You'd need a pretty large ruler to measure my incredulity that as a part of political dialogue in this country I'd be addressing this as any more than a remote historical reference. There are a couple things in religious mythos that I find real offensive and at the risk of offending sensitive sensibilities I'm going to name them.
Santa God - the granter of wishes with a list
The Exclusive Club God - gotta say the right words right omnipotent creator of universes
Satan
The King of Lies, Deceiver of Kings, the ultimate evil, that guy - Satan is my target... because that's the title.(I learned with "Harley Porn" not to kid with titles) It would seem that the US of A is being targeted by this character, really, somebody semi-important said so.(in front of god and everybody) This Satan personage is the flip cover of Santa God. He is an active malevolent actor in the world with a list. He has his favorites and those he'd destroy and he can be brought to play by wishes. If certain people are to be believed he's pretty good at his job.
Sorry, I just don't buy into this blame game, this personification of a concept like evil. If God is good he must have an opposite, like light and dark because... well because. Some of this follows from the "Exclusive Club God" concept because you cannot be good without the right God and the right Words, it just doesn't matter what you do or try - you're wrong if you do it otherwise. This puts an onus on God, he can't be the source of evil since he's the good so somebody else has to bear the burden. Never mind that means that either God created or tolerates (because of an oops) EVIL in person of Satan. I know there are all kinds of stories about how this came to be - that's the short version.
I get along with the idea of a Creator because it works for me, nothing fancy to be found there, just that. I don't mind metaphors about evil, about the impulses of us to be small, to be greedy, to be murderous, to be... Folks, if I talk about my "bad side" I assure you that I am nowhere schizophrenic to think that there's other little rat bastard residing in my consciousness. I'm talking about a desire to not do things the hard way, to not have to put myself out not some cartoon horned guy standing on my left shoulder whispering in my ear. Whatever I do requires some time, energy, and some kind of thought and I don't just want to increase that. After all, I started out as the ultimately selfish and self-concerned being there is - a baby. From that start I began to learn and that's the part, right there, that counts.
I learned that I wasn't the only one that was hungry and I already knew I didn't like being hungry - I had discovered that those other shapes were not there simply for my benefit, that they existed as separate humans - and they might not like being hungry either. That learning process applied across the board creates a moral set which is based most firmly on the recognition that I am not the center, that I share reality with others who are similarly constructed. That learning can get broken or shorted or a lot of things that result in behaviors that reflect something entirely different. What I'm doing is using a lot of words for one, empathy.
A society cannot allow a mental defect that results in bad outcomes to remain unchecked. A society won't work if indiscriminate killing is allowed, it simply won't hang together. That is an entirely different question than the one of a moral set that proposes killing is wrong and prohibited by that empathy thing. We teach soldiers to suspend that empathy in warfare where its degree interferes with the mission. There are consequences to this suspension, we seem to agree it is worth it.
Jesus (and others) put it pretty clearly, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." More words meaning empathy. God and rituals are not required for empathy, it is a natural understanding of humans existing, but it does require work to keep it in effect and in actions. Because effort is tightly bound to survival we do not lightly increase it any more than a mountain lion goes looking for a fight to get dinner. Because we're not mountain lions we're capable of placing an abstract above some considerations and that varies wildly. It doesn't require a Satan to place empathy behind other considerations, all it takes is a lack of willingness or a mental defect.
Sometimes people are broken in ways we really don't understand and even when we understand something like a brain injury, we don't quite know how they get there. We know that brains can have their wiring scrambled or chemicals missing resulting in undesirable behaviors. Before we knew some of those things about outwardly human people it was assumed some spiritual, some invisible influence must be at work.
Religions would cease to exist without followers, Greek mythology is practically speaking extinct. The connection between the followers and hierarchy was broken, for a lot of reasons, but it was broken. Religions are hierarchical, there are the deities, then there are the books/words, then there are the interpreters, and then there are the faithful. The structure collapses if that hierarchy isn't maintained and there are methods for ensuring that it does. Fear is the most common because it is easiest. One of the first things we learned was that pain was to be avoided and the assertion that disobedience will lead to pain is real effective. Most of us learned that absences of pain didn't mean happiness, but not being happy beat the heck out of pain so the absence of "glory" won't quite do to keep the troops in line. The something more involves stuff like lakes of fire presided over by the natural deity of disobedience - evil personified, our guy Satan. It was a stroke of genius or maybe necessity to make the disciplinarian and source of disobedience or lack the same guy. Keep in mind that maintaining that hierarchy requires exclusivity, if something outside that club works, all those pieces are unnecessary. A whip hand is required and Satan wields it. My choices are join the right club or be whipped.
So it is that a nation's government that concerns itself with the worldly and temporal order of its citizens without religious strictures is in violation. It is under the sway of the guy with the whip.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Ron Paul's Latest Panty-sniffing
Let's set this stage a bit with Ron Paul's Campaign site and the "official" statement regarding abortion.
I don't know about your understanding of abortion but I will state that Libertarianism and the above two statements don't exactly line up - like at all.
In regard to that Paultard baiting headline, from the CNN "debate" Rep Paul:
Maybe you folks thinking no Federal War on Drugs means you get to smoke pot (hint - not a f***ing chance) ought to also give up on the idea that sexy-time without children as an outcome is on the Paul approved list. As for you married folks, pot or otherwise, you do that stuff and not have kids for it - well, you're immoral and a part of the decline of the US.
The guy tells you up front that he's not about your personal liberties, he's about the Fed not being involved. He's all for Government telling you what to do but just his Last Confederate Standing version. He tells you and you don't listen - your imagination just runs wild with your ideas and not what he means. Words for that run from "delusional" to "really damned stupid." Libertarian my ass - just another bigoted panty-sniffer.
Excuse the rest of us for pointing and laughing.
And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
I don't know about your understanding of abortion but I will state that Libertarianism and the above two statements don't exactly line up - like at all.
In regard to that Paultard baiting headline, from the CNN "debate" Rep Paul:
“But sort of along the line of the [contraception] pills creating immorality, I don’t see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don’t blame the pills.”
Maybe you folks thinking no Federal War on Drugs means you get to smoke pot (hint - not a f***ing chance) ought to also give up on the idea that sexy-time without children as an outcome is on the Paul approved list. As for you married folks, pot or otherwise, you do that stuff and not have kids for it - well, you're immoral and a part of the decline of the US.
The guy tells you up front that he's not about your personal liberties, he's about the Fed not being involved. He's all for Government telling you what to do but just his Last Confederate Standing version. He tells you and you don't listen - your imagination just runs wild with your ideas and not what he means. Words for that run from "delusional" to "really damned stupid." Libertarian my ass - just another bigoted panty-sniffer.
Excuse the rest of us for pointing and laughing.
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.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Government Waste Fighting GOP... oh...
The GOP tells us repeatedly how they're the enemies of waste in government programs. There is waste and fraud in government programs, there's a lot of money going in a lot of directions. It seems that somebody is doing something. Be very surprised, it ain't the GOP.
That would span more than a couple GOP Administrations...
*h/t to amk at BJ
Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the federal government recovered $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars from individuals and corporations attempting to steal Medicare and Medicaid payments to which they were not entitled.
What's $4.1 billion? It is the largest amount of money ever recovered, by far, in the history of the programs since they were established in 1965
That would span more than a couple GOP Administrations...
*h/t to amk at BJ
Friday, February 17, 2012
GOPers And Small Government
Do you suppose that it has penetrated the consciousness of Americans that the GOP does not mean anything by the term "smaller government" unless it involves some restriction on unmitigated greed? Every GOP policy means either taking something away from the general populace or restrictions on their ablilities. Despite their rhetorical devices every policy they promote results in a loss of something for the American people. Ron Paul, of course, wants states to do the removing unless it is abortion...
Over A Cliff and liberals...?
There are Democrats and "liberals" who are managing to act surprised by what is going on in States and in the GOP Primary. Yes, they're astonished that Right To Work For Less passes in Indiana, that Walker, Kaisich, Scott, Mcdonnell exist and sign bills, that goddam birth control is a GOP issue. The really disgusting apologists try on the Dems stayed home in '10 bullshit. Another bunch blame the left for criticizing Obama and Congress. Some others want to blame Democratic over-reach in legislation.
If you look at who got clobbered in '10 it wasn't the progressive (it's a stupid label but I have to use something) folks ... it was the Blue Dogs. Try to get this, the people who lost ran on "we're just barely Democrats" and "I'm not as bad as." The thought process of those who stayed home and those who switched their voting isn't real available so one is left with trying to see what correlates with what.
The first thing is disgust and discouragement with the current ('10) environment. ACA polled badly - a GOP health insurance plan - polled badly and then those losers ran away from it. First Democrats passed a GOP national health care plan and then ran away from it because it was toooooo - much. They went along with the GOPers about deficits, only half-heartedly. They went along with the social warfare of plutocrats versus the rest and especially against the losers in that equation.
They did not stand up as Democrats and they did not stand up for the good of the general populace - no, they tried to spit the difference. They tried to muddy the waters by being almost GOPers. Within the Party and the "liberal" coterie there is the stupid lack of awareness that the GOPer policies of today are a direct result of the opposition to their views consistently shifting in their direction - and trying to muddy the waters.
Curiously you'd get the idea the this is some kind of purity test, a desire to ape the GOPers. Let's get down to a case, if you are not to the left of St Ronnie it is pure pretence to claim a (D) label. That is not a goddam purity test unless you propose that the Parties are all the same. The process of muddying the waters has allowed the GOP to define the terms of the argument, right down to things like "liberal." Media reporting facts and digging for facts becomes "liberal media." In point of fact, the Beatification of St Ronnie is a natural outcome of that muddying and defining.
I'm about sick and tired of my Party forcing me into taking a the label far-Left because they've become the GOP of yester-year. Not giving the voters a clear choice invites this kind of disaster. Right now the GOP is making it very easy to make clear differences, how would you like to make bets on how that one works out?
You "liberals" can kiss my butt, you're happy with a label that means you were just barely sane enough to run away from, almost, the GOP. Please, either pick your authoritarian plutocrats or pick the people or just go away and let that "liberal" tag actually mean something again - along with Democrat have actual meaning. Democrats? Run campaigns that put meaning back into the damn word so those "liberals" have to chose.
Liberal is a word so debased by the GOP and the Blue Dogs that polling Americans puts it around used car salesman. It does not belong there - but you've asked for and gotten it.
If you look at who got clobbered in '10 it wasn't the progressive (it's a stupid label but I have to use something) folks ... it was the Blue Dogs. Try to get this, the people who lost ran on "we're just barely Democrats" and "I'm not as bad as." The thought process of those who stayed home and those who switched their voting isn't real available so one is left with trying to see what correlates with what.
The first thing is disgust and discouragement with the current ('10) environment. ACA polled badly - a GOP health insurance plan - polled badly and then those losers ran away from it. First Democrats passed a GOP national health care plan and then ran away from it because it was toooooo - much. They went along with the GOPers about deficits, only half-heartedly. They went along with the social warfare of plutocrats versus the rest and especially against the losers in that equation.
They did not stand up as Democrats and they did not stand up for the good of the general populace - no, they tried to spit the difference. They tried to muddy the waters by being almost GOPers. Within the Party and the "liberal" coterie there is the stupid lack of awareness that the GOPer policies of today are a direct result of the opposition to their views consistently shifting in their direction - and trying to muddy the waters.
Curiously you'd get the idea the this is some kind of purity test, a desire to ape the GOPers. Let's get down to a case, if you are not to the left of St Ronnie it is pure pretence to claim a (D) label. That is not a goddam purity test unless you propose that the Parties are all the same. The process of muddying the waters has allowed the GOP to define the terms of the argument, right down to things like "liberal." Media reporting facts and digging for facts becomes "liberal media." In point of fact, the Beatification of St Ronnie is a natural outcome of that muddying and defining.
I'm about sick and tired of my Party forcing me into taking a the label far-Left because they've become the GOP of yester-year. Not giving the voters a clear choice invites this kind of disaster. Right now the GOP is making it very easy to make clear differences, how would you like to make bets on how that one works out?
You "liberals" can kiss my butt, you're happy with a label that means you were just barely sane enough to run away from, almost, the GOP. Please, either pick your authoritarian plutocrats or pick the people or just go away and let that "liberal" tag actually mean something again - along with Democrat have actual meaning. Democrats? Run campaigns that put meaning back into the damn word so those "liberals" have to chose.
Liberal is a word so debased by the GOP and the Blue Dogs that polling Americans puts it around used car salesman. It does not belong there - but you've asked for and gotten it.
Yes Santa, There Is A Virginia
I've stolen the title from someone and I'll not try to out do
something this good. I will say that the insertion of objects into an unwilling participant is rape. The GOP would have you think their health insurance plan is government theft of freedom so it is obvious to me that all GOPers need to be asked about the process of the State requiring something be stuck into a woman's icky parts despite the entire lack of any medical necessity. This is an election after all.
This is all about the government shaming and otherwise making as unavailable as it can a medical procedure. This is somehow more acceptable to GOPers than Obamacare? Why aren't I hearing our liberal media asking questions about this?
The GOP is not now and has not been about smaller less intrusive government - unless one is talking about greed enabling - any more than it is about states as a legislative laboratory unless that involves taking things away from the general populace. They'd certainly like you to forget Oregon's assisted suicide law and what they tried there or how they'd like to deal with gay marriage.
Try to understand the abject stupidity of their stances - they are never against a state taking away or prohibiting something and they are all about stopping any state from giving or recognizing an ability. There is no core consistency for the simple reason that there is no core other than hate and resentment - and plutocracy.
These people hate you and resent you and there is absolutely no sense in playing patty-cake with them. If your candidate doesn't seem to recognize that maybe you need to ask them about it. Liberals...?
I've pretty much stopped auggesting policies because there is no point in it when the first issue of being hated and destroyed by the GOP is ignored. Why the hell can't Democrats wrap their little minds around the fact that Kaisich, Walker, Scott, the US House and the GOP Primary are all a piece of their politicking? All kinds of blame shifting going on - rather than the simple equation that "Not As Bad As" is not a goddam political party.
something this good. I will say that the insertion of objects into an unwilling participant is rape. The GOP would have you think their health insurance plan is government theft of freedom so it is obvious to me that all GOPers need to be asked about the process of the State requiring something be stuck into a woman's icky parts despite the entire lack of any medical necessity. This is an election after all.
This is all about the government shaming and otherwise making as unavailable as it can a medical procedure. This is somehow more acceptable to GOPers than Obamacare? Why aren't I hearing our liberal media asking questions about this?
The GOP is not now and has not been about smaller less intrusive government - unless one is talking about greed enabling - any more than it is about states as a legislative laboratory unless that involves taking things away from the general populace. They'd certainly like you to forget Oregon's assisted suicide law and what they tried there or how they'd like to deal with gay marriage.
Try to understand the abject stupidity of their stances - they are never against a state taking away or prohibiting something and they are all about stopping any state from giving or recognizing an ability. There is no core consistency for the simple reason that there is no core other than hate and resentment - and plutocracy.
These people hate you and resent you and there is absolutely no sense in playing patty-cake with them. If your candidate doesn't seem to recognize that maybe you need to ask them about it. Liberals...?
I've pretty much stopped auggesting policies because there is no point in it when the first issue of being hated and destroyed by the GOP is ignored. Why the hell can't Democrats wrap their little minds around the fact that Kaisich, Walker, Scott, the US House and the GOP Primary are all a piece of their politicking? All kinds of blame shifting going on - rather than the simple equation that "Not As Bad As" is not a goddam political party.
Bye-bye Paddy...
...I wish we'd scarcely known ye. Yup, Pat Buchanan is out at MSNBC and oddly enough he's unhappy about it. He's been blacklisted.
It is entirely possible that this cretin doesn't know what the term "blacklisted" refers to. It may have missed him that it refers to an industry wide blanket non-employment of a class of people - in particular the "villains" of McCarthyism. Now since he can say this:
it is pretty hard to see how he's been subjected to a blacklisting - even if he does list a bunch of cretins as references. Cretinism seems to be alive and well in the industry and with friends like these it is hard to see that Pat will be lacking a forum to spout his inanities.
Pat's been a big one for the Free Market horseshit and it would seem a bit odd for him to be all BLACKLISTED about a corporate decision on product. You see, this was the product:
It would seem that MSNBC didn't want to pay for what Pat calls political analysis. It isn't shown that his voice has been silenced or that MSNBC has made any effort at all to do more than not pay him for what they had been paying him for.
It should be noted that MSNBC can get Pat's crap free from elected GOPers and wannabe elected GOPers. Further, on a couple shows they get to do their act without fear of contradiction.
In the 10 years I have been at MSNBC, the network has taken heat for what I have written, and faithfully honored our contract. Yet my four-months’ absence from MSNBC and now my departure represent an undeniable victory for the blacklisters.
It is entirely possible that this cretin doesn't know what the term "blacklisted" refers to. It may have missed him that it refers to an industry wide blanket non-employment of a class of people - in particular the "villains" of McCarthyism. Now since he can say this:
If my book is racist and anti-Semitic, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs, and Ralph Nader miss that? How did Charles Payne, African-American host on Fox radio, who has interviewed me three times, fail to detect its racism? How did Michael Medved miss its anti-Semitism?
it is pretty hard to see how he's been subjected to a blacklisting - even if he does list a bunch of cretins as references. Cretinism seems to be alive and well in the industry and with friends like these it is hard to see that Pat will be lacking a forum to spout his inanities.
Pat's been a big one for the Free Market horseshit and it would seem a bit odd for him to be all BLACKLISTED about a corporate decision on product. You see, this was the product:
My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.
It would seem that MSNBC didn't want to pay for what Pat calls political analysis. It isn't shown that his voice has been silenced or that MSNBC has made any effort at all to do more than not pay him for what they had been paying him for.
It should be noted that MSNBC can get Pat's crap free from elected GOPers and wannabe elected GOPers. Further, on a couple shows they get to do their act without fear of contradiction.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thursday's Rambling Discourse On...
I've watched as a Democratic President has tried to operate the Executive Branch as a Center or Center Right organization run into massive difficulties with the GOP bunch for using their policies - granted a decade or so later. The mocked Stimulus was larded with GOP policies goodies that garnered nothing from the GOP and probably did poorly thanks to the amount devoted to their policies. The crazy inspiring "Obamacare" is was warmed up decade and change old GOP program that is now socialized medicine infringing on religious something or the others. The guy whose policies the left can barely keep its contempt for at less than a dull roar is a socialist - a position well left of most of what passes for the left today. These sentiments are played by the so-called moderate Republican Mitt Romney. (I forgot - severe conservative Mitt)
A hell of a lot of ... liberals (chokes me to use the word in this context) gleefully blame the "left" for not turning out in the 2010 mid-terms and sinking Democrats. Never mind that Democrats turned out in ordinary numbers and that the depressed turnout was Independents and it was their turn in voting that sank Democtrats - it was the left. The left, the bogeyman of not only the Reichwingers but also of the "liberals." I'll explain the " marks. Their liberalism comes down to being accepting of anything that isn't looney-toons right. It doesn't matter a bit if things are poisoned by GOP positions or actually crafted on decade old GOP policies, they'll do and criticism is left wing cut our throats bullshit designed to ... who the hell knows. A ways back they'd have been called Reagan Democrats except they're to the right of them. It comes down to them holding up the crazy of the GOP and stating that their opposition to that amounts to liberalism.
Mention tax rates that are higher for wealth than those under Clinton (less than Reagan) and they'll lose their minds about leftism. Honest to Pete, proposing tax rates of Reaganism levels is somehow ultra-stupid looney leftism. OWS is composed of dirty inconveniences who aren't sufficiently attached to Obama and their proposition that Reagan was too left on economics. Glass-Steagal was the law under Reagan and not Clinton? The decline of the middle class and particularly the blue collar economic situation began with Reagan and he's too goddam liberal?
I'm a gun owning construction guy leftist and I claim the label because I am left of St Ronnie Ray Gun. I want the government out of things that do not have real effects on the general good. Most of us (by huge margin) who own guns do nothing bad with them and want to be left the hell alone about it and the people who do bad things concentrated on. I want tax codes that do what the hell they're supposed to do, a mortgage deduction for a goddam mansion or second homes or vacation homes does not encourage home ownership - it rewards wealth. The industry's benefit from those is immaterial compared to the difference in having REAL wages paid. There is no discernable benefit to society at large in having a smaller tax rate on investment income than on ordinary income that is gotten in some actually productive manner. I don't have a big problem with encouraging investment in public bonds and such because they do serve the common good. I don't mind being reluctant to go to war and for more than an emergency reaction forcing Congress to approve and fund such a war. I cannot for the life of me see why some electoral financial behavior is not treated as bribery when in fact it is. i have no idea why things like big oil are subsidized. I have no idea why derivative trading is still allowed and in fact - why the hell a bunch of banksters aren't under indictment for fraud when they knew they were selling and insuring junk. Consider that the S&L mess almost sunk McPOW and did sink others. huh.
I am sick and tired of religion and government getting mixed up with each other. You certainly cannot take the church out of the candidate but you can sure the hell take the church out of the law and the government out of financing in any fashion the church. If a hospistal insists that it provide religion based treatment protocols that is certainly their busines, but the government should not give them a damned cent. What? You don't think the Catholic hospitals are government subsidized? What exactly would you call Medicare and Medicaid payments? They sure the hell ain't coming out of their collection plates.
How in the hell is it that in 2012 a major political party is making an issue of contraception? How in the hell is it that a New Jersey Governor would advocate putting the 60s Civil Rights business to a referendum? And then not be laughed off the stage as he tried to walk that back with more utter nonsense. Do you really want an answer?
You can thank those "liberals." You can thank them for their timidity and fear that the Right might make an issue of something. You can thank them for the idea that anything left of goddam St Ronnie consists of lunacy and is worthy of mockery and fear. You can thank them for the idea that any (D) will do, rather than putting a (D) up against the pretenders or when it actually happens voting for the pretender. That's not about a purity test, it is simply about what fits in any sort of Democratic Party that is something other than "not the Republicans."
I've just wasted a bunch of bytes preaching to the choir, the people who are the problem are so stuck in the lies that define their politics that this is pointless. I've pretty much quit promoting anything for that reason - they are the Democratic Party despite the rest of us and a wall is more persuadable.
A hell of a lot of ... liberals (chokes me to use the word in this context) gleefully blame the "left" for not turning out in the 2010 mid-terms and sinking Democrats. Never mind that Democrats turned out in ordinary numbers and that the depressed turnout was Independents and it was their turn in voting that sank Democtrats - it was the left. The left, the bogeyman of not only the Reichwingers but also of the "liberals." I'll explain the " marks. Their liberalism comes down to being accepting of anything that isn't looney-toons right. It doesn't matter a bit if things are poisoned by GOP positions or actually crafted on decade old GOP policies, they'll do and criticism is left wing cut our throats bullshit designed to ... who the hell knows. A ways back they'd have been called Reagan Democrats except they're to the right of them. It comes down to them holding up the crazy of the GOP and stating that their opposition to that amounts to liberalism.
Mention tax rates that are higher for wealth than those under Clinton (less than Reagan) and they'll lose their minds about leftism. Honest to Pete, proposing tax rates of Reaganism levels is somehow ultra-stupid looney leftism. OWS is composed of dirty inconveniences who aren't sufficiently attached to Obama and their proposition that Reagan was too left on economics. Glass-Steagal was the law under Reagan and not Clinton? The decline of the middle class and particularly the blue collar economic situation began with Reagan and he's too goddam liberal?
I'm a gun owning construction guy leftist and I claim the label because I am left of St Ronnie Ray Gun. I want the government out of things that do not have real effects on the general good. Most of us (by huge margin) who own guns do nothing bad with them and want to be left the hell alone about it and the people who do bad things concentrated on. I want tax codes that do what the hell they're supposed to do, a mortgage deduction for a goddam mansion or second homes or vacation homes does not encourage home ownership - it rewards wealth. The industry's benefit from those is immaterial compared to the difference in having REAL wages paid. There is no discernable benefit to society at large in having a smaller tax rate on investment income than on ordinary income that is gotten in some actually productive manner. I don't have a big problem with encouraging investment in public bonds and such because they do serve the common good. I don't mind being reluctant to go to war and for more than an emergency reaction forcing Congress to approve and fund such a war. I cannot for the life of me see why some electoral financial behavior is not treated as bribery when in fact it is. i have no idea why things like big oil are subsidized. I have no idea why derivative trading is still allowed and in fact - why the hell a bunch of banksters aren't under indictment for fraud when they knew they were selling and insuring junk. Consider that the S&L mess almost sunk McPOW and did sink others. huh.
I am sick and tired of religion and government getting mixed up with each other. You certainly cannot take the church out of the candidate but you can sure the hell take the church out of the law and the government out of financing in any fashion the church. If a hospistal insists that it provide religion based treatment protocols that is certainly their busines, but the government should not give them a damned cent. What? You don't think the Catholic hospitals are government subsidized? What exactly would you call Medicare and Medicaid payments? They sure the hell ain't coming out of their collection plates.
How in the hell is it that in 2012 a major political party is making an issue of contraception? How in the hell is it that a New Jersey Governor would advocate putting the 60s Civil Rights business to a referendum? And then not be laughed off the stage as he tried to walk that back with more utter nonsense. Do you really want an answer?
You can thank those "liberals." You can thank them for their timidity and fear that the Right might make an issue of something. You can thank them for the idea that anything left of goddam St Ronnie consists of lunacy and is worthy of mockery and fear. You can thank them for the idea that any (D) will do, rather than putting a (D) up against the pretenders or when it actually happens voting for the pretender. That's not about a purity test, it is simply about what fits in any sort of Democratic Party that is something other than "not the Republicans."
I've just wasted a bunch of bytes preaching to the choir, the people who are the problem are so stuck in the lies that define their politics that this is pointless. I've pretty much quit promoting anything for that reason - they are the Democratic Party despite the rest of us and a wall is more persuadable.
GOP Birth Control Is These People's Control
Here ya go ladies, and men who have sex with ladies - the folks the GOP thinks should tell you about birth control and insurance. I suppose it is fortunate for a goodly segment that alter boys don't get pregnant...
It is probably worth noting that this isn't just about not having babies, it is also about not having a national health insurance standard at all. You may have not noticed but the local Church of Dumbassery believes as a matter of conscience and moral conviction that you only get sick because God wants you to. The Church of Dumbassery looks forward to large donations from corporate employers as members of this now burgeoning congregation who are unwilling to pay for anything contrary to the designs of the God of the Church of Dumbassery.
GOP Sexy Time
I get such a chuckle when these things come out. Here we have millions of our fellow Americans unemployed, we have jihadist camps being set up in Latin America, which Rick has been warning about, and people seem to be so preoccupied with sex. I think it says something about our culture. We maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues are. And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's such inexpensive. Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly.
Sure, this is Santorums's PAC boy Foster Friess talking about Rick, but this is what the GOP means. Boner pills aren't part of the discussion, you know - get it up and keep it up - should be a part of insurance coverage but not getting pregnant from it or avoiding other health issues somewhat peculiar to the other half are subject to some body's superstition or Puritanism or alter boy abusing sensibilities.
I want you to follow along in this deconstruction, The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly, has in it the actuality of the situation. Men like to have sex and that's just ordinary business and women don't like it - or more especially should not like it. If they do like it, then having babies should be a part of the package - whether one of them houses that baby and the other doesn't since... I don't know, the price of liking it should be 9 months of carrying a baby and then...
Now maybe a woman shouldn't like having sex with Foster Friess or any of the other GOPers playing at this game and while that might be personally relevant to them and their unfortunate sex partners... some of the more enlightened (like most of us) are happy to see this as a mutually satisfying activity rather than one imposed on the female side of the equation.
Oh hell... somebody will actually vote for these neanderthals and this probably won't go away any now anymore than it has for millenia's worth of woman hating male dominionism cloaked in "morality."
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Red Beanies Double Down, Not Boys... This Time
The President's announced policy regarding contraceptive coverage went considerably less far than I'd have cared for. My stance is that if Catholics don't like having rules applied to them that apply to all other employers the choice is simple - get the hell out of business - business ain't religion. That, or if it is that holy a damn deal then surely they can do it with volunteers from their godly flock. Now, let's be real frank with each other - not a snow ball's chance in hell volunteers are gonna do it.
Well now, the Bishop boys have news for you folks who thought this was about stepping on some Church toes.
What is included in this mess is buried in the middle " secular for-profit employers" which is the real kicker. What they want your to understand is that no Catholic who doesn't want to should have to offer this coverage. That would surely mean that no Catholic should be paying any taxes that are paying for capital punishment or wars or... hell, if the Jesus words got used seriously as quoted... I think you can figure it out. They are to be exempt from rules because... well, because they're special. You know how special they are? They're so goddam special that they ran a cover-up of pedophilia because the laws requiring disclosure of such knowledge didn't count. Because ... well because, well hardly any Catholics engage in such behavior, but not so infrequently once you get to the elites. It is almost the same deal with contraceptives - the elites are engaging in something pretty foreign to their parishoners. That's it, the parishoners don't bugger alter boys and they do use contraceptives and the Bishops...? You do have to be a Priest before you can get to be a Bishop.
The Church of Chuck wants the same deal, I get to tell any rule I don't agree with to step off. Not a cent for wars, for executions, for drug wars, for any damn thing other than infrastructure and social programs. I'll run my business any way I damned well please and if they don't like it - I'll just appeal to the Final Authority ... Prophet Chuck. To be clear, there are a whole lot of religions around and I think that's just fine - I just don't happen to buy into any of them... well except for the afore mentioned one, the REAL DEAL. Don't worry too much, the REAL DEAL is fine with you getting into heaven or whatever despite your heathenish beliefs.
(sometimes I'm just kidding around, sometimes I'm really not)
BTW Bishops, you have about as much moral authority as some things I've found stuck on the bottom of my boot.
Well now, the Bishop boys have news for you folks who thought this was about stepping on some Church toes.
These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.
What is included in this mess is buried in the middle " secular for-profit employers" which is the real kicker. What they want your to understand is that no Catholic who doesn't want to should have to offer this coverage. That would surely mean that no Catholic should be paying any taxes that are paying for capital punishment or wars or... hell, if the Jesus words got used seriously as quoted... I think you can figure it out. They are to be exempt from rules because... well, because they're special. You know how special they are? They're so goddam special that they ran a cover-up of pedophilia because the laws requiring disclosure of such knowledge didn't count. Because ... well because, well hardly any Catholics engage in such behavior, but not so infrequently once you get to the elites. It is almost the same deal with contraceptives - the elites are engaging in something pretty foreign to their parishoners. That's it, the parishoners don't bugger alter boys and they do use contraceptives and the Bishops...? You do have to be a Priest before you can get to be a Bishop.
The Church of Chuck wants the same deal, I get to tell any rule I don't agree with to step off. Not a cent for wars, for executions, for drug wars, for any damn thing other than infrastructure and social programs. I'll run my business any way I damned well please and if they don't like it - I'll just appeal to the Final Authority ... Prophet Chuck. To be clear, there are a whole lot of religions around and I think that's just fine - I just don't happen to buy into any of them... well except for the afore mentioned one, the REAL DEAL. Don't worry too much, the REAL DEAL is fine with you getting into heaven or whatever despite your heathenish beliefs.
(sometimes I'm just kidding around, sometimes I'm really not)
BTW Bishops, you have about as much moral authority as some things I've found stuck on the bottom of my boot.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Why Is Scumbag Ralph Reed On My TV?
When the hell did Jack Abramoff get rehabilitated in GOPer circles sufficiently that his bag boy Ralph Reed gets to talk about anything other than scamming the rubes on the Religious Right? Ralph played hit man for Abramoff in the Indian Gambling scandal using his "pulpit" to get the religiously oblivious to cut the throat of one gamer for the benefit of another. This smarmy little dweeb pretends to have morality and honor, c'mon. CNN, purveyor of crap and pulpit of shitheels, home of Erin Burnett.
You have no idea how pissed I am that James Carville can't work up to call out the rat bastard? Oh yeah the goddam liberal media...
You have no idea how pissed I am that James Carville can't work up to call out the rat bastard? Oh yeah the goddam liberal media...
Mitt Plays Caude Rains Playing The Invisible Man
I guess today at the CPAC fantasy camp Mitt finally got the starring role he's been auditioning for - as Claude Rains as The Invisible Man. He stood up in front of god and everybody and started unwrapping... and voila - no more Mitt, he vanished like a fist when you open your hand (to steal from one of the best). The thing, of course if you read the book or watched the movie, a foggy drizzle took care of that vanishing act.
Romney has a record, both as a Governor and as several candidates.(I mean that just like that) There are laws, transcripts, audio tapes, and video tapes that will act as a foggy drizzle creating an outline. Since you're dealing with, well, CPAC there is no telling how that'll play. I, frankly, couldn't give less of a rat's ass what those CPACers do with the crap shoveled by Mitt, they're a smidgen of the general vote. I am glad that Mitt has put more stuff into the public record available to be used on him.
Romney has a record, both as a Governor and as several candidates.(I mean that just like that) There are laws, transcripts, audio tapes, and video tapes that will act as a foggy drizzle creating an outline. Since you're dealing with, well, CPAC there is no telling how that'll play. I, frankly, couldn't give less of a rat's ass what those CPACers do with the crap shoveled by Mitt, they're a smidgen of the general vote. I am glad that Mitt has put more stuff into the public record available to be used on him.
Romney At CPAC
One thing is for sure, Mittens is going to see clips of that speech come the General Election if he gets there.
Heads Up, Catholic Bishops*
*...and other right wing lunatics - Mother Jones has bothered to pay attention.
Since most American Catholics seem to ignore the Church on matters of birth control and while it is true for the Bishops that buggering alterboys doesn't result in pregnancy what you are trying for is to create a second class citizenry by virtue of employer.
But then it does seem that you don't much mind having second class citizens as the Confederate Party of Republicanism...
In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too
Since most American Catholics seem to ignore the Church on matters of birth control and while it is true for the Bishops that buggering alterboys doesn't result in pregnancy what you are trying for is to create a second class citizenry by virtue of employer.
But then it does seem that you don't much mind having second class citizens as the Confederate Party of Republicanism...
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
The Goat Gets Scaped
Karen Handel, Komen VP, "quits."
I guess this means Nancy gets to keep her $400K/year as though this Planned Parenthood thing started and stopped with Karen. Try to keep in mind that after de-funding PP this outfit, including the top woman, went out telling lies about mamograms and getting referrals for a mamogram - which is exactly the gap PP was filling.
Donate where you please, but these people have already proven that at the top they are lying right wingers.
I guess this means Nancy gets to keep her $400K/year as though this Planned Parenthood thing started and stopped with Karen. Try to keep in mind that after de-funding PP this outfit, including the top woman, went out telling lies about mamograms and getting referrals for a mamogram - which is exactly the gap PP was filling.
Donate where you please, but these people have already proven that at the top they are lying right wingers.
Monday, February 06, 2012
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Tie A Pink Ribbon Around The Old Oak Tree
@AzureGhost
ht/Balloonjuice
*UPDATE*
Komen reverses sort of
And so what? Now you know what they are and how they want to operate and there are plenty of alternatives. You might want to consider what your nearly half million dollars is buying in a CEO that walked them into this mess.
Good grief Ari Fleisher's fingerprints are also on this? This is the kind of non-political competence you want to give money to?
ht/Balloonjuice
*UPDATE*
Komen reverses sort of
And so what? Now you know what they are and how they want to operate and there are plenty of alternatives. You might want to consider what your nearly half million dollars is buying in a CEO that walked them into this mess.
Good grief Ari Fleisher's fingerprints are also on this? This is the kind of non-political competence you want to give money to?
The Fire People Are Together Now
The Donald and the Mittens are on the same team now. The Mittens gratefully accepted The Donald's endorsement saying he also knows how to create jobs. Funny, The Donald is most famous for "You're Fired," though Mittens is gaining some ground on that one. We do know Mittens is RICH and that The Donald is supposed to be supposed to be REALLY RICH (analysis vairies) and they do share bankruptcies in their background - other people's in Mitt's case.
It has been pretty obvious from the outcomes of Citizen's United that RICH people really like to spend their money on Mittens. I'm a bit "Free Market" dubious that the money is getting spent out of altruism, in regard to the welfare of the general punlic. The plutocrats and their enablers have been informing us for years now that greed is good, that using money to get a lot more money is why the system works. That would cause some doubt about Mitt's claims that the poor and the rich are doing OK and he's concentrated on the Middle Class. If that were the actual case, you'd have to wonder why those RICH people are throwing money at Mittens to the degree they are. (sure at that income level a few millions is chump change)
Maybe the spectacle of two RICH guys making out on stage will get something across to the public. Don't bet your house on it (bet the bank might work).
See that liberal bastion Christian Science Monitor for analysis of Mitten's tax plan and the RICH.
What do you get when you combine two of the emptiest suits in the world on stage? The Donald's Mittens - possibly suitable for a hairpiece in some (one) circles.
It has been pretty obvious from the outcomes of Citizen's United that RICH people really like to spend their money on Mittens. I'm a bit "Free Market" dubious that the money is getting spent out of altruism, in regard to the welfare of the general punlic. The plutocrats and their enablers have been informing us for years now that greed is good, that using money to get a lot more money is why the system works. That would cause some doubt about Mitt's claims that the poor and the rich are doing OK and he's concentrated on the Middle Class. If that were the actual case, you'd have to wonder why those RICH people are throwing money at Mittens to the degree they are. (sure at that income level a few millions is chump change)
Maybe the spectacle of two RICH guys making out on stage will get something across to the public. Don't bet your house on it (bet the bank might work).
See that liberal bastion Christian Science Monitor for analysis of Mitten's tax plan and the RICH.
What do you get when you combine two of the emptiest suits in the world on stage? The Donald's Mittens - possibly suitable for a hairpiece in some (one) circles.
The Catholic Cross To Bear - Sex Again
The American Catholic Church is in an uproar because the Government has told them that they along with the other businesses covered by ACA have to get health insurance that covers contraception. They want a religious exemption because their version of god doesn't like ... well women having sex without babies. You know, bumping the dirty parts together without the consequences of child birth.
Well here's the deal, the Catholic Church wants to engage in commerce and yet remain outside the rules of commerce. Now they call it conscience, but what is it that stops me from putting together The Church of Libertarianism and making one of the tenets of my profit Paul that I don't have to serve ni***rs or maybe that building codes are a matter of conscience or... You see, I don't get to because I'm engaged in an act of commerce and it is damn bad policy to let that... just go hang.
Well, the Catholic Church has been around for a real long time and it isn't just some made up... thing. Prove it isn't. Show me how their infallible word of god exempts this behavior and they don't still get to run the Inquisition. Go ahead and show me how it is that my working for one business rather than an other makes me a second class citizen. There isn't a damn thing in the ruling that says that any one of those employees is required to use any one of those products.
Well, you could work for another hospital... You sure could, if you didn't live here, you could unless you need to drive 45 miles through the mountains to get to the nearest non-Catholic hospital. Hey, well qualified RN, you don't get insurance access to contraception here, but that RN that does the same job over in La Grande sure does - and try to like this, that person pulling boards on the mill line gets it. By law.
If you reeeaaaalllly don't like that doing business has rules, then get the hell out of business or do it all with volunteers. If you're really that favored by god you shouldn't have a bit of trouble finding them. They can ... stuff their conscience.
BTW, before this shakes out the Catholics won't be the only ones squealing. Do you suppose they'll include treatment for pedophilia in their policies?
Well here's the deal, the Catholic Church wants to engage in commerce and yet remain outside the rules of commerce. Now they call it conscience, but what is it that stops me from putting together The Church of Libertarianism and making one of the tenets of my profit Paul that I don't have to serve ni***rs or maybe that building codes are a matter of conscience or... You see, I don't get to because I'm engaged in an act of commerce and it is damn bad policy to let that... just go hang.
Well, the Catholic Church has been around for a real long time and it isn't just some made up... thing. Prove it isn't. Show me how their infallible word of god exempts this behavior and they don't still get to run the Inquisition. Go ahead and show me how it is that my working for one business rather than an other makes me a second class citizen. There isn't a damn thing in the ruling that says that any one of those employees is required to use any one of those products.
Well, you could work for another hospital... You sure could, if you didn't live here, you could unless you need to drive 45 miles through the mountains to get to the nearest non-Catholic hospital. Hey, well qualified RN, you don't get insurance access to contraception here, but that RN that does the same job over in La Grande sure does - and try to like this, that person pulling boards on the mill line gets it. By law.
If you reeeaaaalllly don't like that doing business has rules, then get the hell out of business or do it all with volunteers. If you're really that favored by god you shouldn't have a bit of trouble finding them. They can ... stuff their conscience.
BTW, before this shakes out the Catholics won't be the only ones squealing. Do you suppose they'll include treatment for pedophilia in their policies?
Florida Primary Map
This is why Mitt is not the inevitible nominee
Mitt scored a 14 point victory over Newt in the Florida Primary but...
Mitt spent (sort of) about $21 for each vote, yep $16.7M for 770K votes is pretty expensive and that is only mass media advertising. The votes bought at that cost involved a 40% who wanted a different set of choices. Tanking Newt (of all people) for that kind of money didn't get Mitt any kind of love.
If you're thinking that your state doesn't look anything like Florida you may have missed that this is a GOP Primary and maybe you're unfamiliar with the GOP. Maybe you need to look at the winning GOPers in your state and what it took to get them there. A lot of you think Oregon is a real liberal state, not quite right. The actual left is about the same size it is anywhere else and about the same stance, the liberal part is about the same also, what is different is that the middle is just a tad more liberal and that is enough to tip elections. The Oregon GOP is not more liberal and its base is not in the least less, well what it is in even N Florida. If you take a look at the losing non-statewide GOP candidates you won't find that Newt doing well would be a real big damn surprise.
Laughing and pointing at South Carolina isn't smart nor accurate.
Mitt scored a 14 point victory over Newt in the Florida Primary but...
Mitt spent (sort of) about $21 for each vote, yep $16.7M for 770K votes is pretty expensive and that is only mass media advertising. The votes bought at that cost involved a 40% who wanted a different set of choices. Tanking Newt (of all people) for that kind of money didn't get Mitt any kind of love.
If you're thinking that your state doesn't look anything like Florida you may have missed that this is a GOP Primary and maybe you're unfamiliar with the GOP. Maybe you need to look at the winning GOPers in your state and what it took to get them there. A lot of you think Oregon is a real liberal state, not quite right. The actual left is about the same size it is anywhere else and about the same stance, the liberal part is about the same also, what is different is that the middle is just a tad more liberal and that is enough to tip elections. The Oregon GOP is not more liberal and its base is not in the least less, well what it is in even N Florida. If you take a look at the losing non-statewide GOP candidates you won't find that Newt doing well would be a real big damn surprise.
Laughing and pointing at South Carolina isn't smart nor accurate.
Titties, Dying, Politics, Komen
If you're wondering just how breast cancer manages to become a political football you could go look at Mother Jones to get an idea. I'll give you a taste:
Maybe you've lost someone to this, I have. Maybe the fact that poor and rural women will be most affected bothers you. Maybe the fact that women have some different equipment doesn't make you feel like... I don't know... a control freak monster. Maybe a whole lot of things, but here's the deal - Planned Parenthood does do abortions and it is a real small part of what they do and it is almost entirely about women's health and that small part of it makes some people into something that I'd have to use rude words to describe.
Well, the Republicans have managed another onslaught on women's health so Planned Parenthood could use your help. As a correlary, that Pink Ribbon bunch and their corporate sponsors have proved they don't deserve ... spit.
OK, titties was tasteless...
Second, sitting on Komen's Advocacy Alliance Board is Jane Abraham, the General Chairman of the virulently anti-choice and anti-science Susan B. Anthony List and of its Political Action Committee. Among other involvements, Abraham helps direct the Nuturing Network (sic), a global network of crisis pregnancy centers known for spreading ideology, misinformation and lies to women facing unintended pregnancy. Also on the board of Nuturing Network (sic) is Maureen Scalia, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Maybe you've lost someone to this, I have. Maybe the fact that poor and rural women will be most affected bothers you. Maybe the fact that women have some different equipment doesn't make you feel like... I don't know... a control freak monster. Maybe a whole lot of things, but here's the deal - Planned Parenthood does do abortions and it is a real small part of what they do and it is almost entirely about women's health and that small part of it makes some people into something that I'd have to use rude words to describe.
Well, the Republicans have managed another onslaught on women's health so Planned Parenthood could use your help. As a correlary, that Pink Ribbon bunch and their corporate sponsors have proved they don't deserve ... spit.
OK, titties was tasteless...
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
ABM Wins Again
Once again a state, Florida in this case, has shown that a majority of GOPers, 54% this time, don't want MultipleMitt. You could go ahead and make the case that a four way race means lower vote totals and be accurate in a lot of cases. You do have a vote split but it is on the ABM side - not including Ron Paul. To be clear, Ron Paul's voters are not Mitt Romney's except in opposition to President Obama. Some of them won't go there because their pet issues are less represented by Mitt than the President, some of them are the Last Confederates Standing and will do damn near any sort of gymnastics to oppose that... darker guy in the White House. I am not making the case that race plays no role with the other GOP candidates or that they don't play at dog whistling, but...
Florida is a closed winner take all GOP Primary, you have to be a registered GOP to play. There are states where that would help Newt but Florida is a peculiar GOP demographic. Parts of the state are typical, but real big chunks of voters are from somewhere else with ties and traditions from elsewhere. Americans are mobile, but Florida is a special case, some of it is virtually a suburb of of the North East and North Central US. Fleeing the snow is not the same thing as fleeing the public policies of those areas.
As far as these candidates in regard to the "ideology" of the GOP this bunch are as fake as I can ever remember seeing - and I've paid attention for quite awhile. None of them has a record that matches what they're playing to the voters. If you're trying to give Rick Santorum credit for such a thing, you'd be well served to take a look back at Jack Abromoff and the Mariannes Islands amongst other issues. These characters are the most abject frauds that have run in any major party for a hell of a long time. And what matters is that all Mitt's money can't buy him love.
Ron Paul has love, to the cult degree, from a big part of his supporters and he has wishful thinking to the point of delusion from the rest. Rick Santorum gets himself some love from those ignorant of his past, and Newt gets some from the any bombast will do crowd. Mitt gets almost tolerated and it ain't his money.
There is no doubt that Mitt gets a lot of money from some real rich people but money works for a different type of loving than character. I've left a rather large sized blank in that statement for you to fill in. I don't know anybody who knows what Mitt stands for other than that he deserves to be President. As a candidate President Obama was somewhat of a blank slate that people filled in with their own chalk but there was a record that didn't stand in stark contrast to what he had to say. With Mitt you're left with what he has to say today and even that is pretty much empty word salad when it comes to Mitt.
I am really glad that I have almost nothing in common with the GOP beyond being a bipedal humanoid. I do think one Party having a slate of candidates like this is bad for a country with, essentially, a two Party system. Well, I have hopes for a long contested mess over there on that side, maybe the so-called non-affiliated voters will get some kind of an idea. Don't hold your breath on that score.
(editt) Santorum, Marianas Is, etc
Florida is a closed winner take all GOP Primary, you have to be a registered GOP to play. There are states where that would help Newt but Florida is a peculiar GOP demographic. Parts of the state are typical, but real big chunks of voters are from somewhere else with ties and traditions from elsewhere. Americans are mobile, but Florida is a special case, some of it is virtually a suburb of of the North East and North Central US. Fleeing the snow is not the same thing as fleeing the public policies of those areas.
As far as these candidates in regard to the "ideology" of the GOP this bunch are as fake as I can ever remember seeing - and I've paid attention for quite awhile. None of them has a record that matches what they're playing to the voters. If you're trying to give Rick Santorum credit for such a thing, you'd be well served to take a look back at Jack Abromoff and the Mariannes Islands amongst other issues. These characters are the most abject frauds that have run in any major party for a hell of a long time. And what matters is that all Mitt's money can't buy him love.
Ron Paul has love, to the cult degree, from a big part of his supporters and he has wishful thinking to the point of delusion from the rest. Rick Santorum gets himself some love from those ignorant of his past, and Newt gets some from the any bombast will do crowd. Mitt gets almost tolerated and it ain't his money.
There is no doubt that Mitt gets a lot of money from some real rich people but money works for a different type of loving than character. I've left a rather large sized blank in that statement for you to fill in. I don't know anybody who knows what Mitt stands for other than that he deserves to be President. As a candidate President Obama was somewhat of a blank slate that people filled in with their own chalk but there was a record that didn't stand in stark contrast to what he had to say. With Mitt you're left with what he has to say today and even that is pretty much empty word salad when it comes to Mitt.
I am really glad that I have almost nothing in common with the GOP beyond being a bipedal humanoid. I do think one Party having a slate of candidates like this is bad for a country with, essentially, a two Party system. Well, I have hopes for a long contested mess over there on that side, maybe the so-called non-affiliated voters will get some kind of an idea. Don't hold your breath on that score.
(editt) Santorum, Marianas Is, etc
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Newt & RPGs
Steady readers may know that I have a fondness for Xbox360 Role Playing Games. I prefer first person (screen is view from eyes) and I insist that the game give me enough story that I feel like I have a reason to spend the kind of time it takes - and the aggravation that comes with playing at high difficulty levels. Good RPGs let the player build a character from a lot of different attributes and allow forks in the story depending on the choices the character makes and those base attributes.
The latest polling from Florida points to Newt having forgotten what is going on in the GOP RPG. Now I may be a compassionate man who tries to treat other people well, but I have taken roles in RPGs where I've been female or particularly amoral to down right nasty just to see where the story would go. A good Xbox game may let you go, in virtually the same breath, from cold blooded ruthless to kind without exploding the story. The GOP RPG is a bit different.
Newt may, despite a lot of evidence, see himself as a big idea guy - some sort of intellectual heavy weight in the GOP ring, laughably as a historian. He might think that, but the story line he's laid out for the GOP voters is something else entirely - he's the hard ass, they guy who'll stomp a mud hole in the back of the President, unlike that weaselly Mitt guy. To go out on the space coast and talk about putting a permanent colony on the moon in eight years is pretty damn big, but sure invites even a Mitt to talk about firing somebody in private industry who thought it was a profit maker. Florida GOPers didn't want a moon colony - they wanted to hear about the "food stamp President" and weasel Mitt's Obamneycare and maybe something about rapist economics (GOPers??).
I get to set up attributes like weaponry and clothing which may range from magic users wearing robes to warriors wearing heavy armor and excelling at close up hack and slash with big swords. I can tell you that when one of my warriors gets up and close to a mage - it is all over; and by the same token, if that warrior doesn't close the the mage will blow him away from safety. Newt won South Carolina as a heavy hitting warrior, even thoroughly beating Mitt on the electability question. He got up close and whaled away at the President and threw some sharp edged whacks at Mitt who was busy playing the mage - no fancy fooling about, just plain old hack and slash. Mitt is stuck playing the mage, a nasty natured one, but staying away from the brawling that requires heavy armor, the armor provided by resentment, ignorance, and even hate; and Mitt stood off and lobbed fireballs at Newt who obliged by waving his sword around from a distance.
RPGs are just exactly that, playing a role and you ignore your role at the almost sure risk of failure because that is the design of the game. GOPers have designed their game over the course of decades and the roles are pretty clear and players don't get to suddenly switch up mid-stream. I might not like any of these characters but it sure is a lot more fun to watch when it's competitive...
The latest polling from Florida points to Newt having forgotten what is going on in the GOP RPG. Now I may be a compassionate man who tries to treat other people well, but I have taken roles in RPGs where I've been female or particularly amoral to down right nasty just to see where the story would go. A good Xbox game may let you go, in virtually the same breath, from cold blooded ruthless to kind without exploding the story. The GOP RPG is a bit different.
Newt may, despite a lot of evidence, see himself as a big idea guy - some sort of intellectual heavy weight in the GOP ring, laughably as a historian. He might think that, but the story line he's laid out for the GOP voters is something else entirely - he's the hard ass, they guy who'll stomp a mud hole in the back of the President, unlike that weaselly Mitt guy. To go out on the space coast and talk about putting a permanent colony on the moon in eight years is pretty damn big, but sure invites even a Mitt to talk about firing somebody in private industry who thought it was a profit maker. Florida GOPers didn't want a moon colony - they wanted to hear about the "food stamp President" and weasel Mitt's Obamneycare and maybe something about rapist economics (GOPers??).
I get to set up attributes like weaponry and clothing which may range from magic users wearing robes to warriors wearing heavy armor and excelling at close up hack and slash with big swords. I can tell you that when one of my warriors gets up and close to a mage - it is all over; and by the same token, if that warrior doesn't close the the mage will blow him away from safety. Newt won South Carolina as a heavy hitting warrior, even thoroughly beating Mitt on the electability question. He got up close and whaled away at the President and threw some sharp edged whacks at Mitt who was busy playing the mage - no fancy fooling about, just plain old hack and slash. Mitt is stuck playing the mage, a nasty natured one, but staying away from the brawling that requires heavy armor, the armor provided by resentment, ignorance, and even hate; and Mitt stood off and lobbed fireballs at Newt who obliged by waving his sword around from a distance.
RPGs are just exactly that, playing a role and you ignore your role at the almost sure risk of failure because that is the design of the game. GOPers have designed their game over the course of decades and the roles are pretty clear and players don't get to suddenly switch up mid-stream. I might not like any of these characters but it sure is a lot more fun to watch when it's competitive...
Thursday, January 26, 2012
GOPer Governor Shows What He Knows, Gays
Wednesday Gov Chris Christie had this to say about Civil Rights while referring to Gay Marriage,
I think there was a referendum at the time, Chris, and it involved little things like three kids in a dike, Medger Evers gunned down, fire hoses, German Shepards, and National Guard troops at a goddam school. So what the Governor is saying is that those black folks should have waited until when for their Rights? I mean it's not as though the South didn't demonstrate some rather strong feelings about the issue or anything. Maybe the Governor doesn't know much of anything about his own Party's history in regards to that area?
Ding Ding
LBJ's line about Democrats losing the South for a generation?
“People would have been happy to have referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.”
I think there was a referendum at the time, Chris, and it involved little things like three kids in a dike, Medger Evers gunned down, fire hoses, German Shepards, and National Guard troops at a goddam school. So what the Governor is saying is that those black folks should have waited until when for their Rights? I mean it's not as though the South didn't demonstrate some rather strong feelings about the issue or anything. Maybe the Governor doesn't know much of anything about his own Party's history in regards to that area?
Ding Ding
LBJ's line about Democrats losing the South for a generation?
Brewer Photo-Op
YOU'RE GOING TO SIT THERE UNTIL YOU EAT YOUR SHIT SANDWICH
Now I have to admit that if I had GWB (the never to be mentioned GOPer) in front of me I might have had a finger up, a different digit to be sure. There is also the minor issue that I'm not a Governor.
But that gets to a point, what exactly is it that this President has done that is sooooo damn offensive. I get that he is a Democrat and all... I've even noticed that he's a bit darker than other Presidents. I don't remember this guy starting an optional war that lasted quite a few years, or crashing an economy, or signing a Patriot Act, or really being particularly divisive - I haven't heard them call the opposition "traitors" or such. The 'usual suspects' are gleeful over this ecounter...
Yep, Mitt figures this guy is dividing America...
BTW, Arizona is a real pretty place from the saddle of a Harley in May... Brewere is a bit of a drawback, though.
Now I have to admit that if I had GWB (the never to be mentioned GOPer) in front of me I might have had a finger up, a different digit to be sure. There is also the minor issue that I'm not a Governor.
But that gets to a point, what exactly is it that this President has done that is sooooo damn offensive. I get that he is a Democrat and all... I've even noticed that he's a bit darker than other Presidents. I don't remember this guy starting an optional war that lasted quite a few years, or crashing an economy, or signing a Patriot Act, or really being particularly divisive - I haven't heard them call the opposition "traitors" or such. The 'usual suspects' are gleeful over this ecounter...
Yep, Mitt figures this guy is dividing America...
BTW, Arizona is a real pretty place from the saddle of a Harley in May... Brewere is a bit of a drawback, though.
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...?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
SC Primary
On the basis of exit polling the media started calling the South Carolina Primary for Newt a couple minutes after the polls closed. With a third of the vote in it looks like 41 Newt, 26 Mitt, 18 Rick, 13 Ron. (50% in 40,27)
So, in ascending order the GOP has:
The Last Confederate Standing
Frothy Blah People (Google is your friend, with a strong stomach)
MultipleMitt
The Slimy Amphibian
And from this stellar field they propose to beat President Obama like a cheap drum with whoever is erect (sort of) after this Primary. Honestly, I was kinda hoping the GOP would give America a pretty clear choice between the fakery of a Plutocrat versus the Middle Black Guy (sure I'd like left versus their crazed right but you've got the President).
Exit polls showed Mr Multiple losing the electability issue, geewhiz - that's been almost his entire play, "at least I can run with Obama."
Now I'd like to point out to the Ron Paul cultists, you might be impressed with your 13% in a GOP Primary, but here's the reality - that is your possible vote, not one of the other GOPer's supporters would go your way and any other Party voters already did. Generously speaking, in a two Party system that means you all are at best 6% in South Carolina where your flag is still flown on the State House grounds. Contrast that with the rate of serious insanity in the US...6%.
Rick Santorum... who the hell knows what that is about or would go. Maybe he wants to be a VP or maybe God told him to save the cretins in this country from themselves. If it was God, not many other than Rick were listening.
I think the biggest question is what Mitt Romney does about the results from South Carolina. Both he and Newt Gingrich are fakes of improbably degree, but Newt is a hell of a lot better actor. Without saying much of anything of consequence Newt has scorched Mitt, taking him from over a ten point lead to maybe a seventeen point deficit and that would be a twenty seven point drop against Newt. Mitt is going to have to do something about that and what Newt has is tough to top by a Romney. Mitt is going to out dog whistle and out mean Newt? Mitt cannot "fire" Newt and his smug dismissal isn't going to work with that dog. Added to that Mitt has some idea that he can appeal to the not crazy part of the General Election and he cannot get there by trying to out-Newt Newt. Maybe Mitt's best course is to wait for Newt to pull the pin on a grenade and then drop it.
That gets to the point of people looking for Newt to implode in the Primary. If Newt doesn't say something "socialistic" it is hard for me to see where Newt loses votes from the ABMs. The GOP establishment can't stand Newt and will do what it can and their problem is that the ABMs do not give a damn or they'd not be ABMs. The South Carolina voters think Newt is more electable than Mitt and that is a pipe dream worthy of Ron Paul sponsorship. Newt's negatives nation wide are horrific and short of an economic implosion or other national catastrophe he'd be smashed.
This GOP Primary may be way more fun than the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy. (well, there is the part where they're competing to be Sauron) Buy lots of popcorn, this show may be pretty long.
So, in ascending order the GOP has:
The Last Confederate Standing
Frothy Blah People (Google is your friend, with a strong stomach)
MultipleMitt
The Slimy Amphibian
And from this stellar field they propose to beat President Obama like a cheap drum with whoever is erect (sort of) after this Primary. Honestly, I was kinda hoping the GOP would give America a pretty clear choice between the fakery of a Plutocrat versus the Middle Black Guy (sure I'd like left versus their crazed right but you've got the President).
Exit polls showed Mr Multiple losing the electability issue, geewhiz - that's been almost his entire play, "at least I can run with Obama."
Now I'd like to point out to the Ron Paul cultists, you might be impressed with your 13% in a GOP Primary, but here's the reality - that is your possible vote, not one of the other GOPer's supporters would go your way and any other Party voters already did. Generously speaking, in a two Party system that means you all are at best 6% in South Carolina where your flag is still flown on the State House grounds. Contrast that with the rate of serious insanity in the US...6%.
Rick Santorum... who the hell knows what that is about or would go. Maybe he wants to be a VP or maybe God told him to save the cretins in this country from themselves. If it was God, not many other than Rick were listening.
I think the biggest question is what Mitt Romney does about the results from South Carolina. Both he and Newt Gingrich are fakes of improbably degree, but Newt is a hell of a lot better actor. Without saying much of anything of consequence Newt has scorched Mitt, taking him from over a ten point lead to maybe a seventeen point deficit and that would be a twenty seven point drop against Newt. Mitt is going to have to do something about that and what Newt has is tough to top by a Romney. Mitt is going to out dog whistle and out mean Newt? Mitt cannot "fire" Newt and his smug dismissal isn't going to work with that dog. Added to that Mitt has some idea that he can appeal to the not crazy part of the General Election and he cannot get there by trying to out-Newt Newt. Maybe Mitt's best course is to wait for Newt to pull the pin on a grenade and then drop it.
That gets to the point of people looking for Newt to implode in the Primary. If Newt doesn't say something "socialistic" it is hard for me to see where Newt loses votes from the ABMs. The GOP establishment can't stand Newt and will do what it can and their problem is that the ABMs do not give a damn or they'd not be ABMs. The South Carolina voters think Newt is more electable than Mitt and that is a pipe dream worthy of Ron Paul sponsorship. Newt's negatives nation wide are horrific and short of an economic implosion or other national catastrophe he'd be smashed.
This GOP Primary may be way more fun than the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy. (well, there is the part where they're competing to be Sauron) Buy lots of popcorn, this show may be pretty long.
Where's The Truth?
I wish I could have written this, but Charlie Pierce did it:
Does the truth come out of Willard's mouth other than when he says, "Hi, I'm Mitt Romney and I want to be President?" Except of course that his name isn't Mitt...
The lies are also bone-deep in Romney's campaign. His wife, of all people, told a complete fairy tale here on Friday night about how, "a year ago," she and Willard "were talking and had the same conversation so many of you have had out there, and we said we thought the country was going in the wrong direction, and I turned to Mitt and asked, 'Can you save the country?'"
Okay, now Ann Romney is a very nice lady, and a very brave one, but, honest to god, is there anyone not playing with their toes who believes that Willard Romney stepped into the fray a year ago out of patriotic altruism? Is there anyone not playing with their toes who believes that he he ever stopped running for president after 2008? Hell, the hardcover edition of his campaign book, No Apologies — the book he barbered to make its contents more palatable to a Republican primary audience as a paperback — is almost two years old. The truth simply has ceased to matter in this campaign.
Does the truth come out of Willard's mouth other than when he says, "Hi, I'm Mitt Romney and I want to be President?" Except of course that his name isn't Mitt...
Balanced Media...
Why in the name of whatever deity it is you like is Ramesh Ponnuru doing on my goddam TV when it is tuned to something other than goddam FauxNews, not to mention on with Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, and Chris Cilliza on goddam MSNBC? Thank that same deity that they couldn't or didn't find somebody as crazy and as big a liar to represent their idea of some nutty leftism to balance that dirt bag with. What information am I supposed to come away from this with? That he doesn't drool in public?
Gee, I wonder why politics in this country is such an exercise in goddam stupidity.
goddam
Gee, I wonder why politics in this country is such an exercise in goddam stupidity.
goddam
Rah, Rah, Mitt... oh sure...uhuh
This morning I watched a TV clip from a Romney rally, and considering the time difference it must have been mid-morning or so in South Carolina. The crowd started chanting, "We need Mitt," and MultipleMitt responded, "You're going to get me." OK, so far pretty standard election morning stirp the team stuff, right? Wellllll...
I didn't listen to the volume because I don't trust audio levels or mic placement. What I did listen to and for was the mix of voices, the varying tones and sexes and differences in volume. What my ear told me was that this chant involved very few people, I don't mean around a hundred - I'd say not much more than twenty. There's a point to this...
What is there about Mitt Romney beyond Mormon and wealthy that would inspire you to jump up and chant? Well, that or even jump up and smack you hands together and holler, "Yahoo," or whatever? Maybe repeating applause lines like, "apologize for America," or some such... well... other actual lie. I'm not even sure, "let GM die," would work in a Mitsubishi assembly plant.
It is to be sure, true that I don't like MultipleMitt, that I think, by evidence, that he is a two faced lying sack of ... poo; who will say anything to anyone in order to further his own ends and that there isn't anyone outside his immediate family and immediate friends he wouldn't throw in front of a train for extreme profit or his political desires. You have to look at the Bain profits to understand exactly how disconnected this guy is from anything other than himself. Bain wrecked companies to make 200-300% profits, keeping a company alive and people working might have meant returns like ordinary investors salivate for... 15%. Bain was not in the business of creating or salvaging businesses - it was in the business of making great whacking piles of money for a couple people, anything else that happened was entirely secondary. In that world humans are no more than an integer on a spreadsheet and long term considerations are entirely trumped by short term profit taking. If you think you count to that guy, just watch him around "regular" people. What? You thought that picture was just some prank sort of thing, a damned joke?
Oh hell, in a General Election straight up tribalism and hate will get him that good old 27% plus another nearly 15% of who'd hold their noses just for the (R).
I didn't listen to the volume because I don't trust audio levels or mic placement. What I did listen to and for was the mix of voices, the varying tones and sexes and differences in volume. What my ear told me was that this chant involved very few people, I don't mean around a hundred - I'd say not much more than twenty. There's a point to this...
What is there about Mitt Romney beyond Mormon and wealthy that would inspire you to jump up and chant? Well, that or even jump up and smack you hands together and holler, "Yahoo," or whatever? Maybe repeating applause lines like, "apologize for America," or some such... well... other actual lie. I'm not even sure, "let GM die," would work in a Mitsubishi assembly plant.
It is to be sure, true that I don't like MultipleMitt, that I think, by evidence, that he is a two faced lying sack of ... poo; who will say anything to anyone in order to further his own ends and that there isn't anyone outside his immediate family and immediate friends he wouldn't throw in front of a train for extreme profit or his political desires. You have to look at the Bain profits to understand exactly how disconnected this guy is from anything other than himself. Bain wrecked companies to make 200-300% profits, keeping a company alive and people working might have meant returns like ordinary investors salivate for... 15%. Bain was not in the business of creating or salvaging businesses - it was in the business of making great whacking piles of money for a couple people, anything else that happened was entirely secondary. In that world humans are no more than an integer on a spreadsheet and long term considerations are entirely trumped by short term profit taking. If you think you count to that guy, just watch him around "regular" people. What? You thought that picture was just some prank sort of thing, a damned joke?
Oh hell, in a General Election straight up tribalism and hate will get him that good old 27% plus another nearly 15% of who'd hold their noses just for the (R).
Friday, January 20, 2012
Dividing America
Mitt thinks the President is dividing America and that the alternative to the current plutocracy is ... North Korea??? Can we please harken back to the GOP mantra of class warfare? And, maybe, just who is actually waging it?
Regarding taxes, SS/FICA on median income is nearly 16% total employee/employer and 15% as the bracket which would be 31% and if you want to get picky and dismiss the employer end you'd still get to over 22% on every bit of wage. Without any monkey business Mittens pays 15% and no SS/FICA on the immaterial at his wealth cut-off because that income is not wage/salary and is exempt from SS/FICA. (this neglects the temporary cut)
We could get into the division between income gains by the top 1% versus the bottom 20% would be somewhat informing and you will please note that whether or not the bottom 1/5th pays a nickle of Fed Tax, every cent of wage is subject to SS/FICA.
One could point out to Mitt that while the vast majority of us were growing up in families that had to pay real attention to finances his Daddy was CEO of AMC and later Gov of MI. Maybe there are divides that you were insulated from, maybe there are outcomes of performance that you flatly never had to worry about. Maybe while you were busy raping companies the warfare aspect didn't dawn on you, something like that awareness might have cut into your returns, obscene returns by the standards of most investments.
Mr Romney, it is not the President and the Democratic Party that are using falsehoods and dog-whistles and code words to stir hate and resentment. Mr Romney, the President may be one of the best friends your particular version of wealth has. He may be the guy offering you a really good deal compared to what almost all Americans get. But then, anything other than the bootlicking you're used to is class warfare.
Regarding taxes, SS/FICA on median income is nearly 16% total employee/employer and 15% as the bracket which would be 31% and if you want to get picky and dismiss the employer end you'd still get to over 22% on every bit of wage. Without any monkey business Mittens pays 15% and no SS/FICA on the immaterial at his wealth cut-off because that income is not wage/salary and is exempt from SS/FICA. (this neglects the temporary cut)
We could get into the division between income gains by the top 1% versus the bottom 20% would be somewhat informing and you will please note that whether or not the bottom 1/5th pays a nickle of Fed Tax, every cent of wage is subject to SS/FICA.
One could point out to Mitt that while the vast majority of us were growing up in families that had to pay real attention to finances his Daddy was CEO of AMC and later Gov of MI. Maybe there are divides that you were insulated from, maybe there are outcomes of performance that you flatly never had to worry about. Maybe while you were busy raping companies the warfare aspect didn't dawn on you, something like that awareness might have cut into your returns, obscene returns by the standards of most investments.
Mr Romney, it is not the President and the Democratic Party that are using falsehoods and dog-whistles and code words to stir hate and resentment. Mr Romney, the President may be one of the best friends your particular version of wealth has. He may be the guy offering you a really good deal compared to what almost all Americans get. But then, anything other than the bootlicking you're used to is class warfare.
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Mitt Juggernaut
To listen to the media of late, you'd have to be really impressed by Mitt's strangle-hold on the GOP Primary. He's racking up the victories and that's really something. So, how's this impressive machine functioning today?
Mitt Romney got about three quarters of Iowan primary caucusers to vote for somebody else. That's right, he tied or lost or something real close with Rick Santorum. He got to New Hampshire and managed to get three fifths of their electorate to support someone else. Looking at the polling in South Carolina he's got over two thirds of that electorate looking elsewhere. Yep, and Newt is moving up.
This is the GOP version of the annointed, presumptive nominee. Wow, that's one hell of a machine.
Mitt Romney got about three quarters of Iowan primary caucusers to vote for somebody else. That's right, he tied or lost or something real close with Rick Santorum. He got to New Hampshire and managed to get three fifths of their electorate to support someone else. Looking at the polling in South Carolina he's got over two thirds of that electorate looking elsewhere. Yep, and Newt is moving up.
This is the GOP version of the annointed, presumptive nominee. Wow, that's one hell of a machine.
Newt, It Was Predictable
Going after another Republican was going to cause some heartburn in the GOP. Going after their presumptive nominee was going to cause some heartburn. Going after a Republican as a greed head plutocrat was going to cause apoplexy. The mental derangement has extended all the way to John Sununu making not so veiled economic threats to those funding the attacks and people fuming about Communism. Yes, really.
Now it is true that Ronnie Reagan made some references to some sort of Eleventh Commandment regarding fellow Republicans. That has been kept mostly in a theoretical sort of way as John McCain might note regarding a South Carolina Primary involving GW Bush. In fact, a bit more recently - like Iowa Caucuses - a certain Newt Gingrich got eviscerated by fellow GOPers without so much as a peep by anyone other than Newt.
You could be forgiven for scoffing at the idea that the GOP problem is with attacks on the front runner, especially since Newt was that guy in Iowa when he got whacked. You'd hurt yourself laughing trying to make the case that attacking Mitt hit the purity of the Party message.
Whew. That leaves the money issue. Not the personal money, money issue - the how I got my personal money issue. Outside of making big piles of money from Drugs and Hookers making big piles of money is the entire good for the GOP. (not so sure about the Hookers if it is Nevada) To the GOP it doesn't matter if you got your piles from gutting companies or making trades every two minutes or off taxpayers or from building an enterprise. The methodology is trumped completely by the big pile not the outcomes as long as it doesn't involve handcuffs. (you could make the case that if the handcuffs result from violating regulations... crickets chirping)
The sin being committed against Mitt is that somebody has the temerity to question the methodology from within the GOP. That is just not done. If you were to stop and think about it for even a moment it might raise questions regarding the "Job Creators" and some of the other themes. That cannot be done. Making big piles of money is the engine and it doesn't matter that those big piles of money are resulting in the impoverishment of our economy... or wrecking the environment or...
Now it is true that Ronnie Reagan made some references to some sort of Eleventh Commandment regarding fellow Republicans. That has been kept mostly in a theoretical sort of way as John McCain might note regarding a South Carolina Primary involving GW Bush. In fact, a bit more recently - like Iowa Caucuses - a certain Newt Gingrich got eviscerated by fellow GOPers without so much as a peep by anyone other than Newt.
You could be forgiven for scoffing at the idea that the GOP problem is with attacks on the front runner, especially since Newt was that guy in Iowa when he got whacked. You'd hurt yourself laughing trying to make the case that attacking Mitt hit the purity of the Party message.
Whew. That leaves the money issue. Not the personal money, money issue - the how I got my personal money issue. Outside of making big piles of money from Drugs and Hookers making big piles of money is the entire good for the GOP. (not so sure about the Hookers if it is Nevada) To the GOP it doesn't matter if you got your piles from gutting companies or making trades every two minutes or off taxpayers or from building an enterprise. The methodology is trumped completely by the big pile not the outcomes as long as it doesn't involve handcuffs. (you could make the case that if the handcuffs result from violating regulations... crickets chirping)
The sin being committed against Mitt is that somebody has the temerity to question the methodology from within the GOP. That is just not done. If you were to stop and think about it for even a moment it might raise questions regarding the "Job Creators" and some of the other themes. That cannot be done. Making big piles of money is the engine and it doesn't matter that those big piles of money are resulting in the impoverishment of our economy... or wrecking the environment or...
Thursday, January 12, 2012
"Roof, Roof," Said The Dog
Maybe Mitten's ability to translate doggisms to patricianisms made for a misunderstanding of "Woof" and resulted in Seamus the Irish Setter diarrhea-ing all over the roof of the Romney family station wagon during a 12 hour drive. If you're a bit worried about your economic status the idea of handing it over to someone who'd hose off the dog and car and continue on his way in the face of the dog's obvious distress may cause pause. If you throw that on the balance with Bain or some of Mitten's prescriptions for the nation, you could get to feeling like a distressed and dismissed dog.
If you'd do that to a dog...
I'd bet clever commenters could come up with "dog themes"
"Morning In America" to be followed by "Dog Day Afternoon" or something really a lot more clever?
If you'd do that to a dog...
I'd bet clever commenters could come up with "dog themes"
"Morning In America" to be followed by "Dog Day Afternoon" or something really a lot more clever?
When You Listen To The GOP...
The latest stuff out of the GOP "elite" (names - not money) is that attacks on the MultipleMitt come from the left and worse are damaging to the "front runner". Now the really odd thing about that argument is that they weren't making it when Newt led in Iowa and Mittens' surrogates gutted him. Now I don't really care which one of these outfits nails the other to their reactionary right wing cross and I could care less if they hit them from the left or populist side.
The huge difficulty every one of these GOPers faces is that what they stand for has driven what they've done and exposed to the light of day, starts to rot - like the gutted fish they ought to be. You really have to ask why Confederate Ron Paul has racist tripe newsletters? You really have to ask why Silver Spoon Plutocrat Mitt has a Bain in his past? You have to ask why... oh hell.
Really?
The huge difficulty every one of these GOPers faces is that what they stand for has driven what they've done and exposed to the light of day, starts to rot - like the gutted fish they ought to be. You really have to ask why Confederate Ron Paul has racist tripe newsletters? You really have to ask why Silver Spoon Plutocrat Mitt has a Bain in his past? You have to ask why... oh hell.
Really?
The Conservative "Return To The Values..."
Just to make what ought to be a self-evident statement, when Romney talks about returning the US to the values that made us great what he is talking about is The Gilded Age, or more properly, The Robber Baron Era. If you look at the tax structures, the regulatory structures, labor policies, and social "norms" he advocates in total, the time you've aped is pre - Teddy Roosevelt.
It is a part of the conservative mind set to promote the status quo; or a previous status quo if the current one is ... out of line with their kindergarten understanding of history. This ought to create some kind of cognitive revolt when the period you're trying to ape is so generally counted as ... sucky?
It is a part of the conservative mind set to promote the status quo; or a previous status quo if the current one is ... out of line with their kindergarten understanding of history. This ought to create some kind of cognitive revolt when the period you're trying to ape is so generally counted as ... sucky?
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
The Bane of Bain or Mitt's Ba(i)ne?
I'm sorry to take such delight in the (mis)fortune of others. It's true I've poked away at poor mis-used Mitt over his unemployment difficulties and even his pink slip worries. I've had mean things to say about corporate raiders and maybe even meaner things to say about some lying wealthy SOBs.
All that just doesn't begin to cover my delight in watching Mitt get attacked from his right on the left. Uh, yes I did say his Right. I'll bet you thought (I did) he'd get creamed for being a "secret" liberal. I'll be go to hell, he's getting it in the neck for being a plutocrat from GOPers.
Don't worry too much, they aren't going all socialist on us, no fears they'll out left President Obama. This will all sort itself out before the General Election and all plutocrat all the time will be back into GOP songs.
I do get great joy out of almost 2/3 of GOPers being ABMs. You can pretty much figure there are going to be hard feelings.
All that just doesn't begin to cover my delight in watching Mitt get attacked from his right on the left. Uh, yes I did say his Right. I'll bet you thought (I did) he'd get creamed for being a "secret" liberal. I'll be go to hell, he's getting it in the neck for being a plutocrat from GOPers.
Don't worry too much, they aren't going all socialist on us, no fears they'll out left President Obama. This will all sort itself out before the General Election and all plutocrat all the time will be back into GOP songs.
I do get great joy out of almost 2/3 of GOPers being ABMs. You can pretty much figure there are going to be hard feelings.
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
Who Gets To Have Nice Things?
DAVID GREGORY: All right. We're gonna come back to the question of obstacles to the nomination, but let me get to policy, Governor Huntsman. This is, by all accounts, an age of austerity for this country. A jobs crisis. Also a spending crisis in Washington. I wonder what specifically you would do to say to Americans, "These are cuts I'm going to make in federal spending that cause pain, that will require sacrifice?"
From the MTP "debate" transcript.
By all accounts... Age Of Austerity... Jobs Crisis... Spending Crisis... Sacrifice.
Hmmm. You know, if you took all those themes and addressed them as regarding working and poor Americans you might really have something. They are not, of course, regarding working/poor Americans other than the SACRIFICE. Every one of the people this horseshit question was addressed to has a tax plan up that would cut the taxes on wealth and increase the taxes on work and cut programs designed to keep people out of abject poverty.
If you were to read the comments on the MTP Debate transcript you'd find a whole lot of them attacking Gregory for being a LIBERAL trying to stir up trouble and - by the way - shorting Ron Paul's time to be a Confederate.
You would think that from the time of St Ronnie the Raygun there'd be enough data laying around to make something like a coherent case for something in regard to tax policy and the state of the economy. Well - it happens there is. The really big problem is that it doesn't support Clinton era tax rates much less StRR or GWB. The case that gets made in regard to the overall economic health is that StRR screwed things up and pretty much everybody made things worse and Bill Clinton only managed to mildly stem the tide in some regards.
Working/poor Americans have been sacrificing every damn day from StRR on in one way or another. Some of them tried to avoid that sacrifice and used their houses as a credit card or profit center but most just kept working harder for less while watching their betters rake in more of the scraps that might have fallen off the banquet table.
Now you have - no shit - the kid of Geo Romney talking about being "unemployed" and having to worry "about getting a pink slip," as if he had a worry about falling into the lap of luxury instead of off the face of the freaking earth. This is the kind of crap that gets served up as a goddam question by the goddam liberal elite media by talking head that has about as much to worry about or goddam sacrifice as Willard Mitt Romney does.
Mittens seems to make about $15M per year for doing nothing for Bain Capital (numbers vary - mostly up) which sounds like a bit of money, but probably ought to get taken in the context of $43K/yr median income family of four which works out to be 349 of them. Yes you suckers, Mittens makes that much money being un-damned-employed. Taken another way, he virtually makes DAILY that median income.
How it could be made much clearer to the rubes that these guys want to give themselves and their pals a big break while cutting your throat is way the hell beyond me. I don't begrudge these bastards their wealth... but I'm not hot on the idea of being their human sacrifice.
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?
All Hat And No...
So, Rick Perry wants to put troops back in Iraq? Just to mangle that saying: he's now demonstrated that he's all hat and no filler between the ears.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
GOPer Second Round. Can I Take Much More?
To recap, Mitt doesn't have a lot of blood in the water, but there is some pink tint. It is funny to watch Paul and Santorum joust. I hate to use the word reasonable and a GOPer in the same sentence much less next to each other, but Huntsman.
State's right to ban contraception - Mitt? No answer. Seems to ignore MS.
I can't take much more of this stuff,
if you've been amused, I'm sorry. My brain is melting away cells it can't afford to lose. I'm done.
The Sacrement of Marriage makes me want to puke. Which one of these folks got their Marriage License from a church? It is a goddam civil contract.
Screw this shit.
State's right to ban contraception - Mitt? No answer. Seems to ignore MS.
I can't take much more of this stuff,
if you've been amused, I'm sorry. My brain is melting away cells it can't afford to lose. I'm done.
The Sacrement of Marriage makes me want to puke. Which one of these folks got their Marriage License from a church? It is a goddam civil contract.
Screw this shit.
GOPers Cont...
Paul v spending, Santorum a big spender. Santorum - uhuh?
Perry - I'm the outsider. Get Teabaggers behind nominee. Nobody seems to be buying it. In TX we call Paul's earmarking voting against it hypocrisy - uh, yup.
Santorum - I tried to do something, did something.
uh oh, CIC
Huntsman - vision, leadership - I've got it, leadership that can be trusted. I heard that as a hit against Romney. Term limits.
Romney - Huntsman can do a lot better than Obama - one error after another. Failed Presidency. Integrity? From multiplemitt? Obama shrunk the military?
Perry - CIC in TX? WTF? Ah, money from the military to spend somewhere else.
Newt - child of vet. hmmm.
Paul - deferrments. I went. Vets messed up from undeclared war. Chickenhawk accusation.
Newt is pretty unhappy.
Uhoh - newsletters
Twenty years ago, didn't write. MLK a personal hero - pacifistic libertarianism - er, MLK Day?
first round - thank god
Perry - I'm the outsider. Get Teabaggers behind nominee. Nobody seems to be buying it. In TX we call Paul's earmarking voting against it hypocrisy - uh, yup.
Santorum - I tried to do something, did something.
uh oh, CIC
Huntsman - vision, leadership - I've got it, leadership that can be trusted. I heard that as a hit against Romney. Term limits.
Romney - Huntsman can do a lot better than Obama - one error after another. Failed Presidency. Integrity? From multiplemitt? Obama shrunk the military?
Perry - CIC in TX? WTF? Ah, money from the military to spend somewhere else.
Newt - child of vet. hmmm.
Paul - deferrments. I went. Vets messed up from undeclared war. Chickenhawk accusation.
Newt is pretty unhappy.
Uhoh - newsletters
Twenty years ago, didn't write. MLK a personal hero - pacifistic libertarianism - er, MLK Day?
first round - thank god
LIve Blog The GOPers - Masochism?
Romney, Obama has made the recession worse and longer. Obama as rooster taking credit for sun rising. Heh.
Santorum on not needing a manager - huh? OH, CEO isn't what a President is. True.
Romney wants us to connect him with entrepenures building businesses from the ground up - huh?
Newt - Romney taking apart companies.
Romney - surprised to see people on his stage taking on FREE ENTERPRISE
Huntsman - records count. My record v the rest of you.
Romney - Private sector counts - I'm the private sector.
Paul - Santorum is a big govt person, oops - lobbiests.
Santorum - CREW called me corrupt - ah Geo Soros - same stuff about PA getting its fair share back. I'm a CAUSE GUY. I'm a lobbiest - for all the right guys.
Santorum on not needing a manager - huh? OH, CEO isn't what a President is. True.
Romney wants us to connect him with entrepenures building businesses from the ground up - huh?
Newt - Romney taking apart companies.
Romney - surprised to see people on his stage taking on FREE ENTERPRISE
Huntsman - records count. My record v the rest of you.
Romney - Private sector counts - I'm the private sector.
Paul - Santorum is a big govt person, oops - lobbiests.
Santorum - CREW called me corrupt - ah Geo Soros - same stuff about PA getting its fair share back. I'm a CAUSE GUY. I'm a lobbiest - for all the right guys.
Friday, January 06, 2012
ABM And MultipleMitt.. and genetics?
You have to look at Mitt Romney and today's GOP and wonder how in hell you've got this situation where a guy like Mittens will just win, anyhow. There are a lot of ways I can laugh at the ABMs, but their dislike of Romney just isn't one of them. I understand, in ways that would offend them, just what it is they're up in arms about. It isn't about purity of view, it is about a fraud sticking the con down their throats.
It is true that what the ABMs have got to work with is pretty pathetic and there are a lot of them. Yes, that "a lot of them" does mean split votes letting pathetic Romney numbers count as victories. The recurring ABM implosions is what tells the story, those voters run away from losers once they've defined themselves as losers. They don't want MultipleMitt, but they've got nothing to work with so they will get stuck with him.
Considering the enthusiasm for ABM you have to ask why the ABM field sucks so badly. If this mess had started in '08 you could understand prospective candidates taking measure of Obama and saying, "uhuh, no way." That wasn't the case, the '10 elections had happened and the economy stinks and current Presidents get to own stinking economies. The odds of success against Obama should have measured as high when this got put together and good candidates come out in force. Instead, you have this clown car parade led by MultipleMitt.
Do you suppose I'd be going out on a limb to propose that what created this situation is the composition of the ABM electorate? In the face of Mitt they could have Huntsman, could... They don't want him even though he isn't the fraud Mittens is. What Huntsman isn't, is the brand of crazy they want. Yes, I finally got to the word "crazy." Now how the hell do you want crazy and applaud crazy and not get someone who is crazy and flawed?
Here's the thing ABMs, while you may make up the majority of the GOP Primary voters, your problem is that you're only that 27%+/- loon section of the electorate and your gene pool is pretty damned limited. You are getting what you breed.
It is true that what the ABMs have got to work with is pretty pathetic and there are a lot of them. Yes, that "a lot of them" does mean split votes letting pathetic Romney numbers count as victories. The recurring ABM implosions is what tells the story, those voters run away from losers once they've defined themselves as losers. They don't want MultipleMitt, but they've got nothing to work with so they will get stuck with him.
Considering the enthusiasm for ABM you have to ask why the ABM field sucks so badly. If this mess had started in '08 you could understand prospective candidates taking measure of Obama and saying, "uhuh, no way." That wasn't the case, the '10 elections had happened and the economy stinks and current Presidents get to own stinking economies. The odds of success against Obama should have measured as high when this got put together and good candidates come out in force. Instead, you have this clown car parade led by MultipleMitt.
Do you suppose I'd be going out on a limb to propose that what created this situation is the composition of the ABM electorate? In the face of Mitt they could have Huntsman, could... They don't want him even though he isn't the fraud Mittens is. What Huntsman isn't, is the brand of crazy they want. Yes, I finally got to the word "crazy." Now how the hell do you want crazy and applaud crazy and not get someone who is crazy and flawed?
Here's the thing ABMs, while you may make up the majority of the GOP Primary voters, your problem is that you're only that 27%+/- loon section of the electorate and your gene pool is pretty damned limited. You are getting what you breed.
Mittens And Taxes - On And On We Go
It has been pretty clear to anybody with two live brain cells in communication that the Federal Tax Policies proposed by the ABMs would result in great big tax breaks for the overburdened wealthy and large hits to everybody in escalating effects down scale. Now - in a huge surprise to everybody dead in the head - Mitten's plan has been shown to do the same thing.
It just goes on for-goddam-ever. Most of the voters in the country will be harmed in one way or another by this and over 40% would vote for MultipleMitt, anyhow. I know there's nothing new in this...
It just goes on for-goddam-ever. Most of the voters in the country will be harmed in one way or another by this and over 40% would vote for MultipleMitt, anyhow. I know there's nothing new in this...
Blah, Blah, Blah
Well, you have to give Rick (don't google me) Santorum credit for almost covering the Republican theme honestly. You know the theme, those "blah" people stealing hard working "why" people's money. Just lacking a certain coherence in consonants.
There certainly is some epic stealing going on, the problem is that it is by the (consonantly deprived) "ri" people. It would be deficient on my part both practically and consonantly to not note that they aren't just "ri" but "why" people; they certainly aren't "poo" people indicated by Santorum.
Just to be fair about it all, "Don't Google Me" isn't alone in the talk, just the part where there was a mistake involving consonants...
(I could have a bit of fun with the consonant thing but it would render both my writing unintelligible and probably my speech as well)
There certainly is some epic stealing going on, the problem is that it is by the (consonantly deprived) "ri" people. It would be deficient on my part both practically and consonantly to not note that they aren't just "ri" but "why" people; they certainly aren't "poo" people indicated by Santorum.
Just to be fair about it all, "Don't Google Me" isn't alone in the talk, just the part where there was a mistake involving consonants...
(I could have a bit of fun with the consonant thing but it would render both my writing unintelligible and probably my speech as well)
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.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Reading Assignment - Charles Pierce
I read Charles Pierce over at Esquire's Daily Politics Blog regularly, partly for the politics but mostly for the writing. Charles Pierce does what I aspire to, and what I know how short I fall from doing. Pierce isn't for the fan of equivocation, but does use splendid language. If You haven't already, go check him out.
Twas A Dark And Stormy Night
Out in GOPland and especially the ABM faction, it has to be that sort of feeling. What you've got is the hard core Ron Paul faux-libertarian bunch who really, really like the standard bearer of The Confederate Party of Republicanism but once you get past that bunch ... Wow, the Romney PACs sure did a job on our favorite salamander which has left not so much other than late comer Santorum. (you make the jokes - Google) Paul will be around all the way to the end, the question is who else will.
Now if you look at the others beyond Ron Paul you see momentary poll enthusiasm followed by disregard. That isn't the behavior of a happy electorate. It sure isn't the behavior of a happy electorate for the presumptive nominee to be hanging around 27%; regardless of the size of the current field.
I have no idea how this parade of clown cars is going to play itself out. It is silly to ignore what Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, ad infinitum actually were but I won't propose that today's GOP is the same Party rather than an out-growth and maybe natural consequence of its century long history. That makes predicting where the current GOP will jump a pretty iffy proposition. It is starting to look as though the enthusiasm will be composed of not much more than getting rid of the guy currently in the White House. It will be difficult to get much going with those not deep into the hate Obama camp if the GOP itself just tolerates its own candidate.
Six months ago this might have been the GOP's election to win, it now looks as though it might just not be.
Now if you look at the others beyond Ron Paul you see momentary poll enthusiasm followed by disregard. That isn't the behavior of a happy electorate. It sure isn't the behavior of a happy electorate for the presumptive nominee to be hanging around 27%; regardless of the size of the current field.
I have no idea how this parade of clown cars is going to play itself out. It is silly to ignore what Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, ad infinitum actually were but I won't propose that today's GOP is the same Party rather than an out-growth and maybe natural consequence of its century long history. That makes predicting where the current GOP will jump a pretty iffy proposition. It is starting to look as though the enthusiasm will be composed of not much more than getting rid of the guy currently in the White House. It will be difficult to get much going with those not deep into the hate Obama camp if the GOP itself just tolerates its own candidate.
Six months ago this might have been the GOP's election to win, it now looks as though it might just not be.
Newt - Mitt Is A Liar
So Newt shocks an interviewer by saying that MultipleMitt is a liar. That is a shock? It sure is shocking that the word actually got used, but in relation to Mittens it had to be coming but when lobbed by Newt it does seem a bit odd. Actually, I'm pretty sure damn near every GOPer should avoid the word like a plague if they don't want it freely applied to themselves.
I pretty much forgive exaggeration, a candidate for freshmean House seat sure isn't going to get far by being realistic about the impact of freshman Reps. There are some things like the Mittens ad using Obama quoting the McCain campaign as Obama's own words that isn't exaggeration but an out and out lie. If you're a Democrat looking at the GOP and expect anything different, you're ... being silly. If there is a question about the regard such things are held in, it applies to the un-affiliated. Don't hold your breath.
I pretty much forgive exaggeration, a candidate for freshmean House seat sure isn't going to get far by being realistic about the impact of freshman Reps. There are some things like the Mittens ad using Obama quoting the McCain campaign as Obama's own words that isn't exaggeration but an out and out lie. If you're a Democrat looking at the GOP and expect anything different, you're ... being silly. If there is a question about the regard such things are held in, it applies to the un-affiliated. Don't hold your breath.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
A Laugh For Starting The New Year
My Mom sent this to me, thought you could use a laugh to start 2021
Ole's car was hit by a truck in an accident. In court, the trucking company's lawyer was questioning Ole.
'Didn't you say, sir, at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine, ?' asked the lawyer.
Ole responded, 'Vell, I'll tell you vat happened. I had yust loaded my favorite mule, Bessie, into da.....'
'I didn't ask for any details', the lawyer interrupted. 'Just answer the question. Did you not say, at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine'?
Ole said, 'Vell, I had yust got Bessie into da trailer and I vas driving down da road... ..
The lawyer interrupted again and said, 'Judge, I am trying to establish the fact that, at the scene of the accident, this man told the Highway Patrolman on the scene that he was just fine. Now several weeks after the accident he is trying to sue my client. I believe he is a fraud. Please tell him to simply answer the question.'
By this time, the Judge was fairly interested in Ole's answer and said to the lawyer, 'I'd like to hear what he has to say about his favorite mule, Bessie'.
Ole thanked the Judge and proceeded. 'Vell, as I vas saying, I had yust loaded Bessie, my favorite mule, into da trailer and vas driving her down da highvay ven dis huge semi-truck and trailer ran da stop sign and smacked my truck right in da side. I vas trown into one ditch and Bessie vas trown into da other. I vas hurting real bad and didn't vant to move. However, I could hear Bessie moaning and groaning. I knew she was in terrible shape yust by her groans'. 'Shortly after da accident da Highway Patrolman, he came to da scene.. He could hear Bessie moaning and groaning so he vent over to her'..
'After he looked at her and saw her fatal condition he took out his gun and shot her right 'tween da eyes.
Den da Patrolman, he came across da road, gun still smoking, looked at me and said, 'How are you feeling?'
'Now vut da hell vould YOU say?
Ole's car was hit by a truck in an accident. In court, the trucking company's lawyer was questioning Ole.
'Didn't you say, sir, at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine, ?' asked the lawyer.
Ole responded, 'Vell, I'll tell you vat happened. I had yust loaded my favorite mule, Bessie, into da.....'
'I didn't ask for any details', the lawyer interrupted. 'Just answer the question. Did you not say, at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine'?
Ole said, 'Vell, I had yust got Bessie into da trailer and I vas driving down da road... ..
The lawyer interrupted again and said, 'Judge, I am trying to establish the fact that, at the scene of the accident, this man told the Highway Patrolman on the scene that he was just fine. Now several weeks after the accident he is trying to sue my client. I believe he is a fraud. Please tell him to simply answer the question.'
By this time, the Judge was fairly interested in Ole's answer and said to the lawyer, 'I'd like to hear what he has to say about his favorite mule, Bessie'.
Ole thanked the Judge and proceeded. 'Vell, as I vas saying, I had yust loaded Bessie, my favorite mule, into da trailer and vas driving her down da highvay ven dis huge semi-truck and trailer ran da stop sign and smacked my truck right in da side. I vas trown into one ditch and Bessie vas trown into da other. I vas hurting real bad and didn't vant to move. However, I could hear Bessie moaning and groaning. I knew she was in terrible shape yust by her groans'. 'Shortly after da accident da Highway Patrolman, he came to da scene.. He could hear Bessie moaning and groaning so he vent over to her'..
'After he looked at her and saw her fatal condition he took out his gun and shot her right 'tween da eyes.
Den da Patrolman, he came across da road, gun still smoking, looked at me and said, 'How are you feeling?'
'Now vut da hell vould YOU say?
Ron Paul - There Is A Difference
I've been hearing lately about some "liberal" love for Ron Paul. I don't know about this, I hear things that frequently sound like something but have no weight. Just to act as though there is something to this, I'll go to the heart of some of the nonsense.
Yes, Ron Paul is against the Federal Drug War and that somehow puts him to the left of Obama and maybe the Democratic Party. I don't like the Federal Drug War but I don't propose the having the States wage it is some kind of improvement or somehow Left of any damn thing. I don't see where there are benefits to be gained from being executed in Mississippi for smoking pot and taxed in California.
I don't like wars of adventurism, or frankly - any of them. I can actually be persuaded that it has to be done, but the operative word there is "has." I don't propose that the way to avoid foreign wars is to disengage. I'll agree that the US is stupidly reflexively supportive of Israel and quick to forgive that nation's anti-democratic and theocratic behavior while bashing its neighbors for the same things but it is an entirely different matter to propose its abolition as a state.
I'm not in the least in favor of indefinite detention or other of the National Security tomfoolery but that doesn't put me in the camp of opposing the Civil Rights Act as though entire states and a region didn't use law to treat citizens as a despised second class. Ron Paul would have you believe it was an un-necessary infringement of liberty to make people stop doing that. He'd love to have the Civil War undone.
As for his "consistency" I'd have to question that in regards to the professed Libertarian view of not interfering in citizen's lives in view of his stance on abortion and actual Federal legislation he's written to interfere with it. He's perfectly fine with mucking around in a women's uterus as a Federal agent, but then men don't have such a thing. Maybe more to the point is that white men don't have them...
It matters how you get to a position. Let's say you and I agree to meet at a parking lot at noon. I leave early and drive carefully arriving at noon. You leave late and arrive at noon with your car beat to hell and smashed cars and run down pedestrians in your wake. We're both in the parking lot at noon, but you're a criminal asshole and I'm not.
Ron Paul is not to the left of anything other than Ghengis Khan.
Yes, Ron Paul is against the Federal Drug War and that somehow puts him to the left of Obama and maybe the Democratic Party. I don't like the Federal Drug War but I don't propose the having the States wage it is some kind of improvement or somehow Left of any damn thing. I don't see where there are benefits to be gained from being executed in Mississippi for smoking pot and taxed in California.
I don't like wars of adventurism, or frankly - any of them. I can actually be persuaded that it has to be done, but the operative word there is "has." I don't propose that the way to avoid foreign wars is to disengage. I'll agree that the US is stupidly reflexively supportive of Israel and quick to forgive that nation's anti-democratic and theocratic behavior while bashing its neighbors for the same things but it is an entirely different matter to propose its abolition as a state.
I'm not in the least in favor of indefinite detention or other of the National Security tomfoolery but that doesn't put me in the camp of opposing the Civil Rights Act as though entire states and a region didn't use law to treat citizens as a despised second class. Ron Paul would have you believe it was an un-necessary infringement of liberty to make people stop doing that. He'd love to have the Civil War undone.
As for his "consistency" I'd have to question that in regards to the professed Libertarian view of not interfering in citizen's lives in view of his stance on abortion and actual Federal legislation he's written to interfere with it. He's perfectly fine with mucking around in a women's uterus as a Federal agent, but then men don't have such a thing. Maybe more to the point is that white men don't have them...
It matters how you get to a position. Let's say you and I agree to meet at a parking lot at noon. I leave early and drive carefully arriving at noon. You leave late and arrive at noon with your car beat to hell and smashed cars and run down pedestrians in your wake. We're both in the parking lot at noon, but you're a criminal asshole and I'm not.
Ron Paul is not to the left of anything other than Ghengis Khan.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The ABMs Are Gonna Be Pissed
It wasn't a real surprise when the Establishment GOP and its hangers on started to pile on to Newt. It may have surprised Newt, but it shouldn't have. Once Perry's head exploded publicly those folks had no place to go but MultipleMitt. Be assured, despite the endorsements and the Newt kicking they didn't want Mitt either. Well, he's one of them, you say - nope. Mitt is a Mormon Robot from corporate raiderhood. First of all, the candidate is supposed to be a Christian and second - you don't let the marks in on the scam, no broken companies, layoffs, and gadzillion profits doing it. No, rich is fine, a plutocratic tool desirable, but a shape shifting ruthless job raper with the personality of a board is not fine.
Three years ago they had no hope of winning, now that they've broken government's function of governing they do actually have a chance and they want to badly. They're seriously hamstrung with MultipleMitt but Newt was a ticking time bomb. They are, of course, scandalized enough by R Paul to keep real quiet and they pay no attention to the other loons, but Perry was supposed to do the job after all their first choices bailed on the idea. Newt as the last to rise and near IA Caucuses had to be stomped even though Mitt would be the beneficiary.
The ABMs are pretty screwed. Despite the racism and assorted bigotry, forced birthism, god-bothering and general screw the poor that Paul packs around with him - he misses real big on war and dope. Bachmann and Santorum are crazy enough, but just the wrong crazy. Perry should have been it, then he opened his mouth. Newt is getting cannonaded from all sides by the Establishment; so where have they got to go?
I don't know, but the ABMs are gonna have some real resentments when they start going to the polls. It might dawn on them that they're being played for the rubes... again. Mitt can go on all the TV shows in the world and even "poke fun" at himself and the result for the ABMs will be ... nnaaahhh.
Yeah, if Perry doesn't rise and Newt keeps sliding it will be Newt, the possibly electable one, and the ABMs will feel about like Democrats would have if Hoe LIEberman had been the 08 candidate.(not real unreasonably) I just shake my head.
(It would pay to think about Newt being hit with 2400 negative ads mostly from SuperPacs in the last 2wks in IA, of all places - CU Decision)
Three years ago they had no hope of winning, now that they've broken government's function of governing they do actually have a chance and they want to badly. They're seriously hamstrung with MultipleMitt but Newt was a ticking time bomb. They are, of course, scandalized enough by R Paul to keep real quiet and they pay no attention to the other loons, but Perry was supposed to do the job after all their first choices bailed on the idea. Newt as the last to rise and near IA Caucuses had to be stomped even though Mitt would be the beneficiary.
The ABMs are pretty screwed. Despite the racism and assorted bigotry, forced birthism, god-bothering and general screw the poor that Paul packs around with him - he misses real big on war and dope. Bachmann and Santorum are crazy enough, but just the wrong crazy. Perry should have been it, then he opened his mouth. Newt is getting cannonaded from all sides by the Establishment; so where have they got to go?
I don't know, but the ABMs are gonna have some real resentments when they start going to the polls. It might dawn on them that they're being played for the rubes... again. Mitt can go on all the TV shows in the world and even "poke fun" at himself and the result for the ABMs will be ... nnaaahhh.
Yeah, if Perry doesn't rise and Newt keeps sliding it will be Newt, the possibly electable one, and the ABMs will feel about like Democrats would have if Hoe LIEberman had been the 08 candidate.(not real unreasonably) I just shake my head.
(It would pay to think about Newt being hit with 2400 negative ads mostly from SuperPacs in the last 2wks in IA, of all places - CU Decision)
Monday, December 19, 2011
The House And The XL Bill
The GOPers in the House are beating the drum of a one year extension of the UE/FICA Pipeling thing versus the sixty day one the Senate managed. The crux is that the Senate couldn't figure out how to pay for the thing longer than sixty days and the House isn't satisfied with that. Now maybe you're thinking sixty days is a bit of underperformance and I'd agree.
My guess is that the House wants to poison the thing so badly that they can get an optics switch into the Democrats sinking the thing. I'll be real frank, though they could have done that next year it is probably a lot more politically efficient to poison the thing before Christmas. It is probably their hope that it won't be noticed that in order to deliver the present some other poor group must get coal in their basket. That and that pesky Pipeline thing must be fixed - the Prez might say no...
OK Democratic Party, they're going to put the ball in your court once again. They're going to try real hard to stick you with choices that you don't want to make and you're not going to get to jamb your choices down their throats because the flatly don't care about the hostages. You care, they don't, now what?
You know that poison beyond Pipeline is going to be in your future and you'll have to make some decisions regarding what you'll give up. Or not.
Heh.
My guess is that the House wants to poison the thing so badly that they can get an optics switch into the Democrats sinking the thing. I'll be real frank, though they could have done that next year it is probably a lot more politically efficient to poison the thing before Christmas. It is probably their hope that it won't be noticed that in order to deliver the present some other poor group must get coal in their basket. That and that pesky Pipeline thing must be fixed - the Prez might say no...
OK Democratic Party, they're going to put the ball in your court once again. They're going to try real hard to stick you with choices that you don't want to make and you're not going to get to jamb your choices down their throats because the flatly don't care about the hostages. You care, they don't, now what?
You know that poison beyond Pipeline is going to be in your future and you'll have to make some decisions regarding what you'll give up. Or not.
Heh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)