that plan, aside from talking up more natural gas investments.
Americans want immediate relief. No Republican candidate can provide that level of relief with more drilling. We have to build the equipment first and that takes time. This is a promise they cannot keep, but because Americans only think in terms of immediate results, that's how the super PAC wants to play their advertising hand. We are apparently that stupid, or at least they think we're that stupid.
If you're a Republican, ask your candidates what solutions they have to lower gas prices within the next month. Yes, a month. Maybe two.
Sure, we could establish a long term plan to lower prices and increase supplies, but what does that do for you right now? Nothing. Not a damn thing, son.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Will Ron Paul Split The Vote?
In modern politics right now, the more liberal media outlets are focusing most, if not all of their attention on the Republican primaries. The respective pundits hit all the high points, the Newt vs Mitt phenomenon, the Mitt vs Mitt phenomenon, and even the icky colorful Santorum Surge. These same media outlets have also mentioned that Ron Paul has largely been left out of the mainstream discussion, in part because he is not seen as a viable candidate. Yes, folks, MSNBC does cover Ron Paul, despite what your conservative friends have said.
But the coverage for Ron Paul has dropped off over the past few weeks because the primary results, while initially very strong for Paul, dwindled in comparison to the changes in the numbers for other candidates. Still, you know Paul has a strong backing by his supporters. You'll know them as the internet forumites who end their rants with "Ron Paul 2012." Sometimes they include an exclamation point. Sometimes, not.
So the support is there, right? He has a following. His supporters do not constitute a small group of people. In fact, they are quite large and in addition to that, they are extremely vocal, especially on the internet. Even one of my friends on Facebook supports old man Paul and scoffed at the notion of my perception of him as a crackpot. Sadly, he and I are no longer friends, but I can guarantee you this. Come election time, my former friend will most certainly still support Ron Paul.
With the primaries in full swing, it seems Paul has garnered more than a few delegates. When it comes time to pick a Republican nominee, what will Paul do with his amassed delegates? Will he run as an Independent? Will he run at all? Again, Ron Paul has been lost in terms of being on the media's mind, whether on Fox News or elsewhere. The voice of the Republican establishment knows Paul is a threat to them...but very few are actually asking the more important question. Will Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 Presidential election affect the outcome? Will he be to the eventual nominee what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore? Will he split the vote?
As I've already discussed, Paul supporters have lots of energy. Sadly, though, there is another group of Ron Paul supporters who pose a threat, but not to the Republican nominee. No. They pose a threat to Barack Obama. They are the liberals who want pot legalized. A woman I dated in Arkansas was one of these confused liberals. If any liberal actually goes through Ron Paul's voting record, they'll come to realize he is not very liberal at all and he would do away with many of the things these pothead liberals support. The thing is, they are angry about marijuana and they are also angry about the wars we have been fighting. Anger apparently leads to confusion, but the anger is strong enough for these liberal voters to cast their vote for Ron Paul. It isn't even a protest vote, a vote of no confidence in Barack Obama. It is a self-legitimized vote of support rooted in only a few issues, disregarding the rest of what Ron Paul stands for. These voters will split the Democratic vote, but by how much? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but they could be a threat as well.
I'm not sure the numbers are there on the Left to negate the Paul supporters on the Right, refuting the notion that Paul supporters are negligible in the grand scheme of things. They will most certainly have an impact on the 2012 election, but because they are largely libertarian conservatives, Paul will eat into the support for the Republican nominee more than Barack Obama. Perhaps a vote for Ron Paul ends up being a vote for Barack Obama. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as rank and file conservatives, people who will vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, justified in the sentiment that any Republican is better than any damn Democrat.
But the coverage for Ron Paul has dropped off over the past few weeks because the primary results, while initially very strong for Paul, dwindled in comparison to the changes in the numbers for other candidates. Still, you know Paul has a strong backing by his supporters. You'll know them as the internet forumites who end their rants with "Ron Paul 2012." Sometimes they include an exclamation point. Sometimes, not.
So the support is there, right? He has a following. His supporters do not constitute a small group of people. In fact, they are quite large and in addition to that, they are extremely vocal, especially on the internet. Even one of my friends on Facebook supports old man Paul and scoffed at the notion of my perception of him as a crackpot. Sadly, he and I are no longer friends, but I can guarantee you this. Come election time, my former friend will most certainly still support Ron Paul.
With the primaries in full swing, it seems Paul has garnered more than a few delegates. When it comes time to pick a Republican nominee, what will Paul do with his amassed delegates? Will he run as an Independent? Will he run at all? Again, Ron Paul has been lost in terms of being on the media's mind, whether on Fox News or elsewhere. The voice of the Republican establishment knows Paul is a threat to them...but very few are actually asking the more important question. Will Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 Presidential election affect the outcome? Will he be to the eventual nominee what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore? Will he split the vote?
As I've already discussed, Paul supporters have lots of energy. Sadly, though, there is another group of Ron Paul supporters who pose a threat, but not to the Republican nominee. No. They pose a threat to Barack Obama. They are the liberals who want pot legalized. A woman I dated in Arkansas was one of these confused liberals. If any liberal actually goes through Ron Paul's voting record, they'll come to realize he is not very liberal at all and he would do away with many of the things these pothead liberals support. The thing is, they are angry about marijuana and they are also angry about the wars we have been fighting. Anger apparently leads to confusion, but the anger is strong enough for these liberal voters to cast their vote for Ron Paul. It isn't even a protest vote, a vote of no confidence in Barack Obama. It is a self-legitimized vote of support rooted in only a few issues, disregarding the rest of what Ron Paul stands for. These voters will split the Democratic vote, but by how much? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but they could be a threat as well.
I'm not sure the numbers are there on the Left to negate the Paul supporters on the Right, refuting the notion that Paul supporters are negligible in the grand scheme of things. They will most certainly have an impact on the 2012 election, but because they are largely libertarian conservatives, Paul will eat into the support for the Republican nominee more than Barack Obama. Perhaps a vote for Ron Paul ends up being a vote for Barack Obama. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as rank and file conservatives, people who will vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, justified in the sentiment that any Republican is better than any damn Democrat.
Monday, December 12, 2011
More threats to Obama on Topix
One of the saddest excuses for an open forum is a site called Topix. On Topix, people from small towns spread gossip about one another, but the hate and vitriolic rhetoric we came to know from the new breed of Conservative fringe voter is openly expressed on Topix as well. One of the more concerning trends is the open willingness to post threats to President Obama.
Here's just one more example.
I've reported it to Topix and it will probably be removed, but I doubt the FBI will be notified, so I am posting it here.
Such a sad time in America where people post such things, isn't it?
Here's just one more example.
I've reported it to Topix and it will probably be removed, but I doubt the FBI will be notified, so I am posting it here.
Such a sad time in America where people post such things, isn't it?
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Is Religion Required to Declare Something a Sin?
If you are a religious zealot, this post is not for you. However, if you are a thinker, a philosophy aficionado, or a non-religious person, dive into this thought.
Does declaring something a sin require a religious premise?
In other words, if I were non-religious, could I acknowledge something as sin?
I could most certainly acknowledge something as wrong. I could acknowledge something as immoral. Sin is not necessarily a synonym for either wrong or immoral, despite what Webster's thinks.
Morality can exist without religion or Faith.
Sin carries with it a religious connotation. Let me illustrate how easy the religious implication comes about.
If I were to ask you if homosexuality were a sin, you would be inclined to say No. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Ask a religious person the same question.
If you were to ask me if murder were a sin, what would be your response?
I'm leaving this open ended. As a non-religious man, I don't think I could accept either question as valid. If rephrased as whether homosexuality or murder were wrong, then I could answer. Are either sins? That, I cannot entertain as I am not a religious person. Sin does not exist in my world. It might as well not be a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Does declaring something a sin require a religious premise?
In other words, if I were non-religious, could I acknowledge something as sin?
I could most certainly acknowledge something as wrong. I could acknowledge something as immoral. Sin is not necessarily a synonym for either wrong or immoral, despite what Webster's thinks.
Morality can exist without religion or Faith.
Sin carries with it a religious connotation. Let me illustrate how easy the religious implication comes about.
If I were to ask you if homosexuality were a sin, you would be inclined to say No. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Ask a religious person the same question.
If you were to ask me if murder were a sin, what would be your response?
I'm leaving this open ended. As a non-religious man, I don't think I could accept either question as valid. If rephrased as whether homosexuality or murder were wrong, then I could answer. Are either sins? That, I cannot entertain as I am not a religious person. Sin does not exist in my world. It might as well not be a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Problem With Leaders: OWS
The Occupy Wall Street movement has acquired a significant amount of attention over the past few weeks, but the most common criticism, perhaps improperly applied, has been that the movement lacks a cohesiveness. There are no prominent leaders or big names which come to mind when you think of OWS. The question then, is, should OWS have a leader or leaders?
At first glance, the obvious answer would be Yes. Creating a figurehead to lead the movement would silence the critics who have demanded clarity in the OWS movement. It would be an easy fix.
Or would it?
You see, just like any other movement which originates on the Left, no amount of positioning, messaging, or symbolism will appease the critics, especially those on the Right. Asking for leaders to rise up out of OWS is simply one more straw man argument in a long line of straw men. No matter what OWS does, the media critics and the Right Wing Machine will stop at nothing to delegitimize OWS. At least those of us on the Left gave credence to the Tea Party, even if we did criticize them. We accepted their complaint that the federal government was broken. We accepted that government spending was out of control. We just didn't agree on the solutions.
OWS has not been provided the same courtesy, nor will it.
Established leaders in the OWS movement will become nothing more than lightning rods, people faced with an onslaught of insults and dismissal, the likes of which have been illustrated in Right Wing responses to Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama. Mention unions to a right winger and watch how fast they choose to ramble on and on about how evil they are. OWS will evoke the same response. The lazy/welfare/hippie stigma is applied to anything on the Left as a way to invigorate the Right Wing base. It's almost as common as their idea that tax cuts will fix everything. Conservatives only know how to think in those two terms. They won't deviate from the flock. It is better to keep OWS decentralized and broad based than to put someone in charge. As long as OWS remains broad, it will be symbolic of the American people, not "liberal" as used in the derogatory sense.
After all, the Right Wing pundits have to feed their dogs frothing at the mouth somehow, right?
At first glance, the obvious answer would be Yes. Creating a figurehead to lead the movement would silence the critics who have demanded clarity in the OWS movement. It would be an easy fix.
Or would it?
You see, just like any other movement which originates on the Left, no amount of positioning, messaging, or symbolism will appease the critics, especially those on the Right. Asking for leaders to rise up out of OWS is simply one more straw man argument in a long line of straw men. No matter what OWS does, the media critics and the Right Wing Machine will stop at nothing to delegitimize OWS. At least those of us on the Left gave credence to the Tea Party, even if we did criticize them. We accepted their complaint that the federal government was broken. We accepted that government spending was out of control. We just didn't agree on the solutions.
OWS has not been provided the same courtesy, nor will it.
Established leaders in the OWS movement will become nothing more than lightning rods, people faced with an onslaught of insults and dismissal, the likes of which have been illustrated in Right Wing responses to Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama. Mention unions to a right winger and watch how fast they choose to ramble on and on about how evil they are. OWS will evoke the same response. The lazy/welfare/hippie stigma is applied to anything on the Left as a way to invigorate the Right Wing base. It's almost as common as their idea that tax cuts will fix everything. Conservatives only know how to think in those two terms. They won't deviate from the flock. It is better to keep OWS decentralized and broad based than to put someone in charge. As long as OWS remains broad, it will be symbolic of the American people, not "liberal" as used in the derogatory sense.
After all, the Right Wing pundits have to feed their dogs frothing at the mouth somehow, right?
Thursday, August 18, 2011
After Labor Day
President Obama has recently been criticized for saying he has a plan to create jobs, but that he will reveal it after Labor Day. People want to hear the plan right now. People are asking why he has to wait until after Labor Day to reveal this plan.
Let me tell you why, peons.
Congress comes back from their little vacation after Labor Day. They're on break. Obama isn't. His trip is not a vacation. It's in his job description.
Judging by the words and phrases in his speech, I'd say that his plan has to do with infrastructure and construction jobs, in addition to payroll tax cuts. Anyone who has actually listened to him speak over the past few days should have that understanding, too. If you're not a listener, there's a good chance you are still asking what the plan is. If you're not paying attention, you might miss all the Republicans saying No to these proposals.
But it doesn't stop there. What is the point in announcing the plan now? Congress has to approve it. That's how our government works. If you don't understand that, go back to grade school. The House and Senate need to fine tune whatever proposal President Obama has regarding jobs. Obama doesn't make the modifications to a plan and send it out to the masses. Our government relies on Congress to do all of that. Then it goes out to the masses.
If President Obama tells you exactly what his plan is, what are the odds Congress will change it before all is said and done? I'd say, given the way the Republicans handled the HCR debate, the chances are pretty good Obama's jobs plan will not look exactly how he envisioned it. In other words, telling you the specifics now is useless. The details will change. I mean, Republicans are already saying No. Do they stand up in front of us and say they have a plan? No.
Maybe John Boehner should drop his plan in the mail. Let me know when it arrives on your doorstep, fellow citizen.
I'm just calling it like I see it, folks. That's how our government works. If you want to yell and complain, aim those screams at Congress. They're on vacation right now. If you want something done before Labor Day, Congress has to get its ass in gear. Tell President Obama you want members of Congress back on the job right now.
Let me tell you why, peons.
Congress comes back from their little vacation after Labor Day. They're on break. Obama isn't. His trip is not a vacation. It's in his job description.
Judging by the words and phrases in his speech, I'd say that his plan has to do with infrastructure and construction jobs, in addition to payroll tax cuts. Anyone who has actually listened to him speak over the past few days should have that understanding, too. If you're not a listener, there's a good chance you are still asking what the plan is. If you're not paying attention, you might miss all the Republicans saying No to these proposals.
But it doesn't stop there. What is the point in announcing the plan now? Congress has to approve it. That's how our government works. If you don't understand that, go back to grade school. The House and Senate need to fine tune whatever proposal President Obama has regarding jobs. Obama doesn't make the modifications to a plan and send it out to the masses. Our government relies on Congress to do all of that. Then it goes out to the masses.
If President Obama tells you exactly what his plan is, what are the odds Congress will change it before all is said and done? I'd say, given the way the Republicans handled the HCR debate, the chances are pretty good Obama's jobs plan will not look exactly how he envisioned it. In other words, telling you the specifics now is useless. The details will change. I mean, Republicans are already saying No. Do they stand up in front of us and say they have a plan? No.
Maybe John Boehner should drop his plan in the mail. Let me know when it arrives on your doorstep, fellow citizen.
I'm just calling it like I see it, folks. That's how our government works. If you want to yell and complain, aim those screams at Congress. They're on vacation right now. If you want something done before Labor Day, Congress has to get its ass in gear. Tell President Obama you want members of Congress back on the job right now.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Because we value entertainment more
People are now asking why it was such a disaster was allowed to happen at the Indiana State Fair this past week end. The band, Sugarland, was about to go on stage. The crowd was awaiting their performance. While all this was going on, storm clouds were on their way, Indiana officials were seeking out advice regarding the weather, and people were admittedly concerned about the looming storm.
So, why was it, then, that people didn't leave?
I'm sure there were people who decided to head out. I'm sure some people looked at the sky and said "No, I'm not hanging around for this storm." I've been in situations where storms were looming as well.
Peer pressure is a powerful thing. If some people don't start the gradual flow, nobody leaves.
People came to that concert to see a show. They stand there waiting. They expect a show. Even when a severe storm stares them in the face, they stare right back at it and hope no rain comes. They still think everything is going to be okay. They think there will still be a show.
On the 4th of July this year, in Shreveport-Bossier, a healthy storm system moved its way across East Texas and Southwest Arkansas. I was watching it on the radar, wondering if the fireworks would be cancelled or delayed. Live footage of the celebratory events were being broadcast on one local television station. From their perspective, skies were clear. The weatherman was on tv, telling us that everything looked good and he hoped things would go off without a hitch. Nothing was further from the truth. I was staring right at the radar. I wasn't going to leave the house just yet.
But as the threat of rain loomed, I decided to hop in the car and head out. As I drove into town, lightning flashed around me. Skies were dark. Rain was pouring down. Streets were soon flooded, at least in one lane, sewer drains overwhelmed by the rush of water. Word spread that people at the Boardwalk were leaving. The crowds were thinning. Rain had scared everyone off. The show had been either delayed or canceled. Nobody really knew.
After the storm passed, people were still on their way out. I was stranded in traffic, but after 30 minutes of waiting in bumper to bumper traffic, the fireworks began going off. I was able to enjoy the show, but at what cost? My legs were still damp from getting drenched by the rain. It was really a mess I should have avoided.
But people in our area have taken this one step further.
When bad storms are approaching, in the past, our local news really didn't throw up a fuss. Over the past two years, the weather teams have improved their coverage of severe weather, complete with early warnings and detailed coverage. They still don't compare to other weather teams I've had the pleasure of knowing, but it's better than nothing.
Sounds great, right?
Well, they interrupted an LSU game and all hell broke loose on the internet. People were extremely unhappy that their beloved LSU Tigers were being blotted out by severe weather coverage. They wanted to see the game. There is even a Facebook page dedicated to this complaining.
So apparently, we'd rather sacrifice our own safety in the name of entertainment. We care more about being entertained than using our better judgment. We don't have the sense to realize bad weather can kill. We'd much rather watch a football game or some fireworks.
Because we value entertainment more than our own lives, we will continue to see sad stories like the one in Indiana.
So, why was it, then, that people didn't leave?
I'm sure there were people who decided to head out. I'm sure some people looked at the sky and said "No, I'm not hanging around for this storm." I've been in situations where storms were looming as well.
Peer pressure is a powerful thing. If some people don't start the gradual flow, nobody leaves.
People came to that concert to see a show. They stand there waiting. They expect a show. Even when a severe storm stares them in the face, they stare right back at it and hope no rain comes. They still think everything is going to be okay. They think there will still be a show.
On the 4th of July this year, in Shreveport-Bossier, a healthy storm system moved its way across East Texas and Southwest Arkansas. I was watching it on the radar, wondering if the fireworks would be cancelled or delayed. Live footage of the celebratory events were being broadcast on one local television station. From their perspective, skies were clear. The weatherman was on tv, telling us that everything looked good and he hoped things would go off without a hitch. Nothing was further from the truth. I was staring right at the radar. I wasn't going to leave the house just yet.
But as the threat of rain loomed, I decided to hop in the car and head out. As I drove into town, lightning flashed around me. Skies were dark. Rain was pouring down. Streets were soon flooded, at least in one lane, sewer drains overwhelmed by the rush of water. Word spread that people at the Boardwalk were leaving. The crowds were thinning. Rain had scared everyone off. The show had been either delayed or canceled. Nobody really knew.
After the storm passed, people were still on their way out. I was stranded in traffic, but after 30 minutes of waiting in bumper to bumper traffic, the fireworks began going off. I was able to enjoy the show, but at what cost? My legs were still damp from getting drenched by the rain. It was really a mess I should have avoided.
But people in our area have taken this one step further.
When bad storms are approaching, in the past, our local news really didn't throw up a fuss. Over the past two years, the weather teams have improved their coverage of severe weather, complete with early warnings and detailed coverage. They still don't compare to other weather teams I've had the pleasure of knowing, but it's better than nothing.
Sounds great, right?
Well, they interrupted an LSU game and all hell broke loose on the internet. People were extremely unhappy that their beloved LSU Tigers were being blotted out by severe weather coverage. They wanted to see the game. There is even a Facebook page dedicated to this complaining.
So apparently, we'd rather sacrifice our own safety in the name of entertainment. We care more about being entertained than using our better judgment. We don't have the sense to realize bad weather can kill. We'd much rather watch a football game or some fireworks.
Because we value entertainment more than our own lives, we will continue to see sad stories like the one in Indiana.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)