I've heard over the years that men tend to become more conservative with age. I have to admit that I'm a bit more chary of some risky actions - I really don't want to go into just how crazy I was when young, my mother reads this thing (she's already past grey, but...). Really, short of reducing the chances of my physical destruction and that of others innocently involved I've not noticed any particularly rightist thinking creeping in. It is generally found that the youth cadre is more liberal in its outlook than the general population and I've watched this with a certain interest.
What I've found is that the young set is not anywhere more liberal than I am. Now to be sure my experience is not a predictor or predicate of anything. I am, however, a bit disturbed. What bothers me is that statistics say this cadre will grow more conservative with age. I admit to being well left of most elected Democrats and, obviously, most Democratic voting people.
While you can make a significant arguement that the voting and dialogue's shift right is not followed in attitudes when stripped of political trappings that does not change the rightward reality. If this is the case, what does the future hold in political policies if these folks do shift right? I do not find this cadre a bit to the left of those of us who were leftish in the 60s and 70s and we are where we are today (it would be easy to over estimate the size of that group).
I don't know, I sure the hell hope people just reaching and just past voting age will do a hell of a lot better running the show when they age than has been managed by the cadre who were young when I was.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Friday, November 09, 2012
Dealing With The GOP
I've already laughed at the idea of GOP reassessment so one need not fear I'm going to repeat that. I've listened to two of John Boehner's blatherings now and while I appreciate the cheekiness of offering to compromise all the way to the President's opponent's position on taxes and spending, it is pretty silly to think a bunch of Democrats will get along with it. A bunch of media is all aflutter with fiscal cliff themes which is a serious over statement of what is going on. There is not only no damn rush to deal with it, it is strategically stupid to do anything before we topple over... er actually, step down the slope.
Mitch McConnell managed to tell the President that he could go ahead and offer up a Republican House Bill.... Now, admiring the cheekiness of Orange John is a bit different than saying something nice about complete and utter lunatic ramblings by Mitch One Term McConnell. The House is not "Republican" it has a Republican majority which is a bit of a different thing. It is quite possible for the Tea Baggers to stay loyal to their idiotology and fringe while other GOPers come out to play. That of course depends on just how scared the rest of them are of Teabaggery.
The GOP has proved itself willing and adept at taking hostages so being put in the position of step forward or have the edge of the cliff crumble under them whould turn on some lights. They're perfectly aware of the efficacy of making the choice of going along or facing the absolute wrath of the citizenry and the plutocratic interests. The plutocrats might not much like paying higher taxes and in another deep recession could probably buy up even more of what's left, but payment to those pissed off peons could be real bad - like pitchforks bad. Not to mention that some of the wealthy actually do depend on doing actual business, you know, the making of or doing things which you don't do in a crashed economy.
I don't propose that the President and Democrats march into Congress and insult the GOP, as deserving as they are, but that they put them into corners that force reasonableness onto them. I am, however, real tired of hearing about "middle ground" where the GOPers will meet the President. The GOP can be dragged or forced into meeting the Democrats on their side of the divide, otherwise all the talk about not just being red/blue but the United States will simply end in RED. The real trick will be to get the media past the wishful thinking of magical Bipartisanship.
Mitch McConnell managed to tell the President that he could go ahead and offer up a Republican House Bill.... Now, admiring the cheekiness of Orange John is a bit different than saying something nice about complete and utter lunatic ramblings by Mitch One Term McConnell. The House is not "Republican" it has a Republican majority which is a bit of a different thing. It is quite possible for the Tea Baggers to stay loyal to their idiotology and fringe while other GOPers come out to play. That of course depends on just how scared the rest of them are of Teabaggery.
The GOP has proved itself willing and adept at taking hostages so being put in the position of step forward or have the edge of the cliff crumble under them whould turn on some lights. They're perfectly aware of the efficacy of making the choice of going along or facing the absolute wrath of the citizenry and the plutocratic interests. The plutocrats might not much like paying higher taxes and in another deep recession could probably buy up even more of what's left, but payment to those pissed off peons could be real bad - like pitchforks bad. Not to mention that some of the wealthy actually do depend on doing actual business, you know, the making of or doing things which you don't do in a crashed economy.
I don't propose that the President and Democrats march into Congress and insult the GOP, as deserving as they are, but that they put them into corners that force reasonableness onto them. I am, however, real tired of hearing about "middle ground" where the GOPers will meet the President. The GOP can be dragged or forced into meeting the Democrats on their side of the divide, otherwise all the talk about not just being red/blue but the United States will simply end in RED. The real trick will be to get the media past the wishful thinking of magical Bipartisanship.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Goodbye Mr rMoney - Please...
I would hope, that after 7 years of running to be POTUS, that Mr rMoney will take what I consider to be a very well earned retirement from politics. For god's sake Mitt, go concentrate on scraping the last cent of value out of companies or even better dancing horses. I really don't want to hear any more about this guy being the head of the GOP. It is bad enough that I have to listen to Orange John repeat your Mittens' tax plans as though somebody elected you. There are car elevators to be ridden, speed boats to be driven, and dogs to be strapped on roofs (no, don't do that one) and I'm sure the LDS can use some of your help and expertise to... something.
I don't want or need any more of your version of political speech which was debased enough prior to your campaign. I can get your idea of discourse any time I'm willing to insult my intelligence with Rush Limbaugh or half of the House GOP Caucus. It is quite possible to take a measure of Corporate Spending on your failure and wonder just how many products at what price could have been made or employees hired or (horrors) given raises. Business bemoans the insurance costs of the employee mandated insurance and yet were the drivers of the demise of a public model and threw even more money away on a corporate raider as though he was experienced at adding value to the economy.
Mitt's failures as a candidate were manifold as were the GOP failures as a campaign machine and resulted in Electoral College disaster and popular vote loss. But those failures of charisma and machinery were nothing next to nothing compared to the failure of messages. Racism will work in some House districts and even in a lot of the Confederacy but in the nation at large and most larger states it just flatly sucks - and your scared white vote just isn't big enough any more to do the job. St Ronnie's demographics are gone (at least partly due to his Amnesty) and America is reaping the "benefits" of the voodoo of Reaganomics. It is beginning to look as though the results of voter disenfranchisement efforts may be backlash and upped vote enthusiasm from those groups - though hard numbers to back that feeling will be near impossible to garner - and those insulted by those efforts will most likely never support the bastards who did it.
I expect 2016 to be a replay of of 2012 and even 2008, though probably the racism directed at the actual candidate will be a bit lesser, mostly because I don't see another dark skinned candidate in the wings although female isn't out of the question. The racism regarding policies Democrats support won't be lessened, probably even heightened since there is so little room to go another direction. The plutocratic politics will not be touched because while the GOP can't remember history in any accurate manner, they can read checkbooks.
G'bye Mr Mitt, please go much farther away and much quieter than Sen McPOW. I won't miss you.
I don't want or need any more of your version of political speech which was debased enough prior to your campaign. I can get your idea of discourse any time I'm willing to insult my intelligence with Rush Limbaugh or half of the House GOP Caucus. It is quite possible to take a measure of Corporate Spending on your failure and wonder just how many products at what price could have been made or employees hired or (horrors) given raises. Business bemoans the insurance costs of the employee mandated insurance and yet were the drivers of the demise of a public model and threw even more money away on a corporate raider as though he was experienced at adding value to the economy.
Mitt's failures as a candidate were manifold as were the GOP failures as a campaign machine and resulted in Electoral College disaster and popular vote loss. But those failures of charisma and machinery were nothing next to nothing compared to the failure of messages. Racism will work in some House districts and even in a lot of the Confederacy but in the nation at large and most larger states it just flatly sucks - and your scared white vote just isn't big enough any more to do the job. St Ronnie's demographics are gone (at least partly due to his Amnesty) and America is reaping the "benefits" of the voodoo of Reaganomics. It is beginning to look as though the results of voter disenfranchisement efforts may be backlash and upped vote enthusiasm from those groups - though hard numbers to back that feeling will be near impossible to garner - and those insulted by those efforts will most likely never support the bastards who did it.
I expect 2016 to be a replay of of 2012 and even 2008, though probably the racism directed at the actual candidate will be a bit lesser, mostly because I don't see another dark skinned candidate in the wings although female isn't out of the question. The racism regarding policies Democrats support won't be lessened, probably even heightened since there is so little room to go another direction. The plutocratic politics will not be touched because while the GOP can't remember history in any accurate manner, they can read checkbooks.
G'bye Mr Mitt, please go much farther away and much quieter than Sen McPOW. I won't miss you.
A New GOP?
The media seems all a-flutter with the theme of a GOP civil war and how the GOP is going to address the President running the table on the so-called swing states and a pretty clear majority vote. The first things to look at are the numbers in Congress. The Senate gains by Democrats were unexpected by most a year ago but it falls far short of stopping filibusters and the House is still... well, I can't think of a polite adjective - Republican. Then there is the electorate, that infamous 27% number makes up over half of the GOP and if this election cycle didn't make their point of view clear, I'm unsure just how big a hammer it takes to get your attention.
Regarding the Senate elections, the Democrats picked up seats (sort of - considering who some of them are) thanks mostly to the GOP Primary results. If you think there is a lesson for them in that, I'd like to point you back two years and the results of GOP Primary voting that time and the balance in the Senate. New Senate rules could have some effect on pure obstructionism, but don't hold your breath on that happening.
At one time the Senate was the much more stable entity and the House the volatile one, thanks to gerrymandering that is no longer true with Senators facing a state wide popular vote threshold that includes sufficient mixes of Party loyalties and other sensibilities to elect something other than lunacy in enough states and the House candidates getting their predetermined mixes. When people like Bachmann are able to hang on for cycle after cycle you know that something is seriously amiss. The House GOP lunatic caucus has proven safe and whatever sort of pragmatism John Boehner might like to practice, they'll have no more part of that this time around than they did the last two years and their numbers are not inconsiderable for Boehner. I don't like Boehner and I think his politics stink but they're less egregious assholery than his colleagues' idiotology but he has essentially no levers to move them with and is scared spitless of them. Any House GOPer to the left of wingnuttery knows their wing will Primary them into extinction if the break rank.
It may be a fact that if the GOP wants to win statewide and national elections outside the Confederacy and Confederate sympathisers it has to change directions, but that does not mean there is any Primary impetus to do so. That 27% is not subject to the reasoned discourse that involves something outside their ideology and compromise means doing that and winning those big elections means doing it. They do not want to win at the cost of betraying that hard core ideology and believe in their hearts that they'll start winning by sticking to it and even going harder in that direction. Their Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. While all the long term developements look for the GOP just about like they did for the Confederacy versus the Union that war didn't end before the almost utter destruction of their ability to function, either. Faith is a peculiar thing and not particularly subject to reality's intrusions.
UPDATE
This also includes the idea of making the GOP something other than the Confederate Party of Republicanism ie: Racism.
All this is a pretty long way of looking at this GOP civil war idea and saying, "Please pick my laughing my ass off self off the floor."
Regarding the Senate elections, the Democrats picked up seats (sort of - considering who some of them are) thanks mostly to the GOP Primary results. If you think there is a lesson for them in that, I'd like to point you back two years and the results of GOP Primary voting that time and the balance in the Senate. New Senate rules could have some effect on pure obstructionism, but don't hold your breath on that happening.
At one time the Senate was the much more stable entity and the House the volatile one, thanks to gerrymandering that is no longer true with Senators facing a state wide popular vote threshold that includes sufficient mixes of Party loyalties and other sensibilities to elect something other than lunacy in enough states and the House candidates getting their predetermined mixes. When people like Bachmann are able to hang on for cycle after cycle you know that something is seriously amiss. The House GOP lunatic caucus has proven safe and whatever sort of pragmatism John Boehner might like to practice, they'll have no more part of that this time around than they did the last two years and their numbers are not inconsiderable for Boehner. I don't like Boehner and I think his politics stink but they're less egregious assholery than his colleagues' idiotology but he has essentially no levers to move them with and is scared spitless of them. Any House GOPer to the left of wingnuttery knows their wing will Primary them into extinction if the break rank.
It may be a fact that if the GOP wants to win statewide and national elections outside the Confederacy and Confederate sympathisers it has to change directions, but that does not mean there is any Primary impetus to do so. That 27% is not subject to the reasoned discourse that involves something outside their ideology and compromise means doing that and winning those big elections means doing it. They do not want to win at the cost of betraying that hard core ideology and believe in their hearts that they'll start winning by sticking to it and even going harder in that direction. Their Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. While all the long term developements look for the GOP just about like they did for the Confederacy versus the Union that war didn't end before the almost utter destruction of their ability to function, either. Faith is a peculiar thing and not particularly subject to reality's intrusions.
UPDATE
This also includes the idea of making the GOP something other than the Confederate Party of Republicanism ie: Racism.
All this is a pretty long way of looking at this GOP civil war idea and saying, "Please pick my laughing my ass off self off the floor."
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Polling The 47% Statement
NBC/WSJ did some polling and one of the questions was how did Mitt's 47% comment affect your view of him?
The media loves "a moment" in campaigns, the ones that change everything, so this thing takes on a life as one of them. The slow drip drip of GOPer bullshit from the Primaries on to now as an r-Money definer seems a lot more reasonable backed up by what this poll says. This is the guts of what I find offensive by the "a moment" theme in this case. If the definition continues on, what will happen is that r-Money gets the blame as a clueless bumbler for a loss that was avoidable minus this particular fumble.
If you think some really charismatic person could sell the bill of goods that Mittens has been peddling I'm really frightened for the America of that vision.
More positive ......................................................... 23
More negative ....................................................... 45
Not much difference .............................................. 24
Don’t know enough ............................................... 8Despite the media's obsession with this tape and its effects this thing shows what I've been dismissing. Yeah, a 45 more negative view isn't helpful, but look at the rest of it, if you add the rest together you get 53% that aren't pushed Obama's direction. I'm more than happy to go with the idea that the statement froze some leaners in Obama's camp, but that is far from agreeing with the idea that the statement is persuading people into voting for him that weren't already there. I'd be more inclined if that "more negative" number was in excess of Obama's general polling but it isn't.
The media loves "a moment" in campaigns, the ones that change everything, so this thing takes on a life as one of them. The slow drip drip of GOPer bullshit from the Primaries on to now as an r-Money definer seems a lot more reasonable backed up by what this poll says. This is the guts of what I find offensive by the "a moment" theme in this case. If the definition continues on, what will happen is that r-Money gets the blame as a clueless bumbler for a loss that was avoidable minus this particular fumble.
If you think some really charismatic person could sell the bill of goods that Mittens has been peddling I'm really frightened for the America of that vision.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Anne, STOP IT
CBS News reports on Anne Romney's Iowa radio comments:
Now I do disagree with, oh say, Peggy Noonan that the problem is the campaign because they're working with what they've got - and that is the candidate and the message. r-Money's personality disorder isn't something that is easily addressed in a short term campaign, this mess goes waaaayyyy back and everybody that has anything to do with him (he has inflicted himself on all of us) is just plain stuck with it.
The message is the legacy of the GOP, it just is what the GOP wants for the nation. I don't know just exactly how that gets prettied up, much. The election of 2010 certainly encouraged the GOPers to "go for it." The mistake they've made is conflating a low turnout midterm with cowardly incumbents for a national election for President, even in a sucky economy. Unlike Peggy, I don't have any winning advice for that campaign - other than maybe quit being GOPers...
Anne, it is always hard to run for major office and I don't think anybody who pays any attention is unaware of it. In point of fact, most of those people wouldn't do it on a large bet just because it does suck to do. What does seem to be pretty clear is that people in general are under-whelmed by their luck in having Mitt's qualities aimed at the Presidency. I don't mean he won't get plenty of votes but those are beginning to look much more like anti-Obama than pro-Mitt.
Anne, your guy sucks - he just sucks a little less than Santorum or Ron Paul and had a lot more money. Your package bought this chance and he just plain sucks at what he bought and folks on that side don't much like it. Oh well...
Amid ongoing criticism over the management of her husband's presidential campaign, Ann Romney on Thursday responded to the critics in an interview on Radio Iowa: "Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring," she said. "This is hard and, you know, it's an important thing that we're doing right now and it's an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt's qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country," Romney said.I'm sorry to have to tell you this Anne, but this ain't your damned Country Club or the Office where Mittens is the undisputed king and all around dictator. People who are on your team or putatively on your team get to tell you you're doing it wrong.
Now I do disagree with, oh say, Peggy Noonan that the problem is the campaign because they're working with what they've got - and that is the candidate and the message. r-Money's personality disorder isn't something that is easily addressed in a short term campaign, this mess goes waaaayyyy back and everybody that has anything to do with him (he has inflicted himself on all of us) is just plain stuck with it.
The message is the legacy of the GOP, it just is what the GOP wants for the nation. I don't know just exactly how that gets prettied up, much. The election of 2010 certainly encouraged the GOPers to "go for it." The mistake they've made is conflating a low turnout midterm with cowardly incumbents for a national election for President, even in a sucky economy. Unlike Peggy, I don't have any winning advice for that campaign - other than maybe quit being GOPers...
Anne, it is always hard to run for major office and I don't think anybody who pays any attention is unaware of it. In point of fact, most of those people wouldn't do it on a large bet just because it does suck to do. What does seem to be pretty clear is that people in general are under-whelmed by their luck in having Mitt's qualities aimed at the Presidency. I don't mean he won't get plenty of votes but those are beginning to look much more like anti-Obama than pro-Mitt.
Anne, your guy sucks - he just sucks a little less than Santorum or Ron Paul and had a lot more money. Your package bought this chance and he just plain sucks at what he bought and folks on that side don't much like it. Oh well...
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Chuck Dead?
The previous post probably makes the point moot, but my absence has to do with something other than death or illness or other catastrophe. Well most personal catastrophes anyhow. The politics of that last months is the catastrophe that's done it. Charles Pierce over at Esquire handles it with a delightful mix of mockery and sarcasm and facts. I can't manage that kind of writing and it is about my only refuge from the idiocy that's going on. I can do what I've done over the years and sing to the choir about things we all agree are somewhere beyond stupid or I can just let somebody like Pierce do it for me in a more amusing manner with a lot less effort on my part.
I don't know that the choices for voters will even begin to address what ails this nation. I'm real sure that one side is really a bad choice - but it is pretty hard to work up enthusiasm for writing about "not as bad as." The Democrats managed to do a couple things like Lilly Ledbetter and the DADT Repeal that weren't GOP policy. They did manage a stimulus that was hamstrung from the beginning by being written for GOP votes or sensibilities that weren't ever there. Otherwise it has been GOP policy dressed up. Sure, the ACA is better than nothing, but considering what it is in opposition to that is extremely faint praise - and that isn't because the GOP hung it; Democrats did that all on their own.
You can make a case that this President and the last two Congresses have faced unprecedented obstruction from the GOP. The problem with that case is that for the first two years Democrats could do what Democrats wanted to do and what they managed was essentially rewarmed GOP policy. In the face of the wreckage brought about by GOP economics the Democrats managed to pass GOP bills that the current GOP hates with a passion. I didn't expect a left agenda, but I expected something more than putting on the brakes - like pointing in another direction. Maybe it is my leftist viewpoint that makes just slowing the damage not seem in the least adequate or a generator of enthusiasm. How many times can I write that one side is crazy and our side is bought and owned to the extent that they'll do spit?
Just blaming the politicians is stupid, they do have to get themselves elected. Getting elected means that the voters are the folks sending them there to do this half-assed job and it appears that the voters don't know what it is they're trying to get done. If the voters don't know what the hell is going on; one would have to ask what reason there is for the media to have access to us? Radio and television use public space to spread their crap and when it pretends to be news or information and is nothing but corporate owned propaganda that space is being misused by those with no inherent right to use it at all. Print is another issue and its slow demise seems to make the case that it is not meeting the market's desires.
The real shame is that there are Democrats in office that understand what it is that I'm getting at and wouldn't need a hell of big push to go for some kind of change but the scared little corporate rabbits that make up the rest of the Party will make sure it is pointless just as they've done for decades. They have achieved real power with the advent of complete obstructionism from the crazy Party - so there you are. And here we all are.
I don't know that the choices for voters will even begin to address what ails this nation. I'm real sure that one side is really a bad choice - but it is pretty hard to work up enthusiasm for writing about "not as bad as." The Democrats managed to do a couple things like Lilly Ledbetter and the DADT Repeal that weren't GOP policy. They did manage a stimulus that was hamstrung from the beginning by being written for GOP votes or sensibilities that weren't ever there. Otherwise it has been GOP policy dressed up. Sure, the ACA is better than nothing, but considering what it is in opposition to that is extremely faint praise - and that isn't because the GOP hung it; Democrats did that all on their own.
You can make a case that this President and the last two Congresses have faced unprecedented obstruction from the GOP. The problem with that case is that for the first two years Democrats could do what Democrats wanted to do and what they managed was essentially rewarmed GOP policy. In the face of the wreckage brought about by GOP economics the Democrats managed to pass GOP bills that the current GOP hates with a passion. I didn't expect a left agenda, but I expected something more than putting on the brakes - like pointing in another direction. Maybe it is my leftist viewpoint that makes just slowing the damage not seem in the least adequate or a generator of enthusiasm. How many times can I write that one side is crazy and our side is bought and owned to the extent that they'll do spit?
Just blaming the politicians is stupid, they do have to get themselves elected. Getting elected means that the voters are the folks sending them there to do this half-assed job and it appears that the voters don't know what it is they're trying to get done. If the voters don't know what the hell is going on; one would have to ask what reason there is for the media to have access to us? Radio and television use public space to spread their crap and when it pretends to be news or information and is nothing but corporate owned propaganda that space is being misused by those with no inherent right to use it at all. Print is another issue and its slow demise seems to make the case that it is not meeting the market's desires.
The real shame is that there are Democrats in office that understand what it is that I'm getting at and wouldn't need a hell of big push to go for some kind of change but the scared little corporate rabbits that make up the rest of the Party will make sure it is pointless just as they've done for decades. They have achieved real power with the advent of complete obstructionism from the crazy Party - so there you are. And here we all are.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Slut Solidarity
I guess it's time for me to out myself as a slut. I admit it, I've had sex for something other than procreation. There. I said it. I'm willing to cast myself into the pool of co-eds and all the others who've had sex for some reason other than procreation.
Now, never mind that what Ms Fluke was testifying to was medical remediation use of contraceptives as opposed to sex at the drop of a hat use. You see, I don't give a damn - women's health issues are women's health issues, whether it involves medical prevention of disorders or simply prevention of pregnancy. It is not the employers' business exactly why a woman proposes to use contraceptives, not in the least. It is not for a couple of reasons. It is not their body. The insurance is a part of compensation for work. The employer is in business, regardless of their ideas of sex, not in the business of religion. If Catholics and others want to have a say about what their people do, they have a pulpit and the alternative of getting the hell out of business. A hospital may have the adjective Catholic appended to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't in the business of being a hospital.
As for the MORAL STANDING of Catholic Bishops - let's just talk a bit about cover-ups of child sex abuse in just about the same breath as other employees.
Now, never mind that what Ms Fluke was testifying to was medical remediation use of contraceptives as opposed to sex at the drop of a hat use. You see, I don't give a damn - women's health issues are women's health issues, whether it involves medical prevention of disorders or simply prevention of pregnancy. It is not the employers' business exactly why a woman proposes to use contraceptives, not in the least. It is not for a couple of reasons. It is not their body. The insurance is a part of compensation for work. The employer is in business, regardless of their ideas of sex, not in the business of religion. If Catholics and others want to have a say about what their people do, they have a pulpit and the alternative of getting the hell out of business. A hospital may have the adjective Catholic appended to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't in the business of being a hospital.
As for the MORAL STANDING of Catholic Bishops - let's just talk a bit about cover-ups of child sex abuse in just about the same breath as other employees.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The GOP's Difficult Primary
I just got done listening to Dana Milbanks essentially apologizing for the GOP by blaming its Primary, paraphrasing, he said this primary has made things difficult for the GOP and blaming a handful of extremists for hijacking it. This almost in the same breath as saying David Brooks has spent decades as a "reasonable Republican." David goddamn Brooks, who has spent those decades justifying and rationalizing each step the GOPers have taken into lunacy. Up until right now, Our Mister Brooks hasn't found a damn thing to complain about. Rather than actually complain, he's blurred the lines and blunted the edges of craziness with sociological crap drooled into his column.
The Primary is the problem? This is the breeding program of the GOP finally maturing. They've played at this for decades upon decades and just now the "reasonable" people are saying, "Huh?" This is supposed to make anyone whose paid attention think that maybe Goldwater, Nixon, and St Ronnie were just kidding? Dana Milbanks is credited with being an astute observer of politics and he comes up with blaming the goddam Primary? Nobody was watching Sarah Palin's campaign in '08? Apparently not Milbanks.
I'd be seriously remiss if I didn't call out the Democrats who kept finding a middle way and being all "collegial" and not using plain language to call stupid and crazy, "stupid and crazy." "My esteemed colleague is making a mistake" scarcely covers the ground of being a lying batshit crazy fuckhead. When Sen Kyl stood on the Senate floor and made his "not intended as a factual statement" nobody stood up and said, "That, sir, is a flat out lie." 95% vs 3% is not a mistake and "not a factual statement" is a fucking lie.
I would surely be just as remiss for not assigning blame to the nasty equivocators who wear (D) labels as they shifted politically farther and farther right and sabotaged everything marginally liberal. That is liberal, not goddam LEFT. Sure, the media has played stenographer and the voters just paid no attention, but that sure is easy to do if the elected officials just suck the corporate tit and say not spit that might serve the interest of the public.
Oh hell, just put the President back in and elect whatever (D) happens to be running and we won't go into the toilet quite as quickly. Some of you might actually have the pleasure of voting for someone that IS a Democrat and DOES give a damn about the public. Most of you, oh well... Dana is on your side.
The Primary is the problem? This is the breeding program of the GOP finally maturing. They've played at this for decades upon decades and just now the "reasonable" people are saying, "Huh?" This is supposed to make anyone whose paid attention think that maybe Goldwater, Nixon, and St Ronnie were just kidding? Dana Milbanks is credited with being an astute observer of politics and he comes up with blaming the goddam Primary? Nobody was watching Sarah Palin's campaign in '08? Apparently not Milbanks.
I'd be seriously remiss if I didn't call out the Democrats who kept finding a middle way and being all "collegial" and not using plain language to call stupid and crazy, "stupid and crazy." "My esteemed colleague is making a mistake" scarcely covers the ground of being a lying batshit crazy fuckhead. When Sen Kyl stood on the Senate floor and made his "not intended as a factual statement" nobody stood up and said, "That, sir, is a flat out lie." 95% vs 3% is not a mistake and "not a factual statement" is a fucking lie.
I would surely be just as remiss for not assigning blame to the nasty equivocators who wear (D) labels as they shifted politically farther and farther right and sabotaged everything marginally liberal. That is liberal, not goddam LEFT. Sure, the media has played stenographer and the voters just paid no attention, but that sure is easy to do if the elected officials just suck the corporate tit and say not spit that might serve the interest of the public.
Oh hell, just put the President back in and elect whatever (D) happens to be running and we won't go into the toilet quite as quickly. Some of you might actually have the pleasure of voting for someone that IS a Democrat and DOES give a damn about the public. Most of you, oh well... Dana is on your side.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
...No Religious Test...
According to the Constitution there is not supposed to be a qualification for office that depends on religion. Now, to be quite accurate, that is a matter of law rather than whatever stupidity appeals to voters. Today we seem to think that the fact that a Mormon actually thinks he has a shot at the Presidency means something.
Ahem.
So what? Let's fire up that Way Back Machine for just a damn second. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. These Christian voters wouldn't recognize that "faith" as anything in the least similar to what they ingest as Christianity.
The GOP and enough others have ginned up a new religion out of whole cloth. They call it Secular Humanism. I don't know what the hell that is as far as doctrines and something to kneel to or pray to. I do know what secular means and I can even get to a definition:
1
a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal
A relationship to a god is completely missing in this definition and seems to abrogate the idea of a religion. Now maybe "humanism" is some sort of qualifier that makes it work. The American Humanist Association has this to say:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity
I don't get it. No god and no rituals and nothing having to do with worship and this is a religion? For pete's sake, Communism at least bothered to replace god with something, the State. Atheists have a belief or faith that there is "no god." I'd guess that what these "Secular Humanist" brayers are going on about is that somebody doesn't think their books and rituals are the be all and end all.
No, that really isn't what it's about. What it is about is that when their religion doesn't define legislation it must have been replaced by another. Somehow the idea that the Government's concerns really are "worldly or temporal" seems to have escaped them. Government is supposed to be somehow "right" with god which means that if the government concerns itself exclusively with "worldly and temporal" matters it must be using another religion in place of theirs. Humans being fallible and all, something must inform them.
That is the place where it all falls apart. I don't really have any idea how many religions there are or how many fractured pieces any one of them has; but it really ought to be pretty clear that there are a whole lot of opinions on that matter and that must mean that some pretty damned fallible humans are involved. That means that the fact that a government depending on fallible humans is an irretrievable proposition even if we go with their theocracy.
I really don't give a rat's patoot about your religion or lack of one, I do very much give a damn about being left alone in that regard. I don't want your religion. I also do not want my government doing the power seeking of getting "right" with god, nor do I want it messing about with you getting there.
Ahem.
So what? Let's fire up that Way Back Machine for just a damn second. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. These Christian voters wouldn't recognize that "faith" as anything in the least similar to what they ingest as Christianity.
The GOP and enough others have ginned up a new religion out of whole cloth. They call it Secular Humanism. I don't know what the hell that is as far as doctrines and something to kneel to or pray to. I do know what secular means and I can even get to a definition:
1
a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal
A relationship to a god is completely missing in this definition and seems to abrogate the idea of a religion. Now maybe "humanism" is some sort of qualifier that makes it work. The American Humanist Association has this to say:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity
I don't get it. No god and no rituals and nothing having to do with worship and this is a religion? For pete's sake, Communism at least bothered to replace god with something, the State. Atheists have a belief or faith that there is "no god." I'd guess that what these "Secular Humanist" brayers are going on about is that somebody doesn't think their books and rituals are the be all and end all.
No, that really isn't what it's about. What it is about is that when their religion doesn't define legislation it must have been replaced by another. Somehow the idea that the Government's concerns really are "worldly or temporal" seems to have escaped them. Government is supposed to be somehow "right" with god which means that if the government concerns itself exclusively with "worldly and temporal" matters it must be using another religion in place of theirs. Humans being fallible and all, something must inform them.
That is the place where it all falls apart. I don't really have any idea how many religions there are or how many fractured pieces any one of them has; but it really ought to be pretty clear that there are a whole lot of opinions on that matter and that must mean that some pretty damned fallible humans are involved. That means that the fact that a government depending on fallible humans is an irretrievable proposition even if we go with their theocracy.
I really don't give a rat's patoot about your religion or lack of one, I do very much give a damn about being left alone in that regard. I don't want your religion. I also do not want my government doing the power seeking of getting "right" with god, nor do I want it messing about with you getting there.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
State of the Union As WWF
Last time around one of the GOPers in the House lost track of what show he was watching and turned Congress into his couch in front of the TV playing WWF silliness. "You Lie!" he shouted as he imagined himself doing some folding chair smashing. A lot of people pointed out the incivility of that behavior... as though that Party doesn't breed for it.
Tonight the President is going to play to pretty much the same audience in house - and a segment that is considerably more pissed-off out in TV land. Given the President's disinclination to rile people up; it is a pretty safe bet that we'll get some soft proposals surrounded by pretty words. Liar Mitch Daniels is up as the GOPer rebuttal operative and he can speak in complete sentences without seeming embarrassed by it. You can expect a bunch of "real America" kind of stupidity from Mitch with maybe even a touch of heat.
Now if the President were to give a State of the Union speech that reflected the political and economic and social realities of The Union the House seats would look just like a WWF cage fight. There'd be chairs uprooted and thrown at the podium and Democrats body slammed. The hooting, catcalls, and racial epithets (how long to you think they can do socialist and food stamp President before the nigger word breaks out?) would shatter the media's sound meters. The media follow up would then include the words "both sides do it."
No, the President is not going to tell the Union that we've been in a class warfare for over three decades, he's not going to tell the Union that un-regulated near criminals crashed the economy and made out like bandits for doing it. He is not going to tel the Union that one Party has dedicated itself to the failure of the Union in a bid to replace the speaking President. He is not going to tell the Union that one of the Parties sustains itself on hate and resentment while inflating the plutocracy. Nah, you'll get a pretty speech and the GOPers will play hyenas anyhow.
The only people who'll get satisfaction will be that amorphous "why can't they all get along" middle. Yes, they'll wonder "why" while the President doesn't bother to tell them exactly "why." Sure, I'll watch it - just to see what it takes to get called a socialist while that person's base, which is miles from socialistic, tears its hair out in light of the plutocratic agenda of its President. Cynical? Yeah, and...?
Tonight the President is going to play to pretty much the same audience in house - and a segment that is considerably more pissed-off out in TV land. Given the President's disinclination to rile people up; it is a pretty safe bet that we'll get some soft proposals surrounded by pretty words. Liar Mitch Daniels is up as the GOPer rebuttal operative and he can speak in complete sentences without seeming embarrassed by it. You can expect a bunch of "real America" kind of stupidity from Mitch with maybe even a touch of heat.
Now if the President were to give a State of the Union speech that reflected the political and economic and social realities of The Union the House seats would look just like a WWF cage fight. There'd be chairs uprooted and thrown at the podium and Democrats body slammed. The hooting, catcalls, and racial epithets (how long to you think they can do socialist and food stamp President before the nigger word breaks out?) would shatter the media's sound meters. The media follow up would then include the words "both sides do it."
No, the President is not going to tell the Union that we've been in a class warfare for over three decades, he's not going to tell the Union that un-regulated near criminals crashed the economy and made out like bandits for doing it. He is not going to tel the Union that one Party has dedicated itself to the failure of the Union in a bid to replace the speaking President. He is not going to tell the Union that one of the Parties sustains itself on hate and resentment while inflating the plutocracy. Nah, you'll get a pretty speech and the GOPers will play hyenas anyhow.
The only people who'll get satisfaction will be that amorphous "why can't they all get along" middle. Yes, they'll wonder "why" while the President doesn't bother to tell them exactly "why." Sure, I'll watch it - just to see what it takes to get called a socialist while that person's base, which is miles from socialistic, tears its hair out in light of the plutocratic agenda of its President. Cynical? Yeah, and...?
Thursday, January 12, 2012
News Or Stenography
I guess some questions would seem jaw dropping in another era of media, but the NYT actually asks Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?. I wonder if the name Judith Miller has dropped out of institutional memory? I wonder if the appellation, paper of record, has any meaning?
There are some things that take awhile to dig out, especially if they've just suddenly popped up. Most political issues aren't in the least like that, particularly with the GOP. Any reporter that is anything more than a stenographer knows about most of the GOP hobby-horses and from a simple understanding ought to know what can be quickly analysed and what is going to take some time. Some things have been around long enough that if the reporter gave a rat's patoot about facts they'd already have gone over that ground and there would be an institutional archive.
Mitt Romney is scarcely a new phenomenon and neither is his bragging about Bain Capitol. If something like Bain Capitol has not already been researched by the NYT you'd have reason to question their competence and if it is already there, for it to not appear in direct juxtaposition to a candidate's claims is a source of question. That would be any candidate's claims regarding Bain. If a politician is going to make claims about "death panels" on whatever side they shouldn't be able to do it without any question by someone who purports to provide news.
There is a very serious difference between being partisan and being objective and there is also a very real difference between objective and being a stenographer. That a politician has something to say is not news, the content my be news. It is immaterial to buy the NYT (or other) to find out what any campaign will be happy to provide - a transcript or their talking points around it. What is meant and its relationship to facts is what actually counts and it is exactly what is not provided.
I'm happy to say that in my contacts with local papers of whatever stripe their questions almost always were directed at illumination rather than obfuscation - the sole offender in that regard was The Oregonian, which also purports to be a "paper of record." I'd see it as hopeful that the NYT asks the question, but I find it too distressing that they'd be in a position to find it necessary. I guess that's the result of a generation's worth of screaming "LIBERAL MEDIA !!!"
There are some things that take awhile to dig out, especially if they've just suddenly popped up. Most political issues aren't in the least like that, particularly with the GOP. Any reporter that is anything more than a stenographer knows about most of the GOP hobby-horses and from a simple understanding ought to know what can be quickly analysed and what is going to take some time. Some things have been around long enough that if the reporter gave a rat's patoot about facts they'd already have gone over that ground and there would be an institutional archive.
Mitt Romney is scarcely a new phenomenon and neither is his bragging about Bain Capitol. If something like Bain Capitol has not already been researched by the NYT you'd have reason to question their competence and if it is already there, for it to not appear in direct juxtaposition to a candidate's claims is a source of question. That would be any candidate's claims regarding Bain. If a politician is going to make claims about "death panels" on whatever side they shouldn't be able to do it without any question by someone who purports to provide news.
There is a very serious difference between being partisan and being objective and there is also a very real difference between objective and being a stenographer. That a politician has something to say is not news, the content my be news. It is immaterial to buy the NYT (or other) to find out what any campaign will be happy to provide - a transcript or their talking points around it. What is meant and its relationship to facts is what actually counts and it is exactly what is not provided.
I'm happy to say that in my contacts with local papers of whatever stripe their questions almost always were directed at illumination rather than obfuscation - the sole offender in that regard was The Oregonian, which also purports to be a "paper of record." I'd see it as hopeful that the NYT asks the question, but I find it too distressing that they'd be in a position to find it necessary. I guess that's the result of a generation's worth of screaming "LIBERAL MEDIA !!!"
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
What Is Too Stupid For NYT OpEd?
It seems from campaigning that maybe Mittens wishes that NYT had said his attack on the auto industry government deal wasn't good enough and wasn't out there to haunt him. Well, sure that's one thing but maybe Bill Keller's Hillary VP OpEd should have gotten the spike. You can read the thing for yourself to see what sort of silliness this thing gets up to in order to make its case, but I'd suggest saving your time and just laughing.
I'm not going to go into it, I read it to see if it was nearly as stupid as it sounded - it was (edit) worse. (h/t JG -BJ)
I'm not going to go into it, I read it to see if it was nearly as stupid as it sounded - it was (edit) worse. (h/t JG -BJ)
Monday, January 09, 2012
Wolf Wonders
At 1:13 PM during an interview regarding the Perry campaign talking about Mitten's job destruction record Wolf wondered if after the Primary they'd talk about the "tens of thousands of jobs Bain created at Staples and..." Nothing to indicate that this was an assertion of Mittens with any questions involved about the numbers. Stated as bald fact.
Gee, would one have cause to "wonder" if Mittens is Wolf's boy?
Oh yeah, "the liberal media"
*UPDATE
About twenty minutes later Wolf has POW on and feeds him the line about job creation and then goes on the fluff Bain, himself. Correcting the record is laudable - repeating a campaign's talking points is a bit of a different horse. CNN - news? There are a lot of measures of Bain, including how many jobs under their direction and what kind of paying jobs were involved - Wolf couldn't be bothered...
Gee, would one have cause to "wonder" if Mittens is Wolf's boy?
Oh yeah, "the liberal media"
*UPDATE
About twenty minutes later Wolf has POW on and feeds him the line about job creation and then goes on the fluff Bain, himself. Correcting the record is laudable - repeating a campaign's talking points is a bit of a different horse. CNN - news? There are a lot of measures of Bain, including how many jobs under their direction and what kind of paying jobs were involved - Wolf couldn't be bothered...
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Sanctimony Of What?
The GOPers all seem to have jumped on a sanctimonious train. Some how, some way sanctified has come to mean something most of us were unaware of. You know that county clerk you went to when you got your marriage license, that person has somehow become an agent of GOD.
I give you Merriam Webster online
sanctity
1: holiness of life and character : godliness
2 a: the quality or state of being holy or sacred
: inviolability bplural: sacred objects, obligations, or rights
Now back to that county clerk thing, that person would be an agent of the State, the ones drawing up the regulations regarding getting married. You may have noticed that the clerk let you get that license even though you hadn't, oh say converted. You see, Newt -et al; the clerk is following laws written by the State and isn't in the least interested in your view of religion in this regard. What that clerk is interested in and the State is interested in is that civil contract you're just about to engage in. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Newt, at the least, would be real familiar with the civil aspect of that contract considering the outcomes of trying to get out of it - in simple speak, divorce.
Now I'm not arguing that the State shouldn't set conditions on civil contracts but it is a pretty simple statement that all law-abiding citizens should have equal treatment under the law, ie: the same rights and responsibilities. I've been married for over twenty years and frankly if gays want to go there they are welcome to my club. It isn't like there aren't outcomes that aren't all rainbows and ponies... even avoiding the nastiness of divorce.
* Oh c'mon, which one of you is gonna claim you're a peach to be around day after day after day after... every day?
I give you Merriam Webster online
sanctity
1: holiness of life and character : godliness
2 a: the quality or state of being holy or sacred
: inviolability bplural: sacred objects, obligations, or rights
Now back to that county clerk thing, that person would be an agent of the State, the ones drawing up the regulations regarding getting married. You may have noticed that the clerk let you get that license even though you hadn't, oh say converted. You see, Newt -et al; the clerk is following laws written by the State and isn't in the least interested in your view of religion in this regard. What that clerk is interested in and the State is interested in is that civil contract you're just about to engage in. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Newt, at the least, would be real familiar with the civil aspect of that contract considering the outcomes of trying to get out of it - in simple speak, divorce.
Now I'm not arguing that the State shouldn't set conditions on civil contracts but it is a pretty simple statement that all law-abiding citizens should have equal treatment under the law, ie: the same rights and responsibilities. I've been married for over twenty years and frankly if gays want to go there they are welcome to my club. It isn't like there aren't outcomes that aren't all rainbows and ponies... even avoiding the nastiness of divorce.
* Oh c'mon, which one of you is gonna claim you're a peach to be around day after day after day after... every day?
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Politics As A Suicide Pact
It hasn't been real unusual for Iowa GOPers to come up with some odd results, I mean historically it isn't as though Mike Huckabee happened in the Dark Ages before... well, anyhow. Here we are now with Mitt Romney and his bazillions of dollars and 2:1 PAC spending tied with little Rick Santorum - Mr Don't Even Google My Name - Catholic theocratic Abramoff/DeLay lap-dog. Given the past half decade of Catholic News stories being their alter boy ought to be a questionable public relations stunt. I can see how "blue collar parents" out plays "silver spoon in the kazoo" but somehow it seems that if Obama can get past the Kenya Daddy thing... Oh - wrong Party.
Rick Santorum is packing as much baggage the Right won't like as Mittens is. Oh it is a bit of a different variety since Rick didn't govern a state, but oooh boy does he have some reeking going on. It might be a bit difficult to reconcile his forced abortion Marianas Ils support with his conception-ism - even if there were big bucks for friends in the former. I don't think Newt shines sufficiently on this particular issue to lay a whacking on Rick.
The whopping Mitts PACs gave to Newt seems to have P-O'ed him a bit. After a moment's reflection answering the question of are you calling Mitt a liar, "Yes," is pretty ... ummm ... uncivil in political terms, even when talking about the other Party's members. Democrats don't seem to do that much at all and in regard to one's fellow Party member even when quite true will probably be pretty heavily counselled against. Maybe the ABMs braying for bloody Mittens will eat it up but I'm not so sure about how broad that sentiment is when it is their own brand name. I doubt it would offend even the most bland of Mittens' dollar men if it were about that guy currently in the White House but - whoa Nellie, Mittens wears an R. (well when convenient, anyhow)
Really, while it is pretty funny to think of any of these GOPers getting all up in the air and calling "liar" about any of the others and not having their collective noses grow; it isn't going to make coming together later all that easy. It may have been stupid for the Mittenpacs to nuke Newt considering who he is and just how much a threat he'd have been in the long haul, but if Newt's reaction to it is as telegraphed by that interview we may have reached a point where MAD (ok, mutual assured destruction) has been enacted as action rather than deterrent. The limits to that particular activity are exactly who the hell has standing.
I whole heartedly approve of the self-destruction of what the GOP has become. It is well past the time for lunacy and destruction of governance to stop being a political platform. I don't know how many pieces they'd splinter into, don't care, but it is not at all good to have a party of crazed plutocrats/theocrats opposed by the not quite crazed plutocrat party. Maybe three parties, crazed plutocrat, crazed theocrat, and crazed people's party would work. I don't know, but the result of the two theo/pluto - crat versus a not really opposition party isn't good. (you will notice that I said not spit about a mythical "crazed middle party") You get voters with a choice between dangerously deranged and "not as bad as" and big money busily buying anything not nailed down and valueless.
Republicans took the dominance engendered by the Civil War and let it become the recipient of the influence of big business and big money and later the resentment of the logical outcome of the War - Civil Rights - combine. It may be the politics of resentment that brought along the theocrats or possibly their native turf being home to its hotbed, but somehow you have a political Party that is the champion of unbridled wealth, melted together with the un-natural bed-fellows of race resentment and biblical governance and that, my friends, is a suicide pact and Iowa is the prophet.
The Democratic tent holds a large and frequently squabbling crowd, but their differences primarily involve who is in the front seats rather than diametrically opposed combatants. Mittens and Santorum are supposedly two faces of that with Newt's meanness thrown in for leavening. What may save Mitt is that while he really is that corporate raiding silver spoon unprincipled plutocrat, all his attackers have is the illusion that they aren't the same things. Hell, that may be what keeps the Republican Party intact - every one of them is a lying sack lying to people who want to be lied to.
What will ruin the Democratic Party is that the GOP is so damned crazy that they look sane despite where they follow the GOP.
*Edit
No, I am aware that I didn't bring up Ron Paul. That is because they are only GOP by default, not enthusiasm. I know their racism and 'fuck you I got mine' seems GOPer, but only on the fringes. They truly are the heirs of ole Jeff Davis rather than the panderers to him that the GOP is - other than the hangers on with their momentary enthusiasms for what they think "Drug War" and "Military Adventurisms" means in Paul-speak.
Rick Santorum is packing as much baggage the Right won't like as Mittens is. Oh it is a bit of a different variety since Rick didn't govern a state, but oooh boy does he have some reeking going on. It might be a bit difficult to reconcile his forced abortion Marianas Ils support with his conception-ism - even if there were big bucks for friends in the former. I don't think Newt shines sufficiently on this particular issue to lay a whacking on Rick.
The whopping Mitts PACs gave to Newt seems to have P-O'ed him a bit. After a moment's reflection answering the question of are you calling Mitt a liar, "Yes," is pretty ... ummm ... uncivil in political terms, even when talking about the other Party's members. Democrats don't seem to do that much at all and in regard to one's fellow Party member even when quite true will probably be pretty heavily counselled against. Maybe the ABMs braying for bloody Mittens will eat it up but I'm not so sure about how broad that sentiment is when it is their own brand name. I doubt it would offend even the most bland of Mittens' dollar men if it were about that guy currently in the White House but - whoa Nellie, Mittens wears an R. (well when convenient, anyhow)
Really, while it is pretty funny to think of any of these GOPers getting all up in the air and calling "liar" about any of the others and not having their collective noses grow; it isn't going to make coming together later all that easy. It may have been stupid for the Mittenpacs to nuke Newt considering who he is and just how much a threat he'd have been in the long haul, but if Newt's reaction to it is as telegraphed by that interview we may have reached a point where MAD (ok, mutual assured destruction) has been enacted as action rather than deterrent. The limits to that particular activity are exactly who the hell has standing.
I whole heartedly approve of the self-destruction of what the GOP has become. It is well past the time for lunacy and destruction of governance to stop being a political platform. I don't know how many pieces they'd splinter into, don't care, but it is not at all good to have a party of crazed plutocrats/theocrats opposed by the not quite crazed plutocrat party. Maybe three parties, crazed plutocrat, crazed theocrat, and crazed people's party would work. I don't know, but the result of the two theo/pluto - crat versus a not really opposition party isn't good. (you will notice that I said not spit about a mythical "crazed middle party") You get voters with a choice between dangerously deranged and "not as bad as" and big money busily buying anything not nailed down and valueless.
Republicans took the dominance engendered by the Civil War and let it become the recipient of the influence of big business and big money and later the resentment of the logical outcome of the War - Civil Rights - combine. It may be the politics of resentment that brought along the theocrats or possibly their native turf being home to its hotbed, but somehow you have a political Party that is the champion of unbridled wealth, melted together with the un-natural bed-fellows of race resentment and biblical governance and that, my friends, is a suicide pact and Iowa is the prophet.
The Democratic tent holds a large and frequently squabbling crowd, but their differences primarily involve who is in the front seats rather than diametrically opposed combatants. Mittens and Santorum are supposedly two faces of that with Newt's meanness thrown in for leavening. What may save Mitt is that while he really is that corporate raiding silver spoon unprincipled plutocrat, all his attackers have is the illusion that they aren't the same things. Hell, that may be what keeps the Republican Party intact - every one of them is a lying sack lying to people who want to be lied to.
What will ruin the Democratic Party is that the GOP is so damned crazy that they look sane despite where they follow the GOP.
*Edit
No, I am aware that I didn't bring up Ron Paul. That is because they are only GOP by default, not enthusiasm. I know their racism and 'fuck you I got mine' seems GOPer, but only on the fringes. They truly are the heirs of ole Jeff Davis rather than the panderers to him that the GOP is - other than the hangers on with their momentary enthusiasms for what they think "Drug War" and "Military Adventurisms" means in Paul-speak.
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Elite Liberal Media
The Erin post got me thinking, well reflecting, on that frequently abused seldom verified creature and its hydra-headed clique. Sooo, how many practitioners of that dark art are there in major print and broadcast media? I started counting and so far I haven't had to take off my socks. If I were to get real loose in the definition I might have to take one off.
The really sad part is that I don't really care to have that imaginary creature (GOP hobgoblin) as a media. I would, however, appreciate some fact checking and a bit of questioning when Pols spout stuff for their edification. (regurgitation is more apropos) The job is supposed to involve a bit more than just giving a Kyl or even an Obama a platform to just say any damn thing. Maybe the job is even to tell some of the things that wouldn't make your Corporate owner's friends real happy for the rubes to know.
I know print is bleeding money like a ink on paper in a thunderstorm and the internet is cutting into their advertising, but they're also approaching bad internet in their credibility. Broadcast is in competition with shrieking "reality" shows and whatever the hell you'd call the Nancy Grace type thing. But honestly you jerks, I can go to any Party/Candidate website and get their take without all the damn commercials and I'd really like my news a bit more newsy than a Whamo commercial and maybe a bit more... truthful?
If there's a service MSM has provided in recent years it has been to run the GOP clowncar Primary show, despite the fawning softball questions and horse race foolery involved Americans have actually gotten to see them on display. I don't know what the much vaunted vigorously courted (I)s will make of it. Considering the '10 new hires a ballbat to the head wouldn't make much difference to the thinking processes involved.
How about just a little news to break up the commercials?
The really sad part is that I don't really care to have that imaginary creature (GOP hobgoblin) as a media. I would, however, appreciate some fact checking and a bit of questioning when Pols spout stuff for their edification. (regurgitation is more apropos) The job is supposed to involve a bit more than just giving a Kyl or even an Obama a platform to just say any damn thing. Maybe the job is even to tell some of the things that wouldn't make your Corporate owner's friends real happy for the rubes to know.
I know print is bleeding money like a ink on paper in a thunderstorm and the internet is cutting into their advertising, but they're also approaching bad internet in their credibility. Broadcast is in competition with shrieking "reality" shows and whatever the hell you'd call the Nancy Grace type thing. But honestly you jerks, I can go to any Party/Candidate website and get their take without all the damn commercials and I'd really like my news a bit more newsy than a Whamo commercial and maybe a bit more... truthful?
If there's a service MSM has provided in recent years it has been to run the GOP clowncar Primary show, despite the fawning softball questions and horse race foolery involved Americans have actually gotten to see them on display. I don't know what the much vaunted vigorously courted (I)s will make of it. Considering the '10 new hires a ballbat to the head wouldn't make much difference to the thinking processes involved.
How about just a little news to break up the commercials?
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The XL Pipeline Bill & Other Crap
Oh, sorry - the UE, SS/FICA, Medicaid Bill with some fancy non-descriptive title bill has bit the Boner, er Boehner. It appears that the Prez won't have to sign the XL Bill as written. It does seem he'll be signing the Indefinite Detention Bill - er, NDAA Bill as re-written with its life in prison without trial provision.
Wait...it only says INDEFINITE, that's not the same thing. Well, if you have a "War" that isn't one and is never going to end it certainly is. The same applies to the "POW exists" appologists.
No, I never expected different. There is a real cost to constant fear mongering and that cost has been getting paid for a lot longer than since even the miscreant GWB held office. It is always pretty much the same crap, fear stoking and it's only about 'them' and it'll never come to haunt you and... well can't afford to hurt "our guy" whoever the hell that is. The GOPers used to make quite a stir about "slippery-slopes" and then the Dems were quite outraged and then... well none of it really meant spit - civil liberties are just disposable to the fear of the moment. Terrorist, Mafia, Guns, whatever.
Really people? We can expect the '12 elections to be run by democrats making the point that they're NABA. Just not quite as bad as is the accurate part. You surely aren't expecting someone to set out clear principles and goals are you? (well other than the clown car GOPer Primary bunch) ((well other than MultipleMittens, er - Newt))
Yeah, I'll vote for Obama - not in the interest of something positive, just in preference for a slower route to hell than the Clowncar Express. That is about the entire Endorsement. I don't expect that indicates much of an interest in making donations, knocking on doors, voter registration, or other propagandistic endeavors. I no longer see much point in pushing at Democrats, they know I'll (or like me) will vote for them out of horror at the consequences so they'll do policy that mirrors the previous decade or so GOPerism and feel safe. The thing is that one day the horror may over-load and result in the REAL GOP having both Houses and the Presidency and the rest of the SCOTUS. Do you REALLY think the GOPers can't be completely crazy and get there? Do you REALLY think there is some line the Dems can't cross in pursuit of not offending the rightward shift?
Maybe there is a line, but it sure the hell isn't going to get drawn without absolute revolt from the Democratic Voters and I don't see any sign of that - just a whole lot more capitulation. Here's the thing about that revolt - it will mean GOP dominance because pols sure aren't going to get the idea as long as they get VOTES.
Hell, they'd get the wrong idea if they didn't get votes...
.
.
.
.
So why keep blogging? It's bad for my digestion to keep swallowing bile.
Wait...it only says INDEFINITE, that's not the same thing. Well, if you have a "War" that isn't one and is never going to end it certainly is. The same applies to the "POW exists" appologists.
No, I never expected different. There is a real cost to constant fear mongering and that cost has been getting paid for a lot longer than since even the miscreant GWB held office. It is always pretty much the same crap, fear stoking and it's only about 'them' and it'll never come to haunt you and... well can't afford to hurt "our guy" whoever the hell that is. The GOPers used to make quite a stir about "slippery-slopes" and then the Dems were quite outraged and then... well none of it really meant spit - civil liberties are just disposable to the fear of the moment. Terrorist, Mafia, Guns, whatever.
Really people? We can expect the '12 elections to be run by democrats making the point that they're NABA. Just not quite as bad as is the accurate part. You surely aren't expecting someone to set out clear principles and goals are you? (well other than the clown car GOPer Primary bunch) ((well other than MultipleMittens, er - Newt))
Yeah, I'll vote for Obama - not in the interest of something positive, just in preference for a slower route to hell than the Clowncar Express. That is about the entire Endorsement. I don't expect that indicates much of an interest in making donations, knocking on doors, voter registration, or other propagandistic endeavors. I no longer see much point in pushing at Democrats, they know I'll (or like me) will vote for them out of horror at the consequences so they'll do policy that mirrors the previous decade or so GOPerism and feel safe. The thing is that one day the horror may over-load and result in the REAL GOP having both Houses and the Presidency and the rest of the SCOTUS. Do you REALLY think the GOPers can't be completely crazy and get there? Do you REALLY think there is some line the Dems can't cross in pursuit of not offending the rightward shift?
Maybe there is a line, but it sure the hell isn't going to get drawn without absolute revolt from the Democratic Voters and I don't see any sign of that - just a whole lot more capitulation. Here's the thing about that revolt - it will mean GOP dominance because pols sure aren't going to get the idea as long as they get VOTES.
Hell, they'd get the wrong idea if they didn't get votes...
.
.
.
.
So why keep blogging? It's bad for my digestion to keep swallowing bile.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Extension Packages?
Now that the details on the funding, UE, and payroll tax break extensions look like and what Democrats seem to agree to go along with; it might be time to start considering what is going to happen when the BushCo Tax Cuts expire.
Ron Paul Almost Right
I'll have to paraphrase ole Ron because I don't have a transcript but anyhow, when asked if he could win in the General Election he answered 'Anyone up here could.' That wasn't quite right, but what should frighten the hell out of anyone with two live brain cells that talk to each other is that it isn't quite right.
Any one of the cretins on the stage with him would poll in the 40s in a General Election against Pres. Obama. Now you can play with intellectualizing reasons for that all damn day but it does not change the fact that such a percentage of voting Americans would look at the election in such a manner.
Any one of the cretins on the stage with him would poll in the 40s in a General Election against Pres. Obama. Now you can play with intellectualizing reasons for that all damn day but it does not change the fact that such a percentage of voting Americans would look at the election in such a manner.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)