Palin's Nasal Love Affair

I caught this over at Bob Cesca's blog earlier today and wanted to add a little context to it, just so we can see what Palin is missing.

I love that smell of the emissions.

That was Palin during her "I'm riding 'Bitch' on this super-keen motor-cicle in D.C. doncha-know" thing.

So, what's is it about "emissions" that Caribou Barbie loves?

If you're into the serious scientific analysis of it, I suggest you read this. But for a more concise description of Palin's favorite new perfume, there's this little nugget for her to chop up and snort:

A short list of the likely pathogens in car exhaust:

Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Suspended particles, PM-10 particles less than 10 microns in size.
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons

So let's look at what the PAH's ( Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons ) do:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PAHs may be carcinogens. Several of the PAHs, including benzanthracene, benzopyrene, benzofluoranthene, benzofluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzanthracene, indenopyrene have caused tumors in laboratory animals when they ate them, when they were applied to their skin and when they breathed them in the air for long periods of time. Reports in humans show that individuals exposed by breathing or skin contact for long periods of time to mixtures of other compounds and PAHs can also develop cancer. Mice fed high levels of benzopyrene during pregnancy had difficulty reproducing and so did their offspring. The offspring from pregnant mice fed benzopyrene also showed other harmful effects, such as birth defects and decreased body weight. Similar effects could occur in humans, but we have no information to show that these effects do occur.

Studies in animals have also shown that PAHs can cause harmful effects on skin, body fluids, and the body's system for fighting disease after both short- and long-term exposure. These effects have not been reported in humans. PAHs are changed into chemicals that can attach to substances within the body. The presence of PAHs attached to these substances can then be measured in body tissues or blood after exposure to PAHs. However, this test is still being developed and it is not known yet how well it works. PAHs or their breakdown products can also be measured in urine. Although these tests can tell that you have been exposed to PAHs, it is not yet possible to use these tests to predict the severity of any health effects that might occur or to determine the extent of your exposure to the PAHs. These tests are not routinely available at a doctor's office because they require special equipment for sampling and detecting these chemicals.

Yeah, Sarah, sit behind Todd's big ass truck on Sunday afternoon and take a big whiff of that which you love so much.

This, among many other examples, shows how science and the mind of the Modern American Right, will never co-exist.

Caribou Barbie's Sermon - or - Palin Just Agreed With Us

Perhaps Todd has some extra wood lying about the back yard with which to fashion a cross for Sister Sarah.

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Wait, am I the only one that just caught that Palin said that words can incite violence? Nope.

I'm guessing that Fox"News" and their sister hate-site Fox"Nation" aren't going to like the fact that the woman they are doing their best to defend has just validated the concerns from the Left.

But wait, what's that reflecting in her glasses? Could that be a..............no............a TELEPROMPTER!!!!!!!

Operational Ineptitude

Found this over at Cesca's Awesome Blog and thought I would elaborate on it.

This is how Sarah Palin approaches healthy eating for school children:

Hmm...may bring cookies to my PA school speech tmrw to make a pt "PA mulls ban on cake/cookies/candy@ school parties..

Because nothing says you support nutritious foods for school children like dosing them up with baskets full of Star Crunches and Swiss Cake Rolls. Maybe for drug awareness week she would have brought an ounce of China White and showed the kids how to "chase the dragon".

The modern conservative movement is so eager to degrade Michelle Obama's healthy kids initiative that they are willing to go to any extreme.

Typical.

O'Reilly's Metric

O'Reilly has successfully become a poor caricature of Glenn Beck.



Might as well have said "Did you know that Soros shops at Macy's twice a week? Should that shock America? Is he attempting to manipulate middle class mothers who are about to Christmas shop?"

Not only that, and to echo a point made by Bob Cesca, is O'Reilly really going to go the route of "look at all the mean things these people say" to claim that the modern conservative movement is somehow morally superior?

Then again, conservatives are more incensed when a woman is called a bitch while not taking violent assault against a liberal woman seriously.

Expressionism And The Modern Conservative Movement

When art doesn't imitate life, you end up with something like this.



All the basic elements are there: scary music, a modern conservative pretending to know what former presidents and Founding Fathers would have to say to Obama, the Constitution, and narration that completely ignores the reality of the previous administration. But just for effect, let's frame this as an artist struggling with the grand desire to speak out against government with his craft but is hesitant for fear of retribution from those he disagrees with. Yeah, the melodrama is about as thick as county fair blackberry preserves.

But this part troubles me somewhat - the flag at half-staff on the White House. Doesn't that contradict the entire premise of this clip? After all, the symbolic nature of flying the flag at half staff is to show that this day marks a time of struggle and sorrow for the country. So, if the artist is saying that government - Barack Obama in particular - doesn't see their administration as being unconstitutional, tyrannical, or having taken away the liberties, rights, and freedoms from people, why would the flag on the White House be at half-staff?

You would think that with all this talk about knowing what is and what isn't Constitutional, what is equivalent to tyranny, and what is anti-American, that this painter would get even the tiniest detail like that right.

The reality of this painting is that it represents a lack of knowledge of things like The Constitution, the history of American Presidents, and how we got into this situation. I'm not even going to go into the fact that there would certainly be a few of the men in the painting wondering why Obama wasn't out harvesting their crops and pretending to be the President, but you know that Tea Baggers will never admit that some of the Founders owned slaves - you know, that whole "history" thing can be a pain sometimes.

I'm reminded of a similar video that Bob Cesca commented on yesterday.

First, there's no chance in hell the people who made this video actually voted for the "Democrat" president and the "Democrat" Congress.

Plus, TARP was passed by the previous administration.

The stimulus, which was actually $787 billion and not $1.2 trillion, created 3.3 million new jobs and averted a deeper recession.

That bar graph at 2:14 showing the year-by-year deficits ending with the large deficit of 2009? George W. Bush signed the 2009 budget, not President Obama.

And are the Republicans suggesting here that they're not going to negotiate deals with senators in exchange for votes -- a common practice in Congress since the day it first convened? That's rich.

It's the collective ignorance dressed up like intelligence and historical accuracy ( even recent history mind you ) that is the hallmark of the Tea Bagger collective. Then again, these are the same people that want to do away with the Dept. Of Education, defund educational programs across America, and all too often favor education from a religious perspective.

The Same Show, Different Packaging

Caught this over at Bob Cesca's blog - who really hit the nail on the head in reference to the factually challenged narrative that is presented in the film - but I thought I would approach this from a different angle all together.

Let's watch, shall we........



There has been more energy put forward in trying to ensure that Barack Obama and any and all that side with him are seen as destroyers of the very fabric of space-time than energy put forward in trying to correct the problems that were clearly, precisely, and accurately reported as being caused by conservative economic policy. Imagine what would happen if people like Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and even Megyn Kelly actually did something to help this country out instead of just acting like a bunch of spoiled teenage girls who got their phone privileges revoked because they ran up a $500 bill.

Think about all the books, "documentaries", radio and television programs that were created just to push this poorly conceived narrative that Obama is going to ruin America. What if all that energy was used to ensure that the "common man" that conservatives claim to love could keep their job, their home; could be confident that their police force would have adequate funding, or their schools wouldn't have half their teachers fired. Think about how much better the country would be already.

That won't ever happen though, as their is too much money to be made by being the spoiled brats that conservatives prefer emulating. It boils down to one simple concept - thinking of yourself before thinking of your country. It's the conservative way of life.

Not Seeing Is Apparently Still Believing

We are, by and large, a visual culture. We thrive on being able to "see" something in order to believe that it's not only true but that it is in important to us. This aspect of our existence has taken a very peculiar turn in recent years, as many of us are relying heavily on what others tell us is or isn't there. Many of us are no longer "seeing" what is actually around us but are merely "believing" what we are being told is there.

Early this morning Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight had a post that clearly illustrated this point as it relates to the alleged "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City - Cordoba House. And while this is not specifically a "mosque" and most certainly NOT at "Ground Zero", the perceptions of far too many have been distorted by the likes of Fox"News" as far back as May, but has been disseminated throughout the conservative blogging realm by the likes of Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, to Sarah Palin.

Those that are against this Muslim center seem to be ignoring not only the facts surrounding it, but the realities of other buildings that are near "Ground Zero" that you can't see right away.

Recently, I came across a posting at Bob Cesca's blog that talked about a strip0-club that was located the same approximate distance that Cordoba House would be located from the former site of WTC Towers 1 and 2. And as the author of the piece rightly points out, where is the outrage surrounding the "exploitation of women" near such hallowed ground?

I can almost hear conservatives complaints that strippers and Muslims can't be compared, but I think this is also a matter of perception versus perspective. Not all strippers are coked-up floozies that take drugs and leave their children in seedy hotel rooms while they turn tricks and spread diseases. Likewise, not all Muslims are willing to strap a bomb vest on and charge into a building filled with children and blow the structure into dust in order to further their religious beliefs.

Modern American thought, and most certainly that since Sept. 11th 2001, toward Islamic faith is that everyone that practices it hates America and all that dwell within her borders. To be blunt, this is a complete load of shit. The ironic flip side to this is that modern American thought, most expressly shown by the conservative movement of the 21 century, is that Christianity is pure and untarnished, even though this is the religion that is used to excuse all manner of actions against gays, lesbians, members of other religions, or even how the average American - regardless of specific orientation - is treated do they not follow the socio-political guidelines of conservative teachings.

Conservatives of the modern era have become more and more susceptible to openly and unflinchingly embracing misleading information and outright lies surrounding a variety of subjects. This is troubling because their vision is being obscured by those they are framing the narrative they are following. Why is it that conservatives lack the ability to walk around their world and look at what is really there? I'm sure they would find that much of what they are being told doesn't match up with what they see.

As an aside, one can but wonder how people like Malkin, Hannity, or Palin would react if a Baptist church was build just a few blocks from a Planned Parenthood building that was attacked by an unhinged conservative.

DeMint-ed

And I was just saying how he had all but disappeared.



It's to be expected that DeMint would say this, considering who he was giving the interview to. That's why these little games of patty-cake are generally pointless and a waste of time.

But here's where I take exception with what DeMint has to say.

Does one HAVE to be religious in order to be not just a Tea Bagger, but a conservative? Conversely, does one HAVE to be anti-religious to be a liberal/progressive? The answer to both is obvious. But conservatives love to use religion more than they love to study scripture in order to find out what their religion actually espouses.

It may be a bit of a stretch, but I get the sense that DeMint is doing a little coattail-riding with this interview. After all, Glenn Beck has fashioned himself into quite the televangelist and his show ratings show that conservatives are not only enjoying it, but buying into his preposterous theories.

Rewriting The History Channel

( h/t Bob Cesca )



It's very en vogue for conservatives to besmirch the legacy of famous politicians upon their passing. And even though there has never been this perfect politician in the world, conservatives are all too eager to ignore the misgivings and short-comings of politicos with which they identify with while highlighting the negative aspects of those whom they despise. It is in this regard that I find it not only disingenuous but patently disgusting when conservatives offer faux condolences to family members of dead Democratic politicians and then 4 days later they begin to rewrite the history of this person to only include their missteps. See Michelle Malkin for a great example of this.

It's Fun To Play Dress-Up

In which we get another look inside the tea-addled minds of the lunatic fringe.



( h/t Bob Cesca )

The benchmark for credibility is Bill O'Reilly? Really?

It's still interesting to see the villagers inability to articulate any point outside of their fear-laden talking points. And yes, Orly, you can all be Facebook buddies now.

What They Think Brown Can Do For Them

When information came out recently that Scott Brown voted against aid to be given to rescue responders to the attacks on Sept, 11th, the conservative Right was quite literally silent about it. And their silence spoke volumes, as always. His response was, quite literally, that it simply wasn't a priority:



As Think Progress reports, it seemed that Brown's "priorities" lay with his masters in large corporations and their ability to leisure activity space:

During the same month Brown was voting down efforts to support 9/11 rescue workers, he was pushing a bill to appropriate a tax-subsidized bond to build a golf course in Norfolk, a city in his district. “Priorities,” indeed.

Also during the same period, he was busy fighting for tax subsidies for corporate interests. According to a 2002 article in the Lowell Sun, Brown scored a perfect pro-corporate tax subsidy rating in the months following his anti-9/11 rescue workers vote.

But this isn't the only blemish on Brown's record that conservatives are overlooking - and hoping the Massachusetts voter will as well.

The structuring of his campaign staff is quite unusual, as they are listed as "consultants", not traditional employees. This is a psuedo-clever - albeit apparently legal - way to remove Brown from the liability of payroll taxes and offering health insurance.

As stated before here, Brown is largely supported by Wall Street interests and big corporations. They have, after all, filled his campaign coffers more than anyone else. In normal electoral situations, this would set off a firestorm of criticism within the conservative movement. But, this is no normal election Massachusetts is facing tomorrow. And to that end, it would appear that conservatives are willing to have a puppet take the place of the late Ted Kennedy simply so they can have one opposition vote on one bill.

But who's to say that this version of reality that conservatives are banking on is what will really happen. It's dangerous to put all your chips on one number in just one game.

bob Cesca quotes John Chait on how a Brown win might not be so bad after all.

1. Finish up the House-Senate negotiations quickly and hold a vote before Scott Brown is seated. Republicans will scream, but how could they scream any louder? It's a process argument of murky merits that will be long forgotten by November.

2. Get the House to pass the Senate bill, and maybe use a reconciliation bill (which only needs a Senate majority to pass) to implement as many House-Senate compromises as possible.

3. Go back to Olympia Snowe. I have not seen any persuasive reporting, or even conjecture, about what Snowe is actually thinking. Her substantive demands have been met.

While I agree with the first two, the thought of going back to Snowe makes little sense to me. But that's another issue for another time.

And while conservatives are more than willing to ignore Brown's character, casting him as the iconographic figure that has broad populist support, the reality of this race is that Brown is to the left of Dede Scozzafava, the Republican woman that conservatives attempted to push aside by endorsing Doug Hoffman - and we all saw how that turned out. Once Hoffman finally made up his mind on concession ( after three times ) he was largely removed from any and all conservative discussions. To them, he was dead.

If Brown loses, and right now that's a fairly big "if", he's got a lot of work to do if he's going to make conservatives happy. And this has little to do with the state he's allegedly running to represent. He's got the entire conservative movement breathing down his neck. Not to propose anything but to obstruct everything. It's not really a difficult task, as Republicans have been marginally successful at it since January of last year. The question that conservatives and tea-baggers need to ask is this - are Scott Brown's priorities going to stay the same if he wins?

The Face Of Indoctrination

I came across this pic at Bob Cesca's blog and several questions popped into my head.



This kid, who doesn't appear to be one hopeful chest-hair more than 11 or 12, likely knows nothing about Racism, Communism, or McCarthyism, or even the political process other than what he hears about from this own family. But, there are several things that we can postulate from this pic alone.

The dog-tags likely belong to his father. Could he be another pseudo-radicalized member of the military that we have seen pop up in sporadic frequency over the past 9 months? Is this boy subjected to racist rantings at the dinner-table fueled by cheap whiskey and personal failures? However, the boys appearance leads me to believe that he isn't from a lower-income home. He appears to be well taken care of, and his mother or father seem to have enough money to throw away on a trip to DC and right-wing fringe coture.

However, even at that age, aside from hearing the inane ramblings of his parents, he is likely smart enough to do a little research on his own. Is he afraid to, or has he become so steeped in abject ignorance that he is numb to it all now? With the ever elevating technical abilities of America's youth and their ability to use the internet better than most adults 2 and 3 times their age, one would have to wonder how a kid this age even believes one putrid ounce of what his family apparently believes in.

Malkin's Hortaculturist Horror Stories

Michelle Malkin, never one to miss an opportunity to discount, slime, and stalk children - but all in the name of patriotism and allegance to her movement - has taken issue with a child again. Continuing with the "their plants!!!!" meme, Malkin pats herself on the back and smiles that wide, toothie, smile as she discovers that an Obama volunteer not only brought her daughter, but that same daughter asked Obama a question.

THE HORROR!!!!

But this alleged travesty, injustice, and perversion of the American way doesn't stop there. No, not only does this young woman voice her concerns regarding those protesting healthcare, but her mother was ( brace yourself ) a volunteering for the Obama campaign!!!

Manning Hall has donated thousands of dollars to Obama, as has her law firm.

But, you know, um, like Obama said: “I don’t want people saying I just have a bunch of plants in here.”

Oh, goodness. Of course not.

Now, look for Dems to play the kiddie human shield card to the hilt. Anyone who mentions Hall’s political pedigree will be attacked as a vicious meanie stalker. Graeme Frost redux!

No, Michelle dear, if you want to true Redux, you'd be stalking this family and posting their personal information online.

Bob Cesca views the "plant" nonsense in the same way as I do:

A "plant" would, in fact, be someone who was coached and scripted. You know, like most of the stacked Bush town halls and photo-ops (where were the wingnut cries of "propaganda" back then?).

And using Malkin's apparently uber-stringent regulations for not only townhall attendance, but for posing questions to the President, then over half the population of most cities would be completely removed from the equation.

Here's what I find interesting about Malkin's standpoint on children - she seems to live by the philosophy that they are to be seen and not heard. Sort of like the way Sarah Palin views her children, as set pieces for their careers.

It should also be pointed out that Malkin's puckering machinations fly directly in the face of her's and like-minded conservative's "concern" for children and their future.

Retired Military, Medicare, And The Tea Party Crowd

Bob Cesca brought up this point not just in regards to the "loud noises" meme that the "tea-baggers" seem to have embraced but of the very real fact that many within the tea-party movement appear to be retired military personel who likely recieve healthcare paid for by the taxpayer.

Without insulting the guy, here's how I would describe him. He's clearly either the recipient of Veteran's Administration healthcare (note the USMC cap) or Medicare or both. Both of which are single-payer "socialized" healthcare programs run by the government. And I seriously doubt this old misguided man would ever give up his socialized healthcare.

And here's another that I have found.

Please not the air-force hat and apparent age.



One has to wonder what percentage of the "tea-baggers" are, in fact, retired military personel that are usuing medical care being funded by the taxpayer.

Because Lee's Videos Are Great

Check out more of Lee Stranahan's videos at Cesca Goddamn Awesome Blog!

And Shopping At The Gap Will Make You Gay

( h/t Cesca )

This reminds me of type of nonsense printed in those "Turmoil In The Toybox" type books that the fundies would try to pass out to the parents when I was in grade-school.

Photo Of The Day

While watching many of the "tea-bagging" eventsy yesterday, I noticed something straightaway - an absence of diversity. To put it another, more coloquial way, it was mainly just a bunch of angry, white people.

( h/t: Cesca @ The Goddamn Awesome Blog! )

Quote Of The Day

Damn those "socialsts". They're evil, I say. EVIL!!!

I wonder how many tea baggers will be protesting against "socialism" while gathering at publicly financed parks and outside publicly financed buildings -- you know, socialist facilities that wouldn't exist without taxes and wealth redistribution.

Bob Cesca

Conservatives Really Should Do Research Before Making-Up Slogans

( h/t Cesca @ The Goddamn Awesome Blog )

Seems that the National Organization For Marriage is referring to their campaign as 2M4M; as in "2 Million 4 Marriage". This is a bad choice. Here's why:

You mean, it means THAT?!?!

Abbreviation for men seeking men in an online chat room.

That's lik Cleveland Indian's pitcher Rafeal Betancourt calling his fastball the Cleveland Steamer.

Count the fine, upstanding, folks at NOM in the same catagory as the "tea-baggers".

Come to think of it, NOM has it's own meaning too.

Strike 2.