tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-75418287916528889262024-02-19T03:40:14.735-06:0043-Ideas-Per-MinuteA Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.comBlogger3036125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-51770199696506926192013-01-15T18:41:00.000-06:002013-01-15T18:41:41.643-06:00If The Right Wants To Legislate Video Games, They Might Ought To Consider "Freedom of Speech"<br />
<br />
After Newtown, like after any great tragedy where lives are lost in a mass-shooting, you automatically know that the Modern American Right will blame everything but the weapon used - especially "violent video games".<br />
<br />
That later catagory has always intrigued me when the nation as a whole tries to pin the blame for the actions of another on some object, action, disposition, or even attempting to sweep the whole issue under the metaphorical rug. And the reason it has intrigued me is twofold: who(m) decides what level of violence to address and what is to be done with the game(s) - meaning will they be summarily removed from the individual store inventory and returned to the manufacturer or will they be taxed.<br />
<br />
Seems that the former isn't being addressed in an honest manner and the latter will most certainly be taxation. But this whole process posses a threat to one thing the Modern American Right aren't considering: The First Amendment - Freedom of Speech and Expression Thereof:<br />
<br />
I never hasten to reference the ideas of an author from HotAir, as they are generally misleading, patently false to such a degree as to be obscene, and of such a sophist nature that one can't but laugh that people take them even modestly serious. However, it appears that Patrick Ishmael <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/15/missouri-bill-would-tax-violent-video-games/">has got the right idea</a> :<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
.....I think there will be significant interest in a piece of legislation <a href="http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0157I.htm">filed yesterday</a> that
would levy “upon sales of all violent video games an excise tax based
on the gross receipts or gross proceeds of each sale at a rate of one
percent.” Last year in Oklahoma, legislator William Fourkiller (yes,
that is his real name) introduced a similar piece of legislation, and it
appears the Missouri legislation uses a fair amount of that bill’s
language. For instance, a “violent video game” in the Missouri bill is
defined as “a video or computer game that has received a rating from the
Entertainment Software Rating Board of Teen, Mature, or Adult Only” —
identical to the Oklahoma proposal.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Of course, as most video game players know, E.S.R.B. ratings do not
deal only with “violence” but with language, sexual matter, content
dealing with drugs and alcohol, gambling and <a href="http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp">many other factors</a>. </blockquote>
<br />
And while Congress cannot legislate your freedom of speech or expression thereof, the language within the First Amendment - dependant on the "type" of speech used - does have the ability to be <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment">interpreted</a> by the Supreme Court:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of
freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to
express themselves without interference or constraint by the government.
The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial
justification for the interference with the right of free speech where
it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test
is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also
recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a
breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less
protected categories of speech see <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/advocacy_of_illegal_action" target="_self" title="reference on advocacy of illegal action">advocacy of illegal action</a>, <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words" target="_self" title="reference on fighting words">fighting words</a>, <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech" target="_self" title="reference on commercial speech">commercial speech</a> and <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscenity" target="_self" title="reference on obscenity">obscenity</a>.<span> The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. <span>The level of protection speech receives also depends on the <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums" target="_self" title="reference on forum">forum</a> in which it takes place.</span></span></blockquote>
<br />
So let's take two things into account here: What type of speech is a video game? Since personal moneis are being used - and in light of the Citizen's United - money is now considered "speech" by the US Supreme Court. Things could get dicey at this point.<br />
<br />
We'll start with what "type of speech" a video game is.<br />
<br />
Does the playing of a particular game - violent or not - interfere to threaten the "right" of another? Is it "hate speech"? And who(m) decides either of these or the extention or addition to which this portion of the First Amendment applies. <br />
<br />
Most people I know - unless they are lucky enough to attend a gaming convention where a new game is released - at this point I'm reminded of the initial commercial for Black Ops II which consisted of joyous gamers reveling at the gameplay and the moment they got to buy their copy - most people play at home and don't have contact with others unless they are playing online in a team format or someone is in the room with them.<br />
<br />
Have you ever come across a person(s) that complained about a video game being played within their immediate proximity and claimed that is removed their right to freedom of religion, the press, assembly, et. al.? Neither have I.<br />
<br />
So what about the second piece of the puzzle that I don't think many are going to consider - money is new considered speech.<br />
<br />
In the Supreme Court's ruling in the still controversial Citizen's United case, money can be "donated" privately and it is now considered speech. But, does that extend to money being "donated" to gaming stores and traditional retail outlets - which a set percentage is given to the game's producers - and it still be considered speech?<br />
<br />
I would have to say yes, though there may be just enough gray-area there to have a debate that could drag on endlessly. Let's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission">take a look.</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associates of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech"</blockquote>
<br />
Uh, oh. "Political Speech". That could untmately be the downfall here. But let's look on.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
" The majority argued that the First Amendment protects <i>associations</i>
of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the
First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the
identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals,
therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending
money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo" title="Buckley v. Valeo">Buckley v. Valeo</a></i>,
limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional
because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively
and to speak on political issues."</blockquote>
<br />
It's these two particular sections of Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion. So again, what is considered "political" speech since not every game created that has a particular ESRB rating that includes violent content of a pre-determined level, think of all the games that do. These would likely include games such as the afformentioned Call of Duty: Black Ops series and many other "first person shooters", but also some that have content that is expressly of a political nature - such as themes and character arcs that include a socio-political bent. <br />
<br />
No, we aren't going to see this in even semi-violent games like the Need For Speed series, but would it extend to the Grand Theft Auto series? Would even a minimal of socio-political content warrant referencing Citizen's United? Certainly something to consider.<br />
<br />
And while there are systemic risks to consider - the phrase "job killing legislation" certainly springs to mind - how is this going to benefit our country, if at all? Will banning or limiting the sale of "violent" video content prevent tragedies like what happened at Newtown? At Tuscon? At Portland? In the next city? I have to be blunt and say that this line of attack from the Modern American Right is a complete waste of our legislators ( at the local, state, and federal levels ) time and our tax dollars - since we are paying their respective salaries. <br />
<br />
As an aside - is there a definative study that shows that a specific game or games causes a person to act or react in a particular way? <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-32916185030225319082013-01-15T11:55:00.001-06:002013-01-15T12:00:19.874-06:00Malkin Pours On The Spin-Love Little Jimmy O'KeefeNot content with even attempting honest investigative journalism, James O'Keefe and his blind compatriots at Project Veritas have cranked out another completely worthless video "expose". This time attempting to do something along the lines of point out hypocrisy regarding people that own guns and the poor decision of a New York newspaper that printed a map of registered gun owners in the region. At least this is what we are lead to believe.
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wt1Zy_ASNyA" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
The only problem is they just wasted time, video editing equipment, internet bandwidth, but - but at the same time - managed to maintain the uncheck, unwaivering, and fawning support of select members of the Modern American Right that lap up O'Keefe's nonsenscial prattling and context free experiemnts like so much cream.
Naturally, Ed Morrissey over at <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/15/journal-news-hiding-behind-pr-firm-after-gun-map-fiasco/">Hot Air</a> attempted - and poorly at that - to approach this from a semi-professional bit of spin, twitching serial <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/hilarious-james-okeefes-project-veritas-punks-lib-hypocrites-with-gun-free-home-signs-video/">misinformer and mouth-breathing sychophant</a> jumps with glee, but it was Michelle Malkin's <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/15/what-i-most-admire-about-james-okeefe/">metaphorical hand-job</a> for young Jimmy that really made me laugh.
In her latest piece of Malking drooling over O'Keefe entitled <b>WHAT I ADMIRE MOST ABOUT JAMES O'KEEFE</b>, the Purse Lipped Rage Princess traded in her faux indignation for a warm hand and some lubricated language to prove her undying affections for little Jimmy:
<br />
<blockquote>
…is his willingness and unmatched ability to go after the most sacred of sacred cows: The sanctimonious beasts of the Fourth Estate;
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
…his relentlessness in exposing media double standards;
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
…his entrepreneurial independence;
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
…his indefatigable humor;
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
…and his success in bringing a smile to my face every time he produces another classic video using the very techniques of those hallowed beasts of the Fourth Estate who feign objectivity.</blockquote>
let's take these preposterous bullet points ( no pun intended ) one at a time.<br />
<br />
- his willingness to distort, lie, misinform, edit, and go after people whom have done no wrong is certainly there.<br />
<br />
- Ah, the dreaded media that doesn't tow the Right Wing line. I would ask her what her alleged "standards" are, but I think that would fall on deaf ears. We know what they are anyway<br />
<br />
- There is NOTHING even remotely "independant" about what Project Veritas do. He was at the beck and call of the late deacon of "nu-media" lies, Andrew Breitbart and WELL funded by the corporate overlords that funneled cash into Breitbart's media complex. However, he is at least marginally considered "entrepreneurial", if only in the sense that even a liar can make a buck.<br />
<br />
- I'm wondering where Malkin gets that O'Keefe is humorous in any shape of the definition.<br />
<br />
- The last bit is where Malkin finishes off little Jimmy with her silver-tongued prattlings. It's actually pretty disgusting when you think about it.<br />
<br />
It truly is a sight to see what the Modern American Right consider investigative journalism. But it doesn't matter to them, so long as it can be destributed and they control the narrative across legitimate media platforms that feel compelled to waste precious airtime on discussing such pointless and meandering fakery. But unfortunately, it happens will continue to.<br />
<br />
I guess I at least a little guilty in that regard simply because of this post.
aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-38991854225661606142013-01-15T08:51:00.000-06:002013-01-15T08:51:38.386-06:00The Right, Our History, and The Fear of Understanding The Modern American Right has always had an issue with the accurate portrayals of American History and it being displayed in text and film formats. That's always troubled me. And I'm not alone.
Enter Oliver Stone and Showtime.
The Right, whether in their more modest and farthers forms, have never liked Stone. I can almost see why - to a fault. From Stone's earlier works like Platoon to his forays into the world of documentaries like Persona Non Gratta, Stone has been cast in the character of a pariah for decades.
Now he's about to complete another magnum opus for Showtime on American's "real" history.
Enter <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/01/12/Oliver-Stone-s-History-Of-The-United-States-One-More-Sack-Of-Lies">William Bigelow</a> and the serial distortionists at the Breitbart Media Complex
<blockquote>The polemic, which airs its final installment at 8 p.m. EST tomorrow night, intentionally distorts history in order to paint the United States as a terrible country that oppressed its people and hid the seamy side of its past.
Ronald Radosh, in a brilliant attack on Stone and Kuznick in the Wall Street Journal, explains how they twist the truth in order to promulgate their attack on the noblest of nations. He begins by noting that Kuznick wrote in a book of essays that his role entails “creating a bridge between leftist and more moderate students … try to radicalize some of the more moderate and liberal students.” Kuznick said of the Vietnam War that America had gone so far "to the dark side" that "we were the wrong side."
The authors deny that the Cold War was necessary, arguing that it only transpired because President Franklin D. Roosevelt dumped his socialist vice-president Henry A. Wallace (their hero) for Harry Truman in 1944. They assert that if Wallace had succeeded Roosevelt instead of Truman, everything would have been hunky dory with the Soviets. </blockquote>
While the documentary, regardless of subject matter, requires that somewhat of a common theme or narrative been reinforced throughout it's running time, the Modern American Right have clearly injected their own narrative without even the slightest attempt to understand that the history of this country isn't all waving flags, rhetorical flourishes from great men and women, and people prospering in the face of adversity. It was - and still is - at many times a bloody and scary place to call home and some of it's primary characters didn't always have a life that was white as snow.
So here's the question - what does the Modern American Right have against even mentioning the seemingly more darker portion of our nation's history? They are all too willing at times to talk to us about "the truth", but are quite hesitant when that truth is revealed.
This isn't to say that Stone's work on the Showtimes series didn't have historical plot-holes or spend longer stretches of time on subjects where more of a wealth of solid information is available or even hypothesize to a degree. Does that make it a documentary that is without merit? No. Does this mean that Stone is attempting to say that America is a place of nothing but evil and where not everyone is created equal? Not in the least.
I'm not going to hold my breath in the hopes that the Modern American Right are going to even begin to accept the true history of our nation within my lifetime. Maybe never - based solely on the fact that they are creating their own dark history of this country, but it doesn't include anything about the Right - as the dark history revolves exclusively within the realm of anyone or anything that doesn't accept conservative or even libertarian beliefs as holy writ.
aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-788296013878562642013-01-08T15:05:00.001-06:002013-01-08T15:05:23.026-06:00The General Takes A Stand Against Assault Weapons
This morning on MSNBC, Gen. Stanley McCrystal spoke about his new book, his time in Afghanistan, his resignation, but most importantly - assault weapons in American society.
Please watch:
<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc714308" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=50395600&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc714308" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=50395600&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
As I had posted in regards to his resignation, I thought it VERY appropriate that he do so. He - and some of those under his command - acted in a fashion that could easily be deemed insubordonate. He did, fractionally, address this on Morning Joe, and let it be known that his wife supported his decision and thought it the right thing to do.
But that is ancillary to the topic of this post. His most powerful statement was this:
<blockquote>I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.</blockquote>
As of now, the Modern American Right are silent. It is, to hold to the well-known phrase - deafening. Why? They were so eager to champion him after the Rolling Stone article? Oh.......I guess when a man that has devoted over 30 years in service to risking his life for this country speaks out against weapons designed and sold to murder humans, then that's where the line is drawn. How typical.
We have heard for years from the Modern American Right about how the Left "never lets a crisis go to waste". To that, I would offer the easily recognized point that the Modern Right never consider the deaths of innocent children, women, wives, teachers, daughters, sons...............and in the name of ensuring that they can have access to assault weapons and never consider that criminals can get them too.
I have two daughters. My friends have daughters, and sons, and grandchildren. They have brothers and sisters - all in not only the education community, but in public service of a wide variety. Are we to honestly accept the narrative that handing any or all of them a firearm, of removing a sign that designated that firearms aren't allowed, that ignoring basi building safety precautions in favor of allowing a marginally trained person with a gun at the door is going to fix the problem?
Are we.........?
aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-54678948676728482562013-01-08T11:21:00.000-06:002013-01-08T11:21:22.579-06:00What Is A "Friend Of Isreal'?
I've thought of what this really means within the landscape of our modern socio-political culture for quite a few years. The Modern American Right can never clearly define it, but do they really have to? For me, personally, this stems more from a religiously extreme point of view rather than from anything that will truly benefit the Jewish State. But I could be wrong - hence the question.
This morning, I noticed that mouth agape Breitbart worshipper Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit had launched one of the first misleading salvos in the attack against Hagel for Defense Secretary. And hyper-partisan hack Ed Morrissey followed suit - only with less bloodthirsty fervor.
Links follow accordingly:
<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/iranian-regime-supports-hagel-nomination-for-secretary-of-defense/">Iranian Regime Supports Hagel Nomiation For Sec. Of Defense</a>
<blockquote>
Iran on Tuesday expressed the hope that Washington’s foreign policy will witness practical changes after US officials announced that President Barack Obama will nominate Chuck Hagel as his next defense secretary.
“We hope that practical changes will be created in the US foreign policy and the US officials’ approach will change to respect the nations’ rights,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast told reporters in Tehran on Tuesday.
“We hope that the US officials will favor peace instead of warmongering and recognize the rights of nations instead of interfering in the countries’ internal affairs,” he said.
“If such a trend is adopted (by the American officials), hatred for the US hostile policies will decrease, although assessment can be made in action,” the spokesman said.
Tehran has been under Washington sanctions after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled a US-backed monarch in the country.
</blockquote>
<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/08/iran-strangely-cheered-by-us-secdef-nomination/">Iran Strangely Cheered By US Secdef Nomination</a>
And while Morrissey links to the same article, the title alone shows that he is more concerned with disceminating blatant misinformation. After all, being "hopeful" is completely disparate from "support" and "strangely cheerful". To read these headlines, you'd think Iranian leaders would be celebrating - but they aren't.
The reason that the Modern American Right utilize such tactics, why they continually point to Iran as to a defining factor, and why they use the Jewish population ( yes, USE THEM - not befriend them ) is to push the wedge in just a little further. They don't want to face the realities of the world around us. They don't want to be honest with their constituents. They want to seem "caring", "holy", or any other adjective that could distort the five seconds in front of someone's face so they won't pay attention to tomorrow, next week, or even next year.
So again, here's the question - what does it mean to be a friend of Isreal? Certainly it's not just attending an AIPAC convention, but there's a great deal of that. And I'm not so ignorant to see that politicians have to save face when election time comes around, but what does your support truly mean? This could, in all reality, extend beyond the Jewish State. And it's not even the "original borders" - something that is strictly off-limits to the Modern American Right in terms of foreign policy discussion.
While Chuck Hagel wouldn't have been my personal first choice for Sec. Of Defense, he's lightyears away from people like John McCain - one of his loudest detractors - or just about anyone, save John Kerry. And since we are talking about McCain, let's not he was an ardent supporter of James "Fuck The Jews" Baker. Guess he conveniently forgot those years.
Suppose it can be said for most, if not all, of us that the <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/hagel-foes-graham-and-mccain-praised-james-baker">past comes back to haunt you</a>. And Israelis have a past that many of them won't immediately recognize. I'm not talking about biblical or even verifiable historic text, but their history of being treated as metaphorical chess pieces in the foreign policy of this country.
Do we endanger them as, if one were to say, showing pictures of the coffins of fallen American soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan would put more troops in harms way? Do we assist them in fighting Palestinians in such a way that would ensure a more productive, a more fruitful life? From how I, and many others, see it - No.
Who Is A "Friend Of Isreal"?
Certainly not those that would continually boast how they are.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-3930956190275147372013-01-01T06:15:00.000-06:002013-01-01T06:17:12.815-06:00Once More Into The FrayI opted to step away from blogging here for a year, as the end of 2011 and a plurality of 2012 took a seriously disasterous turn for me on a personal level.
I still attempted to keep up with various news and information outlets while trying to piece back together segments of my daily life, but to very little avail.
With that said, I feel that it's time for me to settle back in here and share my thoughts on all the elements that this blog was started for in the first place. And honestly, while I did hold back and attempt to approach some of the subject matter contained here from a set perspective, I think that perhaps my naieve outlook all too often lost the plot.
So, with the reintroduction out of the way, let's get to work - again......aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-84269408994613435572011-09-29T11:31:00.006-05:002011-09-29T12:30:39.789-05:00Trying To Trap A FreemanIn the immortal words of Adm. Akbar......<br /><br /><iframe width="427" height="257" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/piVnArp9ZE0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br />And that precisely what <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/09/28/your-move-morgan-black-tea-party-organizer-invites-freeman-to-tn-event/">this</a> is:<br /><br /><blockquote>Dear Mr. Freeman,<br /><br />My name is Ali Akbar. I’m a 26 year-old African-American small business owner and a tea party activist. I’m not writing to rake you over the coals in the way that many conservatives have done in the last 48 hours. Heck, I wrote a passionate open-letter refuting many of your claims already, but this is not that. This is an honest and standing invitation. I do believe that you are wrong in what you said about the tea party, but I would rather prove it to you than castigate you for your comments.<br /><br />I also understand that your reflexive comments came from experience. You grew up in a different America than the one that I was blessed to be born into. We both grew up in the south, but I never saw ‘White Only’ signs. I’ve been called a name or two in my three decades, but racism has always been the exception in my life, not the rule, as it probably was in your youth. I understand your suspicion of conservative political movements. It is rooted in pain and fear and memory, and though I never saw the horrors of segregation that you did, we share that cultural heritage.<br /><br /><br />I’ve been a fan of yours all my life. From “Driving Miss Daisy” to “Lean on Me” to “The Shawshank Redemption,” I idolized you as a boy. Growing up without a father, you were one of the strong black men in my life who gave me a model to follow. Each of the characters you played had dignity and confidence. I tried to emulate the strength you projected. While many of my friends headed down the all-too-familiar path of drugs, unwed pregnancies and crime, I’ve striven to live a life with dignity, be an example for my brothers and make my mother proud.<br /><br />My favorite of your movies was “The Power of One.” I must’ve watched it a hundred times, crying every time when your character Geel Piet was killed by the racist South African. Geel Piet was brave and heroic, even in the face of death, because he knew that the hate that killed him was a trifle in comparison to the love that PK’s anti-apartheid movement was spreading. It is with that spirit that I’m writing to you this morning.<br /><br />I’ve attended dozens of tea party events. I’ve helped organize them, and I’ve even spoken at a few. The tea party is not what is often depicted in the news. It is people of all colors who are terribly concerned about the direction that America is heading. We don’t trust big government to make decisions for us. And we fear that the present administration’s spending is going to lead our country down a path to insolvency, much like what Greece is currently facing.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, the Tea Bagger is actually named Akbar.<br /><br />This is on par with high school kids cleaning up their parents house just hours before mom and dad arrive home from their long weekend, making sure that there are no empty beer cans and bottles of Jagermeister; no ash-trays filled with remnants of blunts, or stray pairs of lacy undergarments from any of the girls that got tipsy enough to dance on the coffee table. This is exactly what this is.<br /><br />Of course, Morgan Freeman likely knows this and should speak out to this effect. Does Mr. Akbar actually think that one of the more intelligent and articulate humans on the planet is actually going to fall for such sophomoric pleading? I certainly hope he doesn't. If anything, he should arrive, completely unannnounced and unrecognizable - with hidden camera at the ready - to a Tea Bagger gathering in the near future to get a real sense of what an unsanitized conglomerate this reactionary lot truly is.<br /><br />I'm certain that <a href="http://teapartybrew.com/opinion/2011/09/a-tea-party-invitation-to-morgan-freeman/">Mr. Akbar's</a> intensions - at least deep down inside him somewhere - are well and good, but to see anyone within the African American community, regardless of socio-political stripe; where they live; or what they do for a living, be so blind to the verifiable incidences of unchecked racial animus within the Tea Bagger movement gives me great pause. Are they simply playing the role of ostrich in order to maintain a sense of moral superiority? Or is this something more sinister, that they see it and it doesn't bother them in the lease because it's "not happening to them"?<br /><br />Regardless, the trap as been set and I'm sure that Morgan Freeman is all too aware of this. And once he doesn't show up, The Modern American Right are going to have their "he was too scared to show up" talking points at the ready. They really are that predictable.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-78596332307254777342011-09-29T11:00:00.008-05:002011-09-29T11:26:43.973-05:00How To Lose VotesRemember when Herman Cain ( oh, wait, aren't we supposed to call him <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/sarah-palin-you-could-say-herman-cain-is-the-flavor-of-the-week-video/">Herm or Herb</a> now? ) said he would <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=herman%20cain%20says%20he%20will%20get%20the%20black%20vote&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CE8QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fstories%2F0911%2F64507.html&ei=6ZaETtjMN9C4twfB05gr&usg=AFQjCNE7rlrdSmNtvNP_6W3WEsIlL2vXNQ&sig2=x0vUkRGZpfNaDdS7aVp7DQ">get no less than a third of the black vote</a>?<br /><br />Let's all watch as that vote magically disappears right before your eyes.<br /><br /><iframe width="427" height="257" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/za9MwTvUhpc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br />Yep, nothing like telling the black community that a majority of them lack higher brain functions and have no clue that conservative policies are what have kept them down for decades.<br /><br />Of course, Cain attempts to offer the caveat that it's just 2/3 of blacks in America that suffer under the yolk of Democratic telekinetic suppression, but where is the data to back up this assertion? Oh, I see, Cain just made it up. It's his "anecdotal feedback machine" that he keeps hidden in his suit jacket. <br /><br />The reality of this is that Cain just made a massive gaffe. All that has to happen now is for the Modern American Right to gin up enough spin to make this sound like a positive for the GOP field, and for Cain more specifically. I'm sure their will be some colorful chart used and Sean Hannity will utilize his own racial invective to back this up by having Eric Rush and Jesse Lee Peterson on as the "token black guys". <br /><br />I bet Cain's foot tastes like Godfather's Deep Dish Pepperoni.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-49641771200424754512011-09-28T10:16:00.009-05:002011-09-28T11:16:45.021-05:00Apparently Safety Equals Loss Of FreedomRand Paul has been out of sight for some time - as the GOP field of Presidential contenders have been taking up a plurality of the news cycles - but that doesn't mean that he hasn't been using his canted philosophy and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/no-regs-are-good-regs-single-senator-blocks-pipeline-safety-bill-on-principle/2011/09/27/gIQAp4720K_story.html">using it</a> as a tool that could ultimately endanger people.<br /><br /><blockquote> A senator who opposes federal regulation on philosophical grounds is single-handedly blocking legislation that would strengthen safety rules for oil and gas pipelines, a bill that even the pipeline industry and companies in his own state support.<br /><br />Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s opposition to the bill hasn’t wavered even after a gas pipeline rupture last week shook people awake in three counties in his home state of Kentucky.<br /><br />Paul, a tea party ally who shares with his father, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a desire to shrink the role of the federal government, won’t discuss his role in stymieing the bill. But industry lobbyists, safety advocates and Senate aides said he is the only senator who is refusing to agree to procedures that would permit swift passage of the measure.</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>Officials familiar with Paul’s objections said he has told lobbyists and company officials that he’s not opposed to any specific part of the bill, just to the notion of additional federal regulation.</blockquote><br /><br />This is the same Rand Paul that is against energy saving lightbulbs and complains about how his toilet "doesn't work". This is what Modern Libertarianism looks like - sacrificing safety and efficiency in the name of a failed ideology that only worked in a fiction novel.<br /><br />Living in the heart of what is known as Kentucky's Coal Fields, I have seen first-hand what happens when proper safety oversight is either rejected or is doesn't exist because of people like Rand "Accidents Happen" Paul. I saw what happened with safety regulations weren't followed properly at the Dotiki Mine in Webster County where one of my close friends was killed in a rock-fall. <br /><br />Does Rand Paul care more about the companies rather than the people they employ? One would think so, but in the story above, the pipeline company agrees with the increase in safety regulation. So what are we to believe of Rand Paul and his alleged ideology if he won't even listen to the "job creators"?aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-88883529548116685072011-09-28T08:19:00.013-05:002011-09-28T08:54:36.607-05:00Excuses In Favor Of DistanceThe Modern American Right simply can't comprehend the very simple concept that they claim is one of the pillars of their ideology - accountability.<br /><br />In light of the many "controversial" moments during the seemingly endless GOP Presidential debates, the Right is in full-on defense mode because some audience members booed an active duty member of the American Military because he is gay and he disagrees with Don't Ask Don't Tell.<br /><br />For examples, check Breitbarts frothy-mouthed minions <a href="http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/09/27/the-view-where-dishonest-debunked-left-wing-narratives-get-a-second-wind/">here</a>, <a href="http://bigjournalism.com/driehl/2011/09/27/yes-media-matters-is-that-stupid/">here</a>, and <a href="http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/09/26/mmfa-propaganda-watch-media-matters-flubs-attempted-loesch-smear/">here</a>.<br /><br />The rusty lynch-pin of their defense is that "it was just a couple of people", that this is something that not everyone in the Modern American Right would accept. And while the Right wants to paint this as a smear by Liberals/Progressive, the reality is that those that did cast aspersions at this soldier were largely ignored. They faced no backlash, even though Liberals/Progressives that merely questioned the need to invade and remain in Iraq were labeled as un-American traitors.<br /><br />So it was with little surprise that I watched Fox"News" do their best to run <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/26/audio-bret-baier-says-bho-exaggerated-booing-of-gay-soldier-at-the-fox-gop-debate/"></a>. But what Megyn Kelly did was such a distortion of reality that I'm shocked that a time-space paradox didn't manifest itself right there in the studio with her:<br /><br /><iframe width="427" height="257" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2hk8iO2lrx0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br />Is Kelly attempting to excuse the actions of these people in order to push the narrative that there must be a specific amount of vitriol hurled by a set amount of persons toward a group of people that the Modern American Right allegedly champions before it becomes wrong? It would certainly appear that way. Moreover, her laughably flaccid claim that it wasn't the soldier that was being booed, that it was his question, falls completely flat when one considers how the Modern American Right spends countless hours decrying Liberals/Progressives questioning a particular mission of the American Military but offering support of the troop that is put in harms way.<br /><br />I've seen and heard many disgusting and revealing aspects of Right Wing posturing, but this has got to be one of the worst. Not only do these people use members of the American Military as props, but they are more than willing to completely ignore real hatred that is leveled at them.<br /><br />I'm wondering how long it's going to take the folks at Fox"News" or any lunatic fringe wingnut to piece together some conspiracy theory that it was actually Liberal/Progressive infiltrators at the debate that did this.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-47406532123550164022011-09-27T10:12:00.003-05:002011-09-27T10:25:18.783-05:00It's About What's Not ThereIn which we examine how the Modern American Right prefer conspiracy theory over verifiable facts:<br /><br /><iframe width="427" height="257" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WtnkCwPNHvA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br />So what else has Obama not talked about? After all, if he hasn't spoken about it, it certainly has to be true.<br /><br />- Drinking the blood of a newborn child? Nope, hasn't talked about doing that.<br /><br />- Confiscating and burning all the Bibles from every bedside table at every hotel in America? No, he hasn't mentioned that.<br /><br />- Demanding that all high school students have a "chip" installed in their brains so they can be easily controlled via remote control? Definitely hasn't spoken to that affect.<br /><br />You kind of see where this is going, I'm sure.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-9004366704869126662011-09-27T09:04:00.006-05:002011-09-27T09:22:01.642-05:00Wingnut Blogger Praises SocialismIn light of Ron Paul's insistence that a patient in a hospital be allowed to die as a result of an inability to pay for medical expenses, one would think that the Modern American Right would stand by their "individual responsibility" talking points.<br /><br />Then again, embracing the concept of "I am my brother's keeper" can make you look like a caring and "compassionate conservative" if you find the <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/virginia-marine-who-lost-3-limbs-in-afghanistan-gets-emotional-at-homecoming-rally-video/"></a> to go along with it:<br /><br /><blockquote>A Virginia marine who lost both of his legs and right arm in an IED blast in Afghanistan was welcomed home over the weekend.<br /><br />J.B. Kerns, 21, returned to his hometown of Ararat, which is located in the southwestern part of the state, to a group of bikers who escorted the war hero home.<br /><br />“Any young man that comes home in that condition, that’s what he needs. He needs to know people still care for him,” said one of the bikers welcoming him home.<br /><br />“It feels real good to be home. It’s an honor to come from a town like this that gives such great support,” said Kerns. “You all don’t know what it means to me to know that everybody here is here for me.”<br /><br /><strong>The community has raised more than $50,000 to help the family with medical bills.<br /></strong></blockquote><br /><br />( emphasis by Jim Hoft )<br /><br />Anytime someone of opposing socio-political stripe suggests that the community come together to help another person, the Modern American Right ties themselves into knots while shrieking that such acts are "socialism".<br /><br />Sure, soldiers returning home from "war" deserve our respect and our help, so why isn't this courtesy extended to others? Are they of lesser value to America because they exercised their free will and opted to not join the military? The answer is certainly they are of lesser value - unless they vote Republican, embrace Tea Bagger dogma, and are regular viewers of Fox"News"aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-61790137225055891322011-09-27T08:40:00.005-05:002011-09-27T09:02:40.189-05:00Leave Her Alone: The Culture Of Victimhood Marches OnThe Modern American Right are the perpetual victims in our socio-political society. It is with this in mind that we should not be surprised that Sarah Palin <blockquote></blockquote><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/sarah-palin-threatens-to-sue-rogue-book-publisher/">has revealed</a> that she is what the Right have called "thin skinned" in relation to a book about her written by one Joe McGinniss.<br /><br /><blockquote>Sarah Palin’s family attorney John Tiemessen has written a letter to Maya Mavjee, the publisher of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, that Palin may sue her, the company, and the book’s author Joe McGinniss “for knowingly publishing false statements” in his book released last week, “The Rogue,” ABC News has learned.</blockquote><br /><br /><img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.11NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMTcxMzE1MTQ1MTUmcHQ9MTMxNzEzMTUyNTM5MCZwPSZkPSZnPTImbz*xOTZiNzExMTg4MGY*Y2JhODg4M2I3OTY3/ZTExNzUxNCZvZj*w.gif" /><object name="kaltura_player_1317131506" id="kaltura_player_1317131506" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowFullScreen="true" height="221" width="392" data="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_ish5kcii/uiconf_id/5590821"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><param name="movie" value="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_ish5kcii/uiconf_id/5590821"/><param name="flashVars" value="autoPlay=false&screensLayer.startScreenOverId=startScreen&screensLayer.startScreenId=startScreen"/><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com">video platform</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_management">video management</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/solutions/video_solution">video solutions</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_publishing">video player</a></object><br /><br />The use of "unnamed sources" really isn't going to hold water. But so long as Palin's handlers can continue to convince people in America that she has been maliciously attacked any and every time someone even whispers her name, then that's what counts.<br /><br />Fringe Right bloggers are <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/26/palin-threatens-to-sue-publisher-over-new-mcginniss-book/">already on the case</a> since their best gal has been "hurt" over what is on par with what they have to say about Obama. But it's a poor defense to say that sloppy investigations that lead to equally sloppy tirades about Obama ( see every Right Wing book written about the Obama administration since Jan. 20th 2009 ) excuse McGinniss' sloppy investigations - if that's really what they are.<br /><br />So is this what we should come to expect from a Palin presidency should she finally admitted she was in the race and actually won? Would she spend precious time in the White House complaining about everything anyone published about her and then threaten to sue? Considering how her handlers reacted to claims leveled at her during her brief stint as Alaska's Governor it's equally likely that she would either sue or just quit - like she did before.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-26746344758340956432011-09-27T07:20:00.002-05:002011-09-27T07:50:33.087-05:00Back At LastAfter some personal struggles and self-impossed delays, I figure it's time to get back on the metaphorical horse.<br /><br />Having intentionally stayed away from most things in the political realm these past couple of months, I've had plenty of time to consider several aspects of my life and how I function in the socio-political landscape.<br /><br />So let's get to itaironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-59657170577373001252011-07-21T10:19:00.000-05:002011-07-21T10:23:57.832-05:00Going Dark..........I've got a writing project that just fell in my lap that I cant pass up.<br /><br />Be right back next month...........aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-15130038515594478772011-07-18T08:50:00.002-05:002011-07-18T09:01:55.056-05:00What Is This "Gay Agenda"?The Modern American Right loves to use the word "agenda", as it evokes a sinister sound and feeling. They use it in relation to virtually everything they either can't understand or reconcile within rational thought. And when we are talking about the Modern American Right, rational thought simply doesn't exist.<br /><br />I was reading a post from Right Wing sychophant <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/this-is-supposed-to-be-news-radical-gay-groups-to-target-bachmann/">Jim Hoft</a> and that question came back to me - what is the "gay agenda"?<br /><br />The reality of this issue is simple - though Hoft and his equally ignorant compatriots will not admit it..........<br /><br />Gays and Lesbians are humans, are workers in society, are producers, and just want to have the same rights as others. That's it. But you wouldn't get that if you read Hoft or paid attention to the framing of the Modern American Right.<br /><br />What really happened to "Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness"? Aren't these the pillars of Right Wing Theology?<br /><br />Evidently not if you are a man that loves another man, or a woman that loves another woman.<br /><br />The "Gay Agenda" is nothing more than saying "let us exist in American the same way that everyone else does." Why is that so hard for the Modern American Right to accept?aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-89961860223994410702011-07-16T08:21:00.006-05:002011-07-16T14:09:39.481-05:00Palin, Cinema, And Context - or - Did Conservatives Not Learn Anything From Their Atlas Disaster?It's no surprise that The Modern American Right would start <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/the-undefeated-roars-to-big-opening-day-theaters-sell-out-from-atlanta-to-orange-county/">crowing</a> like Peter Pan on crystal meth once the Sarah Palin mockumentary premiered in theatres across the US. But one has to ask whether or not these same people have forgotten even the most recent of Right Wing cinema flops that they claimed was a successful box office opening.<br /><br /><blockquote>The much anticipated Sarah Palin documentary, “The Undefeated”, which chronicles Sarah Palin’s rise from mayor of Wasilla, Alaska to national prominence, will play exclusively in AMC Theatres starting today. You can vote for the movie to play in your town at The Undefeated website.<br /><br />The Sarah Palin documentary “The Undefeated” opened to a huge opening day. They are selling out from Atlanta to Orange County.<br /><br />Opens Friday, July 15th! <br /><br />There are several reports that the audiences are standing and cheering in the theaters.</blockquote><br /><br />And while it's not unusual to witness cheering/shouting/standing in theatres during movies ranging from the latest sophomoric Wayans Brothers production to more serious offerings, The Modern American Right is in full framing mode with this one. After all, they have to, considering Palin has become somewhat of a religious figure amongst conservatives and some libertarians.<br /><br />But lets look at this from an honest marketing and distributing perspective.<br /><br />The Modern American Right have everything to lose should this mockumentary fail, so it works to their advantage to frame this opening as "groundbreaking". But what they aren't considering is the fact that we are talking about 10 cities, 10 specific theatres, and a cult following that really can't survive in a mass release.<br /><br />And while some within the Modern American Right are <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sright/2011/07/16/the-undefeated-the-atlantics-phony-empty-theatre-meme-falls-further-apart/">poorly attempting</a> to minimalize the reality of poor ticket sales, I can't but wonder what sort of "victimhood meme" they will conjour once the initial glow has worn off with members of the Tea Bagger set.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-33162078771503832902011-07-13T23:21:00.001-05:002011-07-13T23:28:43.344-05:00Late Night Music Club feat. BauhausThe original goth band.................nuff said<br /><br />God In An Alcove<br /><br /><iframe width="427" height="257" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/stY9OuDy1Mc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-54702835411067051362011-07-13T12:05:00.003-05:002011-07-13T12:10:29.918-05:00The Reality Of Right Wing "Reading"As I studied film throughout my life - and as well as intensive classes at college - I was continually reminded to remove all expectations when viewing a particular piece of cinema. After all, if you go into the theatre expecting something, and then are promptly given something else, your opinion of the piece will be so canted and distorted that you will likely miss the majority of context and nuance and be summarily disappointed, thereby giving a review to someone that is based on your own ignorance.<br /><br />The same is true of the written word. In this instance, I am speaking of the United States Constitution.<br /><br />When you read a document of this power, you have to exercise the intellectual honesty in reference to the time it was written in. This is something The Modern American Right completely ignore while claiming to understand it's historical timeline. <br /><br />Former Speaker of the House and unapologetic adulterer Newt Gingrich can't seem to wrap his head around the past and the Constitution while he <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/12/266219/gingrich-supreme-court/">pretends</a> to be the nations preeminent Constitutional Scholar:<br /><br /><iframe width="427" height="257" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3PDKeCbbbpU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br /><blockquote>In the American system, if you read the Constitution correctly — this is why I wrote “A Nation Like No Other” — if you read the Federalist Papers correctly, the fact is the Congress can pass a law and can limit the Court’s jurisdiction. It’s written directly in the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton promises, I think it’s Number 78, that the judiciary branch is the weakest of the three branches. There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution. There’s the court which is the Supreme of the judicial branch, but it’s not supreme over the legislative and executive branch. We now have this entire national elite that wants us to believe that any five lawyers are a Constitutional convention. That is profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong.</blockquote><br /><br />But this is more about how the Modern American Right views our most important founding document. This is about how they pretend that The Founders knew everything that would transpire after its signing.<br /><br />I mean, talk about hubris to the Nth degree............<br /><br />Despite what anyone like Newt would tell you, the Constitution is - quite literally - a living document, and I honestly believe that people like Jefferson knew this to be true. After all, if you are going to found a country based on liberty and rights, wouldn't you be concerned with the future rather than the 5 seconds right in front of your nose?<br /><br />But what Newt is doing is indicative of the Modern American Right's desire to perpetuate the "activist judge" meme. By that, I mean that they want to see people preside over the courts that will push their own ideological bent. And while the alternate argument can be presented to anyone with a socio-political philosophy that aligns itself with the Left, we have to understand that the former favors the few while the later favors the many. After all, that whole "majority rules" thing can be a slippery slope for the Right Wing ideologue.<br /><br />Let's not get too far off topic - though what I have enumerated here is relevant.<br /><br />The idea of "reading something correctly" being postulated by someone like Newt Gingrich is a clear signifier of the framing technique of the Modern American Right. They want to force a particular narrative into documents like The Constitution in order to validate their own canted ideological stance. But the downfall of presenting this argument is that they will, in turn, claim that it is the Left that does this instead of those that presented the argument to begin with. Yet another aspect of Right Wing framing; claim that it's not you but the opposition that are guilty of the sins you perpetuate.<br /><br />It all comes down to one thing th3 The Modern American Right refuse to acknowledge:<br /><br />Context.<br /><br />Are the late 1700s the same as the Modern 21st Century?<br /><br />Of course not.<br /><br />Were there "smart phones", internet access, airplanes, high speed rail transport, or even xerox machines back then? <br /><br />NO!<br /><br />So to claim that the language contained within the original Constitution understood the advancements of America on such a varied scale was absolute and unmoving is to not understand the nature of a nation, regardless of where you live.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-23368859677370767762011-07-12T10:15:00.005-05:002011-07-12T10:52:05.017-05:00It's Called Being LazyThe Tea Baggers were all in a collective lather over Republicans none-too-modest gains in the Lower Chamber of Congress and said that they have delivered a "mandate" of sorts. I'm wondering if they are going to excuse Mitch McConnell's and the GOP's <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-real-solution-to-debtdeficit-problems-unattainable-with-obama-in-office-2011-7#ixzz1Ru8zmYhz">unblushing laziness</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/gop-leader-mcconnell-real-budget-solution-is-unattainable-as-long-as-obama-is-in-white-house/">They've already started</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered his strongest criticism yet of President Barack Obama’s leadership in the ongoing talks.<br /><br />“I have little question that as long as this President is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable,” he said on the Senate floor Tuesday. Adding, “This was not an easy decision for me.”<br /><br />Obama, he said, “has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes or default. Republicans choose none of the above.”<br /><br />McConnell added the Democratic budget plan would provide only “a couple of billion dollars in cuts up front with empty promises of more to follow.”<br /><br />‘”I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do harm,” he said.</blockquote><br /><br />What McConnell is doing is akin to a spoiled child upset that they don't get everything they want at a moments notice. Moreover, McConnell is attempting to excuse the abject laziness of the Modern American Right by claiming that everything they campaigned on that they don't accomplish is actually Obama's fault.<br /><br />I can recall that the Clinton White House was able to accomplish quite a bit with a Republican majority in the House, so what is McConnell's excuse now? He is clearly favoring pure partisan rhetoric and pandering to the most extreme notions of the Modern American Right, consequences be damned.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-91983180325973603982011-07-11T07:53:00.011-05:002011-07-11T09:37:54.248-05:00Pouring Out The Hubris Of The RightNot long ago I was flipping through a magazine at work and happened to stop on an article critical of Obama's handling of the so called "War On Terror". A woman next to me looked at the picture of Barack at the head of the article and proclaimed in a rather casual manner - as if she felt she was within a circle of like-minded friends - that "there's mister arrogant".<br /><br />I will defer from speaking about the "dog-whistle racism" in modern socio-political conversation here in Western Kentucky in favor of pointing out that what Sarah Palin has done has run contrary to what the Modern American Right alleged stand for.<br /><br />As Tina Korbe <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/10/sarah-palin-in-newsweek-i-can-win/">highlights</a> over at HotAir, such arrogant to self-aggrandizement posturing is more than welcome within the Modern American Right:<br /><br /><blockquote>Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hasn’t yet revealed whether she plans to run for the GOP presidential nomination, but she’s confident she could win if she really wanted.</blockquote><br /><br />In-so-much that she hasn't announced she as an "exploritory committee", anyone with even the most limited bone-marrow intelligence knows that she is going to run. And those of us that have listened to and followed Palin's base instincts know that she will draw her announcement out as long as possible.<br /><br />Tina Korbe knows this, but prefers to play coy in order to deal her "I'm so shocked" card at a later date.<br /><br />And as much as Korbe knows this, this next piece from Palin should show her how Palin's own arrogant nature that has been fostered and encouraged:<br /><br /><blockquote>“I believe that I can win a national election,” Palin said recently in a conversation with Newsweek’s Peter J. Boyer. “I’m not so egotistical as to believe that it has to be me, or it can only be me, to turn things around. But I do believe that I can win.”</blockquote> <br /><br />But then, Korbe starts to muddy her initial claim.<br /><br /><blockquote>Perhaps her popularity among Republicans and conservatives warrants that pretty impressive confidence (after all, a countless many continue to clamor for her entrance into the presidential race), but, for whatever the polls are worth, Palin hasn’t yet bested President Barack Obama in a hypothetical presidential match-up (at least that I’ve seen). But, then, of the present GOP candidates, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has fared favorably against the incumbent, anyway, so maybe Palin has a point. If anything, the utter lack of cockiness among the current Republican contenders (with, again, the possible exception of Romney, who was cool and confident recently to suggest the firing of an Obama economic adviser) might be just what has caused so many to describe this year’s field as “dullsville.” Maybe the Palin presumption is what this race needs. Maybe, with Palin competing for the nomination, the other Republicans would kick it into even higher gear.</blockquote><br /><br />"Utter lack of cockiness"?<br /><br />Where the fuck as Tina been living since 2009?<br /><br />Considering the randomness of the initial GOP Presidential field of hopefuls, I would say that Palin either doesn't understand what's going on within the Modern American Right or is more concerned with her own visibility and financial gains. <br /><br />I don't think I would be out of line by saying the later and the former have both evaded her and have more of a baring on what will happen in 2012 than she is willing to admit.<br /><br />But lets continue with Korbe's meandering post:<br /><br /><blockquote>Fortunately for Palin (as she herself recognizes) and probably for the GOP, it’s still very early and the field is far from set.<br /><br />“Thank goodness the field is not yet set,” Palin said in the interview with Newsweek. “I think that there does need to be more vigorous debate. There needs to be a larger field. And there’s still time. There’s still months ahead, where more folks can jump in and start articulating their positions.”</blockquote><br /><br />Of course the GOP isn't set, and it won't be this year, as the Modern American Right are so concerned with removed Barack Obama from office that they are more than willing to ignore their own alleged "beliefs" in favor of casting him and his family in the roll of "extremists".<br /><br />However, the Modern American Right is attempting to set the field already with the players at hand. And at best, they are all trying to use the same fear-mongering talking points. Have they worked? Well, considering that Palin hasn't officially announced and that perhaps those that once ( and perhaps still ) saw her as a religious figure are beginning to realize that she is either ineffective as a true leader or that she works better as a talking-point machine are tilting to polling.<br /><br /><blockquote>Fortunately for Palin (as she herself recognizes) and probably for the GOP, it’s still very early and the field is far from set.<br /><br />“Thank goodness the field is not yet set,” Palin said in the interview with Newsweek. “I think that there does need to be more vigorous debate. There needs to be a larger field. And there’s still time. There’s still months ahead, where more folks can jump in and start articulating their positions.”<br /><br />But, if she’s going to get in, I wish she’d get in now, so folks would stop evaluating her non-campaign-campaign tactics and start talking again about her policy positions (which, at least as she laid them out in the Newsweek article, are as solid as ever).</blockquote><br /><br />I'm not entirely sure how large the field needs to be before Palin finally admits that she's running, as it's already so unofficially large that it's starting to get obscene, but she is running. <br /><br />So what is Korbe wanting to hear once Palin makes an official announcement? Is she expecting people to conform to her own framing? I would wager so. What she is upset about is that people have been questioning her positions since John McCain tapped her as the ultimate VP gimmick of the 21st Century. <br /><br />So why is Palin so sure that she could win? <br /><br />Well, it's because she's been told that she can. Moreover, she's convinced herself that she is so much of a celebrity within the Modern American Right that she almost feels entitled to it.<br /><br />And while most sane people won't go all-in for someone like Palin - based on what she has said and done - we are in a time where marketing trumps reality. This is one of the primary factors that separates the Modern American Right from true Liberals/Progressives. <br /><br />Is Palin going to run?<br /><br />Of course.<br /><br />Will she win?<br /><br />Perhaps the GOP nomination, but that is it.............aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-60469102274623289472011-07-07T12:01:00.006-05:002011-07-07T12:17:37.189-05:00Random Thoughts For The Day- Seeing as how The Modern American Right are so excited over excessively long tirades about trains ( read: Atlas Shrugged ) I'm wondering why they are so against high-speed rail.<br /><br />- Why does Fox"News" boast about how most Americans watch their network while crying about how the "mainstream media" is against them? Do they not know the definition of "mainstream"?<br /><br />- Why does the Modern American Right lambaste Obama's Chicago ties as "thuggish" when Ronald Reagan's childhood home is in the same city?<br /><br />- When I see and hear people like Glenn Beck preach the virtues of owning gold and then complain about the devaluing of the dollar, I'm wondering if they don't understand the far reaching implications of what they are essentially doing.<br /><br />- If the Modern American Right don't think we have a direct impact on our environment, then can we build a coal-fired power plant and nuclear waste dump next to Rush Limbaugh's house?<br /><br />- Have you ever noticed that since Obama took office that the Modern American Right have virtually celebrated every economic negative that they can find?aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-33570401701382920212011-07-06T23:40:00.005-05:002011-07-07T00:13:44.966-05:00The Obama WH, Twitter, And Right Wing Pity Party AnticsThe Modern American Right doesn't seem to understand that social networking is just that - social networking. You see someone or something you find interesting, you comment on it, link to it, remix it with some "keyboard cat", or simply just ignore it. And the one element that really sticks in their craw is that responding to them is apparently tantamount to taking a greasy, soft-serve, shit on the American Flag and then wiping your ass with no less than four pages of King James "scripture".<br /><br />You think I'm kidding? Check <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/06/wh-tweeting-at-gnats/">these</a> <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/06/white-house-using-twitter-bully-critics">out</a>: <br /><br /><blockquote>When the White House named Jesse Lee as its Director of Progressive Media and Online Response to rebut criticisms on social-networking media, some people argued that the Obama administration had taken a big step toward becoming Big Brother. At the time, I argued that this was nonsense, and that the White House had a right to respond to criticism — but that Lee’s job was a task better left to the DNC, which traditionally served the role of political response. Instead of looking hip and timely, attacking Twitter users would make the Obama administration look petty and thin-skinned, and would diminish the seriousness and dignity of the Presidency. Punching below one’s weight is a strategy that never pays off.<br /><br />Little did I know just how far below their weight the White House would punch. Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey analyzes Lee’s feed and discovers that 15% of all his rebuttals in the month since he took the job have been directed at one user, and it’s not Jake Tapper, Bret Baier, Chuck Todd, or even Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Instead, Lee has spent almost one-sixth of his twitter time rebutting … Kevin Eder.</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>President Obama's director of progressive media is obsessed with one particular conservative provocateur. Jesse Lee's duties at the White House include "online response" - and there has been no shortage of responses to one person who routinely communicates with him on Twitter.<br /><br />Of the 267 tweets written by Lee in just over a month, a stunning 40 of them have been directed at Kevin Eder, a prolific Twitter user with more than 83,000 tweets to his credit. That means 15 percent of Lee's tweets - from an official White House account no less - have been with Eder.<br /><br />One such example happened last week in a dispute over the budget.<br /><br />Eder posted this tweet: "Hmm ... it can't be true that @SenateDems haven't passed a budget in 790 days and the only plan Obama has is a speech. Right, @jesseclee44?"<br /><br />To which Lee responded: "@keder @SenateDems Plan is keep negotiating w/ Rs & Ds, not default & trash economy, not voucherize Medicare to fund more tax cuts for rich."<br /><br />Lee's obsession has impressed Eder, even if he's a bit baffled by the White House's decision to engage with him so aggressively. (Obama to meet with congressional leadership to discuss debt ceiling)</blockquote><br /><br />The later screed is from none-other than a favorite "source" of Fox"Nation", the <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/06/white-house-uses-twitter-to-bully-critics/">DailyCaller</a> - the fringe Right online publication of none other than Tucker Carlson. <br /><br />The source of the "story" aside, it's interesting to note that both Fox and Ed Morrissey are simultaneously panting Kevin Eder ( <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/keder">@keder</a> as both a "no one" and a "powerhouse socio-political giant" all at once. After all, they have to keep their bases covered once they realize that this hack that happens to have internet access really isn't as bright as he boasts to be.<br /><br />I've have had a few and witnessed many Twitter altercations with him before, so I can attest to his rank amateur status on several issues. But we'll save the fun stuff for later.<br /><br />The question stands, really, as such: should Jesse Lee respond to or even marginally "call out" the obvious "trolling tactics" of a kid that displays about as much talking-point skill as Bernie Goldberg? I would actually offer yes, considering how the Modern American Right are want to "educate" the Left on their followers. What's good for the goose, you know.........<br /><br />This, like a plurality of stories propagated by the likes of Morrissey and Fox"News", comes down to the concept of "framing". If the Obama White House doesn't respond, they are therefore scared of one random kid from the D.C. area. If they respond, they are "bullying". And the Left should respond to neither allegation, but focus purely on the so-called "merit" of what is presented to them - which they have.<br /><br />As I tweeted to Eder earlier today, I'm starting to wonder when his first appearance as an "analyst" on Fox"News" will happen. After all, they do love to employ the unqualified.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-66021636134423512502011-07-04T09:35:00.004-05:002011-07-04T10:19:01.687-05:00What Is July 4th For - A Progressive PerspectiveThe more I look around the blogosphere today, the more I see how The Modern American Right is making this day about themselves and not about the country we live in. I wrote about this yesterday, but I thought that it would be nice to parallel what progressives ( like myself ) and liberals have to say about the day versus those that are against us.<br /><br />First, let me tell you what we - libs/progs - are not doing today:<br /><br />- We are not out to <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/disappointed-margaret-thatcher-too-weak-to-attend-july-4th-reagan-tribute/">deify</a> a <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/318376.php#318376">president</a>.<br /><br />- We are not out to prove we know that <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/national-anthem/2011/07/04/hot-video-marine-stuns-crowd-tea-party">little known final verse in the National Anthem</a><br /><br />- We don't care to <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/04/hot-air-candidate-survey-4th-of-july-weekend-results/">worship</a> someone who cares more about celebrity than country using July 4th as the backdrop<br /><br />- It's not about claiming how only <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/edulis/2011/07/04/lt-dan-band-for-the-common-good-hits-all-the-right-notes-for-independence-day/">one type of music matters</a>.<br /><br />And there's so much more that the Modern Liberal/Progressive Movement believes shouldn't use July 4th as an anchor point.<br /><br />But what do we believe?<br /><br />- Celebrating the diversity of community rather than telling our socio-politicals that they have no right to do so<br /><br />- Enjoying time with family and friends in a non-partisan atmosphere ( and some good BBQ would be nice too )<br /><br />- Acknowledging that our Founding Fathers had no clue where we would be at this point in history while reflecting on what they managed to accomplish while the country was so young<br /><br />- And finally, understanding that July 4th is not a religious holiday, but a day of reflection, introspection, and remembrance.<br /><br />Whatever you do today' be safe, be happy, and appreciate what you have - regardless of socio-political stripe.<br /><br />And now, let's have some fireworks:<br /><br /><iframe width="425" height="257" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OH2PxkeTJ_E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <br /><br />As an aside, Kentucky recently allowed "the good shit" to be sold and my neighborhood - and those around me - took advantage of that fact. It was like a fucking war-zone last night up around the cul de sac. I can still smell the smoke.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-52988548625563840152011-07-03T12:04:00.005-05:002011-07-04T12:06:38.616-05:00Nike Gimmick FailSometimes I'm a sucker for something so clever that it seemed like no one would ever do it. And when I heard that Nike was creating a shoe based on the Slayer album "Raining Blood", I was hyped. And let's be clear, I have NEVER been a fan of Nike. <br /><br />So after finally viewing the promo for the shoe, I am given comfort in the fact that they still suck as much as they always have:<br /><br /><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/21534042?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/21534042">Brooklyn Projects Nike SB</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user336276">Glenn PP Milligan</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p><br /><br />Oh, WOW!!! They played "Raining Blood" for the promo commercial!!!! That's so...........<br /><br />Really? That's your shoe Nike?<br /><br />I've been a fan of Slayer since 1990 and if you are going to market a shoe based of the music of Tom, Kerry, Jeff, and Dave, then you've got a LONG way to go.<br /><br />If anything, I want a black shoe with a blood red sole with the eagle/sword/pentagram emblem on the ankle that lights up when I take a step. Your marketing/design department really dropped the ball on this, big time. Fire them NOW!!!<br /><br />For reference to the Slayer uninitiated, here's a video of the track Nike used. My only real fear is that Slayer signed-off on this at some point. But something tells me this was a "record-management decision". Can we get an interview with Tom and Kerry, please?<br /><br /><iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CUDWLp1yIWw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br />So what's next, a Nike shoe based off of Metallica's "Fight Fire With Fire" that's all blue? Give me a fucking break.aironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.com0